The Vanguard has discovered that Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor, has accepted campaign contributions from a firm that has a contract to do business with the city of Davis on the highly expensive and volatile issue of water.
The city is in the process of examining a new wastewater treatment system and creating a diversion from the Sacramento River to supply the city with water. Both of these projects at this point in time would cost at least $150 million each or in other words over $300 million and likely those costs will only grow.
For a full discussion of the history of this issue please see this article, Tracing the recent history of the water supply project.
During the course of the last five years, the city has slowly moved away from a joint project with West Sacramento with water augmented from deep well aquifers, to a new water bypass, a project now in the works in conjunction with the city of Woodland and UC Davis.
Just five years ago, that plan had been dismissed as the most expensive and prohibitive financially.
But the council majority has since taken the view that this project is necessary to insure quality water to Davis and also has suggested that our stake in the project necessitates us moving forward at this time for fear of losing our place in line if we delay.
On Tuesday, the city of Davis will vote on whether or not to certify the EIR. Each step in this process moves the project closer to a fait accompli even though there has to date not been a straight up or down vote on even whether this is the strategy that the city ought to pursue.
The stakes here are enormous however. The cost of the two projects being completed at the same time would mean an extremely large increase to the residents of Davis in their water rates.
Mayor Sue Greenwald has maintained that while it is clear that we need to implement the wastewater treatment facility in order to insure that our water discharge meets state and federal standards, the timing of the water supply project could be delayed in order to protect thepocketbooks and wallets of ratepayers in the city.
On the other side of the coin has been Councilmembers such as Don Saylor who have led the way in cheerleading and supporting this project.
City Councilman Don Saylor said the river water project would “improve the water quality and it will give our city and the future generations of people who live here a more reliable source, both in terms of supply and quality.
“It will lessen the cost of the treatment needed for wastewater disposal,” he said, “and it will ensure an ongoing supply of water.
…
“I think this is a key set of decisions for our community at this point in time in our history,” he said, “because we must ensure a reliable, reasonable-quality water source for future generations. I think this is beyond politics. It is a matter of being responsible stewards of our community’s future interest.”
The Enterprise article is surprisingly balanced quoting from two experts from UC Davis, Professors Jay Lund and Ed Schroeder, both of whom questioned the urgency and necessity of the project.
However, the key supporter of this project is Councilmember Don Saylor.
Councilmember Saylor’s support however draws attention to a couple of his key financial and other campaign supporters.
At his announcement party earlier this year, Don Saylor was featured in a picture next to Jeff Pelz and Bruce West of West Yost Associates.
West Yost and Associates has served as the chief consultants for the city on the water project. In May of 2004, the city added to an existing consultant agreement with West Yost and Associates for the Water Supply Feasibility Study. On July 15, 2005, the council approved an MOU to complete a Project EIR report and authorizing West Yost and Associates to provide engineering services in support of the Project environmental process.
In addition to attending his party, Jeff Peltz is listed as a $100 to Don Saylor’s reelection campaign as is the firm he works for West Yost and Associates itself.
So now you have a major consulting firm that is in charge of doing work on one of the most expensive projects in the city’s history has been contributing to the reelection of their chief supporter on the city council.
To me this appears to be a conflict of interest. Don Saylor has accepted money for his campaign from a company that has a contract with the city. For the sake of ethics and propriety it would seem like Don Saylor should to recuse himself from deliberating on this issue. That is the only way that the citizens of Davis can insure that their leaders are not accepting quid pro quo campaign contributions from vendors who seek in exchange favorable public policy decisions for themselves and their firms. Employees and their firms who do business with the city of Davis should not be solicited by or contributing to the financial campaign coffers of city councilmembers who have the final say as to whether these firms are awarded contracts with the city. This is a clear eithical and financial conflict of interest.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
One of the most important statements in the EIR is the section on the need to Reduce Salt Load in Wastewater Discharge.
Here is that section:
The Central Valley Regional Water Board (CVRWCB) is enforcing limits set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWCB, 1998). To implement the Basin Plan objectives, the CVRWCB has established limits on electrical conductivity in treated wastewater effluent. These limits are requiring wastewater dischargers to take steps to reduce salinity concentrations in their treated effluent. Additionally, the CVRWCB is currently developing a Central Valley drinking water policy, which is expected to be adopted by 2009. A current factsheet describing this effort is posted to the CVRWCB website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/cv-salts/progs-polic-rpts/index.html.
A primary objective of the Project Partners is to reduce the TDS levels in their water supplies as a
means of reducing wastewater effluent salt loads in an economically feasible manner. Wastewater treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis (RO), that would remove salts from the wastewater prior to discharge are very costly and considered to be economically infeasible. RO treatment systems would also require collection, storage, and disposal of large quantities of saline brine that would be produced as a RO wastewater treatment by-product.
Currently, the City of Davis, the City of Woodland, and UC Davis together discharge about
13 million gallons of treated wastewater each day (mgd). Over the course of a year, this
wastewater contains more than 49 million pounds of dissolved salts directly derived from the
groundwater supply. Water softeners and other commercial activities further increase the
amount of salt that is discharged. For example assuming 2002 water softener efficiencies, for
every pound of hardness removed from the water supply by residential water softeners, over
6 pounds of salt would be added (Karajeh and King, 2005 ). The additional salt from water
softeners is conveyed to the Project Partners’ WWTPs and eventually discharged into
receiving waters. The total amount of salt equals 14.9 million pounds per year discharged from the Project Partners’ WWTPs. Substituting treated surface water from the Sacramento River for a substantial portion of existing groundwater supplies would decrease the amount of salt in the discharged wastewater effluent of each Project Partner by up to 70 percent. This would be accomplished by reducing the amount of salt and hardness in the water supply. This would provide the Project Partners with a sensible and cost-effective strategy for reducing the
salt loads in their treated wastewater effluent.
One of the most important statements in the EIR is the section on the need to Reduce Salt Load in Wastewater Discharge.
Here is that section:
The Central Valley Regional Water Board (CVRWCB) is enforcing limits set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWCB, 1998). To implement the Basin Plan objectives, the CVRWCB has established limits on electrical conductivity in treated wastewater effluent. These limits are requiring wastewater dischargers to take steps to reduce salinity concentrations in their treated effluent. Additionally, the CVRWCB is currently developing a Central Valley drinking water policy, which is expected to be adopted by 2009. A current factsheet describing this effort is posted to the CVRWCB website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/cv-salts/progs-polic-rpts/index.html.
A primary objective of the Project Partners is to reduce the TDS levels in their water supplies as a
means of reducing wastewater effluent salt loads in an economically feasible manner. Wastewater treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis (RO), that would remove salts from the wastewater prior to discharge are very costly and considered to be economically infeasible. RO treatment systems would also require collection, storage, and disposal of large quantities of saline brine that would be produced as a RO wastewater treatment by-product.
Currently, the City of Davis, the City of Woodland, and UC Davis together discharge about
13 million gallons of treated wastewater each day (mgd). Over the course of a year, this
wastewater contains more than 49 million pounds of dissolved salts directly derived from the
groundwater supply. Water softeners and other commercial activities further increase the
amount of salt that is discharged. For example assuming 2002 water softener efficiencies, for
every pound of hardness removed from the water supply by residential water softeners, over
6 pounds of salt would be added (Karajeh and King, 2005 ). The additional salt from water
softeners is conveyed to the Project Partners’ WWTPs and eventually discharged into
receiving waters. The total amount of salt equals 14.9 million pounds per year discharged from the Project Partners’ WWTPs. Substituting treated surface water from the Sacramento River for a substantial portion of existing groundwater supplies would decrease the amount of salt in the discharged wastewater effluent of each Project Partner by up to 70 percent. This would be accomplished by reducing the amount of salt and hardness in the water supply. This would provide the Project Partners with a sensible and cost-effective strategy for reducing the
salt loads in their treated wastewater effluent.
One of the most important statements in the EIR is the section on the need to Reduce Salt Load in Wastewater Discharge.
Here is that section:
The Central Valley Regional Water Board (CVRWCB) is enforcing limits set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWCB, 1998). To implement the Basin Plan objectives, the CVRWCB has established limits on electrical conductivity in treated wastewater effluent. These limits are requiring wastewater dischargers to take steps to reduce salinity concentrations in their treated effluent. Additionally, the CVRWCB is currently developing a Central Valley drinking water policy, which is expected to be adopted by 2009. A current factsheet describing this effort is posted to the CVRWCB website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/cv-salts/progs-polic-rpts/index.html.
A primary objective of the Project Partners is to reduce the TDS levels in their water supplies as a
means of reducing wastewater effluent salt loads in an economically feasible manner. Wastewater treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis (RO), that would remove salts from the wastewater prior to discharge are very costly and considered to be economically infeasible. RO treatment systems would also require collection, storage, and disposal of large quantities of saline brine that would be produced as a RO wastewater treatment by-product.
Currently, the City of Davis, the City of Woodland, and UC Davis together discharge about
13 million gallons of treated wastewater each day (mgd). Over the course of a year, this
wastewater contains more than 49 million pounds of dissolved salts directly derived from the
groundwater supply. Water softeners and other commercial activities further increase the
amount of salt that is discharged. For example assuming 2002 water softener efficiencies, for
every pound of hardness removed from the water supply by residential water softeners, over
6 pounds of salt would be added (Karajeh and King, 2005 ). The additional salt from water
softeners is conveyed to the Project Partners’ WWTPs and eventually discharged into
receiving waters. The total amount of salt equals 14.9 million pounds per year discharged from the Project Partners’ WWTPs. Substituting treated surface water from the Sacramento River for a substantial portion of existing groundwater supplies would decrease the amount of salt in the discharged wastewater effluent of each Project Partner by up to 70 percent. This would be accomplished by reducing the amount of salt and hardness in the water supply. This would provide the Project Partners with a sensible and cost-effective strategy for reducing the
salt loads in their treated wastewater effluent.
One of the most important statements in the EIR is the section on the need to Reduce Salt Load in Wastewater Discharge.
Here is that section:
The Central Valley Regional Water Board (CVRWCB) is enforcing limits set forth in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (CVRWCB, 1998). To implement the Basin Plan objectives, the CVRWCB has established limits on electrical conductivity in treated wastewater effluent. These limits are requiring wastewater dischargers to take steps to reduce salinity concentrations in their treated effluent. Additionally, the CVRWCB is currently developing a Central Valley drinking water policy, which is expected to be adopted by 2009. A current factsheet describing this effort is posted to the CVRWCB website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/cv-salts/progs-polic-rpts/index.html.
A primary objective of the Project Partners is to reduce the TDS levels in their water supplies as a
means of reducing wastewater effluent salt loads in an economically feasible manner. Wastewater treatment processes, such as reverse osmosis (RO), that would remove salts from the wastewater prior to discharge are very costly and considered to be economically infeasible. RO treatment systems would also require collection, storage, and disposal of large quantities of saline brine that would be produced as a RO wastewater treatment by-product.
Currently, the City of Davis, the City of Woodland, and UC Davis together discharge about
13 million gallons of treated wastewater each day (mgd). Over the course of a year, this
wastewater contains more than 49 million pounds of dissolved salts directly derived from the
groundwater supply. Water softeners and other commercial activities further increase the
amount of salt that is discharged. For example assuming 2002 water softener efficiencies, for
every pound of hardness removed from the water supply by residential water softeners, over
6 pounds of salt would be added (Karajeh and King, 2005 ). The additional salt from water
softeners is conveyed to the Project Partners’ WWTPs and eventually discharged into
receiving waters. The total amount of salt equals 14.9 million pounds per year discharged from the Project Partners’ WWTPs. Substituting treated surface water from the Sacramento River for a substantial portion of existing groundwater supplies would decrease the amount of salt in the discharged wastewater effluent of each Project Partner by up to 70 percent. This would be accomplished by reducing the amount of salt and hardness in the water supply. This would provide the Project Partners with a sensible and cost-effective strategy for reducing the
salt loads in their treated wastewater effluent.
DPD – Is the campaign contribution of $200 you list in the article correct? I don’t know how much it takes to inappropriately influence a politician, but do you really mean to suggest that you think that Saylor would actually be significantly influenced for a $200?
The issue regarding which water sources is significant and important. I am not well informed about the matters, but a long term, high quality water supply is vital to any town and we should fully explore all the options.
DPD – Is the campaign contribution of $200 you list in the article correct? I don’t know how much it takes to inappropriately influence a politician, but do you really mean to suggest that you think that Saylor would actually be significantly influenced for a $200?
The issue regarding which water sources is significant and important. I am not well informed about the matters, but a long term, high quality water supply is vital to any town and we should fully explore all the options.
DPD – Is the campaign contribution of $200 you list in the article correct? I don’t know how much it takes to inappropriately influence a politician, but do you really mean to suggest that you think that Saylor would actually be significantly influenced for a $200?
The issue regarding which water sources is significant and important. I am not well informed about the matters, but a long term, high quality water supply is vital to any town and we should fully explore all the options.
DPD – Is the campaign contribution of $200 you list in the article correct? I don’t know how much it takes to inappropriately influence a politician, but do you really mean to suggest that you think that Saylor would actually be significantly influenced for a $200?
The issue regarding which water sources is significant and important. I am not well informed about the matters, but a long term, high quality water supply is vital to any town and we should fully explore all the options.
I think the real issue is that it seems improper to be accepting any money, no matter how small from a vendor that is doing business with the city and that Saylor will be in the position to make a decision on.
I think the real issue is that it seems improper to be accepting any money, no matter how small from a vendor that is doing business with the city and that Saylor will be in the position to make a decision on.
I think the real issue is that it seems improper to be accepting any money, no matter how small from a vendor that is doing business with the city and that Saylor will be in the position to make a decision on.
I think the real issue is that it seems improper to be accepting any money, no matter how small from a vendor that is doing business with the city and that Saylor will be in the position to make a decision on.
The primary objective of reducing the salt load in wastewater discharge is not the question.
The question is whether:
1. We have looked at less expensive options adequately and ruled them out
2. That we can trust the advice we are getting from our consultants who have a stake financially in us going forward with the water supply project
3. Whether this needs to occur at the same time as the wastewater treatment plant
4. Whether there are other cheaper but still reliable sources of water that can reduce our salt discharge without having to have us construct a $150 million and really probably twice that, water supply project
Those are the questions that the EIR which was copied and pasted by anonymous 7:08 does not address
The primary objective of reducing the salt load in wastewater discharge is not the question.
The question is whether:
1. We have looked at less expensive options adequately and ruled them out
2. That we can trust the advice we are getting from our consultants who have a stake financially in us going forward with the water supply project
3. Whether this needs to occur at the same time as the wastewater treatment plant
4. Whether there are other cheaper but still reliable sources of water that can reduce our salt discharge without having to have us construct a $150 million and really probably twice that, water supply project
Those are the questions that the EIR which was copied and pasted by anonymous 7:08 does not address
The primary objective of reducing the salt load in wastewater discharge is not the question.
The question is whether:
1. We have looked at less expensive options adequately and ruled them out
2. That we can trust the advice we are getting from our consultants who have a stake financially in us going forward with the water supply project
3. Whether this needs to occur at the same time as the wastewater treatment plant
4. Whether there are other cheaper but still reliable sources of water that can reduce our salt discharge without having to have us construct a $150 million and really probably twice that, water supply project
Those are the questions that the EIR which was copied and pasted by anonymous 7:08 does not address
The primary objective of reducing the salt load in wastewater discharge is not the question.
The question is whether:
1. We have looked at less expensive options adequately and ruled them out
2. That we can trust the advice we are getting from our consultants who have a stake financially in us going forward with the water supply project
3. Whether this needs to occur at the same time as the wastewater treatment plant
4. Whether there are other cheaper but still reliable sources of water that can reduce our salt discharge without having to have us construct a $150 million and really probably twice that, water supply project
Those are the questions that the EIR which was copied and pasted by anonymous 7:08 does not address
I think it is also important to recognize–let’s say the water supply project is the way to go, we need to have the confidence to know that we have explored fully all other options and that those decisions are not being made due to influence peddling and personal loyalties to key supporters.
I think it is also important to recognize–let’s say the water supply project is the way to go, we need to have the confidence to know that we have explored fully all other options and that those decisions are not being made due to influence peddling and personal loyalties to key supporters.
I think it is also important to recognize–let’s say the water supply project is the way to go, we need to have the confidence to know that we have explored fully all other options and that those decisions are not being made due to influence peddling and personal loyalties to key supporters.
I think it is also important to recognize–let’s say the water supply project is the way to go, we need to have the confidence to know that we have explored fully all other options and that those decisions are not being made due to influence peddling and personal loyalties to key supporters.
“I think the real issue is that it seems improper to be accepting any money, no matter how small from a vendor that is doing business with the city and that Saylor will be in the position to make a decision on.”
So does that mean that any business in Davis can not give to any candidate?
“I think the real issue is that it seems improper to be accepting any money, no matter how small from a vendor that is doing business with the city and that Saylor will be in the position to make a decision on.”
So does that mean that any business in Davis can not give to any candidate?
“I think the real issue is that it seems improper to be accepting any money, no matter how small from a vendor that is doing business with the city and that Saylor will be in the position to make a decision on.”
So does that mean that any business in Davis can not give to any candidate?
“I think the real issue is that it seems improper to be accepting any money, no matter how small from a vendor that is doing business with the city and that Saylor will be in the position to make a decision on.”
So does that mean that any business in Davis can not give to any candidate?
Campaign contributions are a sticky affair.
If both Jeff and Bruce are Davis residents, then I would say that the contributions are OK. $200 does not appear to be enough to sway the voters one way or another. However, if many employees at West Yost contributed, including those who lived out of town, and also walked precincts, etc. then I’d be a little more suspicious.
I compare that with the many years of endorsements, campaign volunteer hours and financial contributions by Davis Firefighters, the vast majority of whom do not live in Davis, which effectively help to ensure that people were elected who would approve their contracts year after year. I was once told by the wife of a fire fighter in Davis that she didn’t know who she was voting for because the union president hadn’t told them who to vote for yet. The union president appeared in Don Saylor’s campaign materials, yet he lives in Elk Grove. But, everyone loves the firefighters and no one questions these actions in terms of propriety.
Saylor needs to inform the community how much this is going to cost each homeowner before this gets to far and before the election if he is going to champion this plan.
Campaign contributions are a sticky affair.
If both Jeff and Bruce are Davis residents, then I would say that the contributions are OK. $200 does not appear to be enough to sway the voters one way or another. However, if many employees at West Yost contributed, including those who lived out of town, and also walked precincts, etc. then I’d be a little more suspicious.
I compare that with the many years of endorsements, campaign volunteer hours and financial contributions by Davis Firefighters, the vast majority of whom do not live in Davis, which effectively help to ensure that people were elected who would approve their contracts year after year. I was once told by the wife of a fire fighter in Davis that she didn’t know who she was voting for because the union president hadn’t told them who to vote for yet. The union president appeared in Don Saylor’s campaign materials, yet he lives in Elk Grove. But, everyone loves the firefighters and no one questions these actions in terms of propriety.
Saylor needs to inform the community how much this is going to cost each homeowner before this gets to far and before the election if he is going to champion this plan.
Campaign contributions are a sticky affair.
If both Jeff and Bruce are Davis residents, then I would say that the contributions are OK. $200 does not appear to be enough to sway the voters one way or another. However, if many employees at West Yost contributed, including those who lived out of town, and also walked precincts, etc. then I’d be a little more suspicious.
I compare that with the many years of endorsements, campaign volunteer hours and financial contributions by Davis Firefighters, the vast majority of whom do not live in Davis, which effectively help to ensure that people were elected who would approve their contracts year after year. I was once told by the wife of a fire fighter in Davis that she didn’t know who she was voting for because the union president hadn’t told them who to vote for yet. The union president appeared in Don Saylor’s campaign materials, yet he lives in Elk Grove. But, everyone loves the firefighters and no one questions these actions in terms of propriety.
Saylor needs to inform the community how much this is going to cost each homeowner before this gets to far and before the election if he is going to champion this plan.
Campaign contributions are a sticky affair.
If both Jeff and Bruce are Davis residents, then I would say that the contributions are OK. $200 does not appear to be enough to sway the voters one way or another. However, if many employees at West Yost contributed, including those who lived out of town, and also walked precincts, etc. then I’d be a little more suspicious.
I compare that with the many years of endorsements, campaign volunteer hours and financial contributions by Davis Firefighters, the vast majority of whom do not live in Davis, which effectively help to ensure that people were elected who would approve their contracts year after year. I was once told by the wife of a fire fighter in Davis that she didn’t know who she was voting for because the union president hadn’t told them who to vote for yet. The union president appeared in Don Saylor’s campaign materials, yet he lives in Elk Grove. But, everyone loves the firefighters and no one questions these actions in terms of propriety.
Saylor needs to inform the community how much this is going to cost each homeowner before this gets to far and before the election if he is going to champion this plan.
I think any businesses that get contracts from the city should not be giving financial contributions to candidates.
I think any businesses that get contracts from the city should not be giving financial contributions to candidates.
I think any businesses that get contracts from the city should not be giving financial contributions to candidates.
I think any businesses that get contracts from the city should not be giving financial contributions to candidates.
That’s a good point Campaign Observer, where I differ from you however is that the firefighters have to do CBAs with someone, there is nothing to say for sure that a water consulting company gets a bid from the city and therefore does business. That is a crucial distinction in my mind and goes down to the decisions made by Saylor as to whether to aid his political allies.
That’s a good point Campaign Observer, where I differ from you however is that the firefighters have to do CBAs with someone, there is nothing to say for sure that a water consulting company gets a bid from the city and therefore does business. That is a crucial distinction in my mind and goes down to the decisions made by Saylor as to whether to aid his political allies.
That’s a good point Campaign Observer, where I differ from you however is that the firefighters have to do CBAs with someone, there is nothing to say for sure that a water consulting company gets a bid from the city and therefore does business. That is a crucial distinction in my mind and goes down to the decisions made by Saylor as to whether to aid his political allies.
That’s a good point Campaign Observer, where I differ from you however is that the firefighters have to do CBAs with someone, there is nothing to say for sure that a water consulting company gets a bid from the city and therefore does business. That is a crucial distinction in my mind and goes down to the decisions made by Saylor as to whether to aid his political allies.
A CHANGE in the Council Majority is the only way for Davis voters to return this issue to the Council for further transparent, detailed analysis with alternative options and expert analysis. First, we were told that the reason for the rush was that the State was demanding immediate action. Then when a compliant Davis Public Works Department began to feel the heat of Davis public outrage at getting the “bum’s rush” with regard to costs to Davis voters, we learned that the State granted Davis lengthy time to work on the saline wastewater issue. Why not take this time to more fully explore the problem and altertive options with their attendant COSTS to the Davis voters.
A CHANGE in the Council Majority is the only way for Davis voters to return this issue to the Council for further transparent, detailed analysis with alternative options and expert analysis. First, we were told that the reason for the rush was that the State was demanding immediate action. Then when a compliant Davis Public Works Department began to feel the heat of Davis public outrage at getting the “bum’s rush” with regard to costs to Davis voters, we learned that the State granted Davis lengthy time to work on the saline wastewater issue. Why not take this time to more fully explore the problem and altertive options with their attendant COSTS to the Davis voters.
A CHANGE in the Council Majority is the only way for Davis voters to return this issue to the Council for further transparent, detailed analysis with alternative options and expert analysis. First, we were told that the reason for the rush was that the State was demanding immediate action. Then when a compliant Davis Public Works Department began to feel the heat of Davis public outrage at getting the “bum’s rush” with regard to costs to Davis voters, we learned that the State granted Davis lengthy time to work on the saline wastewater issue. Why not take this time to more fully explore the problem and altertive options with their attendant COSTS to the Davis voters.
A CHANGE in the Council Majority is the only way for Davis voters to return this issue to the Council for further transparent, detailed analysis with alternative options and expert analysis. First, we were told that the reason for the rush was that the State was demanding immediate action. Then when a compliant Davis Public Works Department began to feel the heat of Davis public outrage at getting the “bum’s rush” with regard to costs to Davis voters, we learned that the State granted Davis lengthy time to work on the saline wastewater issue. Why not take this time to more fully explore the problem and altertive options with their attendant COSTS to the Davis voters.
The $200 contribution is not really the issue. Don Saylor is Davis’ current political “carpetbagger”. His every move has little to do with representing the interests of Davis and everything to do with building allies and financial support for his all-consuming goal of running for the State Assembly.
The $200 contribution is not really the issue. Don Saylor is Davis’ current political “carpetbagger”. His every move has little to do with representing the interests of Davis and everything to do with building allies and financial support for his all-consuming goal of running for the State Assembly.
The $200 contribution is not really the issue. Don Saylor is Davis’ current political “carpetbagger”. His every move has little to do with representing the interests of Davis and everything to do with building allies and financial support for his all-consuming goal of running for the State Assembly.
The $200 contribution is not really the issue. Don Saylor is Davis’ current political “carpetbagger”. His every move has little to do with representing the interests of Davis and everything to do with building allies and financial support for his all-consuming goal of running for the State Assembly.
When this issue was studied a few years ago, some issues that are not being addressed at all now were brought up by many people, including several UCD faculty. Those issues relate to the pollution in surface waters. Sacramento River water is not a better quality water as Don Saylor keeps stating. It is better quality only in having less TDS. But it is far worse in containing pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers from ag and urban run off; pharmaceuticals, hormones, antibiotics, and many, many other potentially toxic chemicals that end up in surface water from commercial, industrial and residential sources. Before the water is potable, these chemicals must be removed. For some of them, we do not have standards, or “safe” levels, so we don’t know to what level to clean up. For others, we don’t even have the technology to remove the toxins or to break them down to non-toxins. To develop and implement these technologies will be very expensive, possibly prohibitively so. This should be factored in when estimating costs of bringing in surface water.
It is true that people are already using Sac River water, but no one has done any studies on long-term ingestion of the chemicals that remain in the water after treatment at the existing treatment plant in West Sac. I think that it would be prudent to delay this project until some of these questions are answered, and to spend a little more time looking for ways to address the TDS problems in our groundwater.
When this issue was studied a few years ago, some issues that are not being addressed at all now were brought up by many people, including several UCD faculty. Those issues relate to the pollution in surface waters. Sacramento River water is not a better quality water as Don Saylor keeps stating. It is better quality only in having less TDS. But it is far worse in containing pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers from ag and urban run off; pharmaceuticals, hormones, antibiotics, and many, many other potentially toxic chemicals that end up in surface water from commercial, industrial and residential sources. Before the water is potable, these chemicals must be removed. For some of them, we do not have standards, or “safe” levels, so we don’t know to what level to clean up. For others, we don’t even have the technology to remove the toxins or to break them down to non-toxins. To develop and implement these technologies will be very expensive, possibly prohibitively so. This should be factored in when estimating costs of bringing in surface water.
It is true that people are already using Sac River water, but no one has done any studies on long-term ingestion of the chemicals that remain in the water after treatment at the existing treatment plant in West Sac. I think that it would be prudent to delay this project until some of these questions are answered, and to spend a little more time looking for ways to address the TDS problems in our groundwater.
When this issue was studied a few years ago, some issues that are not being addressed at all now were brought up by many people, including several UCD faculty. Those issues relate to the pollution in surface waters. Sacramento River water is not a better quality water as Don Saylor keeps stating. It is better quality only in having less TDS. But it is far worse in containing pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers from ag and urban run off; pharmaceuticals, hormones, antibiotics, and many, many other potentially toxic chemicals that end up in surface water from commercial, industrial and residential sources. Before the water is potable, these chemicals must be removed. For some of them, we do not have standards, or “safe” levels, so we don’t know to what level to clean up. For others, we don’t even have the technology to remove the toxins or to break them down to non-toxins. To develop and implement these technologies will be very expensive, possibly prohibitively so. This should be factored in when estimating costs of bringing in surface water.
It is true that people are already using Sac River water, but no one has done any studies on long-term ingestion of the chemicals that remain in the water after treatment at the existing treatment plant in West Sac. I think that it would be prudent to delay this project until some of these questions are answered, and to spend a little more time looking for ways to address the TDS problems in our groundwater.
When this issue was studied a few years ago, some issues that are not being addressed at all now were brought up by many people, including several UCD faculty. Those issues relate to the pollution in surface waters. Sacramento River water is not a better quality water as Don Saylor keeps stating. It is better quality only in having less TDS. But it is far worse in containing pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers from ag and urban run off; pharmaceuticals, hormones, antibiotics, and many, many other potentially toxic chemicals that end up in surface water from commercial, industrial and residential sources. Before the water is potable, these chemicals must be removed. For some of them, we do not have standards, or “safe” levels, so we don’t know to what level to clean up. For others, we don’t even have the technology to remove the toxins or to break them down to non-toxins. To develop and implement these technologies will be very expensive, possibly prohibitively so. This should be factored in when estimating costs of bringing in surface water.
It is true that people are already using Sac River water, but no one has done any studies on long-term ingestion of the chemicals that remain in the water after treatment at the existing treatment plant in West Sac. I think that it would be prudent to delay this project until some of these questions are answered, and to spend a little more time looking for ways to address the TDS problems in our groundwater.
“I don’t know how much it takes to inappropriately influence a politician, but do you really mean to suggest that you think that Saylor would actually be significantly influenced for a $200?”
I think it has the appearance of impropriety.
The only real way to avoid the corrupting influence of campaign contributions is to have publicly financed campaigns. To all of those who think such spending would be “a waste of taxpayer money,” consider how much more money at all levels of government we spend in order to pay off all of those people and companies and special interest groups who give millions of dollars every year to politicians.
If we had publicly financed campaigns, we wouldn’t have a farm bill every year which hands out hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy and well-organized farmers. Farm prices for almost every crop are at record highs, and yet the avaricious farmers want to steal more money from poor people. You think we’d be better off as a country giving Soctty Pippin, for example, $100,000 a year in farmer welfare payments or using that money to buy health insurance for 10 people?
“I don’t know how much it takes to inappropriately influence a politician, but do you really mean to suggest that you think that Saylor would actually be significantly influenced for a $200?”
I think it has the appearance of impropriety.
The only real way to avoid the corrupting influence of campaign contributions is to have publicly financed campaigns. To all of those who think such spending would be “a waste of taxpayer money,” consider how much more money at all levels of government we spend in order to pay off all of those people and companies and special interest groups who give millions of dollars every year to politicians.
If we had publicly financed campaigns, we wouldn’t have a farm bill every year which hands out hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy and well-organized farmers. Farm prices for almost every crop are at record highs, and yet the avaricious farmers want to steal more money from poor people. You think we’d be better off as a country giving Soctty Pippin, for example, $100,000 a year in farmer welfare payments or using that money to buy health insurance for 10 people?
“I don’t know how much it takes to inappropriately influence a politician, but do you really mean to suggest that you think that Saylor would actually be significantly influenced for a $200?”
I think it has the appearance of impropriety.
The only real way to avoid the corrupting influence of campaign contributions is to have publicly financed campaigns. To all of those who think such spending would be “a waste of taxpayer money,” consider how much more money at all levels of government we spend in order to pay off all of those people and companies and special interest groups who give millions of dollars every year to politicians.
If we had publicly financed campaigns, we wouldn’t have a farm bill every year which hands out hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy and well-organized farmers. Farm prices for almost every crop are at record highs, and yet the avaricious farmers want to steal more money from poor people. You think we’d be better off as a country giving Soctty Pippin, for example, $100,000 a year in farmer welfare payments or using that money to buy health insurance for 10 people?
“I don’t know how much it takes to inappropriately influence a politician, but do you really mean to suggest that you think that Saylor would actually be significantly influenced for a $200?”
I think it has the appearance of impropriety.
The only real way to avoid the corrupting influence of campaign contributions is to have publicly financed campaigns. To all of those who think such spending would be “a waste of taxpayer money,” consider how much more money at all levels of government we spend in order to pay off all of those people and companies and special interest groups who give millions of dollars every year to politicians.
If we had publicly financed campaigns, we wouldn’t have a farm bill every year which hands out hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy and well-organized farmers. Farm prices for almost every crop are at record highs, and yet the avaricious farmers want to steal more money from poor people. You think we’d be better off as a country giving Soctty Pippin, for example, $100,000 a year in farmer welfare payments or using that money to buy health insurance for 10 people?
“The cost of the two projects being completed at the same time would mean an extremely large increase to the residents of Davis in their water rates.”
The only way to reduce the “hit” on Davis residents with both of these projects going forward is to greatly increase the tax base with a flood of peripheral residential development. If approached in a more timely and prudent fashion, Davis voters can retain control of their city’s development and future.
“The cost of the two projects being completed at the same time would mean an extremely large increase to the residents of Davis in their water rates.”
The only way to reduce the “hit” on Davis residents with both of these projects going forward is to greatly increase the tax base with a flood of peripheral residential development. If approached in a more timely and prudent fashion, Davis voters can retain control of their city’s development and future.
“The cost of the two projects being completed at the same time would mean an extremely large increase to the residents of Davis in their water rates.”
The only way to reduce the “hit” on Davis residents with both of these projects going forward is to greatly increase the tax base with a flood of peripheral residential development. If approached in a more timely and prudent fashion, Davis voters can retain control of their city’s development and future.
“The cost of the two projects being completed at the same time would mean an extremely large increase to the residents of Davis in their water rates.”
The only way to reduce the “hit” on Davis residents with both of these projects going forward is to greatly increase the tax base with a flood of peripheral residential development. If approached in a more timely and prudent fashion, Davis voters can retain control of their city’s development and future.
RE reverse osmosis and STD’s 7:11 A,M.
I’ve discussed the TDS/cost (the salt issue) situation with an official at the Water Resources Board and an extremely well qualified independent private sector expert, and both felt that the State was unlikely to force the city to go to a reverse osmosis wastewater treatment system, which is the “higher cost” option referred to in the earlier discussion.
Hence, the whole issue of needing to import surface water to avoid more costly wastewater treatment is probably overstated.
After talking with numerous experts, I have reason to believe that the risk to the city in terms of water rights and water quantity are probably overstated as well. It should be emphasized that the deep aquifer water is as safe or safer than Sacramento River water to drink.
We would have less risk with five fire stations, 20 more police officers, and an adequate fund to fix our dangerous sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as with importing surface water now. But we have to start doing some serious prioritizing.
With the wastewater treatment plant currently estimated at $160 million, and the surface water project at $175 million, we will end up with a cost of about $15 thousand dollars per single family unit for these two water projects alone, not counting the costs of operating and maintaining two separate water supply sources and buying surface water in the summer. This is before cost overruns kick in.
I have suggested studying the option of postponing the importing of our surface water for 25 or 30 years, until our wastewater treatment plant is paid for. The cumulative fiscal impacts of our water/wastewater projects are staggering, especially in light of existing structural deficit, our unmet needs list, and our unfunded liabilities.
RE reverse osmosis and STD’s 7:11 A,M.
I’ve discussed the TDS/cost (the salt issue) situation with an official at the Water Resources Board and an extremely well qualified independent private sector expert, and both felt that the State was unlikely to force the city to go to a reverse osmosis wastewater treatment system, which is the “higher cost” option referred to in the earlier discussion.
Hence, the whole issue of needing to import surface water to avoid more costly wastewater treatment is probably overstated.
After talking with numerous experts, I have reason to believe that the risk to the city in terms of water rights and water quantity are probably overstated as well. It should be emphasized that the deep aquifer water is as safe or safer than Sacramento River water to drink.
We would have less risk with five fire stations, 20 more police officers, and an adequate fund to fix our dangerous sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as with importing surface water now. But we have to start doing some serious prioritizing.
With the wastewater treatment plant currently estimated at $160 million, and the surface water project at $175 million, we will end up with a cost of about $15 thousand dollars per single family unit for these two water projects alone, not counting the costs of operating and maintaining two separate water supply sources and buying surface water in the summer. This is before cost overruns kick in.
I have suggested studying the option of postponing the importing of our surface water for 25 or 30 years, until our wastewater treatment plant is paid for. The cumulative fiscal impacts of our water/wastewater projects are staggering, especially in light of existing structural deficit, our unmet needs list, and our unfunded liabilities.
RE reverse osmosis and STD’s 7:11 A,M.
I’ve discussed the TDS/cost (the salt issue) situation with an official at the Water Resources Board and an extremely well qualified independent private sector expert, and both felt that the State was unlikely to force the city to go to a reverse osmosis wastewater treatment system, which is the “higher cost” option referred to in the earlier discussion.
Hence, the whole issue of needing to import surface water to avoid more costly wastewater treatment is probably overstated.
After talking with numerous experts, I have reason to believe that the risk to the city in terms of water rights and water quantity are probably overstated as well. It should be emphasized that the deep aquifer water is as safe or safer than Sacramento River water to drink.
We would have less risk with five fire stations, 20 more police officers, and an adequate fund to fix our dangerous sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as with importing surface water now. But we have to start doing some serious prioritizing.
With the wastewater treatment plant currently estimated at $160 million, and the surface water project at $175 million, we will end up with a cost of about $15 thousand dollars per single family unit for these two water projects alone, not counting the costs of operating and maintaining two separate water supply sources and buying surface water in the summer. This is before cost overruns kick in.
I have suggested studying the option of postponing the importing of our surface water for 25 or 30 years, until our wastewater treatment plant is paid for. The cumulative fiscal impacts of our water/wastewater projects are staggering, especially in light of existing structural deficit, our unmet needs list, and our unfunded liabilities.
RE reverse osmosis and STD’s 7:11 A,M.
I’ve discussed the TDS/cost (the salt issue) situation with an official at the Water Resources Board and an extremely well qualified independent private sector expert, and both felt that the State was unlikely to force the city to go to a reverse osmosis wastewater treatment system, which is the “higher cost” option referred to in the earlier discussion.
Hence, the whole issue of needing to import surface water to avoid more costly wastewater treatment is probably overstated.
After talking with numerous experts, I have reason to believe that the risk to the city in terms of water rights and water quantity are probably overstated as well. It should be emphasized that the deep aquifer water is as safe or safer than Sacramento River water to drink.
We would have less risk with five fire stations, 20 more police officers, and an adequate fund to fix our dangerous sidewalks and bike lanes, as well as with importing surface water now. But we have to start doing some serious prioritizing.
With the wastewater treatment plant currently estimated at $160 million, and the surface water project at $175 million, we will end up with a cost of about $15 thousand dollars per single family unit for these two water projects alone, not counting the costs of operating and maintaining two separate water supply sources and buying surface water in the summer. This is before cost overruns kick in.
I have suggested studying the option of postponing the importing of our surface water for 25 or 30 years, until our wastewater treatment plant is paid for. The cumulative fiscal impacts of our water/wastewater projects are staggering, especially in light of existing structural deficit, our unmet needs list, and our unfunded liabilities.
“..the project necessitates us moving forward at this time for fear of losing our place in line if we delay.
Davis voters are told to be fearful again.. a favorite strategy of Saylor and his Council Majority. A full analysis may very well reveal that Davis is now potentially so far back in the que for what is left of unallocated Sacramento river water that postponing the decision will have no significant impact on the amount of water that would be available to us. The CVRWCB Water Quality Control Plan calls for wastewater dischargers to
TAKE STEPS to reduce salinity of their effluent discharge. Other options rather than the most expensive reverse osmosis process may very well meet this CVRWCB standard..
“..the project necessitates us moving forward at this time for fear of losing our place in line if we delay.
Davis voters are told to be fearful again.. a favorite strategy of Saylor and his Council Majority. A full analysis may very well reveal that Davis is now potentially so far back in the que for what is left of unallocated Sacramento river water that postponing the decision will have no significant impact on the amount of water that would be available to us. The CVRWCB Water Quality Control Plan calls for wastewater dischargers to
TAKE STEPS to reduce salinity of their effluent discharge. Other options rather than the most expensive reverse osmosis process may very well meet this CVRWCB standard..
“..the project necessitates us moving forward at this time for fear of losing our place in line if we delay.
Davis voters are told to be fearful again.. a favorite strategy of Saylor and his Council Majority. A full analysis may very well reveal that Davis is now potentially so far back in the que for what is left of unallocated Sacramento river water that postponing the decision will have no significant impact on the amount of water that would be available to us. The CVRWCB Water Quality Control Plan calls for wastewater dischargers to
TAKE STEPS to reduce salinity of their effluent discharge. Other options rather than the most expensive reverse osmosis process may very well meet this CVRWCB standard..
“..the project necessitates us moving forward at this time for fear of losing our place in line if we delay.
Davis voters are told to be fearful again.. a favorite strategy of Saylor and his Council Majority. A full analysis may very well reveal that Davis is now potentially so far back in the que for what is left of unallocated Sacramento river water that postponing the decision will have no significant impact on the amount of water that would be available to us. The CVRWCB Water Quality Control Plan calls for wastewater dischargers to
TAKE STEPS to reduce salinity of their effluent discharge. Other options rather than the most expensive reverse osmosis process may very well meet this CVRWCB standard..
“The only way to reduce the “hit” on Davis residents with both of these projects going forward is to greatly increase the tax base with a flood of peripheral residential development.”
That is clearly their secret plan, especially since this would virtually double the water supply. How convenient.
“The only way to reduce the “hit” on Davis residents with both of these projects going forward is to greatly increase the tax base with a flood of peripheral residential development.”
That is clearly their secret plan, especially since this would virtually double the water supply. How convenient.
“The only way to reduce the “hit” on Davis residents with both of these projects going forward is to greatly increase the tax base with a flood of peripheral residential development.”
That is clearly their secret plan, especially since this would virtually double the water supply. How convenient.
“The only way to reduce the “hit” on Davis residents with both of these projects going forward is to greatly increase the tax base with a flood of peripheral residential development.”
That is clearly their secret plan, especially since this would virtually double the water supply. How convenient.
There is no secret plan to promote growth by adding to the Davis water supply. I first discussed the possibility that Sacramento River water was being considered for Davis with a city official in the mid-1980’s. This has been studied and analyzed over and over again.
The issues primarily are how to finance it, Sue Greenwald’s concern about incurring simultaneous debt, and how the rates would be structured. The safety of surface water is a red herring, and restricting water supplies is a shortsighted method of growth management.
There is no secret plan to promote growth by adding to the Davis water supply. I first discussed the possibility that Sacramento River water was being considered for Davis with a city official in the mid-1980’s. This has been studied and analyzed over and over again.
The issues primarily are how to finance it, Sue Greenwald’s concern about incurring simultaneous debt, and how the rates would be structured. The safety of surface water is a red herring, and restricting water supplies is a shortsighted method of growth management.
There is no secret plan to promote growth by adding to the Davis water supply. I first discussed the possibility that Sacramento River water was being considered for Davis with a city official in the mid-1980’s. This has been studied and analyzed over and over again.
The issues primarily are how to finance it, Sue Greenwald’s concern about incurring simultaneous debt, and how the rates would be structured. The safety of surface water is a red herring, and restricting water supplies is a shortsighted method of growth management.
There is no secret plan to promote growth by adding to the Davis water supply. I first discussed the possibility that Sacramento River water was being considered for Davis with a city official in the mid-1980’s. This has been studied and analyzed over and over again.
The issues primarily are how to finance it, Sue Greenwald’s concern about incurring simultaneous debt, and how the rates would be structured. The safety of surface water is a red herring, and restricting water supplies is a shortsighted method of growth management.
Don Shor, you may think that there is no secret plan to promote growth, but it’s not what others think. Quite frankly, I do not think it’s secret I think it is quite clear, open and telling that the majority of council members at this time are promoting growth. They are promoting growth that is not in alignment with what the residents of Davis want.
It is time for a change.
Don Shor, you may think that there is no secret plan to promote growth, but it’s not what others think. Quite frankly, I do not think it’s secret I think it is quite clear, open and telling that the majority of council members at this time are promoting growth. They are promoting growth that is not in alignment with what the residents of Davis want.
It is time for a change.
Don Shor, you may think that there is no secret plan to promote growth, but it’s not what others think. Quite frankly, I do not think it’s secret I think it is quite clear, open and telling that the majority of council members at this time are promoting growth. They are promoting growth that is not in alignment with what the residents of Davis want.
It is time for a change.
Don Shor, you may think that there is no secret plan to promote growth, but it’s not what others think. Quite frankly, I do not think it’s secret I think it is quite clear, open and telling that the majority of council members at this time are promoting growth. They are promoting growth that is not in alignment with what the residents of Davis want.
It is time for a change.
I was reading through this and taking it fairly seriously… until I got to the end, where it explains that the total campaign contributions were $200.
That’s practically nothing. It takes a lot more than that for me to be suspicious of money driving policy.
We know you hate Saylor, I’m no fan either, but this is conspiracy theory stuff, David. They made a miniscule (probably minimum) level campaign donation because he wants what they want. Or because they’re friends, thus the picture.
I was reading through this and taking it fairly seriously… until I got to the end, where it explains that the total campaign contributions were $200.
That’s practically nothing. It takes a lot more than that for me to be suspicious of money driving policy.
We know you hate Saylor, I’m no fan either, but this is conspiracy theory stuff, David. They made a miniscule (probably minimum) level campaign donation because he wants what they want. Or because they’re friends, thus the picture.
I was reading through this and taking it fairly seriously… until I got to the end, where it explains that the total campaign contributions were $200.
That’s practically nothing. It takes a lot more than that for me to be suspicious of money driving policy.
We know you hate Saylor, I’m no fan either, but this is conspiracy theory stuff, David. They made a miniscule (probably minimum) level campaign donation because he wants what they want. Or because they’re friends, thus the picture.
I was reading through this and taking it fairly seriously… until I got to the end, where it explains that the total campaign contributions were $200.
That’s practically nothing. It takes a lot more than that for me to be suspicious of money driving policy.
We know you hate Saylor, I’m no fan either, but this is conspiracy theory stuff, David. They made a miniscule (probably minimum) level campaign donation because he wants what they want. Or because they’re friends, thus the picture.
And he’s not doing favors for his friends by pushing through huge contracts?
And he’s not doing favors for his friends by pushing through huge contracts?
And he’s not doing favors for his friends by pushing through huge contracts?
And he’s not doing favors for his friends by pushing through huge contracts?
In the financing of Davis Council election campaigns, $100 individual contributions arrive by the sackful from total strangers(to the candidates themselves), which have been organized and “solicited” by powerful special interests who support the candidate.
In the financing of Davis Council election campaigns, $100 individual contributions arrive by the sackful from total strangers(to the candidates themselves), which have been organized and “solicited” by powerful special interests who support the candidate.
In the financing of Davis Council election campaigns, $100 individual contributions arrive by the sackful from total strangers(to the candidates themselves), which have been organized and “solicited” by powerful special interests who support the candidate.
In the financing of Davis Council election campaigns, $100 individual contributions arrive by the sackful from total strangers(to the candidates themselves), which have been organized and “solicited” by powerful special interests who support the candidate.
I wonder if people who cry foul about $100 donations have ever in their lives read a campaign finance report.
You can just walk up to the city and ask for them, you know.
I wonder if people who cry foul about $100 donations have ever in their lives read a campaign finance report.
You can just walk up to the city and ask for them, you know.
I wonder if people who cry foul about $100 donations have ever in their lives read a campaign finance report.
You can just walk up to the city and ask for them, you know.
I wonder if people who cry foul about $100 donations have ever in their lives read a campaign finance report.
You can just walk up to the city and ask for them, you know.
To the anons @ 9:34 and 3:49:
The $100 is actually the campaign MAXIMUM for davis city council races, not the minimum, and as long time davis voter reminded us, these contributions come in @ large #s from equally anonymous non-residents. While it may seem like its a small donation, it is very hard to track the cummulative effect of these dispersed hundreds, and any/all of the non-quantifiable (or at least not easily quantifiable) precinct walking, phonebanking, and other efforts made by these groups on candidates behalfs.
Hell, even letting your real estate office (Or pool cleaning business) be the site of an after hours phonebanking operation is a valuable contribution.
To the anons @ 9:34 and 3:49:
The $100 is actually the campaign MAXIMUM for davis city council races, not the minimum, and as long time davis voter reminded us, these contributions come in @ large #s from equally anonymous non-residents. While it may seem like its a small donation, it is very hard to track the cummulative effect of these dispersed hundreds, and any/all of the non-quantifiable (or at least not easily quantifiable) precinct walking, phonebanking, and other efforts made by these groups on candidates behalfs.
Hell, even letting your real estate office (Or pool cleaning business) be the site of an after hours phonebanking operation is a valuable contribution.
To the anons @ 9:34 and 3:49:
The $100 is actually the campaign MAXIMUM for davis city council races, not the minimum, and as long time davis voter reminded us, these contributions come in @ large #s from equally anonymous non-residents. While it may seem like its a small donation, it is very hard to track the cummulative effect of these dispersed hundreds, and any/all of the non-quantifiable (or at least not easily quantifiable) precinct walking, phonebanking, and other efforts made by these groups on candidates behalfs.
Hell, even letting your real estate office (Or pool cleaning business) be the site of an after hours phonebanking operation is a valuable contribution.
To the anons @ 9:34 and 3:49:
The $100 is actually the campaign MAXIMUM for davis city council races, not the minimum, and as long time davis voter reminded us, these contributions come in @ large #s from equally anonymous non-residents. While it may seem like its a small donation, it is very hard to track the cummulative effect of these dispersed hundreds, and any/all of the non-quantifiable (or at least not easily quantifiable) precinct walking, phonebanking, and other efforts made by these groups on candidates behalfs.
Hell, even letting your real estate office (Or pool cleaning business) be the site of an after hours phonebanking operation is a valuable contribution.
So what you’re saying is there’s still absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing but there’s all kinds of ways of implying it?
Nice. This is the same kind of crap we hear on Fox about Obama’s Madrassa education.
So what you’re saying is there’s still absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing but there’s all kinds of ways of implying it?
Nice. This is the same kind of crap we hear on Fox about Obama’s Madrassa education.
So what you’re saying is there’s still absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing but there’s all kinds of ways of implying it?
Nice. This is the same kind of crap we hear on Fox about Obama’s Madrassa education.
So what you’re saying is there’s still absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing but there’s all kinds of ways of implying it?
Nice. This is the same kind of crap we hear on Fox about Obama’s Madrassa education.
The greenwalds are full of it per usual.
The greenwalds are full of it per usual.
The greenwalds are full of it per usual.
The greenwalds are full of it per usual.