Moore: Protect Homeowners From Wrongful WPCA Foreclosures

Moore WPCA

News release from State Senator Marilyn Moore:

Senator Marilyn Moore (D-Bridgeport) delivered testimony to the General Assembly’s Planning and Development Committee in support of House Bill 5509, legislation that would protect Connecticut homeowners from unfair and abusive Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) proceedings and charges that sometimes result in wrongful home foreclosures.

Sen. Moore has received numerous complaints from homeowners in Bridgeport who say that the local WPCA is using predatory and discriminatory billing tactics. Based on investigative work by Sen. Moore’s office into the procedures for collection of overdue WPCA bills, it is clear that attorney fees and collection costs contribute to foreclosures more than the actual delinquent sewage bill does. The WPCA has initiated foreclosure proceeding on seniors, veterans, and low income people. In Bridgeport alone, there were 666 liens on homes as a result of WPCA in 2015.

The WPCA and outside attorneys can profit from this practice.

“I will not stand for city homeowners being targeted and having their lives destroyed so the WPCA can profit at their expense,” Sen. Moore said. “Even more troubling, the foreclosures seem to disproportionately affect African-Americans, Latinos, senior, veterans, and low-income people in the Bridgeport area. People should be given an honest chance to pay their sewer bills.”

The bill would:
— Prohibit an accessor from purchasing properties they have any involvement with
— Designate the WPCA as a public utility and to come under the authority of the Public Utilities Regulation Authority (PURA)

0
Share

30 comments

  1. Ron Mackey, It seems to me that you should be thanking Eneida Martinez and Ernest Newton for their leadership as they were the 2 individuals that have been doing the footwork and holding meetings and public hearings. Always give credit where credit is due. I do commend Senator Moore for keeping this topic on the front burner as well as finally supporting the casino bill.

    1+
    1. Neither wears a cape and tights, Steven. They are to be commended for bringing the issue forward. Successive City Hall administrations knew about this yet did nothing. Why? Any of a number of reasons. Apathy? Antipathy? Or maybe, just maybe it was one of the seven deadly sins.

      0
    2. Steve, 3who the hell do you think you are TRYING to tell that I should be thanking two council members? Senator is addressing this issue for more than Bridgeport. Senator Moore’s bill would protect Connecticut homeowners from unfair and abusive Water Pollution Control Authority (WPCA) proceedings and charges that sometimes result in wrongful home foreclosures. Again thank you Senator Moore.

      1+
    3. Steve, are you late to this party? Several years ago, more than one group held a community meeting in Morton Center on a Saturday morning. It revealed that there were already individuals doing significant footwork in court records and other resources to show the nature of the problem.
      Hero worship may narrow your perspective at times, but dealing with civil injustice is like building a coral reef….takes lots of people, lots of time, and a change of salinity such that the old dies and a new construction can win the day. Time will tell.

      0
  2. Agreed!!! My memory serves me well, the aggressive, productive initiatives always seem to come from the few exceptional Council members, when those movements gain traction, the second tier jump on the bandwagon. The approach hasn’t changed, but in this case, the end result is more important than the irony. I predict the Council will bring the change needed is this abusive practice.

    1+
  3. As long as something is being done to curtail the WPCA’s abusive practices. Does it really matter who initiated the action? A proposed casino wasn’t putting a stop to the foreclosures.

    0
  4. Sorry, Steve……………….
    Bpt. City Council members can only bring about change for Bridgeport and its WPCA. Despite this blog’s title: Only in Bridgeport, Senator Moore also is my State Senator in Trumbull. Trumbull’s WPCA also works in ‘unfair’ ways. Bills are rendered quarterly and a bill past due causes a lien on the property, with associated fees. This means a homeowner who is unable to pay in full or catch up can receive FOUR lien fees each year.In a time of 1% bank interest (if you are lucky) WPCA gets to charge 18%.
    We are charged for water that never reaches WPCA plants…used to water grass or fill swimming pools in the summer.
    I lived with WPCA in New Haven and Hamden, they billed based on 4th quarter usage…a time of year you didn’t run a sprinkler or pool or hand was cars.
    Putting ALL WPCAs in CT under DPUC as utilities is needed to control the license to steal and abuse created at local levels.
    Foreclosure threats and actions occur statewide by DPUC, NOT ‘only in Bridgeport.”
    BTW>>>Senator Moore also represents part of Monroe, but there are no waste sewers in Monroe using WPCA facilities, they have septic systems.

    0
  5. Senator Moore’s bill that would designate the WPCA as a utility is a win for any city that pays WPCA. Like UI, the gas company or your cable bill, the WPCA shouldn’t be able to take ones home, hopes or dreams because of nonpayment.

    Thank you Senator Moore for always being the arbiter of righteousness, honesty and caring whether in the Senate or your personal life you’ve always strived to make the world a better place than you found it. My Strong Sister keep being Marilyn Moore because a lot of people’s well-being depends upon it.

    0
    1. Tom,
      The BRTC formed a 3 member ad hoc WPCA committee and you were a member. Ethan Book a member of that committee did a great deal of work in the interest of the residents of the city. He was cut short from meaningful committee accomplishment because he had conflict with BRTC leadership and you at that point came up with a reason to “Sunset” the committee as an act of revenge toward Mr. Book. Your actions were not in the best interest of Bridgeport. It is behavior like that which probably prompted the city to “Sunset” the position that you held with the city.

      0
      1. Joe,
        Ethan Book did no research and penned a manifesto based on innuendo and hearsay. Your remarks demonstrate that your lack of awareness of details does not prevent you from making remarks on OIB.

        0
        1. Tom White, what the BRTC WPCA Sub-Committee was designed to do did not require research, although I did abundant research which is reflected by various productive Freedom of Information requests, review of court records and discussions with people having direct knowledge. Your use of the term hearsay reflects a lack of knowledge of what the development of a public issue normally entails. Your use of the term manifesto clearly is an attempt to demean rthe value of communications that I have given while you don’t define what you mean by the term nor do you demonstrate what you imply, that my communications have not had value. Certainly, there must have been value as the BRTC responded to my communications by establishing the ad-hoc committee!

          0
          1. Ethan,
            The RTC ad hoc committee was established to determine if your manifesto should be taken seriously. Most of the committee members felt that it would serve no purpose to endorse your statement. Instead, we felt that the city council needed assistance in dealing with the situation through ordinance.

            0
        2. Tom,
          You claim that I lack awareness. I am aware that when people do not share your beliefs or are willing to pursue your agenda you will tell lies to try to gain support for yourself. The reason you just gave for sunsetting is a start contrast to the reason you gave then. You previously claimed that the city council was unaware of the procedure that they needed to follow to bring about change to the WPCA. When I suggested that you volunteer to guide the council through that process you stated ” I am not going to do for free what I previously got paid for”. That is not the position I would expect someone to take when they supposedly have the desire to help people being taken advantage of.

          0
        3. Tom White, once again you comments don’t fit the facts. My proposal to the RTC at its February 2017 meeting was that the RTC make a public statement recommending that the City Council forms a multi-partisan sub-committee which would be for the purpose of researching and investigating the WPCA and City tax lien collection and foreclosure processes, that to make suitable recommendations. My proposal was approved at that meeting to the effect of the RTC forming a three-person committee which was charged with drafting a proposal for consideration by the RTC. The three members were you, Jonathan Klein and me. Shortly after the committee began its discussions, Klein proposed that since the City Council had requested of the City Attorney an opinion regarding an ordinance change, we should wait until the City Attorney responded before doing anything more. To me, that suggestion didn’t make practical sense. I opposed it. You supported it. Then just two months later, you proposed that since the City Attorney hadn’t yet responded, we should issue a watered-down public statement. To me, that didn’t make practical sense. I opposed it. Klein supported it. Apparently, at the May meeting, the broader RTC was not comprehending well my intentions to file a lawsuit seeking that Chairman Garrett provide me party information that is a matter of member right. Your proposal was presented to the full RTC as our ad-hoc sub-committee proposal. I voiced a dissenting opinion. Your proposal received RTC support. The watered-down public statement was approved. Other more substantive points which I raised could be incorporated in ordinance changes. Given this history on the RTC, I find it disingenuous that you would criticize the City Council members for not doing more. I also point out that Webster’s definition of “manifesto” is “a public declaration of motives and intentions by a government or by an important person or group”. So, thank you for the compliment!

          0
  6. State action to address WPCA issues should merge with corresponding city actions. One step that I have recommended for the city is that the City Council should prohibit the City Attorneys from assigning WPCA collection cases to Attorney Juda Epstein. The last Council Ordinance Committee meeting where there was supposed to be more public review of the matter was postponed. Seems like the Mayor had more interest in a union rally to promote the casino. Also, Attorney Liskov, the City Attorney who’s been assigning WPCA cases, had just announced his filing of bogus legal actions against city council members. I have the impression that the Mayor and some city attorneys are feeling uncomfortable that the light of public exposure is getting too close to them.

    0
  7. Also, while the direction that Sen. Moore is taking on the WPCA looks good, I wonder why she hasn’t acted on what I proposed to her several years ago regarding the need for judicial reform. Certainly that has had as much adverse impacts for the urban residents as the WPCA crisis. Also, her support for the nomination of Justice McDonald to be our SC Chief Justice doesn’t fit with the dire need of judicial reform. In addition, on WPCA and city tax lien foreclosures, Atty. Epstein should disclose any financial interest in Benchmark Municipal Tax Services and Mayor Ganim should disclose any financial interest of him or his relatives in American Tax Funding!

    0
  8. According to the CT Mirror,

    “House Republicans focused their ire Monday on McDonald’s participation in a 4-3 decision that struck down the last vestiges of capital punishment in Connecticut. The decision spared the lives of 11 men on death row, including a duo convicted of killing the wife and daughters of Rep. William A. Petit, R-Plainville.

    “In 2011, the legislature repealed the death penalty, but only for future crimes — not those already on death row. It was an important political distinction calculated to win the votes of lawmakers unwilling to affect the sentences in the Petit case…”

    Is that the only reason, Ethan? After the court ruling punishment was still the law for the 11 condemned men including the two men that murdered Dr. Petit’s wife and daughters. It was another judge that ruled Connecticut’s application of the death penslty violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusul punishment.

    Some of the GOP’s on-the-record objections to McDonald’s no ination to the high court sound like the words of men embarrassed by their homophobia.

    0
  9. Why is it that Republicans have a problem with women having the right to choose and to preserve life before a child but have no problem with killing life with the death penalty?

    0
    1. Good point, Ron. The GOP is led by a bunch of privileged white men, old fraternity boys that meet at the country club to lie about their golf game and grumble about the good old days before Roe V. Wade and equal rights.

      0
  10. TBK, the broader part of the issue of judicial reform comes from my own experience, first with McDonald as Co-Chair of the Judiciary Committee and then as SC Justice. There are serious problems of systematic biases in the courts not the least of which is pro-se bias, a real slavery of the 21st Century. In addition, I support Peter Wolfgang of the Family Institute of Connecticut who notes that McDonald acted to attempt to take away Catholic church authority in financial matters for no proper legal basis, that when the apparent motive was the church’s position to oppose same-sex marriage.((

    0
    1. This isn’t Ireland in the nineteenth century. The Catholic church doesn’t have that kind of authority here. Same-sex marriage is the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land. Capital punishment was abolished in this state. The GOP can’t get it’s collective head around the fact two men or two women have the legal right to matrimony, can’t stand knowing women have control over their reproductive health.

      0
      1. TBK, you miss the point! The Catholic Church opposed same-sex marriage before the state court decision to make it legal. Also, you fail to recognize the limited value of court decisions. They can be changed, altered and reversed and even deemed void by the people (re: the 9th Amendment as was done by Lincoln in response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. In addition, the McDonald nomination is not the first or only action that I’ve opposed. I also opposed the reappointment of Justice Palmer!

        0

Leave a Reply