Late this month an archaic and convoluted system will enable one man to raise the water and sewer bill of Philadelphians anywhere from 30% to 40% over the next three years according to research data and public advocates. Thirty to forty percent you may ask outraged!  Yes, those are the facts repeated on the record before a City Council hearing of the Public Works Committee last Thursday.  The Water Commissioner and his entourage of attorneys and experts did not refute those numbers. 

 

How could an increase that large be automatically going into effect in less than two weeks without outrage or massive public debate preceding the process?  That was the conclusion I reached when I became aware of the fact only a week ago.  Actually, it was easy, as the requirements of the City Charter for monopolistic public utilities like the Water Department make it simple to run the details of rate increases, or other changes in delivery systems, through a series of review panels and then limited public exposure now designed to keep the public dialed out intentionally.

 

Our 1954 City Charter revisions only require advertisement in two newspapers, with unspecified sizing or placement, of when and where the public hearings are held.  Of course in 1954 and for many years thereafter most Philadelphians got their news from one of the two major and several minor newspapers.  Advertising such an event in the Bulletin or Inquirer would generally have gotten job done, if properly and accurately placed.  In the 21^st Century it is reported that nearly 70% of citizens do not get their primary news from the old line newspapers, but from multiple sources, most of which did not exist in the 1950s.  The management of the Water Department could not be that naive to think that conforming to that minimal legal requirement was sufficient to meet their public responsibility. In fact only 23 citizens showed up at the four hearing that were “advertised”.  As far as I can determine, no easily understood explanation of their increase was ever included in the water bill s themselves; the most natural location to reach ratepayers.

 

Since I was personally outraged, (I don’t miss much local news), I testified before that hearing chaired by Councilman Michael Nutter and local Councilman at Large, Frank Rizzo. Consumer advocate Lance Haver and several others made various points opposing the terms and methods of this “done deal” that will seriously raise the cost of living in the area.  The single point I raised was that in this case the process itself was suspect and that alone should be enough to delay implementation.  Using some statistics regarding newspaper circulation and suggesting easy alternatives that might have been used, including the SEPTA Metro and alerting community organizations well in advance, I suggested that the Water Commissioner not be permitted to follow through until the process was revised much more in keeping with current means of communication.  I suggested to the Chairman that at this point only an injunction might stop the process.  If you agree, call your councilperson, state representative, write any newspaper and make every neighbor aware of how a carefully crafted process will turn a “temporary” 13% little-known increase into a permanent 30-40% one.

 

Jim Foster   215-438-4330

Mt. Airy