In a troubling turn of events in Oklahoma, residents of the city of Okay are facing a $10 monthly surcharge on their water bills. This new charge is not aimed at addressing urgent city needs, but rather to fund ongoing legal battles against a resident who has already won a court judgment.
Melisa Robinson, a local mobile home community owner, successfully sued the city after it unlawfully installed a sewer line on her property without permission. The Oklahoma Supreme Court previously ruled that the city owed Robinson $73,000 in damages, which has now increased to around $200,000 with accrued interest.
Despite the court’s ruling, the city has refused to pay Robinson, asserting that the Public Works Authority, which is responsible for the sewer line installation, is a separate entity and is not liable. This position has led Robinson to pursue further legal action with the help of the Institute for Justice (IJ), a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending individual rights.
The city council’s recent decision to implement a $10 surcharge on water bills, purportedly to cover legal fees related to Robinson’s case, has sparked outrage among residents. They were not given a chance to voice their opinions during the council meeting where the surcharge was approved. The city estimates that this surcharge will amount to about $30,000 annually.
Robinson expressed her disbelief, stating, “It’s beyond belief that Okay would rather raise a surcharge to pay their attorneys rather than pay me what the court already says they owe.” She emphasized that this situation highlights a troubling precedent, suggesting that if the city can disregard her rights, it could happen to any resident.
The legal fight centers around the Fifth Amendment, which mandates that the government must provide just compensation when it takes private property. IJ Attorney Brian Morris noted, “As long as the city refuses to pay Melisa the just compensation she’s owed, it continues to violate the Fifth Amendment.”
This ongoing saga underscores a larger issue about government accountability and the rights of individuals against unjust actions. Robinson’s struggle serves as a cautionary tale about the potential ramifications for those who stand up for their constitutional rights. The city’s actions raise significant questions about the ethical implications of using taxpayer funds to support a losing legal battle, rather than addressing the compensation owed to a citizen.
As the situation unfolds, the residents of Okay must grapple with the consequences of their city’s decisions and what it means for their rights in the face of governmental authority.
