Counter Protest Message: The Democratic Right to Fear the People

sig-gathering-water.jpg

Earlier this week, the Vanguard covered the counter-protest, if you will, those residents of Davis who are opposing the referendum.  Yesterday the Davis Enterprise reported that that group of residents includes Kemble Pope, Alan Pryor, Kari Fry and Tom Cross – and ironically makes little mention of Councilmember Stephen Souza, who at least appears to be spearheading the movement.

As reported earlier in the week, the message is simply: “Think before you sign!  Forcing a vote on the clean water project is a delay which will cost rate payers more money.”

At the bottom it read: “Failing to act now could result in a loss of our water rights.”  It continued: “The state water right is conditioned on the active use of the water.  Delaying could jeopardize that state right.”

The flier concludes, “Don’t kick the can down the road, our children can’t afford it!  No one wants to pay more for water, but delaying the rate increase will only drive our costs higher.”

Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning had a column yesterday, critical, at least somewhat, of Stephen Souza and which probably provoked more thought than it should have.

Wrote Mr. Dunning, “I have received more than a few reports that City Councilman Stephen Souza, one of the chief proponents of the surface water project that will sharply increase our water rates, has been aggressively trying to dissuade citizens from signing petitions that would put the fate of that same water project to a vote of the people.”

Mr. Dunning then defends Mr. Souza’s free speech rights: “I’m not sure which part of ‘free speech’ these folks don’t understand … Souza has as much right to encourage people not to sign a petition as petition circulators have to encourage signatures.”

It is the next part of this that captures the creeping discomfort I have felt over this entire incident.

“I do find it unseemly for a sitting councilman to be spending so much time and energy trying to defeat a proposal that merely gives us commoners the right to vote on a massively expensive project that has the potential to dramatically affect so many of our lives,” Mr. Dunning writes.

He then notes, “A great number of us haven’t made up our minds about the project, but just about all of us would like to have a say in the ultimate decision.”

Mr. Dunning then points out: “No matter where you stand on this issue – and the town is about as divided as divided can be – the sporting thing to do is to at least let the people have a crack at this thing … if the surface water project has as much support as Souza and his council cohorts claim, they have no fear of an election … and if it doesn’t have majority support, it shouldn’t be forced upon an unwilling populace … it’s no more complicated than that.”

I agree with several key points that Mr. Dunning makes.

First, Councilmember Souza has every right to oppose the referendum and to counter-protest, if you will, so long as he does not interfere with the signature-gathering process.  The fact is, that the only complaints I have heard that he has done this come from the campaign committee itself.

However, whether he has the right to do it does not mean he ought to do it.

I thought the council, back in 2005, overstepped the bounds of their role by actively campaigning for Measure X on Covell Village.  Likewise, I agree with Mr. Dunning it is unseemly for Mr. Souza to be spearheading the current effort.

And it’s an odd effort, anyway.  You basically are using the democratic process and free speech principals to undermine the democratic process.

“Undermine?” you ask.

Hear me out for a second.  As Mr. Dunning points out, this community is pretty evenly divided on this issue.  So, normally the right thing to do in such a case is put the matter on the ballot and let the people decide.

The problem is that Mr. Souza and his allies are channeling the founding fathers’ deep-seated distrust of the people.  The people are ignorant here.  The people do not understand the complexities of the water deal.  Therefore, the argument is that Mr. Souza and his cohorts know best.  The effort is one of trying to save us from ourselves.

Proponents of the referendum have a point that we allowed people in Davis to vote on things are minor as opening a Target or choice voting.  Why not the most expensive project that has come before the city?

We are talking about a $155 million project that will impact people’s lives financially for years to come and is irrevocable.

As Bob Dunning told me in a conversation yesterday, “I think letting the whole town vote is the prudent course. If people are uninformed, so be it. The world is full of dictators who don’t trust the will of the people.”

That is the point that resonates for me – why are we fearing the people?  Because they do not understand this water deal?  Educate them.  Let them decide whether to risk fines and the possibility of harmful impacts on the environment, subsidence, and whatever else is keeping people up all night on this issue.

It is a strange thing.  I understand the counterargument that the only reason to put the referendum on the ballot is to kill the project, unless of course you happen to believe in democracy for the sake of democracy.

Every time I am in a courtroom for a trial, it would seem I hear this saying, “If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.  If the law is on your side pound on the law.  If neither are on your side, pound on the table.”

To me it seems that the proponents of the water project believe that the facts are on their side here – if that is the case, why not let it ride and trust that the people will do the right thing?  Why the fear, unless there is perhaps something looming that they cannot control for.

The last point I will make is that it seems unlikely that the effort by Mr. Souza will succeed in stopping the referendum.  Either they are going to get enough signatures or they won’t.  And that has more to do with public perception, organization and how many people they are paying to canvass for signatures.

That being the case, the effort is really misplaced.  They are fighting the battle in the wrong place and that could actually backfire in the end, especially as it continues to lead to charges of heavy-handedness.

After all, Mr. Dunning claims that Mr. Souza’s involvement is unseemly and I think I get the reason why – it is unseemly for an elected official to, at least tacitly and implicitly, acknowledge that he fears the will of the people.

That is a lack of trust in the wisdom of his own constituents at its fundamental core, and I do not know how Mr. Souza will overcome that perception come his reelection effort in a few months.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

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

    View all posts

Categories:

Elections

92 comments

  1. “That is a lack of trust in the wisdom of his own constituents at its fundamental core and I do not know how Mr. Souza will overcome that perception come his reelection effort in a few months.”

    Good point David. I think Mr. Souza is in trouble of getting re-elected.

  2. “that he fears the will of the people”

    I don’t think it is a “fear of the will of the people” that is at stake here. For me, this is just too much of a political “sound bite” .
    I also do not believe that it is the “wisdom of the constituents” that is in question.
    I believe that the underlying principle here is which issues should be decided through representative democracy, and which should be decided by a direct vote.
    I have seen argued here the if the Target was put to a direct vote, why not the vastly more important water project ?
    One very good reason for this is that wisdom aside, many people will vote for what they perceive as being in their immediate best economic interest. Thus, we have some people who oppose all tax increases because of an unwillingness to pay, not an inability to do so or concern for those with true hardship. This is shortsightedness and selfishness, not wisdom, and certainly not strategic thinking about the long term well being of the community. There is clearly a difference of opinion in our community about which form of democracy , representative or direct, should apply in this particular situation. What I feel is that well intentioned people can disagree on this point without it being turned into yet another political football thus further mudding the waters ( so to speak) of an already deeply divisive issue.

  3. What Davis really needs is a higher percentage of people in this town who actually work for a living and don’t spend all day looking for distractions… perhaps they could try romance novels or jogging?

  4. “Fear the People?” So,everytime I walk into Walmart and decline to sign an initiative petition that I think is Kooky, it is because I “fear the people.”

    Wow!

  5. [quote]To me it seems that the proponents of the water project believe that the facts are on their side here – if that is the case, why not let it ride and trust that the people will do the right thing? Why the fear, unless there is perhaps something looming that they cannot control for.[/quote]

    The problem is the huge amounts of disinformation being put out there by the opponents of this project, e.g. corruption, collusion, cost overruns that will amount to $500 million, the city will be able to get a variance because unnamed experts have told me so, etc. ad nauseum.

    Secondly, the opponents of the project do not seem to have any practical/realistic back-up plan if the water rate increases are not approved. Just a lot of wishful thinking that the SWRCB will somehow take pity on the city of Davis as economically incapable of implementing the surface water project, despite Woodland’s insistence they will go the surface water project alone if necessary. Woodland is economically capable of doing this project, but Davis just cannot manage it? LOL

    Thirdly, even this brief referendum process will cause the water rate increase schedule to be delayed yet again. Ultimately the rates will have to be ramped up at a steeper rate of increase to make up for the lost time. One of the major criticisms of opponents has been “Why didn’t the city increase the water rates long ago?”; yet these same critics are now supporting the very delaying process that will “kick the can down the road” once more. These critics cannot have it both ways…

  6. The importance of a referendum on the clean water project is that all the details and motivators of all the options will become public, assuring us of the best solution.

  7. Keithvb: you got that right. But the real story here is that about 1/3 of Davis simply cannot pay more, again. The next 1/3 dont really want to. The next and top 1/3 socioeconomic group simply does not care, and will spend anyway and expect the bottom 2/3rds to pay for yet another hugely over priced public program or facility.

    Issue for Mayor Joe: how are you and the CC and the DJUSD going to pass those school taxes and the parks tax renewal? I dont think the town has the financial horsepower anymore, after 5 years of financial meltdown. I dont think the surface water plant is going to be seriously in anyone’s calculations; it’s DOA for now.

  8. Michael

    What an interestingly biased comment that ” The… top 1/3 socioeconomic group simply does not care” is hardly objective and does nothing to support any merit of your position. As a member of this group, I can assure you that I care deeply both about the current groups truly facing hardship, the education of today’s children but also about the well being of the generations of my children and grandchildren should they decide to stay here. I cannot justify passing on to them the cost of what I should have paid for today.
    What I emphatically do not care about are spurious soundbites from those who can afford to pay for what we receive, but simply choose not to. Which brings me to a second point.

    In order to decide that a project is “hugely over priced” one should first have an idea of what a project that meets all the same goals should cost. So, what is your estimate of a reasonable price for the surface water project ?

  9. I really don’t see the problem of pushing this back 7 months and letting both sides present their case and letting the voters decide. What are the pro water project people afraid of?

  10. [quote] This is shortsightedness and selfishness, not wisdom, and certainly not strategic thinking about the long term well being of the community [/quote]

    Apparently with medwoman is evil, or close to it, while agreeing with her is wisdom and strategic thinking.

    I am inclined to support the water project on its merits, but seeing the arguments of its proponents is causing me to rethink. On the other hand, the opposition to it is partly centered around the political aspirations of individuals whose judgement I don’t trust and who are jumping on it for other purposes.

  11. JR

    “apparently with medal an is evil or close to it ” ? I must be missing something here. Can you clarify ?

    rusty49

    “What are the pro project people afraid of?”
    I can’t speak for anyone else, but I will address this from my point of view. I dislike the idea of deferring to the next generation what we clearly should be addressing today. I see it as unwise, if not unethical, to defer a known major problem 20-30 years (at which point I am unlikely to be alive) and ignore the economic impacts that this will likely have on today’s youth as they struggle to support not only themselves but their parents and children all at the same time. I see hardworking women struggling with this exact situation daily in my clinic and feel it will only get worse as people continue to live longer. It is unusual that Jeff Boone, Elaine and I line up on the same side of an issue, but here we are. I simply cannot justify passing the cost of this known major problem on to our kids on the hope that the economy will improve enough to somehow make it easier on them than it will be now for us.

  12. I wonder where the pro-referendum folks were on the $150,000,000 spent/to be spent on the wastewater treatment plant. Doesn’t it seem kind of silly that we would oppose a project that actually brings measureabale benefits to Davis people, (e.g. low TDS and manganese in our drinking water) yet a $150,000,000 wastewater project skates through without a peep of protest when it only benefits downstream impactees of the wastewater. Somehow it seems those priorities are backwards especially since bringing in the surface water alleviates many of our wastewater concerns.

    And if we don’t do the surface water project we will be facing a further minimum $100,000,000 upgrade on the wastewater plant to remove salinity and selenium. Why is it that this half of the spending equation never makes it into the pro-referendum talking points? Do the pro-referendum people actually really believe Sue when she says she has “unnamed sources” that say there is a liklihood that we are going to be able to fairy dance into the Water Board and sweet talk them into a variance or 20-year extension of our Clean Water Act wastewater obligations because poor lil ole Davis is sooo poor? This is even more incongruous and unlikely when Woodland is proceeding with meeting their wastewater obligations through importation of surface water…and doing it alone if they have to! I would like the water project opponents to more fully disclose how they intend to solve the wastewater problem before they kill the surface water project….pretty please!

  13. [quote]Do the pro-referendum people actually really believe Sue when she says she has “unnamed sources” that say there is a liklihood [,em>sic] that we are going to be able to fairy dance into the Water Board and sweet talk them into a variance or 20-year extension of our Clean Water Act wastewater obligations because poor lil ole Davis is sooo poor?[/quote]

    Alan, I don’t know about unnamed sources, but I do know that the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board published in June 2011 the Variance Policy and Interim Salinity Program, Staff Report. The Problem Statement presented in that report includes the following
    [quote]”…a serious issue exists regarding the adoption of final water quality based effluent limits for salts in a number of NPDES permits and effluent limitations in WDRs in the Central Valley. These effluent imits, which are being derived without the benefit of knowing the ultimate CV-SALTS or Bay-Delta standards determinations, may end up being inconsistent with those future outcomes, thereby placing numerous communities in a difficult compliance position. In many instances, the effluent limits are unattainable through any means short of reverse osmosis (membrane) treatment.

    “CV-SALTS is a holistic process that is expected to include regulatory approaches that result in requirements which are commensurate with the water quality benefits that can be achieved through reasonable management actions by Central Valley communities and others. Ultimately, CV-SALTS will determine management strategies for important sources to protect and maintain water quality in the Central Valley. The need exists to set current permit limits at a level that protects water quality but that does not compel the irretrievable commitment of major resources in advance of completion of the CV-SALTS plan.”[/quote]
    This is not opinion; it is the publicly-stated policy of the CVRWQCB.

    In other words, the CVRWQCB recognizes the difficulty that many Central Valley cities are having in meeting the previously-set salinity objectives, and those objectives are currently being reconsidered. In the meantime, they are seeking to develop a process to provide relief to cities that are attempting to meet very stringent objectives that may end up being relaxed.

    The CVRWQCB is not the only agency to propose a variance process to address the foregoing problem. The Staff Report presents examples of three other states who have USEPA-approved variance programs in place.

    With the serious, publicly-stated intent of the CVRWQCB to pursue a variance program specifically to deal with impractically tough salinity objectives in the current basin plans, and the existence of USEPA-approved variance programs in other states, it appears that there is a real chance that the Board will be able to provide relief from strict salinity objectives for NPDES permit holders in positions such as we find ourselves.

    It would seem prudent and responsible for the City of Davis to fully participate in the CV-SALTS process and vigorously seek a variance from the salinity objectives in the current basin plan. If such a variance is granted, it would provide significant breathing room for Davis to redesign a phased water supply/wastewater treatment program that won’t throw the entire price of both project on current ratepayers. Ironically, no other City councilmember was willing to second Sue’s motion to participate in this process.

  14. 3 S’s: salinity, selenium, subsidence. The salinity variances are likely to change the timetable, not the objectives. The objectives are based on protecting species in the Delta. There are stakeholders that will vigorously seek to retain those protections. None of the foregoing addresses selenium or subsidence. Breathing room, as you call it, continues subsidence problems or imperils the deep aquifer. And it just delays the surface water project, increasing costs. You are protecting “current ratepayers” at the expense of future ratepayers.

  15. Let’s not suffer from political amnesia, here. Souza and Saylor were active and aggressive supporters of the Covell Village development during Measure J(now R) campaign in 04-05.. Measure J called for the Council to approve or deny the Covell Village proposal and then, if they approved it(as they did 4-1 with Sue Greenwald dissenting), put it before the voters in a referendum. Not only did Councilperson Saylor and Souza overstep their Councilperson role in an inappropriate and unseemly fashion with their aggressive public advocacy during the measure X campaign but they were caught making clearing false statements in an Enterprise Op-Ed piece they co-authored.
    For those who were not around then, the Davis voters overwhelmingly rejected the 400+ acre Covell Village development in that citizen referendum.

  16. [i]”the publicly-stated policy of the CVRWQCB …”[/i]

    That is a serious mouthful of consonants strung together. Might I suggest the Central Valley Region Water Quality Control Board instead be refered to as the “CoverWixiBee.”

    You are welcome.

    Rich

  17. [i]” the Davis voters overwhelmingly rejected the 400+ acre Covell Village development …”[/i]

    383 acres, for the record.

    [img]http://thenflbet.blogspot.com/2011/10/blog-post.html[/img]

  18. To David Sudder re: “In many instances, the effluent limits are unattainable through any means short of reverse osmosis (membrane) treatment.”

    True – As in the case of Tracy which relies entirely on well water with no surface water option. Davis, however, has the surface water option so we otherwise do not have to rely on RO. Further, the far less wealthy City of Woodland is proving it is economically viable by proceeding with the surface water project whether the City of Davis joins it or not. This makes Davis’ claim of economic hardship a bit untenable and indefensible.

  19. Why is there a fully participating but non voting member of the Board of Supervisors on the WDCWA, why is that member Don Saylor, and why was the Supervisor member not put on the WDCWA until after Saylor became a supervisor?

  20. “Further, the far less wealthy City of Woodland is proving it is economically viable by proceeding with the surface water project whether the City of Davis joins it or not.”

    That’s what they say now, but what if their residents have a future 218 protest or referendum?

  21. Rusty49: I respect and agree with your positions and opinions on many issues, but I’m not sure what is driving your opposition to this surface water project. If I thought we could beat back the environmental regulations that are forcing us to have to upgrade our water works, or if another passable option was on the tablem, then I would quickly support the alternative approach. However, everything I read and hear in this great and consistently left-leaning state is that we will have more, not less, regulations. Also, you must know that most economists are not too bully on the economy and for seeing any profound turn-around of government deficit spending. Lastly, I think that surface water access is a net asset to this community that should be considered an investment opportunity. Frankly, I think property values may increase enough as a result of this to offset some or all of the additional expense we would pay. “Davis has crappy water” is an oft-repeated chant in the real estate biz.

    My thinking on this is pretty simple (cause’ I am a simply-minded person):

    1. I think we HAVE to upgrade our water works for all of the reasons provided.

    2. All independent experts and expert staff agree that we should go forward with the project. No experts have come forward to say that we should delay or take another approach.

    3. A delay will result in significant risks of increased costs or a reduction in options. Note what’s going on in the stock market and around the world.

    What drives your opinion to kill or delay this?

  22. [i]” Further, the far less wealthy City of Woodland is proving it is economically viable by proceeding with the surface water project whether the City of Davis joins it or not. This makes Davis’ claim of economic hardship a bit untenable and indefensible.”[/i]

    This gets to the heart of what Sue Greenwald has been arguing: Woodland is not replacing its wastewater treatment plant and taking on the surface water project. Davis is on course to do both at the same time. So knowing that, your argument is off-base, Alan.

    I am not yet convinced — (1) without the removal of the threat of regulatory fines; (2) without a signed and sealed salinity variance; (3) without a signed and sealed variance on selenium and other chemicals which either enter our municipal water or exist our wastewater and will violate regulatory standards; (4) without a guarantee that we will not lose our appropriative rights on river water; (5) without assurances that we will not have to spend millions of dollars more to dig more deep aquifer wells; and (6) that once we have dug those deep wells we will not cause them to go into overdraft; or (7) cause them to be contaminated by the medium depth wells — that Sue’s proposal is in fact cheaper.

    In other words, I think [b]Rusty49[/b] and Ernie Head and other fiscal conservatives or anti-tax minded voters ought to consider [i]the real possibility that rejecting the surface water project is the more expensive option[/i].

    I am not saying that I know, now, that rejection is more expensive. I am saying that I think it is possible that it is. But, if someone can demonstrate that all 7 of those factors I list above will not come about or cause great harm to Davis once we reject the water project, I will be for it. I favor the option which is best for the people in Davis who have the least money to waste. I am not yet sure which one that is.

  23. [i]”(3) without a signed and sealed variance on selenium and other chemicals which either enter our municipal water or [b]exist[/b] our wastewater and will violate regulatory standards”[/i]

    Correction: that should be “exit” our wastewater …

  24. David Suder wrote: “It would seem prudent and responsible for the City of Davis to fully participate in the CV-SALTS process and vigorously seek a variance from the salinity objectives in the current basin plan. If such a variance is granted, it would provide significant breathing room for Davis to redesign a phased water supply/wastewater treatment program that won’t throw the entire price of both project on current ratepayers. Ironically, no other City councilmember was willing to second Sue’s motion to participate in this process.”

    WOW WOW WOW. David, did you come through with thoughtful scientific and public policy analysis, or what? This is EXACTLY what Sue has been saying for years from the dais. It’s why she has such widespread public support in our little city.

  25. Rich asked: “I am not yet convinced — (1) without the removal of the threat of regulatory fines; (2) without a signed and sealed salinity variance; (3) without a signed and sealed variance on selenium and other chemicals which either enter our municipal water or exist our wastewater and will violate regulatory standards; (4) without a guarantee that we will not lose our appropriative rights on river water; (5) without assurances that we will not have to spend millions of dollars more to dig more deep aquifer wells; and (6) that once we have dug those deep wells we will not cause them to go into overdraft; or (7) cause them to be contaminated by the medium depth wells — that Sue’s proposal is in fact cheaper.”

    To Rich and all: hopefully, as we soon move out of this “Block-o-Rama” game that Steve and Kemble started to prevent a direct democratic vote on this $500,000,000 project (assuming about 20% cost overrun), and move into serious community wide discussion of fairly stated issues, I would invite the community to begin pooling together the specific questions that need answers, and we can all go to work on them, together.

    Rich, your initial seven are excellent, and a good place to start.

    The goal is to fully and fairly brief the community well before the June ballot.