“Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald and Sue Greenwald rated an “A” grade based on answers to the three questions. Rob Roy, Don Saylor, Steven Souza and Sydney Vergis all received “B” grades.”
On April 30, 2008 the Sierra Club Yolano Group and the Davis Neighborhood Coalition submitted 10 questions to Davis City Council candidates. In addition to the candidate forum, each candidate submitted written answers.
“The Management Committee “graded” the candidates based on their responses to the questions that related to the environment. The Sierra Club Yolano Group spent much time deliberating regarding the relative grading of the candidates for this 2008 City of Davis City Council election cycle. In general, the management committee believes that the educational value of the candidates’ answers to the questions – both for the voters and for the candidates is the most valuable portion of this process.
The three main issues discussed in the grading process were: Measure J, Wastewater and Surface Water Capitol Projects, and the future of wood burning in the City of
Davis.Each candidate received the range of grades available and the final grades that we are presenting are the average of the management committee’s votes – not a unanimous grade. This is not a Sierra Club endorsement of any of the candidates.”
Vanguard coverage of the candidates forum can be found by clicking here.
You can find excerpts of the answers on both water and Measure J there.
On the issue of residential wood burning, an issue that has not been discussed much on this blog but is becoming an increasing concern in the city due to its impact on air quality, here are some of the highlights of the candidate’s answers.
Sue Greenwald:
“I am in favor of looking into an ordinance for banning wood burning.”
Cecilia-Escamilla Greenwald:
“As councilmember, I would like to look toward alternative means by which to heat homes—including Natural gas fireplaces rather than real wood or ideally, more energy efficient building designs to better utilize the winter sun, better keep heat (or cool temperatures in the summer) in the home, and solar power as an alternative means by which to heat one’s home or augment other available energy sources.
I would consider a possible ban or limitation of wood burning pending further study by the city and other experts.”
Rob Roy:
“We already have the voluntary “Don’t Light Tonight” program in Yolo-Solano air quality management district. We must inform our fellow citizens about the program so they may now when air levels are at unhealthy levels. Expand the conscious of our citizens be more aware of any negative environmental impact is a good thing.
Collecting a voluntary city-wide email list serve to convey this type of information would be a good thing start on.”
Don Saylor:
“While I want to withhold judgment until hearing from the NRC, I think we will probably see a combination of further restrictions on burning using specific appliances, incentives and rebates for purchases of cleaner EPA appliances, and more awareness of the issues pertaining to wood burning and the environmental effects.”
Stephen Souza:
“There are already restrictions in place on new construction and new installation of fire-places or wood burning appliances. The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District’s Rule 2.40 requires the use of pellet fueled heater or EPA certified heaters. We should also require that at the time of sale, remodel or a certain date that all fireplaces that do not meet Rule 2.40 be replaced or rendered inoperable.
We can also promote a self-imposed program of “Don’t Light Tonight” whereby residents do not use their fire-places or woodstoves when air pollution is approaching unhealthy conditions.”
Sydney Vergis:
“The Model Fireplace Ordinance include two primary components- Voluntary curtailment of wood-burning on low quality air days, and a mandatory upgrade to EPA Phase II Fireplace inserts or fireplace removal upon house sale or remodel.
I acknowledge that the voluntary components of the model ordinance or a Spare-the-Air day will not result in full compliance- I am hopeful that good outreach and coordination between the City, local organizations (Yolano!), and the Natural Resources Commission can pay dividends.”
While the Sierra Club did not make endorsements in the city council race, the grades provided are a good guide as to which candidates were stronger on specific environmental positions than others. The Sierra Club did make endorsements in both the County Supervisor and the State Assembly race. (See here for full story). Jim Provenza obtained the endorsement in the 4th District County Supervisor Race and Christopher Cabaldon received the endorsement in the State Assembly Race.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
All the candidates are talking in generalities. I don’t think I could assign a grade based on this drivel.
All the candidates are talking in generalities. I don’t think I could assign a grade based on this drivel.
All the candidates are talking in generalities. I don’t think I could assign a grade based on this drivel.
All the candidates are talking in generalities. I don’t think I could assign a grade based on this drivel.
Don’t seem so general to me.
Don’t seem so general to me.
Don’t seem so general to me.
Don’t seem so general to me.
It doesn’t?
Sue: “I am in favor of looking into an ordinance”….doesn’t say she supports it.
Cecilia: “I would like to look toward alternative means by which to heat homes—including Natural gas fireplaces rather than real wood or ideally, more energy efficient building designs to better utilize the winter sun, better keep heat (or cool temperatures in the summer) in the home, and solar power as an alternative means by which to heat one’s home or augment other available energy sources.
I would consider a possible ban or limitation of wood burning pending further study by the city and other experts.”
…look into, consider, etc. Nothing definitive. How is she going to rely on efficient building designs when she doesn’t want anything to be built in the first place. Just more general noncommittal statements…very little actual substance.
Rob: voluntary compliance and email communication? What is he, corporate american promising to clean up its emissions?
Don: we will probably see….enough said, as though he is disconnected and just observing the whole process
Stephen: actually, you’re right, he does have some specific proposals
Sydney: I am hopeful that good outreach and coordination between the City, local organizations (Yolano!), and the Natural Resources Commission can pay dividends.”
…more voluntary ho-hum. Are she and Rob in cahoots now?
It doesn’t?
Sue: “I am in favor of looking into an ordinance”….doesn’t say she supports it.
Cecilia: “I would like to look toward alternative means by which to heat homes—including Natural gas fireplaces rather than real wood or ideally, more energy efficient building designs to better utilize the winter sun, better keep heat (or cool temperatures in the summer) in the home, and solar power as an alternative means by which to heat one’s home or augment other available energy sources.
I would consider a possible ban or limitation of wood burning pending further study by the city and other experts.”
…look into, consider, etc. Nothing definitive. How is she going to rely on efficient building designs when she doesn’t want anything to be built in the first place. Just more general noncommittal statements…very little actual substance.
Rob: voluntary compliance and email communication? What is he, corporate american promising to clean up its emissions?
Don: we will probably see….enough said, as though he is disconnected and just observing the whole process
Stephen: actually, you’re right, he does have some specific proposals
Sydney: I am hopeful that good outreach and coordination between the City, local organizations (Yolano!), and the Natural Resources Commission can pay dividends.”
…more voluntary ho-hum. Are she and Rob in cahoots now?
It doesn’t?
Sue: “I am in favor of looking into an ordinance”….doesn’t say she supports it.
Cecilia: “I would like to look toward alternative means by which to heat homes—including Natural gas fireplaces rather than real wood or ideally, more energy efficient building designs to better utilize the winter sun, better keep heat (or cool temperatures in the summer) in the home, and solar power as an alternative means by which to heat one’s home or augment other available energy sources.
I would consider a possible ban or limitation of wood burning pending further study by the city and other experts.”
…look into, consider, etc. Nothing definitive. How is she going to rely on efficient building designs when she doesn’t want anything to be built in the first place. Just more general noncommittal statements…very little actual substance.
Rob: voluntary compliance and email communication? What is he, corporate american promising to clean up its emissions?
Don: we will probably see….enough said, as though he is disconnected and just observing the whole process
Stephen: actually, you’re right, he does have some specific proposals
Sydney: I am hopeful that good outreach and coordination between the City, local organizations (Yolano!), and the Natural Resources Commission can pay dividends.”
…more voluntary ho-hum. Are she and Rob in cahoots now?
It doesn’t?
Sue: “I am in favor of looking into an ordinance”….doesn’t say she supports it.
Cecilia: “I would like to look toward alternative means by which to heat homes—including Natural gas fireplaces rather than real wood or ideally, more energy efficient building designs to better utilize the winter sun, better keep heat (or cool temperatures in the summer) in the home, and solar power as an alternative means by which to heat one’s home or augment other available energy sources.
I would consider a possible ban or limitation of wood burning pending further study by the city and other experts.”
…look into, consider, etc. Nothing definitive. How is she going to rely on efficient building designs when she doesn’t want anything to be built in the first place. Just more general noncommittal statements…very little actual substance.
Rob: voluntary compliance and email communication? What is he, corporate american promising to clean up its emissions?
Don: we will probably see….enough said, as though he is disconnected and just observing the whole process
Stephen: actually, you’re right, he does have some specific proposals
Sydney: I am hopeful that good outreach and coordination between the City, local organizations (Yolano!), and the Natural Resources Commission can pay dividends.”
…more voluntary ho-hum. Are she and Rob in cahoots now?
I am curious how the Sierra Club would grade these two candidates on the question of peripheral growth in Davis, converting ag land into a new housing subdivision with some retail:
Candidate A opposes all new housing developments on peripheral unincorpated parcels, especially those on prime ag land.
Candidate B favors the particular development in question.*
Which of these is more environmentally correct?
I would guess it is A’s position and A would win the endorsement. But does it not matter the specifics of the development project?
* Say this is the project:
1. 2,000 housing units — a mix of SFH’s on small lots ranging from 1,200-2,400 s.f.; apartments of various sizes in four-story buildings; and some for-sale townhouses and rowhouses;
2. Of the land dedicated to housing, it would meet or exceed the highest density of all developments in Davis;
3. Half of the housing units would be priced for low-income and moderate income. The rest would be market-rate;
4. 100 percent of the electricity needs would be generated on site by wind and solar;
5. All of the buildings in the project, public and private, would meet LEED standards;
6. The retail component would include a neighborhood grocery store, drug store and other small shops (such as a laundry, barber, coffee shop, etc.);
7. Some public amenities, such as space for a church or public meeting hall or a school site (if needed) would be gifted;
8. The development would include a generous amount of park and greenbelt space and walking and bike paths; and
9. The development would be serviced by busses for public transportation and the bike paths would connect with existing bike routes in town.
For argument’s sake, assume the development is revenue neutral to the city and that our existing water and sewer capacities can absorb this project without problems.
So Candidate A opposes this development while Candidate B favors it. Is A really the environmentally superior position? While A would get the endorsement of the Sierra Club on grounds of protecting prime ag land, is it not the case that the rejection of this project will cause the would be five-to-six thousand residents to live in another community in our region?
And if they live in Natomas or Elk Grove, would they not only be living on paved over prime ag land in those communities, but those new neighborhoods would not have all of the environmentally sensitive features included in this project?
My answer is that B is environmentally superior to A, unless you can somehow provide that housing as an infill project, replacing some kind of obsolete urban development with high-density housing.
In either case, a new development –infill or outfill — is likely to impose costs on existing residents with more congestion and other residue. There are better and worse places to build. But it is not the case that outfill automatically (or even probably) will have a greater cost on existing residents than an equally large and dense infill project.
I am curious how the Sierra Club would grade these two candidates on the question of peripheral growth in Davis, converting ag land into a new housing subdivision with some retail:
Candidate A opposes all new housing developments on peripheral unincorpated parcels, especially those on prime ag land.
Candidate B favors the particular development in question.*
Which of these is more environmentally correct?
I would guess it is A’s position and A would win the endorsement. But does it not matter the specifics of the development project?
* Say this is the project:
1. 2,000 housing units — a mix of SFH’s on small lots ranging from 1,200-2,400 s.f.; apartments of various sizes in four-story buildings; and some for-sale townhouses and rowhouses;
2. Of the land dedicated to housing, it would meet or exceed the highest density of all developments in Davis;
3. Half of the housing units would be priced for low-income and moderate income. The rest would be market-rate;
4. 100 percent of the electricity needs would be generated on site by wind and solar;
5. All of the buildings in the project, public and private, would meet LEED standards;
6. The retail component would include a neighborhood grocery store, drug store and other small shops (such as a laundry, barber, coffee shop, etc.);
7. Some public amenities, such as space for a church or public meeting hall or a school site (if needed) would be gifted;
8. The development would include a generous amount of park and greenbelt space and walking and bike paths; and
9. The development would be serviced by busses for public transportation and the bike paths would connect with existing bike routes in town.
For argument’s sake, assume the development is revenue neutral to the city and that our existing water and sewer capacities can absorb this project without problems.
So Candidate A opposes this development while Candidate B favors it. Is A really the environmentally superior position? While A would get the endorsement of the Sierra Club on grounds of protecting prime ag land, is it not the case that the rejection of this project will cause the would be five-to-six thousand residents to live in another community in our region?
And if they live in Natomas or Elk Grove, would they not only be living on paved over prime ag land in those communities, but those new neighborhoods would not have all of the environmentally sensitive features included in this project?
My answer is that B is environmentally superior to A, unless you can somehow provide that housing as an infill project, replacing some kind of obsolete urban development with high-density housing.
In either case, a new development –infill or outfill — is likely to impose costs on existing residents with more congestion and other residue. There are better and worse places to build. But it is not the case that outfill automatically (or even probably) will have a greater cost on existing residents than an equally large and dense infill project.
I am curious how the Sierra Club would grade these two candidates on the question of peripheral growth in Davis, converting ag land into a new housing subdivision with some retail:
Candidate A opposes all new housing developments on peripheral unincorpated parcels, especially those on prime ag land.
Candidate B favors the particular development in question.*
Which of these is more environmentally correct?
I would guess it is A’s position and A would win the endorsement. But does it not matter the specifics of the development project?
* Say this is the project:
1. 2,000 housing units — a mix of SFH’s on small lots ranging from 1,200-2,400 s.f.; apartments of various sizes in four-story buildings; and some for-sale townhouses and rowhouses;
2. Of the land dedicated to housing, it would meet or exceed the highest density of all developments in Davis;
3. Half of the housing units would be priced for low-income and moderate income. The rest would be market-rate;
4. 100 percent of the electricity needs would be generated on site by wind and solar;
5. All of the buildings in the project, public and private, would meet LEED standards;
6. The retail component would include a neighborhood grocery store, drug store and other small shops (such as a laundry, barber, coffee shop, etc.);
7. Some public amenities, such as space for a church or public meeting hall or a school site (if needed) would be gifted;
8. The development would include a generous amount of park and greenbelt space and walking and bike paths; and
9. The development would be serviced by busses for public transportation and the bike paths would connect with existing bike routes in town.
For argument’s sake, assume the development is revenue neutral to the city and that our existing water and sewer capacities can absorb this project without problems.
So Candidate A opposes this development while Candidate B favors it. Is A really the environmentally superior position? While A would get the endorsement of the Sierra Club on grounds of protecting prime ag land, is it not the case that the rejection of this project will cause the would be five-to-six thousand residents to live in another community in our region?
And if they live in Natomas or Elk Grove, would they not only be living on paved over prime ag land in those communities, but those new neighborhoods would not have all of the environmentally sensitive features included in this project?
My answer is that B is environmentally superior to A, unless you can somehow provide that housing as an infill project, replacing some kind of obsolete urban development with high-density housing.
In either case, a new development –infill or outfill — is likely to impose costs on existing residents with more congestion and other residue. There are better and worse places to build. But it is not the case that outfill automatically (or even probably) will have a greater cost on existing residents than an equally large and dense infill project.
I am curious how the Sierra Club would grade these two candidates on the question of peripheral growth in Davis, converting ag land into a new housing subdivision with some retail:
Candidate A opposes all new housing developments on peripheral unincorpated parcels, especially those on prime ag land.
Candidate B favors the particular development in question.*
Which of these is more environmentally correct?
I would guess it is A’s position and A would win the endorsement. But does it not matter the specifics of the development project?
* Say this is the project:
1. 2,000 housing units — a mix of SFH’s on small lots ranging from 1,200-2,400 s.f.; apartments of various sizes in four-story buildings; and some for-sale townhouses and rowhouses;
2. Of the land dedicated to housing, it would meet or exceed the highest density of all developments in Davis;
3. Half of the housing units would be priced for low-income and moderate income. The rest would be market-rate;
4. 100 percent of the electricity needs would be generated on site by wind and solar;
5. All of the buildings in the project, public and private, would meet LEED standards;
6. The retail component would include a neighborhood grocery store, drug store and other small shops (such as a laundry, barber, coffee shop, etc.);
7. Some public amenities, such as space for a church or public meeting hall or a school site (if needed) would be gifted;
8. The development would include a generous amount of park and greenbelt space and walking and bike paths; and
9. The development would be serviced by busses for public transportation and the bike paths would connect with existing bike routes in town.
For argument’s sake, assume the development is revenue neutral to the city and that our existing water and sewer capacities can absorb this project without problems.
So Candidate A opposes this development while Candidate B favors it. Is A really the environmentally superior position? While A would get the endorsement of the Sierra Club on grounds of protecting prime ag land, is it not the case that the rejection of this project will cause the would be five-to-six thousand residents to live in another community in our region?
And if they live in Natomas or Elk Grove, would they not only be living on paved over prime ag land in those communities, but those new neighborhoods would not have all of the environmentally sensitive features included in this project?
My answer is that B is environmentally superior to A, unless you can somehow provide that housing as an infill project, replacing some kind of obsolete urban development with high-density housing.
In either case, a new development –infill or outfill — is likely to impose costs on existing residents with more congestion and other residue. There are better and worse places to build. But it is not the case that outfill automatically (or even probably) will have a greater cost on existing residents than an equally large and dense infill project.
This particular chapter of the Sierra Club is widely known for its lack of integrity, and I say that as an environmentalist. Frankly, I’d consider an “F” from them to be a mark of honor.
This particular chapter of the Sierra Club is widely known for its lack of integrity, and I say that as an environmentalist. Frankly, I’d consider an “F” from them to be a mark of honor.
This particular chapter of the Sierra Club is widely known for its lack of integrity, and I say that as an environmentalist. Frankly, I’d consider an “F” from them to be a mark of honor.
This particular chapter of the Sierra Club is widely known for its lack of integrity, and I say that as an environmentalist. Frankly, I’d consider an “F” from them to be a mark of honor.
Interesting hypothetical, which helps to point out the “progressive” no growth policy is just NIMBYism on conservative economic policy steroids. I’d prefer we pave over the farm fields and save the lands and waters that are truly environmentally pristine. There are bigger environmental concerns in the world than 10 or 20 acres of flat farmland adjacent to Davis. The idea of infill projects is great, but the no growth candidate’s claimed support for them is just empty rhetoric, just like Saylor and Souza’s pretense that they are not supportive of some level of external growth. The exception is the Mayor’s PG&E site, which so far noone is proposing to develop other than her.
Interesting hypothetical, which helps to point out the “progressive” no growth policy is just NIMBYism on conservative economic policy steroids. I’d prefer we pave over the farm fields and save the lands and waters that are truly environmentally pristine. There are bigger environmental concerns in the world than 10 or 20 acres of flat farmland adjacent to Davis. The idea of infill projects is great, but the no growth candidate’s claimed support for them is just empty rhetoric, just like Saylor and Souza’s pretense that they are not supportive of some level of external growth. The exception is the Mayor’s PG&E site, which so far noone is proposing to develop other than her.
Interesting hypothetical, which helps to point out the “progressive” no growth policy is just NIMBYism on conservative economic policy steroids. I’d prefer we pave over the farm fields and save the lands and waters that are truly environmentally pristine. There are bigger environmental concerns in the world than 10 or 20 acres of flat farmland adjacent to Davis. The idea of infill projects is great, but the no growth candidate’s claimed support for them is just empty rhetoric, just like Saylor and Souza’s pretense that they are not supportive of some level of external growth. The exception is the Mayor’s PG&E site, which so far noone is proposing to develop other than her.
Interesting hypothetical, which helps to point out the “progressive” no growth policy is just NIMBYism on conservative economic policy steroids. I’d prefer we pave over the farm fields and save the lands and waters that are truly environmentally pristine. There are bigger environmental concerns in the world than 10 or 20 acres of flat farmland adjacent to Davis. The idea of infill projects is great, but the no growth candidate’s claimed support for them is just empty rhetoric, just like Saylor and Souza’s pretense that they are not supportive of some level of external growth. The exception is the Mayor’s PG&E site, which so far noone is proposing to develop other than her.
Sounds like sour grapes to me because the pro-growth candidates did not get rated so well.
The three superior candidates are SLOW growth.
Sounds like sour grapes to me because the pro-growth candidates did not get rated so well.
The three superior candidates are SLOW growth.
Sounds like sour grapes to me because the pro-growth candidates did not get rated so well.
The three superior candidates are SLOW growth.
Sounds like sour grapes to me because the pro-growth candidates did not get rated so well.
The three superior candidates are SLOW growth.
YOU have my vote and my husband’s vote Cecilia! I’m glad to see that you and Sue got such great ratings.
YOU have my vote and my husband’s vote Cecilia! I’m glad to see that you and Sue got such great ratings.
YOU have my vote and my husband’s vote Cecilia! I’m glad to see that you and Sue got such great ratings.
YOU have my vote and my husband’s vote Cecilia! I’m glad to see that you and Sue got such great ratings.
The Sierra Club is often misguided and mistaken in it’s approval of items. Cecilia is not to be trusted in these matters because she lacks the educational aspect associated with this topic.
The Sierra Club is often misguided and mistaken in it’s approval of items. Cecilia is not to be trusted in these matters because she lacks the educational aspect associated with this topic.
The Sierra Club is often misguided and mistaken in it’s approval of items. Cecilia is not to be trusted in these matters because she lacks the educational aspect associated with this topic.
The Sierra Club is often misguided and mistaken in it’s approval of items. Cecilia is not to be trusted in these matters because she lacks the educational aspect associated with this topic.
“For argument’s sake, assume the development is revenue neutral to the city and that our existing water and sewer capacities can absorb this project without problems.”
Rather big assumptions, don’t you think? In fact, false assumptions in my opinion. Geeeeeze – a housing development that is revenue neutral? Come on…
“For argument’s sake, assume the development is revenue neutral to the city and that our existing water and sewer capacities can absorb this project without problems.”
Rather big assumptions, don’t you think? In fact, false assumptions in my opinion. Geeeeeze – a housing development that is revenue neutral? Come on…
“For argument’s sake, assume the development is revenue neutral to the city and that our existing water and sewer capacities can absorb this project without problems.”
Rather big assumptions, don’t you think? In fact, false assumptions in my opinion. Geeeeeze – a housing development that is revenue neutral? Come on…
“For argument’s sake, assume the development is revenue neutral to the city and that our existing water and sewer capacities can absorb this project without problems.”
Rather big assumptions, don’t you think? In fact, false assumptions in my opinion. Geeeeeze – a housing development that is revenue neutral? Come on…
given the contribution of fossil fuels (including natural gas) towards global warming (wood is relatively carbon neutral), and the imminent consequences of global peak oil, one would think that the sierra club would not be advocating for more use of natural gas.
smart passive solar design and good insulation is the best and cheapest step, but wood burning stoves, if efficiently done, shouldn’t be banned. i’m not even sure if it’s environmentally sound from a global context to advocate such a thing.
given the contribution of fossil fuels (including natural gas) towards global warming (wood is relatively carbon neutral), and the imminent consequences of global peak oil, one would think that the sierra club would not be advocating for more use of natural gas.
smart passive solar design and good insulation is the best and cheapest step, but wood burning stoves, if efficiently done, shouldn’t be banned. i’m not even sure if it’s environmentally sound from a global context to advocate such a thing.
given the contribution of fossil fuels (including natural gas) towards global warming (wood is relatively carbon neutral), and the imminent consequences of global peak oil, one would think that the sierra club would not be advocating for more use of natural gas.
smart passive solar design and good insulation is the best and cheapest step, but wood burning stoves, if efficiently done, shouldn’t be banned. i’m not even sure if it’s environmentally sound from a global context to advocate such a thing.
given the contribution of fossil fuels (including natural gas) towards global warming (wood is relatively carbon neutral), and the imminent consequences of global peak oil, one would think that the sierra club would not be advocating for more use of natural gas.
smart passive solar design and good insulation is the best and cheapest step, but wood burning stoves, if efficiently done, shouldn’t be banned. i’m not even sure if it’s environmentally sound from a global context to advocate such a thing.
Wu Ming,
Do you own a wood burning stove?
Wu Ming,
Do you own a wood burning stove?
Wu Ming,
Do you own a wood burning stove?
Wu Ming,
Do you own a wood burning stove?
nope. i don’t own anything, i’m a renter. this is purely theoretical for me.
nope. i don’t own anything, i’m a renter. this is purely theoretical for me.
nope. i don’t own anything, i’m a renter. this is purely theoretical for me.
nope. i don’t own anything, i’m a renter. this is purely theoretical for me.
Wu Ming,
Thank you clearing up that point. One step further is needed; No one owns anything in this world, we only have temporary custody of those items in our possession.
How about that theory?
Wu Ming,
Thank you clearing up that point. One step further is needed; No one owns anything in this world, we only have temporary custody of those items in our possession.
How about that theory?
Wu Ming,
Thank you clearing up that point. One step further is needed; No one owns anything in this world, we only have temporary custody of those items in our possession.
How about that theory?
Wu Ming,
Thank you clearing up that point. One step further is needed; No one owns anything in this world, we only have temporary custody of those items in our possession.
How about that theory?