good morning in may please the court this is a case about the city of syracuse says water service debt collection scheme a scheme which totally divorces itself from the reality of legal accountability for the debt involved how help me understand something is i hope that the record you won due process and substantive due process claims here  position here in our position from the outset is it's it's irrational for the city to hold ms winston accountable for landlords water so her water was off for three days is that right that's right around three days and she's still in the apartment she's still in the apartment how did she get the water turned back or the landlord has a record reflect that i don't believe the record reflects that around or outside of record the landlord eventually paid the water bill three days after for three days her and her family were left without water because her point in that is three days without water for three days miss winston and her young artistic child are left without water sharks no clothes no claim for damages for that is there that's correct and i think that really demonstrates the irrationality of the city's policy to hold  a family and a young girl datsun as a pawn in some debt collection scheme a debt which they had absolutely no connection to no legal obligation posed suppose she owned the house she would still have an autistic child she would still suffer through the inability to pay the bill right if she was it took her three days as the owner of the house and resident of the house to come up with the money you have no problem with the city turning off the water in fact you say it's irrational to create these classes to the disadvantage of the tenant so that it would be proper there's no fundamental right to water service such that this is a constitutionally excessive thing to do to somebody doesn't pay the bill i think the distinction factor for the if she owned the house yes if she would ha legal obligation to pay the water bill she would be able to contract which she still doesn't have a legal obligation to pay the water bill the landlord has the legal obligation if if mr winston own the house you know if she has the tenant has no legal obligation to pay the bill but she has no legal obligation to pay the bill that puts or added to the situation mr winston was left with either so i'm just saying you are not making an argument that there is a fundamental right to waters right to wa not making that argument right around think this court is ever you're saying it's irrational for the city to have a scheme that makes the that they will contract with the landlord only and then the landlord is they'll cut off the water if the customer the landlord doesn't pay in one instance that would be our equal protection just simply situated landlord first tenant argument that that's one part of our we think it's rational for them  and why is it irrational for the city to have a policy that maximizes the wike we've heard that they will get paid for the water service and maximize the likelihood that the  suspect of that classification there's also the tenant v tenant similar situated classification which is a different argument in that we're not saying there's no difference between it's irrational to distinguish between landlords who don't pay the bill  law or under any syracuse wardens have a right to set off the payment against rent right in there or they aren't and say that your honor but i think putting the onus on a tenant i'm not sure why that's an onerous unless the bill is so far in excess of monthly rent that the no one could be expected up of the money if you have to pay the rent anyway and you pay a part of that money to cover the water bill and then you reduce your huge apartment building with five units and there's one meter she'd be paying for the her not only her usage but also the four other homes usage to her of how could the health of the city contract with the individual tenant they would have to be an individual metering system that the city could contract with them and there would be an individual meeting metering system and they could then put that no i'm saying that it's not the relief you're seeking that there's a constitutional right to have individual metering for tenants and multiple dwellings no your honor we're just seeking is that the city's policies which hold innocent tenant are not saying that they have to use whatever whatever scheme that the create equal protection some to deprive i mean what would you want and then in the nature of a remedy we'd want the city to stop holding hands responsible for the deaths of their landlords when we don't our rent we're not asking that the city require  which they have no legal obligation to pay i think that squares with the four other circuits that have addressed this issue those circuits held that it's not rational to hold someone who has no legal obligation to pay a debt responsible for the post landlord doesn't pay the heating oil bill and the company that delivers heating oil cuts all service and the i would guess if that happens in february in syracuse the house quickly becomes uninhabitable that's right i mean and the tenant would be in the same position as here right the tenant conceivably could pay the heating oil bill and get the heat turned back on if the landlord irresponsible and then set that off against the rent and if there were multiple tenants they could band together and do that or they'd just be stuck right i think those are all possible so the difference is and i  take it was so the difference is that because the city is governmental it can do with its proprietary water system what a private company could do i think that distinguishes  from say a utility service so if the city decided to turn the water over to a private company that would also solve the problem i don't offer when you would your honor and i think another distinguishing factor would be not only is it i mean this guess maybe not with a municipal system if they had a well that might cut off the water too if they cut off the electricity and that would render the house uninhabitable and the tenant would be stuck there to think that another probably more important difference is tenants can contract with our utility and in syracuse to get service in their own name so they're left with a remedy here they are letting only buildings where they have been to where they have individual meters right  i mean also part of the remedy that you did that would make your scheme work of making any sense would be to require every multiple dwelling in syracuse to have individual want to me i don't think that would have to be part of the scheme i mean that's certainly one solution the city could come up with if this court has to strike down or the other solution would be just to continue to provide order and then pursue their legal remedies against a level or they could put it as a lien on the a way they got paid but they would have other remedies is not at all but that's and that's what you're saying is they should be relegated to that remedy they can't use the self help helper in that because they're a governmental agency they can't use the self help remedy that the heating oil company or the electric utility could use but i mean as i mentioned the other distinction factor is tenants can contract for for only if the utility chooses to allow them to do that if they don't feel well if they have the same economic analysis that the city does they might follow the same kind of policy might but i mean it's it's possible but i mean i think the important factor here and with the for the sort of to address this issue i actually i see my time is on my i just i'm an assistant corporation counsel for the city of syracuse like to first begin by actually taking a step back and actually talking about the facts of this case and the policy because i think it's been mischaracterized through the course of this discussion so  case received a notice that said that her water was going to be shot off the water notice as outlined in the brief that we provided indicates that there is a hearing process that she can avail herself of and call to prevent the water from being turned off gone and cleans cleans homes to the supplementary income and it's supposed to take off and go down to here in respect of the bill she's paid and the agent for the building has said don't worry about it we'll take care of it is that what's supposed to happen sooner well what happens is the individual has the rates request a hearing so that would it first and initially delay process so you're saying it's an adequate remedy that you can apply for apply frivolously for a hearing on whether the bill has been paid when and you know it hasn't been solely in order to get delay and that's an adequate remedy for the provision of what you can see for purposes of this appeal as a property right i don't believe that i'm saying that that is is the way to handle i got let me back up and explain oh ok so the hearing itself i'm not saying that requesting a hearing frivolously or not is is the remedy but requesting the hearing at least gives whoever is in the situation time to contact their actual landlord not a maintenance person or someone else in the building so they can at least reach out to the proper authority who is responsible this is going to be and they all say well and i guess that raises another point is it's been characterized that the tenant that somehow the city is forcing the tenant to pay what we're saying is that anyone has the right to pay this bill up until the point that the water's been turned off so that can be property management was well this city doesn't believe that santa clause is going to descend shot off notices is that there's a property management company that's involved that's usually paying the bills someone change an address or a manager change and so these landlords to some extent require rely on their tenants reporting when they receive these notices because they're not receiving them themselves or there's been some but mixed up in the last the agent for the landlord and nothing in this record tells you that that person is not the right person for her to contact well kno tells us that there's any other person she could have called well i think that the proper person to call it about her landlord who's responsible for the bill if that has good workers suggest that it is a closely held corporation isn't  some manager managing agent typically for if we were multiple dwelling that would usually be the case isn't and is there something in this record that says she called the wrong guy not to mention why do we do w because we're not we're getting you're now arguing the individual case which is no longer before us rather than the facial policies and i guess i was trying to set the stage in terms of what what the actual policy is because the policy does not in and of itself force any tended to pay the right there in the policy and what my argument was was that in this case miss once and i think i agree with you one hundred percent there is no legal obligation on the tenant to pay anything what mr carter is arguing i think boils down to what he said at the very end the city is using the tenant as a pawn by inflicting hardship on the tenant in the hope that the hardship on the tenant will get the landlord to fulfill the limb words obligations so my original intent was backing up was to point out that what mr carter has pointed out as the result of the policy errors her submitting to the policy which was the effect of her getting her water turned off is a consequence of not submitting to the policy by not availing the remedies of the city has in place so the hearing is the first remedy that is in place i thought i thought there was an individual claim that she tried to pay the bill in the city didn't take it once the water is turned off a tenant does not have the legal right within the city of syracuse to turn back on utilities if they're not the property owner let's say we overdue bill was fifty in the hypothetical i put you has to go through the process of requesting an ending of harry in respect of a fifty dollar bill that's already been i don't think that we're limited to those extremes i think that in in the process of requesting the hearing like i said that initially at least buys time and that person if the landlord in this case there's no indication she's lived in the same apartment for ten years there's no indication that this landlord ever had an issue before in paying the water bill so this could have been the one off and sense that i was describing before and that case that the proper erd i guess the best case for that person is to contact their landlord and hope that their landlord sorts that out the city's position is that we can't get involved in the intermixing z between a tenant and a landlord and are the options i suppose that were discussed by mr cotter in terms of how the city could implement a way to charged attendance individual e are just not feasible what i take away from what you've just told me is that the policy of the city of syracuse with respect to individuals who are facing this problem is indeed i don't believe that's fair because the consequences of following the policy  r requesting and attending a hearing with respect to an obligation that's already been satisfied you know taking time off from work that's an option that's available to the time but it doesn't put the onus on the time to to complete those tasks at the end of the day it's still the landowner who is responsible you know i'm up might be responsible but if the tenant doesn't do anything the consequences fall four square on the town or the water's cut off and the park minus the home is uninhabitable so the denizen and family are in a homeless shelter sleeping on the street without getting too often act or certainly stops at the city has in place to prevent anything like that from happening anyone are going to want to have them turning on the water we have homeless shelters available no but we have programs we work with local groups especially to make sure that that is provided so if it's a case where a landlord's not paying and there are local groups that we work with to try to facilitate the payment of that business as the ordinance permit is you can cut off the water as a matter of law if the landlord doesn't pay now the hearing come to ten requests a hearing comes down to the hearing what is the tenant doing other than requesting some kind of mercy the tenant can sort why why is that on the tenant well it's technically on the landlord but if i guess is in the situation it sounds to me like everything you're saying is confirming what timing the hearing though would prevent the consequence of having the water turn why don't we see why do we even think that the the hearing you understand if you're the landlord and you come down and say what's wrong with you people you say i didn't pay the bill here's my canceled check then the hearing can say oh i guess we were wrong our bed turned the water back on if the landlord goes down and says i don't pay the bill but i'm here for a hearing is there anything that says the the at the end of then hearing officer has the ability to say oh you're a very nice man we just we're going to forgive the bill you know the end of it there's nothing that says or doesn't say that but the independent hearing officer also has the ability to negotiate the water bill which happens a lot with delinquent taxes as well so they can say  if someone reports that there was some issue or they thought that there was a misread or they simply can't afford to pay the bill then they can negotiate down their water bill at that time also w hearing have to sit through these negotiations i suppose if they happened at the hearing i suppose if they happened at the hearing their public once you sign up and yes but it seems to me like you're conceding that the burden is really on the tenant at this point to either pay the bill or invoke the hearing i think the burden is not on the you've told us have so i guess since i only have no time if i can just recap briefly so the question that's before you is whether or not the policy is reasonably related to a legitimate state objective which is collecting unpaid water bills and our brief outlines that i have four major points one is that the different treatment allows the city to place the liens as you discussed before the differentiation between the property owner in the t and also there's the transitory nature of tannins it's very difficult we don't have the same legal remedies that we have with the town and as we do with the property owner the third point is that many of the buildings in the city of sarah hughes are faced with the single pipe issue so they are not capable of having the multiple reed within the structure and lastly that water excuse me that this policy little position of either you pay the bill you hope your landlord pays it you hope someone else pays it or your house is going to condemned and either you have to go to a homeless shelter or find somewhere else to live which although the or innocent specifically require a tenant to pay  it's implicit in the ordinance is that they're using the tenants of the mentioned for as a kind of pawn in their cruel collection game the second point would be that tenants i especially miss winston was already paying her water portion as part