I caught Bob Dunning’s column this morning, in which he gave press to some guy name Greg who is ranting about a representative government that represents nobody. He is speaking of the Davis City Council.
“Greg” writes, “It has become painfully clear to me that our City Council has become irrelevant.”
Really? Irrelevant? If they are irrelevant why are we bothering to scrutinize them week after week?
Finally, after some vague mentions about incapability of making rational decision, we get to this gist: “We cannot continue to allow our City Councils to constantly meander about, coming up with harebrained ideas out of left field (e.g. toad tunnels, snoring ordinances, Zipcars, fireplace bans, nuclear free zones, bassackward parking, water tank painting.)”
Obviously this guy goes back in time if we are talking about nuclear free zones, but the remarkable thing about this list is that other than the toad tunnel, not one of these things originated in Davis and all have been implemented elsewhere.
While “Greg” is too unfocused to hit on the real problem, he is not completely far off. The problem did not start with this council – in fact I think this council is far better than most at avoiding this problem, but it does have a particular blindspot on water.
Here I go again. But stay with me for at least a few milliseconds. Think about this: there was no organized effort to collect and turn in Prop 218 protests and yet, 4800 ratepayers did so.
On my radio show months ago, Joe Krovoza called this a wake-up call and it should have been. But it was not. Instead we get this spun figure of 14% rate hikes, based heavily on rationing assumptions that may or may not be realistic.
Despite this, and we will likely find out for sure tomorrow, canvassers had little problem getting 5000 signatures in just 30 days to put the rate hikes on the ballot as a yes or no vote. Meanwhile, more draconian measures are floating out there in the form of initiatives.
Is the council seeking to reconsider their actions? NO. One councilmember actually attempted to prevent enough signatures from being gathered. That backfired on him.
Now we have the establishment of the Water Advisory Committee to advise the City Council on water rates and related issues as directed.
It is interesting that Dixon, which has done a lot of things wrong on water, at least had the foresight to put the strongest critics on their committee. The advantage is that it bulletproofs the council, by having the people most likely to turn over all stones in looking for alternatives and ways to achieve low rates.
Writes staff in explaining Davis’ committee: “The primary mission of the Committee is to advise the Council on proposed water rates and related issues as directed. This would involve the evaluation of all costs associated with providing water service to the community, as well as identifying future revenue requirements necessary to replace the City’s aging water infrastructure over time.”
I have been complaining about this committee since it was formulated. Look, there are good people on there. I like a lot of the people personally. I think any of them would be good to have on a committee, but the combination of all of them is a bit of a problem.
It has been suggested that there is no composition of that body that would have made me happy. That is far from true. I would have liked to have seen a more balanced body. I would like the city to find the five strongest critics, five strong supporters, and a couple of people who seek out the middle ground.
The problem I see right now is that there are too many people who assume we have to do exactly what we have done. I have no problem if, after scrutinizing the hell out of the project, we end up in that place, but starting there is a problem.
The proponents tell me that there are technical and regulatory arguments compelling the surface water project. That may prove correct, but I do not want to start at that conclusion because it precludes finding other and better ways to do it.
There are problems with the current rate structure. There are people in this community that will be harmed by having to pay higher rates. The economy of this city may suffer because people will be paying for water what they could have been paying for discretionary spending.
As discretionary spending goes down, so too will the economy.
But when I raise this point, I get an all caps response from a member of this committee: “The new water regulations are not going away, and neither are the MANDATORY FINES… To pretend otherwise is foolish.” And then, “You seem to refuse to look at the flip side of the equation if the voters do effectively block any rate increase – which is MANDATORY FINES. THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IF THE VOTERS DECIDE TO VOTE AGAINST THE RATE INCREASES.”
Sounds to me like this person has already decided what the answer is. I am not saying that is the wrong answer, but I have no confidence that someone, before a single meeting has been held, has arrived at that strongly-worded conclusion, and make no mistake – all caps in internet language is yelling.
That’s a problem. I think the world of that individual, and if this were the exception, then perhaps I would be rest easier. But that is not the exception on this committee.
The composition of this body, and the fact that the council has not tried to revisit their vote, shows me that they are ignoring the hammer that is being forged by the supporters of the referendum.
So yes, I think Greg is correct on the wrong point, the council is not taking seriously enough the threat that the angered ratepayers and voters represent to their sacred water project.
Neither side is likely to back down here, and so next June we will most likely have a showdown and I believe the water rate hikes will lose.
I talk to a lot of people in this community and some of the people in this community who have personally told me that they plan to vote against the water rate hikes may surprise people. They are kind of like the No on X people, a bit reluctant to come forward at first, but large in number.
The council is not taking this seriously, but this is a very serious threat, and if you believe the pro-side of this debate than it is a far more serious threat than you want to believe. If you believe that we are facing mandatory fines if we do not go forward, then you better find a way to deal with the problems in the rate hikes so that you can get the votes to go forward with the project – because right now, from where I sit, I do not believe the city will get 40% of the vote for their rate hikes.
It is actually worse than that. Word that we are getting from both inside and outside of government is that this water project is bogging everything else down. And that would be fine if we were not facing a crisis with our budget.
We have a new city manager, which gives us hope, but the new city manager has had to spend over two months focused completely on water.
In the end, I don’t think the council realizes they are in very hot water and the situation could explode. The committee could have been a vehicle toward change, but I just don’t have any confidence that it will be.
I think we are heading down a road that we do not want to go down. If we head down there, toad tunnels and ZipCars, and even water tank art, will be the least of anyone’s concern.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Good article David. Agree with comments about the committee and again ask what is the purpose of the committee. The purpose should drive the selection. From the discussion at the recent CC mtg, I am not sure there is a CC consensus on the purpose.
….and what is the status of the 2.5 million reduction. When will we see some response from the new CM? It seems the recent union issue has made the 2.5 even more important. Agree?
From what I have heard they are still going to implement that, but it is mostly going to be with personnel reductions.
David:
The surface water project is not something that just came up overnight. It has been worked out after years of study trying to find the best way to deal with some very complex issues. Some of the technical issues however are not that difficult to understand. The City is in violation of the Clean Water Act and will be subject to fines once the 10 year grace period we were given runs out. Davis is not special in this regard, we will be held accountable just as Woodland and Dixon currently are. Wishful thinking will not change this situation. The City Council understands this and has properly voted to bring us into compliance by the only means that their hired experts (confirmed by independent experts) deemed to be available. The surface water project is going forward because it has to. There are no alternatives. That is not my opinion as my opinion doesn’t matter. That is the conclusion of several years of study by experts in the field. Lies, wishful thinking, and choosing to be ignorant of the facts will not change these conclusions.
The issue we are dealing with now is how we will pay for it. Raising our water rates to pay for the project is the appropriate method of funding as those who use the water pay for it (same for the waste water side). If we choose not to pay for it that way, we will just have to find another source of funding. So I ask you, how many city services will need to be cut, and how many employees let go, if we need to service a $200-300 Million debt from the general fund?
The City is facing many problems, unfortunately all at the same time. This is due in part to the poor economy, partly due to past poor management, and also due to the City Council and the citizens of the town (including you and me) being too willing to kick the can down the road and let someone else make the difficult choice (and pay the consequences). You have commented appropriately on these poor decisions in the past, and now that our new Council has finally taken responsibility and made the tough call, you argue that we should delay and yet again kick it down the road. I don’t know Elaine personally, but I fully understand her urge to yell at you about this issue because you on this subject you are a hypocrite, and unfortunately, acting as an enabler of the Charlatans who are trying to stop the water project at all cost (for their own personal gain).
I wish that the City Staff had been more transparent about the water rate increases as they have made this process more difficult through their failure. I wish Sue Greenwald would stop her campaign of wishful thinking, telling people to trust her to find another solution when she knows that the solutions she proposes are not sufficient. While it is appropriate to continue to search for ways to make the surface water project cheaper, or function better, or delay the waste water upgrades, these actions should be pursued while the project moves forward and not used as an excuse to delay. The City Council made the right call and they should be commended for it. I won’t like paying more for water, but in my opinion the Clean Water Act has been an extremely valuable tool for cleaning up our environment and I am willing to pay my share of the costs.
Mark
Appreciate your comments, but can you elaborate on your statement “…stop the water project at all cost (for their own personal gain)”
Thanks.
[quote]There are problems with the current rate structure. There are people in this community that will be harmed by having to pay higher rates. The economy of this city may suffer because people will be paying for water what they could have been paying for discretionary spending.
As discretionary spending goes down, so too will the economy.
But when I raise this point, I get an all caps response from a member of this committee: “The new water regulations are not going away, and neither are the MANDATORY FINES… To pretend otherwise is foolish.” And then, “You seem to refuse to look at the flip side of the equation if the voters do effectively block any rate increase – which is MANDATORY FINES. THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IF THE VOTERS DECIDE TO VOTE AGAINST THE RATE INCREASES.”
Sounds to me like this person has already decided what the answer is. I am not saying that is the wrong answer, but I have no confidence that someone, before a single meeting has been held, has arrived at that strongly-worded conclusion, and make no mistake – all caps in internet language is yelling.[/quote]
In response:
1) I was the one who capitalized the words FOR EMPHASIS because the italic and underline function do not work on my Safari internet browser – WHICH I HAVE NOTED BEFORE IN PREVIOUS POSTS.
2) You absolutely refuse to deal with the issue of mandatory fines if the water rate increases are voted down. Mark West did a beautiful job of explaining why the issue of mandatory fines cannot be ignored. I could not have said it better.
3) You have confirmed my belief that your desire was to stack the advisory committee with enough obstructionists so that the advisory committee could never function properly nor come to any cooperative consenseus, which is in keeping with your agenda to kill or delay this project AT ALL COSTS, to ensure the school parcel tax passes. Who has the closed mind here?
4) It very well may take citizens voting down the water rate increases, and then the town being steeply fined as if they had been willing to pay for the surface water project, for the SWRCB to get the point across to the town on the issue of MANDATORY FINES. My hope is that the city doesn’t have to do things the hard way. I would much prefer to find some sort of common ground that would be acceptable to all so that MANDATORY FINES never come into play.
5) Frankly, it is opponents who need to keep an open mind about the surface water project. Because ultimately, as it stands now, it is “pay me less now or pay me more later”…
6) I plan to keep an open mind at all times; a watchful/critical eye to every detail; a level head that takes a look at the big picture; a willingness to work in a cooperative spirit with all sides on this issue.
7) Constantly demonizing/personally attacking those on the advisory committee with vague innuendo of members somehow having “closed minds” and the like before the committee has even had a chance to meet is not worthy of the Vanguard. It appears to be a cynical attempt to proscriptively discount anything that would come out of the advisory committee as beneath contempt.
[quote]again ask what is the purpose of the committee. The purpose should drive the selection. From the discussion at the recent CC mtg, I am not sure there is a CC consensus on the purpose. [/quote]
The scope and purpose of this advisory committee will be spelled out at Tuesday night’s City Council meeting.
If you want to put something in italics, put [ i ] around [ /i ] it. Remove the spaces that I left in the example.
[quote]So yes, I think Greg is correct on the wrong point, the council is not taking seriously enough the threat that the angered ratepayers and voters represent to their sacred water project.[/quote]
“Sacred” water project? There is nothing sacred about it. It is a result of the new water quality standards. As one member of the Woodland City Council noted, the new water regulations amount to an “unfunded mandate”. No one likes it. There would be no need for any of this if it were not for the newly imposed water quality standards. It is in essence what is driving the need for the surface water project.
Secondly, the pejorative use of the word “sacred” shows a closed mindset IMO, that refuses to recognize the reasons behind the surface water project. The City Council has no desire to raise the water rates of its citizens. The problem is they see no good alternative at this point. And opponents have not come up with one single viable alternative to the surface water project that is not fraught with all sorts of regulatory problems. There is the crux of the problem…
Any discussion of delaying the surface water project has to deal with salinity, selenium, continued subsidence from use of the intermediate aquifer, possible effects of City wells on UCD wells, long-term impact on the deep aquifer, and degradation of existing wells.
Those have been discussed in great detail on this blog and in other places. The council can reduce the rate increases in response to public pressure, and take longer to pay for it. That doesn’t seem very responsible to me, but it would be the most politically expedient thing to do.
Elaine, it is worth noting here that David has opposed the surface water project from the very beginning of this blog, for an ever-changing series of reasons. He will oppose a process that leads to the water project going forward. Any committee composed as he has suggested would accomplish nothing.
If a committee wants to form independently to review and make recommendations, there is nothing stopping the citizenry from forming one. They could even hold informational meetings and publish advisory documents. I’d be willing to help pay to rent a public facility for forums and discussions. But to expect the council to appoint a committee evenly split between supporters and opponents of the surface water project, when that council has a 4:1 majority in favor of the surface water project, is pointless. Which council member do you think should have appointed someone who is diametrically opposed to his or her position?
I would note, again, that the Dixon committee that has been referenced more than once has met, I think, twice, and I have no idea what they have accomplished.
Elaine. My point exactly. Scope and purpose spelled out (decided?) by CC weeks after committee appointed. Seems cart before horse, as the best members would be those best able to discuss the scope and purpose. There are many purposes I can think of, from specific to broad, and those knowledgable in each area would vary. Please consider Don’s suggestion of italics instead of caps!
[quote]If a committee wants to form independently to review and make recommendations, there is nothing stopping the citizenry from forming one. They could even hold informational meetings and publish advisory documents. I’d be willing to help pay to rent a public facility for forums and discussions. [/quote]
Excellent suggestion. In fact I was a member of an earlier informal advisory committee, that was initially opposed to the water rate increases. We came up with a decrease in the water rate increases, by 1) postponing certain elements of the surface water project; 2) assuming slightly more favorable interest rates; 3) using some of the funding already collected for the wastewater treatment side. Instead of the constant unproductive carping, opponents need to gather together and come up with some viable alternatives if they are so sure alternatives are available.
[quote]Elaine. My point exactly. Scope and purpose spelled out (decided?) by CC weeks after committee appointed. Seems cart before horse, as the best members would be those best able to discuss the scope and purpose.[/quote]
Agreed in a perfect world, but it is what it is. Let’s wait and see what the City Council decides tonight 🙂
[quote]Those have been discussed in great detail on this blog and in other places. The council can reduce the rate increases in response to public pressure, and take longer to pay for it. That doesn’t seem very responsible to me, but it would be the most politically expedient thing to do. [/quote]
I was pondering this conundrum. The problem I think with reducing the rate increases is that not enough funding will have been gathered in time to obtain a more favorable interest rate on the loan. So by “kicking the can down the road” by not increasing the water rates rapidly enough, my guess is the project is going to be much more costly. This is an issue that I think the advisory committee should explore…
All the talk about percentages and such obscures the biggest problem with this plan and that is DBO. Design, Build, Own. When the contractor completes this project, the people of Davis won’t own it. The contractor will. Our water?? Nope. Theirs, and they’ll be sure to make a profit. If the referendum accomplishes one thing, I hope it’s a new plan that keeps our water ours.
Varzil
Good point and one that has bothered me the most especially after issues with 2 of the winning applications came to light. Problems with the process too. Elaine, will this be an issue the committee will address, do you know? Do you think it falls under your scope?
I want the advisory committee to look at both sides, not just trumpet the 4 yes votes on the council. Looking at some of these posts I don’t believe that’s going to happen. There is strong sentiment in the community (I believe a majority) for a thorough review of the project.
[quote]obscures the biggest problem with this plan and that is DBO. Design, Build, [u][b]Own[/b][/u][/quote]
[quote]Good point and one that has bothered me the most especially after issues with 2 of the winning applications came to ligh(t) [sic)[/quote]
Ahhh… the R & D I predicted is coming true… DBO stands for design build OPERATE, as I understand it.
David advocates for a “review committee” of 12, not he current 10. He proposes 5 staunch advocates, 5 staunch detractors and two to play “monkey in the middle”. Perfect recipe for “gridlock” [perhaps this is what David and others desire]. I’d think the better number would be 7 (like most commissions) or 9 (odd number might actually produce a recommendation). If it was my call, I’d comprise it of 2 staunch advocates, two staunch supporters, who would need to convince 3-5 ‘open’ folks to come up with a recommendation. But that would never happen.
“Elaine:
In response to your response:
“2) You absolutely refuse to deal with the issue of mandatory fines if the water rate increases are voted down.”
No, I refuse to allow that to be the end of the discussion, because it doesn’t solve the problems and frankly does not get your rate hikes.
“3) You have confirmed my belief that your desire was to stack the advisory committee with enough obstructionists so that the advisory committee could never function properly nor come to any cooperative consenseus, which is in keeping with your agenda to kill or delay this project AT ALL COSTS, to ensure the school parcel tax passes. Who has the closed mind here? “
That’s not my intent. And the oversight committee as I understand it would not have the power to obstruct anyway. If my goal were to obstruct, I could simply put an initiative on the ballot, that would freeze the rates and also potentially block them. That’s not my goal here. My goal here is to put people on the committee that are not going to start from the position that this has to happen and has to happen as it is currently envisioned. If it ends up that way, that’s fine, but there are too many questions that need to be addressed.
“4) It very well may take citizens voting down the water rate increases, and then the town being steeply fined as if they had been willing to pay for the surface water project, for the SWRCB to get the point across to the town on the issue of MANDATORY FINES.”
If comes to that, that is a complete failure of the system.
“My hope is that the city doesn’t have to do things the hard way. I would much prefer to find some sort of common ground that would be acceptable to all so that MANDATORY FINES never come into play. “
Then you better send the message to the city that they have to fix the rates and look at other alternatives to reduce project costs.
“Frankly, it is opponents who need to keep an open mind about the surface water project. Because ultimately, as it stands now, it is “pay me less now or pay me more later”… “
You have to convince people you are right first…
“I plan to keep an open mind at all times; a watchful/critical eye to every detail; a level head that takes a look at the big picture; a willingness to work in a cooperative spirit with all sides on this issue. “
I have no doubt that you believe that.
“Constantly demonizing/personally attacking those on the advisory committee with vague innuendo of members somehow having “closed minds” and the like before the committee has even had a chance to meet is not worthy of the Vanguard. It appears to be a cynical attempt to proscriptively discount anything that would come out of the advisory committee as beneath contempt. “
I could make it less vague, but I think this way is better. Any approach that does not question the scope and cost of the current project is not going to be looked upon well.
My solution involves at the minimum:
1. Repeal the current rate hikes.
2. Roll back the rates (level TBA).
2. Davis withdraws from the JPA. Who needs or wants Woodland Citycouncilman Mr. Marbles interfering with our water system? Home rule on this one.
3. The City conducts an independent review of the fiscal and technical sustainability of the well water supply system. The study would be kept away from any involvement by the water staff and consultants who provided us with the current situation, including the fraudulent rate structure.
4. Some type of long-term citizen review committee or process that keeps an eye on Public Works, since the current situation is so ghastly and makes us wonder how and why it got to this point?
I am open to ideas, but I think another initiative might be in order, to be placed on the June 2012 ballot.
Comments or suggestions, anyone? How about some comments by members of the current CC majority?
A public note to our Mayor and CC Majority:
Please repeal the rate hike ordinance, and open a meaningful dialogue with your constituents. We do not enjoy or relish the fight that has occured, and we would rather have a negotiated resolution of the issues.
Michael Harrington’s proposal would almost certainly lead to a cease-and-desist order from the SWRB, and the implementation of onerous fines.
@ERM: [quote]… which is in keeping with your agenda to kill or delay this project AT ALL COSTS, to ensure the school parcel tax passes.[/quote]Elaine, If that’s David’s agenda (and I think you are giving him too much credit) then he’s going to fail. The school tax is toast – collateral damage to Harrington’s demagoguery on the surface water issue.
Don: you and ERM and a few others dont see it, but no one seriously believes anymore the “sky is falling” rush to build this project. Sorry, but the rate hikes are going to be repealed in June, one way or the other.
I think VOTER2012 sees the repeal coming up as he has a certain practical political bent to his analysis that I dont see in many other posts by project enablers, but I havent heard him talk about any alternatives either.
So, what do you project lovers have to propose as Plan B? Seriously?
What is your fallback to that near-certainty?
VOTER 2012: I fully support the school parcel tax renewals. Why dont you come over to my law firm and let’s get our heads together on how to effectively promote those critical renewals that our kids desperately need to happen? Let’s do something productive instead of just throwing barbs?
It’s too late. You’ve already poisoned the well. The voters are not likely to look beyond the cataclysmic rhetoric and agree to tax themselves in this environment.
[quote] I wish Sue Greenwald would stop her campaign of wishful thinking, telling people to trust her to find another solution when she knows that the solutions she proposes are not sufficient.– [b]Mark West[/b][/quote]Mark West, this comment is uncalled for. I have spent years studying this issue. If you have spent any time reading my comments, you would know that I have not proposed any one solution, but have suggested negotiating with the board to try to postpone one of the two major projects, and am open to any other way to lower our costs.
In my view, some folks are engaging in wishful thinking by assuming that we have absolutely no alternative but to go down the exact path that is already in progress. It makes life easier for those who can afford the added cost — no more discussion, no more debate, “let’s just get it over with”. But unfortunately, half of our households make under $60,000 a year and our small independent restaurants run on very low profit margins and are very big water users.
The path that we are on now leads to about $300 million in new water-related expenditures, and perhaps more if stormwater regulations kick in. $300 million in new water-related expenditures is just too much for a city of 65,000 to bear, and it will have consequences. On a per household basis, it is over the top.
For years, I have been warning about the financial consequences of undertaking these projects simultaneously. Because I really pushed this point and suggested an alternative, we already saved about $100 million on the wastewater treatment plant. My colleagues at the time treated my concerns and my suggestions much as you are treating them now — with baseless derision.
In the end, my foresight was absolutely correct, so it seems strange to me that you would assume it is fruitless for me to continue attempt to get costs down to a sustainable level.
[quote]When the contractor completes this project, the people of Davis won’t own it.–[b]Varzil[/b][/quote]I am not happy with the current DBO plan, but it is my understanding that we will own the project under this plan and that the private operation component will just be a fifteen or twenty year contract and that after that point, the city will have the option of taking over operations.
[i]So, what do you project lovers have to propose as Plan B? Seriously?
What is your fallback to that near-certainty?[/i]
Pass lower rate hikes. Any other Plan B will be imposed by outside agencies, with the status quo continuing in the interim as subsidence continues, wells deteriorate, and the deep aquifer gets used more and more.
I am curious, Michael: do you support the Clean Water Act?
Who is: “Bob Dunning?”
Sue Greenwald: [i]Mark West, this comment is uncalled for. I have spent years studying this issue. If you have spent any time reading my comments, you would know that I have not proposed any one solution, but have suggested negotiating with the board to try to postpone one of the two major projects, and am open to any other way to lower our costs. [/i]
Sue: You have made it clear that you oppose the surface water project, and have done so for several years. Your suggested alternatives, that you have stated here and elsewhere, are insufficient to bring us into compliance with the water quality standards as they currently exist.
Your position therefore is entirely dependent on changing those standards, something that you and the City have absolutely no control over. Federal law trumps your opinions and there is no reason to believe that Davis will be treated any different than any other polluter. Your responsibility is to make decisions based on the regulations and laws as they [b]currently exist[/b], not on how you wish them to be.
I have no problem with your working to delay one of the projects and believe that the Waste Water project is the appropriate one to be delayed. That is a completely different issue however from your position that we can modify our current well water system and come into compliance with the regulations. You know full well that we cannot.
Until you admit that the surface water project is the only way for the City to come into compliance with the [b]current[/b] standards of the Clean Water Act, my statement about your ‘wishful thinking’ is both accurate and appropriate.
“Federal law trumps your opinions and there is no reason to believe that Davis will be treated any different than any other polluter.”
Note that the Federal Clean Air standards have been relaxed(CO2 emissions?) in the current economic/political “climate”. It is likely that the Clean Water standards at both the State and Federal level will similarly be “relaxed” as these standards are being reconsidered.
When and where have federal clean air standards been relaxed? Also, do you support the relaxation of clean air and clean water standards?
I also await Michael Harrington’s reply on this.
Don, I am not trying this case on a Blog. I am not your witness on this. I dont really care what detail you want to offer; once we realized that the rates were fraudulent, the rest of the City’s, and your and ERM’s “sky is falling” tactics dont interest or scare me in the least. There is something fundamentally off in their position such that they thought they had to lie to us about the rates to sneak this one in.
ERM: you should be removed from the citizens’ advisory committee. You have swallowed hook line and sinker the City’s fraud on the rates, and the studies they have done that were designed, performed, and written up by the same staff and water consultants who make millions off the foregone conclusion: BUILD IT OR THE SKY WILL FALL NOW! (Internet shouting, your style.)
The diference between ERM and Michael Bartolic is: Michael helped on the referendum because he believes in direct democracy on a city project this large. He is not shouting out over and over like ERM does a pre-determined position on the outcome of the committee’s conclusion. If I were on the CC, I would seek to remove her.
What I think the project enablers need to do is present their Plan B, given the high likelihood that the voters will repeal the rates in June 2012.
I know the blog is really closed for the day, but can’t resist my two-cent’s worth, even after the fact: First, as to Sue Greenwald, I deeply admire her dedication to the city and her strength in standing up to the majority when she feels she is right. I don’t share her view on this issue, but to the limited extent I have followed local politics, I think personal attacks on her are unwarranted. Sometimes honorable people just see things differently.
Second, I found Dunning’s column today troubling. He is becoming increasingly bitter and anti everything. He, and his followers, are becoming increasing against the concept of representative government, and seem to want to espouse direct democracy for every issue. I don’t remember numbers, but I am thinking of Prop 13, the “Marriage Protection” proposition, the anti-immigrant proposition, (I think it was 197)etc. In short, I think the results are at best inadequate. I suppose we are to have at least one referendum and one initiative (can someone explain the difference?)on this issue, but I am not confident that the result(s) will be better than a council decision.
Observer: the referendum would freeze the rate hikes until the CC repealed them, or put them on the ballot for a citywide vote. The initiative sets city policy and law, and can only be overturned by another initiative. The initiative is a better way to go, but we did the referendum to try and freeze rates until June, thereby giving the DJUSD a shot at passing their parcel tax renewal for the schools.
One way or the other, the June ballot will have the water project on it.
I am considering a second initiative that would set what I consider to be good problem solving policies and processes concerning the water system. (See above, where I have spelled it out.)
Observer: one more thing. You commented on the tone coming from Bob Dunning. He has lived here a long time, like I have. I can assure you, from having the voter contact to collect those 5000 signatures we turned in, that Bob’s views are shared by the majority of Davis residents. He is not setting the tone; he is reflecting what he hears and experiences around town in the many circles he runs in while he works, and raises his family.
Many of us are outraged at the fraudulent rates that the city used to try and get this pig through the system, and discouraged at the series of poor legal and political decisions that have been coming from CCs back to when Souza and Saylor were elected. The ripped off sales tax money; the DACHA debacle; the latest $800K error by staff as to the impasse; the Covell Village debacle that tied up CC and commission agendas for two years; and now the water project with its fraudulent rate structure and motion that the City Attorney stood by and let happen.
So listen to Bob, because many feel a sense of disgust just like he does.
Dear City Staff who are not in the water department: are you glad to see this freight train slowed down? My understanding is that the water project has been draining public dollars for a long time, and was expected to deplete resources needed for other projects that you all are working on. Vote to repeal it, when the time comes. We are there for you, and will help take the lead to save the city, and other city programs. And consequently, your jobs.
No, Michael, it’s up to you to explain how Davis would meet the state standards for salinity and selenium, prevent further subsidence, and avoid harming the deep aquifer without going to the surface water system. Perhaps you could try doing that without disparaging your opponents.
By the way, Bob Dunning’s column was humor, and neither mentioned nor had anything to do with the water project or the water rates. In case anyone wants to read it, here is the link: [url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/dunning/when-representative-government-represents-nobody/[/url]
Don: disparaging my opponents? Let’s see: you mean catching the city in falsely trying to lift over $250 million from the wallets of Davis residents, including fixed income seniors, the poor, the students, the single Mommies trying to raise kids with too little money, the vast numbers of unemployed and under employed victims of the City’s rate scam? You mean, like, it’s unreasonable for me and Bob Dunning and others to be, like, pissed off?
If you and ERM want to fall for the City’s lines, good luck. Shill for them.
When we caught them with the rates bait and switch, it removed any chance that any of us would believe anything else the city has to say on this project.
Actually, I am moving beyond this particular project, and thinking about how to get good data so we can fully and factually evaluate the situation with the ground water wells, and develop a strategy that will produce good clean and safe water indefinitely at a decent price for our local population. The false rates pretty much takes the current project down; I am looking for a plan that we can put into an initiative that will force this CC to fix things.
1. Dump the JPA and its Chair, Steve Souza. Their endorsement of United Water (indicted on felonies for falsifying e-coli results in a water plant in Indiana) tells me that the JPA has completely lost its Marbles.
2. Require Davis water to be provided by Davis-owned and operated plants and facilities, run by Davis city employees. The entire system needs to be responsible to the Davis CC and local voters.
3. Establish a system to obtain an independent study of our ground water well system, and its long term fiscal and technical viability.
4. Roll back the extremely high water rates (leval TBA).
5. Establish an independent city watchdog group of residents who can monitor the utilities department to prevent this kind of fraud again.
6. Any other comments or suggestions? Anything the CC majority would like to add?
Mike Harrington, I have a proposal for you. I assume because of your connection to the community and your activism in local politics you plan to continue to live here many more years. How about this… you pledge to make good on every additional dollar (adjusted for inflation) that the city incurs for delaying or foregoing this surface water project?
If you are correct and we can meet all of the federal and state requirements with a less costly alternative, then I will pay for a parade down D Street in honor of you, Bob Dunning and Sue for saving the city and taxpayers. I could even have my attorney create an agreement if you are game.
Michael: explain how Davis would meet the state standards for salinity and selenium, prevent further subsidence, and avoid harming the deep aquifer without going to the surface water system.
Jeff: your comments are nonsense. This is a serious forum, and topic, and it means something to all of those people out there who cannot afford the new rates.
All I can say is you had better get your Plan B ready, to compete with ours. If you dont have a better one, ours wins.
Good night, and tomorrow maybe we will hear something about the referendum. I hope for good news, but I really dont know.
Jeff: one more thing: I am still waiting for a bottle of nice red wine from the Covell Village project owners. We saved them from bankruptcy, by stopping their facially bad project in November 2005, just before the economy started to go down. So when it turns out we are right again on the surface water plant (like we were on the UCD Biolab 4), how can I trust you for that nice parade? I’ll take a bottle of red wine. Thanks!
You don’t have a Plan B, Michael.
Don: Huh? You havent been reading my posts, over and over? Well, then look for the initiative to be published in the DE, I think. (I am still waiting and hoping that the CC does the right thing and repeals the rates and opens a dialogue with the referendum leadership.)
Reminds me of what Ijust read about the Air France jet that went down in the Atlantic. The CVR tape shows that the cockpit crew stalled the plane at high altitude, and all the way down, they kept pulling up the nose, trying and wishing and believing that if they just ignored the guages, and kept yanking that yoke back, the plane would fly. Our CC is pulling that water project yoke back to their belts, believing that the project which is falling at 10000 feet a minute is not going to crash. Wrong.
Don: See ya! I have a 3 y/o boy who pounces on my chest at 6 am demanding cereal, so got to go.
I have read your posts. You do not have a plan that deals with the technical and regulatory issues. All you do is disparage all the people who have reviewed them. Every single expert, including many who have no financial interest whatsoever in the outcome, have concluded that the surface water project is necessary. You don’t have a single expert on your side. Not a single one.
Who is the “referendum leadership”? You? There is no dialogue to be had.
[i]”Jeff: your comments are nonsense”[/i]
Mike, yes they were a bit nonsensical. But, I was attempting to make a point. You seem to have a track record for blocking things. I had previously asked for a plan B and what you posted was a blocking plan, not an alternative plan for ensuring our city’s water needs can be met at a lower cost. How can you win the game only playing defense?
We are we lacking true leadership and accountability in our political decision process. I appreciate you standing up for what you think is right; but frankly, for me, seeing critics without skin in the game is a hard sell. I want to know who will step up to be held accountable when our kids are stuck paying much higher rates because of our failure to act responsibly.
I do remember my kids waking me up early when they were young. Then as teenagers they would sleep until noon if I let them.
Mike,
What does the 3 year old drink?
[quote][i]”Jeff: your comments are nonsense. This is a serious forum, and topic, and it means something to all of those people out there who cannot afford the new rates. All I can say is you had better get your Plan B ready, to compete with ours. If you dont have a better one, ours wins.”[/i][/quote]Michael, I’ve been reading your posts on this “serious topic” since you dropped in out of nowhere three months ago with your referendum campaign. There’s no evidence since then that you’ve taken either the topic or the [u]Vanguard[/u] forum seriously.
It’s really disappointing that you and David have teamed up as bomb-throwers without even attempting to propose solutions to the water resource issues involved. David has scraped up any outrageous charge he can locate to discredit the work that has gone on and has refused to respond when people challenge his “facts.”
You’ve tossed around insults, attempted to discredit the efforts and people who’ve worked on this issue for years and have joked your way out of every reasonable question about any alternatives you’ve got in mind and whose money and other resources (other than yours) is behind this effort.
I don’t get it. It would be nice if you two would be a little forthcoming.
As I said early on, egos are going to be the most expensive component of this water project .
Mike Harrington: [i]”I am still waiting for a bottle of nice red wine from the Covell Village project owners. We saved them from bankruptcy, by stopping their facially bad project in November 2005, just before the economy started to go down.”[/i]
I was thinking about this comment this morning. You are others that worked hard to block Covell Village absolutely do deserve: a pat on the back, a big thanks, a bottle of wine, a trophy… something in recognition of your accurate vision of an economic future that escaped all trained economists except Peter Schiff [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw[/url]
However, there were only two options for that project: build or do nothing. We do not have a “do nothing” option for our waterworks. We must eventually satisfy all federal and state regulatory compliance needs and our city’s capacity needs.
With all due respect, I do not have much respect for people when they work to block progress without also working to propose viable alternatives. My “thank yous” are reserved for the people sticking their neck out taking calculated risks trying to accomplish things for a better tomorrow. Critics and armchair quarterbacks are a dime-a-dozen. It is too easy to throw emotive bombs on the hard work of others attempting to solve difficult political problems. We celebrate that type of behavior at our own peril, IMO.
For me the evolution of defense-only agitation goes back to the 1960’s anti-war movement. I think a lot of people in the baby boomer generation got used to this tactic. It was and is sort of like a youthful temper tantrum without consequences. It generally includes a demand that the adults take care of the clean up. The big problem today is that the same people that started this practice ARE the adults. They control the media and government and still follow this same easy and risk-averse practice of blocking the ideas and actions of others attempting to make progress solving difficult problems.
Mike, your heart may be in the right place, but I don’t think your head is. Given your obvious enviable ability to influence political outcomes in this city, why not use your apparently significant available resources to participate in the development of an alternative plan to meet our compliance and capacity requirements while minimizing rate impacts? I think then you should expect a CASE of good wine from your next door neighbor.
[quote]ERM: “2) You absolutely refuse to deal with the issue of mandatory fines if the water rate increases are voted down.”
DMG: No, I refuse to allow that to be the end of the discussion, because it doesn’t solve the problems and frankly does not get your rate hikes. [/quote]
Mandatory fines are the problem! Hello!
[quote]DMG: “I plan to keep an open mind at all times; a watchful/critical eye to every detail; a level head that takes a look at the big picture; a willingness to work in a cooperative spirit with all sides on this issue. ”
ERM: I have no doubt that you believe that. [/quote]
It is far easier to try and marginalize opponents than to try and work with them to come up with common ground that can be agreed upon.
[quote]ERM: you should be removed from the citizens’ advisory committee.[/quote]
Why, bc I might succeed where you have failed?
ERM is an excellent choice.
As I recall, she started out mildly opposed (like myself) and then came to the obvious conclusion – after investing considerable time educating herself and participating in the first committee – that a surface water project needs to move forward now. If the facts demonstrate that her current position is wrong, I have no doubt that she will modify it appropriately.
Mike Harrington cannot answer these questions, because he doesn’t understand them. Do you think he understands water? He has very little science education. He received a degree in Sociology at UCD before law school. He would not have received any science education beyond basic GE requirements. If he read a detailed report on water from any expert, he would not be able to understand it or have enough understanding to provide a Plan B. He has no education about finance, especially public finance and demonstrated his lack of knowledge of this while he was on the City Council. All he knows is the world of litigation, where these things do not really matter. He has a client. What he knows is that if you attack the credibility of the witness, you win the case. His degradation of current and public employees, current and past council members, neighboring cities and their employees and council members, all experts in the field of water, all citizens on advisory boards and committees, all….are attempts to discredit anyone who is on the opposing side of his “case.” Watch for when he does this.
[quote]As I recall, she started out mildly opposed (like myself) and then came to the obvious conclusion – after investing considerable time educating herself and participating in the first committee – that a surface water project needs to move forward now. If the facts demonstrate that her current position is wrong, I have no doubt that she will modify it appropriately.[/quote]
You sum up my position quite nicely!
[quote][i]”It is interesting that Dixon, which has done a lot of things wrong on water, at least had the foresight to put the strongest critics on their committee. The advantage is that it bulletproofs the council, by having the people most likely to turn over all stones in looking for alternatives and ways to achieve low rates.”[/i][/quote]Please be more specific about what has happened from this foresighted move. What has this committee accomplished? What evidence do you have that the Dixon arrangement of loading/balancing a committee with “the strongest critics” of the city’s project intentions resulted in a better, lower cost alternatives?
You’ve said that the Davis committee members are inadequate to their Davis task because they mirror the views of the the council members who appointed them (with one exception)–in spite of acknowledging that they’re respectable community leaders.
Do you really know enough about all the committee members to be so positive they’ll be unable to muster the integrity and knowhow to do their job at least as well as a team of Michael Harringtons?
In short, where do you come up with any basis for your insistence that they already deserve a vote of no confidence? Or, that a gang of generic Dixon-like, no-taxers could do better? And, why do you think such a transparent political trick would
Are you also supporting Harrington’s current campaign to impeach Elaine?
Oops:
And, why do you think such a transparent political trick would…”bulletproof” the council in any way?
“When and where have federal clean air standards been relaxed?…”
A quick search revealed protocol to relax the CO2 emission standards from biogenic sources. My recollection from major news articles in the past 4-6 months, as I remember, also spoke of changes in CO2 permissable levels being relaxed, by the Obama administration, for coal-fired energy plants with cost-benefit analysis moving to center-stage.