By state law, Chicago is required to charge those 48 communities the same per gallon rate as its own residents (those 48 then have more discretion in what they charge the next town down the pipe).

Under current conditions, Chicago would not be able to transfer wealth from suburbs to city (as you speculate might be the case with Cincinnati, which I am not disputing), nor to use water rates to influence development patterns or concentrate growth in the urban core. In fact, though it costs more money (and uses more energy, and results in greater infrastructure costs) to pump water to even immediately neighboring suburbs than to homes in Chicago, the only way the City of Chicago can generate revenue to account for those suburban costs is to raise the water rates for everyone, including city residents… which is what is does. Every Chicago resident is footing some portion of the bill for suburban water use.

Last week a few rumors circulated that Chicago might be looking to privatize its water system. That is a rich topic of discussion in itself, but one for a later day. The germane issue here is that in Illinois, private utilities are required to charge the full cost of water service… so in theory any private firm would have to increase the per gallon at which it sold water to the suburbs… in which case the Chicago region might move into the same discussion as Cincinnati. HOWEVER, I don’t know if that full cost pricing law would trump the same rate for city and suburb law, or vice versa.

Food for thought.

http://www.indianapoliswater.com/serviceterritory.html

As you can see, the bulk of the suburbs get their water from IWC.

I’m not sure the current limited ability to grow is actually a bad thing. If the water company grows, that means it is probably serving suburban/exurban areas far from the central city, thus undercutting the city’s ability to attract new redevelopment in the core instead of greenfield development on the edges. Restricting water access would seem to be a good way to require smarter growth.

Second, in addition to the water works, Cincinnati has some other curious assets. It built and owns a railroad, for example, so has a longstanding dividend stream from an otherwise typical private sector function. There has been discussion of “privatizing” or selling it as well, though it is less obviously immediate to the existing citizenry.

Finally, unlike many of the other depopulating cities of the midwest, Cincinnati is largely losing population to its own suburbs/exurbs. The net population of the tri-state region hasn’t dramatically shifted. This differs from the smaller cases (i.e. a huge chunk of Youngstown [25%, 50%, ?] basically moved to Columbus, as well as Detroit (moved to Texas, Florida, El Paso/Juarez?).

Cincinnati is much more akin to Milwaukee or St. Louis – there’s still a very viable economy there, it’s just shifting around the economic incentives rather than dealing with more permanent serious dislocations.

Interesting analysis, all told.

The purpose of the ballot (Issue is to give Cincinnatians a voice on the matter. Presently, the City Manager, Mayor & Council can decide the issue without voter input.

You can say, and many have, that voters are too stupid to make this call; that’s why we elect representatives. The problem is our reps are more concerned with saving their own political skins than looking out for the long-term best interest of the city.

There’s every indication they will make this decision, not based on the lofty criteria you describe, but to cover their current budget hole. Every city service has a constituency; and every cut will alienate some group. Selling the water works allows them to avoid tough choices in this depression by making money seemingly appear out of thin air. And that’s a lousy reason to do it.

Once it’s gone, it’s gone for good. Politicians hold office for 2 or 4 years, perhaps 2 or 3 terms, and they’re off to another one. This is a permanent decision, and it deserves to be made by the permanent stakeholders. Citizens will be stuck with the bills and the results forever. It’s only proper that voters should make the final call.

Issue 8 is a City charter amendment that requires voter approval before water works assets can be transferred. Voting YES ON ISSUE 8 will allow citizens’ voices to be heard. Vote YES ON ISSUE 8.