Frustrated with the Toledo Water Department? Give money to Anita Lopez, flyer urgers

In a clever fundraising event, Lucas County Auditor and mayoral candidate Anita Lopez is hoping to raise money by piggybacking on the area's frustration with the Toledo Water Department.

The flyer, pictured below, starts with "OVERHAUL THE WATER DEPARTMENT" and asks "Fed up with the water department? Please join us for a shindig featuring Anita Lopez." It's Aug. 29th and light snacks are provided, but it's a cash bar.

The contribution levels are:

• $25 Fed Up
• $100 No Deposits
• $250 No Back Billing
• $500 No waiting for phone calls to be answered
• $1000 Accurate Meter Readings
• $5000 Put the Bill in the Consumers' Names

A lot of people are upset with the Water Department, so this seems like a perfect theme for a fundraiser and it's also one of the more clever ones I've seen since I started in politics 20 years ago.

The department requires the property owner to be the name on the water account for an address. This has a lot of landlords and renters upset because it makes them responsible for billing and collecting for water service in a rental unit.

Earlier this year, they started requiring a $200 deposit for any new service, but quickly backed off on on the terms, allowing prior customers with good service to have the deposit waived.

Responding to complaints about waiting hours to get a phone call answered, the city expanded the department's customer service call center hours, beginning at 7 a.m. (an hour earlier) and closing at 6 p.m. (a half-hour later). They also said they'd answer all the calls for anyone still on hold in the queue at 6 p.m. They also hired 8 more people and changed the grace period from 15 calendar days to 15 business day.

But Toledoans are still upset with the increased fees for water and sewer service and the increases that are scheduled over the next couple of years.

Interestingly, it is City Council that actually approved the fee increases, though the current mayor, Mike Bell, did sign the legislation.

And it was City Council who decided, along with the previous mayor, to put the trash tax on the water bill and threaten people with the cut off of their water service if they didn't pay the trash tax and recycling fee (which was supposed to be reduced to zero but is now a permanent part of the city's revenue).

Of course, this doesn't even get to the minimum charge structure. If you're traveling or frugal with your water consumption, it doesn't matter. If you don't use a certain amount of water each month, they'll bill you a minimum. And your sewer service charge is tied to your water usage.

Granted, the city council and Democrat mayors (since 1990) ignored maintenance and replacement needs of the water/sewer infrastructure over the years, choosing instead to spend limited tax dollars on their own pet projects, so we do have some serious needs in the area, as the recent sink holes and water main breaks demonstrate. And we're still dealing with EPA regulations that are impacting the costs.

But connecting the problems which have been decades in the making with the current mayor, who is rather good at public relations, might be a bit hard.

In fact, Bell, as an independent, would have a great response by saying it was the Democrats who ignored the problem for so long and he's actually dealing with instead of 'kicking the can down the road' (one of his oft-used phrases).

He inherited a mess and he's cleaning it up.

While it might not be as valid an issue for the actual campaign, it's definitely a fun one for a fundraiser.

Here is the flyer:

*** Aside: I have not decided which mayoral candidate to support in the upcoming election. ***

Who will do the follow-up???

Mayor Carty Finkbeiner has decided that our water meter readers will, indeed, begin to report housing code violations to the Department of Neighborhoods.

They're only going to cover issues outside of the home, he says, hoping to alleviate some of the concerns residents expressed about letting 'inspectors' inside a home...

But, the city only has eight inspectors, as two positions are vacant due to a lack of funding. Rumor has it, from anyone who's asked how long it will be for a complaint to be addressed, that these eight inspectors already have a huge backlog of work - and today's newspaper article says the city gets about 100 complaints a day through the 'call city hall' phone line.

So who is going to follow up on all these new complaints that these 13 meter readers are going to generate? Well, that's a great question - and one that, if asked during the Mayor's press conference yesterday, didn't get covered by the news outlets.

Inquiring minds want to know...

This is how the mayor makes decisions???

According to today's Blade, a city council candidate made a suggestion during a public directors' meeting that Toledo water meter readers should look for housing code violations when they're out reading meters.

Now, I'm sure many can question why we're turning all our public employees into enforcement officers - after all, the city is facing a huge deficit next year because they don't know how to reduce spending...

And I'm sure that others will question how close we're getting to George Orwell's "1984" as we monitor all activities of our citizens.

But I'm more interested in focusing on the decision-making process that led the mayor to decree 'make it so.' Turns out, there wasn't one. This is yet another example of Carty Finkbeiner exercising his ready-shoot-aim philosophy.

"Public Utilities Director Bob Williams initially objected, saying meter readers' work could be made more difficult if they are viewed as "intruders." He said meter readers already are expected to report unsafe situations involving children or senior citizens.

He was quickly overruled by the mayor, who said, "that is a great suggestion. Do it. All they have to do is write an address down. I don't even want any debate about it. Just do it.""

Notice that potential issues or concerns were not even permitted to be discussed, with the mayor stating "I don't even want any debate about it."

So, here are the questions the mayor should have asked:

* are there any legal provisions that would enhance or detract from our ability to implement such a policy?

* are the meter readers knowledgeable about housing violations that they can accurately report potential problems?

* would there need to be any sort of training to bring meter readers up to speed on the housing code?

* is there any cost the city would incur to proceed with such a policy?

* are there union contract terms that would have to be consulted or negotiated if we do this?

* is it likely that the union may ask for more money as a result of the increased duties?

* since all the meter readers would be doing is forwarding addresses, do we have the staff to perform the necessary follow-up?

* as housing violations are citeable into court, do we need to be concerned about any inaccuracies in the meter readers referrals?

* what obstacles or challenges would we face in implementing such a policy?

* who would oppose such a policy and what valid arguments might any opponents make?

* would the public embrace it or see it as further intrusion of government into their lives?

* if it turns out that we CAN implement such a policy, SHOULD we?

And these are just the questions I've come up with off the top of my head. There could easily be many more based upon the answers these questions generate.

But, sadly, the Mayor has spoken and now, despite any legitimate issue or concern, he's already started down the path to turning water meter readers into 'enforcement' agents. And, as we've seen in so many other instances, there is likely to be unintended consequences that usually result in additional cost to taxpayers, one way or the other.

"A man who does not think and plan long ahead will find trouble right at his door." ~ Confucius