Qwertz Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 (edited) My mother lives in a suburb of Cleveland, OH. She gets water from the City of Cleveland municipal water supply, which sets its price by both usage and relative affluence of the neighborhood or suburb in which you live. Today we get a letter (dated 12 days ago) telling us to call and set up an appointment to have our water meter fixed. I went to the basement and checked it and, sure enough, even with all the sprinklers going, it's not moving. At all. So I call them to set up an appointment, because they've threatened to turn off our water if they don't hear from us "within 10 days of this notice." They can't get out here to fix it until May 18th. It is very likely that we haven't paid for our actual water usage for months. It is certanly not possible for them to determine our water usage since the meter broke. It is definitely possible that I will be watering the new lawn for several hours a day, every day, for the next three weeks. Should we feel guilty? About using water we're not exactly paying for? I mean, it's a de jure monopoly, and a 'public utility,' so I just can't seem to make myself feel all that bad about it. In fact, I've developed the "Hey, free water!" attitude. Am I being naughty? <grin> -Q Edited May 2, 2006 by Qwertz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatdogs12 Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Should we feel guilty? About using water we're not exactly paying for? I mean, it's a de jure monopoly, and a 'public utility,' so I just can't seem to make myself feel all that bad about it. In fact, I've developed the "Hey, free water!" attitude. Am I being naughty? <grin> -Q Heck no, it's thier responsibility to have thier stuff working right to begin with. If they don't remedy it sooner that is thier fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovenstein Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 In fact, I've developed the "Hey, free water!" attitude. It's more like a "Hey, we got more water than we paid for so we're getting back a miniscule percentage of what we've been robbed of over the last however many years." Not to mention that they charge in part based on "relative affluence." In other words, they swindle a wealth tax into your water bill. Were I in your shoes, I'd be thrilled if they couldn't prove your usage. I'm not saying don't comply with the law and go break your meter. I'm saying that if you follow the law and it works out in your favor that's great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Heck no, it's thier responsibility to have thier stuff working right to begin with. If they don't remedy it sooner that is thier fault. That's right. Who owns the water meter I wonder? I believe the US mail owns your letter box. If it is their meter they can't blame you that it broke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Posted May 2, 2006 Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 Heck no, it's thier responsibility to have thier stuff working right to begin with. If they don't remedy it sooner that is thier fault. Would you apply the same standards if it was a private company? For instance, if your bank messed up your account and gave you an extra $1000, or your ISP messed up your internet access and gave you an uncapped connection by mistake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwertz Posted May 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2006 That's right. Who owns the water meter I wonder? I believe the US mail owns your letter box. If it is their meter they can't blame you that it broke. They own the meter, but interestingly enough, they charge $35.00 to upgrade it to a meter with a remote reader. We already have a remote reader, so we don't have to pay for a new meter, but if we didn't have one, why in heck should I buy something for them? As for mailboxes, 508 DMM 3.0 (the Domestic Mail Manual) regulates "customer mail receptacles." 3.1.2 excludes the 'post or support' from being considered part of the receptacle for the purpose of the law, but 3.2.4 says "The post may not represent effigies or caricatures that tend to disparage or ridicule any person." 3.1.3 says "no part of a mail receptacle may be used to deliver any matter not bearing postage, including items or matter placed upon, supported by, attached to, hung from, or inserted into a mail receptacle" after making exceptions for newspaper boxes mounted on the same support. This is backed up by 18 USC 1725. The Supreme Court justified this restriction in U.S.Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Associations (453 U.S. 114 [1981]). From the summary: When a letterbox is designated an "authorized depository" of the mail by the Postal Service, it becomes an essential part of the nationwide system for the delivery and receipt of mail. In effect, the postal customer, although he pays for the physical components of the "authorized depository," agrees to abide by the Postal Service's regulations in exchange for the Postal Service agreeing to deliver and pick up his mail. We have an old house, with a milk chute built into the wall and used for the mail. DMM doesn't say anything about milk chutes, so they must be locally authorized and regulated. I wonder about their status. -Q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.