LK: It is possible to negotiate in good faith while holding one’s ground. I judge the immature sidelines to be ad hominem. According to the city’s reports, meetings were requested and denied, the city paid for a study and advocated strategies that would benefit ratepayers, like consolidating administrative functions; but disapproved of merging functions where no advantage would be realized.

As for the rejection of compensational offers, I was around when the offers were made. When the city terminated the water agreement, it was on the strategic high ground. Every offer would have netted negative for the city and positive for the county. The city would have been foolish and disrespectful of its constituents’ best interests to cooperate. Opposing points of view are welcome.

TP: Had they actually acted in good faith, this merger would have been done by now and they would not be scrambling for more time and excuses.

LK: I don’t equate good faith to kissing up to domineering lawmakers. The city’s refusal to submit has often hinted of an ulterior motive – such as deference to the citizens of Asheville.

TP: I expect this lawsuit will be thrown out of court on the first day.

First, the bill is constitutional. Had the bill been written only for Asheville, by name, the city might have had some standing. As it is, the bill is a statewide public bill, not a local bill. As defined, it applies to Asheville at this time but would apply to other cities that meet the criteria in its provisions. . . .

LK: Laywers and judges are aware of the concept of “end run.”

TP: . . .Even if it were written with reference only to Asheville, it would still be constitutional. HB488 is not related to health or sanitation. It addresses a management structure only.

LK: I worry about the impact on the city’s financial health. I need to see some numbers before I can speak intelligently. The May 15 deadline demands short-term chaos, and legislators of the D persuasion are concerned Asheville’s new financial position will have repercussions for the entire county.

TP: Second, the bond debt argument is a non-starter. The transfer of bond ownership is a technical matter. The ratepayers would still be on the hook for repayment, just as they are now.

LK: I was under the impression the bond concerns were not about repayment but bond rating. How will the S&P and Moody’s rating of the removal of assets from the balance sheet impact debt service? What will prevent the new authority from being as stalemated about infrastructure improvements as the last regional authority?

TP: Third, the referendum prohibiting the city from initiating action to sell or lease the system has no force. The city does not own the water system and NCGA is not asking them to sell or lease it anyway. This will be an easy face-palm for the judge.

LK: We agree the referendum was an ill-advised lose-lose proposition for the city. Still, it is not right to pick on people whose English skills are not as good as yours. I was under the impression H488 would take the pristine Hunger Games watershed off the city’s books. I welcome correction.

TP: So, thanks a lot, city council. Taxpayers will be paying for both sides of this litigation, win or lose. And when the Nature Center is shut down and infrastructure improvements are delayed, your names will be on our lips. You have complained and delayed and acted in bad faith and now you roll the dice with taxpayer money on a weak case, at best.

Ultimately, the water system will be managed by a regional authority and water customers in and around precious Asheville will get services just like before and their little temper tantrum will be but a sour memory.

Had they actually acted in good faith, this merger would have been done by now and they would not be scrambling for more time and excuses.

I expect this lawsuit will be thrown out of court on the first day.

First, the bill is constitutional. Had the bill been written only for Asheville, by name, the city might have had some standing. As it is, the bill is a statewide public bill, not a local bill. As defined, it applies to Asheville at this time but would apply to other cities that meet the criteria in its provisions. Even if it were written with reference only to Asheville, it would still be constitutional. HB488 is not related to health or sanitation. It addresses a management structure only.

Second, the bond debt argument is a non-starter. The transfer of bond ownership is a technical matter. The ratepayers would still be on the hook for repayment, just as they are now.

Third, the referendum prohibiting the city from initiating action to sell or lease the system has no force. The city does not own the water system and NCGA is not asking them to sell or lease it anyway. This will be an easy face-palm for the judge.

So, thanks a lot, city council. Taxpayers will be paying for both sides of this litigation, win or lose. And when the Nature Center is shut down and infrastructure improvements are delayed, your names will be on our lips. You have complained and delayed and acted in bad faith and now you roll the dice with taxpayer money on a weak case, at best.

Ultimately, the water system will be managed by a regional authority and water customers in and around precious Asheville will get services just like before and their little temper tantrum will be but a sour memory.

Any time.

Well, we know that the NO result of the referendum now legally prohibits the city from selling any part of the water system. MSD offered to lease the watershed and reservoir but the referendum made that illegal as well. They also offered $57M to compensate the city and they turned it down.

Asheville has quashed every option except simply handing it over for nothing.