<p><strong>To the editor:</strong></p><p>I am not one to write editorials/opinions for the newspaper, but after reading the opinion of the Greenwood city controller, I feel compelled to respond.</p><p>The assertions he made and the philosophy he shares are dangerous and illogical in my opinion. He appears to feel it is the right of government, as if they always know what is best for the citizens, to enact ordinances that restrict the freedoms and due process of one group over another. That is what his opinion boils down to. His belief is that if the city of Greenwood cannot collect on a debt of an individual, they have the right to demand payment from another individual, thus alleviating the responsibility from the user of said service altogether. How is this fair?</p><p>One of the things that’s wrong with many values in the modern world is a lack of personal responsibility. It is obvious that it is weakening our civilization, and society suffers as a result. Now we have a city employee who is advocating just that. If a person thinks they will not have to pay for utility services, will they worry about how much they use or the amount charged?</p><p>The agreement between a consumer and a utility provider is a private contract between the two parties. Further, is it not understood that those who own investment property are also taxpayers? Non-occupant owners also pay double the property taxes of owner-occupied homes and provide a valuable service to the community.</p><p>Providing affordable housing is very much needed both locally and nationally, yet the city wants to saddle these taxpayers with the debt obligations of those who are difficult in collection. Where does this end? Are property owners responsible for the cable bills of the tenant also?</p><p>Aside from the issue of fairness, this issue also represents a clear violation of individual property rights. This is why I stated that this stance is dangerous. It is sad when our local government wants to enact laws that violate the rights guaranteed in our constitution.</p><p>In summary, this results from last year’s bill that our state legislature passed, House Enrolled Act 1347, which clearly states that the responsibility for payment for municipal utilities rests with the occupant of the property unless the owner wishes to have a different arrangement.</p><p>Since the passage of this law last year, some municipalities have sought a loophole to avoid the law by holding a virtual gun to the head of the property owner/landlords and refusing to hook up utility service at a property unless the landlord co-signs for the tenant. Landlords should not be held responsible for unpaid bills owed by their tenants.</p><p>Thanks to Woody Burton who helped to remove loopholes in this legislation with HB 1165. If municipalities want to own and manage utilities or any other enterprise, they should be willing to assume the risk that any other business incurs in providing a service. I urge our city leaders and citizens to work together to do the right thing in holding individuals accountable.</p><p><p><strong>Joe Farley</strong></p><p><p><strong>Greenwood</strong></p>
