When my squatter Frankie Walton was consuming a mysterious amount of water, I called and even went to the Water department to try to shut off the water. But they refused my request because a squatter was living there. Sounds humane. Now as soon as Frankie is gone, I have received Water Shut Off Notice. They threatened to shut off the water if I don’t pay the unpaid water bills by 8/13/2012. There are $361 unpaid water bill.
I went to the Water department today. I was ready to argue. I asked them before to shut off the water, and they didn’t shut off. The Water department was well informed that a squatter was using the water without intention to pay the bills and the property owner wanted to shut off the water. Based on such facts, is it totally my responsibility for the water bills the squatter used? If the Water department wanted to exercise humanity, they should pay for their good will. At least they should decrease the amount for a fair compromise. Of course, they didn’t decrease a single penny, proving their humanity was made based on the owner’s sacrifice.
I even argued that I am a human being too like the squatter. I’m now living in that property. If they can’t shut off the water just because someone is living there, how can they shut it off now? Isn’t it a clear contradiction? They said they could shut off based on the unpaid bills. What a paradoxical policy? Is the property owner just a good meal? I had to pay the bills to avoid shut off. But public policy should be based on the mutual consent to obtain public confidence. People will get resentful when they experience such absurd exercise. Again… they didn’t shut off because a squatter Frankie was living there despite my several requests. If so, how can they shut off despite the fact that I’m now living there?
No comments:
Post a Comment