Back on June 9, the Vanguard warned that the proposed surface water ballot measure had some flaws. The main flaw is that the timeline to put the water measure on the ballot is so tight that the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) has asked for additional time to weigh in on their evaluation of the various project proposals before us, and we do not have water rates, and we do not know what the project even is and may not know until September at the earliest.
Since that time, the WAC, which has done commendable work, has agreed that the ballot measure will be binding rather than advisory. A smart move.
But I really think that the WAC does not appreciate the danger of appearing to proceed on this in a rushed manner.
Comments in response to the June 9 column, in particular by the chair of the WAC, are concerning.
The WAC members believe that if the city pushes the election past November that Woodland will opt to walk away from the JPA and do their own water project.
If we delay the vote on the water project past November, Councilmember Souza said, “The members of Woodland are going to do it alone. They’re already poised to do it. They’re ready with the environmental documentation to do it on their own. We’ve heard it. They’ve said it. They couldn’t be any clearer.”
“If that’s the case why did we even analyze a project that included Woodland?” he asked. “They are going it alone. I don’t know how [much] clearer I can be. I talked to every one of them. They all said it.”
“They know what they want,” he added. “We don’t know what we want. We better become clear as a community as to what we want.”
The cost, they think, will be $50 million.
Elaine Roberts Musser remarked on June 9: “Ultimately the issue comes down to one of trust – does the community trust the WAC to make its best educated guess in regard to selecting the preferred surface water project and the process by which that decision is reached? Does the Vanguard have any particular reason not to trust the WAC to do what is in the best interests of Davis? If not, why not?”
Matt Williams an alternate on the WAC said later, “You have predetermined that the only right answer is a delay NOW. That delay will almost surely cost the City as much as $50 million, maybe even more.”
Elaine Roberts Musser would later add, “If you are laying out what the process ought to be, and your suggested process results in a loss of millions of dollars for the city, who will pay for all that loss? In other words, how confident are you that your choice of process is the right decison for the CC to make? 10% confident? 50% confident? 90% confident?”
She added, “In a perfect world, yes it would be nice to see all and know all, but this is not a perfect world and never has been.”
The reality, she said, is:
1) the decision on whether to fill the Woodland water treatment facility site, a critical path item for the surface water project as proposed, does not need to be made until Aug 21, but as a practical matter needs to be made by then;
2) however the ballot language decision on which preferred project needs to be made by June 26;
3) we can finesse these two sticky wickets by having the ballot language that must be decided on by June 26 refer to whatever project is described in the rate structure in the Prop 218 notice, giving the WAC enough time to gather the information it needs; deliberate; and come to a reasoned and well thought out conclusion sometime before Aug 21.
She added more still, “With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, I don’t think you are ‘getting the discussion.’ By insisting on particular ballot language as you have suggested may very well predetermine the result of the process/the preferred alternative – which very well may result in the loss of millions of dollars for the city.”
She asks, “Are you sure enough you are correct in your analysis of process that you are willing to risk the city losing millions of dollars if you turn out to be dead wrong? I circle back to my original question – how confident are you that the position you are advocating for is the right one? 10%? 50%? 90%? Did you do some sort of risk/benefit/cost analysis on your choice of process? If yes, show us how you came to your conclusion, and how you arrived at your confidence level.”
The problem that I see is that Ms. Musser is forgetting that the bottom line is not what the Vanguard thinks, but rather what the voters think. All of this pontificating about $50 million is moot. Because the fundamental point is that you have to get a measure that the voters will pass.
The exact problem that the Vanguard foresaw on June 9 now comes to pass two weeks later in the form of Bob Dunning’s column.
His message is very simple: “Slow down and get all the facts.” And it is a difficult message to defeat, when the city has little credibility on the rate structure from last September which everyone KNOWS was fatally flawed.
“Common sense would tell you that when a small city considers spending several hundred million dollars on a water project that will dramatically raise water rates for its residents, there should be no rush to judgment,” Mr. Dunning writes. “The process should be slow and deliberate and take as much time as necessary for all stakeholders to be heard and all options to be considered.”
And now Mr. Dunning can tell the public that the leaders have already made up their minds, “leaders who are telling us the hour is late and doom and gloom are just around the corner if we dally any longer. Some of them seem perfectly happy to have the city of Woodland dictate water policy for the city of Davis.”
He continues: “While the Davis City Council did grant a deadline extension to its own Water Advisory Committee earlier this month, it still seems bound and determined to put something on the November ballot, which is much too soon when you consider that the Yolo County Elections Office requires final ballot language by Aug. 10, which is less than two months away the last time I looked at a calendar.”
And then, like we did, Mr. Dunning uses Councilmember Stephen Souza’s poorly-chosen words against him – you know, the part where he at least implied that the common citizen is too unsophisticated to understand the complex nuances of the water policy.
Mr. Dunning relishes missteps like this: “I realize Steve works around water on a regular basis and most of us don’t, but please, don’t insult our intelligence. Or our diligence in sorting through this proposal. Put simply, Steve, if folks in Woodland can figure this one out, I’m confident Davisites can, too. Trust me on this.”
I throw all of this out, not because I think the WAC does not have a point, but there is a reason why proper process is important. It is important for voter trust.
If the voters do not trust you – and many do not right now, especially after the fiasco of last fall – you do not get this passed in November. And if it does not get passed in November, how much will that cost you as opposed to attempting to work with West Sacramento and cut a deal with Woodland?
Mr. Dunning continues: “To get around the sample ballot deadline, the WAC hopes suitable language can be developed for the sample ballot that will refer voters to the Prop. 218 rate noticing the city will undertake in September. Whether such a plan will survive certain legal challenges is ‘iffy’ at best.”
“In other words, the sample ballot, which voters have relied on for decades to tell them exactly what they’re voting on, will simply indicate you’ll be given a Yes or No choice in November on rates that won’t even be published until September,” he wrote. “It will be up to you to be sure the city mails you those rates and you read and understand them before voting. It’s an end run around the sample ballot deadline, but whether it will fly when a judge gets ahold of it remains to be seen.”
To Ms. Musser’s question: do I trust the WAC? No I don’t. There are lots of good reasons for that, but the biggest is that I fear even a diverse group can get locked into group-think and not see possibility outside of the box.
Second, I think the $50 million issue is a scare tactic and Ms. Musser, Mr. Williams and Mr. Souza have fallen into a bit of a trap here. There is rarely a drop-dead point in public policy. There is always another deal to be cut. Woodland stands to lose a lot by going it alone, as Mr. Souza puts it. The city of Davis, for the wont of five months, can cut a deal.
It may constrain Davis’ options, but I do not think it ultimately costs us anywhere near $50 million.
What may well cost us, that and more, is the appearance of rushing to judgment – putting this on the ballot before the facts are in is a huge tactical error that will feed the hands of Bob Dunning and other opponents of this project and lead to the electoral defeat at the polls.
If you think delay will be costly, defeat may be the end of the road for this project.
I do not envy the task of the WAC, but I warn them not to get locked or suckered into an arrogant mindset where only they believe they know what is best for Davis. In this town, that is fatal.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Why the rush for a November ballot? I don’t see any reason for it
Also, the Harris Plan for funding our schools needs a clean ballot, free of other local tax and rate increases
I wish our CC would put some of the same rush behind balancing the city budget going to a 3 member fire crew would help — immediately
David
[quote]There is rarely a drop-dead point in public policy. There is always another deal to be cut.[/quote]
I must admit to a little bit of confusion here about your philosophy of public policy. It seems to me with regard to city budgets and financing, you have seen a great deal of urgency and made multiple pleas to the city to act decisively instead of “seeing how things play out”. Yet with regard to this issue, you seem to prefer extreme caution. Can you clarify your viewpoint ?
From the Enterprise blog:
“Michael Bisch
June 24, 2012 – 7:59 am
Long night of enjoying the downtown music scene last night. Not sure I’m as clear headed as need be this morning. Let’s see if I got this right, Bob. We Davisities are smarter than Woodlanders but only if the water project info is contained in one document (the sample ballot). But we’ll be entirely confused if the info is contained in 2 documents (sample ballot and Prop 218 notice). Do I have that right?
Not sure whether the plan will withstand a legal challenge. The attorneys may become just as confused and disoriented by the multiple documents as the voters.”
Dunning’s colume is a distraction in my opinion. I can’t say I’m a strong proponent of the surface water project. But I’m definitely not a strong proponent of dithering. 4,800 residents last year signed a petition saying they wanted a vote on the project. I for one want to vote. Bob, David, Mike and others say they won’t be ready, or will be too confused to vote come November. I guarantee you that I will be ready to vote. We shall see whether 51% of the voters agree with the BDM. And if the majority agree with them, we shall then see whether the pending waste water discharge fines are a mirage.
-Michael Bisch
I just want to be clear here: I haven’t said that they won’t be ready. I’ve only laid out some of the pitfalls if they are not.
David, it seemed to me you were going beyond that and were buying into Dunning’s arguments about how Davis voters were incapable of making an informed decision come November, particularly because they’d be confused by the sample ballot / Prop 218 notice issue.
-Michael Bisch
Has the Woodland city council completed their second Prop 218 process yet? If I recall correctly, their first Prop 218 rate increase (last year or 2010) was not sufficient to fully fund their portion of the project, with or without a partner. I haven’t heard whether the second rate increase has been approved yet.
Michael: No, I was making the argument that an incomplete process leaves the ballot measure open to charges of being rushed through and that if the voters end up not supporting the project, the project may in fact be dead.
David, the voters may kill the project for one reason or the other no matter how much information and/or misinformation we have come the day of the vote. Most decisions are made in the absence of complete and fully correct information. There are always more or less unknowns and imperfect assumptions.
Let the voters have their say instead of assuming what they think or want. Then we can go from there. Again, should the voters reject the project as many have urged, then we get to test the claim made by any number of project opponents that wastewater discharge penalty waivers will be forthcoming.
I look forward to moving on one way or the other instead of going round and round tying up staff, council, and community time and energy.
-Michael Bisch
[quote]dmg: If the voters do not trust you – and many do not right now…?[/quote]
Proof? I have heard from numerous citizens, who walk up to me out of the blue, and complement the WAC on the fine work it is doing. They usually ask if they can send the WAC some ideas, and I welcome any and all proposals.
[quote]dmg: To Ms. Musser’s question: do I trust the WAC? No I don’t. There are lots of good reasons for that, but the biggest is that I fear even a diverse group can get locked into group-think and not see possibility outside of the box.[/quote]
And the possibility outside the box wouldn’t happen to be to delay the project for 5 yrs or more, would it? The same position the Vanguard has taken prior to and from the inception of the WAC, before listening to any evidence from all the experts? It sounds like the Vanguard has never and continues not to trust the WAC because of its disappointment the WAC does not agree w the Vanguard’s unwaivering position of interminable delay…
[quote]dmg: Second, I think the $50 million issue is a scare tactic and Ms. Musser, Mr. Williams and Mr. Souza have fallen into a bit of a trap here. There is rarely a drop-dead point in public policy. There is always another deal to be cut. Woodland stands to lose a lot by going it alone, as Mr. Souza puts it. The city of Davis, for the wont of five months, can cut a deal.[/quote]
First point: Remember Berryessa? The dithering on that one cost the city plenty! Second point: And on what basis do you conclude that Woodland will not go it alone if Davis delays? How can the Vanguard possibly know what is in the minds of those in charge in Woodland? Woodland stands to lose big if it delays.
[quote]dmg: It may constrain Davis’ options, but I do not think it ultimately costs us anywhere near $50 million.[/quote]
So the Vanguard concedes to delay will constrain Davis’s options. On what basis does the Vanguard conclude it will not cost the city anywhere near $50 million? And what figure does the Vanguard purport that it will cost the city of Davis? Again, on what basis? And at what confidence level? 10%? 50% 80%?
[quote]dmg: I do not envy the task of the WAC, but I warn them not to get locked or suckered into an arrogant mindset where only they believe they know what is best for Davis. In this town, that is fatal.[/quote]
So now the WAC, all 15 of its members, are in danger of being locked into an “arrogant mindset”? Is being “suckered”? Why? Because we don’t agree w the Vanguard’s position of a delay of 5 years or more? Why is the Vanguard right, but the WAC is in danger of being “arrogant” and all its members being “suckers”? Yet the Vanguard has not been to a single WAC meeting to express its concerns/views. The WAC has not received a single email from the Vanguard in which the Vanguard has expressed its concerns/views. Is it constructive to lable the WAC in danger of being “arrogant” and “suckers”, dismissive of their expertise on water issues and hard work just because they don’t happen to agree w the Vanguard’s position? Why is the Vanguard so reluctant to allow the WAC to carry out its mission? Why is the Vanguard so locked into its own mindset that is refuses to budge no matter the circumstances/evidence? Just speculation on my part, but is this one more instance of a fear the school parcel tax won’t pass?
I have worked very hard, as Chair of the WAC, to be as fair and impartial as I can. I have tried to foster dialogue between WAC members themselves, and dialogue between the public and WAC members. Many folks have come to express public comments to the WAC; others hav emailed the WAC their ideas and opinions. Every piece of input from experts, staff and the public is factored into our decision-making. The WAC members are some of the finest and most dedicated people I have ever had the pleasure to work with and know. Not in a millon years would I characterize any of us as “arrogant” or “suckers”.
What the WAC has been charged with is to weigh all the evidence, analysis and opinions from all sources and come up with what it thinks is the best solution. As the expert Jay Lund indicated to the WAC, the WAC cannot know all or know what is unknowable, and has to be prepared that no matter what we decide, it may be wrong for some reason. That is a very heavy burden to carry. All the WAC members feel that burden very keenly. We are there to represent citizens best interests – nothing more, nothing less. And we plan to continue to do that to the best of our ability.
One more point. The WAC is merely an advisory body. If the Vanguard does not trust the “arrogant suckers” in the WAC to make the right decsion, it is always free to bypass the WAC altogether and take its concerns directly to the City Council. It is ultimately the City Council who will make the final decision…
I’d like to point out that Dunning has stated from the get go that he does not support the project because the residents cannot afford it. He then went on to say that the voters should determine whether the project moves forward, not the council. He said the council was being arrogant in assuming that the voters were not intelligent enough to make a decision. Now he says the voters are not intelligent to make a decision when the critical information is on more than one piece of paper. So he is now urging a delay to the vote. Or is he really hoping to kill Davis’ participation in the project through delays? I do not know what his intention now is, but he did in fact initially advocate for killing the project.
What Dunning never says/said is what the consequences of killing the project are. He never said one way or the other whether we would incur regulatory penalties. It’s fairly imprudent in my mind to put the community on the path toward substantial penalties without having proposed a plan to deal with those penalties. He acts as if their is no threat of penalties at all. Perhaps there aren’t. For all I know, Dunning plans on sticking his head under the blanket at night and wishing the penalties away.
Dunning is apparently taking the same approach on the expense of drilling all the replacement wells should Davis back out of the surface water project. Etc., etc.
-Michael Bisch
“To Ms. Musser’s question: do I trust the WAC? No I don’t. There are lots of good reasons for that, but the biggest is that I fear even a diverse group can get locked into group-think and not see possibility outside of the box.”
Are you serious? A group appointed individually by every member of the council and you disrespect them like this. Is there any process you would support?
“What may well cost us, that and more, is the appearance of rushing to judgment – putting this on the ballot before the facts are in is a huge tactical error that will feed the hands of Bob Dunning and other opponents of this project and lead to the electoral defeat at the polls.”
Of course this must be weighed against the risk of trying to do this on a special ballot in a low turnout election, something that history suggests is a sure loser for advocates of a water project.
[quote]I just want to be clear here: I haven’t said that they won’t be ready. I’ve only laid out some of the pitfalls if they are not.[/quote]
This doesn’t sound like just laying “out some of the pitfalls” as you suggest. It sounds more like a personal attack and a threat:
[quote]The city of Davis, for the wont of five months, can cut a deal….I warn them not to get locked or suckered into an arrogant mindset where only they believe they know what is best for Davis. In this town, that is fatal.[/quote]
The implication is that if the WAC does not delay the decision for five months as the Vanguard is advocating, WAC members are “arrogant” and “suckers” and voters will defeat the project.
Furthermore, the mission of the WAC, as ordered by the City Council, is to select which project it thinks best for the citizens of Davis, and advise the City Council accordingly. How is that “arrogant”? We are carrying out the mission we were charged with by the City Council!
“Proof? I have heard from numerous citizens, who walk up to me out of the blue, and complement the WAC on the fine work it is doing. They usually ask if they can send the WAC some ideas, and I welcome any and all proposals.”
The statement was actually not about the WAC, it was about the council. Second, you’re talking to the ten percent who even know what the WAC is. You’ll say well if ten percent know what the WAC is, how can they not trust you. That’s where people like Dunning become important.
To your next point, the Vanguard does not support delay, it supports the proper process and going forward when its ready. If that means November, that’s fine. If that means April, I believe we can make that work. The key is getting this right not time.
“Remember Berryessa? The dithering on that one cost the city plenty! “
If you lose the vote, how much will it cost the city in your estimation?
“Second point: And on what basis do you conclude that Woodland will not go it alone if Davis delays?”
I don’t conclude it won’t go it alone, but I don’t accept that as inevitable either given the amount of money it would cost them to go it alone.
“Woodland stands to lose big if it delays. “
And they stand to lose bigger if it goes it alone. To me that suggests a deal can be worked out.
[quote]Michael: No, I was making the argument that an incomplete process leaves the ballot measure open to charges of being rushed through…[/quote]
Please define what you mean by “incomplete process”… are you implying that to not delay 5 more months is an “incomplete process”? If yes, why is a delay of 5 months a magical number by which time the WAC will have somehow have arrived at a “complete process”? Again, I ask, is this all about the school parcel tax?
“So the Vanguard concedes to delay will constrain Davis’s options. “
Funny, I said “may constrain” and you take that as a concession that it will. This is why I increasingly do not trust you, you continually attempt to twist words.
“On what basis does the Vanguard conclude it will not cost the city anywhere near $50 million? “
I did not “conclude” – I offered my opinion based on the fact that I believe a deal can be reached because each side stands to lose if we go it alone.
“And what figure does the Vanguard purport that it will cost the city of Davis? Again, on what basis? And at what confidence level? 10%? 50% 80%? “
And what confidence level do you have that the voters won’t reject this if Dunning can make the case of rush to judgment and connect that rush to last year’s rate hikes?
“Are you serious? A group appointed individually by every member of the council and you disrespect them like this. Is there any process you would support?”
I’ve already stated what process I support – a fully transparent binding vote of the people whether in November if we are ready or in April.
” It sounds more like a personal attack and a threat:”
I’m missing both the personal attack and the threat.
“Please define what you mean by “incomplete process”… are you implying that to not delay 5 more months is an “incomplete process”?”
No, he’s stating that if there are not real rates and a real project in time to be on the ballot, then the process is incomplete.
[quote]I’m missing both the personal attack and the threat. [/quote]
Here is what you said:
[quote]The city of Davis, for the wont of five months, can cut a deal….I warn them not to get locked or suckered into an arrogant mindset where only they believe they know what is best for Davis. In this town, that is fatal.[/quote]
I will repeat what I said:
[quote]The implication is that if the WAC does not delay the decision for five months as the Vanguard is advocating, WAC members are “arrogant” and “suckers” and voters will defeat the project.
Furthermore, the mission of the WAC, as ordered by the City Council, is to select which project it thinks best for the citizens of Davis, and advise the City Council accordingly. How is that “arrogant”? We are carrying out the mission we were charged with by the City Council![/quote]
[quote]I’ve already stated what process I support – a fully transparent binding vote of the people whether in November if we are ready or in April.[/quote]
Yet your words implicate a desire to delay the decision 5 months:
[quote]The city of Davis, for the wont of five months, can cut a deal.[/quote]
[quote]erm: “So the Vanguard concedes to delay will constrain Davis’s options. ”
dmg: Funny, I said “may constrain” and you take that as a concession that it will. This is why I increasingly do not trust you, you continually attempt to twist words. [/quote]
Let me put it a different way. The Vanguard concedes that it is entirely possible that options may be removed from the table if the decision is delayed, correct? As always it is a risk/benefit/cost analysis, and any person or entity making the decision has to make their best guess, correct? What is the risk/benefit/cost analysis and the basis the Vanguard engaged in to come up with the conclusion: “The city of Davis, for the wont of five months, can cut a deal”?
[quote]And what confidence level do you have that the voters won’t reject this if Dunning can make the case of rush to judgment and connect that rush to last year’s rate hikes?[/quote]
So you are going to base the Vanguard’s analysis on what Bob Dunning says? Really? You want the WAC to base its decisions/recommendations to City Council based on the opinion of Bob Dunning? Really?
Elaine
[quote]So you are going to base the Vanguard’s analysis on what Bob Dunning says? Really? You want the WAC to base its decisions/recommendations to City Council based on the opinion of Bob Dunning? Really?[/quote]
I seriously doubt that this is an accurate depiction of the Vanguards position. My take on this is that neither the WAC or the City Council should base their decisions/recommendations on Bob Dunning’s column. However, I also do think that it would be naive to act as though Dunning’s columns do not affect the thoughts of at least some of the voters. I may see many of his opinons as written at least somewhat tongue in cheek. But I have heard others, who I know do vote, quote him as though his comments had far more merit than I ascribe to some of them.
I have zero interest in partnering with Woodlad and it’s five CC members who came into our City Chambers and lectured us. Down with the JPA model and move on
Elaine: I believe you have misinterpreted my words in the closing statement – “warn” was not meant as a threat but rather as advise. The WAC needs to do its job properly and thoroughly and my hope is that the threat of Woodland pulling out does not force action before its ready. To me the more that this project has been slowed, the better the project has become and the cheaper.
I have worked in water quality monitoring and analysis for over 30 years. Basic sanitary engineering principles are violated when a water well is placed near to and downgradient from a septic system on a piece of rural property. The homeowner can potentially draw leachate from the septic system into his water well and essentially drink a diluted solution of his own waste.
This unfortunate situation is being duplicated on a grand scale by the proposed Joint Woodland-Davis Water Project because the proposed water intake (on the Sacramento River N of I-5) is downchannel from the point discharge into the Sacramento River at Knights Landing from the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District. The summer sediment plume from the GCID discharge is visible for miles downriver. Because the summer irrigation season coincides with high drinking water demand, we will be faced with high water treatment costs to essentially prevent us from drinking a diluted solution of GCIG’s garden waste water.
Don’t rush into this!
David Greenwald said . . .
[i]”[b]Second, I think the $50 million issue is a scare tactic[/b] and Ms. Musser, Mr. Williams and Mr. Souza have fallen into a bit of a trap here. There is rarely a drop-dead point in public policy. There is always another deal to be cut. Woodland stands to lose a lot by going it alone, as Mr. Souza puts it. The city of Davis, for the wont of five months, can cut a deal.[/i]
David, rarely has anything you said until now made me mad, but you have achieved that with your bolded words. When have you ever known me to even think about employing an emotional argument, much less a scare tactic. I laid out a coldly dispassionate mathematical argument that explained numerically how the $50 million was calculated, and exactly what the parameters were in that scenario. You have some serious ‘splaining to do Lucy. Please tell me exactly why you think that previously posted math is flawed.
Further, the City of Davis cutting a deal isn’t the controlling factor in the parameters of the scenario I laid out. The deal needs to be cut between Woodland and west Sacramento. Just exactly how do you propose to get those two parties to even consider coming back to a table together five months from now?
You must have been smoking whacky weed when you wrote today’s article.
At the rate the WAC is working, and the diligence they are showing, I expect that the voters of Davis will have the information they need to make a decision in November. They might have to look at two pieces of paper instead of one in order to know the specifics of the rate proposal. I think they can probably handle that.
Matt: don’t denigrate David
Suggest Elaine and David call each other to iron out their misinterpretations of each other’s pists rather than on blog.
Suggest Elaine and David call each other to iron out their misinterpretations of each other’s pists rather than on blog.
Posts not ousts, sorry only have iPhone and micro text is all I get on DV.
Mike, how did I denigrate David?
David, do you feel denigrated?
No.
Wow! You guys are acting like the WAC is an answer in search of a process when it seems you are the one’s that actually have already made up your minds.
David and Matt
[quote]You must have been smoking whacky weed when you wrote today’s article.[/quote]
I am not sure how to take either of your “denigration” denials in view of the “wacky weed” comment ; )
[quote]Elaine: I believe you have misinterpreted my words in the closing statement – “warn” was not meant as a threat but rather as advise. The WAC needs to do its job properly and thoroughly and my hope is that the threat of Woodland pulling out does not force action before its ready. To me the more that this project has been slowed, the better the project has become and the cheaper.[/quote]
One of the difficulties I have with the Vanguard is that at times, the choice of words are not carefully selected, but purposefully incendiary. Let’s take a look at what was written by the Vanguard:
[quote]The city of Davis, for the wont of five months, can cut a deal….I warn them not to get locked or suckered into an arrogant mindset where only they believe they know what is best for Davis. In this town, that is fatal.[/quote]
Now you are claiming that your choice of the word “warn” was merely “advice” – conveniently ignoring what followed, which was a very snarky comment insinuating if the WAC doesn’t delay 5 months, then members are “arrogant” in “believing they know what is best for Davis” and “suckers. You then add insult to injury by proclaiming “the WAC needs to do its job properly and thoroughly”, which implies just the opposite – that the WAC is not doing its job properly and thoroughly, but instead falling for Woodland’s propaganda. You insult Matt Williams and myself by accusing us of falling for a “scare tactic” with your words:
[quote]“Second, I think the $50 million issue is a scare tactic and Ms. Musser, Mr. Williams and Mr. Souza have fallen into a bit of a trap here.[/quote]
Could you be any more insulting? I would strongly suggest you more carefully choose the language you use and say precisely what it is you mean without the pejoratives.
This is the biggest problem I have:
[i]”To Ms. Musser’s question: do I trust the WAC? No I don’t. There are lots of good reasons for that…”
[/i]
I’d ask David to expound on his “lots of good reasons,” but he has made it clear since last December that he doesn’t respect the makeup of the WAC. Unfortunately, I have never felt that David has done the homework on the water issue that is needed for him to be credible on the topic.
[quote]I seriously doubt that this is an accurate depiction of the Vanguards position. My take on this is that neither the WAC or the City Council should base their decisions/recommendations on Bob Dunning’s column. However, I also do think that it would be naive to act as though Dunning’s columns do not affect the thoughts of at least some of the voters. I may see many of his opinons as written at least somewhat tongue in cheek. But I have heard others, who I know do vote, quote him as though his comments had far more merit than I ascribe to some of them.[/quote]
Let’s take a look at what dmg said:
[quote]And what confidence level do you have that the voters won’t reject this if Dunning can make the case of rush to judgment and connect that rush to last year’s rate hikes?[/quote]
Sounds to me like dmg thinks the WAC should base its decision on whether to have a November ballot or later on what Dunning might or might not say.
It should also be remembered that both Bob Dunning and the Vanguard have been opposed to the surface water project w Woodland since the inception of the WAC. Neither have budged from their positions, but neither have they bothered to attend WAC meetings and express their concerns at public comment, or so much as sent an email to the WAC about those concerns. Instead they wait until the eleventh hour, shoot from the hip, then leave the WAC to deal w the aftermath…
[quote]I’d ask David to expand on his “lots of good reasons,” but he has made it clear since last December that he doesn’t respect the makeup of the WAC. Unfortunately, I have never felt that David has done the homework on the water issue that is needed for him to be credible on the topic. [/quote]
Excellent point. Okay, so now I will ask. What are the “lots of good reasons” the Vanguard doesn’t trust the WAC?
Elaine
[quote]if Dunning can make the case of rush to judgment and connect that rush to last year’s rate hikes?[/quote]
Although I completely agree with your preferences for non incendiary statements, I think that I focused more on the
conditional “if” in this sentence than you did. I am aware of David’s and Dunning’s stated preferences. I do think it is important in putting anything on the ballot, to be cognizant of what the arguments against one’s proposal are likely to be. One’s opponents, their strengths and weaknesses are certainly worth considering in planning a political strategy. This is the context in which I interpreted David’s statement.
medwoman said . . .
[i]”David and Matt,
I am not sure how to take either of your “denigration” denials in view of the “wacky weed” comment ; )”[/i]
I can’t speak for David, but I know I didn’t inhale.
ERM and Matt: Olease make a motion to tell the CC that anything about the water project onthe Nivenber ballot is wacky
How can the opponents devise a ballot argument when the details if the project and rates aren’t even on the ballot ?
Stupid little type on my iPhone. Sorry for the typos above