Elections Archives - Page 46 of 61

Munn: Yolo County Taxpayers Association Was neither Consulted nor Notified About the Lawsuit

By David GreenwaldFebruary 6, 201324 comments

On Tuesday evening, John Munn speaking at public comment at the Davis City Council meeting, refuted the involvement of the Yolo County Taxpayers in the suit against Measure I. Elaine Roberts Musser, chair of the Water Advisory Committee, would briefly respond to some of his comments.

The group calling itself Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services filed a lawsuit last week, which asks the court to declare that the city’s existing rate structure violates Proposition 218.

Water Project Unsustainable

By uptownstudiosFebruary 6, 201310 comments

By Fraser Shilling

Water sustainability is likely to be one of the most important issues of the 21st century, affecting everyone, regardless of race and income. Realizing this makes people start to feel nervous and insecure, scrambling for their share, making sure they’ve “got theirs.”

Ironically, this response is not very adaptive in a complex and interconnected society like ours. Dividing water up fairly among competing needs and interests is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Making sure there is enough for the environment and people with less political power, while being cost-effective and maintaining economic well-being, is the cornerstone of a sustainable society.

Measure I and the continuation of growth in Davis

By David GreenwaldFebruary 5, 201322 comments

by Steve Daubert

The city of Davis has been growing unsustainably. In the nineteen sixties, the city had a population of 16,000 souls. Since then, it has been growing by 50% every ten years – one of the fastest growth rates in the state. The population passed 54,000 in the 1990s, and would have continued on that pace, had not the voters slowed the expansion of the city with the passage of Measure J in 2000.

The aquifer of ground water below us is still sufficient to support the city as it now stands. We would only exceed our resource base if we choose to resume the rapid growth rate of the last century. State law SB 610 (adopted in 2003)) now integrates land use and water planning, and precludes us from embarking on such unsustainable growth. However, the construction of a three hundred million plus dollar water purification plant (or more, depending on the financing and on cost-over-runs) to the northwest of town could open the way to renewed city expansion.

Measure I Protects Our Environment

By uptownstudiosFebruary 5, 20133 comments

by Andrew Fulks, Chad Roberts, Alan Pryor, and Bob Schneider

Davis residents value nature, our natural lands, and our farmlands. From the scenic geology and diverse biology of the Inner Coast Range, to the fertile farmlands around us, to the beautiful and productive wetlands to our east, we live in a unique place. Recognizing the value of these natural assets of our own and our children’s future, Davisites have always worked hard to protect these special places and to contribute to a sustainable and vibrant regional environment.

But all is not well! Davis relies on 20 wells for its water; 16 wells pump water from an intermediate depth aquifer while the remaining four are deep wells. The quality of drinking water we get from our intermediate depth wells is deteriorating. The intermediate wells themselves are aging and becoming less reliable. Mineral contaminants in the water drawn from these wells pass through our homes and the City’s wastewater treatment plant, and are showing up and accumulating in the wetlands east of Davis.

Project Opponents Propose Reasonable and Cost-Effective Alternatives

By uptownstudiosFebruary 4, 201361 comments

By William Kopper, Michael Bartolic and Mark Siegler

GUEST COMMENTARY: There are reasons why California state law recognizes that economic considerations must be taken into account when finding solutions for water and wastewater. It recognizes that we have a responsibility to individuals and families below the median income to support affordable solutions for these essential services.

State of California Water Code 106.3 (a) declares that it is the “policy of the state that every human being has the right to safe, clean, affordable and accessible water…” California’s Porter-Cologne Water Control Act says specifically that economic factors must be taken into account before a regional board can impose discharge requirements.

Sunday Commentary: Debunking Water Campaign Claims

By David GreenwaldFebruary 3, 201350 comments

Things have really heated up on the campaign trail in the last week and I have received some interesting and pointed complaints from people on both sides of the issue – which basically tells me I’m doing my job.

In that spirit, I will take on two claims that have been made in the past week – one from each side.

City, School District Deny School District Is Not Paying Its Water Bills

By David GreenwaldFebruary 2, 201320 comments

Associate Superintendent Bruce Colby told the Vanguard late Thursday that he does not understand the accusation made by Michael Harrington, in the Yolo Ratepayers press release, that the school district is not paying its water bills.

The press release stated: “Yolo Ratepayers reports that the rates proposed in the Proposition 218 notices will end up higher because the City and the Davis Joint Unified School District will find ways not to pay their share, which is assumed in the City’s proposed rate structure to be very substantial.”

Measure I Forum Features Mayor Joe Krovoza and Former Mayor Sue Greenwald

By David GreenwaldFebruary 2, 20133 comments

Measure I Forum Today at 1 pm at Davis Community Chambers

The People’s Vanguard of Davis, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and Davis Media Access (DMA) are co-sponsoring a roundtable forum on Measure I, also known as “The Surface Water Project.” Voters will have the opportunity to vote on Measure I in an all-mail only Special Election, March 5, 2013.

Members of the public are encouraged to bring their friends, colleagues and questions to the forum, which will be held at Davis Community Chambers located at 23 Russell Blvd in Davis today, Saturday, February 2, 2013 from 1:00 to 3:00 PM.

Councilmember Lee Explains Support For Water Project

By uptownstudiosFebruary 2, 20138 comments

By Brett Lee

When I campaigned for Davis City Council, my platform on the water issue was for a more affordable project that was appropriately sized and, most importantly, voter-approved. The project that is now being proposed in Measure I is about $30 million less expensive, and has shrunk in size from about 18 million gallons a day to 12 million gallons a day.

And on March 5, we will all get to vote on it — yes or no. Prior to March 5, all voters will receive a mailer from the city that clearly spells out the rate increases that will be required if the project is approved.

Can Davis Afford to Triple Its Water Bills?

By uptownstudiosFebruary 1, 201342 comments

By John Munn

GUEST COMMENTARY: Measure I is on the ballot, but the main question in the March 5 election is whether Davis needs or can afford to triple its water rates. If you have a city services bill, you can determine how much you are paying for water. Then multiply by 3 to see the minimum you would eventually be paying.

Measure I directs the Davis City Council to proceed with the Davis-Woodland surface water supply project. But it contains no information about why surface water is needed, what the project includes, how much it is going to cost, or how high water rates must go to pay for it. In effect, the City Council is asking for a blank check. The Yolo County Taxpayers Association, however, wants you to know about these matters.

Commentary: City’s Response to Lawsuit Makes It Look Incompetent

By David GreenwaldFebruary 1, 201341 comments

Lawsuit is a Brilliant Political Tactic, Exposing the City’s Failure to Communicate – Let us be clear at the start – the lawsuit has almost no chance of succeeding in a court of law. The city probably is not tracking its expenses as closely as it perhaps should, something that City Attorney Harriet Steiner appeared to acknowledge in a statement to the local paper.

She said that the city does not track its use to the penny, but it does attempt to “offset its water usage costs by forfeiting costs the water division would owe to the general fund.”

Water Project Opponents File Suit Against City’s Prop 218

By David GreenwaldJanuary 31, 201375 comments

Opponents to the surface water project and Measure I have filed a suit against the City of Davis alleging “unconstitutional and illegal conduct” and have filed a lawsuit seeking “relief for Davis citizens.”

According to a press release, a group calling themselves Yolo Ratepayers for Affordable Public Utility Services believes “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 218.”

City Holds Community Information Meetings on Water Rates

By uptownstudiosJanuary 30, 20132 comments

The City of Davis will be conducting 5 community meetings during February to provide information about proposed changes in the city’s water supply and water rates. In addition, in accordance with Proposition 218, all property owners will be sent notices about the Public Hearing on March 19, 2013, during which they may offer testimony about the proposed new water rates.

Community Meeting Schedule

Measure I Forum on Saturday, February 2

By David GreenwaldJanuary 28, 201348 comments

People’s Vanguard of Davis and Davis Media Access Invite Public to “Measure I” Forum

The People’s Vanguard of Davis, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and Davis Media Access (DMA) are co-sponsoring a roundtable forum on Measure I, also known as “The Surface Water Project.” Voters will have the opportunity to vote on Measure I in an all-mail only Special Election, March 5, 2013.

Members of the public are encouraged to bring their friends, colleagues and questions to the forum, which will be held at Davis Community Chambers on Saturday, February 2, 2013 from 1:00 to 3:00 PM.

Joe Friday: Investigating Water Rate Legality

By Matt WilliamsJanuary 28, 20137 comments

By Matt Williams

Bob Dunning in his Sunday column spent a whole lot of words to ask a simple question, “Why is summer peak consumption used in the CBFR calculation?” Bob is smiling right now because his column constructed a very creative scenario using five “stars” of water use, Joe, Dan, Brett, Lucas and Rochelle.

I was somewhat surprised that Bob didn’t refer to them as the Fab Five. The example Bob provides, is a mathematically well-crafted hypothetical with consumption amounts for each of the five “stars,” but everyone in Davis knows that the water system in Davis isn’t built to reliably deliver water to just 5 customers, but rather to over 16,000 customers. So lets put Bob’s five “stars” into the context of the whole Davis “universe.”

Analysis: Measure I Opposition Argues for West Sacramento Water Project

By David GreenwaldJanuary 27, 201332 comments

The No on Measure I campaign, the opposition to the water project, put forward the argument that “we do have options” and “there are better alternatives.” After a number of false starts within their op-ed, they arrive at an argument for the West Sacramento option.

They begin their op-ed with the claim that “Davis faces the overwhelming burden of paying simultaneously for two projects: a new wastewater treatment plant and a surface water project. This will triple our water rates and result in water/sewer/garbage rates among the highest in the state.”

Vanguard Analysis: Dunning’s Commentary Misses the Mark on Proportionality

By David GreenwaldJanuary 27, 201315 comments

This morning, Bob Dunning attempts to explain why he believes the city has violated the Prop. 218 proportionality requirements.

“Prop. 218, which reads like a ratepayer’s bill of rights, lays out in detail what a city can and can’t do with a variety of taxes, assessments and fees, including water rates,” he writes. Mr. Dunning then argues that “a critical element of Prop. 218 (is) known as ‘proportionality.’ “

Vanguard Analysis: Distrust of Public Officials Plays Heavily into Water Debate

By David GreenwaldJanuary 26, 201329 comments

City Staff Mistakes Feed into Negative Perception by Some in the Community – The Vanguard spent quite some time attempting to get data from the city of Davis as to what the revenue requirements would be for the city to build a surface water project versus no project.

We first requested the data way back right after the New Year. There were claims at that time made by the opposition to the project about the cost of the water project per year producing much more revenue than the $113 million surface water project plus loan repayments should have cost.

Vanguard Analysis: Comparing Project and No-Project Costs

By David GreenwaldJanuary 25, 201310 comments

The city of Davis has finally given us comparison data so that we can look at the costs of the project and no-project alternatives.

On Thursday, the Vanguard reported that even without a surface water project, the water rates would nearly double (97% increase) over the next five years. Without a surface water project, water revenue needs would increase by 80% while revenue needs would increase by 136% with the water project.

City: Water Rates Nearly Double Over Five Years Without Surface Water Project

By David GreenwaldJanuary 24, 201323 comments

It is perhaps one of the biggest questions of the Measure I campaign. The Yes on Measure I side has argued that, even absent the water project, “the days of cheap water are over” and there will be considerable water rate hikes, regardless of whether voters approve Measure I.

Elaine Roberts Musser told the Vanguard during an interview two weeks ago, that “there’s a cost to not doing the project. If you don’t do the project and the wells start to fail… there’s a cost there too. If we can’t come into compliance, we get fined by the state. And the state has told us that they’re not going to allow a community to benefit from not coming into compliance.”