As Davis continues to keep its options open, even as it was seemingly moving toward the Woodland option last month, the city of Woodland with its JPA leaders Bill Marble and Skip Davies, remain “committed to timely completion of the project.”
As they write in an op-ed over the weekend: “We must replace degrading groundwater supplies with higher-quality, treated surface water. There is simply too much at risk and no viable alternatives!”
However, despite reiterating their commitment, reading through the lines it is clear that their patience with Davis is wearing thin. Indeed, they seem to suggest that they will consider cost-sharing only once Davis commits to the project.
“Our actions will be based on the best interests of Woodland. We take seriously our responsibility to our ratepayers and are firmly committed to delivering the project so it provides the greatest benefit at the lowest possible cost,” they write, but then note: “Unfortunately, the era of cheap water is gone. California has a water deficit and the forces of supply and demand are causing water rates to go up everywhere.”
They continue: “It is helpful that the bidding climate is at its lowest level in many years. The previously agreed process for bidding the project must begin in a few months and stay on schedule. Further delays will only act to drive up costs and we must not allow that to happen.”
They continue to argue that delays will only drive up costs, but at the same time they acknowledge: “Woodland will continue to scrutinize every aspect of the Surface Water Project in an effort to achieve savings that can be passed along to our ratepayers. Our staff and other experts have already found significant ways to reduce costs by tens of millions of dollars. These efforts are continuing in order to deliver the best possible project for the greatest value to Woodland residents.”
They add: “We are aggressively seeking additional cost-saving measures and always welcome input and ideas from members of our community.”
In fact, we would argue there has been and continues to be a fundamental disconnect here between the rhetoric that delay will only drive up costs – something that we have heard again and again – and the reality that delay has probably saved us money.
Back in December, all five members of the Woodland City Council at that time came to the Davis City Council Chambers to argue that we need to adhere to our agreements. It was a move that largely backfired, in our view.
They continue in a more subtle way: “We have been patient with our partners in Davis and will continue to work with them. However, we will not do so at the expense of our ratepayers.”
They add: “In good faith we entered into a partnership agreement with Davis almost three years ago. It was determined then that the partnership would result in significant cost savings. We continue to feel the partnership provides the best long term value for both communities. We have always been committed to fair and equitable sharing of the costs with our project partners.”
It is interesting that they chose the last sentence, because Davis has been seeking to negotiate on this point what the city considers a more equitable “share in the cost of the pipelines to convey the treated water to the city limits of each city,” along with shaping the cost share percentages to reflect the current anticipated reliance on the treatment facility.
Is this line a signal that Woodland will work with Davis on this point, or that they believe they already have?
The next line might be troubling: “Woodland has been and will continue to be consistent in its message to Davis. We will consider discussion of prior mutually agreed upon partnership terms, such as cost sharing, once Davis determines it will continue as a partner in the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency and concludes discussions and negotiations for an alternative project!”
The implication is that they will discuss the cost-sharing only if and when Davis determines it will continue its partnership with Woodland. From Davis’ perspective, the cost-sharing ought to be a key component in the consideration of whether or not to continue that partnership.
They continue with their hardline approach: “Woodland has a requirement to meet a regulatory timetable and the clock is unrelenting. We must deliver surface water by 2016 to avoid regulatory fines that could severely impact our city. We have already paid significant fines levied by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Increasingly more stringent federal and state water quality and wastewater discharge regulations dictate that the 2016 timeline must be met!”
This statement may be true, but it ignores that they have put all of their eggs in one basket, making no effort for a short-term fix. More importantly, it ignores the possibility that they might be able to get a year extension.
Mayor Davies and Councilmember Marble commit to going it alone: “Should our partnership with Davis dissolve, Woodland can and will proceed independently. If we must go it alone, we will downsize to a solo project and will do so within the rate structure already approved by our ratepayers. With or without our partner, Woodland is prepared to move forward and will continue to explore and pursue every possibility for reducing costs and minimizing rate impacts to our residents.”
Of course, they also fail to mention to their voters and ratepayers how much this will cost them and they fail to consider that there might be alternatives – even now.
They conclude: “While we value and hope to preserve the historic partnership, our commitment and responsibility remains first and foremost to our residents and our community.”
Whether this hardline position laid out in the paper is really a line in the sand, it is clear that decision is near. The city of Davis is now stuck in a bad position. They cannot get an agreement, it would appear, with Woodland on cost-sharing without agreeing to continue the JPA and they cannot get additional information to even consider a West Sacramento project without committing to a West Sacramento project.
Some will argue that we are out of time and options and that it’s time to make a deal. I simply continue to lament the fact that we had several years to be doing this stuff and the previous council steadfastly refused. We are where we are. And it is left to us ratepayers to pay for our previous leadership’s intransigence.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The next line might be troubling: “Woodland has been and will continue to be consistent in its message to Davis. We will consider discussion of prior mutually agreed upon partnership terms, such as cost sharing, once Davis determines it will continue as a partner in the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency and concludes discussions and negotiations for an alternative project!”
My understanding from the WAC motion that was adopted, is that concessions must be agreed to BEFORE signing. As you say at the end, sounds like catch 22. What is timetable for our CC reps to negotiate?
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”They add: “In good faith we entered into a partnership agreement with Davis almost three years ago. It was determined then that the partnership would result in significant cost savings. We continue to feel the partnership provides the best long term value for both communities. We have always been committed to fair and equitable sharing of the costs with our project partners.”
It is interesting that they chose the last sentence because Davis has been seeking to negotiate on this point what the city considers a more equitable “share in the cost of the pipelines to convey the treated water to the city limits of each city,” along with shaping the cost share percentages to reflect the current anticipated reliance on the treatment facility.
Is this line a signal that Woodland will work with Davis on this point or that they believe they already have?”[/i]
David, I think it is a whole lot more than a signal. I read it as a very clear statement that they both have in the past and will going forward work with Davis. There is nothing subtle about it. The history of the JPA and its predecessor agreements shows regular and consistent evolution of the partnership sharing between and among Woodland, Davis and UC Davis.
However, the science and art of negotiating teaches all of us that one should never give up a negotiating concession without getting something in return. The way I read the situation, Woodland’s leaders are only following good negotiating practices when they say, “Woodland has been and will continue to be consistent in its message to Davis. We will consider discussion of prior mutually agreed upon partnership terms, such as cost sharing, once Davis determines it will continue as a partner in the Woodland-Davis Clean Water Agency and concludes discussions and negotiations for an alternative project!” The time has come in the long running Woodland – Davis courtship to #$&>/ or get off the pot.
We will see what kind of backbone our individual Davis Council members have in the face of this obvious Woodland “saber-rattling”. “Deadlines” have had a funny way of melting away when they fail to produce the proper result,namely, a “terrorized” electorate. Davis and Woodland have clearly made sufficient effort in solving their future water needs to obtain an extension before any draconian penalties are imposed.
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”The implication is that they will discuss the cost-sharing only if and when Davis determines it will continue its partnership with Woodland. From Davis’ perspective, the cost-sharing ought to be a key component in the consideration as to whether or not to continue that partnership.”[/i]
There is a simple solution to the impasse that you perceive here. From my perspective this is one of the times where having Dennis Diemer in the JPA employ is very valuable. Woodland’s statement that they will consider discussion with Davis once Davis has committed does not preclude Woodland actually having discussions with Diemer about partnership terms and cost sharing. Diemer can broker the terms of the deal and even draw up the legal papers. If he does that, Woodland’s leaders will not have violated the terms stated in their OpEd and Davis (both at the WAC and Council levels) will be able to follow the letter and spirit of its “consideration process” where the West Sac and JPA alternatives are weighed against one another.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”We will see what kind of backbone our individual Davis Council members have in the face of this obvious Woodland “saber-rattling”. “Deadlines” have had a funny way of melting away when they fail to produce the proper result,namely, a “terrorized” electorate. Davis and Woodland have clearly made sufficient effort in solving their future water needs to obtain an extension before any draconian penalties are imposed.”[/i]
davisite, welcome back to the Blog. You’ve been missing for a while and the no growth perspective in the discussions here has therefore been missing one of its stronger voices. Don’t be a stranger.
Regarding your comment above, I don’t see it as saber-rattling. Their public comment at City Chambers clearly was saber-rattling, but in this case the message isn’t to Davis, it is to their constituents in Woodland. I do not believe the OpEd has appeared in the Enterprise. It is in the Daily Democrat. The number of Davis residents who read the Daily Democrat can probably be counted on two hands, so if they wanted Davis to hear any rattling they would have published the OpEd in the Enterprise.
I actually think that they are sending a message to their own rate payers advising them that this “consideration process” may be coming down the road, and that they have enough accrued savings as a result of cost reduction efforts to be able to afford the adjustments in partnership terms and cost sharing without going back to the rate payers for more money.
I think another part of the message to Woodland residents is a clear statement that Davis has jilted Woodland at the altar once, and that this second planned wedding will not suffer a similar fate if they can help it.
[quote]My understanding from the WAC motion that was adopted, is that concessions must be agreed to BEFORE signing. As you say at the end, sounds like catch 22. What is timetable for our CC reps to negotiate?[/quote]
October 21, 2012
[quote]We will see what kind of backbone our individual Davis Council members have in the face of this obvious Woodland “saber-rattling”. “Deadlines” have had a funny way of melting away when they fail to produce the proper result,namely, a “terrorized” electorate. Davis and Woodland have clearly made sufficient effort in solving their future water needs to obtain an extension before any draconian penalties are imposed.[/quote]
I think Woodland is making it very clear that they will not be delaying – they feel a delay will result in more costs, no less…
Without getting into specifics, I think one unfortunate byproduct of this article will be to create more animus between Woodland and Davis, which I think is unfortunate. The Vanguard is choosing to interpret what Woodland said as hostile toward Davis, whereas my interpretation is quite different…
I agree w Matt that this op-ed was meant as reassurance to Woodland folks that there will be no more delay – Woodland will go it alone w/o Davis if necessary to avoid heavy fines and increasing costs of labor and construction.
[quote]Of course, they also fail to mention to their voters and ratepayers how much this will cost them and they fail to consider that there might be alternatives – even now.[/quote]
And what might those “alternatives” be?
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Without getting into specifics, [b]I think one unfortunate byproduct of this article will be to create more animus between Woodland and Davis,[/b] which I think is unfortunate. The Vanguard is choosing to interpret what Woodland said as hostile toward Davis, whereas my interpretation is quite different…”[/i]
I respectfully disagree with your bolded words Elaine. David has simply played the Allen Ludden role on Colege Bowl, and thrown out a toss up question for discussion.
[i]”I agree w Matt that this op-ed was meant as reassurance to Woodland folks that there will be no more delay – Woodland will go it alone w/o Davis if necessary to avoid heavy fines and increasing costs of labor and construction.”[/i]
Here too we disagree. I believe the purpose of the OpEd was to reassure the Woodland rate payers that there would be no more cost than they have already approved in their Prop 218.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”And what might those “alternatives” be?”[/i]
Go it alone. Go forward with Davis with immediate financing. Go forward with Davis with delayed financing.
Those three pop to mind quickly.
[quote][u][i][b]Without getting into specifics[/b][/i][/u], I think one unfortunate byproduct of this article will be to create more animus between Woodland and Davis[/quote]
In other words, you want to be able to level without mucking things up. My guess is that this article will not make one bit of difference either way.
[quote]I agree w Matt that this op-ed was meant as reassurance to Woodland folks that there will be no more delay – Woodland will go it alone w/o Davis if necessary to avoid heavy fines and increasing costs of labor and construction. [/quote]
That may have been the intent, but I think they should have approached it differently if that were the case. I personally think this was meant as a shot across Davis’ bow – they knew putting in the Davis paper would be too provocative, at the same time they knew this would get read by those in the know.
[quote]In other words, you want to be able to level without mucking things up. My guess is that this article will not make one bit of difference either way. [/quote]
I hope you are right…
[quote]That may have been the intent, but I think they should have approached it differently if that were the case. I personally think this was meant as a shot across Davis’ bow – they knew putting in the Davis paper would be too provocative, at the same time they knew this would get read by those in the know.[/quote]
Different people can interpret things differently – I did not interpret Woodland’s op-ed as a shot across Davis’s bow, but more as reassurance to its own ratepayers…
[quote]erm: And what might those “alternatives” be?”
Matt Williams: Go it alone. Go forward with Davis with immediate financing. Go forward with Davis with delayed financing. Those three pop to mind quickly.[/quote]
I was interested to know what dmg thought the “alternatives” might be…
“Different people can interpret things differently – I did not interpret Woodland’s op-ed as a shot across Davis’s bow, but more as reassurance to its own ratepayers…”
It doesn’t surprise me that you would interpret this in best possible light to Woodland as it doesn’t surprise you that I might not.
GI, since Rochelle and Dan are clearly tasked to go talk to Woodland, and Marble and Davies know that, what possible reason could there be for putting a shot across Davis’ bow in public when the same message can be delivered in person within hours of the Daily Democrat’s publishing date and time?
Politicians are egocentric, and the center of Marble’s and Davies’ political egos resides somewhere in the confluence of 95695 and 95776. Their very public message was directed therein.
Elaine: I still think the best possible project is a regional one. I also believe that Woodland could have more time if they asked for it. Finally, I also believe that Woodland initiated what could only reasonably be interpreted as a path dependent course making a JPA/ Surface Water project their only possibility both near and short-term and if Davis ends up choosing to go another direction (which I doubt at this time), their planning will have cost them a lot of money.
“Politicians are egocentric, and the center of Marble’s and Davies’ political egos resides somewhere in the confluence of 95695 and 95776. Their very public message was directed therein.”
What happened on December 6 I think at least needs to cause us to question that comment.
[quote]erm: I think one unfortunate byproduct of this article will be to create more animus between Woodland and Davis…
Matt Williams: I respectfully disagree with your bolded words Elaine. David has simply played the Allen Ludden role on Colege Bowl, and thrown out a toss up question for discussion. [/quote]
With the following words of a negative connotation, I respectfully disagree that dmg “threw out a toss up question for discussion”:
[quote]”…it is clear that their patience with Davis is wearing thin…”
“…we would argue there has been and continues to be a fundamental disconnect here…”
“…It was a move that largely backfired, in our view…”
“…They continue with their hardline approach…”
“…it ignores that they have put all of their eggs in one basket, making no effort for a short-term fix…”
“…Of course, they also fail to mention to their voters and ratepayers how much this will cost them…”
“…this hardline position laid out in the paper…”
[/quote]
[quote]Elaine: I still think the best possible project is a regional one. I also believe that Woodland could have more time if they asked for it. Finally, I also believe that Woodland initiated what could only reasonably be interpreted as a path dependent course making a JPA/ Surface Water project their only possibility both near and short-term and if Davis ends up choosing to go another direction (which I doubt at this time), their planning will have cost them a lot of money.[/quote]
Woodland has stuck w the JPA project [b]because the West Sac alternative does not pencil out [i]for them[/i][/b]…
“Woodland has stuck w the JPA project because the West Sac alternative does not pencil out for them…’
I believe Matt had some ideas for how it could.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
With the following words of a negative connotation, I respectfully disagree that dmg “threw out a toss up question for discussion”:
“…it is clear that their patience with Davis is wearing thin…” [b]= objective statement. Can anyone argue that Marble and Davies’ patience isn’t wearing thin?”[/b}
“…we would argue there has been and continues to be a fundamental disconnect here…” [b]= again an objective statement supported by the facts. The numbers you and I are reviewing at WAC meetings have gone down over time, not up.[/b]
“…It was a move that largely backfired, in our view…” [b]clearly labelled by David as his opinion. He neither builds on nor relies on that opinion. Why do you have a problem with his expressing that opinion as part of background?[/b]
“…They continue with their hardline approach…” [b]= objective statement. They are saying to their voters that they will make no concessions unless the words “I do” are finally and forever said. Negotiations often reach hardline moments. The Woodland – Davis negotiations are clearly at one of those hardline moments. Do you disagree with that objective statement of mine?[/b]
“…it ignores that they have put all of their eggs in one basket, making no effort for a short-term fix…” [b]= objective statement. Can you point to any short-term fix they have pursued? You can’t. In fairness to Woodland, they do not have any deep aquifer below them (it doesn’t extend that far north) so realistically there are no available short term fixes for them.[/b]
“…Of course, they also fail to mention to their voters and ratepayers how much this will cost them…” [b]= objective statement.[/b]
“…this hardline position laid out in the paper…” [b]= objective statement (see above) Hardline is totally appropriate given the state of the negotiations.
And here is David’s toss up question . . . “Some will argue that we are out of time and options and that it’s time to make a deal. I simply continue to lament the fact that we had several years to be doing this stuff and the previous council steadfastly refused. We are where we are. And it is left to us ratepayers to pay for our previous leadership’s intransigence.” There is plenty of room for community dialogue in the question posed therein.
David M. Greenwald
“Woodland has stuck w the JPA project because the West Sac alternative does not pencil out for them…’
I believe Matt had some ideas for how it could.
***********
David, the only way that the West Sac alternative could pencil out for Woodland at this point would be if West Sac were open to converting Bryte Bend into a regional water treatment plant with joint governance between Woodland and West Sac (Davis could still be a customer if it wanted to be), but joint governance appears to be an option that I do not believe West Sac is willing to consider. So, some of the ideas I’ve discussed with you in the past are no longer options because they assumed that joint governance would allow West Sac to refinance its existing debt at significantly lower interest rates than they currently have.
Don Shor, can you please fix the bolding in my reply to Elaine. Thank you.
Matt, I don’t see any of Elaine’s list as questions tossed up for consideration. You noted that one was David’s labelled opinion. The other negative opinions (patience wearing thin, fundamental disconnect, continue hardline approach, no effort for short-term fix, failure to mention cost, hardline position) wouldn’t be questions even with the addition of question marks.
But, maybe you meant that David’s article only had one toss up question, the one with which you conclude. Yet, even that is so packed with negative assessments before stating that we have plenty of “room” (time, no doubt) for more “community dialogue.” Ain’t no question there, except David’s unnamed “question posed therein” (whatever that might be).
I think the difference in your view of the treatment and Elaine’s is that you agree that David’s “objective-statement” opinions and Elaine doesn’t.
Still, I’m fascinated by your characterization of [i]Vanguard[/i]-as-game-show. I’ve never read [i]Vanguard[/i] articles coming away with “toss up questions” as an impression. Some articles that are fairly straight reporting do leave questions in one’s mind, but almost every report is driven by strong opinion.
Even when questions are raised, they reflect another game show, putting the statement “in the form of a question.” (“Just Verdict or Wrongful Conviction” “Is FBI Spying on UCD Students”)
The [i]Vanguard[/i] could be seen as a documentary, but not with its so selective and predictable presentations. If not a quiz show, perhaps a drama.
Still, still you offer up a concept worth considering. As David says, “It is what it is.”
JS, I agree with you that the statements that Elaine chose are not questions, but they are the ones that she chose.
Do you or Elaine really believe that Marble and Davies’ “patience is wearing thin” is not a fact? If you do, then I suggest you go meet with them. You will come away with a very different perspective.
The “fundamental disconnect” that David pointed out is very clear and well documented in the proceedings of the WAC and the published documents of the JPA. Delay has been incurred and costs for both Woodland and Davis have gone down. That is a fact. So to look back on past statements where the assertion has been made that delay will cause costs to go up is not supported by the facts.
If Woodland’s negotiations stance (which I agree with by the way) is not hardline, then what is it in your opinion?
Is there any evidence that Woodland has sought out any short-term fixes?
Did their OpEd mention the cost associated with going it alone?
There isn’t much in any of that playing field that is up for grabs. My sense is that Elaine isn’t bothered by the accuracy of David’s statements as much as she is bothered by the fact that he chose to say them.
Now, in fairness to Woodland, the only way I know about the fact that West Sac told Woodland that joint governance was not an option is by talking to their Council members face to face. The only way they would know that West Sac is taking that position is if they sought out that solution. So give the Woodland leaders credit where credit is due, 1) they have sought out other solutions, and 2) they really have no short-term fix options available to them.
I don’t see the Vanguard as a documentary in any way shape or form. It doesn’t pretend to be a documentary. IMHO it is as forum where issues are discussed/debated.
My own biggest pet peeve with the Vanguard and David is that he is not opinionated enough. Given a choice between ending a conversation and continuing it, David will almost always choose the latter, and one of his tactics when confronted with a question that will put the discussion to bed, is to disappear and leve the question hanging, so that we commenters can/will continue to discuss the issue.
[i]”Delay has been incurred and costs for both Woodland and Davis have gone down.”
[/i]
Are you suggesting that the costs went down because of the delay? I thought the costs went down because the project size was reduced. At some point delay will cause costs to go up. Continuing to pursue two options costs money. Woodland has already paid fines, and would likely pay more if they didn’t go forward soon.
Woodland is out of time and has no other options. So all they want to know is: will Davis participate, or not? I’m sure the constant barrage of anti-Woodland comments by referendum proponents, and the implications that Davis is doing better due diligence than Woodland did, have done little to sustain good relations between the cities. It’s a business deal ultimately, and I’m sure the officials can overcome their feelings, but it doesn’t help the tenor of negotiations when one city appears to be looking down its nose at the other.
“..what possible reason could there be for putting a shot across Davis’ bow in public when the same message can be delivered in person within hours of the Daily Democrat’s publishing date and time?”
Since my recollection is that both Dan and Rochelle and Joe supported the WAC plan (and its discredited rate structure) until the referendum threat materialized, it is obvious that this OPED piece attempts to “terrorize” the Davis voter whose perceived voter resistance to the Council Majority preferred WAC plan is the only reason ( West Sac also has serious questions about the true level of our Council Majority’s interest) the West Sac option is still being discussed.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”But, maybe you meant that David’s article only had one toss up question, the one with which you conclude. Yet, even that is so packed with negative assessments before stating that we have plenty of “room” (time, no doubt) for more “community dialogue.” Ain’t no question there, except David’s unnamed “question posed therein” (whatever that might be).” [/i]
JS, I saved the above for focused discussion. Let’s look at David’s final paragraph. It starts with, “Some will argue that we are out of time and options and that it’s time to make a deal” and then moves on. I see a very clear question there. David doesn’t insult us by explicitly stating the question, but the question is pretty clear . . . “Are we out of time and options, an is it time to make a deal?”
Thee second part of his final paragraph says, “I simply continue to lament the fact that we had several years to be doing this stuff and the previous council steadfastly refused. We are where we are. And it is left to us ratepayers to pay for our previous leadership’s intransigence.” Again, David doesn’t end what he says with a question mark, but the question he poses is very clear, “Why did we miss the boat so badly?”
The more I have dug into this water issue the more it has become obvious to me that 1) a regional plant at Bryte Bend is the most environmentally and fiscally sensible solution, 2) that the time to have been aggressively making that solution happen was 5 (or more) years ago, 3) for political reasons that reside in part in all three cities, that didn’t happen, and 4) it appears that efforts to make such a regional plant happen now are the victim of bad timing. All of which lead me to ask, “Why did we miss the boat so badly?”
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Since my recollection is that both Dan and Rochelle and Joe supported the WAC plan (and its discredited rate structure) until the referendum threat materialized, [b]it is obvious that this OPED piece attempts to “terrorize” the Davis voter [/b]whose perceived voter resistance to the Council Majority preferred WAC plan is the only reason ( West Sac also has serious questions about the true level of our Council Majority’s interest) the West Sac option is still being discussed.”[/i]
davisite, how many Davis residents even know what the name of the Woodland newspaper is? How many of those who know its name have ever read the Democrat even once? How many of those who have read it once will have read it yesterday? How many of those who read it yesterday will have read the Editorial/Opinion page. How many of those will have read the OpEd? How many of the OpEd readers from Davis will have been terrorized?
I think we are in the realm of the fingers on a single hand.
….Call Woodland’s bluff. Put the JPA on hold to demonstrate to West Sac that Davis is “serious”. My guess is that Woodland will grudgingly agree to this hold on the process and apply for any time extensions necessary. It is hard to perceive that it would be in Woodland’s interest to proceed with going solo because of some deadline that could,IMO, easily be extended.
“Are you suggesting that the costs went down because of the delay? I thought the costs went down because the project size was reduced.”
I don’t think the only cost savings has been the reduction in the size, but if it took the delay to reduce the size, perhaps it is worth it.
[quote]JustSaying: Matt, I don’t see any of Elaine’s list as questions tossed up for consideration. You noted that one was David’s labelled opinion. The other negative opinions (patience wearing thin, fundamental disconnect, continue hardline approach, no effort for short-term fix, failure to mention cost, hardline position) wouldn’t be questions even with the addition of question marks.
But, maybe you meant that David’s article only had one toss up question, the one with which you conclude. Yet, even that is so packed with negative assessments before stating that we have plenty of “room” (time, no doubt) for more “community dialogue.” Ain’t no question there, except David’s unnamed “question posed therein” (whatever that might be).
I think the difference in your view of the treatment and Elaine’s is that you agree that David’s “objective-statement” opinions and Elaine doesn’t. [/quote]
Well said!
[quote]Don Shor: Woodland is out of time and has no other options. So all they want to know is: will Davis participate, or not? I’m sure the constant barrage of anti-Woodland comments by referendum proponents, and the implications that Davis is doing better due diligence than Woodland did, have done little to sustain good relations between the cities. It’s a business deal ultimately, and I’m sure the officials can overcome their feelings, but it doesn’t help the tenor of negotiations when one city appears to be looking down its nose at the other.[/quote]
Spot on!
“the implications that Davis is doing better due diligence than Woodland did”
I would argue the opposite – that Woodland did better due diligence than Davis did and much sooner. The problem now is that the cities have different needs and somewhat different values and yet have been married together in a shot gun wedding that lacked the full common cause.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Are you suggesting that the costs went down because of the delay? I thought the costs went down because the project size was reduced.”
I don’t think the only cost savings has been the reduction in the size, but if it took the delay to reduce the size, perhaps it is worth it.[/i]
The bulk of the cost savings have been because of the resizing of the plant. Some other “paper savings” have come because the early first pass engineering estimates have been replaced by subsequent estimates based on better information. Those paper savings would have happened regardless of whether there was a delay or no delay. That is simply the nature of engineering estimates. They get more and more accurate as better information is generated.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”Well said!” [/i]
Good dodge Elaine. Now try answering the questions I posed to you. Here they are in simplified form.
Marble and Davies’ “patience is wearing thin” — fact or opinion?
Delay has been incurred and costs for both Woodland and Davis have gone down. — fact or opinion?
If Woodland’s negotiations stance (a stance that I agree with by the way) is not hardline, then what is it in your opinion?
There is no evidence that Woodland has sought out any short-term fixes. — fact or opinion?
Their OpEd did not mention the cost associated with going it alone. — fact or opinion?
[quote]Good dodge Elaine. Now try answering the questions I posed to you. Here they are in simplified form. [/quote]
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one…
[quote]We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one… [/quote]
So you are refusing to answer questions pertaining to your original comment attacking me? How rich.
[quote]So you are refusing to answer questions pertaining to your original comment attacking me? How rich.[/quote]
No, I am refusing to get into a back and forth, that serves no useful purpose. I did not interpret Woodland’s statements in the negative light you did; nor do I think it helpful for future negotiations. You are free to disagree, which you obviously do. Cannot we agree to disagree at this point? 😉
[i]it ignores the possibility that they might be able to get a year extension.[/i]
Why would they want a year’s extension? They have chosen a project, and an extension would do Woodland no good.
[i]Of course, they also fail to mention to their voters and ratepayers how much this will cost them and they fail to consider that there might be alternatives – even now.[/i]
Actually, they specifically say that they “will do so within the rate structure already approved by our ratepayers.”
And there are no viable alternatives for Woodland now.
You describe the position that they need to go forward now due to regulatory issues as a “hardline position.” It’s a fact. It’s not a negotiating strategy. While some argue they should apply for an extension, there is no other water supply on the table for Woodland. So what would be the point [i]from Woodland’s perspective[/i] of delaying?
Thus, per davisite: [i]“….Call Woodland’s bluff. Put the JPA on hold to demonstrate to West Sac that Davis is “serious”. My guess is that Woodland will grudgingly agree to this hold on the process and apply for any time extensions necessary.”[/i]
What bluff? They are just stating their plans. They’ll build it with us, or without us. We have a time-limited option for partnership. That time limit is now of their choosing because they have no incentive to delay. Why would Woodland bother to apply for any time extension, especially when Davis appears irresolute?
Both West Sac and Woodland have made one thing very clear. Davis is an unreliable negotiating partner, and neither is going to waste any more time with us unless they have a clear commitment.
“Why would they want a year’s extension? They have chosen a project, and an extension would do Woodland no good.”
Unless we opt to go to West Sac.
E Roberts Musser said . . .
“No, I am refusing to get into a back and forth, that serves no useful purpose. I did not interpret Woodland’s statements in the negative light you did; nor do I think it helpful for future negotiations. You are free to disagree, which you obviously do. Cannot we agree to disagree at this point? ;-)”
No. You are taking the “children are to be seen but not heard” approach to David. The facts are the facts. Your objection is to David repeating factual information. It is very parental.
[i]Unless we opt to go to West Sac.
[/i]
Maybe I’m dense. How would it help Woodland to apply for an extension if Davis decides to go with West Sac?
[quote]No. You are taking the “children are to be seen but not heard” approach to David. The facts are the facts. Your objection is to David repeating factual information. It is very parental.[/quote]
No, I am taking the position that David’s interpretation of what Woodland said is very negative, and not factual, and that we will have to agree to disagree on this point… 😉
[quote]dmg: Unless we opt to go to West Sac.
Don Shor: Maybe I’m dense. How would it help Woodland to apply for an extension if Davis decides to go with West Sac?[/quote]
I’m w you Don, on this one…
[i]Marble and Davies’ “patience is wearing thin” — fact or opinion?
[/i]
Opinion, obviously.
[i]Delay has been incurred and costs for both Woodland and Davis have gone down. — fact or opinion?
[/i]
Facts, but not necessarily related.
[i]If Woodland’s negotiations stance (a stance that I agree with by the way) is not hardline, then what is it in your opinion?
[/i]
It’s not a negotiations stance.
[i]There is no evidence that Woodland has sought out any short-term fixes. — fact or opinion?
[/i]
Why would they? It doesn’t matter if it’s fact or opinion.
[i]Their OpEd did not mention the cost associated with going it alone. — fact or opinion? [/i]
Not fact. They did.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]Why would they want a year’s extension? They have chosen a project, and an extension would do Woodland no good. [/i]
Recognizing that the idea of a year’s extension was mine to start with, since West Sac has taken joint governance off the table, I think that a year’s extension really would not accomplish anything meaningful.
[i]Actually, they specifically say that they “will do so within the rate structure already approved by our ratepayers.”
And there are no viable alternatives for Woodland now. [/i]
Point well taken Don.
[i]You describe the position that they need to go forward now due to regulatory issues as a “hardline position.” It’s a fact. It’s not a negotiating strategy. While some argue they should apply for an extension, there is no other water supply on the table for Woodland. So what would be the point from Woodland’s perspective of delaying? [/i]
Don, there still are negotiations to be completed. The WAC’s recommendation and the Council’s ratification of that recommendation means that there is negotiating work to do.
[i]”What bluff? They are just stating their plans. They’ll build it with us, or without us. We have a time-limited option for partnership. That time limit is now of their choosing because they have no incentive to delay. Why would Woodland bother to apply for any time extension, especially when Davis appears irresolute?”[/i]
Even with a one year time delay of their wastewater issues, Woodland has a nitrates in their wells issue that has nothing to do with the wastewater issues. Without a deep aquifer to access they really are in need of a reliable water source sooner rather than later.
[i]”Both West Sac and Woodland have made one thing very clear. Davis is an unreliable negotiating partner, and neither is going to waste any more time with us unless they have a clear commitment.” [/i]
Hard to argue with that point.
Don, both Marble and Davies have publicly stated that their patience is wearing thin. Davies has said it to me personally. Other Woodland Council members have said it to me personally. It is fact, not opinion.
Marble and Davies’ statement in their OpEd are specifically and explicitly directed at the WAC recommendation and the upcoming meeting with Rochelle and Dan. In your opinion, what are the meetings by Joe and Brett with West Sac and Rochelle and Dan with Woodland if they are not negotiations?
E Roberts Musser said . . .
[i]”No, I am taking the position that David’s interpretation of what Woodland said is very negative, and not factual, and that we will have to agree to disagree on this point… 😉 “[/i]
And your position is factually incorrect and blatantly condescending and parental.
David M. Greenwald said . . .
[i]”Why would they want a year’s extension? They have chosen a project, and an extension would do Woodland no good.”
Unless we opt to go to West Sac.[/i]
David, a year’s extension would do Woodland absolutely no good if Davis goes with West Sac.
Matt said: “My own biggest pet peeve with the Vanguard and David is that he is not opinionated enough. Given a choice between ending a conversation and continuing it, David will almost always choose the latter, and one of his tactics when confronted with a question that will put the discussion to bed, is to disappear and leve the question hanging, so that we commenters can/will continue to discuss the issue.”
Matt, I think David has to be respectful of all viewpoints, if he is to host a forum. If David launched off early and often with strong conclusions, then those who disagree might not want to participate.
I think there is the right balance from the DV Editor and commentators.
[quote]”Are you suggesting that the costs went down because of the delay? I thought the costs went down because the project size was reduced.”
“I don’t think the only cost savings has been the reduction in the size, but if it took the delay to reduce the size, perhaps it is worth it.”
“The bulk of the cost savings have been because of the resizing of the plant. Some other “paper savings” have come because the early first pass engineering estimates have been replaced by subsequent estimates based on better information. Those paper savings would have happened regardless of whether there was a delay or no delay.”[/quote]It’s so difficult to follow the conversation when the opinions/facts/questions differ so much from those offered by another which are so at variance with the next person’s. And, Michael hasn’t even showed up to toss in his facts.
Whose version should we uninformed citizens believe? This is a big deal for Davis taxpayers, and there seems so little agreement on the basic facts upon which decisions are to be made.
[i]”In your opinion, what are the meetings by Joe and Brett with West Sac and Rochelle and Dan with Woodland if they are not negotiations?”
[/i]
My expectation is that the conversation with West Sac will be short, and won’t really resemble negotiations. The conversation with Woodland may yield some cost savings to Davis since I believe there is a reasonable basis in the JPA agreement with respect to cost apportionment. But we have very little leverage with Woodland.
Don, a simple yes or no will suffice. Are they negotiations or are they not negotiations?
The length of time the negotiation takes does not change it’s qualifications as a negotiation. I’m not sure why, but you seem to be arguing that the ends redefine the events that precede the ends.
JustSaying said . . .
[i]”It’s so difficult to follow the conversation when the opinions/facts/questions differ so much from those offered by another which are so at variance with the next person’s. And, Michael hasn’t even showed up to toss in his facts.
Whose version should we uninformed citizens believe? This is a big deal for Davis taxpayers, and there seems so little agreement on the basic facts upon which decisions are to be made.”[/i]
Beautifully said JS. Absolutely beautifully!! The point you have made is at the very heart of why I can not for the life of me understand why Elaine wants to suppress /censor the discussions here on the Vanguard. If the discussions are held in an open free flowing manner, the Davis taxpayers will have the information they need to make an informed decision.
Respectfully, Matt, you are badgering your fellow blog participants today. Nobody is censoring anything and I will answer however I please.
JustSaying: Sorry, been busy this weekend with the fall turnovers. The Moon rises, sets, the tides come in, out, and students move in, move out. This town has a certain flow to it.
I’m still working on my own analysis of the JPA and West Sacto projects. Maybe I will write another piece sometime.
Nancy Price, my good friend and fellow Member of the Leadership Committee of 2011 Surface Water Rates Referendum, is working on a piece about private versus public ownership and operation of essential public utilities, especially water.
I respect your opinion Don. Ijust happen to disagree with it in this case. As Just Saying has pointed out, there have been lots of tangential answers on the blog today. It is confusing for the readers who haven’t been able to devote as much time to the issues as you have.
[quote]E Roberts Musser said . . .
“No, I am taking the position that David’s interpretation of what Woodland said is very negative, and not factual, and that we will have to agree to disagree on this point… 😉 ”
And your position is factually incorrect and blatantly condescending and parental.[/quote]
Like I said, we disagree –
[quote]Respectfully, Matt, you are badgering your fellow blog participants today. Nobody is censoring anything and I will answer however I please.[/quote]
Spot on!
Elaine, if you answered the simple questions as posed you would not put yourself into the position of feeling badgered. They really were not difficult questions. Multiple Woodland Council members have said multiple times that their patience is wearing thin. Dennis Diemer has said in public that the Woodland Council members’ patience is wearing thin. During the course of the delay to date, costs have come down, therefore there is a fundamental disconnect between that fact and the statement that delay causes increased costs. The WAC recommendation and Council’s ratification of that recommendation opened a round of negotiations with Woodland (and West Sac). That is a fact.
Every one of the questions posed to you was grounded in publicly available evidence that made an answer on your part rather easy. The only one where there was any grey area was on the mention of costs in the OpEd, since Don’s point that there is indirect reference via rates has some tangential traction on that issue. One has to wonder why it was so important to you not to answer the questions posed. The questions themselves were innocuous. What was it about a half dozen innocuous questions that you saw as being so dangerous?
It almost appears that you want the Vanguard to go away and the dialogue to be proscribed. That is your right. However, for those of us who want the dialogue to be expansive, your crusade is a bit bewildering. I, for one, don’t understand how you can believe that less discussion is better than more discussion. Given the yeoman’s work you are doing as the Chair of the WAC and as a champion for Senior issues, I’m flummoxed by this other side of you. It’s a puzzlement.
[quote]It almost appears that you want the Vanguard to go away and the dialogue to be proscribed. That is your right. However, for those of us who want the dialogue to be expansive, your crusade is a bit bewildering. I, for one, don’t understand how you can believe that less discussion is better than more discussion. Given the yeoman’s work you are doing as the Chair of the WAC and as a champion for Senior issues, I’m flummoxed by this other side of you. It’s a puzzlement.[/quote]
I do not agree with your assessment 😉
Matt, I find your attacks against elaine suspiciously similar to the vanguards.
one thing I will say is this: I have a certain respect for don shor. I find myself not agreeing with him on many issues, but I think he does a great job of trying to remain objective.
Second, Elaine is clearly trying to disengage from the fight, while you Matt are dumping gasoline on it.
91, all I am doing is advocating a robust, open, transparent discussion of the issues/challenges. Elaine wants to pass judgment about whether factual information is factual enough to be allowed to be part of the robust, open, transparent discussion.
Given the superb job Elaine has done as the Chair of the WAC (leading the effort to ensure that the material presented to the WAC is robust, open and transparent, and that the discussions therein are equally robust, open and transparent), I find her strident efforts to not apply the same standard here in the Vanguard bewildering . . . truly bewildering. Double standards and glass ceilings are artifacts of the past. It is strange to see them alive and well here in the present.
JMHO
Regarding Elaine’s efforts to disengage, first, there is no fight, only an attempt to get Elaine’s perspective on why she sees the spoken words of Woodland Council members and the General Manager of the JPA about patience to be opinion rather than fact. Said another way, when a public official looks you in the eye and says their patience is wearing thin, what reason is there to decide that they don’t mean what they are saying.
As I said earlier, its a puzzlement. A puzzlement that only Elaine can clear up.
Matt, Elaine already produced several quotes showing the vanguard’s hostility toward woodland and calling him on that. You attacked her personally and accused her of trying to stifle dissent.
now you want her to have a cordial discussion with you. and in the next breath praise her for doing a great job as chair of the wac.
Matt, whom exactly are you working for here? the David, or the WAC? it can be hard to tell sometimes.
btw: in response to your claim that David sofened the tone against the WAC, yes he did. but that is largely because the WAC did not give a definitive vote in favor of the woodland project. but if that changes, mark my words the vanguard’s tone toward the WAC will be increasingly hostile and he’ll throw various people under the bus.
[quote]Matt, Elaine already produced several quotes showing the vanguard’s hostility toward woodland and calling him on that. You attacked her personally and accused her of trying to stifle dissent. [/quote]
I do not agree with your assessment 😉
[quote]Matt, whom exactly are you working for here? the David, or the WAC? it can be hard to tell sometimes. [/quote]
I work for no one . . . only for robust, open, transparent discussion of the issues/challenges.
[quote]btw: in response to your claim that David sofened the tone against the WAC, yes he did. but that is largely because the WAC did not give a definitive vote in favor of the woodland project. but if that changes, mark my words the vanguard’s tone toward the WAC will be increasingly hostile and he’ll throw various people under the bus. [/quote]
I do not agree with your assessment 😉