If you want to argue that issues like the budget, water, and perhaps economic development are the most important issues facing the City of Davis at this time, it would be difficult to quibble with that point. However, some have seemed to have suggested that economic development is the most important issue and perhaps the only issue we face.
For reasons stated on Sunday, I very much disagree with that position. The immediate crisis in this community is not going to be solved by economic development, certainly not in the short term even if you believe we can increase our per capita sales tax generation.
The problems we face are, in fact, overwhelming – we have a crisis of unfunded needs and liabilities that are beginning to crash down upon us at alarming rates. The general budget per year hit could be $7.5 million or more per year. Then there is the $15 to $20 million in deferred maintenance on roadways. Then there is the $60 million in unfunded retiree health care liabilities. And then you have water infrastructure and the massive public works project on water supply and wastewater treatment, in addition to crumbling infrastructure in wells and pumps that need to be shored up.
That is an immediate crisis. About a lot of these issues there has been not only deferred maintenance, but deferred discussions. There is no clear consensus on moving forward.
The business community has grown more vocal in the past few years, demanding changes to the business climate in this city and pushing for the city to take advantage of research money with the university.
There are visions that have been pushed forward for remaking the downtown and revitalizing the areas around the core, but there is resistance to that change as well. As I was telling someone, listening to the business community you would think that they have the public behind them and the council is the impediment to change.
The reality is that it’s not clear to me at this point that the public supports these kinds of changes. And the vision of the business community runs into the counter-vision of the broader community.
Amid these discussion is the crisis that really transcends Davis, and is global. The environment is an issue of huge import to many in this community. Among all of the other crises we face, the environmental crisis is the most daunting, most nebulous, and simultaneously the most immediate and most distant.
In short, global warming is here, and we need to act as though it is here. While the dimensions of global warming extend far far far beyond the scope of Davis’ politics or policies, there are things we should be doing as a community to do our part, to lead the way.
Within that framework, I am not going to pretend like an issue such as a plastic bags ban is the huge and compelling issue of our day. It is not. The impact on global warming is uncertain. But at least for me, it is that it symbolizes the types of changes that we as a community, a society, a nation, and eventually as a planet have to make. We need to fundamentally change the way we live, the way we consume natural resources, the way we discard what we consume.
Plastic bags fit unevenly into that backdrop. They present a huge amount of waste, they are not biodegradable, they litter our roadsides and our open space, they take precious resources to manufacture, they use petroleum, and in most cases there are other products that we can use that are more eco-friendly to perform the same job.
Last week a city commission moved forward a recommendation. I think there are some flaws in that recommendation that need to be refined. I would like to move forward as a county, much as San Luis Obispo County did. It is notable that San Luis Obispo County has a waste authority, and that may be the way to go here, not just on the issue of plastic bags, but on the issue of handling waste. That is something that we ought to at least explore as a means for cost savings.
I would prefer to take the enforcement and recording portions out of the ordinance, as I think they are unduly burdensome and a time waste. On the other hand, I would prefer to leave the paper bag portion in, as I do not simply want people to shift from plastic to paper. I want people to shift from disposable limited uses to re-usable.
The cost of an EIR is $14,000. I have a number of different views on that issue. I think we can dip into some of the funds that have been set aside to help mitigate against climate change. We can probably backfill with a grant if needed. $14,000 is not peanuts. We have, after all, had to close down a pool in this community, but that cost should not be a deal breaker either.
The other argument is that this is not the time and it is not our priority. I have a number of responses to that. First, who gets to decide that it is not our priority? The council is one body that can decide, but if citizens in the community are concerned about this, why would they ignore that concern?
After al,l we are scheduled to spend another three hours on Crown Castle tonight, an issue of some import to some residents, but an issue that is largely a moot point because the council is constrained by what it can do. I do not believe that discussing plastic bags is any more a waste of time than five hours of public comment on Crown Castle, when the council cannot do anything other than what it is doing.
The environment itself is a priority and it doesn’t go away because we have a budget crisis, and it is no less of a priority because we have other priorities. Is plastic bags the biggest component of the environmental issue? By no means, but it is there and it is something that many other communities have already grappled with.
Finally, there is a resentment to the use of government power in this realm. This is not a compelling privacy issue. The environment and environmental regulation almost all requires government action because we have not figured out a way to incorporate the environmental byproducts of consumption into our standard economic models of supply and demand.
To put it simply, we have not incorporated the true costs of plastic bags into their cost, whether it is clean up, use of petroleum, or land fill issues. Until we do, the government has the duty to step in to regulate behavior.
In short, now may not be the best time to discuss plastic bag bans, but when is?
—David M. Greenwald reporting
FWIW David, I think angst over the plastic bag issue would be largely defused if the approach were changed from a behavior stick to a behavior carrot. Change the ban to a 5 cent or 10 cent per bag fee.
Bottom-line, there are probably a lot of people who don’t like to be told they can’t do something, and fight that on principle. Lets neutralize that objection and proceed.
Let’s just shelve the stupid idea and get on to real issues.
Instead of a heavy handed, enforcement approach, one might do well to remember people are more easily led than pushed . Education, not unlike the successful anti-smoking campaign, is more palatable to a free people .
[i]”After all, we are scheduled to spend another three hours on Crown Castle tonight, an issue of some import to some residents, but an issue that is largely a moot point because the council is [b]constrained by what it can do.[/b]”[/i]
A moot point? The Council retains the option of rejecting Crown Castle’s application. My estimate is that doing so will end up with this result:
1. Davis will accrue approximately $300,000 in legal fees to fight Crown in court;
2. Crown will accrue approximately $300,000 in legal fees to fight Davis in court and the taxpayers of Davis will have to pay for Crown’s lawyers because the law is clearly on Crown’s side;
3. Davis will be required to pay approximately $200,000 in damages to Crown for illegally rejecting Crown’s application for its DAS;
4. Davis will be required to pay approximately $200,000 in penalties for illegally rejecting Crown’s application for its DAS; and
5. The court will order the installation of the Crown Castle DAS in Davis, and Davis leaders will have no say as to where the antennae are installed.
The question, if the Council is really dumb enough to reject Crown’s application, is which employees will lose their jobs, which children’s programs will be terminated, which cops will no longer go out on patrol, in order to cover the $1 million loss from such a dumb decision.
The budget AND economic development are both important. They are essential big items that must be dealt with by the council.
In the coverage of the first debate, one thing that I said was left out: I said I believe the city council needs to focus on the 3-5 big issues and get them right. Instead it seems like there are 30-40 “priorities” that are consuming the time and energy of the council when it seems like the big 3 or 5 aren’t being dealt with fully.
As far as plastic bags?
There is no reason to have an outright ban as proposed, especially with all the loopholes that are incorporated in the proposal. The state law that prevents us for charging for plastic bags expires on Jan 1st. I’m with Matt- paper or plastic, but either way it will cost you a nickel (or a dime).
Let the consumer choose what is most appropriate for them.
Cities that have implemented bag fees for paper and plastic have seen a tremendous reduction in their use. Isn’t that what we are after? Less waste of resources and a reduction in litter?
In short, global warming is here, and we need to act as though it is here.
The vanguard is not the first to use this tactic with regard to global warming. Stating “MY OPINION, IS FACT.” But it is still your opinion, reasonable minds can disagree on this, and have.
vanguard: “Within that framework, I am not going to pretend like an issue such as a plastic bags ban is the huge and compelling issue of our day. It is not. The impact on global warming is uncertain.”
yep.
vanguard: ” We need to fundamentally change the way we live, the way we consume natural resources, the way we discard what we consume.”
in other words, this is about power and control over other people. Got it.
Brett, if you’re going to propose to charge for paper bags then you lost my vote.
“Everyone wants to be for fiscal conservatism, but no one wants to take an honest and open look at these numbers. This campaign needs to be about that.” — David Greenwald, April 01, 2012
Plastic waste is a County-wide or State-wide issue. What the City does will have little or no impact. For that reason, this should not be a priority for the City and the council should not spend any time on it.
You shouldn’t spend time fiddling when the town is burning.
“
Brett, if you’re going to propose to charge for paper bags then you lost my vote.”
He’s going to lose you’re vote on one tiny issue? Really? Without checking where the other candidates stand?
Don: I agree with myself from two days ago which would be referenced here: “The problems we face are, in fact, overwhelming – we have a crisis of unfunded needs and liabilities that are beginning to crash down upon us at alarming rates. The general budget per year hit could be $7.5 million or more per year. Then there is the $15 to $20 million in deferred maintenance on roadways. Then there is the $60 million in unfunded retiree health care liabilities. And then you have water infrastructure and the massive public works project on water supply and wastewater treatment, in addition to crumbling infrastructure in wells and pumps that need to be shored up.”
The small business I work for gave away $4.5 million to charity from 1995-2008. It took two years into the recession for my board members to get over the euphoria that had developed for being part of this. They had to come with terms that we no longer had the money to give away, and they had to get behind a new long-term strategy for recovery. We are all working hard to get back to a financial position that allows robust charitable giving again. But when you don’t have it, you can’t spend it.
Governments, like businesses, are first and foremost financial entities. To do great things, the funding has to be there: either to pay for things up front or to service the debt required to buy now and pay later. When you are out of money, you have to prioritize: what is essential, critical and necessary comes first. Then there are the luxuries. For my business, charitable giving is a luxury we hope to experience again. For Davis, outlawing plastic bags and blocking Crown Castle from installing wireless communication poles are luxuries we currently cannot afford.
Another related point is “mission”. My company spends a lot of time developing, reviewing, confirming and communicating our corporate mission. Without this understanding, we would more likely be plagued with poor decision making and be too fragmented in application of our limited resources. We would be fighting too many battles at once and it would likely cause us to lose the war.
Considering the mission of a city government heading toward insolvency from unfunded pension liabilities, I think plastic bag bans and wireless infrastructure legal fights, although maybe part of the current mission of one of the most liberal cities on the planet, take us off point for the critical and essential issues at hand.
I think all of us need to rethink the current mission of our city government. Our education system is being gutted, and our infrastructure is crumbling. Our residents cannot purchase many products they need, and sales tax is leaking by the bucket-load. Yet, we are debating plastic bags and telephone poles.
We cannot afford the tangible cost fighting these things, and we cannot afford the cost from the distractions. It screws up our focus on the critical and essential issues at hand. The critical and essential issues are 100% financial. They require us to increase tax revenue and reduce spending. Plastic bags and telephone pole debates are the luxuries for after we get our fiscal house in order, IMO.
“Yet, we are debating plastic bags and telephone poles.”
Is it your position that we are not discussing something that we should because of this? After all, the most important item on the agenda tonight is 6B. Not much to debate on that one however.
I had dinner the other night with a very well known member of the business community who told me that the business community felt totally neglected in this City. That bothered me.
I support our local business people. That doesn’t mean that I have to agree with everything they want or that is pushed by the Chamber of Commerce, BEDC or whatever, some of which, imho, represents the interests of a few landowners.
That said, I think we should all recognize the importance of local business. I also support more high tech industries coming to Davis.
[quote]”Plastic bags fit unevenly into that backdrop. They present a huge amount of waste”[/quote]What can you possibly mean by this tortured segue? I don’t see an ordinance banning plastic bags fitting in a “backdrop” of economic development priority fights, sales tax generation issues, a crisis of unfunded needs and liabilities, cooperating with UCD on major undertakings and all of the other municipal crises you haven’t listed.
Davis’ plastic bags are neither a huge amount of waste by volume or by comparison to the total trash (or even just the rest of the bags) going into our dump. The numbers that escape Davis’ trash stream are minuscule.
The best you come with for this tiny action is that it would be some kind of planetary “symbol” that will show [u]someone[/u] that Davis can “lead the way” in the global battle against climate change.[quote]”Last week a city commission moved forward a recommendation. I think there are some flaws…like to move forward as a county…take the enforcement and recording portions out of the ordinance, as I think they are unduly burdensome and a time waste….”[/quote]And you, with all these problems with the NRC’s proposal, urge the city to proceed with months of expensive study and public hearings on an ordinance that couldn’t even get all of the commission’s own members to vote in favor. There are additional problems that others have, as well.[quote]”…we are scheduled to spend another three hours on Crown Castle tonight, an issue of some import to some residents, but an issue that is largely a moot point because the council is constrained by what it can do. I do not believe that discussing plastic bags is any more a waste of time than five hours of public comment on Crown Castle, when the council cannot do anything other than what it is doing.”[/quote]Maybe you could come up with some more humongous wastes of council time to “justify” the plastic bag humongous waste of staff time and city funds[quote].”The cost of an EIR is $14,000. I have a number of different views on that issue. I think we can dip into some of the funds that have been set aside to help mitigate against climate change. We can probably backfill with a grant if needed. $14,000 is not peanuts. We have, after all, had to close down a pool in this community, but that cost should not be a deal breaker either.”[/quote]Finally, a well stated argument [u]against[/u] proceeding with a study of an ordinance you already [s]reported[/s] promised doesn’t have council member support to pass the way the NRC wrote it.
But, you kiss it off with the old “sure it costs a lot, but it’s not [u]real money[/u]” argument used by you and others for a variety wasteful, useless undertakings over the years.[quote]”…if citizens in the community are concerned about this, why would they ignore that concern?”[/quote]If, if, if, if. What’s your basis for claiming there’s a citizen demand for banning plastic bags and imposing enforcement/reporting requirements on our businesses that even you call “…unduly burdensome and a time waste”? Do you have some opinion survey results to report?
My count indicates Alan Pryor and a few NRC commissioners are concerned about “this”–meaning they want the ordinance just the way they wrote it, not the way you want it. They gathered a handful of supporters, some were even residents, to support it at their hearing.
The commissioners voting “yes” wouldn’t even consider making the “minor changes” Alan said the two “no” commissioners requested, even to generate a unanimous decision by the NRC.
Why do you keep finding new (and, sadly, barely related) ways to rehash this ordinance initiative? Maybe you don’t realize that the arguments for this were advanced by you and Alan in his recent report of the meeting in the [i]Vanguard[/i] Once opponents and others raised questions and concerns, both of you abandoned them without response.
Now, we’re starting all over with a slightly new twist. You call it a “tiny issue,” but want it given high priority. You don’t like the provisions, but you support proceeding with the processes for approval instead of simply sending it back the the NRC to put in a form that the council members might approve.
You’re concerned about how the city spends funds, even small amounts, yet this $14,000 (plus other related costs) now is a priority expenditure for you.
If you want some ordinance to show as another Davis environmental symbol, why aren’t you pushing to have it returned to the NRC to get it into a form the council might eventually approve?
Can we presume that you and Alan will deal with the issues folks are bringing forward this time? Or, do you really want the opposition to have to repeat our concerns for you two to ignore every couple weeks when you try a new approach?
[b]”Commentary: If Not Now, When?”[/b]
[u]Answer[/u]: When the county decides it’s a problem worth taking on at the county level. Since the county operates the landfill–used by all communities in Yolo County–that generates the “problems” that offend a few Davis residents.
[quote]”1. Davis will accrue approximately $300,000 in legal fees to fight Crown in court;
2. Crown will accrue approximately $300,000 in legal fees to fight Davis in court and the taxpayers of Davis will have to pay for Crown’s lawyers because the law is clearly on Crown’s side…”[/quote]The staff and council may have learned this approach from the way it’s dealing with the DACHA Bad Boys.
Does anyone know how much the City has paid in legal fees over the past five or ten years? Are we a litigious, an unlucky or just a typical small municipality?
David, if you’re correct that the $14,000 covers [u]all [/u]expenses associated with this ordinance processing–and I’m skeptical, of course–does it all go to city staff or does some of it go to some contractor?
“You’re concerned about how the city spends funds, even small amounts, yet this $14,000 (plus other related costs) now is a priority expenditure for you.”
It’s something I’m willing to find money either in grants or non-general fund sources to fund it.
“If you want some ordinance to show as another Davis environmental symbol, why aren’t you pushing to have it returned to the NRC to get it into a form the council might eventually approve?”
Did you read this article in that regard, I discussed at least four changes to their proposal. Plus my big push is at the more regional level.
“Can we presume that you and Alan will deal with the issues folks are bringing forward this time? Or, do you really want the opposition to have to repeat our concerns for you two to ignore every couple weeks when you try a new approach?”
I don’t view it as my responsibility to address people’s comments. I have a lot on my plate.
Perhaps you’ll consider volunteering to help at our event next month?
justsaying: [i]”David, if you’re correct that the $14,000 covers all expenses associated with this ordinance processing–and I’m skeptical, of course–does it all go to city staff or does some of it go to some contractor?” [/i]
Another fun question is ‘what percentage of the jurisdictions that have passed a plastic bag ban have been sued?’
[i]”Are we a litigious, an unlucky or just a typical small municipality?” [/i]
We seem to have a tendency to buy ourselves lawsuits through poor planning, poor decision making, and/or poor execution.
None successfully. The suit in SLO county for instance has since been dropped. The EIR is placed on this one to avoid a possible suit on those grounds.
[quote]”If you want some ordinance to show as another Davis environmental symbol, why aren’t you pushing to have it returned to the NRC to get it into a form the council might eventually approve?”
“Did you read this article in that regard, I discussed at least four changes to their proposal. Plus my big push is at the more regional level.”[/quote]I certainly did read it and carefully. That’s why I don’t understand why you are pushing for this flawed initiative to proceed when it could go back to the NRC to remove the things that offend you before spending $14,000. And why you want the City to spend any time or money at all on your “tiny issue” if it’s appropriately a county and regional matter.
i appreciate how busy you are, and realize you have to set some priorities about responding to comments. The reason I commented is that here we are having the same discussions amongst the same people on just another version of this story. Why take time and effort reasserting the same old stuff when you and Alan choose not to deal with reader concerns a week or so ago?
Good offer. If I’m in town, I’ll be glad to help out. Sounds like a great event.
I’m not necessarily pushing for this specific initiative to succeed, but I support the general concept, and as I stated, I am thinking more and more of a county waste management approach to this ala SLO.
[quote]I would prefer to take the enforcement and recording portions out of the ordinance, as I think they are unduly burdensome and a time waste. On the other hand, I would prefer to leave the paper bag portion in, as I do not simply want people to shift from plastic to paper. I want people to shift from disposable limited uses to re-usable.[/quote]
Notice all the “I’s” here, clearly indicating this is the Vanguard’s view and nothing more. If this plastic bag ban were put to a vote of the citizens of Davis tomorrow, my guess is it would be roundly defeated for a variety of reasons. My hope is that the City Council remands this half baked idea back to the NRC, and tells the NRC to “rework” or trash altogether the plastic bag ban in light of the following:
1) To spend any money on a plastic bag ban is unacceptable during times of economic austerity;
2) To waste City Council time on such a controversial concern that clearly needs reworking is not warranted;
3) Citizens prefer to be treated like adults rather than children, and therefore prefer to be educated rather than told what to do;
4) The onerous record keeping requirements of this plastic bag ban on businesses is completely unacceptable;
5) Staff should not have to waste one minute on ensuring compliance w this plastic bag ban;
6) The plastic bag ban should address the issue it was designed to address, and not irrelevant peripheral issues such as the use of paper bags;
7) The plastic bag ban should be required to actually solve a real life problem, rather than represent a solution in search of a problem.
“Notice all the “I’s” here, clearly indicating this is the Vanguard’s view and nothing more. “
Elaine: per chance, what is the title of this article?
[i]”My hope is that the City Council remands this half baked idea back to the NRC”
[/i]
Given input, the NRC chose not to modify it. So I don’t see why it would be sent back to them.
“1) To spend any money on a plastic bag ban is unacceptable during times of economic austerity;”
Does that mean that we never consider environmental measures during hard economic times? And if so, what happens if the economy does not improve?
“2) To waste City Council time on such a controversial concern that clearly needs reworking is not warranted;”
Council can direct changes to it
“3) Citizens prefer to be treated like adults rather than children, and therefore prefer to be educated rather than told what to do;”
That’s silly – if that’s the standard most of the laws on the books should go
“4) The onerous record keeping requirements of this plastic bag ban on businesses is completely unacceptable;”
I agree and said we should get rid of that, in fact, you QUOTED it.
“5) Staff should not have to waste one minute on ensuring compliance w this plastic bag ban;”
I agree as well and you quoted it
“6) The plastic bag ban should address the issue it was designed to address, and not irrelevant peripheral issues such as the use of paper bags;”
The issue that it addresses includes waste and simply encouraging people to shift from plastic to paper does not help achieve that goal
“7) The plastic bag ban should be required to actually solve a real life problem, rather than represent a solution in search of a problem. “
That’s as they say, your opinion
The plastic bag ban should only be handled by the county because it’s a county dump. Davis only accounts for 22% of the garbage in the landfill and if restrictions are only to be put on Davis it’s going to have very little effect on the landfill’s garbage if surrounding cities don’t have to comply. All this ordinance does is put a burden on Davis residents just so a few can feel good about how green they are.
[quote]Given input, the NRC chose not to modify it. So I don’t see why it would be sent back to them.[/quote]
Either the NRC reworks the ban to be more acceptable, or it is “dead in the water”…
Council is more likely the one that is going to do modify it at this point.
[quote]Does that mean that we never consider environmental measures during hard economic times? And if so, what happens if the economy does not improve? [/quote]
No, just environmental measures that will actually solve a real life problem that is significant, rather than environmental measures that are mere symbols, and prohibitively expensive to enforce.
By the way, a little birdy told me that the bags on the fence picture was achievable bc of a perfect storm, having to do with the fact that at the time, there was some sort of prohibition against using a particular part of the land fill – and the likelihood of this happening again is remote.
[quote]Council can direct changes to it [/quote]
As they should.
[quote]That’s silly – if that’s the standard most of the laws on the books should go [/quote]
If treating people like adults rather than children works, why impose an unnecessarily draconian measure?
[quote]The issue that it addresses includes waste and simply encouraging people to shift from plastic to paper does not help achieve that goal [/quote]
The rationale for this ordinance specifically stated the purpose was to remove plastic bags from the environment…
[quote]That’s as they say, your opinion[/quote]
And I strongly suspect it is a majority opinion in regard to the plastic bag ban as it is…
“No, just environmental measures that will actually solve a real life problem that is significant, rather than environmental measures that are mere symbols, and prohibitively expensive to enforce. “
But that’s a subjective standard which means that different people will have a different view as to what/ when it is met. So your standard hasn’t actually bought us anything.
“By the way, a little birdy told me that the bags on the fence picture was achievable bc of a perfect storm, having to do with the fact that at the time, there was some sort of prohibition against using a particular part of the land fill – and the likelihood of this happening again is remote. “
I reported this last week.
“If treating people like adults rather than children works, why impose an unnecessarily draconian measure? “
This is too nebulus to me, I don’t know what any of your terms actually mean in this case.
“The rationale for this ordinance specifically stated the purpose was to remove plastic bags from the environment…”
That is one rationale for banning plastic bags.
Don Shor: [i]”Given input, the NRC chose not to modify it. So I don’t see why it would be sent back to them.”[/i]
Don, you mind a tomato question? Overnight lows lately have been below 50 degrees. Later this week the lows are forecast to be in the low 40s. Do you recommend waiting to put tomato cultivars in the ground until the overnight lows are 50 degrees or more? Or is it just as well to plant them when the lows are 45 degrees or more?
[img]http://omitted.net/gallery/d/23122-3/IMG_9527candc.jpg[/img]
[quote]”None successfully. The suit in SLO county for instance has since been dropped. The EIR is placed on this one to avoid a possible suit on those grounds.”[/quote]I hadn’t considered this, Mark. Means nothing to David, however, because he thinks that being the defendant in a lawsuit somehow doesn’t cost us anything if the plaintiffs are unsuccessful.
Wonder how that’ll work out for us if the court rules [u]for[/u] the city re. DACHA. Maybe Harriet will be giving us a three-quarter-million-dollar rebate. So, we’re spending $14,000 in some possibly futile effort to limit our lawsuit potential.[quote]”I’m not necessarily pushing for this specific initiative to succeed, but I support the general concept, and as I stated, I am thinking more and more of a county waste management approach to this ala SLO.”[/quote]If “not pushing for it to succeed,” why are you pushing it at all. You’re trying to have it both ways (“I’m against it but I’m for it.”)–It’s just a mystery why you’re arguing so hard for its supposed benefits instead of pushing to get it revised into something that’s acceptable to you and might be accepted by the city council [u]before[/u] we waste time and money
I’m waiting to plant my tomatoes until later in the month. Night temperatures in the 50’s are better. What really matters is the soil temperature, and your raised planter may warm up enough before the open ground does. And in a pinch, you could make a little frame and stretch a[b] single-use plastic bag [/b]over the seedling to warm it up!
I wonder if the council can do the parliamentary equivalent of a “call for the question” and just bring this ordinance up at a meeting, amend it as the councilmembers see fit, and then pass it (or not), rather than have it go through the rigamarole Alan outlined in the previous thread. If it’s going to be modified, and the council is going to modify it, why not get the wording done now?
That may be too simple to be possible.
[i]”… stretch a single-use plastic bag over the seedling to warm it up!”[/i]
Thanks, Don. I’ll tell Alan Pryor all about it!
[quote]Don Shor: “Given input, the NRC chose not to modify it. So I don’t see why it would be sent back to them.” [/quote]Because we’re about to spend weeks and at least $14,000 on staff time and/or consultants–supposedly to avoid future lawsuits–to advance an ordinance that no one likes (with the exception of four of the six NRC commissioners).
I was looking for a compromise approach: have the NRC revise its own proposal to eliminate the onerous demands on our local stores and do the environmental study on that version. David has reported that council members have assured him privately that they won’t NRC proposal.
Almost every comment I’ve read in the [i]Vanguard[/i] opposes the record-keeping and perjury threats it imposes. Yet, some blithely keep focusing on the global benefits instead of looking at what the four ordinance pushers want to impose on Davis residents and businesses.
Furthermore, the NRC ignores what’s happening in this town already through education, voluntary efforts, business initiatives, etc. But, as you point out, the four NRC commissioners refuse to budge, even to accommodate the views of their two colleagues about the “language.” One has to ask why this hard line about this version of an ordinance.
After watching the discussion the last couple weeks, I’ve come up with one possible answer. The four commissioners’ strategy was to get their strongest language into their proposal, knowing that even the 4-2 minimum vote would get it locked into a lengthy, expensive environmental study process.
Apparently, there’s no oversight in the city process that requires someone to say, “Hey, stop, let’s get this in some form we might adopt before we spend big bucks on environmental studies on something we know we won’t accept.” Why should four people be able to obligate us in this way?
The strategy continues. Go quiet. Stop trying to justify the worst parts since the whole package is on its way. Anyone, or any business, speaking up on any part will be demonized as anti-environment Nazis or even Republicans. At the end of the process will be new justifications offered about the need to pass it to avoid wasting all the money we’re wasting.
The city council will get the staff report on a Monday and be under pressure to pass it on Tuesday night without giving the worst language and the most offensive parts (of an unnecessary, in toto, city law) more than a few minutes of thought.
If, as you suggest, Don, the four NRC commissioners insist that they won’t compromise with the council any more than they did with their two colleagues, I’d hope the council stops the whole thing before any more money or staff time or commission time or council time or citizen time is spent on it.
It just seems the process doesn’t offer the council an easy way to stop an out-of-control, bare majority of a commission bent on wasting money and forcing an unwanted law through a months’ long procedure. And, this, I’m starting to believe, is what those people already had figured out.
Don, did you censor Rich’s tomato? All I see is a blue box with a question mark.
JS “[i]It just seems the process doesn’t offer the council an easy way to stop an out-of-control, bare majority of a commission bent on wasting money and forcing an unwanted law through a months’ long procedure. And, this, I’m starting to believe, is what those people already had figured out.[/i]”
Standard procedure for how Davis operates, and a big part of why we are in the position we are today. The Council needs to take control and rein in both the Staff and the Commissions. City Council should set the policy, everyone else follow, not the other way around.
While I certainly respect the voice of those trying to address the plastic bag issue, I can’t back down from my viewpoint that jobs and the local economy are the order of the day. People in this community are struggling… I interact with them every day. And I can tell you, they could give a rats (fill in blank) about the plastic bags issue. They want jobs; they want the school issues address; they want to gain their footing again.
@David Greenwald: “The reality is that it’s not clear to me at this point that the public supports these kinds of changes. And the vision of the business community runs into the counter-vision of the broader community.”
I’m not sure what leads you to say that. In the quarters I work, people realize that a thriving downtown means more jobs. It means tax revenue for schools. Maybe we’re just interacting with different crowds, but from the conversations I’ve had, you’ve got it 180 degrees backwards.
My words were a little harsh in my last post. Let me tone it down a bit and say that people who are unemployed or struggling b/c of the economy have different priorities than those working on the plastic bags issue. My apologies for being so rude and dismissive. The environment is important.
[i]”Don, did you censor Rich’s tomato? All I see is a blue box with a question mark.”[/i]
I am getting the picture I posted–of a selection of tomatoes at the Davis Farmers’ Market. I think, though, if it does not show up on your screen, it’s probably a software situation with regard to the photo’s format. (My bad!) It showed up as a blank box with an X in the upper left corner on my screen earlier, but now I see it.
Concerned: While I appreciate your perspective, ironically I fall into all three of your categories. I have kids in school, my wife is looking for work, but I also care about the environment because just as schools are an investment in the future, protecting the environment means my kids get to grow up in a world that is not toxic and hopefully not on the brink of disaster. I don’t see this as an either/ or situation.
“If Not Now, When?”
I don’t know, how about 2014?
[quote]The EIR is placed on this one to avoid a possible suit on those grounds.[/quote]Depends who opponents are… an EIR does not protect you from a lawsuit that you might need to defend. An EIR MAY help you from losing such a lawsuit.
David: I’m not saying the plastic bag issue isn’t important. I support environmental care as as much as the next Davisite. But, there are more pressing issues. While the plastic bag issue is important, it [i]doesn’t[/i] rank high on the urgent scale. And the council should be setting its sites on issues (at least for the next year or two) that are important AND urgent.
How about wait two years and instead have the countless environmental groups work together to clean up these bags and recycle them (for the short-term), rather than using up the valuable Council time trying to legislate it right now?
Btw, I have two kids in school, my wife was laid off last year and has been unable to find employment, I care about the environment, and I still think the commentary piece is off target.
Guess you had better talk to the mayor concerned, link ([url]http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/65983/Mayor_city_commits_to_reduce_carbon_footprint[/url])
@David: Touche 🙂 Btw, I do appreciate your articles and perspectives though I might not always agree with them.
[quote]Concerned: While I appreciate your perspective, ironically I fall into all three of your categories. I have kids in school, my wife is looking for work, but I also care about the environment because just as schools are an investment in the future, protecting the environment means my kids get to grow up in a world that is not toxic and hopefully not on the brink of disaster. I don’t see this as an either/ or situation.[/quote]
But don’t you need to ask yourself at times what the tradeoffs are? For instance, if the plastic bag ban unfairly burdens business, so that tax revenue may be lost, is that really a price worth paying to address what is essentially a largely “symbolic” solution (your word)?
My hope is that the City Council either tells the NRC to go back to the drawing board on this one, or wholesale rips the plastic bag ban as written to shreds and reconfigures it (or just retires it to the dustbin where it belongs – and lets the state or county take care of the issue) so that it is not a solution in search of a problem…
The question is whether it does unfairly burden business. As currently written there are point that do, but that can be fixed. The rest is not really a burden other than perhaps the initial change.
I’m glad the mayor gets together with a few others to encourage tree-planting. I notice none of them are proposing any new laws to enforce their worthy idea.
There’s NO QUESTION about whether this ordinance unfairly burdens business. It burdens business in expensive ways (requiring unnecessary record-keeping to be stored for three years and available to city inspectors any business day). It burdens business in insulting ways (requiring sworn statements as to the accuracy of the records). All for reasons not justified in any way–sure sounds like unfair burdens to me.
You keep hinting these burdens (unfair or not) never will come to pass. How came we assure that will happen?
It also burdens business because if this ordinance is passed most citizens will now have to buy plastic trash bags to line their household garbage cans, buy plastic bags for dog poop plus the cost of purchasing paper bags when they forget their cloth bags or just choose to buy paper anyway. I’ll estimate that this is going to cost most families over a hundred dollars a year which mean less trips to see a downtown movie, maybe a couple less trips to a downtown diner, etc. You get the picture.
rusty49
As a dog owner, I fail to see why one needs plastic bags to clean up dog poop in the first place since tissues or other completely biodegradable paper works fine. But let’s assume for the moment that plastic is necessary for dog poop collection, why should anyone else have to subsidize my poop scooping with “free” plastic bags, which we all know are not “free”, just a cost buried in other purchases.