My response to a rather myopic letter to the editor in the university paper:
- "There's never been anything wrong with private ownership of water," and "We just can't see any compelling reason to go through with the condemnation process." Let me help you with that. Ready?
IT IS MORALLY, ETHICALLY, AND RELIGIOUSLY WRONG TO DEPRIVE PEOPLE OF WATER BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PAY MONEY FOR IT.
Water isn't tennis shoes that come in at least 100 different brands and prices to choose. Water isn't widgets - you can't improvise or use something else that will work instead. There is no substitute for water. Water is a basic human necessity, class - and a basic human right. A local non-profit board could and should provide a reasonable amount of water free or at a greatly reduced rate to those identified as qualified by existing social service agencies. And if this doesn't happen, at least it will be because the majority of voters are unethical, not because the entirety of voters is being gouged, exploited and held hostage by a very tiny minority of corporate officers whose priority is profit and nothing more. A for-profit private company will never agree to those terms, class - at least not without jacking up the money charged for water even more.
It is amazing to me that the usually liberal and socially conscious university should solidly support a greedy bloodsucking corporation over the good and welfare of the community. The billions (with a "b") of dollars in profit RWE is taking out of our community should stay here, to benefit the poor and to reduce rates even further so that less people are unable to pay their bills in the first place. Every time RWE cuts off the water to an impoverished child's family or to the elderly or the sick who are on a limited income, it is a crime against humanity. That's why.