I’m mystified that Claudia Krich finds “voting by parcel” unethical. Why shouldn’t someone who owns 35 houses and therefore pays 35 city utility bills not have 35 votes? How would one vote for them be more ethical?

Why is it unethical to give protest votes to someone who doesn’t live in Davis? Not living in Davis doesn’t excuse property owners from paying the bill. How can she be so certain that landlords don’t care if their tenants have good water, or whether or not the city meets its obligations?

Why is earning a living, or part of it, through rental property less virtuous than any other way? What makes her think the landlord rather than the tenants are responsible for the neglected look?

I don’t own 35 Davis houses. I do own 3 1/2 (the half I co-own with my son). If the $1,000-per-year increase figure is correct, that means an increase of $4,000 per year for me and $35,000 per year for the person with 35 rental houses. Krich may be able to afford that kind of an increase; I can’t.

Thanks to the economic downturn, I’m now supporting, or helping to support, nine more people on considerably less income than when I bought these houses. I will have to pass this increase along to my tenants.

They don’t get a vote. If I don’t get to vote in their behalf, how ethical is that? If they could vote, how ethical would it be to ask them to increase my expenses?

I’m in favor of conservation, and clean, affordable water, as are my family and tenants. I’m not convinced Sacramento River water is, or can be made clean, let alone affordable, or that our City Council has explored all the options thoroughly.

We need good quality clean water to drink, brush our teeth, and cook with, but not to flush down our toilets, wash clothes or water tomato plants. Has anyone explored the feasibility of filtering devices that could be attached to sinks? Does the state mandate that all water coming into a residence meet drinking water quality standards?

Linda S. Clark

Davis

Comments

comments