You can call it the Issue that Just Won’t Die. Thanks to a small band of dedicated petition circulators, the city of Davis’ new-and-improved water rates will be coming to a ballot box near you. When this balloting will take place, however, is anyone’s guess.
According to Dave Ryan’s piece in Friday’s Enterprise “Government officials verified enough signatures to place a bid to repeal the city’s newest water rates on the ballot, but it could be 2016 before voters have their say.”
Not only could it be 2016, but that would be November of 2016, which is just under three years away.
Waiting that long, while perhaps legal, certainly would thwart the spirit of the initiative process. If the council decides to go that route it most likely will be viewed as exactly that: an attempt to thwart the initiative process. And even though many people don’t support this specific initiative, most of us support the initiative process in general.
Added Ryan: “When that happens all depends on the Davis City Council and when it decides to place the initiative on the ballot pursuant to election law. City Clerk Zoe Mirabile said the law gives the City Council wide discretion in what to do, including hustling to place it on the June 3 ballot, calling for a special election or waiting until a general election in 2016. Tuesday’s council meeting is the last chance for the body to place issues on the June ballot.”
I’ve heard that 2016 date floated around several times by different players in this debate, but the California Secretary of State’s office refers to the next “Statewide General Election” as scheduled for Nov. 4, 2014, which is two full years earlier. My best guess is that’s the operative date here, not 2016.
Either way, there’s no doubt the council is not happy about this initiative, which clearly calls into question its collective judgment in passing these new water rates in the first place. No one, elected official or otherwise, likes to be second-guessed.
As Ryan’s piece notes: “The June ballot is likely to be crowded with the City Council race, county campaigns, Assembly and congressional primaries and an all-but-certain local tax measure for the city. Another crowded ballot is in November, with races for California governor, Assembly, Congress and the Davis Board of Education.”
Citing a crowed ballot, however, is the chicken’s way to keep this measure from the people. Nevertheless, I fully expect the council to argue that voters in the Smartest City in America will be “confused” by so many issues confronting them on election day.
Councilman Brett Lee hinted at another tactic when he told Ryan that last year’s Measure I, in which voters approved the surface water project, also was a referendum on the rates because voters understood rates would have to spike in order to pay for the project.
Close, but no cigar, councilman. True enough, many folks who voted for the project realized full well the dramatic rate increases that would come with it.
But I know many people who voted for the project, but still object to the rate structure the city put together. For many of these folks, it’s not so much the rate increase itself they object to, but some of the strange aspects of the structure, such as charging people six times as much for summer water use as for winter water use.
All of which is why the council intentionally and specifically left the water rates off the Measure I ballot last March. They knew the rates themselves might drag the project down to defeat.
Asks Lee: “Is this initiative really about the rates or is this really about ‘we don’t like the project’?”
Probably a mixture of both. But the last time I checked, you don’t have to give your reasons for signing a petition and you don’t have to give your reasons for voting “yes” or “no” on water rates. Historians tell us that people voted for JFK because Richard Nixon sweated profusely during their debates.
Petition proponent and former City Councilman Mike Harrington, in an open letter to the city, wrote “We believe that putting it to an immediate citywide vote is by far the best option for the city. It would give us all an up or down vote rather than continuing the uncertainty any longer than necessary.

“An early win for the city would put the rubber stamp of the voters on the rates. If the city loses the political vote, it can immediately use the Proposition 218 process to come up with more acceptable rates, based on voter input.”
But, as Lee warns, don’t expect those rates to be lower, given that we still have to pay for that expensive water project.
Then again, since the initiative has come up with far more signatures than necessary, meaning the city will have to put it on the ballot sooner or later, the smartest course the city can take is to schedule a vote on these rates as soon as possible.
After all, we’re currently in the first year of the new five-year rate plan and so far, the bill increases, if any, have been modest for most ratepayers.
But come 2016 — if it’s even legally possible for the city to delay the vote that long — those who snoozed through the Great Rate Debate last year are going to have a dramatic shock to the system, not to mention the pocketbook, when they see their city water bills.
Yes, by 2016 the rates will have risen dramatically, lawns and gardens will be drying up all over town, and angry citizens might just seek relief at the ballot box.
Better to let folks vote now, when the rates are still relatively low and flowers still bloom in the spring.
We’ll find out which way the council bends on this come Tuesday night. Stay tuned, things are about to get interesting.

— Reach Bob Dunning at [email protected]

Comments

comments