There has been a lot of talk about democracy surrounding the water rate referendum. Supporters of the referendum have urged those who agree with the city’s decision on the water supply project to vote, out of a sense of democracy.
“Everyone needs a voice on this important, far-reaching issue,” they write, “Democracy is more than just an abstract idea in Davis; it’s a way of life. We participate in the great American experiment in a very real way. We educate ourselves about issues of the day. We discuss and debate, with varying degrees of civility. We campaign. And ultimately, we vote.”
For all of the romanticism involving direct democracy, in a large and complex nation it is impractical. We have developed another form of democracy – representative democracy. The people elect their leaders to represent them in policy decisions.
Given our busy lives and the complexity of public policy, representative democracy is of necessity. We simply lack the expertise to properly analyze complex decisions. Water is probably as complex a policy area as any that we could possibly invent.
So the appeal to the referendum, based on a theory that only direct democracy counts, flies, really, in the face of how we have structured our government – by necessity.
California put forth the initiative process to break the back of the railroad-held stranglehold on Sacramento. On balance, I think it has been more of a negative than a positive.
By the same token, democracy, while it can be representative, also requires an eternal vigilance on the part of the people, forever scrutinizing and monitoring their representatives to make sure that they are following our best interests.
The fact remains that, due to the multi-dimensional nature of public policy, we cannot possibly elect people as a collective that adhere to the majority’s view on public policy in every area.
Development is a great example here. Over the last decade, the public has elected leaders who appear to be far more in favor of growth and development than the typical resident of Davis. As a result, twice in the last six years, the council has approved development projects that huge majorities in Davis have opposed.
Last month, despite a large protest from the public on the water rate hikes, the Davis City Council approved those hikes.
This is not a small issue. In the past decade, as the Davis Enterprise points out, “Davis residents have weighed in at the ballot box on myriad issues, ranging from controversial developments (Wildhorse, Covell Village and a retail project for Central Park) to transportation projects (the Richards Boulevard underpass). We’ve cast our votes on advisory measures about choice voting and the pace of housing growth.”
They add: “For goodness’ sake, we even voted on whether to invite Target to build Davis’ first big-box store.”
We are talking about a cost of at least $155 million.
As the Enterprise points out, the experts – at least those who have come forward, for the most part – and the vast majority of our elected officials say it is necessary.
But the Enterprise questions this. “Is it necessary? Many local ratepayers are not convinced, and therein lies our concern.”
They add, “This water project is much bigger, much more important and much more long-lasting than a housing development or an underpass or a retail store. It deserves the kind of public discussion for which Davis is known.”
On the other hand, I think people like Mayor Joe Krovoza and Councilmember Stephen Souza would say that there has been a public discussion. We have debated this for several months now. We have had workshops, public outreach meetings, and a question and answer session.
And while the Davis Enterprise can argue, “It deserves a public vote,” the council could counter it had a public protest through 218 and a public vote by the people’s representatives.
And they would be right.
But the Enterprise is also right when they argue, “The protest system required under Proposition 218 gave us an inkling of the public discontent. A total of 4,670 ratepayers officially protested the proposed rate hikes.”
Moreover, they add, “But that number did not include many who actually pay the water bills – renters and business owners who do not own their properties. They will have a voice if this issue goes to the ballot.”
That is the problem, and that is where the Davis City Council and the entire process fell short – the Prop 218 process.
The remarkable thing is that the Davis City Council really did do everything it could to make the unfair Prop 218 process as fair as possible. They went way beyond what the call of duty was. They made the process open and transparent.
However, it still required a majority of property owners to respond. Remember when I said direct democracy does not work in a large society? In a way, this is a direct democratic moment where the majority of property owners had to protest the rate hikes in order for them to count.
But, like in Greece, direct democracy in this form was flawed. Oh sure, women could participate in this process, but not renters, not students who do not own land. If someone did not return their form, that was counted a “vote” in favor of the rate hikes.
In a city where 55% of the residents are renters, the majority of the people in Davis were, in effect, disenfranchised by the flawed Prop 218 process.
The great thing about democracy, however, is that when presented the facts, reasonable people will invariably come to different conclusions. Those attempting to appeal to others to sign the petition for the sake of democracy miss the point.
The representatives of the people, having heard from the community and the experts, made their decision.
Many think that we have done enough and I think that is a perfectly reasonable belief.
However, that is not where I come down on this. I feel that people like me, those hurting financially, those who are not homeowners or property holders, did not get the same say as those who own property in this community, and yet we can be impacted every bit as much, if not more.
On this site, I cannot tell you how you should vote on this referendum. In fact, and this may surprise many, I’m not sure how I would vote today if I had a choice, but I can say that I think that everyone should have to right to vote on whether or not we should raise our rates.
I do not think the Prop 218 process is a good one. I don’t think it protects the rights of everyone it should. And therefore, a referendum that allows for basic principles of the rule of the majority of those who cast their votes, regardless of their status as property owners, is the only fair way to ensure that everyone’s concerns are given an equal voice.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Some of the proponents that blog here feel that if the water project went to a vote the voters would be uninformed so therefore it shouldn’t be on the ballot. I say that’s very arrogant of them to be so cavalier to feel that their views are superior to someone else’s right to make a decision on such an important and expensive issue. The people will decide.
[i]but I can say that I think that everyone should have to right to vote on whether or not we should raise our rates.[/i]
I am a non-resident, property-owning business-owning ratepayer. The Prop. 218 process allowed me to vote on the rate increases. A referendum does not. There is no perfect democratic process here. But the Prop. 218 process was a direct vote of the ratepayers. The referendum will allow a lot of people who don’t directly pay the rate increases to decide. Neither process has the moral high ground.
Rusty: I will say this, I have been following this issue and reading up on it for over five years now, and I still feel like I don’t understand a lot of it. I’m not saying I disagree with you on the issue of voting, only that I think it’s reasonable to believe that this is an issue that the typical person does not have time to completely absorb (and I include myself in that so as not to suggest that I am better than anyone else).
Don Shor…..”Neither process has the moral high ground.”
Neither process is perfect but the referendum definitely has a higher moral ground than the 218 process. For every disenfranchised voter like you there are hundreds to thousands of renters (as David pointed out in the article that 55% in Davis rent) who were disenfranchised by the 218 process.
David:
“I have been following this issue and reading up on it for over five years now, and I still feel like I don’t understand a lot of it.”
You made my point, you’ve researched it for five years and still aren’t sure. Let’s step back and put it to a vote so we can explore all the alternatives.
Interestingly, student renters who have not re-registered to vote in Davis (because it is more important to vote in their hometowns) will have no say. The owner (renter) of a Davis business will have no say if they reside outside Davis. Target, which could have filed a protest under 218 (as the entity that pays the bills w/o passing the costs onto ‘tenants’) will have no say in the proposed election. To me, it cannot be argued that 218 or the proposed referendum is a perfect process… both have significant limitations.
[quote]Supporters of the referendum have urged those who agree with the city’s decision on the water supply project to vote out of a sense of democracy.[/quote]I doubt if there are many (or any) supporters of the project AND the Council’s reduced rates will be advocating for the referendum ‘for the sake of democracy’… I believe that the only ones doing it are much more likely to be against the project at ANY cost, as it may contribute to future growth, or are open to/support the project but are having “sticker shock” as to what it will take to fund it. Zealots for democracy? I think not…. more like wrapping oneself in the flat to convince others to support their views.
[s]flat[/s]= flag
Ran into an odd friend who was arguing for a vote yesterday. I asked him why he was opposed. He told me because the water will allow Davis to grow to 85,000. At least he told me the truth. Its a weird coalition of anti-tax and no growth groups and sadly they may win.
85,000 the horror!
Freudian slip alert it should read old friend.
By the way, went to the lecture by the Nobel Prize winner, Greider. When asked what she remembers when she thinks about Davis. She didn’t hesitate and replied “The people.” This is what no growth limits more great people.
Interesting that as Davis hollows out and grays from no growth it becomes a microcosm of the future of the United States without young to support old. At least the rest of the country will have immigrants to offset the dearth of young people.
David, you mentioned the false notion of the US having a system of direct democracy. Another falsehood widely spread about our system of government is majority rule.
There’s nothing “arrogant” about the citizenry electing political leaders with the expectation that they then actually lead by making decisions in the best interest of the citizens. Should the citizenry disagree with the decisions made by the electeds, the answer is to vote them out of office.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
How do these “old/odd friends” think securing the community’s future water needs will lead to future growth given measures J/R? They need a more plausible bogeyman.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Yesterday, Steve Souza was overheard yelling about surface water and acting as a “blocker” to keep the public from talking with petition tablers at the Farmers Market, Nirth Davis Safeway, and the Davis Food Coop. Steve: next time you do it, I will post the video. Everyone has pocket recorders now. Good luck running on higher taxes.
Oh, one more thing. Steve started it right after he was spotted huddling with Jim Burchill at the Farmers Market. Now, two weeks ago, Jim showed up at the Food Coop while Pam Nieberg was tabling alone. He chatted a minute, walked off, and then a few minutes later three big, burly blockers showed up, surrounded her, and started yelling at her. They attempted to block the public from getting to her table.
Coincidence? I dont think so.
These tactics are why we are not posting Brieflies in the DE and otherwise announcing where we are working; we want to avoid the blockers and harrassers. Never thought a sitting CC member would do it, but then, this town always surprises me.
[i]Yesterday, Steve Souza was overheard yelling about surface water and acting as a “blocker” to keep the public from talking with petition tablers at the Farmers Market, Nirth Davis Safeway, and the Davis Food Coop. Steve: next time you do it, I will post the video. Everyone has pocket recorders now. Good luck running on higher taxes.[/i]
Mike, we’ve all had enough of hyperbole and unsubstantiated charges. Just post the video, and leave the interpretation and decision to the voters….isn’t that what you are all about?
Mr. Toad
A straight forward and honest question. What do you see as the ideal population for Davis ?
And a comment on your reaction to your friends comment. Increased population would doubtless lead to some more “great people”. It would also likely lead to more “not so great people” with the potential for increased crime and the certainty of increased congestion, traffic, noise, air pollution especially if we continue to promote our automobile centric orientation. To understand my position is to understand that one man’s “vibrant” may be another’s “crowded”. Those of us who favor “no growth” or at least very limited growth (such as true low cost housing without the accompaniment of mini mansions) are doing so with a full awareness of the pros and cons of our position. So, I will answer my own question about the ideal population for Davis. I think we are there if not very close. I do not favor additional numbers although I would like to see more young people have an opportunity to get their start here. I also believe that this will happen naturally as those of us who are now gray (myself included) begin to make our natural departure. Just as I agree with the chancellor that you cannot cut your way to excellence,
I also do not believe that the city can grow it’s way out of natural ebbs and flows of economy and population.
Burly blockers? Seems farfetched. Is there any video currently available to corroborate this behavior? It looks like this process is destined to devolve into extraneous nonsense as do so many of our community debates.
“I also do not believe that the city can grow it’s way out of natural ebbs and flows of economy and population.”
I could not disagree more with this statement. Our community is in a state of self-imposed economic stagnation. We have chosen to be overly reliant on governmental employment to support our way of life here. We can choose to be more self-reliant by taking advantage of the economic opporunities that we have before us. I often wonder at all the talk of fostering a sustainable community when we choose to have such an anemic private sector. Quite non-sensical in my view.
I or no one that was tabling at the Farmer’s Market yesterday were blocking or stopping any person from signing the referendum that was being circulated by the 3 paid Sacramento signature gatherers at one table or the 2 Davis volunteers at the other table. Nor were we doing so at the 2 Safeways or at the Co-Op where there were paid signature gatherers from Sacramento. We were handing out a flyer that said on top to “think before you sign.” We were exercising our right of free speech in a respectful manner, I was not nor was anybody yelling.
When it comes to the environment, health and safety of the residents of Davis being threatened by outside signature gatherers I will not be silenced. These paid people have said things that are not true. They do not know the issue nor do they have a stake in our town. They are here only to make a buck and leave.
MD:”It would also likely lead to more “not so great people” with the potential for increased crime and the certainty of increased congestion, traffic, noise, air pollution especially if we continue to promote our automobile centric orientation.”
Less traffic or the same amount since current policy has resulted in de-facto leapfrog development with everyone who doesn’t have the third degree living in Woodland or Dixon and driving into work and get their kids to school on inter-district transfer.
The crime in Davis is mostly from people who don’t live here. People that drive here on freeways. Poor people not homeowners.
I don’t know how big Davis should be but you could allow development on all the frontier parcels and cover it for probably 20-30 years while not expanding the town more than one mile in any direction.
I can verify what Steve is saying when I went by Kari Fry was doing exactly what Steve describes. It was my old friend who raised his voice at her.
I have noticed that Davis water use has been declining fairly rapidly – by almost 10% a year in recent years. Probably the 100% rate-increase of the past 5.5 years played a role! Davis is hardly growing, and growth will slow as infill is completed. [Measure R is de facto no growth.] So our water use may fall further as rates are increased more. UCD may grow, and it has its own water [which we sometimes borrow/buy].
The first round of proposed rate increases amounts to a factor of about 2.5 [150%] over the next 4.3 years. People ask: What further increases might there be if use declines more than expected?
This is a huge capital project! Assuming $155 million [does this include Conway water costs?], and present AAA muni-bond rates, Davis payments will be close to $9.2 MILLION A YEAR FOR 25 YEARS, if all goes well. People question why essentially all costs should be borne by rate-payers, and also raise questions about the safety and reliability of surface sources.
Just now Davis area households pay on average about $37/mo for water [City info]. In 2116 this will be about $94/mo or $1128/yr. The number of households is 24,750 [cityofdavis.org/wiki data]. Then this new rate – with the 150% increase – will raise almost $28 million a year. This appears to be much more than is needed to fund the new surface-water project [$9.2 million/yr], and, as well, to maintain what is needed of the present water infrastructure which would cost an estimated $10 million/yr!
Re funding: Could there be some cost-sharing so users do not pay all the capital, etc., costs? Does the City not have funds for capital projects such as swim pools, parking lots, roads, etc., that are not 100% funded by users? The County will benefit if Davis pumps less; could they contribute a few million a year – 1% of the County budget = $3 million. In improving economic times we could possibly also get State and/or federal funding help.
These are the reasons people are petitioning for more time for study and to work on financing. Most question if there has been a full study of all the options.
Paul Brady
I thought those petition gatherers were being paid. I wonder what the going rate is and who is picking up the tab?
Hello all! This is the first time I have ever posted here but I feel that I must.
I was indeed at the Farmer’s Market yesterday morning, proudly wearing my “I Love Davis” button, exercising my rights as a citizen to table on this issue. I was at a table located next to the “Davis Dollars” table (very cool idea BTW). I stayed at my table respectfully asking people to get some information and think about it before deciding whether or not to sign a referendum petition. I NEVER once told anyone not to sign, nor did any of the other citizens you mentioned in your inquiry below. Further, I went over to the citizen based signature gathering table maned by Jim Leonard and Pam Nieberg to respectfully introduce myself at the end of the day. I told them in good humor that “I come in peace” and wanted to let them know why I was at the market, and hear their point of view. I also told them that I philosophically agree with the idea of community buy-in and that a vote is one way to do that, however in this case doing that actually shoots us in the foot because it will end up leading to higher costs. (My educated opinion) They communicated their concerns regarding the DBO process which I respectfully listened to. I would also like to note that I did not block their table during this dialogue and watched at least one or two people chat with Pam and then sign the petition while I was standing to the side speaking with Jim. I’m not sure how productive any of our conversation was, but I do believe that people on both sides of an issue can behave in a civilized and respectful manner which I believe the three of us accomplished yesterday. We share a common concern for the best interests of Davis. I hope we can keep lines of communication open as a community and keep the conversations above board.
Respectfully,
Kari Fry
Mr. Toad
“you could allow development on all the frontier parcels….”
And what then? If your point is that “vibrancy” which seems to have become synonymous for some with “growth” is dependent upon ever increasing numbers, there will come a point where there is literally no more room for growth without overcrowding. Since the timeframe you are siting is 20 to 30 years, many of us who are gray will not be here to see it, but that is not the legacy I want for my children.
“the crime in Davis is mostly from people who don’t live here. ”
True now, but I would argue likely to change with increasing numbers.
“less traffic or the same amount as now…”
Only if we guarantee that there is ample low cost housing, otherwise you have exactly the same situation but for a larger number of people.
And, in ,y opinion, this is an argument for excellent public transportation, not for increased population.
DT Businessman
“our community is in a state of self imposed economic stagnation”
True, I am not engaged in a “private business” in the small business owner sense. However, I am also not dependent upon government in any form for my living. This gives me a very different perspective. I feel that there is a huge difference between a state of equilibrium and a state of stagnation. The past 5 or so years, depending on when you want to start counting have been a time of near global financial recession. This has not been good for business virtually anywhere in this country. I see the downturn in business in Davis as part of the broader trend and do not believe that the mere existence of more houses would have substantially improved our current situation and could even have proven deleterious if neighborhoods had been built up and then not occupied. Some lack of growth for the sake of growth may be judicious and prudent rather than stagnation inducing.
Again, I do not oppose all growth. I favor the development of true low cost housing as a welcome addition to the community, but have yet to see that offered in any meaningful way in any recent proposal without the accompanying redundant and largely unaffordable mini mansions
For reasons that are not readily apparent to me, Davisites conflate housing growth to economic growth. Although one can lead to the other, they are two separate concepts. In Davis, we should be focusing on creating more private sector jobs to make up for the public sector jobs we will undoubtedly be losing over the coming years. Secondly, we should be focusing on increasing the productivity of our assets, i.e. generating far more economic activity from our existing assets. I cannot fathom why there is so much resistance from certain quarters to both these notions. Again I pose the question, how can one claim to be a sustainable community if one is so heavily reliant on the government for jobs and econonomic activity? That is the exact opposite of sustainable, it’s not sustainable.
[quote]California put forth the initiative process to break the back of the railroad-held stranglehold on Sacramento. On balance, I think it has been more of a negative than a positive.[/quote]
[quote]I do not think the Prop 218 process is a good one. I don’t think it protects the rights of everyone it should. And therefore, a referendum that allows for basic principles of the rule of the majority of those who cast their votes, regardless of their status as property owners, is the only fair way to ensure that everyone’s concerns are given an equal voice.[/quote]
Are you for the initiative process or agin’ it? You cannot have it both ways…
[quote]I am a non-resident, property-owning business-owning ratepayer. The Prop. 218 process allowed me to vote on the rate increases. A referendum does not. There is no perfect democratic process here. But the Prop. 218 process was a direct vote of the ratepayers. The referendum will allow a lot of people who don’t directly pay the rate increases to decide. Neither process has the moral high ground.[/quote]
Well said!
[quote]Rusty: I will say this, I have been following this issue and reading up on it for over five years now, and I still feel like I don’t understand a lot of it. I’m not saying I disagree with you on the issue of voting, only that I think it’s reasonable to believe that this is an issue that the typical person does not have time to completely absorb (and I include myself in that so as not to suggest that I am better than anyone else).[/quote]
Also well said! And I feel much the same way. I have taken the trouble to educate myself on this subject probably more than the average person, but I have to tell you there are still areas that are murky (pardon the pun) to me. It took me literally years to finally make a decision on which way I was going to come down on this project. To me it is a cost/risk/benefit analysis, and a judgment call as to where one thinks the greatest risks lie… People can agree to disagree… But I also think the public needs to understand the crucial notion of “back-up plan”…
[quote] For every disenfranchised voter like you there are hundreds to thousands of renters (as David pointed out in the article that 55% in Davis rent) who were disenfranchised by the 218 process.[/quote]
Those renters will probably not pay the full freight of their usage, since apartments are not individually metered, and landlords can only raise rents so much or renters will go elsewhere… like Woodland, Dixon, West Sac where the rent is considerably cheaper.
[quote]You made my point, you’ve researched it for five years and still aren’t sure. Let’s step back and put it to a vote so we can explore all the alternatives. [/quote]
Explore “all the alternatives”? In other words, kill the project?
ERM
One could see the advantages of the initiative process in some circumstances and the downside in others without “trying to have it both ways”.
Many situations are simply not that black and white and I think the initiative process falls squarely in the “grey zone”, and sometimes as practiced in California, in the “Twilight Zone”.
DT Businessman
I do not believe this debate represents conflating economic growth with housing growth. The driver for this thread was “democracy, referendum and water rate hikes”. Given the complexity of these issues and the impact of changing water rates on homeowners, businesses, renters, and ultimately visitors to the city, I would find it surprising if all of these issues had not arisen at some point in the discussion.
That does not mean that any individual or group cannot perceive a difference between housing growth, population growth, and economic growth.
DT Businessman:
“In Davis, we should be focusing on creating more private sector jobs to make up for the public sector jobs we will undoubtedly be losing over the coming years.”
But aren’t you against bringing business (ie:new jobs) into the Cannery site? Can’t have it both ways.
rusty49, huh? Good job misrepresenting my position. I have not said I’m against bringing businesses into the Cannery site. I’ve said that I favor the Nishi site for a “business/research park”. My position for the Cannery site is predominately housing with a smaller commercial portion.
DT Businessman reporting (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)
Interesting that we should have a discussion on direct democracy one day before the 100th birthday of one of California’s political mainstays-direct democracy! According to the S.F. Chronicle this morning, the initiative, referendum, and recall processes were all approved in a special election by state voters 100 years ago tomorrow. This was at the time Southern Pacific Railroad ran Sacramento, but what a gift those reformers gave to the citizens. Without these processes, the citizens would be at the mercy of their elected officials who very often do not act in the best interests of the community, but are too beholden to special interest as they climb the political ladder. And don’t give me the old “vote them out of office” ruse. By the time that can happen, it is generally to late to undo the damage.
I have followed the water issue for more than 20 years. Along the way, there were studies and forums. There were cheaper alternatives, all rejected for the current project, which was all along the favored by staff (and special interests), but not by most of the citizens who worked on and studied this issue. Please don’t insult the intelligence of the citizens of Davis. We just aren’t smart enough to understand? What arrogance!
The referendum will allow us time for more open discussion and consideration of alternatives, of which there are many. And it will allow all registered voters in Davis to vote on this issue. The 218 vote disenfranchised all but property owners, many of whom do not even live here. The water project is the biggest thing ever in Davis. Putting this to a vote is the right thing to do. Sign the referendum.
[quote]The referendum will allow us time for more open discussion and consideration of alternatives, of which there are many.[/quote]
What alternatives (back-up plan)? Please explain…
[quote][quote]California put forth the initiative process to break the back of the railroad-held stranglehold on Sacramento. On balance, I think it has been more of a negative than a positive.[/quote]
[quote]I do not think the Prop 218 process is a good one. I don’t think it protects the rights of everyone it should. And therefore, a referendum that allows for basic principles of the rule of the majority of those who cast their votes, regardless of their status as property owners, is the only fair way to ensure that everyone’s concerns are given an equal voice.[/quote]
Are you for the initiative process or agin’ it? You cannot have it both ways…[/quote]
In the first statement, I said that on balance I think that the initiative process has been more negative than positive.
In the second, I point out flaws in one specific proposition.
I fail to see any inconsistency in those statements.
How about doing the aquifer studies to determine just what is in the deep aquifers and how long that will last? How about well-head treatment? How about subsidizing installation of filters on home water systems as other jurisdictions have done? How about not using ultra-purified (at great cost) river water to water our lawns and flush our toilets, but having a split system? How about banning water softeners to reduce our salt discharge? How about a much smaller water project and blending with our well water?
This is just off the top of my head from discussions and forums over the years on this issue. All considered, all rejected in favor of the most expensive option, despite educated opinions by experts and U.C. faculty who are now afraid to speak out.
And, by the way, what about the privatization issue? Do we really want our water under the control of a multi-national corporation (One of those under consideration by the JPA is under indictment for fraud–how smart is that?)? That is what this project proposes. Do we want our water rates to sky rocket, our water quality to end up it the toilet and our system falling into disrepair? This is where we are headed unless we can slow this project down for a more rational, logical discussion on options.
Sign the referendum.
[quote]However, it still required a majority of property owners to respond.[/quote]
I’m a property owner, and I did respond; I recycled the letter.
Wolf:”The water project is the biggest thing ever in Davis.”
Wow that is big. Bigger than the tomato harvester, plug-in hybrid, saving the walnut industry, educating the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court and the Speaker of the State Senate. Bigger than not buying into Lake Berryessa. Bigger than the transcontinental railroad. Bigger than UC Davis itself.
No, actually, it is something significant but seeing it with a limited perspective limits our view of our place in the world.
I think Wolf meant that it is the most expensive project that the city has undertaken.
I think even by that measure UC Davis wins. Oh yes it isn’t part of the city but which came first the city or the University.
Wolf:[i] despite educated opinions by experts and U.C. faculty who are now afraid to speak out[/i].
One of the biggest problems in this whole discussion is that all expert opinions [i]against[/i] the project proposals seem to be anonymous or unattributed, while all the expert opinions that validate it are published, signed, and readily available.
Why would UC faculty be “afraid” to speak out? It isn’t going to affect their careers or livelihood. And their peers seem quite willing to give their expert opinions, and sign their names to them.
I have been waiting for anyone to provide a single study or analysis signed by an expert in the field who supports continued reliance on the groundwater, from either aquifer. That option has been reviewed by independent experts.
[i]I have followed the water issue for more than 20 years. Along the way, there were studies and forums. There were cheaper alternatives, all rejected for the current project, which was all along the favored by staff (and special interests), but not by most of the citizens who worked on and studied this issue. Please don’t insult the intelligence of the citizens of Davis. We just aren’t smart enough to understand? What arrogance! [/i]
Interesting. So, for 20 years, replete with studies and forums, and numerous alternatives presented by the experts, the recommendation from staff and the City Council is consistent over time, despite numerous changes in the City Manager and turnover of staff and City Council members.
It looks like we have consistent, if difficult, recommendation for a very thoroughly researched problem. It appears that Harrington, Wolf, rusty49 et al are just don’ like the answer are grasping for straws in one more attempt to deny the city moving on with solving this very serious problem.
Fortunately, Sue has stopped posting the “anonymous” expert argument. Unfortunately, Wolf appears to want to continue to insult our intelligence with more Fox News type hysteria.
Ah, the old Fox News analogy. Very clever Adam, never heard that one before.
Why are the proponents so afraid to let the people vote?
We as a society have decided that clean water is important; important enough to pass the Clean Water Act. One of the consequences of that decision is that we now need to clean up the waste water emanating from the City of Davis. We have the option of taking responsibility for this situation and addressing it, as painful as that is, or passing it off to our children. The advocates for this referendum are in favor of continuing our polluting the water system and passing on the consequences to our children, for no other reason than they don’t want to pay for it themselves.
If this discussion were about a local coal fired power plant asking for a variance on air pollution standards I am willing to bet that the people supporting this referendum would be the ones screaming the loudest against a variance. In fact I would expect them to start a campaign to unseat any City Council member who supported such an air pollution variance. Yet, they all seem willing to continue the City’s excessive pollution of the water system, and unsustainable draw-down of the aquifer, without offering any viable alternative.
This referendum is not a process to examine alternatives: there are none. That is not my conclusion, it is the collective opinion of the experts and the City Council. What the referendum is, is an effort by a few to make someone else pay for cleaning up the water that we all helped spoil.
It is time for us to stop whining and pay for our past decisions.
The following question continues to nag at me: why at the 11th hour did the ‘citizen committee’ (who appointed, how did it come to pass?) somehow halve the rates? Or by however much they did? If they hadn’t come forward we would have had higher rates. So makes me think the JPA and our staff may have miscalculated other things. The vote will allow for more robust look at the financials if nothing else.
Paralysis by analysis…. works for e…
[quote]The following question continues to nag at me: why at the 11th hour did the ‘citizen committee’ (who appointed, how did it come to pass?) somehow halve the rates? Or by however much they did? If they hadn’t come forward we would have had higher rates. So makes me think the JPA and our staff may have miscalculated other things. The vote will allow for more robust look at the financials if nothing else.— [b]SODA[/b][/quote]In the interests of accuracy, this is what happened. The projected combined water/wastewater/garbage rates were lowered from a total of $2,300 a year in year 5 average single family to an average of about $2,040 in year six. This was mostly done by lowering the guess about how much interest rates would be, and be deferring a few of components of the project within the Davis city limits for a few years (yes, this would mean higher bills a few years later).
Rates were not really “lowered”. It is important to remember that these are all just guesses.
The bottom line is that we are currently getting ready to commit roughly $300 million to water-related capital projects and the Conaway water purchase, and rates will reflect whatever it these projects end up costing.
We can’t “lower” the bills without changing the projects scope or timing.
[i]”It is time for us to stop whining and pay for our past decisions.”[/i]
I’m with you on this Mark. It is interesting to note how folks are lining up on this issue. Rusty49 and I agree on many issues, but not this one. Don Shor and I disagree on many issues, but not on this one. Reliable progressive city leaders like Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington are against this even considering the ongoing environmental concerns. Others with a severe distaste for higher taxes and fees from government support it.
I think this demonstrates the fiscal magnitude of the pending decision. However, the real risk is that we all get too entrenched in defense of our positions that we lose objectivity. If we get this wrong, some may win a battle only to doom our kids to lose the long-term fiscal war.
At this point the arguments against the surface water project are feeble, emotive, unsubstantiated and suspect… or at least short-sighted IMO. Unless someone can explain the financial feasibility of plan B, it is our adult responsibility to get this done.
My concern with undertaking $300 million worth of water related capital improvements at one time is simply pragmatic. It is an extraordinarily high debt burden for a city of 65,000. Nothing could be more realistic, less emotionally based and more undebatable than that.
While those with higher incomes can afford the bills that will follow, it is reasonable to fear that those below the medium income level will not. This will likely have ramifications far into the future for those citizens and for the city.
Plan B is more financially feasible because it would enable us to retire one debt before taking on another.
It is not risky because we have everything ready to proceed quickly if we need to.
Plan B is contingent upon regulatory approval. The salinity variance process is being set up now. It would be wise for council to direct staff to become involved and to argue for our ability to postpone this project based on the serious socio-economic impacts, as allowed by Porter-Cologne.
The mature, responsible and adult thing for us to do is to take all possible steps to keep our options open because of the magnitude of the consequences of this decision.
[i]” Oh yes it isn’t part of the city but which came first the city or the University.”[/i]
What came first was the railroad. Forty years before the University Farm had its first students, the streets of what became Davisville were laid out.
When the local railroad barons got ahold of Jerome Davis’s mortgage–in some sort of sneaky fashion which is unclear to me, Jerome’s own father had a role in screwing him over to get the mortgage in the hands of the Cal-P Rail Road–they were able to plot out a township, Davisville, on the land formerly owned and farmed successfully by Jerome C. Davis in 1868 at the juncture of the line which ran from Vallejo to Sacramento and the line which ran north to Woodland and beyond.
Despite the fact that Mr. Davis was somehow screwed over, he was no angel. He and his father-in-law, Col. Joseph B. Chiles, who sold half of his Davis area ranch to Jerome and half to his nephew, Isaac Skinner Chiles–the dividing line was Pole Line Road–made a boatload of money by ripping off pioneer farmers ($6 a head) who were trying to cross the Sacramento River.
Col. Chiles and Mr. Davis had for a time a monopoly on rope-pulled ferries across the river–and if I recall the history correctly, someone was murdered in West Sacramento (Washington township then), and the result was a monopoly position for Col. Chiles and his right-hand man, Davis.
Later on, another group used scurrilous methods to take the monopoly away from Chiles and Davis. I forget who that was, but I think it was someone in the Hoag family.
Anyhow, what became Davis was all purchased with the profits from the ferry service. (Chiles, who came to California with the Bidwell Party, had worked for John Sutter prior to his ferrying business.) Chiles bought that land from the Penas, who had not been around here too long before Chiles arrived. But Chiles also bought a huge amount of land west of what is now Lake Berryessa in Napa County. And having built a house there, he sold off (cheaply) his huge Davis area ranch to his nephew and son-in-law.
That old house still stands in the Chiles Valley wine region of Napa County:
[img]http://www.thevinetimes.com/images/regionmaps/napaappmap.jpg[/img]
Perhaps one of the biggest advantages to putting this huge project decision up to a vote by the public is that if forces transparency and clarity in definition of the project by the city council. It holds the council’s feet to the fire by a public that demands transparency and clarity (as opposed to obfuscation) in presentation of the project. Particularly for such a complex project like this, the demand for clarity can help to clarify the council members own thinking and definition of the project and alternatives.
It seems to me inappropriate for such a huge project to be entirely decided behind closed doors (or even open doors, to a limited capacity room!) by council members and experts on the project, both disinterested third party experts and consultants who might be involved with the project if approved.
Just because never before in the history of man has big business ever influenced public policy to their own benefit and to the detriment of the public, is not to say that it could not happen for the very first time in our own little burg.
[quote]Why are the proponents so afraid to let the people vote?[/quote]
Because of all the disinformation that is being put out there by the opponents of this project.
[quote]In the interests of accuracy, this is what happened. The projected combined water/wastewater/garbage rates were lowered from a total of $2,300 a year in year 5 average single family to an average of about $2,040 in year six. This was mostly done by lowering the guess about how much interest rates would be, and be deferring a few of components of the project within the Davis city limits for a few years (yes, this would mean higher bills a few years later).
Rates were not really “lowered”. It is important to remember that these are all just guesses.
The bottom line is that we are currently getting ready to commit roughly $300 million to water-related capital projects and the Conaway water purchase, and rates will reflect whatever it these projects end up costing.
We can’t “lower” the bills without changing the projects scope or timing.[/quote]
In the interests of accuracy, some of the funding for the wastewater treatment plant will be used to pay for the surface water project. Again the experts who have been willing to go on public record, and who YOU INSISTED BY CONSULTED, have repeatedly said that the city should institute the surface water project first and foremost to save on the wastewater treatment side.
[quote]Plan B is more financially feasible because it would enable us to retire one debt before taking on another. [/quote]
Your “Plan B”, which is to delay the surface water project for 25 to 30 years, if we are even permitted (pardon the pun) to do so (A BIG “IF”), is likely to be MORE COSTLY in more ways than one.
rusty49 said . . .
“[i]Why are the proponents so afraid to let the people vote?[/i]”
rusty, I believe your question above only covers a small proportion of “the proponents.”
The key question to me is “how will conducting a vote improve the quality of the decision being made about our water supply?” If we do have a vote, it will be a simple yes or no decision. If the voters’ answer is no, how will that no vote result in an improved decision? If the voters’ answer is yes, how will that yes vote result in an improved decision?
As Dan Wolk has pointed out, this project needs better planning. That planning is not predicated on conducting an election. In fact once an election cycle starts, I am personally of the opinion that all planning efforts will cease while the limbo of the election result looms. That to me is the biggest drawback to conducting an election on this issue.
SODA said . . .
“[i]The following question continues to nag at me: [b]why at the 11th hour did the ‘citizen committee’ (who appointed, how did it come to pass?) somehow halve the rates?[/b] Or by however much they did? If they hadn’t come forward we would have had higher rates. So makes me think the JPA and our staff may have miscalculated other things. The vote will allow for more robust look at the financials if nothing else.[/i]”
Good question SODA. I attended the last of the citizens committee meetings and was given the answer to your question in that meeting. The answer lies in the rules of the Prop 218 process as laid down by the state. In the Prop 218 notice, the juristiction is required to publish the worst case scenario rates. It was designed that way so that there can’t ever be a bit and switch situation. So all along the rates you all received in the 218 notice (I didn’t receive one even though I am affected by the rates) were known by City Staff to be higher than what was actually going to be presented to Council.
Elaine:
Re misinformation:
A number of people I have talked to have stated that they were told that our water is unhealthy and that there is a law that says we must stop using our well water. Neither of these statements is true, but this is the mis-information that the proponents of the project are putting out there.
[quote]A number of people I have talked to have stated that they were told that our water is unhealthy and that there is a law that says we must stop using our well water. Neither of these statements is true, but this is the mis-information that the proponents of the project are putting out there.[/quote]
Were the “number of people [you] have talked to” experts in the field? Because those knowledgeable on the subject have not said any such thing. If you heard this misinformation from folks, and I will assume you did, then I would suggest getting more educated on the subject from the experts. Listening to scuttlebutt around town from either side is not too useful…