by Michael Harrington
by Michael HarringtonDear Readers of the Davis Vanguard:
Even at this late date, with ballots that must be received by Elections Dept not later than 8 pm next Tuesday, March 5th, there are large numbers of undecided voters. Ballots can be dropped at the Library on 14th St as late as Monday, and hand-delivered to a regular polling place at the Vets Memorial Center on Tuesday, until 8 pm.
EVERY VOTE COUNTS ON THIS ONE! We feel the election is winnable, but close. Too close.
The closing message from all of us to our friends and families needs to be something like the following:
“The City bears a high burden of proof to justify such a radical change our water supply system and huge increases in our water bills. If YOU, the voter, are not convinced we need THIS system, and need it NOW, and need to spend THESE HIGH COSTS for the system, then vote NO! Make the City come back with a more acceptable project with rates that are fair and affordable.”
Pam Nieberg and I Co-Chaired the 2011 Referendum on water rate increases. It was a completely insane two months of September and October 2011, but we did it because we strongly objected to the sky-high increases in the rates, and because we felt like the project and the rates should be on a citywide ballot together for a full evaluation by the voters. The City Council repealed the rates on December 6, 2011, and established the Water Advisory Committee. The CC majority then split the rates off from this proposed project description and its costs, and Measure I is the result.
The Measure does not bind the City to the stated cost of about $115 million, and it says nothing about the rates. A YES vote for Measure I is a blank check to the City.
Even though the message from the referendum was put the rates on the ballot, the City Council refused to do that.
Meanwhile, the proposed rate systems that are the subject of the Prop 218 process that has a hearing set for March 19 are clearly illegal and violate Prop 218’s proportionality requirement: the city has to pay for its own water use, and the city cannot charge us for more than it costs to deliver that unit of water to your property, and the city has to charge all of us the same. Nancy and Don Price and their new organization, the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services, and with John Munn, have filed a Prop 218 challenge in Yolo County Superior Court. We expect to win that challenge, and we are not wasting our time and resources on this important case.
Pam, Nancy and I and others are working on an initiative that would establish in the City’s utility code a Measure J/R for larger utility projects. The new initiative will require the City fully and fairly describe the specifics of each larger project, the costs, and the rate structures and increases, and put it all on the ballot as a package for a full review and vote citywide. The School District has to do this for parcel tax increases, and they do it well. The City has to for approval of new development outside our borders.
Why not make the City prove to us – ratepayers and voters — that a larger project is needed and has fair costs and affordable rates?
Additionally, Measure I would endorse the current governance system of the proposed plant: A Joint Powers Authority with Woodland; the JPA has no means of breaking a tie vote of its Board of Directors, and we would forever more be captive to Woodland and its dissimilar political and economic and environmental culture and goals. Additionally, Measure I sets up a long term contract with a multinational corporation to build and operate the plant; SAY NO TO GIVING AWAY OUR LOCAL CONTROL OF OUR LOCAL PRECIOUS RESOURCE TO A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION!
Coming back to the current problem, we are hearing all over town that voters are voting NO on Measure I. People have many reasons, and all are valid. If the City has not met that voter’s expectations, the voters are defaulting to NO. Which is as it should be. Make the City come back with a better proposal that we can support, with understandable and fair and affordable rates.
Thank you for reading this, and please contact Pam immediately at 756-5856 to help with last-minute campaigning. We have a lot of work to do in the next few days, but this fight to maintain local control of our water and for fair and affordable rates is winnable.
Please vote, and remind your friends and family to vote NO on Measure I. If not sure, vote NO, and make the City come back with a project that makes sense and has fair and affordable rates.
Best always,
Michael J. Harrington, Aviation Attorney, Co-Chair, 2011 Water Rates Referendum, Member, No in Measure I Steering Committee
[quote]NP: “Dear Medwoman, You ask very important questions that will take me time and space to answer carefully and thoroughly. I have asked David Greenwald how to go about this….”
RK: “Nancy, You can answer many of medwomans questions immediately. No need to make her wait….Please don’t just say that this information is coming and we should wait. We’ve been waiting for your lawyer’s responses for months now….As far as any one knows, the Prices, along with John Munn, are the only members of the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services and have a lawsuit pending against the City of Davis.”
JS: “Nancy, who are the members of this group?”
DG: “Ryan: Nancy has been in communication with me as to the best way to disseminate the information. I can vouch that she is sincere.”[/quote]David, what agreement did you and Nancy come to about responding to the many questions posted on 2/25? Have you been able to find out the membership of the Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services yet?
Why do you think that Michael, then John and, now, Nancy and Don have refused to respond to anyone’s questions about the organization, its membership, its purposes and its proposed alternatives?
I found a one-page flyer from this outfit on my porch last weekend. It was as unforthcoming as the four of them have been on the [i]Vanguard[/i].
“Make the City come back with a more acceptable project with rates that are fair and affordable.”
I heard this argument used against measure x. Well guess what? To this date no other proposal has been put to the voters. The idea that a better deal awaits if we reject this one is a fantasy.
No two opponents of Measure I agree on any alternative. All they agree upon is saying “no”. They are obstructionists, with no alternate plan. Similar to the obstructionists in congress, they have no solutions, just objections. Fittingly, the want to “drill baby drill” (in this case, more deep water wells). That is not a plan. It is irresponsible.
Just Saying: I got an email late that evening that stated: “Just a note to say that Nancy is out getting votes, and it not going to spend hours blogging and dealing with a bunch of (commenters) who have already voted YES.”
“No two opponents of Measure I agree on any alternative. All they agree upon is saying “no”.”
Are two opponents obligated to agree on an alternative?
As long as the plan is to have Davisites paying 30% more per gallon of water than our “partners” in Woodland, ( who overdeveloped and got themselves into a bind that necessitated them importing river water), I see no legitimate reason for Davis rate payers to burden themselves with all this debt. The current plan is a non-starter.
I am disappointed in Nancy’s response as I value her expertise and opinion on this issue.
Again, suggest DV request/require authors to be available to respond. It is one of the values of a blog versus print where most of these have been previously published.
[i]”dealing with a bunch of (commenters) who have already voted YES.”
[/i]
Really? Nancy said that? What was the actual word she used?
Clicked once but multiple posts. It wasn’t THAT important!
Just vote NO, and make the City come back with a plan acceptable to you and your budget. It’s easy.
And the sky is not going to fall.
And if Woodland leaves the station, good riddance to Vice Mayor Bill Marbles and the rest of them who have interfered with our political process and seek to give away our public resource — water — to a multi-national corporation whose sole job is fatten corporate profits with our rate money.
How do you know the city will come back with what you call “acceptable to your budget?”
The City refused to mail the Prop 218 protest ballots, so we did.
We are going to bill the City when this is over for those printing and mailing costs.
I suggest you remove Nancy’s article.
Mike’s article has no value and his use of capital letters gives me the feeling of being yelled at. Here we are, nearing the end of the campaign, and Mike has not answered any of the questions that he has promised to answer many times over many months. It is not as though he has not been given ample opportunity. Mike has run a despicable campaign.
Mike, this plan is acceptable to me. It fits into my budget.
[quote]”I got an email late that evening that stated: ‘Just a note to say that Nancy is out getting votes, and it not going to spend hours blogging and dealing with a bunch of (commenters) who have already voted YES’.” [/quote]How humiliating for Nancy to have been over-ruled in such a disrespectful fashion! Should [i]Vanguard[/i] readers be offended by being called “(commenters)”–what is that euphemism standing for?
Was it Nancy’s husband who refused to allow her to answer medwoman’s questions, ones that Nancy herself called “very important”? Was he the one speaking for her via the email you received?
More and more, it looks as though the “no” campaign leadership is a nefarious, one-person operation that puts out “frontmen” to meet legal and PR needs and to help in collecting cash from shadow entities (and to speak only when permitted to).
I wonder if this campaign will be studied in Davis in future years for many of the oddities that the [i]Vanguard[/i] has observed in recent weeks (the “genius” of parachuting in a lawsuit, the shell game misdirection, the daily input of our local humorist, etc.).
You pro-JPA folks sound like you are a bit worried your sprawl-inducing project might go down?
Note I go after the project, and sometimes “the CC” and sometimes “water staff”, but not each of you individually.
And, I never pick a public fight with David Greenwald or Bob Dunning. I am not suicidal!
[i]”I got an email late that evening that stated: ‘Just a note to say that Nancy is out getting votes, and it not going to spend hours blogging and dealing with a bunch of (commenters) who have already voted YES’.” [/i]
So, Nancy needs to look for a place where she can respond to questions from a bunch of commenters who have not voted YES? Seem quite limiting if you are interested in a dialog. Maybe she was NOT interested in a dialog.
Come to think of it, there are only a few NOI advocates that seem interested in a dialog. The rest seem to just be protesting.
A lawyer may be the best in the world, but he/she can usually only win with a good client and facts.
Here, the Yes on I Campaign management staff are running a very professional campaign, but they are stuck with a bad “client”: the water project and its rates.
You cannot dress up a pig, lather on lipstick, and fool the voters into believing it’s Julia Roberts coming to town.
Requiring a guest commentator that posts an article on the Vanguard to answer questions from the readers makes no sense. That person could spend literally hours responding to the questions from those that didn’t like the content of the article and would not stop asking questions because they didn’t like the answers.
However, if the commentator said that they would respond then some reasonable effort to comply with their intentions should be made. But the back and forth can become quite tiresome as one has their own axe to grind.
Disagree Skip. It is only for a day. Could limit to factual answers to questions. I think this is the value of a blog.
David, Please make Mike Harrington stop. He is taunting people, nothing more.
Today, there is an article in the Sac Bee regarding the shut down of the contaminated well. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/28/5224070/davis-engineers-shut-down-major.html#storylink=cpy
Mike Harrington is quoted, “”We think it’s very suspicious that city staff shut down Well 30,” said Michael Harrington, a Davis attorney and a chief opponent of Measure I. “We think they’re manipulating the water supply system,” Harrington said. “It’s a scare tactic.”
Mike is out of control crazy.
[i]”We think they’re manipulating the water supply system,” Harrington said.
[/i]
(Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/28/5224070/davis-engineers-shut-down-major.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy)
On top of all his bad behavior, he is now specifically accusing city staff of unprofessional behavior with the implied intent to sway the election.
When you accuse professionals of misconduct, and you have no foundation for that accusation, you are, um — what is the word I’m looking for? Maybe a lawyer here could help me out. I’m sure there is some specific legal term for it.
Part of the problem, Skip, is the effort David has made to make articles out of letters that people are sending in to the Enterprise. It was a good thought to broaden the reach of these folk’s ideas, but lots of people aren’t interested in back and forth when they’ve developed a letter to the Enterprise editor.
In Nancy’s case, however, she made it obvious that she wanted to provide more background on her views and how she developed them. In fact, she worked with David to decide the best method and means to present them. Now, comes word that someone–my guess, her husband or Michael Harrington–interceded to prohibit her from speaking her mind on these issues.
Odd in this day and age, particularly for someone like Nancy, to suffer this kind of public put down.. She is attempting to bring in her well-considered concept about the need for public ownership of world water systems to the Davis situation. Agree or not about its application to Yolo County, she deserves to be heard.
“…..Pam, Nancy and I and others are working on an initiative that would establish in the City’s utility code a Measure J/R for larger utility projects. The new initiative will require the City fully and fairly describe the specifics of each larger project, the costs, and the rate structures and increases, and put it all on the ballot as a package for a full review and vote citywide.”…
What a contrast that process will be from the one chosen for the Surface Water Project. Don’t forget how “Christmas Coup” of 2010 was implemented!
The Davis City Council hurriedly gave final approval for the Surface Water Project during the week before Christmas 2010 when many of the citizens of Davis were stressed, busy, unaware, or away! The Council Members approving the SWP did not provide any explanation why the critically needed SWP water right offer from Sacramento area developer Mr. Angelo Tsakopoulos was available ONLY in December of 2010. December 2010 was also the last month that Councilman Saylor would be able to provide the critically needed third assured vote for the SWP. Mr. Saylor began his term as a Yolo County Supervisor on January 1, 2011.
From our perspective, this important SWP decision should not have been rushed, or made at an inconvenient time for a majority of Davis citizens. Because this decision was made “under the cover of darkness,” so to speak, we believe that it is still important to bring this situation to light. Sunlight is a great disinfectant! Steve and Pegi Hayes
Ryan: you dont know much about Well 30 do you?
We do, and are getting more. Things don’t add up.
I am not accusing any specific person.
But we are confident it’s most likely an attempt to manipulate the election.
[quote]I am not accusing [b]any specific person[/b].
But we are confident it’s most likely an attempt to manipulate the election. [/quote]As to the first quote… am sure that is to avoid charges of slander/libel that would stick in a court of law. Nice attorney tactic, similar to “yes or no, have you stopped beating your spouse?” Scum-bag tactic.
As to the second, IF anyone in the City’s hierarchy DID “attempt to manipulate the election” by shutting down a significant well site, they should be summarily dismissed from City employment. If for nothing else, gross stupidity to try to manipulate an election where probably over 70% of those who will vote, have done so.
If not the “big lie”, it certainly is the “big innuendo”, and is lower than a snake’s belly in a wagon wheel rut.
If there is a case to be made about cynically tring to manipulate the election at the 11th hour, that would be Mr H’s article and his subsequent posts.
Mike Harrington: [i]I am not accusing any specific person.
But we are confident it’s most likely an attempt to manipulate the election.[/i]
You realize that these sentences contradict each other.
Ok, let’s try this: Who do you believe, specifically, was trying to manipulate the election?
If you don’t answer this question, then I will state clearly that your charge is simply an attempt to manipulate the election.
Mike, your campaign behavior is unconscionable. You’ve made your allegations against City staff. It doesn’t matter that you haven’t named a specific person. It just doesn’t, Mike. You have now been quoted in two different articles in the Sac Bee and now you’ve repeated your allegations by posting here. Unless you have proof, this is just yet another one of your many lies.
I’ve a mind to ask the Grand Jury to look into your serious allegations against City staff of closing a city owned well in “an attempt to manipulate the election.” They could also include your filing of a lawsuit, promoting this filing in various media venues, but never actually starting the lawsuit, as an attempt to manipulate voters.
M. Harrington: [i]you dont know much about Well 30 do you?
We do, and are getting more. Things don’t add up.
I am not accusing any specific person.
But we are confident it’s most likely an attempt to manipulate the election.[/i]
This represents the kind of statement that has a patronizing edge that really just pisses me off after a while. The crux of the statement is “we know a whole lot more about this than we can say right now, so trust me, you should vote no.” I tried to be patient with the “No” side to present a coherent alternative that addressed the appropriate context of the situation that I could buy into, but none was forthcoming, even after some gentle prompting on my part. So I voted yes. I felt neutral and persuadable going into this campaign.
It would be far more powerful as a campaign strategy to lay out the actual evidence with minimal comment (let Dunning take care of that) and let the voters decide. Engaging in innuendo and then leaving voters hanging in expectation of evidence that never arrives actually leaves voters feeling manipulated in a way that you don’t want.
If that’s manipulating the election, what would you call it when the “No on I Campaign” claims:
“State Department of Water Resources studies show that area groundwater has not deteriorated in quantity over the last 50 years and that we are in no danger of over-drafting our aquifers”
even though the California Department of Water Resources report says:
“Groundwater levels are impacted by periods of drought due to increased groundwater pumping and less surface water recharge (e.g. in the late 1970’s and early 1990’s), but recover quickly in “wet” years. Long term trends do not indicate any significant decline in water levels, [i]with the exception of localized pumping depressions in the vicinity of the Davis, Woodland and Dunnigan/Zamora areas[/i].”
Is that manipulating? Stretching the truth? Lie by omission? Outright lie?
wdf1: “[i]It would be far more powerful as a campaign strategy to lay out the actual evidence with minimal comment…and let the voters decide.[/i]”
Therein lies the crux of the problem for the No crowd. To follow your advice they would first need to have ‘[b]actual evidence[/b]’ to support their allegations and other specious claims.
Confused? Just vote NO, and make the City come back with a better project and rates. It’s easy. Just vote NO.
Mike, you have made a specific, spurious accusation against city staff. If you don’t have evidence, you need to retract it. And to have made it in a regional publication simply compounds your offense.
Confused? Err on the side of caution. Better to have water than not to have it. Vote “yes.”
[quote]Mike: Note I go after the project, and sometimes “the CC” and sometimes “water staff”, but not each of you individually. [/quote]
This is a complete lie, Mike. You have called me all sorts of names, and even made allegations that I would benefit financially from the project. You have done the same for numerous individuals in the community.
From what you’ve repeatedly posted, you and your friends were hard at work on an alternative plan and “just wait and see.” Now, you’re saying that we need the City to come up with another plan. What is it, Mike? Yeah, people are confused. The people I talk to are confused why you continue to lie and why people allow you to represent them and speak for them.
I already voted. I voted Yes, because I have read the materials provided, used the rate calculator to determine my rates and found that they were something that I could afford, talked to people I respect with a background in environmental sustainability, and spent some time trying to sort the arguments from the lies from the No on I campaign. I learned in time to completely disregard Mike. H’s “contributions.”
Michael Harrington: “[i]Confused? Just vote NO[/i]”
We live in what Bob Dunning likes to call ‘the second most educated city in America,’ and yet Michael Harrington thinks that you lack the intelligence to make an informed decision. Why would you want to confirm his opinion of you?
Following months of study, the WAC voted unanimously in favor of a conjunctive use water system. The five members of the City Council unanimously support Measure I as the best approach for Davis to achieve a conjunctive use system. Honestly, what is there to be confused about?
Make an informed decision, vote Yes on Measure I.
Nancy Price
[quote]”Dear Medwoman, You ask very important questions that will take me time and space to answer carefully and thoroughly. I have asked David Greenwald how to go about this….” [/quote]
When I read your response, I was under the impression that it was your intent to respond. Now I realize that you are probably quite busy with your campaign efforts and responses to me probably seem of less importance to you since I have made it clear that I have already voted. However, unlike some of the posters here, I do not believe that it is likely that anyone is coercing you not to respond. I would be completely satisfied if you were to clarify, yourself, that you simply do not have enough time or feel that my questions are not significant enough to warrant a response although you initially felt they did. I think that such a statement would reclaim at least part of your credibility having said that you would respond and then not coming through.
I know it would go a long way with me.
“What a contrast that process will be from the one chosen for the Surface Water Project.” -Steve Hayes
Earth to Steve. The surface water project has been conceived and vetted in open public hearings. The Harrrington initiative is being drafted behind closed doors by 1 or 2, perhaps a handful of individuals. The fact that the public doesn’t even know who is behind the initiative is telling.
-Michael Bisch
Dear Steve (from Mike Harrington)
Thanks for not forgetting to remind everyone of the Christmas Coup again. Don’t forget – you normally post about the Colusa drain every couple of days. Probably time to do it again. It would be really helpful if you could post some factual evidence that the planned intake violates any federal or state max levels for any chemical. Otherwise, just keep posting insinuations. Sometimes, you just have to make do.
MH – I think the Yes on I proponents are sleeping well at night. No panic They’ve yet to post anything not provable by science. Unfortunately for you and No on I, you are not in court, and it’s very tough being on the wrong side of facts. The Davis electorate is figuring out that the city, during its more than 15 years of work on this, uncovered the facts and presented the best solution.
hpierce:
[quote]As to the first quote… am sure that is to avoid charges of slander/libel that would stick in a court of law. Nice attorney tactic, similar to “yes or no, have you stopped beating your spouse?” Scum-bag tactic. [/quote][Ref] ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6163:open-letter-from-the-no-on-i-campaign#comment-177738[/url])
There is something like that happening against me.
I am asking for help.
On Water Rates: ([url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=2&id=996&limit=6&limitstart=42&Itemid=192#1044[/url])
Matt:
[quote]It is not an analogy. It is a simple question. What do you do if yo get a charge on your VISA bill that you did not incur? Do you simply pay it, or do you dispute it? [/quote]
Edgar:
[quote]I cannot answer this question because your logic is wrong. Please do not use any analogy and refer to the math itself that you have seen from these many examples. If you can’t find any instance from all these example that shows what you are talking about, you should consider what it is that you misunderstand about Equal Discount.[/quote]
Edgar, here is some math for you to ponder. Engineers build 10 cc for your use in summer. You get a bill for how many cc of cost? They are your 10 cc, no one else’s.
Re: Matt,
That is where the context matters. Your scenario is not representative of the situation. Here is some math for you to ponder in return.
Situation 1:
Engineers bought 10 pipes to lay a pipeline from the water plant to A. A pays for that 10 pipes. A and B are neighbors, and B wants water service also. To supply B, the engineers bought another 10 pipes to lay a pipeline [b]side by side[/b] to that going to A. B pays for 10 pipes. In total, there are 20 pipes. A pays for 10, B pays for the other 10.
Situation 2:
Engineers bought 10 pipes to lay a pipeline from the water plant to A. A pays for that 10 pipes. A and B are neighbors, and B wants water service also. To supply B, the engineers bought [b]1[/b] pipe to fork from the 9th segment to B. Altogether, there are 11 pipes. A had already paid for 10 pipes. What should B pay?
a) 1 pipe
b) 5.5 pipes
For B to pay just for 1 pipe would be unfair to A because B will be [b]using the pipe that A had already bought[/b]. B should pay for the additional pipe exclusive to him, and half of the 9 pipes leading to the Y junction. B should pay for 5.5 pipes. 1 for the engineers, and 4.5 to A.
B pays 5.5 to the system, and the system reimburses A with 4.5.
In total, A pays 5.5, and B pays 5.5 for the total of 11 pipes.
Edgar, your example is exactly the same as traditional meter-based billing and ignores the key question of why the system was built. CC is a unit of load. A pipeline is a unit of potential capacity. Units are an essential part of any word problem.
The discussion on PPPM in CBFR and Equal Discount is about capacity.
It never has been on my part. Capacity is all about theoretical concepts. I prefer to deal with on the ground realities.
I encourage you to embrace reality.
In Supply Charge, the water user is being billed for the portion of the system they use. What is theoretical about it?
I think you are confused between capacity cost and what you called “potential” capacity cost. You added the word “potential”.
Load = Reality
Capacity = Mike Harrington’s worst nightmare