The City of Davis clearly needed to be called to task when the language of the city’s contract with Zipcar was not consistent with the rhetoric from the city about the contract. That was a huge problem of public trust. But let us not pretend that Zipcar is a budgetary problem for the city.
First of all, the contract was always small, and came from developer impact fees rather than the general fund. Could people argue that developer impact fees could and should be better spent? Of course. But I also think we need to keep our eye on the real problems facing this city.
That columnist added, “because the city of Davis won’t have to give an out-of-state rental car company the maximum amount of its contract, city leaders are now crowing that the Zipcar program is a roaring success”
First of all, it is not clear that statement is true, the city never expected to spend a huge amount on the Zipcar contract. It was interesting, as a side note, talking to a student last week in an interview for one of the internships we offer, that student loves the Zipcar and said students utilize them a lot.
And community members are utilizing them as well. Usership since October climbed from 27% to 45%. There were 105 registered users in April. The city needs a 40 to 45 percent usage rate to break even.
As I said, we can argue about whether this is $74,000 (tops) well-spent, with actual numbers in the first term being just under $2000.
One critic of Zipcars writes into the Davis Enterprise, “There is no goal for the city. There is no way the city can win anything through the contract. As you point out on the back page, ‘None of the revenues are channeled back to the city, no matter how well the program does.’ And if Zipcar revenues decline, the city obligation increases.”
He adds, “So far, the city has paid $8,711.80 to Zipcar. It also has furnished four exclusive auto parking spaces to it, without charge. And the agreement will continue another 18 months, for a full two years.”
At least Bob Dunning, after spending all of this time talking about the money, finally admits it is really not all about the money. He writes, “For me, the whole Zipcar fiasco was never as much about the amount of city funds involved as it was about the propriety of subsidizing an out-of-state business at the expense of locally owned businesses.”
Still, I question why this is his priority.
I have not once seen him write about the real problems facing the city, beyond the $8000 we have paid ZipCar out of the Developer Impact Fees.
How about the fact that the city had to dip into its reserve to cover fund balances because of the lack of revenue. The number started out to be relatively modest this year, but has now apparently grown to $750,000 dollars. That is ten Zipcar contracts at maximum fee.
It gets worse from there because that is the starting point.
Increased costs to pensions will likely eat up another $2 to $3 million that the city will have to find money to cover. That number does not reflect the amount the city will have to pay to close the unfunded retiree health care liability.
Yes, those number are millions. I know every little bit counts, so if we could just find ourselves about 800 Zipcar contracts to cut, we might be okay for a few days.
But unfortunately, the ratepayers in this city are going to be hit with almost that much by themselves. The surface water project that all the leaders have been bragging about and the local paper has not covered is going to lead to a series of rate increases that will eventually take the yearly water rate from just over $400 to $1333 per year.
And while all the focus was on the $200 of Measure A, in fact, the city’s water rate increase, which has hardly registered on the radar, will cost 4.5 times more to the typical person in this town.
It is not like we cannot do anything about it. We actually, under Prop 218, have the right to protest these fee hikes. But, of course, the local paper has barely reported on this.
Just wait until next year when the taxpayers will be asked to renew their parcel tax for the school district at $320 and their parks tax which, if it passes, will cost the taxpayers more money. If it doesn’t, it means another $2 to $3 million deficit.
I have spent a lot of time in recent weeks talking about the district’s $10 million that it got from the state in 2007 and that it is not getting this year, but perhaps we ought to be talking about the $10 million gap in the city’s budget based on poor economic performance, pensions, retiree health care, cafeteria benefits and loss in money if the voters turn down the parks tax next year.
But it is much more fun to talk about the $8000 we are paying in the Zipcar. Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s about the out of town business that we are giving money to.
Remind me again how much we are giving Tsakopoulos so that we can pay $1300 a year in water fees. I guess he doesn’t count as out of town.
Issues like plastic bags, wood burning logs, Zipcars, and the like are fun. There are important environmental considerations behind the initiatives. It is interesting, to me at least, how easily anti-environmental arguments get cloaked in issues of freedom and the budget.
But, belying that rhetoric is a fundamental problem, that we are facing very serious problems in this town with our budget and with the school budget, that are really not being adequately discussed. So, as much as I think it is important to deal with issues like wood burning and plastic bags, it is actually hindering the discussion of other issues that are more pressing but less exciting.
How will the average community member feel if the city has to close down parks, recreational programs, swimming pools and greenbelts because they can no longer afford their operations and upkeep?
The average person knows a lot more about Zipcars and plastic bags than they do about unfunded liabilities. People fall asleep during such talks. But unfortunately, they need to be dealt with and soon.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I have far too many observations on this episode to really launch in, but I will add one theme that hasn’t come out. And I know this first-hand. When environmental advocates were first seeking to encourage carsharing in the U.S. in the 1990s (it’s all over Europe, of course), they went to the big rental car companies and asked them to launch the service. Pleaded with them even to do demos. The big guys had the marketing, the cars, the reputations, etc. They passed. The market was too small; too new; untested; car ownership too high in the U.S. Who wants multiple distribution locations to manage when one central place is profitable? To this attitude, small guys gave it a try. Most failed. There were some mergers of the small guys. One company found a way to make it work. That there is a small market proves that the market system works. So with carsharing as with other ideas, one investor passes on an idea, another gives it a try. Everyone just makes their decisions. Rental car companies seem to be getting interested now. They are making alliances with car companies and others. This is because the small guys proved there could be a market, values are changing, people are souring to the very high cost of car ownership and realizing that transportation doesn’t have to be a monoculture. We paid $1700 this week for what feel like minor repairs on our station wagon….
Joe K makes several very good points.
My ideas about Zip Car began to form a few years ago when a friend in San Francisco described how much money he saved by selling his car and joining ZC. He is an economist working in finance. I was impressed with his arguments, and am even more impressed with the fact that he makes a more money now and is still is a ZP guy.
The next jog in my ZP consciousness came when Greg Clark, who is the chair of economics at UCD and one seriously smart guy, wrote, …”all kinds of schemes that the private market will never support. In your post, you promote car sharing as an innovative way to deal with resource scarcities. But firms in the private market long ago introduced the concept of car sharing. Their names are Avis, Budget, Dollar and Hertz. Car-sharing schemes such as the ones you mention, which have been around since 1948, will likely forever be a minority interest — otherwise, Hertz would be doing it already.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-gardner-clark9may09,0,4292321.story
Nonetheless, it does appear that the ZC is a commercial success, and young people such as our students here in Davis love it. I support government’s encouragement of ZC. This is sort of like the government subsidizing food commodities such that restaurants will succeed and employ more people. ZC doesn’t lead to obsity, so it appears the at the City of Davis has the moral high ground with ZC that the US government doesn’t have with food subsidies.
[quote]I have not once seen him write about the real problems facing the city, beyond the $8000 we have paid ZipCar out of the Developer Impact Fees.[/quote]
$8000 here, $8000 there, it all adds up. This program also needs to be looked at through the filter of a time of economic austerity. This is particularly true when we already had a car sharing program through UCD that could have simply been expanded. Is Zipcar Davis really a viable program that should be renewed if it is a money loser for the city – renewed just because “car-sharing” is politically correct at the moment but is a drain on city funds and causes damage to local car rental companies? And hard questions need to be asked, such as just how many drivers are being served by this new Zipcar program that justifies the monetary loss? Or is this just a convenience for City Staff, who get to use a Zipcar for free? And how does Zipcar Davis result in any reduced miles traveled? It matters not one whit if the miles traveled are in your own car or a Zip car. How many people have truly given up their cars, just so they can avail themselves of a Zip car? Any documented cases of actual car sacrifices for the good of global warming? When this contract comes up for renewal, I would hope the City Council will objectively ask the necessary and hard questions – and not renew this contract if it is a money loser for the city.
Elaine, I was ready for that response, hence “I know every little bit counts, so if we could just find ourselves about 800 Zipcar contracts to cut, we might be okay for a few days.”
“Is Zipcar Davis really a viable program that should be renewed if it is a money loser for the city – renewed just because “car-sharing” is politically correct at the moment but is a drain on city funds and causes damage to local car rental companies? “
How long do you give them to show that they can break even. I thought Joe made a good point about the market emerging. To me it’s similar to solar panels, short term very costly but if they can be subsidized in the long run they are competitive.
and I add to the above comment that Dunning’s broken record on ZC, the women’s basketball coach firing, and his strutting about the recent school taxes, not to mention his strange piece about all of the money Prop 13 saved him, convinces me that he is really not concerned about the future of Davis as a special place. When I moved here some years ago, an old friend commented on Dunning–he yearns for a place like Riverside (I grew up in R; this comment is right on). The Emptyprise is sort of like Dunning. It yearns for an unregulated business environment like Riverside, while enjoying the privilege of lack of competition from the SacBee. But for the grace of the Yolo Bypass, the Emptyprise and the Davis that we enjoy would have been but a little bit of history.
Dunning’s purpose is to entertain, to provoke, and to get people reading and talking about his columns. He’s not an investigative reporter. Hell, he isn’t even a reporter period. He’s a columnist. Every anti-Dunning post on this blog is another feather in his cap! No point in criticizing him for not being a reporter. That’s like criticizing DMG for not reporting on local sports or weather.
Crilly: The problem with Dunning is the people in Davis believe him and what he writes to be “true.” Why do you think he can stir people up so much. Even columnists should do a little homework and verify things they write. Selling partial facts as general truths (how many citizens of Davis got the Parcel Tax Exemption letters – 200 maybe?) is disingenuous at best. And this from a guy who uses the line: “trust me” far too often.
But this is far off topic so I’ll stop there.
ERM
I think that you may be asking the wrong question with ” How many people have given up their cars just so they can avail themselves of a Zip Car?” I think the broader issue is “Are many people considering alternatives to the private automobile?” When the question is posed this way, I think the answer is “Yes” and I will provide the example of my family which I do not believe is unique for our times. My daughter had her own car, recycled from me and gave it up in favor of her feet and public transportation. My son, now 19, has not bothered to learn to drive favoring his feet, skateboard, bike or public transport. I have chosen to move from the suburban neighborhood where I raised my kids to downtown Davis, largely because it will allow me to more than half my driving by walking to work and everywhere within the downtown area thus also saving parking hassles. In talking with my patients I mandate many are similarly minded and those who have a need to maintain a private car are becoming more frustrated by the associated costs. I also know a number of people who like myself, have switched to hybrids because of environmental concerns. I believe, and hope that we will eventually reach a critical mass in our society to tip the balance away from the costly,
environmentally damaging, and demonstrably unhealthy private automobile ( think prevalence of asthma if nothing else).
On another note, I am a little confused about your position with regard to ZipCar and the locally owned car rental companies. It seemed to me on other posts that you felt it was “PC” (which I interpreted as a derogatory ) for people to oppose the Davis Target due to possible impact on local merchants and yet it seems to me that you are criticizing ZipCar for it’s impact on local business. Can you clarify ?
ERM: You challenge us all to know someone who has given up a car for environmental reasons. Let me make a slightly different point. I know lots of people who have given up some driving for environmental reasons. Or delayed getting a car (or even a license) for environmental reasons. I know people who moved from fancy cars to less-fancy but more economically and environmentally sound cars because of their concern for the impact they were having on the environment. Out here in the Valley it may be difficult to see the effects the same way as in San Francisco, for instance. The rise of biking in SF is not only because it is cool. Many young people are making a conscious choice to not own cars or to car share. The notion that families have to have two cars (like most in Davis I bet) is relatively recent – think about when you and I were growing up in the 1950’s and 1960’s – most families did not have two cars. Now every family has two cars. I’ve belonged to ZipCar for several years and have used them in tandem with the train for day-trips to SF. I’ve used them in other cities to get out of the city center. Car sharing is not some new faddish thing anyway. Think about taxi cabs – that’s a form of car sharing. I drove a cab for two years in San Francisco (too many years ago to think about) and picked up many people who did not have cars. Zipcars, Capitol Corridor trains, bicycles, Yolobus – all part of the larger shift in transportation that is, I believe, good for the economy and environment.
I too appreciate Joe Krovoza’s input–it would be great if other members of the city council deigned to communicate with their constituents in this blog. (Of course, Sue Greenwald does.)
The question I had when ZipCar was started was, “Did the local car rental companies have an opportunity to bid on the contract?” If they did so and declined, then they and Dunning have no beef. If not, it should have been an open bid process. As for the program itself, I too at the beginning had qualms about the city underwriting the program, although I supported the goal. I now support the concept. I have rented from Enterprise in Davis. On one hand, they are great; they will come and pick up you. But on the other hand, I have never gotten out of their office in less than 45 minutes. They are SLOW. As for Avis, I’ve always manged to get a MUCH better deal by driving out to the airport. Zipcar is offering a service that the local boys could have, but decided not to. They have no room to complain at this juncture. (Although, I do hope that future contracts with ZipCar will not include a guaranteed subsidy.)
I don’t think there was a contract to bid on. My impression is that ZipCar approached city staff who were sold on the idea, and put it forward for the new city council to approve. I also believe there is no competition yet within this niche of the car rental industry. It is a specific type of rental service. If it succeeds, perhaps the locally-owned companies will wish to offer it as well, in which case I hope the city will allow them to use the same parking spaces that are presently reserved for the ZipCars.
If I’ve made any errors in my assumptions, perhaps others can correct them. It’s always good to see Joe and other council members participating here.
[quote]Or is this just a convenience for City Staff, who get to use a Zipcar for free? [/quote]Interesting comment… from the city employees I know, even if it was once postulated, it never was implemented… i.e., untrue.
Observer, what an astute point! My economist pal in SF who is a ZP guy says that the car rental companies would have to come up with a low personnel cost approach to zcing (lower case, generic of ZP). In the current rental car model, personnel are dedicated to one offs; lots of processing under the guise of convenience: checking your drivers license, trying to cheat you with insurance that you probably don’t need, trying to bilk you for gasoline that you don’t use (I wonder if rental car agents get a kick back on insurance and gas sales?). Your monthly ZC fee is what you pony up for not having the one-off hassle.
Like many small issues, ZipCar became a easy to understand symbol for bigger, more complicated and more important issues. The council decision-making process, the city staff relationship and interaction with council, priorities and planning for spending tax money, UCD-city cooperation/competition, accuracy of city reports to citizens, Davis’ emphasis on “green” projects–these became the real points of discussion.
ZipCar also became a handy symbol for evaluating the roles of Dunning and David in the community consciousness and for showing how “misplaced outrage” takes attention away from our more substantial problems.
I’d suggest all of these topics are worthy of the discussion that ZipCar generated. No, ZipCar wasn’t about the money; it was about the bigger, process issues to which sunlight was drawn.[quote]”Or is this just a convenience for City Staff, who get to use a Zipcar for free?…[/quote]As I remember, the contract called for certain groups (city employees, for one) to get a free annual membership. But, I don’t think free use was part of the deal.
However, your point is worth pursuing. How many of the 100 members of our program are city employees? What percentage of the usage figures reflect city staff use or UCD student use? Has the city reimbursed anyone who has used ZipCar in lieu of city vehicles or their personal vehicles?
These figures must be available, but were not included in the city’s announcement. I still wonder why we initiated and gave away tax money for a service that already was available to all of us (from UCD’s program). Providing parking spaces downtown would have given us the same access to the UCD ZipCar vehicles–and with no city cash subsidy required.[quote]”(how many citizens of Davis got the Parcel Tax Exemption letters – 200 maybe?)”[/quote]That’s what David assumed in his early stories. He followed up with a verified “about 1,000”–far more by comparison, but not many in the overall scheme of things, as he points out again today.
[quote]As I remember, the contract called for certain groups (city employees, for one) to get a free annual membership. But, I don’t think free use was part of the deal. [/quote]By following links from the city’s website, it appears that this is correct… city employees pay no application, nor annual membership fee, just usage costs.
Don Shor: [i]”I also believe there is no competition yet within this niche of the car rental industry. It is a specific type of rental service. If it succeeds, perhaps the locally-owned companies will wish to offer it as well, in which case I hope the city will allow them to use the same parking spaces that are presently reserved for the ZipCars.”[/i]
I think the picture Don paints is exactly right. I don’t sense that the people who have been using an Enterprise Rent-a-Car in Davis will now switch over to Zipcar. I think they are likely two different customer bases (for the most part). I suspect that the other car rental companies have not suffered a hardship for the existance of Zipcar.
The great problem with Zipcar in my mind was the suspect and even dishonest approach of how it was sold to the public in Davis in the original contract. While Crilly makes some solid points above, I disagree that Bob Dunning was just trying to stir things up. It was through his column–which unfortunately David Greenwald bashed endlessly until he realized Bob had it right–that he discovered and reported the various ways in which the members of the City Council who were pushing the positives of the Zipcar deal misunderstood the deal they had signed.
I’m just curious: would the vanguard ignore gains to the city if the overall net positive on the zipcar contract was merely $8000 – a relatively small amount?
DMG:”talking to a student last week” – yes, the one student vanguard sought out to bolster its pro zipcar position.
DMG: “We actually, under Prop 218, have the right to protest these fee hikes.”
well, you wanted clean water – be careful what you wish for.
But it is much more fun to talk about the $8000 we are paying in the Zipcar. Oh yeah, I forgot, it’s about the out of town business that we are giving money to.
DMG: “Remind me again how much we are giving Tsakopoulos so that we can pay $1300 a year in water fees. I guess he doesn’t count as out of town.
wow, talk about changing the subject!!!
DMG: “Issues like plastic bags, wood burning logs, Zipcars, and the like are fun. There are important environmental considerations behind the initiatives. It is interesting, to me at least, how easily anti-environmental arguments get cloaked in issues of freedom and the budget.
But, belying that rhetoric is a fundamental problem, that we are facing very serious problems in this town with our budget and with the school budget, that are really not being adequately discussed.”
well, who’s fault is that!!!!! how many pieces have you written about supporting plastic bag bans or anti-target articles! Now, really!!!
so if you are worried about covering the water/sewer problem more, than stop writing hit pieces on dunning over zipcar which you say is insignificant and cover it!!
“The average person knows a lot more about Zipcars and plastic bags than they do about unfunded liabilities. People fall asleep during such talks. But unfortunately, they need to be dealt with and soon.”
wow, talk about having a low opinion of the average person! perhaps behind all this bitterness at the heart of it all, is you supported a cruddy zipcar contract, and dunning appeared to have his facts in order, while you did not? And to bash people for focusing on plastic bags, like I said above, the only reason I even knew about the plastic bag ban is because the vanguard decided to focus on that as opposed to something else. So you only have yourself to blame on that one.
I would also like to point out, that the vanguard began writing pro zipcar articles to try to pursuade its readers to support it, but now that it turns out to be a lousy contract and a financial liability, the vanguard decides that we ought not talk about it and discuss something else, because it has lost the argument based on the 8000 negative.
“That was a huge problem of public trust. But let us not pretend that Zipcar is a budgetary problem for the city.”
that is a straw man argument. Dunning never argued that it was a large amount in relative terms. He merely argued it was an idiotic, one-sided contract that was a money loser – which it clearly was…. and both the city and the vanguard got suckered because zipcar made sure to put a green face on it. lets cut the crap.
“Dunning never argued that it was a large amount in relative terms.”
Actually I never said he did, I said his focus on it was misplaced when there were much bigger problems in the city that he has never talked about.
[quote]”Actually we don’t know that it will be a money loser. I expect that it will be revenue neutral before the end of this year.”[/quote]Actually, we already [u]know[/u] it’s a money loser for the city. And, since there’s no provision for the city to get a piece of the profits, we’ll never get back to even.
The city agreed to subsidize the venture if ZipCar didn’t make as much money as the wanted too. Are you expecting ZC to return their past subsidy payments when/if they start making their desired profit level?
And, why do you keep making this about Dunning? Nobody, including him, suggested “that Zipcar is a budgetary problem for the city.”
As we’ve observed before, it was “a huge problem of public trust,” of municipal leadership and of poor staff work.” Serious budget problems will follow, however, if the same level of failure is applied to a larger undertaking (such as a multi-million=dollar water project, for example.
I’ll amend slightly since we are out $8000 in the first 8 months of the program, my expectation based on usage is that this will not ongoing money loser for the city.
I already explained the answer to your next question, “Still, I question why this is his priority.” Now why do I mention that, he has had countless articles on issues like this one and plastic bag and yet has never talked about the issues that are the most serious facing the city. There is a real fiasco is it the ever increasing deficit in the reserve that was supposed to be closed nearly a year ago, and yet has risen from $40,000 this fall now up to $750,000.
This isn’t about Bob Dunning at all, it’s about the local paper not covering the real issues facing our community, then suddenly the people will be caught off-guard when their water rates are jacked in a few months, or vital services are cut over the next year.
People are going to go, I never saw it coming. Well that’s because you were focused on Zipcars and plastic bags. Yes I’ve covered them, it’s fun to debate over those issues, but I have 20 articles a week to cover other things as well.
Sorry, but I think Bob Dunning has this one right.
Zipcar did not have to be a stand alone city project that loses money for the city. All that was necessary was to expand the existing UCD program, and the city would have lost nothing.
Secondly, Zipcar is not local, but a company from MA if I am not mistaken. I thought we were supposed to be supporting local business?
[quote]On another note, I am a little confused about your position with regard to ZipCar and the locally owned car rental companies. It seemed to me on other posts that you felt it was “PC” (which I interpreted as a derogatory ) for people to oppose the Davis Target due to possible impact on local merchants and yet it seems to me that you are criticizing ZipCar for it’s impact on local business. Can you clarify ? [/quote]
I think you misunderstood my position. What I was trying to say, obviously not as articulately as I would have liked, is that Target is constantly being bashed on this blog as not politically correct, even tho it is now a Davis business. Target generates tax revenue for the city, yet there is continued antipathy by some to criticize Target for not being a true “local” business. How someone can argue Target is somehow not local, then turn around and be okay with Zipcar which is controlled by a company in another state is beyond me…
[quote]How long do you give them to show that they can break even. I thought Joe made a good point about the market emerging. To me it’s similar to solar panels, short term very costly but if they can be subsidized in the long run they are competitive.[/quote]
How long do you subsidize a project that loses money? That is my question, and should be the City Council’s. Folding this project into expanding UCD’s Zipcar program would seem a better and more fiscally responsible way to do things IMHO…
” How long do you subsidize a project that loses money? ” I don’t know, how long have we been subsidizing airlines ?
[b]Never Give an Inch (Part 1)[/b][quote][u]David[/u]: “That was a huge problem of public trust. But let us not pretend that Zipcar is a budgetary problem for the city.”
[u]Elaine[/u]: “That is a straw man argument. Dunning never argued that it was a large amount in relative terms.”
[u]David[/u]: “Actually I never said he did, I said his focus on it was misplaced.”[/quote][b]Never Give an Inch (Part 2)[/b][quote][u]David[/u]: “First of all, it is not clear that statement is true, the city never expected to spend a huge amount on the Zipcar contract.”
[u]Elaine[/u]: “Dunning…merely argued it was an idiotic, one-sided contract that was a money loser – which it clearly was….”
[u]David[/u]: “Actually we don’t know that it will be a money loser. I expect that it will be revenue neutral before the end of this year.
[u]JS[/u]: “Actually, we already know it’s a money loser for the city. And, since there’s no provision for the city to get a piece of the profits, we’ll never get back to even.
[u]David[/u]: “I’ll amend slightly since we are out $8000 in the first 8 months of the program, my expectation based on usage is that this will not ongoing money loser for the city.”[/quote][b]Never Give an Inch (Part 3)[/b][quote][u]David[/u]: “Writes one columnist (Dunning)….That columnist (Dunning) added….it is not clear that statement (by Dunning) is true, the city never expected to spend a huge amount on the Zipcar contract….At least Bob Dunning….He (Dunning) writes….Still, I question why this is his (Dunning’s) priority. I have not once seen him (Dunning) write about the real problems….”
[u]Musser[/u]: “…stop writing hit pieces on dunning over zipcar which you say is insignificant and cover it!!”
[u]JS[/u]: “And, why do you keep making this about Dunning?”
[u]David[/u]: “This isn’t about Bob Dunning at all, it’s about the local paper not covering the real issues facing our community….”[/quote]It’s difficult to keep up with all the revisionism on this story, let alone all the [u]Vanguard[/u] coverage on this one topic. One would be hard-pressed to find any past ZipCar article that doesn’t refer to (or feature!) Dunning. The same probably is true for [u]Vanguard[/u]’s plastic bag and wood-burning coverage.
Even though you’ve said this isn’t about Dunning, allow me to point out that he gets paid for writing up his opinions and observations in ways that keeps the paper’s readers coming back for more. He is a columnist, not a reporter. He is under no obligation to cover any particular vital issue or to research and tell the “whole story” about anything. Arguing that Dunning has a journalistic or an ethical responsibility to operate in any way other than he has been really puts you on a fool’s errand. He writes about weird things, funny things, sentimental things,
If your concern really has been about the [u]Enterprise[/u] “not covering the real issues facing our community,” shouldn’t you have pointed that out before now?
To Just Saying: Understandably, some of the comments you have attributed to me (E Roberts Musser) were said by my son (Musser), but no matter, bc he and I agree completely on the Zipcar issue. You make an excellent point about the “revisionist history” here by the the Vanguard, which is getting pretty frustrating to deal with.
Secondly, one of the issues that I find particularly irritating is the position the Vanguard continually takes on Target in Davis being a local company not worthy of patronage by customers bc its corporate headquarters is located in another state (Target is not politically correct for this town because it is not truly “local”). Yet the Vanguard has absolutely no qualms about the out of state company that runs Zipcar. Such diametrically opposed positions are completely inconsistent. The Vanguard cannot have it both ways.
[u]Elaine[/u] and [u]Musser[/u]: Thank you for pointing that out. Sorry, I’d promised myself not to make that seemingly common error here.
[u]Elaine[/u]: With respect to your observation about Target and ZipCar not being local companies, you’re just wrong: Of course, the [u]Vanguard[/u] CAN “have it both ways,” sometimes several ways.
You’ll remember that David did come around to withdraw his unqualified support for the ZipCar green initiative as he reported the City’s deceit and/or incompetence. That’s why I was surprised to see him nearly back at his square one with this article.
Is it coincidence that Dunning had just restarted his ZipCar ranting?
Or is it likely that Dunning just needed some more of David’s dunning?
“the position the Vanguard continually takes on Target in Davis being a local company not worthy of patronage by customers bc its corporate headquarters is located in another state (Target is not politically correct for this town because it is not truly “local”).”
The problem is that you are misstating at least to a large degree my objection to Target. It’s not that it’s out of the area, it is that the model for big box is inherently destructive to the local community. I don’t see any parallel is using Zipcar as a provider of car sharing, which really does not exist on a local level anyway.
“You’ll remember that David did come around to withdraw his unqualified support for the ZipCar green initiative as he reported the City’s deceit and/or incompetence. That’s why I was surprised to see him nearly back at his square one with this article.”
My problem was with the city’s incompetence and deceit in handling the contract, not the concept of Zipcar to begin with.