Despite all of the work that the WAC had done over the last eight months, critical members of that committee recognized two critical factors on Thursday night. First, that a vote on the merits of the Woodland plan would at best have been 7-3, and some think it would actually have been 5-5 or 4-6. Second, that all of the hard work would have come for naught with a split vote.
Two weeks ago the chair of the WAC reacted to the suggested need for unanimity as a threat, but two weeks later it was the stated operating principle of at least four WAC members, perhaps more.
In a way, it has been a remarkable journey. In a way, Thursday night’s meeting itself was one.
The most remarkable thing was watching the committee one by one address what the Vanguard had viewed as critical concerns. In the end, we may not get to the kind of consensus needed to avoid a political battle next March, but if the WAC and now the council continue to address these concerns, a lot of the steam will be taken out of any opposition.
The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated. Matt Williams a few weeks ago talked about constituencies in opposition, but we think the danger here is less about any one issue but enough combinations of objectionable factors.
A few weeks ago, the Vanguard recognized the ability of a strongly-divided WAC recommendation to become the seed for a bitter contestation of the eventual ballot initiative.
To our surprise and disappointment, the chair of the WAC reacted as though this were somehow a political threat – that the WAC had better have a near unanimous vote or else.
The Vanguard was, quite frankly, stunned by that response – particularly from the chair, who ought to be above such frays in public.
More than just hoping for better consensus, the Vanguard has also been hopeful that keeping both options on the table would lead to a better ultimate outcome. We fear that giving up the leverage means that we have to take what we have on the table now.
The move on Thursday seemed to at least recognize the need for consensus. To that end people like Alf Brandt and Frank Loge deserve a lot of credit. Former Mayor Bill Kopper deserves tremendous credit, as well. Without his work, it is highly unlikely the West Sacramento option could have stayed on the table.
It is really on by the skin of its teeth, at this point. The two members who dissented on Thursday did so in opposition to even considering the West Sacramento option. Alf Brandt expressed strong skepticism that West Sacramento would be viable, but for the sake of consensus supported the compromise.
In the end, it will be the council’s call. In a way, allowing the measure to go forward, as it stood at the end of the evening, was a prudent choice by the WAC.
Some suggested it was better to simply have a minority position. The Vanguard simply disagrees with that. There will be plenty of time to forge out minority positions on this one. At least in an election you can now credibly claim that you attempted to compromise.
Last week, following the meeting, the Vanguard expressed concern that the seemingly-favored main Woodland option would increase water rates threefold by 2020. That notion was disputed at times, but it was good to see that, in the end, Chair Elaine Roberts-Musser put into the main motion a friendly amendment about “the possibility (for either project) of deferred costs via financing methods in order to smooth out any rate spiking.”
This is a critical move. A short-term rate spike could drive people, quite literally, out of their homes. Deferring those costs, even at the risk of an overall more costly project, is a key to avoiding the worst possibilities of pain associated with the project.
To use an analogy, the cheapest way to purchase a car is cash, up front. However, realistically, most people cannot afford that and instead they get a loan which requires payments over time. The cost of such a loan is that, over the period of the loan, you have to pay more money than you would have paying it all up front.
The one area of disappointment was the jousting that seemed to take place among some of the members.
At one point Jerry Adler warned that we could lose our water rights – something that went a good deal further than even what staff warned last week.
Mark Siegler took exception to the comments stating, “I just think… those are scare tactics. Point to anybody who has lost their water rights in that amount of time. We’re not talking about a delay in years.”
Mr. Siegler himself got under the skin of some of his colleagues when he suggested, “We really do have a conflict of interest. The very people who are going to benefit from the project are telling us what the costs are going to be.”
Matt Williams took exception to this comment, “It’s pretty insulting to the gentleman from Carollo Engineering who has been working on putting together the West Sac numbers to say that Carollo has something to gain by the numbers that they’re putting together on West Sac. You may be able to make the argument regarding Woodland, but I think that that’s really crazy.”
At the same time comes the notion that some of the dissent is aimed as a delay tactic.
To me the jury continues to be out on this question. Michael Harrington noted that they were warned during the referendum that their efforts would cost the city $50 million – that has not happened from what I can see.
If anything, the costs have gone downward.
Mark Siegler suggested we spend a year studying the West Sacramento option properly.
That’s probably too much time as it would take the Woodland option off the table.
But the notion that delay will inevitably cost us money has not been borne out by the facts.
A reasonable person at this point will point out, and I think correctly, that continued time will not inherently save money, but nor will it inherently cost money.
I think, in public debate, it is probably better not to question each other’s motives. The atmosphere on Thursday was mainly collaborative, but there is an underbelly of discontent that at some point could bubble forward to the detriment of public policy.
Overall, the Vanguard is pleased with Thursday’s outcome. The notion of consensus was prominent, the West Sacramento option remains on the table, and the committee took seriously the Vanguard‘s concern about rate shock.
We consider all of this a win for the people of Davis, while we are mindful that this was a small decision in the scheme of this project.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership is doomed to defeat.”[/i]
David, I agree with you that tripling the rates will be a major problem . . . and in my personal view, a substantial failing on the part of the WAC. With that said, the key issues regarding tripling the rates are 1) is tripling necessary? and 2) over what timeline will the tripling (if there is tripling) take place.
I was asked yesterday by Growth Issue what I thought about this compromise. My answer to that question addresses key issue 1) above. The compromise achieved one very important point of progres, specifically that a gameplan for determining whether West Sac truly does want Davis’ business was initiated. The fact that Davis and West Sac are not simply thinking about dancing, but reather truly taking the floor together, will mean that Woodland will have to give serious consideration to the two conditions that the WAC included in the approved motion. I don’t think Davis will get both of those concessions from Woodland, but with a little bit of tangible competition from West Sac the total for the DWWSP (Davis Woodland Water Supply Project) will come down another $10 million to $20 million. And if West Sac truly wants Davis’ business, what Davis spends may be even less.
Regarding key issue 2) regardless of what the relative growth of water rates is, the time line for that growth is going to have a number of options. Which would you prefer/choose? Rates doubling over a four year period or rates doubling over a ten year period?
I made the point in prior threads here on the Vanguard and in two WAC meetings that the terms that Davis chooses for the mortgage it takes out for its chosen water solution will affect the “pain” the community feels. If you buy a house with a 30-year mortgage your cash flows will be very different than if you buy that same house with a 15-year mortgage, than if you pay for the house with your own cash at the time of settlement. Torturing the metaphor, the WAC has yet to decide how it should best finance the house it will buy.
Regarding rates, from 9:00 to 11:00 yesterday Frank Loge and I made a very well received presentation at the Department of Water Resources (DWR) of what DWR is calling “an Innovative Idea for a Conservation Rate Structure” to a large contingent of folks from DWR, ACWA, CWA, CUWCC, NRDC, Pacific Institute, Rand Corporation, the City of Sacramento and East Bay MUD. That meeting was recorded as a webinar, and DWR and ACWA will be posting links to the webinar on their respective websites early this coming week. That rate structure, when applied to the Davis situation has the potential to substantially mitigate the “pain” that David has expressed when he uses the words “triples the rates.” This is still a work in progress, but I will keep everyone posted. The WAC has already agreed to have Frank and me present our rate model in depth at a future meeting; Staff and Bartle Wells have closely monitored our progress; and selected members of the community have also seen our presentation. Like any new idea has, there have been tweaks and adjustments thanks to the input from the people we have presented to, and there will be adjustments to come, but in the end we hope it is adopted by Davis as a way to improve the fairness and proportionality and affordability of water in Davis.
Acronym Glossary
ACWA = Association of California Water Agencies (public water agencies)
CWA = California Water Association (private water companies in California)
CUWCC = California Urban Water Conservation Council (keepers of the state’s Best Practices for water use)
NRDC = Natural Resources Defense Council
Good article David. As has been stated by some posters here and I agree from what I have gathered, the staff is fairly firmly on the side of the JPA, agree? If so who will be presenting and hopefully negotiating with West Sac? And who will be negotiating the 2 or 3 stipulations with Woodland. Is it now for the CC to do that or direct staff and WAC is done with that part?
vanguard: “The most remarkable thing was watching the committee one by one address what the Vanguard had viewed as critical concerns.”
If the vanguard didn’t make rash judgments against the committee without having any facts to back it up ahead of time, it would not see its “critical concerns” being addressed as “remarkable.”
91, I can’t help but wonder whether your comment above actually added anything to this thread? I frequently don’t agree with David’s position on issues, but usually I comment on the position rather than commenting on David.
Think about where the discourse on water would be without the many stories and comment threads here on the Vanguard. Competing views have been given the opportunity to be heard and it is even possible that consensus has been achieved. Perhaps you might want to comment on that accomplishment.
“But the notion that delay will inevitably cost us money has not been borne out by the facts.”
Yet.
We have not come to the end of the process yet, and so we don’t know what the delay will cost. That is especially true if we are looking at another 4-5 year delay before the West Sac option can be implemented. I think your assessment is more than premature.
On another note, how much money has the City spent (in staff time, consultants, legal advice, etc.) to support the actions of the WAC? Those are funds that could have been spent in other (also) productive ways (as I think the WAC has been productive) so there have been costs accumulating due to the delay.
Finally, what has been the ‘cost’ to our reputation as we sit here waffling about an agreement that we already made. You could argue that our reputation was already poor, but I don’t think these past several months have done anything to improve it.
“[i]A short-term rate spike could drive people, quite literally, out of their homes.[/i]”
The rates presented last week show that the typical customer will see their water bill increase roughly $50 to $100 [b]per year[/b] over an 8 year period. You will be hard pressed to find anyone in town who will lose their homes over this amount of money.
I had to think long and hard whether to comment on this article or not. This has been a grueling process for the WAC, with underhanded tactics used by some at every turn the closer the WAC came to making a decision – including ugly personal attacks, mudslinging, bullying, floods of ugly emails, attempts at filibustering and disruption of WAC meetings, etc. Through it all, I believe the WAC has conducted itself in a professional manner despite the onslaught of those trying to undermine its process. Now let me take the Vanguard’s comments one by one. I am expressing my opinion, and solely my opinion, as calmly as I can manage to muster today.
[quote]Despite all of the work that the WAC had done over the last eight months, critical members of that committee recognized two critical factors on Thursday night. First, that a vote on the merits of the Woodland plan would at best have been 7-3, and some think it would actually have been 5-5 or 4-6. Second, that all of the hard work would have come for naught with a split vote.[/quote]
And who might those “critical” members be, and what is meant by “critical”? Based on the conversation, if the Vanguard had critically listened and heard WAC member make final comments before the vote was taken, no one knew how the vote on the final motion was going to turn out, and conceded it very well might be a closely divided vote.
[quote]The most remarkable thing was watching the committee one by one address what the Vanguard had viewed as critical concerns. In the end, we may not get to the kind of consensus needed to avoid a political battle next March, but if the WAC and now the council continue to address these concerns, a lot of the steam will be taken out of any opposition.[/quote]
As I said many times before, the WAC should be allowed to carry out its mission, which it did in fact do – and as I predicted it would. There is still much to be done, many issues to be wrestled with. The WAC as it works on multiple tracks, will tackle all the issues necessary to its mission, including public outreach.
[quote]The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated. Matt Williams a few weeks ago talked about constituencies in opposition, but we think the danger here is less about any one issue but enough combinations of objectionable factors.[/quote]
Where is the Vanguard getting its figures for “triple the rates”? What specific source? Did the Vanguard take a critical look at the difference in cost to the ratepayer between the two projects (Woodland versus West Sac)? Using rate smoothing techniques with costs deferred via financing methods, the charts show a maximum difference between the two projects to the ratepayer of $8.21. And that doesn’t even include the possibility of reducing rate costs if we can get Woodland to pay for half the pipeline.
[quote]A few weeks ago, the Vanguard recognized the ability of a strongly-divided WAC recommendation to become the seed for a bitter contestation of the eventual ballot initiative.
To our surprise and disappointment, the chair of the WAC reacted as though this were somehow a political threat – that the WAC had better have a near unanimous vote or else.
The Vanguard was, quite frankly, stunned by that response – particularly from the chair, who ought to be above such frays in public.
More than just hoping for better consensus, the Vanguard has also been hopeful that keeping both options on the table would lead to a better ultimate outcome. We fear that giving up the leverage means that we have to take we have on the table now.[/quote]
Do I have to go back and state specifically how the Vanguard worded what it said to make my point again?
[quote]The one area of disappointment was the jousting that seemed to take place among some of the members.
At one point Jerry Adler warned that we could lose our water rights – something that went a good deal further than even what staff warned last week.
Mark Siegler took exception to the comments stating, “I just think… those are scare tactics. Point to anybody who has lost their water rights in that amount of time. We’re not talking about a delay in years.”
Mr. Siegler himself got under the skin of some of his colleagues when he suggested, “We really do have a conflict of interest. The very people who are going to benefit from the project are telling us what the costs are going to be.”
Matt Williams took exception to this comment, “It’s pretty insulting to the gentleman from Carollo Engineering who has been working on putting together the West Sac numbers to say that Carollo has something to gain by the numbers that they’re putting together on West Sac. You may be able to make the argument regarding Woodland, but I think that that’s really crazy.”
At the same time comes the notion that some of the dissent is aimed as a delay tactic.
To me the jury continues to be out on this question. Michael Harrington noted that they were warned during the referendum that their efforts would cost the city $50 million – that has not happened from what I can see.
If anything, the costs have gone downward.
Mark Siegler suggested we spend a year studying the West Sacramento option properly.
That’s probably too much time as it would take the Woodland option off the table.
But the notion that delay will inevitably cost us money has not been borne out by the facts.[/quote]
It is becoming increasingly clear who the Vanguard considers its “favorites” on the WAC.
[quote]It’s pretty insulting to the gentleman from Carollo Engineering who has been working on putting together the West Sac numbers to say that Carollo has something to gain by the numbers that they’re putting together on West Sac… I think that that’s really crazy.[/quote]
It is one thing to say you disagree with the numbers, and give some basis for that contention. It is entirely a different matter to say a consultant has something to gain, implying malfeasance…
[quote]At the same time comes the notion that some of the dissent is aimed as a delay tactic.[/quote]
I took careful notes. Some WAC members repeatedly used the term “delay” and mentioned a number of times “delay” for a number of years. So they only have themselves to blame if their dissent appeared as a “delay” tactic – they were hoisted by their own petards (words).
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Based on the conversation, if the Vanguard had critically listened and heard WAC member make final comments before the vote was taken, no one knew how the vote on the final motion was going to turn out, and conceded it very well might be a closely divided vote.”[/i]
Actually Elaine I think you and David are making the exact same point, only from different starting points.
I read David’s word “critical” to mean “swing” and the very words that Frank Loge spoke into the record self identified himself as one of those “critical” voters. If I had been able to vote on Thursday night (both Gerry Adler and Jim West were in attendance so I was an alternate), I would have described myself in much the same terms as Frank described himself. Jim West also described himself as “critical” just prior to the casting of the votes for the motion that passed 8-2, as did you describe yourself as “critical”.
[quote]The one area of disappointment was the jousting that seemed to take place among some of the members.[/quote]
Disappointment? That some WAC members dared to respond to other WAC members unprofessional statements/words about “delay”? In other words it is okay for one side to make outrageous statements, but not for others to respond?
[quote]If anything, the costs have gone downward.[/quote]
And who does the Vanguard give credit for that? Just curious…
[quote]A reasonable person at this point will point out, and I think correctly, that continued time will not inherently save money, but nor will it inherently cost money.[/quote]
The Vanguard’s position is that continued delay will not cost us any more money? And the Vanguard knows this how and on what basis?
[quote]I think, in public debate, it is probably better not to question each other’s motives. The atmosphere on Thursday was mainly collaborative, but there is an underbelly of discontent that at some point could bubble forward to the detriment of public policy.[/quote]
In other words there should not have been a questioning of consultant motives in coming up with the figures they did?
I also find this statement highly ironic when it is the Vanguard that constantly questions motives, stirs the pot with provocative and outrageous statements at times, etc. A bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think?
Here we go again. With all due respect Elaine and in thx for your work on the WAC, these posts only sour the good work that has been done. Suggest you not engage as your role of the chair I think makes you very sensitive.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”As I said many times before, the WAC should be allowed to carry out its mission, which it did in fact do – and as I predicted it would. There is still much to be done, many issues to be wrestled with. The WAC as it works on multiple tracks, will tackle all the issues necessary to its mission, including public outreach.”[/i]
Elaine, I both agree and disagree with you. The agree part comes when City Council members have during the WAC’s tenure tried to predecide for the WAC. It has been extremely interesting to observe Brett Lee now that he is an elected official. His comments, when he has chosen to speak or been asked to speak have been informative without any hint of opinion/bias.
With that said, the non-elected part of the community is where you and I disagree. There is no way to view the WAC deliberations as anything other than as a spectator sport. It is impossible to tell NFL fans not to shere their opinions about both teams and the sport. I really don’t think the WAC can expect anything different.
It is worthwhile noting IMHO that we got into the current mess in 2011 in large part because the Davis citizenry was not paying attention to the public meetings that were being conducted and Staff documents that were being produced. If I read your words “should be allowed to carry out its mission” correctly, it appears that you are advocating for the citizens to either take a nap or sit on their hands. I think the the former is a huge mistake, and the latter is unrealistic.
Elaine, as Matt’s post suggests I think you have misconstrued a lot of my comments. I will give you an example. I came away impressed with the work done by Alf, Frank, and Bill Kopper. Is that who would have guessed when you made the comment that you can see who my favorites are. I don’t think you know nearly as much on where I stand as you think.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Where is the Vanguard getting its figures for “triple the rates”? What specific source? Did the Vanguard take a critical look at the difference in cost to the ratepayer between the two projects (Woodland versus West Sac)? Using rate smoothing techniques with costs deferred via financing methods, the charts show a maximum difference between the two projects to the ratepayer of $8.21. And that doesn’t even include the possibility of reducing rate costs if we can get Woodland to pay for half the pipeline.” [/i]
Elaine, I think you missed David’s point. He could have just as easily substituted the words “West Sac” for the word “Woodland” and his point would have been the same. If I read him correctly he was comparing the rates post project (whatever project is chosen) to Davis’ current rates. Said another way, I hear David saying that “Any rate structure that triples the current rates is doomed to defeat.”
I don’t fully agree with his point when you introduce the element of time (as noted in my earlier comment to him), but if rates triple in as short a time as 4-5 years, I think his point is valid.
Elaine, as far as source, the Bartle Wells document at [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/Agendas/20120816/Supplemental-Documents/Summary-of-Estimated-SFR-Water-Rate-Differences.pdf[/url] has our current average rate of $34.00 rising to between $91.54 and $106.95 in 2027-2028.
With that said, I believe the WAC can still do plenty with cash flow management and financing decisions to change those annual average rate numbers. Further, I personally believe that one average number is incredibly simplistic . . . dare I say misleading.
[i]”Any rate structure that triples the current rates is doomed to defeat.”
[/i]
Sure, and defeat is especially likely if people keep erroneously saying “triples the current rates”.
[img]http://davismerchants.org/water/waterbillcomparison2.png[/img]
Moreover, since this has been repeated so many times as a clear political prognostication, stated as absolute fact by David Greenwald and Mike Harrington over and over and over, please tell us what rate increase is [i]not[/i] doomed to defeat? 2.5 times? 2 times? Any increase?
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Do I have to go back and state specifically how the Vanguard worded what it said to make my point again?”[/i]
Elaine, you can go back and copy and paste what David said, and when I read it again (if you do paste it), I will again not see it as a threat. I read it then, and I read it now as an observation of a political reality. An accurate observation IMHO.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”The Vanguard’s position is that continued delay will not cost us any more money? And the Vanguard knows this how and on what basis?”[/i]
“Position” is almost always by definition an “opinion.” The last time I checked opinions have the possibility of being factually correct, but they are just as often shown to be at the very least partially incorrect, and therefore not wholly factual.
SODA said . . .
[i]”Here we go again. With all due respect Elaine and in thx for your work on the WAC, these posts only sour the good work that has been done. Suggest you not engage as your role of the chair I think makes you very sensitive.”[/i]
I concur wholeheartedly SODA, as my comments above pretty clearly indicate. With that said, if I have fallen into the same trap as Elaine appears to have fallen into, please let me know and accept my apologies.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Sure, and defeat is especially likely if people keep erroneously saying “triples the current rates”.
Moreover, since this has been repeated so many times as a clear political prognostication, stated as absolute fact by David Greenwald and Mike Harrington over and over and over, please tell us what rate increase is not doomed to defeat? 2.5 times? 2 times? Any increase?”[/i]
Don, is there a particular reason you chose to use the NPV graph to illustrate your point? IMHO you have fallen into the same trap as David did. He disregarded the element of time in settling on numbers that supported his word “triples.” You have chosen the one graph that most minimizes the impact of the rate increases.
IMHO somewhere between David’s words and your commentary words is the “truth” . . . if there actually is a “truth” at all.
In today’s dollars the rates do not triple. I think it’s important to repeat that.
The difference between the options as to the effect on monthly rates is less than ten dollars, and within 13 years there is no difference.
Ultimately, Woodland vs. West Sac is a wash in terms of rate increase.
The delayed financing is an advantage to present residents, at the expense of future residents. It is a means of kicking the rate increases down the road by a decade.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Elaine, as Matt’s post suggests I think you have misconstrued a lot of my comments. I will give you an example. I came away impressed with the work done by Alf, Frank, and Bill Kopper. Is that who would have guessed when you made the comment that you can see who my favorites are. [b]I don’t think you know nearly as much on where I stand as you think.[/b]”[/i]
David, your comment falls into much the same category as 91 Octane’s comment early in the thread. It really doesn’t add to the quality of the thread, and was clearly commenting more about Elaine rather than the issue. Of course Elaine’s “favorites” comment wasn’t exactly acid free.
[quote] If I read your words “should be allowed to carry out its mission” correctly, it appears that you are advocating for the citizens to either take a nap or sit on their hands. I think the the former is a huge mistake, and the latter is unrealistic.[/quote]
I welcome all public comment; have invited citizens to submit comments to city staff/consultants, and have facilitated public engagement in every way I know how. However, personal attacks, mudslinging, and attempts to interfere with process is inappropriate IMO. With all due respect Matt, you have not been on the receiving end of a lot of the nonsense, much of it behind the scenes as well as at WAC meetings…
ERM: I am disappointed with your comments. You are the Chair of the WAC, and your postings show a clear bias for the JPA option. Now, you were the one over and over posting last fall about the $50 M for delay, sky is falling, train leaving the station, and you were the first to volunteer and interject yourself into the WAC process. The JPA got itself an advocate in your appointment.
Second, you have a thin skin. I think David G’s articles on water have been bery fair and balanced, and even a bit too much in favor of policies that I think might not be in the best interests of Davis, but I dont remember any posting that have any sort of attack flavor against you, or the WAC. Your slamming him down is not factually justified, and it makes you appear … thin skinned and insecure.
Just my two cents worth.
[i]You have chosen the one graph that most minimizes the impact of the rate increases.
[/i]
I use the graph that more directly reflects what people will experience. Today’s dollars compared to today’s dollars. If I compared the price of gas in 1976 to what I pay today, the difference would seem pretty dramatic. Until you remember that minimum wage then was 2.75 an hour.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”In today’s dollars the rates do not triple. I think it’s important to repeat that.
The difference between the options as to the effect on monthly rates is less than ten dollars, and within 13 years there is no difference.
Ultimately, Woodland vs. West Sac is a wash in terms of rate increase.
The delayed financing is an advantage to present residents, at the expense of future residents. It is a means of kicking the rate increases down the road by a decade.”[/i]
Don, adding the words “In today’s dollars” changes the substance of what David said in his article. Changing the point of comparison to be Woodland vs. West Sac as you (and Elaine) have done is also changing the substance of what David said. He compared today’s rates to the increased rates . . . only that.
[quote]Elaine, as Matt’s post suggests I think you have misconstrued a lot of my comments. I will give you an example. I came away impressed with the work done by Alf, Frank, and Bill Kopper. Is that who would have guessed when you made the comment that you can see who my favorites are. I don’t think you know nearly as much on where I stand as you think.[/quote]
IMO, the personal attacks that have occurred on the Vanguard have been unseemly. SODA would prefer I not respond; others in the community are very glad I do and regularly complement me for speaking out. Some have said they refuse to read the Vanguard because it makes them too upset…
E Roberts Musser said . . .
“I welcome all public comment; have invited citizens to submit comments to city staff/consultants, and have facilitated public engagement in every way I know how. However, personal attacks, mudslinging, and attempts to interfere with process is inappropriate IMO. With all due respect Matt, you have not been on the receiving end of a lot of the nonsense, much of it behind the scenes as well as at WAC meetings…”
As you know I am not oblivious to the pointed commentary that you have received. My strong suggestion to you is to turn the other cheek.
[i]He compared today’s rates to the increased rates . . . only that.
[/i]
And in so doing, David misrepresents the impact and the actual cost increase. What do you think a gallon of gas will cost in fifteen years?
[quote]Moreover, since this has been repeated so many times as a clear political prognostication, stated as absolute fact by David Greenwald and Mike Harrington over and over and over, please tell us what rate increase is not doomed to defeat? 2.5 times? 2 times? Any increase?[/quote]
Thank you for pointing out the obvious Don!
[quote]Elaine, you can go back and copy and paste what David said, and when I read it again (if you do paste it), I will again not see it as a threat. I read it then, and I read it now as an observation of a political reality. An accurate observation IMHO.[/quote]
We’ll have to agree to disagree… 😉
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I use the graph that more directly reflects what people will experience. Today’s dollars compared to today’s dollars. If I compared the price of gas in 1976 to what I pay today, the difference would seem pretty dramatic. Until you remember that minimum wage then was 2.75 an hour.”[/i]
Don, if we were in a robust economy where real earnings were expected to rise like real earnings have in the period from 1974 to 2012, then I would agree with you. However, I fully expect real earnings to at best be level in Davis for the next 36 months, if not longer. Therefore a today’s dollar comparison ignores the personal economic political realities on the ground today.
JMHO
[quote]Here we go again. With all due respect Elaine and in thx for your work on the WAC, these posts only sour the good work that has been done. Suggest you not engage as your role of the chair I think makes you very sensitive.[/quote]
And allow misinformation to sit out there unanswered?
“SODA would prefer I not respond; others in the community are very glad I do and regularly complement me for speaking out. Some have said they refuse to read the Vanguard because it makes them too upset… “
Elaine SODA would prefer the posts not disintegrate into back and forth without substance and personal attacks. For those of us not involved, it is tedious at best, and as I said, does not portray you in the best ‘chair like’ light.
I think you and especially Matt ( with his summaries) have been very helpful on the DV to answer questions and correct misinformation ad you two have more info than the rest of us. To that end, perhaps you could answer my question posed early in the posts today?
As we have moved over the last year of so toward a decision by the city council about the Woodland-Davis option that is the current city alternative, we have had some ‘macro’ questions to deal with. The WAC has steadily dispatched those.
Can we continue to use the wells for an extended period of time? No.
Is there a cheaper option, such as buying water from West Sac?
If so, how much cheaper is it, and over what time period?
The same individuals who have opposed the Woodland-Davis project from the start have told us that we can use the wells, that we can finesse the regulatory issues, that we can save money by going to West Sacramento and buying it from them.
It is my opinion that they have been wrong on every one of those issues.
Continuing to use our current water supply is not an option.
We have two choices: rent or buy. In the long run, those options cost about the same.
So it isn’t quibbling to insist on using present dollars for comparison, because it is clear that those same individuals who oppose the Woodland-Davis project [i]under any circumstances[/i] will clearly choose to use any argument against it. Thus they need to be accurate, and when they are not accurate we need to correct their misinformation.
[i] I fully expect real earnings to at best be level in Davis for the next 36 months, if not longer.
[/i]
Seriously, Matt, we are talking about a project that will be paid for over the next three decades, not the next three years. And note that I am using the consultant’s present-dollar comparison. If you disagree with the consultant’s projections, please provide the basis for that disagreement.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”And in so doing, David misrepresents the impact and the actual cost increase. [b]What do you think a gallon of gas will cost in fifteen years?[/b]”[/i]
That is a meaningless question in this context for a number of reasons. First, we as citizens do not have any input into what the cost of a gallon of gas will cost. Second, even if the price of gas triples as well, if incomes do not triple, then both gas and water will be much less affordable in real terms, wich puts us hard on the realities of a cliche . . . two wrongs don’t make a right.
The meaningful comparison is of the cost rise to the income rise.
To clarify, then: you believe all comparisons of cost should be in unadjusted dollars? Or do you have some formula other than what the consultant provided that includes your comparison of cost rise to income rise?
Don, my position is that there is no Silver Bullet. As I said to you in the post above, if we were in a period of relative prosperity a today’s dollars analysis would make sense. In our current period of non-prosperity, the analysis needs to be a convergence of multiple methodologies . . . especially since we do not have a homogenous community where all the residents’ situations are similar.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”And allow misinformation to sit out there unanswered?”[/i]
Elaine, it is my opinion that is is your opinion (position) that what was posted was misinformation.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”We’ll have to agree to disagree… 😉 “[/i]
I can agree to that.
So, when someone asks you “how much are the rates going to increase?” what are you going to say?
If someone says “I hear the rates are going to triple!” — what are you going to say?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Seriously, Matt, we are talking about a project that will be paid for over the next three decades, not the next three years. And note that I am using the consultant’s present-dollar comparison. If you disagree with the consultant’s projections, please provide the basis for that disagreement.”[/i]
But Don, the point David made in his article was not restricted to the whole payment life of the project. He was clearly making a point about the immediate impact of rate increases. His wasn’t a fiscal argument but a sociological or socioeconomic one. What you appear to be doing is taking the position that a sociological argument or a socioeconomic one is invalid. I don’t agree with you.
With that said, as I pointed out to David early on in this thread, he needs to attach a time frame to his use of the word “tripling.”
David said: “Last week, following the meeting, the Vanguard expressed concern that the seemingly-favored main Woodland option [b]would increase water rates threefold by 2020.[/b]”
Here’s what the water rates do in [b]actual dollars[/b] by 2020:
[img] http://davismerchants.org/water/waterbillcomparison1.png%5B/img%5D
Here’s what the water rates do in [b]present dollars[/b] by 2020:
[img] http://davismerchants.org/water/waterbillcomparison2.png%5B/img%5D
Is there anything on either of those graphs that shows a three-fold increase by 2020?
Was David’s statement correct?
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”So, when someone asks you “how much are the rates going to increase?” what are you going to say?
If someone says “I hear the rates are going to triple!” — what are you going to say? “[/i]
In the first case I would say “It is too early to tell.” In the second case there is actually very little chance that I am going to say anything. I would more than likely ask a whole lot of questions like, “From what value to what value?” and “What is the relativity of the current rates?” and “What is the trend of comparative rates likely to be over the same time period?” and “What are the macroeconomic factors that are affecting the playing field?” and “Are we going to take out a mortgage or pay a substantial portion up front?”
[quote]Elaine SODA would prefer the posts not disintegrate into back and forth without substance and personal attacks. For those of us not involved, it is tedious at best, and as I said, does not portray you in the best ‘chair like’ light.
I think you and especially Matt ( with his summaries) have been very helpful on the DV to answer questions and correct misinformation ad you two have more info than the rest of us. To that end, perhaps you could answer my question posed early in the posts today?[/quote]
I assume you are referring to this post of yours?
[quote]Good article David. As has been stated by some posters here and I agree from what I have gathered, the staff is fairly firmly on the side of the JPA, agree? If so who will be presenting and hopefully negotiating with West Sac? And who will be negotiating the 2 or 3 stipulations with Woodland. Is it now for the CC to do that or direct staff and WAC is done with that part?[/quote]
I disagree of your characterization that “staff is fairly firmly on the side of the JPA”. Let me explain why I say that. Earlier on in the process, staff worked very hard on getting the information for the West Sac option, once it became known it was an alternative back on the table for serious consideration. All of us (including staff) were excited that the West Sac option could be a real viable possibility, with a cost considerably cheaper.
But as always, the devil is in the details. More and more information came flowing in; more and more questions were asked; more and more independent experts came forward. As time went on, it was clear the West Sac option had some real underlying problems: we would only be a customer, no ozonation, 4-6 year CEQA/EIR review to obtain permits, etc. But again, it is also a matter of costs to be factored in as well. But West Sac doesn’t want to show their hand until Davis is willing to put an offer on the table.
My assumption is that both Mayor Joe Krovoza and Council member Brett Lee will be reaching out to West Sac with an offer, assuming the City Council accepts the WAC’s recommendation, which still remains to be seen. It is less clear to me who would be negotiating with regard to the Woodland stipulations, assuming the City Council agrees with the WAC’s recommendation. This is really in the hands of the City Council now…
I assume these were the questions you were referring to and that answers those questions?
Don, you are reaching out to add your own qualifications to David’s words, which were simply, [i]”The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated.”[/i] All he is doing is posing a hypothetical situation . . . one that is supported by the Bartle Wells material distributed to the WAC in their 8/16 packet [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/Agendas/20120816/Supplemental-Documents/Summary-of-Estimated-SFR-Water-Rate-Differences.pdf[/url]. That material says;
DAVIS’ PROJECTED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RATES Under Proposed Inclining Tier Rate Structure
Current $/Month $34.00
2027-28 1/1/2028 $91.54 or $106.95 or $104.97 or $95.34
Source: Compiled by Bartle Wells Associates
Thank you Elaine!
[quote]E Roberts Musser said . . .
“And allow misinformation to sit out there unanswered?”
Elaine, it is my opinion that is is your opinion (position) that what was posted was misinformation. [/quote]
Yes, it is my position that this – “…the Vanguard expressed concern that the seemingly-favored main Woodland option [i][b]would[/b][/i] increase water rates [u][b]threefold[/b][/u] [b]by 2020[/b]” – is misinformation. And I do not intend that this misinformation sit out there unchallenged…
Don Shor: “[i]The same individuals who have opposed the Woodland-Davis project from the start have told us that we can use the wells, that we can finesse the regulatory issues, that we can save significant amounts of money by going to West Sacramento and buying it from them.
It is my opinion that they have been wrong on every one of those issues.[/i]”
I agree completely.
I fail to see the big issue here. From this chart [url]images/stories/WAC-2.png[/url] it appears that the rates go from $34 to $89, which is nearly tripling. It was meant to make a political assessment not to be a mathematical analysis – obviously Elaine thought strongly enough about it to preclude it through her friendly amendment.
In fairness David, a ratio of 2.6 is quite a bit short of tripling.
That’s fine but most people are going to see it as $30 to almost $90. That’s why I emphasize that this was a political point. A point that Dunning is already making. A point I’m sure that the referendum folks will make as well.
[quote]Don, you are reaching out to add your own qualifications to David’s words, which were simply, “The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated.” All he is doing is posing a hypothetical situation . . . one that is supported by the Bartle Wells material distributed to the WAC in their 8/16 packet http://city-council.cityofdavi…rences.pdf. That material says;
DAVIS’ PROJECTED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RATES Under Proposed Inclining Tier Rate Structure
Current $/Month $34.00
2027-28 1/1/2028 $91.54 or $106.95 or $104.97 or $95.34
Source: Compiled by Bartle Wells Associates[/quote]
Matt, I really don’t understand the distinctions you are drawing here. Let me explain where I am coming from:
1) David’s statement was: “[b]…Woodland option would increase water rates threefold by 2020.[/b]” In [b]current[/b] dollars, the graphs only show a rate increase from $34 in 2013 to $89 in 2020, which is only a [b]2.6 fold increase[/b] [u][i]at worse[/i][/u], assuming we don’t take into account deferred costs via financing methods, which would reduce the rate costs from $89 to $70 in 2020, which is only a [i][u][b]twofold[/b][/u][/i] increase.
2) For a period of time, 2026 to 2033, the West Sac option is actually more expensive than the Woodland option, according to the current and NPV cost graphs.
3) If deferred costs via financing methods are used, it smooths out rate spiking, and until 2025 makes the rates to customers for the two projects virtually the same.
4) The rates are going to have to go up significantly no matter what Davis does, including doing nothing. The SWRCB has made it clear that if the city were to choose to do nothing, the city could get fined as much as the savings they are realizing by doing no project.
So I would reiterate Don’s question: “Is there anything on either of those graphs that shows a three-fold increase by 2020? Was David’s statement correct?”
[quote]Thank you Elaine![/quote]
Sorry your question got lost in all the back and forth 😉
Matt: “[i]It is worthwhile noting IMHO that we got into the current mess in 2011 in large part because the Davis citizenry was not paying attention to the public meetings that were being conducted and Staff documents that were being produced.[/i]”
I have to disagree with you Matt. I believe most of the citizens of Davis are willing to let their elected officials make these complicated decisions on our behalf. That is why we elected them in the first place after all. In this case what our elected officials decided was a pretty good solution (not perfect by any means) that addressed all the issues with water that we were facing. Had nothing changed we would be on our way to having a secure source of high quality water at a reasonable cost(reasonable: similar in cost to that found in surrounding communities) in perpetuity. We even had the required 218 process that approved the rate increases.
What changed was that a group of individuals used false statements, scare tactics, and personal attacks to gin up opposition to the project.
The end result was the WAC process that has given us a ‘best option’ that is essentially just a smaller version of the original plan, and a ‘secondary option’ that is no cheaper, contains much more risk, and only addresses the problem for a finite period of time, leaving solving the problem to future generations. In the process we have reneged on our agreements, insulted the citizens and civic leaders of our neighboring communities, and returned to the era of politics of divisive personal attacks that we were all so happy to put behind us just a few years ago. Now on top of all that, we expect others (the citizens of West Sac or Woodland) to help pay the higher costs brought about from our dithering.
In my opinion, we got into this mess due to the unrelenting whining of a few change averse individuals, and we are not better off for it.
[quote]I fail to see the big issue here. From this chart images/stories/WAC-2.png it appears that the rates go from $34 to $89, which is nearly tripling. It was meant to make a political assessment not to be a mathematical analysis – obviously Elaine thought strongly enough about it to preclude it through her friendly amendment.[/quote]
[quote]That’s fine but most people are going to see it as $30 to almost $90. That’s why I emphasize that this was a political point. A point that Dunning is already making. A point I’m sure that the referendum folks will make as well.[/quote]
1) Most people are going to see it as $35 to almost $90, which is 2.6 fold. To repeat “nearly tripling” is again publishing misinformation yet again.
2) I did not “preclude” anything in my friendly amendment. I added consideration of the cost deferred via financial methods option for both projects. The cost deferred option is a more costly option in the long run, but because of inflation, helps lower payments in the beginning when the payments hit the hardest and makes them more palatable when inflation makes payments relatively less painful – much as mortgage payments are easier to handle if stretched out to 30 years, even tho a 30 year mortgage is more costly than a 15 year mortgage.
3) I would hope the referendum folks will not put out misinformation.
[i]”That’s fine but most people are going to see it as $30 to almost $90. That’s why I emphasize that this was a political point. A point that Dunning is already making. A point I’m sure that the referendum folks will make as well.”[/i]
And they will all be incorrect. Maybe next time, you can make that point as well.
The key point here is that going from $35 to $90 is a huge increase. I think we are quibbling on fine detailS here. If the increase is that drastic over that period of time, this goes down to defeat IMO. If you disagree, then put those rates on the ballot and we’ll see
So, I will ask the question again. What rate of increase do you think will pass?
E Roberts Musser said . . .
“Matt, I really don’t understand the distinctions you are drawing here. Let me explain where I am coming from:”
Elaine, you are changing horses in mid stream. Look at the comment that you took exception to . . . and I quote:
[quote]E Roberts Musser
08/18/12 – 10:58 AM
…
[quote]The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated. Matt Williams a few weeks ago talked about constituencies in opposition, but we think the danger here is less about any one issue but enough combinations of objectionable factors.[/quote]
Where is the Vanguard getting its figures for “triple the rates”? What specific source? Did the Vanguard take a critical look at the difference in cost to the ratepayer between the two projects (Woodland versus West Sac)? Using rate smoothing techniques with costs deferred via financing methods, the charts show a maximum difference between the two projects to the ratepayer of $8.21. And that doesn’t even include the possibility of reducing rate costs if we can get Woodland to pay for half the pipeline.[/quote]
So David’s statement that you objected to was not: “…Woodland option would increase water rates threefold by 2020.” That is the distinction I am making.
I fail to understand the distinction or even the point you are making now, Matt.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”The end result was the WAC process that has given us a [b]’best option’ that is essentially just a smaller version of the original plan[/b], and a ‘secondary option’ that is no cheaper, contains much more risk, and only addresses the problem for a finite period of time, leaving solving the problem to future generations.”[/i]
Mark, you say your bolded words as if a smaller plant is a bad thing. If we were never going to use the capacity over 12 mgd ever in the life of Davis due to continuing trends in population growth and water use efficiency, then what is your logical reason for spending the millions of dollars it would cost to build that unused capacity?
Matt, I’m not sure I’m following either.
12 mgd is our current usage.
As I read Matt’s comment again the statement I was making was not about the tripling of the rates but rather about a scenario whereby the ballot measure would fall in defeat. As such the focus is on the wrong half of the statement
[quote]The key point here is that going from $35 to $90 is a huge increase. I think we are quibbling on fine detailS here. If the increase is that drastic over that period of time, this goes down to defeat IMO. If you disagree, then put those rates on the ballot and we’ll see[/quote]
1) The rate increases can be smoothed out with deferred costs via financing methods so that the increase is twofold, from $34 to $70.
2) If we can get Woodland to pay for part of the pipeline, it is possible the costs will be even further reduced.
3) The West Sac option is almost as costly as the Woodland option.
4) No project will be just as costly according to the SWRCB.
5) And yes, this will be put on a ballot for citizens to vote on. The voters will have to decide if they want to pay for a project (either Woodland or West Sac) and get the benefit of it, or not pay for any project and pay for it as if there had been a project built but get nothing for it in return. Seems to me that will be a no brainer for voters…
Elaine, I clearly began the statement “if the increase is that drastic…”. Clearly, your comment A. changes that qualifier and renders the comment null and void. But again that’s why I your friendly amendment was so crucial
To dmg: Why bother saying “if the increase is that drastic (tripling)” if it isn’t so?
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Now on top of all that, we expect others (the citizens of West Sac or Woodland) to help pay the higher costs brought about from our dithering.”[/i]
Mark, it is important to note that not only has Davis used this “pause” to reduce its water demand down to 12 mgd, but that Woodland has also reduced its water demand down from 21.6 mgd to 18 mgd. All through the history the proportions have evolved as noted in [url]http://archive.cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-02-23-item8-presentation-ucd-role-in-project.pdf[/url]
Formal agreements reflect evolving participation
Date____________UC Davis Share__25%
July 2000_______11,000__________33%
November 2003_11,000__________20%
June 2005_______7,000___________20%
October 2007___2,000___________3.5%
February 2012___2,000___________4.5%
Each time UCD’s participation change they shifted water from UC Davis to City of Woodland increasing Woodland’s share.
This latest shift of the proportions to 18-12, simply gets handled in the same way all the other shifts have been handled.
Because it was laying the groundwork for therest of the story: the Kopper-Loge-Brandt-Musser compromise
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”So, I will ask the question again. What rate of increase do you think will pass?”[/i]
I respectfully disagree with the simplicity of that question. You need to introduce the element of time into the equation. What rate of increase over what time period do you think will pass? is the question I would ask.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”1) The rate increases can be smoothed out with deferred costs via financing methods so that the increase is twofold, from $34 to $70.
2) If we can get Woodland to pay for part of the pipeline, it is possible the costs will be even further reduced.
3) The West Sac option is almost as costly as the Woodland option.
4) No project will be just as costly according to the SWRCB.
5) And yes, this will be put on a ballot for citizens to vote on. The voters will have to decide if they want to pay for a project (either Woodland or West Sac) and get the benefit of it, or not pay for any project and pay for it as if there had been a project built but get nothing for it in return. Seems to me that will be a no brainer for voters…”[/i]
Elaine, all of the points you make are technical or qualification points. David was making a sociopolitical point.
[quote]I respectfully disagree with the simplicity of that question. You need to introduce the element of time into the equation. What rate of increase over what time period do you think will pass? is the question I would ask.[/quote]
And what would be your answer?
Elaine, my answer would be a question. “What time period do you want to think is germane to the typical voter’s decision process?”
[quote]Mark, it is important to note that not only has Davis used this “pause” to reduce its water demand down to 12 mgd, but that Woodland has also reduced its water demand down from 21.6 mgd to 18 mgd. All through the history the proportions have evolved as noted in http://archive.cityofdavis.org…roject.pdf [/quote]
Matt, doesn’t this smaller capacity plant also reduce the cost for Woodland ratepayers, or am I incorrect on that?
E Roberts Musser said . . .
To dmg: Why bother saying “if the increase is that drastic (tripling)” if it isn’t so?
But Elaine it is so if you use the August 16th WAC package information provided by Bartle Wells. [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/Agendas/20120816/Supplemental-Documents/Summary-of-Estimated-SFR-Water-Rate-Differences.pdf[/url]
Current Rate = $34.00 WDCWA Option A (delayed financing) final period rate = $106.95 Multiplier = 3.14 times
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Matt, doesn’t this smaller capacity plant also reduce the cost for Woodland ratepayers, or am I incorrect on that?”[/i]
Yes it does.
[quote]Elaine, my answer would be a question. “What time period do you want to think is germane to the typical voter’s decision process?”[/quote]
What time period to you think is germane to the typical voter’s decision process?
[quote]But Elaine it is so if you use the August 16th WAC package information provided by Bartle Wells. http://city-council.cityofdavi…rences.pdf
Current Rate = $34.00 WDCWA Option A (delayed financing) final period rate = $106.95 Multiplier = 3.14 times[/quote]
David referred to the year 2020, not 2028. He specifically seemed to be concerned about the first five years and said so repeatedly. In fact he is now turning around and lauding the very option which would result in what he is claiming out to the year 2020 would triple rates if current dollars are assumed. Secondly that is current dollar values, and not NPV.
I am completely baffled why you would want to support David’s contention that water rates will be threefold in the year 2020, when clearly that is not true.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”I fail to understand the distinction or even the point you are making now, Matt.”[/i]
Elaine very clearly made the specific objection to David’s statement “[b]The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated.” [/b] David was in that statement simply putting forward a scenario and then making a socioeconomic that said in his opinion tripling was above the upper limit of the willingness of the city’s voters to accept. It is a very simple scenario statement.
Elaine’s response was “[i]Where is the Vanguard getting its figures for “triple the rates”? What specific source?”[/i] which is meaningless to the socioeconomic/political point that David was making. Scenario Analyses by definition test the outer bounds of the possible, as well as other points between the outer bounds. Elaine was in effect saying that David had no right to put forward the scenario he put forward. I strongly disagree.
Is my point clearer now.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”What time period to you think is germane to the typical voter’s decision process?”[/i]
The answer to that question depends on the socioeconomic status of the individual voter. For the people David appears to be most concerned about the time period is probably no more than three years, with some possibly being as high as 5 years. Based on his comments Don Shor’s time period of concern appears to be 30 years. Mark West’s is probably close to Don, as are most of my El Macero neighbors in all likelihood. Since I am deep into the details of rate design at this point, my own answer is “It depends.”
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”David referred to the year 2020, not 2028.
I am completely baffled why you would want to support David’s contention that water rates will be threefold in the year 2020, when clearly that is not true.”[/i]
Elaine, where in his words [b]”The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated.”[/b] which are the words you took exception to, does David either 1) mention 2020, or 2) state that tripling was a factual reality?
Said another way Elaine, I simply see David as doing due diligence with the scenario analysis belief that he posed. Do you have a problem with due diligence?
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”As I read Matt’s comment again the statement I was making was not about the tripling of the rates but rather about a scenario whereby the ballot measure would fall in defeat. As such the focus is on the wrong half of the statement.”[/i]
Bingo
To Matt: [quote]Woodland project, [b]that triples the rates[/b][/quote] is a clear statement the Woodland project triples the rates – to the average reader. The distinction you are trying to draw in defending David is a truly nuanced one that neither David nor Don understood, so I don’t think the public would either.
One of the reasons it is even more misleading is that it happens only in a single year, whereas the way David worded it, it sounds like now and forever.
Furthermore, it is the deferred costs via financing methods Woodland option that David prefers over the less expensive Woodland option, or so it would appear from his words.
Frankly, I think you are defending the indefensible. So again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one 😉
David has not stated his personal preference
[quote]David has not stated his personal preference[/quote]
You said you wanted to reduce the rate spiking, right?
I made a political calculation that the measure would be more likely to pass under those conditions.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Frankly, I think you are defending the indefensible. So again, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one ;-)”[/i]
Agreed, and in the process you are clearly against doing due diligence and I am for it.
Matt: “[i]Said another way Elaine, I simply see David as doing due diligence with the scenario analysis belief that he posed. Do you have a problem with due diligence?[/i]”
You lost me here, sorry. David said that with a 3x rate increase the woodland project would not pass. How is that ‘due diligence?’ The comment is incorrect (not 3x, though not an unreasonable approximation if he had just qualified the statement) and ignores the fact that the West Sac project is just as expensive in the short term as I don’t think the real dollar difference is significant. As Elaine continues to point out, and you and David continue to ignore, the fines resulting from ‘no project’ will also result in costs to rate payers on the same order of magnitude.
The 3x comment is therefore both inaccurate, and incomplete, because it assumes that there is an option that is significantly different.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”You lost me here, sorry. David said that with a 3x rate increase the woodland project would not pass. How is that ‘due diligence?’ The comment is incorrect (not 3x, though not an unreasonable approximation if he had just qualified the statement)”[/i]
You have made my argument for me in your statement above. The scenario analysis of potential ballot outcomes, which is what David was describing has as a reasonable upper bound the scenario that David describes. I too pointed out to him that he was absent the dimension of time, and I’m sure we could come up with other qualifiers as well.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”. . . and ignores the fact that the West Sac project is just as expensive in the short term as I don’t think the real dollar difference is significant.”[/i]
But where did David make any assertion, or imply any assertion that a West Sac alternative that tripled the rates would fare any better in the ballot than a Woodland alternative. He wasn’t comparing alternatives he was running a scenario analysis of potential ballot outcomes. So nothing was ignored.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”As Elaine continues to point out, and you and David continue to ignore, the fines resulting from ‘no project’ will also result in costs to rate payers on the same order of magnitude.”[/i]
Nothing is being ignored at all because David’s statement makes no comparison between alternatives, and the “no project” is an alternative.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”The 3x comment is therefore both inaccurate, and incomplete, because it assumes that there is an option that is significantly different.”[/i]
Voting outcome scenarios are neither accurate nor innaccurate, they are only hypotheticals for the purpose of setting the upper (and lower) bounds of a likely successful election outcome. That for me was the point that david was trying to get at . . . and in fact Don’s questions of would it pass at 2.5x or 2x was spot on IMHO. David simply hasn’t answered that question.
Matt: “Voting outcome scenarios are neither accurate nor innaccurate, they are only hypotheticals for the purpose of setting the upper (and lower) bounds of a likely successful election outcome.”
Sorry Matt, the scenario was laid out incompletely therefore it is nonsense. It is not a question of voting for a project that is 2x or 3x more expensive than what our costs are right now, it should be compared to what our costs will be if we don’t do the project. In this case if we sit still and do nothing our costs will rise 2x-3x from where they are now. So the honest scenario as you put it would ask what incremental costs over and above ‘no project’ are we willing to pay for?
Matt Williams: “[i]Mark, you say your bolded words as if a smaller plant is a bad thing. If we were never going to use the capacity over 12 mgd ever in the life of Davis due to continuing trends in population growth and water use efficiency, then what is your logical reason for spending the millions of dollars it would cost to build that unused capacity?[/i]”
Public works projects are paid for over generations, therefore they should be built to a size to account for the reasonable expectation of the needs of the next few generations. In other words, if we are going to pay for it over 50 years, then it should be built for the needs of those who will be here 50 years from now. The project that we are discussing now addresses our needs today, but I don’t see how you can say it is a better project over the expected lifetime. Smaller yes, not necessarily better.
I have not seen a direct comparison between the costs to ratepayers from the original project, to what we are discussing today. Now that we have added at least a two year delay in collecting those higher rates, the ramp up will have to be even greater than before. I don’t know that there really is a significant savings that can be claimed from your ‘pause.’ And to clarify Matt, if the difference is not more than a couple of Lattes a month then it really isn’t significant in a real world scale.
David Greenwald: “[i]David has not stated his personal preference[/i]”
Perhaps not, but to my recollection most of your complaints about costs have been directed at the Woodland project, and you have previously advocated for the West Sac option due to expected costs. I don’t think anyone has made an unreasonable assumption – even if the assumption is ultimately wrong.
Mark West said . . .
“Sorry Matt, the scenario was laid out incompletely therefore it is nonsense. It is not a question of voting for a project that is 2x or 3x more expensive than what our costs are right now, it should be compared to what our costs will be if we don’t do the project. In this case if we sit still and do nothing our costs will rise 2x-3x from where they are now. So the honest scenario as you put it would ask what incremental costs over and above ‘no project’ are we willing to pay for?”
The scenario was not laid out incompletely, only simply. David’s scenario begged a simple question, “Will Davis voters approve or vote down a water project (of any name/label) that triples their water bills and is perceived as privatized?” I would venture to say that no matter whether you fill the name/label with Woodland, West Sac or Groundwater, the answer to that question will be the same . . . they would vote it down.
Why do you insist on restating his straightforward premise into a comparison of alternatives? Why in a prediction of voter outcome is a comparison meaningful? Do you expect the voters to have a choice between alternatives when they step into the voting booth? I don’t. That selection will happen long before election day.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”I have not seen a direct comparison between the costs to ratepayers from the original project, to what we are discussing today. Now that we have added at least a two year delay in collecting those higher rates, the ramp up will have to be even greater than before. I don’t know that there really is a significant savings that can be claimed from your ‘pause.’ And to clarify Matt, if the difference is not more than a couple of Lattes a month then it really isn’t significant in a real world scale.”[/i]
Here too you are steering the conversation to a comparison of the alternatives. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is a very different discussion than one about a forecasting of a specific voting day outcome.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Public works projects are paid for over generations, therefore they should be built to a size to account for the reasonable expectation of the needs of the next few generations. In other words, if we are going to pay for it over 50 years, then it should be built for the needs of those who will be here 50 years from now. The project that we are discussing now addresses our needs today, but I don’t see how you can say it is a better project over the expected lifetime. Smaller yes, not necessarily better.”[/i]
I completely agree, and a 12 mgd plant supports Davis until between 2040 and 2050 with a population growth of 1% per year (the current maximum Cap) and no incremental water conservation past 2020. If you reduce the population growth to a more reasonable 0.5% and project reasonable incremental water conservation to continue past the 2020 134 gpcd target, then a 10 mgd plant last s Davis forever. I will be glad to review the spreadsheet models with you if you desire.
So a 12 mgd plant does everything you are looking to do.
[i]”The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated.”[/i]
Ok, David, what do you suggest? These alternatives have been under discussion for months and months. It’s a stretch of credibility that you’re still completely undecided about this. If the voters will oppose any project that leads to a significant increase in water rates, and if doing nothing will also lead to a significant increase in water rates, then what do you personally propose?
[i]”If you reduce the population growth to a more reasonable 0.5% …”
[/i]
Where are the 5000 more students going to get their water?
“Do you expect the voters to have a choice between alternatives when they step into the voting booth?”
Yes, project A and Not project A. If the financial consequences are honestly portrayed, then the choice will be between the cost of the project and the cost of not doing the project. The baseline will be changing from our current rates regardless, so the real question [b]should be[/b] the difference in costs between yes and no, not the absolute cost of the project alone. This is only hard to understand if you refuse to acknowledge that we will be fined if we don’t fix the quality of our source water. That is the part that I believe you and David are being dishonest about in this discussion.
[quote]Agreed, and in the process you are clearly against doing due diligence and I am for it.[/quote]
I lost you here. Where in what I said did I ever suggest I was against doing due diligence?
The following sums up nicely why I believe David is being quite disingenuous in his analysis:
[quote]Ok, David, what do you suggest? These alternatives have been under discussion for months and months. It’s a stretch of credibility that you’re still completely undecided about this. If the voters will oppose any project that leads to a significant increase in water rates, and if doing nothing will also lead to a significant increase in water rates, then what do you personally propose?[/quote]
[quote]Yes, project A and Not project A. If the financial consequences are honestly portrayed, then the choice will be between the cost of the project and the cost of not doing the project. The baseline will be changing from our current rates regardless, so the real question should be the difference in costs between yes and no, not the absolute cost of the project alone. This is only hard to understand if you refuse to acknowledge that we will be fined if we don’t fix the quality of our source water. That is the part that I believe you and David are being dishonest about in this discussion.[/quote]
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Yes, project A and Not project A.”[/i]
Mark, that is not a choice between two (or more) alternatives. That is a choice about the fate of one alternative. The former choice would involve more than one letter after the word project. The latter, as you have very clearly laid out only involves a single letter.
At this point if one looks at the Bartle Wells documentation provided to the WAC as part of its 8/16 packet [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/Agendas/20120816/Supplemental-Documents/Summary-of-Estimated-SFR-Water-Rate-Differences.pdf[/url] there are four alternatives still in the running;
Alternative 1 = WDCWA Option A
Alternative 2 = WDCWA Option A (delayed financing)
Alternative 3 = WDCWA Option B (delayed participation)
Alternative 4 = West Sacramento Alternative
Do you actually expect to be walking into the voting booth and find yourself choosing between more than one of those alternatives? This isn’t going to be like an elected office where we have candidates. It is going to be a simple thumbs up or thumbs down vote about one of those four alternatives.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”If the financial consequences are honestly portrayed, then the choice will be between the cost of the project and the cost of not doing the project. The baseline will be changing from our current rates regardless, so the real question should be the difference in costs between yes and no, not the absolute cost of the project alone. This is only hard to understand if you refuse to acknowledge that we will be fined if we don’t fix the quality of our source water. That is the part that I believe you and David are being dishonest about in this discussion.”[/i]
I don’t disagree with you, but the point David is making is that when the voters walk into the voting booth, no matter how well the risk of possible fines is spelled out, for many of the voters they will be choosing between A) absolutely real personal cost increases and B) possible cost increases based on best guess projections. It will be a classic “bird in the hand vs. two in the bush” situation. They will know the consequence for A). That will be clearly, explicitly spelled out. They will not know the consequence for B) with anything near as much precision. David is simply saying that when the cost of A) gets to the point of tripling the current $34, then regardless of whether the thumbs up, thumbs down decision is about alternative 1, 2, 3 or 4, the certainty of the tripling will weigh heavier than the possibility of some future rates increase to set aside a reserve to pay for fines which are as yet of unknown magnitude. That is all he is saying, and I don’t think there is a dishonest thought in it.
Personally, I completely agree with your logic about the consequences, and I feel the risks of fines equal to or greater than the cost of the plant are very real. Further, if I were walking into a voting booth facing a rate structure that triples my water bill for the same amount of usage, I would almost surely vote “yes” with the full knowledge that if I want my water bill to go up by less than triple then I will need to reduce the amount of water I use. The onus will be on me to change my personal behavior. However, I and all my neighbors in El Macero are almost surely going to be denied the right to vote on this project, so that moment of personally walking into a voting booth to cast my ballot on this question is not an option that is available to me.
With all the above said, how I would personally vote is a very different question than how I think the collective populace of Davis will vote.
Matt: It is fundamentally dishonest to evaluate the costs of the different proposals without also including the costs of not doing the project. The important information is the additional costs over and above standing pat. The WAC has fallen down on the job if they have not asked for a rate assessment of no project as well. You could even ask for a best case/worst case range with the best case being the costs of maintaining our current wells + drilling new wells and the worst case including the anticipated fines.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”I lost you here. Where in what I said did I ever suggest I was against doing due diligence?” [/i]
You have said in clear, unequivocal terms that david does not have the right to do electoral forecasting due diligence. You have declared the voting booth choice that he has described in his scenario analysis as being sourceless, without basis, is misinformation, incorrect, not true, indefensible, and disingenuous. I think that is pretty clear evidence that you want to deny David the right to do his scenario analysis of projected voter behavior if the question he asks is not preapproved by you.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”To dmg: Why bother saying “if the increase is that drastic (tripling)” if it isn’t so?”[/i]
In every scenario analysis I have ever done there always are boundary scenarios that define the edges of the conundrum. David simply chose “tripling the rates” as his outer boundary scenario. Since all scenarios are projections of future events, none of them are “so” they all have an element of speculation. Can you tell me right now what the WAC’s rate recommendation is going to be? No you can not. Doug Dove’s numbers were simply his best guess. He doesn’t [u]know[/u] if those numbers are correct. Using your words above, “What are the sources of Doug’s rate numbers?” “What is the basis behind his numbers?” “Since there is an almost 100% chance that the final rates will be different than his numbers, aren’t his numbers misinformation?” “How do you [u]know[/u] that Doug’s numbers are correct?” “What are the chances that Doug’s rates are the true rates that will appear on the ballot?” “Are Doug’s rates defensible?” “Is it not disingenuous to make the statement right now that any rate schedule is the one that will be adopted?”
In effect we are all gazing into a crystal ball at this point in time. David simply put forward a hypothetical scenario, and asked us all to gaze into the ball for a moment.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Matt: It is fundamentally dishonest to evaluate the costs of the different proposals without also including the costs of not doing the project. The important information is the additional costs over and above standing pat. The WAC has fallen down on the job if they have not asked for a rate assessment of no project as well. You could even ask for a best case/worst case range with the best case being the costs of maintaining our current wells + drilling new wells and the worst case including the anticipated fines.”[/i]
mark, we currently have no way of knowing what our permit thresholds are going to be going forward. Absent those thresholds, exactly how do you propose that the fines be calculated? We can all speculate at this point, but until Davis’ new permit is issued all we can do is speculate . . . much like David was speculating about the outcome of a future event in his article.
You and I can individually come to the the reasoned conclusion (based on our speculation) that the fines are going to be substantial, and possibly even exceed the construction and O&M costs of the plant, but there is absolutely no way that either of us can [u]know[/u] what the fines are going to be . . . and no consultant on this Earth can [u]know[/u] the fine amounts any better than you and I can.
You propose including the worst case for the anticipated fines. Why is the worst case more correct than any other possible less-than-worse case?
Matt:
I suggested a range starting with the costs of simply maintaining our current system and drilling wells necessary to meet our expected needs moving forward. That is the simple baseline costs. There is no reason to believe that the new permit levels will be less stringent than our current ones, and it would be reasonable to assume that they will be on par with permits that have been adjusted more recently than ours. Fines can be estimated based on what has happened to other cities and statements from the water board. It won’t be perfect, but it will be much better than assuming that, because we are Davis, we will get away with no consequences of violating of the Clean Water Act.
It will also be much more honest than saying rates will go up 3x.
Mark, David’s question did not say that rates [u]would be going up[/u] 3x. His question said that IF rates went up 3x, here is what he saw as the likely consequence. Why is it so hard for you to put the if in your analysis of his point, and why are you focusing on the first part of the point rather than the second part?
Matt: At no point in any of the data that have been presented is a 3x increase expected so the analysis starts out with a false statement. If you compare to ‘no project’ where the rates also go up, then 3x increase is simply a ridiculous number to use. I am worn out by all the false statements being made by opponent and in my opinion, this is just another false statement being made by someone who has worked diligently to kill the project. It is not a hypothetical analysis, it is just another attempt to falsely attack the project, though in this instance by someone trying to maintain an air of being non-committed and impartial.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”There is no reason to believe that the new permit levels will be less stringent than our current ones,” [/i]
You and I agree 100% on this point. I too see no reason to believe otherwise. However, there are lots of other people who believe that because of the economic downturn, the SWRCB will be considerably more lenient in new permits than they have been. They point to recent lawsuits that have been decided in favor of the cities when they have argued that the SWRCB is creating economic hardship by setting stringent standards. I believe, as I thin you do that the SWRCB will continue to set more stringent standards, and let the individual jurisdictions sue them.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”and it would be reasonable to assume that they will be on par with permits that have been adjusted more recently than ours.”[/i]
Ahhhhh, I wish it were that easy. About 9 months ago I personally made the trek out to Ranch Cordova to try and do exactly what you are describing. When I got there I found much to my surprise that the SWECB does not have any of its permit data in a computer database. So in order to determine what the values are for permits that have been adjusted more recently than ours, one would have open lots and lots of four-drawer file cabinet drawers and root through lots of papers that are filed by jurisdiction, but then by date. So if you don’t know the date of a jurisdiction’s permit then it is a bit like a needle in a haystack process. Beyond belief I know, but unfortunately true.
Mark West said . . .
“Fines can be estimated based on what has happened to other cities and statements from the water board. It won’t be perfect, but it will be much better than assuming that, because we are Davis, we will get away with no consequences of violating of the Clean Water Act.”
Fine information is also not in a computer database, so the same process described above would have to be followed to try and gather and compile fine information.
Mark West said . . .
[i]”Matt: At no point in any of the data that have been presented is a 3x increase expected so the analysis starts out with a false statement”[/i]
Mark, unfortunately you are wrong. Please click on the following link[url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/Agendas/20120816/Supplemental-Documents/Summary-of-Estimated-SFR-Water-Rate-Differences.pdf[/url] The Bartle Wells document that comes up shows a current rate of $34.00 and a highest rate of $106.95 for WDCWA Option A (delayed financing), which is 3.14 times higher than the current rate.
Matt: I completely fail to understand why you are going through all this tortuous reasoning on David’s behalf when he could just speak for himself. As to your statement and elaborate explanation about Elaine being unwilling to do due diligence, your analysis and conclusion are ridiculous and insulting to her statements and motives.
“We are all gazing into a crystal ball” is a remarkable dismissal of the consultant’s work. He made projections based on reasonable assumptions.
It’s no wonder Mike Harrington hasn’t weighed in on this thread. You’re carrying his water for him. To repeat; there is no tripling of the rates. To say so is dishonest.
“It is fundamentally dishonest to evaluate the costs of the different proposals without also including the costs of not doing the project.”
Mark: I don’t understand what you are not getting here – I was not evaluating the costs. All I was doing was setting the stage for the next part of the story which was a discussion of the compromise.
Don: It would be like me stating at the beginning of the easy: “If the sidewalk is broken, here are a some safety tips” and you spending 50 comments arguing that the sidewalk is not broken which is of course not the point of the essay.
[i]Don: It would be like me stating at the beginning of the easy: “If the sidewalk is broken, here are a some safety tips” and you spending 50 comments arguing that the sidewalk is not broken which is of course not the point of the essay. [/i]
Unfortunately, most voters (and maybe blog readers) don’t care about the safety tips, so the article is useless except for the preamble. They only want to know if the sidewalk is broken, and so if the preamble to the discussion is essentially false, it renders the balance of the discussion useless, and in this case, stirs a lot of talk about something that is false.
The technique that David employs frequently in this space is common for debate competition and political campaign trial balloons. Make statements or arguments that indicate which indicate a preference or direction, then when rightly accused of being “in favor”, point out that you never actually said what you are accused of saying.
Very well said Adam. Very well said! I very frequently see the Vanguard as a debate space.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”Matt: I completely fail to understand why you are going through all this tortuous reasoning on David’s behalf when he could just speak for himself.”[/i]
Adam has explained why better than I was doing myself. I was not (am not) defending David, but rather questioning the desire of Elaine and you and Mark to quash the debate. Debate is a key component of due diligence. So when I said to Elaine that she appeared to be against due diligence, I should have been saying that it appeared that she was against debate. My bad.
[quote]Adam has explained why better than I was doing myself. I was not (am not) defending David, but rather questioning the desire of Elaine and you and Mark to quash the debate. Debate is a key component of due diligence. So when I said to Elaine that she appeared to be against due diligence, I should have been saying that it appeared that she was against debate. My bad. [/quote]
We are not trying to quash debate – we are trying to keep it [u][b]honest[/b][/u]. It is as simple as that. As Don has noted, your tortured logic in defending David is baffling…
Elaine: “We are not trying to quash debate – we are trying to keep it honest.”
Agreed!
So Mark and Elaine, are you saying that Doug Dove is not being honest in his 8/16 rates report to the WAC. The report in which he shows a 3.14x rate increase over the period he studied?
So that everyone can see it, here is an image of the 8/16 Bartle Wells report provided to the WAC as part of their 8/16 packet. [url]http://city-council.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/CityCouncil/Water-Advisory-Committee/Agendas/20120816/Supplemental-Documents/Summary-of-Estimated-SFR-Water-Rate-Differences.pdf[/url]
[img]http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h321/mwill47/BartleWells8-16-2012Report.jpg[/img]
Matt:
How many fold increase is acceptable is dependent upon the starting point, and will be different for different people.
For example, if I were told that my rates would be going up 10x next year, I would want to know two things, one, how much am I paying now, and two, what am I getting for the extra payment.
As a hypothetical, we can all agree that the appropriate response to a 10x increase would be to scream ‘Oh my god, this is bloody outrageous’ but in fact we would look pretty stupid doing so if the current payment was $1 per year. But even in the payment was jumping from $100 per year to $1000 per year it may well be worthwhile depending on what we are getting for that additional fee.
Looking solely at the fold increase, and thinking about how many fold will be acceptable is a totally worthless and dishonest discussion. This project is complex and there are a number of nuances that those who have looked at it closely all understand. It is not meaningful to talk about the fold increase, we should be talking about what we are getting for our money. For roughly the same amount, we can build our own processing plant and have a secure water source in perpetuity, we can choose to buy water from someone else assuming that all the water rights issues can be overcome and assuming that they want to continue to sell to us, or we can pay fines for not coming into compliance with the Clean Water Act. The question that we should all be considering is what is the best use of our money, not at what fold increase are we going to scream ‘oh my god.’
[quote]So Mark and Elaine, are you saying that Doug Dove is not being honest in his 8/16 rates report to the WAC. The report in which he shows a 3.14x rate increase over the period he studied?[/quote]
Number one, that is not a 3.14 net increase in NPV dollars. Number two, it is not an increase of that magnitude from now until 2035 – it is one single year out of the next 23 years. So to cherry pick data like this and take it completely out of context is very misleading/disingenuous…
Elaine,
1) Why is NPV dollars “the gold standard”?
2) David’s statement was [i]”The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated.”[/i] Where in that statement does he say anything like “of that magnitude from now until 2035”?
3) David’s statement was [i]”The Vanguard continues to believe that a Woodland project, that triples the rates, and fails to address concerns about DBO and private ownership, is doomed to be defeated.”[/i] Given that it is one single year out of the Bartle Wells analysis period, is David’s statement incorrect?
4) Instead of excoriating the debatable question that he posed, why don’t you take up the debate and argue an alternative. You are spending an inordinate amount of time attempting to take the question off the table. If you believe that the word “triples” needs to be replaced, as a good debater posit an expression that you would replace the word “triples” with.
Bottom-line, you are trying to control the dialogue rather than engaging it. That is your right to do. I personally think it is censorship. JMHO
To Matt:
1) Why is current dollars “the gold standard”?
2) The rate in current dollars is only 3 times the current rate for one year, not for the other 22 years.
3) David’s statement takes data out of context and is very misleading.
4) I wouldn’t attempt to quantify it in that way – to do so is misleading.
Who is trying to “control the dialogue” here?
The difference is that you are trying to shut down the dialogue, and I am trying to open the dialogue.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”To Matt:
1) Why is current dollars “the gold standard”?
2) The rate in current dollars is only 3 times the current rate for one year, not for the other 22 years.
3) David’s statement takes data out of context and is very misleading.
4) I wouldn’t attempt to quantify it in that way – to do so is misleading. “[/i]
1) is that an answer or simply a restatement of my question?
2) An analysis of the effect of any fiscal policy is rarely (but not never) performed on a single year. Typically the effect is looked at over a period of time. That is exactly what Bartle Wells has done. What their 8/16 table shows is that rate increases are cumulative. So, with that sid, here’s a question for you, [i][b]”At the end of the accumulation, what is the relationship of the starting point to the ending point?”[/b][/i]
3) All debate premises are taken out of context. That is the core reality of debate questions. Why are you subjecting David’s debate questions to a different standard than any other debate question?
4) Misleading how. He isn’t asserting a tautology, he is attempting to prompt discussion.
I am going to disengage from this discussion, your points to me are too ridiculous to keep responding to – we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one 😉