Water Equity Bloomington?

By: Diane Benjamin

The slide below was in the presentation by Public Works Monday night – see 42:00

What does “Improve Equity and Affordability” mean?

It wasn’t discussed at the meeting. I really hope Bloomington won’t be discussing a two or three tiered rate structure for water depending on address or income. That isn’t “Equality” under the law and it definitely isn’t “Equity” to force some people to subsidize others.

Affordability in Bloomington would skyrocket if government would stick to essential services that don’t include stupid things like building a fire station that has never been used (now a storage facility for backup vehicles), a water tower that isn’t usable, and entertainment at the Coliseum and BCPA.

Stick to EQUALITY Bloomington. Trying to help some people at the expense of others is redistribution of wealth. Socialism, communism, and Marxism have never worked anywhere. Unfortunately, those who bothered to vote last April picked some people who want Equity.

3 thoughts on “Water Equity Bloomington?

  1. Yes Diane, Bloomington needs to clearly explain how they are defining the word “equity” so that lawyers can properly prepare their lawsuits when the time comes.

    If they use the definition that Joe Biden’s regime and Unit 5 (pg 120) uses, water bills will be adjusted according to skin tone. Or as they say in Unit 5’s definition of Racism – “…manifest (unjust) privileges to White people, or those that identify or are perceived White…”. Yes, if you are a black person that identifies as an Asian person you too are inherently racist. Or if you are an African American with light skin you are an oppressor. You would think I’m being facetious but I’m not. This is how THEY explain the word “equity”.

    I have not seen a color chart (yet) with a demarcation line for ”unjustly rewarded” verses “oppressed”. It seems like there should be one somewhere. If the city doesn’t have one they probably should get one.

    Is Bloomington throwing around the word “equity” as a way to appease angry leftist’s or appear virtuous? Or are they really going to distribute resources according to skin color or self-declared identity?

    Good lawyers need to know.

  2. “Improve Equity and Affordability” is oxymoronic and impossible. Fromhere makes a great point regarding foreseeable outside factors: by claiming to work for ‘equity’, you create an environment that will destroy ‘affordability’ with legal costs.
    Looking at it from an economics perspective, ‘equity’ inherently means Somebody pays less, whether that is determined by skin color or income or mental health status or whatever else. At that point, those that are paying least or nothing have little or no incentive to conserve and consumption goes up. Those that are paying most realize their bill is largely determined by Others’ consumption, so they have little incentive to conserve. Usage goes up, costs go up, and that leaves less money available for better uses, which includes wages for the ‘equity victims’.
    Higher water bills probably only depress low-end wages a few cents an hour. But so does public transportation equity. And so does public education equity. And similarly any other virtue-signaling-based ‘equity initiative’. ‘Equity’ Sounds like a great idea, but in practice it usually serves to oppress the very people it’s supposed to help, by depressing low-end wages and job creation that are the most effective paths out of ‘oppressed victim’ status.

Leave a Reply