Analysis: Examination of the Council Feud from Tuesday Night over Water and Process

By David GreenwaldAugust 1, 2008272 comments
Everyone is talking about the city council meeting on Tuesday night and the dispute that erupted during the questioning period by Councilmember Sue Greenwald.

From my standpoint, Councilmember Greenwald was right on the substance of the issue. The former Mayor found the independent report lacking and she was pressing her case with the panel of consultants.

Councilmember Greenwald’s position continues to be that the burden on the ratepayer is tremendous if the city decides to go ahead with somewhere around a $250 million water supply project at the same time it upgrades its wastewater treatment plant (something which the city really does not have a choice but to do). The councilmember is looking for ways to hold off on the surface water project for 25 to 30 years in order to give the city time to pay off the wastewater treatment upgrade.

Councilmember Greenwald was going about the business of questioning–firmly–but from watching the recording of the proceedings, respectfully, the consultants. It was at this point that tensions escalated. Mayor Ruth Asmundson interjected that Councilmember Greenwald was debating the consultants rather than questioning them.

At this point Councilmember Greenwald practically exploded at the dais and demanded that she be allowed to continue.

Councilmember Greenwald: “This is a half a billion dollar project, you have to allow us to question the experts. You have to.”

Mayor Asmundson responded: “You have to ask about the report. No debating.”

Councilmember Greenwald: “I am going to ask tough questions.”

Mayor Asmundson: “You are out of order.”

Councilmember Greenwald: “Ruth you can’t do this. You have to allow councilmembers ask good questions and hard questions.”

When Councilmember Greenwald tried to continue, Mayor Asmundson cut her off. At this point, Mayor Asmundson and Councilmember Don Saylor got up.

Frankly I think this was mishandled by both the Mayor and Councilmember Greenwald.

First, watching the questioning, I do not think it was that bad that Mayor Asmundson needed to step into the questioning. Councilmember Greenwald was pressing the consultant, but for the most part it was polite and respectful. She does have a right to try to question them in a thorough and tough manner.

Councilmember Greenwald probably could have done this more effectively with a set of pre-written questions based on information that she had gathered, and pressed the consultant much as an attorney. She probably did interject her own opinion with statements rather than questions a bit more than she could have. Nevertheless, from watching the exchange, it did not seem that the questioning was out-of-line to the point where the Mayor needed to interject.

The point at which tensions arose could and should have been avoided. This should not have taken place in the public to begin with, the Mayor should have called an immediate recess and had a discussion with the Councilmember. Councilmember Greenwald immediately escalated the situation when Mayor Asmundson interjected. Had she remained calm, she would have looked better in the exchange. Mayor Asmundson remained calm throughout, but also unnecessarily it seems escalated the situation.

Walking off the dais was rather unprofessional on the part of both the Mayor and Councilmember Don Saylor.

In short, Mayor Asmundson, in my view, strongly escalated a situation that really did not need to be escalated. Councilmember Greenwald is an elected representative to the people of Davis and was representing their views on council during questioning. Frankly, I have seen Sue Greenwald far more combative in her line of questioning than she was on this occasion. There seemed little need for interjection.

The power of the presiding officer is to allow each side to ask their questions of staff and consultants. Because the council is not afforded their own staff, this is the only far and equitable way this can work.

The only time a presiding officer should cut off discussion is under extreme circumstances when things really get out of control. This did not appear to rise to such a level and the Mayor should have allowed the line of questioning to continue.

If she was concerned about the line of questioning, she should have simply said, ‘remember Councilmember, we are asking questions now, please keep all statements in the form of a question.’

But Councilmember Greenwald also bears responsibility. She lost her temper first, no matter that she was provoked, no matter that the Mayor was out of line. Losing your temper in this situation leads to an escalation and it also leads to the public’s perception as to who was right and who was wrong.

The incident caught Davis Enterprise Columnist Bob Dunning’s attention as well.

It is difficult to discern what Mr. Dunning’s angle is, although he does seem somewhat inclined to side with the Councilmember on this one.

“Greenwald had the audacity to question a couple of projects that might just break the civic piggy bank before all is said and done – wrote Claire St. John in Wednesday’s front-pager: ‘Greenwald, who found the independent report lacking, asked if the panel of consultants focused at all on how the city was supposed to pay for a project that will cost about $250 million at the same time as it must upgrade its wastewater treatment plant at a cost of about $200 million.'”

Bob Dunning then continues:

“When I first read those numbers I was certain it was a misprint – surely it must be $2.5 million and $2 million – Greenwald removed all doubt about the proper placement of decimal points when she said ‘I have yet to see what shape we’ll be in after we pay off a half-billion dollars in debt.’

Hey, that’s one of the advantages of having 65,000 people in town – as daunting as the figure sounds, it’s only about $7,000 per resident, or $35,000 for a family of five – and if we’d all agree to stop watering the lawn, not to mention showering just once a week whether we need it or not, we may be able to bring that cost down by a dollar or two…”

Mr. Dunning gets the math right in terms of $7000 per resident, which as he points out, means a lot more per family and per residence. You are actually not talking $35,000 for a family of five, what you are talking about is roughly $14,000 per unit, probably more when you take into account residences versus apartments which are likely to pay considerably less.

And those are cost estimates. We all know that most projects run over their initial cost estimates, sometimes by a good amount for something as large and massive as this.

At minimum we are talking about paying an additional $100 if not more per month for one’s water bill.

Think about this for a moment. With all of the complaining about the parcel tax, that is an additional $120 PER YEAR. This is 10 times that amount per year at minimum. Should not the rest of the council be asking the consultants just as tough a questions as Councilmember Sue Greenwald?

And yet this process has been almost bumped along without really the tough discussions or the tough decisions made. Why? Because they are using the process as a buffer. It is a piecemail process. There has been a logic behind this process that if we lose our place in line, then we get passed up.

Now some people have stated that they are willing to pay this amount of money for better quality of water. First, it is unclear they will get a better quality of water. Second, that does not help those on fixed or limited incomes.

But quickly, one of the problems with taking river water is that the water is only available if the river contains over a certain amount of water. So on a dry year like this, we may have plenty of water during the winter but during the summer we might get almost nothing from the water supply project and have to rely exclusively on well water. That’s the fine print. Plus it seems to be first come first serve.

But if water supplies are less in the future, we may be paying a bunch of money upfront and get very little additional water and the quality of the water may be no different.

There is also a considerable degree of question of deep well water. Is that viable? Could we use that, as Councilmember Greenwald suggests, to hold off on the water supply project for another 20 to 25 years, at which point three things will have occurred: (1) we will have paid off the waste water treatment upgrade. (2) we will have a much clearer picture of the state water system. (3) there will be new and better technology that will probably either allow us to have different water options or make these options cheaper. There seems to be very little reason to rush through this project now other than the arbitrary time tables of the state water bureaucracy. But the risks of going ahead now appear to be just as high and very costly.

These are questions the Mayor and Councilmember Saylor ought to be asking just as strongly as Councilmember Greenwald. And yet they are not and that is really to the detriment of the people of Davis.

I am very concerned about the procedural implications of what happened on Tuesday night. If the Mayor can use the power of the gavel to silence a councilmember, it does not bode well for the rest of us who want a voice in government.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

    View all posts

Categories:

Water

272 comments

  1. The issue about wastewater is about salts. The water that comes into our homes eventually goes out, so before we discharge the wastewater into the environment the salt level has to be at levels of surface water. The question is which is cheaper. Start with well water and remove the salts, then dispose those salts or start with surface water and clean it up to be reused.

  2. The issue about wastewater is about salts. The water that comes into our homes eventually goes out, so before we discharge the wastewater into the environment the salt level has to be at levels of surface water. The question is which is cheaper. Start with well water and remove the salts, then dispose those salts or start with surface water and clean it up to be reused.

  3. The issue about wastewater is about salts. The water that comes into our homes eventually goes out, so before we discharge the wastewater into the environment the salt level has to be at levels of surface water. The question is which is cheaper. Start with well water and remove the salts, then dispose those salts or start with surface water and clean it up to be reused.

  4. The issue about wastewater is about salts. The water that comes into our homes eventually goes out, so before we discharge the wastewater into the environment the salt level has to be at levels of surface water. The question is which is cheaper. Start with well water and remove the salts, then dispose those salts or start with surface water and clean it up to be reused.

  5. Remember when Ruth’s first order of business at her previous round as mayor was to ORDER that Councilmembers be fined(a quarter?) for each time they used an acronym?
    It would have been slightly amusing except that she wasn’t kidding.Councilman Souza will have to decide whether he will support Asmundson(with Saylor as her Svengali) on this issue of Council process. A 3-2 vote is needed to block Mayor Asmundson’s proclivity to autocratic maternalism.

  6. Remember when Ruth’s first order of business at her previous round as mayor was to ORDER that Councilmembers be fined(a quarter?) for each time they used an acronym?
    It would have been slightly amusing except that she wasn’t kidding.Councilman Souza will have to decide whether he will support Asmundson(with Saylor as her Svengali) on this issue of Council process. A 3-2 vote is needed to block Mayor Asmundson’s proclivity to autocratic maternalism.

  7. Remember when Ruth’s first order of business at her previous round as mayor was to ORDER that Councilmembers be fined(a quarter?) for each time they used an acronym?
    It would have been slightly amusing except that she wasn’t kidding.Councilman Souza will have to decide whether he will support Asmundson(with Saylor as her Svengali) on this issue of Council process. A 3-2 vote is needed to block Mayor Asmundson’s proclivity to autocratic maternalism.

  8. Remember when Ruth’s first order of business at her previous round as mayor was to ORDER that Councilmembers be fined(a quarter?) for each time they used an acronym?
    It would have been slightly amusing except that she wasn’t kidding.Councilman Souza will have to decide whether he will support Asmundson(with Saylor as her Svengali) on this issue of Council process. A 3-2 vote is needed to block Mayor Asmundson’s proclivity to autocratic maternalism.

  9. “The issue about wastewater is about salts….”

    ..this is just one part of the issue. Since we will still have to use deep well water for part of the year, we will still have the salt issue. The real driving force for this project NOW is the law that says that new development’s must identify its water sources. Davis cannot have massive peripheral development without a new water source. The tax burden on current Davis residents for the over 1/2 billion dollar combined wastewater/surface water plan will force us to accept a massive increase in the voter tax base(population) or see our individual tax burden explode. This plan is driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme. Saylor(with Asmundson in tow) is calling the shots for those to whom he will be seeking support for his next step up the political ladder.

  10. “The issue about wastewater is about salts….”

    ..this is just one part of the issue. Since we will still have to use deep well water for part of the year, we will still have the salt issue. The real driving force for this project NOW is the law that says that new development’s must identify its water sources. Davis cannot have massive peripheral development without a new water source. The tax burden on current Davis residents for the over 1/2 billion dollar combined wastewater/surface water plan will force us to accept a massive increase in the voter tax base(population) or see our individual tax burden explode. This plan is driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme. Saylor(with Asmundson in tow) is calling the shots for those to whom he will be seeking support for his next step up the political ladder.

  11. “The issue about wastewater is about salts….”

    ..this is just one part of the issue. Since we will still have to use deep well water for part of the year, we will still have the salt issue. The real driving force for this project NOW is the law that says that new development’s must identify its water sources. Davis cannot have massive peripheral development without a new water source. The tax burden on current Davis residents for the over 1/2 billion dollar combined wastewater/surface water plan will force us to accept a massive increase in the voter tax base(population) or see our individual tax burden explode. This plan is driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme. Saylor(with Asmundson in tow) is calling the shots for those to whom he will be seeking support for his next step up the political ladder.

  12. “The issue about wastewater is about salts….”

    ..this is just one part of the issue. Since we will still have to use deep well water for part of the year, we will still have the salt issue. The real driving force for this project NOW is the law that says that new development’s must identify its water sources. Davis cannot have massive peripheral development without a new water source. The tax burden on current Davis residents for the over 1/2 billion dollar combined wastewater/surface water plan will force us to accept a massive increase in the voter tax base(population) or see our individual tax burden explode. This plan is driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme. Saylor(with Asmundson in tow) is calling the shots for those to whom he will be seeking support for his next step up the political ladder.

  13. Putting off getting surface water for 25 years is essentially doing nothing to improve the water quality of Davis. Why not put it off for 100 years or a thousand. If you are a 61 year old councilmember you are saying not in my lifetime.

    Sue doesn’t want to pay because she is a conservative in liberal clothing. Before everyone passes judgement on the costs they should wait and see the economic analysis. What is the impact that includes Woodland and the University participating?

    Sue doesn’t want to move forward with water projects because water is needed for growth. While I generally disagree with her on growth I find her opposition to water development particularly cynical since the water quality in Davis is so poor that many residents don’t drink the stuff and wish they didn’t need to wash in it either. When you analysze the cost don’t forget to discount the expense people pay to buy drinking water, a local industry unto itself.

    Finally her opposition is seen as somehow progressive but there is nothing progressive about consigning thousands of people to using poor quality water for 25 years. Like those who came before her and didn’t want to pay for Montecello Dam, Sue seeks to supply water on the cheap. The water that we have in Davis today is the result of the same kind of thinking Sue seeks to perpetuate.

  14. Putting off getting surface water for 25 years is essentially doing nothing to improve the water quality of Davis. Why not put it off for 100 years or a thousand. If you are a 61 year old councilmember you are saying not in my lifetime.

    Sue doesn’t want to pay because she is a conservative in liberal clothing. Before everyone passes judgement on the costs they should wait and see the economic analysis. What is the impact that includes Woodland and the University participating?

    Sue doesn’t want to move forward with water projects because water is needed for growth. While I generally disagree with her on growth I find her opposition to water development particularly cynical since the water quality in Davis is so poor that many residents don’t drink the stuff and wish they didn’t need to wash in it either. When you analysze the cost don’t forget to discount the expense people pay to buy drinking water, a local industry unto itself.

    Finally her opposition is seen as somehow progressive but there is nothing progressive about consigning thousands of people to using poor quality water for 25 years. Like those who came before her and didn’t want to pay for Montecello Dam, Sue seeks to supply water on the cheap. The water that we have in Davis today is the result of the same kind of thinking Sue seeks to perpetuate.

  15. Putting off getting surface water for 25 years is essentially doing nothing to improve the water quality of Davis. Why not put it off for 100 years or a thousand. If you are a 61 year old councilmember you are saying not in my lifetime.

    Sue doesn’t want to pay because she is a conservative in liberal clothing. Before everyone passes judgement on the costs they should wait and see the economic analysis. What is the impact that includes Woodland and the University participating?

    Sue doesn’t want to move forward with water projects because water is needed for growth. While I generally disagree with her on growth I find her opposition to water development particularly cynical since the water quality in Davis is so poor that many residents don’t drink the stuff and wish they didn’t need to wash in it either. When you analysze the cost don’t forget to discount the expense people pay to buy drinking water, a local industry unto itself.

    Finally her opposition is seen as somehow progressive but there is nothing progressive about consigning thousands of people to using poor quality water for 25 years. Like those who came before her and didn’t want to pay for Montecello Dam, Sue seeks to supply water on the cheap. The water that we have in Davis today is the result of the same kind of thinking Sue seeks to perpetuate.

  16. Putting off getting surface water for 25 years is essentially doing nothing to improve the water quality of Davis. Why not put it off for 100 years or a thousand. If you are a 61 year old councilmember you are saying not in my lifetime.

    Sue doesn’t want to pay because she is a conservative in liberal clothing. Before everyone passes judgement on the costs they should wait and see the economic analysis. What is the impact that includes Woodland and the University participating?

    Sue doesn’t want to move forward with water projects because water is needed for growth. While I generally disagree with her on growth I find her opposition to water development particularly cynical since the water quality in Davis is so poor that many residents don’t drink the stuff and wish they didn’t need to wash in it either. When you analysze the cost don’t forget to discount the expense people pay to buy drinking water, a local industry unto itself.

    Finally her opposition is seen as somehow progressive but there is nothing progressive about consigning thousands of people to using poor quality water for 25 years. Like those who came before her and didn’t want to pay for Montecello Dam, Sue seeks to supply water on the cheap. The water that we have in Davis today is the result of the same kind of thinking Sue seeks to perpetuate.

  17. Ron… It appears that DPD’s reporting indicated that Sue was pressing the consultants for EXACTLY the information that you say we need to “wait for”.. namely the economic analysis. Further, your argument is diminished by hyperbole. Sue acknowledges that surface water could well be in Davis future. The issue is the timing and burdening the Davis voter with both projects simultaneously.

  18. Ron… It appears that DPD’s reporting indicated that Sue was pressing the consultants for EXACTLY the information that you say we need to “wait for”.. namely the economic analysis. Further, your argument is diminished by hyperbole. Sue acknowledges that surface water could well be in Davis future. The issue is the timing and burdening the Davis voter with both projects simultaneously.

  19. Ron… It appears that DPD’s reporting indicated that Sue was pressing the consultants for EXACTLY the information that you say we need to “wait for”.. namely the economic analysis. Further, your argument is diminished by hyperbole. Sue acknowledges that surface water could well be in Davis future. The issue is the timing and burdening the Davis voter with both projects simultaneously.

  20. Ron… It appears that DPD’s reporting indicated that Sue was pressing the consultants for EXACTLY the information that you say we need to “wait for”.. namely the economic analysis. Further, your argument is diminished by hyperbole. Sue acknowledges that surface water could well be in Davis future. The issue is the timing and burdening the Davis voter with both projects simultaneously.

  21. The two issues are one and the same. Its all about treatment quality of water- what about spending all $450M on a state-of-the-art water purification system and recycling all of the water we currently dump?

    Stop looking at the two issues in isolation!

  22. The two issues are one and the same. Its all about treatment quality of water- what about spending all $450M on a state-of-the-art water purification system and recycling all of the water we currently dump?

    Stop looking at the two issues in isolation!

  23. The two issues are one and the same. Its all about treatment quality of water- what about spending all $450M on a state-of-the-art water purification system and recycling all of the water we currently dump?

    Stop looking at the two issues in isolation!

  24. The two issues are one and the same. Its all about treatment quality of water- what about spending all $450M on a state-of-the-art water purification system and recycling all of the water we currently dump?

    Stop looking at the two issues in isolation!

  25. Guilty of hyperbole on a blog! Call out the thought police. What part was that, the part where I had a tantrum on the dias? Why does Sue get a pass from you for her outrageous loss of decorum while I am diminished by some perceived hyperbole. Could it be your ananymous bias?

  26. Guilty of hyperbole on a blog! Call out the thought police. What part was that, the part where I had a tantrum on the dias? Why does Sue get a pass from you for her outrageous loss of decorum while I am diminished by some perceived hyperbole. Could it be your ananymous bias?

  27. Guilty of hyperbole on a blog! Call out the thought police. What part was that, the part where I had a tantrum on the dias? Why does Sue get a pass from you for her outrageous loss of decorum while I am diminished by some perceived hyperbole. Could it be your ananymous bias?

  28. Guilty of hyperbole on a blog! Call out the thought police. What part was that, the part where I had a tantrum on the dias? Why does Sue get a pass from you for her outrageous loss of decorum while I am diminished by some perceived hyperbole. Could it be your ananymous bias?

  29. Ron:

    In my view, she doesn’t get a pass but I think she was asking legitimate questions of the consultants and was improperly cut off by the Mayor. Do you agree or disagree on this point.

  30. Ron:

    In my view, she doesn’t get a pass but I think she was asking legitimate questions of the consultants and was improperly cut off by the Mayor. Do you agree or disagree on this point.

  31. Ron:

    In my view, she doesn’t get a pass but I think she was asking legitimate questions of the consultants and was improperly cut off by the Mayor. Do you agree or disagree on this point.

  32. Ron:

    In my view, she doesn’t get a pass but I think she was asking legitimate questions of the consultants and was improperly cut off by the Mayor. Do you agree or disagree on this point.

  33. First, you have to understand that we are dealing with. We are about to embark on combined projects water/wastewater
    projects which are likely to cost about half a billion dollars.

    This is figure is unheard of for a city our size, and, if we go forward a planned, we will end up in the textbooks as a case study of municipal mismanagement and fiscal chaos.

    If both surface water and wastewater projects goes forward simultaneously, they will so overburden the ratepayer that it will jeopardize the passage of future school district and city service taxes, and will drive many fixed-income seniors and moderate income families out of Davis. It will substantially increase rental costs.

    The report that we heard last week was meant to be an impartial report that was the last step before going forward. Yet I felt that the report was deeply flawed.

    As David mentioned, I asked tough but respectful questions. The consultant (who seemed like a nice and sincere fellow) was at times avoiding answering the questions directly, was changing the topic, and was making statements at odds with information I had received from top experts in the field and, in my opinion, often at odds with common sense.

    I respectfully tried to keep the consultant on topic, press him to explain how key information was at odds with other expert opinions I had received, and pressed him to explain some of his logic.

    Astonishingly, Ruth Asmundson refused to let me proceed with my questioning, and Saylor and Souza backed her. They simply shut me off.

    This is never done. Every councilmember is allowed to ask questions, each in his/her own style. Editorializing during question period has been the rule, not the exception, with all of the councilmembers.

    When I was mayor, I frequently did not personally like the manner or style that other councilmembers employed during their question and comment time. Yet I never cut them off, because each had a right to their own style and a right to fully explore the issues in the way they saw fit.

    This is the way our democratic system works.

    Yet this week’s case is much more extreme, because we were dealing with the largest fiscal issue the city has ever faced, by an order of magnitude. This report was the final justification for proceeding. I was the only councilmember asking critical questions. And I was completely shut down by Mayor Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor, and councilmember Souza. I was not allowed to ask my questions, and to pursue inconsistencies in the report.

    Regretfully, the council majority made a travesty of the democratic process. It was deeply disturbing.

    My next post will explain my substantive concerns with the report.

  34. First, you have to understand that we are dealing with. We are about to embark on combined projects water/wastewater
    projects which are likely to cost about half a billion dollars.

    This is figure is unheard of for a city our size, and, if we go forward a planned, we will end up in the textbooks as a case study of municipal mismanagement and fiscal chaos.

    If both surface water and wastewater projects goes forward simultaneously, they will so overburden the ratepayer that it will jeopardize the passage of future school district and city service taxes, and will drive many fixed-income seniors and moderate income families out of Davis. It will substantially increase rental costs.

    The report that we heard last week was meant to be an impartial report that was the last step before going forward. Yet I felt that the report was deeply flawed.

    As David mentioned, I asked tough but respectful questions. The consultant (who seemed like a nice and sincere fellow) was at times avoiding answering the questions directly, was changing the topic, and was making statements at odds with information I had received from top experts in the field and, in my opinion, often at odds with common sense.

    I respectfully tried to keep the consultant on topic, press him to explain how key information was at odds with other expert opinions I had received, and pressed him to explain some of his logic.

    Astonishingly, Ruth Asmundson refused to let me proceed with my questioning, and Saylor and Souza backed her. They simply shut me off.

    This is never done. Every councilmember is allowed to ask questions, each in his/her own style. Editorializing during question period has been the rule, not the exception, with all of the councilmembers.

    When I was mayor, I frequently did not personally like the manner or style that other councilmembers employed during their question and comment time. Yet I never cut them off, because each had a right to their own style and a right to fully explore the issues in the way they saw fit.

    This is the way our democratic system works.

    Yet this week’s case is much more extreme, because we were dealing with the largest fiscal issue the city has ever faced, by an order of magnitude. This report was the final justification for proceeding. I was the only councilmember asking critical questions. And I was completely shut down by Mayor Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor, and councilmember Souza. I was not allowed to ask my questions, and to pursue inconsistencies in the report.

    Regretfully, the council majority made a travesty of the democratic process. It was deeply disturbing.

    My next post will explain my substantive concerns with the report.

  35. First, you have to understand that we are dealing with. We are about to embark on combined projects water/wastewater
    projects which are likely to cost about half a billion dollars.

    This is figure is unheard of for a city our size, and, if we go forward a planned, we will end up in the textbooks as a case study of municipal mismanagement and fiscal chaos.

    If both surface water and wastewater projects goes forward simultaneously, they will so overburden the ratepayer that it will jeopardize the passage of future school district and city service taxes, and will drive many fixed-income seniors and moderate income families out of Davis. It will substantially increase rental costs.

    The report that we heard last week was meant to be an impartial report that was the last step before going forward. Yet I felt that the report was deeply flawed.

    As David mentioned, I asked tough but respectful questions. The consultant (who seemed like a nice and sincere fellow) was at times avoiding answering the questions directly, was changing the topic, and was making statements at odds with information I had received from top experts in the field and, in my opinion, often at odds with common sense.

    I respectfully tried to keep the consultant on topic, press him to explain how key information was at odds with other expert opinions I had received, and pressed him to explain some of his logic.

    Astonishingly, Ruth Asmundson refused to let me proceed with my questioning, and Saylor and Souza backed her. They simply shut me off.

    This is never done. Every councilmember is allowed to ask questions, each in his/her own style. Editorializing during question period has been the rule, not the exception, with all of the councilmembers.

    When I was mayor, I frequently did not personally like the manner or style that other councilmembers employed during their question and comment time. Yet I never cut them off, because each had a right to their own style and a right to fully explore the issues in the way they saw fit.

    This is the way our democratic system works.

    Yet this week’s case is much more extreme, because we were dealing with the largest fiscal issue the city has ever faced, by an order of magnitude. This report was the final justification for proceeding. I was the only councilmember asking critical questions. And I was completely shut down by Mayor Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor, and councilmember Souza. I was not allowed to ask my questions, and to pursue inconsistencies in the report.

    Regretfully, the council majority made a travesty of the democratic process. It was deeply disturbing.

    My next post will explain my substantive concerns with the report.

  36. First, you have to understand that we are dealing with. We are about to embark on combined projects water/wastewater
    projects which are likely to cost about half a billion dollars.

    This is figure is unheard of for a city our size, and, if we go forward a planned, we will end up in the textbooks as a case study of municipal mismanagement and fiscal chaos.

    If both surface water and wastewater projects goes forward simultaneously, they will so overburden the ratepayer that it will jeopardize the passage of future school district and city service taxes, and will drive many fixed-income seniors and moderate income families out of Davis. It will substantially increase rental costs.

    The report that we heard last week was meant to be an impartial report that was the last step before going forward. Yet I felt that the report was deeply flawed.

    As David mentioned, I asked tough but respectful questions. The consultant (who seemed like a nice and sincere fellow) was at times avoiding answering the questions directly, was changing the topic, and was making statements at odds with information I had received from top experts in the field and, in my opinion, often at odds with common sense.

    I respectfully tried to keep the consultant on topic, press him to explain how key information was at odds with other expert opinions I had received, and pressed him to explain some of his logic.

    Astonishingly, Ruth Asmundson refused to let me proceed with my questioning, and Saylor and Souza backed her. They simply shut me off.

    This is never done. Every councilmember is allowed to ask questions, each in his/her own style. Editorializing during question period has been the rule, not the exception, with all of the councilmembers.

    When I was mayor, I frequently did not personally like the manner or style that other councilmembers employed during their question and comment time. Yet I never cut them off, because each had a right to their own style and a right to fully explore the issues in the way they saw fit.

    This is the way our democratic system works.

    Yet this week’s case is much more extreme, because we were dealing with the largest fiscal issue the city has ever faced, by an order of magnitude. This report was the final justification for proceeding. I was the only councilmember asking critical questions. And I was completely shut down by Mayor Asmundson, Mayor Pro Tem Saylor, and councilmember Souza. I was not allowed to ask my questions, and to pursue inconsistencies in the report.

    Regretfully, the council majority made a travesty of the democratic process. It was deeply disturbing.

    My next post will explain my substantive concerns with the report.

  37. “Because the council is not afforded their own staff, this is the only far [sic] and equitable way this can work.”

    Uh, then who are all those people that work in City Hall?

  38. “Because the council is not afforded their own staff, this is the only far [sic] and equitable way this can work.”

    Uh, then who are all those people that work in City Hall?

  39. “Because the council is not afforded their own staff, this is the only far [sic] and equitable way this can work.”

    Uh, then who are all those people that work in City Hall?

  40. “Because the council is not afforded their own staff, this is the only far [sic] and equitable way this can work.”

    Uh, then who are all those people that work in City Hall?

  41. “Uh, then who are all those people that work in City Hall?”

    They are staff that serves at the pleasure of the council majority and the entire council, rather than a situation like the board of supervisors, where each member is afforded their own staff who can prepare reports.

  42. “Uh, then who are all those people that work in City Hall?”

    They are staff that serves at the pleasure of the council majority and the entire council, rather than a situation like the board of supervisors, where each member is afforded their own staff who can prepare reports.

  43. “Uh, then who are all those people that work in City Hall?”

    They are staff that serves at the pleasure of the council majority and the entire council, rather than a situation like the board of supervisors, where each member is afforded their own staff who can prepare reports.

  44. “Uh, then who are all those people that work in City Hall?”

    They are staff that serves at the pleasure of the council majority and the entire council, rather than a situation like the board of supervisors, where each member is afforded their own staff who can prepare reports.

  45. as usual with Ron, the issue boils down to his hostility to Sue Greenwald

    he might be better advised to consider whether people in Davis are willing to tolerate the water bills that are going to be required for this project, and insist upon a thorough examination of alternatives

    and, it is about an 80% certainty that the project will cost more than projected, probably substantially more, Boston and Atlanta went through this sort of thing in the 1980s and 1990s, and the costs were outrageous

    Davis has always been known for trivializing serious issues by transforming them into personal disputes and opportunities for venting animosities toward political figures, but, in this instance, the consequences of doing so could be extreme

    but, hey, I live in Sacramento, and don’t have to worry about the possibility of paying $1200 a month for water, and also enjoy paying less for electricity through SMUD, so, by all means, continue with the vitriol if you wish, nothing like this sort of delightful entertainment where the costs will be borne by others

    –Richard Estes

  46. as usual with Ron, the issue boils down to his hostility to Sue Greenwald

    he might be better advised to consider whether people in Davis are willing to tolerate the water bills that are going to be required for this project, and insist upon a thorough examination of alternatives

    and, it is about an 80% certainty that the project will cost more than projected, probably substantially more, Boston and Atlanta went through this sort of thing in the 1980s and 1990s, and the costs were outrageous

    Davis has always been known for trivializing serious issues by transforming them into personal disputes and opportunities for venting animosities toward political figures, but, in this instance, the consequences of doing so could be extreme

    but, hey, I live in Sacramento, and don’t have to worry about the possibility of paying $1200 a month for water, and also enjoy paying less for electricity through SMUD, so, by all means, continue with the vitriol if you wish, nothing like this sort of delightful entertainment where the costs will be borne by others

    –Richard Estes

  47. as usual with Ron, the issue boils down to his hostility to Sue Greenwald

    he might be better advised to consider whether people in Davis are willing to tolerate the water bills that are going to be required for this project, and insist upon a thorough examination of alternatives

    and, it is about an 80% certainty that the project will cost more than projected, probably substantially more, Boston and Atlanta went through this sort of thing in the 1980s and 1990s, and the costs were outrageous

    Davis has always been known for trivializing serious issues by transforming them into personal disputes and opportunities for venting animosities toward political figures, but, in this instance, the consequences of doing so could be extreme

    but, hey, I live in Sacramento, and don’t have to worry about the possibility of paying $1200 a month for water, and also enjoy paying less for electricity through SMUD, so, by all means, continue with the vitriol if you wish, nothing like this sort of delightful entertainment where the costs will be borne by others

    –Richard Estes

  48. as usual with Ron, the issue boils down to his hostility to Sue Greenwald

    he might be better advised to consider whether people in Davis are willing to tolerate the water bills that are going to be required for this project, and insist upon a thorough examination of alternatives

    and, it is about an 80% certainty that the project will cost more than projected, probably substantially more, Boston and Atlanta went through this sort of thing in the 1980s and 1990s, and the costs were outrageous

    Davis has always been known for trivializing serious issues by transforming them into personal disputes and opportunities for venting animosities toward political figures, but, in this instance, the consequences of doing so could be extreme

    but, hey, I live in Sacramento, and don’t have to worry about the possibility of paying $1200 a month for water, and also enjoy paying less for electricity through SMUD, so, by all means, continue with the vitriol if you wish, nothing like this sort of delightful entertainment where the costs will be borne by others

    –Richard Estes

  49. oops, I meant an additional “$1200 per YEAR for water”

    I’m sure that will be very conducive toward ensuring the provision of affordable housing in Davis

    –Richard

  50. oops, I meant an additional “$1200 per YEAR for water”

    I’m sure that will be very conducive toward ensuring the provision of affordable housing in Davis

    –Richard

  51. oops, I meant an additional “$1200 per YEAR for water”

    I’m sure that will be very conducive toward ensuring the provision of affordable housing in Davis

    –Richard

  52. oops, I meant an additional “$1200 per YEAR for water”

    I’m sure that will be very conducive toward ensuring the provision of affordable housing in Davis

    –Richard

  53. ANON 8:12 “This plan is driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme.”

    This is incorrect. Sue and I talked about this specific point a few days ago (actually, she gave me her view on it and it sounded reasonable): developers (and all property owners) will take a dead-weight loss by taking on this burden. They are the most likely to want the surface water project put off.

    The mistake you are making in your analysis is twofold: 1) you are assuming that under current conditions we lack enough ground water to develop peripheral projects. This is not the case. I used to live in Santa Barbara, where water was far more scarce, and that was exactly what was used to prevent development — the fact that there was too little water to build new homes, hotels, etc.; and 2)you are assuming that the surface water project will add more water to our supply. In fact, the idea is to stop drilling for more well water, and hence to replace the well water with surface water, giving us (more-less) the same amount we have now.

  54. ANON 8:12 “This plan is driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme.”

    This is incorrect. Sue and I talked about this specific point a few days ago (actually, she gave me her view on it and it sounded reasonable): developers (and all property owners) will take a dead-weight loss by taking on this burden. They are the most likely to want the surface water project put off.

    The mistake you are making in your analysis is twofold: 1) you are assuming that under current conditions we lack enough ground water to develop peripheral projects. This is not the case. I used to live in Santa Barbara, where water was far more scarce, and that was exactly what was used to prevent development — the fact that there was too little water to build new homes, hotels, etc.; and 2)you are assuming that the surface water project will add more water to our supply. In fact, the idea is to stop drilling for more well water, and hence to replace the well water with surface water, giving us (more-less) the same amount we have now.

  55. ANON 8:12 “This plan is driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme.”

    This is incorrect. Sue and I talked about this specific point a few days ago (actually, she gave me her view on it and it sounded reasonable): developers (and all property owners) will take a dead-weight loss by taking on this burden. They are the most likely to want the surface water project put off.

    The mistake you are making in your analysis is twofold: 1) you are assuming that under current conditions we lack enough ground water to develop peripheral projects. This is not the case. I used to live in Santa Barbara, where water was far more scarce, and that was exactly what was used to prevent development — the fact that there was too little water to build new homes, hotels, etc.; and 2)you are assuming that the surface water project will add more water to our supply. In fact, the idea is to stop drilling for more well water, and hence to replace the well water with surface water, giving us (more-less) the same amount we have now.

  56. ANON 8:12 “This plan is driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme.”

    This is incorrect. Sue and I talked about this specific point a few days ago (actually, she gave me her view on it and it sounded reasonable): developers (and all property owners) will take a dead-weight loss by taking on this burden. They are the most likely to want the surface water project put off.

    The mistake you are making in your analysis is twofold: 1) you are assuming that under current conditions we lack enough ground water to develop peripheral projects. This is not the case. I used to live in Santa Barbara, where water was far more scarce, and that was exactly what was used to prevent development — the fact that there was too little water to build new homes, hotels, etc.; and 2)you are assuming that the surface water project will add more water to our supply. In fact, the idea is to stop drilling for more well water, and hence to replace the well water with surface water, giving us (more-less) the same amount we have now.

  57. Let me amend my comment above: you wrote “… driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme.

    I don’t know of any concrete proof of your second claim. However, it makes logical sense. I wonder if the numbers are not somehow being manipulated behind the scenes by hydrologists, contractors and engineers who will in fact make a bundle of money building this infrastructure. But it must be said, there is no evidence I know of to support this charge, other than logic.

  58. Let me amend my comment above: you wrote “… driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme.

    I don’t know of any concrete proof of your second claim. However, it makes logical sense. I wonder if the numbers are not somehow being manipulated behind the scenes by hydrologists, contractors and engineers who will in fact make a bundle of money building this infrastructure. But it must be said, there is no evidence I know of to support this charge, other than logic.

  59. Let me amend my comment above: you wrote “… driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme.

    I don’t know of any concrete proof of your second claim. However, it makes logical sense. I wonder if the numbers are not somehow being manipulated behind the scenes by hydrologists, contractors and engineers who will in fact make a bundle of money building this infrastructure. But it must be said, there is no evidence I know of to support this charge, other than logic.

  60. Let me amend my comment above: you wrote “… driven by developers and those who profit from this scheme.

    I don’t know of any concrete proof of your second claim. However, it makes logical sense. I wonder if the numbers are not somehow being manipulated behind the scenes by hydrologists, contractors and engineers who will in fact make a bundle of money building this infrastructure. But it must be said, there is no evidence I know of to support this charge, other than logic.

  61. additionally, isn’t the deep aquifer water not replenished, as is the shallow aquifer? i could be remembering this wrong, but it seems to me that going to tapping a non-renewable water source isn’t a great long term plan. surface water, while less predictable from year to year, would at least be renewable.

    the problem with CA is that it’s been developed on a cheap land, cheap oil, cheap water paradigm when none of those things reflect our current reality.

    working to recycle wastewater would be a pretty good addition to this project, though. i’d be for that.

  62. additionally, isn’t the deep aquifer water not replenished, as is the shallow aquifer? i could be remembering this wrong, but it seems to me that going to tapping a non-renewable water source isn’t a great long term plan. surface water, while less predictable from year to year, would at least be renewable.

    the problem with CA is that it’s been developed on a cheap land, cheap oil, cheap water paradigm when none of those things reflect our current reality.

    working to recycle wastewater would be a pretty good addition to this project, though. i’d be for that.

  63. additionally, isn’t the deep aquifer water not replenished, as is the shallow aquifer? i could be remembering this wrong, but it seems to me that going to tapping a non-renewable water source isn’t a great long term plan. surface water, while less predictable from year to year, would at least be renewable.

    the problem with CA is that it’s been developed on a cheap land, cheap oil, cheap water paradigm when none of those things reflect our current reality.

    working to recycle wastewater would be a pretty good addition to this project, though. i’d be for that.

  64. additionally, isn’t the deep aquifer water not replenished, as is the shallow aquifer? i could be remembering this wrong, but it seems to me that going to tapping a non-renewable water source isn’t a great long term plan. surface water, while less predictable from year to year, would at least be renewable.

    the problem with CA is that it’s been developed on a cheap land, cheap oil, cheap water paradigm when none of those things reflect our current reality.

    working to recycle wastewater would be a pretty good addition to this project, though. i’d be for that.

  69. DPD, I have to take issue with part of your article, which contradicts itself. On the one hand, you said it was not that bad that Ruth stopped Sue from asking questions, then argue just the opposite later on.

    That being said, Councilmember Sue Greenwald was forced to become strident – when she was being improperly shut off by the Mayor. Had Sue remained "civil" and polite, 1) how much attention do you think this blatant abuse of process issue would have gotten?; 2)how much more time do you think the Mayor would have given Sue to ask her questions?; 3) how much would you have criticized Sue if she had blithely let the Mayor shut her down, but kept proper decorum?

    There is also another serious issue going on here. I was sitting at this Council meeting, and found it very unsettling. It almost appeared Asmundson and Saylor were acting in concert, as planned. They eerily arose together and unprofessionally left the dais for no valid reason. Then the two re-entered the arena, Ruth deferred to her toady Saylor, who read from a manual on procedure. Saylor read a passage from a tome in front of him, a passage that was completely inapt. He essentially accused Sue of using crude language and that sort of thing, which clearly was not the case.

    Saylor's performance was given in measured reasonable tones, as if he was the calm, cool and collected one. It was an absolutely calculated, callous and cold political maneuver, used as an attempt by two bullies to improperly silence a fellow councilmember.

    To his credit (and I hate to give him any credit), Souza did not join in this side show. When Ruth turned to him to give him a chance to voice his opinions on the consultant report, he actually deferred to Sue, and allowed her to sum up her position. What Souza's motivations were, I cannot say – but it appeared as if he was not going along with Saylor and Asmundson's little ugly denouement.

    I suspect this is only a harbinger of things to come – where the Imelda Marcos of Davis, Mayor Asmundson, is going to try and run roughshod over process, using her henchman Saylor to do her bidding. Already I have seen her give short shrift to not only those making public comment, but to those making presentations.

    As it was heading towards midnight that night, Ruth advised the last presenters to make it short, because she wanted to wrap things up for the night. Her bedtime was more important than the issue at hand! It is clear Herr Asmundson wants to make meetings shorter at all costs, but is making very little headway in doing so, since the meeting did not end until the witching hour (pun intended).

    The Mayor should look to fellow councilmembers and herself for the reason. Meetings drag on because Saylor has to drone on at length on every single point anyone else makes. He never has a thought of his own, but always piggybacks on everyone else's. Asmundson wastes time talking about her trips abroad, as do other council members. The pre-Council love fest they all have talking about their latest personal endeavors, which often wanders into the irrelevant, wastes a good deal more time than the initial Public Comment period!

    Furthermore, Sue is about the only Councilmember that comes prepared. Too often the others ask foolish questions, or questions that should have been asked of staff prior to the meeting. Asmundson herself is one of the worst offenders.

    I was not too happy with Lamar's response to what happened. He should have backed Sue up, not signed off – at the Mayor's baldfaced attempt to close off a fellow councilmember's questioning. And the irony is that even Ruth concluded that to pay for both projects was going to be a huge problem. So I can only conclude that the Mayor's actions were nothing more than payback for that time when Sue was Mayor and Ruth did not have control.

    Let's face it – Ruth thinks that because Saylor and Souza placed first and second in the election, that the A,S&S majority was given a mandate to control the city, and give developers whatever they want. After all, we all know the three are beholden to developer interests.

    So what is really going on here? One suggestion has been that the water project is being driven by developers, who must be able to say a proposed site will have sufficient water. Very plausible explanation. Another one might be that this is also UCD driven. If cost were not an issue, I don't think anyone would disagree it would be nice to have this surface water project become a reality. Who doesn't want more water sources? However, UCD and the City of Davis are going to look at the cost issue differently, because UCD is not going to have to foot the bill for this project. In the case of UCD, since it is a state institution, the state will foot the bill for the cost of the project. That is a huge difference in perspective between the two entities.

    I would suspect Saylor and Asmundson are answering to two constituencies – the develoopers and UCD. What we need to do is make sure they are also answering equally or more so to the citizens of Davis – a group these two seem to pretty much ignore as the "huddled masses of not much significance".

    In case you think I am a Sue Greenwald supporter, think again. Right now I am not sure how I feel about the water project. What I do know is Sue is asking the right questions, and the Council majority, along with Lamar, are not, but essentially just sitting idly by and accepting whatever city staff tells them. I would prefer Sue was a bit less a shrill in her demeanor, but I will take that anyday over outright bullying, no matter how calmly done. This was an orchestrated attempt at making another Councilmember appear unreasonable through unscrupulous means.

    What took place the other night was a violation of basic democratic principles. Saylor and Asmundson were absolutely in the wrong, but they are being allowed to get away with it. I will predict here and now much worse is to come. If there is any way Sue can file a complaint, she should do so.

    One more thing – one has to ask why the Council majority is unwilling for the consultant to speak with the University professor Sue mentioned? What are they afraid of?

  70. DPD, I have to take issue with part of your article, which contradicts itself. On the one hand, you said it was not that bad that Ruth stopped Sue from asking questions, then argue just the opposite later on.

    That being said, Councilmember Sue Greenwald was forced to become strident – when she was being improperly shut off by the Mayor. Had Sue remained "civil" and polite, 1) how much attention do you think this blatant abuse of process issue would have gotten?; 2)how much more time do you think the Mayor would have given Sue to ask her questions?; 3) how much would you have criticized Sue if she had blithely let the Mayor shut her down, but kept proper decorum?

    There is also another serious issue going on here. I was sitting at this Council meeting, and found it very unsettling. It almost appeared Asmundson and Saylor were acting in concert, as planned. They eerily arose together and unprofessionally left the dais for no valid reason. Then the two re-entered the arena, Ruth deferred to her toady Saylor, who read from a manual on procedure. Saylor read a passage from a tome in front of him, a passage that was completely inapt. He essentially accused Sue of using crude language and that sort of thing, which clearly was not the case.

    Saylor's performance was given in measured reasonable tones, as if he was the calm, cool and collected one. It was an absolutely calculated, callous and cold political maneuver, used as an attempt by two bullies to improperly silence a fellow councilmember.

    To his credit (and I hate to give him any credit), Souza did not join in this side show. When Ruth turned to him to give him a chance to voice his opinions on the consultant report, he actually deferred to Sue, and allowed her to sum up her position. What Souza's motivations were, I cannot say – but it appeared as if he was not going along with Saylor and Asmundson's little ugly denouement.

    I suspect this is only a harbinger of things to come – where the Imelda Marcos of Davis, Mayor Asmundson, is going to try and run roughshod over process, using her henchman Saylor to do her bidding. Already I have seen her give short shrift to not only those making public comment, but to those making presentations.

    As it was heading towards midnight that night, Ruth advised the last presenters to make it short, because she wanted to wrap things up for the night. Her bedtime was more important than the issue at hand! It is clear Herr Asmundson wants to make meetings shorter at all costs, but is making very little headway in doing so, since the meeting did not end until the witching hour (pun intended).

    The Mayor should look to fellow councilmembers and herself for the reason. Meetings drag on because Saylor has to drone on at length on every single point anyone else makes. He never has a thought of his own, but always piggybacks on everyone else's. Asmundson wastes time talking about her trips abroad, as do other council members. The pre-Council love fest they all have talking about their latest personal endeavors, which often wanders into the irrelevant, wastes a good deal more time than the initial Public Comment period!

    Furthermore, Sue is about the only Councilmember that comes prepared. Too often the others ask foolish questions, or questions that should have been asked of staff prior to the meeting. Asmundson herself is one of the worst offenders.

    I was not too happy with Lamar's response to what happened. He should have backed Sue up, not signed off – at the Mayor's baldfaced attempt to close off a fellow councilmember's questioning. And the irony is that even Ruth concluded that to pay for both projects was going to be a huge problem. So I can only conclude that the Mayor's actions were nothing more than payback for that time when Sue was Mayor and Ruth did not have control.

    Let's face it – Ruth thinks that because Saylor and Souza placed first and second in the election, that the A,S&S majority was given a mandate to control the city, and give developers whatever they want. After all, we all know the three are beholden to developer interests.

    So what is really going on here? One suggestion has been that the water project is being driven by developers, who must be able to say a proposed site will have sufficient water. Very plausible explanation. Another one might be that this is also UCD driven. If cost were not an issue, I don't think anyone would disagree it would be nice to have this surface water project become a reality. Who doesn't want more water sources? However, UCD and the City of Davis are going to look at the cost issue differently, because UCD is not going to have to foot the bill for this project. In the case of UCD, since it is a state institution, the state will foot the bill for the cost of the project. That is a huge difference in perspective between the two entities.

    I would suspect Saylor and Asmundson are answering to two constituencies – the develoopers and UCD. What we need to do is make sure they are also answering equally or more so to the citizens of Davis – a group these two seem to pretty much ignore as the "huddled masses of not much significance".

    In case you think I am a Sue Greenwald supporter, think again. Right now I am not sure how I feel about the water project. What I do know is Sue is asking the right questions, and the Council majority, along with Lamar, are not, but essentially just sitting idly by and accepting whatever city staff tells them. I would prefer Sue was a bit less a shrill in her demeanor, but I will take that anyday over outright bullying, no matter how calmly done. This was an orchestrated attempt at making another Councilmember appear unreasonable through unscrupulous means.

    What took place the other night was a violation of basic democratic principles. Saylor and Asmundson were absolutely in the wrong, but they are being allowed to get away with it. I will predict here and now much worse is to come. If there is any way Sue can file a complaint, she should do so.

    One more thing – one has to ask why the Council majority is unwilling for the consultant to speak with the University professor Sue mentioned? What are they afraid of?

  71. DPD, I have to take issue with part of your article, which contradicts itself. On the one hand, you said it was not that bad that Ruth stopped Sue from asking questions, then argue just the opposite later on.

    That being said, Councilmember Sue Greenwald was forced to become strident – when she was being improperly shut off by the Mayor. Had Sue remained "civil" and polite, 1) how much attention do you think this blatant abuse of process issue would have gotten?; 2)how much more time do you think the Mayor would have given Sue to ask her questions?; 3) how much would you have criticized Sue if she had blithely let the Mayor shut her down, but kept proper decorum?

    There is also another serious issue going on here. I was sitting at this Council meeting, and found it very unsettling. It almost appeared Asmundson and Saylor were acting in concert, as planned. They eerily arose together and unprofessionally left the dais for no valid reason. Then the two re-entered the arena, Ruth deferred to her toady Saylor, who read from a manual on procedure. Saylor read a passage from a tome in front of him, a passage that was completely inapt. He essentially accused Sue of using crude language and that sort of thing, which clearly was not the case.

    Saylor's performance was given in measured reasonable tones, as if he was the calm, cool and collected one. It was an absolutely calculated, callous and cold political maneuver, used as an attempt by two bullies to improperly silence a fellow councilmember.

    To his credit (and I hate to give him any credit), Souza did not join in this side show. When Ruth turned to him to give him a chance to voice his opinions on the consultant report, he actually deferred to Sue, and allowed her to sum up her position. What Souza's motivations were, I cannot say – but it appeared as if he was not going along with Saylor and Asmundson's little ugly denouement.

    I suspect this is only a harbinger of things to come – where the Imelda Marcos of Davis, Mayor Asmundson, is going to try and run roughshod over process, using her henchman Saylor to do her bidding. Already I have seen her give short shrift to not only those making public comment, but to those making presentations.

    As it was heading towards midnight that night, Ruth advised the last presenters to make it short, because she wanted to wrap things up for the night. Her bedtime was more important than the issue at hand! It is clear Herr Asmundson wants to make meetings shorter at all costs, but is making very little headway in doing so, since the meeting did not end until the witching hour (pun intended).

    The Mayor should look to fellow councilmembers and herself for the reason. Meetings drag on because Saylor has to drone on at length on every single point anyone else makes. He never has a thought of his own, but always piggybacks on everyone else's. Asmundson wastes time talking about her trips abroad, as do other council members. The pre-Council love fest they all have talking about their latest personal endeavors, which often wanders into the irrelevant, wastes a good deal more time than the initial Public Comment period!

    Furthermore, Sue is about the only Councilmember that comes prepared. Too often the others ask foolish questions, or questions that should have been asked of staff prior to the meeting. Asmundson herself is one of the worst offenders.

    I was not too happy with Lamar's response to what happened. He should have backed Sue up, not signed off – at the Mayor's baldfaced attempt to close off a fellow councilmember's questioning. And the irony is that even Ruth concluded that to pay for both projects was going to be a huge problem. So I can only conclude that the Mayor's actions were nothing more than payback for that time when Sue was Mayor and Ruth did not have control.

    Let's face it – Ruth thinks that because Saylor and Souza placed first and second in the election, that the A,S&S majority was given a mandate to control the city, and give developers whatever they want. After all, we all know the three are beholden to developer interests.

    So what is really going on here? One suggestion has been that the water project is being driven by developers, who must be able to say a proposed site will have sufficient water. Very plausible explanation. Another one might be that this is also UCD driven. If cost were not an issue, I don't think anyone would disagree it would be nice to have this surface water project become a reality. Who doesn't want more water sources? However, UCD and the City of Davis are going to look at the cost issue differently, because UCD is not going to have to foot the bill for this project. In the case of UCD, since it is a state institution, the state will foot the bill for the cost of the project. That is a huge difference in perspective between the two entities.

    I would suspect Saylor and Asmundson are answering to two constituencies – the develoopers and UCD. What we need to do is make sure they are also answering equally or more so to the citizens of Davis – a group these two seem to pretty much ignore as the "huddled masses of not much significance".

    In case you think I am a Sue Greenwald supporter, think again. Right now I am not sure how I feel about the water project. What I do know is Sue is asking the right questions, and the Council majority, along with Lamar, are not, but essentially just sitting idly by and accepting whatever city staff tells them. I would prefer Sue was a bit less a shrill in her demeanor, but I will take that anyday over outright bullying, no matter how calmly done. This was an orchestrated attempt at making another Councilmember appear unreasonable through unscrupulous means.

    What took place the other night was a violation of basic democratic principles. Saylor and Asmundson were absolutely in the wrong, but they are being allowed to get away with it. I will predict here and now much worse is to come. If there is any way Sue can file a complaint, she should do so.

    One more thing – one has to ask why the Council majority is unwilling for the consultant to speak with the University professor Sue mentioned? What are they afraid of?

  72. DPD, I have to take issue with part of your article, which contradicts itself. On the one hand, you said it was not that bad that Ruth stopped Sue from asking questions, then argue just the opposite later on.

    That being said, Councilmember Sue Greenwald was forced to become strident – when she was being improperly shut off by the Mayor. Had Sue remained "civil" and polite, 1) how much attention do you think this blatant abuse of process issue would have gotten?; 2)how much more time do you think the Mayor would have given Sue to ask her questions?; 3) how much would you have criticized Sue if she had blithely let the Mayor shut her down, but kept proper decorum?

    There is also another serious issue going on here. I was sitting at this Council meeting, and found it very unsettling. It almost appeared Asmundson and Saylor were acting in concert, as planned. They eerily arose together and unprofessionally left the dais for no valid reason. Then the two re-entered the arena, Ruth deferred to her toady Saylor, who read from a manual on procedure. Saylor read a passage from a tome in front of him, a passage that was completely inapt. He essentially accused Sue of using crude language and that sort of thing, which clearly was not the case.

    Saylor's performance was given in measured reasonable tones, as if he was the calm, cool and collected one. It was an absolutely calculated, callous and cold political maneuver, used as an attempt by two bullies to improperly silence a fellow councilmember.

    To his credit (and I hate to give him any credit), Souza did not join in this side show. When Ruth turned to him to give him a chance to voice his opinions on the consultant report, he actually deferred to Sue, and allowed her to sum up her position. What Souza's motivations were, I cannot say – but it appeared as if he was not going along with Saylor and Asmundson's little ugly denouement.

    I suspect this is only a harbinger of things to come – where the Imelda Marcos of Davis, Mayor Asmundson, is going to try and run roughshod over process, using her henchman Saylor to do her bidding. Already I have seen her give short shrift to not only those making public comment, but to those making presentations.

    As it was heading towards midnight that night, Ruth advised the last presenters to make it short, because she wanted to wrap things up for the night. Her bedtime was more important than the issue at hand! It is clear Herr Asmundson wants to make meetings shorter at all costs, but is making very little headway in doing so, since the meeting did not end until the witching hour (pun intended).

    The Mayor should look to fellow councilmembers and herself for the reason. Meetings drag on because Saylor has to drone on at length on every single point anyone else makes. He never has a thought of his own, but always piggybacks on everyone else's. Asmundson wastes time talking about her trips abroad, as do other council members. The pre-Council love fest they all have talking about their latest personal endeavors, which often wanders into the irrelevant, wastes a good deal more time than the initial Public Comment period!

    Furthermore, Sue is about the only Councilmember that comes prepared. Too often the others ask foolish questions, or questions that should have been asked of staff prior to the meeting. Asmundson herself is one of the worst offenders.

    I was not too happy with Lamar's response to what happened. He should have backed Sue up, not signed off – at the Mayor's baldfaced attempt to close off a fellow councilmember's questioning. And the irony is that even Ruth concluded that to pay for both projects was going to be a huge problem. So I can only conclude that the Mayor's actions were nothing more than payback for that time when Sue was Mayor and Ruth did not have control.

    Let's face it – Ruth thinks that because Saylor and Souza placed first and second in the election, that the A,S&S majority was given a mandate to control the city, and give developers whatever they want. After all, we all know the three are beholden to developer interests.

    So what is really going on here? One suggestion has been that the water project is being driven by developers, who must be able to say a proposed site will have sufficient water. Very plausible explanation. Another one might be that this is also UCD driven. If cost were not an issue, I don't think anyone would disagree it would be nice to have this surface water project become a reality. Who doesn't want more water sources? However, UCD and the City of Davis are going to look at the cost issue differently, because UCD is not going to have to foot the bill for this project. In the case of UCD, since it is a state institution, the state will foot the bill for the cost of the project. That is a huge difference in perspective between the two entities.

    I would suspect Saylor and Asmundson are answering to two constituencies – the develoopers and UCD. What we need to do is make sure they are also answering equally or more so to the citizens of Davis – a group these two seem to pretty much ignore as the "huddled masses of not much significance".

    In case you think I am a Sue Greenwald supporter, think again. Right now I am not sure how I feel about the water project. What I do know is Sue is asking the right questions, and the Council majority, along with Lamar, are not, but essentially just sitting idly by and accepting whatever city staff tells them. I would prefer Sue was a bit less a shrill in her demeanor, but I will take that anyday over outright bullying, no matter how calmly done. This was an orchestrated attempt at making another Councilmember appear unreasonable through unscrupulous means.

    What took place the other night was a violation of basic democratic principles. Saylor and Asmundson were absolutely in the wrong, but they are being allowed to get away with it. I will predict here and now much worse is to come. If there is any way Sue can file a complaint, she should do so.

    One more thing – one has to ask why the Council majority is unwilling for the consultant to speak with the University professor Sue mentioned? What are they afraid of?

  73. Lamar was apparently having trouble hearing the proceedings, he even called me at one point to relay it to city staff. Souza had to explain to Lamar what was going on, clearly indicating he couldn’t hear what was going on.

    There have been a lot of meetings lately in the SB and the CC where members are calling in, it never seems to work that well. It’s difficult to follow and something always seems to go wrong.

  74. Lamar was apparently having trouble hearing the proceedings, he even called me at one point to relay it to city staff. Souza had to explain to Lamar what was going on, clearly indicating he couldn’t hear what was going on.

    There have been a lot of meetings lately in the SB and the CC where members are calling in, it never seems to work that well. It’s difficult to follow and something always seems to go wrong.

  75. Lamar was apparently having trouble hearing the proceedings, he even called me at one point to relay it to city staff. Souza had to explain to Lamar what was going on, clearly indicating he couldn’t hear what was going on.

    There have been a lot of meetings lately in the SB and the CC where members are calling in, it never seems to work that well. It’s difficult to follow and something always seems to go wrong.

  76. Lamar was apparently having trouble hearing the proceedings, he even called me at one point to relay it to city staff. Souza had to explain to Lamar what was going on, clearly indicating he couldn’t hear what was going on.

    There have been a lot of meetings lately in the SB and the CC where members are calling in, it never seems to work that well. It’s difficult to follow and something always seems to go wrong.

  77. Thanks, DPD, for the clarification on Lamar’s “leaving” the meeting. I would say it is time for Lamar and Sue to join forces, and demand the City Council review and discuss process. At least that way the two are on record as not agreeing to this sort of bullying tactic to shut off what the Mayor does not want to hear.

  78. Thanks, DPD, for the clarification on Lamar’s “leaving” the meeting. I would say it is time for Lamar and Sue to join forces, and demand the City Council review and discuss process. At least that way the two are on record as not agreeing to this sort of bullying tactic to shut off what the Mayor does not want to hear.

  79. Thanks, DPD, for the clarification on Lamar’s “leaving” the meeting. I would say it is time for Lamar and Sue to join forces, and demand the City Council review and discuss process. At least that way the two are on record as not agreeing to this sort of bullying tactic to shut off what the Mayor does not want to hear.

  80. Thanks, DPD, for the clarification on Lamar’s “leaving” the meeting. I would say it is time for Lamar and Sue to join forces, and demand the City Council review and discuss process. At least that way the two are on record as not agreeing to this sort of bullying tactic to shut off what the Mayor does not want to hear.

  81. Sue was wrong to start yelling and then to try to ignore the Mayor and continue.

    Her questions were preceded by her own opinions on the issues and started getting repetitive when the presenter did not change his opinion on the need for surface water. The presenter’s answers started repeating themselves primarily because Sue wasn’t asking the right questions. She would give her take on the financial burden and then ask “Did you take ____ into account?” And the presenter answered “Yes, we took that into account.” End of answer. A better question would be something like “Explain how you took financial burden into account.”

    The presenter would give his expert opinion on something, then Sue would counter that she had information from “experts” (Never naming them or citing any specific report) that said exactly the opposite. She seemed to be accusing the presenter of stupidity or laziness or malice…I don’t know for sure.

    It would have been better for Sue to talk to Lamar beforehand and use his help in developing a line of questioning that would help clarify the problems she had with the report and not have it feel like she was debating the presenter. She should have known that she wasn’t going to get the guy to change his report on the spot with her questioning. Maybe they could split up the questions so that it wouldn’t seem like one council member was hogging the time.

    She may have thought that she was “asking the tough questions.” But she makes it tough for people to agree with her when she throws a tantrum, and that’s exactly what it was. She could have allowed other council members to have a chance to ask questions and then politely ask a few more later and then use the discussion between the Council members to voice her concerns about the financial impact on the citizens. Give and take, give and take.

    It is frustrating, because this is a very serious issue in these hard economic times. I personally can’t afford an extra $100 per month.

    The Council should consider changing the way it allows questioning. Maybe allow each council member two questions each and then rotate around until everyone has asked all their questions. Repeating questions already asked by other council members could be prohibited. Giving opinions could be prohibited during this time.

  82. Sue was wrong to start yelling and then to try to ignore the Mayor and continue.

    Her questions were preceded by her own opinions on the issues and started getting repetitive when the presenter did not change his opinion on the need for surface water. The presenter’s answers started repeating themselves primarily because Sue wasn’t asking the right questions. She would give her take on the financial burden and then ask “Did you take ____ into account?” And the presenter answered “Yes, we took that into account.” End of answer. A better question would be something like “Explain how you took financial burden into account.”

    The presenter would give his expert opinion on something, then Sue would counter that she had information from “experts” (Never naming them or citing any specific report) that said exactly the opposite. She seemed to be accusing the presenter of stupidity or laziness or malice…I don’t know for sure.

    It would have been better for Sue to talk to Lamar beforehand and use his help in developing a line of questioning that would help clarify the problems she had with the report and not have it feel like she was debating the presenter. She should have known that she wasn’t going to get the guy to change his report on the spot with her questioning. Maybe they could split up the questions so that it wouldn’t seem like one council member was hogging the time.

    She may have thought that she was “asking the tough questions.” But she makes it tough for people to agree with her when she throws a tantrum, and that’s exactly what it was. She could have allowed other council members to have a chance to ask questions and then politely ask a few more later and then use the discussion between the Council members to voice her concerns about the financial impact on the citizens. Give and take, give and take.

    It is frustrating, because this is a very serious issue in these hard economic times. I personally can’t afford an extra $100 per month.

    The Council should consider changing the way it allows questioning. Maybe allow each council member two questions each and then rotate around until everyone has asked all their questions. Repeating questions already asked by other council members could be prohibited. Giving opinions could be prohibited during this time.

  83. Sue was wrong to start yelling and then to try to ignore the Mayor and continue.

    Her questions were preceded by her own opinions on the issues and started getting repetitive when the presenter did not change his opinion on the need for surface water. The presenter’s answers started repeating themselves primarily because Sue wasn’t asking the right questions. She would give her take on the financial burden and then ask “Did you take ____ into account?” And the presenter answered “Yes, we took that into account.” End of answer. A better question would be something like “Explain how you took financial burden into account.”

    The presenter would give his expert opinion on something, then Sue would counter that she had information from “experts” (Never naming them or citing any specific report) that said exactly the opposite. She seemed to be accusing the presenter of stupidity or laziness or malice…I don’t know for sure.

    It would have been better for Sue to talk to Lamar beforehand and use his help in developing a line of questioning that would help clarify the problems she had with the report and not have it feel like she was debating the presenter. She should have known that she wasn’t going to get the guy to change his report on the spot with her questioning. Maybe they could split up the questions so that it wouldn’t seem like one council member was hogging the time.

    She may have thought that she was “asking the tough questions.” But she makes it tough for people to agree with her when she throws a tantrum, and that’s exactly what it was. She could have allowed other council members to have a chance to ask questions and then politely ask a few more later and then use the discussion between the Council members to voice her concerns about the financial impact on the citizens. Give and take, give and take.

    It is frustrating, because this is a very serious issue in these hard economic times. I personally can’t afford an extra $100 per month.

    The Council should consider changing the way it allows questioning. Maybe allow each council member two questions each and then rotate around until everyone has asked all their questions. Repeating questions already asked by other council members could be prohibited. Giving opinions could be prohibited during this time.

  84. Sue was wrong to start yelling and then to try to ignore the Mayor and continue.

    Her questions were preceded by her own opinions on the issues and started getting repetitive when the presenter did not change his opinion on the need for surface water. The presenter’s answers started repeating themselves primarily because Sue wasn’t asking the right questions. She would give her take on the financial burden and then ask “Did you take ____ into account?” And the presenter answered “Yes, we took that into account.” End of answer. A better question would be something like “Explain how you took financial burden into account.”

    The presenter would give his expert opinion on something, then Sue would counter that she had information from “experts” (Never naming them or citing any specific report) that said exactly the opposite. She seemed to be accusing the presenter of stupidity or laziness or malice…I don’t know for sure.

    It would have been better for Sue to talk to Lamar beforehand and use his help in developing a line of questioning that would help clarify the problems she had with the report and not have it feel like she was debating the presenter. She should have known that she wasn’t going to get the guy to change his report on the spot with her questioning. Maybe they could split up the questions so that it wouldn’t seem like one council member was hogging the time.

    She may have thought that she was “asking the tough questions.” But she makes it tough for people to agree with her when she throws a tantrum, and that’s exactly what it was. She could have allowed other council members to have a chance to ask questions and then politely ask a few more later and then use the discussion between the Council members to voice her concerns about the financial impact on the citizens. Give and take, give and take.

    It is frustrating, because this is a very serious issue in these hard economic times. I personally can’t afford an extra $100 per month.

    The Council should consider changing the way it allows questioning. Maybe allow each council member two questions each and then rotate around until everyone has asked all their questions. Repeating questions already asked by other council members could be prohibited. Giving opinions could be prohibited during this time.

  85. (Please excuse the typos and grammatical errors; I wish I had time to proofread these posts, but I don’t.)

    I started off my questioning by asking the consultant how the report came to its stated conclusion that “capital cost savings would be (only) moderate” if we postponed the surface water project for 25 or 30 years until we pay off our $250 million wastewater treatment plant. How can the savings of postponing $250 million of a half billion dollar project be considered “moderate”? I asked the consultant what assumptions they were making, what calculations, and really, what they meant. He answered that he didn’t know; he wasn’t involved in that.

    Then I started asking questions concerning the 6 reasons the report gave for coming to the conclusion that it would be infeasible to postpone the $250 million surface water project untilthe $250 million wastewater project was paid off. Shortly into this, my questioning was abruptly terminated by Asmundson, Saylor and Souza. (Yes, Souza could have voted with me and Lamar to allow me to continue, but he didn’t.)

    So here are the 6 reasons given in the report for proceeding immediately with the surface water project, followd by my concerns about their validity.

    Perhaps, if I had been allowed finish my questions, the consultant might have been able to offer some new information or insight or logical argument that would have convinced me that my prior information and understandings should be revised (although, from the first few answers I reviewed before I was shut off,it seems unlikely).

    So here goes:

    1) Report: If we don’t proceed now, we could lose pending water rights and have trouble getting them in the future.

    Other top experts in the field: There has always been a commitment by the state to give water rights to cities in the basin, and this is not likely to change in the future. Such water right fears are common, but greatly exaggerated. Further, we could continue to pursue water rights now, and ask for a deferral for using them due to our unusually large wastewater treatment plant costs.

    (According to one professional, our proposed wastewater treatment plant costs are the highest in Nothern California, for a city of any size.

    2) Report: Since Sacramento River water is usually unavailable in the summer, we will have to purchase water for summer use. The report says that it will be more expensive and more difficult to buy water contracts in the future.

    Common sense: This is an essentially issue of commodities futures. We have no idea whether water will be more expensive in the future than now.

    Commodities futures are notoriously volatile. The state didn’t do too well when it played that game a few years ago. To look at it another way: If we had some supernatural knowledge that water would be more expensive in the future, we could just buy water contracts now and pay for the project 20 years with the proceeds from our water futures profits. (I am being sarcastic here in order to illustrate the flawed logic in the report).

    3) Report: It will cost more money to build the project later.

    Common economic knowledge: Astonishingly, the report included a chart showing non-inflation adjusted construction costs. There is no reason to assume that 25 years from now, inflation-adjusted construction costs will be higher than they are today. In fact, if anything, this could be a relatively expensive time to build in historical terms, since steel and other building materials have not kept up with the super-heated growth of China and India. More plants and factories will be built, and building materials could well come down in price. Remember when everyone thought housing would keep going up in price? Further, the time value of money is not taken into account.

    4) Report: We will probably fail to meet wastewater discharge requirements if we postpone the surface water project.

    Other experts: This is not likely to be a problem. Since there is no practical solution to the TDS problem, the state has not been requiring extraordinary measures to meet them in this region. Even in the case of Manteca, the state overturned the regional board’s requirements on appeal. We can show progress by phasing in a type of water softener that doesn’t discharge salt.

    5) Report: Drinking water quality will continue to be marginal and threatened.

    (This reason, which was the bolded topic heading, verges on the dishonest, since it implies health problem when none exist, and since the discussion goes on to discuss staining of laundry and calcium build-up on faucets.)

    Other experts: Our deep water aquifer water is safe and healthy. Some people feel safer drinking ground water; some feel safer drinking river water.

    Personally, if it we were not facing a financial train wreck, I would prefer softer water because of issues with cleaning the bathtub, but not enough go out and get a water softener.

    6) Report: If the project is postponed, we will waste some of the money we spent preparing the CEQA documents.

    Common sense: I am not kidding, this one of the 6 reasons. The city is facing a fiscal train-wreck, and report say that we should proceed with the project because we will lose perhaps a quarter of one percent of the cost of the project represented by parts of the CEQA document? I can see why Mayor Asmundson and Don Saylor did not want me to get all the way down to this question.

  86. (Please excuse the typos and grammatical errors; I wish I had time to proofread these posts, but I don’t.)

    I started off my questioning by asking the consultant how the report came to its stated conclusion that “capital cost savings would be (only) moderate” if we postponed the surface water project for 25 or 30 years until we pay off our $250 million wastewater treatment plant. How can the savings of postponing $250 million of a half billion dollar project be considered “moderate”? I asked the consultant what assumptions they were making, what calculations, and really, what they meant. He answered that he didn’t know; he wasn’t involved in that.

    Then I started asking questions concerning the 6 reasons the report gave for coming to the conclusion that it would be infeasible to postpone the $250 million surface water project untilthe $250 million wastewater project was paid off. Shortly into this, my questioning was abruptly terminated by Asmundson, Saylor and Souza. (Yes, Souza could have voted with me and Lamar to allow me to continue, but he didn’t.)

    So here are the 6 reasons given in the report for proceeding immediately with the surface water project, followd by my concerns about their validity.

    Perhaps, if I had been allowed finish my questions, the consultant might have been able to offer some new information or insight or logical argument that would have convinced me that my prior information and understandings should be revised (although, from the first few answers I reviewed before I was shut off,it seems unlikely).

    So here goes:

    1) Report: If we don’t proceed now, we could lose pending water rights and have trouble getting them in the future.

    Other top experts in the field: There has always been a commitment by the state to give water rights to cities in the basin, and this is not likely to change in the future. Such water right fears are common, but greatly exaggerated. Further, we could continue to pursue water rights now, and ask for a deferral for using them due to our unusually large wastewater treatment plant costs.

    (According to one professional, our proposed wastewater treatment plant costs are the highest in Nothern California, for a city of any size.

    2) Report: Since Sacramento River water is usually unavailable in the summer, we will have to purchase water for summer use. The report says that it will be more expensive and more difficult to buy water contracts in the future.

    Common sense: This is an essentially issue of commodities futures. We have no idea whether water will be more expensive in the future than now.

    Commodities futures are notoriously volatile. The state didn’t do too well when it played that game a few years ago. To look at it another way: If we had some supernatural knowledge that water would be more expensive in the future, we could just buy water contracts now and pay for the project 20 years with the proceeds from our water futures profits. (I am being sarcastic here in order to illustrate the flawed logic in the report).

    3) Report: It will cost more money to build the project later.

    Common economic knowledge: Astonishingly, the report included a chart showing non-inflation adjusted construction costs. There is no reason to assume that 25 years from now, inflation-adjusted construction costs will be higher than they are today. In fact, if anything, this could be a relatively expensive time to build in historical terms, since steel and other building materials have not kept up with the super-heated growth of China and India. More plants and factories will be built, and building materials could well come down in price. Remember when everyone thought housing would keep going up in price? Further, the time value of money is not taken into account.

    4) Report: We will probably fail to meet wastewater discharge requirements if we postpone the surface water project.

    Other experts: This is not likely to be a problem. Since there is no practical solution to the TDS problem, the state has not been requiring extraordinary measures to meet them in this region. Even in the case of Manteca, the state overturned the regional board’s requirements on appeal. We can show progress by phasing in a type of water softener that doesn’t discharge salt.

    5) Report: Drinking water quality will continue to be marginal and threatened.

    (This reason, which was the bolded topic heading, verges on the dishonest, since it implies health problem when none exist, and since the discussion goes on to discuss staining of laundry and calcium build-up on faucets.)

    Other experts: Our deep water aquifer water is safe and healthy. Some people feel safer drinking ground water; some feel safer drinking river water.

    Personally, if it we were not facing a financial train wreck, I would prefer softer water because of issues with cleaning the bathtub, but not enough go out and get a water softener.

    6) Report: If the project is postponed, we will waste some of the money we spent preparing the CEQA documents.

    Common sense: I am not kidding, this one of the 6 reasons. The city is facing a fiscal train-wreck, and report say that we should proceed with the project because we will lose perhaps a quarter of one percent of the cost of the project represented by parts of the CEQA document? I can see why Mayor Asmundson and Don Saylor did not want me to get all the way down to this question.

  87. (Please excuse the typos and grammatical errors; I wish I had time to proofread these posts, but I don’t.)

    I started off my questioning by asking the consultant how the report came to its stated conclusion that “capital cost savings would be (only) moderate” if we postponed the surface water project for 25 or 30 years until we pay off our $250 million wastewater treatment plant. How can the savings of postponing $250 million of a half billion dollar project be considered “moderate”? I asked the consultant what assumptions they were making, what calculations, and really, what they meant. He answered that he didn’t know; he wasn’t involved in that.

    Then I started asking questions concerning the 6 reasons the report gave for coming to the conclusion that it would be infeasible to postpone the $250 million surface water project untilthe $250 million wastewater project was paid off. Shortly into this, my questioning was abruptly terminated by Asmundson, Saylor and Souza. (Yes, Souza could have voted with me and Lamar to allow me to continue, but he didn’t.)

    So here are the 6 reasons given in the report for proceeding immediately with the surface water project, followd by my concerns about their validity.

    Perhaps, if I had been allowed finish my questions, the consultant might have been able to offer some new information or insight or logical argument that would have convinced me that my prior information and understandings should be revised (although, from the first few answers I reviewed before I was shut off,it seems unlikely).

    So here goes:

    1) Report: If we don’t proceed now, we could lose pending water rights and have trouble getting them in the future.

    Other top experts in the field: There has always been a commitment by the state to give water rights to cities in the basin, and this is not likely to change in the future. Such water right fears are common, but greatly exaggerated. Further, we could continue to pursue water rights now, and ask for a deferral for using them due to our unusually large wastewater treatment plant costs.

    (According to one professional, our proposed wastewater treatment plant costs are the highest in Nothern California, for a city of any size.

    2) Report: Since Sacramento River water is usually unavailable in the summer, we will have to purchase water for summer use. The report says that it will be more expensive and more difficult to buy water contracts in the future.

    Common sense: This is an essentially issue of commodities futures. We have no idea whether water will be more expensive in the future than now.

    Commodities futures are notoriously volatile. The state didn’t do too well when it played that game a few years ago. To look at it another way: If we had some supernatural knowledge that water would be more expensive in the future, we could just buy water contracts now and pay for the project 20 years with the proceeds from our water futures profits. (I am being sarcastic here in order to illustrate the flawed logic in the report).

    3) Report: It will cost more money to build the project later.

    Common economic knowledge: Astonishingly, the report included a chart showing non-inflation adjusted construction costs. There is no reason to assume that 25 years from now, inflation-adjusted construction costs will be higher than they are today. In fact, if anything, this could be a relatively expensive time to build in historical terms, since steel and other building materials have not kept up with the super-heated growth of China and India. More plants and factories will be built, and building materials could well come down in price. Remember when everyone thought housing would keep going up in price? Further, the time value of money is not taken into account.

    4) Report: We will probably fail to meet wastewater discharge requirements if we postpone the surface water project.

    Other experts: This is not likely to be a problem. Since there is no practical solution to the TDS problem, the state has not been requiring extraordinary measures to meet them in this region. Even in the case of Manteca, the state overturned the regional board’s requirements on appeal. We can show progress by phasing in a type of water softener that doesn’t discharge salt.

    5) Report: Drinking water quality will continue to be marginal and threatened.

    (This reason, which was the bolded topic heading, verges on the dishonest, since it implies health problem when none exist, and since the discussion goes on to discuss staining of laundry and calcium build-up on faucets.)

    Other experts: Our deep water aquifer water is safe and healthy. Some people feel safer drinking ground water; some feel safer drinking river water.

    Personally, if it we were not facing a financial train wreck, I would prefer softer water because of issues with cleaning the bathtub, but not enough go out and get a water softener.

    6) Report: If the project is postponed, we will waste some of the money we spent preparing the CEQA documents.

    Common sense: I am not kidding, this one of the 6 reasons. The city is facing a fiscal train-wreck, and report say that we should proceed with the project because we will lose perhaps a quarter of one percent of the cost of the project represented by parts of the CEQA document? I can see why Mayor Asmundson and Don Saylor did not want me to get all the way down to this question.

  88. (Please excuse the typos and grammatical errors; I wish I had time to proofread these posts, but I don’t.)

    I started off my questioning by asking the consultant how the report came to its stated conclusion that “capital cost savings would be (only) moderate” if we postponed the surface water project for 25 or 30 years until we pay off our $250 million wastewater treatment plant. How can the savings of postponing $250 million of a half billion dollar project be considered “moderate”? I asked the consultant what assumptions they were making, what calculations, and really, what they meant. He answered that he didn’t know; he wasn’t involved in that.

    Then I started asking questions concerning the 6 reasons the report gave for coming to the conclusion that it would be infeasible to postpone the $250 million surface water project untilthe $250 million wastewater project was paid off. Shortly into this, my questioning was abruptly terminated by Asmundson, Saylor and Souza. (Yes, Souza could have voted with me and Lamar to allow me to continue, but he didn’t.)

    So here are the 6 reasons given in the report for proceeding immediately with the surface water project, followd by my concerns about their validity.

    Perhaps, if I had been allowed finish my questions, the consultant might have been able to offer some new information or insight or logical argument that would have convinced me that my prior information and understandings should be revised (although, from the first few answers I reviewed before I was shut off,it seems unlikely).

    So here goes:

    1) Report: If we don’t proceed now, we could lose pending water rights and have trouble getting them in the future.

    Other top experts in the field: There has always been a commitment by the state to give water rights to cities in the basin, and this is not likely to change in the future. Such water right fears are common, but greatly exaggerated. Further, we could continue to pursue water rights now, and ask for a deferral for using them due to our unusually large wastewater treatment plant costs.

    (According to one professional, our proposed wastewater treatment plant costs are the highest in Nothern California, for a city of any size.

    2) Report: Since Sacramento River water is usually unavailable in the summer, we will have to purchase water for summer use. The report says that it will be more expensive and more difficult to buy water contracts in the future.

    Common sense: This is an essentially issue of commodities futures. We have no idea whether water will be more expensive in the future than now.

    Commodities futures are notoriously volatile. The state didn’t do too well when it played that game a few years ago. To look at it another way: If we had some supernatural knowledge that water would be more expensive in the future, we could just buy water contracts now and pay for the project 20 years with the proceeds from our water futures profits. (I am being sarcastic here in order to illustrate the flawed logic in the report).

    3) Report: It will cost more money to build the project later.

    Common economic knowledge: Astonishingly, the report included a chart showing non-inflation adjusted construction costs. There is no reason to assume that 25 years from now, inflation-adjusted construction costs will be higher than they are today. In fact, if anything, this could be a relatively expensive time to build in historical terms, since steel and other building materials have not kept up with the super-heated growth of China and India. More plants and factories will be built, and building materials could well come down in price. Remember when everyone thought housing would keep going up in price? Further, the time value of money is not taken into account.

    4) Report: We will probably fail to meet wastewater discharge requirements if we postpone the surface water project.

    Other experts: This is not likely to be a problem. Since there is no practical solution to the TDS problem, the state has not been requiring extraordinary measures to meet them in this region. Even in the case of Manteca, the state overturned the regional board’s requirements on appeal. We can show progress by phasing in a type of water softener that doesn’t discharge salt.

    5) Report: Drinking water quality will continue to be marginal and threatened.

    (This reason, which was the bolded topic heading, verges on the dishonest, since it implies health problem when none exist, and since the discussion goes on to discuss staining of laundry and calcium build-up on faucets.)

    Other experts: Our deep water aquifer water is safe and healthy. Some people feel safer drinking ground water; some feel safer drinking river water.

    Personally, if it we were not facing a financial train wreck, I would prefer softer water because of issues with cleaning the bathtub, but not enough go out and get a water softener.

    6) Report: If the project is postponed, we will waste some of the money we spent preparing the CEQA documents.

    Common sense: I am not kidding, this one of the 6 reasons. The city is facing a fiscal train-wreck, and report say that we should proceed with the project because we will lose perhaps a quarter of one percent of the cost of the project represented by parts of the CEQA document? I can see why Mayor Asmundson and Don Saylor did not want me to get all the way down to this question.

  93. “Perhaps, if I had been allowed finish my questions, the consultant might have been able to offer some new information or insight or logical argument that would have convinced me that my prior information and understandings should be revised (although, from the first few answers I reviewed before I was shut off,it seems unlikely).”

    What’s the point of questioning him further then?

  94. “Perhaps, if I had been allowed finish my questions, the consultant might have been able to offer some new information or insight or logical argument that would have convinced me that my prior information and understandings should be revised (although, from the first few answers I reviewed before I was shut off,it seems unlikely).”

    What’s the point of questioning him further then?

  95. “Perhaps, if I had been allowed finish my questions, the consultant might have been able to offer some new information or insight or logical argument that would have convinced me that my prior information and understandings should be revised (although, from the first few answers I reviewed before I was shut off,it seems unlikely).”

    What’s the point of questioning him further then?

  96. “Perhaps, if I had been allowed finish my questions, the consultant might have been able to offer some new information or insight or logical argument that would have convinced me that my prior information and understandings should be revised (although, from the first few answers I reviewed before I was shut off,it seems unlikely).”

    What’s the point of questioning him further then?

  97. I have made numerous motions, which are on video, suggesting that we invite certain specifically named, internationally respected experts to oversee an independent study administered from the City Manager’s office, rather than Public Works.

    These motions always were voted down by Saylor, Souza and Asmundson.

    One of these experts was independently brought up as an authority by the consult at last week’s meeting, and I again, at the meeting, suggested that we ask for this expert’s help in analyzing the costs vs. the benefits of proceeding with simultaneously with the megaprojects.

    I am certainly not going to drag the names of internationally respected experts into this blog discussion.

    If we want their help, we have to formally ask for it through proper channels.

  98. I have made numerous motions, which are on video, suggesting that we invite certain specifically named, internationally respected experts to oversee an independent study administered from the City Manager’s office, rather than Public Works.

    These motions always were voted down by Saylor, Souza and Asmundson.

    One of these experts was independently brought up as an authority by the consult at last week’s meeting, and I again, at the meeting, suggested that we ask for this expert’s help in analyzing the costs vs. the benefits of proceeding with simultaneously with the megaprojects.

    I am certainly not going to drag the names of internationally respected experts into this blog discussion.

    If we want their help, we have to formally ask for it through proper channels.

  99. I have made numerous motions, which are on video, suggesting that we invite certain specifically named, internationally respected experts to oversee an independent study administered from the City Manager’s office, rather than Public Works.

    These motions always were voted down by Saylor, Souza and Asmundson.

    One of these experts was independently brought up as an authority by the consult at last week’s meeting, and I again, at the meeting, suggested that we ask for this expert’s help in analyzing the costs vs. the benefits of proceeding with simultaneously with the megaprojects.

    I am certainly not going to drag the names of internationally respected experts into this blog discussion.

    If we want their help, we have to formally ask for it through proper channels.

  100. I have made numerous motions, which are on video, suggesting that we invite certain specifically named, internationally respected experts to oversee an independent study administered from the City Manager’s office, rather than Public Works.

    These motions always were voted down by Saylor, Souza and Asmundson.

    One of these experts was independently brought up as an authority by the consult at last week’s meeting, and I again, at the meeting, suggested that we ask for this expert’s help in analyzing the costs vs. the benefits of proceeding with simultaneously with the megaprojects.

    I am certainly not going to drag the names of internationally respected experts into this blog discussion.

    If we want their help, we have to formally ask for it through proper channels.

  101. I disagree that these two issues (surface water project and WWTP upgrades) are one issue. We are required to upgrade our WWTP plant to meet state regulations for discharge. We do not have to import surface water to accomplish that. Part of upgrade the WWTP will be to reduce the TDS we now discharge.

    I also take exception with the assumption that river water is cleaner than our ground water. (Personally, I have been drinking Davis water for 46 years with no harmful effects, and it tastes just fine to me.) River water is very polluted with pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals, hormones, and on and on. Many of the pollutants in river water have no standards for clean up and we do not currently have the technology for removing many of them from the water.

    We do not have to bring in river water now. We have plenty of water in the aquifer to accommodate us. The deep aquifer does recharge, but more slowly than the intermediate. If we think we have such a problem with our groundwater, why isn’t the city looking at well-head treatment ? They have been asked for years to do a analysis of what that would cost versus the cost of importing the river water, yet they have not done it. They simply state that it would be too expensive. More than $250 million? I doubt it. And the $250 million is only to implement the project. There will be future maintenance, repair and operation costs. What are those? The city has well-head treatment currently on well 29 in Mace Ranch. What did that cost?

    River water is not necessarily renewable. With the problems with climate change, we are seeing smaller snow packs and are looking at less rainfall, so less water for the rivers. Plus, there are already so many diversions from the Sacramento River system now that the delta is in trouble, and we are talking once again about a peripheral canal to carry even more water south.

    Bottom line for me is that we cannot afford this river project now. Half a billion dollars is just too much.

  102. I disagree that these two issues (surface water project and WWTP upgrades) are one issue. We are required to upgrade our WWTP plant to meet state regulations for discharge. We do not have to import surface water to accomplish that. Part of upgrade the WWTP will be to reduce the TDS we now discharge.

    I also take exception with the assumption that river water is cleaner than our ground water. (Personally, I have been drinking Davis water for 46 years with no harmful effects, and it tastes just fine to me.) River water is very polluted with pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals, hormones, and on and on. Many of the pollutants in river water have no standards for clean up and we do not currently have the technology for removing many of them from the water.

    We do not have to bring in river water now. We have plenty of water in the aquifer to accommodate us. The deep aquifer does recharge, but more slowly than the intermediate. If we think we have such a problem with our groundwater, why isn’t the city looking at well-head treatment ? They have been asked for years to do a analysis of what that would cost versus the cost of importing the river water, yet they have not done it. They simply state that it would be too expensive. More than $250 million? I doubt it. And the $250 million is only to implement the project. There will be future maintenance, repair and operation costs. What are those? The city has well-head treatment currently on well 29 in Mace Ranch. What did that cost?

    River water is not necessarily renewable. With the problems with climate change, we are seeing smaller snow packs and are looking at less rainfall, so less water for the rivers. Plus, there are already so many diversions from the Sacramento River system now that the delta is in trouble, and we are talking once again about a peripheral canal to carry even more water south.

    Bottom line for me is that we cannot afford this river project now. Half a billion dollars is just too much.

  103. I disagree that these two issues (surface water project and WWTP upgrades) are one issue. We are required to upgrade our WWTP plant to meet state regulations for discharge. We do not have to import surface water to accomplish that. Part of upgrade the WWTP will be to reduce the TDS we now discharge.

    I also take exception with the assumption that river water is cleaner than our ground water. (Personally, I have been drinking Davis water for 46 years with no harmful effects, and it tastes just fine to me.) River water is very polluted with pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals, hormones, and on and on. Many of the pollutants in river water have no standards for clean up and we do not currently have the technology for removing many of them from the water.

    We do not have to bring in river water now. We have plenty of water in the aquifer to accommodate us. The deep aquifer does recharge, but more slowly than the intermediate. If we think we have such a problem with our groundwater, why isn’t the city looking at well-head treatment ? They have been asked for years to do a analysis of what that would cost versus the cost of importing the river water, yet they have not done it. They simply state that it would be too expensive. More than $250 million? I doubt it. And the $250 million is only to implement the project. There will be future maintenance, repair and operation costs. What are those? The city has well-head treatment currently on well 29 in Mace Ranch. What did that cost?

    River water is not necessarily renewable. With the problems with climate change, we are seeing smaller snow packs and are looking at less rainfall, so less water for the rivers. Plus, there are already so many diversions from the Sacramento River system now that the delta is in trouble, and we are talking once again about a peripheral canal to carry even more water south.

    Bottom line for me is that we cannot afford this river project now. Half a billion dollars is just too much.

  104. I disagree that these two issues (surface water project and WWTP upgrades) are one issue. We are required to upgrade our WWTP plant to meet state regulations for discharge. We do not have to import surface water to accomplish that. Part of upgrade the WWTP will be to reduce the TDS we now discharge.

    I also take exception with the assumption that river water is cleaner than our ground water. (Personally, I have been drinking Davis water for 46 years with no harmful effects, and it tastes just fine to me.) River water is very polluted with pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals, hormones, and on and on. Many of the pollutants in river water have no standards for clean up and we do not currently have the technology for removing many of them from the water.

    We do not have to bring in river water now. We have plenty of water in the aquifer to accommodate us. The deep aquifer does recharge, but more slowly than the intermediate. If we think we have such a problem with our groundwater, why isn’t the city looking at well-head treatment ? They have been asked for years to do a analysis of what that would cost versus the cost of importing the river water, yet they have not done it. They simply state that it would be too expensive. More than $250 million? I doubt it. And the $250 million is only to implement the project. There will be future maintenance, repair and operation costs. What are those? The city has well-head treatment currently on well 29 in Mace Ranch. What did that cost?

    River water is not necessarily renewable. With the problems with climate change, we are seeing smaller snow packs and are looking at less rainfall, so less water for the rivers. Plus, there are already so many diversions from the Sacramento River system now that the delta is in trouble, and we are talking once again about a peripheral canal to carry even more water south.

    Bottom line for me is that we cannot afford this river project now. Half a billion dollars is just too much.

  105. Richard as you know I have long been unsatisfied with the water quality in Davis. As a result I am in favor of bringing in better water supplies. I believe that the water quality in Davis is the worst of any place I have ever lived including Los Angeles. For me that is the central issue.

    While Sue claims she is concerned about the cost in her remarks she also spoke about water fostering development. I have become skeptical about cost when dealing with the council. Saylor opposes West Village annexation because of cost but is not concerned about the cost of water development. Sue opposes new water supplies because of cost but favors annexation of West Village because of the costs to the university being lower through annexation. Now the only consistancy is that these positions support their opposing philosophies on growth and development. I find them both to be disengenuous about their motives.

    DPD,

    I too was sitting right there. Sue was asking some good questions but the group didn’t look at the costs Sue wanted to look at and said so.

    Someone on here said Sue was prepared. As a public figure she didn’t seem well prepared. She was stammering almost incoherently and at times it seemed like she couldn’t find the words to formulate a decent sentence. She seemed to go on with her questioning to the point where it felt like she should have let someone else have an opportunity to ask something. She might have tried a polite request that she be given more time to ask the rest of her questions after the others and used that time to collect her thoughts. By acting out the way she did it was a disservice to her cause. Ruth did what any presiding officer would do in the face of such belligerence she put the meeting in recess. As I remember it she called the recess then her and Don got up.

    If Sue had played it the way I suggest instead of losing it the arguments about Ruth’s so called heavy handedness would have been revealed for all to see if she didn’t allow for Sue to finish. Instead Ruth looks reasonable and Sue does not. Ruth’s complaint was that Sue was debating instead of asking questions. Sue could have acknowledged what the mayor’s concern was and adapted instead of having a tantrum in front of everyone in the chambers and those watching on TV.

  106. Richard as you know I have long been unsatisfied with the water quality in Davis. As a result I am in favor of bringing in better water supplies. I believe that the water quality in Davis is the worst of any place I have ever lived including Los Angeles. For me that is the central issue.

    While Sue claims she is concerned about the cost in her remarks she also spoke about water fostering development. I have become skeptical about cost when dealing with the council. Saylor opposes West Village annexation because of cost but is not concerned about the cost of water development. Sue opposes new water supplies because of cost but favors annexation of West Village because of the costs to the university being lower through annexation. Now the only consistancy is that these positions support their opposing philosophies on growth and development. I find them both to be disengenuous about their motives.

    DPD,

    I too was sitting right there. Sue was asking some good questions but the group didn’t look at the costs Sue wanted to look at and said so.

    Someone on here said Sue was prepared. As a public figure she didn’t seem well prepared. She was stammering almost incoherently and at times it seemed like she couldn’t find the words to formulate a decent sentence. She seemed to go on with her questioning to the point where it felt like she should have let someone else have an opportunity to ask something. She might have tried a polite request that she be given more time to ask the rest of her questions after the others and used that time to collect her thoughts. By acting out the way she did it was a disservice to her cause. Ruth did what any presiding officer would do in the face of such belligerence she put the meeting in recess. As I remember it she called the recess then her and Don got up.

    If Sue had played it the way I suggest instead of losing it the arguments about Ruth’s so called heavy handedness would have been revealed for all to see if she didn’t allow for Sue to finish. Instead Ruth looks reasonable and Sue does not. Ruth’s complaint was that Sue was debating instead of asking questions. Sue could have acknowledged what the mayor’s concern was and adapted instead of having a tantrum in front of everyone in the chambers and those watching on TV.

  107. Richard as you know I have long been unsatisfied with the water quality in Davis. As a result I am in favor of bringing in better water supplies. I believe that the water quality in Davis is the worst of any place I have ever lived including Los Angeles. For me that is the central issue.

    While Sue claims she is concerned about the cost in her remarks she also spoke about water fostering development. I have become skeptical about cost when dealing with the council. Saylor opposes West Village annexation because of cost but is not concerned about the cost of water development. Sue opposes new water supplies because of cost but favors annexation of West Village because of the costs to the university being lower through annexation. Now the only consistancy is that these positions support their opposing philosophies on growth and development. I find them both to be disengenuous about their motives.

    DPD,

    I too was sitting right there. Sue was asking some good questions but the group didn’t look at the costs Sue wanted to look at and said so.

    Someone on here said Sue was prepared. As a public figure she didn’t seem well prepared. She was stammering almost incoherently and at times it seemed like she couldn’t find the words to formulate a decent sentence. She seemed to go on with her questioning to the point where it felt like she should have let someone else have an opportunity to ask something. She might have tried a polite request that she be given more time to ask the rest of her questions after the others and used that time to collect her thoughts. By acting out the way she did it was a disservice to her cause. Ruth did what any presiding officer would do in the face of such belligerence she put the meeting in recess. As I remember it she called the recess then her and Don got up.

    If Sue had played it the way I suggest instead of losing it the arguments about Ruth’s so called heavy handedness would have been revealed for all to see if she didn’t allow for Sue to finish. Instead Ruth looks reasonable and Sue does not. Ruth’s complaint was that Sue was debating instead of asking questions. Sue could have acknowledged what the mayor’s concern was and adapted instead of having a tantrum in front of everyone in the chambers and those watching on TV.

  108. Richard as you know I have long been unsatisfied with the water quality in Davis. As a result I am in favor of bringing in better water supplies. I believe that the water quality in Davis is the worst of any place I have ever lived including Los Angeles. For me that is the central issue.

    While Sue claims she is concerned about the cost in her remarks she also spoke about water fostering development. I have become skeptical about cost when dealing with the council. Saylor opposes West Village annexation because of cost but is not concerned about the cost of water development. Sue opposes new water supplies because of cost but favors annexation of West Village because of the costs to the university being lower through annexation. Now the only consistancy is that these positions support their opposing philosophies on growth and development. I find them both to be disengenuous about their motives.

    DPD,

    I too was sitting right there. Sue was asking some good questions but the group didn’t look at the costs Sue wanted to look at and said so.

    Someone on here said Sue was prepared. As a public figure she didn’t seem well prepared. She was stammering almost incoherently and at times it seemed like she couldn’t find the words to formulate a decent sentence. She seemed to go on with her questioning to the point where it felt like she should have let someone else have an opportunity to ask something. She might have tried a polite request that she be given more time to ask the rest of her questions after the others and used that time to collect her thoughts. By acting out the way she did it was a disservice to her cause. Ruth did what any presiding officer would do in the face of such belligerence she put the meeting in recess. As I remember it she called the recess then her and Don got up.

    If Sue had played it the way I suggest instead of losing it the arguments about Ruth’s so called heavy handedness would have been revealed for all to see if she didn’t allow for Sue to finish. Instead Ruth looks reasonable and Sue does not. Ruth’s complaint was that Sue was debating instead of asking questions. Sue could have acknowledged what the mayor’s concern was and adapted instead of having a tantrum in front of everyone in the chambers and those watching on TV.

  113. Richard as you know I have long been unsatisfied with the water quality in Davis. As a result I am in favor of bringing in better water supplies. I believe that the water quality in Davis is the worst of any place I have ever lived including Los Angeles. For me that is the central issue.

    While Sue claims she is concerned about the cost in her remarks she also spoke about water fostering development. I have become skeptical about cost when dealing with the council. Saylor opposes West Village annexation because of cost but is not concerned about the cost of water development. Sue opposes new water supplies because of cost but favors annexation of West Village because of the costs to the university being lower through annexation. Now the only consistancy is that these positions support their opposing philosophies on growth and development. I find them both to be disengenuous about their motives.

    Who is being disingenuous here? You went to council to advocate in support of Saylor and Asmundson.

    Is it really your position that this project is not going to be exhorbitantly costly???

    Is that really how you are going to advocate for it in the community???

    It strikes me as rather implausible. Perhaps, you will persuade the residents of Davis otherwise, and, if so, I hope you are correct.

    I have no water issues over here in Sacramento, and my entire city utility bill, including water, sewage, and garbage pickup is less than $100 per month. Whether that’s good or bad on average, I can’t say.

    But I can that I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a city where the water bill alone went up around $100 a month, and hope that it would be able to provide housing for anyone other than the upper middle class.

    –Richard Estes

  114. Richard as you know I have long been unsatisfied with the water quality in Davis. As a result I am in favor of bringing in better water supplies. I believe that the water quality in Davis is the worst of any place I have ever lived including Los Angeles. For me that is the central issue.

    While Sue claims she is concerned about the cost in her remarks she also spoke about water fostering development. I have become skeptical about cost when dealing with the council. Saylor opposes West Village annexation because of cost but is not concerned about the cost of water development. Sue opposes new water supplies because of cost but favors annexation of West Village because of the costs to the university being lower through annexation. Now the only consistancy is that these positions support their opposing philosophies on growth and development. I find them both to be disengenuous about their motives.

    Who is being disingenuous here? You went to council to advocate in support of Saylor and Asmundson.

    Is it really your position that this project is not going to be exhorbitantly costly???

    Is that really how you are going to advocate for it in the community???

    It strikes me as rather implausible. Perhaps, you will persuade the residents of Davis otherwise, and, if so, I hope you are correct.

    I have no water issues over here in Sacramento, and my entire city utility bill, including water, sewage, and garbage pickup is less than $100 per month. Whether that’s good or bad on average, I can’t say.

    But I can that I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a city where the water bill alone went up around $100 a month, and hope that it would be able to provide housing for anyone other than the upper middle class.

    –Richard Estes

  115. Richard as you know I have long been unsatisfied with the water quality in Davis. As a result I am in favor of bringing in better water supplies. I believe that the water quality in Davis is the worst of any place I have ever lived including Los Angeles. For me that is the central issue.

    While Sue claims she is concerned about the cost in her remarks she also spoke about water fostering development. I have become skeptical about cost when dealing with the council. Saylor opposes West Village annexation because of cost but is not concerned about the cost of water development. Sue opposes new water supplies because of cost but favors annexation of West Village because of the costs to the university being lower through annexation. Now the only consistancy is that these positions support their opposing philosophies on growth and development. I find them both to be disengenuous about their motives.

    Who is being disingenuous here? You went to council to advocate in support of Saylor and Asmundson.

    Is it really your position that this project is not going to be exhorbitantly costly???

    Is that really how you are going to advocate for it in the community???

    It strikes me as rather implausible. Perhaps, you will persuade the residents of Davis otherwise, and, if so, I hope you are correct.

    I have no water issues over here in Sacramento, and my entire city utility bill, including water, sewage, and garbage pickup is less than $100 per month. Whether that’s good or bad on average, I can’t say.

    But I can that I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a city where the water bill alone went up around $100 a month, and hope that it would be able to provide housing for anyone other than the upper middle class.

    –Richard Estes

  116. Richard as you know I have long been unsatisfied with the water quality in Davis. As a result I am in favor of bringing in better water supplies. I believe that the water quality in Davis is the worst of any place I have ever lived including Los Angeles. For me that is the central issue.

    While Sue claims she is concerned about the cost in her remarks she also spoke about water fostering development. I have become skeptical about cost when dealing with the council. Saylor opposes West Village annexation because of cost but is not concerned about the cost of water development. Sue opposes new water supplies because of cost but favors annexation of West Village because of the costs to the university being lower through annexation. Now the only consistancy is that these positions support their opposing philosophies on growth and development. I find them both to be disengenuous about their motives.

    Who is being disingenuous here? You went to council to advocate in support of Saylor and Asmundson.

    Is it really your position that this project is not going to be exhorbitantly costly???

    Is that really how you are going to advocate for it in the community???

    It strikes me as rather implausible. Perhaps, you will persuade the residents of Davis otherwise, and, if so, I hope you are correct.

    I have no water issues over here in Sacramento, and my entire city utility bill, including water, sewage, and garbage pickup is less than $100 per month. Whether that’s good or bad on average, I can’t say.

    But I can that I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a city where the water bill alone went up around $100 a month, and hope that it would be able to provide housing for anyone other than the upper middle class.

    –Richard Estes

  117. Richard I went to advocate for improved water supplies. I had no idea where any members of the council were at on this. I saw the agenda in the paper and remembered the meeting as I was buying water at the coop. I went without any preconceptions to speak my mind.

    The economic analysis has yet to be done so you don’t know the cost to the taxpayers. There may be funding sources available and cost sharing. Its much too early to tell what this is going to cost. I didn’t say a word at the meeting until after the entire episode between Sue and Ruth so I believe you are jumping to conclusions about my motives and I believe you are wrong in your conclusions about my behavior.

  118. Richard I went to advocate for improved water supplies. I had no idea where any members of the council were at on this. I saw the agenda in the paper and remembered the meeting as I was buying water at the coop. I went without any preconceptions to speak my mind.

    The economic analysis has yet to be done so you don’t know the cost to the taxpayers. There may be funding sources available and cost sharing. Its much too early to tell what this is going to cost. I didn’t say a word at the meeting until after the entire episode between Sue and Ruth so I believe you are jumping to conclusions about my motives and I believe you are wrong in your conclusions about my behavior.

  119. Richard I went to advocate for improved water supplies. I had no idea where any members of the council were at on this. I saw the agenda in the paper and remembered the meeting as I was buying water at the coop. I went without any preconceptions to speak my mind.

    The economic analysis has yet to be done so you don’t know the cost to the taxpayers. There may be funding sources available and cost sharing. Its much too early to tell what this is going to cost. I didn’t say a word at the meeting until after the entire episode between Sue and Ruth so I believe you are jumping to conclusions about my motives and I believe you are wrong in your conclusions about my behavior.

  120. Richard I went to advocate for improved water supplies. I had no idea where any members of the council were at on this. I saw the agenda in the paper and remembered the meeting as I was buying water at the coop. I went without any preconceptions to speak my mind.

    The economic analysis has yet to be done so you don’t know the cost to the taxpayers. There may be funding sources available and cost sharing. Its much too early to tell what this is going to cost. I didn’t say a word at the meeting until after the entire episode between Sue and Ruth so I believe you are jumping to conclusions about my motives and I believe you are wrong in your conclusions about my behavior.

  121. “I had no idea where any members of the council were at on this.”

    Ron, I call bs on this. You’ve been around here, the issue has been discussed, I think I even discussed it with you on more than one occasion.

  122. “I had no idea where any members of the council were at on this.”

    Ron, I call bs on this. You’ve been around here, the issue has been discussed, I think I even discussed it with you on more than one occasion.

  123. “I had no idea where any members of the council were at on this.”

    Ron, I call bs on this. You’ve been around here, the issue has been discussed, I think I even discussed it with you on more than one occasion.

  124. “I had no idea where any members of the council were at on this.”

    Ron, I call bs on this. You’ve been around here, the issue has been discussed, I think I even discussed it with you on more than one occasion.

  125. I have no opinion on whether or not this project should go ahead, because I don’t feel I know enough about it. But I am disappointed that it gets framed as yet another “developers versus greenies” battle.

    What I want to know is, how is the council proposing to pay for this, exactly? I assume the upfront cost would be borrowed then amortized over 25-30 years or so. Still a big bill unless there are some cost savings elsewhere.

    FWIW, I think the Davis water is OK, if you filter it.

  126. I have no opinion on whether or not this project should go ahead, because I don’t feel I know enough about it. But I am disappointed that it gets framed as yet another “developers versus greenies” battle.

    What I want to know is, how is the council proposing to pay for this, exactly? I assume the upfront cost would be borrowed then amortized over 25-30 years or so. Still a big bill unless there are some cost savings elsewhere.

    FWIW, I think the Davis water is OK, if you filter it.

  127. I have no opinion on whether or not this project should go ahead, because I don’t feel I know enough about it. But I am disappointed that it gets framed as yet another “developers versus greenies” battle.

    What I want to know is, how is the council proposing to pay for this, exactly? I assume the upfront cost would be borrowed then amortized over 25-30 years or so. Still a big bill unless there are some cost savings elsewhere.

    FWIW, I think the Davis water is OK, if you filter it.

  128. I have no opinion on whether or not this project should go ahead, because I don’t feel I know enough about it. But I am disappointed that it gets framed as yet another “developers versus greenies” battle.

    What I want to know is, how is the council proposing to pay for this, exactly? I assume the upfront cost would be borrowed then amortized over 25-30 years or so. Still a big bill unless there are some cost savings elsewhere.

    FWIW, I think the Davis water is OK, if you filter it.

  129. Ron Glick seem to be the one totally obsessed with growth. He seem to have a theory that if Davis builds more houses, the houses will get cheap. Then he can be guaranteed his god-given right to continue to commute daily to his job in Vacaville, adding to greenhouse gasses.

  130. Ron Glick seem to be the one totally obsessed with growth. He seem to have a theory that if Davis builds more houses, the houses will get cheap. Then he can be guaranteed his god-given right to continue to commute daily to his job in Vacaville, adding to greenhouse gasses.

  131. Ron Glick seem to be the one totally obsessed with growth. He seem to have a theory that if Davis builds more houses, the houses will get cheap. Then he can be guaranteed his god-given right to continue to commute daily to his job in Vacaville, adding to greenhouse gasses.

  132. Ron Glick seem to be the one totally obsessed with growth. He seem to have a theory that if Davis builds more houses, the houses will get cheap. Then he can be guaranteed his god-given right to continue to commute daily to his job in Vacaville, adding to greenhouse gasses.

  133. of course there’s no economic analysis of the project, that’s the whole point, the council majority wants to move forward with this approach, and make its approval inevitable before the costs are revealed to the public, and your remarks at council were, unfortunately, considered supportive of this approach

    after all, the council majority wants the issue framed exactly as you have done, a water quality issue, while deferring recognition of the costs per residence down the road

    hold out the carrot while hiding the stick, or, alternatively, “kicking the can” as they say

    I hope you are correct in your hope that there are funding sources available, although, in the current state and national economic enviroment, I can’t imagine what they might be, and proponents should identify them, and the prospects of qualifying for them, instead of implying that they exist without doing so

    the bottom line question is, how far down the road do you want to push this before you know the cost? because the farther along it gets, the more difficult it becomes to stop it

    –Richard Estes

  134. of course there’s no economic analysis of the project, that’s the whole point, the council majority wants to move forward with this approach, and make its approval inevitable before the costs are revealed to the public, and your remarks at council were, unfortunately, considered supportive of this approach

    after all, the council majority wants the issue framed exactly as you have done, a water quality issue, while deferring recognition of the costs per residence down the road

    hold out the carrot while hiding the stick, or, alternatively, “kicking the can” as they say

    I hope you are correct in your hope that there are funding sources available, although, in the current state and national economic enviroment, I can’t imagine what they might be, and proponents should identify them, and the prospects of qualifying for them, instead of implying that they exist without doing so

    the bottom line question is, how far down the road do you want to push this before you know the cost? because the farther along it gets, the more difficult it becomes to stop it

    –Richard Estes

  135. of course there’s no economic analysis of the project, that’s the whole point, the council majority wants to move forward with this approach, and make its approval inevitable before the costs are revealed to the public, and your remarks at council were, unfortunately, considered supportive of this approach

    after all, the council majority wants the issue framed exactly as you have done, a water quality issue, while deferring recognition of the costs per residence down the road

    hold out the carrot while hiding the stick, or, alternatively, “kicking the can” as they say

    I hope you are correct in your hope that there are funding sources available, although, in the current state and national economic enviroment, I can’t imagine what they might be, and proponents should identify them, and the prospects of qualifying for them, instead of implying that they exist without doing so

    the bottom line question is, how far down the road do you want to push this before you know the cost? because the farther along it gets, the more difficult it becomes to stop it

    –Richard Estes

  136. of course there’s no economic analysis of the project, that’s the whole point, the council majority wants to move forward with this approach, and make its approval inevitable before the costs are revealed to the public, and your remarks at council were, unfortunately, considered supportive of this approach

    after all, the council majority wants the issue framed exactly as you have done, a water quality issue, while deferring recognition of the costs per residence down the road

    hold out the carrot while hiding the stick, or, alternatively, “kicking the can” as they say

    I hope you are correct in your hope that there are funding sources available, although, in the current state and national economic enviroment, I can’t imagine what they might be, and proponents should identify them, and the prospects of qualifying for them, instead of implying that they exist without doing so

    the bottom line question is, how far down the road do you want to push this before you know the cost? because the farther along it gets, the more difficult it becomes to stop it

    –Richard Estes

  137. Then he can be guaranteed his god-given right to continue to commute daily to his job in Vacaville, adding to greenhouse gasses.

    this is a cheap shot, Ron doesn’t work in Vacaville, and, in any event, people who work in Vacaville have to use cars in almost all instances because public transit is grossly inadequate

    it seems that some environmentalists tend to forget that there are either no mass transit alternatives or very inadequate ones in most parts of this country

    I have no opinion on whether or not this project should go ahead, because I don’t feel I know enough about it. But I am disappointed that it gets framed as yet another “developers versus greenies” battle.

    Good point. It probably isn’t, because what developer wants to build homes for people where the real estate agent has to worry about having to reveal that the water bill alone may cost around $150 a month or more?

    –Richard Estes

  138. Then he can be guaranteed his god-given right to continue to commute daily to his job in Vacaville, adding to greenhouse gasses.

    this is a cheap shot, Ron doesn’t work in Vacaville, and, in any event, people who work in Vacaville have to use cars in almost all instances because public transit is grossly inadequate

    it seems that some environmentalists tend to forget that there are either no mass transit alternatives or very inadequate ones in most parts of this country

    I have no opinion on whether or not this project should go ahead, because I don’t feel I know enough about it. But I am disappointed that it gets framed as yet another “developers versus greenies” battle.

    Good point. It probably isn’t, because what developer wants to build homes for people where the real estate agent has to worry about having to reveal that the water bill alone may cost around $150 a month or more?

    –Richard Estes

  139. Then he can be guaranteed his god-given right to continue to commute daily to his job in Vacaville, adding to greenhouse gasses.

    this is a cheap shot, Ron doesn’t work in Vacaville, and, in any event, people who work in Vacaville have to use cars in almost all instances because public transit is grossly inadequate

    it seems that some environmentalists tend to forget that there are either no mass transit alternatives or very inadequate ones in most parts of this country

    I have no opinion on whether or not this project should go ahead, because I don’t feel I know enough about it. But I am disappointed that it gets framed as yet another “developers versus greenies” battle.

    Good point. It probably isn’t, because what developer wants to build homes for people where the real estate agent has to worry about having to reveal that the water bill alone may cost around $150 a month or more?

    –Richard Estes

  140. Then he can be guaranteed his god-given right to continue to commute daily to his job in Vacaville, adding to greenhouse gasses.

    this is a cheap shot, Ron doesn’t work in Vacaville, and, in any event, people who work in Vacaville have to use cars in almost all instances because public transit is grossly inadequate

    it seems that some environmentalists tend to forget that there are either no mass transit alternatives or very inadequate ones in most parts of this country

    I have no opinion on whether or not this project should go ahead, because I don’t feel I know enough about it. But I am disappointed that it gets framed as yet another “developers versus greenies” battle.

    Good point. It probably isn’t, because what developer wants to build homes for people where the real estate agent has to worry about having to reveal that the water bill alone may cost around $150 a month or more?

    –Richard Estes

  145. After all is said and done, Councilman Greenwald’s handling of this item on the Council agenda resulted in EXACTLY what was needed. The Council majority was put on notice that THIS will be the outcome EVERY TIME they try to ride roughshod over the democratic process and attempt to slip one by the Davis voter. We need to attend these meetings and give Councilperson Greenwald our vocal AND “direct action” support. I hope that Lamar’s response doesn’t portend a shift to his first priority being the consideration of his own future political viability; straddling the middle of the road for political gain in this fashion usually results in becoming political roadkill.

  146. After all is said and done, Councilman Greenwald’s handling of this item on the Council agenda resulted in EXACTLY what was needed. The Council majority was put on notice that THIS will be the outcome EVERY TIME they try to ride roughshod over the democratic process and attempt to slip one by the Davis voter. We need to attend these meetings and give Councilperson Greenwald our vocal AND “direct action” support. I hope that Lamar’s response doesn’t portend a shift to his first priority being the consideration of his own future political viability; straddling the middle of the road for political gain in this fashion usually results in becoming political roadkill.

  147. After all is said and done, Councilman Greenwald’s handling of this item on the Council agenda resulted in EXACTLY what was needed. The Council majority was put on notice that THIS will be the outcome EVERY TIME they try to ride roughshod over the democratic process and attempt to slip one by the Davis voter. We need to attend these meetings and give Councilperson Greenwald our vocal AND “direct action” support. I hope that Lamar’s response doesn’t portend a shift to his first priority being the consideration of his own future political viability; straddling the middle of the road for political gain in this fashion usually results in becoming political roadkill.

  148. After all is said and done, Councilman Greenwald’s handling of this item on the Council agenda resulted in EXACTLY what was needed. The Council majority was put on notice that THIS will be the outcome EVERY TIME they try to ride roughshod over the democratic process and attempt to slip one by the Davis voter. We need to attend these meetings and give Councilperson Greenwald our vocal AND “direct action” support. I hope that Lamar’s response doesn’t portend a shift to his first priority being the consideration of his own future political viability; straddling the middle of the road for political gain in this fashion usually results in becoming political roadkill.

  149. DPD I have no recollection of ever having discussed acquiring surface water for Davis with you. I don’t recall taking about sewage with you although I may have. Still the issue on the agenda was about surface water I didn’t put the two together until I was at the meeting. Richard only knows my feelings on this because we interviewed Julie Partansky about it 10 years ago. Unless you can give me a specific account about when we had that conversation I am going to ask you not to call bs on me. I stand by my remarks.

    Anonymous,Where do I work? What are you writing a book about me? Would you answer that for someone who is anonymous? I certainly wouldn’t answer it on a blog for all the world to see. Of course the relevance of such a question is questionable.

  150. DPD I have no recollection of ever having discussed acquiring surface water for Davis with you. I don’t recall taking about sewage with you although I may have. Still the issue on the agenda was about surface water I didn’t put the two together until I was at the meeting. Richard only knows my feelings on this because we interviewed Julie Partansky about it 10 years ago. Unless you can give me a specific account about when we had that conversation I am going to ask you not to call bs on me. I stand by my remarks.

    Anonymous,Where do I work? What are you writing a book about me? Would you answer that for someone who is anonymous? I certainly wouldn’t answer it on a blog for all the world to see. Of course the relevance of such a question is questionable.

  151. DPD I have no recollection of ever having discussed acquiring surface water for Davis with you. I don’t recall taking about sewage with you although I may have. Still the issue on the agenda was about surface water I didn’t put the two together until I was at the meeting. Richard only knows my feelings on this because we interviewed Julie Partansky about it 10 years ago. Unless you can give me a specific account about when we had that conversation I am going to ask you not to call bs on me. I stand by my remarks.

    Anonymous,Where do I work? What are you writing a book about me? Would you answer that for someone who is anonymous? I certainly wouldn’t answer it on a blog for all the world to see. Of course the relevance of such a question is questionable.

  152. DPD I have no recollection of ever having discussed acquiring surface water for Davis with you. I don’t recall taking about sewage with you although I may have. Still the issue on the agenda was about surface water I didn’t put the two together until I was at the meeting. Richard only knows my feelings on this because we interviewed Julie Partansky about it 10 years ago. Unless you can give me a specific account about when we had that conversation I am going to ask you not to call bs on me. I stand by my remarks.

    Anonymous,Where do I work? What are you writing a book about me? Would you answer that for someone who is anonymous? I certainly wouldn’t answer it on a blog for all the world to see. Of course the relevance of such a question is questionable.

  153. Ron your characterization of Sue’s questioning is downright incorrect. I watched this exchange very carefully. Her questions were well thought out and articulately presented. They were hard questions and the presenter tried to duck some of them by distraction – this required her to repeat the question a few times. There is a complete video transcript available on the city’s web site that any interested person can examine. The vitriol Ron is displaying here must have some other cause since Sue was performing her job professionally as would be expected by her constituents.

    Ron, I thought you were supposed to be a science teacher. You went on and on about during public comments on the low quality of our deep-well water and the purity of surface water. You should know that taste and hardness are not only a minor criteria of purity, but in terms of health, inconsequential. Here is a partial list of toxins present at much higher levels in the Sacramento River than in our current supplies: heavy metals from old mine tailings including mercury and lead, halogenated organics such as dioxin and pcbs, pharmaceuticals including feminizing hormones, farm runoffs that include nitrates and various pesticides. Your bad not knowing this.

  154. Ron your characterization of Sue’s questioning is downright incorrect. I watched this exchange very carefully. Her questions were well thought out and articulately presented. They were hard questions and the presenter tried to duck some of them by distraction – this required her to repeat the question a few times. There is a complete video transcript available on the city’s web site that any interested person can examine. The vitriol Ron is displaying here must have some other cause since Sue was performing her job professionally as would be expected by her constituents.

    Ron, I thought you were supposed to be a science teacher. You went on and on about during public comments on the low quality of our deep-well water and the purity of surface water. You should know that taste and hardness are not only a minor criteria of purity, but in terms of health, inconsequential. Here is a partial list of toxins present at much higher levels in the Sacramento River than in our current supplies: heavy metals from old mine tailings including mercury and lead, halogenated organics such as dioxin and pcbs, pharmaceuticals including feminizing hormones, farm runoffs that include nitrates and various pesticides. Your bad not knowing this.

  155. Ron your characterization of Sue’s questioning is downright incorrect. I watched this exchange very carefully. Her questions were well thought out and articulately presented. They were hard questions and the presenter tried to duck some of them by distraction – this required her to repeat the question a few times. There is a complete video transcript available on the city’s web site that any interested person can examine. The vitriol Ron is displaying here must have some other cause since Sue was performing her job professionally as would be expected by her constituents.

    Ron, I thought you were supposed to be a science teacher. You went on and on about during public comments on the low quality of our deep-well water and the purity of surface water. You should know that taste and hardness are not only a minor criteria of purity, but in terms of health, inconsequential. Here is a partial list of toxins present at much higher levels in the Sacramento River than in our current supplies: heavy metals from old mine tailings including mercury and lead, halogenated organics such as dioxin and pcbs, pharmaceuticals including feminizing hormones, farm runoffs that include nitrates and various pesticides. Your bad not knowing this.

  156. Ron your characterization of Sue’s questioning is downright incorrect. I watched this exchange very carefully. Her questions were well thought out and articulately presented. They were hard questions and the presenter tried to duck some of them by distraction – this required her to repeat the question a few times. There is a complete video transcript available on the city’s web site that any interested person can examine. The vitriol Ron is displaying here must have some other cause since Sue was performing her job professionally as would be expected by her constituents.

    Ron, I thought you were supposed to be a science teacher. You went on and on about during public comments on the low quality of our deep-well water and the purity of surface water. You should know that taste and hardness are not only a minor criteria of purity, but in terms of health, inconsequential. Here is a partial list of toxins present at much higher levels in the Sacramento River than in our current supplies: heavy metals from old mine tailings including mercury and lead, halogenated organics such as dioxin and pcbs, pharmaceuticals including feminizing hormones, farm runoffs that include nitrates and various pesticides. Your bad not knowing this.

  157. Ron: We were standing out on Farmer’s Market once in 2007 and the other time a few months ago and you relayed to me that you were willing to pay whatever it took to get better Davis water, you told me that you disagreed with Sue, I pointed out I had suspicions about the rest of the council sans Lamar trying to push this through. But you were most concerned about taste.

  158. Ron: We were standing out on Farmer’s Market once in 2007 and the other time a few months ago and you relayed to me that you were willing to pay whatever it took to get better Davis water, you told me that you disagreed with Sue, I pointed out I had suspicions about the rest of the council sans Lamar trying to push this through. But you were most concerned about taste.

  159. Ron: We were standing out on Farmer’s Market once in 2007 and the other time a few months ago and you relayed to me that you were willing to pay whatever it took to get better Davis water, you told me that you disagreed with Sue, I pointed out I had suspicions about the rest of the council sans Lamar trying to push this through. But you were most concerned about taste.

  160. Ron: We were standing out on Farmer’s Market once in 2007 and the other time a few months ago and you relayed to me that you were willing to pay whatever it took to get better Davis water, you told me that you disagreed with Sue, I pointed out I had suspicions about the rest of the council sans Lamar trying to push this through. But you were most concerned about taste.

  161. ‘They are the most likely to want the surface water project put off.”

    If so, it would be the very first time that Saylor has EVER taken a position that was contrary to the interests of his developer patrons.

  162. ‘They are the most likely to want the surface water project put off.”

    If so, it would be the very first time that Saylor has EVER taken a position that was contrary to the interests of his developer patrons.

  163. ‘They are the most likely to want the surface water project put off.”

    If so, it would be the very first time that Saylor has EVER taken a position that was contrary to the interests of his developer patrons.

  164. ‘They are the most likely to want the surface water project put off.”

    If so, it would be the very first time that Saylor has EVER taken a position that was contrary to the interests of his developer patrons.

  165. Yes that is how it works, if you add supply it works against demand.

    As for my greenhouse gas production while I admit to producing plenty of gas I don’t do it driving to Vacaville.

  166. Yes that is how it works, if you add supply it works against demand.

    As for my greenhouse gas production while I admit to producing plenty of gas I don’t do it driving to Vacaville.

  167. Yes that is how it works, if you add supply it works against demand.

    As for my greenhouse gas production while I admit to producing plenty of gas I don’t do it driving to Vacaville.

  168. Yes that is how it works, if you add supply it works against demand.

    As for my greenhouse gas production while I admit to producing plenty of gas I don’t do it driving to Vacaville.

  169. “Ruth deferred to her toady Saylor, who read from a manual on procedure..”

    You’ve got this backwards. Those of us who have been around Davis for decades know that this started way back when they were both on the School Board. Saylor calls the shots and consciously manipulates our current Mayor’s “decision-making” process.

  170. “Ruth deferred to her toady Saylor, who read from a manual on procedure..”

    You’ve got this backwards. Those of us who have been around Davis for decades know that this started way back when they were both on the School Board. Saylor calls the shots and consciously manipulates our current Mayor’s “decision-making” process.

  171. “Ruth deferred to her toady Saylor, who read from a manual on procedure..”

    You’ve got this backwards. Those of us who have been around Davis for decades know that this started way back when they were both on the School Board. Saylor calls the shots and consciously manipulates our current Mayor’s “decision-making” process.

  172. “Ruth deferred to her toady Saylor, who read from a manual on procedure..”

    You’ve got this backwards. Those of us who have been around Davis for decades know that this started way back when they were both on the School Board. Saylor calls the shots and consciously manipulates our current Mayor’s “decision-making” process.

  173. God I have got to start taking those alzheimers drugs. At least I’m consistant in not wanting to drink the stuff coming from the tap and not being concerned about what it would cost to bring in some good water. Truly DPD I don’t remember this conversation.

    I do find it odd that people want to attribute all sorts of motives to my speaking out about water quality in Davis. Is it really too much to take me at my word that I went to the meeting to speak out about my feelings without any personal agenda about the councilmembers in mind. Its not my fault that what I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.

  174. God I have got to start taking those alzheimers drugs. At least I’m consistant in not wanting to drink the stuff coming from the tap and not being concerned about what it would cost to bring in some good water. Truly DPD I don’t remember this conversation.

    I do find it odd that people want to attribute all sorts of motives to my speaking out about water quality in Davis. Is it really too much to take me at my word that I went to the meeting to speak out about my feelings without any personal agenda about the councilmembers in mind. Its not my fault that what I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.

  175. God I have got to start taking those alzheimers drugs. At least I’m consistant in not wanting to drink the stuff coming from the tap and not being concerned about what it would cost to bring in some good water. Truly DPD I don’t remember this conversation.

    I do find it odd that people want to attribute all sorts of motives to my speaking out about water quality in Davis. Is it really too much to take me at my word that I went to the meeting to speak out about my feelings without any personal agenda about the councilmembers in mind. Its not my fault that what I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.

  176. God I have got to start taking those alzheimers drugs. At least I’m consistant in not wanting to drink the stuff coming from the tap and not being concerned about what it would cost to bring in some good water. Truly DPD I don’t remember this conversation.

    I do find it odd that people want to attribute all sorts of motives to my speaking out about water quality in Davis. Is it really too much to take me at my word that I went to the meeting to speak out about my feelings without any personal agenda about the councilmembers in mind. Its not my fault that what I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.

  177. Ron:

    I’m not one of those questioning your motives.

    I remain concerned that an elected official can get shut down in that way. Sue blew it by losing her cool, most people I have spoken to agree that was a mistake. She believes this would not have received proper notice had she not lost her cool. I grant her that, the problem is that I don’t think this is a positive, I think most people are turned off by these displays. Valid points are lost when it becomes a sideshow.

  178. Ron:

    I’m not one of those questioning your motives.

    I remain concerned that an elected official can get shut down in that way. Sue blew it by losing her cool, most people I have spoken to agree that was a mistake. She believes this would not have received proper notice had she not lost her cool. I grant her that, the problem is that I don’t think this is a positive, I think most people are turned off by these displays. Valid points are lost when it becomes a sideshow.

  179. Ron:

    I’m not one of those questioning your motives.

    I remain concerned that an elected official can get shut down in that way. Sue blew it by losing her cool, most people I have spoken to agree that was a mistake. She believes this would not have received proper notice had she not lost her cool. I grant her that, the problem is that I don’t think this is a positive, I think most people are turned off by these displays. Valid points are lost when it becomes a sideshow.

  180. Ron:

    I’m not one of those questioning your motives.

    I remain concerned that an elected official can get shut down in that way. Sue blew it by losing her cool, most people I have spoken to agree that was a mistake. She believes this would not have received proper notice had she not lost her cool. I grant her that, the problem is that I don’t think this is a positive, I think most people are turned off by these displays. Valid points are lost when it becomes a sideshow.

  181. Ron said “I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.”

    Perhaps you projected that, it is not what you saw. We are raising questions about your motives for the very simple reason that what you claim you saw and what we saw are totally different.

    And your science on this issue is still bad.

  182. Ron said “I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.”

    Perhaps you projected that, it is not what you saw. We are raising questions about your motives for the very simple reason that what you claim you saw and what we saw are totally different.

    And your science on this issue is still bad.

  183. Ron said “I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.”

    Perhaps you projected that, it is not what you saw. We are raising questions about your motives for the very simple reason that what you claim you saw and what we saw are totally different.

    And your science on this issue is still bad.

  184. Ron said “I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.”

    Perhaps you projected that, it is not what you saw. We are raising questions about your motives for the very simple reason that what you claim you saw and what we saw are totally different.

    And your science on this issue is still bad.

  185. “I think most people are turned off by these displays….”
    …perhaps, but the issue is brought to their attention. The highly-paid political consultants for the McCain campaign have come to the same conclusion,i.e. getting the public’s attention, even with outrageous displays, is the first order of political “business” .

  186. “I think most people are turned off by these displays….”
    …perhaps, but the issue is brought to their attention. The highly-paid political consultants for the McCain campaign have come to the same conclusion,i.e. getting the public’s attention, even with outrageous displays, is the first order of political “business” .

  187. “I think most people are turned off by these displays….”
    …perhaps, but the issue is brought to their attention. The highly-paid political consultants for the McCain campaign have come to the same conclusion,i.e. getting the public’s attention, even with outrageous displays, is the first order of political “business” .

  188. “I think most people are turned off by these displays….”
    …perhaps, but the issue is brought to their attention. The highly-paid political consultants for the McCain campaign have come to the same conclusion,i.e. getting the public’s attention, even with outrageous displays, is the first order of political “business” .

  189. God I have got to start taking those alzheimers drugs. At least I’m consistant in not wanting to drink the stuff coming from the tap and not being concerned about what it would cost to bring in some good water. Truly DPD I don’t remember this conversation.

    I do find it odd that people want to attribute all sorts of motives to my speaking out about water quality in Davis. Is it really too much to take me at my word that I went to the meeting to speak out about my feelings without any personal agenda about the councilmembers in mind. Its not my fault that what I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.

    But the question is cost, and the extent to which the city can accomplish the same objectives through alternative means, and I stand by the warnings that I have presented to you on this subject.

    The council majority has a clear strategy of selling this project based upon water quality while delaying exposure of the costs until a later date when it become difficult, if not impossible, to do anything other than proceed with this proposed project.

    To the extent that you emphasize the need for better water quality, while evading this subject, you are, whether consciously or not, providing rhetorical support for the council majority. They want the subject to be water quality and not cost, and you are one of the facilitators of that narrative.

    Then, if it is approved, and the costs turn out to be prohibitive, you can distance yourself and say, we’ll I didn’t support that.

    And, that may be the honest truth. But there will be some people who aren’t going to see it that way, it’s a dangerous way to proceed. A better message would be, I’d like better water quality, but I’d also like to see a more thorough presentation of alternatives, results and costs before we choose a way to proceed to obtain it.

    As for the questioning of your motives, you have, to some extent, created the problem. You profess to be in an oppositional stance to Saylor/Souza/Asmundson and Greenwald, and I believe that to be true. If anything, you prefer Souza and Heystek over all the others (which, in the instance of Souza, I find somewhat mystifying), but the overwhelming number of your comments here don’t really convey your perspective.

    Instead, they reflect a strong personal animus towards Sue, to the extent that, on this issue, you were indifferent to the fiscal peril posed by this project, even though DPD wrote about it at length in his post, until others here, including myself, continued to highlight its importance, and even now, you have only addressed it in the most cursory fashion (maybe there’s funding sources, that’s certainly reassuring).

    Evidently, it just didn’t fit what you wanted to talk about, which was Sue. Meanwhile, you usually only bring up your disagreements with Saylor after people have brought up substantive objections about your attacks upon Sue, which gives the impression that it is a calculated. Hence, you shouldn’t be surprised when people start responding to your comments by suggesting that it’s all about your dislike of Sue, because that’s the impression that your posts create.

    DPD has identifed the problem with Sue at the council meeting the other day, her outburst may not have been favorably received, and may have distracted attention from the important issues at hand. Sue, clearly, thinks differently. I have never personally conducted myself that way in a public governmental forum that way, but, with that said, it is true that sometimes a rhetorical explosion of that kind is the only way to reveal what is actually happening.

    It is also worth remembering that politics, even in Davis, is a contact sport. But, as I said in my first comment on this subject, this issue, and the potential for catastrophic fiscal consequences, are too important for it to be addressed within the predictable Davis framework of trivializing critical policy matters by transforming them into petty personal disputes.

    –Richard Estes

  190. Ponder for a moment: What would have been the outcome if Sue had simply allowed the council majority to curtail her right to ask the hard questions about this huge issue? What would have happened if Sue made a mild protest, and then deferred?

    Would any of the important issues have made it into the Enterprise? Would columnists have been aware of what was being pushed through on the last meeting of July?

    Do you really think the council majority would say: “Gee whizz, Sue. You are being so polite and deferential that we will start listening to what you have to say? you? Or maybe rethink whether we are on the right course? You are being so polite and deferential that we will allow you to speak in the future?”

    No. Saylor, Asmundson and Souza would think: “Good, we have Sue in a box. We just gavel her down when she starts to make points that are uncomfortable to us. She either defers, and we win, or she asserts her right to speak, and we criticize her behavior, and we win.”

  191. God I have got to start taking those alzheimers drugs. At least I’m consistant in not wanting to drink the stuff coming from the tap and not being concerned about what it would cost to bring in some good water. Truly DPD I don’t remember this conversation.

    I do find it odd that people want to attribute all sorts of motives to my speaking out about water quality in Davis. Is it really too much to take me at my word that I went to the meeting to speak out about my feelings without any personal agenda about the councilmembers in mind. Its not my fault that what I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.

    But the question is cost, and the extent to which the city can accomplish the same objectives through alternative means, and I stand by the warnings that I have presented to you on this subject.

    The council majority has a clear strategy of selling this project based upon water quality while delaying exposure of the costs until a later date when it become difficult, if not impossible, to do anything other than proceed with this proposed project.

    To the extent that you emphasize the need for better water quality, while evading this subject, you are, whether consciously or not, providing rhetorical support for the council majority. They want the subject to be water quality and not cost, and you are one of the facilitators of that narrative.

    Then, if it is approved, and the costs turn out to be prohibitive, you can distance yourself and say, we’ll I didn’t support that.

    And, that may be the honest truth. But there will be some people who aren’t going to see it that way, it’s a dangerous way to proceed. A better message would be, I’d like better water quality, but I’d also like to see a more thorough presentation of alternatives, results and costs before we choose a way to proceed to obtain it.

    As for the questioning of your motives, you have, to some extent, created the problem. You profess to be in an oppositional stance to Saylor/Souza/Asmundson and Greenwald, and I believe that to be true. If anything, you prefer Souza and Heystek over all the others (which, in the instance of Souza, I find somewhat mystifying), but the overwhelming number of your comments here don’t really convey your perspective.

    Instead, they reflect a strong personal animus towards Sue, to the extent that, on this issue, you were indifferent to the fiscal peril posed by this project, even though DPD wrote about it at length in his post, until others here, including myself, continued to highlight its importance, and even now, you have only addressed it in the most cursory fashion (maybe there’s funding sources, that’s certainly reassuring).

    Evidently, it just didn’t fit what you wanted to talk about, which was Sue. Meanwhile, you usually only bring up your disagreements with Saylor after people have brought up substantive objections about your attacks upon Sue, which gives the impression that it is a calculated. Hence, you shouldn’t be surprised when people start responding to your comments by suggesting that it’s all about your dislike of Sue, because that’s the impression that your posts create.

    DPD has identifed the problem with Sue at the council meeting the other day, her outburst may not have been favorably received, and may have distracted attention from the important issues at hand. Sue, clearly, thinks differently. I have never personally conducted myself that way in a public governmental forum that way, but, with that said, it is true that sometimes a rhetorical explosion of that kind is the only way to reveal what is actually happening.

    It is also worth remembering that politics, even in Davis, is a contact sport. But, as I said in my first comment on this subject, this issue, and the potential for catastrophic fiscal consequences, are too important for it to be addressed within the predictable Davis framework of trivializing critical policy matters by transforming them into petty personal disputes.

    –Richard Estes

  192. Ponder for a moment: What would have been the outcome if Sue had simply allowed the council majority to curtail her right to ask the hard questions about this huge issue? What would have happened if Sue made a mild protest, and then deferred?

    Would any of the important issues have made it into the Enterprise? Would columnists have been aware of what was being pushed through on the last meeting of July?

    Do you really think the council majority would say: “Gee whizz, Sue. You are being so polite and deferential that we will start listening to what you have to say? you? Or maybe rethink whether we are on the right course? You are being so polite and deferential that we will allow you to speak in the future?”

    No. Saylor, Asmundson and Souza would think: “Good, we have Sue in a box. We just gavel her down when she starts to make points that are uncomfortable to us. She either defers, and we win, or she asserts her right to speak, and we criticize her behavior, and we win.”

  193. God I have got to start taking those alzheimers drugs. At least I’m consistant in not wanting to drink the stuff coming from the tap and not being concerned about what it would cost to bring in some good water. Truly DPD I don’t remember this conversation.

    I do find it odd that people want to attribute all sorts of motives to my speaking out about water quality in Davis. Is it really too much to take me at my word that I went to the meeting to speak out about my feelings without any personal agenda about the councilmembers in mind. Its not my fault that what I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.

    But the question is cost, and the extent to which the city can accomplish the same objectives through alternative means, and I stand by the warnings that I have presented to you on this subject.

    The council majority has a clear strategy of selling this project based upon water quality while delaying exposure of the costs until a later date when it become difficult, if not impossible, to do anything other than proceed with this proposed project.

    To the extent that you emphasize the need for better water quality, while evading this subject, you are, whether consciously or not, providing rhetorical support for the council majority. They want the subject to be water quality and not cost, and you are one of the facilitators of that narrative.

    Then, if it is approved, and the costs turn out to be prohibitive, you can distance yourself and say, we’ll I didn’t support that.

    And, that may be the honest truth. But there will be some people who aren’t going to see it that way, it’s a dangerous way to proceed. A better message would be, I’d like better water quality, but I’d also like to see a more thorough presentation of alternatives, results and costs before we choose a way to proceed to obtain it.

    As for the questioning of your motives, you have, to some extent, created the problem. You profess to be in an oppositional stance to Saylor/Souza/Asmundson and Greenwald, and I believe that to be true. If anything, you prefer Souza and Heystek over all the others (which, in the instance of Souza, I find somewhat mystifying), but the overwhelming number of your comments here don’t really convey your perspective.

    Instead, they reflect a strong personal animus towards Sue, to the extent that, on this issue, you were indifferent to the fiscal peril posed by this project, even though DPD wrote about it at length in his post, until others here, including myself, continued to highlight its importance, and even now, you have only addressed it in the most cursory fashion (maybe there’s funding sources, that’s certainly reassuring).

    Evidently, it just didn’t fit what you wanted to talk about, which was Sue. Meanwhile, you usually only bring up your disagreements with Saylor after people have brought up substantive objections about your attacks upon Sue, which gives the impression that it is a calculated. Hence, you shouldn’t be surprised when people start responding to your comments by suggesting that it’s all about your dislike of Sue, because that’s the impression that your posts create.

    DPD has identifed the problem with Sue at the council meeting the other day, her outburst may not have been favorably received, and may have distracted attention from the important issues at hand. Sue, clearly, thinks differently. I have never personally conducted myself that way in a public governmental forum that way, but, with that said, it is true that sometimes a rhetorical explosion of that kind is the only way to reveal what is actually happening.

    It is also worth remembering that politics, even in Davis, is a contact sport. But, as I said in my first comment on this subject, this issue, and the potential for catastrophic fiscal consequences, are too important for it to be addressed within the predictable Davis framework of trivializing critical policy matters by transforming them into petty personal disputes.

    –Richard Estes

  194. Ponder for a moment: What would have been the outcome if Sue had simply allowed the council majority to curtail her right to ask the hard questions about this huge issue? What would have happened if Sue made a mild protest, and then deferred?

    Would any of the important issues have made it into the Enterprise? Would columnists have been aware of what was being pushed through on the last meeting of July?

    Do you really think the council majority would say: “Gee whizz, Sue. You are being so polite and deferential that we will start listening to what you have to say? you? Or maybe rethink whether we are on the right course? You are being so polite and deferential that we will allow you to speak in the future?”

    No. Saylor, Asmundson and Souza would think: “Good, we have Sue in a box. We just gavel her down when she starts to make points that are uncomfortable to us. She either defers, and we win, or she asserts her right to speak, and we criticize her behavior, and we win.”

  195. God I have got to start taking those alzheimers drugs. At least I’m consistant in not wanting to drink the stuff coming from the tap and not being concerned about what it would cost to bring in some good water. Truly DPD I don’t remember this conversation.

    I do find it odd that people want to attribute all sorts of motives to my speaking out about water quality in Davis. Is it really too much to take me at my word that I went to the meeting to speak out about my feelings without any personal agenda about the councilmembers in mind. Its not my fault that what I saw there was some shockingly embarassing behavior by Sue.

    But the question is cost, and the extent to which the city can accomplish the same objectives through alternative means, and I stand by the warnings that I have presented to you on this subject.

    The council majority has a clear strategy of selling this project based upon water quality while delaying exposure of the costs until a later date when it become difficult, if not impossible, to do anything other than proceed with this proposed project.

    To the extent that you emphasize the need for better water quality, while evading this subject, you are, whether consciously or not, providing rhetorical support for the council majority. They want the subject to be water quality and not cost, and you are one of the facilitators of that narrative.

    Then, if it is approved, and the costs turn out to be prohibitive, you can distance yourself and say, we’ll I didn’t support that.

    And, that may be the honest truth. But there will be some people who aren’t going to see it that way, it’s a dangerous way to proceed. A better message would be, I’d like better water quality, but I’d also like to see a more thorough presentation of alternatives, results and costs before we choose a way to proceed to obtain it.

    As for the questioning of your motives, you have, to some extent, created the problem. You profess to be in an oppositional stance to Saylor/Souza/Asmundson and Greenwald, and I believe that to be true. If anything, you prefer Souza and Heystek over all the others (which, in the instance of Souza, I find somewhat mystifying), but the overwhelming number of your comments here don’t really convey your perspective.

    Instead, they reflect a strong personal animus towards Sue, to the extent that, on this issue, you were indifferent to the fiscal peril posed by this project, even though DPD wrote about it at length in his post, until others here, including myself, continued to highlight its importance, and even now, you have only addressed it in the most cursory fashion (maybe there’s funding sources, that’s certainly reassuring).

    Evidently, it just didn’t fit what you wanted to talk about, which was Sue. Meanwhile, you usually only bring up your disagreements with Saylor after people have brought up substantive objections about your attacks upon Sue, which gives the impression that it is a calculated. Hence, you shouldn’t be surprised when people start responding to your comments by suggesting that it’s all about your dislike of Sue, because that’s the impression that your posts create.

    DPD has identifed the problem with Sue at the council meeting the other day, her outburst may not have been favorably received, and may have distracted attention from the important issues at hand. Sue, clearly, thinks differently. I have never personally conducted myself that way in a public governmental forum that way, but, with that said, it is true that sometimes a rhetorical explosion of that kind is the only way to reveal what is actually happening.

    It is also worth remembering that politics, even in Davis, is a contact sport. But, as I said in my first comment on this subject, this issue, and the potential for catastrophic fiscal consequences, are too important for it to be addressed within the predictable Davis framework of trivializing critical policy matters by transforming them into petty personal disputes.

    –Richard Estes

  196. Ponder for a moment: What would have been the outcome if Sue had simply allowed the council majority to curtail her right to ask the hard questions about this huge issue? What would have happened if Sue made a mild protest, and then deferred?

    Would any of the important issues have made it into the Enterprise? Would columnists have been aware of what was being pushed through on the last meeting of July?

    Do you really think the council majority would say: “Gee whizz, Sue. You are being so polite and deferential that we will start listening to what you have to say? you? Or maybe rethink whether we are on the right course? You are being so polite and deferential that we will allow you to speak in the future?”

    No. Saylor, Asmundson and Souza would think: “Good, we have Sue in a box. We just gavel her down when she starts to make points that are uncomfortable to us. She either defers, and we win, or she asserts her right to speak, and we criticize her behavior, and we win.”

  197. Sue’s ineffectiveness is directly related to her social ineptitude and lack of grace. Even her supporters cringe when she goes into her antics. Yet, her supporters cut her slack because of their political loyalty on whatever issue it is, usually growth.

    If she had just the slightest modicum of social grace and sense she might accomplish something. Instead, her entire time on the council has been a waste.

    Incapable of the art of gentle persuasion required to be effective in a group decision-making process, she persists in verbally bludgeoning whomever doesn’t agree with her. Even her own employees. I’ve never seen it work. Yet she keeps trying the same approach.

    It’s evidence that she doesn’t really care about the outcome, only winning an argument. She cares more about her reasoning being accurately recorded in the minutes then actually winning over the votes that result in decisions. She’s an egomaniac.

    She would have been better off to have lost the election rather than to have squeaked into third place. Perhaps she could have learned something through some self reflection.

    Instead, she’s stuck with herself and the city is stuck with her. Too bad.

    The Sue Show is now just bad TV. No longer entertaining, even for those with a sick sense of humor. Just tiresome. It should be cancelled.

  198. Sue’s ineffectiveness is directly related to her social ineptitude and lack of grace. Even her supporters cringe when she goes into her antics. Yet, her supporters cut her slack because of their political loyalty on whatever issue it is, usually growth.

    If she had just the slightest modicum of social grace and sense she might accomplish something. Instead, her entire time on the council has been a waste.

    Incapable of the art of gentle persuasion required to be effective in a group decision-making process, she persists in verbally bludgeoning whomever doesn’t agree with her. Even her own employees. I’ve never seen it work. Yet she keeps trying the same approach.

    It’s evidence that she doesn’t really care about the outcome, only winning an argument. She cares more about her reasoning being accurately recorded in the minutes then actually winning over the votes that result in decisions. She’s an egomaniac.

    She would have been better off to have lost the election rather than to have squeaked into third place. Perhaps she could have learned something through some self reflection.

    Instead, she’s stuck with herself and the city is stuck with her. Too bad.

    The Sue Show is now just bad TV. No longer entertaining, even for those with a sick sense of humor. Just tiresome. It should be cancelled.

  199. Sue’s ineffectiveness is directly related to her social ineptitude and lack of grace. Even her supporters cringe when she goes into her antics. Yet, her supporters cut her slack because of their political loyalty on whatever issue it is, usually growth.

    If she had just the slightest modicum of social grace and sense she might accomplish something. Instead, her entire time on the council has been a waste.

    Incapable of the art of gentle persuasion required to be effective in a group decision-making process, she persists in verbally bludgeoning whomever doesn’t agree with her. Even her own employees. I’ve never seen it work. Yet she keeps trying the same approach.

    It’s evidence that she doesn’t really care about the outcome, only winning an argument. She cares more about her reasoning being accurately recorded in the minutes then actually winning over the votes that result in decisions. She’s an egomaniac.

    She would have been better off to have lost the election rather than to have squeaked into third place. Perhaps she could have learned something through some self reflection.

    Instead, she’s stuck with herself and the city is stuck with her. Too bad.

    The Sue Show is now just bad TV. No longer entertaining, even for those with a sick sense of humor. Just tiresome. It should be cancelled.

  200. Sue’s ineffectiveness is directly related to her social ineptitude and lack of grace. Even her supporters cringe when she goes into her antics. Yet, her supporters cut her slack because of their political loyalty on whatever issue it is, usually growth.

    If she had just the slightest modicum of social grace and sense she might accomplish something. Instead, her entire time on the council has been a waste.

    Incapable of the art of gentle persuasion required to be effective in a group decision-making process, she persists in verbally bludgeoning whomever doesn’t agree with her. Even her own employees. I’ve never seen it work. Yet she keeps trying the same approach.

    It’s evidence that she doesn’t really care about the outcome, only winning an argument. She cares more about her reasoning being accurately recorded in the minutes then actually winning over the votes that result in decisions. She’s an egomaniac.

    She would have been better off to have lost the election rather than to have squeaked into third place. Perhaps she could have learned something through some self reflection.

    Instead, she’s stuck with herself and the city is stuck with her. Too bad.

    The Sue Show is now just bad TV. No longer entertaining, even for those with a sick sense of humor. Just tiresome. It should be cancelled.

  201. Now anonymous let’s ponder where we are now. The Enterprise article made Sue look bad. Dunning wrote a kind of nebulous piece that addressed her issue.

    So are we really better off than we would have been if Sue had clearly been cut off, took it like an adult, and I was writing a column showing that unequivocally she was in the right and Ruth was in the wrong?

  202. Now anonymous let’s ponder where we are now. The Enterprise article made Sue look bad. Dunning wrote a kind of nebulous piece that addressed her issue.

    So are we really better off than we would have been if Sue had clearly been cut off, took it like an adult, and I was writing a column showing that unequivocally she was in the right and Ruth was in the wrong?

  203. Now anonymous let’s ponder where we are now. The Enterprise article made Sue look bad. Dunning wrote a kind of nebulous piece that addressed her issue.

    So are we really better off than we would have been if Sue had clearly been cut off, took it like an adult, and I was writing a column showing that unequivocally she was in the right and Ruth was in the wrong?

  204. Now anonymous let’s ponder where we are now. The Enterprise article made Sue look bad. Dunning wrote a kind of nebulous piece that addressed her issue.

    So are we really better off than we would have been if Sue had clearly been cut off, took it like an adult, and I was writing a column showing that unequivocally she was in the right and Ruth was in the wrong?

  205. After the forced recess Sue had a chance to sum up her thoughts and talked at length about her concerns. She was much more understandable without all the uh, uh, uh, uhs, and I thought she got everything in she wanted. The difference was that she was not addressing the consultant and was much more relaxed.

    When this agenda item came up, Sue was raising and waving her hand franticly like a student in class that had the right answer for a change. I knew then that this was going to be trouble.

    In summation, Staff was asked to report back to the council on how the projects were to be funded. I give Sue credit for that.

    Certain people take great interest in what’s happening on this side of the Causeway and take the opportunity to defend the ex-mayor at every opportunity.

  206. After the forced recess Sue had a chance to sum up her thoughts and talked at length about her concerns. She was much more understandable without all the uh, uh, uh, uhs, and I thought she got everything in she wanted. The difference was that she was not addressing the consultant and was much more relaxed.

    When this agenda item came up, Sue was raising and waving her hand franticly like a student in class that had the right answer for a change. I knew then that this was going to be trouble.

    In summation, Staff was asked to report back to the council on how the projects were to be funded. I give Sue credit for that.

    Certain people take great interest in what’s happening on this side of the Causeway and take the opportunity to defend the ex-mayor at every opportunity.

  207. After the forced recess Sue had a chance to sum up her thoughts and talked at length about her concerns. She was much more understandable without all the uh, uh, uh, uhs, and I thought she got everything in she wanted. The difference was that she was not addressing the consultant and was much more relaxed.

    When this agenda item came up, Sue was raising and waving her hand franticly like a student in class that had the right answer for a change. I knew then that this was going to be trouble.

    In summation, Staff was asked to report back to the council on how the projects were to be funded. I give Sue credit for that.

    Certain people take great interest in what’s happening on this side of the Causeway and take the opportunity to defend the ex-mayor at every opportunity.

  208. After the forced recess Sue had a chance to sum up her thoughts and talked at length about her concerns. She was much more understandable without all the uh, uh, uh, uhs, and I thought she got everything in she wanted. The difference was that she was not addressing the consultant and was much more relaxed.

    When this agenda item came up, Sue was raising and waving her hand franticly like a student in class that had the right answer for a change. I knew then that this was going to be trouble.

    In summation, Staff was asked to report back to the council on how the projects were to be funded. I give Sue credit for that.

    Certain people take great interest in what’s happening on this side of the Causeway and take the opportunity to defend the ex-mayor at every opportunity.

  209. Doug Paul Davis…

    Let’s go back to the days when your wife was being kicked off the human relations commission.

    Let’s ponder how you would have responded if Sue had defended your wife in a supercilious and self-serving manner, explaining that while Cecilia’s behavior was abrasive and divisive, she should have been allowed to serve — although you know — you really had to agree — Cecilia was often strident and comported herself quite badly.

    No, Mayor Pro Tem Greenwald merely defended your wife and the principles that your wife stood for. She did not launch into a passive-aggressive, self-serving, pox on all their houses pseudo-defense of your wife.

    And, while your blog is fun to read, you seem to lack an understanding of the relative importance of reaching the already involved people who read your blog, versus reaching the less involved people who read the Enteprise.

    Let’s ponder the fact that if Sue had not reacted strongly to being denied to right to ask questions, the issue would have passed unnoticed in the Enterprise.

  210. Doug Paul Davis…

    Let’s go back to the days when your wife was being kicked off the human relations commission.

    Let’s ponder how you would have responded if Sue had defended your wife in a supercilious and self-serving manner, explaining that while Cecilia’s behavior was abrasive and divisive, she should have been allowed to serve — although you know — you really had to agree — Cecilia was often strident and comported herself quite badly.

    No, Mayor Pro Tem Greenwald merely defended your wife and the principles that your wife stood for. She did not launch into a passive-aggressive, self-serving, pox on all their houses pseudo-defense of your wife.

    And, while your blog is fun to read, you seem to lack an understanding of the relative importance of reaching the already involved people who read your blog, versus reaching the less involved people who read the Enteprise.

    Let’s ponder the fact that if Sue had not reacted strongly to being denied to right to ask questions, the issue would have passed unnoticed in the Enterprise.

  211. Doug Paul Davis…

    Let’s go back to the days when your wife was being kicked off the human relations commission.

    Let’s ponder how you would have responded if Sue had defended your wife in a supercilious and self-serving manner, explaining that while Cecilia’s behavior was abrasive and divisive, she should have been allowed to serve — although you know — you really had to agree — Cecilia was often strident and comported herself quite badly.

    No, Mayor Pro Tem Greenwald merely defended your wife and the principles that your wife stood for. She did not launch into a passive-aggressive, self-serving, pox on all their houses pseudo-defense of your wife.

    And, while your blog is fun to read, you seem to lack an understanding of the relative importance of reaching the already involved people who read your blog, versus reaching the less involved people who read the Enteprise.

    Let’s ponder the fact that if Sue had not reacted strongly to being denied to right to ask questions, the issue would have passed unnoticed in the Enterprise.

  212. Doug Paul Davis…

    Let’s go back to the days when your wife was being kicked off the human relations commission.

    Let’s ponder how you would have responded if Sue had defended your wife in a supercilious and self-serving manner, explaining that while Cecilia’s behavior was abrasive and divisive, she should have been allowed to serve — although you know — you really had to agree — Cecilia was often strident and comported herself quite badly.

    No, Mayor Pro Tem Greenwald merely defended your wife and the principles that your wife stood for. She did not launch into a passive-aggressive, self-serving, pox on all their houses pseudo-defense of your wife.

    And, while your blog is fun to read, you seem to lack an understanding of the relative importance of reaching the already involved people who read your blog, versus reaching the less involved people who read the Enteprise.

    Let’s ponder the fact that if Sue had not reacted strongly to being denied to right to ask questions, the issue would have passed unnoticed in the Enterprise.

  213. First, Ruth is not a bully, to whoever said it. She is a very kind, loving human being. From what I have seen, the Mayor’s job is pretty awful. Sue provokes people, and Ruth is frequently the target. They both know how to push each other’s buttons.

    Second, the surface water is all about providing a supply for future urban development. The “taste” is just a PR selling point.

    Third, the City Council majority, with strong backing from Public Works staff, are using incremental “death by a thousand taxes” rate increases to fund these huge projects. If they ran a ballot tax, it would go down in flames.

    Fourth, the entire mess should be put on the ballot. Stop funding any more studies. Let the exterior project developers come out of the woodwork and fund the pro-campaign. As they said about Nixon, just follow the money.

    A group of residents should get a proposal to the CC. If the CC wont put it on the ballot, then we can run a signature campaign and put it there ourselves.

    Fifth, and finally, most of the discharge quality issues arise from the salt that we put into the water as part of the water softening systems that are in so many Davis homes. Solve the salt issue, and you mostly solve the discharge issues that the State has with us.

    The problem: the CC is too politically weak to take it on. So instead, they are taking the easy way: tax us to death using the “rate power” that the CC enjoys, pay for massive new equipment and facilities, use the “quality” as a ruse to get the surface water for future massive development in Yolo County, and completely avoid the ballot box.

    People need to really pay attention to this, and Lamar and Sue are correct. Continuing on status quo is a complete financial and environmental debacle of the first order. Make them put it on the ballot.

  214. First, Ruth is not a bully, to whoever said it. She is a very kind, loving human being. From what I have seen, the Mayor’s job is pretty awful. Sue provokes people, and Ruth is frequently the target. They both know how to push each other’s buttons.

    Second, the surface water is all about providing a supply for future urban development. The “taste” is just a PR selling point.

    Third, the City Council majority, with strong backing from Public Works staff, are using incremental “death by a thousand taxes” rate increases to fund these huge projects. If they ran a ballot tax, it would go down in flames.

    Fourth, the entire mess should be put on the ballot. Stop funding any more studies. Let the exterior project developers come out of the woodwork and fund the pro-campaign. As they said about Nixon, just follow the money.

    A group of residents should get a proposal to the CC. If the CC wont put it on the ballot, then we can run a signature campaign and put it there ourselves.

    Fifth, and finally, most of the discharge quality issues arise from the salt that we put into the water as part of the water softening systems that are in so many Davis homes. Solve the salt issue, and you mostly solve the discharge issues that the State has with us.

    The problem: the CC is too politically weak to take it on. So instead, they are taking the easy way: tax us to death using the “rate power” that the CC enjoys, pay for massive new equipment and facilities, use the “quality” as a ruse to get the surface water for future massive development in Yolo County, and completely avoid the ballot box.

    People need to really pay attention to this, and Lamar and Sue are correct. Continuing on status quo is a complete financial and environmental debacle of the first order. Make them put it on the ballot.

  215. First, Ruth is not a bully, to whoever said it. She is a very kind, loving human being. From what I have seen, the Mayor’s job is pretty awful. Sue provokes people, and Ruth is frequently the target. They both know how to push each other’s buttons.

    Second, the surface water is all about providing a supply for future urban development. The “taste” is just a PR selling point.

    Third, the City Council majority, with strong backing from Public Works staff, are using incremental “death by a thousand taxes” rate increases to fund these huge projects. If they ran a ballot tax, it would go down in flames.

    Fourth, the entire mess should be put on the ballot. Stop funding any more studies. Let the exterior project developers come out of the woodwork and fund the pro-campaign. As they said about Nixon, just follow the money.

    A group of residents should get a proposal to the CC. If the CC wont put it on the ballot, then we can run a signature campaign and put it there ourselves.

    Fifth, and finally, most of the discharge quality issues arise from the salt that we put into the water as part of the water softening systems that are in so many Davis homes. Solve the salt issue, and you mostly solve the discharge issues that the State has with us.

    The problem: the CC is too politically weak to take it on. So instead, they are taking the easy way: tax us to death using the “rate power” that the CC enjoys, pay for massive new equipment and facilities, use the “quality” as a ruse to get the surface water for future massive development in Yolo County, and completely avoid the ballot box.

    People need to really pay attention to this, and Lamar and Sue are correct. Continuing on status quo is a complete financial and environmental debacle of the first order. Make them put it on the ballot.

  216. First, Ruth is not a bully, to whoever said it. She is a very kind, loving human being. From what I have seen, the Mayor’s job is pretty awful. Sue provokes people, and Ruth is frequently the target. They both know how to push each other’s buttons.

    Second, the surface water is all about providing a supply for future urban development. The “taste” is just a PR selling point.

    Third, the City Council majority, with strong backing from Public Works staff, are using incremental “death by a thousand taxes” rate increases to fund these huge projects. If they ran a ballot tax, it would go down in flames.

    Fourth, the entire mess should be put on the ballot. Stop funding any more studies. Let the exterior project developers come out of the woodwork and fund the pro-campaign. As they said about Nixon, just follow the money.

    A group of residents should get a proposal to the CC. If the CC wont put it on the ballot, then we can run a signature campaign and put it there ourselves.

    Fifth, and finally, most of the discharge quality issues arise from the salt that we put into the water as part of the water softening systems that are in so many Davis homes. Solve the salt issue, and you mostly solve the discharge issues that the State has with us.

    The problem: the CC is too politically weak to take it on. So instead, they are taking the easy way: tax us to death using the “rate power” that the CC enjoys, pay for massive new equipment and facilities, use the “quality” as a ruse to get the surface water for future massive development in Yolo County, and completely avoid the ballot box.

    People need to really pay attention to this, and Lamar and Sue are correct. Continuing on status quo is a complete financial and environmental debacle of the first order. Make them put it on the ballot.

  221. I just read back through the thread and wanted to address two points. First the economics need to be put forth. I don’t know how you would finance both projects at the purported costs without a bond issue or some sort of a vote so it seems that the voters will have a say and a vigorous debate going forward. The council is not going to be able to slip that kind of money by without it getting noticed.

    Second, the water in Davis tastes awful. Now I know that taste is not quantifiable but it is a reflection of my unhappiness with it that I would think Sacramento River water preferable. Maybe the person who suggested we pay more to clean it up at the wellhead has a point but I just feel that its terrible that people must go to the store to buy decent water. I also think my point about Monticello Dam is important. If Davis had bought in when it was built we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. I think that was the point the presenter was making. The sooner you step up and do the right thing the cheaper it will be in the long run. If you look at what is going on in the Delta and throughout the state with water it seems that if you can get water rights you should get them because there really is no guarantee that they will be available in the future.

    As for all that stuff you say is in the river. Yuck! Of course Dunning also took me to task on that. If it can’t be cleaned up its pretty bad and maybe we should look at where else we could get better water. Still what we have today is not water we should be proud of and we should be seeking ways to improve the water qauality in Davis.

  222. I just read back through the thread and wanted to address two points. First the economics need to be put forth. I don’t know how you would finance both projects at the purported costs without a bond issue or some sort of a vote so it seems that the voters will have a say and a vigorous debate going forward. The council is not going to be able to slip that kind of money by without it getting noticed.

    Second, the water in Davis tastes awful. Now I know that taste is not quantifiable but it is a reflection of my unhappiness with it that I would think Sacramento River water preferable. Maybe the person who suggested we pay more to clean it up at the wellhead has a point but I just feel that its terrible that people must go to the store to buy decent water. I also think my point about Monticello Dam is important. If Davis had bought in when it was built we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. I think that was the point the presenter was making. The sooner you step up and do the right thing the cheaper it will be in the long run. If you look at what is going on in the Delta and throughout the state with water it seems that if you can get water rights you should get them because there really is no guarantee that they will be available in the future.

    As for all that stuff you say is in the river. Yuck! Of course Dunning also took me to task on that. If it can’t be cleaned up its pretty bad and maybe we should look at where else we could get better water. Still what we have today is not water we should be proud of and we should be seeking ways to improve the water qauality in Davis.

  223. I just read back through the thread and wanted to address two points. First the economics need to be put forth. I don’t know how you would finance both projects at the purported costs without a bond issue or some sort of a vote so it seems that the voters will have a say and a vigorous debate going forward. The council is not going to be able to slip that kind of money by without it getting noticed.

    Second, the water in Davis tastes awful. Now I know that taste is not quantifiable but it is a reflection of my unhappiness with it that I would think Sacramento River water preferable. Maybe the person who suggested we pay more to clean it up at the wellhead has a point but I just feel that its terrible that people must go to the store to buy decent water. I also think my point about Monticello Dam is important. If Davis had bought in when it was built we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. I think that was the point the presenter was making. The sooner you step up and do the right thing the cheaper it will be in the long run. If you look at what is going on in the Delta and throughout the state with water it seems that if you can get water rights you should get them because there really is no guarantee that they will be available in the future.

    As for all that stuff you say is in the river. Yuck! Of course Dunning also took me to task on that. If it can’t be cleaned up its pretty bad and maybe we should look at where else we could get better water. Still what we have today is not water we should be proud of and we should be seeking ways to improve the water qauality in Davis.

  224. I just read back through the thread and wanted to address two points. First the economics need to be put forth. I don’t know how you would finance both projects at the purported costs without a bond issue or some sort of a vote so it seems that the voters will have a say and a vigorous debate going forward. The council is not going to be able to slip that kind of money by without it getting noticed.

    Second, the water in Davis tastes awful. Now I know that taste is not quantifiable but it is a reflection of my unhappiness with it that I would think Sacramento River water preferable. Maybe the person who suggested we pay more to clean it up at the wellhead has a point but I just feel that its terrible that people must go to the store to buy decent water. I also think my point about Monticello Dam is important. If Davis had bought in when it was built we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. I think that was the point the presenter was making. The sooner you step up and do the right thing the cheaper it will be in the long run. If you look at what is going on in the Delta and throughout the state with water it seems that if you can get water rights you should get them because there really is no guarantee that they will be available in the future.

    As for all that stuff you say is in the river. Yuck! Of course Dunning also took me to task on that. If it can’t be cleaned up its pretty bad and maybe we should look at where else we could get better water. Still what we have today is not water we should be proud of and we should be seeking ways to improve the water qauality in Davis.

  225. “….and I was writing a column showing that unequivocally she was in the right and Ruth was in the wrong?”

    I’m afraid that you are giving the Vanguard a wider readership and influence than it may merit . The non-Vanguardian politically somnolent Davis voters certainly have been publically “noticed” by this Council bru ha ha and hopefully they’ll be paying more attention now as this Council Majority attempts to continue with its creeping stealth strategy for its wasterwater/surface water projects.

  226. “….and I was writing a column showing that unequivocally she was in the right and Ruth was in the wrong?”

    I’m afraid that you are giving the Vanguard a wider readership and influence than it may merit . The non-Vanguardian politically somnolent Davis voters certainly have been publically “noticed” by this Council bru ha ha and hopefully they’ll be paying more attention now as this Council Majority attempts to continue with its creeping stealth strategy for its wasterwater/surface water projects.

  227. “….and I was writing a column showing that unequivocally she was in the right and Ruth was in the wrong?”

    I’m afraid that you are giving the Vanguard a wider readership and influence than it may merit . The non-Vanguardian politically somnolent Davis voters certainly have been publically “noticed” by this Council bru ha ha and hopefully they’ll be paying more attention now as this Council Majority attempts to continue with its creeping stealth strategy for its wasterwater/surface water projects.

  228. “….and I was writing a column showing that unequivocally she was in the right and Ruth was in the wrong?”

    I’m afraid that you are giving the Vanguard a wider readership and influence than it may merit . The non-Vanguardian politically somnolent Davis voters certainly have been publically “noticed” by this Council bru ha ha and hopefully they’ll be paying more attention now as this Council Majority attempts to continue with its creeping stealth strategy for its wasterwater/surface water projects.

  229. I want to give Sue a lot of credit for asking the important questions about a huge and incredibly expensive project. Once again, she’s taken on the “Gang of 3”. I think worrying about if she’s been polite enough is just ridiculous. What about the Mayor and Don walking away? Time to realize we’re lucky to have someone who is willing to ask the hard questions and actually represent the people.

    Consider Mayor Ruth’s resistance to public comment at Council meeting. I’ve lived in Davis for many years and have always appreciated the chance to voice my opinions. What next? Closed door meetings?

    Give Sue some credit. She is concerned about the huge potential financial impact of for all of us and willing to ask important questions.

  230. I want to give Sue a lot of credit for asking the important questions about a huge and incredibly expensive project. Once again, she’s taken on the “Gang of 3”. I think worrying about if she’s been polite enough is just ridiculous. What about the Mayor and Don walking away? Time to realize we’re lucky to have someone who is willing to ask the hard questions and actually represent the people.

    Consider Mayor Ruth’s resistance to public comment at Council meeting. I’ve lived in Davis for many years and have always appreciated the chance to voice my opinions. What next? Closed door meetings?

    Give Sue some credit. She is concerned about the huge potential financial impact of for all of us and willing to ask important questions.

  231. I want to give Sue a lot of credit for asking the important questions about a huge and incredibly expensive project. Once again, she’s taken on the “Gang of 3”. I think worrying about if she’s been polite enough is just ridiculous. What about the Mayor and Don walking away? Time to realize we’re lucky to have someone who is willing to ask the hard questions and actually represent the people.

    Consider Mayor Ruth’s resistance to public comment at Council meeting. I’ve lived in Davis for many years and have always appreciated the chance to voice my opinions. What next? Closed door meetings?

    Give Sue some credit. She is concerned about the huge potential financial impact of for all of us and willing to ask important questions.

  232. I want to give Sue a lot of credit for asking the important questions about a huge and incredibly expensive project. Once again, she’s taken on the “Gang of 3”. I think worrying about if she’s been polite enough is just ridiculous. What about the Mayor and Don walking away? Time to realize we’re lucky to have someone who is willing to ask the hard questions and actually represent the people.

    Consider Mayor Ruth’s resistance to public comment at Council meeting. I’ve lived in Davis for many years and have always appreciated the chance to voice my opinions. What next? Closed door meetings?

    Give Sue some credit. She is concerned about the huge potential financial impact of for all of us and willing to ask important questions.

  233. To those who are defending Sue’s temper tantrum as a deliberate ploy on her part to get the issue out there, that is rediculous. Sue always loses it when someone crosses her. Many of us have been subjected to her outbursts. If you disagree with her and try to have a discussion, she begins yelling. Sue blew it Tuesday night by losing her temper and acting like a child on TV. If she had just made the point (without blowing up) that Ruth was wrongfully denying her her right to question the consultant, she would have been a winner. It is a valid point. Ruth does stifle comment, both from the public and from Sue. She has cut Sue off before. But instead, Sue had a tantrum and lost any political captital she may have gained by behaving as a rational adult.

  234. To those who are defending Sue’s temper tantrum as a deliberate ploy on her part to get the issue out there, that is rediculous. Sue always loses it when someone crosses her. Many of us have been subjected to her outbursts. If you disagree with her and try to have a discussion, she begins yelling. Sue blew it Tuesday night by losing her temper and acting like a child on TV. If she had just made the point (without blowing up) that Ruth was wrongfully denying her her right to question the consultant, she would have been a winner. It is a valid point. Ruth does stifle comment, both from the public and from Sue. She has cut Sue off before. But instead, Sue had a tantrum and lost any political captital she may have gained by behaving as a rational adult.

  235. To those who are defending Sue’s temper tantrum as a deliberate ploy on her part to get the issue out there, that is rediculous. Sue always loses it when someone crosses her. Many of us have been subjected to her outbursts. If you disagree with her and try to have a discussion, she begins yelling. Sue blew it Tuesday night by losing her temper and acting like a child on TV. If she had just made the point (without blowing up) that Ruth was wrongfully denying her her right to question the consultant, she would have been a winner. It is a valid point. Ruth does stifle comment, both from the public and from Sue. She has cut Sue off before. But instead, Sue had a tantrum and lost any political captital she may have gained by behaving as a rational adult.

  236. To those who are defending Sue’s temper tantrum as a deliberate ploy on her part to get the issue out there, that is rediculous. Sue always loses it when someone crosses her. Many of us have been subjected to her outbursts. If you disagree with her and try to have a discussion, she begins yelling. Sue blew it Tuesday night by losing her temper and acting like a child on TV. If she had just made the point (without blowing up) that Ruth was wrongfully denying her her right to question the consultant, she would have been a winner. It is a valid point. Ruth does stifle comment, both from the public and from Sue. She has cut Sue off before. But instead, Sue had a tantrum and lost any political captital she may have gained by behaving as a rational adult.

  237. “But instead, Sue had a tantrum and lost any political captital she may have gained by behaving as a rational adult.”

    I have to respectfully disagree with you. During the merger fight, when Asmundson and Souza tried to effectively eliminate the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, I was forced to become quite strident in defending my position to save it. I think you can still access my “uncivil” speech on this website.

    Both Asmundson and Souza tried to make an end run around process, and I called them on it – and I was not polite about it either, the last go ’round. I tried being “civil” initially, received a heartfelt apology from Ruth for what she and Souza had done in circumventing process – yet had the same end run around process pulled on me again!

    Thus I felt forced to ratchet up the heat on these two. Saylor followed this disingenuous pair, by criticizing the “tone of the community”, as if senior citizens were in the wrong somehow for wanting to save their commission. At least Asmundson had the grace to apologize again for the second procedural lapse, although I have to wonder at her sincerity.

    When you are under fire from all sides, sometimes you have to get forceful. Had I not done so, we would not have a Senior Citizens Commission today. Had Sue not raised a vociferous complaint at being cut off from asking the hard questions, it is very probably the public would not fully understand the financial implications of paying for two huge projects at the same time.

    Even Asmundson conceded that a cost analysis was necessary in the ultimate end. Would the Mayor have done so if Sue had not strongly raised the question of financing two projects at once, or fought back when she was cut off?

    Sue has put the financial aspect of funding the water project front and center, for which I am very thankful. Citizens need to be well aware of the ultimate costs of this project, BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD.

  238. “But instead, Sue had a tantrum and lost any political captital she may have gained by behaving as a rational adult.”

    I have to respectfully disagree with you. During the merger fight, when Asmundson and Souza tried to effectively eliminate the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, I was forced to become quite strident in defending my position to save it. I think you can still access my “uncivil” speech on this website.

    Both Asmundson and Souza tried to make an end run around process, and I called them on it – and I was not polite about it either, the last go ’round. I tried being “civil” initially, received a heartfelt apology from Ruth for what she and Souza had done in circumventing process – yet had the same end run around process pulled on me again!

    Thus I felt forced to ratchet up the heat on these two. Saylor followed this disingenuous pair, by criticizing the “tone of the community”, as if senior citizens were in the wrong somehow for wanting to save their commission. At least Asmundson had the grace to apologize again for the second procedural lapse, although I have to wonder at her sincerity.

    When you are under fire from all sides, sometimes you have to get forceful. Had I not done so, we would not have a Senior Citizens Commission today. Had Sue not raised a vociferous complaint at being cut off from asking the hard questions, it is very probably the public would not fully understand the financial implications of paying for two huge projects at the same time.

    Even Asmundson conceded that a cost analysis was necessary in the ultimate end. Would the Mayor have done so if Sue had not strongly raised the question of financing two projects at once, or fought back when she was cut off?

    Sue has put the financial aspect of funding the water project front and center, for which I am very thankful. Citizens need to be well aware of the ultimate costs of this project, BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD.

  239. “But instead, Sue had a tantrum and lost any political captital she may have gained by behaving as a rational adult.”

    I have to respectfully disagree with you. During the merger fight, when Asmundson and Souza tried to effectively eliminate the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, I was forced to become quite strident in defending my position to save it. I think you can still access my “uncivil” speech on this website.

    Both Asmundson and Souza tried to make an end run around process, and I called them on it – and I was not polite about it either, the last go ’round. I tried being “civil” initially, received a heartfelt apology from Ruth for what she and Souza had done in circumventing process – yet had the same end run around process pulled on me again!

    Thus I felt forced to ratchet up the heat on these two. Saylor followed this disingenuous pair, by criticizing the “tone of the community”, as if senior citizens were in the wrong somehow for wanting to save their commission. At least Asmundson had the grace to apologize again for the second procedural lapse, although I have to wonder at her sincerity.

    When you are under fire from all sides, sometimes you have to get forceful. Had I not done so, we would not have a Senior Citizens Commission today. Had Sue not raised a vociferous complaint at being cut off from asking the hard questions, it is very probably the public would not fully understand the financial implications of paying for two huge projects at the same time.

    Even Asmundson conceded that a cost analysis was necessary in the ultimate end. Would the Mayor have done so if Sue had not strongly raised the question of financing two projects at once, or fought back when she was cut off?

    Sue has put the financial aspect of funding the water project front and center, for which I am very thankful. Citizens need to be well aware of the ultimate costs of this project, BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD.

  240. “But instead, Sue had a tantrum and lost any political captital she may have gained by behaving as a rational adult.”

    I have to respectfully disagree with you. During the merger fight, when Asmundson and Souza tried to effectively eliminate the Davis Senior Citizens Commission, I was forced to become quite strident in defending my position to save it. I think you can still access my “uncivil” speech on this website.

    Both Asmundson and Souza tried to make an end run around process, and I called them on it – and I was not polite about it either, the last go ’round. I tried being “civil” initially, received a heartfelt apology from Ruth for what she and Souza had done in circumventing process – yet had the same end run around process pulled on me again!

    Thus I felt forced to ratchet up the heat on these two. Saylor followed this disingenuous pair, by criticizing the “tone of the community”, as if senior citizens were in the wrong somehow for wanting to save their commission. At least Asmundson had the grace to apologize again for the second procedural lapse, although I have to wonder at her sincerity.

    When you are under fire from all sides, sometimes you have to get forceful. Had I not done so, we would not have a Senior Citizens Commission today. Had Sue not raised a vociferous complaint at being cut off from asking the hard questions, it is very probably the public would not fully understand the financial implications of paying for two huge projects at the same time.

    Even Asmundson conceded that a cost analysis was necessary in the ultimate end. Would the Mayor have done so if Sue had not strongly raised the question of financing two projects at once, or fought back when she was cut off?

    Sue has put the financial aspect of funding the water project front and center, for which I am very thankful. Citizens need to be well aware of the ultimate costs of this project, BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD.

  241. “Richard said…

    oops, I meant an additional “$1200 per YEAR for water”
    Richard is not the first to use this number.
    I would like to know the basis for this widely-quoted estimate of $1200 per year. It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household, and Woodland would be getting the majority of the water. So what is the source of this $100 per month cost?

  242. “Richard said…

    oops, I meant an additional “$1200 per YEAR for water”
    Richard is not the first to use this number.
    I would like to know the basis for this widely-quoted estimate of $1200 per year. It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household, and Woodland would be getting the majority of the water. So what is the source of this $100 per month cost?

  243. “Richard said…

    oops, I meant an additional “$1200 per YEAR for water”
    Richard is not the first to use this number.
    I would like to know the basis for this widely-quoted estimate of $1200 per year. It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household, and Woodland would be getting the majority of the water. So what is the source of this $100 per month cost?

  244. “Richard said…

    oops, I meant an additional “$1200 per YEAR for water”
    Richard is not the first to use this number.
    I would like to know the basis for this widely-quoted estimate of $1200 per year. It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household, and Woodland would be getting the majority of the water. So what is the source of this $100 per month cost?

  245. “It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household…..”

    ….perhaps Woodland is factoring in the additional 8000 tax-paying housing units that it has allocated for build-out just north of Davis.
    If so, is this to be Davis’ future as well?

  246. “It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household…..”

    ….perhaps Woodland is factoring in the additional 8000 tax-paying housing units that it has allocated for build-out just north of Davis.
    If so, is this to be Davis’ future as well?

  247. “It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household…..”

    ….perhaps Woodland is factoring in the additional 8000 tax-paying housing units that it has allocated for build-out just north of Davis.
    If so, is this to be Davis’ future as well?

  248. “It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household…..”

    ….perhaps Woodland is factoring in the additional 8000 tax-paying housing units that it has allocated for build-out just north of Davis.
    If so, is this to be Davis’ future as well?

  249. Terrific job, Vanguard!

    You are doing a great service by providing an open forum for people to express their opinions and debate all sides of issues (unlike the disregard we receive from our elected “representatives”).

    I have only one request: until the November election has passed (Go, Obama!), please lead off your page with: “Ongoing Local Issues of Major Importance:”

    – Charter City Decision
    – Surface Water: Cost per Resident
    – Parcel Tax: Best for schools?
    – City Council: Public Comment?

    However you list the topics, it is critical to focus on these issues by encouraging ongoing, community-wide comments and debate.

    And, thank you again for the service you are providing Davis citizens. Through “The Vanguard” we have more opportunities to express our opinions in a single day than we could in a month of City Council meetings.

  250. Terrific job, Vanguard!

    You are doing a great service by providing an open forum for people to express their opinions and debate all sides of issues (unlike the disregard we receive from our elected “representatives”).

    I have only one request: until the November election has passed (Go, Obama!), please lead off your page with: “Ongoing Local Issues of Major Importance:”

    – Charter City Decision
    – Surface Water: Cost per Resident
    – Parcel Tax: Best for schools?
    – City Council: Public Comment?

    However you list the topics, it is critical to focus on these issues by encouraging ongoing, community-wide comments and debate.

    And, thank you again for the service you are providing Davis citizens. Through “The Vanguard” we have more opportunities to express our opinions in a single day than we could in a month of City Council meetings.

  251. Terrific job, Vanguard!

    You are doing a great service by providing an open forum for people to express their opinions and debate all sides of issues (unlike the disregard we receive from our elected “representatives”).

    I have only one request: until the November election has passed (Go, Obama!), please lead off your page with: “Ongoing Local Issues of Major Importance:”

    – Charter City Decision
    – Surface Water: Cost per Resident
    – Parcel Tax: Best for schools?
    – City Council: Public Comment?

    However you list the topics, it is critical to focus on these issues by encouraging ongoing, community-wide comments and debate.

    And, thank you again for the service you are providing Davis citizens. Through “The Vanguard” we have more opportunities to express our opinions in a single day than we could in a month of City Council meetings.

  252. Terrific job, Vanguard!

    You are doing a great service by providing an open forum for people to express their opinions and debate all sides of issues (unlike the disregard we receive from our elected “representatives”).

    I have only one request: until the November election has passed (Go, Obama!), please lead off your page with: “Ongoing Local Issues of Major Importance:”

    – Charter City Decision
    – Surface Water: Cost per Resident
    – Parcel Tax: Best for schools?
    – City Council: Public Comment?

    However you list the topics, it is critical to focus on these issues by encouraging ongoing, community-wide comments and debate.

    And, thank you again for the service you are providing Davis citizens. Through “The Vanguard” we have more opportunities to express our opinions in a single day than we could in a month of City Council meetings.

  253. At the presentation the statement was made that it would cost
    $500/acre foot of water under the proposal. Now this should have been questioned but Sue didn’t get to it before she was shut down. It seems like a lot. I found an article dated 2-10-06 in the Sacramento Business Journal about Natomas land owners selling water to Sutter County. It said they bought 5000 acre feet for 10.5 million dollars to be paid out over 10 years. I think this means they will get water for 10 years for about 200/acre foot. So you need to ask how they get 500/acre foot to bring water to Davis. Could it be that both the proponents and the opposition are overstating the costs? The proponents to make a lot of money and the opponents because the higher the cost the more opposition.
    Curiouser and curiouser

  254. At the presentation the statement was made that it would cost
    $500/acre foot of water under the proposal. Now this should have been questioned but Sue didn’t get to it before she was shut down. It seems like a lot. I found an article dated 2-10-06 in the Sacramento Business Journal about Natomas land owners selling water to Sutter County. It said they bought 5000 acre feet for 10.5 million dollars to be paid out over 10 years. I think this means they will get water for 10 years for about 200/acre foot. So you need to ask how they get 500/acre foot to bring water to Davis. Could it be that both the proponents and the opposition are overstating the costs? The proponents to make a lot of money and the opponents because the higher the cost the more opposition.
    Curiouser and curiouser

  255. At the presentation the statement was made that it would cost
    $500/acre foot of water under the proposal. Now this should have been questioned but Sue didn’t get to it before she was shut down. It seems like a lot. I found an article dated 2-10-06 in the Sacramento Business Journal about Natomas land owners selling water to Sutter County. It said they bought 5000 acre feet for 10.5 million dollars to be paid out over 10 years. I think this means they will get water for 10 years for about 200/acre foot. So you need to ask how they get 500/acre foot to bring water to Davis. Could it be that both the proponents and the opposition are overstating the costs? The proponents to make a lot of money and the opponents because the higher the cost the more opposition.
    Curiouser and curiouser

  256. At the presentation the statement was made that it would cost
    $500/acre foot of water under the proposal. Now this should have been questioned but Sue didn’t get to it before she was shut down. It seems like a lot. I found an article dated 2-10-06 in the Sacramento Business Journal about Natomas land owners selling water to Sutter County. It said they bought 5000 acre feet for 10.5 million dollars to be paid out over 10 years. I think this means they will get water for 10 years for about 200/acre foot. So you need to ask how they get 500/acre foot to bring water to Davis. Could it be that both the proponents and the opposition are overstating the costs? The proponents to make a lot of money and the opponents because the higher the cost the more opposition.
    Curiouser and curiouser

  257. Don Shor said: “Richard is not the first to use this number.
    I would like to know the basis for this widely-quoted estimate of $1200 per year. It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household, and Woodland would be getting the majority of the water. So what is the source of this $100 per month cost?”

    Sue Greenwald and I had this same discussion, when the issue of these two projects came before the Davis Senior Citizens Commission. At that time the estimate for the sewer project was 150 million; and that the cost of the water project would be about the same as the sewer project. City staff at that time was estimating our bills would probably double in amount from what they were at that time. So I took my current bill (I live in a 3 bedroom house), figured out what the cost for sewer and water was on my bill, and doubled it. I came up with a figure of about $200 per month for both water and sewer.

    Unfortunately the cost for the sewer plant has increased from $150 million to $250, with the same increase for water. Thus I would project my bill for water and sewer combined to be roughly $335 per month. Of course that is assuming the costs do not rise further. By the time all is said and done, I would not be surprised if essentially the combined water/sewer bill will almost be like paying ground rent at a very pricey mobile home park! For some, especially those on fixed or limited income, it will spell foreclosure.

    That said, what we need is:
    1) cost benefit analysis of the water project;
    2) estimate of what the average homeowner will have to pay if we do both.

    I don’t always agree with Sue Greenwald, and I am on the fence as to whether we should do both projects at the same time. But the more info that comes out, the more I am leaning towards Sue’s way of thinking, her phantom experts notwithstanding.

  258. Don Shor said: “Richard is not the first to use this number.
    I would like to know the basis for this widely-quoted estimate of $1200 per year. It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household, and Woodland would be getting the majority of the water. So what is the source of this $100 per month cost?”

    Sue Greenwald and I had this same discussion, when the issue of these two projects came before the Davis Senior Citizens Commission. At that time the estimate for the sewer project was 150 million; and that the cost of the water project would be about the same as the sewer project. City staff at that time was estimating our bills would probably double in amount from what they were at that time. So I took my current bill (I live in a 3 bedroom house), figured out what the cost for sewer and water was on my bill, and doubled it. I came up with a figure of about $200 per month for both water and sewer.

    Unfortunately the cost for the sewer plant has increased from $150 million to $250, with the same increase for water. Thus I would project my bill for water and sewer combined to be roughly $335 per month. Of course that is assuming the costs do not rise further. By the time all is said and done, I would not be surprised if essentially the combined water/sewer bill will almost be like paying ground rent at a very pricey mobile home park! For some, especially those on fixed or limited income, it will spell foreclosure.

    That said, what we need is:
    1) cost benefit analysis of the water project;
    2) estimate of what the average homeowner will have to pay if we do both.

    I don’t always agree with Sue Greenwald, and I am on the fence as to whether we should do both projects at the same time. But the more info that comes out, the more I am leaning towards Sue’s way of thinking, her phantom experts notwithstanding.

  259. Don Shor said: “Richard is not the first to use this number.
    I would like to know the basis for this widely-quoted estimate of $1200 per year. It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household, and Woodland would be getting the majority of the water. So what is the source of this $100 per month cost?”

    Sue Greenwald and I had this same discussion, when the issue of these two projects came before the Davis Senior Citizens Commission. At that time the estimate for the sewer project was 150 million; and that the cost of the water project would be about the same as the sewer project. City staff at that time was estimating our bills would probably double in amount from what they were at that time. So I took my current bill (I live in a 3 bedroom house), figured out what the cost for sewer and water was on my bill, and doubled it. I came up with a figure of about $200 per month for both water and sewer.

    Unfortunately the cost for the sewer plant has increased from $150 million to $250, with the same increase for water. Thus I would project my bill for water and sewer combined to be roughly $335 per month. Of course that is assuming the costs do not rise further. By the time all is said and done, I would not be surprised if essentially the combined water/sewer bill will almost be like paying ground rent at a very pricey mobile home park! For some, especially those on fixed or limited income, it will spell foreclosure.

    That said, what we need is:
    1) cost benefit analysis of the water project;
    2) estimate of what the average homeowner will have to pay if we do both.

    I don’t always agree with Sue Greenwald, and I am on the fence as to whether we should do both projects at the same time. But the more info that comes out, the more I am leaning towards Sue’s way of thinking, her phantom experts notwithstanding.

  260. Don Shor said: “Richard is not the first to use this number.
    I would like to know the basis for this widely-quoted estimate of $1200 per year. It is far higher than what Woodland officials are estimating per household, and Woodland would be getting the majority of the water. So what is the source of this $100 per month cost?”

    Sue Greenwald and I had this same discussion, when the issue of these two projects came before the Davis Senior Citizens Commission. At that time the estimate for the sewer project was 150 million; and that the cost of the water project would be about the same as the sewer project. City staff at that time was estimating our bills would probably double in amount from what they were at that time. So I took my current bill (I live in a 3 bedroom house), figured out what the cost for sewer and water was on my bill, and doubled it. I came up with a figure of about $200 per month for both water and sewer.

    Unfortunately the cost for the sewer plant has increased from $150 million to $250, with the same increase for water. Thus I would project my bill for water and sewer combined to be roughly $335 per month. Of course that is assuming the costs do not rise further. By the time all is said and done, I would not be surprised if essentially the combined water/sewer bill will almost be like paying ground rent at a very pricey mobile home park! For some, especially those on fixed or limited income, it will spell foreclosure.

    That said, what we need is:
    1) cost benefit analysis of the water project;
    2) estimate of what the average homeowner will have to pay if we do both.

    I don’t always agree with Sue Greenwald, and I am on the fence as to whether we should do both projects at the same time. But the more info that comes out, the more I am leaning towards Sue’s way of thinking, her phantom experts notwithstanding.

  261. According to a review of water use between 1999 and 2002 (http://calclimate.berkeley.edu) average monthly water use in Davis is about 13,000 gallons.
    At the rates proposed for Tier I in the increase that was proposed March 2008, that works out to an annual average bimonthly water cost of $45 per single-family household, plus the $10 meter charge. So the monthly water fee is about $30 – 35 for a single-family household. It is expected that will almost double with the new water facility.
    Current sewer rates are about $40/month. So the typical Tier I household in Davis is currently paying about $75/month for water and sewer. Adding the new water facility would bump that up to about $100/month per household. How much would the new sewer facility add to residential costs?

    Davis and Woodland currently have very low water costs, compared to other cities in the region and to the state as a whole. Why? Because the infrastructure has not been updated in years, and the water itself has no cost.
    Any surface supply brought in will have an intrinsic cost (in the case of transfers for summer supply) or a facilities cost. But there will be a facilities cost regardless: many of the Davis wells are reaching the end of their life and will need to be replaced in the next decade. The new facility for surface water would reduce the need for many or most of those wells. How many would be a good question for the consultants and public works officials, as well as how much of that cost would be offset by the new facility.

    Waiting 25 – 30 years would mean we would have to pay to replace all of those wells, and then would build the new facility on top of that. It would probably cost more in the long run then proceeding with the new facility now. And waiting to develop surface water would leave unresolved the water quality and effluent problems until many years down the road. The way the state has been tightening water quality standards, it is likely that our current water will violate their standards sooner rather than later.

  262. According to a review of water use between 1999 and 2002 (http://calclimate.berkeley.edu) average monthly water use in Davis is about 13,000 gallons.
    At the rates proposed for Tier I in the increase that was proposed March 2008, that works out to an annual average bimonthly water cost of $45 per single-family household, plus the $10 meter charge. So the monthly water fee is about $30 – 35 for a single-family household. It is expected that will almost double with the new water facility.
    Current sewer rates are about $40/month. So the typical Tier I household in Davis is currently paying about $75/month for water and sewer. Adding the new water facility would bump that up to about $100/month per household. How much would the new sewer facility add to residential costs?

    Davis and Woodland currently have very low water costs, compared to other cities in the region and to the state as a whole. Why? Because the infrastructure has not been updated in years, and the water itself has no cost.
    Any surface supply brought in will have an intrinsic cost (in the case of transfers for summer supply) or a facilities cost. But there will be a facilities cost regardless: many of the Davis wells are reaching the end of their life and will need to be replaced in the next decade. The new facility for surface water would reduce the need for many or most of those wells. How many would be a good question for the consultants and public works officials, as well as how much of that cost would be offset by the new facility.

    Waiting 25 – 30 years would mean we would have to pay to replace all of those wells, and then would build the new facility on top of that. It would probably cost more in the long run then proceeding with the new facility now. And waiting to develop surface water would leave unresolved the water quality and effluent problems until many years down the road. The way the state has been tightening water quality standards, it is likely that our current water will violate their standards sooner rather than later.

  263. According to a review of water use between 1999 and 2002 (http://calclimate.berkeley.edu) average monthly water use in Davis is about 13,000 gallons.
    At the rates proposed for Tier I in the increase that was proposed March 2008, that works out to an annual average bimonthly water cost of $45 per single-family household, plus the $10 meter charge. So the monthly water fee is about $30 – 35 for a single-family household. It is expected that will almost double with the new water facility.
    Current sewer rates are about $40/month. So the typical Tier I household in Davis is currently paying about $75/month for water and sewer. Adding the new water facility would bump that up to about $100/month per household. How much would the new sewer facility add to residential costs?

    Davis and Woodland currently have very low water costs, compared to other cities in the region and to the state as a whole. Why? Because the infrastructure has not been updated in years, and the water itself has no cost.
    Any surface supply brought in will have an intrinsic cost (in the case of transfers for summer supply) or a facilities cost. But there will be a facilities cost regardless: many of the Davis wells are reaching the end of their life and will need to be replaced in the next decade. The new facility for surface water would reduce the need for many or most of those wells. How many would be a good question for the consultants and public works officials, as well as how much of that cost would be offset by the new facility.

    Waiting 25 – 30 years would mean we would have to pay to replace all of those wells, and then would build the new facility on top of that. It would probably cost more in the long run then proceeding with the new facility now. And waiting to develop surface water would leave unresolved the water quality and effluent problems until many years down the road. The way the state has been tightening water quality standards, it is likely that our current water will violate their standards sooner rather than later.

  264. According to a review of water use between 1999 and 2002 (http://calclimate.berkeley.edu) average monthly water use in Davis is about 13,000 gallons.
    At the rates proposed for Tier I in the increase that was proposed March 2008, that works out to an annual average bimonthly water cost of $45 per single-family household, plus the $10 meter charge. So the monthly water fee is about $30 – 35 for a single-family household. It is expected that will almost double with the new water facility.
    Current sewer rates are about $40/month. So the typical Tier I household in Davis is currently paying about $75/month for water and sewer. Adding the new water facility would bump that up to about $100/month per household. How much would the new sewer facility add to residential costs?

    Davis and Woodland currently have very low water costs, compared to other cities in the region and to the state as a whole. Why? Because the infrastructure has not been updated in years, and the water itself has no cost.
    Any surface supply brought in will have an intrinsic cost (in the case of transfers for summer supply) or a facilities cost. But there will be a facilities cost regardless: many of the Davis wells are reaching the end of their life and will need to be replaced in the next decade. The new facility for surface water would reduce the need for many or most of those wells. How many would be a good question for the consultants and public works officials, as well as how much of that cost would be offset by the new facility.

    Waiting 25 – 30 years would mean we would have to pay to replace all of those wells, and then would build the new facility on top of that. It would probably cost more in the long run then proceeding with the new facility now. And waiting to develop surface water would leave unresolved the water quality and effluent problems until many years down the road. The way the state has been tightening water quality standards, it is likely that our current water will violate their standards sooner rather than later.

  265. water is a huge issue. another race to the bottom. as long as WE GET OURS who cares about other places.

    ron glicks numerous words on this subject boil down to

    “The sooner you step up and do the right thing the cheaper it will be in the long run”

    which is not always the case (technological advances) and in this instance “the right thing” may not be surface water but better water treatment and better water conservation.

  266. water is a huge issue. another race to the bottom. as long as WE GET OURS who cares about other places.

    ron glicks numerous words on this subject boil down to

    “The sooner you step up and do the right thing the cheaper it will be in the long run”

    which is not always the case (technological advances) and in this instance “the right thing” may not be surface water but better water treatment and better water conservation.

  267. water is a huge issue. another race to the bottom. as long as WE GET OURS who cares about other places.

    ron glicks numerous words on this subject boil down to

    “The sooner you step up and do the right thing the cheaper it will be in the long run”

    which is not always the case (technological advances) and in this instance “the right thing” may not be surface water but better water treatment and better water conservation.

  268. water is a huge issue. another race to the bottom. as long as WE GET OURS who cares about other places.

    ron glicks numerous words on this subject boil down to

    “The sooner you step up and do the right thing the cheaper it will be in the long run”

    which is not always the case (technological advances) and in this instance “the right thing” may not be surface water but better water treatment and better water conservation.

  269. h20 to go, maybe you are right but the argument that we should do nothing for 25 years clearly doesn’t meet your alternative.

    It would be interesting to know what the debate over participation in Montecello Dam was like.

    My point was that we might be making the same mistake again and the next time this comes around water might be a more limited commodity, that does seem to be the trend in Califonia and the world.

  270. h20 to go, maybe you are right but the argument that we should do nothing for 25 years clearly doesn’t meet your alternative.

    It would be interesting to know what the debate over participation in Montecello Dam was like.

    My point was that we might be making the same mistake again and the next time this comes around water might be a more limited commodity, that does seem to be the trend in Califonia and the world.

  271. h20 to go, maybe you are right but the argument that we should do nothing for 25 years clearly doesn’t meet your alternative.

    It would be interesting to know what the debate over participation in Montecello Dam was like.

    My point was that we might be making the same mistake again and the next time this comes around water might be a more limited commodity, that does seem to be the trend in Califonia and the world.

  272. h20 to go, maybe you are right but the argument that we should do nothing for 25 years clearly doesn’t meet your alternative.

    It would be interesting to know what the debate over participation in Montecello Dam was like.

    My point was that we might be making the same mistake again and the next time this comes around water might be a more limited commodity, that does seem to be the trend in Califonia and the world.

Leave a Comment