In two days it will be over and we really have no idea what the result will be at the end of the day on Tuesday after the polls close. People I have spoken to have talked about the intensity and the nastiness of the race. Friends are divided. Many just want it over.
The first issue is that of cost. As I noted several weeks ago, the Measure I campaign has for the most part thrown up its collective hands at the issue of costs. They concede costs will go up and their argument largely remains that the era of cheap water is over. That is likely true. But it also ignores not only the impacts on the typical ratepayer, but also the implacts upon the senior citizen on a limited fixed income or the lower income household.
The city’s ability to address the impact upon lower income residents appears very limited. It is a glaring problem with Measure I as currently constructed, but it has rarely been mentioned by the opposition to the project.
The opposition has been more interested in sowing the seeds of confusion and chasing rainbows and conspiracy theories than questioning the most fundamental of issues – how the average person is going to pay their water bill.
At the same time, there is a second critical issue and that is one of alternatives. If we do not pass Measure I, what is the alternative? Where do we get our water – from whom, and for how much?
The No on Measure I campaign has staked their argument on a couple of premises which are both highly questionable.
First, they argue that the system itself continues to work. That the water continues to be clean and reliable. And that we can rely on the deep well aquifer to supply the city indefinitely. That argument appeared to hit a snag this week when Well 30 had to be taken off line due to contamination.
That may not in itself appear to be a huge deal, but it demonstrates the mindset of the No on Measure I campaign which questioned the result without information, and insinuated malfeasance.
The No on I’s response to this news exemplifies their response to every single piece of contrary news – they attack the messenger. They ascribe these findings to intentional manipulation of the system with hardly a scrap of affirmative evidence to back them up.
When the information coming from the mouths of experts diverges with the No on Measure I narrative, they are quick to turn on the experts, asserting that monetary and peer pressure considerations account for their viewpoint rather than science and rationality.
When faced with contentions that force the No on Measure I side to acknowledge that the deep wells might not supply reliable water indefinitely, they attempted to resurrect the West Sacramento argument. Quickly, West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon attempted to quash that argument by sending a letter suggesting that the two cities were not a good match on water.
The No on Measure I campaign could have focused on the critical issue of cost and hammered the Yes on Measure I side for failing to have an adequate answer. That would have been an honest campaign on an honest issue.
Instead, what we have seen is the advent of conspiracy theories and the chasing of rainbows. So we have the lawsuit hammering on the disproportionality of the rates, we have the lawsuit alleging the non-payment of water, we have the lawsuit not served on the city with vague “strategic reasons” cited as the inadequate explanation, and we have the endless string of Bob Dunning columns, many of which are based on misrepresentations of council and city staff statements and a misunderstanding of the rate structure.
The result of this disinformation campaign is that many voters are, in fact, confused. The No on Measure I campaign has muddied the water to sow that confusion and then put forth the argument, if you are confused, vote no. It is akin to throwing someone in the water only to throw them a life preserver at the last second and anoint oneself a hero for rescuing the drowning victim.
Sadly, Michael Harrington seems to lack an understanding for what he has done. He seems to justify his actions by noting that they thought this to be a hopeless campaign but now they believe they are close to defeating the measure, as though this were an all-out death match where anything is justified by the outcome.
But I do not believe the ends justify the means. I do not think that this should have been waged as a win-at-all-costs campaign. I believe that sowing a dishonest campaign of confusion based on distortions and occasionally outright lies is not the way to go.
So yes, it is entirely possible that Mr. Harrington will prevail, but what have we really won if he prevails in that way?
There are people who have charged that the Vanguard has enabled this conduct. Our view is this: in the months leading up to the final Measure I, we had questions and concerns about the project, the size, the costs and the process.
Frankly, we still do. We believe that the issue was put on the ballot too soon, that some decisions were rushed despite an overall lengthy period of time planning, and that had we had an extra year to plan this, we would have a better project.
We lament the fact that the project and rates were approved on September 6, 2011 without a rate study, without a water advisory committee, and without proper planning to ramp up the rates.
On the other hand, once the measure was placed on the ballot, we believe that the decision was out of the hands of the council and placed into the hands of the public. At that point, we attempted to have as balanced coverage as we could with pieces from both sides of the issue, focusing on checking the accuracy of claims made by both sides.
As the process evolved and some issues took center stage over others, our preferences on rate structure ended up taking more precedence over our concerns about the impact of the rates and the electoral process itself.
Mr. Harrington last night sent out an email about his public utilities initiative. This was supposed to be his centerpiece alternative to the water project, but now the voters will not get to even see the fine print prior to the election.
He said last night, “We will shortly file with the City Clerk our Initiative, which will serve as the Measure J/R for larger utility projects, including both water and sewer utilities.
He argues that the intiative would “require larger projects to be fully vetted by all relevant city commissions,” “require an outside, transparent audit of the water enterprise fund;” “require the City to immediately move to set up the metering, accounting, and payment systems so that the City pays for its own water usage;” “require the City to follow certain California codes concerning the bidding of professional contracts and retention of outside utility consultants;” ” require a full EIR (not like the rushed, defective EIR that was done in the middle of the night at the end of December 2010, at Don Saylor’s last CC meeting before resigning).”
It would also require specific project design features, and “a stop-lock feature on total project construction costs, so the voters must re-approve the project before the construction costs can exceed the voter-approved amount” and, of course, ” require the entire package to be put to a city-wide vote.”
“If the proposed project is approved, then the City will conduct a formal Prop 218 notice on the rate changes; it should sail through,” he writes. “Never again should a project this large be pushed through planning with such an odd and opaque planning and approval process.”
But we have now seen what such a campaign looks like, and while it sounds good to say we will require all of these features in order to have a large project, if that means a repeat of the Measure I campaign, many people will likely say, thanks, but no thanks.
At the same time, we take issue with the Yes on Measure I campaign, as well.
The letter from Yes on Measure I campaign manager Will Arnold exemplifies the approach of the project proponents.
It is the appeal to authority, whether it be political officeholders or experts.
He writes, “Among the yes side you have every local elected official, including Congressman John Garamendi, state Sen. Lois Wolk, and a unanimous Davis City Council, Board of Education and Yolo County Board of Supervisors. Also supporting a yes vote are all three local newspapers (The Davis Enterprise, the Sacramento Bee and The California Aggie), the vast majority of our citizens’ Water Advisory Committee, and a host of UC Davis water experts.”
And then for one of the few times, he turns it negative, “Among the no side you have Sue Greenwald, Mike Harrington and the Yolo County Taxpayers Association.”
He closest by asking, “Whom do you trust?”
The problem the project proponents face is that a lot people in this community do not trust their government and government officials. The entire campaign against the water project was waged in undermining the trust, the wisdom, the knowledge of the decisionmakers, whether it was the City Council, City staff, the experts, or even the WAC itself.
If Measure I loses it will be largely because the voters lacked that fundamental trust, but also because the Measure I campaign waged too lofty a campaign.
They failed to engage and counter the barrage of misinformation coming not only from the Measure I campaign, but from the Davis Enterprise newspaper.
On Friday we showed the magnitude of negative columns written by Bob Dunning, each day, every day. Much of the information was inaccurate, dated, or just outright misleading. Public officials had their words taken out of context and were belittled.
In the end, the questions that arose at the beginning of the campaign seem to linger and in some cases were unaddressed. If the era of cheap water really is over, and I think that is largely correct, how do we create a community that does not simply kick those who cannot afford to pay for this new water to the curb?
How do we address a new era of water in a way that will not mean that Davis’ vulnerable residents do not get kicked from their homes? There is no rainbow here, no conspiracy theory, no boogeyman, only the cold hard truth that any time you increase the cost of living, you will impact those who cannot adapt as well or as quickly as others.
At the end of the day, if we plan for our bright future at the expense of present residents, we are not visionaries, we are simply modern day conquistadors. The call of progress should not be answer by creating more displaced residents.
That is a debate I would have liked to have engaged in during this cycle. Instead, I got vague innuendos, accusations, unserved lawsuits, and unfounded accusations.
Somehow I thought we deserved better. Make your call, vote your conscience, but do it for the right reasons.
If you believe that we have not adequately addressed the issue of costs, then oppose the project. If you believe that we have no other alternative, support it but find a way for it not to force people out of their homes.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Unserved lawsuits”? Did I miss something? Another article? Or, is that all you can really say about that? What the heck?
They filed the lawsuit but never served the city.
“COMMENTARY” is the appropriate title for this article. Contrary to what is described, I thought that West Sac did make an opening offer which would have be still cheaper than the Woodland-Davis project. As far as we know, it was summarily rejected by Davis and we know nothing of any further attempts to negotiate with West Sac.
What if you don’t care about any of this. What if all you care about is getting better quality water? Then join me in voting yes.
D2, the opening offer from West Sac was for a term ending 2032, with Davis being financiably responsible for 12mgd of capital costs if Davis wanted water after 2032. Without the capital costs it was $12 million cheaper, but with the 2033 and beyond capital costs it would have been considerably more expensive.
Service of civil lawsuit in California,California Rules of Court 3.110(b):
(b)Service of complaint
The complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing of the complaint. When the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days
after the filing of the amended complaint.
Thank you Highbeam.
“support it but find a way for it not to force people out of their homes.”
Nice sentiment but Davis forces people out of their homes all the time by restricting growth and forcing the cost of living up with high home values. i have written for years about great people who left town because they couldn’t afford it here. Family people, well educated, employed and employable, tax paying, law abiding and what level of empathy was provided for those who couldn’t afford it here by two of the biggest opponents of this project, Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington? They brought forth measure J. if you look at the No on I campaign it is filled with anti-growth advocates. Anti-growth drive up the cost of living for everyone not already landed. It drives it up much more than this water project will.
Every additional $100,000 dollars on the cost of a house at 3.5% for 30 years adds $449 per month to your mortgage payment. Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington have howled that your water rates will triple to more than $100 per month but on housing costs they have never cared and only relished in how much their investments have gone up in value.
All that new union money flooding in. No mention, David?
David
[quote]But there are two critical issues that we started this campaign with, and two critical issues that end this campaign with.[/quote]
I agree with this statement, but disagree with your order of prioritization and believe that this point is of importance.
The first issue for me is need. Everyone, including the opponents of the project, ultimately, after much naysaying ,ultimately agreed that Davis will need to develop a mechanism for conjunctive use. So given the agreed upon need for another source of water, the questions of timing and cost must be considered, but are clearly secondary.
What the “no” side has said again and again is that we do not need the water now. I agree if you are talking about today, or this year, but no one has given a firm timeline in which they believe that river water will be needed. Without such a timeline based on evidence, delaying is just a matter of pushing the cost issue onto future residents instead of doing the responsible thing and starting to pay for what we know we will need now.
This delay may suit the needs and desires of current residents, but is it really ethical to continue to pass these doubtless increasing costs onto our own children and other future residents ? Because that is the outcome of
the “No on I ” strategy whether they are willing to admit it or not.
This issue of pricing people out of their homes is not trivia and it is incumbent upon us as individual residents and as a city to find a solution to this problem. However, I think it is disingenuous to pretend that some who are on the edge financially might be “priced out of their homes” by rising costs of water even if Measure I is not enacted. We know that water prices will rise in any event. I would far rather see them rise to secure a dual water source for the city and future residents that to attempt to maintain a system that all have agreed is not sustainable in the future. This is not a “sky is falling” statement, it is no more than was admitted by Sue Greenwald from the dais at the Vanguard/Davis Media sponsored forum.
“All that new union money flooding in. No mention, David? “
Any evidence, or just more spurious allegations from a grifting bamboozeler ?
David, you have gone on and on about the increased water rates going on 2 years now. Yet, from a broader perspective your concern is inconsistent. As a community and a society we make numerous tradeoffs/choices between prices/affordability and sustainability. As Toad rightly points out, we choose higher housing prices as a consequence of our anti-sprawl policies. We choose higher energy prices which leads to higher prices on clothing, shelter, food, critical services to achieve cleaner air and to protect the environment.
The water choice has a far lower impact on low income families than the sprawl and energy choices with their associated costs. So why do you chose to focus on water costs, yet remain silent on these other choices and costs? Just the opposite, I’m fairly certain you are a proponent of these other choices and costs (as am I). Where is the consistency?
-Michael Bisch
[quote]”If you believe that we have not adequately address the issue of costs, then oppose the project. If you believe that we have no other alternative, support it but find a way for it not to force people out of their homes.”[/quote]How can someone really believe that water rates will “force” anyone out of their home?
This two-year-old hyperbole got combined with Michael’s lawsuit (claiming that the city is “cheating” on its own water bill to the disadvantage of the rest of us)–thereby, manufacturing a “trust issue” about our city council that could sink Measure I.
Just who will lose a home because they cannot afford to pay for better water? In all these months, who has given us any stats about how many Davis residents are so on-the-edge that one item of this magnitude will force people into Woodland or Winters? What percentage of our seniors really are at this kind of tipping point (as opposed to living in Prop. 13-protected homes on city and UCD retirements)?
Is the cost difference between repairing the current system and replacing it all that much? Compared to what? To our other utilities? To iPhone bills? To Comcast bills? To daily coffees or eating out? To gasoline price increases? To galloping medical expenses?
If people cannot adjust their discretionary spending enough to pay for their water bills years out, they already cannot afford to live in Davis. That’s a sad commentary.
But, it’s an irresponsible argument that we should vote down a necessary city water project just because some undefined, disadvantaged resident(s) supposedly will be run out of town in five years–assuming, of course, that their income is destined to remain the same in years to come.
However, if you still insist on the premise, what solution are you proposing (“find a way for it not to force peope out of their homes”)? As far as I can see, there’s nothing keeping us from continuing to work on a better rate scheme and support for the poor even after we vote “yes” and approve the project.
Tbe DE article today refers to lots of new union and Davis Chamber PAC donations
Well, Let us see, unions gave money to create jobs for their members, who might support such use of their funds,The Chamber PAC, who have made no secret of their position, tossed in a few bucks, along with a few good citizens, to get decent water and you’re sore because the medicine show for No on everything didn’t draw a crowd and some of your “clients” will lose a little bit more control of Davis’ culture. Suck it up, there’s always more rubes to shill .
[i]What if you don’t care about any of this. What if all you care about is getting better quality water? Then join me in voting yes.[/i]
Mr. Toad and I completely agree here.
[i]Davis forces people out of their homes all the time by restricting growth and forcing the cost of living up with high home values.[/i]
Mr. Toad and I completely agree here too. The rate-payer costs arguments against Measure I are very inconsistent and irrational considering the tendencies of some opponents to agitate for other policies that increase resident’s costs.
[i]we choose higher housing prices as a consequence of our anti-sprawl policies. We choose higher energy prices which leads to higher prices on clothing, shelter, food, critical services to achieve cleaner air and to protect the environment.[/i]
I agree with DT Businessman. I would also add to the “anti-sprawl” point that we also accept lower sales tax revenue from the lack of commercial development and new business… tax revenue that could otherwise be used to offset the rate-payer hit resulting from the cost of the surface water project.
And we protect our property values. Property value impact is one area that hasn’t been considered in this debate. If the rate impacts are really going to be minimal as the YOI group assures us, then higher quality, better tasting, safer, environmentally clean, appliance saving water would seem to be a value-add feature of a Davis property. Or at least, it would stop the negative feature of Davis having really bad water.
If protecting low-income people is a real agenda for the Measure I opponents, then they would achieve much better results focusing on Davis building more affordable housing, increasing sales and business tax revenue, and agitating for more affordable energy. Because they do not demand these things, it is pretty easy to see that the real agenda is simply preventing any and all city growth… and “caring for the poor” just provides them political cover.
It would be a whole lot easier if there was a ‘Like’ button on this blog.
What Frankly said!
Regarding the Dunning and Rancho Yolo position, I demand a single-father-with-2-young-kids rate class. I’m willing to block a sustainable source of water for the entire community until my very narrow interest has been adressed to my satisfaction. That’s just the way I roll.
-Michael Bisch
DV wrote: “So yes, it is entirely possible that Mr. Harrington will prevail, but what have we really won if he prevails in that way?”
We were attacked without mercy by the JPA forces, with the same ugly language that this article uses. So what did we gain: how about a much smaller project, and savings exceeding $135 million, even if Measure I wins?
It’s not “Mr. Harrington” winning, it is the Davis ratepayers and voters winning, if Measure I is defeated on Tuesday night.
What do those beneficiaries gain? Well, about about well over another quarter billion dollars of savings?
Or, stopping monied outside interest groups from taking over our town?
Or, stopping the unnecessary depletion of precious Sacramento River water that is needed downstream by aquatic life?
Or, Woodland and the JPA mucking around in our political and utilities governance until the end of time?
Or … or … or …
The Public Utilities Initiative will control the process going forward, and we will all gain from that.
“What if you don’t care about any of this. What if all you care about is getting better quality water?”
Really? What if you don’t care that this is a financial burden to some people and all you care about is getting better quality water for yourself? Is that really the point you were trying to make?
“All that new union money flooding in. No mention, David?”
I reported it last week.
I think there was new money disclosed in the Friday filing, right?
I think Dunning’s Sunday column made sense. CBFR heavily subsidizes certain groups over others, and the 6x cost for summer over winter water is irrational, and will never survive unmodified.
BTW, it’s not seemly for the DV to be constantly slinging mud at Dunning. Why dont you just write hard-hitting investigative pieces like you used to do, and stop with all of the personal stuff?
Dunning’s columns are full of original analysis, he even conducts his own research and breaks stories. He didn’t draft the water rate structure, and he is one of the few city leaders who actually got out a calculator and wrote about the results. All interesting, original, useful, and correct.
Jerry Hallee’s concerns and conclusions as to the effects of the rate structure on Rancho Yolo very low income seniors are 100% correct, and through the rates lawsuit, that community through the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services will be well represented. We will fight for those nice people in Rancho Yolo; the City government sure as heck is not.
MH: [i]…it is the Davis ratepayers and voters winning, if Measure I is defeated on Tuesday night.[/i]
Or the Davis ratepayers and voters winning if Measure I wins Tuesday night, because that’s what they want and that’s what they’re willing to pay for it. That is an argument that plays either way, as do the rest of what follows.
Well 30 is just down the street from my house. I go by it all the time on my runs. Sometimes I chat with city workers who are there doing their work. I would genuinely like to see the evidence that the Mn spike isn’t really so, that there is really manipulation and shenanigans going on with the city that you’ll demonstrate. Don’t let me down, Michael.
“Or, stopping monied outside interest groups from taking over our town? “
A friend who is a small time developer and the son of one of the biggest developers in town told me that his grandmother owned a house on eighth St. when there were still tomato fields on the north side of the street. So who are these outside interest groups? It seems that the people who have been here longer than many of the Nimby’s are a lot more interested in not closing the gate than these supposed limits to growth Paul Ehrlich type desgraciados.
When the cost of water hits $7.50 per ccf (which is a long way off for most of us) water will cost $0.01 per gallon. With a 2.5 gal/min shower head, that 20 minute shower will cost you $0.50 (for the water). At $7.50 per ccf, water is cheap. Today, it is ridiculously so.
In an era of >$4 a gallon for gasoline, it will be the penny a gallon cost of water that will put people out of their homes?
Is that what you are saying David?
One of my favorite TV programs to watch when I have the time, is “How Its Made” on the Science Channel.
I watched this episode a few years back, and decided, Like Mark West writes, potable water is ridiculously cheap based on what is required to make it safe and clean.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIoSt0-K7wI[/url]
I urge you to also take the sparkling wine making tour at Mumms in Napa. Once you are done watching this involved and labor-intensive process, you will wonder why Champaign and sparkling wine isn’t all $150 or more per bottle.
We consumers just take it for granted that these things just magically show up in our lives at ridiculously cheap prices.
We are happy to have the support of the working men and women who will build all our public works projects in our community, as well as many other local businesses and individuals that understand investing in our water system is the responsible and smart thing to do.
I am not convinced that the rate increases that will occur if Measure I fails or those that will occur if it passes will drive people from their homes. I see no data, I see no evidence, and I see very little call for any such evidence to be assembled.
We have known for some time that rates are going up no matter what. We have seen “the poor” used as “props” in the broader debate about rate increases. What we have seen very little of are calls to assess the actual situation of what poorer members of our community will face with the [b]known[/b] increases.
There is absolutely NOTHING keeping us from carrying out such assessments but no one seems to care enough to actually call our leaders to put into place a task force or request staff to conduct to analyze the situation. I am not convinced the concern is genuine just as I am not convinced the problem is real. However, I am prepared to acknowledge there is a problem once we have some evidence in hand.
According to the list of debt service payments here ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6144:clarifying-the-rancho-yolo-water-rate-situation&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83&cpage=30#comment-177215[/url]), the sum total of the payments is $1,264,666,000 ($1.26 Billion) to 2050.
Divide that by 16000 accounts gives $79,042 per account.
Divide that by 40 years gives $1976 per account per year.
This cost is not just for the SWP, but also includes the maintenance of wells. In any case, this number is different from the “$8000” per ratepayer that was mentioned here ([url]davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6072:councilmember-lee-explains-support-for-water-project&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83[/url]).
To say that the SWP would cost $8000 per account implies that the SWP is only 10% of the cost of the $1,264,666,000. It could be a arithmetic error that the number Brett Lee should have said was $80K instead of $8K.
…conduct an analysis of the situation.
“Is that what you are saying David?”
I spent less on gas than I do on water, just saying.
Trying out as moderator, I move the following off-topic comment from the school president story here where it should have been posted. (Back to you, DT Businessman.)
David M. Greenwald
03/03/13 – 01:42 PM
“Yet, from a broader perspective your concern is inconsistent.”
How is my concern inconsistent? It seems very consistent from my perspective both on this issue and across an array of issues.
…school principal story…sorry. Guess my moderator trial failed.
“D2, the opening offer from West Sac was for a term ending 2032…”
Matt… you are well aware that this was the “ancient” first-offer and the most recent was for perpetual water guarantees from West Sac and this first-offer was somewhat less than the bottom line for the Davis-Woodland project.
No d2 the most recent West Sac alternative totalled 113.4 million and the final WDCWA alternative totalled $113.7 million.
Those two are virtually identical, and the risk contingency amount is actually $3 million more in the WDCWA numbers.
“I think Dunning’s Sunday column made sense. CBFR heavily subsidizes certain groups over others, and the 6x cost for summer over winter water is irrational, and will never survive unmodified.”
The proposed rate structure is enough of a reason to stop this project now and go back to the drawing board. Using the summer use to determine the % of the fixed cost that each ratepayer is problematic on its face.
As it will dramatically raise all water bills, most especially for those who consume more, THIS is enough of an economic hit on most middle-income families to stimulate conservation. Adding additional usage tiers with increasing rates for higher use with water bills that already will be tripled is an outrage and should be no more acceptable than charging MORE PER GALLON of gasoline if your needs require more than the weekly allotment that the “gasoline use police” would decide to put in place.
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him think.
D2, you clearly don’t understand the rate structure. The summer use of an individual account is compared to the total summer use of the whole agency to determine the PROPORTION of that account’s cost share. Higher users only get a higher bill if their actual use results in a higher proportion. If everyone uses more then the proportions don’t change and the cost share doesn’t change.
In fact that is what happens in the single family residential class . . . No change in proportion. The changes in proportion all happen in the other three classes.
Proportion of costs incurred = proportion of costs paid for.
Irrigation only accounts see their proportion go up. Mult Family and Commercial (non irrigation) see their proportion go down. Single Family Residential’s proportion is unchanged.
Irrigation only accounts produce proportionally more system load in summer. Multi Family and Commercial accounts produce proportionally less system load in summer. Single Family Residences produce proportionately the same load in summer as they do annually.
Most middle-income families produce less system load in summer than they do annually.
Less system load means less system capital construction costs. Less system capital costs mean a lower bill.
Bottom-line, davisite2 is 100% wrong in his assertion. He has been drinking the Sue Greenwald cool aid.
….and Matt, your explanation is characteristically non-responsive and clear as mud. Readers(voters) will have the final say.
I agree with d2, and i dont drink any of.that green Koolaid!
Voters will only have the final say if Mike Harrington, Don and Nancy Price, and John Munn withdraw their lawsuit.
Don, let NOE proceed with their frivolous lawsuit and their goofy initiative. The voters aren’t going to abide a radical minority working to thwart the will of the majority. It will only marginalize Harrington and Greenwald further.
-Michael Bisch
You clearly haven’ t done any capital budgeting davisite2. H&R Block can help you understand the clarity of the response.
David, with the amount of time you’ve spent on the “Water Watch” side of the Vanguard Reisig Weist are feeling like their on vacation. Thanks for not [b]directly[/b] telling us how to vote but I think we know where your vote will fall.
You may think you know, but you don’t.
Heck I don’t even know
I’d like to commend David for doing an excellent job in presenting both sides of this difficult issue.
I’ll drop my ballot off Tuesday; 50% of me wants to vote yes and 50% no.
Maybe a dream that I have tonite will help guide me the wiser way; or will it be the whim of the moment? Maybe I’ll check both boxes.
This issue has provided a good illustration of how history does not change; as Mark Twain said 150 years ago “Whiskeys for drinking, waters for fighting”; should hold up thruout 21st century in most of the world.