Vanguard Believes Rate Hikes Will Be Disastrous To Local Economy
The Davis Enterprise is reporting today that the Yolo County Elections Office has yet to complete their count and yet to have verified the 3705 signatures necessary to certify the referendum.
“One, the council can submit the ordinance to the voters at the next municipal election or at a special election,” Councilman Stephen Souza explained.
“Two, the council can repeal the ordinance, do a water rate study and start a new Proposition 218 process, utilizing our new utility rate advisory committee.
“Or three, the council could also just set a one-year rate and repeal the remaining four years of the rate increases, do a water rate study and start a new Proposition 218 process utilizing our new utility rate advisory committee,” he added.
However, and this is the key point, Mr. Souza told the paper that the city will still have to raise water rates.
“I do know that the water fund will not have enough money within it to be able to pay for just even some of the repairs we have to do to the local infrastructure right now,” he said. “We have to have some rate that’s set above the rate that we have in place right now.”
Most of these options will require the council to put forth a new Proposition 218 process before the ratepayers.
But it does leave open some interesting problems for the city. The city has argued that it must go forward with the water supply project due to state water requirements. But what if the citizens refuse to allow them to do so?
The city likes to argue that this is the cheapest time to go forward with the project, due to the fact that construction costs and interests rates are low. But it’s not clear that interest rates are going to go up in the next five years.
Working against that favorability is the fact that the economy is in incredibly poor shape. The jobs market is teetering. The major employers, both the state and UC Davis, are in fiscal crisis and may further reduce workforce and wages.
On the other hand, supporters of the project point out that it is rather easy for people not responsible for the city’s governance to ignore the fact that the State Water Resources Control Board is likely to impose heavy fines on the city if they do not go forward with some sort of plan to reduce various constituents in the city’s water discharge.
One of the questions I think that really needs to be fleshed out is whether there are alternatives to the surface water project, that could enable the city to keep costs down and avoid fines.
One body that could have potentially done this heavy lifting could have been the oversight board that was just composed last week. The problem is that that board is mainly comprised of people who believe we must go forward with the surface water project.
That is fine, but perhaps we need a body that can press city staff and see if there are alternatives. The Vanguard, in meeting with city staff on multiple occasions, has to believe that at least some of the information coming out represents a worst-case scenario.
Perhaps that scenario plays out. But it would be interesting to at least see what alternatives that we can come up with.
Right now, the city needs to do something to change the trajectory of discussion. There is a huge and polar divide between those folks supportive of the surface water plant and those who are going to support the referendum.
The Vanguard believes the initiative is not going to pass legal muster, but there is little to prevent someone from drafting one that will pass legal muster.
The city believes it has the facts on its side. Perhaps it does. But they have acted as though that offers the winning hand. In fact, it does not. It is possible that the city can go out, launch a campaign, and convince enough people that they are right, and win. However, that is not going to solve the problem entirely.
The city needs to find a way to bridge the gap here, between those who have and those who have not the means to survive the rate hike.
I do not have a great answer at this point. There is generally a middle ground that could be followed, but perhaps here there is not one.
I maintain, as I have from the start, that we cannot impose this level of rate hikes on our fragile economy at this time. We should have ramped up spending over the last decade, as soon as we began considering this project.
There are two points that I do not think proponents really get. First, relative rates are more important than absolute rates. What does that mean? People can adjust their spending over time. So it does not matter if they pay twice as much in another locale as they do in Davis, what matters is that Davis is going to rapidly increase their rates.
So, we can be lowest in the state all we want, but the rate hikes themselves are the problem, not the base rate. If I have been spending $200 per month on water for ten years, then I know how to budget that spending. If I spend $100 now and go up to $200 in a few years, it is a burden.
Second point follows from the first. Each additional dollar that I spend on water comes out of my discretionary spending. People on fixed incomes and low-income people have less discretionary money to spend, and therefore the rate hikes are likely to hurt them far more than someone who has a higher amount of discretionary spending.
Moreover, every dollar that I spend additionally on water is less money that I get to spend in the Davis downtown, going to restaurants or purchasing discretionary goods. That is going to harm the economy.
Our economy is fairly vulnerable as it is, then we add in an additional and, more importantly, a sustained shock – we are not talking about a one-time rate hike but rather a five- or six-year rate hike.
Worse yet, many businesses will have to attempt to pass the higher water costs onto Davis consumerss. Sudwerk is an interesting case study, because they use so much water, and they were originally looking at huge hikes. When the 28% rate increase was bargained down to 14%, then they were more agreeable to the rate hike, knowing that they could pass some on to consumers.
Except now that the consumers would be paying a higher rate on their own water, they would have to cut back on spending at places like Sudwerk, especially if prices go up.
We have been watching business after business either close or leave town, and now we are going to make it worse.
The consequences of this rate hike, at this time, could be catastrophic.
We need to at least see where we could save money and what alternatives are available, and unfortunately, the city leadership has not taken this issue nearly seriously enough and I simply lack faith that the oversight committee is going to save us.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Does the city really need to raise water rates to pay for improvements to the existing water system and/or a new water system? Isn’t there money somewhere else that could be used? What services could be cut back? Where can money be saved?
Personally I would like the advisory committee to be more neutral and not so stacked with pro-water project members.
David, if I remember correctly, in a prior column you very clearly stated that it was unfortunate that the City had not moderately (modestly) raised water rates in the most recent years, and put aside the additional revenue into a capital setaside fund the way they have been doing with the sewer/wastewater fees.
Are you now saying you don’t think that is a good idea if the Council does choose to implement a one-year rate hike while suspending the Ordinance passed on September 6th?
keith, I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that there are restrictions that apply to the movement of dollars in and out of utility accounts. Those restrictions are probably tighter on the “moving out” side of that situation than they are on the “moving in” side.
“Moreover, every dollar that I spend additionally on water is less money that I get to spend in the Davis downtown, going to restaurants or purchasing discretionary goods. That is going to harm the economy.”
Amazing! Housing is a much bigger part of the family budget in Davis than water yet you have consistently supported policies that increase the cost of housing citing quality of life issues. Isn’t water also a quality of life issue? Davis’ housing policies have priced lots of really great people out of Davis, now, all of a sudden, you are so concerned about the cost of living. If you want to look at the cost of living in Davis, as you do when you talk about having a finite amount of money to spend, why does it only apply when facing an increase in something that comports with your no growth tendencies. Where have you been all these years on cost of living issues?
Should read: does not comport wit your no growth tendencies.
[quote]…But what if…
…But it’s not clear…
…may further reduce…
…whether there are alternatives…
…perhaps we need…
…Perhaps that scenario plays out…
…it would be interesting to at least see what alternatives that we can come up with…
…Perhaps it does…
…It is possible…
…I do not have a great answer at this point. There is generally a middle ground that could be followed, but perhaps here there is not one…
…could be catastrophic…
…I simply lack faith… [/quote]
And this is the speculative mush you would use to justify casting aspersions on an advisory group that has not even had the opportunity to meet yet, to wit:
[quote]The problem is that that board is mainly comprised of people who believe we must go forward with the surface water project….
I simply lack faith that the oversight committee is going to save us.[/quote]
[i]”One, the council can submit the ordinance to the voters at the next municipal election or at a special election,” Councilman Stephen Souza explained.
“Two, the council can repeal the ordinance, do a water rate study and start a new Proposition 218 process, utilizing our new utility rate advisory committee.
“Or three, the council could also just set a one-year rate and repeal the remaining four years of the rate increases, do a water rate study and start a new Proposition 218 process utilizing our new utility rate advisory committee,”[/i]
Or four, the council could change the rate increase to an actual 14% rate increase, and then put that to the voters at the next municipal election.
First of all, have you even interviewed any of the advisory group members to even know what they believe?
Secondly, I would suggest you lack faith in any advisory committee that does not comport with your preconceived agenda that the surface water project should be delayed, delayed, delayed… or better yet killed permanently, in order to “save” the school parcel tax… oops, that’s right, now it is to save low income homeowners…oops, that’s right, now it is to save downtown businesses… oops… what will be next reason to kill the project, d_mn the consequences?
Sorry to everyone if my frustration shows through… but I find the demonizing of the advisory committee before it has even had a chance to weigh in on the project offensive, the demonizing of proponents of the project offensive. It is fine to disagree on the specifics, and I find many of the specifics of the water project troubling – but can we have a civil discussion without the hysteria and pure speculation that dredges up every irrelevant issue including the kitchen sink?
To Matt Williams re:”…but my understanding is that there are restrictions that apply to the movement of dollars in and out of utility accounts.”
You are correct. All utility payments and associated fees are held in a separate “Enterprise” fund which can only be used for very specifically defined utility-related infrastructure contruction, maintenance, and operations. The Eneterprise account funds absolutely CANNOT be used for general fund purposes.
To: David Greenwald re: “I maintain, as I have from the start, that we cannot impose this level of rate hikes on our fragile economy at this time. We should have ramped up spending over the last decade, as soon as we began considering this project.
Do I understand you correctly, David, that you are now advocating “kicking the can down the road” further while in the same sentence lambasting past Councils for doing exactly that. This is also incongruous with your prior statements about the faults of past city governments. That is, they kicked every can down the road. There is one point on which the current supporters of the water project agree on and that is that we cannot continue to kick this can down the road and leave it for the next Council or the next generation to deal with. It is strange to hear criticism of this straight forward assesment of the current water situation from you when you have so forcefully advocated for responsible and timely government actions in the past.
“And this is the speculative mush you would use to justify casting aspersions on an advisory group that has not even had the opportunity to meet yet, to wit:”
Speaking of speculation, the new lowered water rates are largely based on the HOPEFUL speculation of lower interest rates and construction costs.
rusty, are you currently seeing high interest rates in the market anywhere? Are you currently seeing high construction costs (relative to recent similat multi-million dollar projects?
Take a look at the new parking garage currently being built at the UCD Med Center. The bids came in at just over half of what was expected.
[quote]Do I understand you correctly, David, that you are now advocating “kicking the can down the road” further while in the same sentence lambasting past Councils for doing exactly that. This is also incongruous with your prior statements about the faults of past city governments. That is, they kicked every can down the road. There is one point on which the current supporters of the water project agree on and that is that we cannot continue to kick this can down the road and leave it for the next Council or the next generation to deal with. It is strange to hear criticism of this straight forward assesment of the current water situation from you when you have so forcefully advocated for responsible and timely government actions in the past.[/quote]
BINGO!
[quote]Speaking of speculation, the new lowered water rates are largely based on the HOPEFUL speculation of lower interest rates and construction costs.[/quote]
I have explained this before: the new lowered water rate increases were predicated on: 1) delaying portions of the surface water project; 2) 5.5% interest rates instead of 6.5% interest rate on the loan; 3) using some of the funding already collected for the wastewater treatment plant for the surface water project.
And to further answer your question, I will refer you to Matt William’s response:
[quote]Take a look at the new parking garage currently being built at the UCD Med Center. The bids came in at just over half of what was expected.[/quote]
[quote]The city needs to find a way to bridge the gap here, between those who have and those who have not the means to survive the rate hike.
I do not have a great answer at this point. There is generally a middle ground that could be followed, but perhaps here there is not one.
I maintain, as I have from the start, that we cannot impose this level of rate hikes on our fragile economy at this time. We should have ramped up spending over the last decade, as soon as we began considering this project.[/quote]
Listen to what you have said:
[quote]
…I do not have a great answer…
…there is generally a middle ground… but perhaps here there is not one…
we cannot impose this…rate hike…at this time…
[/quote]
You cannot have it both ways – perhaps there is not a middle ground, but we cannot impose a rate hike…
If “we” do not impose a rate hike, in all probability the SWRCB will impose one for us in the form of steep fines…
I continue to be confused as to the scope and expected influence the advisory committee will have. Is it rate setting, is it cost projections, us it alternatives to the whole project. I don’t know most of the people but which (or all ?) categories do the committee members fall into. We know Ekainw’s passion from this blog but I am not sure she is a water expert, engineer or MBA, with all due respect Elaine (no caps!)
ALAN: [i]”All utility payments and associated fees are held in a separate “Enterprise” fund which can only be used for very specifically defined utility-related infrastructure contruction, maintenance, and operations. The Eneterprise account funds absolutely CANNOT be used for general fund purposes.”[/i]
It is less clear cut than you say, Alan.
For one thing, many expenses which used to be general fund expenses–for example, the labor cost of various public works employees–are now covered by various enterprise funds. (There is not just one “enterprise fund.” That is a category*.) The funds shifting was done to balance the general fund. The city got those extra revenues simply by raising various utility rates over time.
Most of the time when we fund capital improvements, such as a new park or a new building, the money comes out of one of the capital project funds. However, with the surface water project, because water service is an enterprise, I think the money for it will go through that proprietary fund.
*Davis has 5 enterprise funds: water, sanitation, sewer services, storm sewer and public transit. After the surface water project is built, the operations financing for it will come from the maintenance water fund (511), which is an enterprise fund.
There are actually three water funds, the other two for capital replacement (512) and expansion (513). I guess the 513 fund will be used for the surface water project. I should note that it has a negative balance now of -$2,194,768. I don’t know where that money went. But if I had to guess, I would guess it went to new capital projects used for water in Davis–like the new tankhouses–which were approved and spent before the water rates were raised to pay for them.
Just called the Elections Office. They might complete the accounting this Thursday. Friday is a holiday. The code requires a count to be completed not later than 30 business days from 10/24, or about Dec 7 or 8th.
If the petitions qualify for the ballot, then the City Clerk puts this item on the next regular meeting agenda. Next week is probably not possible, so the next meeting is Nov 22, but it is currently listed as ON CALL.
After next week, December 6th is the next regular meeting, and the most likely candidate for this water referendum item, assuming it qualifies.
Rich: good research, as always.
Sue, I wish you would call for a full audit of how much the rates have been hiked since 2000 to study, then pay for, the surface water project. Then, how has this money been spent?
[quote]I continue to be confused as to the scope and expected influence the advisory committee will have. Is it rate setting, is it cost projections, us it alternatives to the whole project. I don’t know most of the people but which (or all ?) categories do the committee members fall into. We know Ekainw’s passion from this blog but I am not sure she is a water expert, engineer or MBA, with all due respect Elaine (no caps!)[/quote]
Actually, your points are well taken.
At the City Council meeting, when the advisory committee was formed, it was unclear what the scope of the advisory committee would be. It has yet to be decided! City Council members were not in agreement on this issue. Some (Rochelle Swanson, Dan Wolk) argued that the scope should not go beyond water rate scheduling, bc that is what their volunteer representatives signed on for. Others (Sue Greenwald) wanted all issues discussed by the advisory committee, including the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. During public comment, I argued that the broader the scope of the advisory committee the better, since essentially everything effects the water rate increases.
And you are correct – I am not a water expert, engineer or MBA, and I know some others on the advisory committee are not either. My hope is to consult with those that are water experts, engineers and have the appropriate business acumen. However, I am an attorney, mathematician, and former systems analyst and junior college instructor. I am also currently on a city and county commission, on several city committees, and a volunteer attorney for the Yolo County Multi-Disciplinary Team. As a member of the Yolo County MDT, a good part of my task is to prevent financial abuse.
ERM: you are a mystery to me. I just read all of the great points about your various civic projects and duties, and you even said ” … a good part of my task is to prevent financial abuse.”
Yet, here we are, a poorly-planned surface water project ready to lift up to $250 million from Davis wallets, and you just hammmer for that money suck (I would call it fiscal abuse by the City) without looking at the big picture.
With the City lying to us about the rates, how can you believe anything else they tell us? As a lawyer, you know once a witness or attorney presents fraud on the court, it’s all over for them. Done. Please explain.
Thank you, and respectfully, Michael.
[quote][i]”The consequences of this rate hike, at this time, could be catastrophic.”[/i][/quote]You have repeated this song for two months without a speck of data to confirm the sky is falling. I feel as though I can’t possible deal with one more increase in any expense, them turns out I’m able to make it through yet another month (and top it off with one of those temporarily available McRib sandwiches).
Guess we shouldn’t be making long-term public policy and public health decisions on gut feelings after all. Another option: Let’s move to Woodland, a town with much less anxiety about paying their bills.
Our needed infrastructure spending is being held hostage by greedy public employee unions and their political beneficiaries. The opposition to the surface water project exploit our general fiscal malaise using the irrational but effective “expensive clean water versus teachers” argument.
We should have been saving for this project over the last several years, but politicians spent the cupboard bare. Next we have a housing bubble recession and an incompetent president ensuring prolonged economic pain for the nation, and an incompetent governor ensuring California lags even further behind.
The debate over the surface water project is just a symptom of larger problem of ineffective political leadership.
Quote from Obama:
[quote]” “I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”[/quote]
So, the first step is to hold Obama accountable and replace him with an experienced chief executive. Next we need to get Brown out of office and knock out the power of the public employee unions for corrupting the state political process. Lastly, we need a business-minded and business-friendly city council with members willing and able to make difficult decision for sustaining this city for the long-haul.
If we don’t do these things, then our city, our state and our country will continue to spiral down toward a Greek-like financial tragedy. I don’t have much confidence that we can prevent it from happening, but I plan to be on the side doing what I can to prevent it.
Jeff: [i]Lastly, we need a business-minded and business-friendly city council with members willing and able to make difficult decision for sustaining this city for the long-haul. [/i]
They voted for the water project and the rate hikes 4 to 1, and are taking the flak for it. What more do you want?
Don: I support those four on this issue, but we have had a history of council members unfriendly to business. Also, to date the CC has not adequately addressed the big pension/healthcare obligation shortfall.
For all the brain power in the city, we lack commensurate vision, planning and decision-making sophistication… IMO.
We knew about this pending water project back when Mike Harrington was on the Council. Mike described the water project as a “growth inducer” and used this anticipated expense as a key argument against building Covell Village. What should have happened back then is that the rates should have been raised a small percentage and a reserve built up over these many years. That would have been the responsible thing to do. Now we need to raise funds quickly and thus the huge increase in rates. We owe this problem to Mike Harrington. His attempts to once again use this issue to influence the upcoming Council election and try to turn it into a “election defining issue” fits the pattern of his “no water = no growth.” We need to raise rates immediately and start building a reserve, regardless of what the project ultimately ends up being. That would be the responsible thing to do.
Well, the one who has consistently addressed the shortfall is the one who voted against the water project and the rates. So you do have a conundrum as to who to support, I guess.
Rich could provide the timeline, but I assume the shortfall you describe has to be addressed in each MOU with each labor group, one by one. So you’re looking for a candidate who
–supports the water project and the rate hikes;
–supports changes to the MOU’s, as well as reductions in staff if necessary to reduce overhead.
“Friendly to business” can mean a lot of different things. Some businesses are opposed to the rate hikes, for example.
Don, Points well taken.
What I am looking for are political leaders that understand government does not produce, it only consumes. That understand fiscal prudence and economic development are required means to an end. I want more leaders orientated toward business and economic development; but I want them to stand up for labor and the temporarily economically disadvantaged. Those more oriented toward labor and the temporarily economically disadvantaged, I want to stand up for business and economic development.
I want politicians from both of these orientations to lead; leadership that includes educating their supporters and followers on the need for tough decisions, and for compromise and sacrifice that impacts them and not just their neighbor.
I also want us to better honor our representative democracy. With all due respect to Mike Harrington, his ability to influence and alter the political process is a sign of governance dysfunction, not some celebratory characteristic of a working system. I want more public scorn for people that agitate negatively, and more honor bestowed on those that go make something positive happen.
Our national and state economy is broken, our infrastructure is crumbling, our nation’s education system is mostly crappy, and governments at all levels are heading toward insolvency. In this situation, any politician that attempts to make his/her constituents feel good right now is probably lying. I want the lying and political tricks to stop. I want politicians that make us optimistic about the future because they can articulate a viable plan to get us to our goals of necessary improvement.
I think we have a few CC members that fit this mold. I want more. We need more.
Ryan Kelly: [i]”What should have happened back then is that the rates should have been raised a small percentage and a reserve built up over these many years.”[/i]
Absolutely, 100% right-on.
Public employee unions continue to bleed their states and communities dry. The conflict across the country is pensions over infrastructure. Infrastructure is losing.
LA Times: [quote]A union-financed petition drive put the measure on the Ohio ballot this spring shortly after Kasich enacted the law. The contest over the initiative was perhaps this fall’s most expensive, and closely watched, fight.
Labor groups in particular mobilized to drive the repeal effort. We are Ohio, a union coalition, had raised more than $30 million in contributions and other assistance, drawing largely on national union organizations and also the Democratic Governors Assn.
AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka was in Ohio for the election, speaking to an energized crowd of union activists in Columbus on Tuesday morning and making the rounds on local and cable TV in the afternoon.
“The workers here have done a tremendous job of saying enough is enough,” Trumka said. “They’re saying ‘We’re not going to let you take away our ladder into the middle class.'”
The union flew in dozens of workers to canvass and make phone calls to potential voters, including a contingent of activists from Los Angeles. The union says it handed out 4.1 million worksite fliers, leafleted 4,000 worksites, knocked on more than a million doors and sent out 825,000 pieces of local union mail, according to the Washington Post.[/quote]
Jeff Boone said: ” … governments at all levels are heading toward insolvency. In this situation, any politician that attempts to make his/her constituents feel good right now is probably lying. I want the lying and political tricks to stop. I want politicians that make us optimistic about the future because they can articulate a viable plan to get us to our goals of necessary improvement.”
Jeff, I completely agree with you. I cannot comment on other levels of government since this is a Davis water subject thread and Don-the-hall-monitor will use that as an excuse to strip my posts as he has now formed a habit of doing when I say something he disagrees with, but I will say that the Davis CC hasn’t a clue how many of the residents of Davis are suffering economically. Starting in about 2007, things turned. However, the wheels have really started coming off for many in about 2010. It took awhile for people to shed the extra resources, and now they are down to bare cupboards. If the City wanted a water project, they should have raised the rates years ago. But the CC did not do it, because they were afraid of the voters challenging a rate hike large enough to do the job. Like I have posted over and over, staff and the CC majority tried to do this project using the “death by a thousand cuts” process; none were quite large enough to really piss off the voters, so no one tried the referendum. Until now. The CC shold have put the concept of the surface project on the ballot, but refused to do so for over ten years. The CC should have ordered a thorough study of the fiscal and technical feasibility of the ground water well system, but did not, because the CC majority, staff, and the sprawl developers in conjunction with Woodland political leaders tasked staff in both jurisdictions to pursue surface water and nothing but surface water for many years.
We are going to knock this bad plan down, and do the ground water well system study, and come up with a plan (ground or surface or both) that is 100% owned and operated by Davis and its voters and ratepayers. It is madness to ever let Woodland’s politicos and their preferred United Water Company (yes, the one indicated on multiple felonies in Indiana for forging water plant e-coli testing results) to come into Davis and control our water.
Michael: [i]Don-the-hall-monitor will use that as an excuse to strip my posts as he has now formed a habit of doing when I say something he disagrees with…
[/i]
As I said to the other blog participant who made this assertion, I do not edit or remove posts based on whether or not I agree with them.
Mike, I am happy that my opinion cast such a wide net to apply to your point. However, I am just as concerned about the potential for being lied to that this project can be kicked down the road because it causes too much financial pain today. You have to admit that this type of kicking-can-down-road behavior has been endemic and at the root of why we find ourselves in ever increasing fiscal dire straits. Sometimes there is never a better time than the present to get it done. However, I certainly will welcome any more affordable plan.
And, I will go on record stating that I am possibly the most guilty pushing the topic thread and Don has only deleted one post which included an image of a hybrid sports car. That post was pretty far off topic and may have disserved to be deleted. Don and I disagree on many things and he has never deleted a post that he disagrees with (that I am aware of).
Don: oh yes you do. If I had the efiles of the posts I made last week and you stripped, everyone could read for themselves. But I dont type on Word, then copy into the Blog. I know what is off topic, and I know when I am pushing someone personally. Your work product last week was inappropriate, and biased, and contrary to the spirit of these Blogs. You flat out did not like what I had to say about Dan Wolk’s trying to have it both ways: his is the successful 9/6 motion for the project, then he writes in a SUnday Op-ed how bad the project is from planning and fiscal standpoint. He is going to be called out during the elections about those tactics and will be held responsible for that vote. I told him before the 9/6 meeting that he could not have it both ways.
You also have been doing it repeatedly to Rich Rifkin, and he is the most straight-up, well-researched blogger I have ever read.
I have called you repeatedly to discuss, and am still waiting for a call back. (I think you called many weeks ago and left a VM, but nothing since.)
I am only posting this here because you are not making yourself privately available to do this off-line. Emails and blogs are terrible ways to solve personal issues.
That said, I am sitting here in my office looking out on a very nice garden full of your plants. Thank you very much!
Don: I would take a photo from the upper deck and post for all to see your products and advice at work, but I dont have Rich’s fancy photo-posting skills!
Anyway, sometimes I feel a little gritchy here because I just plain believe that this project is going to unnecessarily suck $250 million of precious resources from our beloved city and its residents.
I want that ground well study.
Meanwhile, I want to work on a legal structure that will produce a 100% Davis owned and operated water system. I can assure all of you that if there is a valid and justied project proposal, even if expensive, the Davis rate payers will support a citywide vote on it. This town is full of smart, technical people who can read the project data and decide for themselves what is justified and affordable.
Trust the voters.
Davis overwhelmingly voted for the SMUD proposal to take our power system public. The same will happen when the city has a well thought out water system proposal with honest, transparent rate structure.
Seriously, how can anyone read any further once you realize that the present ordinance’s rate structure is built on fabrications, smoke and mirrors, and even outright lies? Dan says he voted for a “flat 14%” maximum. Oh, really? I truly believe that even Dan, the water lawyer, was duped by the proposal that he moved into law. So no, I dont believe any of the technical data or legal structure or anything else the JPA or the CC majority is telling us as to why we should rush into this surface project.
Relax, help us knock it down, and we can all get to work to solve the issues and present a really good plan to the Davis voters in a couple of years.
Steve: do the right thing, and repeal the ordinance in early December. You are the Chair of the JPA. Give everyone a break, and move to work on an independent study of the ground water well system. Be the hero. I know you have been acting as the salesperson for this, like you did for Target, but give it a break, step back, and repeal it.
Your statements are simply untrue, Michael. I have not pulled any posts because I “did not like what you have to say.” I have never removed a post of yours because I disagree with it.
I have never removed a post by Rich Rifkin because I disagree with the content. I have been blistered by various blog participants for [i]leaving[/i] posts by Rich, including some I strongly disagreed with. What I did last week was remove posts that I felt were off-topic. It is not unreasonable that people will disagree with me about that, and I have taken some of the criticism readily and agree that more latitude may be appropriate on that. I also take into consideration comments by other blog participants, including those who felt your inclusion of the water project in a thread about labor issues was off-topic. So I was being responsive to that.
I remove personal attacks. I remove off-topic posts. I remove any attempts to ‘out’ pseudonymous posters.
If you are going to make these assertions, you’d better start keeping records.
I will not discuss these issues in person. I will only discuss them by email. The reason for that should be obvious to anyone.
If you have any further complaints about how I moderate this blog, you can take them up with me directly at donshor@gmail.com, or with David Greenwald. Let me make this very clear: you will not derail threads with discussions about how the blog is moderated.
Don: thanks for your volunteer moderator work. It’s not an easy job.
[quote]ERM: you are a mystery to me. I just read all of the great points about your various civic projects and duties, and you even said ” … a good part of my task is to prevent financial abuse.”
Yet, here we are, a poorly-planned surface water project ready to lift up to $250 million from Davis wallets, and you just hammmer for that money suck (I would call it fiscal abuse by the City) without looking at the big picture.
With the City lying to us about the rates, how can you believe anything else they tell us? As a lawyer, you know once a witness or attorney presents fraud on the court, it’s all over for them. Done. Please explain.
Thank you, and respectfully, Michael. [/quote]
I am currently in favor of the water project as proposed, bc it seems the CHEAPEST way to go. As others have said, “kicking the can down the road” does not seem like a viable alternative to me. However, I am open to REASONABLE alternatives, but I have as yet to hear one. In fact, you seem to be conceding that a publicly owned surface water project may be a very expensive proposition that you would be in favor of, at the same time you have decried the surface water project as being too expensive, to wit:
[quote]Meanwhile, I want to work on a legal structure that will produce a 100% Davis owned and operated water system. I can assure all of you that if there is a valid and justied project proposal, EVEN IF EXPENSIVE, the Davis rate payers will support a citywide vote on it.[/quote]
You seem to be all over the place in your opinions… they don’t seem internally consistent with each other. You seem to be arguing the city should “kick the can down the road” while at the same time castigating previous City Councils for “kicking the can down the road”…
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Meanwhile, I want to work on a legal structure that will produce [b]a 100% Davis owned and operated water system[/b]. I can assure all of you that if there is a valid and justified project proposal, even if expensive, the Davis rate payers will support a citywide vote on it. This town is full of smart, technical people who can read the project data and decide for themselves what is justified and affordable.”[/i]
Michael, you have said your bolded words before. Why is “100% Davis owned and operated” important to you, ans why does such a structure produce more value for Davis residents?