Davis Talks the Talk on Global Warming

Share:
But Other Cities Like Berkeley are walking the walk.

In an effort to help fight global warming, the city of Davis has vowed to stop selling or using disposable water bottles at city events or city concession stands.

One idea was to sell reusable water bottles with the city logo on one side and instructions on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the other side.

Even City Councilmember Don Saylor seemed to acknowledge it was symbolic:

“In some ways, this resolution will be largely symbolic, a way for the public to see us doing something… It’s a way to get the word out. Every small thing makes a difference.”

One intriguing aspect that I would like to see the city do is what they did at the Whole Earth Festival–in addition to no disposable cups, they also charged a deposit on all plates and cups so that people would return them for them to be composted. No reason that the city as a whole cannot adopt those policies and not just for city sponsored events.

However, you will forgive me if I say that I have grown tired of this city council’s rhetoric on global warming.

Last spring, there was a long and lengthy debate over whether a new housing development ought to be required to install solar panels on the roofs. Such an endeavor would add a large cost of perhaps $20,000 to the property, but that would have a very real impact on greenhouse gas emissions. Much more than say, banning the city from using disposable cups.

Along those lines this week, the City of Berkeley put Davis in its place and showed Davis who was the boss and the leader in terms of environmental thinking. I know there is a natural resentment in Davis to anything Berkeley. My only response to that is to get over it.

According to an article yesterday in the San Francisco Chronicle,

“Berkeley is set to become the first city in the nation to help thousands of its residents generate solar power without having to put money up front – attempting to surmount one of the biggest hurdles for people who don’t have enough cash to go green.

The City Council will vote Nov. 6 on a plan for the city to finance the cost of solar panels for property owners who agree to pay it back with a 20-year assessment on their property. Over two decades, the taxes would be the same or less than what property owners would save on their electric bills, officials say.”

Now officials in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, and some state agencies are looking into the plan. Where is Davis on this list?

“This is how Berkeley’s program would work:

A property owner would hire a city-approved solar installer, who would determine the best solar system for the property, depending on energy use. Most residential solar panel systems in the city cost from $15,000 to $20,000.

The city would pay the contractor for the system and its installation, minus any applicable state and federal rebates, and would add an assessment to the property owner’s tax bill to pay for the system.

The extra tax would include administrative fees and interest, which would be lower than what the property owner could obtain on his own, because the city would secure low-interest bonds and loans, officials say. The tax would stay with the property even if the owner sold, although the owner would have to leave the solar panels.

The property owner would save money on monthly Pacific Gas & Electric bill because electricity generated by the solar panels would partly replace electricity delivered by the utility. After the assessment expired, the solar panels – of a simple technology that requires little or no maintenance – would continue to partly replace PG&E electricity.

Bates’ chief of staff, Cisco DeVries, came up with the idea about eight months ago when he was looking for ways the city could meet its goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under a measure that Berkeley voters approved last year. Measure G mandates that the city cut its greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050…

If the plan succeeds, Berkeley would be about 10 percent closer to its Measure G target, Burroughs said. Solar panels shouldn’t be a tough sell in Berkeley, he said, which already has more solar systems per capita than any other Northern California city.”

I actually think that is a conservative guess as to how much the taxpayer/ ratepayer might save on electricity. For instance, I know someone who installed solar panels, and now does not have an electricity bill from PG&E. That is probably not realistic for some, but the amount of cost mitigated by solar panels would make sense over the long term. However, many people do not have a 20 year or even 10 year interest, the city of course does.

This is something that the city of Davis ought to look into if they are serious about moving being symbolic measures and wish to help lead the way toward green energy and reductions of greenhouse gases.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

92 thoughts on “Davis Talks the Talk on Global Warming”

  1. davisite

    What an invigorating idea to wake up to on a Saturday morning to wash away the enervating pall of political pessimism and hopelessness that seems to currently hang over our city. New economic paradigms are out there and REAL! They are not utopian fantasy.

  2. davisite

    What an invigorating idea to wake up to on a Saturday morning to wash away the enervating pall of political pessimism and hopelessness that seems to currently hang over our city. New economic paradigms are out there and REAL! They are not utopian fantasy.

  3. davisite

    What an invigorating idea to wake up to on a Saturday morning to wash away the enervating pall of political pessimism and hopelessness that seems to currently hang over our city. New economic paradigms are out there and REAL! They are not utopian fantasy.

  4. davisite

    What an invigorating idea to wake up to on a Saturday morning to wash away the enervating pall of political pessimism and hopelessness that seems to currently hang over our city. New economic paradigms are out there and REAL! They are not utopian fantasy.

  5. SAH

    Davis has an advantage over many other communites – open space in direct line to the sun(fewer cloudy days than the Bay Area, no hills and very few large trees). If the community is serious about this then it really should consider placing a solar farm in the green belt area. A solar farm would be far cheaper to install and maintain than individual units on top of houses.

    Perhaps the first thing to done would be to mandate 100% use of CFL’s – every bulb replaced represents an 80% reduction of electricty use for the same amount of light.

  6. SAH

    Davis has an advantage over many other communites – open space in direct line to the sun(fewer cloudy days than the Bay Area, no hills and very few large trees). If the community is serious about this then it really should consider placing a solar farm in the green belt area. A solar farm would be far cheaper to install and maintain than individual units on top of houses.

    Perhaps the first thing to done would be to mandate 100% use of CFL’s – every bulb replaced represents an 80% reduction of electricty use for the same amount of light.

  7. SAH

    Davis has an advantage over many other communites – open space in direct line to the sun(fewer cloudy days than the Bay Area, no hills and very few large trees). If the community is serious about this then it really should consider placing a solar farm in the green belt area. A solar farm would be far cheaper to install and maintain than individual units on top of houses.

    Perhaps the first thing to done would be to mandate 100% use of CFL’s – every bulb replaced represents an 80% reduction of electricty use for the same amount of light.

  8. SAH

    Davis has an advantage over many other communites – open space in direct line to the sun(fewer cloudy days than the Bay Area, no hills and very few large trees). If the community is serious about this then it really should consider placing a solar farm in the green belt area. A solar farm would be far cheaper to install and maintain than individual units on top of houses.

    Perhaps the first thing to done would be to mandate 100% use of CFL’s – every bulb replaced represents an 80% reduction of electricty use for the same amount of light.

  9. Anonymous

    I actually watched the Tuesday CC “debate” on the water bottles … and Saylor put into the motion an exception if the City Manager thought the bottles might be allowed, at his discretion. So the “ban” means little or nothing. Why isnt the city looking at the efficiency of its large fleet of gas and diesel fuel guzzling vehicles? What about the lights in Community Chambers? They are clearly “low hanging fruit” that could be easily replaced with modern bulbs. But … staff basically dont want to be bothered. So staff ties up precious CC agenda time on a meaningless ban on plastic water bottles? Watching it Tuesday night made me sick, and once again I vowed not to watch CC meetings again. So I wont, until next time …. Dear God, wont someone run for CC this time and replace one or two of the idiots?

  10. Anonymous

    I actually watched the Tuesday CC “debate” on the water bottles … and Saylor put into the motion an exception if the City Manager thought the bottles might be allowed, at his discretion. So the “ban” means little or nothing. Why isnt the city looking at the efficiency of its large fleet of gas and diesel fuel guzzling vehicles? What about the lights in Community Chambers? They are clearly “low hanging fruit” that could be easily replaced with modern bulbs. But … staff basically dont want to be bothered. So staff ties up precious CC agenda time on a meaningless ban on plastic water bottles? Watching it Tuesday night made me sick, and once again I vowed not to watch CC meetings again. So I wont, until next time …. Dear God, wont someone run for CC this time and replace one or two of the idiots?

  11. Anonymous

    I actually watched the Tuesday CC “debate” on the water bottles … and Saylor put into the motion an exception if the City Manager thought the bottles might be allowed, at his discretion. So the “ban” means little or nothing. Why isnt the city looking at the efficiency of its large fleet of gas and diesel fuel guzzling vehicles? What about the lights in Community Chambers? They are clearly “low hanging fruit” that could be easily replaced with modern bulbs. But … staff basically dont want to be bothered. So staff ties up precious CC agenda time on a meaningless ban on plastic water bottles? Watching it Tuesday night made me sick, and once again I vowed not to watch CC meetings again. So I wont, until next time …. Dear God, wont someone run for CC this time and replace one or two of the idiots?

  12. Anonymous

    I actually watched the Tuesday CC “debate” on the water bottles … and Saylor put into the motion an exception if the City Manager thought the bottles might be allowed, at his discretion. So the “ban” means little or nothing. Why isnt the city looking at the efficiency of its large fleet of gas and diesel fuel guzzling vehicles? What about the lights in Community Chambers? They are clearly “low hanging fruit” that could be easily replaced with modern bulbs. But … staff basically dont want to be bothered. So staff ties up precious CC agenda time on a meaningless ban on plastic water bottles? Watching it Tuesday night made me sick, and once again I vowed not to watch CC meetings again. So I wont, until next time …. Dear God, wont someone run for CC this time and replace one or two of the idiots?

  13. Anonymous

    I don’t think people should be so quick to dismiss the council’s action – water bottles are becoming a serious environmental problem and the council’s action brings awareness to the problem and attempts to begin to change how society views the use of disposable bottles. The council should be commended for doing something that is very cheap, yet potentially effective, and somewhat ahead of the curve.

    Instead of criticizing the council for not fixing all of the world’s environmental problems, I think people should at least recognize that their action is an important first step.

    Now, how about banning wood burning stoves?

  14. Anonymous

    I don’t think people should be so quick to dismiss the council’s action – water bottles are becoming a serious environmental problem and the council’s action brings awareness to the problem and attempts to begin to change how society views the use of disposable bottles. The council should be commended for doing something that is very cheap, yet potentially effective, and somewhat ahead of the curve.

    Instead of criticizing the council for not fixing all of the world’s environmental problems, I think people should at least recognize that their action is an important first step.

    Now, how about banning wood burning stoves?

  15. Anonymous

    I don’t think people should be so quick to dismiss the council’s action – water bottles are becoming a serious environmental problem and the council’s action brings awareness to the problem and attempts to begin to change how society views the use of disposable bottles. The council should be commended for doing something that is very cheap, yet potentially effective, and somewhat ahead of the curve.

    Instead of criticizing the council for not fixing all of the world’s environmental problems, I think people should at least recognize that their action is an important first step.

    Now, how about banning wood burning stoves?

  16. Anonymous

    I don’t think people should be so quick to dismiss the council’s action – water bottles are becoming a serious environmental problem and the council’s action brings awareness to the problem and attempts to begin to change how society views the use of disposable bottles. The council should be commended for doing something that is very cheap, yet potentially effective, and somewhat ahead of the curve.

    Instead of criticizing the council for not fixing all of the world’s environmental problems, I think people should at least recognize that their action is an important first step.

    Now, how about banning wood burning stoves?

  17. 無名 - wu ming

    wood burning stoves are roughly carbon-neutral (trees breathe in carbon dioxide, burning wood releases it), compared with the alternative of natural gas heating. of all the things on the agenda, i’d put them relatively low.

    the solar panel thing is a brilliant idea, and i hope the city council follows suit. come t think of it, putting an array of working solar panels on the never-functional solar panels in community park would generate a fair amount of energy, no?

  18. 無名 - wu ming

    wood burning stoves are roughly carbon-neutral (trees breathe in carbon dioxide, burning wood releases it), compared with the alternative of natural gas heating. of all the things on the agenda, i’d put them relatively low.

    the solar panel thing is a brilliant idea, and i hope the city council follows suit. come t think of it, putting an array of working solar panels on the never-functional solar panels in community park would generate a fair amount of energy, no?

  19. 無名 - wu ming

    wood burning stoves are roughly carbon-neutral (trees breathe in carbon dioxide, burning wood releases it), compared with the alternative of natural gas heating. of all the things on the agenda, i’d put them relatively low.

    the solar panel thing is a brilliant idea, and i hope the city council follows suit. come t think of it, putting an array of working solar panels on the never-functional solar panels in community park would generate a fair amount of energy, no?

  20. 無名 - wu ming

    wood burning stoves are roughly carbon-neutral (trees breathe in carbon dioxide, burning wood releases it), compared with the alternative of natural gas heating. of all the things on the agenda, i’d put them relatively low.

    the solar panel thing is a brilliant idea, and i hope the city council follows suit. come t think of it, putting an array of working solar panels on the never-functional solar panels in community park would generate a fair amount of energy, no?

  21. Anonymous

    Wood burning may be relatively carbon neutral but it is far from neutral when it comes to small particulates (PM 10, PM2.5, and smaller) that can lodge deep in our lungs and cause respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function. According to the Sacramento Air Quality Management District, in winter months nearly half of the small particulate pollution comes from wood burning fireplaces. On average, a single, 24 hour fire in an open-hearth fireplace will release between 1.6 and 3.1 pounds of PM 10 particulate matter pollution. Wood smoke contains hundreds of chemical compounds as well, including carbon monoxide and organic gases, some of which have shown cancer-causing properties. The small particulates released by wood burning create serious health problems and a number of health studies havae established a direct link elevated particulate levels and increases in death rates.

    Check out http://www.yolocleanair.org

  22. Anonymous

    Wood burning may be relatively carbon neutral but it is far from neutral when it comes to small particulates (PM 10, PM2.5, and smaller) that can lodge deep in our lungs and cause respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function. According to the Sacramento Air Quality Management District, in winter months nearly half of the small particulate pollution comes from wood burning fireplaces. On average, a single, 24 hour fire in an open-hearth fireplace will release between 1.6 and 3.1 pounds of PM 10 particulate matter pollution. Wood smoke contains hundreds of chemical compounds as well, including carbon monoxide and organic gases, some of which have shown cancer-causing properties. The small particulates released by wood burning create serious health problems and a number of health studies havae established a direct link elevated particulate levels and increases in death rates.

    Check out http://www.yolocleanair.org

  23. Anonymous

    Wood burning may be relatively carbon neutral but it is far from neutral when it comes to small particulates (PM 10, PM2.5, and smaller) that can lodge deep in our lungs and cause respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function. According to the Sacramento Air Quality Management District, in winter months nearly half of the small particulate pollution comes from wood burning fireplaces. On average, a single, 24 hour fire in an open-hearth fireplace will release between 1.6 and 3.1 pounds of PM 10 particulate matter pollution. Wood smoke contains hundreds of chemical compounds as well, including carbon monoxide and organic gases, some of which have shown cancer-causing properties. The small particulates released by wood burning create serious health problems and a number of health studies havae established a direct link elevated particulate levels and increases in death rates.

    Check out http://www.yolocleanair.org

  24. Anonymous

    Wood burning may be relatively carbon neutral but it is far from neutral when it comes to small particulates (PM 10, PM2.5, and smaller) that can lodge deep in our lungs and cause respiratory diseases such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and decreased lung function. According to the Sacramento Air Quality Management District, in winter months nearly half of the small particulate pollution comes from wood burning fireplaces. On average, a single, 24 hour fire in an open-hearth fireplace will release between 1.6 and 3.1 pounds of PM 10 particulate matter pollution. Wood smoke contains hundreds of chemical compounds as well, including carbon monoxide and organic gases, some of which have shown cancer-causing properties. The small particulates released by wood burning create serious health problems and a number of health studies havae established a direct link elevated particulate levels and increases in death rates.

    Check out http://www.yolocleanair.org

  25. Anonymous

    I support the council’s first timid steps into banning the use of bottled water at city events, but they need to go much further. I would support a ban on the sale of all bottled water in Davis. What did we ever do before water appeared in bottles? We actually drank our own tap water and we used our own water from home in our own containers from home when we went to community or other events. Plastic water bottles are a huge problem environmentally and bottling water has become a huge profit machine for a few large corporations. Water belongs to us all, not companies like Nestles. Quit buying bottled water!

  26. Anonymous

    I support the council’s first timid steps into banning the use of bottled water at city events, but they need to go much further. I would support a ban on the sale of all bottled water in Davis. What did we ever do before water appeared in bottles? We actually drank our own tap water and we used our own water from home in our own containers from home when we went to community or other events. Plastic water bottles are a huge problem environmentally and bottling water has become a huge profit machine for a few large corporations. Water belongs to us all, not companies like Nestles. Quit buying bottled water!

  27. Anonymous

    I support the council’s first timid steps into banning the use of bottled water at city events, but they need to go much further. I would support a ban on the sale of all bottled water in Davis. What did we ever do before water appeared in bottles? We actually drank our own tap water and we used our own water from home in our own containers from home when we went to community or other events. Plastic water bottles are a huge problem environmentally and bottling water has become a huge profit machine for a few large corporations. Water belongs to us all, not companies like Nestles. Quit buying bottled water!

  28. Anonymous

    I support the council’s first timid steps into banning the use of bottled water at city events, but they need to go much further. I would support a ban on the sale of all bottled water in Davis. What did we ever do before water appeared in bottles? We actually drank our own tap water and we used our own water from home in our own containers from home when we went to community or other events. Plastic water bottles are a huge problem environmentally and bottling water has become a huge profit machine for a few large corporations. Water belongs to us all, not companies like Nestles. Quit buying bottled water!

  29. Sue Greenwald

    David Greenwald (A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis) is right, but he has only told part of the story. The recently approved subdivision to which he refers is a subdivisions of 4,000 S.F. houses.

    When I made a motion to put some reasonable size limitations on these houses, I didn’t even get a second. (David Greenwald defended the jumbo-sized houses at the time).

    Large house size is both directly and indirectly responsible excessive greenhouse gas emissions, through energy used in its construction materials and higher per capita emissions involved in heating, cooling and maintaining–not to mention the environmental costs of sprawl.

    After I lost the battle to reduce the size of the houses, Lamar made a motion to require solar heating. I seconded the mention but it lost 3-2. Then I made a motion to require half the houses to be solar heated, and it lost 3-2 as well.

    David is absolutely right. The council majority has been heavy on the rhetoric, but exceedingly weak on the most meaningful actions.

    I am not in favor of densification to the point that people are driven from their homes to vacation homes in the country every weekend, as I saw too much of in Barcelona, which is frequently touted as the epitome of smart growth. I believe that, pushed too far, this can be counter-productive when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

    But I think we can find a comfortable middle ground with neighborhoods of smaller houses and neighborhoods of higher density condominiums on our larger underused lots where the multi-family communities can be attractively master-planned.

    My vision is a community which is significantly denser, but still attractive enough the keep us from getting in the car every weekend and the airplane every vacation.

  30. Sue Greenwald

    David Greenwald (A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis) is right, but he has only told part of the story. The recently approved subdivision to which he refers is a subdivisions of 4,000 S.F. houses.

    When I made a motion to put some reasonable size limitations on these houses, I didn’t even get a second. (David Greenwald defended the jumbo-sized houses at the time).

    Large house size is both directly and indirectly responsible excessive greenhouse gas emissions, through energy used in its construction materials and higher per capita emissions involved in heating, cooling and maintaining–not to mention the environmental costs of sprawl.

    After I lost the battle to reduce the size of the houses, Lamar made a motion to require solar heating. I seconded the mention but it lost 3-2. Then I made a motion to require half the houses to be solar heated, and it lost 3-2 as well.

    David is absolutely right. The council majority has been heavy on the rhetoric, but exceedingly weak on the most meaningful actions.

    I am not in favor of densification to the point that people are driven from their homes to vacation homes in the country every weekend, as I saw too much of in Barcelona, which is frequently touted as the epitome of smart growth. I believe that, pushed too far, this can be counter-productive when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

    But I think we can find a comfortable middle ground with neighborhoods of smaller houses and neighborhoods of higher density condominiums on our larger underused lots where the multi-family communities can be attractively master-planned.

    My vision is a community which is significantly denser, but still attractive enough the keep us from getting in the car every weekend and the airplane every vacation.

  31. Sue Greenwald

    David Greenwald (A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis) is right, but he has only told part of the story. The recently approved subdivision to which he refers is a subdivisions of 4,000 S.F. houses.

    When I made a motion to put some reasonable size limitations on these houses, I didn’t even get a second. (David Greenwald defended the jumbo-sized houses at the time).

    Large house size is both directly and indirectly responsible excessive greenhouse gas emissions, through energy used in its construction materials and higher per capita emissions involved in heating, cooling and maintaining–not to mention the environmental costs of sprawl.

    After I lost the battle to reduce the size of the houses, Lamar made a motion to require solar heating. I seconded the mention but it lost 3-2. Then I made a motion to require half the houses to be solar heated, and it lost 3-2 as well.

    David is absolutely right. The council majority has been heavy on the rhetoric, but exceedingly weak on the most meaningful actions.

    I am not in favor of densification to the point that people are driven from their homes to vacation homes in the country every weekend, as I saw too much of in Barcelona, which is frequently touted as the epitome of smart growth. I believe that, pushed too far, this can be counter-productive when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

    But I think we can find a comfortable middle ground with neighborhoods of smaller houses and neighborhoods of higher density condominiums on our larger underused lots where the multi-family communities can be attractively master-planned.

    My vision is a community which is significantly denser, but still attractive enough the keep us from getting in the car every weekend and the airplane every vacation.

  32. Sue Greenwald

    David Greenwald (A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis) is right, but he has only told part of the story. The recently approved subdivision to which he refers is a subdivisions of 4,000 S.F. houses.

    When I made a motion to put some reasonable size limitations on these houses, I didn’t even get a second. (David Greenwald defended the jumbo-sized houses at the time).

    Large house size is both directly and indirectly responsible excessive greenhouse gas emissions, through energy used in its construction materials and higher per capita emissions involved in heating, cooling and maintaining–not to mention the environmental costs of sprawl.

    After I lost the battle to reduce the size of the houses, Lamar made a motion to require solar heating. I seconded the mention but it lost 3-2. Then I made a motion to require half the houses to be solar heated, and it lost 3-2 as well.

    David is absolutely right. The council majority has been heavy on the rhetoric, but exceedingly weak on the most meaningful actions.

    I am not in favor of densification to the point that people are driven from their homes to vacation homes in the country every weekend, as I saw too much of in Barcelona, which is frequently touted as the epitome of smart growth. I believe that, pushed too far, this can be counter-productive when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions.

    But I think we can find a comfortable middle ground with neighborhoods of smaller houses and neighborhoods of higher density condominiums on our larger underused lots where the multi-family communities can be attractively master-planned.

    My vision is a community which is significantly denser, but still attractive enough the keep us from getting in the car every weekend and the airplane every vacation.

  33. Anonymous

    Sue I think you are wrong about David. He would not support Big Houses or Mansions as you stated. Where or when did he state this?

    Also, try listening a bit more instead of always talking about “my vision is…”

    What about OUR vision? Show some concern instead of always being concerned about Sue.

    P.T.

  34. Anonymous

    Sue I think you are wrong about David. He would not support Big Houses or Mansions as you stated. Where or when did he state this?

    Also, try listening a bit more instead of always talking about “my vision is…”

    What about OUR vision? Show some concern instead of always being concerned about Sue.

    P.T.

  35. Anonymous

    Sue I think you are wrong about David. He would not support Big Houses or Mansions as you stated. Where or when did he state this?

    Also, try listening a bit more instead of always talking about “my vision is…”

    What about OUR vision? Show some concern instead of always being concerned about Sue.

    P.T.

  36. Anonymous

    Sue I think you are wrong about David. He would not support Big Houses or Mansions as you stated. Where or when did he state this?

    Also, try listening a bit more instead of always talking about “my vision is…”

    What about OUR vision? Show some concern instead of always being concerned about Sue.

    P.T.

  37. Sue Greenwald

    Yes. When this vote occurred, I talked with David and asked him why he didn’t cover it on this blog. We had a long conversation about it. He said that he agreed with the decision of the council majority. He went along with the reasoning that Don Saylor and Steve Souza gave, i.e., the houses in the adjacent neighborhood averaged 4,000s.f., so requiring houses any smaller would be “out of character with the neighborhood”. Yes, he opposed my very modest motion to limit half of the houses to 3,000 s.f., and half to 2,400 s.f.

    Until this vote, I too thought this was “our vision”. I hope that I can refer to it is “our vision” soon.

  38. Sue Greenwald

    Yes. When this vote occurred, I talked with David and asked him why he didn’t cover it on this blog. We had a long conversation about it. He said that he agreed with the decision of the council majority. He went along with the reasoning that Don Saylor and Steve Souza gave, i.e., the houses in the adjacent neighborhood averaged 4,000s.f., so requiring houses any smaller would be “out of character with the neighborhood”. Yes, he opposed my very modest motion to limit half of the houses to 3,000 s.f., and half to 2,400 s.f.

    Until this vote, I too thought this was “our vision”. I hope that I can refer to it is “our vision” soon.

  39. Sue Greenwald

    Yes. When this vote occurred, I talked with David and asked him why he didn’t cover it on this blog. We had a long conversation about it. He said that he agreed with the decision of the council majority. He went along with the reasoning that Don Saylor and Steve Souza gave, i.e., the houses in the adjacent neighborhood averaged 4,000s.f., so requiring houses any smaller would be “out of character with the neighborhood”. Yes, he opposed my very modest motion to limit half of the houses to 3,000 s.f., and half to 2,400 s.f.

    Until this vote, I too thought this was “our vision”. I hope that I can refer to it is “our vision” soon.

  40. Sue Greenwald

    Yes. When this vote occurred, I talked with David and asked him why he didn’t cover it on this blog. We had a long conversation about it. He said that he agreed with the decision of the council majority. He went along with the reasoning that Don Saylor and Steve Souza gave, i.e., the houses in the adjacent neighborhood averaged 4,000s.f., so requiring houses any smaller would be “out of character with the neighborhood”. Yes, he opposed my very modest motion to limit half of the houses to 3,000 s.f., and half to 2,400 s.f.

    Until this vote, I too thought this was “our vision”. I hope that I can refer to it is “our vision” soon.

  41. Anonymous

    Sorry Sue, I don’t believe you. You take people’s words and twist them. You may be correct on this and you may not be.

    It would seem most appropriate it you would just ask DPD (David) instead of accusing. Since you were the only one there how are we to believe you. You have put words in people’s mouths before and we’re tired of it to be honest.

    You need to stop. Stop being so self-centered and start listenin to people. You seem to have lost your inclination to listen.

    P.T.

  42. Anonymous

    Sorry Sue, I don’t believe you. You take people’s words and twist them. You may be correct on this and you may not be.

    It would seem most appropriate it you would just ask DPD (David) instead of accusing. Since you were the only one there how are we to believe you. You have put words in people’s mouths before and we’re tired of it to be honest.

    You need to stop. Stop being so self-centered and start listenin to people. You seem to have lost your inclination to listen.

    P.T.

  43. Anonymous

    Sorry Sue, I don’t believe you. You take people’s words and twist them. You may be correct on this and you may not be.

    It would seem most appropriate it you would just ask DPD (David) instead of accusing. Since you were the only one there how are we to believe you. You have put words in people’s mouths before and we’re tired of it to be honest.

    You need to stop. Stop being so self-centered and start listenin to people. You seem to have lost your inclination to listen.

    P.T.

  44. Anonymous

    Sorry Sue, I don’t believe you. You take people’s words and twist them. You may be correct on this and you may not be.

    It would seem most appropriate it you would just ask DPD (David) instead of accusing. Since you were the only one there how are we to believe you. You have put words in people’s mouths before and we’re tired of it to be honest.

    You need to stop. Stop being so self-centered and start listenin to people. You seem to have lost your inclination to listen.

    P.T.

  45. Anonymous

    What Sue of course does not mention is that Lamar also went along with that vote, for the same reason as Souza and Saylor. But of course she doesn’t mention that part here. I wonder why????

  46. Anonymous

    What Sue of course does not mention is that Lamar also went along with that vote, for the same reason as Souza and Saylor. But of course she doesn’t mention that part here. I wonder why????

  47. Anonymous

    What Sue of course does not mention is that Lamar also went along with that vote, for the same reason as Souza and Saylor. But of course she doesn’t mention that part here. I wonder why????

  48. Anonymous

    What Sue of course does not mention is that Lamar also went along with that vote, for the same reason as Souza and Saylor. But of course she doesn’t mention that part here. I wonder why????

  49. dufus

    “When I made a motion to put some reasonable size limitations on these houses, I didn’t even get a second.”

    Sue said she did not get a second. In other words, Anon 5:20, Lamar did not vote with her on that issue.

  50. dufus

    “When I made a motion to put some reasonable size limitations on these houses, I didn’t even get a second.”

    Sue said she did not get a second. In other words, Anon 5:20, Lamar did not vote with her on that issue.

  51. dufus

    “When I made a motion to put some reasonable size limitations on these houses, I didn’t even get a second.”

    Sue said she did not get a second. In other words, Anon 5:20, Lamar did not vote with her on that issue.

  52. dufus

    “When I made a motion to put some reasonable size limitations on these houses, I didn’t even get a second.”

    Sue said she did not get a second. In other words, Anon 5:20, Lamar did not vote with her on that issue.

  53. Anonymous

    I’m aware of that dufus (how nice of you to pick that name). The point I was making is that she chose to attack DPD for siding with Souza and Saylor rather than attacking him for siding with Lamar, which is most likely what he decided to do.

  54. Anonymous

    I’m aware of that dufus (how nice of you to pick that name). The point I was making is that she chose to attack DPD for siding with Souza and Saylor rather than attacking him for siding with Lamar, which is most likely what he decided to do.

  55. Anonymous

    I’m aware of that dufus (how nice of you to pick that name). The point I was making is that she chose to attack DPD for siding with Souza and Saylor rather than attacking him for siding with Lamar, which is most likely what he decided to do.

  56. Anonymous

    I’m aware of that dufus (how nice of you to pick that name). The point I was making is that she chose to attack DPD for siding with Souza and Saylor rather than attacking him for siding with Lamar, which is most likely what he decided to do.

  57. dufus

    “It would seem most appropriate it you would just ask DPD (David) instead of accusing. Since you were the only one there how are we to believe you.”

    This is pretty much like the Don Winters situation. DPD’s non-denial of the accusation makes it clear he is guilty. In 10 days, he’ll admit his culpability and issue a statement of apology and then resign. After that, his adorers and feetlickers will claim there is a legal requirement which forced DPD to stay silent for 10 days, and they will add that they now admire DPD more than ever, because he showed so much restraint, yet had the courage to fess up and Move On. These feetlickers will get so giddy over this wonderful behavior by DPD that they will start a new movement, MoveOn.Org. But when they learn that that name has been taken, they will call their new group, IWorshipDPDsFeet.org.

  58. dufus

    “It would seem most appropriate it you would just ask DPD (David) instead of accusing. Since you were the only one there how are we to believe you.”

    This is pretty much like the Don Winters situation. DPD’s non-denial of the accusation makes it clear he is guilty. In 10 days, he’ll admit his culpability and issue a statement of apology and then resign. After that, his adorers and feetlickers will claim there is a legal requirement which forced DPD to stay silent for 10 days, and they will add that they now admire DPD more than ever, because he showed so much restraint, yet had the courage to fess up and Move On. These feetlickers will get so giddy over this wonderful behavior by DPD that they will start a new movement, MoveOn.Org. But when they learn that that name has been taken, they will call their new group, IWorshipDPDsFeet.org.

  59. dufus

    “It would seem most appropriate it you would just ask DPD (David) instead of accusing. Since you were the only one there how are we to believe you.”

    This is pretty much like the Don Winters situation. DPD’s non-denial of the accusation makes it clear he is guilty. In 10 days, he’ll admit his culpability and issue a statement of apology and then resign. After that, his adorers and feetlickers will claim there is a legal requirement which forced DPD to stay silent for 10 days, and they will add that they now admire DPD more than ever, because he showed so much restraint, yet had the courage to fess up and Move On. These feetlickers will get so giddy over this wonderful behavior by DPD that they will start a new movement, MoveOn.Org. But when they learn that that name has been taken, they will call their new group, IWorshipDPDsFeet.org.

  60. dufus

    “It would seem most appropriate it you would just ask DPD (David) instead of accusing. Since you were the only one there how are we to believe you.”

    This is pretty much like the Don Winters situation. DPD’s non-denial of the accusation makes it clear he is guilty. In 10 days, he’ll admit his culpability and issue a statement of apology and then resign. After that, his adorers and feetlickers will claim there is a legal requirement which forced DPD to stay silent for 10 days, and they will add that they now admire DPD more than ever, because he showed so much restraint, yet had the courage to fess up and Move On. These feetlickers will get so giddy over this wonderful behavior by DPD that they will start a new movement, MoveOn.Org. But when they learn that that name has been taken, they will call their new group, IWorshipDPDsFeet.org.

  61. Anny Mouse

    Dufus,

    That’s the funniest post I’ve yet read on the People’s Vanguard. :~)

    Keep up the good work. Your humor makes the drudgery of reading all these posts by people who take themselves so seriously bearable.

  62. Anny Mouse

    Dufus,

    That’s the funniest post I’ve yet read on the People’s Vanguard. :~)

    Keep up the good work. Your humor makes the drudgery of reading all these posts by people who take themselves so seriously bearable.

  63. Anny Mouse

    Dufus,

    That’s the funniest post I’ve yet read on the People’s Vanguard. :~)

    Keep up the good work. Your humor makes the drudgery of reading all these posts by people who take themselves so seriously bearable.

  64. Anny Mouse

    Dufus,

    That’s the funniest post I’ve yet read on the People’s Vanguard. :~)

    Keep up the good work. Your humor makes the drudgery of reading all these posts by people who take themselves so seriously bearable.

  65. Anonymous

    Dufus wrote:
    Keep up the good work.

    Dufus’s remark reminds me of government work, you know, where a flabby clutch of “supervisors” watch one guy working.

  66. Anonymous

    Dufus wrote:
    Keep up the good work.

    Dufus’s remark reminds me of government work, you know, where a flabby clutch of “supervisors” watch one guy working.

  67. Anonymous

    Dufus wrote:
    Keep up the good work.

    Dufus’s remark reminds me of government work, you know, where a flabby clutch of “supervisors” watch one guy working.

  68. Anonymous

    Dufus wrote:
    Keep up the good work.

    Dufus’s remark reminds me of government work, you know, where a flabby clutch of “supervisors” watch one guy working.

  69. CC

    “David Greenwald (A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis) is right, but he has only told part of the story. The recently approved subdivision to which he refers is a subdivisions of 4,000 S.F. houses.”

    This was an article about solar power and Berkeley’s move toward it and what Davis should consider doing. What difference does it make whether Greenwald did or did not support a subdivision? That had nothing to do with this article. Why is he required to provide that information? Moreover, why bring it up other than to make some sort of petty swipe at him?

  70. CC

    “David Greenwald (A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis) is right, but he has only told part of the story. The recently approved subdivision to which he refers is a subdivisions of 4,000 S.F. houses.”

    This was an article about solar power and Berkeley’s move toward it and what Davis should consider doing. What difference does it make whether Greenwald did or did not support a subdivision? That had nothing to do with this article. Why is he required to provide that information? Moreover, why bring it up other than to make some sort of petty swipe at him?

  71. CC

    “David Greenwald (A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis) is right, but he has only told part of the story. The recently approved subdivision to which he refers is a subdivisions of 4,000 S.F. houses.”

    This was an article about solar power and Berkeley’s move toward it and what Davis should consider doing. What difference does it make whether Greenwald did or did not support a subdivision? That had nothing to do with this article. Why is he required to provide that information? Moreover, why bring it up other than to make some sort of petty swipe at him?

  72. CC

    “David Greenwald (A.K.A. Doug Paul Davis) is right, but he has only told part of the story. The recently approved subdivision to which he refers is a subdivisions of 4,000 S.F. houses.”

    This was an article about solar power and Berkeley’s move toward it and what Davis should consider doing. What difference does it make whether Greenwald did or did not support a subdivision? That had nothing to do with this article. Why is he required to provide that information? Moreover, why bring it up other than to make some sort of petty swipe at him?

  73. Fly in the Ointment

    Be careful what you wish for! As laudable a goal as reducing greenhouse emissions is, politicians are jumping on the global warming bandwagon without using caution. With every measure to reduce greenhouse emissions comes a cost. For instance, Berkeley’s program will cause an increase in taxes to pay for it, no matter how their local gov’t officials try to sugar coat things as loans, grants, etc., etc., etc. It also is taking up inordinate amounts of time on an issue that is not necessarily critical to the current functioning of the City of Berkeley.

    I am not necessarily opposed to attempts to conserve energy, promote alternative fuels, discourage wasteful practices. However, I do not think such issues are of paramount importance to our Davis City Council, when we have a huge budget deficit, a School Board that is out of touch with reality, a fire dept that can’t catch a break, not enough police officers, an inability of the city to pay for medical coverage for its employees, water and sewer fee increases that will wreak havoc on our citizens…

    I would warn the Davis City Council to keep things in perspective. It is OK to promote environmental issues, but not at the cost of addressing more pressing concerns. Believe me, when citizens are taxed so much they are forced to leave Davis, or folks buy elsewhere so that Davis school enrollment declines and we seem destined to close a perfectly functioning elementary school – the average citizen is not going to care a flying leap about global warming and whether we should install solar panels.

    I agree with one of the earlier comments – the water bottle issue is stupid, a collasal waste of time. Solar panels? Not so sure the extensive use of solar panels is all that efficient. After all, it takes quite a bit of energy to make and install the panels. It was a collosal fiasco in Central Park when the City tried to install them there. The panels did not work, and $100,000 of the city’s money was completely wasted. I suspect new technology will be coming down the road shortly that will make all the discussion about existing solar panel technology obsolete.

    Example: I sat in the City Council Chambers during the debate about the new housing developers that were being pushed to install more solar panels. It devolved into a ridiculous discussion by five council members who were trying to make engineering decisions without the necessary expertise needed to understand how impractical their proposals were in what they were demanding.

    Trust me – Berkeley is going to backtrack on their plan as too overly ambitious and impractical to implement. It is a case of diminishing returns – it does no good to put all your resources into reducing the “carbon imprint” by 20% if the result is a plan that is far too expensive and impractical to implement.

    LIKE I SAID, BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR – BETTER TO TAKE A BALANCED APPROACH AND THINK THROUGH WHAT YOU ARE DOING BEFORE JUMPING ON BOARD THE LATEST THEORY FLOATED OUT.

    Another example: The current water quality restrictions our city is being subjected to were passed way back in 1970’s – and are now coming back to haunt us. No cost analysis was done to determine how important it would be to ensure pristine water being dumped back into the Yolo By-Pass area, for the benefit of the few birds that frequent that area. Those homeowners/renters on low to moderate incomes will not be able to afford the huge increases in water/sewer fees that are coming down the pike – because we now have to build a new sewer plant and develop an expensive water project to improve our water quality to meet the gov’ts overly restrictive standards for current conditions. So while the Davis City Council is diddling around about the use of water bottles, we have a train wreck coming in the form of $250 to $300 per month water/sewer fees (probably a conservative estimate) to cover the cost of the improvements to our water/sewer systems.

    And of course we have demands for other increases in taxes for schools, libraries, lighting and landscaping, etc., etc., etc. At some point, taxpayers will squawk – THINK PROP 13, THE OUSTER OF GOV GRAY DAVIS…

    THE DAVIS CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO THINK BEFORE IT LEAPS – UNLIKE BERKELEY, THAT HAD A KNEE-JERK REACTION TO THE GLOBAL WARMING THREAT. BERKELEY WILL PAY DEARLY FOR IT FAR DOWN THE ROAD.

  74. Fly in the Ointment

    Be careful what you wish for! As laudable a goal as reducing greenhouse emissions is, politicians are jumping on the global warming bandwagon without using caution. With every measure to reduce greenhouse emissions comes a cost. For instance, Berkeley’s program will cause an increase in taxes to pay for it, no matter how their local gov’t officials try to sugar coat things as loans, grants, etc., etc., etc. It also is taking up inordinate amounts of time on an issue that is not necessarily critical to the current functioning of the City of Berkeley.

    I am not necessarily opposed to attempts to conserve energy, promote alternative fuels, discourage wasteful practices. However, I do not think such issues are of paramount importance to our Davis City Council, when we have a huge budget deficit, a School Board that is out of touch with reality, a fire dept that can’t catch a break, not enough police officers, an inability of the city to pay for medical coverage for its employees, water and sewer fee increases that will wreak havoc on our citizens…

    I would warn the Davis City Council to keep things in perspective. It is OK to promote environmental issues, but not at the cost of addressing more pressing concerns. Believe me, when citizens are taxed so much they are forced to leave Davis, or folks buy elsewhere so that Davis school enrollment declines and we seem destined to close a perfectly functioning elementary school – the average citizen is not going to care a flying leap about global warming and whether we should install solar panels.

    I agree with one of the earlier comments – the water bottle issue is stupid, a collasal waste of time. Solar panels? Not so sure the extensive use of solar panels is all that efficient. After all, it takes quite a bit of energy to make and install the panels. It was a collosal fiasco in Central Park when the City tried to install them there. The panels did not work, and $100,000 of the city’s money was completely wasted. I suspect new technology will be coming down the road shortly that will make all the discussion about existing solar panel technology obsolete.

    Example: I sat in the City Council Chambers during the debate about the new housing developers that were being pushed to install more solar panels. It devolved into a ridiculous discussion by five council members who were trying to make engineering decisions without the necessary expertise needed to understand how impractical their proposals were in what they were demanding.

    Trust me – Berkeley is going to backtrack on their plan as too overly ambitious and impractical to implement. It is a case of diminishing returns – it does no good to put all your resources into reducing the “carbon imprint” by 20% if the result is a plan that is far too expensive and impractical to implement.

    LIKE I SAID, BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR – BETTER TO TAKE A BALANCED APPROACH AND THINK THROUGH WHAT YOU ARE DOING BEFORE JUMPING ON BOARD THE LATEST THEORY FLOATED OUT.

    Another example: The current water quality restrictions our city is being subjected to were passed way back in 1970’s – and are now coming back to haunt us. No cost analysis was done to determine how important it would be to ensure pristine water being dumped back into the Yolo By-Pass area, for the benefit of the few birds that frequent that area. Those homeowners/renters on low to moderate incomes will not be able to afford the huge increases in water/sewer fees that are coming down the pike – because we now have to build a new sewer plant and develop an expensive water project to improve our water quality to meet the gov’ts overly restrictive standards for current conditions. So while the Davis City Council is diddling around about the use of water bottles, we have a train wreck coming in the form of $250 to $300 per month water/sewer fees (probably a conservative estimate) to cover the cost of the improvements to our water/sewer systems.

    And of course we have demands for other increases in taxes for schools, libraries, lighting and landscaping, etc., etc., etc. At some point, taxpayers will squawk – THINK PROP 13, THE OUSTER OF GOV GRAY DAVIS…

    THE DAVIS CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO THINK BEFORE IT LEAPS – UNLIKE BERKELEY, THAT HAD A KNEE-JERK REACTION TO THE GLOBAL WARMING THREAT. BERKELEY WILL PAY DEARLY FOR IT FAR DOWN THE ROAD.

  75. Fly in the Ointment

    Be careful what you wish for! As laudable a goal as reducing greenhouse emissions is, politicians are jumping on the global warming bandwagon without using caution. With every measure to reduce greenhouse emissions comes a cost. For instance, Berkeley’s program will cause an increase in taxes to pay for it, no matter how their local gov’t officials try to sugar coat things as loans, grants, etc., etc., etc. It also is taking up inordinate amounts of time on an issue that is not necessarily critical to the current functioning of the City of Berkeley.

    I am not necessarily opposed to attempts to conserve energy, promote alternative fuels, discourage wasteful practices. However, I do not think such issues are of paramount importance to our Davis City Council, when we have a huge budget deficit, a School Board that is out of touch with reality, a fire dept that can’t catch a break, not enough police officers, an inability of the city to pay for medical coverage for its employees, water and sewer fee increases that will wreak havoc on our citizens…

    I would warn the Davis City Council to keep things in perspective. It is OK to promote environmental issues, but not at the cost of addressing more pressing concerns. Believe me, when citizens are taxed so much they are forced to leave Davis, or folks buy elsewhere so that Davis school enrollment declines and we seem destined to close a perfectly functioning elementary school – the average citizen is not going to care a flying leap about global warming and whether we should install solar panels.

    I agree with one of the earlier comments – the water bottle issue is stupid, a collasal waste of time. Solar panels? Not so sure the extensive use of solar panels is all that efficient. After all, it takes quite a bit of energy to make and install the panels. It was a collosal fiasco in Central Park when the City tried to install them there. The panels did not work, and $100,000 of the city’s money was completely wasted. I suspect new technology will be coming down the road shortly that will make all the discussion about existing solar panel technology obsolete.

    Example: I sat in the City Council Chambers during the debate about the new housing developers that were being pushed to install more solar panels. It devolved into a ridiculous discussion by five council members who were trying to make engineering decisions without the necessary expertise needed to understand how impractical their proposals were in what they were demanding.

    Trust me – Berkeley is going to backtrack on their plan as too overly ambitious and impractical to implement. It is a case of diminishing returns – it does no good to put all your resources into reducing the “carbon imprint” by 20% if the result is a plan that is far too expensive and impractical to implement.

    LIKE I SAID, BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR – BETTER TO TAKE A BALANCED APPROACH AND THINK THROUGH WHAT YOU ARE DOING BEFORE JUMPING ON BOARD THE LATEST THEORY FLOATED OUT.

    Another example: The current water quality restrictions our city is being subjected to were passed way back in 1970’s – and are now coming back to haunt us. No cost analysis was done to determine how important it would be to ensure pristine water being dumped back into the Yolo By-Pass area, for the benefit of the few birds that frequent that area. Those homeowners/renters on low to moderate incomes will not be able to afford the huge increases in water/sewer fees that are coming down the pike – because we now have to build a new sewer plant and develop an expensive water project to improve our water quality to meet the gov’ts overly restrictive standards for current conditions. So while the Davis City Council is diddling around about the use of water bottles, we have a train wreck coming in the form of $250 to $300 per month water/sewer fees (probably a conservative estimate) to cover the cost of the improvements to our water/sewer systems.

    And of course we have demands for other increases in taxes for schools, libraries, lighting and landscaping, etc., etc., etc. At some point, taxpayers will squawk – THINK PROP 13, THE OUSTER OF GOV GRAY DAVIS…

    THE DAVIS CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO THINK BEFORE IT LEAPS – UNLIKE BERKELEY, THAT HAD A KNEE-JERK REACTION TO THE GLOBAL WARMING THREAT. BERKELEY WILL PAY DEARLY FOR IT FAR DOWN THE ROAD.

  76. Fly in the Ointment

    Be careful what you wish for! As laudable a goal as reducing greenhouse emissions is, politicians are jumping on the global warming bandwagon without using caution. With every measure to reduce greenhouse emissions comes a cost. For instance, Berkeley’s program will cause an increase in taxes to pay for it, no matter how their local gov’t officials try to sugar coat things as loans, grants, etc., etc., etc. It also is taking up inordinate amounts of time on an issue that is not necessarily critical to the current functioning of the City of Berkeley.

    I am not necessarily opposed to attempts to conserve energy, promote alternative fuels, discourage wasteful practices. However, I do not think such issues are of paramount importance to our Davis City Council, when we have a huge budget deficit, a School Board that is out of touch with reality, a fire dept that can’t catch a break, not enough police officers, an inability of the city to pay for medical coverage for its employees, water and sewer fee increases that will wreak havoc on our citizens…

    I would warn the Davis City Council to keep things in perspective. It is OK to promote environmental issues, but not at the cost of addressing more pressing concerns. Believe me, when citizens are taxed so much they are forced to leave Davis, or folks buy elsewhere so that Davis school enrollment declines and we seem destined to close a perfectly functioning elementary school – the average citizen is not going to care a flying leap about global warming and whether we should install solar panels.

    I agree with one of the earlier comments – the water bottle issue is stupid, a collasal waste of time. Solar panels? Not so sure the extensive use of solar panels is all that efficient. After all, it takes quite a bit of energy to make and install the panels. It was a collosal fiasco in Central Park when the City tried to install them there. The panels did not work, and $100,000 of the city’s money was completely wasted. I suspect new technology will be coming down the road shortly that will make all the discussion about existing solar panel technology obsolete.

    Example: I sat in the City Council Chambers during the debate about the new housing developers that were being pushed to install more solar panels. It devolved into a ridiculous discussion by five council members who were trying to make engineering decisions without the necessary expertise needed to understand how impractical their proposals were in what they were demanding.

    Trust me – Berkeley is going to backtrack on their plan as too overly ambitious and impractical to implement. It is a case of diminishing returns – it does no good to put all your resources into reducing the “carbon imprint” by 20% if the result is a plan that is far too expensive and impractical to implement.

    LIKE I SAID, BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR – BETTER TO TAKE A BALANCED APPROACH AND THINK THROUGH WHAT YOU ARE DOING BEFORE JUMPING ON BOARD THE LATEST THEORY FLOATED OUT.

    Another example: The current water quality restrictions our city is being subjected to were passed way back in 1970’s – and are now coming back to haunt us. No cost analysis was done to determine how important it would be to ensure pristine water being dumped back into the Yolo By-Pass area, for the benefit of the few birds that frequent that area. Those homeowners/renters on low to moderate incomes will not be able to afford the huge increases in water/sewer fees that are coming down the pike – because we now have to build a new sewer plant and develop an expensive water project to improve our water quality to meet the gov’ts overly restrictive standards for current conditions. So while the Davis City Council is diddling around about the use of water bottles, we have a train wreck coming in the form of $250 to $300 per month water/sewer fees (probably a conservative estimate) to cover the cost of the improvements to our water/sewer systems.

    And of course we have demands for other increases in taxes for schools, libraries, lighting and landscaping, etc., etc., etc. At some point, taxpayers will squawk – THINK PROP 13, THE OUSTER OF GOV GRAY DAVIS…

    THE DAVIS CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO THINK BEFORE IT LEAPS – UNLIKE BERKELEY, THAT HAD A KNEE-JERK REACTION TO THE GLOBAL WARMING THREAT. BERKELEY WILL PAY DEARLY FOR IT FAR DOWN THE ROAD.

  77. Anonymous

    And lest we forget there was also good old Measure K which will bring a huge Big Box, car oriented shopping center to Davis generating thousands and thousands of car trips each day. This, of course, is the phase 1 project which is the begining of the Truxelization of Mace Blvd area. Also, don’t forget the corruption of local democracy in which a big anti union, pro-republican corporation bought the local election with big corporate bucks. Nice to talk about recyling plastic bottles by Ruth when she shills like a cheap whore for Davis Cares – the Target Corporate front group – while Davis is turned into Elk Grove and Natomas. Except we will have a few more bike paths, landscaping and recyling bins thrown in to give the illusion that we are different.

  78. Anonymous

    And lest we forget there was also good old Measure K which will bring a huge Big Box, car oriented shopping center to Davis generating thousands and thousands of car trips each day. This, of course, is the phase 1 project which is the begining of the Truxelization of Mace Blvd area. Also, don’t forget the corruption of local democracy in which a big anti union, pro-republican corporation bought the local election with big corporate bucks. Nice to talk about recyling plastic bottles by Ruth when she shills like a cheap whore for Davis Cares – the Target Corporate front group – while Davis is turned into Elk Grove and Natomas. Except we will have a few more bike paths, landscaping and recyling bins thrown in to give the illusion that we are different.

  79. Anonymous

    And lest we forget there was also good old Measure K which will bring a huge Big Box, car oriented shopping center to Davis generating thousands and thousands of car trips each day. This, of course, is the phase 1 project which is the begining of the Truxelization of Mace Blvd area. Also, don’t forget the corruption of local democracy in which a big anti union, pro-republican corporation bought the local election with big corporate bucks. Nice to talk about recyling plastic bottles by Ruth when she shills like a cheap whore for Davis Cares – the Target Corporate front group – while Davis is turned into Elk Grove and Natomas. Except we will have a few more bike paths, landscaping and recyling bins thrown in to give the illusion that we are different.

  80. Anonymous

    And lest we forget there was also good old Measure K which will bring a huge Big Box, car oriented shopping center to Davis generating thousands and thousands of car trips each day. This, of course, is the phase 1 project which is the begining of the Truxelization of Mace Blvd area. Also, don’t forget the corruption of local democracy in which a big anti union, pro-republican corporation bought the local election with big corporate bucks. Nice to talk about recyling plastic bottles by Ruth when she shills like a cheap whore for Davis Cares – the Target Corporate front group – while Davis is turned into Elk Grove and Natomas. Except we will have a few more bike paths, landscaping and recyling bins thrown in to give the illusion that we are different.

  81. swatting the fly

    My my…the Fly in the Ointment should be swatted.

    The fly made “some” good comments, but the “doomsday” warning of WATCH WHAT YOU WISH FOR…IT IS BAD TO WANT SOLAR PANELS…BERKELEY BEWARE…DAVIS BEWARE… Let’s just say it’s a bit much.

    How about if we all share some concern over the decisions being made by developers, the majority on the city council and those that could care less about our environment.

    It’s time that we do something about it.

  82. swatting the fly

    My my…the Fly in the Ointment should be swatted.

    The fly made “some” good comments, but the “doomsday” warning of WATCH WHAT YOU WISH FOR…IT IS BAD TO WANT SOLAR PANELS…BERKELEY BEWARE…DAVIS BEWARE… Let’s just say it’s a bit much.

    How about if we all share some concern over the decisions being made by developers, the majority on the city council and those that could care less about our environment.

    It’s time that we do something about it.

  83. swatting the fly

    My my…the Fly in the Ointment should be swatted.

    The fly made “some” good comments, but the “doomsday” warning of WATCH WHAT YOU WISH FOR…IT IS BAD TO WANT SOLAR PANELS…BERKELEY BEWARE…DAVIS BEWARE… Let’s just say it’s a bit much.

    How about if we all share some concern over the decisions being made by developers, the majority on the city council and those that could care less about our environment.

    It’s time that we do something about it.

  84. swatting the fly

    My my…the Fly in the Ointment should be swatted.

    The fly made “some” good comments, but the “doomsday” warning of WATCH WHAT YOU WISH FOR…IT IS BAD TO WANT SOLAR PANELS…BERKELEY BEWARE…DAVIS BEWARE… Let’s just say it’s a bit much.

    How about if we all share some concern over the decisions being made by developers, the majority on the city council and those that could care less about our environment.

    It’s time that we do something about it.

  85. Noticing the ILLUSION of Green in Davis

    Anonymous 10/29/07 10:46 PM –

    Anonymous 10:46 PM – Ziegler is behind Ruth, Saylor, Souza, Target, Richard Harris, etc.

    Look at who is running or somehow involved with the following campaigns:

    Measure K (Target Campaign)
    Richard Harris for School Board
    Stephen Souza (for council)

    These campaigns have all either been given or are being given the illusion of GREEN, safe, environmentally friendly…because they all have Jay Ziegler involved in some way. He puts the spin on everything as being

    Green
    Safe
    Good for the Environment

    And the voters in some cases buy it. Voters need to be aware of this BS and expose it for what it is: BullSHt!

  86. Noticing the ILLUSION of Green

    Anonymous 10/29/07 10:46 PM –

    Anonymous 10:46 PM – Ziegler is behind Ruth, Saylor, Souza, Target, Richard Harris, etc.

    Look at who is running or somehow involved with the following campaigns:

    Measure K (Target Campaign)
    Richard Harris for School Board
    Stephen Souza (for council)

    These campaigns have all either been given or are being given the illusion of GREEN, safe, environmentally friendly…because they all have Jay Ziegler involved in some way. He puts the spin on everything as being

    Green
    Safe
    Good for the Environment

    And the voters in some cases buy it. Voters need to be aware of this BS and expose it for what it is: BullSHt!

  87. Noticing the ILLUSION of Green

    Anonymous 10/29/07 10:46 PM –

    Anonymous 10:46 PM – Ziegler is behind Ruth, Saylor, Souza, Target, Richard Harris, etc.

    Look at who is running or somehow involved with the following campaigns:

    Measure K (Target Campaign)
    Richard Harris for School Board
    Stephen Souza (for council)

    These campaigns have all either been given or are being given the illusion of GREEN, safe, environmentally friendly…because they all have Jay Ziegler involved in some way. He puts the spin on everything as being

    Green
    Safe
    Good for the Environment

    And the voters in some cases buy it. Voters need to be aware of this BS and expose it for what it is: BullSHt!

  88. Noticing the ILLUSION of Green

    Anonymous 10/29/07 10:46 PM –

    Anonymous 10:46 PM – Ziegler is behind Ruth, Saylor, Souza, Target, Richard Harris, etc.

    Look at who is running or somehow involved with the following campaigns:

    Measure K (Target Campaign)
    Richard Harris for School Board
    Stephen Souza (for council)

    These campaigns have all either been given or are being given the illusion of GREEN, safe, environmentally friendly…because they all have Jay Ziegler involved in some way. He puts the spin on everything as being

    Green
    Safe
    Good for the Environment

    And the voters in some cases buy it. Voters need to be aware of this BS and expose it for what it is: BullSHt!

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for