Constitutional Violations by Local Governments

It looks like I'll be writing a series, over a
longer time period, about how local governments
are violating the US Constitution as a matter
of routine, counting on the fact that individuals
will not group together to sue the governmental
body.

The present day case is that of Bates Township
and the decisions of their board not to allow
new hookups in some areas of the township where
water service already exists.

"Konoske’s demonstration followed a discussion
on the condition of the water lines at U.S. 2
near Andreski Plat Road. There are patches
upon patches, Township Supervisor Grant Helgemo
said, and the township needed to decide about
starting to abandon some of the water lines.

"'We should start thinking about giving notice
to the residents,' he said. Last month, the
board decided not to allow any new waterline
hookups on Bates-Amasa Road from the Perry
residence to the Paint River bridge, as well
as along U.S. 2 from Helgemo Road through the
half-mile of Krans Road."

The above is quoted from the Iron County Reporter
of 2/17/2010

"Because they can" our elected representatives have
been ignoring the US Constitution's Equal Protection
Clause which assures that citizens will all be treated
equally by government. Providing water service to some,
but not to others, within the territory administered
by a municipal government is a clear violation.

How would it be if people with some addresses in the
county received tickets for traffic violations, while
their neighbors got a pass from the police for the
same exact violations? Consider the simple case of
odd and even numbered addresses. Let's say all even
numbers get tickets, and odd numbers do not?

Let's say that one side of the street gets garbage
collection by the municipality, while the other does
not?

Bates township happens to be the municipality in the
news today. They're not alone. Similar things have
already been done by Iron River Township, with more
similar conduct looming on the horizon, and also by
Stambaugh Township. I've probably left out some in
the east end of the county, but I haven't been keeping
up with their activities.

Bear in mind that once a municipality determines they
will not, for whatever reasons they select, provide
water to some given address or another, the minimum
cost to the property owner these days runs from
$7000 (seven thousand dollars) upwards. There may
be some people in the US who consider that to be
chickenfeed, but not many.

Bill Vajk