I was reading an excellent piece from Jonathan London’s op-ed in the Davis Enterprise, “War on the Poor.”
He writes, “In the first envelope I found that, based on the value of our home, my family contributes the equivalent of $9.50 a day – including a whopping $2.60 a day for voter-approved assessments for public schools, community colleges, parks and libraries – for the public good.”
“Is that the price of a great public education, a green neighborhood, a well-read community? Is this our fair share?” he asks.
He then continues to the second envelope to find stories of the “unsheltered of our community…” and he came to the answer that he is not paying his fair share “Because, summed up in the bottom line of our tax bill is the disinvestment in the public good that imperils all that we hold dear in our dear Davis.”
I am with him on this, but I come at it in a very different way.
I have come to the conclusion that government does not work.
I have made conscious choices in my life to live a certain way. I probably will never own my own home and I am okay with that. I may never hold the standard job or get the nice retirement, and I can live with that as well. I made those choices and feel that what I have chosen to do with my life has value.
I made the decision to foster and adopt a child, and it is the best decision I made in my life.
I also made a decision to help out two helpless children, with a mother who, while well-intentioned, does not have the means or the wherewithal to take care of the children. We have a chance to give those kids a good life, a Davis education, and a chance to have a better life, more than their parents were able to.
For the act of fostering and adopting the foster child, who is in the very same predicament as our relatives, we are paid modestly by the state and the county. For the act of taking in our two nephews, we get nothing from anyone.
We have been through the county social services and it was an absolute nightmare. Have we cut back our help to needy families? Certainly. Has the county been ravaged more than its fair share? No doubt.
Are there good and well-intentioned people in the system? You bet.
But overall we found that most people were not helpful, did not attempt to be helpful, and in fact, put up barriers to being helpful. The difficulty of trying to get our nephew the mental health care that he needed was beyond belief. This was a child that was in desperate need of mental health care because of what he had been through, and we could not get care for him for over three months.
Fortunately, we are not every other person in the system. We know people. And eventually, with the help of a County Supervisor and his staff and a lot of perseverance, we got him the help he needed.
But the typical family that would find themselves in our position may not have those connections and the perseverance. We wondered earlier this year how an act like what happened in Arizona could occur. After being through what I have been through this year, I wonder how it cannot happen more often.
I do not regret for a minute the choices that I have made, but somehow I wonder how many other people are able to do this, given the hurdles and all of the red tape that they have they have to go through.
Yesterday, people took exception when I suggested that Councilmember Stephen Souza’s claims that he too was feeling the hurt were not genuine. That is not at all what I was intending to convey.
What I was intending to convey is that Mr. Souza does not feel our pain. He cannot. He is in a very different place in his life right now.
But I think the idea of singling out Mr. Souza was wrong. He is no different than most of the other people in elective office. Most, but not all. Most people who serve in government do not live paycheck to paycheck or have to utilize public services to get by.
The people on the Board of Supervisors have not had to deal with their own department of social services in order to get services. They simply do not know what probably thousands of people have to deal with on a daily basis in order to survive.
Most of those people have little voice, and some are easily dismissed as being part of the problem.
On the other hand, what we have done in the last few years during this recession is make it likely that we will have a permanent underclass in this country, certainly in this state.
Wealthy Davis has been able to be the beacon of hope still, still pumping out the money to provide kids with the kind of care and education that they need. We still have things like school psychologists, that many other districts have long since done away with.
When our nephew needed help last year, we were in a meeting with six people, including the principal, to figure out the best approach. A lot of other school districts do not have the resources for that.
It is for those reasons, when I see the water rate hikes that were proposed, I cringe. Davis, as generous as it has been, barely passed its last parcel tax. Imagine what the school district would have to cut if they lost three million in funding? And yet, if the next parcel tax next spring does not pass, that is what we are looking at. We have balanced the state budget by cutting money to people with disabilities, needy families and social services, the kinds of programs that people like us, who are helping to keep kids off the streets and out of the system, may rely upon.
We have balanced the state budget by eviscerating education funding. Middle class families will struggle to put their kids through college. UC and CSU have seen their tuitions go way up. Community colleges have been ravaged.
Despite all of this, the straw that breaks the camel’s back could be a water rate hike. We can couch it in all kinds of terms, talking about federal and state water mandates, I get it. I really do.
But think about this for a few minutes. The people who were able to protest the water rates, through a Prop 218 process, were the owners. They are said to be the ratepayers and therefore they get a say in the process. But more than half of the people who live in this town are not owners but renters.
They did not get the right to protest the water rates. They do not get the right to receive subsidies from the city because they are not ratepayers. And yet they are the ones who will have the costs pushed onto their backs.
Landlords will pass down costs to their renters, store owners to their customers, and the average person will pay more and there is nothing that can be done about it.
If the council says that it has to do this – then you have to find a way not to do it on the backs of the poor.
Every decision that gets made in government falls eventually on the backs of those who can least afford to carry the burden. That is the war on the poor.
Unlike many, I want to see government work, it has to work. We have no alternative. But to make government work, we have to understand how our policies impact those who are least able to pay them, who are least able to come forward and speak, and those who have the least influence on someone’s reelection effort.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]It is for those reasons when I see the water rate hikes that were proposed, I cringe. Davis, as generous as it has been, barely passed its last parcel tax. Imagine what the school district would have to cut if they lost three million in funding? [/quote]
How will the schools operate without a reliable source of water? Which is more critical, a school psychologist or reliable water? WATER IS THE BASIC ESSENTIAL OF LIFE. A school psychologist is not. Not only that, most students never see the school psychologist in their entire school career. Yet every student MUST drink water on a daily basis to survive.
[quote]The people who were able to protest the water rates through a Prop 218 process, were the owners. They are said to be the ratepayers and therefore they get a say in the process. But more than half of the people who live in this town are not owners but renters.
They did not get the right to protest the water rates. They do not get the right to receive subsidies from the city because they are not ratepayers. And yet they are the ones who will have the costs pushed onto their backs.[/quote]
According to the apartment owners/landlords, on the citizen advisory committee that worked hard to reduce the water rate increases from 3.2 to only 2 times current rates, it should be noted:
1) Landlords are not going to be able to push all the costs of the water rate increases on to renters, bc renters will go elsewhere where rent is cheaper if rental rates become too high;
2) Landlords intend on/have no choice but to share the pain of the water rate increases with respect to renters;
3) The individual apartments are not metered, so renters are not monitored for the amount of water they use. So there is no incentive for renters to conserve. In other words renters will probably not be paying for their fair share of water usage, unless the citizen advisory committee can come up with ways to incentivize water conservation by renters.
4) Ratepayers are the ones who were able to vote in the Prop 218 process, because it is the ratepayers that pay the utility bills for water usage. And the payer of the utility bills are the homeowners and landlords, not the renters. Renters have pretty much gotten a “free ride” on water usage, not paying for long showers, irrigation of landscaping, etc.
meh… the water is essential and we just have to suck it up and pay for it. Davis is an expensive place to live, I think we just have to accept that basic fact or move to Woodland… there are lots of vacancies in places where it is less expensive to live in fact. And there is a long line of people who would be willing to pay the extra cost to live here. It is a simple choice.
[i]” there are lots of vacancies in places where it is less expensive to live”[/i]
Absolutely! Poverty in this country is most often derived from a history of personal choices. You can move to other parts of the country where the cost of living is very low. For example, I have a bother who complained he would never own a house in CA. He got laid off two years ago, moved to the Midwest where he found a job making about 60% of his previous salary, and just closed on a nice little home on 10 acres overlooking the Missouri river valley. He paid $120,000.
I very much appreciate what David has written about his own life and experiences. It is indicative of a mindset owned by most of my extended family… they have made choices to live a good, but economically- constrained, life. There are stresses living pay-check to pay-check (I know). There are also stresses to maintain a certain level of income required to fund an expected lifestyle (I know this too). The latter has often caused me to consider a return to the former… especially when I consider that my overall earnings tax rate of near 50% might be increased.
For some reason that I do not completely understand, people with left political tendencies identify low economic status as a tragedy worthy of direct intervention and mandated correction. This mindset manifests is episodes of agitation for wealth redistribution. Ironically these are played out in the larger urban areas where the cost of living and the opportunities to grow prosperity are greatest. In rural areas income levels are considered more circumstantial and much less stratifying. When my Nebraska family meets at the Elks Lodge for dinner and dancing, they mingle with everyone in the community… rich or poor.
You don’t need to be wealthy in dollars to lead a good life. Leading a good life is simply leading a moral life. We make victims out of urban low income people… make them believe they are not responsible for their circumstances and behavior. We glorify their envy and the resulting sadness and anger over having less material things. We make them believe their situation was caused by someone else, and can only be rectified by someone else. How many trillions of dollars have we spent fighting the war on poverty? How long has the war raged? Consider this and then consider how the same people continue to complain that we have to fight harder and longer. The war on poverty is largely a manufactured need by those with a need to save, and those that extract political power from it. Being poor is not a tragedy unless it is made to feel like a tragedy. But, then we need to be honest about the root cause… especially in this country where rags to riches is the main plot and not a Slum Dog Millionaire fairy tale.
“For some reason that I do not completely understand, people with left political tendencies identify low economic status as a tragedy worthy of direct intervention and mandated correction.” No, liberal humanists believe that it is wiser to care for the poor than to let them litter the streets with their corpses .
David,
Thanks for sharing the information about helping your relatives and the failure of government to help carry the load, simply because the people you have chosen to help are your relatives.
We all make choices. Steve Souza chose to derive his primary income from a swimming pool maintenance business. Without a dependable water supply swimming pools go away, along with his income.
You see the water rate increases from the perspective their effect on lower income citizens who may be in need of a safety net. Steve can forsee his own income disapearing without a plentiful supply of water.
As a Davis landlord who sees City fees going up and rents going down I wonder how long I can continue in this business. To me it makes good sense to delay implementation of the surface water project until we get our other major City debts payed down.
I have chosen to include all city fees in the rents I charge my tenants except the portion of the water bill that reflects water consumption. Passing along responsibility for water consumption to the tenant has resulted in a reduction by half in the amount of water my tenants consume. However, with a fixed dollar amount necessary to pull off the surface water project, and everybody doing all they can to reduce their personal consumption, there will obviously be a sharp increase in the flat rate portion of our water bills. This may well be the straw that breaks the back of my rental business.
Does anybody know where I can find a petition for the referendum to sign?
biddlin: Thanks for confirming my points.
I actually do see this referendum fight at least partially as a “have versus have not.”
The renters in town were not allowed to participate in the Prop 218 process, and they are amongst the lowest income residents.
This city water project is a Porsche (doesnt Davis always spend big money like that?), and it’s too expensive for what we are getting.
Even Dan Wolk’s Sunday Op Ed piece two weeks ago says that the project is a fiscal mess, and I agree with him.
If anyone wants the referendum petition to pass around to friends, and bring in completed to my place, email me at michael@mikeharringtonlaw.com
Law firm is at 430 D St. Phone is 759-8440
Checks are needed, and payable to “Committee to Confirm Rights of Davis Voters.”
Promote democracy when our own CC won’t : PUT IT ON THE BALLOT SO ALL CAN VOTE.
Thank you.
David, my experiences with social services mimic yours, and having been just about wiped out by healthcare costs above and beyond what our HMO pays, I can more than sympathize with those affected by all the recent and yet to come cuts in services . That said, this is more of a terror campaign by those who are doing fine with the status quo than a war on the poor by the government . By convincing us that any movement will send us over the edge, a small group of people have the mindset of the country frozen in fear .
Michael:
Who is on this committee to “protect the rights of Davis voters?”
We already know about Pam and Ernie. You are obviously deeply involved.
Why hasn’t anyone else come forward publicly?
I think water rates are rising all over the place – for comparison the Unit (ccf) rate on the SF Peninsula is $4.65 per unit and that is just for water usage (not sewage). It was cheaper to buy/drink beer in China rather than bottled water – looks like we are headed in the same direction.
Voter2012: did you count all those people at the CC meeting who spoke against the rate increase, the surface project itself, the lack of democracy, or all of the above? Why dont you call me sometime to discuss further? I’m pretty much done responding to your non-productive comments; I’ve got too many queries from voters who want to sign the petitions. Best regards.
Alphonso: [i]”It was cheaper to buy/drink beer in China rather than bottled water”[/i]
That is hillarious. Isn’t beer made primarily out of water?
“Michael:
Who is on this committee to “protect the rights of Davis voters?”
We already know about Pam and Ernie. You are obviously deeply involved.
Why hasn’t anyone else come forward publicly?”
Voter2012, why haven’t you come forward publicly?
“By convincing us that any movement will send us over the edge, a small group of people have the mindset of the country frozen in fear .”
Biddlin, as far as fear mongering goes look at numero uno the Obama himself. He’s the biggest fear mongerer and divider this country has ever had.
Michael: It was a simple question. Who is on the committee?
Yet you duck and dodge and change the subject — just like you responded to the question about whether or not you might run in 2012.
Much of California’s water facilities were installed after World War II and are nearing their end of life. That combined with drastic increases in Federal and State drinking water standards are resulting in big water infrastructure improvement projects all across the state. The cost of these projects have been driven higher by more regulatory compliance requirements and litigation. Many communities in California are dealing with similar challenges.
The best time to tackle these projects is probably now, because as California goes, it will only become more expensive in the future.
[quote]I have made conscious choices in my life to live a certain way. [/quote]Acknowleded… [quote]I made the decision to foster and adopt a child, and it is the best decision I made in my life.[/quote]Good for you! that is noble, and I truly mean it… that being said, it seems that you[quote]…does not have the means or the wherewithal to take care of the children. We have a chance to give those kids a good life, a Davis education[/quote] OK, here’s where you’re losing me… you bring a child into the district, need special services that the district provides, do not directly pay property taxes, get at least some funding from the state and county, advocate for small/no increases in utility rates, lest the voters reject further school district taxes (which you may or may not pay for in your rent), and at the local level want employees to accept cuts in salary/benefits/retirement ([quote]…I may never … get the nice retirement[/quote])? Want fries with that?
[quote]How will the schools operate without a reliable source of water? Which is more critical, a school psychologist or reliable water? WATER IS THE BASIC ESSENTIAL OF LIFE. — [b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]It is this kind of exaggerated fear that makes it difficult to look dispassionately at our options for improving our water and wastewater infrastructure.
We can most definitely postpone the completion of the surface water project if the fiscal burden of doing a new wastewater treatment plant and complete surface water project simultaneously is too great, without jeopardizing our access to clean, safe water.
[i]”We can most definitely postpone the completion of the surface water project if the fiscal burden of doing a new wastewater treatment plant and complete surface water project simultaneously is too great”[/i]
Won’t it be more costly later? This idea just seems like more kicking the infrastructure can down the road to our kids.
A thoughtful conversation, but I don’t quite see the basic premise; we shouldn’t fund the water because it might reduce funding for special needs kids: [quote]Have we cut back our help to needy families? Certainly.[/quote]
I don’t see the connection; whether we vote “no” or “yes” on this water project, funding for needy families is not going to be increased. I agree that our society should do more, much more, for our fellow citizens who are suffering. But I also think we should have plentiful, dependable, clean water. David, you have identified the wrong boogeyman. It is not the water project that is your enemy; it is a perception that people on welfare are bums, and that “government cannot solve the problem because government is the problem. (R. Regan, probably misquoted.)
[quote]Won’t it be more costly later? This idea just seems like more kicking the infrastructure can down the road to our kids.–[b]Jeff Boone[/b][/quote]This is a reasonable concern, but I don’t think there is any particular reason to think that construction costs are going to outstrip inflation in the next few decades. Given our demographics and the structural issues with our economy, I think it is equally likely that we will follow the Japanese scenario of sluggish growth with deflationary tendencies for years to come.
The problem that we face is paying for a $100 million new wastewater treatment plant upgrade at the same time as a $200 million surface water/water rights purchase. When we pay off our new wastewater treatment plant, our wastewater bills will go down, and it will be easier to afford the surface water project.
If I were designing an approach, I would explore somewhat accelerating the payments on the wastewater treatment plant, raising water rates enough to cover bond payments on the engineering and design work, the water rights payments, a few more of the deep water wells that we are planning to dig anyway, the new East Area Water Tank and our share of the Conaway intake if the federal money becomes available in addition to contributing to a fund for the future completion of the water project. I would apply for a salinity variance with the SWRCB to see if we could postpone the surface water project, with this alternative plan in place.
The idea here is to pay off about half the project before completing it, in order to reduce rates.
I should emphasize that any plan to phase in the project would have to involve applying for a salinity variance and working with the SWRCB.
[i]”The best time to tackle these projects is probably now, because as California goes, it will only become more expensive in the future.”[/i]
You are begging the question ([url]http://begthequestion.info/[/url]).
I don’t know why in real dollars in 20 years the costs of constructing our water works should be higher than they are today.
For it to be true, I think the you have to assume the cost of labor or the cost of materials in real dollars will be higher. I can imagine those going either way: up or down or even staying the same. If perchance state laws change in the interim and competitive bidding were allowed, the cost of public works projects would fall by half. I am not counting on that. However, it is hard to imagine from a cost perspective a worse regulatory environment than we have now for hiring labor. The state makes everything as expensive as possible.
Another factor could be the real cost of bond financing. Nominal interest rates today are low (even negative) for some borrowers. However, it seems like the interest rates paid by special agencies are quite high, now. The Davis RDA, for example, is paying 8.65% on the taxable bonds it sold in March. Subtracting out 3.5% inflation, that is a real rate of 5.15%.
I think the best argument for assuming it will be cheaper today than in 20 years–assuming we are not fined for failing to meet the water effluent standards in between–is the possibility–a high one, I think–that the value of the dollar drops* considerably in the next 15 to 20 years. If that were to happen, then we would have borrowed valuable dollars and we would be paying back our bonds with cheap dollars. That is one of the only real advantages of extraordinary inflation.
*Why might the value of the dollar drop? Because too many dollars could end up chasing too few goods. Every year since 1976, the United States has run a trade deficit. It was extremely negative from 1984-88, when our budget deficit ballooned during the Reagan defense build up. But then it stabilized (still always negative) until 1996. From 1996 to 2008, with Americans and American companies, and local and state governments accruing unheard of levels of debt, our trade deficit ballooned again, far worse than it was in the Reagan years. We peaked in 2006 at $753.3 billion. We continue to run very high trade deficits: last year we topped $500 billion.
So what does it mean to run a trade deficit? It means that we are exporting dollars and importing goods and services. Those trillions and trillions of dollars are the property of foreigners (mostly large banks and government owned central banks). If at some point they lose faith in the U.S. dollar, they could end up spending them. And the result of that would be a dramatic decline in the value of our money, as too many dollars worldwide start to chase too few goods. If this happens, it is also likely to happen in a calamity, meaning it won’t be an orderly, regular decline of the value of the dollar, but rather a sudden, cataclysmic collapse.
By the way … the best argument against the dollar-collapse theory is the price of long term government bonds. If the markets thought that the dollar was going to fall off a cliff any time in the next 30 years, then interest rates paid on long-term bonds would be much higher than on short-term bonds. That simply is not the case. There is a small premium the longer the term of the bond you buy. But [url=http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yieldYear&year=2011a 30-year bond today pays just 2.99 percent[/url], which is lower than our historic rate of inflation (3.5%).
[quote][i]”If perchance state laws change in the interim and competitive bidding were allowed, the cost of public works projects would fall by half.”[/i][/quote]Rich, you’ve made this point several ways recently. Are non-union companies really prohibited from bidding on pubic projects? A prevailing wage requirement by itself wouldn’t prohibit companies that agree to pay prevailing wage. Is there more to this issue than meets the eye?
PS–Question are begged quite frequently around here.
Voter 2012: I have no interest at this time in running for City Council. Why should I do that, when I hope that Sue runs again and will represent me? She has done a good job and has earned our respect and support. Maybe someone else will run whom supports the democratic process by putting the water rates on the citywide ballot. I would support that person, too. We shall see, won’t we?
ERM:”Which is more critical, a school psychologist or reliable water? WATER IS THE BASIC ESSENTIAL OF LIFE. A school psychologist is not. Not only that, most students never see the school psychologist in their entire school career.”
Wow! Now I need to say I support the water project but the indifference expressed here shocks my sense of decency. School Psychologists help the most challenged, vulnerable and disturbed children in society. I can’t tell you how many times I have referred children to psychologists for everything from child abuse or molestation post traumatic stress, drug abuse, depression, suicide prevention, intervention counseling to prevent deviate behavior from becoming acute, neglect, evaluation for learning disabilities and traumatic psychosis. Of course these are the things that didn’t slip by. I bet every single teacher with a lot of experience regrets something that they missed that later blew up. Think Columbine or Virginia Tech. I know I regret not getting help for one guy who ended up getting 14 years for forcible rape. Could I have gotten him help and saved his victim? I don’t know, but I do know, I if I had seen it coming, I could have tried to get him some help from a school psychologist.
If it takes a village to raise a child, schools are the place where the community comes together. School psychologists are the people that teachers rely upon to help children in crisis so they can teach those that are ready to learn. I don’t know what percent of students never see a school psychologist but for those who them thank god they are there.
A rich community that can’t afford both potable water and psychological help for children in need really needs to question itself about its priorities.
but for those who need them…
Sue: [i]”I don’t think there is any particular reason to think that construction costs are going to outstrip inflation in the next few decades.”[/i]
I get the point for spreading the costs of these two projects. However, construction materials are energy-dependent. I would not trust energy costs to follow any existing rational economic theory or index.
Rich: [i]”assuming we are not fined for failing to meet the water effluent standards in between–is the possibility–a high one, I think–that the value of the dollar drops”[/i]
Good point about the potential for monetary fines.
Inflation should be a real concern as our economy has demonstrated a propensity for irrational bubbles of exuberence.
I would also include the costs of additional regulatory compliance that will develop. We might see new regulations to protect a new endangered plant or animal, or increased standards for water affluency, or new climate change mitigation rules.
One last point… are the water costs per acre foot contracted or legislated? I am not informed on this, but it seems reasonable to assume all water rights in California to include high inflationary risk.
I agree that we have other considerations, but I can’t find any references to delayed public works projects that were determined to be sound financial decisions.
[quote]A rich community that can’t afford both potable water and psychological help for children in need really needs to question itself about its priorities.–[b]Toad[/b][/quote]I want to emphasize that we have potable water. Our water is clean and safe.
[quote]I agree that we have other considerations, but I can’t find any references to delayed public works projects that were determined to be sound financial decisions.–[b]Jeff Boone[/b][/quote]Well, I can think if a very good example of a project that should have been delayed if at all possible: Our existing wastewater treatment plant! We built a spiffy new plant in the late 1980’s (I don’t have the date), and no sooner was it built than it was obsolete. Had we waited, we could have built it to current standards and would not have had to build a new one only 20 years later.
[quote]Good point about the potential for monetary fines.-[b]-Jeff Boone[/b][/quote]Yes, we definitely have to apply for a salinity variance and work with the WRCB.
Regarding your question about price: We have already received our water rights from the state. This water comes without charge. We have already purchased supplementary water at a fixed cost. (We were told by our JPA members that we could sell it on the secondary market if we don’t use it.) So those who are concerned about inflation shouldn’t have to worry about the future cost of water.
[quote]Much of California’s water facilities were installed after World War II and are nearing their end of life. That combined with drastic increases in Federal and State drinking water standards are resulting in big water infrastructure improvement projects all across the state. The cost of these projects have been driven higher by more regulatory compliance requirements and litigation. Many communities in California are dealing with similar challenges.[/quote]
This is happening ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, NOT JUST IN CA.
[quote]I have chosen to include all city fees in the rents I charge my tenants except the portion of the water bill that reflects water consumption. Passing along responsibility for water consumption to the tenant has resulted in a reduction by half in the amount of water my tenants consume. [/quote]
Am I missing something here? As a landlord you have chosen to include all city fees to include city fees except for water consumption; but then say passing along responsibility for water consumption to the tenant has resulted in reduced water consumption. Did you not write what you meant?
[quote]This city water project is a Porsche (doesnt Davis always spend big money like that?), and it’s too expensive for what we are getting. [/quote]
How is it a Porshce? Please explain these claims w some specifics…
[quote]rusty49: Voter2012, why haven’t you come forward publicly?[/quote]
Why haven’t you come forward publicly rusty49? It’s a fair question… what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact of the matter is the rules of this blog allow anonymous comments, including yours…
[quote]OK, here’s where you’re losing me… you bring a child into the district, need special services that the district provides, do not directly pay property taxes, get at least some funding from the state and county, advocate for small/no increases in utility rates, lest the voters reject further school district taxes (which you may or may not pay for in your rent), and at the local level want employees to accept cuts in salary/benefits/retirement ([/quote]
Point well taken!
[quote]We can most definitely postpone the completion of the surface water project if the fiscal burden of doing a new wastewater treatment plant and complete surface water project simultaneously is too great, without jeopardizing our access to clean, safe water.[/quote]
You have yet to explain how we can indefinitely postpone the completion of the the surface water project until we have paid off the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
[quote]I don’t see the connection; whether we vote “no” or “yes” on this water project, funding for needy families is not going to be increased. I agree that our society should do more, much more, for our fellow citizens who are suffering. But I also think we should have plentiful, dependable, clean water. David, you have identified the wrong boogeyman. It is not the water project that is your enemy; it is a perception that people on welfare are bums, and that “government cannot solve the problem because government is the problem. (R. Regan, probably misquoted.)[/quote]
Bingo!
[quote]The idea here is to pay off about half the project before completing it, in order to reduce rates.
I should emphasize that any plan to phase in the project would have to involve applying for a salinity variance and working with the SWRCB.[/quote]
You have finally conceded we cannot obtain a variance to put off the surface water project until the wastewater treatment plant is fully paid off. Now your claim is we can somehow obtain a variance to put off the surface water project until HALF the wastewater treatment plant is paid off. So it is essentially pay me now, or pay me later when we still have to pay for both projects at once, but also after we may have had to pay fines/dig deep wells above and beyond what was required/after deep wells may have subsided/collapese, after construction/finance costs have increased, etc. Even assuming you could argue “economic infeasibility”. And how do you argue we cannot pay for both projects now, but we can pay for both when the wastewater treatment plant is half paid off? I’d like to hear this one…
“Why haven’t you come forward publicly rusty49? It’s a fair question… what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.”
Comeon ERM, that post was in response to Voter2012 asking for people to come forth who are in the referendum drive. I was basically telling him what’s good for the goose is good for the gander as you put it. I could care less who chooses to use their real name or not on here.
What I took from David’s article, which resonated, is the lack of compassion that the faceless government bureaucrats show to those who rely on them.
With no incentive to do their job well, they don’t.
I just draw a different conclusion then some of the other commenters.
[quote]Wow! Now I need to say I support the water project but the indifference expressed here shocks my sense of decency. School Psychologists help the most challenged, vulnerable and disturbed children in society. [/quote]
Indifference? What is more important to the child on a daily basis? Water, or a school psychologist? Both are important, but are they equally important? It is a matter of priorities. We have to prioritize expenditures all the time and do away with some things in times of crisis so our basic needs are met first and foremost. Of course school psychologists are important to students who may need that help. Where was the school when my son needed assistance with his dyslexia? They dumped him in w the trouble makers, and let him fend for himself. As a result, he was bullied, beaten, had his property destroyed. He was on the way to probably being knifed to death at school. Don’t talk to me about indifference – the school was indifferent to the plight of my son, whose only “crime” was being dyslexic.
To conflate the two issues of the surface water project with having school psychologists on school campuses is comparing apples to oranges and is a disingenuous attempt to pull at heartstrings with what is really a red herring that has nothing to do with the main issue at hand.
“To conflate the two issues of the surface water project with having school psychologists on school campuses is comparing apples to oranges and is a disingenuous attempt to pull at heartstrings with what is really a red herring that has nothing to do with the main issue at hand.”
Hey you raised it! You conflated it. I just responded to it.
As for your kid. I am sorry the system failed him, I sincerely am, but that is a reason to try to make the system better not a reason to try to make it worse so that some other child must suffer.
“OK, here’s where you’re losing me… you bring a child into the district, need special services that the district provides, do not directly pay property taxes, get at least some funding from the state and county, advocate for small/no increases in utility rates, lest the voters reject further school district taxes (which you may or may not pay for in your rent), and at the local level want employees to accept cuts in salary/benefits/retirement (“
I almost agree except for the part about taking in a child with special needs, something for which you should be applauded.
However, I would argue that your premise about government not carrying out the will of the people is incorrect. The city council represents the will of the electorate quite well. When the CC put restrictions on how many people could stay in the church they were responding to resident complaints. When restrictions on development result in you not being able to afford a house it is the direct result of policies that are representative of popular opinion including your own. When water bills go up today it is because of decisions that the people of this community made 60 years ago. You are like pogo you have met the enemy and it is the policies you support.
It is time for you to realize that there are consequences to your positions that effect not just yourself and the lifestyle choices you made. You are now responsible for the children that you have graciously taken in and I hope that you start to think about what things like densification mean for them.
Sue: [i]”Well, I can think if a very good example of a project that should have been delayed if at all possible: Our existing wastewater treatment plant!”[/i]
This logic sort of reminds me of my hesitation to purchase a new computer because of the consideration that if I wait a bit longer, the newer faster model will be available. What I also need to factor is the lost productivity using my old slow computer while I wait. Though, conversely, the cost of computers keeps being driven down by hyper free market competition… I don’t think this is the case for wastewater facilities.
I don’t know what the original justification was for upgrading the old wastewater plant, but I assume there were associated cost risks for not upgrading. This is one of my points… environmental and construction regulations in California are ever expanding. New regulations may or may not be grandfathered to existing facilities. If they only apply to newly-built facilities, then waiting poses a cost-risk. If they apply to existing facilities, then there is a cost of retrofit. If they cannot be satisfied with retrofit, then we risk the cost of a new replacement facility (I think the risk you point out).
However, the cost-risk for a retrofit or replacement is perpetual. Unless the state grows a Texas-like pro-business mindset (unlikely), the activist scientists and environmentalists will constantly raise the bar on protections. Hence, the only variable cost-risk from the three listed is the risk that we will have increased costs from new regulations applied to new facilities construction.
I can see it now… some scientist develops a theory that certain water-treatment processes release compounds into the water system that is responsible for the decline in the native salmon population… the fix is some expensive new technology that the state legislature votes to require all new wastewater plants to adopt.
SG:”I want to emphasize that we have potable water. Our water is clean and safe.”
Really! Do you drink it Sue? Do you drink it unfiltered? Do you like the taste? Do you have a water softener? Do you like what it does to your plumbing fixtures? Do you worry about how much Selenium the kids in this community are drinking?
These are not rhetorical questions Sue.
Elaine: [i]” It is a matter of priorities.”[/i]
Bingo.
When services are funded by other people’s money, there is little incentive to prioritize. However, clean and safe water is a fundemental need that naturally should be considered a higher priority than should be a school psychologist. Not that the latter is not valuable… just a lower priority than is clean and safe water. This is a simple point that all objective people should be able to agree on.
As an aside, I read somewhere that the last couple of decades has seen an explosion in the number of counselors, psychologist and therapists. I noted that I didn’t “need” an iPhone until it was available. Just sayin’.
I drink the water here.
I do not filter it.
I have never owned a water softener.
I don’t like the taste.
I do not worry about my plumbing fixtures.
I do not worry about the selenium in our water here.
But I strongly support the water project. The safety of the water is not the issue.
Jeff: [i]Unless the state grows a Texas-like pro-business mindset (unlikely), the activist scientists and environmentalists will constantly raise the bar on protections. [/i]
Believe it or not, Texas has a Commission on Environmental Quality which also establishes water quality standards, based on the rules set by the EPA in implementing the Clean Water Act passed by Congress.
[i]some scientist develops a theory that certain water-treatment processes release compounds into the water system that is responsible for the decline in the native salmon population…[/i]
That’s not how science or environmental regulation works.
[i]”That’s not how science or environmental regulation works.”[/i]
Sure it is how it works… or more accurately, how science and environmental regulation often does not work for ensuring development regulatory compliance costs and roadblocks can be estimated.
The California Endangered Species Act (yes, CA has it’s own act as if the Federal regulations are not enough of a burden already) is routinely used by environmental activists and attorneys to block or increase burdens on development.
I used salmon as an example… it could just as easily be an obscure native weed growing on the shores of the Sacramento river delta.
Regardless, it appears that we both support the water project… just maybe with a different justification.
A poster here a week ago suggested that the city hired a PR firm for $100,000 to promote the water project. Does anyone know if this is true?
JS: [i]”Rich … Are non-union companies really prohibited from bidding on pubic projects?”[/i]
No. However, they are required to pay the “prevailing wage” (which is the union wage) and to pay all of the benefits that union workers get. They are also required to work under union work rules, including provisions which do not allow people with certain job titles to ever perform even simple tasks on a job site which are designated for people with other job titles. In effect, the union shop is like the military: it is terribly top-down and terribly inefficient.
[i]”A prevailing wage requirement by itself wouldn’t prohibit companies that agree to pay prevailing wage.”[/i]
True. However, the effect is a non-competition. No one can do anything that will create real savings for the public, even if they know better methods.
[i]”Is there more to this issue than meets the eye?”[/i]
The latest problem is something called a Project Labor Agreement ([url]http://www.abc.org/Government_Affairs/Issues/ABC_Priority_Issues/Project_Labor_Agreements.aspx[/url]). This adds even more to the costs.
When a truly free market construction project comes up for bid in California, none of the bidders will ever be the sort of companies which build public works projects. The reason is because those companies, which are used to union work rules and which pay too much in labor costs to compete, have no chance to win the bids.
But at the same time, when a public works project comes up for bid, the free market contractors will never make a bid, because they are unprepared to meet the mountains of regulatory hurdles. So we have in effect two systems of construction, neither of which has any crossover players.
An interesting example to look at is with school buildings. When a new private school is constructed, it costs half as much per square foot as the same sort of building built for a public high school. The companies which build private schools (almost*) never build public schools. And those which build public schools (almost*) never build public schools.
*There must be a rare exception to this rule. I don’t know of any, however.
Ooops: “And those which build public schools (almost*) never build [s]public[/s] [b]private[/b] schools.”
David, I do not take my responsibility lightly in matters that come before me as a Councilmember. I have the responsibility of making decisions that affect the lives of all Davisites. The Surface Water Project is a huge decision which will impact the lives of all Davisites not only economically but will also have long lasting effects on our health and safety. I have the duty to make the best decision based on sound information and decisions that were made before my tenure on the Council. I make these decisions not in a vacuum and not without life experience. I do know what it is like to just make ends meet.
David, you and I have never talked about your life or my life very much. I do not know much about your upbringing nor do you know much about mine. Furthermore you do not know much about my life here in Davis or the nature of my business this year or prior years. To make assumptions without knowledge usually leeds to very inaccurate ones.
I will give you and your readers one piece of my upbringing and my first days here in Davis. My sister Sheryl and I were for the most part raised by a very loving single mother who worked very hard to put food on the table. Most days that food was basic, mac and cheese with tuna. Do not get me wrong it was nutritious and we did not go to bed hungry, but it was not glamorous. I can remember many times we purchased food with food stamps and thank goodness for that.
When I first moved to Davis I lived in my 8 foot by 23 foot Kenskill trailer that was parked at Olive Drive Trailer park paying $125 a month in rent. Many a nights I would wash dishes at the Blue Mango in exchange for a meal.
I tell you and your readers this because to say I do not know empathy for you and those who are struggling to make ends meet could not be further from the truth. If you would like to know more and share with me some of your life, please give me a call and let me buy you a drink of your choice. You know my phone number! Thanks, Stephen
I’m for development and salmon too. Salmon were once the main food staple for California with millions of high protein high calorie fish running our rivers. Protecting and restoring this resource is a high priority and if that means life is harder for businesses in CA. too bad.
Mr. Toad: So, in your worldview is it better to save the salmon while more people go hungry lacking jobs. Note that business did not kill all the buffalo… a growing population of hungry people did.
Thank you Stephen Souza for your work on this water project.
Actually a policy of genocide killed both.
Actually, Jeff, that is a false dichotomy — unless one side completely controls the water. So when the salmon were threatened by flow restrictions on the Klamath, the farmers objected to regulations that would have saved the salmon because they would have reduced the ag production. The downstream users (mostly Native Americans) suffered personally and financially because the choice was made to continue restricting flow. Everywhere we have salmon, we have people making a living on salmon. They have jobs, too.
So now in the delta we have a small fish which is endangered, which provides the only mechanism by which water flows can be regulated. Regulating the water flow is key to the health of the delta; the delta smelt is simply a trigger, or indicator, of the harm that is done to the delta by continued pumping and diversions. Salinity from upstream sources is a part of that puzzle.
What we have right now is a very unsustainable system by which the management of the delta water quality is done by federal judges implementing the clean water policies. But if it weren’t for the endangered species, it would [i]only[/i] be resolved by a political process by which the most powerful interests would prevail. That is a very uneven playing field.
[i]”You should have learned in school that the buffalo were hardly ever slaughtered for food.”[/i]
Actually Don, the more current works of anthropologists paints a more complex picture of why the buffalo about disappeared… including native Indian practices of mass slaughter. But much of it was the uncontrolled gluttony of the masses of people migrating west… those people that lacked other economic opportunities.
One thing is for sure… it was free market capitalism that saved the American Bison/buffalo from extinction. Ted Turner may have started his herds for humanitarian reasons, but without his restaurant empire, there would be many fewer animals roaming his ranch land.
I don’t have any conflict with your explanation of the salmon historical situation. However, the Delta Smelt is a great example of the exploitation of the endangered species acts by environmental wackos determine that the human population shrinks until those that remain must live in communal Solyndra solar-powered hemp huts, eating wild tubers and sustainable rodents.
Actually Don, the more current works of anthropologists paints a more complex picture of why the buffalo about disappeared… including native Indian practices of mass slaughter.
Could you cite a source for this wildly inaccurate historical interpretation? While the loss of the mastadon has been blamed on over hunting by native americans the buffalo were killed as a policy to starve the plains Indians. The buffalo made it because someone in Canada protected a few 100 years before Ted Turner.
First paragraph above is a quote from Jeff Boone.
[i]”Could you cite a source for this wildly inaccurate historical interpretation?”[/i]
Here is an easy to read reference.
[url]http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nattrans/ntecoindian/essays/buffalob.htm[/url]
The American plains Indians were prone to excessive buffalo slaughter also. They ran thousands of buffalo off cliffs in “buffalo jumps” and would also chase herds into box canyons where they would kill more than they could use. My point is that anthropologists add this to a list of practices and behaviors that contributed to the near extinction of the buffalo.
Jeff
As I am sure you are aware, the majority of folks who favor population reduction, usually through voluntary reduction of family size to replacement numbers, are anything but wacko, but rather responsible citizens who recognize that uncontrolled human population growth will ultimately be unsustainable. Basically, we can either control ourselves, or we willl find that ultimately nature will impose the controls on us by lack of water, famine, uncontrolled spread of disease…..or humans warring over the dwindling resources…. Pick your scenario. So unless you believe, and no offense to those who do, that we are approaching the Biblical end of days, the rest of us should reasonably be concerned about preservation of our natural resources certainly as much as our ability to buy the latest gadget
If it weren’t for the Endangered Species Act and the delta smelt, no forward progress would be occurring on the issues surrounding the pumping of water from the delta, the water quality, the encroaching salinity. It is, once again, a federal judge that is keeping the parties at the table. It is a terrible way to manage water issues, but in the absence of the threat of reduced pumping the major water users would simply walk away from the process.
I stood at a press conference in 1991, representing California’s nursery industry, to endorse the Cal-Fed authority and process. It was a major step forward, as it was the first time all the major players — MWD, ag interests, environmental groups, regulators — were together to develop a way forward. It moved in fits and starts, through several governors. Part of the process is developing the salinity standards, recognizing crucial habitats, guaranteeing flows for end users, implementing the ESA, etc.
The salinity and effluent standards Davis and the other communities are dealing with are part of that. If there aren’t steadily increasing salinity and effluent standards, no city will take action. You have dozens of water agencies involved, each trying to secure a multi-generation, drought-proof water supply. Davis water rights aren’t threatened by Southern California; look no further than EBMUD for an agency hungry for water. Concord and Lafayette can barely sustain a two year drought. By comparison, Fairfield and Vacaville can go six years or more, thanks to having bought in to the Solano project.
You may not be happy about the ESA being used as a tool in this process, but it is one of the only things that has kept MWD and Valley ag interests from completely controlling the outcome of delta water disputes. There is no significant natural constituency in the delta with any political clout. What happened on the Klamath was a travesty, but it was typical of water battles that have unbalanced competing interests. The federal judge and the delta smelt as a representative of the degradation of delta habitat balance those competing interests in our back yard.
Among the reasons I support the water project for Davis, aside from the fact that it instantly solves the salinity problem, is that it guarantees a long-term water supply based on permanent water rights to water upstream from those competing interests.
The Delta Smelt like the Spotted Owl is an indicator species. This means it is the canary in the coal mine for its ecosystem. It is easy to criticize when you lack depth of understanding but the issue isn’t really, in these cases, the particular species but what their collapses mean for an entire set of species, many of which have great economic value in the Delta.
From the article you cited:”The demise of the buffalo.
Here the best place to begin is with Dan Flores’s seminal essay “Bison Ecology and Bison Diplomacy,” but if this is difficult to obtain, then Drew Isenberg’s The Destruction of the Buffalo (2000) is an excellent recent source. The story is told in the general works by Dary and McHugh referred to earlier. The larger environmental context for the decline of the buffalo was set by climate, drought, disease, fire, horses, cattle, barbed wire, ranchers, railroads, market hunters, and so on. It was driven for the most part by the commodification of the buffalo—tongues, hides, and other parts as highly desired commodities in a greatly expanding marketplace. The demise requires systematic explanation. It resists easy sound bites despite the oft-stated desire of students for straightforward black-and-white answers to complex problems. And it might help to explore whether or not there is an Indian explanation and a nonIndian explanation of the buffalo’s demise, or is this too simplistic? At the end of the day, what evidence satisfies your students in this or any other historical explanation?”
Did you read it? To suggest that Native Americans are to be blamed for the demise of the buffalo shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both the historical facts and the authors view.
Don: the last few comments on page 3 look like duplicates from page 2.
One critical point I guess I did not make well is that the state has offered to pay for a stranger to watch these kids but not for a family member. That makes no sense. We’re willing to sacrifice to keep the kids together and in their family, but I fail to understand why the state cannot at least modestly help out. That is a key issue here. In term of the water, it’s more of a matter of the straw breaking the camel’s back.
55% of the residents in this town are renters, they are the ones least able to take on the burden of added costs, they are ineligible for a subsidy, and yet, they are the ones who had no say in the Prop 218 process.
[i]”To suggest that Native Americans are to be blamed for the demise of the buffalo shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both the historical facts and the authors view.”[/i]
Mr Toad: First, very good post. Thanks. I agree with what you wrote based on my understanding of the subject. However, I never said that the Native Americans are to be blamed for the demise of the buffalo. What I said was that their hunting practices were factors. It is easy to romaticize the indigenous Indians and demonize the West-migrating white Europeans, but it is clear that many Indian tribes did not practice conservation and killed many more buffalo than they needed.
Medwoman: Read Mark Steyn’s book “America Alone”. Westerners that opine for controlling human population growth may not be wacko (although some are), but they are largely foolish. As Western birthrates plummet to levels that far from sustain the population (2%), the birthrates of the Mid East, Africa and most non-European third world countries is double or triple the sustainable rate (for example, the birthrate in Yemen is 6.3%).
Countries like Spain and Italy are producing offspring about half the sustainable rate (-1%). The concept of the big Italian family is long gone. Thirty years from not the majority of old Europe will include a Western population lacking an aunt or uncle. Of course the Mid Eastern and African immigrants will enjoy multiple aunts and uncles… many with positions in government resulting from the process of democracy that Western society designed and implemented.
Meanwhile, today, our liberal “save the people of the world” sentiments have us sending tons of food and medicine to the very countries cranking out an average of five children per mother. These are countries that lack the natural resources and evolved systems of governance necessary to support their population levels.
We Westerners are the producers taking care of a globe full of moochers. Liberal sentiments related to this are wacko and foolish in my view. Domestically they demonize production and the wealth created by it and seek to minimize it… even though it is this wealth that funds their drive to save the world. Related to population control, they opine to reduce our own population impacts on the planet while supporting foreign policies that enable the population explosion of non-Western cultures unable to take care of themselves and prone to procreating like lemmings. The only reason that the US birth rate is barely sustainable is that we import enough of these people unable to take care of themselves and prone to procreate like lemmings. This has not been a problem historically as the imported people get with the America program and start producing. However, now their numbers have grown too large and our economy is broken and too many of them are stuck in moocher mode.
Historically, demographics have proven to matter a great deal. Those cultures with the greatest population of able-bodied young people eventually dominate. The advance of English-speaking Europeans that led to this fantastic life we lead in America was the product of medical advances in England in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that reduced infant mortality and allowed for a population explosion.
With the Arab uprising resulting in more radical Islam gaining political power, your should be advocating to increase Western birthrates for the coming wars (both economic and military) we will be fighting just to protect our Western way of life from the flood of unemployed with their hatred and envy enflamed by those that would rule the world using demographics as their primary weapon.
If you want to protect the domestic environment, advocate for business/job creation in the US. Just look at what masses of unemployed people do to their countries’ environment. Then if you want to protect your ability to have any continuing influence to protect the global environment, advocate for an increase in Western birthrates.
Can’t stop using the Ayn Rand terms, can you Jeff? And now we get rodent analogies for other countries? Why do you persist in denigrating so many people, so often?
Birth rates always drop with increasing education, particularly of the women, access to birth control, and improved standard of living. Fortunately, the Obama administration has reversed the decline in US support for family planning services abroad.
There is no evidence that the Arab uprising is resulting in “more radical Islam gaining political power.”
Business/job creation is not a catalyst for environmental protection. That is a role for the federal government; in fact, it is one of the great successes of the federal government, implementing the environmental laws passed by Congress on behalf of their constituents — us — in the 1970’s. Business/job creation wouldn’t save the delta. Business/job creation won’t clean up the water or air.
Don: No, I like the Rand terms for getting to the point. I don’t denigrate so many people any more than Obama and the Democrats denigrate so many people. I have no patience or respect for denial of this just because a person dances around with nuance and innuendo… when the intent and meaning is clear. Just like the latest from Joe Biden the liberal media insinuating the entire GOP is racist and gay-hating because of noise made by a few during a recent event. I think you have a one-sided sensitivity switch related to these things.
[i]”There is no evidence that the Arab uprising is resulting in “more radical Islam gaining political power.”[/i]
Tell that to Egypt, Irael and Norway. The Muslim Brotherhood is filling the political void left by most of the outgoing governments. Thankfully we have an ocean between us and most of them. However, 9/11 proved that they could find ways to hit us regardless.
[i]”Business/job creation is not a catalyst for environmental protection”[/i]
Sure it is. Don’t you think more Africans and South Americans working would help prevent the clearing of the forests for subsistence farming and poaching? Have you seen the pictures of the environmental damage to the Southwestern desert from all the poor immigrants coming from Mexico?
[i]” in the 1970’s. Business/job creation wouldn’t save the delta.[/i]
That assumes that the delta was in danger and needed to be saved.
Note that I am not advocating for zero environmental regulations. In fact, I am probably as adamant as you for protections of designated wild areas. However, we take it way too far. People are animals too. And like the American plains Indians, we have to exploit some of our natural resources to survive. The plains Indians would start grass fires to scare animals into box canyons… many times the fires would rage out of control. They would run entire herds off a cliff where they would fall and break their legs and writhe in agony until dispatched with a hammer blow to the head. How would American environmentalists deal with those practices if they existed today?
Species have come and gone long before humans were around in significant numbers. When we go to extremes giving preference to the protection of other plants and animals at the expense of jobs, we risk other environmental pressures as more people have to figure out a way to survive. Some will opine to prevent a strip mine while raw sewage flows from the slums containing people that could otherwise be employed by the mine.
[i]Sure it is. Don’t you think more Africans and South Americans working would help prevent the clearing of the forests for subsistence farming and poaching? [/i]
No.
[i]Tell that to Egypt, Irael and Norway. The Muslim Brotherhood is filling the political void left by most of the outgoing governments.[/i]
Huh?
[i]That assumes that the delta was in danger and needed to be saved. [/i]
Huh?
Don: let me know if you want to continue any dialog on this. You asked the questions, I answered. But “no” and “huh?” don’t really motivate me to continue. Frankly, I can just talk to little niece and nephew to get that response.
I’ll just leave the Muslim Brotherhood topic for another day. I don’t believe that economic development would automatically prevent deforestation. That requires regulations, usually at the federal level. Resource-based economies will just deforest more as they achieve more efficient means of doing so.
If you don’t think the delta is in danger, there isn’t much to talk about. Every stakeholder involved in delta and California water issues recognizes that the current situation of the delta is unsustainable. They disagree about the best means to do so. Water quality standards and protection of the species that indicate the problems are two of the components. So why do you post an offhand statement that suggests you question the premise? There’s not much point in talking about salinity standards if you don’t think the delta has a salinity problem.
Don: [i]There is no evidence that the Arab uprising is resulting in “more radical Islam gaining political power.[/i]
JB: [i]Tell that to Egypt, Irael and Norway. The Muslim Brotherhood is filling the political void left by most of the outgoing governments.[/i]
Norway??? Please explain. I’m not aware of a more radical Islam gaining political power in Norway.
wdf1:
I threw Norway into the mix as loosely connected to my point to get a rise and raise some dialog.
You know about Theo van Gogh, right?
In the Netherlands you have people like Geert Wilders fighting exactly the same risk that I am talking about. If you have a growth in radical Islam, then the political risk to all Western nations increases. Democracy is driven by the will of those with social and political motivations… especially those growing their voter base, and is enabled by those with social and political apathy.
I don’t know if you’re confusing Norway and the Netherlands, nor what the reference to the most virulently anti-Islamic bigot in Europe has to do with anything.
The salinity and effluent standards that Davis is facing have to do with water quality issues in the Delta. Here’s an example (old news, just an example) of how those limits affect local municipalities: [url]http://www.cvcwa.org/pdf files/Newsletters/Newsletter_V1_I3.pdf[/url]
You can see how two of the Delta stakeholders, a sportfishing group and the City of Tracy, were battling about the effluent standards. The reason those standards exist is to improve the quality of the water in the Delta. Any notion that the delta is not in danger is long past discussion, based on a vast body of evidence that you can find archived at sites of Cal-Fed, DWR, and so on.
Don, on the point about the river delta, from Wikipedia:
[quote]Because of its one-year life cycle and relatively low fecundity, it is very susceptible to changes in the environmental conditions of its native habitat. A large number of these changes have led to a fluctuating population decline, as measured since 1959. Efforts to protect the endangered fish from further decline have focused on limiting or modifying the large-scale pumping activities of state and federal water projects at the southern end of the estuary.[/quote]
Two points:
1) This is an animal that is very finicky and susceptible to natural changes as well as those that could be attributed to human activity.
3) The population change of this animal has only been measured since 1959. So, we don’t have complete data to correlate with. It is impossible to know for sure what causes the population changes or if current populations are normal or abnormal. It is possible and probably that fresh water increased and flows changes during natural flood years… before we had dams, levies and pumping stations.
I think the Delta Smelt are a convenient tool for the proponents of the peripheral canal or anti development… regardless if they are truly endangered by human activity in excess of their natural risks or not.
[i]”Any notion that the delta is not in danger is long past discussion, based on a vast body of evidence that you can find archived at sites of Cal-Fed, DWR, and so on.”[/i]
Thanks. I will read up. You are obviously well informed on this issue. I need to update my long-held assumptions from back when most of this debate surfaced.
On Norway and the Netherlands… I do tend to get these two places confused at times.
Read Mark Steyn’s books and you might think twice about calling Mr. Wilders a bigot. If some Islamist killed him leaving a knife sticking out of his chest with a note attached like with Theo Van Gogh, would you feel that he deserved it?
For me, the simple fact that he and others have to live with this threat of death is all the proof I need that he is justified voicing his opinion. This isn’t just a lone nut job waiting to kill him and others that “insult Islam”, it is a large population of like-thinking Muslims. That thinking and behaving has no place in Western society and we should welcome the message that there is zero tolerance for it.
Just listen to these good British citizen tell it like it is [url] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=det7TUsLy8U%5B/url%5D
Here is a starting poing. [url]http://watershed.ucdavis.edu/research/delta.html[/url]
The delta smelt is not the only fish threatened in the region.
You can do your part by going fishing: [url]http://californiawaterblog.com/2011/01/31/striped-bass-control-the-cure-worse-than-the-disease/[/url]
The fact that one bigot is threatened by other bigots doesn’t make me think that either of them is right, nor is either one representative of those who share his or her ideologies. There are over a billion Muslims on this planet. Those who threaten Mr. Wilders do not reflect a billion people. There are many agnostics, like Mr. Wilders. His views do not reflect theirs.
I agree with Hitchens criticism of Steyn.
[i]”The fact that one bigot is threatened by other bigots”[/i]
One of these two people/groups you generalize as being bigots advocates killing the other. Seems you might be able to recognize that distinction. I certainly do. What is any different from Geert Wilders talking about the danger of Islamist than Obama talking about the danger of Tea Partiers? Is Obama a bigot too?
There are dangerous bigots in every religion. Please see the link I provided about the events in Norway.
No, Obama is not a bigot.
So, is Geert Wilders a dangerous bigot? Is he religious? I’m trying to understand your criteria for the labels you use. It seems that Obama and many of the Democrat politicians use no less incendiary language about Tea Party people as does Geert Wilders about Muslim extremists. So what allows one to get a pass from your assignment of the label of “bigot”?
By the way, isn’t Breivik considered insane at this point. Certainly you are not making the case this lone nut job is compariable to the masses of Islamist extremists blowing up innocent people all around the globe are you?
Of course I am getting way off topic here, but you have lampooned me for using lables and so I really want to understand the rules for this as you see them. Is “moocher(s)” a disallowed term, but the term “bigot(s)” allowed?
Wilders is definitely a bigot in that he labels the religion and all its adherents in starkly derogatory terms, of which there is not the slightest equivalency of comments by the president or Democratic leaders. I don’t know if he’s dangerous.
You can quote mine for a few adverse comments by Obama, but Wilders has made a film, speaks extensively on just this topic, and has essentially founded his career in opposition to Islam. Read about his film, for starters. There is simply no equivalency.
The religious aspect I was explaining had to do with the man who committed the mass murders in Norway, who appears to be a member of a small Christian group among other affiliations. I consider anyone who considers it reasonable to murder innocent people in the name of their beliefs to be sociopathic. As to whether they’re insane, I’m not qualified to judge. I think most Muslims also think that such behavior is sociopathic, and many Muslim leaders have spoken out against it. There are tens of thousands of militia members in the US who have Christian affiliations (or so they claim) who I also consider sociopathic and dangerous.
I wouldn’t make any sweeping judgments about Christians due to the behavior of the person in Norway, or due to the actions of those groups in the US. There are bigots in every religion.
I don’t think Wilders is a bigot any more than Michael Moore is a bigot (I think Moore is a hypocrite but not a bigot), I think Wilders is brave and honorable speaking out against real problem he believes in and that are ignored by too many. I assume you think the same of Moore. I find it fascinating how European and American liberals – those that demand equal treatment of women and gays – are also the same claiming Wilders is a bigot and seek any means to censor his speaking out against those groups that routinely persecute women and gays.
However, I think I get your point… that you are more comfortable assigning labels to individuals… especially those whose words and actions you disagree with. But you don’t like labels assigned to groups of people. For example, you don’t like the use of labels in the plural form.
Assuming I am correct, I find that interesting and problematic since I think humans are prone to tribalism as is our evolutionary design. I have no problem assigning labels to demonstrated group behavior. I think few if any humans have developed a level of intellectual sophistication and superiority enabling them to correctly say that their thoughts and behaviors are only individual choices and not influenced by some tribe they belong to. We naturally seek comfort of association to other like people. For example, I have many “liberal” friends that have social and economic views as conservative as me but they adamantly insist that they are liberals. I know that they do so because they fear their circle of friends (their tribe) would reject them if they ever voted GOP. I have conservative friends doing the same (although, in CA it is easier to associate with the left-leaning tribe).
There is one group label-set that liberals are comfortable with… that is the label-set that identifies economic class stratification. You know “those corporate jet owners”. That group of greedy wealthy Republicans unwilling to open their wallets and give more to the tribe of poor and needy.
By the way, I am warming up to Herman Cain as my choice for President. According to recent responses from several black Democrats, that choice would label me as an “Oreo Lover”. Disgusting, huh?
Jeff
“you should be advocating to increase Western birth rates for the wars both military and economic we will be fighting just to protect our Western way of life”
I really need a clarification of your meaning because it sounds to me as though you just said that we should be encouraging women to have more children to be used as cannon fodder, and I truly doubt that is what you meant…… did you ?
Medwoman:
Demographics matter. You need educated, able-bodied young people to drive the economy and provide national security and defense. How many young Western women and men these days are decided to not get married and not have children so they can take more vacations and hook up?
Also, the decline in family size has caused more people to rely on nanny government when they used to rely on their family for care.
In my view it is a lot of selfish choices that are responsible for the decline of this country. One of those selfish choices is people chosing not to have children. I think we should advocate for a society with lots of children and larger families. I would even go so far as to give greater preferential tax breaks (not tax credits so people without the financial means crank out more kids they cannot afford) to encourage couples to have more kids. For example, we should be able to write off all education-related costs with no restrictions.
JB: [i]you should be advocating to increase Western birth rates for the wars both military and economic we will be fighting just to protect our Western way of life[/i]
Problem solved. 😉
Census: Hispanics fuel US white population growth
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/census-hispanics-fuel-us-white-population-growth-173449405.html[/url]
[i]”Problem solved. ;-)”[/i]
LOL. I think I walked right into that one…
Actually, it is immigrants that have kept the US as the only Western nation with a sustainable birth rate. However, I prefer to hatch and grow our own children and not import them from poor nations that speak a different language and practice a different culture. You don’t address the problems of demographics importing too many people from other cultures that cannot assimilate fast enough. That is the problem much of Europe is dealing with from primarily poor Muslim immigrants.
Jeff
Let me see if I have your reasoning straight. Is it your position that people who “choose” not to have children should have an even higher proportion of their taxes go to support the families who choose to have more children ? Your assumption is that “selfishness”is the driver.
But what about infertility couples, or the hypothetical couple you and I discussed earlier who choose not to have their own biological children, but to adopt, or what about those who have severe inheritable diseases that they choose not to pass on ? Should they also have to subsidize those who have more children. I am surprised that you feel that the government either directly or indirectly through financial incentives should be in any way interfering in our reproductive lives. Using your terminology, how would this be any different from the large families being the “moochers” taking from those who chose to “produce more” by putting more time into working outside the home than into raising a family? Unlike you, I believe that people who already have plenty of wealth are frequently the biggest “moochers” since they have the finances, power and connections to manipulate the system to their advantage to enhance their wealth even further often to the disadvantage of those lower on your hypothetical “ladder” of life.
As for the issue you raise about what you see as “importing too many people that speak a different language and practice a different culture”
You seem to be conveniently forgetting the history of most of California and much of the southwest which had been under Hispanic control until the northern European settlers, often by force, ousted them from the land. I find it very ironic that you object to “them” taking back by demographics, what our ancestors took with guns.
JB: [i]I prefer to hatch and grow our own children and not import them from poor nations that speak a different language and practice a different culture. You don’t address the problems of demographics importing too many people from other cultures that cannot assimilate fast enough.[/i]
Your argument sounds very resonant of anti-immigrant sentiment from a century+ ago about Germans, Slavs, Italians, Chinese, and Irish. A lot of that immigration occurred because of economic displacement as the industrial revolution moved through Europe. But then I think the position seemed to be about preserving WASP culture as opposed to “western” culture.
Why do you think your position is more enlightened than that of previous times?
[i]But what about infertility couples (they could adopt, or do the artificial thing)
[i]or the hypothetical couple you and I discussed earlier who choose not to have their own biological children, but to adopt[/i] (adopted or biological… makes no difference.)
[i]or what about those who have severe inheritable diseases that they choose not to pass on? [/i] (This is a very, very small minority. Disease is the ultimate bad luck. I have plenty of it in my family history but I am not asking for any tax breaks because of it.)
[i]Should they also have to subsidize those who have more children? [/i] (I am not asking for anyone to subsidize anyone else with tax breaks. People that qualify for tax breaks are already the producers subsiding those truly needy and the moochers.)
By the way, I only had two children, so I admit I am not walking the talk here.
[i]I find it very ironic that you object to “them” taking back by demographics, what our ancestors took with guns. [/i]
How far back are you going to do with that logic? You do recognize that most settled and industrialized territory on the globe has changed hands a few times as one group dominated another. You might consider this to be a bit of social and cultural Darwinism at work. Today we are ignoring the rules of evolution allowing a massive invasion of people less socially, culturally, intellectually and economically evolved from a perspective of an industrialized society. Apologist sentiments like you indicate allow it to happen…just like European liberals allowed so much unchecked immigration from poor Mid East and African countries. They are paying the price, and we are paying the price. It is the price of white guilt and a bleeding heart. Talk about a health problem!
Just like the Palestinians, Mexican people should focus inward working to evolve their own country. The US is an attractive nuisance for the Mexican people, and Americans, including businesses that hire illegals, that embrace this soft invasion are at least partially responsible for their county’s arrested development and our country’s social and cultural decline.
wdf1: [i]”Why do you think your position is more enlightened than that of previous times?”[/i]
Great points and great question. I have often considered the same. I know this history and I know the propensity for damaging finger pointing and tribal biases.
The issue is demographics. The simple fact is that we now have 310 million people in this country and a larger percentage of them speak their home language, cling to their home culture, and require perpetual handouts. The US policy for immigration was to fill our coffers with warm bodies that could populate our young country… to provide workers for the fields and the factories and provide for national defense. Basically to attract more producers… risk-takers making the challenging trip across the ocean to make a better life for themselves and everyone else in the process. We were a melting pot because we imported a mix of people from all different cultures. The historical biases that developed over past immigration pale in comparison to the immigration numbers we see today. Just the number of [b]illegal[/b] immigrants from south of the border exceeds the total population of many countries, and is 12-20% of the total population of Mexico! When you add the number of legal immigrants it is clear that the numbers we are talking about by far exceed any other group concern ever discussed.
At the same time we have migrated to an information economy. This has raised the bar for climbing the ladder to prosperity. Uneducated people cannot even reach the first rung.
The other problem is cultural erosion. With a flood of people holding on to their language and culture, our social and political systems tilted away from the principles and practices most long-standing Americans hold dear. Assimilation eliminates this concern – in fact, it eliminates almost all my concerns about immigration – but there are too many people. They have colonized areas of the American Southwest and most Americans traveling in these areas from other parts of the country would consider it much more part of Mexico than America. We let this happen because we were all fat, dumb and happy… and feeling generous. Now we are going culturally and economically broke and the situation stands out like a sore thumb.
By the way, when I talk about American Culture, here is a very good resource explaining what I mean in terms of American values:
[url]http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/pages/faculty/alee/extra/American_values.html[/url]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/values.jpg[/img]
JB: I think you’re a bit too hung up on maintaining stronger cultural purity. U.S. culture will change whether you like it or not, but I think the essence common U.S. political and social thought will remain. The reason is that every two to four years (and usually more often than that) we get saturated with words, phrases, and discussions that express and define those U.S. values that you list above.
U.S. culture is likely our #1 export, and it doesn’t all register on economic balance sheets and statistics. To offer a couple of quick examples, Lady Gaga is probably more popular to young people in many foreign countries than locally grown pop artists. English is the most widely spoken language in the world (lucky for you and me) if you include second languages (Mandarin is usually recognized as the most widely spoken first language).
I know others would argue from different ends of the spectrum, but I think the U.S. does a pretty good job overall of assimilating, and yet allowing personal and community heritage identity to persist. And this is a good thing. In this regard, I would prefer to allow cultural heterogeneity to persist in the U.S. To put it in evolutionary biology terms, it’s like having a lot of genetic diversity. As the environment changes, having more immediate access to diverse cultural material will be a strength. An organism with little genetic diversity is more susceptible to disease and extinction.
One bright and quick example of American superiority through cultural diversity is the Navajo code talkers of WWII. Thank God we didn’t push American “purity” too hard or too early on populations like theirs.
wdf1: You speak of the benefits of multicultural blending and I agree it is a good thing. However, we are not blending the Latino culture… we are accommodating it. There has been an explosion of Spanish speaking media. The Latino vote has grown to be a political factor. You cannot do business in parts of the country unless you speak Spanish. I think you are ignoring the point about volume. Too much of any good thing can become a bad thing.
Think of it this way, assuming we just opened the border with Mexico… don’t you think it is reasonable to expect that the US culture would start to shift with a greater influx of Mexican people. Also, if the influx was mostly poor and uneducated (and it would be), don’t you think that would also have an impact on our society and our political systems? At what point is it just too much? I think we passed that point in the mid-late 1980s.
Wdf1: Here are a few slides from a US Census Bureau study. You can see the entire presentation at [url]http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic/hispanic_pop_presentation.html[/url] Click on the PowerPoint or the PDF link.
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/HispanicPop0.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/HispanicPop1.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/HispanicPop2.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/HispanicPop3.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/HispanicPop4.jpg[/img]
JB: I think you’re getting into a mess by generalizing about people, again. You might want to take a much closer look at the article that I posted earlier. If you look at census data from 100+ years ago, racial/ethnic origin was defined differently than it was today.
[quote]”What’s white in America in 1910, 2010 or even 2011 simply isn’t the same,” said Robert Lang, sociology professor at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, citing the many different groups of European immigrants in the early 20th century who later became known collectively as white. He notes today that could mean a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant in upstate New York or Jews and Italians in the lowest East side of Manhattan.
Predicting a similar shift for Hispanics, Lang and others noted that mixed marriages are now more common between whites and Hispanics. U.S.-born Latino children of immigrants also are more likely than their parents to identify as white. “The definition of white has always been expansive,” he said. “I could see the census in 2030 or 2040 dropping the differentiation between Hispanics and whites.”
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/census-hispanics-fuel-us-white-population-growth-173449405.html[/url]
[/quote]
I think you will find that Hispanic as a census category is very hard to pin down, and I’m certain the Census Bureau isn’t sure either. You’re freaking out over a human construct (what defines a person as Hispanic?) that is only weakly related to reality. I am married into a “hispanic” family. Most of them could identify either way (Hispanic or white). You might struggle to figure out which category to put them in, too, if you met them. There is no more a solid definition of Hispanic culture than there is of white culture. There is a whole spectrum of assimilation and generational residency in the U.S. within this category.
[url]http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/09/13/arrests-immigrants-on-us-southern-border-at-40-year-low/[/url]
[i]”JB: I think you’re getting into a mess by generalizing about people, again”[/i]
wdf1: I appreciate your points and concern, but you are missing the point I am making about demographics. Nothing you post or refer to addresses the current immigration situation and the expected future trend line. It really does not compare to anything we have dealt with in the past. Based on everything I have studied/read, I think 45 million legal and 15 million illegal is the accurate number (20% of the US population). Within this are far too many first generation Hispanic immigrants that will never assimilate. Now, consider the trend line for this and birth rates in relation to non first-generation immigrants (considering we are all immigrants), and also add a growing propensity for second generation Hispanic immigrants living in the Southwest US to grow up still with very poor English communication skills, and this should be alarming to all that understand and value the importance of maintaining a strong hold on our special culture and system of values.
[i]”There is a whole spectrum of assimilation and generational residency in the U.S. within this category.”[/i]
I absolutely agree with you on this point, and if the number of immigrants streaming from our southern border over the last 30 years had been legal and controlled, the rate of racial, social, cultural and economic integration would allow us to realize the great benefits of immigration. Unfortunately we cannot cover the huge liability from allowing too many poor and uneducated Hispanic immigrants to stream in.
I am not xenophobic. You don’t live in California for 37 years and not develop a deep appreciation and connection with the Hispanic culture. I have many friends and family of Mexican descent.
I think you and others fail to recognize the importance and fragility of our standard of living. We have a high one and then helped raise it in the rest of the world because of a special culture and system of values unlike any other. You said it and I agree that our culture might be our most valuable export. Is it not worth it to protect that culture from degradation?
What I see and hear from many with a left-leaning political orientation is a sort of disdain for the traditional American… either that, or at least a refusal to even accept that one exists out of fear that someone else will feel excluded. This sentiment manifests in a defense of immigration and even goes so far to opine for open borders. But, with respect to different cultures and their value systems, things either work well or they don’t work well.
America has been at the top of the food chain because ours has worked well. Mexico and much of Latin American… well not so much. It takes generations to unlearn the bad habits of a “not so much” culture. Just look at the struggle around the globe… people resistant to change… fighting to maintain their own belief system even though it guarantees them a life of misery and poverty in comparison to what we Americans have attained.
To quote from an article from an Op Ed in the WSJ today (Peggy Noonan), “Americans are anxious and fear we are losing the air of opportunity that allowed us to be what we were – expansive, generous, and future-trusting.” We are growing away from this. We are chasing a model of old Europe that has already proven a failure. We simply cannot afford to care for all these poor and uneducated people from south of our border while they struggle to learn and adopt the American way with less and less natural motivation to do so.
You have already admitted to the Hispanic vote having grown to significant power in this state. If Hispanics have assimilated and are diverse like you argue, then why do they vote in a block for Democrats? It is not just immigration policy that is to blame for this (although the Democrats have done well enflaming anger at the GOP for this while their politicians talk a friendlier talk… but certainly not a friendlier walk). Power corrupts absolutely, and I think the left political class, those that already carry some disdain for traditional American values, are fine to give away the American store growing the Hispanic vote just like they are fine doing the same with the union vote.
The liberal political class in control of most of old Europe for the last few decades gave their store away, and now they are scrambling to try and get it back. Don’t you think we should learn from their mistakes? We cannot afford a short-sighted feel-good immigration mindset. It will contribute to the degradation of American culture and weaken our American value system. It already has.
[i] Within this are far too many first generation Hispanic immigrants that will never assimilate.[/i]
Sure they will. Just more slowly than other immigrants did.
[i] alarming to all that understand and value the importance of maintaining a strong hold on our special culture and system of values. [/i]
What is our ‘special culture’ that doesn’t include Hispanic immigrants? I’ve spent my whole life in California. I’m not sure what you’re referring to. But maybe you and I don’t share the same special culture.
[i] Is it not worth it to protect that culture from degradation? [/i]
I don’t see the prevalence of other cultures in California as any kind of a degradation.
[i] the traditional American… either that, or at least a refusal to even accept that one exists out of fear that someone else will feel excluded. [/i]
Please define a ‘traditional American’.
[i] You have already admitted to the Hispanic vote having grown to significant power in this state. If Hispanics have assimilated and are diverse like you argue, then why do they vote in a block for Democrats? [/i]
For the same reason the rest of us do. They share the values or support the politicians from the Democratic party.
[i]…. the degradation of American culture and weaken our American value system.[/i]
Same question again. How in any way does the presence of a large number of people of any particular ethnic origin degrade our culture and weaken our value system?
ps: regarding a question a page or so back: I don’t like Michael Moore’s work. I don’t like polemicists; I prefer to watch debates than one-sided presentations.
[i]”What is our ‘special culture’ that doesn’t include Hispanic immigrants?”[/i]
Did you read this?:[url]http://www.cmc.edu/pages/faculty/alee/extra/American_values.html[/url]
You are still failing to address or even acknowledge the demographics point. We are not talking about just a few thousand poor uneducated people that do not speak English and have a growing ability to get by not learning with our entitlements programs. We are talking about many millions today, and a growing future trend.
I read that last time you posted it. It is interesting, but I don’t agree that somehow Hispanic immigrants (or others) fail to share those values, even in the first generation.
[Personal Control over the Environment
Change
Time & Its Control
Equality
Individualism/Privacy
Self-Help
Competition
Future Orientation
Action/Work Orientation
Informality
Directness/Openness/Honesty
Practicality/Efficiency Materialism/Acquisitiveness]
I have no concern about the demographics. Why should I? Millions of Hispanics can join millions of people of European ancestry, people from Asia — you name it. Many will live in fairly closed communities; others will intermarry and move into more heterogeneously populated areas, as have all those other groups before them. I have quite a mix of ancestries, and that of my kids is even more diffuse. I completely fail to see what you are so concerned about.