That's a big difference.

So but I like to think about it like buying a house because a lot of people say, "Why would you buy this, um, infrastructure that's, that's downgraded?" Well, we're stuck with it either way.

We have a, uh, DTE, a private monopoly, that we know has a legal responsibility to one party, which is to make as much, uh, do the best by their shareholders as possible.

They are not, uh, legally obligated to do well by their actual customer.

So if you had a landlord, and they were letting your house fall into disrepair, if you had the choice of either buying the house from them and instead of a bunch of your rent going into their profits every year, all of that money then being put into, uh, repairing the house, you would probably choose to do that rather than tear the house down and start again.

And even though there are upfront costs to doing so, we all sort of intuitively understand that it's worth, um, the down payment of your house if eventually you start to be the one where, you know, the profits go, if you will.

Yes.

Yeah, because I think that what council, um, is unfortunately sort of trying to, um, pull a fast one, where they say this is about whether it's legal, but what they are really just concerned with is they just don't want the board, which is an okay stance to have, but I do feel it's pretty inappropriate for a council to speak this way on a citizen-initiated petition.