There is no truth to the rumor that Mayor Joe Krovoza was actually the one who ordered the pepper spraying attack on students last Friday in an effort to take the water issue off the front page.
Even Harriet Steiner acknowledges there is a lack of case law to support her position, “We must note that there are no post-Proposition 218 cases that are directly on point.”
As one Vanguard poster noted, “Why is there no case law? Obviously, it’s because nobody has been stupid enough to deny a petition that qualified.”
That puts us back to square one.
The city has tried to argue that the public should not feel blindsided about it, after all, according to City Manager Steve Pinkerton, “Harriet [Steiner] made a statement consistent with the attached memorandum at 3 hours and 43 minutes into the question and answer period on the item.”
Because a statement buried 3 hours and 43 minutes into a six-hour discussion is bound to be heard.
And she was not exactly definitive, even at that time. She said in response to a question from Councilmember Stephen Souza: “It’s at best unclear, but probably the majority of city attorneys believe that you cannot do a referendum against the rates.”
So not only does she admit “it’s at best unclear,” but she relies on the view of city attorneys who are not neutral arbiters in this matter.
Moreover, even then she added, “However when faced with a referendum, many cities put it on the ballot anyway.”
That is because it is lunacy to attempt to thwart the will of thousands of signers of a petition.
As Bob Dunning noted in Sunday’s Davis Enterprise column, “This is an opinion, not a ruling. City attorneys issue opinions. Judges make rulings.”
Mr. Dunning, after further discussion of the city attorneys’ various opinions, writes, “I’ll put this as simply as I can. The council needs to reject the ill-considered advice of the city attorney and put this thing on the ballot in line with what the required number of citizens has requested through the proper legal channels.”
He then quotes Dan Wolk, “To me, the constitutionality question is academic. I don’t see how you can just ignore the referendum qualifying. The people have clearly spoken. The council needs to listen.”
It is our view that the council should follow their city attorney’s original advice and put it on the ballot.
This process has been fraught with a number of errors and miscalculations. Some in City Hall are now conceding they erred in not doing a rate study, which is in fact standard in cases like this to understand the impact of rate hikes on the economy and on ratepayers, and to help guide the process.
While we may have differed with the former public works director on the policy of surface water, it is now clear that having Bob Weir retire before this process was completed was another huge mistake. They lost quite a bit of institutional memory and expertise.
What has happened is that there has been a huge failure of communication from the city, that has exacerbated what would have been a contentious issue at any rate. So now you have the late-released opinion on the legality of the referendum, you had the miscommunication on the 14% rates, and you have a number of process and policy questions that continue to loom.
Those who defend this project as necessary need to really understand that there have been a series of errors on a number of fronts.
We have a new city manager who is still getting up to speed on the water issue, the mayor was only in office for six months and has made some errors as well, we have an interim public works director, the head of the JPA took another position and the new head is still learning the process.
The result is that we have this quarter of a billion dollar project that has been rolled out to the public imperfectly, and that has led to many questions about the project itself.
Moving forward, I would recommend to the council to put the rate hike question to the voters. Then you have to sell the project. I think you have a good case that you can make and I think if you make it well and honestly the voters may approve it.
Second, I recommend that you forget about the legality issue. As Mr. Wolk put it, it is “academic.” You simply cannot ignore the fact that when enough people support a vote, you need to put it to a vote.
Third, freeze the rate hikes until the voters decide.
Fourth, do a real rate study. I know it costs money, but it is pennies compared to the hundreds of millions this project costs.
Fifth, find ways to save money, either through cost cutting or other interventions.
The bottom line needs to be finding ways to minimize the impacts on the ratepayers and the local economy. If you do that, we all win, regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
I would like to thank you for presenting what I consider one of your more well reasoned report/opinions on this subject. I would also like to modify your concluding statement:
The bottom line needs to be finding ways to minimize the impacts on the rate payers and the local economy, while addressing all of the problems associated with water supply and pertinent regulations. If you do that, we all win regardless of the outcome of the referendum.
I echo medwoman’s sentiments. As she put it “The bottom line needs to be finding ways to minimize the impacts on the rate payers and the local economy, while addressing all of the problems associated with water supply and pertinent regulations. If you do that, we all win regardless of the outcome of the referendum.”
The Council and staff never considered any other option but to build this project NOW and their credibility can only be restored if they do the INDEPENDENT studies necessary to consider what should be paramount here, ie the cost-benefit of proceeding with this project NOW and alternatives which exist and are clearly reasonable and without the sky-is-falling consequences that the proponents are trying to sell to the voters.
[quote]…ie the cost-benefit of proceeding with this project NOW and alternatives which exist and are clearly reasonable and without the sky-is-falling consequences that the proponents are trying to sell to the voters.[/quote]
How do you know the alternatives are “reasonable” if no “independent studies necessary to consider what should be paramount here” have yet been done? Sounds like you already have your mind made up…
davisite: [i]The Council and staff never considered any other option but to build this project NOW[/i]
I assume you are aware of the studies of the alternatives that have been done?
[quote][i]”Even Harriet Steiner acknowledges there is a lack of case law to support her position….”[/i][/quote]Why keep emphasizing? And why keep mis-reporting what she said? (“Directly on point” means something.) There IS case law–as well as her views of statutes themselves–that she thinks support her opinion.
She obviously provides the “on-point” comment as a statement of fact to (not as an admission of weakness) and is just one of many points she’s listed in her opinion to try to make it full and complete. This is an important distinction. You have not caught her in some Perry Mason ah-hah moment.
Anyway, you’re off-topic again. This story is supposed to be about the Mayor’s role in the demonstrations, attempting to divert attention from the front-page water project coverage. Your on the right track, you just have the details wrong.
[i]Fact one[/i]: Sue Greenwald was on Sacramento tv news last night, opening up our newest bar and doing a great job of extolling the city and the planning/zoning wisdom of the last decade of business-friendly city council decisions.
[i]Fact two[/i]: Major Joe, instead of being there to promote the city, was noticeably absent. The rumor I heard was that he was advancing the diversion story (as you suggest) by setting up tents for the Central Park Occupy Merry-go-round demonstrators.
Don: reliable alternative studies have not been done. Why not? Because the political focus since Lois Wolk was Mayor has been to respond to the perceived need to double the Davis area population, hence double the water system supply capacity. Under those facts, who would bother doing a proper study of the ground water supply? And one was never done. Then Measure J came in, and I was the third swing vote that took Covell Village that took out CV from the 2010 General Plan, and the rest is modern history. Part of our Plan B is going to require such a study, but done by independent experts.