Commentary: Why is the Bee Endorsing in Davis City Council Races?

Council-Race-2012

I remember a few years ago I had a discussion with a Bee reporter who covered Davis, among other areas – Yolo County and beyond.  The point that was conveyed at that time is that the Sacramento Bee does not cover Davis, it covers issues that are interesting to the region.  Makes sense.

Looking back since the start of 2011, I was curious how many times the Sacramento Bee had covered City of Davis politics.  It was not a whole lot, as one might expect, but perhaps more than I would have expected.  It actually covered five different issues.

It covered the water referendum more than half a dozen times, it covered the fire merger once, it covered Picnic Day just under a handful of times in 2011, it covered a bit on the appointment of Dan Wolk to replace Don Saylor on the council, and it covered one issue on the pensions.

While it is true that the Bee did cover Davis a few times, very rarely did a Bee reporter attend a council meeting.  Contrast that to the dozens of articles since November 18 on the pepper-spray incident, and you recognize priorities.  And that’s fine.

However, if you are not going to cover the city council on a regular basis, it is difficult for your editorial board to weigh in with an endorsement for which candidates the voters ought to vote for.  That is particularly true if you do not have an interview of each candidate or have a real sense for the politics and policies of the council.

It is within this context that we have to evaluate the Bee endorsements for the city council.

In the end, the Bee ends up endorsing the same candidates as the Davis Chamber of Commerce.  But while the Chamber spent hours interviewing candidates and going over their records, the Bee attended the League of Women Voters forum that only covered a small subsection of issues.

The Bee writes: “Davis voters have an opportunity to infuse the City Council with new blood, tempered with an experienced hand, and ought to seize it.”

It is obvious that they see water as the key, if not only, issue here.

They write: “Working with two members elected in 2010, the new council will certainly be far more open than the current one to exploring a necessary upgrade to the city’s water system, joining with Woodland and tapping into the Sacramento River.”

That’s a strange comment, given the fact that the previous council had voted 4-1 for that project and only backed off it when the voters signed on in sufficient numbers on a referendum.  It was only then that the council acknowledged flaws in their rate structure and agreed to go back to the board.

The Bee writes, “Souza has emerged as the driving force for completion of the water project.”

That is a strange comment; if anything, the Mayor has been a driving force in the completion of the water project.  More odd still is that one of the people who put the brakes on the current project was Sacramento Bee favorite, Dan Wolk.

But let us not let facts get in the way of a good rant.

They write, “Although the project will be costly, it is necessary for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is quality and taste, as anyone who drinks from Davis’ taps can attest. As it is, the city relies on groundwater, which is heavy in salt and fouls the Yolo basin when it is discharged.”

The other issue that the Bee loves to push is development in Davis.  Therefore, they argue, “Davis will never seek rapid growth, but the new council will likely move ahead with appropriate plans to develop an expanse of land that once housed a tomato cannery and has been empty for two decades. A combination of some new housing and businesses would be a welcome addition to the city.”

As we noted, the Bee loves Dan Wolk.  They write, “In his short tenure, Wolk, the son of Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, and UC Davis Law School Professor Bruce Wolk, has shown himself to be forward-thinking and to have the proper temperament to serve in local government.”

“He brings important experience to the council, working as a deputy county counsel in neighboring Solano County.”

The Bee also endorses Lucas Frerichs. They cite his involvement in civic affairs, along with “Frerichs’ Capitol experience dealing with state budgets would come in handy as Davis, like many cities, continues to struggle with tight finances.”

Here an interview might have been a bit helpful.  As we noted yesterday, we are a bit concerned so far about Mr. Frerichs economic plan for Davis.

We do not really get a sense why the Bee endorsed Mr. Souza, as their only comment was on water and it was not wholly accurate.

They clearly, at this point, do not like Sue Greenwald.

They write, “Incumbent Sue Greenwald has dedicated herself to serving the city for three terms. She’s never been a ‘go-along’ elected official, and at times has helped challenge the ‘group think’ of the council, particularly on pay and retirement benefits for city employees.”

They add, “But Greenwald too often wanders into reckless territory with her rhetoric.”

To prove that point they cite without quotation, “An example is her claim that water from Sacramento River would be unfit for Davis, an exercise in fear mongering that helped set back the water project.”

We are not clear what they are referring to.

This is the closest we were able to find, but I have never seen her say that Sacramento River water would be unfit for Davis, only that “there is no credible evidence that Sacramento River water is safer or cleaner” and that “the river water obviously has far more ‘dirt’ in the form of run-off and sewage.”

However, in the quotes I have seen from Sue Greenwald, she also said, “Both supplies are currently ‘safe,’ and both have constituents that might require more treatment in the future.”

To me, if the Bee wants to use an example of that sort, they need quotes.

On Brett Lee, they simply said, “A fifth candidate, Brett Lee, is articulate and thoughtful, but could use a deeper involvement in civic affairs before serving in elected office.”

They conclude: “Souza, Wolk and Frerichs have the right combination of experience and fresh thinking for Davis in the challenging years ahead. “

Endorsements by newspapers ought to give us fresh insights into the race.  I have the feeling that most Vanguard readers are better educated on the candidates and could render much more informed endorsements than what we see from the Bee.

Reasonable people can disagree on who the best candidates are for office.  Often it depends on perspective and the issues one chooses to focus on.

From my perspective, if the Bee wants to cover Davis for a regional record – something that makes a lot of sense from their staffing perspective and also their readership, perhaps they ought to leave the decision on which candidates to vote for to those who actually attend council meetings and know the issues.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

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

96 Comments

  1. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]They add, “But Greenwald too often wanders into reckless territory with her rhetoric.”

    To prove that point they cite without quotation, “An example is her claim that water from Sacramento River would be unfit for Davis, an exercise in fear mongering that helped set back the water project.”

    We are not clear what they are referring to.

    This is the closest we were able to find but I have never seen her say that Sacramento River water would be unfit for Davis, only that “there is no credible evidence that Sacramento River water is safer or cleaner” and that “the river water obviously has far more ‘dirt’ in the form of run-off and sewage.”

    However, in the quotes I have seen from Sue Greenwald she also said, “Both supplies are currently ‘safe,’ and both have constituents that might require more treatment in the future.”[/quote]

    On the Vanguard very recently Sue Greenwald insisted the Sacramento River water was more polluted than well water. Several of us called her on it. Here is the exact quote:
    [quote]I would like to see citizens make their decisions based on more accurate information…The surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater…[/quote]
    See the March 23 article entitled “Davis CC Candidates Respond to Sierra Club Yolano Group Questionnaire – Part One” and the following link for the quote by Sue Greenwald: [url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5294:davis-city-council-candidates-respond-to-sierra-club-yolano-group-questionnaire-part-one&catid=50:elections&Itemid=83[/url]

  2. David M. Greenwald

    Full quote: “Future drinking water standards could make both groundwater AND surface water more expensive to treat. For example, endocrine disrupters in the surface water might need expensive treatment. The surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater, and the resultant high cost of treatment is one of the things that makes this project so expensive.”

    Whether you agree or disagree with her there, that’s a far cry from saying like the Sacramento Bee that she believes that Sacramento River water is unfit for Davis. She never said that. She indicated it will be expensive. She’s also acknowledged more than once that we will eventually need surface water.

  3. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]Whether you agree or disagree with her there, that’s a far cry from saying like the Sacramento Bee that she believes that Sacramento River water is unfit for Davis. She never said that. She indicated it will be expensive. She’s also acknowledged more than once that we will eventually need surface water.[/quote]

    Her exact quote was: “I would like to see citizens make their decisions based on more accurate information…THE SURFACE WATER IS INTRINSICALLY MUCH MORE POLLUTED THAN GROUNDWATER…” which is disingenuous and inaccurate information that she herself is disseminating as a sitting City Council member. She went far beyond just indicating the surface water project would be expensive as you claim. She said surface water is more polluted than groundwater, even though it contradicts other previous statements she has made that they are EQUALLY problematic, to wit:
    [quote]Both supplies are currently ‘safe,’ and both have constituents that might require more treatment in the future.”[/quote]

  4. David M. Greenwald

    I like how you keep taking the quote out of context Elaine. I understand you don’t agree with her, but she did not say what the Bee said she did.

  5. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]I like how you keep taking the quote out of context Elaine.[/quote]

    Out of context? She clearly said Sac River water is more polluted than ground water – a complete distortion of the facts, untrue, and misleading to the public. How is that taking her comment out of context?

  6. Mr.Toad

    Only the Vanguard should be allowed to endorse allowed to endorse. Oh wait the Vanguard can’t endorse because they gave that up to get tax exempt status. Hey I got news for you lots of Bee writers live in Davis, and, I am sure, can make a reasoned endorsement. In fact you can easily argue the Bee got it right, even including one bat shit crazy remark from Sue Greenwald, just as an example of what passes for intellect among the luddite zealots of Davis.

  7. David M. Greenwald

    “Only the Vanguard should be allowed to endorse allowed to endorse”

    The word allowed never came up in this discussion.

    The Bee can make a reasoned endorsement but not if they do not do their home work or get their facts wrong.

  8. psdavis

    [quote]Actually, the Bee covers the most newsworthy events in Davis. I sometimes read stories in the Bee before they show up in the Enterprise. The Daily Democrat frequently covers certain Davis-related events the Enterprise misses or doesn’t cover as well.

    A paper that covers Davis news certainly should care enough to write editorials about Davis. I can’t see a problem, unless their editorial reflects a different opinion than mine. Then, I’d think they’re out of their territory.

    It makes sense that they give more weight to Davis’ regional impact issues (water) than our more parochial matters (going bankrupt). But, they must be watching our city council in action ’cause they’ve got it nailed, and they do a good job of analyzing the wannabe challengers as well.

    The Bee is less courteous than the Enterprise about Sue’s double-edge interactions with her colleagues and her wandering “into reckless territory with her rhetoric.” The editorial cited ‘her claim that water from (the) Sacramento River would be unfit for Davis,” calling that “an exercise in fear mongering that helped set back the water project.”

    Stephen gets high marks for emerging as “the driving force for the completion of the water project,” an accomplishment that doesn’t gain him much from the Vanguard or the Enterprise. [b]JustSaying 05/05/12[/b][/quote]I think the real issue with the Sac Bee for David Greenwald is that they did not endorse his candidate. Will there now be an article trying to maginalize Dunning’s opinion because he’s currently calling the election for Wolk, Frerichs, and Greenwald?

  9. Sue Greenwald

    The Sacramento Bee libelled me, plain on simple. I never said that Sacramento River water was unfit for Davis. I have always said that it would be great to have the river water for purposes of long-term sustainability and subsidence control, but we have to accomplish this in a fiscally sustainable manner.

    I have ALWAYS said that both sources are safe, that river water starts out very dirty and is more expensive to treat, and both sources have their problems. I have said that river water is more likely to come up unforeseen problems because it unprotected. All of this is patently obvious.

    I have never said that river water is “unfit for Davis”. That is libel. I have always said that it would be a good thing to have, which is the opposite of “unfit for Davis”. This is libel.

  10. David M. Greenwald

    “I think the real issue with the Sac Bee for David Greenwald is that they did not endorse his candidate”

    I don’t have a candidate, so that would be difficult.

  11. Sue Greenwald

    The Sacramento Bee never interviewed us. Newspapers always interview candidates before endorsing to hear what they have to say.

    Stuart Leavenworth also refused to meet with me after the Bee editorial six months ago.

    Yet Stuart Leavenworth had a whole page on the web devoted to describing the Bee endorsement process, in which he describes his endorsement policy [b]AND HE SAYS THAT HE INTERVIEWS LOCAL CANDIDATES.[/b]

    If Stuart Leavenworth had interviewed me in the process he outlined on his web page, he could have done his endorsements without libelling anyone.

    He obviously chose to rely on rumour from people like those who habitually post on this web site.

  12. Sue Greenwald

    No, the issue is [b]NOT[/b] that they didn’t endorse David’s candidates. It was clear that water was their big issue, and that they didn’t care about the financial burden to the cities. That is their right.

    The problem is that they libelled me.

  13. Sue Greenwald

    [quote]David – Are Debbie Davis and Foy McNaughton frequent visitors at the Davis City Council meetings?[/quote]The Enterprise sends a reporter to every meeting, and Debbie reads every article. I can call Debbie at any time if I feel that article is misleading. And Debbie, Burt and Foy interview the candidates the way every reputable newspaper does.

  14. hpierce

    OK… the Bee endorsement is a fait accompli. So, the only purpose for your article today that I see is for you to discredit the Bee’s picks. David, who knows what reporters may be assigned to watch the CC streaming videos and/or archives via web? How many reporters or editorial board members are Davis residents, or have friends and family in Davis that they used to form their opinions? Could it be (pun intended) that the folks at the Bee are interested in what the Davis CC does, and how it BEHAVES (or, not), but when they are allocating their supplies, just don’t think that the majority of their readers give a hoot?
    I suspect more people in Davis read the Bee than the Vanguard and the DE, combined (huge understatement). I’d hate to think that voters would primarily base their vote based on any source other than their own.
    Let’s see, who has made recommendations/endorsements to date? C of C, DE, and the Bee…. who hasn’t? You going to wait until 8:45 on that Tuesday night in June, so you can be “right”?
    Or, will you be content to study, ask questions, and make your decision right before you put marker to paper, and respect that is what most of us will do, as well.

  15. medwoman

    David

    “Sue: It may be untrue but it does not fit the definition of libel.”

    That would depend upon the definition that you are using for “libel”. If you are using it to mean “defamation by written word or pictures”, probably not. If you are using the definition “to misrepresent damagingly”, perhaps so if you consider promoting the loss of an election “damaging”.

  16. hpierce

    Ms Greenwald. you used the word “libel”. That is a serious charge. I suggest that you pursue that legally, or back off. Is it libelous to accuse a person/entity for libel?

  17. Sue Greenwald

    [b]@David Greenwald:[/b]
    [b]libel[/b]
    1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.

    This was libel. I never said Sacramento River water was “unfit for Davis”. Since that would have been a crazy remark had I said it which would have done hard to my reputation, but is libel.

    It is difficult to prove libel in regard to a public figure, that doesn’t mean it isn’t libel.

  18. psdavis

    “I don’t have a candidate …”

    David: People would take you much more seriously as a journalist if you simply acknowledged your biases. As an example, your repeated claims of neutrality on Wildhorse Ranch became a running joke in the community. Even Don Shor repeatedly called you out on the issue.

    You have both an opinion and an agenda. We all get that. Let’s not play make believe.

  19. hpierce

    [quote]And Debbie, Burt and Foy interview the candidates the way [b]every [u]reputable[/u] newspaper[/b] does. [/quote]A reasonable person would interpret this to mean that Ms Greenwald assets that the Bee is not reputable. Interesting.

  20. Sue Greenwald

    [b]@Elaine Musser:[/b]Again, surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater. That is why it is so incredibly expensive to treat, while groundwater needs little or no treatment. That is simply a factual statement. Since I have said over and over again that it would be a good idea to get river water if we can get the price of the project down or phase it in, it is clear that I don’t feel that Sacramento River water is “unfit for Davis.

    This was agenda-ridden, lazy writing my a newspaper that doesn’t cover Davis and that didn’t even bother to do interviews.

    Same on the Sacramento BEE.

  21. Sue Greenwald

    Typo time — I just don’t have time to proof these comments. Corrections:

    This was agenda-ridden, lazy writing by a newspaper that doesn’t cover Davis and that didn’t even bother to do interviews.

    Shame on the Sacramento BEE.

  22. David M. Greenwald

    Hpierce:

    The purpose of my column was to evaluate the basis for their decision. The fact that more people read the Bee in Davis than the Enterprise only bolsters their need to make sound decision.

    Sue:

    It’s not that it’s difficult to prove libel with regards to a public figure, it’s that the legal standard is far higher and for good reason.

    PSDAVIS:

    I never claimed neutrality on WHR. I simply could not tell people which way to vote. However, in the council election, I have not only not taken a position, but I have not even thought in terms of who I would support. My approach to this election has been to ask tough questions of the candidates, report as much as possible about their positions, and to call them on things when their rhetoric either does not make sense or does not match their past actions.

    I have neither an opinion nor an agenda here.

    HPIERCE: More accurately Sue’s point is that the Bee did not follow the steps that a reputable paper would ordinary follow, not that they are not reputable.

  23. Sue Greenwald

    And to anticipate the snide remarks: No, I have no problem with the Sacramento BEE not endorsing me. In the last two election, I received three out of the four newspaper endorsements — one from the Bee and two from the Enterprise. That is more than fair. But libel is unacceptable.

  24. hpierce

    [quote]“Only the Vanguard should be allowed to endorse allowed to endorse”

    [b]The word allowed never came up in this discussion.
    [/b]
    The Bee [u]can[/u] make a reasoned endorsement [u]but not if[/u] they do not do their home work or get their facts wrong. [/quote]Wanna go on-line and look at the definition of ‘allowed’?

  25. hpierce

    [quote]1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others.
    [/quote]Suggest you use a dictionary of legal terms, instead of one used for Scrabble. As I recall, “knowingly”, “maliciously”, and/or “deliberately” are in the definition that attorneys and justices use.

  26. psdavis

    “I have neither an opinion nor an agenda here.”

    Like I said, people would take you much more seriously as a journalist if you simply acknowledged your biases.

  27. concernedcitizen

    Every reporter, including David, has a bias. It’s human nature. As a 501(c)3, the thing Davis CAN’T do is publicly endorse a candidate. I do see his biases, but every reader who regularly reads his stuff takes that into account. Personally, I think he’s done a decent job regarding the election. He’s certainly spurred discussion.

    @Sue Greenwald: I’m not sure your energy is well spent on this “libel” argument. I wouldn’t put it as harshly as hpierce, but there isn’t much recourse other than approaching the author of the article directly or writing a response. Bulletin board conversations won’t provide the type of resolution you are seeking. You have a strong campaign and a strong following, so don’t let it get under your skin too much.

  28. David M. Greenwald


    Like I said, people would take you much more seriously as a journalist if you simply acknowledged your biases.”

    Why don’t you enlighten me

  29. biddlin

    “He obviously chose to rely on rumour from people like those who habitually post on this web site.” You do realize that you are among the most frequent posters on this site ?

  30. Mr.Toad

    Did Sue contact them and ask for a correction?

    Does a newspaper need to interview someone who has served for twelve years to make an informed decision not to endorse? I don’t think so. They probably decided from her behavior when Ruth collapsed that Sue was unfit to serve. Or they might have realized that Sue had lost it when she wanted to compare Davis to Vancouver. Who knows, maybe they came to their conclusion viewing the tape of Sue flailing wildly while winging it instead of being reasoned and prepared on any number of occasions. Perhaps it was her dogmatic votes based on consistency instead of logic that set them back. Obviously it was something. If they, like myself, endorsed her in the past, but now have changed their opinion it’s reasonable to assume that twelve years of observation of her on the dais is enough to formulate an objective view without wasting the editorial board time of people like Dan Walters or Dan Morain.

  31. psdavis

    [quote]I never said Sacramento River water was “unfit for Davis”. Since that would have been a [u]crazy remark[/u] had I said it which would have done hard to my reputation … [b]Sue Greenwald 05/06/12[/b][/quote][quote]The river water is open and unprotected from contamination. It is downstream from the notorious “Colusa Drain” which is thick with agricultural pollutants from Northern California. [u]Who knows what is going to end up in the river in the future, or whether or not treatment will be adequate?[/u]

    We could go on and on about the uncertainties of surface water as well as the uncertainties concerning groundwater.

    Personally, [u]I feel safer with groundwater because it is not open to every inorganic and organic pollutant that comes along[/u], and is not downstream from the Colusa drain. But I accept the fact that we all worry about different constituents. [b]Sue Greenwald 01/02/12[/quote]While Sue may not have used the precise words “unfit for Davis” (the only way to know this for sure would be an exhaustive review off the public record) that could have certainly been inferred from many of her statements. As a consequence, I think the Bee’s editorial statement is a fair paraphrasing of their read on her position.

    I also think the fear mongering charge is fair. Invoking images of the Colusa drain and the possibility of inadequate treatment is a pretty clear attempt to by Sue to use fear to influence public opinion in the service of her political agenda.

  32. JustSaying

    [quote][u]David[/u]: I like how you keep taking the quote out of context Elaine.

    [u]Elaine[/u]: Out of context? She clearly said Sac River water is more polluted than ground water – a complete distortion of the facts, untrue, and misleading to the public. How is that taking her comment out of context?

    [u]David[/u]: But again, in the context of cost not safety. She never said it was unsafe or unfit.[/quote]What an odd debate. Any of us who have followed the [i]Vanguard[/i] and local press on Sue’s fear-mongering about the quality of water sources knows that she meant. She’s repeatedly tried to convince people that Sacramento River water is bad and that treatment will be both expensive and possibly ineffective.

    Why debate the “context” or the words she used for one of her many statements about the matter. She said what she said many times in several ways. Was what she said accurate; if not, did she ever correct her statement about the water quality; if neither, what was her purpose in repeated using such language if not to scare us?

    Whether we support the water project shouldn’t determine how we evaluate a person’s words.

  33. JustSaying

    [quote]“The Sacramento Bee libelled me, plain on simple….The problem is that they libelled me….Newspapers always interview candidates before endorsing to hear what they have to say.”[/quote]Not one statement here is accurate. Still, it’s certainly understandable that Sue is irritated with the [i]Bee[/i]’s endorsement story. [quote]“It was clear that water was their big issue, and that they didn’t care about the financial burden to the cities. That is their right.”[/quote]They did care more about how Sue and Stephen have performed on water issues than how the “old council” has failed us on managing the budget and spending our money (affordable housing, handling DACHA scandal, “art” on the water tank, ZipCars, etc.).

    Any publication that covers Davis and circulates in Davis has plenty of claim to endorse our political candidates or criticize things that happen here or suggest how we ought to be doing things. To say that they didn’t have enough information to consider our candidates looks silly after reading the pretty accurate description of those in the race.

    The [i]Vanguard[/i] covers Davis politics more closely than the [i]Bee[/i]–in some aspects, more closely than the [i]Enterprise[/i]–but no one would claim that David comes up with more worthy opinions about the candidates than the [i]Bee[/i] did. Well, maybe a few would….

  34. JustSaying

    [quote]“JS: The point Sue made seems sufficiently different from both the Bee and Elaine describing to her.”[/quote]Not sufficiently different to produce such an argument about just one of her comments. The Bee added up the stuff Sue has said and what she supports and summarized it stating that Sacramento River is “unfit for Davis”–it’s reasonable to have made such a conclusion.

    What’s not reasonable is trying discount the totality of her statements on the topic by parsing one selected, single quote of the many she’s made on the quality of river water vs. ground water.

  35. David M. Greenwald

    Except that her comments have been as follows:

    A. There is no safety issue – she has said that multiple times repeatedly
    B. Her concerns are about cost
    C. the quote that Elaine is pointing to is about costs not safety

    So her comment should not be construed as it has been because she is not expressing a safety concern and has in fact said we will eventually go on river water, however, river water will be more costly than ground water and so she is looking to forestall that particularly with the wastewater issue still in play

  36. JustSaying

    Aren’t you the one who wrote:[quote]“We are not clear what they are referring to. This is the closest we were able to find, but I have never seen her say that Sacramento River water would be unfit for Davis, only that ‘there is no credible evidence that Sacramento River water is safer or cleaner” and that “the river water obviously has far more ‘dirt’ in the form of run-off and sewage’.”[/quote]Elaine has provided direct quotes; psdavis has provided more; no doubt, there’s more out there. Discounting what Sue said by claiming that she’s also said other stuff that appear to conflict with things she said (and she doesn’t contest that she said) isn’t very convincing.

    If she says, on the other hand, that she didn’t mean what a reasonable person (or newspaper) concludes she meant, we should accept her word for it. Maybe she could be clearer in making her points in the future.

    But, in the long run, it doesn’t matter much to the premise of the articlee. It’s not enough convince anyone that the [i]Bee[/i] is just too inadequate to endorse in David City Council races.

  37. psdavis

    [quote]There is no safety issue – she has said that multiple times repeatedly.[b] David Greenwald[/b][/quote][quote]Personally, I feel [i][u][b]safer[/b][/u][/i] with groundwater because it is not open to every inorganic and organic pollutant that comes along, and is not downstream from the Colusa drain. [b]Sue Greenwald[/b][/quote]It’s clear there’s a candor issue.

  38. eagle eye

    The BEE told me recently that their total print subscriptions is only 150,000.
    The BEE is clearly a proponent of development. Development covers a lot of ground, so to speak: not just land and builders on site, but miles of underground pipe for gas and electric and sewer and water, for example.
    The river water project will generate lots of profit opportunities.
    The BEE is pro-business and helps out their friends. The BEE just doesn’t mention exactly who their friends are, but the BEE believes Wolk and Lucas and Souza will be the most helpful to the BEE’s friends.

    I don’t know anyone who takes the Bee seriously.

  39. wdf1

    When I read Sac Bee articles about Davis, I get the sense that the int

    hpierce: [i]I suspect more people in Davis read the Bee than the Vanguard and the DE…[/i]

    When I read Sac Bee articles about Davis, I get the sense that often the intended audience is more the greater Sacramento public rather than Davis per se.

    This is an example of the Sac Bee’s coverage of the recent Measure C parcel tax vote ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2012/03/05/4311204/organized-opposition-surfaces.html[/url]). When I read it, I sensed a certain amount of restrained churlishness toward Davis, playing more to a non-Davis readership.

  40. David M. Greenwald

    WDF: That’s what the former reporter once told me. They are not writing for Davis. This is about what the Bee wants for Davis, not what Davis necessarily needs.

  41. Dr. Wu

    [quote]Personally, I feel safer with groundwater because it is not open to every inorganic and organic pollutant that comes along, and is not downstream from the Colusa drain. Sue Greenwald[/quote]

    To me Sue is just pointing out that drawing water from a river is not without problems. I have never heard her say that river water is unsafe, Her main concern has always been the cost of the project.

  42. Dr. Wu

    [quote]When I read Sac Bee articles about Davis, I get the sense that often the intended audience is more the greater Sacramento public rather than Davis per se.
    [/quote]

    I read Dan Walter’s column religiously. The Sac Bee also has good coverage of goings on in our State Capital. But I agree that their coverage of Davis is out of touch and has an agenda.

  43. Sue Greenwald

    The predictable comments from the usual suspects aside:

    Yes, personally, I feel safer with the deep aquifer water. If there were a guarantee that there would be enough deep aquifer water to last us indefinitely, then yes, I think it would be crazy to import surface water.

    [b]BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SAC BEE SAID[/b]

    The Sac Bee wrote that I said Sacramento River water was “unfit for Davis”. I have never said that. That is the opposite of what I have been saying.

    Rather, I have been saying that I support a surface water project because we don’t have a guarantee that my preferred option is available in sufficient quantity in the long term, and because I am concerned with long-term subsidence.

    It would have been accurate for them to say something like: “We strongly disagree with Sue Greenwald’s view that there is no urgency in completing the surface water project”, or something like that.

    What makes this worse is that I had written Stuart Leavenworth about six months ago correcting some factual errors in the Bee’s op-ed piece and explaining that I support the surface water project but that I think we should consider either phasing it in or finding a way to significantly reduce the cost. He acknowledged receiving this communication.

  44. psdavis

    “I have never heard her say that river water is unsafe.” Dr. Wu

    I posted a quote that is unambiguous. I’m sure more will come out if anyone cares to go looking.

  45. Matt Williams

    This comments thread has been an interesting read. I’m glad I went to the Pence Gallery Gardens before reading it. Some thoughts based on all that has been said.

    Sue Greenwald said . . .

    [i]”[b]Yes, personally, I feel safer with the deep aquifer water[/b]. If there were a guarantee that there would be enough deep aquifer water to last us indefinitely, then yes, I think it would be crazy to import surface water.”[/i]

    Sue, I’m glad you are finally acknowledging what you said here on the Vanguard. Have you said similar statements about the realtive safety of water sources in other venues?

    Since I am not privy to the specific input data that the Bee used in its endorsement determination and editorial review process, I can’t answer for you what caused the Bee to translate your self-acknowledged “safeness” statements into their attribution to you “that water from Sacramento River would be unfit for Davis.” However, when you strip away all the spin, there isn’t much of a leap between “unsafe” and “unfit.”

    Just out of curiosity, why do you feel safer with the deep aquifer water? Do you consider Arsenic levels to be an important component of water safety? What are the relative levels of Arsenic in our well water vs. Sacramento River water? Do you consider Hexavalent Chromium levels to be an important component of water safety? What are the relative levels of Hexavalent Chromium in our well water vs. Sacramento River water? Do you think it is “safe” that groundwater constituent levels monitored by Title 22 have resulted in the abandonment and destruction of seven Davis wells, and the taking out of production of four additional Davis wells? If it isn’t designed to keep us safe, why does Title 22 even exist?

    So, bottom-line, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Bee’s “fear mongering” point is that you appear to be very quick to trumpet information that serves your personal agenda, but very slow to acknowledge information that does not.

  46. Sue Greenwald

    Comments from the usual suspects aside, I have always said that river water is not as clean as deep aquifer water and that is why it requires so much treatment. Water from below the Colusa Drain has more contaminants than water north of the Colusa Drain.

    Unforeseen problems could arise with both, but are probably more likely with river water because it is exposed and because the contaminants in river water have not received as much regulatory attention.

    This is what I have been told by a number of experts. Our own wastewater treatment plant operator told me that endocrine disrupters in surface water could be receiving regulatory attention and could require more expensive treatment.

    But I have also said that both sources can be treated so that they are considered safe, and that no source is perfect.

  47. jimt

    It is generally true that in most areas groundwater is cleaner than surface water; although I am not familiar with the specifics of sacramento river water vs. groundwater in the davis area. I am confident that Sue Greenwald has done her research and that her statements regarding relative cleanliness are accurate.

    Sue, you have my vote and that of many others. Hope you don’t get discouraged by detractors; I don’t know why Sue has such strident detractors; Sue has been making accurate statements that are countered with personal opinions. I think Sue deserves a lot of credit for insisting on a re-evaluation and considering more options for the proposed Davis surface water project for the past year or so; note that cost estimates have gone down.

    Go get ’em, Sue!

  48. jimt

    Re: Eagle Eye’s comment above:

    “The BEE is clearly a proponent of development. Development covers a lot of ground, so to speak: not just land and builders on site, but miles of underground pipe for gas and electric and sewer and water, for example.
    The river water project will generate lots of profit opportunities.
    The BEE is pro-business and helps out their friends. The BEE just doesn’t mention exactly who their friends are, but the BEE believes Wolk and Lucas and Souza will be the most helpful to the BEE’s friends.”

    This is something I have also suspected; there has been a trend of newspapers getting more and more cozy with big business (after all that’s where much of the advertising revenue comes from).

    To be fair; the Bee does often have excellent articles on earth science, including hydrology and environmental issues.

    Hope to see more of you on this forum, Eagle Eye!

  49. biddlin

    “The predictable comments from the usual suspects aside…”
    “Comments from the usual suspects aside,..”
    C’mon, Don . Who else gets away with that ? If the Vanguard makes no endorsement, then at least the moderator grants indulgences . BTW Sue, the usual suspects include a couple of your constituents . It must be the fact that they disagree with you or point out contradictions in your statements that makes them suspects, in your view .

  50. Mr.Toad

    What about the fear mongering part Sue? Are you objecting to that or just to the part about them putting quotes around unfit when you have no memory of having said unfit?

  51. Matt Williams

    Don Shor said . . .

    [i]biddlin; “the usual suspects” seems pretty tame, really.[/i]

    One of my very favorite movies. Love the reference.

  52. DT Businessman

    Maybe I’m confused, but I thought David’s opinion piece was a criticism of the Bee’s enforsement rationale.

    “But let us not let facts get in the way of a good rant.” -David Greenwald

    “The Bee can make a reasoned endorsement but not if they do not do their home work or get their facts wrong.” -David Greenwald

    “The purpose of my column was to evaluate the basis for their decision.” -David Greenwald

    David, then you go on to say:

    “I have neither an opinion nor an agenda here.” -David Greenwald

    If you protestation is sincere, then why don’t you hold the Enterprise to the same standard?

    “While we have not always agreed with her on the issue…” -Davis Enterprise

    This has got to be one of the most bizarre lead-ins to an endorsement of all time. The Enterprise doesn’t agree with Sue’s positions, but endorses her because of her courageous and persistent wrongheadedness?

    “WE ARE INTRIGUED by Lee, a relative newcomer to Davis politics.” -Davis Enterpise

    Intrigued? This isn’t about a giddy high school girl excited about her first date. This is about an endorsement for a 4-year term on the city council.

    “Lee brings more than 20 years of experience of private-sector work, including specialties in industrial efficiencies and financial planning, to the council dais.” -Davis Enterprise

    This statement about Brett’s bio is factually incorrect. Brett is just now beginning his careet in financial planning.

    I want to be clear here, this post is not an indictment of Sue or Brett; rather, of the Enterprise endorsement of Brett and Sue, and of David’s holding the Bee to one standard, and the Enterprise to no critical standard.

    DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)

  53. DT Businessman

    I wish to further qualify my posting above. I don’t condemn the Enterprise at all for their endorsement choices as a number of Vanguardians have done of the Chamber PAC and the Bee. Any individual or organization is free to endorse whoever they wish. The bizarre Enterprise rationale is what has me flumoxed. I would have expected a much more compelling argument in support of their picks. And David, really, you need to step up your rhetorical game. You take the Bee apart for their picks, but give the Enterprise a free pass. It’s blatant.

    DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez, Chamber PAC member)

  54. Brett

    Hi Michael,
    You may want to re-read the sentence from the Enterprise that you claim is factually incorrect about my bio.

    I have worked as an industrial engineer, focused on productivity improvement and service improvement for 16 years. I have also worked as a business planner at the Fedex Headquarters for 4 years where I was responsible for budgeting and cost cutting efforts. And once again I am currently working as Project Engineer for Fedex, responsible for productivity and service improvement.

    Last spring (2011) I passed my Series 7 Exam (stockbrokers exam) and I passed my Series 66 Exam (investment advisors exam). This Spring (2012), I finished all of my coursework for the Certified Financial Planner Certificate (I intend to take the exam this November). I began working at Mutual of Omaha last October, first as a “representative” and now as a financial advisor.

    So I do not think that the Enterprise’s statement:

    “Lee brings more than 20 years of experience of private-sector work, including specialties in industrial efficiencies and financial planning, to the council dais.”

    is factually incorrect; it seems to be quite accurate.

  55. DT Businessman

    20 years as an industrial engineer, 4 years as a business planner, and embarking on a new career as a financial planner seems more accurate. Again, I’m not disparaging your career at all, Brett. I just found the Enterprise’s description of your bio a bit off. But maybe there’s just a misplaced or missing comma somewhere.

  56. DT Businessman

    Let me try putting it a different way. The Enterprise statement states/implies, Brett, that you have extensive experience in financial planning. The statement immediately caught my attention because it is not supported by what you have told me on a number of occassions. Indeed, the Enterprise statement doesn’t correspond with what you have written here (you’ve been working with Mutual of Omaha since October). That the Enterprise got it wrong suprised me. That David excoriates the Bee on their facts, but gave the Enterprise a pass suprises me as well.

    Again, this has nothing to do with you, but everything to do with the Enterprise and David. So I don’t know why you’re quibbling on this point, you’re not a politician yet after all. 🙂

  57. Brett

    Gosh Michael,
    What do you think a Business Planner does at the Fedex Headquarters?
    I suppose I should have spelled it out more clearly; as a business planner I worked on the budgets and financial plans for my division as well as financial analyses of proposed projects helping to determine which projects should or shouldn’t move forward.

    In the colloquial sense, “financial planning” as related to my coursework for the CFP typically is more focused on the individual and their financial circumstances and goals. So my years as a business planner I think more directly apply to the position I am seeking as a council person.

    Rather than this back and forth on the Vanguard, for the price of a cup of coffee, I am happy to sit down with you and go line by line through my resume.

  58. Don Shor

    I think it is possible that Brett has more experience in financial planning than either of the incumbents or any of the other candidates.

  59. Matt Williams

    DT Businessman said . . .

    [i]”It is unrealistic to expect that I or any given voter will agree with all positions of any given candidate. And given the multitude of challenges that this community is confronted with, I and many other voters are not going to cast our ballots on a single issue. I, and I suspect many others, are going to vote based on character and other personal qualities that one can only hope will come to bear as these candidates serve the community on the council. So here’s my criteria:

    1) First and foremost, ability to lead
    2) ability to listen
    3) ability to enunciate a vision
    4) ability to make a compelling argument
    5) ability to prioritize and then focus on the priorities
    6) ability to discern effective from faulty strategies
    7) ability to hold staff accountable for executing strategies
    8) ability to make decisions with conviction
    9) capacity for critical thinking
    10) incapacity for rambling monologues and grandstanding
    11) a gut level aversion to flip flopping
    12) ability to effectively manage time

    I could probably think of additional criteria given more time, but I’m sure you all get the gist.

    DT Businessman (aka Michael Bisch, Davis Commercial Properties, DDBA Co-Prez)”[/i]

    Brett and Michael, I think the two of you sitting down and talking about Brett’s background is a superb idea. Please don’t simply stop after you discuss Brett’s resume. Michael articulated an excellent list of criteria on March 24th (copied and pasted below). Hopefully you will walk away from your discussion with a better sense of just how strong Brett is on your dozen criteria, and . . . why Brett’s experience at Fed Ex has resulted in that strength.

    For the record, Brett has shown me great strength in criteria 2), 4), 5), 6), 8), 9), 10), 11) and 12). I simply don’t have enough absolute experience seeing Brett in action for criteria 1), 3) and 7) to make any statement either pro or con on those criteria.

    Conversely, Sue has lost my vote because of her oft demonstrated weaknesses in criteria 2), 1), 3), 9), 10) and 12).

  60. Sue Greenwald

    [b]@Matt Williams:[/b]Lucky I just tuned in before turning in. I’d like to remind you that you don’t vote in Davis elections; you live in El Macero.

    The first time I met you, you were upset that some new home construction was being planned south of El Macero. You started aggressively lobbying me to support new home construction adjacent to West Davis instead of near your house. Then you demanded a dedicated seat on the housing steering committee for El Macero. When I reminded you that El Macero had opposed the city’s attempt to annex it years ago, and hence El Macero residents don’t sit on our city committees, your response was a defiant: “Yes, we don’t want to be annexed!!!”

    So Matt, I will patiently listen to you when you lead the El Macero Citizens for Annexation to Davis movement.

  61. David M. Greenwald

    “You take the Bee apart for their picks, but give the Enterprise a free pass. It’s blatant.”

    Except that I never criticized their picks, only their process.

  62. DT Businessman

    Whoops! Poor choice of words on my part, David. I’ll take another crack at it.

    “Your take the Bee apart for their process, and above all, their rationale, but give the Enterprise a free pass. It’s blatant.”

  63. David M. Greenwald

    Well let’s look at that. The Enterprise covers the city of Davis and the council meetings every time. The Enterprise actually interviewed the candidates. Now since I wrote the article, I have heard some interesting things about the interview and I know at least one of the candidates believes the questions were unfair, but I didn’t know any of that when the article was written.

  64. Sue Greenwald

    Which two candidate endorsements surprised you, David? The Enterprise endorsed me four years ago too, recognizing my votes on and my analyses of the council’s fiscal decisions.

  65. David M. Greenwald

    I expected the Enterprise to endorse the same three as the Bee and Chamber. The Enterprise did not endorse you four years ago, they endorsed Vergis. She even used that endorsement on her brochures last election even though the Enterprise did not endorse her in 2010.

  66. David M. Greenwald

    Here’s the blurb from 2008…

    [quote]Saylor , Souza and Vergis for City Council – The issue: These three candidates have the right stuff to lead Davis through the coming challenges
    Davis Enterprise, The (CA) – Sunday, May 4, 2008
    Davis faces myriad challenges in the coming years. The economic downturn and the stressed real estate market apply financial pressure on every level of government. Cities face special challenges as they figure out how to pay for skyrocketing medical and retirement benefits for their employees.
    [/quote]

  67. psdavis

    [quote]Which two candidate endorsements surprised you, David? [u]The Enterprise endorsed me four years ago too[/u], recognizing my votes on and my analyses of the council’s fiscal decisions. [b]Sue Greenwald[/b][/quote]Absolutely extraordinary. Talk about being unmoored from reality.

  68. Siegel

    In fairness psdavis, and from reading your posts, you are anything but fair , Sue Probably mistook the Enterprise for the Bee endorsement.

  69. E Roberts Musser

    [quote]It is generally true that in most areas groundwater is cleaner than surface water; although I am not familiar with the specifics of sacramento river water vs. groundwater in the davis area. I am confident that Sue Greenwald has done her research and that her statements regarding relative cleanliness are accurate. [/quote]

    I suggest you start reading some of the documentation the WAC has been reading and get yourself more educated on the subject. And start looking at what Sue is stating w more of a discerning eye. What Sue is saying, that “Sac River water is more intrinsically polluted than groundwater” is just not true, and is highly misleading to the public. THe very fact that she keeps hedging, saying that both are equally safe, while still repeating the Sac River is more polluted than groundwater, then conceding we need to eventually go to surface water from the Sac River, shows her disingenuousness on this issue. It is highly confusing to the public, and extremely misleading.

  70. E Roberts Musser

    This is only the tip of the iceberg as far as confusing and contradictory remarks, just within this article and the comments:

    [quote]Sue Greenwald: The river water is open and unprotected from contamination. It is downstream from the notorious “Colusa Drain” which is thick with agricultural pollutants from Northern California. Who knows what is going to end up in the river in the future, or whether or not treatment will be adequate?

    We could go on and on about the uncertainties of surface water as well as the uncertainties concerning groundwater.

    Personally, I feel safer with groundwater because it is not open to every inorganic and organic pollutant that comes along, and is not downstream from the Colusa drain. But I accept the fact that we all worry about different constituents.

    Sue Greenwald: I have ALWAYS said that both sources are safe, that river water starts out very dirty and is more expensive to treat, and both sources have their problems. I have said that river water is more likely to come up unforeseen problems because it unprotected. All of this is patently obvious.

    Sue Greenwald: @Elaine Musser:Again, surface water is intrinsically much more polluted than groundwater. That is why it is so incredibly expensive to treat, while groundwater needs little or no treatment. That is simply a factual statement. Since I have said over and over again that it would be a good idea to get river water if we can get the price of the project down or phase it in, it is clear that I don’t feel that Sacramento River water is “unfit for Davis. [/quote]

  71. David M. Greenwald

    To follow up on Brian’s point… the Bee in 2008 wrote this in endorsing Sue Greenwald:

    “As a member of the council she has been a forceful and vocal opponent of overly generous firefighter pay raises and retirement benefits. As a result she has not gotten the firefighters union endorsement or their contributions.

    Davis firefighters are among the top campaign contributors to pro-growth candidates, a dangerous sign. The firefighters’ contract expires next year. Given the current housing slump and the lack of a retail base in Davis to generate sales taxes, it is important that this city hold the line in the next round of bargaining. Greenwald can be counted on to resist union pressure.”

  72. Sue Greenwald

    Yes, it must have been the Bee endorsement. I don’t take that stuff personally, unless they egregiously misrepresent my position.

  73. Don Shor

    [i]”It is generally true that in most areas groundwater is cleaner than surface water…”[/i]

    I guess that entirely depends on your definition of “cleaner.”

  74. Matt Williams

    Sue Greenwald said . . .

    [i]”@Matt Williams:Lucky I just tuned in before turning in. I’d like to remind you that you don’t vote in Davis elections; you live in El Macero.

    The first time I met you, you were upset that some new home construction was being planned south of El Macero. You started aggressively lobbying me to support new home construction adjacent to West Davis instead of near your house. Then you demanded a dedicated seat on the housing steering committee for El Macero. When I reminded you that El Macero had opposed the city’s attempt to annex it years ago, and hence El Macero residents don’t sit on our city committees, your response was a defiant: “Yes, we don’t want to be annexed!!!”[/i]

    Sue, your post above is a graphic example how you 1) play fast and loose with the truth, and 2) apply judgment criteria very selectively in order to support your preconceived view of the world.

    Lets start by dealing with the first of those graphic examples. On February 15th here in the Vanguard you made that same inaccurate claim, and I responded then as follows:

    [i]Sue, your memory is partial on this, but that is understandable since it was a minor blip amongst a wealth of other much more major blips over your time on the Council.

    The conversation you cite regarding the HESC, which was well over a year after our initial conversation (that I referenced in my post above) was not demanding anything, but rather suggesting that much like the current WAC, where the water service area extends beyond the City limits and the Council chose to ensure that there were no portions of the service area where “taxation without representation” might happen. That conversation with you about the HESC happened as a result of my March 6, 2007 comments in the Public Comment portion of the Council meeting that evening. Here is what I said at Council

    [b]”Good evening Mayor Greenwald and City Council Members, my name is Matt Williams. I have lived in Yolo County for the last nine years. I speak tonight in respectful support of the General Plan Update / Housing Element Steering Committee’s efforts to date.

    With that said, I believe the Steering Committee could be even more effective and representative if it were expanded to include five additional members. Specifically, representatives from each of the following:

    • UC Davis
    • The Associated Students of the University of California, Davis (ASUCD)
    • The Davis Joint Unified School District, and
    • Residents of the areas covered by the Pass-Through Agreement that are outside Davis’ city limits.

    If added to the Committee, those representatives would bring ideas, thoughts and positions, to the Housing Element Update process that will make it even more effective than it already is.

    I believe each of you have a personal connection to these suggested additions.

    • Mayor Greenwald meets with Chancellor Vanderhoef regularly in their 1×1’s
    • Council Member Heysteck works closely with ASUCD
    • Mayor ProTem Asmundson’s connection to the workings and issues of the School District benefit everyone in Davis
    • Council Member Saylor’s district is adjacent to the Northwest Quadrant of the Davis City Edge, and
    • Council Member Sousa’s adjacent to the Southeast Quadrant

    I urge you to act on these natural connections and each appoint one additional member to the Housing Element Committee. If you do I strongly believe the General Plan Update will be both more representative of our community as a whole and more effective in serving the interests of that community.

    If you have any questions regarding this request I will be glad to answer them. Thank you.”[/b]

    Bottom-line, there was no demand at all, and definitely no demand for El Macero specifically. You chose a confrontation method of following up with me later that evening. Other Council members also said “no” to my idea, but they chose not to be confrontational, but rather share their thoughts about how the then-current trajectory of the HESC was far enough along as to make my suggestion a practical challenge. They were right . . . but it is important to point out that they took the time to listen, share their thoughts and be collaborative. [/i]

    The quoted comments above are provided [u]verbatim[/u] because they were read from a typed copy in order to be sure they fit in the public comment allotted time allocation that evening. A video tape of those public comments are on file at the Davis Library (as are all Council meetings since I moved to Davis in 1998). You can go to the City website and open the Council Minutes file of March 6, 2007 where you will see documented under Public Comment, [i]”Matt Williams spoke in support of the General Plan Housing Element Update Steering Committee, and requested Council appoint five additional members from UCD, ASUCD, DJUSD and residents of areas covered by pass through agreements located outside city limits.”[/i]

  75. Matt Williams

    Sue, you were provided with clear public record documentation of the error of your 2/15 statement, which we can chalk up to faulty memory on your part; however, this time around you have no such faulty memory crutch. You clearly chose to ignore the information provided and play fast and loose with the truth.

    Which brings us to the second point, which shows in stark outline that your threats of libel vis-a-vis the Bee, and what they said about your water position form an interesting parallel to when you choose to do the same yourself. You accuse the Bee of not acting in a “reputable” manner, and you vehemently deny that you act in a “reckless” manner. Then you turn around and willfully disregard documentation in the public record that any “reputable” person would not disregard, and make up your own truths as you go along. That is indeed an interesting double standard. One might even call it reckless.

  76. Mr.Toad

    Sue Greenwald said . . .

    “@Matt Williams:Lucky I just tuned in before turning in. I’d like to remind you that you don’t vote in Davis elections; you live in El Macero. “

    I remember when Susie Boyd said something similar to Dick Livingston before the council. I thought it was sleazy then and I think its sleazy now. How about defending your position instead of dodging on a residency issue. Its no wonder you had no chance of beating Don Saylor for Supervisor because this shows an inability to grow your base, Sue. The best you can do is possibly 2nd or 3rd in a 3 way race. I think Matt would have truly liked you to earn his support. Like myself, your tone deaf reasoning, dogmatic belief that only you are correct and your belligerence to others put him off.

  77. jimt

    ERM,

    I re-read the statements by Sue Greenwald that you posted; and as was the case the first time I read them I find nothing confusing or contradictory about them. They read clear as a bell to me; maybe this means I’m tuned in to her way of thinking/presentation. I have a strong science background, perhaps to some members of the public (I’m not including you, who does have some expertise in the water issue) without a science background they may seem a bit vague or contradictory.

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