[petersouth]

Every city water utility has this same problem. Having close knowledge of the problems, I don't think this is a good solution. Many of the customers get shut off and then immediately pay their bill along with the penalties (approx 3/4). This is often cyclical with the same people getting shutoff every couple months. Appears to me to be administrative. Should have financial people show them how to budget or organize their bills to prevent getting the fees so it doesn't happen again in the long run. Another thing the article points to is a $250 fee for turning on the water. Often when the water is turned on without authorization the utility equipment is damaged. The fix can involve calling out trade workers to saw out parts of streets and sidewalks and replacing expensive brass lead-free parts. $250 would be in the neighborhood of the cost.

[brudgers]

When regularly there's a significant probability that a person's periodic income will be less than their periodic expenses, budgeting becomes an exercise of choosing which bills not to pay.

The important reason the damaged equipment due to illegal restoration of service is problematic is same reason that public water service is important. Public water service exists to protect public health. It keeps people from dying of diseases like cholera.

Punitive policies in regard to water service put people in life threatening situations. It's poor public policy.

[wpietri]

> I don't think this is a good solution. [...] Should have financial people show [...]

Friend, if you have a better way to solve the problem, go solve the problem. I'm sure that nothing would make the DWP folks happier than to have nobody need them anymore.

But until then, maybe consider keeping your opinion-hole closed? There are few things I find less helpful on HN than nominally smart people that come in and denigrate somebody else's solution to a problem that they have absolutely no intention of solving themselves.

[tiffani]

Founder here.

Yes, every utility has this problem.

"I don't think this is a good solution to this problem."

Why? Why isn't giving people money (direct to the utility, as we never hand people we help the funds) to get their water turned back on when they've gone for weeks without running water not a good solution? When you encounter someone in that situation, what would you suggest?

"Many of the customers get shut off and then immediately pay their bill along with the penalties."

That's often true, but what many people (including yourself and, oddly, staff at utilities) don't consider is that these people are often robbing Peter to pay Paul. We've got people skimping on medication and food they need in order to keep their utilities on. So, yes, they may pay as soon as the water is shut off, but there's often a trade-off.

"This is often cyclical with the same people getting shutoff every couple months. Appears to me to be administrative."

This also does happen, but talking to hundreds of families with difficulties paying their water bills, you start seeing patterns. A pattern of multiple shut-offs is usually indicative of some other deeper problem(s). There are people who are between jobs. There are people who've had their hours at work cut. There are people on fixed incomes where even the smallest fluctuation in the water bill (or another bill) can prevent them from paying in full. They pay what they can, but arrearages build up, and next thing you know, service is disconnected.

One of the things we're going to begin working with Detroit and Baltimore to do better is pick up on these signals and act. Prevention is always better than treatment.

Also, if you consider where we work (Detroit and Baltimore), these aren't exactly places teeming with amazing employment opportunities for many of the people we serve (the elderly, single parents already juggling multiple jobs, people with minimal education, etc.). Obviously, a stable job is a big part of consistently paying your bills. You can hold all the budgeting classes you want, but good luck getting people there who barely have the funds to keep their families afloat to sign up. Not having enough to make ends meet is not always the result of poor budgeting.

And yes, illegal service restoration does have the potential to damage equipment, but when your customers have to resort to that, it's indicative that your utility has failed to look after especially vulnerable customers. Detroit is especially odd with respect to indigent customers as they don't have a program to assist low-income customers with a discount or the like. Same goes for the elderly. Baltimore has a discount for the elderly, at least.