The Yes on Measure I campaign appears to be falling into a lot of the traps of front running campaigns in Davis. For weeks, the campaign, pounded on the ground by columns by Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning and various attacks by Michael Harrington and others, has seemingly refused to engage – waging the 30,000 foot campaign.
By that we mean they have attempted to stay above the fray and not engage in the point by point debunking of campaign myths. That strategy contains a risk in that portions of the electorate could be moved even by factually inaccurate attacks if those attacks are not immediately and swiftly responded to.
One of my favorite political scenes in film comes from the 1995 film The American President, starring Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen and Michael J. Fox, among others.
It is a somewhat whimsical film, but there are a few moments that strike true, like the scene in the Oval Office, where the President, a single man with a 12-year-old daughter, has been seeing a liberal environmental lobbyist. Refusing to head off attacks, he watches his favorability rating plummet.
Alarmed, his advisers confront him, but he is unwilling to head off the attacks. which have crippled his public opinion in areas like patriotism and family values. His weakness opens the door for a rival senator, Bob Rumson, to step into the fray.
The confronted President said, “If people want to listen to…”
Michael J. Fox’s character interrupts, “They don’t have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking.”
That is what the Measure I campaign has fallen into. For weeks, Bob Dunning has been attacking not only Measure I, but the competence and integrity of the Davis City Council and the leadership in City Hall.
To date, few of the myriad of charges and distortions in the press have been adequately addressed and responded to by members of the Davis City Council or the Measure I campaign.
What we see instead is that it took ten days for the city to even address the issue of non-payment of water bills and, by that time, the Davis Enterprise, while endorsing the project, nevertheless repeated the charges made by Michael Harrington and echoed by Bob Dunning.
It took an article by the Davis Vanguard to clarify the situation at Rancho Yolo.
Instead of rolling up their sleeves and fighting the ground war, the Measure I campaign is falling into other traps.
This week, we learned in campaign statement filings that the Yes side has, not surprisingly, built up a lead of $55,187 to $19,900 in money. It is not that this is such an egregious sum of money – in fact, it is very modest compared with the Target and Covell Village campaigns.
At the same time, council candidates are winning these days, spending half that amount.
And the biggest problem is who has donated. Four building and trade unions have contributed, most notably IBEW Local 340 and Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447 – two of the unions that funded a mailer in last year’s council election in which Sue Greenwald was attacked for her 2010 confrontation with then-Mayor Ruth Asmundson on the council dais.
The resulting furor, when the mailer purported to oppose Sue Greenwald and support Stephen Souza, saw both incumbents defeated last June.
The reason for the mailer that emerged was support for the water project – and Sue Greenwald was and is a key opponent.
With that fresh in the minds of minds of voters, with the Yes on Measure I side having ample political resources, why would the campaign risk the wrath of the public and a possible backlash?
The campaign disclosure shows a payment of roughly $3,950 was paid to a company called the Centaur Group, which is a public relations company owned by Kemble Pope, the Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Director.
According to the Davis Enterprise this morning, Yes on Measure I, who conducted a poll back in late December that suggested a huge lead for the Yes on Measure I side, conducted another automated one this week.
The Enterprise reports that Will Arnold, campaign manager for Yes on Measure I, would not divulge the results of the poll.
Clearly reading the tea leaves at this point, we suspect that the race has at the very least considerably tightened.
There is, of course, considerable question at this point as to where the race stands. Nearly 8000 ballots have already been received by the elections office. Voting opened about three weeks ago.
Some believe that a lot of those early ballots are Yes on Measure I votes. The Yes on Measure I has a rather sophisticated voter identification and get-out-the-vote program.
But the last three weeks of the campaign have seen a flurry of reports, many of them coming from a Davis Enterprise columnist and that have considerably muddied the water.
Bob Dunning’s column this weekend indicates that a few voters, at least, have already voted yes and have come to regret doing so.
Reviving the union donation issue is a dangerous revelation in the last ten days of this campaign. The No on Measure I side has already contended that this project is backed by large monied interests.
Some of the biggest are Sacramento area unions supporting the project, not because they necessarily believe in the need for Davis to have a clean and reliable water supply as the Yes on Measure I side advocates, but rather to produce the probability of high-paying union jobs, many of which will come from local labor sources.
It is a standard problem of large quantities of outside money coming into a local race and, in a place like Davis, that can produce a backlash.
Last week we asked if Measure I was in trouble and all we saw was a flurry of new attacks – most of which went unchallenged.
The information is not even well-vetted. For instance, last week Bob Dunning “reported” that not all of the city would get the water from the Sacramento River. His investigative reporting is actually something that we had reported nearly two years ago, based on a tip that the Vanguard received that Alan Pryor had written a letter to city staff questioning the fairness of the plan.
As Alan Pryor notes in one of the few direct responses to Bob Dunning, “The letter was intended only for internal use by city staff but was somehow leaked to David Greenwald of the Vanguard blog who ran a full story on it in the Vanguard on March 23, 2011 – nearly six months before the Sept. 6, 2011, water vote.”
However, as Mr. Pryor notes, the city has had two years to address the problem and, as Alan writes, “The city engineers actually were already on the problem, though, and have since finalized their citywide surface water distribution system plans and well water mixing strategy and my concerns have been completely alleviated.”
Should Bob Dunning have checked into that information before running his column? Probably.
As a columnist he certainly has more liberty not to, but if he is acting as a de facto reporter – i.e. reporting original information, how hard is it to pick up the phone and call City Manager Steve Pinkerton or Utilities Manager Herb Niederberger to, say, check his facts?
Would it surprise anyone to learn that he told me he has never called either Mr. Pinkerton or Mr. Niederberger, despite months of reporting on the issue of water? Mr. Pinkerton confirmed that Bob Dunning not only has never called him in the nearly year and a half he has been here – nearly all of it since September 6, 2011’s council decision on the water rates – but also has never even emailed him.
This revelation leads to a lot of questions, but at the heart of it is the duty to the public to disseminate accurate information. Had Bob Dunning simply picked up the phone and called senior staff, he could have learned that his issue had been long since addressed.
But, against that backdrop, the Measure I campaign can no longer make these kinds of mistakes. They have to counter inaccurate information with accurate information.
If they don’t, the public is going to believe Bob Dunning, because, just like in the case of Bob Rumson, he’s the only one talking.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What’s the poll result? Is No on I up to 15% yet?
David, you keep blaming Yes on I for this or that. The Campaigns problem is their “candidate”: it’s a bad project, too expensive, and not needed. Besides, who wants to privatize our water and lose control of this public resource to the likes of United Water? The JPA and City of Davis plan to contract operation to a private, for profit corporation for st least.15.years.
David, another example of controlling the conversation in today’s national politics would be that we have a president who goes out and lies to us everyday from the bully pulpit about the false trumped up, doom and gloom effect that sequestration will have when it’s all nothing more than just fear mongering. But yet the GOP just sits back and let’s him control the narrative and get away with all of his lies.
Everyone knows, right, that the proposed deal with the JPA and the plant builders and United Water lacks a fixed legal maximum of costs? Once these huge multinational companies start working, they can jack up the costs as they please and the City will have to raise our rates. Heck, even Bill Marbles Woodland.City Council flim-flammed our CC into aaccepting Davis paying 30% more for water than Woodland ratepayers. Imagine what pros like United Water will do to fleece us?
Are you going to trust city leaders to take care of you, when they are deliberately violating Prop 218 and not even paying for city water use?
Vote NO. Make the City come back with a much better proposal.
“Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking.”
The “Yes” campaign is not in trouble and this quote is not accurate. “Yes” is engaging in many forums and utilizing various media. True, they do not have a daily Enterprise column; indeed, the Enterprise refused Matt’s offer for a dualing column. So it’s not possible to counter Dunning’s constant stream of garbage in the Enterprise. Mark West described the appropriate response: cancel the subscription. My subscription is being cancelled tomorrow.
Keep in mind, Dunning campaigned for Sue Greenwald and we all know what good that did.
-Michael Bisch
There was NEVER a neutral/unbiased analysis of the need for this project and/or possible alternatives and one can reasonably assume that the information/accounting numbers offered by those experts who are hired ,by the city, WPA and other financially-interested parties, have shaped and tweaked their product(largely speculative) to the advantage of those who are paying them; that’s just the way it works. The city’s/past CC’s attempt to keep this project below the voter’s political “radar” before declaring it a “fait accompli” and controlling the narrative by omitting important pieces of information and promoting worse-case/best case scenerios that support their goal has been documented. Trust has been irretrievably tainted and no amount of back and forth debate over fundamentally untrusted “facts” will resolve this issue. I’m afraid that the “slate must be wiped clean” and time taken to clear our collective heads before a true neutral,unbiased process can begin.
DT:
“Mark West described the appropriate response: cancel the subscription. My subscription is being cancelled tomorrow.”
So in turn, would you be okay if voters who are against Measure I quit doing business with downtown enterprises who are in favor of
Measure I?
‘For instance, last week Bob Dunning “reported” that not all of the city would get the water from the Sacramento River. His investigative reporting is actually something that we had reported nearly two years ago, based on a tip that the Vanguard received that Alan Pryor had written a letter to city staff questioning the fairness of the plan.”
What’s your point, David?? The fact that this important information was there 2 years ago but SOMEHOW is allowed to fade away without becoming an important fact in the campaign “debate” is the point in question, not whether it is a newly discovered fact.
Let my Enterprise subscription run out several months ago. Was tempted by the “Ah, this is nuts” cute little squirrel offer to resubscribe for half the price (have to admit that I felt a little ripped off having paid full price for so long when all I had to do was not renew right away), but the incessant dunning tantrums persuaded me that a newspaper of columns isn’t really news. When the columns outnumber the actual news articles 3:1, its just a tabloid.
This has been a slimy No campaign led by two former council people voted out of office. I think the Yes folks are running the correct campaign.
Davisite2. His point is that the person, Alan Pryor, who brought up the issue years ago is now satisfied that there is no issue. Its a matter of engineering.
It is also his point that Bob could have done his homework and made a few phone calls to find out for himself what Alan is now satisfied with. Instead, he chose to offer up more bullsh$t.
I can fully understand the Pipefitters union donating to a cause that could result in jobs for their members. I am more disturbed by the use of “committees” that are contributing to the No campaign. “The Committee to Confirm Davis Voter Rights” gave a substantial amount. We don’t know who makes up their membership, but this was Mike’s committee he used to pay for the referendum. Do we assume that Mike donated the $3000 to the No on I campaign? Why didn’t he just donate directly? Unless we can find out membership, this is an end run around Davis’ election sensibilities regarding financing local campaigns.
I think that the Yes on I campaign has run a very clean campaign, with many different voices speaking to the different aspects of the project, including environmental sustainability. While the No on I campaign has run a very dirty campaign, centered around a short list of talking points, but a larger number of dark accusations about lack of trust, corruption, and scandal.
“It is also his point that Bob could have done his homework and made a few phone calls to find out for himself what Alan is now satisfied with. Instead, he chose to offer up more bullsh$t.”
…but who cares whether Alan Pyror is “satisfied”? In my humble opinion,he presents himself as an unwavering and uncompromising supporter(zealot?) of this project and his past uncompromising zeal to totally ban wood-burning and plastic bags in Davis can also be noted.
What’s the last poll result? If they don’t tell us, you their “clean water” is now cloudy, like the dirty Sacramento River water with the intake directly downstream and close to the Colusa Drain, a filthy focal point of toxic ag runoff.
No sure? Vote.NO.
“So in turn, would you be okay if voters who are against Measure I quit doing business with downtown enterprises who are in favor of Measure I?” -rusty49
The question is nonsensical. It’s like asking whether I’m OK with the sun rising in the east. There are many reasons that factor into customers’ shopping choices, politics is certainly one of them. Various interest groups in this town have at times boycotted certain downtown businesses, but more often than not, merely have threatened to do so. Threatening to boycott a business because they support a sustainable source of water and are willing to pay increased water rates to do so seems absurd. Will they eventually boycott a downtown business because the business chooses to advocate for a sustainable source of fresh air?
-Michael Bisch
Mike Harrington said “Vote NO. Make the City come back with a much better proposal.”
What do you have in mind?
I remain an online subscriber to the Enterprise as one of many sources of information.
Mr H: Just did a formal survey of the four members of our household (myself included) and the final tally is Yes (100%), No (0%).
[i]So it’s not possible to counter Dunning’s constant stream of garbage in the Enterprise. Mark West described the appropriate response: cancel the subscription. My subscription is being cancelled tomorrow.
[/i]
Certainly that is your choice, but I see it as an emotional response not a rational one. In the Sunday issue today the “Our View” section came out in support of Measure I.
I support the Enterprise mostly because it tends to support differing viewpoints and reports fairly. It is a very good newspaper for a small city… even despite the periodic angry liberal rants of Debra DeAngelo.
MH: “[i]Are you going to trust city leaders to take care of you…[/i]”
Yes, I specifically put my trust in Joe Krovosa, Dan Wolk, Lucas Frerichs, Brett Lee and Rochelle Swanson. They have demonstrated a commitment to working collaboratively, respectfully and openly to do what is best for the City and they are all individually, and collectively, worthy of our trust.
I generally trust the people I vote for. Otherwise, I don’t vote for someone, even if they are the only person on the ballot. I’m happy to say that 4 out of 5 people on the CC are people I voted for, with the 5th person being someone that I have grown to respect and trust. This is a good group of people.
Frankly,I generally agree with your assessment of the Enterprise and perhaps it is an emotional response on my part. I’ll have to reflect a bit more on that. And although the Dunning/Water thing may be an aberration, it is a marked change. It’s really turned into this stream of poisonous bile, personal attacks, character assassination, outright falsehoods, half-truths, and contorted reasoning eminating day after day from the 2nd page. Where did the humorous satire go?
-Michael Bisch
[i]Mike Harrington said “Vote NO. Make the City come back with a much better proposal.”
What do you have in mind?[/i]
We see this tactic at work at every level of politics. Basically, it is much easier to criticize the ideas of others. If you think about it, this is really what Mike’s business is about. Waiting until someone else does all the hard work, and then he swoops in to capitalize on mistakes made.
Now, a pain and suffering trial attorney is useful in that it helps those coming up with the design of products and services stay on their game… minimizing the number of mistakes made that can harm customers. The same can be said for Mike’s NOI efforts. It has some value.
But, as much value as Mike or others prone to participate only on the side of penalizing criticism and negativity, they should be recognized as taking a less desirable approach. A more desirable approach would be participating up-front in the design of the products and services. Aw, but the problem there… it would be less lucrative and it would also put Mike at risk for owning some of the liability for punitive criticism from people employed in his industry and prone to using his tactics.
Armchair quarterbacks and critics are really a dime a dozen. They add some value; but in terms of consideration… people that participate directly taking ownership of the proposed design deserve an order of magnitude greater respect.
davisite2 wrote:
[quote]Trust has been irretrievably tainted and no amount of back and forth debate over fundamentally untrusted “facts” will resolve this issue. I’m afraid that the “slate must be wiped clean” and time taken to clear our collective heads before a true neutral,unbiased process can begin.[/quote]
But from where will the “true”, “neutral”, “unbiased” process come from? Last week in this space you pointed out that
[quote]It is important to remember that this mountain of “speculative data” that we see analyzed in these DV threads is being generated by consulting businesses who make their living from their clients. Successful consulting firms product a product that does not undermine the interests of those who are paying their fees.[/quote]
So… someone is going to have to pay for the technical advice that will enable us to make a decision. However, you have ruled out the possibility that anyone who is paid can provide an unbiased and neutral opinion by stating that anyone who is paid is only providing the opinions that those who contract with them demand. I would be surprised to find any technically competent firm or individual willing to advise any process for the length of time required to lay out all the issues for free (thereby assuring, according to you, a truly unbiased set of recommendations since, by definition, if they are paid they are biased).
In other words davisite2: you are hoping for a “process” that by your own standards will never be possible.
davisite2
[quote]Trust has been irretrievably tainted and no amount of back and forth debate over fundamentally untrusted “facts” will resolve this issue. I’m afraid that the “slate must be wiped clean” and time taken to clear our collective heads before a true neutral,unbiased process can begin.[/quote]
So at what point would you say enough time has elapsed to regain trust ? It seems to me that for the “slate to be wiped clean” would require a complete turn over of public leadership since you and members of the “no” campaign seem to be making the case that the current council and staff cannot be trusted.
So how is this position any different from simply saying we are not going to address our water issues in the foreseeable future, but will simply pass them on to the next generation of citizens ? That seems to me to have been the strategy that got us into this unfortunate circumstance in the first place.
I hope that those who have not yet voted will consider the facts that have been presented by those who are willing to openly support the measure and consider the well being of Davis not only now, but also in the future. On the no side are those who hide behind a few representatives who will not site facts, or name their “experts”, or present a coherent option, despite plenty of time in which to do so but rather rely on misinformation, innuendo, and an ugly smear campaign against those who genuinely hold a different point of view and are actively seeking solutions.
We have voted “yes” at my household and hope you will join us.
[i]Where did the humorous satire go?[/i]
If I had six little children to care for I would have a hard time maintaining my humor let alone my sanity. Although, every time I see him pushing that mega-stroller he has a big smile on his face. I think he must like the chaos… or think it is just a normal thing. It is admirable.
But, you make a good point. He is much more serious about this topic. I like my Dunning columns to make me chuckle, and not so much with the Measure I stuff.
I’ve reflected enough, I regret my earlier comment about canceling my Enterprise subscription. The Enterprise is far and away a net benefit to the community. The benefit would have been far, far greater had they accepted Matt William’s offer to write a counter point column to Dunning’s. The readers would be in a much better position to form an opinion having both sides of the argument. Instead, they’ve become the water version of Fox News with their news content being drowned out by their editorial content (their editorial endorsement notwithstanding).
-Michael Bisch
Questions:
Would Mr. Pinkerton or Mr. Niederberger be able or willing to answer Mr. Dunning’s questions?
Where did the current price tag come from?
Do we have any guarantees that the price won’t go up?
Why are non-local organizations & companies supporting Prop I?
Who (I’d like a list) benefits from Prop I passing?
Why are we willing to pay a for-profit company to manage our water?
Who will control the price of water regardless of the rate system used?
Why is everyone in a hurry?
Why is the issue of water an emotional/political issue instead of a considered logical issue?
His columns recently have been much more serious, but I think it is because of the perceived impact on his own family. Today’s column looks at things in a broader context. I can’t wait until this is over. I’m hoping that next week’s Pig Day at the Farmer’s market is not marred by last minute campaign shenanigans.
Ryan, if he has become so serious due to concern for his family, why hasn’t he been offerring constructive solutions these past years? Instead he has crossed his arms across his chest, stomped his foot, screamed “No” at the top of his lungs and then stuck his head in the sand in the hope that the regulators go away and no more wells fail.
-Michael Bisch
Why so much sniping?
Why can’t we try to focus on facts?
DT:
“I’ve reflected enough, I regret my earlier comment about canceling my Enterprise subscription.”
LOL
Keithvb, your questions have been answered many, many times. Read Eileen Samitz letter posted on this blog for answers to some. No one is in a hurry. This vote is the culmination of over a decade of consideration. Read information from both campaign websites and articles posted on this blog. If you are not ready to vote after that, you probably never will be. Keep in mind that the vote is for the Woodland-davis project. The rates are a separate Prop 218 process.
“The benefit would have been far, far greater had they accepted Matt William’s offer to write a counter point column to Dunning’s. The readers would be in a much better position to form an opinion having both sides of the argument. Instead, they’ve become the water version of Fox News with their news content being drowned out by their editorial content (their editorial endorsement notwithstanding). “
there used to be a more left/ progressive response to dunning – gerald heffernon. legend has it became so contentious (and heffernon didn’t have five days), that they were forbidden from mentioning each other. but heffernon was an effective counter to dunning.
now my view of dunning is different than some of you – the water stuff isn’t unique, he has done this many times before. a lot of people find him funny, but he can be very mean spirited toward people in this community.
It seems to me that most of the NOI folks believe all or some the following (aligned in various “camps”):
1. Our water quality is good enough, and we can just keep pumping water from the ground without material risk of clean water compliance fines or risks of running out of water.
2. The surface water project sounds good except for the rate design which is unfair.
3. There is another currently unknown solution out there that costs less (the magical thinking solution).
4. The West Sacramento option is the one we should pursue because it is less costly and will take care of our needs.
5. Better to keep our water resources scarce and problematic to scare away all developers that pose the slightest risk of city growth.
6. I don’t want to pay more… keep kicking that can down the road for young people to pay for.
I can’t tell where Dunning lands for these things. I think he is in the camp of #1, but maybe he is the #2 camp. Part of the reason that I have been so critical of the CBFR design is to pull more people from the #2 camp to support the measure.
I think Mike Harrington is 100% in camp #5. (Mike, please correct me if I am wrong.)
Sue Greenwald seems to hang out in camps #1 and #3.
Thank you to the No on I campaign and most likely Mike Harrington for the handy link on the Vanguard to the 218 Protest Form clip-out. I just sent mine in.
It has just come to my attention that a potentially toxic substance will be drawn from the Sacramento River… if ingested in great quantities in a short period of time, it can even cause brain damage and death. It is particularly insidious, as once someone has repeatedly ingested it, they become addicted to its use. Others have died from it with prolonged skin contact.
Very few water treatment facilities can completely remove it.
The compound: dihydrogen oxide.
keithvb says: [quote]Why is the issue of water an emotional/political issue instead of a considered logical issue? [/quote]
How long have you lived in California?
I apologize for the snarkiness, but, I doubt there has [u]ever[/u] been a reasoned and logical debate about water in California. Think about the peripheral canal/tunnel fights, or the fight over the Westlands Water District and Metropolitan Water District in LA. Historically, people have lost their lives over water in California – think of the Owens Valley. Water is not a rational topic in this state. We’ve had commissions, work groups, committees, legislatures, governors all attempt to have reasoned and logical discussions but it rarely helps.
In terms of reasoned argument, I think the Vanguard has done an excellent job of presenting multiple articles from differing viewpoints about the project and the rates. God bless Matt Williams who tirelessly writes about the details in ways that make the arcane more sensible and understandable.
The No on I folks don’t have much of a leg to stand on – all they can say is we are OK now, what’s the hurry, and it’s too expensive. But they don’t really offer any rationale alternative. Instead they work to undermine the public trust by maligning city staff and officials. They spew spurious arguments about the Colusa Drain and unnamed experts (who Sue says) will lose their jobs if they speak up. Harrington puts up all the bogeymen he can find – multinationals, unions, out-of-towners, and God forbid – DEVELOPERS – to defeat Measure I.
Davis needs a secure and high quality supply of water. The deep wells are OK right now, but they very likely (according to Dr. Fogg) may not be in the future. We can’t drill more because of our agreement with UC. West Sacramento has ruled out their excess capacity (do you really think we could go back to them again?). Where’s the water going to come from? Please, ask the No on Measure I folks where we will get the water.
We have obtained primary riparian rights to Conoway Ranch water. That is an incredible resource – and you suggest we don’t take advantage of it? What’s the plan? If the No on Measure I folks would please tell us instead of just yelling at us, it might be a more reasoned discussion.
Rusty49 you are welcome!
Michael Bisch, I have been busy with some administrative things and now can respond to this.
“The “Yes” campaign is not in trouble and this quote is not accurate. “Yes” is engaging in many forums and utilizing various media. True, they do not have a daily Enterprise column; indeed, the Enterprise refused Matt’s offer for a dualing column. So it’s not possible to counter Dunning’s constant stream of garbage in the Enterprise. Mark West described the appropriate response: cancel the subscription. My subscription is being cancelled tomorrow.
Keep in mind, Dunning campaigned for Sue Greenwald and we all know what good that did.”
I’ll leave to people’s imaginations as to whether the campaign is trouble. As I point out, no one knows how many of the early votes are yes. It is clear that the campaign climate shifted about three weeks ago. My observation is based on a lot of conversations with people close to both campaigns.
The Rumson quote is SPOT on and you seem to misunderstand it. In the movie, it wasn’t that no one was talking, it was that no one was specifically refuting the claims coming out of Rumson. In the current climate, that means that the Yes side has largely focused on the big issues and only an occasional piece combats directly the Dunning message.
Letter and op-eds could be sent to the Enterprise, press releases to the local media clarifying, emails to supporters combating and providing talking points, etc. That’s how you combat a smear campaign and it’s easier now with things like Facebook, Twitter, sites like this, and email.
I would like to clarify one thing. I did not intent to encourage anyone to cancel their subscription to the Davis Enterprise. When I was running a small business in town the Davis Enterprise did more to support our business and help us succeed than any other organization in town. I have the greatest respect for the people at the Enterprise and firmly believe that it is an asset to the community.
After the company closed down, I needed to re-evaluate my financial priorities and as I was no longer interested in reading Bob’s column daily, I could no longer justify the expense of the subscription.
DAVID, the No on I Campaign is not running a smear campaign.
harrington: I think he meant dunning was running a smear campaign, that said, if the shoe fits, wear it. you’ve been smearing left and right. i think people will line up to agree with me here.
DAVID – the sky is green. 2+2=5, gravity is optional!
No, Mike Harrington has personally been running a smear campaign, not necessarily the No on I campaign. He is also the spokesperson/chair of No on I, which makes it hard to separate the two.
hpierce
[quote]It has just come to my attention that a potentially toxic substance will be drawn from the Sacramento River… if ingested in great quantities in a short period of time, it can even cause brain damage and death. It is particularly insidious, as once someone has repeatedly ingested it, they become addicted to its use. Others have died from it with prolonged skin contact.
[/quote]
I also have heard that until recently it has been used in conjunction with harsh interrogation techniques.
Thanks for the smile !
“DAVID, the No on I Campaign is not running a smear campaign.”
“DAVID, I am not a criminal.”
Hilarious.
-Michael Bisch
Suggestion to the Vanguard Editorial Board…. given unsubstantiated claims by posters, with no time for discovery/rebuttal I recommend new new posts re: meabe entertained within last 24 to 48 hours prior to “poll-opening” on Tuesday AM. Although I suspect that 95% of the votes will have been cast by Monday, I’d like to see no “late and inappropriate” hits’
To readers: I and my family have voted. I urge ALL of you to do the same… if you don’t vote, don’t complain afterwards.
Remember (and this wasn’t a point driven home by the Enterprise today), your ballot, mailed in, or cast at VMB, or dropped off at the library or County Clerk’s office, MUST BE [b]IN THE POSSESSION OF THE COUNTY[/b] BY 8 PM TUESDAY, MARCH 5, or will not be counted… postmarks do NOT count.
[quote]new posts re: meabe entertained[/quote]Dumb thumbed… should be “…new posts re: Measure I should not be entertained…”
[b]On the Ethics of Accountability and Endorsement[/b]
In bottom-up governance based on ethical principles, a person endorses a proposal by assigning accountability of a risk to himself.
In the context of Measure I, some of the major concerns listed are the following. They are listed [b]without[/b] consideration of truthfulness because as I will explain, truthfulness is irrelevant.
1) Without SWP, Davis will be fined for constituent violations
2) Without SWP, Davis’s growth rate cannot be sustained and [i]someone[/i] will be hurt
3) Without SWP, Davis’s current peak consumption cannot be sustained and [i]someone[/i] will be hurt
4) With SWP, Davis’s population will expand and [i]someone[/i] will be hurt
5) With SWP, Davis users will be over paying for excess capacity
6) With SWP, Davis users will be poisoned by the surface water
Each of these items is a risk associated with a decision. In general, a person who votes YES asserts the risks of (1) (2) (3). A person who votes NO asserts the risks of (4) (5) (6).
Now, forget about the conventional meaning of endorsement, which is money paid for a campaign. In ethical governance, the purpose of endorsement is not to pay for the campaign, but to insure the opposition against the risk.
When a person who supports the proposal makes an endorsement, that money is a promise to pay for any damage if the risks associated with that decision is actualized.
Example declaration:
YES voter: “I endorse YES on I with $1 million on risk #4. The SWP will not cause a sudden increase in Davis’s population. If it happens and someone gets hurt because of that, you may take money from this $1 million account to pay for the damage.”
NO voter: “I endorse NO on I with $1 million on risk #1. Davis will not be charged for selenium or other constituent violations. If it happens, the City may take money from my $1 million account to pay for the penalties.”
In bottom-up governance, when people make these endorsement declarations, the total amount of endorsement is tallied and displayed. Every individual is free to make endorsement to guard the city based on what they believe. The people can see the tally, and decide for themselves which risk(s) they would guard against.
With this, accountability is established by endorsements. When there is enough endorsement to cover all risks, the city is protected regardless what or whether a decision is made. The risks of bad decisions are covered, and the risks of indecision is also covered.
This makes experts, consultants, and any supporter of a proposal accountable for the information they spread. It is good if they don’t lie, the damage is covered if they do. The concept of trust is irrelevant to the decision process.
When a city relies on trust, the city is still vulnerable to the risks.
True accountability insures against the risk, and does not require trust.
Edgar, what is your point? Give your opinion and not a philosophical lesson. Do you like being able to vote on Measures, Propositions and Initiatives? Or would you rather have elected representatives do this for you? Do you choose risks 1) 2) & 3)? Or do you favor the last 3?
Re: Ryan
I was responding to the content of the article where David was suggesting that the City should engage deeply and counter the information. I was explaining that it is not necessarily to do so if people understand the concept of endorsement in a bottom-up philosophy. The sum of campaign money would be used for a different purpose.
In a bottom-up governance there is no such thing as elected representatives. Each person is accountable for their decision and indecision.
In terms of the following:
[quote]1) Without SWP, Davis will be fined for constituent violations
2) Without SWP, Davis’s growth rate cannot be sustained and someone will be hurt
3) Without SWP, Davis’s current peak consumption cannot be sustained and someone will be hurt
4) With SWP, Davis’s population will expand and someone will be hurt
5) With SWP, Davis users will be over paying for excess capacity
6) With SWP, Davis users will be poisoned by the surface water[/quote]
I think (1), (4), (5) are true risks, that I will not endorse. The risk left to be guarded against is (6) if I vote YES, and (2)(3) if I vote NO. In this philosophy for the city to make a YES vote accountability, someone should be guarding against (6).
The endorser cannot be the City itself because the City does not own any money, it only has the custody of the people’s money. To ask the city to be held accountable is the same as asking everyone to be accountable, which is the same as saying no one is accountable. The endorser needs to be an individual or a company.
What about you? Which of these 6 would you pick?
So…..you are voting No…..because you believe the water project will make the City grow or we will be paying for excess capacity, and you are willing to pay fines for not meeting clean water standards and risk not having enough water for the existing population during peak times as a trade off?
In the context of the 6 risks:
If I vote YES I mean these:
I want to eliminate the risks of (1) (2) and (3) by voting YES. But I do not want to endorse (4) or (5) because I think that they will happen. I think that (6) needs to be endorsed, and I assume that it is already covered by the laws. When I say I do not endorse (4) or (5), it means that I am accountable for the decision, but not personally assuring others that (4) and (5) would not happen. This means that if a person asks me:
“If you vote YES, are you claiming that with SWP, Davis’s population will not expand and no one will be hurt because of the population expansion?”
My answer would have to be, I am not making that claim. It could happen.
If I vote NO I mean these:
I want to eliminate the risks of (4) (5) and (6) by voting NO. However, I am not making any claim that (1) will not happen, because I think that Davis will be fined, and if it is, I automatically share the cost of that fine with others who voted NO. For (2) and (3), I want to quantify the actual risk. Potentially (2) and (3) will not happen because the people can reduce water use.
What do you think the damage of (2) and (3) are?
According to those who complain that the proposed rates are too high and it would cause a lot of dead grass, they are not complaining that there would be a shortage to meet their irrigation needs in the summer. This means that even though Measure I is down, those homeowner would already be covering their own risks and damages. So (2) and (3) are potentially not realistic concerns that can be endorsed.
Suppose each of the six risks are quantified and we know the current endorsement amounts:
NO risks:
1) Constituent Fines: Risk:$100M Endorsement:$50M
2) Unsustainability: Risk:$5M Endorsement:$3M
3) Brown Out: Risk:$10M Endorsement:$10M
Total Risk: $115M
Total Endorsement: $63M
Outstanding Risks: $52M
YES risks:
4) Population Growth: Risk:$20M Endorsement:$15M
5) Excess Payment: Risk:$100M Endorsement:$80M
6) Water Safety: Risk:$3M Endorsement:$3M
Total Risk: $123M
Total Endorsement: $98M
Outstanding Risks: $25M
Then, when you compare the Outstanding Risks, the only logical decision is for the City to APPROVE Measure I. The reason is that there isn’t enough coverage for the risks of the option to not proceed. This is an objective result of using this method, if each risk can be objectively quantified, and the supporters speak with their accountability.
YES side: “The risk of (1) is not $100M, but $200M.”
A confident NO supporter: “Fine, it wouldn’t matter what number you pick because it will not happen, so I will endorse it with $200M if that makes you feel more comfortable.”
When a side makes a claim that the risk does not “worth so much”, in terms of accountability, it implies that they are willing to insure the inflated amount that the other side claims.
You’re saying that we won’t run out of water because people will magically start conserving the right amount so that we don’t run out? Even in a drought year? Groundwater evels are already declining — what reason is there for thinking they won’t continue to decline?
This is an elaborate pro/con chart. Essentially, you would have to believe that all of these risks are real risks and then decide which you would or would not endorse. I believe that you are correct that something like this goes on in the minds of voters, but maybe not as clearly defined. As a computer engineer, you probably are trained to think this way so that the “program” applies to the broadest possible use.
I voted Yes on Measure I because, instead of measuring risk, I look at it as an opportunity to build a more sustainable system and end our reliance on an ever diminishing source of water, a way to improve the quality of our water that we use and discharge.
Re: davisite4
In terms of risk 3: Peak demand not met, we need to confirm the impact of “running out of water”.
If the city is hit by a drought, the first thing that gets damaged would be the vegetation. More people will buy water, and some people might decide to live elsewhere.
If the sum of these damages is endorsed, then the risk of water running out is covered. What do you think the sum of these damages is?
Re: Ryan
I understand your perspective of thinking in terms of the benefits. But I think I can prove that that type of thinking is a source of conflicts, because if a person only think in terms of benefits, they will make decisions that leave others unprotected.
A community would not get into conflicts if the people are thinking in terms of how not to hurt each others. A person who wants something is not thinking in terms of what they want, but whether what they want would inadvertently hurt other people, and whether he is ready to cover the risks that he would create.
People get into conflicts when they pursue what they want without addressing the concerns of others. Since most of the time people don’t share the same views, if by dogma people pursue what they want, the conflicts cannot be resolved. The solution is to not have a fixed issue, but focus on addressing concerns. When the concerns are addressed, whatever is left is a stable and harmonious community. The path to stability does not require a prescribed vision of what it is. It can be reached as long as people focus on not hurting each other.
I think the question should be, what is the cost of turning the tap on and having nothing come out?
And here is a town where that happened, in case you think it’s impossible:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/town-runs-out-of-water_2012-01-30
Sorry, linkifying:
[url]http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/town-runs-out-of-water_2012-01-30[/url]
Your argument is correct. It only takes one risk with extreme amount of risk to show that the proposal with that risk cannot be passed.
I thought someone claimed that the water in our deep aquifer takes 1000 years to get there. So if there is a drought, we won’t get the effect until 1000 years later.
The shallow and intermediate aquifers are recharged every year. If they are completely out, Davis will only get half of the water. But since two thirds of summer use is for irrigation half of the capacity is still enough for household uses.
If you claim that we need the SWP to protect us against drought, do you agree that if a drought does not happen, the YES side should refund the NO side for being forced to pay for an insurance that was not needed?
How should we account for that refund?
And if someone finds an error in what I said, please point it out.
What is the evidence for that 1000 year argument? The evidence is that the amount of groundwater in Davis’s aquifer is declining, and that we will need to take the shallow and intermediate aquifers offline because of contamination issues.
Droughts have happened in the past and they will happen in the future; climate change makes the extremity of such droughts unpredictable. If we do build the SWP and a severe drought occurs, there is no way to know whether that drought would have been enough to completely drain the aquifer had we not built the SWP. So, I cannot answer your question about the refund; it is unanswerable.
When the risk is extremely costly — and here I do not speak only in monetary terms, because the costs of running out of water are much more than that — one should act prudently. This is sometimes called the precautionary principle.
People don’t seem to remember when Marin County ran out of water…in the early 80’s, I think. I do know that for three weeks water was shipped across the Bay in huge container ships until, at great cost, a pipeline was built across the Richmond Bridge and connected with water sources in the East Bay. Residents were banned from irrigating yards or any outside use. Water rates rose to sky high levels to pay for this – more than rent/ mortgage payments in some cases. Friends of mine were commuting to the homes of friends across the Bay to do their laundry, taking showers at work and limiting their water use to toilets only.
It is essential that we have more than one source of water and, regardless of all of the other benefits.
“If you claim that we need the SWP to protect us against drought, do you agree that if a drought does not happen, the YES side should refund the NO side for being forced to pay for an insurance that was not needed?” -Edgar Wai
And this reasoning explains why all insured motorists who don’t get in an accident get an annual premium refund from those who do get in an accident.
-Michael Bisch
Re: Michael
You analogy is incorrect because a drought does not happen individually to households.
It is more like A and B decided to go on for a road trip. A suggested to buy additional insurance. B says that is unnecessary. At this point, B proposes:
“I will pay half of it, but if we don’t end up needing it when we return, you will have to refund my half.”
While this seems logical, A protested, “No way man! If I do that, I am taking all the risk. I think you are correct that I should give you a refund if nothing happens, but I don’t think that the refund is half of the cost.”
I think this is a fundamental question that is worth thinking about. I will think about it in my free time….
* * *
About the “1000 years”:
I don’t have the evidence, but I heard this from the YES side. On this page ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6076:argument-for-the-woodland-davis-water-project-yes-on-measure-i&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83#comment-175252[/url]), search for “Clear Lake”. I agree that the shallow and intermediate sources will be offline.
I know the type of discussion I engage in is abstract, but I hope that people understand the intention to build a foundation to settle decision making. This is not directly about Measure I, but about how a decision like Measure I could be made in a way so that no one could possibly argue about the conclusion. Here are some points to consider in order to quantify and account for the risk. I hope people don’t mind that I am philosophically inclined. There is some deep insight that could come out of this.
There is a way to calculate accountability about precaution and essentials. When that equation is identified, we will not be having this discussion.
Thank you all for the replies.
Now I just go think about it.
Edgar, auto insurance is mandated in California even if you have the financial wherewithal to cover any and all damages. There’s no possibility of a “drought”. There are many similar instances of this. The same is true of services. Those who don’t even own a car have to pay retail and property taxes for roads. Those who don’t bike have to pay retail and property taxes for bike paths. The same is true of parks, pools, etc. Those who are pacifists do not receive an income tax refund every year we do not suffer an invasion from those who do advocate for a large US military. What you are advocating for is the exact opposite of a community and a democracy. Start writing a lot of refund checks in the Edgar Republic.
-Michael Bisch.
Michael, what you said only described how things currently work. There is no foundation to suggest that how things are is the way it should be. It is possible that there is a better way of doing things. Finding these principles is my hobby.
The prompt is well-defined. Now it only require creativity and thoughts to identify where the balance point is. And I will start simple with the road-trip example on how to split the cost of a discretionary insurance between two entities who disagree on the need of the insurance.
I don’t want to waste your time until I have a result.
davisite4 said . . .
[i]”I think the question should be, what is the cost of turning the tap on and having nothing come out?”[/i]
I concur wholeheartedly davisite4 . . . which causes me to ask the following questions:
Question: What do we expect from a water system?
Answer : We expect several things:
1) – [u]We expect instant reliability[/u] which consists of a number of components:
• • • • Water dispensed in great quantity from fire hydrants whenever there is a fire, and
• • • • The knowledge that when we walk back into the house (from a trip to the store or a long vacation, etc.) that the water will flow when we want it to.
In the Prop 218 noticed rate system [b]The Distribution Charge[/b] is the fee for [u]instantaneous reliability[/u]
2) [u]We expect long term reliability[/u] which is a bit simpler:
• • • • That there is always enough water supply to meet our needs whenever we ask for that water.
In the Prop 218 noticed rate system [b]The Supply Charge[/b] is the fee for [u]long term reliability[/u]
3) [u]We expect to pay for the costs that are specific to the water we actually use[/u], which is also simple:
• • • • We want the water agency to charge us only for the water we actually use, whether that is in the dead of winter, the heat of summer, the darkness of night, or the brilliance of mid-day.
In the Prop 218 noticed rate system [b]The Variable Use Charge[/b] is the fee for [u]actual water used[/u]
What we want and how we pay for it is really quite simple. Nothing complicated about it. If we pay attention to those three things we will have no risk of turning the tap on and having nothing come out.
[quote]auto insurance is mandated in California even if you have the financial wherewithal to cover any and all damages.[/quote]
Auto insurance isn’t mandatory in California. You can establish financial responsibility by means of a cash deposit of $35k with DMV, by a DMV-issued self-insurance certificate, or by posting a surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.
Annoying digression over, carry on.
.
Edgar, the link you pointed me to stated:
[i]The water in the deep aquifer is tens of thousands of years old (yes they actually can date water) and the current belief on the part of hydrologists is that it foes underground up near Clear Lake and then follows a deep underground course down to southern Yolo County and onward to the southwest under Vacaville. There is no deep aquifer under Woodland. It does not extend that far to the northeast. Because the recharge flows take thousands of years to get to the spot under Davis, putting markers in the water up in the Clear Lake area and then following the movement of those markers would take the collaboration of many generations of scientists to complete.[/i]
But you said,[i] “So if there is a drought, we won’t get the effect until 1000 years later. “[/i]
Setting aside the order of magnitude difference (10,000 vs. 1,000 years) the fact that some of the water is 10,000 years old says *nothing* about the rate at which the water flows into the deep aquifer. We could easily be drawing the water at a faster rate than it is filling.
A and B live together in a high crime neighborhood and have a home filled with expensive items, which they both treasure. A wants to get dead bolt lock, safety windows, and a security system. A wants to install motion sensitive lights outside. B doesn’t want to pay for any of these things, and likes to leave the windows open during the day so that the house always has fresh air. B also likes to leave the door unlocked because B thinks it’s friendlier.
B is not acting rationally. B’s opinion should not have the same weight. Even if by sheer luck they left their house open and yet never got broken into, B would still be mistaken. A would never owe B any money because A is acting prudently given the situation.
Of course, in a democracy, we all get to vote regardless of the evidence we have for our opinions. However, it is incumbent upon all of us to become as educated as we can, and to not take excessive risks with our community, our state, and our nation.
Don – I suggest that you move Edgar’s discussion thread to the bulletin board. It is interesting and thought provoking, but it’s abstract in nature, and he seems to want to create an alternative to traditional democratic and/or representative decision making. These ideas, while interesting, are not germane to our water discussion.
Re: Adam
I think the philosophical foundation is directly related to the situation because it defines accountability and fairness in contributing to a shared capital. It defines the accountability for the YES vote and the NO vote. I allows the YES and NO voters to see in what ways their decisions might be unfair. There is a fair an accountable way to vote YES and to vote NO. This defines it.
But I agree that if needed it can be moved to the bulletin board.
[b]On Accountability of Discretionary Insurance[/b]
The Solution to the Road Trip problem [Ref] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6146:sunday-commentary-yes-campaign-needs-to-engage-misinformation-and-avoid-union-money-trap&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83&cpage=60#comment-177418[/url])
Scenario: A and B are about to have a road trip and A wants to buy additional insurance, while B disagreed with the need. Who should pay for the insurance?
Analysis:
Let $10 be the cost of the insurance.
Let $1000 be the cost that incurs if an accident happens.
Let X be A’s share of the insurance payment (1-X be B’s share of the insurance payment)
When an accident occurs, A and B will pay $500 each to the emergency service provider that fixes the problem. With the insurance, they are reimbursed. The reimbursement is simply split by their share X.
So, if A paid 100% for the insurance, and if there is a reimbursement, A is entitle to 100% of the reimbursement. If the reimbursement is $1000, then A would have paid $10 + $500, but received $1000 in return. The net profit of A would be $490.
It is up to B’s preference to decide how much he would join the insurance program. If he choose to share 50% of the insurance cost, then if the reimbursement of $1000 is issued, he is entitled to $500, which exactly covers his own payment to the emergency service provider.
The meaning of this result in the context of Measure I is this:
The City is providing the opportunity to join an insurance program. If our democracy is not binary, the City would simply allow the people to “buy share” of the project, and distribute the reimbursement according to the shares.
The most easily accountable risk is probably the constituent penalty. When the penalty does take effect, the city could measure the concentration to compute whether they would have been fined without the SWP. If the fine is $3000 per day, the City shall charge every ratepayer according to their usage, and use that revenue to reimburse the shareholders of the SWP.
Example:
o Annual Usage: A:60 B:40
o SWP Share held: A:100% B:0%
o Pollution Payment: A:$1800 B:$1200
o Reimbursement: A:$3000 B:$0
o Difference: A:$1200 B:-$1200
[b]Ethically[/b], a NO vote means that the voter agrees to pay the YES side for the damage the YES side had chosen to insure them against. (Unless after the NO vote, the NO voter is also paying for the capital cost.)
Then, the only missing piece now is to identify the objective methods to detect when a damage is avoided by the SWP. I think it is not too difficult to define that for:
1) Pollution penalty -> By noting the requirement and measuring the concentration
I am not sure how to define the damage for:
2) Lack of capacity to sustain growth.
3) Brown out -> People use more water when they get to use more water.
The same can be analyzed for risks (4) (5) (6).