It all began with a lawsuit by Michael Harrington that alleged that the City of Davis “has defrauded Davis ratepayers for years by failing to pay for any of the City’s own water use as required by Proposition.”
Last week, Bob Dunning, the Davis Enterprise columnist, cited a story by reporter Tom Sakash as evidence that the city had admitted to these charges.
Wrote Sakash, “After receiving multiple requests from the media for information about whether the city pays for its own water, a city official admitted this week that it doesn’t.” Wrote the city: “Presently the city does not separately account for water used at city facilities.”
After more than ten days of urging, the City of Davis, through City Clerk Zoe Mirabile, finally released documents on the city water usage from January 2012 through November 2012.
The chart shows that the city’s water use included 469,613 ccf of irrigation and another 9008 ccf for domestic use. The total cost with the fixed rates $777,883.35.
City Manager Steve Pinkerton told the Vanguard that the city only has 85% of the meters, however both he and Mayor Joe Krovoza believe that this figure represents a good estimate of the overall use of water by the city.
“The City knows how much water it is using,” a statement by the city received by the Vanguard just before midnight on Sunday reads. “Over the past decade, the City has been installing meters for all of its facilities, so that we can accurately measure our water use. The City has approximately 85% of its meters in place, and installation of the remainder is in process. The meters are read just like all other meters in the city. The water use for the areas that are not yet metered is estimated based on water use for similar facilities.”
Ms. Mirabile also informed the Vanguard that as of the close of business on Friday, the city had not been formally served with the lawsuit. On Thursday, Michael Harrington sent the Vanguard a copy of the complaint date stamped January 31, 2013.
However, without the serving the city, the lawsuit is not official and the clock does not officially start.
The Davis Enterprise editorial that endorsed Measure I even included the qualification: “And, thanks to the recent revelation that the city of Davis hasn’t been paying for its own water use, our already-stressed general fund will be further tapped to cover these new expenses. Brace yourself for more budget cuts.”
The Vanguard asked City Manager Steve Pinkerton on Sunday whether that Davis Enterprise editorial statement was accurate.
When we asked flat out if the city was not paying for its own water use, the city manager responded, “That’s a gross oversimplification – no check’s been cut, but we believe that once we do the final accounting that the taxpayers do not owe themselves anything.”
He added, “I don’t think the taxpayers are going to owe the ratepayers, I think it’s going to balance out.”
The statement from the city clarifies, “The general city facilities, such as parks, must pay for their water use, and the water and other utility funds must pay for the services and facilities that the general City departments provide to the water or utility departments.”
In perhaps the clearest statement, the city claims, “The City’s water use and payment by the City is included in the current and proposed rate structures. Individual ratepayers are not subsidizing the City’s water use. If the City does not pay its bill, it is money owed to the Water Fund.”
However, the water rate hikes figure to throw whatever balance there is now between water payments owed to the Enterprise fund, and general fund payments owed by the Enterprise fund to the general fund, out of kilter.
“In the future, certainly over the next five year period,” he said. “There is going to be an effect on the general fund.”
“But I don’t think looking retrospectively, I don’t think there’s going to be any impact… on the general fund.”
Mr. Pinkerton said he believes that the impact in coming years on the general fund is going to be significant “as we transition out of using potable water for irrigation.”
In time Mr. Pinkerton said, and agreed this would be a hotly contested political issue, he sees the greenbelts moving away from grass and toward more native species which will not have to be mowed or water.
“Over time, I think you’re going to have the double combination of switching away from potable water and greatly reducing just like the university has, the number of areas of (grass),” he said.
If this answer does not seem nearly as clear as one would like it, you might not be alone. The Vanguard had a lengthy conversation on Sunday evening with Davis Mayor Joe Krovoza.
Notably, he indicated that he believed it possible that the taxpayers of Davis might owe the ratepayers of Davis up to a few hundred thousand dollars or vice versa.
Moreover, for the first time, he admitted that this was not simply a non-issue.
In a statement sent late on Sunday evening, the mayor told the Vanguard, “In a strict and narrow sense, the City has not been paying for its water, but to report that and that alone is a distortion of the issue.”
“True too is that the city has not been billing the Water Utility for costs associated with city water use, nor billing the Water Utility for certain items that should be billed to all ratepayers,” he said. “We’ll see in the coming months how these two sides of the balance sheet work out.”
He also explained the process and history: “The city doesn’t shy from paying its share of water use, and since the Sacramento case in early 2010 the City has been moving to set in place the system for this. We have about 85 percent of the meters installed to do this now, and we believe we have very good estimates of our overall use.”
“This is fundamentally an accounting issue between the General Fund and the Water Utility, he argues. “There hasn’t been any deception here.”
As the city explains, “In 2010, the City Council approved an ordinance that put in place a water rate charge specific to the City, known as the Municipal Use Rate. It is set at the rate of irrigation and small commercial and is $1.41 per 100 ccf. This rate does not include a ‘Tier 2’ because the City can control the time it waters and avoid peak times – for example, irrigating parks at night.”
Mayor Krovoza writes, “The city’s water use and costs for such, and the ratepayer-supported Water Utility, have been accounted for separately to this point. This means that costs associated with city water use for parks, etc have not been billed to the Water Utility, and in other ways the city has been subsidizing the Water Utility.”
He adds, “The new water supply system and rates anticipate a full merger of city water use/costs and the Water Utility. This has been in several staff reports recently. As we merge the systems, we believe the amount either the city owes the Water Utility or vice versa will be roughly equal. Whatever the final payment either way, the city will resolve this fairly as we have always intended.”
The statement from the city asserts that the ratepayers are not subsidizing the city’s water use.
The statement continues, “For the most recent calendar year (2012), the City’s water use totaled approximately $778,000. The City also provides land and services to the Water Division, which are offsets to the water costs. The Water Division uses City lands for well sites and other Water Division activities and has not paid rent for these lands. The City believes these costs approximate the cost of the City’s water use.”
Bottom line is that opponents will undoubtedly continue to claim that the city is not paying its water bills and the city will claim that the water bills are largely in balance, even though they were not accounted for as closely as they should have been.
The city believes that they are not out of compliance and argues that even in the Sacramento case, the court did not impose sanctions on the city. They only ordered the city to account for its water usage and square its books. The city claims that since 2010, that is exactly what they have moved to do.
However, Mayor Joe Krovoza acknowledged that perhaps they had not moved as quickly as they should have. A number of factors are at play here, including an economic downturn that has sapped the city’s ability to adopt new accounting practices and purchase sophisticated software.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Is Harrington slipping something under your door at night to get this kind of promotion ?
What in the world are you talking about?
So has Mike Harrington sued the City or not?
He has filed a lawsuit with the courts but has not served it on the city. Until the city is served, there is no lawsuit.
Here’s the screen shot:
[img]images/stories/harrington-suit.png[/img]
agree…this is muddy and seems to be getting worse…
my question, apart from ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ in terms of one city bucket and another, is the role of conservation in the city. It would seem if the city is not ‘paying’ it is not incented to conserve….especially if there aren’t meters. True?
What political advantage is there to filing a lawsuit but not serving it?
Don, this whole thing is odd to me. I honestly don’t know if there is any advantage to it
[i]”In time Mr. Pinkerton said, and agreed this would be a hotly contested political issue, he sees the greenbelts moving away from grass and towards more native species which will not have to be mowed or water
[/i]
There is no reason this would have to be contested or controversial at all. Reducing turf areas would be easy without significant impact on recreational uses. And, just to correct a pet peeve of mine, they don’t have to use exclusively ‘native’ species in order to accomplish that.
Don, I tend to agree with you here. But it some people nevertheless are willing to fall on their sword for their right to have water intensive gardens and lawns.
Harrington’s office is on D Street, City Hall is on B Street. He could walk the thing over there in ten minutes. So there must be some intentional reason he has failed to serve it. And since the lawsuit is simply a political stunt, specifically designed to sway the voters, perhaps he never intends to actually follow through on it.
Some context would be helpful here. What are other cities in California facing in this regard? How many others have used or are using this “informal” accounting method? How many have or are transitioning to generally agreed accounting methods for water? Is Davis an anomaly? Those saying the City has not paid are, once again, attributing nefarious intent (indeed, an intent to defraud) to the City’s actions. I would like to know how common this situation is–county, region and statewide. Mr Pinkerton has worked for several cities in the state. Perhaps he could comment on what he has seen in this regard in those cities?
What seems clear to me, regardless of what others are doing, is that it is simply not true to say that the City has not been paying its water bills. It is not merely an oversimplification, it is not true.
remember that the plaintiff has 60 days from date of filing to serve the complaint
California Rules of Court section 3.110(b)
It has been represented to me that Davis is no different than any other jurisdiction in this regard. All cities were in the same boat apparently in 2010. It was also represented to me that the city might have been better served acknowledging the problem in 2010 and would been better served with a faster transition.
Don Shor: “since the lawsuit is simply a political stunt…”
Bingo!
Davis also would have been “better served” by a stronger economy, more retail sales, no sales tax leakage…
I am not absolving the city of wrongdoing but merely pointing out that 1) there is a cost to making these changes and general fund obligations have made any new expenditures difficult (we were talking about streets in this space last week) and 2) it is misleading (and wrong) to say the “City has not paid its water bills”. Anyone making that blanket statement–as Dunning and Harrington have–are mis-representing the reality.
Anyone making… is…
how can a suit be filed and not served??? how often does that happen? what an inefficient use of our court!
SODA, google California Rules of Court (http://www.courts.ca.gov/rules.htm), click on Title Three (Civil Rules 3.1-3.2120). Then scroll to Division 3 (Filing and Service), then Chapter 2 (Time for Service), then Rule 3.110(b) (Service of complaint)
“…even in the Sacramento case, the court did not impose sanctions on the city. They only ordered the city account for its water usage and square its books.”
And this is the key point to this sorry lawsuit episode. According to their own statements, Harrington and Munn filed this lawsuit to influence the Measure I election as if they had discovered some nefarious scheme. To his discredit, Dunning has jumped on board as well. But as the grand jury facts show, the Sacramento case did not unveil a nefarious scheme at all. It merely showed that Sacramento’s accounting did not meet standards. Worst case scenario, Davis’s accounting has also been inadequate. Whoop-dee-do! There would be an awfully long line for a spanking if you lined-up all the individuals, non-profits, for-profits, and governments who had inadequate accounting systems in place.
I posed this question on the Vanguard previously. What became of the much trumpeted Jarvis lawsuit against the City of Sacramento? The Enterprise, the Vanguard and Dunning all reported that the lawsuit was filed in January 2010. Three years later, has it been resolved and how was it resolved? Why is this not being reported? If the suit was withdrawn or declared frivolous, Davis voters would have an idea of what to expect of the Harrington suit.
-Michael Bisch
Michael: stay tuned tomorrow
[quote]Two tests must be met if an appeal is to be determined “frivolous”: (1) a subjective standard–is the appeal prosecuted in bad faith, or for an improper motive, such as to harass or solely to delay; and (2) an objective standard–when any reasonable attorney would agree the appeal is totally and completely without merit. The latter “objective” test requires the attorney, before bringing an appeal, to engage in reasonable legal research to determine whether any colorable argument can be made. The evaluation must be made on the basis of law that is available at the time the decision to appeal must be taken. [/quote]
I wonder if Mr. Haarington is busy confirming that he is not at risk for filing a frivolous legal action that lacks merit.
[quote]What political advantage is there to filing a lawsuit but not serving it? [/quote][quote]remember that the plaintiff has 60 days from date of filing to serve the complaint
California Rules of Court section 3.110(b) [/quote]Ok… 60 days means end of March, by which time the Measure I vote will have occurred and will be certified by the County…. feel free to draw your own conclusions from those two facts.
[quote]remember that the plaintiff has 60 days from date of filing to serve the complaint California Rules of Court section 3.110(b) [/quote]
But Mike Harrington has bragged at length about the lawsuit and his yearning for a “neutral forum” to set the rates (one that the ratepayers and our elected representatives would not be involved in). Now we find that he threw together this claim, managed to drive across town to hand-deliver it to the Vanguard and, I’m assuming, other media outlets, but has not really started the lawsuit. As a voter, I feel more than a tad bit snookered. This brings this campaign to an even lower level of deceit and misinformation.
I find it interesting that some like to quote 218’s requirements about City paying for water and hate 218 for the provisions for ‘majority protest’… same people… perhaps we should repeal 218 and solve both “problems”… City can use all the water it wants, and there are no provisions for rate protests except by referendum.
[quote]What political advantage is there to filing a lawsuit but not serving it? [/quote][quote]remember that the plaintiff has 60 days from date of filing to serve the complaint
California Rules of Court section 3.110(b) [/quote]Those two facts show that the dweadlone for serving the City would be at the end of March… by which time the Measure I voting will be completed and the results certified by the County. Feel free to opine on the significance of those two facts.
[quote]dweadlone[/quote]dumb-thumbed… “deadline”….
What I mean, David,is all the free space you’ve given this scalawag .
DG: “Don, this whole thing is odd to me. I honestly don’t know if there is any advantage to it.”
For someone able to discern motive in–and report it for–almost political and legal act that the Vanguard covers, you honestly claim an incomprehensible lack of observation about how advantages accrue to Michael whether his suit ever gets served. Let me count the ways….
Nice to see you folks are busy trying to read tea leaves this morning. It’s sad to see ratepayers who obviously seem so willing to look the other way as our City government violates a clear provision in the State Constitution. None of this is very complicated.
Now we know that the waste treatment plant is too close to the surface water treatment plant. More than likely, when the south winds stir up the dust loaded with e-coli and other horrible things from the open ponds at the waste treatment plant, that toxic cloud will blow it across the street to the adjacent “clean” water treatment plant.
How wonderful.
And now we know that there should have been an aerosol study down FIRST, before the sites were fixed?
Our CC just spent houndreds of thousands of dollars on the fill contract?
Our staff must have known about the issue of co-location, and if too close, the toxics blow into the “clean” water ponds.
But the DV and its crowd of paid Yes on I and “volunteer” posters are going to give the City a pass, again?
Enough Michael Harrington. You are a local real estate developer in Davis that owes years of real estate taxes on your developments. You are an attorney that benefits financially through litigating whatever can make you a buck. You represent land owners in the City of Davis that have a stake in the City purchasing their property for development of future well sites. You and your associate land owner paid out of pocket for the referendum. You are a scalawag. You are the one that should be investigated.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/1996/120196_prop_218/understanding_prop218_1296.html
For common knowledge… how the LAO views Prop 218…
Frankly said . . .
[i]”I wonder if Mr. Harrington is busy confirming that he is not at risk for filing a frivolous legal action that lacks merit.”[/i]
I could be wrong, but the public record of the WAC meetings would appear to provide information that supports the merit of the filing of the lawsuit’s actions vis-a-vis the current rate system and the first 20 months of the new rate system. So, it would be hard to sustain a frivolous legal action claim against those two parts. The CBFR claim is indeed unsustainable on the merits, but given the newness of the rate structure, I can’t see a judge declaring that part of the lawsuit as frivolous. That leaves the City payments as the lone truly frivolous part. Bottom-line Mike is probably safe on three out of his four claims from a frivolity perspective.
“Now we know that the waste treatment plant is too close to the surface water treatment plant. “
am i the only one completely lost here?
[quote]You are a local real estate developer in Davis that owes years of real estate taxes on your developments.[/quote]Can you supply APN’s/addresses to allow folks to substantiate this? If true, it’s time to unmask the deadbeat/hypocrite. If untrue, it’s time to lay this charge to rest.
Mike Harrington’s accusation that people are being paid to post here is a personal attack and needs to be removed.
[quote][b]”Is the City Paying For Its Own Water?”[/b][/quote][quote]DG: “It all began with a lawsuit by Michael Harrington that alleged that the City of Davis ‘has defrauded Davis ratepayers for years by failing to pay for any of the City’s own water use as required by Proposition’. Last week, Bob Dunning, the Davis Enterprise columnist, cited a story by reporter Tom Sakash as evidence that the city had admitted to these charges. Wrote Sakash, ‘After receiving multiple requests from the media for information about whether the city pays for its own water, a city official admitted this week that it doesn’t’.”[/quote]What’s missing from this summary is the important explanation Sakash provides about how the city [u]does[/u] pay for its water through a series of informal offsets (a system that is undergoing improvements) since the 2010 findings.
So, the short answer to the charge that the city is not “paying for it’s own water” and defrauding ratepayers was answered in Sakash’s original story: “No.”
Why Dunning and David reassert the charge (without including critical background) each time the city provides additional information to support its rationale for its imperfect, but improving, method is a good question. And, yet again, the city gets criticized for dragging its feet in taking a reasonable period:[quote]:”After more than ten days of urging…finally released documents….”[/quote] Do we have to read Michael’s hysterical, overblown language when the [i]Vanguard[/i] rehashes this story as well as every time he issues some nasty post himself?
Mike H: [i]But the DV and its crowd of paid Yes on I and “volunteer” posters are going to give the City a pass, again?
[/i]
Ryan: [i]Mike Harrington’s accusation that people are being paid to post here is a personal attack and needs to be removed.[/i]
No, I’m going to leave it. It speaks to his character, and we all know it isn’t true.
I want to state unequivocally that I have been paid by no one to post on this site in favor of Measure I. Further, Mr Harrington, I am willing to reveal my bank statements and account for all inflows into them. I am willing to release my tax returns that detail my income sources (and my wife’s). I have not nor would I ever receive payment for offering opinions about my views on ballot measures or elections. So, everyone can cross my name off the Mr Harrington’s list. Of course this assumes I was on his list, which is impossible to know since he merely stated that there are paid supporters of Measure I posting here without bothering to say who they are. So, who are they Mr Harrington, since you clearly have information about who they are. Please provide a list and evidence.
Thanks
“Now we know that the waste treatment plant is too close to the surface water treatment plant. ”
am i the only one completely lost here?”
GI, there was an article in the Enterprise that the site for the water plant has to be tested to make sure that no contaminants can blow into the drinking water from the sewage plant that is located near by.
“Mike Harrington’s accusation that people are being paid to post here is a personal attack and needs to be removed.”
That’s rally laughable that Mr.Harrington’s post would have to be removed after all of the attacks, accusations and name calling that’s being directed towards him.
Michael, why haven’t you served the city? Does taking your suit to the next step significantly add to your costs? Does it put you in more jeopardy somehow? A little free legal consultation, if you please.
And, why do you keep harassing David about the extensive coverage the [i]Vanguard[/i] is giving you? In spite of your tactics and language, David writes admiringly of your political genius and continues to support the contentions you make in your lawsuit.
Growth Issue: The Enterprise had an article which you can see here — [url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city/dept-of-public-health-investigates-water-project-treatment-facility/[/url] if you’re a subscriber (and I think they still allow free access on Mondays).
My conclusions about our latest [i]contretemps[/i];
1. The city does pay for its water, informally, but needs to tighten its book-keeping.
2. When you locate water plants near sewage plants, you need to comply with DHS guidelines. They’re doing that.
3. It is still not clear why the city hasn’t been served.
[quote] More than likely, when the south winds stir up the dust loaded with e-coli and other horrible things from the open ponds at the waste treatment plant, that toxic cloud will blow it across the street to the adjacent “clean” water treatment plant. [/quote]Deception (not surprising from a liberal arts major opining on technical matters, who has an axe to grind)? What evidence is there of E-Coli contaminated soil (the article was about aerosols)?
Has Mr H seen any construction plans to show where the surface water system would have open reservoirs (post treatment) that would indicate possibility for contamination? NO.
To borrow from Mark Twain, there are lies, damned lies, statistics, and Mr H’s postings.
[quote]so willing to look the other way as our City government violates a clear provision in the State Constitution. [/quote]Yet, Mr H (and others) regale against Prop 218 [constitution] about rate protest mechanisms. Typical attorney, citing parts of the law they agree with, and disparaging the others. From a lay-persons’ standpoint, sounds hypocritical. At least, self serving.
I have never been paid to post on this blog. I have never been directed to post by the Yes on I campaign or anyone else, for that matter, in any way, ever. I am not a volunteer for the Yes on I campaign and have no connection to the Yes on I campaign. I will not benefit in anyway financially if the water project is built. I am a ratepayer, a voter, and citizen of Davis.
rusty49 – don’t be so blind to the nefarious actions of your spokesperson.
[quote]Can you supply APN’s/addresses to allow folks to substantiate this? If true, it’s time to unmask the deadbeat/hypocrite. If untrue, it’s time to lay this charge to rest. [/quote]
Assessment #070-211-004-000, 430 D Street
[quote]its crowd of paid Yes on I and “volunteer” posters are going to give the City a pass, again? [/quote]In my opinion, a damning statement… who was it that paid signature gatherers and spouted “talking points” for the referendum? If Mr H wants to label me as a “volunteer poster” [implying I am paid or otherwise compensated for my comments], BRING IT ON! If you do, Mr H, you will be sued for libel and/or slander as the media dictates.
Mr H, I believe that you are not necessarily a “scalawag”, but the door is open for accusations of being a charlatan, liar, opportunist, and/or jerk.
[quote]DE: “Enough Michael Harrington.
You are a local real estate developer in Davis that owes years of real estate taxes on your developments. (Some comment redacted by me. We don’t disparage attorneys in the [u]Vanguard[/u].)
You represent land owners in the City of Davis that have a stake in the City purchasing their property for development of future well sites. You and your associate land owner paid out of pocket for the referendum. (Some comment redacted by me. We don’t imply personal descriptions in the Vanguard–including against those who allegedly supported the Republican Party and its policy of Black emancipation.)
You are the one that should be investigated.”[/quote]DE, if it’s true that Michael hasn’t paid the government as he charges the city hasn’t, that certainly is relevant though a little hypocritical. If it’s true he’s a developer who constantly claims that water project supporters are aiming at expanding developments, that certainly is relevant.
If it’s true that lawsuits and measures about the future of well drilling in our city could be associated with landowners who would benefit from related city actions (drilling more wells), that conflict is basic information about which we all deserve answers.
Furthermore, citizens should know who is paying for political action [u]before[/u] we vote. So far, neither the [i]Vanguard[/i] nor Michael will tell us who has “paid out of pocket.” We can’t even get an answer from “no” spokespeople about who endorses that side.
However, since the [i]Vanguard[/i] also abhors unsupported charges, please provide us with links or some other proof that you’re accurate here. Thank you.
Davis Enophile, so while I’m busy developing my own observations, you’ve amended your original comment. So, with respect to my redaction about lawyer personal attacks…never mind.
But, I’m still interested in you providing sources for your claims about those you say are behind the suit/”no” side.
“continues to support the contentions you make in your lawsuit. “
That’s an untrue statement, I have posted multiple times that (A) the proportionality charge is unfounded, (B) that the non-payment issue is unfounded as well.
HOWEVER, and this is where I think you are way out of line, when I finally got the information from the city, the answer I got from Pinkerton and Krovoza was considerably more nuanced than the one I made in Enterprise article yesterday. So they have left the door open here and apparently, there is something to this. THey are going to at some point have to reconcile the books and at that point Pinkerton believes that the books will be even, Krovoza thinks they may not be. None of that is my opinion. It is all coming from the City Manager and Mayor. So I tried to put this to rest, but the facts suggest otherwise. What do you want me to do?
[quote]So far, neither the Vanguard nor Michael will tell us who has “paid out of pocket.” [/quote]
Out of pocket for what?
[quote]DG: “It has been represented to me that Davis is no different than any other jurisdiction in this regard. All cities were in the same boat apparently in 2010. It was also represented to me that the city might have been better served acknowledging the problem in 2010 and would been better served with a faster transition.”[/quote]David, who talks this way (certainly not you!)? In any case, these “representations” paint a far different picture than the [i]Vanguard[/i] charges continue to imply.
What they suggest to me is that the city [u]did[/u] start working to deal when the judge’s finding was made and that they’ve tried to fairly offset water charges until more infrastructure and accounting systems are installed.
Granted, faster almost always could be called better in hindsight. Given your extensive knowledge about how the city has been spending its staff time and our money in the past two years, what work would you have stopped in order to give this issue the high priority for which you now think it deserv
How many months would you say is reasonable for developing the new systems
ed?
Seems like the title of this article has little to do with the comments that are being posted (including this one). I don’t know Michael Harrington, I only get an idea about him from his postings. The conclusion that I have made about him may be totally unmerited. It would seem to me that there are certain people on here that get so tied up in their knickers every time Mr. Harrington yanks their chain and to me it seems a deliberate move on his part. As long as people fly off the handle about what he says he will continue to repeat his assertions and laugh his a** off. You give him too much control.
Whether he owes back taxes is irrelevant to me, even in light of the lawsuit.
…What the “representations” don’t suggest is official misrepresentation, foot-dragging, any need for a lawsuit to accomplish the needed changes or city council or staff fraud–not that that will keep these charges from showing up here every day until the election is over. Thank goodness, that day almost has arrived!
“David, who talks this way (certainly not you!)? In any case, these “representations” paint a far different picture than the Vanguard charges continue to imply. “
I’m not sure what you mean by who talks this way, I wrote it this way because it was the representation that both Krovoza and Pinkerton gave to me on the phone yesterday.
“What they suggest to me is that the city did start working to deal when the judge’s finding was made and that they’ve tried to fairly offset water charges until more infrastructure and accounting systems are installed. “
They did, they have, as their statement indicates been working on it since 2010. However, what they did not do is publicly disclose this problem in 2010, if they had, this would have been old news.
I’d love to hear from Sue Greenwald, what this wasn’t disclosed at that time.
The other question is why we are still trying to get it right nearly three years later – and that’s not my question alone, it was shared by Krovoza.
“Granted, faster almost always could be called better in hindsight. Given your extensive knowledge about how the city has been spending its staff time and our money in the past two years, what work would you have stopped in order to give this issue the high priority for which you now think it deserv “
This is basically what I wrote in the article:
“However, Mayor Joe Krovoza acknowledged that perhaps they had not moved as quickly as they should have. A number of factors are at play here, including an economic downturn that has sapped the city’s ability to adopt new accounting practices and purchase sophisticated software.”
The second sentence actually was a point that Pinkerton made.
“How many months would you say is reasonable for developing the new systems ed? “
I don’t know, but I know Krovoza thought there was at least room to question this.
Look, all of your points were actually addressed in the piece and attributed to either Krovoza or Pinkerton, so I’m not sure what your beef is.
We are not pulling comments here up until now, but anyone else who posts on Harrington’s finances rather than the topic of the thread and I will personally pull it if Don doesn’t get there first.
“What the “representations” don’t suggest is official misrepresentation, foot-dragging, any need for a lawsuit to accomplish the needed changes or city council or staff fraud”
Agree 100%.
It seems to be a very common theme here in the Vanguard that no matter what the issue is, disagreements very quickly evolve to a “shoot the messenger” strategy. Some apparently feel that if they have’t been successful in debunking the message, they should then go for the messenger. Other posters here seem to forgo any attempts to debunk the message and immediately go for the shoot the messenger strategy.
JustSaying: My charges have as much fact to support them as Harrington’s daily attacks on others. Not entirely baseless, certainly low, right out of Harrington’s playbook.
weley506 and Skip Harrison – You both raise important issues and I want to be clear about what I, personally, am trying to do in challenging Mr Harrington as I have done many times in the past few weeks.
1. I have never challenged Mr H about his opinion of the value of the project or his opinion about the need (or lack thereof) of a project of this kind. In that sense I have never challenged him about his views on the project.
2. I have never personally attacked Mr H (I would challenge either of you to find an example). I have challenged his approach to dealing with people involved–specifically his accusations and innuendo AND the many times he has attributed motivations to others’ behavior–motivations he cannot know. In that sense I have never shot the messenger for bearing a message but rather challenged tactics that have no clear purpose in terms of clarifying the issues in this case.
3. I have decided to challenge Mr H NOT because his words “get my knickers in a twist”. I am not angry at him, but do not feel that his tactics help us make a better decision. Indeed, I feel they are destructive.
So, I have decided to be relentless in calling for a different kind of discourse on the issue. I have been persistent in asking him to change his approach. I have been steadfast in encouraging him to argue based on the merits of his position rather than on personal attack. I have done this because I believe we CAN have a rational discourse on complex issues and not stoop to the kind of attacks he has offered. [b]I am saddened to see others now attacking him in the same way and hope it will stop.[/b] I do not enjoy doing this. I realize it rubs some people the wrong way, but it is a clear, considered strategy to encourage Mr H to present arguments in a way that causes us to think about the issues rather than tar those he opposes. I challenge anyone to explain to me how that amounts to an attack on Mr H or a strategy of “shooting the messenger”.
I’m off topic regarding the original article but so are others. I am going to comment on the proximity issue of the wastewater plant to the treatment (clean water) plant as was brought to our attention on the front page of yesterdays Enterprise. I have been very neutral during this whole measure I thing, just trying to get good information and vote responsibly.
There are still tests going on now (rather late in the game I’d say) to address the issue that aerosolized pathogens may reach the clean treatment plant from the dirty wastewater plant 2000 feet away. At the end of the article they quote Alan Pryor, who is about as pro measure I as one can get. He states all is well because “typically, aerosols from a wastewater aeration pond will drop out of the air within SEVERAL HUNDRED METERS. The distance from the aeration ponds and the WDCWA water treatment plant is about 2000 feet. Thus there is not likely to be any problem.”
Hello, , what?? SEVERAL HUNDRED METERS IS MORE THAN 2000 ft. Several is a bit vague, but 600 meters is pushing 2000 ft. and 700 meters is more than 2100 ft.
Just when I think I have decided on this issue, something else comes up….all pointing me in an undecided manner…but certainly a doubting manner. Regardless of the perceived safety of the geography, did the two plants HAVE to be so close? Yikes.
Here’s the latest charge from Michael Harrington that the [i]Vanguard[/i] coverage is biased in favor of the proposed water project:[quote]“But the DV and its crowd of paid Yes on I and “volunteer” posters are going to give the City a pass, again?”[/quote]I gather that these recurring comments are a device Michael figures will help keep David on his toes, but who knows.[quote]JS–“(…And, why do you keep harassing David about the extensive coverage the Vanguard is giving you? In spite of your tactics and language, David writes admiringly of your political genius and) …[u]continues to support the contentions you make in your lawsuit. [/u]”
DG: [u]”That’s an untrue statement, I have posted multiple times that (A) the proportionality charge is unfounded, (B) that the non-payment issue is unfounded as well[/u].[/quote]While you contest just a portion of my comment to Michael and direct attention to just two issues, my overall point was to observe that his criticism your coverage as biased toward project supports is invalid.
I’ll accept your description about repeatedly writing that the proportionality charge and the non-payment issue are unfounded. Still, here are some of the ways that the Vanguard coverage “supports” Michael, in my opinion:
1. By not looking into, reporting on or challenging Michael’s claims (ones that others insist are untrue), while finding time to challenge others (like today), the [i]Vanguard[/i] can leave impressions that it agrees. Giving a frequent visitor this kind of permanent pass [u]supports[/u] him and his allegations.
2. By repeating his untrue(?) charges (and, at the same time, implying that the city is stonewalling about them) to lead into actual news (see the first four paragraphs of today’s story), the [i]Vanguard[/i] can leave impressions. If each new development becomes a vehicle for highlighting Michael’s charges [u]supports[/u] him and his allegations.
3. By using Michael’s charges to attack the same targets he has can leave impressions. A couple examples: [quote][b]”Commentary: City’s Response to Lawsuit Makes It Look Incompetent”[/b] (Feb. 1)
[b]”Is the City Paying For Its Own Water?”[/b] (Today)[/quote]Taken one at a time, these decisions mean very little. However, many instances over weeks surely [u]support[/u] Michael and his allegations.
At the very least, Michael (of all people) has no reason to be bitching about your coverage of his actions and claims. I may be the only one who comes to this conclusion–sometimes 2+2 doesn’t add up the way one thinks it might. But, it’s just how I’ve started to feel about how it seems you’re looking at these issues.
Soda
“Just when I think I have decided on this issue, something else comes up….all pointing me in an undecided manner…but certainly a doubting manner. Regardless of the perceived safety of the geography, did the two plants HAVE to be so close? Yikes.”
I have to wonder too if the tests are going to be performed during some of our most windy days with the wind blowing in the direction of the new plant?
[quote]“It has been represented to me….It was also represented to me….”
DG: “I’m not sure what you mean by who talks this way, I wrote it this way because it was the representation that both Krovoza and Pinkerton gave to me on the phone yesterday.”[/quote]
This passive, formal legalize is used in place of “claimed” or “alleged” (thereby suggesting skepticism or the need to report it with caution) for some unnamed representers.
I’ve never seen you use this kind of language, more appropriate for quoting something other than the mayor’s and city manager’s interview comments.
Your response attributes these “representations,” sets a different tone and clarifies. But, maybe I’m getting to sensitive about coverage of the water wars.
dlemongello
“Hello, , what?? SEVERAL HUNDRED METERS IS MORE THAN 2000 ft. Several is a bit vague, but 600 meters is pushing 2000 ft. and 700 meters is more than 2100 ft.”
I saw that too and wondered about it. I don’t think it’s a far stretch to call 600 meters “several hundred”.
I can see what is happening here. Instead of having the sense to put them an actual safe distance apart they are pushing the limit and then trying to hand off the usual bureaucratic “there’s nothing to worry about”. How stupid and irresponsible. I’m just shaking my head.
[quote]“It would seem to me that there are certain people on here that get so tied up in their knickers every time Mr. Harrington yanks their chain and to me it seems a deliberate move on his part.”[/quote]A point well taken, Skip. Michael definitely is calculating. I’d add that some of us play into his hand when we waste time hopelessly begging him to justify his outrageous statements.
There are some here who provide an important service by confronting Michael with links and other fact checking. I hope they’ll keep it up, although it seems lately they’ve somewhat withdrawn out of frustration.
However, in my case…
I’m JustSaying and I’m a knicker-knoter. But, I quit as of now. Thank you for the intervention.
Who created the design for these plants? It seems a common issue to make sure wastewater and water treatment are located far enough away. Either some engineers screwed up, or the apposition to Measure I is getting quite creative making stuff up to scare people.
Related to Mr. Harrington and the style of debate on this blog…
1. I don’t think he makes any personal attacks against private citizens. He only goes after the public officials and politicians. Correct me if I am wrong.
Related to this, I think public officials and politicians area fair game. They own monopolistic seats of decision power for these things, and they are often more swayed by the push and pull of public opinion than they are logic and facts.
2. I see people that have complained about Mr. Harrington’s tactics before now defending similar tactics because interests are aligned.
Related to this, I see a lot of this type of behavior in human conflict. Strange bedfellows will developed when there are shared goals. We will more rigorously seek to demonize the opposition than we will criticize the demons on our own team.
3. Public agitation is a political tactic that is well-accepted by many that seem to detest it when used against them. If we want a debate only based on facts and the respectful give and take of differing ideas and opinions, then we should be honest and consistent in practicing what we preach.
Who created the design for these plants? It seems a common issue to make sure wastewater and water treatment are located far enough away. Either some engineers screwed up, or the apposition to Measure I is getting quite creative making stuff up to scare people.
Related to Mr. Harrington and the style of debate on this blog…
1. I don’t think he makes any personal attacks against private citizens. He only goes after the public officials and politicians. Correct me if I am wrong.
Related to this, I think public officials and politicians area fair game. They own monopolistic seats of decision power for these things, and they are often more swayed by the push and pull of public opinion than they are logic and facts.
2. I see people that have complained about Mr. Harrington’s tactics before now defending similar tactics because interests are aligned.
Related to this, I see a lot of this type of behavior in human conflict. Strange bedfellows will developed when there are shared goals. We will more rigorously seek to demonize the opposition than we will criticize the demons on our own team.
3. Public agitation is a political tactic that is well-accepted by many that seem to detest it when used against them. If we want a debate only based on facts and the respectful give and take of differing ideas and opinions, then we should be honest and consistent in practicing what we preach.
Frankly,
Making stuff up? It’s the front page Sunday Feb 10 Enterprise story. They are screwing around cutting it too close, see the article. I had just about decided to vote yes and now this.
Frankly – Mr H has attacked private citizens. A small group of us on the Davis Editorial Board: David Greenwald, Cecelia Greenwald, Tia Will, Matt Williams and I worked together to put together the water forum several weeks ago. Mr H maintained that we had first consulted with proponents of “Yes on I”, developed the forum format with them and then forced the “No on I” folks to accept it. I pointed out in detail how we actually went about developing the forum because I took the lead on that task. I denied his allegation and Mr H responded to me on this blog: “I stand by what I wrote.”
I am a private citizen Frankly. I get paid nothing to organize such events and will benefit in NO WAY from the water project. I have been in favor of the project but open to hearing the opposition. I have designed hundreds of trainings, forums and other public events and applied the same rigor and desire for fairness that is necessary for a public forum designed to educate to this event as all the others. Mr H denigrated those efforts and falsely accused me.
Just today I wrote of my concern about others who oppose Mr H adopting the same style of ad hominem argumentation. I have been consistent in my criticism of his tactics (and will criticize others who use them) because I feel they do not further the interests of this community. “Public agitation” may be a political tactic but we can do much better in our discourse with our neighbors. I believe (but only others can judge) that I have been consistent in practicing what I preach. Calling someone out for behavior is NOT the same as attacking their person, falsely accusing them or questioning their motives. I have done NONE of the latter.
dlemongello – It seems elementary to ensure that the code requirements for distance from a wastewater treatment plant are complied with. “Too close” is subjective. Either “too close” is making stuff up, or the project does not comply with code requirements. If it is the later then the design engineers screwed up.
Nobody pays me to post but if they would like to pay me I am available as long as I can say whatever I want.
Mr Toad – Much needed belly laugh. Thanks
Robb Davis – By your writing and previous writing it appears that you are consistent in your treatment of others. May the rest of us learn from you.
[i]Calling someone out for behavior is NOT the same as attacking their person, falsely accusing them or questioning their motives.[/i]
I think there is a line here where some might define a response as a personal attack, and others might see it as simply calling out behavior or taking a stand.
Personally, I think I have thick skin and possibly a weak sensitivity radar and have been surprised over what others have considered a personal attack.
But, I get the mechanics of that response… when someone attempts to paint you in the public forum as having done something that you did not, or as being someone less than you are, it is analogous to a sucker-punch.
The question I always ask: are we better off calling out the sucker-puncher for his bad behavior, or just punch him back? Or maybe we should just ignore him?
I really don’t know the answer… although I tend to want to start punching (metaphorically of course) just for the game of it.
Robb, I believe you have been above board in all your communications and I respect your posts…they often hit that “ah, yes” cord when I read them….I think this campaign has been frustrating for many of us. The tactics that you and Just Saying are discussing, certainly IF you allow yourself to be sucked into the emotional back and forth BECAUSE much of it defies logic. I think you both are expecting logic.
For me, it’s not the emotions, it is ‘the surprises’. I am not sure and somewhat fatigued at this point, not sure I want to continue to try to find out the truth (does it exists?) which end is up….just when I think I have rationalized a new development….another issue pops up. The latest the geography of the plants. So much of this seems to not be out in the open, which tempts me to vote no.
But, as they say, undecided. Me being undecided in an election is strange; I am usually certain long before now!
oh dear, I think that should be “chord” not cord….
“We are not pulling comments here up until now, but anyone else who posts on Harrington’s finances rather than the topic of the thread and I will personally pull it if Don doesn’t get there first.” -D. Greenwald
This is a very odd, indefensible comment given the background. First Harrington claimed to be responsible for the referendum. Then he said, no, no, he was only representing Ernie Head, who had previously sued the city over a well. Then Harrington refused to disclose who was financing the referendum saying only that many individuals had finananced the referendum. Then way after the fact, this statement was provem false, when Harrington was legally forced to disclosure that he had financed the vast majority of the referendum costs. Given these facts, David, how are Harrington’s finances not pertinent? To top it off he is accusing countless people of financial improprieties. It beggers belief that you state his finances are off limits. They most certainly are pertinent. There never would have been a referendum had Harrington not paid for it. Would there be a lawsuit without Harrington? There is no way of knowing because Harrington has zero record of telling the truth in this matter.
PS: The foregoing is not a personal attack. It’s recounting the facts.
-Michael Bisch
rusty49 said . . .
[i]”I saw that too and wondered about it. I don’t think it’s a far stretch to call 600 meters “several hundred”.[/i]
rusty, I was always told that 6 was “a bunch” and a bunch was more than several. 8>)
“Nobody pays me to post but if they would like to pay me I am available as long as I can say whatever I want.” -Toad
Suckers!!! I have been paid a cool million per month since December to post pro Measure I comments. What do I care if the community screws itself by refusing to procure a sustainable source of water? Show me the money, baby!
-Michael Bisch
Come to think of it, who is paying for the big red “No on I” advertisement that shows up at the top, right of every page I read? What does it cost to be a “featured sponsor” of the [i]Vanguard[/i]? Why can’t the “yes on I” team get to be a “featured sponsor”?