In yesterday’s column, Bob Dunning praised (sort of) the efforts by the Davis City council to simplify the protest form for a Prop 218 Protest.
Wrote the columnist, “It may have taken them all of the spring and part of the summer to get it done, but the Davis City Council finally came up with a simplified form to allow citizens to protest the proposed increase in our water rates.”
He then went on to write, “And given the language of Proposition 218, the only way the citizens of Davis can tie the council’s hands and block the rate increase is for a majority of rate payers to file a protest.”
He then went on to describe the process which he correctly identifies as requiring a “pure majority of all rate payers out there, not just those who bother to ‘vote.’ “
He noted, “It’s a nearly impossible hurdle to overcome for those opposed to the increase…”
Although he needlessly added, “It was made even more difficult by the city’s refusal to include any sort of protest form in the several mailings it sent out in the last several months to tell us how bad our water is and how much it will cost to make it better.”
The city was pushed, but indeed went beyond what they were required by statute to do, indeed beyond what most cities have done, and for that they should be praised not derided because it took them a bit longer than we might have liked. After all, they went against their own interests to do so.
Proposition 218 is a ridiculously draconian process. It requires very little notification. As mentioned, the simplified form is not required and in fact, the original form which buries the rights of people in the middle and treats it as an afterthought is not only permissible but standard.
Only property owners get to vote. And a non-vote is counted as approval of the rates.
But I need to note that Bob Dunnig is not correct when he wrote, “The only way the citizens of Davis can tie the council’s hands and block the rate increase is for a majority of rate payers to file a protest.”
In fact, there is another way that is far simpler. It requires an old-fashioned referendum, where citizens get a set number of signatures, and put it on the ballot where the majority of voters who show up at the polls can determine its outcome.
I knew of this before from a former councilmember, but in late May I was sent an email from the President of the Solano County Taxpayers Association.
It is rare indeed when I might find myself agreeing with a Taxpayers Association. But this is one case where interests cross normal political lines.
They told me, “It may be difficult to collect fifty percent (50%) plus one protests needed to stop the water rate increase. But it is very easy to collect signatures of five percent (5%) of the registered voters who voted in the last gubernatorial ballot.”
In fact, the City of Dixon did just that. In 2006, Dixon repealed the tripling of their sewer fees. As did the City of Rohnert Park. The City of Rio Vista held a special election on June 7 to bring their water rates back to the 2006 fee structure.
The measure which argued that “the City Council in recent years has mercilessly increased water and sewer charges at a rate that far outpaces the income of most citizens,” was nevertheless defeated at the polls by a 55-45 margin which sounds more impressive than the 260 difference. 80% of the votes were cast via mail, for what that’s worth.
In a June election in an odd year, over 50% of those registered actually voted.
The bottom line is that democracy was allowed to occur through a referendum. That is undoubtedly more fair than the Prop 218 process which, even with the council’s generosity, is still stacked heavily against the ratepayers.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]That is undoubtedly more fair than the Prop 218 process which even with the council’s generosity, is still stacked heavily against the ratepayers.[/quote]… and yet, Prop 218 was approved my a majority of… voters… how would a referendum be more “democratic”?
Prop 218 sounds good until you look at the process it lays out for rate protesting which I have discussed in this article. A referendum would allow for normal rules of voting: all voters, a majority of those who turn out to vote. Prop 218’s process only allows for property owners to participate, which means that renters who may well be impacted by the rate hikes, will not get to participate. Plus as I wrote, it counts a non-response as a vote in favor of the rate hikes.
Yes, but how can you get around the fact that a majority of voters passed 218? Are Davis voters “more democratic” than ‘state-wide’? Should 218 be reversed by the voters? My point is not about water rates, it is about process. Your argument reminds me of the child who goes to Dad when Mom said “no” [yeah, I know, imperfect analogy]…
What does the fact that the voters passed 218 have to do with the actual policy that they created? There is an alternative process that is completely within the law and has been used quite frequently.
As for 218, I would say at the very least it needs to be amended in the process that it lays out.
You are arguing about process, that is fine, but the fact is that Prop 218 was created to give the public a way to protest fee hikes, but somehow got watered down in its final form. Nevertheless, nothing in it precludes the voters putting the matter on the ballot themselves, as you can see they have done so in numerous other communities with varying degrees of success.
I acknowledge your points from your last response, David. I have no substantial disagreement (except I wouldn’t have characterized what I wrote as “arguing”… I sought clarification, which you did). I would opine that using the referendum approach, it still should only be the property owners, who are financially liable for the costs… whether to ‘pass those on’ is a market issue…
To hpierce: You make good points!
One of the most basic concepts in economics is that there is “no such thing as a free lunch.” Of course rents will increase if this plan continues. To say that only property owners should have a say in this is elitist and ridiculous. I would someday like to own property in Davis, and I have lived here for many years. People like me who can’t currently afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars ownership requires, have just as much of an interest in this as anyone else.
Put me on the list of those who will give their time and energies to collect the necessary signatures for the inevitable citizen referendum.
[quote]I believe the people in charge of this project have already said they will be attempting to do this project in phases to keep costs down… E. Roberts Musser[/quote]No, the current plan is “full steam ahead”.
Sounds like a great example of extreme liberalism breeding great fascism. If my rent goes up like 50 bucks, you can go ahead and have your elitist liberal playground of the rich. I’m a liberal myself but enough is enough. 950 bucks of my rent is enough to pay for your extreme slow-growth measures which screw over younger people like me. I could own a 3-bedroom home in Citrus Heights for less than I’m paying to rent here, and I might as well. You reap what you sow.