LETTERS

Lack of sewers making it untenable to keep Warwick house

Posted

Open letter to the Mayor and the City Council:

The City of Warwick’s original sewer system design and implementation began as a story of environmental preservation and correction, of benefit to all people and the land, but over a long period of time has rather become one of delays, cost overruns, ignoring citizens’ best interests and politically-motivated financial decisions. I am one of the many victims of a project that was meant to benefit the citizens and our environment that might have improved my quality of life, but that has not happened, but it’s not too late.

I find myself in a most unenviable situation; rising taxes, fixed income, physical disability and limited assets; all converging to deliver to me few good options. I have a failed cesspool that requires periodic pumping, at least once per month and often more, costing $220 each time the odorous truck arrives. Pumpings must occur with increased frequency as the ground freezes disallowing the soil to absorb more. As a result of this problem, we are forced to take our dirty laundry to a laundromat and flush the toilet fewer times hopefully giving us a few additional days between pumpings. My wife and I are both elderly and physically unable to resume any gainful employment that might make our expenses less menacing.

Like all other citizens my wife and I have waited and waited through protracted delays for the sewer construction to add a little relief to our stressful lives. So why take the time to write a letter? Because, all of you have the amazing power to do the right thing for your constituents and take action now that will truly benefit us. I understand that many of the delays, if not most, have been memorialized in the history of the Sewer Authority, so I will resist the urge to censure the poor planning and questionable financial decisions of the past, but rather will focus on the solutions that will help us now:

1.Reverse the politically-driven legislation that allows people to simply not tie in to the sewers, thus making them richer, but the Sewer Authority poorer and without resources to keep construction and tie-in costs to a more palatable level. Those who do not share the costs force the rest of us to pay even more; all should share in the costs.

2.Assume the costs of paving our streets. We have already paid for street paving once when we paid our taxes, and we are now expected to pay once again for the cost of paving. I can imagine no argument or legal standard whatsoever that might justify such a charge. Either National Grid or the city should absorb these costs; there is a budget category for paving, so I urge you to use it.

I have read that the city budget is stretched out of recognition, but please recognize that mine is, too. The city can raise taxes when new revenue is required; I cannot. I repeat that my income is fixed, due to physical disability I can no longer work for extra income, and my assets are quite limited; I simply don’t know how I will pay the cost of paving, plus the cost of the tie-in to my house, and the sewer assessment; even an amortized monthly payment may be unaffordable. At some point in the next few months I must make a decision regarding the sale of my home, but I’ve never been given even the approximate cost for anything. After living in Warwick for 70 years and paying hefty taxes most of those years, I resent the fact that my elected officials have the power to deprive me of a home in which I planned to retire; let me make one more position very clear: I cannot afford to continue to live here after the seemingly unending costs of the sewer system and paving are delivered to my door. A story of environmental and community improvement may turn out to be one of my own financial ruin. Will it have been worth it? To whom?

Please take this communication seriously, and please see your way clear to save my home from sale. I’m too old and sick to fight, all I can do is compose this letter in the hopes that you all can empathize with my situation. This is not imaginary; I’m now in an untenable situation that only my elected officials can turn around. Please do so and respond to me.

Jerry M. Hatfield

Warwick

Comments

4 comments on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
John Stark

Jerry,

We part company with the statement: "Those who do not share the costs force the rest of us to pay even more; all should share in the costs." Why should they share the cost if they choose not to receive the service?

Tuesday, August 13
wwkvoter

for the same reason that a lot of us pay taxes which fund things like schools when we have no children, roads when we have no car, recreation department when we dont use it. not everyone uses everything but public infrastructure sometimes is for the universal good and only doable if paid by the community at large.

5 days ago
John Stark

Sorry voter. This is a very specific task (hookup), with a specific fee, used for a specific service utilized (or not) by the individual taxpayer. Now, I've long advocated a user fee for public schools, and various other government services, much like a gasoline tax. If you don't drive, you don't pay it. While I am sensitive to the "universal good" argument, it comes with a cost. And that cost is born disproportionately by those who do not use government services, but are forced to pay for them. Fire and police? You never know, so I'm on board. Sewer connection? No. If nothing else, we can certainly agree that the notion of "universal good" has metastasized into something far more wasteful, expensive, inefficient, and ineffective than originally intended.

4 days ago
davebarry

Mr. Hatfield I feel for you. The price of sewers is a crime. You didn't want to bring up the past in-competencies of the sewer authority but that is exactly why we are in the predicament we are in now. Prior to the most recent director, we had either 5 directors in 7 years or 4 in 6 years. I can't recall. They were all political appointees. One nincompoop made the statement "I didn't want to be the bad guy" when asked why he was still charging 52.00 a foot when the actual cost (allegedly) was over 80.00 a foot! Years of mismanagement and neglect by mayors and the council got us to the point wherein folks like you who should be kicking back and dealing with old age ailments are now afraid you must sell to survive. For sewers. For flushing your toilet. Unbelievable.

4 days ago