@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:1. No, the city of Flint was not bankrupt when the state government took over its finances and hence its management. "Bankrupt" has a precise meaning in law and it did not apply.
On what basis do you claim that the precise meaning in law did not apply?
Even if the precise meaning in law didn't apply, the general English language understanding of the term bankruptcy accurately described Flint's financial situation.
Moore's characterization of these state takeovers of local government as an attempt to cut services in order to pay for tax cuts is completely untrue.
Look at the article you cited again.
First they made the decision to switch from "Lake Huron water from the Detroit water system" to "Lake Huron water from their own water system". This is covered under
Time for change at the beginning of the article.
Then Detroit cut off their water. This is covered under
Detroit backs out in the middle of the article.
Then, after Detroit cut off their water, they switched to the Flint River. This is covered under
To the river and
The river plan at the end of the article.
Olivier5 wrote:3. About the cost of the anti-leeching aditive, Moore correctly states: "I guess that was too much." He doesn't overstate his case.
Anything else I can do for you?
Moore clearly stated that the state government made the decision to not treat the river water. Where is the evidence that this decision came from the state government?
Moore clearly stated that they made this decision with the goal of not spending money on the trivially cheap water treatment. Where is the evidence that this was the motivation for the decision?
