it's a terrible precedent, and borderline corrupt. mayor garcetti has proven to be a weak orator and leader, and weak leaders resort to force rather than reason and persuasion. he's solely focused on winning political points with wealthy backers here and nationally, because of his ambitions (and ranking behind gov. newsom), the people and precedent be damned.

he's ineffective with the power he has, can't get the homeless off the streets, can't build housing or make it affordable, can't improve educational outcomes, can't reduce unemployment and underemployment, has no real empathy for regular people (despite his emotion-laden language, and spanish!), and yet he wants to reach into our private lives and coerce behavior at the margin (saying this despite wholly agreeing that house parties are a terrible idea right now, but let's persuade, not force, and have a dialogue).

the irony is that angelenos have been an exceedingly compliant group to his orders, adhering to both lockdown and _outdoor_ mask mandates at upwards of 95%. even if some of that is social signaling, that's startlingly high, making any a dictator proud. and yet he wants more.

It's extrajudicial punishment, without a trial. It's a godawful precedent and I'd be amazed if was legal.

I can't see how a head of state threatening to cut off basic life necessities punitively is legal.

>but I don’t think it’s the right precedent to set.

I've thought about this statement for about a half hour now. What does it mean? That punishing individuals for ignoring public health mandates is a precedent we don't want? Or is it just the 'utility' being used that is problematic for you?

I don't get it.

Taking away a fundamental requirement for life is cruel and unusual, and the punishment does not fit the crime.

I don't know how I feel about cutting off the water service, but "cruel and unusual" seems like a reach.

It would be cruel and unusual to deprive a prisoner of water because they have no other means of attaining it when you withhold it. Turning off city water service to a property is different. The property owner has other options they can take to get the water they need to stay alive.

In Russia the right to access clean water is enshrined in the constitution. If a vilage relies on a certain lake / river, and lost that access e.g. to pollution, the government is complelled by law to fix the issue at no expense to the residents. It is not good enough to say "they could hire a water truck".

This also strikes me as abuse of power, one must not suffer arbitrary and random punishments. Whats bext, we will start cutting internet access to everyone who swears on the street, disabling electriciry to anyone who protests?

Today it’s “public health” reasons. What other “good reasons” will they find apt tomorrow?

The lack of due process?