Thursday, March 4, 2010

DTE and Children Went through the Whole

DTE: Illegal power hookup resumed hours before fatal fire

By AMBER HUNT AND TAMMY STABLES BATTAGLIA
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS

Within hours of
DTE Energy cutting off service to the home because it had been hooked up illegally for months, two locks that had been placed by the utility on the electric meter box had been cut off — and power was restored.

The Detroit Fire Department is investigating whether that second illegal hookup led to the Tuesday deaths of three children – Travion Young, 5, Salena, 3, and Fantasia, 4 – after a blaze tore through the two-story home.

Very sad.

What saddened me the most were the comments left on this story.

There were those who blamed the big monster DTE and there were those who blamed the welfare queen.

I blame the tragic deaths of these three children on Michigan Lawmakers.

In Michigan, particularly Detroit, times are economically challenging, to say the least. Social resources are virtually gone. There is very little affordable, decent housing, so many times, a person will take what they can get and make the most of it, particularly when they have children.

Parents tend to do whatever they must to care and provide for their children, even if it means an illegal hook up, because if they do not, those are grounds for removal of the children and have them placed into foster care.

DTE did what it is suppose to do as a business. It did not receive payment of services and, justly, terminated services.

There was a loophole in the law.

Popular belief is that there is law on the books of Michigan that says the energy companies cannot turn off utilities in the winter. That is not the case.

There are two eligibility criteria:

(1) You must be considered an "eligible senior citizen customer";

(2) You must be able to pay 7% of the estimated annual bill within 14 days of shut off.


Children fell through the loophole and through the social safety net to die.

There are more resources, advocacy and protection for senior than children in a family.

Notice, that I make the statement, "children in a family" because that would deem foster care, a welfare program, which is many times more costly to the public than helping with utilities and housing. I read the comments and cringed that people would condemn a person for being poor.

Each child removed costs taxpayers in the range of $10,000 to $150,000 a year, and many times much more depending on the classification of the case. I did not calculate staff, Medicaid services, courts, administration, training, buildings, fraud, waste and abuse. That would triple the numbers.

A monthly gas bill during the winter in Detroit is about $500. You do the math.

The lawmakers of Michigan need to obviate. This means to provide for the future. Michigan is going through a series of policy changes in Medicaid that would do just that. Perhaps the resources this family needed to prevent the deaths of these children.

The people need to redirect their outrage toward Michigan lawmakers and demand investments in resources for a profitable return of its future citizens.

The whole policy system allowed DTE and children to go though, with no consideration of the future.

3 comments:

Unknown said...

Beverly,

Found your blog through your comment on the Freep. I appreciate your civil thoughts on this extremely sensitive issue.

As with most news stories, with the rush to be first to report, without reporting important facts that should shape opinions, this tragic story leaves a lot of questions unanswered.

First of all, based on the accounts I've read about DTE's actions, I do not blame them at all for this. It appears that they acted with due diligence to attempt to notify the occupants of the home. I won't even entertain the arguments that they are evil for having the audacity to earn a profit. I also won't argue that utility costs are at unaffordable levels. My combined gas & electric last month was around $750! However, reasonable people know that forces out of DTE's control are 99% responsible for the costs we have to pay.

I do not have any answers for this problem that affects most of us. So, having absolved "evil" DTE for making "outrageous" profits, where should the money come from? The state government? Hah! I admit that I did not completely understand where you were going with blaming the state. Was it "if the state can afford to pay what it does to foster care families, it certainly should be able to afford $500 per month for utilities per family in need?" Also, I didn't get "Each child removed..."; from what, foster care or welfare? I'm not sure it matters, the bottom line is that you seem to be advocating for more money from state government to pay for these type of scenarios. Where exactly would this money be coming from? Last I heard, the state is in a complete budget crisis. The "if we can pay for this, we certainly should be able to pay for that" argument usually falls flat because the "this" was (theoretically) balanced with revenue from some source to pay for "this". We *should* be able to pay for "that" *if* there is some revenue source to pay for it. Given the current state of the state, I really doubt that the revenue is there.

I just noticed your bio and the emphasis on your blog headline "to end Medicaid Fraud in Child Welfare". And I clicked the "This means to provide for the future." So, what I questioned earlier makes more sense now. Please know that I am in complete agreement with providing safety nets to our poor. I have no idea how to fund those safety nets, but it appears that you have many pokers in the fire regarding this. (I have a question about your thoughts on Medicaid, which I will address separately from this post.)

The other part of this story that, I admit, boggles my mind, is that Sylvia Young had seven children. The story doesn't moralize or provide facts surrounding this information, nor should it. I have no reason to believe that Ms. Young didn't love all of her children as best as she knew how. But it really does beg the question: How should public policy address families who continue to bear children they cannot afford to raise? While my wife and I would have liked to have had more children, we chose not to on the basis of our limited resources. I'm a "classic" middle class income worker, and we struggle financially with just three kids! I will not speculate on Ms. Young's family's resources, except to suggest that it is likely less than that of my family. This is a question worth asking in context with this story, because if Ms. Young had only the children she could afford to raise, chances are that she and her family would not be in their current tragic circumstances.

Anonymous said...

You forgot to mention that these people never registered as customers of DTE when they moved into the house. So your whole argument is moot. Even if there was a law preventing DTE from shutting off electricity to anybody, this still would have happened. These people never contacted DTE when they moved in, so the house was vacant as far as DTE is concerned. Get that through your thick skull lady. This is nobody's fault except the people that were stealing electricity. Had they signed up for service and paid even ONE SINGLE electric bill, they wouldn't have had it shut off.

BEVERLY TRAN said...

The answer is simple. Reinvest in social infrastructure. Everyone would benefit, including you.