This Election is About One Particular Personality, Not Necessarily Contrasts in Ideas
The most memorable moment from the 2012 Davis City Council campaign will be the moment that you first read the mailer itself or about the mailer on the Vanguard or another news site. Most observers, myself included, believe that the mailer itself backfired.
Before you fire off an angry comment, hear me out.
This community is facing several critical issues. We have the budget crisis with ongoing labor negotiations and the need to reduce our unfunded liabilities. We had the huge battle over water last fall, that has been deferred to November and we are awaiting what the WAC comes up with.
If you listen to the business community, economic development is the most important issue. Some believe it is affordable housing. And some still believe it is land use and development.
The remarkable thing about this campaign is that so little of it appears to have been focused on these critical issues. There was not a clear line of demarcation on water. The campaign too did not focus on it.
Everyone appears to have at least acknowledged the fiscal crisis and the need to deal with unfunded liabilities, and while there are subtle differences there, this campaign was not about them.
No, strangely enough, this campaign has been about personalities and in some strange sense, one personality. The two biggest controversies of the campaign – the mailer and the signs – were about that one candidate.
There are those who believe that Sue Greenwald is divisive and contentious. There are those who believe that we need someone who is divisive and contentious on the council.
Bob Dunning, the venerable columnist for the Davis Enterprise wrote, “Sue Greenwald will keep the council honest.”
Even the Davis Enterprise sees it as a possible virtue: “She’s not afraid to stand alone,” they write.
As she puts it, they write, “I don’t feel the need to be loved by everyone. I’m willing to stand up for what I believe in.”
They add: “We respect that courage, and we honor that integrity with our endorsement.”
For years the bullet vote has been rumored. In this election, we see it spilled out over the papers.
Gene Borack writes, “There are five candidates for our City Council. Three (Stephen Souza, Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs) are either tainted by a public record on previous councils or can be assumed to have future political ambitions that will require that they ‘deliver’ to the special interests that are needed to fund their future campaigns. Brett Lee, the fourth candidate, is articulate but is untested in Davis local politics.”
He adds, “A vote for Sue Greenwald, with her solid council record of defending the interests of Davis voters, is the one that will count in shaping the next council’s agenda and the future of Davis.”
As one of the Vanguard‘s posters articulated, “Sue Greenwald will be a minority voice on the next Council. She recognizes that serious issues will come before the next Council and accepts that there will be no ‘comfort level’ for her.
The poster adds, “For this, she has my respect . She has a clear and unambiguous public record on the Council dais of not allowing the Council majority to deal with politically difficult issues by public OMISSION but rather insists and attempts to have full public discussion.”
They conclude, “Her record as Councilperson of being ‘effective by herself’ as a minority voice on the dais ‘bully pulpit’ is without question (Covell Village, less expensive wastewater treatment plant, the public ‘stonewalling’ of former Public Works Director Weir to her questions concerning the direction of the now discredited surface water project process).”
But this is but one voice in the community. There is another voice in the community who sees the same actions not as a vital protection of the minority interest, but as a destructively divisive presence in the community.
It has become quite clear that as much as anything else, the Chamber endorsements of Dan Wolk, Lucas Frerichs, and Stephen Souza can be seen under the guise of “Anybody But Sue.” Indeed, Kemble Pope on Davis Wiki acknowledges he has long been in the “ABS” camp.
Indeed, the split is also embodied by the content of the mailer itself. Those, such as Michael Bisch of the DDBA and the ChamberPAC, argued on the Vanguard that the content of that mailer was accurate, and that it reflected the January 2010 dispute on the Davis City Council dais that was covered by the Vanguard and most newspapers in the region.
On the other hand, many argue that the hit piece was itself a ruse, attacking Sue Greenwald for bad behavior when the truth is that they disagreed with her position on the water project(s).
Sometimes the sentiment is veiled, sometimes not.
One writer in the Enterprise said that, “We need uniters, not dividers.”
In supporting two candidates he writes, “Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don’t. I’m not just looking for a candidate who details my idea of a perfect plan for smart growth or downtown parking or economic development or bike culture. Rather, I’m seeking candidates who understand that politics is a team sport and the the City Council is a team.”
He adds, “Our job as voters is to hire the team that will work the hardest, think the smartest, ask the right questions and then sit down and find a way forward using good, old-fashioned teamwork.”
If the one-camp is embodied by the Davis Enterprise editorial endorsement of Sue Greenwald, this camp is embodied by the Sacramento Bee‘s opposition to 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.”
There are code words involved so as to not offend the sensibilities of some.
In supporting Dan Wolk and Lucas Frerichs, Eileen Samitz writes, “We need to foster this next generation of leaders, like Lucas and Dan, who will bring in fresh ideas and a collaborative spirit to help solve the many challenges the city now faces.”
For Delaine Eastin it is the need for new blood. “Today, our town needs some new blood. It needs leadership that will ask the hard questions and not go along to get along. Watching the council of late, a majority seems to think that they work for the staff and that the job of the council is to sally forth on whatever the staff recommends, even if the plan is half-baked, feckless, overly expensive or obscure to the taxpayers,” she writes.
Stephanie Brown Fehm, supporting Brett Lee, writes, “His intelligence, integrity and willingness to listen to all sides of an issue before arriving at a decision will serve us well… Perhaps his greatest attribute is his ability to work in a collaborative and respectful manner with others.”
As one can see by the quote, while this faction may agree that they do not like one particular councilmember, there appears to be a multitude of different issues that they support and they do not agree on the slate of candidates they back.
The more establishment portion of the group, those in the development and the business community, focus around Mr. Wolk, Mr. Frerichs and Stephen Souza. Others see Mr. Souza as part of the problem himself, and support Brett Lee in some combination with the other two.
The Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee itself uses the term collaboration.
In the multi-authored piece we wrote about this week, the ChamberPAC writes, “Elect Davis City Council members who embrace the university’s teaching and research mission, those who can collaboratively make decisions and move us all forward into a sustainable future. It is time to envision a new community collaboration with this incredible economic engine.”
It is an interesting thing. Some in this community see strength in dissent and standing up for one’s cause and core principles. Others quite clearly are concerned with the impact of what they see as divisive conduct.
One thing that has really become clear is that all of this rhetoric is really focused on one individual. And the question on June 5 will likely be whether more in this community value someone who stands up for their principles in the face of overwhelming odds or whether a consensus model of governance is best.
But make no mistake, despite the enormity of the issues before us, this election is not going to be about those issues, but rather how one comes down on one personality.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
She loves every moment of it. Its all about Sue, nobody but Sue . . .
How sad.
Good piece, David. I hadn’t considered things from that angle up to now, but what you say rings true.
One thought occurred to me yesterday at Sudwerk, where I was surrounded by more than 1,000 other Davisites drinking a wide array of mostly craft beers at the Citizens Who Care event. Most people in Davis don’t care much at all about Davis elections.
Although Sue Greenwald was there and Brett Lee was there and there were a small number of others in attendance who are active in Davis politics, 99% of the attendees (who were disportionately males under 40) likely don’t ever give Davis politics a second thought (save when the public pool their kid swims at closes or the road they drive on is in poor shape). Maybe you and I and some others know that our City faces very difficult problems in the years ahead. But I doubt most residents know that or care too much. They are focused on their own lives, careers, kids, etc, which is all good. They don’t have time for politics. They don’t read the Vanguard or The Enterprise.
As usually happens in most American elections, the turnout for Tuesday’s vote will be very low. In the June, 2008 City Council election, 14,153 of 34,815 those registered (40.7%) voted. I am not sure how many are eligible, but it probably is in the range of 50,000. If that is approximately right, then we had a roughly 28% turnout of the eligible.
I expect that this year’s turnout will be as bad or worse. Even if many are motivated, as you say, based on their feelings about or impressions of Sue Greenwald, most adults in Davis won’t be motivated to vote at all.
People who support Sue appreciate her independence and her skepticism. People who oppose her would prefer a more collaborative approach, but in most cases it ‘s because they want her to collaborate on their preferred policies.
Sue and I disagree on many things, including some specific and important policy options. But because of the primacy of the budget issue, I believe she is important on the council. Part of that is that she is skeptical and persistent, and on the budget issue I want that skepticism and persistence.
You are not complaining as you speculate that issues are not the main component of this election. But maybe you should be. And given that some of the pending issues are huge, perhaps voters will realize what they have to gain by electing Sue, personality aside. I read all the literature I could get my hands on and Sue’s in my opinion dealt with the issues by far the most, agree or disagree with her positions. But that’s your point of course, it may not matter, I disagree however. Otherwise, when that water bill comes or the city goes bankrupt…well I hope we don’t get there, and Sue will play a major role in that.
As for Delain Easton to conclude as she does from her comment, I find a disconnct, it sounds like she would be talking about needing Sue. Other than not being “new blood”, Sue fits the description of what she wants.
“You are not complaining as you speculate that issues are not the main component of this election. But maybe you should be.”
Actually I was, I just did it very subtly.
I think David does a pretty good job overall of portraying the divide. I also think Rich’s observation is quite accurate, so only a very small portion of the electorate will be voting on the basis of the divide. If the majority of voters won’t be voting based on the divide or issues, on which basis will they be casting their 3 votes (these voters are unlikely bullet voters).
dlemongello, someone mentioned to me at Farmer’s Market yesterday that you are an active member of Sue’s campaign team. Is that true? If not, what is your affiliation with Sue’s campaign?
-Michael Bisch, Davis Chamber PAC
I am that, an active member of Sue’s campaign team who cares about the issues more than anything else. And the comments I make on the Vanguard are completely my own, in case you were wondering. Perhaps we’ll meet someday, I think I am an open minded very logical person and really enjoy talking to all the candidates and being positive. That is not to say I am lacking in opinions.
Sue helped us force a timeout and WAC analysis of the surface water plant.
Brett is the only candidate who helped us gather signatures for the water referendum
Lucas has served as a community volunteer for years and has the right overall positions on city budget matters
All three will focus on balancing the budget
I don’t think this election is about Sue or any personality issues
dlemongello said . . .
[i]”I am that, an active member of Sue’s campaign team who cares about the issues more than anything else. And the comments I make on the Vanguard are completely my own, in case you were wondering. Perhaps we’ll meet someday, I think I am an open minded very logical person and really enjoy talking to all the candidates and being positive. That is not to say I am lacking in opinions.”[/i]
I would like to second Donna’s comment above. My observations over the years has been that she indeed is “an open minded very logical person and really enjoy talking to all the candidates and being positive.” That doesn’t mean there will be agreement on all issues, but any disagreements will be both understandable and reasonable.
I have enjoyed her additions to the dialogue here.
Putting the focus on Sue has taken the focus off David Thompson, DACHA,
the million $ lawsuits, and Thompson’s desire to make money on yet more of his “affordable” housing on the next big parcel to be developed, i.e., Nishi or the Cannery. He’s not the only one, of course, who has projects that, with Sue on the Council, will be VERY carefully vetted.
It’s not really about Sue, it’s about good vs. bad development.
Michael Harrington said . . .
[i]”Sue helped us force a timeout and WAC analysis of the surface water plant.
Brett is the only candidate who helped us gather signatures for the water referendum
Lucas has served as a community volunteer for years and has the right overall positions on city budget matters
All three will focus on balancing the budget
I don’t think this election is about Sue or any personality issues”[/i]
Michael, how exactly did Sue “help you force a timeout and WAC analysis of the surface water plant”? How was she involved in the referendum (either planning or execution or aftermath)? As best as I can tell, the credit for the planning and execution go to you and Ernie. As best as I can tell, the credit for the aftermath go to Dan and Rochelle. How did Sue contribute in any tangible or meaningful way?
Balancing the budget is indeed the most important issue. Everyone gets that. The execution of the budget balancing efforts now falls for the most part on the shoulders of the City Manager. He is the one who will be negotiating for the City. We are far enough along in the budget cutting process that Council will primarily be playing a ratifying role.
What we need in addition to the near term focus on costs is a simultaneous attention to how we can grow the City’s revenues. If we don’t do that, then we will be revisiting the cost cutting scenario in order to address the ever shrinking funds that have come from the State. Success in growing City revenues in the coming years will mean 1) effective collaboration between the City, UCD, the County and the Davis business community, and 2) the ability to avoid future losses of even more community services.
eagle eye said . . .
[i]”. . . on the next big parcel to be developed, i.e., Nishi or the Cannery. He’s not the only one, of course, who has projects that, with Sue on the Council, will be VERY carefully vetted.
It’s not really about Sue, it’s about good vs. bad development.”[/i]
You make no sense eagle eye. Nishi requires a Measure J/R vote. Sue’s vetting of any project on Nishi will be [u]extremely[/u] minor when compared to the vetting that Davis voters will perform. Further, the only way that a project will happen at Nishi will be with the active, detailed collaboration of UCD. UCD’s vetting at Nishi will also dwarf any vetting by Sue. Sue has already been the loser of a 4-1 vote moving the EIR for Cannery forward. She won’t vett the likely project proposal that comes forward from that EIR, she will oppose it both outright and vigorously.
With that said, what other big parcels are there to develop?
” If that is approximately right, then we had a roughly 28% turnout of the eligible. “
Davis discourages young people from participating in many subtle ways. it should be no surprise then that they fail to participate,
Mr. Toad: Are you arguing that the participation rate in Davis is lower than in other locations/ communities?
At the risk of getting dinged for going off topic for a moment, but …
Matt, I have a water project question for you, and I turn to you based on your position on the WAC: According to the WDCWA, the project which Mike Harrington and company successfully tabled is now estimated to cost roughly $346 million (in 2012 dollars). I don’t know what share of that would be for Davis, what for Woodland, and what for other parties. I assume you know what Davis’s share is. My question is: How much would Davis save if we join up with the West Sacramento alternative? And what are the negatives and positives of going that route?
Matt and eagle eye
I think that you both have valid points here. Sue has indeed been out voted a number of times on the city council. But Sue definitely stands for what she believes is in the best interests of the city as a whole. Her strong stances frequently are enough to cause me to take a more thorough look an issue in more depth and to reconsider my position. I doubt that I am alone in having to rethink a position based on ideas presented by Sue. I would hope that future council members would be open enough to see past personality differences and consider the merits of each issue
based on its merits without regard to the personality of the proponent.
“Sue has indeed been out voted a number of times on the city council.”
I’m not sure that is true anymore. Certainly from 2004 until 2010, Sue was either a 3-2 or 4-1 minority on most contested issues. But things have really changed. I’ve had trouble compiling statistics, because the city’s minutes end in January, but my perception is that while Sue has been on the short end of some notable votes, that pattern is nowhere near what it once was and there really is no permanent voting blocs on this council.
Rich: here is the long-range calendar for the WAC. They will be looking at the West Sac alternative.
[url]http://cityofdavis.org/meetings/water-advisory/documents/2012-05-24-item8-long-range-calendar.pdf[/url]
Rich: good question to Matt about W Sacto
“Rich: here is the long-range calendar for the WAC. They will be looking at the West Sac alternative.”
My understanding is that Sue Greenwald was a critical part of unearthing the facts concerning the West Sac alternative, i.e. that West Sac did not pull out of the joint project idea as was offered as the Saylor Council narrative but rather that Davis withdrew from continuing to pursue this joint West Sac/Davis alternative. Make no mistake about it, the developer special interests are well-aware of Councilperson Greenwald’s effectiveness in thwarting their plans and make sure that the ABS candidate campaigns are well-funded,candidate Frerichs being the most obvious example.
Rich, first, let me say that my answers are my personal perspective and do not in any way represent the opinions of the WAC.
My answer to your first question is that at this point we really don’t know what the savings are, so let me answer your final question first.
The negatives are dependent of whether A) West Sac agrees to sell ownership of their plant to a JPA or B) West Sac agrees to sell water to Davis (and Woodland) as customers.
Lets look at B) first. Based on the presentation at the last WAC meeting by Steve Bayley from the City of Tracy, getting water via contract has worked very well for Tracy. Their contracts (with two different water sources) are for 40-year periods, which gives them a lot of security/reliability in water availability. John Woodling, Executive Director of both the Regional Water Authority (Sacramento, Placer, and El Dorado County region) and the Sacramento Groundwater Authority, the second presenter that night concurred with Bayley’s points.
With that said, one of the key points that Mike Harrington and others made in the referendum process is that Davis needs to control its own water destiny. The WAC is going to have to wrestle with how broad-based that sentiment is in Davis, and whether any water purchase contract terms with West Sac provide sufficient protection for Davis water consumers. One other factor is that as a customer of West Sac’s the pricing would be subject to their Proposition 218 approved rates.
Option A) presents some very interesting alternatives . . . and IMHO unique opportunities. But before we explore those, we have to recognize that in either option A) or option B) the participation of Woodland is far from a sure thing. Further, the money spent thus far on the JPA must be viewed as sunk costs, and it isn’t always easy to be dispassionate when viewing sunk costs. That is likely to be especially true for Woodland’s leaders in this situation.
The unique opportunities I mentioned above apply to both Davis and Woodland. Specifically, there is an interest rate spread between Woodland’s current bonds and the government-subsidized funding Davis (and Woodland) are likely to obtain. West Sac’s current bonds [url]http://emma.msrb.org/IssueView/IssueDetails.aspx?id=A6170C0FE7EA8A336426172EF6850602[/url] and [url]http://emma.msrb.org/IssueView/IssueDetails.aspx?id=MS56487[/url] have coupon rates of between 4.5% and 5.5%. With a combined face value of $45 million and an annual interest payment in FY 2014 of $2,356,125, if West Sac agrees to a joint JPA, the $45 million in principal and a total of $28 million in interest payments could be eliminated on their books. The $45 million would come from Davis (and Woodland), but the $28 million would effectively come from Wall Street at no cost to any of the three cities.
Further, West Sac runs its plant with a complement of public employees (very, very good ones according to the industry experts I have talked to). Right now West Sac is paying 100% of the salary and benefits costs of those employees. If a JPA wee formed, West Sac’s portion of those same costs would be 1/3 of what it is now.
I could go on, but savings like those could well make the answer to your first question very, very attractive.
Does that help?
One of the stranger truths I have recently learned is that no one seems to really know why the West Sac alternative was never pursued in the past. The Davis city staff seemed to think that at some point West Sac just pulled the plug. But now it appears that no one on the Davis city staff or from West Sac can find any documentation to support this theory.
Jim Yost apparently claimed that he had documents which proved that West Yost had terminated discussions with Davis regarding a joint project. But then, when pressed, Yost never could produce any such documents.
It may all just be a coincidence that Yost has long ties (personal and professional) to Angelo K Tsakopoulos and that with no West Sac in the picture all eyes turned to AKT’s water and that all discussions stopped with West Sac after Yost claimed West Sac pulled the plug. It also seems strange to me that the City of Davis keeps turning to West-Yost for its consultant on all of these massive water deals.
Slowly but surely we seem to find there is a lot of waste (or at least unnecessary features) built into these projects.
To answer my own question about the savings from West Sac, I am told that Carollo Engineers is presently studying that very question … So like the question as to why we stopped pursuing the West Sac option, no one knows (unless AKT knows?).
[i]”Does that help?”[/i]
Yes, thanks.
My error: [i]”Jim Yost apparently claimed that he had documents which proved that [b]West Yost[/b] had terminated discussions with Davis …”[/i]
Correction: “Jim Yost apparently claimed that he had documents which proved that [b]West Sacramento[/b] had terminated discussions with Davis …”
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”My understanding is that Sue Greenwald was a critical part of unearthing the facts concerning the West Sac alternative,”[/i]
davisite, she was an important part, but not a critical part. A quick timeline review illuminates both her involvement and the involvement of others who were equally critical parts of the resurrection. Steve Pinkerton’s first Council meeting was the now infamous September 6, 2011 one (talk about a baptism by fire). Michael and Ernie immediately kicked into high gear with the referendum activities, which caused a series of communications to happen that resulted in West Sac’s City Manager and Public Works Director to begin a high level analysis to see if West Sac had enough capacity to serve Davis (and Woodland). When Steve attended his first Yolo County City Managers meeting, Toby Ross already had in hand the results of that analysis.
In researching this issue, the following two questions were asked of Steve Pinkerton, 1) Who first brought up the possibility of West Sac, you or Toby Ross? and 2) Who spoke to you first about the possibility of West Sac, Sue or Toby?
Steve’s answer to the first question was, “We both brought it up simultaneously.” Steve’s answer to the second question was, “Sue.” So Sue gets credit for putting the bug in Steve’s ear on the west side of the Causeway and Toby and his staff get the credit for having already begun and completed an analysis of the possibility, so that when they simultaneously began their discussion, Toby didn’t have to say, “I’ll get back to you on that after we do some analysis.” He had a “Yes” answer already in hand . . . and would have offered that possibility unilaterally if it hadn’t been mutually discussed.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”i.e. that West Sac did not pull out of the joint project idea as was offered as the Saylor Council narrative but rather that Davis withdrew from continuing to pursue this joint West Sac/Davis alternative.”[/i]
On this second point of yours, you are 100% wrong. Well documented in the City’s files is the fact that in 2004 (or late 2003) the City of Davis Council approved the hiring of Bartle Wells to evaluate the impact on West Sacramento that adding Davis as a partner would have. Not only did Bartle Wells produce the kind of report that Carollo Engineering is preparing for the WAC now, but [u]on Davis’ nickel[/u] they also performed a rate study for West Sac that translated the benefits into specific rates for West Sac’s water customers. Paying for a rate study for another city is the very antithesis of “pulling out.”
In simple terms West Sac simply felt that they didn’t want to get in bed with Davis at that time, and they let the discussions simply fade away. In the face of the lapsed communication, the City of Davis drew up formal letters of acceptance of West Sac’s lack of interest, but in the end those letters stayed in draft for and were never sent, because there simply was nothing to be gained by formalizing what was clearly a “done deal” from West Sac’s perspective.
davisite2 said . . .
“Make no mistake about it, the developer special interests are well-aware of Councilperson Greenwald’s effectiveness in thwarting their plans and make sure that the ABS candidate campaigns are well-funded, candidate Frerichs being the most obvious example.”
ABS candidate campaigns? Your acronym lost me.
ABS = Anyone But Sue.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”One of the stranger truths I have recently learned is that no one seems to really know why the West Sac alternative was never pursued in the past. The Davis city staff seemed to think that at some point West Sac just pulled the plug. But now it appears that no one on the Davis city staff or from West Sac can find any documentation to support this theory.”[/i]
Rich, one of the key reasons that it is a bit hard to uncover the information is that the key participants on the City of Davis side of this interchange are no longer working for Davis. My information (which comes from both sides of the Causeway) is that the chief water engineer working with Bartle Wells was Bob _______ and the Public Works Director was Bob Weir, both of whom have retired. I’ve been told Bob _____’s last name, but I’m having a senior moment right now, and when I get a chance to reset my memory cells.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Jim Yost apparently claimed that he had documents which proved that West Yost had terminated discussions with Davis regarding a joint project. But then, when pressed, Yost never could produce any such documents.”[/i]
I’ve had similar conversations with Jim Yost in my digging, and I believe that Jacques DeBra has the documents now.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”It may all just be a coincidence that Yost has long ties (personal and professional) to Angelo K Tsakopoulos and that with no West Sac in the picture all eyes turned to AKT’s water and that all discussions stopped with West Sac after Yost claimed West Sac pulled the plug. It also seems strange to me that the City of Davis keeps turning to West-Yost for its consultant on all of these massive water deals.”[/i]
They didn’t turn to West-Yost on all these massive water deals. As I noted in my response to davisite2 above, they turned to Bartle Wells for the West Sac analysis, and have used Brown and Caldwell and Carollo Engineers during the timeline as well.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Slowly but surely we seem to find there is a lot of waste (or at least unnecessary features) built into these projects.”[/i]
I’m not sure I know what you mean by this statement. Do you care to expand?
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”To answer my own question about the savings from West Sac, I am told that Carollo Engineers is presently studying that very question … So like the question as to why we stopped pursuing the West Sac option, no one knows (unless AKT knows?).”[/i]
Not true. See my post to davisite2 above. It just took some additional digging.
Rifkin said . . .
[i]”Does that help?”
Yes, thanks.[/i]
Glad to help. I will keep you posted on my further adventures in the Perils of Pauline.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”ABS = Anyone But Sue.”[/i]
Thanks Don.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”ABS = Anyone But Sue.”[/i]
FWIW, since I fall into the ABS category, it is probably worthwhile reposting my March 25th post in which I crossed over into that category. It summed up my thinking at that time, and it has stood the test of time it still sums up my thinking.
[quote]Matt Williams
03/25/12 – 11:49 AM
Dr. Wu said . . .
[i]”On the issue of “we need new blood” consider that Joe and Rochelle are still in their first term, Dan Wolk was only recently appointed and the odds makers on this blog and in the Enterprise think that Frerichs will likely get a slot. That would mean four first term City Council people. If Wolk, Lee and Frerichs are elected you would have a City Council with all first term people. To me that is going to far.”[/i]
Dr. Wu, I actively supported both Sue Greenwald and Steve Souza in the 2008 election, as well as Cecilia Ecamilla-Greenwald. I took a lot of flak here in the Vanguard advocating that voters not give a “throw away vote” to Rob Roy but rather vote for Steve because he had (after lots of arm turning) publicly come out with a platform position of the renewal of Measure J “as is.” Supporting Sue was easy. I agree with most of her positions . . . not all, but most. I also felt at that time (times of economic prosperity) that Sue propagated her message in a forceful, but respectful way.
A lot has changed since then. The economic times are no longer prosperous. The City’s budgetary woes are significant. This is a time when the Sue who propagated messages in a forceful manner needs to be even more respectful. We need our Council members to be ambassadors for the City. We need our Council members to be good “accountants” who understand that the City’s bottom-line is a blend of Expenses and Revenues, and that simply hammering on cost reductions isn’t the whole story. We need our Council members to be effective ambassadors to the people and companies that will bring new and expanded revenue opportunities to Davis. We need our Council members to be team players, seeking collaboration and building consensus.
In the 2008 election I would have argued that Sue could indeed be the kind of ambassador I’ve described above. Without belaboring the incidents of the past four years, lets say that even the most charitable assessment of Sue’s actions would question whether she can be an effective ambassador today.
I’ve held out hope that Sue would see the benefit to the citizens of Davis of beefing up her collaboration and consensus-building efforts. She certainly has been challenged frequently on that issue here in the Vanguard, and frequently she has come in and posted either 1) responses to the challenges, and/or 2) pleas for moving off what she sees as “personal attacks.” Yesterday at the Farmers Market as I approached Sue’s tent, she had an opportunity to demonstrate any commitment to collaboration and consensus that she may currently have. She could have reached out and engaged me and attempted to address the points where she and I have differed lately. Her commitment to collaboration and commitment was to wrinkle her nose as if a rancid smell had just hit her nostrils and make it clear that I was now firmly on her wastewater solids list.
So in this city of toads I’ve come to the decision that it would be foolish to try and ferry Sue across the river. She is out of step with the economic times we, as a city, are trying to deal with. I’m very sorry I feel that way about Sue, but a lot has happened between the last election and yesterday.
I don’t feel that way about any of the other four candidates. They all have their warts, but a commitment to collaboration and consensus-building is not one of their individual or collective warts. They are all good candidates for today and tomorrow.
[/quote]
ABS = Anti-locking Brake System = Anybody but Sue. But then I’m being redundant.
Rifkin @ 10:26 – I was also at the Beerfest yesterday. Yes, it was full of people that probably don’t care about Davis politics, other than me and the Hesses, but I noticed that Brett Lee wasn’t really into talking with folks, other than you. I made eye contact with him at one point, and was ready to engage, and then he charged off. Very strange for a political aspirant.
Still don’t know who I’m going to vote for…..
“FWIW, since I fall into the ABS category…”
Duh, we never would have guessed! Your contortions to disparge Councilperson Greenwald are getting increasingly strained, e.g. “She was an IMPORTANT part but not a CRITICAL part”.. a bit of verbal hairsplitting here.
As to keeping it simple, your lengthy narrative can be reduced to.. For whatever reason(and I can come up with several including Don Saylor’s connections with West Yost consultants ,Tsk’s future political/financial backing for those who would facilitate him becoming Davis’ future water supplier giving him the leverage he desires to develop his properties on Davis’ southeastern periphery,the volume of water bought under contract from West Sac would represent what Davis needs and and any large scale increase to meet the requirements of future large scale peripheral development would undoubtedly be held to close scrutiny) Davis decided not to vigorously pursue negotiations with West Sacramento but rather, just let it “die”, without sending any formal letter. It must be clear that the Saylor Council majority,whose desires Emlen followed assiduously, was not interested in a contact deal with West Sac.
[quote]I’ve been told Bob _____’s last name, but I’m having a senior moment right now, and when I get a chance to reset my memory cells.[/quote]
If you’re talking about a City of Davis engineer, my guess is Bob Schoech.
.
davisite2 . . .
“Duh, we never would have guessed! Your contortions to disparge Councilperson Greenwald are getting increasingly strained, e.g. “She was an IMPORTANT part but not a CRITICAL part”.. a bit of verbal hairsplitting here.”
Sue in one of her recent fits of hyperbole attempted to take 100% of the credit for the resurrection of the West Sac alternative. The resurrection would have happened with her or without her. She deserves credit for her part, but not the whole mouthful. Her original May 9th Enterprise comment on water read, [i]”Yes, the city should pursue an alternative supply, but we have ample time to evaluate potentially less costly alternatives such as joining with West Sacramento (a re-examination that I helped to initiate).”[/i] That statement is balanced, and is an accurate representation, but Sue rarely can resist upping the ante.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”As to keeping it simple, your lengthy narrative can be reduced to … For whatever reason (and I can come up with several including Don Saylor’s connections with West Yost consultants, Tsk’s future political/financial backing for those who would facilitate him becoming Davis’ future water supplier giving him the leverage he desires to develop his properties on Davis’ southeastern periphery, the volume of water bought under contract from West Sac would represent what Davis needs and and any large scale increase to meet the requirements of future large scale peripheral development would undoubtedly be held to close scrutiny) [b]Davis decided not to vigorously pursue negotiations with West Sacramento but rather, just let it “die”[/b], without sending any formal letter. It must be clear that the Saylor Council majority, whose desires Emlen followed assiduously, was not interested in a contact deal with West Sac.”[/i]
Your bolded words are [u]absolutely incorrect[/u]. Not only did Davis vigorously pursue said negotiations, they actively spent tens of thousands of Davis taxpayer dollars to produce a supporting technical engineering report and a rate study. What more could you possibly have wanted them to do. The generated objective, independent supporting information for West Sac. That information told an overwhelmingly compelling reason for West Sacramento to move forward with Davis, but for their own subjective reasons they chose not to do so. Davis accepted their decision, nothing more, nothing less.
Your words, “Tsk’s future political/financial backing for those who would facilitate him becoming Davis’ future water supplier giving him the leverage he desires to develop his properties on Davis’ southeastern periphery, the volume of water bought under contract from West Sac would represent what Davis needs and and any large scale increase to meet the requirements of future large scale peripheral development would undoubtedly be held to close scrutiny)” are also [u]absolutely incorrect[/u]. In 2004 when all these events took place (date to be confirmed through further research) Angelo Tsakopoulos was still over 6 years away from owning Conaway Ranch.
Thou preparest a table before thee in the presence of thine enemies: thou anointest thy head with paranoia; thy cup runneth over.
Jim Frame
[i]”If you’re talking about a City of Davis engineer, my guess is Bob Schoech.”[/i]
Thanks Jim. That isn’t the name I was given, but I’ll get the right one tomorrow.
Since my stance as an “Anybody But Sue” voter has been publicized here, you should all know why. I believe that Sue Greenwald is unfit to be an elected official and civil servant because she lacks the the very basic ability to behave with civility, respect and open mindedness. I wrote the following words and published them online four years ago; I stand by them today.
[quote]I will not be voting for Sue Greenwald for several reasons. Firstly, and most importantly to me, Sue discourages civic engagement by her actions and words. This would only be apparent to you if you were sitting in Community Chambers during Public Comment at City Council Meetings. On many occasions, I have witnessed Sue treat our fellow citizens with utter disdain if they don’t happen to agree with her opinion on the matter at hand. If you only watch Council proceedings on television, you wouldn’t know that Sue often acts like a petulant child while members of the public speak. Her over-the-top facial expressions (never shown on TV because the camera is focused on the speaker) telegraph her belief that YOU must be stupid or crazy if you don’t agree with her. She grimaces, shakes her head, rolls her eyes and writes little notes to her colleagues while the citizen is talking. Sue could not be more condescending if she tried and any behavior that discourages civic engagement is simply not acceptable to me.
Also, Sue focuses on pipe dreams while ignoring real opportunities for meaningful and progressive change in our city. For the last decade, she has touted re-development of the PG&E service yard at 5th & J. However, she has never brought forth any evidence that PG&E is interested or that such a project is economically feasible. In fact, my sources tell me that PG&E representatives have expressed in the clearest terms that unless the City facilitates a nearly $75 million dollar land swap/clean-up/redevelopment package, they will not consider a move.
On a personal note, I have tried on many occasions to have meaningful conversations with Sue about local matters (including those that came under my jurisdiction as Chair of the Open Space & Habitat Commission). But every attempt ended in frustration: Sue talked AT me and focused only on the potential negative outcomes of any action. Her paranoia is debilitating to herself, the Council and our community.[/quote]
In the last four years, Sue’s behavior has deteriorated to the point that most inter-jurisdictional bodies refuse to even meet if Sue is the liaison (or they schedule meetings when they know she can not attend), her list of alienated partners, city staffers and citizens grows by the day, and potential improvements to our community are squashed by her paranoia, delusions of grandeur, and inability to collaborate,
How does Sue respond to criticism of her behavior as our elected representative? Not well. I know from personal experience that she is eager to launch malicious, hateful and just plain false whisper campaigns against anyone who dares to speak out publicly against her embarrassing and destructive behavior.
[i]”I noticed that Brett Lee wasn’t really into talking with folks, other than you …”[/i]
I’m not sure Brett was really there to talk politics. He and I were mostly trying to find good beers. A number of his supporters did approach him and he was happy to chat. However, talking anything in that place was very hard–the music was terribly loud and, not commenting at all on the quality of the bands, inappropriate in my opinion. Given that location and that many people jammed in there, it was apt to be noisy with no live rock music blaring. If the Citizens Who Care believe that live music was needed, I think some cool jazz not overly amplified would have been more pleasant. But maybe I am just an old fuddy-duddy in that respect.
Oh, and one more thing … I had been looking forward to drinking a Russian River Brewery beer for a long time now. The last couple times I was in Santa Rosa and expected to do so, other things got in the way and it didn’t work out. Stores which say “We carry Pliny the Elder” never seem to have it in stock. So I waited in the long line and got a glass of Supplication ([url]http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/863/22227[/url]). Maybe its an acquired taste. I thought it was lousy–almost tasted like citrus juice. I am sure their IPAs are all good. Most IPAs are quite enjoyable. But I won’t try Supplication again unless someone convinces me it will be better next time.
KP: [i]” I believe that Sue Greenwald is unfit to be an elected official and civil servant because she lacks the the very basic ability to behave with civility, respect and open mindedness.”[/i]
Kemble, you certainly have every right to express your point of view on a public official, and since you do so under your own name, more power to you. However, your dislike for Sue was clear in your treatment of her in the Chamber forum. You were combative, if not abusive, in your questioning of her, while mostly polite to the others. It was awkward and evident to all.
Because of that, I think the Chamber would be wise, if it ever holds another such event, to have a moderator who can be fair to all of the candidates, and one who is not interested in debating against candidates he does not support. … Alternatively, since you and Mike Bisch have turned the Chamber into what amounts to a political party, putting its weight heavily behind its three favorite candidates, maybe the Chamber should just never hold a candidate forum again.
“That information told an overwhelmingly compelling reason for West Sacramento to move forward with Davis, but for their own subjective reasons they chose not to do so. Davis accepted their decision, nothing more, nothing less. “
Their own subjective reasons?? If Davis was really trying to make a deal with West Sac., wouldn’t an attempt to find out what these unknown subjective reasons were and try to resolve them? Not just cut off communication and “let it die”
“also absolutely incorrect. In 2004 when all these events took place (date to be confirmed through further research) Angelo Tsakopoulos was still over 6 years away from owning Conaway Ranch.”
I do not suggest that the 3 issues that I enumerated were all taking place in 2004. My belief is that the Saylor Council never wanted any other plan than to build a surface water project that, once the infrastructure/water quality processing plant was in place, bringing in a lot more water that would be required to meet the needs of large peripheral residential development would not raise much of a problem politically. Saylor’s political connections with Yost West Consultants was, I believe, also in place at that time.
davisite, the subjective reasons are really quite straightforward. We Davisites are a royal pain in the ass to deal with. We are arrogant, combative, superior, controlling, inconsistent and rude. Why would anyone choose to go to bed with us if they had another viable alternative?
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”I do not suggest that the 3 issues that I enumerated were all taking place in 2004.”[/i]
However, the timing of West Sac’s decision was 2004, so why is any other timing of issues even relevant?
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”My belief is that the Saylor Council never wanted any other plan than to build a surface water project that, once the infrastructure/water quality processing plant was in place, bringing in a lot more water that would be required to meet the needs of large peripheral residential development would not raise much of a problem politically. Saylor’s political connections with Yost West Consultants was, I believe, also in place at that time.”[/i]
You are once again divorced from reality. In the timeline you are describing, it would not be for 7 years before the State finally ended the 17-year Water Right application process and granted the 45,000 AF Water Right. Absent that water right, Saylor could do all the dreaming he might have wanted to do, but those dreams would have been all wet. Any person who knows the water right process knows that the vast majority of people throughout all levels of California government fully expected California to [u]never ever[/u] grant another water right to Sacramento River water. That was the meaningful politics at work, not some piddling little local political issue about land use . . .
“davisite, the subjective reasons are really quite straightforward. We Davisites are a royal pain in the ass to deal with. We are arrogant, combative, superior, controlling, inconsistent and rude. Why would anyone choose to go to bed with us if they had another viable alternative?
Sorry, As a proud Davisite addressing a resident of El Macero, I couldn’t resist taking up the old schoolyard refrain..”I know you are but what am I?
It really amazes me how an intelligent man like you can see a conspiracy behind every tree and shrub in your purview. Every time we have talked in person your intelligence has been readily visible. Perhaps if you used your heart less, when you worry about land use, and use your head more you would suffer a whole lot less angst.
davisite2
[i]”davisite, the subjective reasons are really quite straightforward. We Davisites are a royal pain in the ass to deal with. We are arrogant, combative, superior, controlling, inconsistent and rude. Why would anyone choose to go to bed with us if they had another viable alternative?
Sorry, As a proud Davisite addressing a resident of El Macero, I couldn’t resist taking up the old schoolyard refrain..”I know you are but what am I?[/i]
Fair enough.
The simple answer is that you and I are both part of a community that is described by all those adjectives, and a whole lot more.
We have made our bed . . .
“It really amazes me how an intelligent man like you can see a conspiracy behind every tree….”
Right back at you, Matt… I am also amazed at how a intelligent man can appear to be so politically naive. The most respected political scientists all agree that one must first search for personal gain to ferret out the real facts that drive political power and influence.
Matt: Given what we did to Woodland, do you think West Sac is going to seriously consider a partnership with Davis? I don’t follow the water issue very closely, but it seems pretty clear from the referendum and the subsequent erratic actions by the council that Davis is not a trustworthy business partner.
Point well taken psd. My response to you is simple . . . self interest.
If the dollars are right, and a contract can be drawn up that insulates West Sac from the effects of Davis’ tendencies to be erratic and unreliable, then a deal can be struck . . . and should be struck.
We haven’t done anything to Woodland [i]yet.[/i] And if you read the founding documents of the WDJPA, there are terms and conditions for failure to fulfill obligations.
davisite2 said . . .
[i]”Right back at you, Matt… I am also amazed at how a intelligent man can appear to be so politically naive. The most respected political scientists all agree that one must first search for personal gain to ferret out the real facts that drive political power and influence.”[/i]
The reason for that is anything but amazing . . . because not all decisions are political in nature. While politics is clearly an important part of decision making, it can’t be so much of a focus that we lose touch with the practicalities of how the world around us operates.
Decisions are made by people, and those people have both individual and collective interests. Robert Miller and Stephen Heiman coined the term “Win-Results” to describe the dynamic between individual and collective interests. To do so they define three important concepts:
•A Result is the impact of a product or service on one or more of the business’ (or organization’s) processes
•A Win is the fulfillment of a subjective, personal promise made to oneself to serve one’s self-interest in some special way
•A Win-Result is an objective business/organizational result that gives one or more of the participants in the decision a subjective, personal Win. Wins are always different for different people.
Individuals generally don’t have a Win-Results “profile.” More often than not, each decision scenario will have “triggers” that contribute to the individual’s Win-Result balance for that decision scenario. If the triggers are more heavily weighted toward a personal win, then the decision is more likely to be political. However, when the triggers are more heavily weighted toward business/organizational results, then the decision is much less likely to be political.
Tying back to your quoted point above, often the search for personal gain comes up empty, because there really isn’t any personal gain inherent in the decision, only an organizational/business result.
Don Shor said . . .
[i]”We haven’t done anything to Woodland yet. And if you read the founding documents of the WDJPA, there are terms and conditions for failure to fulfill obligations.”[/i]
Right on the mark Don. In fact, if the West Sac alternative is attractive enough for Davis, it should be just as attractive for Woodland, and in the end we will have a JPA that combines all three cities.
In 2004 West Sac was building houses like mad and was looking to build more. They must have figured they would need the excess capacity for their own future. Now that the housing market has collapsed they have excess capacity.
D2- Thanks for the explanation of your personal political view. It seems to amount to a what’s in it for me attitude. I think this is emblematic of your no growth position and that of many others who share your view. It is no wonder that you would then support having a status quo, pit bull gargoyle, guarding the gate on the city council.
Some of us are more generous, we embrace human capital, we are willing to share. Our sense of community isn’t a call to man the barricades against the unwashed hoards. We invite others who would like to bring their families to our fine schools because they value education, contribute to our social fabric through hard work and pay taxes, and give back through charity to join us. We invite them to laugh, love and argue with us. We envision the politics of hope not fear, of inclusion not exclusion, of cooperation not division and we dream of a bright dynamic future instead of clinging to the preservation of the world exactly as it was when we liked what we saw and came here.
It is my sincerest hope that on Tuesday people vote for their dreams, for a future and a spirit of cooperation that allows us to work together towards a community we can be proud of living in, where the common good is something to be strived for, and where shared sacrifice is honored instead of derided.
[quote]Matt Williams: “That information told an overwhelmingly compelling reason for West Sacramento to move forward with Davis, but for their own subjective reasons they chose not to do so. Davis accepted their decision, nothing more, nothing less. ”
davisite2: Their own subjective reasons?? If Davis was really trying to make a deal with West Sac., wouldn’t an attempt to find out what these unknown subjective reasons were and try to resolve them? Not just cut off communication and “let it die”
[/quote]
It is my understanding from city staff that West Sac did not care to partner with Davis because West Sac believed they would eventually need all the treated water they could produce. West Sac planned to grow exponentially in the future, but their growth plans did not materialize for a variety of reasons. Once they realized they were going to have a lot of unused water on their hands because 1) housing growth was not going to be as large as projected; 2) the installation of water meters was going to significantly cut down on water use, West Sac was more amenable to selling its unneeded water to outside interests. Thus far West Sac does not seem amenable to being a partner with Davis, but rather would prefer that Davis was a customer. But negotiations are under way, and exact details are unknown as of yet. The WAC hopes to be privy to more detail, specifically cost, by June 14, at the earliest…
[quote]“Today, our town needs some new blood. It needs leadership that will ask the hard questions and not go along to get along. Watching the council of late, a majority seems to think that they work for the staff and that the job of the council is to sally forth on whatever the staff recommends, even if the plan is half-baked, feckless, overly expensive or obscure to the taxpayers,” [b]- Delain Eastin as quoted by DG[/b][/quote]Given that the current council already comprises more than a few pints of “new blood,” Ms. Eastin apparently promotes “new blood” of a different blood type. This doesn’t appear to be about Sue at all – although her blood is not new, no one could logically accuse her of being a tool of city staff.
[quote]It is no wonder that you would then support having a status quo, pit bull gargoyle, guarding the gate on the city council. [/quote]
Now that is an image for the ages.
“Sue focuses on pipe dreams while ignoring real opportunities for meaningful and progressive change in our city.” –Kemble Pope.
I realized Kemble’s problem with Sue, once I got past the bombast, is that
she’s not in favor of the Chamber of Commerce’s agenda. But he doesn’t want to say that in plain English, so he goes on and on with the personal stuff.
I’ve not been following this West Sac alternative too closely yet. What exactly is it that West Sac has that could be used by Davis and potentially Woodland, as well. Is a) water treatment capacity (either existing and/or ability to expand economically), or b) actual excess water rights that could be used to serve Davis and Woodland, or both?
Assuming one of the assets it has to share is in fact water rights, what is the source, quantity and quality of those water rights?
If Davis was able to put together some sort of a deal with West Sacramento, is this question of being a partner or a customer related solely to the treatment aspect, or is Davis looking to effectively secure permanent water rights from West Sacramento?
Would any of these potential scenarios with West Sacramento utilize either or both of the new water supplies that Davis and Woodland have acquired from the State (45,000 acre feet) and from Conaway (10,000 acre feet), or would they make such water rights surplus? Given what little I know about water rights and both the ability to transfer them and the willingness of others who have them to transfer them, my gut tells me that the West Sac deal is really just about treatment, not water supply. If this is right, the cities still need as much of their newly acquired sources of water with a West Sac solution as with the WDCWA solution.
One of the interesting aspects of a West Sacramento solution is that I suspect it could take much longer to implement than the WDCWA solution. Going down such a path could buy Davis some time in terms of implemenation and the discharge requirements. If after pursuing this option for a number of years it finally blows-up for whaterver reason, Davis could then go back to try to construct the WDCWA facility. Put slightly differently, the City might have a more difficult time delaying pursuing what I’ll for argument’s sake assume would be a more expensive WDCWA project if there were no other alternative it was pursuing. Davis could pursue the West Sac deal vigorously and legitimately claim that they are going as fast as it possible. If it succeeds, they’ve got a cheaper overall water treatment project. If it fails, maybe they’be bought themselves several additional years which is worth what they have spent to the West Sac option. The one big risk is that the economy starts improving in the meantime and the cost of constructing a surface water treatment plant climbs far faster than any savings from delaying implementation. That’s what’s going to hurt us, I fear. We delay a bit and the costs go up significantly with improvements in the overall economy. Construction costs are unbelievably low right now.
newshound, there really are not answers to the many questions you ask. The report from Carollo Engineers to the WAC (commissioned by the Council) should go a long way to answering those questions.
With that said, from my personal perspective, the ideal answers toyour questions are:
— Both
— Same source . . . the Sacramento River with virtually no difference in quality than we would get from the Conaway Ranch intake
— The former, but if the latter is available that would be good too
— The 45,000 acre foot right will almost surely be used, but in non-drought years the 10,000 acre foot right could possibly be sold on the water market. Regardless, the intake location for the rights will have to be “moved” from Conaway to Bryte Bend, which will require an application process with the State and no doubt an additional EIR.
— I actually believe the West Sac alternative may take less time, but that is purely an educated guess.
[quote]What exactly is it that West Sac has that could be used by Davis and potentially Woodland, as well. Is a) water treatment capacity (either existing and/or ability to expand economically), or b) actual excess water rights that could be used to serve Davis and Woodland, or both? [/quote]
In so far as I am aware, treated water, not water rights…