The water issue is one of the most complex I have had to cover. It is not that understanding pension formulas and fiscal issues is simple. Nor is it that land use issues are straightforward. But water is another beast – there are many overlapping issues, moving parts and complexities.
A letter writer this weekend illustrates this concern all too well. She writes, in response to a headline in the paper that indicates that the water vote will be binding and that voters will have the final word.
At the same time, she notes, quoting Councilmember Brett Lee, that he seems to contradict the statement when he says, “I don’t get the sense from the community that they’re worried that if they vote yes, that we have to specifically do the specified project before us.”
The letter writer seems to take this as a cynical ploy: “I’m so sick of unclear items put before an intelligent community of voters – to confuse and deceive. The City Council is not doing its job and the members don’t want to be held accountable for a tough and unpopular decision. What did they think their job was when they ran for office?”
“We need a reliable source of water, but we don’t want to pay more. Short-term vs. long-term thinking. The council can only think of their re-election. This is short-term and irresponsible.”
First, I’m not sure how she gets all of this from that simple quote. But more importantly, she is taking the quote out of context.
She removes the quote from its own context by omitting the first part of the statement, “If people vote no, they want to be certain we don’t move forward with the project.” He then adds, “I don’t get the sense from the community that they’re worried that if they vote yes, that we have to specifically do the specified project before us.”
The issue before the council here was how to frame and craft language that would bind the council to the will of the voters, while giving themselves enough leeway so that they could negotiate and make decisions down the line.
It was a tricky dilemma – made more tricky by city attorneys who thought inside the box. In the end, the sentiment that Brett Lee was expressing was a functional one, how to accomplish this somewhat delicate task. Ultimately, the council followed his lead and crafted language that would give the council the authority to move forward with the project and the voters the opportunity to kill it if that was their inclination.
There is nothing cynical or sinister going on here. There is nothing unclear here. The intent was not to confuse and deceive, but rather the opposite.
The council is not doing its job? Nothing could be further than the truth. The council has a delicate role here. Last fall they put forward a water project which was problematic at best, in terms of its size, cost and rate structure.
At that point, the citizens signed a petition to put a referendum on the ballot. But rather than allow the flawed project to go forward where it surely would have been defeated overwhelmingly, the council pulled back. They had a group of citizens study the issue, pare down the scope and costs, put forward an innovative rate structure, and then they kept their promise by allowing the project to go forward to the voters for an up or down vote.
The council has fulfilled their obligations.
So, when the writer offers that we want a reliable source of water but we don’t want to pay for it, I can only assume she is ridiculing some in the community. But the council really has little choice but to put this to the voters or they would face a voter-drafted initiative that would do it for them.
I understand the writer believes it is short-term thinking to be concerned with the costs, but the councilmembers are not acting here in this manner because of their re-election, they are acting in this matter because a year ago a group of citizens put the water measure on the ballot.
It simply turns out that the act of putting a ballot measure on the ballot is not quite as simple as we want to believe.
For instance, I would still prefer that we have an approved Prop 218 and then put the entire matter up for a vote. That would allow the voters to know the exact project, its size, the rate structure and the costs.
I still think we could have worked within the timeline to delay the vote two more months to get all of that in one vote.
Next week, we will have the cost-sharing agreement with Woodland approved by both Davis and Woodland. We will still need the approval of the WAC-recommended Loge-Williams water rates, but other than that, we now know what this project will look like.
In short, I think the council has thought in the long term, but part of that is not to make the same mistakes as the last council. They had to be responsive to the voters.
Davis voters want to vote on their land use issues. They want to vote on whether or not to have a Target. And they, sure as heck, want to vote on a $120 million water project. One way or another the voters were going to get that vote.
And now the voters get to decide if this is the project they want. The policy makers have done their job. Now it’s up to the voters.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“And they, sure as heck, want to vote on a $120 million water project.”
The project will cost the Davis voter significantly more than $120 million with the interest on the bond that they will have to pay off.
“Next week, we will have the cost-sharing agreement with Woodland approved by both Davis and Woodland…”
It is difficult to imagine the two Council members(both of whom support the JPA project) pressing their Woodland counterparts very vigorously on the cost-sharing negotiations. The $13 million result looks more like cosmetic political theater to appease the WAC’s recommendations.
“but other than that, we now know what this project will look like.”
So.. if we now know what this project will look like(with the CRITICAL absence of WHAT IT IS GOING TO COST THE DAVIS VOTER), does anyone really believe that the Council will not proceed with the project as offered if the voters approve their ballot language? The bottom line is that the Council does not want to give the Davis voter a say on the totality of this project but rather will force(and hopes that such a citizen effort fails to materialize) the voters to create a citizen-initiated referendum
“It is difficult to imagine the two Council members(both of whom support the JPA project) pressing their Woodland counterparts very vigorously on the cost-sharing negotiations”
I’m not sure the point of this point. They got what they asked for. When I met with them last week or so, they were prepared to walk if Davis didn’t get the cost-sharing agreement.