Last night for the first time, Davis got to watch its new city manager, Steve Pinkerton, at work. At this budget workshop, there would be no rosy and hopeful projections, only straight, hard facts.
“While we have defined this as a gap, it’s not really a gap because we have no choice but to pay this,” Mr. Pinkerton said. “What this really is, these are guaranteed, built-in guaranteed increases in expenditure in a flat revenue time we’re looking at in the next two fiscal years.”
While council has acknowledged the need to delay a bit on the implementation of any savings, there is no doubt of their commitment to address these issues, and sooner rather than later.
“I totally get it that Davis is not unique,” said Mayor Krovoza, acknowledging that Davis is but one of many cities in this predicament. However, he added, “My view is that we’re a sharp city that plans well and has a lot of talent in our finance department, if we start to see that all cities in California are bracing for a very hard landing… I want this city to be sure that we’re a city that’s doing the planning and putting the right amounts of money away so that we have as soft a landing as possible”
The Mayor said on Tuesday that, while he hopes that we can do this without disrupting city services, they need to do what is necessary to put money away and build the savings now before they are forced to make draconian cuts in the very near future.
He said of the savings, “It’s not that we’re trying to squirrel away money for some sort of nefarious purpose.”
Steve Pinkerton told the council that the numbers are worse than CalPERS is letting on.
“We can have long debates on what’s going to happen to our PERS [Public Employees’ Retirement System] payments because there’s plenty of actuarials who are laying claim, with very good numbers behind them, that the rates that PERS is charging right now are not legitimate,” the City Manager told the council.
“One of the ways you can back that up is if you go to a two-tier system, or a proposed two-tier system for employees, they’re not giving us much of a break in price when you go to a two-tier system,” he said. “What they are really doing is if you go to a 2 at 60 for future employees, they give you a slightly smaller cost, the reason that cost isn’t much lower is I think they’re giving an actual cost on that, not a let’s put this off to the future cost we’re getting on our retirement payments right now.”
The numbers start bad and get worse. In just the next two years, Finance Director Paul Navazio expects $1 million to be added to pension costs. However, that is the tip of the iceberg.
If they reduce the Assumed Rate of Return (ARR) from 7.75 to 7.5, the number leaps to $1.8 million, and at 7.25% it jumps to $2.6 million, and that is just for two years.
Paul Navazio did say that the volatility of the markets right now makes the investment returns assumption figures highly suspect.
As Mr. Pinkerton pointed out, even the rate of return itself is highly speculative in nature.
“Rate of return is only one of about seven factors that you have to take into account when you’re looking at PERS rates,” he said.
Factors such as longevity is where they have been way off, particularly with public safety in projecting how long people are living. They have been wrong about the age of retirement, and about the salaries at retirement.
They have also been wrong on the growth of salaries.
“I think they projected about a three percent annual increase in salaries, and it’s been about nine percent over the past decade in public safety,” Mr. Pinkerton told council.
Just as importantly, they have built into their models assumptions about the growth in the number of public sector employees, a critical variable in properly estimating the amount of money needed to make the system work.
“They were assuming an ongoing growth of the number of employees paying into the system,” Mr. Pinkerton pointed out. “As we know, statewide, between local and schools, you are down over 100,000 employees paying into our pension system as opposed to just a couple of years ago.”
All of these means that CalPERS has severely underestimated the amount of contributions needed by employees and employers alike.
“There’s no question there is going to have to be some modification, we don’t know when that’s going to be and we don’t know what it is,” he said. “I think the gap could potentially be so large as what you’re seeing in places like San Jose right now, where they are talking about 40, 50, 60 percent increases in rates.”
“I think realistically at some point PERS is going to have to find some way to impact future benefits of existing employees. I think that’s the only way to avoid creating pure chaos at the state and local government,” he added.
The focus on retiree health care was sobering. Right now, we are only 60% of the necessary funding for OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits), and at 12% of payroll and we need to get to 20% by 2015-16.
That requires an additional $1.4 million for the general fund and $2.4 million all funds.
To get to a fully-funded level, the required level is 18 to 20% of payroll for 30 years.
Then there is the street maintenance piece, which is a huge piece of the puzzle. As Mr. Pinkerton pointed out, there is an expensive obligation down the road to maintain the city’s huge network of streets.
The cited infrastructure gap of $2 million to $2.5 million also includes the backlog of $10 to $15 million.
Mr. Pinkerton also talks about sidewalks and the fact that many cities are now starting to do street sidewalk maintenance as a shared obligation between the city and residents, and in some cases even a private one.
The problem the city faces here is the loss of transportation funding from the federal government, and Mr. Pinkerton does not expect that will return any time soon. He said that we have to assume that the federal government will not provide us with additional dollars.
At some point, we will have to make hard prioritizations, and numbers will continue to grow.
Paul Navazio added that, even when we did have the funding from the federal government, street maintenance was not funded at the optimal level.
As Steve Pinkerton put it, of all of those numbers, transportation is probably the most daunting right now.
Rochelle Swanson argued that, even if we up to one million, we are still growing the backlog, falling further behind. Time is of the essence on some of these, she argued.
She pointed out that deferred maintenance increases the costs of repair by as much as 5 to 10 percent per year.
As Mr. Navazio pointed out, the city’s needs exceed the $2.5 million in savings proposed in this fiscal year, and additional savings will be needed in the outyears.
A modest projection of $7 million in increased costs by 2015 has been made in the past, but the figures presented on Tuesday suggest that is the middle-tier estimate. Higher than the baseline figure of about $5.5 million presented by the city, but it could go much higher if the assumptions of CalPERS change.
The subject then turned to a discussion of how to achieve savings. Once again, the focuses are on organizational restructuring, alternative service delivery with a minimization on program and service reductions.
Stephen Souza said that the community is already feeling the service reductions. He said they talk to him about it every day and he believes it is a matter of “how much further can we cut into the bone.”
Everyone on council seems to acknowledge the magnitude of the problems before us. The question is what will be the solution. There was a timeline to start making some of these tough decisions, perhaps by November, but on this night it was about getting additional information on the table.
Stephen Souza argued that it took many years to get where we are, that there were many negotiations that were before his years on the council.
He believes this is about getting to a soft landing, but that depends on how fast you go down the road. He said he doesn’t want to get a speeding ticket for going about this too fast.
He wants to do this methodically, and not attempt to solve overnight what took us many years to get to.
Mr. Souza said he is an optimist and believes that we can deliver those services. He believes we have to look at economic development as a tool to create a revenue enhancement, that “for health of our community we have to do it.”
On the other hand, Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued that revenue in general was not going to happen, that there is simply not enough that makes net new revenue in a down economy. She argued that economic development generally will not produce net new revenue.
At the same time, she wants to stay a progressive city, keeping the safety net in place for those who make below median income in the city. She wants to maintain defined benefits and retiree health, but also wants to make them work in order to assure that everyone has a comfortable old age.
Councilmember Dan Wolk said that it is clear that we have a serious long-term unfunded liability problem that has been built up over a long time over many years. His focus is to ensure that his children and those in the community are not saddled with these liabilities.
He wants to get on the right path for the long term.
His support for Mayor Krovoza’s motion in June was based on the vision that it would start the conversation ASAP and light a fire for us to look for ways to move onto the right path.
“I want us as we move forward to keep that fire lit but also to make sure that we come up with a solution that’s smart and is collaborative and involves the employees,” he said. “I recognize that employee morale is low right now, I understand why.”
He continued that everyone recognizes that we have this long-term issue. He added that we can’t be balanced on the backs of the employees but there might have to be shared sacrifice.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Obviously our new City Manager Steve Pinkerton gets it. I think it was wise for the City Council to allow him the extra time to really delve into the issue of the city’s budget. Mr. Pinkerton is being extremely realistic, which is a breath of fresh air. The current City Council, together with Mr. Pinkerton, do NOT appear poised to “kick the can down the road” as has been done before. The potential solutions will not be easy to come up with or pretty to implement. But the city has to start learning how to live within its budget for a change. Very thoughtful article, and sobering…
“Just as importantly, they have built into their models assumptions about the growth in the number of public sector employees, a critical variable in properly estimating the amount of money needed to make the system work.”
That does not appear to be an accurate comment. If you have a pension pool, the growth of the pool does not matter unless it materially changes the motality assumption – the pool is already huge so I do not see how additional people would have any impact on the statistical assumptions.
[quote]On the other hand, Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued that revenue in general was not going to happen, that there is simply not enough that makes net new revenue in a down economy. She argued that economic development generally will not produce net new revenue.–[b]Sue Greenwald[/b][/quote]I don’t recall mentioning a down economy. There is, unfortunately, not much in the way of economic development that brings the city significant net new revenue period, with the exception of hotels and auto dealerships. I pointed out that the huge new Mori Seiki factory is not paying point of sales to the city, and might not even pay the equipment tax. That leaves not much more revenue than we would have gotten with housing on the site, and housing does not bring net revenue.
I should add that I have already been receiving complaints from other companies that they feel that the city should mitigate the large amount of truck traffic that Mori Seiki will generate — another cost to the city.
Sadly, there are no easy answers. It sure would be nice if we can get sales tax on internet sales from our zip code.
Alphonso: It’s a simple thing, but more employees mean more inputs into the system which makes it easier to pay the current retirees. But cuts to jobs means there are few people paying into the system which makes it more difficult to pay the retirees.
” But cuts to jobs means there are few people paying into the system which makes it more difficult to pay the retirees.”
This is not like SS which is not funded and depends on a growing workforce to remain solvant. The Calpers funding should be based on the actual pool of people in the system and that liability has nothing to do with adding a few more people.
Why not ask the employees to contribute more to their own pension?
The 7.75% return assumption looks reasonble based on historical performance – it is actually less than historical performance.
ALPH: [i]”If you have a pension pool, the growth of the pool does not matter unless it materially changes the mortality assumption …”[/i]
You have this wrong.
The loss of 100,000 employees paying into the pension system affects present cash flow. That would not be all that important if the return on investment for CalPERS were super-normal right now. But, as you know, ROI has been lagging over the last 3-4 years.
There are four sources of cash flow for the retirement system: 1) present workers paying in who will not withdraw money from the system any time soon; 2) earnings from investments; 3) interest from bonds or cash accounts; and 4) drawing down cash on hand.
When cash flow from 2 and 3 are sufficient, the system will use those to fund current pension payments–that is, cash-out of the system. But when the returns are insufficient (that is, CalPERS is getting a return under its needed 7.75% per year), they use funds from sources 1 and 4.
When source 1 is declining due to 100,000 layoffs, that presents a current cash-flow problem for CalPERS.
Using current money flowing in from workers to pay the pensions of current retirees might seem like a dangerous move. However, if the ROI is not greatly under 7.75% and the sub-standard earnings affects the system only for a short time, it’s no danger. But if it happens for years on end, it is unsustainable.
That is why CalPERS has been forced over the last 3 years to raise its rates substantially–they need to have more cash on hand to write checks to current retirees.
What CalPERS has not done is change its ROI assumptions. It still believes that over the long run it will make 7.75% returns. If that is right, then the high rates it is now charging its member agencies will not only help to fund current cash-out, but it will provide the capital CalPERS will use to generate normal or super-normal returns over the next 5 to 10 years. If that happens, then CalPERS will lower its rates back to roughly what they were 3-4 years ago.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_PQrWkRSWKEE/SzKmZkC8eoI/AAAAAAAABCc/PTuRqhNpITo/s400/wtocartoon2.jpg[/img]
On the other hand, if PERS earns less than 7.75% APR on its investments over the next few years, then to make cash flow they will have to keep increasing their rates.
A fair question is this: Is it realistic for CalPERS to assume it can make a 7.75% ROI over the long run? I think it is. The historic returns for the S&P 500 from the 1950s to the low point of the market in 2009 is 11% per year*. Every decade for the last 60 years has exceeded 7.75% except the 1970s (5.8%) and the 2000s (-1.0%). For cash-flow reasons, PERS cannot invest exclusively in blue chip stocks. They need to buy bonds (which pay less than stocks) and invest in money market accounts and they need to have uninvested cash on hand in order to pay their present pensioners. They also invest in real estate for cash flow, although doing so is not necessary and real estate has historically not had an ROI nearly as good as the stock market.
Let me note one thing more: For those who think the United States economy is a stinker and will not grow at the same sort of rates it grew from 1950 to 2009, I say, it doesn’t matter. What matters is how strongly the world economy grows and hence how strong the profits are for blue chip stock companies the world over. If CalPERS is going to buy automotive stocks, they can buy car makers in South Korea, Germany, China, Brazil, etc. They don’t have to just buy GM and Ford. If CalPERS is going to buy software companies like MicroSoft or Apple or Oracle or those based in Japan or India, it doesn’t matter if those companies make most of their profits on sales to Americans or on sales to Asians or Europeans. Those companies PERS will buy are all global companies. As such, the only way that historic stock returns go flat over the next 10-60 years is if the global economy goes flat. And the only way I can see that happening is if trade protectionists take power in major countries. Because of the GATT and the WTO, that is unlikely. It would probably take a major war between major powers–something which has not taken place in 66 years–for trade protectionists to destroy the world’s economy.
*That is a nominal return, not a real return. For PERS’ purposes, nominal is what counts.
[i]”Why not ask the employees to contribute more to their own pension?”[/i]
My column in today’s Davis Enterprise ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/follow-this-plan-to-solvency/[/url]) addresses this.
SUE, or anyone: How is sales tax paid on internet purchases distributed? When we do our income taxes, my husband and I do pay the Davis rate of sales tax on the not-yet-taxed purchases we made online, etc. Is that money distrubuted in the same way as a sale at a brick and mortar store in our zip code?
Sue Greenwald ,
“”””I should add that I have already been receiving complaints from other companies that they feel that the city should mitigate the large amount of truck traffic that Mori Seiki will generate — “” another cost to the city. “”
Here is a company bringing jobs to Davis , and your worried about truck traffic ! How about the employees you will be laying off , so that you can spend millions on road repair , does that mitigate your truck traffic ?
“” Another cost to the city “” Sue wants all council members to be paid $ 30,000.00 plus a year , you should do council work because you care , not for a wage , and not for lifetime medical after 5 years of service , isn’t that already enough of a benefit for you Sue ?
How many city workers are you willing to fire for your wages ?
“How about the employees you will be laying off , so that you can spend millions on road repair “
Actually I think you have the problem reversed, how many services are we unable to provide because we gave employees too much in the way of salary increases and benefits during a housing bubble that was unsustainable? Having roads in good repair is a basic need for any municipal government. A city unable to provide those roads, is one that is unable to support the infrastructure. Deferring maintenance on roads, as Rochelle pointed out, adds 5 to 10% to the costs, but it is more than that. It adds to the costs of everyone from maintaining fire engines to driving your car. It’s a potential liability and a potential safety hazard.
“How many city workers are you willing to fire for your wages ? “
One fire captain.
Avatar,
From roughly 2005-2009, our public works department, backed by Don Saylor’s consultants, had said that we needed a new, $207 million wastewater treatment plant. Our public works people (led by Bob Weir), Mr. Saylor and Saylor’s two allies on the council refused for four years to listen to Sue Greenwald, who, through her own diligence and persistence and research, told them that the plant they wanted to build was twice as expensive as necessary. They said Ms. Greenwald was off her rocker, that they were the experts and that she had no idea what she was talking about.
When it was almost too late, the Saylorites bent a hair and Ms. Greenwald was successful in getting the two leading experts on wastewater treatment engineering from UC Davis to testify. George Tchobanoglous and Ed Schroeder explained step by step and piece by piece why the Saylorites were wrong, and how we could meet the new regulatory standards with a system costing us roughly $100 million.
But for Sue Greenwald, the ratepayers of Davis would have shelled out, unnecessarily, an additional $107 million.
And you have the balls to anonymously attack her over a measly $35,000 that she is not receiving, when you are getting a 3% at 50 pension which we cannot afford and is a large part of the reason so many services need to be cut back?
Your misguided, personal attack on Sue reminds me of an AC/DC song ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YUuyzQDmjY[/url]).
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2wroI-hRZUo/TTXnAZdSm-I/AAAAAAAAA5U/FZ10t3vpxWA/s1600/6a00e553bed6a088330120a78b4ac6970b-800wi.jpg[/img]
[b]Avatar:[/b]I voted for Mori Seiki based on the fact that it would bring jobs to the city, but that doesn’t change the fact that it probably won’t bring net revenue to the city. Those are two different things.
I like this guy! I only wish we had him a lot sooner!
“George Tchobanoglous and Ed Schroeder explained step by step and piece by piece why the Saylorites were wrong, and how we could meet the new regulatory standards with a system costing us roughly $100 million.
But for Sue Greenwald, the ratepayers of Davis would have shelled out, unnecessarily, an additional $107 million.”
After reading that I wonder why the City Manager and the Public Works Director were not fired? – failure the save the City that kind of money was a major failure and the people involved should have been held accountable.
How can any one of the 4 CC members who voted for the surface water project sit up there in those high back chairs and say, with a straight face during the budget discussion – that they are being careful with the public’s money?
My email is michael@mikeharringtonlaw.com, or call 759-8440, if you want to sign the petition that numerous residents are now circulating in all neighborhoods across our little precious city. The referendum would STAY the huge rate increases until the June 2012 election.
Meanwhile, we are also going to put on the same ballot an initiative that would set city policy on water supply. I am not sure yet what will be in that initiative yet, but it could include a requirement that the City study the long term viability of the well system that has worked for over 100 years.
The City admits that it has never studied the well viability, but the deep aquifer wells were never meant to be the long term fix: THEY WERE ONLY A BRIDGE TO SURFACE WATER.
I would call this the Bridge to Nowhere.
Also, if the surface plant is approved for its supply of 85,000 Davis residents, what do you think happens to that well system that currently does an excellent job of supplying 68,000 people? You think the city is going to shut them down, pour concrete in there?
Hardly.
Those wells will “suddenly” be viable again after the surface plant is done, and guess what? 68,000 plus 85,000 equals 153,000.
Back in the days when I used to have a glass of wine with the town UCD and business elites as a CC member, some of them used to gush about how they wanted the town to be about 150,000 people, so it could have the night life and town/gown prestige of a big university with a larger city next door.
The surface water plant is one of the cleverest strategies I have ever seen: soak the rate payers so the potable water is available for the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis and Woodland.
These guys are going to use our money to create a potable water source that will add billions (with a capital B) to the speculative values of the ag lands that surround our towns. Brilliant, simply brilliantm, way to steal public money while making those people that that they need dirty river water controlled by other governmental entities and owned and run by private contractors.
Well, they are both now gone. Bill Emlen left Davis last year and currently works in a higher paid position with a much better pension plan* for Solano County. Bob Weir retired in 2009. I am not sure if he quit before or after it was decided that his $207 million plan was abandoned.
The real crime, in my view, was not that the city manager or the public works director advocated a much more expensive, wrong-headed plan for the new wastewater treatment plant. The real crime was that the majority on the city council who were elected by the people refused to allow their colleague, who was also popularly elected, to bring forward in a public forum UC Davis experts who had a different (and in this case smarter) point of view. Their act was one of volition.
I think the errors of Weir and Emlen were just the byproduct of ignorance and inexperience, though I concede I don’t know any details of what they knew or should have known.
*Davis taxpayers will have to pay extra for Mr. Emlen’s higher pension, because it is terribly underfunded and since he worked in Davis 13 years, we will pay a large share of that underfunding bill.
There are three reasons Emlen’s pension is underfunded: [b]one[/b] is the same as with all CalPERS’ pensions–the returns of PERS have been insufficient over the last 3-4 years to fund it, based on how much was paid in; [b]two[/b] his pension formula was lower (2.5% at 55) in Davis than what he is getting in Solano County (2.7% at 55); and [b]three[/b] he is making about $18,000 more per year.
Up until he left Davis, the employer and employee funding amounts for his pension were based on the 2.5% formula and the lower salary. So if he retired in 2010, after say 30 years working for agencies affiliated with CalPERS, his pension would have started at $118,550 per year (30 x 2.5% x $158,000). But if he retires today, his pension will start at $147,312 per year (31 x 2.7% x $176,000). Of that extra $28,762 per year, the taxpayers of Davis–even though it was no fault of our own–must fund a share of it equal to 13/31. My quick calculation is that will steal about $150,768.55 from the Davis taxpayers to fund.
Rich, your calculations always amaze me.
Michael, this is one of the strangest rants you have done on the topic of the surface water project.
[i]”… it could include a requirement that the City study the long term viability of the well system that has worked for over 100 years.
The City admits that it has never studied the well viability, but the deep aquifer wells were never meant to be the long term fix: THEY WERE ONLY A BRIDGE TO SURFACE WATER.”[/i]
The aquifers under and around Davis are well understood. The information is out there for you. There is NO NEED for a study of the “long term viability of the well system.” This is total nonsense.
The deep aquifer is not a viable long term or short term solution. Yet, if you succeed in blocking the surface water project, the deep aquifer will be the ONLY solution.
[i]The surface water plant is one of the cleverest strategies I have ever seen: soak the rate payers so the potable water is available for the elitist dream town of 150,000 and for the upzoning of the land around Davis and Woodland.[/i]
Your public statements on this topic have ranged from misinformed, to maligning the integrity of Woodland officials, and now you are implying that this is all a growth strategy — and throwing in faux populism as well. Davis voters completely, [b]completely[/b] control the growth of this city. You know that.
Don, thanks for the comments. I just respectfully disagree.
When I was in second grade I used to play chess with college students. I’ve had the inside view of how things work in this city, and I take the long view of resolving problems.
I am sure there was a discussion amongst a few elites about 15 years ago, and the surface water system was the chosen way to make sure that Davis had the water for a much larger population while enriching the border land owners.
Simply brilliant, whoever the person was who thought about it.
And brilliantly executed, with patience, for more than 12 years now. If it hadn’t been for the long economic meltdown over the past 4 years, the surface water plant would have been an easier sales job.
If we get the referendum on the ballot, sometime after the June 2012 election I would like to buy a glass of wine for the strategist on the other side, and win or lose, toast to a simply brilliant con job that may have been derailed by the economic disaster.
David Greenwald (1/30/2007):[quote]By November 6, 2003, a Davis city council vote authorized Woodland to be added to an MOU along with the City of Davis and UC Davis to do a deep aquifer study. That was passed by a 4-1 vote with Councilman Mike Harrington dissenting. (Remember Greenwald’s preferred option was always the deep aquifer route so naturally she went along with this part of the project).[/quote]I wonder what ever became of this deep aquifer study? If it wasn’t done, why?
One more thing: all of you would be amazed how people get things in this town. Many of those calling and demanding petitions so they can walk their street tell me tales and voice suspicions that fit the long-term con job scenario above.
Sorry, surface project elites, but I don’t view what you are trying to do to this little city and its struggling ratepayers as being very nice or neighborly. Someone has to call you on it.
[i]amongst a few elites[/i]
[i]surface project elites[/i]
Please identify who you believe the elites of Davis to be.
“1999
City and UC Davis jointly completed a Deep Aquifer Study and concluded that deep wells
alone may not be a sufficiently reliable water source to satisfy future water supply needs
due to water quality concerns and potential yield limitations.”
“con job scenario” “surface project elites” ????
The only con job I see is Michael leveraging the surface water debate and (in Don’s words) “faux populism” to try and mount a political comeback.
Don: It looks like a second study was authorized in 2003 in addition to the 1999 study you’ve flagged. Based on your posts, I’m persuaded that the 1999 conclusion is correct – but it would still be interesting to know what happened regarding the 2003 council action.
[i]I am sure there was a discussion amongst a few elites about 15 years ago, and the surface water system was the chosen way to make sure that Davis had the water for a much larger population while enriching the border land owners.[/i]
An amazing array of elites had to conspire over a very long time to pull this off! They had to infiltrate the state water quality boards, somehow persuade those rich border landowners that they could circumvent Measures J and R, and probably even doctor the water quality reports over a very long period of time.
Who are these omnipotent and secretive manipulators?
[i]Those wells will “suddenly” be viable again after the surface plant is done[/i]
What exactly do you mean by this? The wells are perfectly “viable.” They are in various stages of their projected life span. Some will need to be replaced sooner than others. It is the water that is in them that is the problem.
Don,
.. deep wells alone may not be a sufficiently reliable water source to satisfy future water supply needs
due to water quality concerns and potential yield limitations.”
Based on what kind of projections of population growth rate, and water use rate by city and nearby farmlands?
Was possible stormwater recharge or other source of surface water recharge to groundwater explored?
What about an update to the 1999 report? Has aquifer depletion been ongoing at the projected rate?
Can we improve this study to reduce uncertainty and gain more confidence in sustainable use rate estimates
under a few realistic management scenarios?
Didn’t the Pinkerton crew chase down Butch and Sundance?
They forced Butch and Sundance to leap off a cliff into the creek; after that only rumours were heard about them; some said they were playing the same old tricks on the other side of the world….
Maybe this whole story is more than a legend!
[i]”… amongst a few elites …”[/i]
I have a suggestion: don’t use [i]amongst[/i] when among will do. Likewise, avoid [i]whilst[/i] when while suffices. That -st suffix is not an American English construction. Even among the British, it has never been common in most parts of England. It’s a regional variation which, a long time ago, attained some popularity as a form of pretention by middle-class Englishmen trying to affect an upper-class vocalization.
[i]”Didn’t the Pinkerton crew chase down Butch and Sundance?”[/i]
Yes. But they never captured them.
My observations in life have drawn me to the conclusion that when someone cannot justify their position, they go into “attack” mode, using pejorative terms to demonize the opposition rather than argue the issues. Pejorative terms like “con jobs, elitists, Bridge to Nowhere, soak the ratepayers, brilliant way to steal public money, dirty river water, enriching border land owners, brilliantly executed…sales job, brilliant con job, con job scenario, what you [surface water elites] are trying to do to this city, [surface water elites are not] being very nice or neighborly, etc ad nauseum.”
[i]” … using pejorative terms to demonize the opposition rather than argue the issues. Pejorative terms like “con jobs, elitists …”[/i]
I have never taken offense when someone has thought of me as elite or called me an elitist. What I would find offensive is if anyone called me a populist. Those folks are always dangerous.
[quote]I have never taken offense when someone has thought of me as elite or called me an elitist. What I would find offensive is if anyone called me a populist. Those folks are always dangerous. [/quote]
Note the definition of elitism:
[quote]Definition of ELITISM
1: leadership or rule by an elite
2: the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery
3: consciousness of being or belonging to an elite[/quote]
Just because someone supports the surface water project or business or anything else hardly makes them a snob…
I just landed at the Sacto Airport. Tired after a long flight. Waiting for the plane to taxi to the gate … but I need to add to that definition.
[b]Elite[/b] means: the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons; persons of the highest class; representing the most choice or select; best; the most powerful, rich, gifted, or educated members of a group, community.
[b]Elitist[/b] also means: considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society; a person having, thought to have, or professing superior intellect or talent, power, wealth, or membership in the upper echelons of society.
… G2G …