There are so many different moving parts on the water discussion, that it is likely to be impossible to capture them all. I will start this discussion on a positive note. In years past there would be a sense of bitterness in a vote like this. However, on this council, I can honestly say that there are five people who, agree or disagree, did what they thought was in the best interest of the people of Davis.
And I actually agree that Alan Pryor put on a pretty powerful argument why the state will not be sympathetic to Davis. He said, “Some have argued we can either sweet talk or litigate our way out of this problem, but that’s wishful thinking.” He added, “The citizens of Davis are very well off, I don’t think we’re going to get the economic hardship passed that some suggested.”
And while he argues that this is not just an economic decision, it is in fact mainly about economics. Without the cost considerations, there would be no good reason to oppose the project. I simply disagree with those who believe this is growth-inducing. As long as we have Measure J/R, the citizens get to decide what is growth-inducing.
Still, I think John Pamperin’s point is more correct than Alan Pryor’s, when the Reverend said, “I cannot look at this project separate from the school bond or those bond issues that the city has to pass.” He added that his background is economics, “And I know that $100 spent on this project, can’t be spent on education.”
Mr. Pamperin explained that there is no doubt that middle class people can’t support this, and continued, “They certainly can’t afford a school bond, which they want to support and this is for the health of their family.”
“When you’re selling this to us,” he told the council, “remember you are selling it at the most difficult time in economic history of any of you.”
“I’m not sold that you can’t save more money on this,” Mr. Pamperin continued, “and I’m not sold that you’re translating to a community with other needs in the heart of a very serious recession.”
I will say this, the Prop 218 process is broken and it cannot be fixed. It is just a fundamentally unfair process. The city council, as Mayor Joe Krovoza rightly pointed out last night on Vanguard Radio, went out of their way to make it easy to protest.
Still, you have people who are going to be severely impacted by the rate hikes, but were unable to protest.
About 4800 people did protest, an amazing number in the middle of the summer without an organized campaign.
“4800 protests was a message heard loud and clear by the council,” Mayor Krovoza said on Vanguard radio Wednesday now. “It was very, very impressive.”
As I have mentioned before, you can look at this as only 28% of the parcels, and therefore argue that 72% are in favor of the project. But we all know that is a “bs” argument and Councilmember Souza knows better. The fact that a non-vote counts as a yes just illustrates the problem with this process.
One political consultant told me that, in reality, the 4800 protests would easily translate into 10,000 to 15,000 votes, given 2.6 voters per parcel on average, and not just soft support for the protest, but support strong enough to mail in their ballot in a process like this.
Will a referendum materialize? I have heard whispers and seen discussions. In the end, I don’t see the energy or the impetus to do it. I think a referendum would pass mightily, to prevent the rate hikes.
To me, the biggest issue is not one of compliance. I would have liked to have seen the city council adopt Sue Greenwald’s motion that would ask the city to fully pursue regulatory relief first before moving forward with the project on this timeline. Sadly, the council was not interested in that approach.
The biggest issue for me is cost. A lot of people who had been protesting backed off when the city announced it would be reducing the rate hikes from over three times the current rates, to what is now five years in a row of 14% rate increases and a sixth year that would have to come forward in five years.
Still, there remain questions about the actual cost.
“I absolutely understand the comments that came from the community last night to the effect of ‘show me a public works project that has come in under budget,’ ” the Mayor told Vanguard Radio last night.
However, Mr. Krovoza argued that they have been looking, over the past year, at the Clean Water Agency and how bids come in across the country, so that they can force costs down.
“We’ve been seeing bids in similar public works settings across the country come in at 10, 15, 20 percent below bid,” he said. “We can’t bank on that and we did not bank on that last night though I think there is some quiet optimism that we might do better… especially in this economy.”
He also argued that in this economy the nature of competitive bids and the scarcity of large public works projects plays to our advantage.
On the other hand, Former Mayor Bill Kopper argued on Tuesday that interest rates for communities and municipal bonds are not low, and that they are higher than they were a few years ago.
Furthermore, I think Sue Greenwald makes a strong case that the “rate decrease that is being hyped is not real.” She argues, “It results mostly from changing the assumptions about costs. In fact, unnamed professionals that I have talked with predict that the project costs will be significantly higher than predicted, and we have also not yet accounted for the new storm sewer costs.”
She has maintained for some time that experts are privately telling her that the cost will be much higher.
Yesterday she wrote, “According to current staff estimates, base rates for combined water/wastewater/garbage will be somewhere between $2,200 and $2,300 a year, regardless of whether we ramp up a little more slowly or rapidly. If we ramp up slowly, base rates will be higher in years 6-7. They will increase according to maintenance and operating costs thereafter.”
One big oversight, she argues, is that these costs fail to take into account new major storm water requirements that are currently being hammered out. Ms. Greenwald writes, “We might have to actually collect and treat our storm water within the decade. The costs of this are impossible to estimate at this time.”
She added, “A professional in the field with whom I recently spoke thinks that the city costs are underestimated. This expert thinks combined costs will ultimately come to between $3,600 and $4,200 a year assuming storm water upgrades.”
Dan Wolk also put forth an alternative, noting that the Mayor Pro Tem was on board with his motion, but he could not get a third vote.
“I support the project, but have been really disappointed with the process,” he told the Vanguard.
On Tuesday, he argued, “There are those who do not believe that we need to move away from our sole reliance on groundwater to surface water. But this is simply untenable.”
He added, however, “But when it comes to how that project is carried out and the recommended rates associated with it, I have some real problems, and here is where those who have championed the issue have failed, for a number of reasons.”
He argued that the process lacked credibility, as within a span of three weeks the proposed rates dropped to 14% – a fact that he argued “Does very little to engender confidence in the process.”
Moreover, he argued, “The process has not been very transparent, partly due to the fact that the project is being guided by a joint powers authority, not the city.”
The big part of his motion, that did not materialize, was the rejection of the staff recommendation on water rates, rejecting the rates for years 2-5, with a limitation on the rate increase to just year 1 at 10%.
What I wanted to see was something around a one-year rate increase at around 5%. My hope was then to have someone with independent expertise to look at the contract and whittle it down to its essentials.
When we met with the Solano Taxpayers Association they said that they had gone through the contract and found all sorts of expenditures that had nothing to do with the actual construction of the water project. That is what we need to do, a more thorough examination.
Unfortunately, the Mayor and Councilmember Souza were not going to back anything other than the five-year, 14% per year rate increase, and Sue Greenwald was not going to go that far in the other direction. So we are now at 14% per year.
“Although my motion was not adopted word-for-word, I was happy with the compromise that resulted. As you know, I support the project, but have been really disappointed with the process,” Mr. Wolk told the Vanguard on Wednesday.
The council did include, “Seek flexibility on the timelines for the project and raising capital, including requesting the assistance of the city’s legislative delegation, with the idea of stretching out the rate schedule.”
They also passed, “Utilize – and lobby for – as much federal and state funding as possible, including state water bonds and potential Delta restoration dollars headed toward the Yolo Bypass. Look also at utilizing other local dollars besides user fees.”
But, unfortunately, as Sue Greenwald has pointed out, once you purchase the bonds, you are locked in.
In the end, whether this project works or is a disaster depends on who is right. Mayor Krovoza believes the costs can come in well under the established rates, while Councilmember Greenwald believes that these are just the tip of the iceberg.
If Ms. Greenwald is even close to being right, this is going to be a fiscal disaster for this community. If not, then perhaps we can survive. Hard to know, given this economy.
At the end of the day, this looks very much like an expensive gamble.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Measure R blocks getting any peripheral development from paying for the project. But how much can be squeezed out of the Cannery sight? If the Cannery people come in with tens of millions then the dynamics of R change. Without that level of money measure R will preclude even having any votes for the remaining years it is in effect but if people see that development is going carry the freight on the water system there are a whole lot of people who will accept more development in exchange for lower water rates.
To me the most shameful argument is from those who have consistently opposed development now crying about how we are pricing poor people out of Davis. What do you think your policies have done and continue to do?
Once again: basically this is a DBO project, a Design, Build, Operate project. I would argue, that if, the “operation” were not done by a private for-profit multi-national corporation, but in a public-public partnership with another major municipal public water department that has experience in management and operation of such a water pipeline/treatment facility…..there would be cost savings. Think of San Francisco or East Bay Municipal Water District.
Has anyone on the Council explored this?
Has anyone on the Council read the reports that I have referenced on this blog?
Why isn’t the public demanding that this alternative be explored, the cost-savings calculated, and the relation of these savings to the rate-increase calculated?
A public water utility generally sets rates at a level to ensure sufficient income for all expenses. A for-profit multinational corporation wants to see a rate-structure that will also return profits to the global investors and shareholders….who ever they are, where ever they live.
Tell me, why when the privatization model has failed in many major municipalities across the globe and Paris recently took back their water utility from Veolia, we would want to sign a contract with Veolia, or the two other corporations, to operate this project?
So many other issues have been raised on this blog and at CC meeting? This one is still not getting the hearing it deserves.
One last question: when the rate structure does not return enough to the private corporation, will they go to the CA PUC for a rate increase? Over the years, this has happened with most of the private water utilities and rate increases, maybe not in the amount requested, have been granted by the PUC.
What then?
[quote]Still, I think John Pamperin’s point is more correct than Alan Pryor’s, when the Reverend said, “I cannot look at this project separate from the school bond or those bond issues that the city has to pass.” He added that his background is economics, “And I know that $100 spent on this project, can’t be spent on education.”[/quote]
In other words kick the water can down the road just to make sure the school district gets the parcel tax extension/increase it wants? The problem with this type of thinking has to do with the following:
[quote]And I actually agree that Alan Pryor put on a pretty powerful argument why the state will not be sympathetic to Davis. He said, “Some have argued we can either sweet talk or litigate our way out of this problem, but that’s wishful thinking.” He added, “The citizens of Davis are very well off, I don’t think we’re going to get the economic hardship passed that some suggested.”[/quote]
The bottom line, no matter how one slices it, is the SWQRCB has emphatically stated that communities will not be allowed to profit from noncompliance with the new wastewater discharge standards. In other words, if a jurisdiction decides not to do a project that would bring it into compliance, to save itself the cost of the project, the SWQRCB will be required by federal law to impose substantial fines – and has the discretion to impose fines to whatever extent the community thought it was going to “save” by not doing the project. If the community is not likely to “save” any money by not doing the surface water project bc of hefty fines, then how does that help the cause of a school parcel tax? And we would have no new reliable source of water to boot!
There has also been talk about obtaining a variance. However, at the CC meeting, city staff noted variances are only granted for 5 years. So the argument continues that perhaps in 5 years somehow salinity standards will actually be loosened rather than tightened. Again, I would refer readers back to Alan Pryor’s comment. That is not the direction the state and federal gov’t seem to be headed – towards loosening water quality standards. If someone “knows” differently, then they need to step into the limelight and go on the record to state what they “know”.
At the end of the day, the surface water project was approved, but with a more modest water rate increase of doubling over 6 years. A citizen advisory group will be formed, to take a hard look at keeping costs down of this behemoth project. It was a citizen advisory group, of which I was a member, that decreased the water rate increase to double as opposed to more than triple the current rates. We want to continue that process of keeping costs to a minimum. I would encourage any interested parties who are knowledgeable about contract law, water use issues, or have any particular expertise in this area to make themselves known to all 5 City Council members, and lobby to get themselves on the advisory committee (there will be 10 slots). It is through vigorous citizen oversight that costs will be kept to a minimum.
[quote]Has anyone on the Council explored this? [/quote]
I will ask you yet again – have you talked to anyone on the Dept. of Public Works about your concerns? If yes, what was their response? If no, why not?
N Price”Has anyone on the Council explored this?
Has anyone on the Council read the reports that I have referenced on this blog?
Why isn’t the public demanding that this alternative be explored, the cost-savings calculated, and the relation of these savings to the rate-increase calculated? “
Where were you on Tuesday night?
[i]”I would argue, that if, the “operation” were not done by a private for-profit multi-national corporation, but in a public-public partnership with another major municipal public water department that has experience in management and operation of such a water pipeline/treatment facility…..there would be [b]cost savings[/b].”[/i]
It really depends on how much labor costs. As we know in the City of Davis with our parks maintenance, where half is done by the unionized city workers and half is done by private contractors (who are forced by the city council to pay salaries equal to those the city pays), the public employees cost roughly 40% more due to their rich package of benefits and pensions. If you include the unfunded cost of retiree medical, public employees cost about 60% more.
A huge problem which Davis and Woodland water users are going to face with the new water works is the fact that the labor unions are running the state legislature. It’s not just the labor unions for public employees, like the firefighters. Those groups have successfully pushed their agenda through for the past few years, and now we no longer have a governor willing to stand up to them.
The legislature is about to pass a new bill next week called SB 922. It is designed to make sure that the wages and benefits paid, even for non-union workers, will be about 20% more than would have cost without them. The name for this kind of screw-job on the public is a Project Labor Agreement. It even forces union dues to be paid when the workers are non-union.
When you combine the new PLA laws that the labor unions have purchased from the Democrats in the state legislature with the already exisiting prevailing wage laws for public contracting, projects like our water works end up costing about 50%-70% more than they would if we allowed free-labor bidding.
So when you are paying your $1,500 per year water bill, keep in mind that about $500 of that is due to having the labor unions (that is, the Democratic Party) running our state.
And also keep in mind that when we build a school in Davis, or UC Davis builds a new building, or the city repaves a road, all of the expenses for these infrastructure items are much more expensive due to the laws that the labor unions have won (by financing Democrats for office).
[i]”It even forces union dues to be paid when the workers are non-union.”[/i]
I forgot to add that the PLA’s force non-union contractors to follow union work rules. These are the types of things which, for example, prohibit a carpenter working on a project site from picking up a piece of lumber if the union work rules say only a laborer can pick up that type of lumber. You might think such nonsense is inconsequential. It’s not. That is the main reason we have lost about 95% of the movie production business in California–union work rules. That is the reason NUMMI went out of business. That is the reason why automakers in the United States who are not in deals with the UAW–that is, the transplants and a few independents like Tesla and Aurica–have 50%-100% higher productivity and far higher quality than the UAW shops have.
Yes think how much we could save with Braceros and Coolies.
Thanks for not letting us forget this is a DBO project, Nancy. Maybe that is something we should start focusing on instead of worrying about the SWRCB and what they might do if we do what is not right.
1. Bring down the cost of the project based on who you contract with to do the work.
2. Look at what is in the contract: DPD, you said the Solano Taxpayers group found unneeded items. Care to share?
3. Maybe it’s time to look at how this project is paid for and by whom. Is our rate structure taking advantage of who the big users are and whether they should or could be paying more or less.
Maybe some of this has already been reviewed by city staff. I certainly enjoyed the variety of opinion expressed at the City Council meeting Tuesday night. I came away with a wider context on the impact of this project.
I’m more tuned in to the impact on lower income folks (Pamperin and Rancho Yolo reps) and that our tiered pricing structure needs more attention.
I’m more convinced the project needs to happen (Alan Pryor).
I’m more worried the engineering contracts and the DBO model is out of control and too wonky for many to understand what’s at stake unless someone does some good research.
[quote]1. Bring down the cost of the project based on who you contract with to do the work.
2. Look at what is in the contract: DPD, you said the Solano Taxpayers group found unneeded items. Care to share?
3. Maybe it’s time to look at how this project is paid for and by whom. Is our rate structure taking advantage of who the big users are and whether they should or could be paying more or less. [/quote]
All good questions…
DG: “Still, you have people who are going to be severely impacted by the rate hikes, but were unable to protest.”
It was my understanding that renters could also file a valid protest that would be counted, although I’m not sure that very many people understood this. So there may have been able, but simply unaware. (They also would likely not have been noticed by the City.)
If you are implying that the renters are severly impacted, I tend to disagree with you on that. While I could give you the economic basis for my belief, it is probably easier to understand it with examples. Would you pay more rent if your landlord didn’t have insurance and he had to repair the roof when a tree colapsed upon it? Would you pay more rent if he wanted to buy himself a new car? Do you really care what your landlord’s cost are, and does that affect what you are willing to pay in rent? No. You pay your rent because you believe that that is your best option. If your landlord increases your rent, you will look at other options and may move. If a restaurant has higher produce and meat costs, are you willing to pay more for that meal? If an airline has higher fuel costs, are you willing to pay more? If you said yes, and any of these folks simply raised the cost to you by that same amount, but without reason, would you still pay it? None of this should have anything to do with the landlord or business’ cost. It is all about what that product or service is worth to you. Another example would be Sudwerks. If they charge more for their beer because their water costs have gone up, are you willing to pay more for that beer? In fairness, some may be willing to be pay more for all of these things, but they will have been convinced to do so by marketing spin, and nothing more.
Unless there is price collusion, it is difficult for owners to push prices upwards because their costs have increased, or for no reason at all. Airlines and others have done this, but not without collusion. If the cost to provide the product or service is almost entirely variable cost or operational costs, then maybe this could happen, but that is not the case for any housing in Davis. Maybe restaurants and other businesses, but not housing.
[i]”Yes think how much we could save with Braceros and Coolies.”[/i]
Is this a cynical way that you are saying you oppose immigrant workers? Or simply that you oppose immigrant workers from Mexico and China?
The fact is that the unemployment rate right now among qualified American construction workers–immigrant and non-immigrant Americans of all races and ethnic backgrounds–is very high. I heard on a radio show it is 40%, but (after just googling “california unemployment construction”) I can’t find that number from a reliable source. Whatever the actual number, it is very high.
So we should have a great opportunity, if we are going to construct this water works, and it sure looks like we are, to put the project out to bid and get the project built for a very competitive price.
But that is not what will happen, because the Democrats in our legislature are run by the unions. That means that every family in Davis is going to have to pay at least twice as much for this new source of water than they would if we simply let all American construction workers, operating under full Cal-OSHA safety rules, bid on the job at a competitive rate.
This is the sort of thing that even the far left, pro-union types tend to be hypocritical about. When they hire someone to do repairs or maintenance on their homes or their automobiles, they hire a company which, at a given quality, gives them the best price. If one lawn mowing service charges $400 a month, but operates under full union conditions, they won’t hire them, because it’s too expensive. They will hire the non-union company that charges $80 per month.
But when it is the public’s money … then they are gung ho for union labor.
I can understand why union workers and union reps hold this view. It’s money in their pockets. But no one in public office ought to be selling themselves out to the unions. Their job should be to make life better for all taxpayers, all residents, all ratepayers. But they don’t. (And we can see that in Davis with our unsustainable labor agreements every day.)
A few observations:
Construction costs are very low right now. You won’t find too many people who will bet that costs will come down further. Most believe that they will move back up. Who know whether that will start happening in 6 months or 6 years, but there is a very real risk that the costs could climb substantially due solely to construction costs going up over time as the market gets stronger.
Municipal financing rates are a function of two primary factors. The first is the rate of “risk free” investments such as U.S. Treasury bills. The second is the risk of the municipality not making its payments. Treasury or risk free rates are at historic low levels, and substantially lower. These rates will likely increase as the U.S. economy strengthens. The soundness of City of Davis finances and municipal finances across the national generally have not been as good as they have been historically. This is why the municipal rates are not as low as they may have been a couple of years ago, but they aren’t that much higher, I don’t suspect.
Regulations, particularly related to water quality, will not be relaxing in the future. This means that the standards will get more stringent, and the cost to meet those new standards will get more expensive. Does anyone at all educated on these issues seriously believe that the requirements will lessen? Find me an expert that says so. Also, if we build a water treatment facility sooner, rather than later, we have a better chance of not being forced to comply with future more stringent standards. Sort of like getting “grandfathered in”, I would think. (Much like ADA retrofits.)
Water will become more precious and will be more difficult and expensive to obtain in the future. It is a finite resource, but groundwater aquifers are being depleted, we have population growth which requires more water and there are increasingly more contamination and water quality issues that we are discovering. To top it all off, climate change will tend to exacerbate weather and water patterns, meaning that we’ll have more and longer droughts, as well as more intense storm seasons. This means that while we’ll receive the same amount of water from precipitation, it will be boom or bust more often, which means our water storage facilities will be less able to handle the peaks and valleys.
Engineers have a tendency to build big expensive state of the art facilities, whenever they feel they have a client that will pay them to do so. Part of this has to with the fact that they tend to design to meet “ALL” requirements, because that is their job, but also from a cynical standpoint, because I suspect they make more money on the bigger job. Also, there is no prestige and no one wins any awards for building something basic and functional, now do they? These sorts of water facilities are fairly complex. You and I can’t tell what is necessary and what is not necessary. The WDCWA probably needs a peer review of the design to try to value engineer the project.
If it were my decision, I would move forward with the increased rates, but also continue to question the design assumptions. I’d also have that peer review built into the process. If we get a cheaper design and/or costs come in lower, then you can rest assured that the City will not be charging more than is necessary. However, if we don’t collect enough now, it gets more and more difficult to make-up for that in the future.
My view is that things get more expensive the longer we wait. So, we need to find enough savings through design to offset any increased costs of construction. Remember that while construction costs are low now, it will be some time before facilities are built and costs could climb by 10% in a heartbeat.
[i]” I heard on a radio show it is 40%, but (after just googling “california unemployment construction”) I can’t find that number from a reliable source. Whatever the actual number, it is very high.”[/i]
I still don’t know the right number. Nationally, I found that the unemployment rate in construction is double the overall unemployment rate.
Here is something I did find (in the BLS database) about seasonably adjusted employment in the construction sector in California:
In January, 2007, there were 912,500 people employed in construction jobs in California, adjusted for the season. In July, 2011, there were 567,300 people employed in construction jobs in California, adjusted for the season. If the former figure represents full employment, we are down 38 percent (which notably is close to the number I heard a KGO radio talk show host, Gene Burns, say on his show).
newshound: [i]”Construction costs are very low right now.”[/i]
They are low only if we allow competitive bidding. They are higher than ever under current California laws for public projects. In fact, if Brown signs SB 922, as expected, the cost for construction next year will be roughly double what it was four years ago, when the housing boom was in full force.
“Would you pay more rent if your landlord didn’t have insurance and he had to repair the roof when a tree colapsed upon it?”
You are comparing a single isolated incident of a trww falling to a rate hike for a whole town. If there was no insurance, and trees fell down regularly on every apartment complex in town, yes, you would pay more rent. This is basic economics.
” If your landlord increases your rent, you will look at other options and may move.”
Yes, renters will first look for the rare complexes that do not raise their rates in response to the hikes. These will fill up quickly, and if the renters can’t find a reasonable spot in town, they will then have to make the decision of whether or not to stay in Davis.
“Unless there is price collusion, it is difficult for owners to push prices upwards because their costs have increased…”
How do you figure that? This sort of thing happens all the time in other industries. What makes you think that rentals are somehow immune?
It is deeply discouraging to me that the council did not support my motion to apply for a variance that could allow us the option of phasing in our huge water-related projects.
[b]Please remember: The median household income in Davis is $43,000 a year.[/b]
I will wager that the vast majority of those who are opposed to phasing in our new waste water plant and our new surface water projects (so that we don’t have to pay for them at the same time) are from households well above the median Davis income, or else they don’t understand what the actual future costs are likely to be.
There has been no “rate reduction” for the 40 year period that we will be paying for the two, and possibly three, extraordinarily expensive new projects.
There has merely been a deferral of some of these costs to year 6 and a smaller deferral of a few years beyond that for a couple of necessary capitol projects, in addition to some interest rate assumption changes which are all guesses anyway.
Staffs’ estimated annual costs remain well over S2,000 a year and growing from year 6 onward, and this does not count a potential storm water collection and treatment requirement.
An engineer that I talked with thinks that the surface water project will end up costing more than we think, and expects total future rates more in the ballpark of of between $3,600 to $4,200 a year (for average single-family house).
There is a process for a variance in place that that has the potential to allow us to postpone this project for a decade while new salinity standards are put in place. No one can predict whether the SWRCB would grant us a variance. This decision is not up to Alan Pryor or to any board administrator; it is up to the board members. Socio-economic impacts can certainly count when considering the variance. We don’t even have good figures on what our costs will be, and we can already ascertain that they will certainly be a very sizeable percentage of the income of those below our median income, and this is a very powerful argument.
Again, it deeply discouraged me that this council would not support my motion to apply for the variance.
By not supporting my motion, this council is creating the circumstances under which they can say: “We have no choice.”
I think that David is completely right that the councils’ current course is a big gamble.
The prudent course of action is to attempt to obtain a variance from the SWRCB. That would assure future surface water and assure that rates remain lower than the stratospheric levels that we are currently heading towards.
Applying for a variance is a gamble.
Counting on reduced salinity standards is a gamble.
The bottom line is that opponents of the water project are advocating a delay (not cancellation) for 10 to 20 years or more. “A few decades” seems to be the most recent version. The delay would require capital outlays to replace existing intermediate wells, or dig new deep-aquifer wells.
Expanded use of the current aquifer is not just a gamble, it is a known problem.
Using the deep aquifer is a gamble.
Maybe we should stop framing this discussion as a gamble.
I think I should preface every post with the topic no one likes to bring up: [quote]The median household income in Davis is only $43,000 a year.[/quote]Putting aside the argument that it is obviously better to phase in huge projects so that you can pay off one before you make payments on the next — the argument that “it will be more expensive later” is a standard layman’s perspective, but not one most economists would agree with. There is no particular reason to think that construction costs will outstrip inflation.
Technology might improve (when we built our last waste water treatment plant, I am sure everyone thought it was cheaper to build it sooner, and as soon as it was built it was obsolete and we have to build a new one now. Building it sooner was a massive waste of money). For better or for worse, we have already purchased all of the summer water rights that we will probably need, and our river water rights are secured (no, they won’t be taken away with we work WITH the regional board).
There probably couldn’t be worse time form a historical perspective for procuring state and federal grants help.
There are as likely to be better opportunities in the future as there are worse.
ScottM: “You are comparing a single isolated incident of a trww falling to a rate hike for a whole town. If there was no insurance, and trees fell down regularly on every apartment complex in town, yes, you would pay more rent. This is basic economics.”
I disagree that a rational individual would pay more rent in the scenario you have described, but maybe the “spin” works more with the general public than I thought. My point is that the cost of the landowner is irrelevant to what the renter pays. If all apartment owners received a $50/month rebate for water conservation in Davis, do you really think that this would get passed on to the renter? This all goes to the concept of a land residual and my belief that any costs or windfalls accrue to the land residual and hence its owner. If you aren’t familiar with the term or concept, do a google search and see if it changes your mind. (This is not a concept that is widely grasped by the public, so you would be in very good or at least have a lot of company if you were not familiar with it.)
Let me try one more example. If the City of Davis adopts a new development impact fee for new water facilities in the amount of $25,000 per new home, and the price of a new home prior to the imposition of the new development fee (which was sudden and without any warning) was $400,000, what do you think the selling price of the new home would be after the new fee? I’d argue it would still be $400,000 and the owner of the land just lost $25,000/lot with the imposition of the new fee. (This would also be the case if there were no existing housing in Davis.)
ScottM: “{Yes, renters will first look for the rare complexes that do not raise their rates in response to the hikes. These will fill up quickly, and if the renters can’t find a reasonable spot in town, they will then have to make the decision of whether or not to stay in Davis.”
I don’t think that the market is as efficient as you describe it, but what I don’t know is how elastic or inelastic demand is in Davis for rental housing. If the majority of this is student housing at UCD, it may be much more inelastic, and you may be closer to correct. (Would students not consider, or are there no similar apartments in Woodland?) If that is the case, then current apartment owners would be smart to simply boost their rents because renters generally don’t have a choice. (This probably also works best if it is a very tight rental market, as it will shorten the feedback cycle that would either tend to push the rents up. More vacancy dampens any feedback cycle because it takes longer for land lords to see the changes in renter behavior and to accordingly adjust their prices.)
ScottM: “”Unless there is price collusion, it is difficult for owners to push prices upwards because their costs have increased…”
How do you figure that? This sort of thing happens all the time in other industries. What makes you think that rentals are somehow immune?”
Rentals are different. In most other industries, there isn’t as strong equivalent to a land residual, which is sort of like the value of the business’ assets, irrespective of operating expenses and revenues. However, it is highly property specific and hence every properties will be different. In most other industries, you generally have variable costs driving pricing. Where there is the equivalent of a significant land residual or value in a brand or other intellectual property or something similiar, if costs go up, even if for all businesses in an industry, prices typically won’t change.
In the City of Davis’ case with the water rates, I will acknowledge that because the debate and discussion has been so public, the apartment owners have an opportunity to boost their rental rates and can possibly use the public discussion as a means to signal all of the other apartment owners to do the same. In fact, the apartment owners association in Davis would perhaps be wise to make a public announcement, that I’m sure that media outlets such as the Davis Enterprise, Davis Vanguard and Sacramento Bee would helpfully publicize, that “apartment owners will have to increase their rents on January 1 to cover the increased water rates”. Apartment owners could get the media to do its “signaling” for them, so that they would not risk being prosecuted for “price fixing” and colusion with other apartment owners. Are you aware of the airline practice of setting fares on a certain day, to be effetive several days later? This is price signaling. If enough other airlines follow suit with their own advance price setting to match the price, it all goes forward. However, if not enough airlines do it, the airlines can always cancel the price change before it even goes into effect.
Do we have any trained or practicing economists out there who have thoughts about how all of this would be expected to work? I guess we’ll find out shortly after the first of the year.
Sue”Please remember: The median household income in Davis is $43,000 a year. “
So self serving. A large percentage are students with little income so this skews the median lower. All of a sudden you are so concerned about the poor but only while protecting your own pocketbook. If you were really concerned about the poor you would not have spent all your years on the council protecting property owners by limiting growth. Your tenacious anti-growth positions have supported high rents and high property values at the expense of the 2/3 of Davis residents who rent. Your opposition to growth has limited the ability of the council to reduce water rates by allowing new growth to absorb some of the costs of the new construction. What is really sickening is the way you claim to be trying to protect the poor when in reality you couldn’t care less if the poorest even have shelter or those with lower economic status need to commute from Woodland. So please don’t make this about you protecting the poor when we both know you are all about protecting property owners from growth.
Estimated median household income in 2009: $59,733 (it was $42,454 in 2000)
Davis:$59,733
California:$58,931
Estimated per capita income in 2009: $29,422
Read more: [url]http://www.city-data.com/city/Davis-California.html#ixzz1XPAghgjE[/url]
In Mr. Toad’s comments re Sue’s useful information re the Davis median household income (I wish we had had it earlier, be it $42K or $59K) he shows that he is the one who is truly indifferent to the plight whom I strongly suspect are far less well off than him. In his unpleasant and unwarranted personal attack on Sue he, like so many supporters of the project have done throughout, totally ignores the impact on many Davis households and renters. This is not mention it being far more difficult to renew parcel property tax assessments at the ballet that support our schools, parks, and libraries.
Even the majority of project supporters would have to admit that there are many huge unknowns when it comes to costs. Furthermore, most people in Davis are unaware that it is not unrealistic to assume that the average Davis household water bill could be $2,000 in by 2017, and even more if there are snags with the project.
If this could be better publicized I think that the project, in its present form, could be defeated at a referendum. But, as I have learned from long enough experience, it is one thing to write eloquent contributions to the Vanguard or letters to the DE and quite another for the opposition to coalesce and start a signature drive for a referendum and then fight a reasonably unified campaign. Somebody tell me that I am wrong and let’s try to get started or we face a real fiscal/economic catastrophe down the road.
As Barbara Ehrenreich so brilliantly argues in her book _Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America_ (2009), our culture almost universally despises someone who is anything other than a Pollyanna optimist. But the citizens of Davis had better get real or they will be saddled with a monster for many decades to come.
I’d love to get out of here but who the hell is going to buy my house when they find out that their water bills alone will be circa $200 PER MONTH by 2017?
[quote]Applying for a variance is a gamble.–[b]Don Shor[/b][/quote]There is simply no gamble involved in applying for a variance.
We can continue to find out how much the surface water project will actually cost. The project is ready to go if we don’t get the variance. I just don’t understand the panic. We are dealing with a regulatory issue, but we are not pursuing avenues which are open to us, and we are gambling the fiscal future of the city before we know whether the costs over the next 40 year period are feasible.
[quote]Furthermore, most people in Davis are unaware that it is not unrealistic to assume that the average Davis household water bill could be $2,000 in by 2017 — [b]Herman[/b][/quote]Yes, Herman, I believe that staff estimates have it currently higher than that. And that doesn’t count expensive new storm water requirements currently in the works, or the fact that at least one knowledgeable local engineer thinks the costs for the surface water project will be substantially higher.
Dear People:
A year ago most people had no idea that this issue was coming our way. It was only a few months ago that the issue began to move front and center. I attended a few meetings of different interest groups and was surprised at how little most people knew. Even those who were now logging on the topic were grasping for information.
I attended some meetings relating to Rancho Yolo Community Association and the plight of mobile home owners in town. It was only this Tuesday at the Council meeting that I learned for the first time that an internal program to lessen the burden on low income residents of Davis is not legally allowable.
I wished I had known that earlier. Those of us concerned about the impact on the residents of Rancho Yolo could have begun looking for other solutions.
My first critique is that the status and impact on low income residents, occupants of income restricted nonprofit housing and the residents of Rancho Yolo were not appropriately dealt with in this process. As a result, we have an impact without mitigation. This major increase in rates will be with us for decades so its economic impact should have been looked at in more depth.
Water is indeed a critical issue and our use of it should be under constant review. Planning for the future is appropriate and I do not differ with the need for our community to be prepared. But let’s look at some policy issues that were neglected in the process.
•There are almost 1,000 units of income restricted nonprofit housing in Davis. They are for the most part regulated in their monthly charge by state and federal rules. None of these regulated units will be allowed to add any additional rate increase by January 1, 2012. Many of the nonprofits will not be allowed to add this extra rate charge during the next twelve months. As a result, the nonprofits operating these projects at break even will now lose money because they will be required to pay the increased bills and not be able to pass it through to their tenants. The stiff annual increases may mean that the nonprofits will never be able to claw back the losses from the increase in water rates. It will mean that something else will need to be cut to get back to break even.
•Rancho Yolo is in a unique situation. The 262 home owners did not have a vote as they own only their home and not the land. The out of town park owner had one vote. There are about 330 residents of Rancho Yolo and about 230 are low income (less than 80% of median income). Just as the apartment owners will pass on the increase to the renters the park owner will pass on the increase to the mobile home owners at Ranch Yolo. What becomes different is that a mobile home owner at Rancho Yolo is charged twice where a renter is charged only once. When the space rents go up in a mobile home park $10 a month, the rule of thumb is that the value of the mobile home drops $1,000.
•At the existing annual increase of $20 a month, over the next five years the regular rent will go up $100 more and the utility rate will go up $70. So in five years time space costs at Rancho Yolo will go up $170 thereby dropping the value of the mobile home by $17,000. Renters get increased costs but don’t lose any value. The residents at Rancho Yolo will lose about $4.4 million in value over the next five years just due to the rate increases.
•These figures can be argued with and that is fine. What is important to show is that the proportion is valid. The poor will lose more.
•The discussion on Tuesday night about the seven bedroom home on Oceano Way shows the inequity of certain programs. That Oceano home will be paying another $77 dollars in five years. Oceano Way is a 5,000 sq ft home on a 10,000 sq ft lot with probably four people living in it. That home will be worth over a million dollars.
•In Rancho Yolo many homes are 1000 to 1200 sq feet in size. There are 1.3 people per unit. The homes in Rancho Yolo are for sale at this time at about $55,000.
•On a per square foot, home value and per person basis the smaller and poorer pay more.
•So the question is should something be done and if so what would it be?
No matter what, out of respect to a group of households for who this is a major economic impact, there should have been much more effort to understand the implications and to look for possible mitigations.
The Council should commit to looking into this.
David J. Thompson, Neighborhood Partners, LLC.
Sue, I take your point and have agreed all along that applying for a variance was a good option. But that is NOT going to happen, as you know better than I, UNLESS the citizens of Davis overturned the present proposal at the ballot box. So let’s hear your ideas for getting this on the ballot and how a campaign might take shape.
[i]”Unless there is price collusion, it is difficult for owners to push prices upwards because their costs have increased…” [/i]
[b]”How do you figure that? This sort of thing happens all the time in other industries. What makes you think that rentals are somehow immune?”[/b]
I think it mostly depends on how tight the rental market is. If vacancy rates are higher than 5% or 6%, then landlords will not be able to pass along much of the increased cost*. If vacancy rates are lower than 2%–for most of the last 40 years vacancy rates have hovered between 0.5% and 2%–then landlords will likely be able to pass along most of the increased costs.
Given our history of usually having tight rental markets, I would guess that a majority, but not all of the added water costs will be borne by renters.
The City Council can do something about this, if they chose to change the zoning on properties inside the city limits from whatever it is to multi-family housing (especially dense, multi-family house); and with voter approval, we could probably** relieve the rental market by changing the zoning on peripheral properties to allow the construction of more R-2.
*Except those that have a full building with tenants who are locked into long-term leases which allow the landlords to pass-through such costs.
**Probably? It depends on whether there are developers who really would build more apartment complexes in and around Davis. I presume they would. Developers tend to be the most optimistic people. But you never know if they can get financing.
Actually, I wish the Enterprise would set up an informal poll downtown or something. Assuming that residents are informed of all possible ramifications, I wouldn’t be surprised if popular opinion shows 70% or more disapproval over this project, essentially the opposite of the figure Mr. Souza’s been touting.
In any case, it would create a nice baseline to figure out whether it’s worth pursuing a referendum.
“I think it mostly depends on how tight the rental market is. If vacancy rates are higher than 5% or 6%, then landlords will not be able to pass along much of the increased cost*. If vacancy rates are lower than 2%–for most of the last 40 years vacancy rates have hovered between 0.5% and 2%–then landlords will likely be able to pass along most of the increased costs. “
Interesting assessment. I’m not personally familiar with the numbers, but what you said sounds realistic. Thanks for the insight.
[quote]The bottom line, no matter how one slices it, is the SWQRCB has emphatically stated that communities will not be allowed to profit from noncompliance with the new wastewater discharge standards.– [b]E. Roberts Musser[/b][/quote]You gotta love these people who know how the SWRCB is going to vote (and this organization that you know so much about, Elaine, is not the SWQRCB; it is the SWRCB).
Yet again, Elaine, I will explain: One of the reasons that the board set up the variance procedure is because they understand that their are problems with the current salinity limits, and they are revisiting them. There is concern about socio-economic impacts.
It was a high ranking administrator at the SWRCB who suggested to me that we pursue the variance if we feel that the project is fiscally infeasible. I do not believe that he would have suggested it if he thought it was impossible.
Rifkin: “I think it mostly depends on how tight the rental market is. If vacancy rates are higher than 5% or 6%, then landlords will not be able to pass along much of the increased cost*. If vacancy rates are lower than 2%–for most of the last 40 years vacancy rates have hovered between 0.5% and 2%–then landlords will likely be able to pass along most of the increased costs.”
Thanks for that data. Historical vacancy rates seem astonishingly low. Even with a mostly UCD student population. When someone moves out, it takes at least a little time to clean the unit and get someone else moved in, even if you have a waiting line, so to speak. 0.5% is about a day and a half. I’m not familiar with the student rental market, but assume that leases are for a full year and some sublet during the summer, if they can. Even so, pretty remarkable vacancy rate. Where do those who can’t find a rental in Davis go? Do they go to Woodland, and how is the market there? Such a tight market with the stated vacancy rates would seem to indicate that landlords could increase rents further, particularly if there is a constraint on new supply. Since I’m assuming leases start at the beginning of the school year, I’m guessing that we wouldn’t see any potential affects until next Fall when lease renew.
I’m also guessing that since this is predominantly a UCD rental market, where you either get a tenant for the beginning of the school year or you are likely vacant for a full year, landlords may have a tendency to be a bit risk averse and don’t push the rents as much as they might otherwise, to make sure that they fill-up, for fear that they might have no tenant for a full year!
I am not convinced this project is necessary.
I would like to see a summary, with data graphs, of what the City has done to reduce per capita water consumption, starting five years before the individual water meters were installed, to current. From my memory on the CC, as of at least 2005, there was no realistic programs in place to reduce, and the graph was a flat line.
Second, I would like to see more information on the salinity issue, including analysis of the use of water softeners.
If the CC won’t flat out stop the surface water project, the CC should immediately move to undo the rate increases of this week for a year, and aggressively work during this coming year to put together a plan that makes sense, with reliable costs.
Third, whatever that new plan is, it should be placed on the ballot for a citywide vote.
newshoundpm: “Where do those who can’t find a rental in Davis go? Do they go to Woodland, and how is the market there?”
Speaking from personal experience as a recent UCD student and actual poor person, I can say that, yes, Woodland, was always my first alternative. You can often get a much bigger and nicer apartment for several hundred dollars less than the going rate here. Sacramento and its various suburbs were also often variously considered by me. To those such as “Gunrock” who have said, well, why not go there, I would answer “yes, I will, if rents steadily increase during a bad economy.” The loss of people like me won’t be missed by many because this town is often viewed as an escape from seeing actual poor people, but nonetheless it will affect the diversity of the town, and it will become an issue as to what kind of place the people want to live in.
Face it, folks, Davis is going to be Brentwood North. No one except the wealthy will be able to afford housing in Davis after these three huge related projects get built. Despite all the nonsense being espoused by most of our council members, they are going to drive out all of the poor and a good portion of the middle class, and leave Davis as an exclusive enclave of the well-to-do. That must be their goal–there’s no other explanation. We know without a doubt that the true costs of ANY huge infrastructure project are going to escalate precipitously over time. It just always works that way. So any estimates being put forward today are low-ball and can’t be trusted one bit. Most of us are going to be flabbergasted when we learn what the genuine, full costs will be and the impact that’s going to have on the city we love.
Cheers Crilly. I couldn’t have expressed it any better than you did.
I love you all! I’ll miss ya when I move out yonder to Citrus Heights or whatever affordable location remains. Enjoy your playground of the rich. When you roll around in your money bin, please think of me, Unca Scrooge. 😉
Yes Crilly and Scott, this is why i find the idea of Sue as a champion for the poor so infuriating since all her policy efforts have restricted new housing throughout her tenure in office the consequence of which has been to drive up rents and real estate prices forcing more and more people to move out to places like Woodland. Further if she wanted to really help poor people she would ask for new development to absorb some of the cost of the water project. That would lower rents and reduce the increase in water rates. After all what she knows but doesn’t want to say is that bringing in this water supports development. What she really wants to do is make it as expensive as possible so that people will vote it down and prevent Davis from growing for lack of water.
“No one except the wealthy will be able to afford housing in Davis after these three huge related projects get built. Despite all the nonsense being espoused by most of our council members, they are going to drive out all of the poor and a good portion of the middle class, and leave Davis as an exclusive enclave of the well-to-do.”
Crilly where have you been all these years? You think its these new projects? Sorry to disabuse you of the notion but no growth policies have created the conditions that have driven out the middle class from Davis. The problem is that the old model of larding ever more taxes on the people of Davis is running into economic headwinds that are finishing off the middle class of Davis. The solution isn’t less growth the solution is more growth, cheaper housing and good paying jobs. The economic model of Davis for the last two decades is dead. Its just that the town hasn’t heard the fat lady sing.
[quote]You gotta love these people who know how the SWRCB is going to vote (and this organization that you know so much about, Elaine, is not the SWQRCB; it is the SWRCB).
[/quote]
Sue, now you’re just being ugly. Does the acronym really matter?
Thanks to Alan, he has informed us that the city is currently not in compliance with selenium limits. What does selenium have to do with salinity? Nothing, as far as I am aware. Thanks again to Alan, selenium standards are the purview of the federal government, not the state. Selenium comes from the groundwater – not surface water, not stuff that people put down their drains, not water softeners, just the groundwater. The city’s own stated solution to selenium is a surface water source, or more deep aquifer wells, but not a new wastewater treatment plant.
First, please give us all a link to the variance procedure you think is the city’s solution. Keep in mind, just yesterday you were admitting that the variance procedure actually doesn’t exist, but is being debated and hammered out somewhere (or did I completely misunderstand your exchange with Alan Pryor). And when you are giving us this link to the proposed variance procedure, show us where the variance procedure will help the city get out of its selenium problem. I’m genuinely curious, primarily because I don’t want to rely on your second hand recollection of anonymous sources. Anyway, if I am to trust your sources, then you surely have double checked them and will be able to provide some evidence to answer my questions above.
[i}”Historical vacancy rates seem astonishingly low.”[/i]
It is. And (being historical, of course) it’s mostly been very low for a long, long time*.
I read a sad story (a few years ago) in the 1958 Davis Enterprise about a case where some black grad students from Africa had arranged to move into the Americana Arms apartments (between F and H near 14th St.), but when they showed up, the landlord (from Sacramento) would not let them live there, because they had a “no blacks” policy. That created a serious problem, because at that time in Davis, there was not a single available apartment.
The resolution was that the Asmundsons (I think it was the father of Ruth’s husband, though I don’t recall for sure) let them live in his house for some time, until one apartment in Davis finally became available. 1958, I should note, was the first year UCD became a “general campus.” Up to then it was an arm of UC Berkeley. Although Davis didn’t start to grow very rapidly for another couple of years, housing here was certainly tight back then. (The other perpetual issue was that everyone said back in the late 1050s, we need more parking downtown!)
*I don’t know how long ago it started, but every December, the folks at UC Davis who run student housing do a survey to determine what the rental vacancy rate is in the City of Davis.
One more note: In the last two years, the vacancy rate has come up some. This is from the 7-14-11 Davis Enterprise:
“Last December, UCD’s annual survey of student rentals found a 3.4-percent vacancy rate . In recent years, that vacancy rate has gone [b]as low as 0.2 percent[/b] in 2002, and as high as 4.2 percent in 2005.”
The survey also found that students are more likely to share a bedroom now than they were doing a few years back. (When I was an undergrad at UCSB in the 1980s, I often slept 3 guys to one small bedroom. Our apartments in IV sucked compared to what you get in Davis.)
I think the opening of West Village is going to make it even better for renters in Davis in general. However, I need to say one thing about what a 5% vacancy rate typically means: that is considered the even point for renters and landlords. Neither one has a real advantage over the other at 5%. Yet I can never recall Davis having 5% or higher. As such, it has always been a landlords’ market here.
You’re too sane for this site, Rifkin. Your intellligence slays the reptillian brain of us all. May God have mercy on your soul.
[i]”… back in the late 1050s …”[/i]
I didn’t mean to get medieval. That should read “the late 1950s.”
Davis Enophile: Yes, you did misunderstand my exchange with Alan Pryor and yes, I do get impatient with people who repeat misinformation over and over.
I will update my census data (thanks, Don Shor):
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN DAVIS IS $59,733. THAT MEANS THAT HALF OF ALL HOUSEHOLDS MAKE LESS THEN $59,733.
Mr. Toad–where have I been all these years? In Davis for the last 28 of them. No growth policies have created the conditions that have driven out the middle class from Davis? And who do you blame for those policies? Sue Greenwald? Davis voted and the policies were codified. Who voted? Primarily the middle class. If you want uncontrolled urban sprawl, perhaps you and Scott can room together in Citrus Heights (sorry, Scott!) or Elk Grove, or somewhere in the vast wasteland between Thousand Oaks and San Diego. Bye.
Sorry Crilly I think I’m hear to stay even with the high utility bills. Anyway you make my point that Davis suffers from a model who’s time has passed. At this point the only people who can afford to live here are doctors or their heirs. If you want to cling to no growth don’t complain about the high costs associated with your vision.
Oh and one other thing Crilly. Why do the anti growth people always pick the worst examples as the alternative? Is there no middle ground? What if in the last decade Woodland had built 1000 less homes and Davis 1000 more. Wouldn’t both communities be better off?
Mr. Toad: They built a lot of housing in L.A., and it didn’t make L.A. affordable. They built a lot of housing in Manhattan, and it didn’t make Manhattan affordable.
Manhattan is an island. Davis is only an island because of measure R.
Parts of LA are quite affordable.
Median home price in Los Angeles July 2011 $320,000 Source Data Quick
http://dqnews.com/Articles/2011/News/California/Southern-CA/RRSCA110815.aspx
Sue Greenwald
Here’s Sept 7 exchange with Alan Pryor.
Alan says: “Sue: Point of Clarification – What was said last night by the City’s outside counsel on wastewater permitting was that there is NOT currently a process for obtaining variances from discharge standards but that the Water Board is discussing a process whereby such variances MAY be applied for in the future. There is no guarantee that such a variance issuance process will be approved by the Water Board (although the lawyer for the city on wastewater discharge said she was hopeful). Further, even if the Water Board recommended that such a variance process be implemented, it still had to be approved by the EPA. She thought that the Water Board’s decision may be made in about 6 months. But then it goes to the EPA which can take years to approve such a modification. TOnly then if both the Water Board AND the EPA approve such a variance process then the City can apply for such a variance and be evaluated by the Water Board. This point in time is years in the future, if ever.”
Sue responds: “No, Alan, you are wrong. The state IS IN FACT setting up a variance process. She merely said it isn’t in place yet; they were wrapping up the scoping period.”
So in fact, a variance process for salinity requirements is not currently in place, but may be in place in the future. I hope you see that you and Alan aren’t disagreeing here. But in addition Alan points out that selenium is a problem that the city is currently not in compliance, and selenium comes from our groundwater. I’ll ask you again, does this possible future variance procedure for salinity also apply to selenium? I’ve tried looking on the SWRCB’s website for this variance, but can’t find any reference. Surely since you’ve put so much stock in this possibly future process you can direct me to a web page or reference materials. Or is it you’ve just taken the word of someone else implicitely?
Mr. Toad–So, you’re here to stay? Apparently, according to your previous posts, that can only mean one of two things–you are either a doctor or the heir of a doctor. Right?
[quote]It was my understanding that renters could also file a valid protest that would be counted, although I’m not sure that very many people understood this. So there may have been able, but simply unaware. (They also would likely not have been noticed by the City.) [/quote]
Renters cannot file a protest, only the owners of the property.
[quote]First, please give us all a link to the variance procedure you think is the city’s solution. Keep in mind, just yesterday you were admitting that the variance procedure actually doesn’t exist, but is being debated and hammered out somewhere (or did I completely misunderstand your exchange with Alan Pryor). And when you are giving us this link to the proposed variance procedure, show us where the variance procedure will help the city get out of its selenium problem. I’m genuinely curious, primarily because I don’t want to rely on your second hand recollection of anonymous sources. Anyway, if I am to trust your sources, then you surely have double checked them and will be able to provide some evidence to answer my questions above. [/quote]
[quote]So in fact, a variance process for salinity requirements is not currently in place, but may be in place in the future. I hope you see that you and Alan aren’t disagreeing here. But in addition Alan points out that selenium is a problem that the city is currently not in compliance, and selenium comes from our groundwater. I’ll ask you again, does this possible future variance procedure for salinity also apply to selenium? I’ve tried looking on the SWRCB’s website for this variance, but can’t find any reference. Surely since you’ve put so much stock in this possibly future process you can direct me to a web page or reference materials. Or is it you’ve just taken the word of someone else implicitely? [/quote]
Nicely said!
No, Married to someone with a D at the end.
ERM: “Renters cannot file a protest, only the owners of the property.”
Elaine, I went back and found the August 19th post on this topic. I think I saw DG’s original post but not all of the subsequent comments, including yours. After reading all of the comments, I tend to agree with your take that both the law as well as the intent likely direct one to conclude that a tenant not being directly billed for the utility does not have the right to protest. This also seems to make sense from a common sense standpoint, although that is not necessarily a good test for laws and things such as this. Thanks for your original comments in the August 19th post, they were quite helpful and illuminating.
Mr. Toad
If, per Sue’s post, the median income in Davis is $59,733, I can only conclude that your definition of the middle class, whom according to you can no longer afford to live in Davis, must vary wildly from mine. In my neighborhood, my immediate neighbors include a certified nurse midwife, a packing plant worker, a railroad employee, an architect, a nursery employee and a computer specialist.. I would appear to be the only doc on the block. And yet there has been no rash of for sale or for rent signs. I can only conclude that you were using this comment as a rhetorical device in your criticism of the proponents of slow growth.
As I have stated on previous threads, I have no objection to developments that meet the needs and goals of the community. I would support
A development that consisted primarily of low cost housing, located in such a fashion as to promote transportation other than the private automobile. So far, the proposals I have seen heavily favor homes in the $ 400,000 to $600,000 range and whose location and design make reliance on cars a virtual necessity. I will not support this outdated and destructive model, and suspect many “slow growthers” have similar feelings.
I completely agree with medwoman. Thanks for your post. Turning Davis into an Elk Grove simply for the sake of lowering housing prices shouldn’t be anyone’s goal. I also believe that thoughtful, well-planned, green developments would be welcomed by many.
Median price in Davis in July 411,000. More construction will drive prices down from there.
How long have they lived there Med? it wasn’t always so expensive to live here so people who bought before the late 90’s could have various jobs but make no mistake high prices take their toll over time driving out great people that you would think any community would want.
As for not supporting development that you deem too car dependent no growth policies that drive people to live in nearby communities are actually worse environmentally since they are in effect leap frog developments.
Crilly I am not supporting development to drive down prices. I support it so that we can have a vibrant welcoming community. My point is that developer margins are large enough to absorb a large part of the cost for water development and that these developers are the ones who will eventually profit from having the water so they should pay thus reducing their profit margins. This will lower everyone else’s costs while supporting the real estate market to some degree.
I find it disappointing that people who, I’m quite sure, consider themselves environmentalists are gleefully talking about skirting environmental regulations regarding our wastewater effluent. Instead of doing the right thing for our environment, these so-called environmentalists want us to ignore (or apply for a variance thereof) our environmental responsibilities. They claim it will cost too much to comply, which is, incidentally, the same claim made by every group who wished the EPA or Clean Water Act didn’t exist. Sometimes it costs money to do what’s right for the environment.
Caroline, there is always an issue of feasibility and a cost benefit analysis. I don’t see $325 million dollars worth of environmental benefit in not postponing this project for a few decades.
In fact, a sustainability expert gave a presentation at the Yolo County Water Resources Association a few years ago. I asked the question: In our region, is there more sustainability gain in water conservation, or in the greenhouse reduction that comes with have irrigated green vegetation?” He answered: “That is a very good question,and one that has not been studied”.
There are very real environmental costs in undertaking this project. We are taking more water out of the river, there are huge carbon cost output involved in producing the materials for this project and in doing the construction. Much of the EIR was discussion of negative environmental impacts of this project.
In terms of the salinity, the SWRCB is reviewing salinity management,in part because they don’t think that the current standards are cost effective, and think there are other ways to deal with salinity.
California is clearly above its carrying capacity in terms of people, and I think that dramatically slowing growth in California and reducing high water- use cotton production are probably among the most important steps we could take.
Most places in our country rain year round. There are now twice as many people in California as when I moved here at 18. I know I would think twice about immigrating the California if I were an 18 year old out of stater today.
“That is a very good question,and one that has not been studied”.
We know that there are many questions for which there has not been a in-depth analysis to help answer, e.g. what is the best estimate for the longevity of our aquifers? The answer we are given is that it is an unknown. Is that really the best information that can be obtained? It is clear that for an answer to this question ,as well as other important questions involving this project,there has been a deliberate stonewalling by the past Council Majority and the past Public Works Dept leadership so that now we are threatened with possible “mushroom cloud” future narratives with regard to our water supplies which data/facts could perhaps easily dispel.
nce again Sue reveals herself in all her weirdness with this bizarre argument about carrying capacity. This is not the first time she has raised this notion. It is something i think she should begin each post saying for it reveals the true motivation beneath her opposition to just about everything. Weirdest of all is that Davis is an area that could feed more people than almost anyplace on earth so we are probably farther below CC than anywhere you can think of. Taking a hard line against water development specifically or any development generally because we will add to our over carrying capacity population is off the charts loco. Further the idea of carrying capacity is the population that can be sustained based on the resource base. It doesn’t really apply to humans because we can make tools that increase our resource base or we can adapt our use of resources as needed. A water pipeline is a good example of this.
So you see this is why Sue is so opposed because she knows that more water equals an increase in CC allowing Davis to support more people something Sue vehemently opposes. As a result, instead of actually seeking ways to absorb the costs of the new system from the zoning changes that could result from development supported by the new water Sue’s policies result in higher prices for water while she tries to champion that her interest is saving money for the poor or middle class.
The world population has more than doubled in your lifetime, Sue, so what? Davis is a place that seeks to educate and innovate to help deal with this growth. Opposing it by refusing to accept any portion of it is inhumane. The brutality of the indifference of your philosophical views is shameful. It is even more shameful that you represent so many who feel the same way you do in this town.
Mr. T. Your personal invectives towards Sue don’t exactly enhance either your arguments or your credibility. How about focusing on the message and stop your attacks on the messenger.
You say that the world population has more than doubled in Sue’s lifetime (about 60+ years I’m assuming). Well guess what, the population of Davis has increased 20 times it’s 1950 population (65,000 vs. 3,500). I’d say we’re doing our share when it comes to growing.
Yes Crilly I am ferociously outraged by the idea that we should stop growing because we are over carrying capacity especially coming from an elected official.
As Davis has grown so has its contribution to humanity. What would you prefer slow growth and less research or more growth and more research? I prefer the latter.
Please discuss issues and avoid personal attacks.
“What would you prefer slow growth and less research or more growth and more research?”
You speak as if these are the only two options. Personally, I’d prefer intelligent growth and intelligent research.
Yes Crilly, but what we have had for the last 10 years is no growth and when I see really talented wonderful people leave because its so much cheaper to live elsewhere I am saddened. Good family people, hardworking, honest, taxpaying, intelligent, creative people driven out by some romantic vision of Davis that is based on failed applications of ecological principles, i am outraged.
Come on Crilly you have been here a long time. Haven’t you been sad to see friends leave Davis? Why do we make it so hard for people to stay? We don’t need to be so dogmatically opposed to growth. We have gotten to the point where we have driven so many out. People are crying that the expenses of maintaining the quality of life are driving them out and yet we cling to our failed no growth model.
Finally the weird ideas of only supporting some utopian ecological development while the town next door picks up the growth that we fail to provide and actually increases our carbon footprint by making people commute farther is just plain dumb growth. Yes Davis is so cool because we don’t impact our environment. No we impact other peoples environment. Now there is something Davis models for the rest of the world.
Mr. Toad
I am interested in what you would consider vibrant ? I was downtown this evening. There was live music in at least three separate venues. There were families in the plaza enjoying music, ice cream and the fountain, downtown streets were fulll of people strolling, going to restaurants, local shops and movies. I walked home ( Old East Davis) by myself after dark feeling completely safe after having had dinner with friends.
Weekend before last I went to The Village Feast and ran into a number of friends and acquaintences. I frequent the farmer’s market on Saturdays and sometimes make picnic in the park on Wednesdays. I am looking forward to my first “block party”in my new neighborhood in October. I do not perceive a lack of vibrancy. How much growth would it take for you to consider Davis a vibrant communit?. And what about when there is no more room for growth? Does Davis suddenly become less vibrant when we are maxed out?
Sounds like a good time Med. Too bad more people can’t enjoy it for fear that they would somehow destroy it or can’t afford it because they struggle with the self inflicted high cost of living in Davis that no growth policies have demanded.
Oh and i would ask you to Med. Haven’t you lost friends that moved away who you wish could have stayed if only it was cheaper to live here?
you too Med
Mr. Toad: [i]What if in the last decade Woodland had built 1000 less homes and Davis 1000 more. Wouldn’t both communities be better off?[/i]
As you know, if Davis had built 1000 more homes, Woodland wouldn’t have built 1000 less. There would just be another thousand homes flooding the market right now.
[quote]It was a high ranking administrator at the SWRCB who suggested to me that we pursue the variance if we feel that the project is fiscally infeasible. I do not believe that he would have suggested it if he thought it was impossible.[/quote]
And it was a SWRCB representative who stated jurisdictions were not going to be allowed to benefit financially from not coming into compliance w the new water quality standards. At least my source was willing to name himself publicly. Your UNNAMED source suggested that trying for a variance wasn’t impossible if the project is fiscally infeasible. First of all, nothing is impossible. That doesn’t make it probable. Secondly, how do you propose to show the surface water project is fiscally infeasible?
[quote]And it was a SWRCB representative who stated jurisdictions were not going to be allowed to benefit financially from not coming into compliance w the new water quality standards.– E. Roberts Musser[/quote]This is getting kind of annoying. No one is talking about benefiting financially from not coming into compliance with “new water quality standards”. The topic is applying for a variance under a system that has been established while the SWRCB reviews its salinity management.
If you listened to the meeting, you would have heard the city’s attorney confirm this.
And Elaine Musser — if you don’t believe my sources, why don’t you just encourage the council to approve my motion to try to get a variance — how could it hurt?
Maybe, maybe not, Don. A little regional planning might be good for both communities.