With any luck, we will know by the end of the day if the water referendum qualified for the ballot. As we have noted for the last several weeks, the water issue, if goes on the ballot, will be a polarizing issue, encompassing about seven months’ worth of debate.
But for years now, we have been concerned about cost. We are concerned that costs to the ratepayers will impact the ability of local schools to raise money. We are concerned about the impacts on people who were not eligible to participate in the Prop 218 rate protest. And most importantly, we are concerned about the impact on discretionary spending in the city.
The last one is particularly concerning, in light of the continued down economy. We have seen a number of businesses – many of them longtime businesses – close their doors in recent months. We have likely lost on already-plummeting tax revenues. And now our water policies threaten to reduce those even more.
I understand the argument that we may pay more later if we delay. I understand the argument that we may pay fines if we do not comply. I understand that Woodland and Dixon already are paying fines.
We have been through those debates already.
So here are a few questions I would like to throw out to proponents, and see where we might be able to find common ground and come up with something that most people are willing to support.
First of all, what can we do to reduce the impact of the water rate increase on low-income people, people with fixed incomes, and people who are struggling in the current economy? The current rate increase has the rates more than doubling in six years. Moreover, as Bob Dunning notes, the 14% rate hikes could be much higher depending on the ability of the household to conserve.
So how can we better structure the rates, to not force people out of their homes and this community?
Second, those people who can afford the rate hikes will likely reduce their discretionary spending. Think about the economic impact, if each person who lives in Davis spends $500 to $1000 less per year going to the movies, restaurants and buying discretionary retail purchases. How do we address that problem?
Then you have the double-whammy problem of a place like Sudwerk. They are a high-volume water user, cannot really conserve, so they will pay much more in water AND consumers are likely to cut back on purchasing beer (unless they are just depressed and need to drown their sorrows) – how do we deal with that?
Third, we have the school issue. Some have argued that this is a non-issue. Others have suggested that because we raised this issue, the school parcel tax is already dead. I am not buying that argument, by the way. But I do think simple math suggests that we ought to be concerned.
For one thing, schools are facing $6.5 million in a loss of funding if the parcel tax does not pass. For another thing, the state is not in the clear yet and may need additional cuts. Also, the last parcel tax granted a tax increase, barely, and I mean, it barely passed.
In five years, school funding may not be so fragile. People’s pocketbooks may not be as stretched. The climate may be very different. I see this as a perfect storm that could be devastating for local schools – how do we deal with that?
Fourth, I would again have liked to have seen an oversight committee that would really push on the issue of rates, that would question everything. I just do not think we are going to get this and would like to see a different structure going forward to make sure that what we are buying is what we absolutely need to get.
Fifth, I am concerned that the Design, Build, Operate process is going to leave us with a private operator, two of which candidates have very questionable backgrounds. We need to ensure that this project, if it goes forward, is done right, and there are a long list of horror stories.
So, right now, those are my five biggest concerns and I would like to see the proponents come up with ways to address these things. If we can do that, I will be much more comfortable with the project going forward.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
The entire underlying factual predicate for this surface water project is suspect, now that we see how they handled the rates.
Further, giving any control of our public’s water system to other jurisdictions is madness.
I am sticking with disbanding the JPA, 100% Davis ownership and operation of its own water system.
(Steve Souza was a ringleader for public power several years ago, right? So why is he trying as Chair of the JPA to give our system away to United Water?? Does this strike any of you as strange?)
I am also sticking with requiring an independent review of our ground water system.
If the CC wont do it, I think there will be another initiative on the June ballot.
End of story for me.
David, no matter what rate structure one devises there will be some flaws. The key is to devise a structure that 1) minimizes the flaws, and 2) has the ability to address the “affordability” challenges you’ve described. I believe the rate structure that the Irvine Ranch Water District has been using since 1991 is extremely good at doing both. Since they have been using this rate structure for 20 years, it has more complexity than Davis needs, but a simplified version would work as follows:
Each home would get a “water budget” with two components. First, the base “indoor water use” budget is calculated by multiplying 55 gallons per day (20,075 gallons per year or 1,673 gallons/month) times the number of residents in the home. That translates to 4.5 ccf per person per bimonthly billing period. Second an “outdoor water use” budget is calculated using a typical lawn of 1300 square feet using 8.44 ccf per bimonthly billing period.
So a person living alone in Irvine has a combined indoor/outdoor bimonthly water budget of just under 13 ccf. The combined budget for a family of two goes up to 17.4 ccf. For a family of three it is 21.8. For a family of four it is 26.3. For a family of five it is 30.8. For a family of six it is 35.3.
Once the budget for a house is set, then the following rates apply:
USAGE – LOW VOLUME (0-40% of Budget)$0.91 per ccf
USAGE – RESPONSIBLE CONSERVATION (41-100% of Budget)$1.22 per ccf
USAGE – INEFFICIENT (101-150% of Budget)$2.50 per ccf
USAGE – EXCESSIVE (151-200% of Budget)$4.32 per ccf
USAGE – WASTEFUL (201%+ of Budget)$9.48 per ccf
In addition to the calculated consumption amount there is a fixed bimonthly Service Charge.
Mike Harrington has already said about this kind of structure, “[i]Matt: why would anyone disclose how many live there? Also, people frequently move, so the data become obsolete very quickly.[/i]”
The answers to those questions are really quite simple. 1) We already provide household population numbers on our Tax Returns and to the Census, why not to the Water Department in order to have everyone have “fair” rates? 2) Dealing with changes would be as easy as when the family that buys a house contacts the City to turn on the water and sewer service, they simply would provide one number in addition to all the other demographic data they currently provide.
That is a start toward dealing with your desires David. What does everyone think?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Further, giving any control of our public’s water system to other jurisdictions is madness.
I am sticking with disbanding the JPA, 100% Davis ownership and operation of its own water system.”[/i]
Mike, you have said the above statement many, many times. Each time you do I ask you why you are such a “control freak” on this issue. Each time you duck the question. Now that the signature collecting crush is past, do you care to step up to the plate and explain why you feel the way you do . . . and what is the threat you perceive by joint ownership?
To each of your five points:
1) I very much doubt that tweaking the water rate increase schedule is a major concern/is the main issue. It can be done until the cows come home. What is more important is that the city raises the capital needed to either build the surface water project or maintain the current system with all its attendant costs (including fines, subsidence, maintaining crumbling infrastructure, etc) until the surface water project is built, period.
2) Anyone who can “afford” the water rate increases is not likely to/has no reason to pull back on their discretionary spending. The restaurants and movie houses are still buzzing with business despite an abysmal economy, if you take the time to go downtown on any given day. Have you asked the owner of Sudwerk whether he is in favor of the surface water project or not? Go ask…
3) The school parcel tax will always be in competition with any other tax, rate increase or whatever. So does that mean we should not ask for a city parks tax, because it might compete with the schools parcel tax? Each tax/utility rate increase needs to stand on its own and citizens can decide for themselves what they are/are not willing to pay for. Water is a crucial element for any community; and very much effects property values.
4) An “oversight” committee (as opposed to an “advisory” committee) indicates a preconceived agenda/wish to set up a committee critical of the surface water project to either kill or seriously delay it. Whereas an “advisory” committee suggests a group of people working together collaboratively to advise the City Council on what they think the best course of action is after having looked at all the evidence and considered the totality of the situation.
5) The DBO system may be the cheaper way to go, but at a minimum it has to have built into it a contract that puts the onus/risk on the company to do things right. This is one of my biggest concerns, in light of the city’s lack of due diligence on other contracts it has been involved with, e.g. Zipcar.
[quote]I am sticking with disbanding the JPA, 100% Davis ownership and operation of its own water system. [/quote]
At any cost, no matter how expensive?
“The entire underlying factual predicate for this surface water project is suspect,…”
Not if you’ve tasted the tap water .
Michael: Do you know what the costs would be of disbanding the JPA, or are you just shooting from the hip or don’t care? Are you proposing two completely separate water conveyance and treatment systems, or because you don’t want any of this anyway, you are proposing something that makes no economic sense – basically trying to throw a wrench into things to see if you can break it?
“The entire underlying factual predicate for this surface water project is suspect,…”
Any unbiased review of the history of this project reveals that the political narrative,created by the past Council Majority and Public Works leadership,was designed to obfuscate and stonewall any attempt to let the Davis electorate in on the plan that NEVER considered any other option than building this surface water project now, whatever new considerations appeared, and for the Council Majority to advance this project piece-meal under the political radar to the point where they would then attempt to claim that “the horse had already left the barn”. The credibility of city staff and Councilperson Souza(I do not include here the novice Council members who had this mess dropped in their laps for immediate decision-making) is consequently ZERO. This is the fundamental issue that must be resolved before any consensus can be reached.The Davis electorate does not accept being deliberatly deceived by arrogant Council reps and the city officials whose salaries they pay.
[i]First of all, what can we do to reduce the impact of the water rate increase
So how can we better structure the rates, to not force people out of their homes and this community?[/i]
The city council should change the rates to the actual 14% increase, rather than the staff recommendation they went with. They can also keep the Tier 1 at the current rates, rather than having it go down over time. I don’t know what, if anything, came of the lifeline rate idea.
[i]Second, those people who can afford the rate hikes will likely reduce their discretionary spending. … How do we address that problem?[/i]
We have no way to address that problem, other than doing a lower rate increase over a longer period of time.
[i]Then you have the double-whammy problem of a place like Sudwerk. They are a high-volume water user, cannot really conserve, so they will pay much more in water AND consumers are likely to cut back on purchasing beer…[/i]
Alcohol sales remain strong during bad economic times.
“Sudwerk, Privatbrauerei Hubsch, Inc in Davis, CA is a private company categorized under American Restaurant. Our records show it was established in 1990 and incorporated in California. Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $2,736,488 and employs a staff of approximately 65.”
[url] http://www.manta.com/c/mmn0k9l/sudwerk-privatbrauerei-hubsch-inc%5B/url%5D
I don’t even know if the owners of Sudwerk support or oppose the water project. I don’t know what percentage of their expenses water is, nor how readily they feel they can adjust their markup to increase their gross profit margin and accommodate that. A number of us are high water users.
[i]Third, we have the school issue. … the last parcel tax granted a tax increase, barely, and I mean, it barely passed … In five years, school funding may not be so fragile. People’s pocketbooks may not be as stretched. The climate may be very different…[/i]
School funding hasn’t been stable for the last five years; I don’t know why you think it’s going to improve in the next five years.
[i]Fourth, I would again have liked to have seen an oversight committee that would really push on the issue of rates, that would question everything. I just do not think we are going to get this and would like to see a different structure going forward to make sure that what we are buying is what we absolutely need to get.[/i]
Then you need a different council majority.
[i]Fifth, I am concerned that the Design, Build, Operate process is going to leave us with a private operator, two of which candidates have very questionable backgrounds.[/i]
That argues well for the other candidate, but we will have to see how the bids come in. All other things being equal, your concerns would be reasonable considerations for the JPA in choosing the finalist. I would have to see the costs to the city in terms of additional employees to assess whether it is better to have this city-run. Employment costs are the city’s biggest fiscal issue right now.
David, don’t let the siren calls of ERM, MW, and DS put you on the defensive. You are right on target. Bob Dunning suggested a remedial math class for the City Council. I suggest a remedial economics class for the City Council, its chiefs of staff, and ERM, MW, and DS. Come to think of it there is probably nothing to remediate, and we better start them with an adult education or JC class.
Yes, agreed there are some unknown risks associated with not proceeding with any surface water project at all. But I have yet to read any real concession or discussion of what the serious economic and social impact of a $300 to 500 million water project could be on Davis and Woodland from ERM, MW, and DS.
They must be members of a secret society I discovered upon moving here 11 or so years ago—the Davis Flat Earth Society. Do they read about municipal and county bankruptcies and fiscal crises in the US? Do they know about the Greek or Italian debt crisis? Do they really think that these crisis are disconnected from Davis and Woodland and that we live in the cozy and economically stable US of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s (at least by comparison)? It is just incredible how little appreciation or awareness they seem to have of the fragility and interconnectedness of the world, national, state, and local economies.
Oh well, when this issue is finally settled, and it is pointless blogging about it on the Vanguard any more, ERM, MW and DS can use the ample time they have on their hands to join some Sacramento blog scolding residents of that city for not coming up with $2.4 billion to replace their sewer system by 2017.
[i]”The entire underlying factual predicate for this surface water project is suspect …” [/i]
[b]Not if you’ve tasted the tap water. [/b]
There are certainly some places with better tasting municipal tap water than Davis*. However, if you would travel around the world a bit and taste the tap water in large cities of Latin America, West Africa and India (all places I have tried the water), you would be grateful to have the tap water of Davis. (Note that your problem with Davis water may be unique to you or to your own house, where the condition of the pipes can affect taste. Some homes in Davis seem to have more of a metallic taste than others.)
Some years ago–I think it was in the early 1990s–a girl who was a student at Valley Oak Elementary conducted an experiment with the taste of Davis tap water. She gathered samples of the most popular brands of bottled water. She also had some store brands of water. And she had fresh out of the tap Davis municipal water. She chilled and then poured each type of water in clear glasses, so that the tasters (all adults) did not know which type of refrigerated water it was they were drinking. They were told to rank in order which water they liked from best to worst. No surprise at all, Davis tap water came out as best, even among those who said in advance they could not stand the taste of Davis water. I expect most people who don’t like Davis tap water and who substitute bottled water for it would rate Davis muni water at least as good, if not better, if they were to take a blind taste test, today.
*I am used to it and Davis water, chilled or not, tastes fine to me.
[quote]Yes, agreed there are some unknown risks associated with not proceeding with any surface water project at all. But I have yet to read any real concession or discussion of what the serious economic and social impact of a $300 to 500 million water project could be on Davis and Woodland from ERM, MW, and DS. [/quote]
Actually I was on an informal advisory committee that was able to get the water rate increases DECREASED from 3.3 times the current rate to roughly 2 times the current rate. So I am very much concerned about the impacts of the water rate increases. But I am also concerned about the MANDATORY fines the city may be faced with as well…
Herman said . . .
[i]”David, don’t let the siren calls of ERM, MW, and DS put you on the defensive. You are right on target. Bob Dunning suggested a remedial math class for the City Council. I suggest a remedial economics class for the City Council, its chiefs of staff, and ERM, MW, and DS. Come to think of it there is probably nothing to remediate, and we better start them with an adult education or JC class.”[/i]
Interesting comment Herman. What is it about the rate structure I proposed above that you find to be not economically sound?
Herman said . . .
[i]”Yes, agreed there are some unknown risks associated with not proceeding with any surface water project at all. But I have yet to read any real concession or discussion of what the serious economic and social impact of a $300 to 500 million water project could be on Davis and Woodland from ERM, MW, and DS.”[/i]
The economic consequences of our water/wastewater conundrum are impending regardless Herman. I have posted an analysis in an earlier thread that staying on groundwater and complying with State and Federal regulations is still going to result in a $180-$225 million capital expenditure by the City between now and October 2017. The impact of financing that dollar amount is real. I have never disputed that fact. In fact the whole reason for my suggested sequencing the wastewater treatment plant upgrade to follow whatever water solution is chosen, is to reduce the economic and social burden. David will be glad to corroborate that fact. Sue will too. So when you lash out at people personally, be sure to get your facts straight.
[quote]Others have suggested that because we raised this issue, the school parcel tax is already dead.[/quote]David gives himself too much credit. What I’ve said is that the school tax probably could have withstood the predictable carping from the sidelines by the two Greenwalds. That’s just part of the annoying background noise of the community. What killed it was Harrington’s demagoguing the issue for some still to be defined political agenda. David was just an accessory.[quote]I am not buying that argument, by the way.[/quote]What a surprise.
One thing we can be absolutely sure of … HG&G are going to spend the next few months trying as hard as they can to spin their way out of responsibility for the coming train wreck.
“Actually I was on an informal advisory committee that was able to get the water rate increases DECREASED from 3.3 times the current rate to roughly 2 times the current rate.”
Better check your math on that.
Herman: [i]But I have yet to read any real concession or discussion of what the serious economic and social impact of a $300 to 500 million water project could be on Davis and Woodland[/i]
Large public works projects are a traditional means of stimulating the economy. I’ll leave it to Rich or others with actual training in economics to assess what the local impact of this project would be on jobs and growth in the region. I know that unions always agitate for projects like this, because the trade unions believe they benefit from the construction. I don’t know whether that kind of economic stimulus is still considered effective at the local level. If you have some special expertise on this, please share it.
[i]Do they read about municipal and county bankruptcies and fiscal crises in the US?
[/i]
Of course. If this was being funded out of the general fund it would be out of the question. These projects are ratepayer funded. That isn’t to say there is no cost to the general fund, but the way they are structured insulates them from local municipal budget problems.
As noted by others, there will be a very high cost to [i]not[/i] proceeding with the surface project. That also has somewhat unquantifiable costs to the environment, and more quantifiable costs to the infrastructure of our water system due to subsidence. Moreover, many of those who oppose proceeding at this time acknowledge — along with every expert who has reviewed the issue — the necessity of eventually proceeding with the surface water project. So you are arguing with us about deferring the cost, not eliminating it. Unless of course you believe we don’t need to do anything at all about the water supply.
[i][quote]”Others have suggested that because we raised this issue, the school parcel tax is already dead.”
“David gives himself too much credit. What I’ve said is that the school tax probably could have withstood the predictable carping from the sidelines by the two Greenwalds. That’s just part of the annoying background noise of the community. What killed it was Harrington’s demagoguing the issue for some still to be defined political agenda. David was just an accessory.”[/quote][/i]Voter2012 is a more accurate rememberer than David. The threat of, or observation of, the school parcel tax going under because of the city council’s water action has been a constant in the [u]Vanguard[/u] coverage. I’m not positive, but it seems that David was the one who initiated the concept. It then was picked up by Michael in his humorously dramatic way.
It’ll be difficult to determine the extent of their culpability if, in fact, the school vote goes down. Now that they’re on record as saying they were saving it by the referendum, it’ll also be impossible to know how much credit to give them if it does pass.
How can one determine the cause and effect from any of their pronouncements about this issue? What they don’t get to do is walk away without assuming [u]any[/u] responsibility for the way they’ve conducted themselves in this “debate.”
[quote]It’ll be difficult to determine the extent of their culpability if, in fact, the school vote goes down.[/quote]If someone poisons a well and a traveler stops, drinks, and dies – who was responsible? Should we blame the traveler for not paying enough attention?[quote]… they’re on record as saying they were saving it by the referendum …[/quote]This argument is Harrington’s version of “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
BREAKING NEWS: The referendum petition was certified with 3,866 valid signatures. Source: phone call five mins ago to Zoe. I am sure the council will do everything they can to avoid letting the issue get to the June 5 ballot and to all Davis voters. Just read what Souza has written re options and it seems clear that the Council will amend and use a 218 vote to avoid a real vote and fuller discussion of the issues. Sorry to “break” your day ERM, MW and DS but it’s probably just a tiny bump in the road for you guys.
Herman: No need to prance around in the end zone. It’s been obvious for some time that the referendum would be certified.
The only surprise is that it wasn’t a slam dunk. The organizers elected to cross some very bright lines related to demagoguery, misinformation, and paid labor. Add to that Dunning churning out red meat, the Vanguard’s constant manipulation of the dialog, the staff’s incompetence, and the CC majority’s disappearing act and it should have been absolute child’s play – with no drama whatsoever. That’s the real news.
Happy to dance around the end zone if only for a few minutes and to irk voter 2012. BUT, we agree on a couple of things:
1) An incompetent city staff.
2) A disappearing council.
That’s, in particular, why we need to scrutinize the proposal and let all vote on it!!! Beginning to get it Voter2012?
“…it seems clear that the Council will amend and use a 218 vote to avoid a real vote and fuller discussion of the issues.”
This may be Souza’s plan but we already know that his public record is replete with incidences illustrating his arrogance and contempt for the popular will of the Davis voters. The new members of our Council did not create this mess whose main authors are Saylor and Souza. Let’s hope that our new Council members demonstrate respect for the popular will of those who put them in office.
Herman said . . .
[i]”BREAKING NEWS: The referendum petition was certified with 3,866 valid signatures. Source: phone call five mins ago to Zoe. I am sure the council will do everything they can to avoid letting the issue get to the June 5 ballot and to all Davis voters. Just read what Souza has written re options and it seems clear that the Council will amend and use a 218 vote to avoid a real vote and fuller discussion of the issues. [b]Sorry to “break” your day ERM, MW and DS but it’s probably just a tiny bump in the road for you guys.[/b]”[/i]
Again Herman you ascribe thoughts and motives to me that are diametrically opposed to reality (Don and Elaine will speak for themselves). I have said right from the git-go that the people of Davis have spoken firmly and forcefully, and even if the Referendum had failed to qualify enough signatures, there were more than enough “voices” speaking that needed to and need to be heard.
Those voices (David and Dunning and others) have said that the rate structure was unfair. The rate structure I posted earlier is a significant step forward in addressing those fairness issues. I asked you what you thought of that structure, but as yet you haven’t mustered the time or the thought to respond. I’ll post it again so your memory is jogged.
Those voices (Sue and David and others) have said that we need to look for ways that the water capital expenditures and the wastewater capital expenditures can be done so that they are sequential rather than overlapping. More than three months ago I advocated for doing the water infrastructure improvements befrore the wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
Those voices have also said to me that the discussion of rates and the specific Surface Water project is too narrow. Our voters really don’t have a clear handle on the water/wastewater issues we face. Nor do they have a clear sense of what are our community’s goals/objectives for addressing those issues. The Referendum is about rates. The discussion of rates needs to happen, but it is not the only discussion we need to have. We need to be discussing the issues that are forcing our community to even consider the capital expenses that make the discussion of rate increases necessary.
So the referendum vote should be scheduled by Council, but we shouldn’t sit on our hands between now and election day. We as an electorate have an obligation to ourselves and to our community to learn “the rest of the story.”
Herman: You don’t irk me. I just think it’s rather pathetic that people like yourself apparently view this as a great victory for Davis populism.
To Matt Williams, nicely said!
To Herman: I fully expected enough signatures to be gathered. No suprise there. From the get go, I have respected the voters right to have a referendum on the water rate increases, as is their right. I have never, and do not now, have a problem with the referendum.
When you finish your victory dance 🙂 come down to earth and think a minute. One way or another, we are going to pay WAY MORE for water (throughout the nation). We either pay now for the surface water project; or if we substantially delay/kill it we will have to pay (fines, subsidence, crumbling infrastructure, drilling more deep wells, increase in construction/finance costs, etc.). The question really becomes: how can we MINIMIZE the impact of water rate increases? Personally I prefer the idea of doing the surface water project now, and IF FEASIBLE, delay the wastewater treatment plant as Matt Williams has suggested. It makes a lot of sense. I just don’t know if that is a FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE.
But if you honestly think citizens will get away with killing this project and not pay a steep price for such a hairbrained decision, I’ve got swamp land in Florida to sell you…
[quote]ERM: “Actually I was on an informal advisory committee that was able to get the water rate increases DECREASED from 3.3 times the current rate to roughly 2 times the current rate.”
R49: Better check your math on that.[/quote]
Would you have preferred the rate increases to remain at 3.3 times the current rate?
In fairness to Herman Voter2012, the certification of the referendum actually is a great victory for Davis populism . . . but only as far as it goes. Its scope, narrowly addressing the Ordinance (and the rates it promulgates) doesn’t address in any way the real water/wastewater issues
The mishandling of the PERB and water issues and other issues is eating away at people’s faith in City government and is part of the reason why in just 30 days eligible citizens signed the referendum.
Elaine Roberts Musser has never commented on the lack of due diligence ($11 million lost in the Wildhorse housing scandal) or critiqued the due diligence done by the City Attorney and City staff, relative to DACHA.
She has no problem with the fact that the City Attorney and City staff did not tell the City Council that they were recommending that an ineligible DACHA board and ineligible membership should be allowed to borrow $4 million in public funds. A board and membership composed mostly of delinquent members who are today still delinquent.
If Ms. Musser wishes to sweep under the carpet what the City Attorney and City staff have done at Wildhorse and DACHA while at the same time wanting us to believe her on water then our City is really in trouble.
David Thompson, President, Twin Pines Cooperative Foundation
Matt: Nope. No way.
Harrington was a hired gun, the “organizers” remain cloaked, they had to pay signature collectors. It should have been a complete massacre and they just barely squeaked over the finish line. If that’s what passes these days as “a great victory for Davis populism” then activism in the community has hit a low water mark.
[quote]Harrington was a hired gun,[quote]Are you sure you have the right tense for the verb?
It should had been obvious to the casual observer. Why do you think David and the rest of us fell so hard and so easily?
[quote]Elaine Roberts Musser has never commented on the lack of due diligence ($11 million lost in the Wildhorse housing scandal) or critiqued the due diligence done by the City Attorney and City staff, relative to DACHA.
She has no problem with the fact that the City Attorney and City staff did not tell the City Council that they were recommending that an ineligible DACHA board and ineligible membership should be allowed to borrow $4 million in public funds. A board and membership composed mostly of delinquent members who are today still delinquent.
If Ms. Musser wishes to sweep under the carpet what the City Attorney and City staff have done at Wildhorse and DACHA while at the same time wanting us to believe her on water then our City is really in trouble.
[/quote]
1) You can read minds now?
2) I clearly do not agree with many of the things city attorney/staff have done, and have said so on numerous occasions when I deem it appropriate, e.g. Covell Village, Carlton Plaza Davis, Zipcar, etc.
3) As you are well aware, the DACHA issue is under litigation, so I cannot speak to many of the issues… and will not be drawn into making unwise statements…
4) Never have you addressed the issues I have raised about the flawed DACHA model and how it was questionably marketed…
5) Your personal attacks make me wonder what you are afraid of?
“It should had been obvious to the casual observer. Why do you think David and the rest of us fell so hard and so easily?”
Please explain your question. Thanks.