The most commonly asked question I get these days is whether Measure I will win or lose. My answer is always the same, but I seem to frame my answer slightly differently for those outside of Davis, compared to those inside Davis.
The gist of my answer is that I think it go could either way, and voters will end up weighing the costs of the project against the security of having a safe and relatively clean water supply.
But it is actually more complex than that. How one is ultimately going to vote depends largely on whether or not one considers the question of cost to be the bottom line.
Those who are most in favor of the project are somehow able to completely negate concerns about the project. For those who are completely against the project, the costs are the end of the story.
But, as we know in most debates, most issues and elections are decided not on the edges but in the middle. And in the middle comes the weighing of the costs against the future options for a reliable water supply.
One of the great oddities of the American political system is that we ask true believers to convince fence-sitters of the righteousness of their way. As often as not, that produces a disconnect – really on both sides. The side with the smallest disconnect between the true believers and the fence-sitters often wins.
If you look at this campaign on paper only, it looks like a blowout. One side has much more money and organization – they have the endorsement of every elected official representing Davis, short of Barbara Boxer. Even the issue itself seems to be a slam dunk – a water project that only costs $113.7 million that will supply the city with reliable water that meets discharge standards for the next century.
That’s why I say that I have to actually explain this project and this election differently to Davis voters and non-Davis voters. Because in Davis, this campaign is anything but in the bag.
There are essentially three blocs of voters in Davis. There are the mainstream Democrats, there are the conservatives (who are relatively small, as you can see from the last Presidential election), and then there are the progressives.
There was a time when the progressives, if they didn’t run Davis with a majority, had a governing majority in Davis. That is no longer the case. But, while we cannot quantify their numbers, they remain formidable.
What I see is that a lot of the conservatives are either opposing the project or moving toward the opposition, based on the cost issue. The mainstream Democrats, by and large, support the project. And the progressive Democrats have been split.
But in recent weeks, a lot of them have moved from a position where they were leaning toward the project to opposition to the project.
I have talked to a lot of people over the last few weeks. And I can see a shift. It is a subtle one, but it is there.
The critical issue that intervenes between the cost/alternative split is: trust.
If you think about it, it makes all the sense in the world. In order to support the project, if you are concerned with the costs of the project, then you have to be convinced that the other alternatives are worse.
The city has done its studies, they have had their WAC members analyze those studies, but at the end of the day, the critical issue is whether the voters actually believe those experts, actually believe the studies.
When the Vanguard planned its event, the biggest point of contention from the opposition was the use of experts. They argued that the experts have been wrong in this process from the start and, therefore, they disputed the notion that there even are experts here.
What I increasingly come across, therefore, is a notion of fundamental distrust, distrust not only for the veracity of the claims of experts, but distrust in the political leadership itself.
What I have heard increasingly is that people do not understand the rates. And some have simply told political leaders and written in letters to the editor that, if they don’t understand the rates, they will vote against the project.
Keith vonBorstel wrote in the Davis Enterprise earlier this week: “Not sure if you should vote yes on Measure I? Confused and irritated by the conflicting arguments for and against? Feeling stupid with both sides talking down to you? Know that you’re not stupid but are just being given only part of the information you need to make an informed decision? Want the solution? Just vote no. Nothing will change.”
And that is the burden that the Yes on Measure I side has: tie goes to the status quo.
It is worse than that in my view; the strategy of the Yes on Measure I campaign may be backfiring.
First of all, they have the fundamental problem that, without trust, all of their claims are negated.
Coming with that is the tendency to oversell the project. As I speak to my group of fence-setters, they are unmoved by the notion that this is maybe an expensive project but the only way forward. Instead, they view the world as a set of options and tradeoffs. They might accept the notion that this is the best option, but not the notion that this is the only option.
Second, the campaign is making a fundamental appeal to authority. Their ads feature leaders in the community. They make the claim, “every elected official who represents Davis supports Measure I.”
Last week’s half page campaign ad leads with that slogan, lists the supporters and blows up blurbs from Senator Lois Wolk, Mayor Joe Krovoza, Mayor Pro Tem Dan Wolk, Supervisor Don Saylor, and from Councilmembers Brett Lee, Rochelle Swanson and Lucas Frerichs.
This is the 30,000-foot strategy that, surprisingly, does not work that well in Davis. They are actually falling into their own trap. We have seen a similar campaign back in 2005 from the Measure X folks, and it didn’t work back then.
Why? Well for one thing it assumes that the public trusts their elected officials. And, while this council receives higher marks than previous councils, there are a group of people who do not do trust them.
There is a logical inconsistency here – hey, these guys had to get elected in the first place. While that is true, one of the people I spoke to illustrated the point to me quite succinctly.
We were talking about 2014 and the person expressed concern about the way that Joe Krovoza and Rochelle Swanson have conducted themselves on this issue, that they trust do not trust them. But the person will back the two incumbents if they are facing Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza in the next election.
And that is the fundamental disconnect. It is true that the five members of council won election, but they did so by defeating people like Sydney Vergis, Sue Greenwald and Stephen Souza. It may be that enough voters supported them as the lesser of the problematic candidates, rather than because they have fundamental and profound trust for them.
The bottom line in this campaign is that cost is a huge issue here. The Yes on I side has never addressed the issue head on. We have noted this in the last few weeks. They concede the point and turn to the issue of need.
The issue of need is heavily predicated on the messenger, and how much one trusts that messenger.
The problem that the city has is that it appears at times to be incompetent. My sense is that the race started to turn when Michael Harrington filed the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the city did not pay for its water use.
First of all, that should be a side issue. Second and more importantly, the city failed to respond coherently for ten days. In fact, even when it did respond coherently, the answer not exactly straightforward.
The political problem here is that it fed right into that segment of the population’s distrust of city governance.
The bottom line here is that I still think the race is too close to call. But while two weeks ago or so I would have told you Measure I is definitely going to pass, now I think it’s 50-50, even 45-55.
The Measure I campaign has fallen into the standard frontrunner trap which does not work well, even against disorganized insurgent campaigns in Davis. The only real question is whether this becomes another Target or another Covell Village.
We will find out soon enough.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I still think it will pass but there’s going to be a lot more than only 11% no votes casted that the phone call poll had put out.
David, you may not want to agree, but think Bob Dunning will have contributed significantly if it fails….
SODA, there is no question that he has contributed to the outcome whatever it turns out to be.
agree Matt….and agree with David that despite all your work in explaining the system, rates, etc., it does come down to question of trust….
sorry got interrupted before finishing….question of trust or enough doubts to swing the vote to No. I am not as convinced as David of the No being 50 or 60 but it will be interesting. The issue of the wastewater plant location is one example of doubts that have surfaced late and I don’t think have been addressed (or taken advantage of by the No’s). The status quo doesn’t mean nothing will ever be done; that is what many of the No’s are thinking I imagine. It is painted by the Yes’s as Yes or doom. Can you tell I haven’t voted?
How will Mike Harrington and Dunning explain themselves if the measure fails and the rates increase anyway.
There goes the DV again, attacking the messenger
Dunning read the rates, used his calculator, and wrote some columns. Sort of a Joe Friday
I read the rates, read Prop 218, uncovered the fraud where the City is basically ripping of the ratepayers and knowingly has done it for years, and I filed the suit. Sort of a Joe Friday.
In August 2011 i read the rates, nothing computed, so I ran the referendum. Sort of like a Joe Friday.
Matt Williams got on the WAC, studied the current rates as iimplemented, and decided to volunteer thousands of hours to offer a better plan. Sort of like a Joe Friday.
Unfortunately the politicians and bond brokers got ahold of his proposal, but the Court will assist the parties with reaching what Plaintiffs hope will be an amicable solution for a fair and affordable rate system the Public will have confidence in.
For our troubles, all three of us have been unfairly slandered and attacked
For our trouble,
SODA – I am not sure this has been posed by the “Yes” folks as “Yes or doom.” What I have seen, and what ultimately persuaded me to vote for the project, is a laying out of the risks and opportunities involved in this project. The experts, that are so mistrusted by the “No” side have, as scientists are trained to do, couched their concerns in appropriate language of uncertainty. Supporters have frequently pointed out the challenges and unknowns.
And to me, that is the real issue here: uncertainty. We simply do not live in a black and white world and the complexity of water supply, treatment, rates, rights and discharge standards ALL have some level of uncertainty around them. There is no way to get around this but the best we can do is weigh the evidence and the totality of risk and try to make an informed decision.
I have objected to the “No” sides approach. But more than that I have been troubled by the fact that, while they have been quite adept at pointing to individual features of the project and potential problems with them (potential problems that I do not think supporters have tried to hide or diminish), they have offered no coherent alternative that addresses the threats of inaction. Doing nothing–which includes not upgrading our current system because it is too costly–is not an option if we hope to have a sustainable system. If there is a coherent plan, besides Michael Harrington saying that we will have some citizen-led utility commission that will act as a watchdog in the future, I have not heard it.
I assume this is the case because no such plan exists. I have voted “Yes” because there is a reasonable solution on the table that deals adequately with the complexities named above.
One final note: when the tactics used in a campaign include the the systematic denigration of City Staff, consultants and the City Council, it is no wonder that we run into the problem of trust. When we sow, water and cultivate doubt, why are we shocked when we reap a harvest of distrust?
“….and agree with David that despite all your work in explaining the system, rates, etc., it does come down to question of trust….”
This also represents my experience as I canvass door-to-door with No on I literature. It is important to remember that this mountain of “speculative data” that we see analyzed in these DV threads is being generated by consulting businesses who make their living from their clients. Successful consulting firms product a product that does not undermine the interests of those who are paying their fees.
“How will Mike Harrington and Dunning explain themselves if the measure fails and the rates increase anyway.”
When/if the rates increase with the failure of Measure I, they will be of an amount that will be determined to be fiscally and politically tolerated by the voters, NOT to immediately complete the academic “laundry list” created by consultants.
Ryan: my answer is what I wrote over and over since September 2011.
You will like our Utilities Initiative
You will like the end product It produces.
You will be glad we ended the JPA and Woodland’s gross interference with our planning and political process.
SODA, I agree that the status quo doesn’t mean nothing will ever get done, but what ever it is that gets done, I can’t help but suspect that it will almost surely be done at considerably greater expense because the opportunity to share costs will have evaporated. That suspicion on my part is based on the following analysis of alternatives that I posted in a response to H. Seldon and Herman yesterday.
1) Since Woodland does not have a deep aquifer under its geography they are faced with the daunting prospect that the only alternative they have that will allow them to comply with their looming 2016 “Permit Cliff” is to come up with a water source for potable water that is different from their intermediate aquifer wells. Therefore, if Davis says no to Measure I, Woodland will have only two alternatives:
— Pay the $3,000 mandatory minimum fine for each wastewater discharge violation beginning in 2016. That will probably start at $9,000 to $12,000 per day, and escalate upward from there, or
— Proceed with an 18 mgd surface water plant. The only way that they can afford to do that is to scale back the size of the River Intake to 18 mgd, the raw water pipes to 18 mgd, the treatment plant to 18 mgd and the treated water pipes to 18 mgd.
What does that “permit cliff” reality do to Davis’ negotiating position with Woodland after they have built and come live on their scaled down 18 mgd intake, raw water pipeline, treatment plant solution. Where will the excess capacity that Sue refers to be? Woodland simply won’t have any capacity other than the capacity they are using themselves.
2) After following Michael Harrington’s four point plan, Davis will decide if it needs any surface water, and if that analysis says it doesn’t, then we will abandon any plans for a conjunctive use system. Mike figures that the four step plan will take about three years, bringing us to 2016, the same year that the RWQCB “hammer” will come down on Woodland.
3) If the results of step 2) are that surface water is a desirable addition to the Davis water system, then we can turn to Woodland, but by 2016 they will have already built and come live on their scaled down 18 mgd intake, raw water pipeline, treatment plant solution. They simply won’t have any capacity other than the capacity they are using themselves.
4) Davis can build its own freestanding facility, including its own intake, raw water pipeline, treatment plant and treated water pipelines. For all the reasons you have cited in you post vis-a-vis Woodland, that would be a very expensive solution for Davis.
5) Davis can pay to have Woodland’s small intake, raw water pipeline and treatment plant solution expanded, but I can’t help but wonder how expensive expanding the concrete intake structure would be. How about digging up the too small raw water pipelines and replacing them or augmenting them to provide the combined Woodland and Davis flow capacity. Upgrading the the water treatment facility would be easier than the intake facility and the raw water pipelines, but in the end, I suspect that upgrading an 18 mgd Woodland system would be just as expensive as building a plant of our own.
6) If the Woodland upgrade and the Davis-only options are prohibitively expensive, that leaves us with the West Sac option. Do you think that West Sac will be eager to make a Davis-friendly deal if they know that both the Woodland upgrade option and the Davis-only option are prohibitively expensive? Do you think that West Sac will be eager to make a Davis-friendly deal if they know that Davis has no alternative other than West Sac? Will we be in the extraordinarily strong negotiating position that the No On I team says we will be in?
So those are the six alternative scenarios that I see. Do you have others? None of those alternatives bode well for lower costs at a later date.
“Successful consulting firms product a product that does not undermine the interests of those who are paying their fees.”
Fully agree. That’s like when appraisers were handpicked for their client’s appraisal. We all know where that got us.
One of the most prominent Wall St.stock-market rating firms who gave phony A ratings to garbage mortgage stocks is now being sued for a billion dollars by the US Justice Department, a glaring example of how ,in the real world,hiring firms to analyze and produce completely “unbiased” data/reports usually works.
Davisite2
So what consulting firms and businesses are the “No” side promoting to provide what ever services will be required to implement whatever alternative it is that they are potentially promoting ?
Unless we know what the alternative is from the “No” side either directly or from acknowledging one of Matt’s
alternatives as preferable, how can we truly decide what our “best option” is.
And why, if we distrust public officials as a group, would we choose to simply trust Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington, both of whom sat on council’s that failed to address this issue previously, more than we trust the current council ? Sue asks us repeatedly including at the recent forum to “trust” her anonymous experts but not to trust those who are willing to be open and transparent about their position !
davisite2 said . . .
“One of the most prominent Wall St.stock-market rating firms who gave phony A ratings to garbage mortgage stocks is now being sued for a billion dollars by the US Justice Department, a glaring example of how ,in the real world,hiring firms to analyze and produce completely “unbiased” data/reports usually works.”
davisite2, correct me if I am wrong, but what I hear you saying is that the Capitalism system is fatally and pervasively flawed. Am I hearing you correctly?
“And why, if we distrust public officials as a group, would we choose to simply trust Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington”
A simple answer would be that neither are now planning a future political career that would require the support of the “deep-pocket” political supporters whose financial interests are tied to this project. It is a political maxim that, at the end of the day, financial gain is ALWAYS the controlling factor in these matters.
“David, you may not want to agree, but think Bob Dunning will have contributed significantly if it fails….”
There is no doubt.
“Do you think that West Sac will be eager to make a Davis-friendly deal if they know that Davis has no alternative other than West Sac?”
The first-offer that they made recently(which we have no evidence was taken seriously by Davis with a compromise offer) still bottom lined as cheaper than the Woodland-Davis project and this was with the Woodland-Davis plant construction”s cost being low-balled. The potential bidding company attempted to withdraw from consideration, saying that this low-ball figure represented too great a risk for them. We do not know what was now promised(Ignore these low-ball figures which were for public consumption only?) by the JPA board to lure them back into considering the project.
[quote]It is a political maxim that, at the end of the day, financial gain is ALWAYS the controlling factor in these matters.[/quote]
Being a “political maxim” does not make something automatically true. To believe this incredibly cynical statement would mean that no one who ever runs for political office ever does so because they believe in the policies they are promoting.
So, let’s suppose that you are correct and your maxim always is true. This would mean that by definition Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington would both be untrustworthy because at some point in the past they were only about financial gain. Now I am supposed to believe that because they are both
back in the private sector, they have suddenly completely renounced their previous profit minded ways.
Or could it possibly be true that they are still profit minded, but merely see their best financial interests served by blocking this project ?
Now let’s suppose that this maxim is not always true. Then why would we assume that Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington, both having been council members, are any more or less likely to be honest and trustworthy than the current council members ?
Davisite2: you got it right that i am not planning a political career!
I really need to get back to my airplane and pilot cases. But in August 2011 i could not stand back and watch Saylor, Souza and friends rip off the city ratepayers, and i will see this through to passage of the Utilities Initiative that will set up a fair and transparent process for evaluation and voter approval of these larger projects.
“We do not know what was now promised(Ignore these low-ball figures which were for public consumption only?) by the JPA board to lure them back into considering the project.”
This should be the biggest red flag of all. I can’t believe how this is just being swept aside by the Yes on I folks.
I told City Water Manager Jacques de Bra in 2002 that he would never get his river water project built unless he submitted to the voters, and here we are 11 years later and millions and millions of public money has been wasted
My point of course, is not to cast aspersions on either Mike Harrington or Sue Greenwald.
I have stated previously on these pages that I truly believe that they each have the best interests of Davis at heart as they perceive those best interests to be.
I also believe that each of the current council members has the best interests of Davis, as they perceive them to be, at heart.
What we have, and what we should be discussing are different views of what is best for Davis. What I have seen to date is that the “yes” on Measure I folks are willing to address, over and over, questions regarding need, rates, alternatives, advantages and disadvantages in detailed, numeric terms. What I have seen to date from the “no” side is persistent casting of doubt, use of pejorative terms, questioning people’s motives instead of assessing the value of their ideas. In short, a very ugly smear campaign.
So, I , like others Robb Davis, have appealed over and over to the “No” side for an idea based conversation to no avail. I have tried, both in person and in multiple written venues to engage the “No” side in a substantive, evidence based conversation to no avail.
So I apologize for my admittedly harsh tone this morning. I am very frustrated and would like to make it clear that what I am attacking here are the tactics of these two very public figures. I am impugning their choice of strategy, not their integrity or belief in their position.
Oops. Should have read ” And I like others including Robb Davis”…
Medwoman My phone is 759-8440; please call me anytime to discuss
davisite2, the WAC certainly took West Sac’s first offer seriously.
West Sac’s offer was for $12,566,000 for a term for service only until 2032, with Davis also being responsible for funding the capital costs of adding 12 mgd to the West Sacramento plant at a future date. That is why the WAC passed 8-2 (with Mark Siegler and Michael Bartolic dissenting) the motion that advised Council to make a counter offer to West Sac for $6,000,000 for a permanent term.
West Sac’s counter offer to the WAC’s advised counter offer (delivered to West Sac by Brett lee and Joe Krovoza) was the current $19.4 million for permanent customer status.
“I also believe that each of the current council members has the best interests of Davis, as they perceive them to be, at heart.”
I do not believe that most of our current Council members would have been strong supporters of the Woodland-Davis project as it was being put together, behind-closed-doors, under the Davis political radar, by the past Saylor Councils. The unraveling of intersecting parts of this project will take much time and effort on the part of Council members and especially City staff. Neither relishes this added work and confronting the established political power structure; this was counted upon ,when claiming that “the horse had already left the barn” ,to carry the day when this project was pushed through during that Xmas vacation vote.
[quote]could not stand back and watch Saylor, Souza and friends rip off the city ratepayers[/quote]
Further illustrating my previously made points.
Mike, I appreciate your offer of a private conversation, but feel that given the public nature of this issue, all communications should be open and transparent to the public, whose best interests I am sure that we both have at heart.
For most reasonable, but large and complicated projects, stakeholders generally settle into the following camps: “strongly in support”, “strongly against” and “don’t know or don’t care”. In this case, the strongly against camp is winning by pulling more potential supporters from the don’t know camp using a fear and unfairness emotive campaign. It is the rate design that is giving them ammunition. It is the impulse to design a rate structure that tries to accomplish too many social engineering goals that has provided the ammunition.
There are just too many people in this town worried about having a huge spike in their bill simply because they like to garden and stay clean.
Some not worried about direct impacts will vote no just because of the inherent unfairness of a rate approach that appears to punish gardeners and people that love to take showers in the warm months.
If the fixed costs are 80% and the variable costs are 20%, then the rate structure should be 80% fixed and 20% variable with no seasonal adjustments. And, there should not be any progressive tiered rate structure for higher water use unless there is a direct correlation with added costs… either fixed or variable.
If you think about it, it is this mindset that Davis residents will waste water, and we should demonize the families that use more water that it is the heart of the problem here. We need to remove the conservation goal from the rate structure and focus on other ways to encourage it. Also, we cannot make the correlation between water use and income levels. There are fixed-income retirees that have large yards and gardens. There are low income people that have large families. I think most Davisites will accept multi-unit rental parcels paying a lower fixed-rate component, and this will have a net effect of discounting water bills for low income people as most low income people in Davis are renters. However, to go beyond that approach attempting to help low income people will just cause other types of unfairness that will result in no votes.
I think the city should respond to the attacks by saying that the rate structure will be modified.
Otherwise I am worried that Measure I will fail.
“davisite2, correct me if I am wrong, but what I hear you saying is that the Capitalism system is fatally and pervasively flawed. Am I hearing you correctly?”
Pure, unfettered Capitalism has been likened to the Mafia with $$$ replacing bullets and other forms of violent extortion. These “tendencies”
need to be kept in check by counter-forces such as strong democratic process
and vigorous populism.
“I think the city should respond to the attacks by saying that the rate structure will be modified.”
Frankly: so you think the winning political move is to switch from CBFR to BW?
[img]https://davisvanguard.org/images/stories/bill-comparisons.png[/img]
Hey public, we bowed to Dunning and now 70% of you will pay more, but hey at least it’s easier to explain.
Frankly
[quote]In this case, the strongly against camp is winning by pulling more potential supporters from the don’t know camp using a fear and unfairness emotive campaign.[/quote]
So you argument, worded slightly differently, is that even though, as David has posted above, the CBFR turns out to be more economically favorable for most of the voters, this idea should be pulled in favor of the less favorable option because of a potentially successful fear and smear campaign.
“Could it perhaps be that he is not seeking answers or clarity, but is merely using his column once again to stir up unfounded feelings of “unfairness” which ultimately only boil down to ” I don’t want to pay more”.
Or could it be that he’s an outspoken advocate for the people that doesn’t toe the company line and fall in place like many think he should because he simply doesn’t see things the way they see them?
” I can’t help but suspect that it will almost surely be done at considerably greater expense because the opportunity to share costs will have evaporated. “
“I told City Water Manager Jacques de Bra in 2002 that he would never get his river water project built unless he submitted to the voters, and here we are 11 years later and millions and millions of public money has been wasted “
I figured out long ago that Davis votes its pocketbook, like most of us . The difference seems to be that there is no depth too deep for some Davisites to delve, in their quest to keep a few bucks, at the expense of millions . While this makes for some great mockery at your expense, and goodness knows your mockery account, of late, overfloweth, you seem to be close to starting what is late to begin with . Whatever deals this project could screw up for various property interests and those providing them services, the health of the community,its economy, infrastructure and environment are in greater jeopardy if you delay even longer .
Biddlin ;>)/
Yes, please, go back to BWA and show the voters how the City can be trusted to get it right.
[i]So you argument, worded slightly differently, is that even though, as David has posted above, the CBFR turns out to be more economically favorable for most of the voters, this idea should be pulled in favor of the less favorable option because of a potentially successful fear and smear campaign.[/i]
From my informal discussions with various people in town, it is the unfairness problem, and the complexity problem. More people will vote no simply because they see the rate structure as being unfair. It will be punitive to people with larger families and larger yards. That just does not sit well with some voters I talked to. And, it has also been proven that people will vote no for things they do not understand. Other people I talked to are just irritated with the complexity… saying they cannot understand it and worry that their water bill will skyrocket because of their water use patterns. This is a fear, but the complexity of a rate design that uses three components instead of two, and incorporates a look-back seasonable factor, and a progressive use factor, feeds that fear.
Keeping it simple, with a larger fixed component and smaller variable component; reducing the progressive use tiers; and including a multi-unit rental property discount for the fixed component, we would do a better job eliminating the arguments for the Measure opponents.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the CBFR rate design is brilliant in that it addresses all of the problems and issues given the myriad of objectives and challenges in some way. However, it should have been a policy effort for a future discussion after we have a surface water project approved. To keep the project approved, we should keep it fair and simple. Simply add that we will undertake a rate review a few years later after we implement the project and understand the issues and challenges better.
Frankly, I think that people can tolerate paying higher rates as long as they can be easily estimated and there is no fear – real or imagined – that they will end up getting slammed by a punitive rate because of a simple use pattern. The surface water is a better product, and I think most people get the value proposition. As long as we discount multi-unit rentals on their fixed rate, we will cover enough of the low-income rate affordability problem.
[quote]distrust not only for the veracity of the claims of experts, but distrust in the political leadership itself.[/quote]This is a very telling statement… probably comes from a liberal arts mentality… the implication is, as I interpret it, that people who have devoted years and education, and experience are “logically” mistrusted, but for a politician to tell a non-truth (with no education, experience in the subject matter), this is somewhat a great “sin”?
Not one in 100 people who have opined on this blog understand aquifers, their spatial existence, their characteristics… yet they opine “definitely” about their nature.
I feel comfortable, having taking classes at UCD, learning about the City of Davis water supply system, reading most if not all of the EIR’s, technical reports, etc., I AM NOT TO BE TRUSTED BY LIBERAL ARTS POLITICIANS. We should obviously trust politicians more than scientists/engineers [the latter are liberal science majors].
I have voted yes on I. Rate structure aside, I opine it is the right way to proceed.
Yet, many will be persuaded by sociology majors, attorneys, and other “wise” people about how to vote. If the No on I folks prevail, they should hold themselves accountable to the community for the results.
Oh… my “dumb”…. if things don’t work out, they’ll hold City staff, others responsible for not finding a way to have very good water [and wastewater], using no energy to transport it, and making it at least 50% cheaper than it is today. And they’ll want City staff to have a 50% compensation reduction while they’re accomplishing this.
Mr H said stuff about the tooth fairy…. apparently he believes in a ‘fairy god-mother’ [my bad, shouldn’t have mentioned “god”]
Frankly[quote]It will be punitive to people with larger families and larger yards. That just does not sit well with some voters I talked to.[/quote]
When discussing fairness, it is always important to make sure that you include “fair to whom”. I have also been discussing this issue with a number of people. The flip side of this coin is, why should I, who have chosen to have a small family and a low water consumption yard, in effect subsidize those who have chosen to have a larger family or want a soaked lawn ?
hpierce
You have touched on an issue that I also face daily. I have spent the past 30 years learning, reviewing, attending updates and trainings, re certifying annually, teaching and maintaining a hands on practice in
ob/gyn. Yet daily, I am told by patient’s about what their sister or aunt or next door neighbor has proclaimed on the basis of some advertisement that she has encountered in a woman’s magazine or on TV. This often takes the form of some unwarranted fear about a well established and safe form of treatment in favor of a more expensive, glossier, newer option or sometimes, no treatment at all, often with very deleterious effects.
Somehow, we have developed in our society a profound distrust, and in some cases disdain for those who have developed expertise through years of curiosity and hard work.
Now I have no expertise or specialized knowledge whatsoever about aquifers, conjunctive use or establishments of utility rates. However, from my own experience, I do give more credibility to those who base their decisions on knowledge and evidence than on those who simply base their arguments on fear, distraction, dumbing down, and personal attacks.
I have chosen to accept that I will never have a full grasp of all the contingencies and in the face of some inevitable uncertainty, have chosen to vote, Yes on I.
When in doubt, protect yourself and those you love and vote NO
I realize that’s the “no” campaign’s call, but I’ll have stick with the [u]reasonable[/u] doubt standard.
Michael Harrington: “[i]i could not stand back and watch Saylor, Souza and friends rip off the city ratepayers…[/i]”
So you filed a lawsuit to rip off the taxpayers instead. Makes perfect sense.
Matt Williams: “[i]I can’t help but suspect that it will almost surely be done at considerably greater expense because the opportunity to share costs will have evaporated.[/i]”
There is no cheap solution, but at this point the one that will be the least expensive is the one we are voting on. We will all rue the day if we hand our city back to the likes of Harrington and Greenwald.
Mark: there is no lawsuit. It hasn’t been served. It’s just a tactic.
[i]”When asked why he and the parties suing the city — John Munn and Don and Nancy Price are the only named plaintiffs — haven’t served the complaint yet, Harrington cited “strategic purposes” on which he would not elaborate.”[/i] — Davis Enterprise.
Since you’re participating here today, Mike, perhaps you could explain
— why you haven’t served the lawsuit, when you plan to, and
— what you meant by ‘strategic purposes’.
Gee Mike, quite the contrary to your earlier post (see below) a number of people have heard you say that that you plan to to run for City Council again. This crusade of yours against Measure I sure seems to be a sad attempt to lead up to that.
Michael Harrington
02/17/13 – 09:33 AM
…
Davisite2: you got it right that i am not planning a political career!
“I really need to get back to my airplane and pilot cases. But in August 2011 i could not stand back and watch Saylor, Souza and friends rip off the city ratepayers, and i will see this through to passage of the Utilities Initiative that will set up a fair and transparent process for evaluation and voter approval of these larger projects.”
[i]The flip side of this coin is, why should I, who have chosen to have a small family and a low water consumption yard, in effect subsidize those who have chosen to have a larger family or want a soaked lawn?[/i]
For this argument to hold water (pun intended) you would have to prove that the households with larger families and soaked lawns are a unique material cause of the requirement to build this new system. They are not. If we magically got rid of these terrible people, we would still be left with a need to upgrade our system. So why punish them with hyper-high rates so those people that accept a small yard with desert landscaping and speed showers every other day get a discount? By the way, those people with the large yards and lush landscaping contribute to a reduction in carbon dioxide and cool down the neighborhoods that would otherwise require more energy to cool homes. They also pay for landscapers (jobs) and buy products at Redwood barn which also creates jobs and also pays sales tax so we can continue to pay our firefighters six-figure salaries and big pensions.
Here is another perspective that shoots holes in your assertion that lower income people are more harmed by a less usage-variable rate. If the new surface water eliminates the need for a water softener and monthly salt, reduces the need for soap and expensive scale-fighting cleaning chemicals, and it prolongs the useful life of appliances… since the cost of these things are much higher as a percentage of low-income family’s total discretionary budget, it provides a greater benefit to them. The saving from these things would at least partially, if not fully, offset the rates they would pay for water. And all people – despite their economic circumstances – benefit from the improvements to the environment.
Today’s Vanguard analysis: “The gist of my answer is that I think it go could either way,” yet the Big Mo is with the “No” side, maybe up to 45-55.
Not sure much more dependable this analysis than the “Yes” poll results we criticized awhile back. Any details on sample size, what questions were asked, etc.?
45-55, eh? As you say, we’ll find out soon enough.
If Initiative I fails, it will be proof positive that complicated subjects that take time and effort to understand, should not be submitted to voters, even in city like Davis. The No on I campaign has submitted almost no facts to support their case. In essence, they’ve submitted only “can’t trust government” and “we’ll take advantage of other cities in future years” as reasons to not vote for Initiative I. The water project itself is the result of years of study, by numerous experts, then restudied by the WAC – all have come to the same conclusion – Davis needs surface water to protect it’s community. Cost is certainly an issue, but we now know that rates will double, even if the water project fails. The marginal difference in rates between yes and no on I is about $30. So, the choice appears to be – do you want to pay $30 for clean, reliable sustainable water, or would you rather have an unreliable source of water that may result in all sorts of negative side effects (subsidence, increasingly poor quality water, negative impact on agriculture in our greenbelts).
For me, and almost all of the folks I’ve discussed this with, believe that Yes on I is the right choice for Davis.
Frankly said . . .
[i]”For this argument to hold water (pun intended) you would have to prove that the households with larger families and soaked lawns are a unique material cause of the requirement to build this new system. They are not. [b]If we magically got rid of these terrible people, we would still be left with a need to upgrade our system.[/b] So why punish them with hyper-high rates so those people that accept a small yard with desert landscaping and speed showers every other day get a discount?”[/i]
Frank, that is the “sunk costs” argument. It would hold true if the sunk costs were truly sunk and over with. However, those supply infrastructure costs are a gift that keeps on giving in more way than one. They “give” us treated potable water that we can use. They also “give” us an annual mortgage payment each year.
Further, If we magically got rid of these terrible people’s wasteful consumption then Sue Greenwald’s assertion that we don’t need the surface water plant as an upgrade to our system would be much closer to correct . . . and we would only be looking at our rates doubling.
There is no getting around the accountability aspect of our reality. The people who make discretionary use of water should be accountable for both the water they use and a proportion of the bricks and mortar costs of building the system.
—————
To engage your thought process a bit more, let’s compare gasoline sold to consumers in a gas station with water sold to consumers in a water system.
First, how does the gasoline get into the gas dispensing system of tanks and pumps? It is delivered by a gasoline wholesaler in a tank truck to the gas station and then pumped through a meter into the underground storage tanks at the gas station. How does water get into the water dispensing system of tanks and pumps? It is syphoned directly out of the river or out of the ground.
Next, lets look at the cost to the dispensing entity for that product. If gasoline is selling for $4.00 a gallon at the pump, approximately how much does the gas station pay per gallon for the gasoline pumped out of the tank truck? My guess is between $3.00 and $3.50. What is your guess? Now, approximately how much does the water agency pay per gallon for the water syphoned out of the river or the ground? My guess is exactly $0.00. What is your guess?
Third, lets look at the annual mortgage a gas station pays for the “bricks and mortar” construction costs for its service station. How about the annual mortgage a water agency pays for the “bricks and mortar” construction costs for its supply infrastructure? How comparable are those two annual mortgage amounts?
So in the water system, with $0.00 acquisition costs for the water, plus the electric bill for running the pumps, plus the chemicals bill for the chemicals used to treat the water, we end up with a cost to the consumer of $0.0018 per gallon ($1.32 divided by 748 gallons in a ccf). That is essentially five gallons per penny. And everyone pays exactly that same $0.0018 per gallon.
Now, we have this annual $12,111.222 mortgage for the construction costs of the Supply Infrastructure. How do you propose that we distribute that $12 million over the 16,433 customers?
Water is indeed a precious commodity and a variable fee of five gallons per penny is a precious price. Is five gallons per penny a fair market value? Is it the same fair market price for a senior with a garden as it is for a UCD student living at home with his parents?
I await your thoughts.
“you say that you plan to to run for City Council again.”
Running for City Council is not a political career. In fact, those who have no political ambitions beyond our Council can focus on serving the interests of the Davis voters who elected them rather than considering how decisions impact the interests of their future “deep-pocket” campaign donors.
“So, let’s suppose that you are correct and your maxim always is true. This would mean that by definition Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington would both be untrustworthy because at some point in the past they were only about financial gain.”
I’m afraid that you miss my point. It’s not the ambitious politicians who stand to financially gain but their “deep-pocket” campaign donors that are essential to success in climbing the political ladder. By that measure, Sue Greenwald and Mike Harrington have never run for higher office beyond our Council. You can rest assured that their consistent populist positions would leave their campaign war-chests woefully empty if they attempted to. You may disagree with their positions, but their primary commitment to serve the voters of Davis is without question.
I had decided to finish reading all the posts before commenting, as it is very late in the day. But I finally had decided what I wanted to say. Something a little new.
However, in the essence of it, Matt beat me to it (Matt you really do ROCK) (and Medwoman, you too “get it”):
Matt Williams: “If we magically got rid of these terrible people’s wasteful consumption then Sue Greenwald’s assertion that we don’t need the surface water plant as an upgrade to our system would be much closer to correct . . . and we would only be looking at our rates doubling.”
People who think CBFR is unfair either really just do not want to take responsibility for their share of the real expense, or they do not understand CBFR. And as a society, what we want to be able to do is continue to be water hogs and not pay for it. Well the piper has come calling.
Fraser Shilling’s piece a few days ago informed us of the fact that REAL conservation, on a level that I have no illusions most people are interested in, could solve the problem. Then the aquifer at this reduced level of consumption would most likely sustain us quite nicely. I am not talking about pumping 24/7 all systems go (which I think pretty much everyone agrees is not sustainable), I am talking about not using that much water. I am talking about not needing all the water the surface water project will provide and therefore has to be paid for.
But I am not naive as to think we could plan this way, everybody wants theirs. I have only done estimates, but my water bill under CBFR will be quite manageable, unless much to my surprise a lot of people conserve much more than 20%.
I imagine Don Shor or someone else may weigh in but just using proportions, if we conserved 50% we could use the aquifer 12/7. Don, do you know if this would be sustainable?
If I fails, could we really as a society CHANGE OUR WAYS? What an opportunity.
Matt does rock. CBFR is great work. Medwoman rocks too. She just rocks to far to the left!
Matt – I understand your points and appreciate your gas analogy. Here is the deal though. Most voters are not as talented as you in understanding the details for what goes into creating the product that they purchase. Use gas as an example. The simple fact is that we all pay the same per-gallon price at the pump. I get the point that we Davisites will have to pay the debt service; but to price gas like your are proposing for our water, the drivers burning more gas would pay a higher price per gallon. That is all most driver would care about… the price they pay at the pump. If you want to conserve gas, then making higher use gas consumer pay more per gallon might help. But it will also cause those paying more per gallon to rebel. Everyone benefits from conservation. But I had a ski boat, and have a fishing boat, ATVs and dirt bikes. All these things use gas. You can demonize me and call me a gas waster and try to penalize me. But then don’t complain when I don’t vote for your CBFR system for gas.
Matt – Do you see Bob Dunning as a water waster?
Do you think Matt is privy to Bob’s habits and consumption? Because I doubt he’d base something like that on assumptions.
Donna and Frank, based on some very heated e-mails back and forth between Bob and me, I can pass on to you that Bob does not believe he is a water waster. He realizes that personally he and his family will do much better under CBFR because he believes it favors one group of Davisites over another, and that fortunately, he believes he is in the favored group here. But he still doesn’t believe that that that makes CBFR fair.
Frankly said . . .
“Matt – I understand your points and appreciate your gas analogy. Here is the deal though. Most voters are not as talented as you in understanding the details for what goes into creating the product that they purchase. Use gas as an example. The simple fact is that we all pay the same per-gallon price at the pump. I get the point that we Davisites will have to pay the debt service; [b]but to price gas like your are proposing for our water, the drivers burning more gas would pay a higher price per gallon. [/b]That is all most driver would care about… the price they pay at the pump. If you want to conserve gas, then making higher use gas consumer pay more per gallon might help. But it will also cause those paying more per gallon to rebel. Everyone benefits from conservation. But I had a ski boat, and have a fishing boat, ATVs and dirt bikes. All these things use gas. You can demonize me and call me a gas waster and try to penalize me. But then don’t complain when I don’t vote for your CBFR system for gas.”
Frank, I too believe that CBFR makes no sense for pricing gasoline. The fixed costs for a gas station are way too low to justify having both a fixed price and a variable price. The entire construction costs for a gas station are less than just one of our deep aquifer wells. For a commodity like gasoline with virtually no fixed costs, simply add a penny or two to the per gallon price and let her rip.