Councilmember Stephen Souza does not get it right now. In fact, he does not get it on a number of fronts, which could prove harmful to him if he indeed chooses to run for reelection. Picking a fight with Bob Dunning is probably one of the worst decisions any one in Davis public office can make.
Writes Mr. Dunning this morning, “Given that Councilwoman-for-Life Sue Greenwald recently made a motion to let the well-educated voters of Davis have a crack at the surface water project, and given that none of her four council colleagues was willing to second the motion and bring it to a vote, my question was this: ‘Can you please lay out for me in 50 words or less, or however many words you choose to use, why you oppose putting the water rate issue on the ballot?’ “
Sounds like a quick and simple proposition, which he sent to everyone but Ms. Greenwald, since he already knew her answer.
Mr. Dunning continues: “First out of the chute was Steve Souza, the only one of the four to make it his personal quest to actively and aggressively oppose those who are trying to gather enough signatures to qualify a referendum to overturn last month’s council action in support of the project and resultant water rate increases.”
As Mr. Dunning points out, the other three councilmembers seem content to let this process play out, but Mr. Souza has been actively proposing it.
I will let Mr. Dunning explain Mr. Souza’s response: “When I opened his email I expected a clear and concise explanation of exactly why he opposed letting the voters of the Second Most Educated City in America have a chance to vote on a project of such great magnitude and potential impact. I honestly didn’t expect him to refuse to answer the question in writing. And I certainly wasn’t prepared for a game of dodge ball.”
“Steve’s ‘answer’ was no answer at all. He suggested I come to the Farmers Market and we could discuss the question over a cup of coffee. I told him I really wanted a short, concise, written answer so there was no chance his position could be misquoted or mischaracterized in a caffeine frenzy,” Mr. Dunning continued.
And they apparently went back and forth with this by email, “with Steve at one point whining that he had ‘waited five hours’ for me at the market, even after I told him I wasn’t coming and really needed his answer in writing.”
The column goes on and Mr. Dunning finally, “in total and thorough exasperation,” writes, “it would have been easier and less time-consuming to have just answered my question in the first place than to keep emailing me with excuses why you won’t answer the question.”
Less than an hour ago, Mr. Souza posted the following comment on the Davis Enterprise site, “I am sorry we could not talk today at Farmers’ Market or via the phone. Anytime you would like to talk further just give me a call or tell me where to meet you. Now that I am home here is my answer to your second question.”
Mr. Souza continues: “In a representative democracy the right of initiative and referendum can be exercised by the citizens to overturn a decision made by their representatives. If the signature threshold is met a vote will be held.”
He adds: “Your statement that I do not want the people to vote is untrue. I want the citizens to make an informed choice about signing the referendum based on accurate information.”
“After two weeks of signature gathering by the referendum proponents it came to my attention that paid outside signature gatherers were being employed and misrepresenting the facts. Other citizens and I decided to table at Farmers’ Market and present information via a flier. At the top of this flier are the words “Think Before You Sign.” I believe that to delay the least costly and most environmentally superior alternative which will bring the City into compliance with our NPDES permit of 2017 will cost our citizens more money in the end,” Mr. Souza concludes.
As I suggested to Mr. Souza last week, he needs to let this go. Mr. Souza is certainly entitled to his view, but he made the comment to me on Saturday, as we had our own booth at the Farmer’s Market promoting our November 3 event, that he felt he had the duty to do this because he knew more about the issue than his fellow citizens, and the referendum people were passing misinformation.
I think it is a dangerous viewpoint when an elected official thinks he knows more than the public, and it often ends poorly for that official.
The signature-gathering process is not the best venue for an informational campaign. There will be plenty of time to iron out details.
The fact is, there is a reason why Mr. Souza is out there, and Joe Krovoza, Rochelle Swanson and Dan Wolk are not. It is not because they are less certain about their views, it is likely because they do not believe that the time and venue is appropriate for their being out there.
Frankly, this reminds me of the mayor fiasco, where it was obvious to everyone but Mr. Souza that he did not have the votes to become mayor, but yet he had to push the issue, making it awkward for his colleagues and embarrassing for himself.
He has not learned. The judgment involved in working on a counterprotest is one thing, but picking a fight with Mr. Dunning, when Mr. Dunning asked a very reasonable question, is another judgment error.
He turned the story away from one about the council majority and into a story about him. That’s not a good idea. Certainly not an approach that most political consultants would recommend.
He has every right to stand up for what he believes. That is not in question. What we question, inevitably, in this is something far more important than his belief on any one issue, and that is his judgment.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Writes Mr. Dunning this morning, “Given that Councilwoman-for-Life Sue Greenwald recently made a motion to let the well-educated voters of Davis have a crack at the surface water project, and given that none of her four council colleagues was willing to second the motion and bring it to a vote, my question was this: “Can you please lay out for me in 50 words or less, or however many words you choose to use, why you oppose putting the water rate issue on the ballot?””[/quote]
I am not opposed to the referendum, as I believe it is a citizen right. However there are valid arguments as to why the referendum process may not result in good decisionmaking:
1) Misinformation spread by opponents of the project who claim to be signature gatherers;
2) Some nonratepayers are able to vote in the referendum; while some ratepayers cannot vote in the referendum;
3) Lack of knowledge of the issue, especially in the long term and because it is a very complex subject;
[quote]He has every right to stand up for what he believes. That is not in question. What we question inevitably in this is something far more important than his belief on any one issue and that is his judgment.[/quote]
He has every right to stand up for what he believes, but to do so lacks judgment? Why, if Souza believes misinformation is being spewed by some opponents of the project? Better to just let the misinformation go unanswered so voters remain ignorant? Sounds to me as if there is an agenda here behind criticisms of a person’s choice to stand on one’s right to speak one’s mind… unless I’m missing something…
“2) Some nonratepayers are able to vote in the referendum; while some ratepayers cannot vote in the referendum;”
How many ratepaying renters were left out of the 218 process being that renters represent 55% of Davis, as David has pointed out? They are by far the most aggrieved party.
[quote]How many ratepaying renters were left out of the 218 process being that renters represent 55% of Davis, as David has pointed out? They are by far the most aggrieved party. [/quote]
Note:
1) Landlords will not be able to pass on all their water rate increase costs to renters, else renters will find other places to reside in that are cheaper;
2) Individual units of apartments are not individually metered, so that renters can/do use water with impunity and not pay the freight of those costs.
“Note:
1) Landlords will not be able to pass on all their water rate increase costs to renters, else renters will find other places to reside in that are cheaper;
2) Individual units of apartments are not individually metered, so that renters can/do use water with impunity and not pay the freight of those costs.”
Water rates will go up across the board for all landlords. In my opinion most landlords will pass on the cost ESPECIALLY because renters can/do use water without impunity thereby putting landlords into the much more expensive higher tiers. Also, how about renters who live in houses or duplexes? They didn’t get a 218 notice but most of the time they directly pay the water bill.
[quote]After two weeks of signature gathering by the referendum proponents it came to my attention that paid outside signature gatherers were being employed and misrepresenting the facts.[/quote]
This argument is disingenuous. It could be used against all state and local initiatives and referenda—so, it’s hardly a compelling argument here. Paid signature gatherers are a lawful part of the process. Misrepresentation or twisting of facts by some supporters (and opponents) is, unfortunately, an inherent part of the process. (See, e.g., every political ad for or against every initiative or referendum in the history of the state.) And anyone who believes that state and local elected officials aren’t bombarded with half-truths and misinformation by special interest groups and paid lobbyists when they vote on significant issues doesn’t really understand how our political system operates.
Mr. Souza no doubt has very compelling arguments on the underlying rates issue. He should welcome the opportunity to have the pros and cons of each position presented and debated publicly. What’s troubling is Mr. Souza’s apparent distrust of the voters of Davis and lack of confidence that they will to be able to listen to and evaluate the arguments and counter-arguments and thoughtfully vote on an issue of such magnitude.
The harder they try to stop the signature gathering for the referendum, the more the public wants to know what ELSE is being kept from them?
For example, the same folks who want us to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars for higher rates are the ones who are bringing us the likes of United Water? (See Vanguard article this morning.)
The fact that staff brought that company to the JPA and the Davis CC tells me that there is something fundamentally wrong about this entire process and project. Last night, using my computer, I pulled out mountains of data about United Water that is quite damning. All of this was available to staff from the CC, and the JPA, yet no one found it? And staff are saying they need HOW MUCH MONEY to vet the three finalists?
Stop the madness. Sign the petition. Demand that the CC repeal the rate hike ordinance, and perform the first and only study of the long term fiscal and technical feasibility of our city-owned and city-managed water system, using water from under our feet.
There is reason to distrust voters in this town or any town when it involves paying for something they think they don’t have to… even if someone else must eventually pay the price.
I assume the referendum will pass for this reason.
But, assuming no less expensive viable options materialize from additional delay and additional studies, I for one will support a massive media campaign with CCM-Souza hoisted high so we can reign down scorn on all those who forced this delay and added costs. No hiding behind a claim of good intentions.
However, if, through the delay and additional studies, we end up discovering a viable less-expensive option, I will be the first to thank and give credit to those that made it happen and will be a bit more skeptical of the next expensive infrastructure project.
What I do not support is a delay that only kicks the can down the road. I have had it with this approach of government padding the pockets of union supporters while they allow our infrastructure and services decline in the hope that some miracle money tree will appear in the future. This screwed-up irresponsible approach is the primary reason governments at all levels in this country are bankrupt or are growing bankrupt.
I hope that everyone just has an open mind, looks honestly at the trade-offs, and comes to the best solution possible while keeping in mind that half of our households made under $60,000 a year.
Sue
I certainly share your concern for households making less than $60,000 annually. I honestly do not see this situation improving in the near future. Do you ? Because, if it does not improve substantially, we will have merely refused to share in the cost thereby putting it on to others who are no better off than we are.
Fiscal times have drastically changed in Davis, and I dont think the political and government and fiscal elites have gotten it, yet.
As to the water project, from meeting the public, we think that 1/3 of Davis simply cannot afford this project.
Another 1/3 can barely afford it, but dont want the remainder of their discretionary money sucked out by it.
The top 1/3 can afford it, and some will probably lean towards holding their noses and voting for it.
My main worry right now is the school parcel tax renewal in March. From hearing the fiscal horror stories while meeting the public, I simply think that Davis is out of fiscal gas. The past 4 years, the last 2 in particular, have ground people down to where many can no longer afford to live here, even with the substantial drop in real estat prices. I am deeply afraid for those parcel tax renewals.
As to the city parks parcel tax that will be in June with the CC elections? It wont have a bat’s chance in heck unless the CC balances the budget and makes some very visible cuts that show the voters that the City actually recognizes the fiscal disaster suffered by residents, and is willing to share in the pain. Mayor Joe: you have about 4 months to get it done, or you will lose the parks parcel tax. Time is up. You know what you have to do. Make the cuts. You and Rochelle were elected to pull the trigger, so do it.
[quote]Water rates will go up across the board for all landlords. In my opinion most landlords will pass on the cost ESPECIALLY because renters can/do use water without impunity thereby putting landlords into the much more expensive higher tiers. Also, how about renters who live in houses or duplexes? They didn’t get a 218 notice but most of the time they directly pay the water bill.[/quote]
There were landlords on the citizen advisory committee. What they told me was that they cannot possibly pass on the entire cost of the water rate increases to renters, bc renters would leave for other places where rent is cheaper. What that means is the landlords will have to eat a lot of the costs of the water rate increases. Once we were able to get the water rate increases down to a more manageable level (2 x the current rate instead of 3.3 x the current rate), the landlords were very much in support of the surface water project… bc they understand it will probably be the wisest option in the long run…
“What’s troubling is Mr. Souza’s apparent distrust of the voters of Davis and lack of confidence that they will to be able to listen to and evaluate the arguments and counter-arguments and thoughtfully vote on an issue of such magnitude. “
I thought personal attacks were prohibited?
Mr. Toad… I suspect that the referendum will succeed. It appears that the actual vote will reflect the collective desire to support R & D… not ‘research and development’, but ‘rhetoric and demagoguery’… more’s the pity.
My call is 60/40 chance that the CC will repeal the rate hike before Christmas. Do Souza and Wolk really want to run on vastly higher taxes in the June election for CC, especially to defend a project where staff wanted $100,000s of taxpayer money to “study” the likes of United Water? Clunk. That’ll be the sound of the gavel when the repeal motion passes. Anyone want to make some friendly wagers?
[quote]My call is 60/40 chance that the CC will repeal the rate hike before Christmas. [/quote]
Let us hope your predictions are as inaccurate as some of your information, e.g. Woodland cannot afford to pay…