Vanguard Further Evaluates Rate Hike Claims –
Supporters of the petition and Michael Harrington turned in 5,124 signatures yesterday to the city clerk’s office. In the petition receipt, City Clerk Zoe Mirabile certified that “Michael Harrington submitted to my office petitions for referendum against an ordinance passed by the city council, ordinance no. 2381-Ordinance of the city of Davis amending chapter 39 of the Davis municipal code related to water rates to increase the base rates and metered rates.”
Mayor Joe Krovoza remains a strong supporter of the project, but he told the Vanguard he is looking for ways to reduce the clear division in the community.
“While I believe the project and the council’s decision-making is sound and essential, those seeking a referendum have fair concerns that must be addressed,” Mayor Krovoza told the Enterprise in an article that appears in today’s paper.
He added, “Regardless of whether the signatures are sufficient, we’ll continue to have a great community debate, and that’s certainly how it should be.”
In a conversation with the Vanguard, Mr. Krovoza also acknowledged that the city’s communication and outreach efforts should have been better.
The referendum puts before the voters a simple up or down vote on the rate hikes. The city clerk will turn the signatures over to the county, who will spend 30 business days verifying the signatures.
Should the county certify the referendum, a petition would be brought before the city council, which at that point would decide whether to place the ordinance on the ballot or repeal the rate hikes altogether.
The act of referendizing the issue will freeze any rate hikes until the vote of the people.
There is an additional question as to whether or not opponents to the water rate hikes will also put a matter on the ballot as an initiative. The referendum is simply an up or down vote.
An initiative has the power to change rates or add stipulations to the ordinance. It requires fewer signatures and there is a greater period of time allotted to such an effort.
The Enterprise reports that Monica Harris and her company, Momentum Political Services, were hired by the local committee to collect signatures on behalf of the movement.
As many as 13 paid signature gathers were hired, earning $1.75 per signature.
According to the Enterprise article, “Harrington said that without Harris’ help, the campaign would not have collected enough signatures by Monday’s deadline. Harris believes, however, that it was the Davis volunteers who made the biggest difference.”
“This is one of the best volunteer forces I’ve ever seen,” she said. “Hours upon hours out there. It’s not an easy job. It’s not easy for the folks who get paid, let alone the folks who are willing to stand around and just do it because they have a passion and a love for their city.”
More on the 14 Percent Rate Hike Issue
There has been a lot of finger pointing and posturing by both sides, arguing that each are putting out erroneous information. In any campaign, there is a certain degree of erroneous information that gets put out.
The Vanguard remains concerned that the rate hikes have been undersold to the public. This is a critical issue.
Dan Wolk’s September 15 column never mentions the 20 percent conservation assumption. Moreover, he writes, “Maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year for five years only.”
Not only does he ignore the stated sixth year of “14 percent hikes,” but he appears not to realize that the council, in getting to that figure, adds in a huge conservation opponent. Furthermore, he made the effort to italicize “Maximum.”
Two weeks before, buried in the middle of the September 2 Op-Ed by Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza, was this line: “The city’s estimate above for an average single-family bill assumes 20 percent conservation over today’s typical use level. Thus, monthly impacts on each ratepayer will vary depending on their current water use and their level of conservation.”
Councilmember Dan Wolk responded to the question posed by Bob Dunning saying, “The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some.”
As Mr. Dunning pointed out, this would have been the perfect time for him to say “Oh, Bob, that presumed 20 percent conservation.”
The Vanguard has come to the conclusion that Joe Krovoza or Stephen Souza, both of whom clearly knew that the rate hikes contained the conservation component in them, should have been more forceful in correcting the record.
Some have questioned how we know that the city did not do this, and the Davis Enterprise had neglected or refused to do so.
To us, it simply does not seem logical that the Enterprise would not have corrected the record. The Enterprise, to our knowledge, has printed several op-eds by Joe Krovoza and Stephen Souza on water.
Yes, it is true the Enterprise would have to acknowledge an error, but given their position on the need for a referendum, the fact that the rates could be higher would only bolster the case.
Fact is, the Vanguard had a discussion with Mayor Krovoza and he never once offered as a defense that they had attempted to get the right information out, but the Enterprise refused to print it. Mayor Krovoza went so far as to apologize for the poor communication between the city and the voters.
The Vanguard has met with staff members for a number of hours, going over information.
Based on these conversations, we have concluded that the city believes going forward with the water supply project is in the best long-term interest of the city. However, they also acknowledge short-term considerations make this a far less than black and white conclusion, as has been publicly acknowledged.
Bottom line, in a meeting with Interim Public Works Director Bob Clarke, Finance Director Paul Navazio and Chief Consultant Jim Yost, Mr. Clarke acknowledged that the city did not have to act now and not one person at that meeting disputed him.
It is conceivable that the state could yank the 40-year permit, but even Ken Landau conceded that was unlikely. Additional information makes the City of Davis’ place of origin claim far stronger than some have been willing to acknowledge.
One commenter wrote: “The irony is that if the voters choose to not approve the water rate increases, they very well may be asking for fines that will be equal to the costs of the surface water project without anything to show for it.”
Mr. Clarke told the Vanguard that, while he believes it unlikely that the city could get a variance simply by applying for it, the one way it could work would be if the voters voted down the rate hikes.
Mr. Clarke believes that the city’s groundwater system is ultimately unsustainable, but even he cannot say whether it will fail in two years from now or in 50 years.
Bottom line is that, while delaying the project could add costs, that is by no means certain, and that concern is weighed against the fact that the city is pushing this before it becomes an emergency and the fact that, right now, ratepayers are far less able to take on added costs.
The Vanguard has no doubt that the city will need to build a surface water project. The question is really one of timing and whether this is the best time to go forward. There are good arguments to be made by both sides on this point – however our point is that the issue is not nearly as black and white as either side has expressed it to be.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David,
I think it is clear from your own conclusion, that you have chosen the wrong concept as your “bottom line”.
You state “The Vanguard has no doubt that the city will need to build a surface water project”. This to me is the
“bottom line”. Once this has been agreed upon, the rest is just a matter of deciding who is going to pay for it.
Are we going to start contributing to the project now ? Or are we going to defer the entire cost to our kids?
You go on to say “the city is pushing this before it becomes an emergency”
To me this is exactly what we pay our city staff and elect our city officials to do, namely plan ahead and address issues before they become “emergencies”.
And finally, you state “right now ratepayers are far less able to take on added costs”
Maybe far less able than they would have been before the recession, however, it is purely speculation that the ratepayer is less able to take on these costs now than they will be in the future. It is a huge assumption, and some would say wishful thinking that our children are likely to be better off financially than we are, largely because of our demonstrated willingness to put off paying for things that we know will be needed in the future.
“those seeking a referendum have fair concerns that must be addressed,” Mayor Krovoza told the Enterprise”
“Mr. Krovoza also acknowledged that the city’s communication and outreach efforts should have been better.”
“Councilmember Dan Wolk responded to the question posed by Bob Dunning saying, “The motion I voted for calls for maximum rate increases of 14 percent per year. Your math (which looks right to me) shows that is not necessarily the case for some.”
Thus the need for the referendum.
“the rest is just a matter of deciding who is going to pay for it. “
I think there is considerably more at stake here than just who pays for it.
“Are we going to start contributing to the project now ? Or are we going to defer the entire cost to our kids? “
To me there is no doubt that we start contributing to the project now. But the question is how much. The question is how big does this project need to be.
“You go on to say “the city is pushing this before it becomes an emergency”
To me this is exactly what we pay our city staff and elect our city officials to do, namely plan ahead and address issues before they become “emergencies”. “
But that is factored against the current economic reality.
“Maybe far less able than they would have been before the recession, however, it is purely speculation that the ratepayer is less able to take on these costs now than they will be in the future.”
I don’t agree it is purely speculation. To me purely speculation is tantamount to pulling it out of one’s hindparts. That is not what is happening here. What is happening here is a calculation based in part by inferring from past economic performance that downturns are followed by economic upturns. There is a speculative nature here, but to call it pure speculation is to also suggest that it pure speculation that the weather will be cooler two weeks from now than it is now.
“It is a huge assumption, and some would say wishful thinking that our children are likely to be better off financially than we are, largely because of our demonstrated willingness to put off paying for things that we know will be needed in the future.”
Maybe. But in my time horizon, putting something off for ten years, puts the onus on me, not my kids.
And Medwoman, I have more immediate concerns for my children. For one thing, my nephew is an extreme special needs kid and if the district has to cut programs, that is going to harm him far more than the costs for water in the future.
Furthermore they have cut AB 3632 which gives mental health funding to kids who have IEPs. Cuts at the county level are also more immediate concerns that we will have more difficulty overcoming either privately (because money is going to water) or publicly.
And Medwoman, I have more immediate concerns for my children. For one thing, my nephew is an extreme special needs kid and if the district has to cut programs, that is going to harm him far more than the costs for water in the future.
Furthermore they have cut AB 3632 which gives mental health funding to kids who have IEPs. Cuts at the county level are also more immediate concerns that we will have more difficulty overcoming either privately (because money is going to water) or publicly.
What about someone ten years further along in life than you, David ? What if, by further deferring already needed upgrades to the infrastructure for another decade, Davis is no longer considered such a desirable hometown ? With an aging population, (Why would young adults stay in a run down, no growth town ?), how long before you’d be just another dusty stop on I-80 ?
In my view, you have to weigh all of these against each other. In general, I think the catastrophist view of non-action here is hyperbole. We are much more adaptive than that. To me, there are immediate concerns that actually impact our children far more immediately. What difference does it make if our children they don’t have to pay more in water if they end without a good education and thus the ability to get a good job and make a good living? We have strafed our education in this state, and we are going to worry about our children paying more for water?
What if, what if, what if?
Davis will always be vibrant being that it’s a world class university town. Davis is and will always stay the envy of the Sacramento region.
“To me there is no doubt that we start contributing to the project now.”
David, it appears that you are advocating for the council rescinding the current rate hikes and issuing a new Prop 218 notice with lower rate increases? What amount?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
I’d like to start phasing in a five percentage rate increase immediately, and the look to more slowly ramp it up over a period of time – closer to how we handled the wastewater project.
David, how would you suggest the council go about implementing these rate increases “right now”? By means of a Prop 218 notice? By “direct democracy”, i.e. ballot initiative? Or is 5% below a certain limit where the council has the authority to act at its sole discretion?
DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties)
“Davis will always be vibrant being that it’s a world class university town.” UCD is a world class university . The city of Davis has become much less hospitable to the university and vice-versa in the last few years . Many “World Class” universities sit in the midst of poverty and despair . I would not place your future in the merciful hands of the university .” Davis is and will always stay the envy of the Sacramento region.” Look up delusional in your Funk and Wagnalls !
Buried in the middle of today’s story is the [u]Vanguard[/u]’s version of a retraction (similar to the weak explanations offered in earlier write-ups) for David’s and Dunnings’s claims that the city leaders purposefully were lying about the rate projections:[quote][i]”Two weeks before, buried in the middle of the September 2 Op-Ed by Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza, was this line: ‘The city’s estimate above for an average single-family bill [b]assumes 20 percent conservation over today’s typical use level[/b]. Thus, monthly impacts on each ratepayer will vary depending on their current water use and their level of conservation’.”[/i][/quote]Instead of accepting responsibility for their sloppy research and reporting, both writers continued using their incorrect reports to criticize city motives. Furthermore, both suggested that those who were the [u]objects[/u] of the Dunning-Greenwald misinformation attacks should accept the blame for the writers’ critical, misleading reports.
Is there any doubt that the handling would have differed if this error had favored the city’s view of the project–rather than mistakenly supporting the Harrington-Dunning-Greenwald referendum campaign? Not in my mind.
David, in my opinion the most serious challenge to the community falls on the wastewater side of the equation. Currently we have in our discharge permit Selenium limitations of 4.4 µg/L average month and 7.1 µg/L max day. We have an interim limit of 7.1 µg/L max day that is in effect until 2015. We are required to meet the 4.4 µg/L now, but until 2015 our fine level has been set at $0.00 for being over 4.4 µg/L. Additionally, in the wetlands we are required to monitor avian eggs and soils for selenium accumulation and must create a plan to reduce selenium if the geometric mean avian egg concentration exceeds 4.0 µg/L.
The above becomes particularly meaningful when you compare 4.4 µg/L to the selenium levels of our current wells as reported in the current Water Quality Report
Well#_ µg/L
11___ 34
7____ 27
23___ 27
19___ 19
EM3__ 19
15___ 11
22___ 11
26___ 11
21___ 10
33___ less than 10
1____ 9.4
24___ 8.6
14___ 4.4
27___ 4.1
25___ 3.5
20___ less than 2.2
32___ less than 2.0
30___ less than 2.0
28___ less than 2.0
31___ less than 2.0
Bottom-line, we are significantly out of compliance; however, the “pain” for being out of compliance is mitigated (until 2015) by our fine level exception of $0.00.
The five deep aquifer wells are in compliance, but that still leaves 12 intermediate aquifer wells with values that are between double and 9-times the 4.4 µg/L limit. The current fine level exception will go away in 2015, so we have to do something to address selenium.
There really are only two ways to address our selenium, 1) change our water sources, or 2) include an additional $50 million upgrade to our planned base level $100 million wastewater treatment plant upgrade.
We can change our water sources by one of three ways, A) provide well head treatment of our existing wells, B) go forward with the Surface water project, or C) replace all our high selenium intermediate aquifer wells with deep aquifer wells.
Option C) may not be available to us. If you read the 2005 EIR that granted Davis the right to drill its most recent two deep aquifer wells, UC Davis forced the City to eliminate two additional wells from the original request. Any new wells will require a new EIR and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that UCD will vigorously oppose any additional wells, much less wells that provide the capacity of the City’s 12 intermediate aquifer wells.
Option A) has its challenges and costs as well. Removing selenium at the well head will create a toxic “brine” that will need to be disposed of in an environmentally responsible way. As I understand it, the nearest disposal facility is in Oakland, which means lots of tank trucks every day (I don’t have an exact number) loading the toxic liquid and trucking it 90 miles down I-80 to Oakland where I believe it is pumped through a pipeline out into the Pacific Ocean. Each truckload will require a permit for transporting a toxic material.
So the Surface water project isn’t the only option, but the other options have their challenges as well.
Jealousy comes in many forms. I take it as a compliment.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”What if, what if, what if?
Davis will always be vibrant being that it’s a world class university town. Davis is and will always stay the envy of the Sacramento region.”[/i]
I agree rusty.
I find the Vanguard’s position ironic/contradictory/disingenuous. On the one hand, the Vanguard had been critical of the city for not ramping up the water rates long ago (“closer to how we handled the wastewater project”). Yet at the same time the Vanguard is foursquare in favor of delaying the water rate increases to pay for the surface water project (“look to more slowly ramp it up over a period of time”), a project which it has conceded is needed (“the Vanguard has no doubt that the city will need to build a surface water project”). The Vanguard cannot have it both ways… and its contradictory/paradoxical position goes directly to the lack of credibility of its untenable position…
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”In my view, you have to weigh all of these against each other. In general, I think the catastrophist view of non-action here is hyperbole. We are much more adaptive than that.”[/i]
David, because of the issues in my long number-filled post above, we may be adaptive, but the timeline for our adaptiveness is highly proscribed.
[quote]I’d like to start phasing in a five percentage rate increase immediately, and the look to more slowly ramp it up over a period of time – closer to how we handled the wastewater project.[/quote]
You are going to have to increase the rates a lot more than 5% I would guess, to pay for fixing the crumbling infrastructure, new wells that will need to be drilled as a result of subsidence problems, and the fines that will probably have to be paid as a result of not building the surface water project.
[quote]I think it is clear from your own conclusion, that you have chosen the wrong concept as your “bottom line”.
You state “The Vanguard has no doubt that the city will need to build a surface water project”. This to me is the
“bottom line”. Once this has been agreed upon, the rest is just a matter of deciding who is going to pay for it.
Are we going to start contributing to the project now ? Or are we going to defer the entire cost to our kids?
You go on to say “the city is pushing this before it becomes an emergency”
To me this is exactly what we pay our city staff and elect our city officials to do, namely plan ahead and address issues before they become “emergencies”.
And finally, you state “right now ratepayers are far less able to take on added costs”
Maybe far less able than they would have been before the recession, however, it is purely speculation that the ratepayer is less able to take on these costs now than they will be in the future. It is a huge assumption, and some would say wishful thinking that our children are likely to be better off financially than we are, largely because of our demonstrated willingness to put off paying for things that we know will be needed in the future.[/quote]
Nicely said!
[quote][i]”David, how would you suggest the council go about implementing these rate increases “right now”? By means of a Prop 218 notice? By “direct democracy”, i.e. ballot initiative? Or is 5% below a certain limit where the council has the authority to act at its sole discretion?”[/i][/quote]Fascinating on several levels. After a month of refusing to consider the impacts of a successful referendum effort–“It’s not my job to come up with solutions….”)–turns out David had a “Five-percent Solution” all along. How would you go about implementing it?
Davis Enophile said . . .
[i]”Matt
Along the lines of your questioning Sue about selenium, I read this interesting bit from page 6 of the city’s wastewater permit fact sheet.
“The Discharger has projected that a new tertiary treatment system could be completed as early as 2015 or as late as the end of 2018 for facilities to provide a tertiary (or equivalent) level of treatment and year-round nitrification/denitrification. The Discharger anticipates the new treatment system would be able to comply with priority pollutant water quality standards for all constituents except selenium. Removal of the overland flow system as part of the upgrade to tertiary would improve the effluent quality for most constituents, but would likely cause an increase in effluent selenium. Achieving compliance with the CTR effluent selenium limitations would most likely require a change in the City’s water supply.”
If the plan is still to remove the overland flow process at the existing treatment plant, the planned upgrade will result in an increase in effluent selenium concentration. In effect, the wastewater treatment plant upgrade will make the selenium problem worse. The city’s stated solution to this is water supply.”[/i]
David, here’s one more factor that affects the looming selenium deadline.
The voters in Davis will pay for good water, as they always have.
We need an independent, comprehensive review of the fiscal and technical long-term feasibility of our well water system. Senior water staff have admitted to me that such a basic study has never been done because the policy direction for 15 years has been surface water, surface water, and nothing but surface water.
“Independent” to me means done by a firm that has no ties, no relationships with the current CC majority, Public Works staff, or the JPA.
And their results will not be filtered, or changed, or massaged, by any of the foregoing persons or entities.
Get used to that idea, because this is where we are going.
Mike, what use is a fiscal and technical review if you don’t do a legal review first. Read the 2005 EIR. Then get back to the Blog with your assessment. The road to the very next deep water aquifer well goes through UCD . . . and quite probably through the Courts. Who knows how long that would take and what the outcome is likely to be.
“David, how would you suggest the council go about implementing these rate increases “right now”?”
Prop 218 rate increase of five percent. You will hardly get a whimper of a protest, my understanding was that even at Dan Wolk’s 10 percent proposal, there would likely have been no referendum.
Justsaying: That line was included in Sunday’s article. It marks no retraction and no change from what we originally reported.
“I find the Vanguard’s position ironic/contradictory/disingenuous. On the one hand, the Vanguard had been critical of the city for not ramping up the water rates long ago (“closer to how we handled the wastewater project”). Yet at the same time the Vanguard is foursquare in favor of delaying the water rate increases to pay for the surface water project (“look to more slowly ramp it up over a period of time”), a project which it has conceded is needed (“the Vanguard has no doubt that the city will need to build a surface water project”). The Vanguard cannot have it both ways… and its contradictory/paradoxical position goes directly to the lack of credibility of its untenable position…”
The problem is that there is no tension in the two statements.
Had we built in rate increases over the last ten years, two things would have occurred (A) we would have less impact on the ratepayers who would have more time to adjust other spending habits and water usage and (B) the savings would mitigate the need to build in as step a final rates as we are proposing. Those are not contradictory statements. T
The city likes to for example cite that we have low rates now. That is true, but more important than total cost is change in rate, over a period of time I can adjust spending and usage. A sudden change is more disruptive. A sustained sudden change could be devastating to the local economy.
I love reading the Vanguard, but on this issue, I feel the conversation has degenerated into argument. It’s like the abortion issue: no matter how much people discuss it, no minds are changed. The vote is going to happen, and those opposed to the surface water project will man tables at farmer’s market and knock on doors. I hope that someone from the supporters of surface water will organize similar activities, and I would be honored to volunteer some time. I’m not an expert, but from what I have learned though this blog, I believe that rolling the dice on the deep wells or deciding to put off the surface water project for a decade or so is not wise.
“You are going to have to increase the rates a lot more than 5% I would guess, to pay for fixing the crumbling infrastructure, new wells that will need to be drilled as a result of subsidence problems, and the fines that will probably have to be paid as a result of not building the surface water project.”
Ultimately I agree with you, however, the city seemed to think that the problem was not near as severe or imminent as your language implies.
“After a month of refusing to consider the impacts of a successful referendum effort–“It’s not my job to come up with solutions….”)–turns out David had a “Five-percent Solution” all along. How would you go about implementing it?”
I don’t view it as my job to solve the problem. I view it as my job to evaluate current policy. I’ve suggested the five percent beginning approach which is fairly consistent with my view that we needed to build in the funding over time.
We need an independent study of the ground water system, first. It should include conservation measures.
Mike Harrington and his pals will fight any additional source for water, because of the irrational and paranoid belief that this will “cause uncontrolled growth.” Mike has stated this time and time again. He doesn’t have a Plan B, because any plan to address the problem will provide water for growth. It isn’t David’s job to solve the problem. It is the City staff and the City Council’s job. They found a solution (which previous City Council’s punted as, remember, finding a solution would encourage growth) and Mike Harrington led the charge to stop it (and, by extension, growth). It is now Mike Harrington’s job to find a solution. But, alas, he is too “busy.”
[quote]Had we built in rate increases over the last ten years, two things would have occurred (A) we would have less impact on the ratepayers who would have more time to adjust other spending habits and water usage and (B) the savings would mitigate the need to build in as step a final rates as we are proposing. Those are not contradictory statements.[/quote]
You vociferously criticized the previous city council for delaying implementation of increasing the water rate increases. Yet now you are advocating for the very delay you decried previously. Or to put it differently, you criticized the previous city council for “kicking the can down the road”, yet you now are advocating for “kicking the can down the road”. You then dismiss the possible consequences of “kicking the can down the road” as “hyperbole”, when previously “kicking the can down the road” was absolutely unacceptable to you. In my book that is a completely hypocritical stance and undermines the Vanguard’s credibility on this issue…
The Vanguard has been very good about parroting Bob Dunning and repeating the posts of those leaving comments. I’ve not seen much original reporting.
In fact, I’m growing tired Davis Enterprise articles being repeated on this blog. Good grief!
[quote]ERM: “You are going to have to increase the rates a lot more than 5% I would guess, to pay for fixing the crumbling infrastructure, new wells that will need to be drilled as a result of subsidence problems, and the fines that will probably have to be paid as a result of not building the surface water project.”
DMG: Ultimately I agree with you, however, the city seemed to think that the problem was not near as severe or imminent as your language implies.[/quote]
Ultimately you agree with me; then turn around and completely contradict yourself by stating the problem is not as imminent or severe as I implied, without any basis for that statement. You cannot have it both ways. It seems as if you have taken Council member Sue Greenwald’s position of delay at all costs, no matter how much it might cost us in the long run bc we cannot afford it now. BUT CAN WE AFFORD IT IN THE LONG RUN? THAT IS THE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION – afford the fines that will probably be steep enough so there is no cost benefit to not doing the surface water project, afford the subsidence, afford the cost of new wells that will invariably have to be dug, afford the increase in construction/finance costs, afford the costs of maintaining the crumbling infrastructure we have now? These seem to be inconvenient truths to be swept under the carpet for another day…
“You vociferously criticized the previous city council for delaying implementation of increasing the water rate increases. Yet now you are advocating for the very delay you decried previously. “
By stating it in that matter, you miss or at least distort the actual point of why I criticized the previous council which was precisely because it would result in steep rate hikes that would be difficult to absorb, which is exactly why I oppose imposing the full rate hikes now.
“Ultimately you agree with me; then turn around and completely contradict yourself by stating the problem is not as imminent or severe as I implied, without any basis for that statement. “
By ultimate, I mean in the long run. Thus no contradiction.
Whatever comes of this, I would suggest to the council that next time they put out rate percentage increases that they leave out any conservation adjustments. If they must show conservation savings do it as a side example of what savings one can attain if they choose to conserve.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”We need an independent study of the ground water system, first. It should include conservation measures.”[/i]
Mike, if UC Davis can effectively legally bar the City from drilling any more deep aquifer wells, why spend the significant dollars on the independent study of the deep aquifer ground water system before doing an independent legal review? That appears to be throwing money away.
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”Whatever comes of this, I would suggest to the council that next time they put out rate percentage increases that they leave out any conservation adjustments. If they must show conservation savings do it as a side example of what savings one can attain if they choose to conserve.”[/i]
Fair enough rusty
[i]”It is conceivable that the state could yank the 40-year permit, but even Ken Landau conceded that was unlikely.”[/i]
My column, available now on davisenterprise.com ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/opinion/opinion-columns/water-rights-can-we-keep-them/[/url]) and available in print in Wednesday’s Davis Enterprise, specifically addresses the question of whether or not it is likely we will lose our approapriative water rights to Sacramento River water if the Harrington referendum passes and our metered water rates are not increased.
I did not speak with Ken Landau. My source at the State Water Resources Control Board is Assistant Deputy Director James Kassel of the Division of Water Rights.
Michael: “[i]We need an independent study of the ground water system…”[/i]
There is loads of independent information about the ground water. Studies have been done in conjunction with EIR’s, with the groundwater management plan that UCD and the City of Davis have, and other times. I can point you to any number of studies of the local groundwater.
The last time you said this, I asked: what do you want to know? But you didn’t answer. So I suspect a study is a tactic, not a legitimate interest in facts.
“The road to the very next deep water aquifer well goes through UCD . . . and quite probably through the Courts.”
My understanding(from family members with expertise in CA water law) is that letter-of-the-law groundwater RIGHTS are virtually non-existent in CA. The probability that this agreement with UCD(if indeed it is written as a legally binding contract) will be enforceable is highly unlikely. UCD is drilling into the deep aquifer, voided ITS agreement with Davis to partner on the infrastructure costs and then plans to buy surface water,from the very project they refused to help build,to meet their water quality standards.
“I can point you to any number of studies of the local groundwater.”
Please reference independent studies that gives us a functional lifespan of Davis’ deep aquifer system.
davisite, ask your family member sources how an EIR that has substantive objections filed would be brought to a “resolved end.” They will almost surely tell you that if the issues are substantive and the parties are at an impasse the only resolution would be through the courts.
[i]a functional lifespan of Davis’ deep aquifer system.[/i]
There is no such thing as a “functional lifespan” of an aquifer.
“My column, available now on davisenterprise.com and available in print in Wednesday’s Davis Enterprise…”
Excellent piece. Councilperson Souza’s ranting about “losing water rights” and Rifkin’s diligent journalism brings to mind the last time that an Enterprise staffer went to the source to attempt to verify Sousa’s(and Saylor’s)claims in an Enterprise Op-ED piece during the Covell Village measure X csmpaign.We again find that Councilperson Souza’s “facts” are false….. dealing falsely with the electorate tolls the death-knell for future political success.
“…have given no suggestion of benchmarks they would use to trigger the surface water project.”
Of course, this data is part of what is being called for in INDEPENDENT in-depth studies of the deep aquifer. My understanding is that good and useful information can be obtained from such studies.
Google this plan:
CITY OF DAVIS / UC DAVIS
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
April 2006
“They will almost surely tell you that if the issues are substantive and the parties are at an impasse the only resolution would be through the courts.”
Matt: we agree fully here. I was commenting,perhaps incorrectly, on my assumption that you thought that the courts would enforce UCD’s “contract”. As Sue Greenwald has noted before, the resolution of groundwater disputes does not come from one party enforcing its legal rights on the other but rather both coming to a compromise solution.
Matt wrote: “Mike, if UC Davis can effectively legally bar the City from drilling any more deep aquifer wells, “
The City has a priority right to any water below its jurisdictional boundaries. If the CC has given away that right to UCD, then it’s yet more political malpractice.
We will get into this as the campaign progresses, assuming the County certifies the referendum has enough valid signatures.
My problem with the piles and piles of City of Davis water reports is that those studies were all designed, funded, analyzed, and produced by the same personalities that have commanded the push for surface water for 15 years.
I also know for a fact that when Davis hires consultants, the staff get a draft before release to the CC or the public, and often those drafts are significantly changed or redacted. This is true for all public agencies; they all do it to some degree.
So no, those piles of studies are suspect, and the results can be cooked. Just like the staff and the CC cooked the rate hike formula just before the September 6 vote.
Sorry, we want an independent review, and we will get it.
One more thing: Yost and Associates: we are going to compile how much money has been paid to your firm to steer this through to a project that produces even more millions for your business and colleagues.
Did you see how that + $300,000 to the PR firm got the public excited?
How about our “outing” indicted-on-felonies United Water, which staff and consultants and the JPA recommended as a qualified bidder?
Wait until we give them the number for Yost and Associates. No wonder Yost was standing up with Saylor when he announced his candidacy to the Yolo County Supervisor’s seat. (David, where the heck is that nice photo you posted last year??)
No, we don’t trust anything these go-go-go surface water people have been pushing for 15 years.
No, we dont trust anything the current CC and senior staff are telling us, after they misrepresented the 14% rate increase.
No, we are not trusting anything the JPA is telling us. Souza is the Chair, and look how he tried to block direct democracy in this town by personally standing directly in front of our tablers and trying to get them to walk away without signing the petitions.
Just standby for future data releases. The truth shall set you free, and give you good clean water at an affordable price.
Rifkin writes in today’s DE:
“Based on Kassel’s explanation, it seems unlikely to me that, if the voters of Davis reject the increase in our water rates, we would lose our share of the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency’s water rights in the next 25 years.”
Another fear mongering talking point dispelled. Thanks Rich for the clarification.
davisite2
[i]”Matt: we agree fully here. I was commenting,perhaps incorrectly, on my assumption that you thought that the courts would enforce UCD’s “contract”. As Sue Greenwald has noted before, the resolution of groundwater disputes does not come from one party enforcing its legal rights on the other but rather both coming to a compromise solution.”[/i]
If such a compromise is available. After a very prolonged process aimed at reaching a compromise, if no compromise is available then it is off to the courts. We could well be headed there vis-a-vis the Tsakopoulos 10,000 acre feet agreement.
Can you say “ungovernable”?
With all this direct democracy, I think we need a petition to rename Davis “Athenes”.
Unfortunately, I don’t see how the referrendum cannot succeed, given the campaign strategy already evident from Harrington: Demonize supporters as money grubbers, confuse the facts so public never understands the issues.
I don’t really care about this issue, but direct democracy was tossed in the trashbin of history 2500 years ago. Its pretty ironic that it’s been dusted off by the supposedly smart people of Davis. LOL.
Anticommunist: you obviously have not been reading the media articles about the city misstating the 14% nature of the rate hikes. I have never done anything like that to soak the Davis ratepayers up to $250,000,000 of potentially unnecessary fee increases. Maybe you should criticize the City?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”The City has a priority right to any water below its jurisdictional boundaries. If the CC has given away that right to UCD, then it’s yet more political malpractice.
We will get into this as the campaign progresses, assuming the County certifies the referendum has enough valid signatures.”[/i]
Mike, you are talking through your hat. If the City wants to drill any additional deep water acquifer wells it has to file a new EIR. The last EIR in was originally filed for 4-6 wells drawing 9,000 gallons per minute but as the Final EIR Report states, [i]”The Project Description has been modified to incorporate changes discussed between the Lead Agency (the City of Davis) and the University of California, Davis during the DEIR comment period. The project has been scaled down from the original proposal because of well interference and long-term aquifer depletion concerns of UC Davis. The proposed project currently includes installation of 2 to 3 deep aquifer wells (instead of 4-6 as originally proposed) with a combined maximum design pumping capacity of approximately 4,500 gallons per minute (the actual capacity of each well is determined after construction, development, and testing)”[/i]
Lets be realistic here Mike. If UC Davis [u]forced[/u] the City to remove 4,500 gallons per minute out of the 2005 EIR, how are they going to react to the City wanting to go for [u]an additional[/u] 12,000 gallons per minute or more?
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Anticommunist: you obviously have not been reading the media articles about [b]the city misstating the 14% nature of the rate hikes[/b]. I have never done anything like that to soak the Davis ratepayers up to $250,000,000 of potentially unnecessary fee increases. Maybe you should criticize the City?”[/i]
Mike, your bolded accusation above is absolutely wrong. Page 1 of the September 6, 2011 Staff Report says the following. “Overall revenues requirements are projected to increase by 100% over the five-year period, with the average single-family residential customer experiencing an increase in their monthly cost of water from $34.75 to $77.18 in Year 5. [u]These estimated monthly water bill impacts assume an overall 20% reduction in single family residential water consumption over the five-year period.[/u] [b]Customers with below average water use now will experience lower-than-average monthly water bill impacts, while customers with above average water use would see higher than average monthly water bill impacts. The individual water bill impact will vary depending on a customer’s current water use and their future conservation efforts during the five year period.[/b]”
All you had to do was read those [u]up front words[/u] in the Staff Report. Anyone who did, knows the different between telling a lie and telling the truth.
Hey, can’t we take a deep breath, wait for the results of the tally and start gearing up for factual civil discussion going forward? I personally am tired of all the sniping!
No sniping . . . only sharing.
On that note, from the Draft EIR for the last two City of Davis deep aquifer wells.
[i]”Water Rights Under California water law, groundwater appropriation rights are not assigned unless ordered through a legal adjudication proceeding. The water rights are generally based on correlative rights of the overlying users to put the water to reasonable beneficial use. The UC Davis deep wells have been in place for several decades. The groundwater basin has not been adjudicated, so no entity holds water rights to the deep aquifer. Although the anticipated impacts are not expected to be sufficient cause for adjudication, should adjudication occur in the future, the prior usage by UC Davis could weigh into the adjudication order as one of many factors that would be considered.”[/i]
[i][quote]”One more thing: Yost and Associates: we are going to compile how much money has been paid to your firm to steer this through to a project that produces even more millions for your business and colleagues. Did you see how that + $300,000 to the PR firm got the public excited? How about our “outing” indicted-on-felonies United Water, which staff and consultants and the JPA recommended as a qualified bidder? Wait until we give them the number for Yost and Associates.”[/quote][/i]Yeah, “just wait!” That’s the ticket! I’m still waiting for the cellular phone video of Councilman Souza attacking folks at your petition tables, a tale the Vanguard fell for hook, line and half-a-sinker.
These past weeks have been nothing but a steady stream of innuendo and outrageous charges. It’s been like a month-long opening statement, all persuasion and no evidence required or offered. Entertaining, but hardly enlightening.
If this is indicating the new level of political dialogue here, it’s a sad thing to contemplate. What to do? Can’t move to Woodland because of the low ethical standards there, as David has pointed out. Knight’s Landing, too much flooding. West Sac, sorry, full of gangs. Sigh, looks like we’re stuck in Davis for another generation or two–it’s a shame…we’ll just try to live with it.
Matt: thank you.
Justsaying: I recommend you read the media analysis of the 14% rate fraud. And the ordinance does not conform to the motion. Email me, and I will give you the minutes. What’s ahead is speculation; what’s behind us is documented fact based on City conduct. Guess you like being duped about your tax increases?
‘If UC Davis forced the City to remove 4,500 gallons per minute out of the 2005 EIR”
Matt…”Forced”…. how do you know how much pressure was exerted by UCD and the degree that it was resisted by the city and CC(Saylor’s Council)? At the time, the surface water project was being advanced piece-meal, below the public’s “radar”. In spite of the Council Majority’s public protestations to the contrary, the then-Council majority and Weir’s Dept of Public Works were laying the groundwork as they attempted to make the project unchallengeable when it surfaced for public scrutiny(“the horse has already left the barn”). Water policies were most likely being shaped with that in mind. UCD was an active partner in the infrastructure costs at that time. Submitting and not challenging a reduction in the city’s deep aquifer water supply would greatly enhance the argument about the urgent need for the surface water project.Is there a public record of the “discussions” between UCD and the CC/city?
Mike Harrington has been commenting all afternoon after he stated yesterday that he had no time to answer questions and was “retiring.” His repeated and frequent comments are still rife with false accusations, referring to people to as “personalities” (intended to be a demeaning term, IMO) and “enablers”, professionals and City staff are attacked repeatedly, conspiracy theories abound. People here have repeatedly referenced documentation, which counters or clarifies his attacks, but he then just says that 15 years of studies are worthless and wants to spend money on a new study. It is delay, delay, delay, dodge, dodge, dodge. He feigns friendliness and politeness, which is shrouded in thick sarcasm. He is on this blog over hours every day, but claims that he has no time to give straight answers, saying he has a full-time business and a family, as if others here don’t.
I believe that he has finally reached troll status on this blog.
Ryan, so you like being duped by the 14% rate hike fraud?
[quote]By stating it in that matter, you miss or at least distort the actual point of why I criticized the previous council which was precisely because it would result in steep rate hikes that would be difficult to absorb, which is exactly why I oppose imposing the full rate hikes now.[/quote]
Full rate hikes delayed is that much steeper a cost at some time in the future – cost of fines which will most likely be steep enough so that we gain nothing by delay, costs of subsidence, increased construction/finance costs, costs of maintaining crumbling infrastructure, costs of digging more deep wells as the mid-level aquifers fail, etc. Even you conceded we need the surface water project – you just refuse to say WHEN, because you cannot argue away the inconvenient truths of the steep costs of delay. Your logic fails to hold up under scrutiny. Care to try again?
[quote]ERM: “Ultimately you agree with me; then turn around and completely contradict yourself by stating the problem is not as imminent or severe as I implied, without any basis for that statement. ”
DGM: By ultimate, I mean in the long run. Thus no contradiction.[/quote]
Ultimately we need the project in the long run, but we don’t need it now? Basis please as to why we don’t need the surface water project now, but we do need it in the future? Especially in light of the new water quality standards we face right around the corner beginning in 2017. This makes absolutely no sense whatever…
Elaine:
When I met with city staff and pressed them on these issues, it became clear that there is a worst case scenario being sold to the public on this. When pushed, some of these worst case scenarios actually fall apart. Some are there. Rifkin’s story on the water rights bears out what I have been telling you for some time, that there was considerable nuance in Ken Landau’s statements – and you completely dismissed that point.
We will eventually need the water project, that was made clear by everyone I spoke, but city staff acknowledged that there is a trade off between long term costs and short term affordability and consequences of financing it now that could be quite bad.
Based on that information, I’ve tried to pose a middle ground. Right now, I don’t think you’re going to be able to sell the full rate hikes to the public anyway.
The story on the variance is instructive, there is a case to be made that we can get it and that’s if the public rejects the rate hikes.
I don’t know who told you what, but at some point you dropped your critical filter and started buying the full story from people that I know you don’t completely trust.
[quote]I don’t know who told you what, but at some point you dropped your critical filter and started buying the full story from people that I know you don’t completely trust.[/quote]
Now I am a DUPE bc I support the surface water project? Is that your position? Really?
Who/what entity has consistently and randomly tossed mud at this issue from day one, hoping that something will stick? Let’s see, there was the Palestinian issue, the school/city tax wedge issue, the water conservation “fraud” issue, the “undemocratic Prop 218” issue, the “evilness” of the previous city council issue, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.
I would argue the Vanguard decided long ago it didn’t want the surface water project, and so has thrown every conceivable issue it could pull out of a hat whether factual or not, including the kitchen sink. Through hysteria and demonization of the proponents of the surface water project the Vanguard has convinced voters to kill/delay this project. And now the community will have to live with the after effects for years to come if the voters decide not to approve the water rate increases bc of all the misinformation slung by opponents, and I suspect the after effects won’t be pretty. But only time will tell who was right. I actually hope I am WRONG.
Your patent insult notwithstanding, I will make one last comment. I wrote a very well reasoned article on why I support the surface water project. It is a cost/benefit/risk analysis. WHY IS MY ARTICLE ANY LESS WORTHY THAN ANY OF YOUR OPINIONS? I believe the greatest risk will be in delay, bc ultimately the costs (and not just in dollars) will be greater, not less. The irony is you have agreed with that point. Yet you have the audacity to accuse me of going over to some “dark side” because I do not happen to agree with your position to delay the project. (Demonization is usually the result of a lack of logic to address an issue.) I want to write something else, but I’m going to “hold my tongue/fingers” – discretion is the better part of valor/take the high road/don’t stoop to the level of the gutter, and all those good things.
Let us just say we will have to agree to disagree on this one, and leave it at that… and I will leave and go somewhere in a closed room where no one will hear me, AND VENT – can you see the steam rising?
ERM: interesting how you dump on the DV editor, pounding all of us about the need for the project, on and on, yet here you come, this big apologist for an alleged 14% rate hike that is much higher, for a + $250,000,000 dupe job by people who are hell bent on surface water come what may.
Look at the surface water use map, and come to some understanding of the goals. Even if they have to try and con the public with the rate structures.
I can assure you that if we get to the details of the entire project, you are going to see similar con jobs.
There are clues here if you want to read them: the 14% con job; the $300K for a PR firm to sell this pig; the recommendation of United Water is a qualified and appropriate bidder to Design, Build and Operate; the scare tactic that UCD has a legal right to block our getting more deep aquifer water; the scare tactic that the City will lose the water permit for 45000 acre feet of Sac River water if we dont build this project; etc etc.
Get it? You are another victim. Like we all have been.
Just waiting for the referendum count. Hope it qualifies.
Even if it does not, Ernie Head has an initiative that he is working on that would roll back the rates.
Mastt: same to you. Don’t you see the clues? Don’t be a patsy for those people.
Mike, so you want me to be your patsy instead? The reality is I’m not anyone’s patsy. I’m doing my own research into the issues. I’m coming up with independent cost estimates to cover the three possible options (four if Walt Sadler’s suggestion pans out).
I’m doing my best to embrace Plans A, B, C (and possibly D). You are running from any discussion of Plan B. We have an obligation as citizens to understand as best as possible the vagaries of all the options, and then vote with our brains. That’s not your way. You want to vote with your heart.
You need to wrap your brain around selenium. You need to wrap your brain around the capital costs of all the options. You need to demonstrate to your fellow citizens that you are more than a circus barker. You need to not repeat your performance on the Housing Element Steering Committe when you walked out on everyone because you didn’t like what was coming down.
Vote with your head . . . and help your fellow citizens do the same. Stop being a patsy to your own heart.
To all: no more name-calling please.
@Matt – MH is “working for the man”, not following his heart. When we learn who is pulling his string and lining his pocketbook, the citizens of Davis will be much better off.
Adam, I’m not that cynical. His heart or his ego, whatever it is, I don’t think his strings are being pulled from outside his own body.
“Now I am a DUPE bc I support the surface water project? Is that your position? Really? “
I did not call you a dupe, I simply suggested you are taking the word of people who you normally do not trust.
“Let’s see, there was the Palestinian issue, the school/city tax wedge issue, the water conservation “fraud” issue, the “undemocratic Prop 218” issue, the “evilness” of the previous city council issue, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum. “
All valid points. Obviously it depends on where you come down on the Palestinian issue, but the other issues are fairly clear.
“I would argue the Vanguard decided long ago it didn’t want the surface water project, and so has thrown every conceivable issue it could pull out of a hat whether factual or not, including the kitchen sink.”
The Vanguard isn’t against the surface water project. The Vanguard has questioned the need for it now, it is distrustful of those asserting that we need it now, and all of the issues that you bring up are valid concerns that you have not come even close to debunking.
“And now the community will have to live with the after effects for years to come if the voters decide not to approve the water rate increases bc of all the misinformation slung by opponents, and I suspect the after effects won’t be pretty. But only time will tell who was right. I actually hope I am WRONG. “
I simply think you have bought into the worst case scenario story perpetrated by proponents of this project.
“WHY IS MY ARTICLE ANY LESS WORTHY THAN ANY OF YOUR OPINIONS? “
I never said it was, in fact, I printed your article.
“I believe the greatest risk will be in delay, bc ultimately the costs (and not just in dollars) will be greater, not less. “
I believe that risk is offset by current risks to school funding and the economy in a recession.
“The irony is you have agreed with that point.”
Actually I haven’t. I believe your point is only half of the story.
“Yet you have the audacity to accuse me of going over to some “dark side” because I do not happen to agree with your position to delay the project.”
You’ve taken my comment further than it was intended, I simply think you bought into the full story from people who on other issues you would have questioned a lot longer.
“Let us just say we will have to agree to disagree on this one, and leave it at that… and I will leave and go somewhere in a closed room where no one will hear me, AND VENT – can you see the steam rising? “
You are free to do as you wish. Frankly I doubt either of us are going to go away on this issue however.
Adam: MH isn’t working for anyone or anything than his own sense of what is right for this community.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Vanguard isn’t against the surface water project. The Vanguard has questioned the need for it now, it is distrustful of those asserting that we need it now, and all of the issues that you bring up are valid concerns that you have not come even close to debunking.”[/i]
David, the challenge I face in making up my mind which is the best way to go (and what is the best timing) is that the more I dig into the selenium wastewater discharge issue the more it becomes the one factor that truly does have a clear timeline and significant A) capital costs, B) incremental operational costs and c) environmental challenges/responsibilities. How do you propose dealing with the looming selenium fines in 2015?
Matt: Those are good and fair questions. And that’s the next piece of this I really need to look into. What I have tried to do so far as I look at this piece by piece, is to press everyone to see where the line of certainty is versus the line of worst case scenarios.
Davis
I may be misconstruing your position here so please correct as necessary. It seems to me as though your attitude towards “worst case scenarios” is a bit dismissive. In my field, with limited resources, just as the individual citizens and city are facing now, we do not always staff up as though we knew we would be facing a “worst case scenario” for example three emergency cesareans at the same time, but we do acknowledge that possibility and have a clearly laid out Plan B for exactly what we will do should that situation arise. My concern here is that the opponents of the project seem to be opposing without addressing the back up contingency should the worst occur. While that does not seem to be your stated position, repeatedly downplaying the “worst case scenario” would seem to support that mindset.
Oops, last post was intended to be addresses to David.
One thing is certain . For all the high-toned palaver about social justice and environmental responsibility, if you want to mobilize Davisites, reach for their pocket books ! Maybe because I’m a little further up the road of life, Elaine’s reasoning seems sound to me ! In any event, having more sources of clean water can only be a benefit for the entire community . If I were a resident of Davis, I’d keep an eye on those spending their own money to derail this project .
[quote]Mike Harrington: Ryan, so you like being duped by the 14% rate hike fraud?[/quote]
Unlike you, I was never duped. I used the rate calculator provided on the City’s website to determine my rates, referring to my current water bill as a reference. It has always been my understanding that the City was taking into consideration that as rates went up, people would conserve and use less water. I encouraged readers of this blog to do the same. “Average” means many things (medium, mode, etc.), so I found out what the average increase would mean for my household.
Well don’t you worry about it Biddlin, it’s our pocket books not your’s?
One thing about Davisites, we might disagree and argue about policies, but in the end we usually get it right. That’s why so many want to live here.
biddlin, is that really a surprise? IBM thrived for years by selling “FUD” to its customers. Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are powerful motivators even during a strong economy. They are even more powerful in times like these.
With that said, the pocketbook issues” that have surfaced during the run up to yesterday’s referendum signatures submission, are real. Council and Staff need to do their best to “hear” what has been said and where possible address those pocketbook issues without creating more FUD in other areas.
Who thinks that Davis is a nice place to live because of love, peace and harmony at all times in the past? The community has argued, sometimes fought, discussed, noodled, and kicked around just about every planning and program subject you can think of. None of it was easy, and sometimes very unpleasant. But in the end, most of the time, the CC informed by the public, and the voters, have gotten things right when given a fair hearing. If the surface water plant is approved by the voters, life goes on. If not, something much better will be presented and approved. I have no doubt.
“That’s why so many want to live here.” and why you work so hard to keep them out ?
Matt-Of course the pocketbook issues are real, but delaying and deferring improvements and repairs to the infrastructure and not planning for the future needs of the community may well prove much costlier than biting the bullet now . 50 years ago, when I came to this area, a much more egalitarian Davis was rightly proud of its “Quality of Life.” Through frequent visits over the last five years, I don’t see that quality or civic pride . That, rusty, is what made Davis “the envy” of the region . It has, sadly, devolved considerably .
Biddlin states:
“That’s why so many want to live here.” and why you work so hard to keep them out?”
Not at all Biddlin, we all work hard to keep Davis a great place to live. We don’t want to end up like Elk Grove, Natomas, or most other parts of the area. We don’t want the endless strip malls and sprawled housing like maybe where you live. Davis is desirable, don’t be jealous.
[quote][/quote]Davis is desirable, don’t be jealous.
Davis has a reputation for being a nice place to live. However, it is the caustic political environment, elitist culture ingrained in our schools, the uncontrolled bullying directed at our public employees, fellow citizens and neighboring communities, and overpriced housing that tarnishes the quality of life for many in this City.
Ryan, that’s your opinion, I don’t agree one iota. I think you might be spending too much time reading blogs and it has soured your perception, in my opinion you need to get out and experience the real people of Davis so you know what a wonderful place it is.
[quote][i]”Ryan, that’s your opinion, I don’t agree one iota. I think you might be spending too much time reading blogs and it has soured your perception, in my opinion you need to get out and experience the real people of Davis so you know what a wonderful place it is.”
[/i][/quote]
LOL (shaking head in disbelief)
Good comeback….LOL
“Davis has a reputation for being a nice place to live. However, it is the caustic political environment, elitist culture ingrained in our schools, the uncontrolled bullying directed at our public employees, fellow citizens and neighboring communities, and overpriced housing that tarnishes the quality of life for many in this City.”
Well stated, Ryan Kelly . Very much the feeling I had about Davis when looking to relocate after retirement ! I also see a vast disparity of wealth that did not seem to exist in the 60’s and 70’s, when everyone was working class and working class could afford Davis .
[quote]ERM: “Now I am a DUPE bc I support the surface water project? Is that your position? Really? ”
DMG: I did not call you a dupe, I simply suggested you are taking the word of people who you normally do not trust. [/quote]
From Mirriam-Webster Dictionary:
[quote]Definition of DUPE: one that is easily deceived or cheated : fool[/quote]
In my experience, when one person on the side of an issue starts demonizing the other side, with name calling or making derogatory comments, it is because logic has failed that person, and the only thing that person has left in their arsenal is to sling mud. For shame…
[quote]ERM: “Let’s see, there was the Palestinian issue, the school/city tax wedge issue, the water conservation “fraud” issue, the “undemocratic Prop 218” issue, the “evilness” of the previous city council issue, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum. ”
DMG: All valid points. Obviously it depends on where you come down on the Palestinian issue, but the other issues are fairly clear. [/quote]
Valid points according to who? Not in my book. Fairly clear? Clear that you will not stop at throwing everything, and I mean everything no matter how far fetched or misleading, including the kitchen sink, to delay this project.
[quote]The Vanguard isn’t against the surface water project. The Vanguard has questioned the need for it now, it is distrustful of those asserting that we need it now, and all of the issues that you bring up are valid concerns that you have not come even close to debunking. [/quote]
We need the project in the future; but we don’t need the project now? Now how is that for logic? Egads…
[quote] ERM: “WHY IS MY ARTICLE ANY LESS WORTHY THAN ANY OF YOUR OPINIONS? ”
dmg: I never said it was, in fact, I printed your article. [/quote]
You could have fooled me with your statement:
[quote]I simply think you have bought into the worst case scenario story perpetrated by proponents of this project. [/quote]
“Bought into” implies DUPED, which means FOOLED. So your sentence essentially says “I simply think you were FOOLED by proponents of this project. And then you want to tell me you think my opinion is just as worthy as yours? Really? Who are you trying to kid?
[quote]ERM: “The irony is you have agreed with that point.”
DMG: Actually I haven’t. I believe your point is only half of the story. [/quote]
So you agree with half my points? LOL
[quote]”Let us just say we will have to agree to disagree on this one, and leave it at that… and I will leave and go somewhere in a closed room where no one will hear me, AND VENT – can you see the steam rising? ”
You are free to do as you wish. Frankly I doubt either of us are going to go away on this issue however.[/quote]
It is one thing to disagree, another to DISPARAGE. That is the main point here. As I have said before, no one has a crystal ball, nor can forecast precisely what will happen in the future. This boils down to a risk/benefit/cost analysis. But frankly, reason and logic seem to be more on my side than yours, as evidenced by the amount of mudslinging found necessary for your side to make their points. Mud isn’t necessary when reason and logic will do…
The shame of it is that there are many issues that need to be addressed, but in an atmosphere of hysteria and demonization (dirty tactics), little fruitful discussion will take place…
[quote]ERM: interesting how you dump on the DV editor, [/quote]
I didn’t “dump” on the DV editor, he “dumped” on me with a very disparaging comment…
Who or what corporate/government entity stands to profit the most from the surface water project? Take the profit out of the equation and this surface water thing would take a back seat to less expensive solutions, perhaps.
David.. This is a turn off to readers who most likely will abandon their search,as I have, for an interesting reader contribution as they scroll in vain through these endless and repetitious postings. I suggest that you leave the last word to ERM.
ERM… give it a rest!!! PLEASE
Davisite, I totally agree. It’s going to a vote in 7 months, nothing said here now will mean squat come June.
[quote]ERM… give it a rest!!! PLEASE[/quote]
Here is the problem – when opponents of the project spew out misinformation, demonize, create hysteria, you are asking proponents of the project to back off! Hardly fair! There is also the notion by opponents that somehow they have the higher moral ground, for whatever reason, whereas proponents are being duped by city staff. You want proponents to just accept those premises? Would you accept it if opponents were demonized by proponents? Hardly…