PG&E in local and statewide news

Two years ago, PG&E spent over $10 million in an effort to prevent Yolo County from approving a public power initiative. Now PG&E is back in the news at the local level as well as at the statewide level.

There has on this blog been a long debate over the viability of a proposed development on the PG&E Service Center Site located at 316 L Street. The site encompassed around 27 acres, extending from Fifth Street to Second Street.

Councilmember Sue Greenwald has long trumpeted the site as a largely relatively unused parcel that would be walking and biking distance to the downtown and even UC Davis.

Separated from adjacent neighborhoods it would be ideals for high density housing and condos.

However despite these advantages some have questioned its feasibility. One question that has arisen is whether PG&E even wants to sell the site.

Former Davis City Councilmember Mike Harrington, who also was a member of the HESC pointed out that there was a letter from PG&E to the City that indicated their interest in selling the property. (See the scan of the letter). As it turns out this was available all along on the city's website and in the HESC packet when the site came up for discussion on July 26, 2007.



The letter in part reads:

"As discussed during the June 7 meeting, the City's philosophy toward maximizing green, efficient and renewable technology and opportunities is consistent with that of PG&E. The company is sensitive toward the needs of the community and we are open to considering and exploring innovative alternative uses for the site."

That should settle at least that portion of the debate. What remains unknown is the cost to the city that they would incur from purchasing the property. Although it would seem to me that a developer could do it and recoup the costs by developing the property and selling the units.

Still this would seem to be one of the more interesting sites that if available, it appears most Davis residents could get behind.

PG&E Gives $250,000 to defeat Proposition 8

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that PG&E announced it would give $250,000 to the No on Proposition 8 campaign.

According to the Times:

"Analysts said businesses may be more willing to get involved this time because they have more gay and lesbian employees who are out and in positions of power and because they believe the amendment could hurt business if passed, by giving the impression that California is not friendly to gay and lesbians."

Spokesperson Eilen Chiu said:

“We fought for immigration rights as well as for affirmative action. Gay marriage is the next initiative we felt is worthy to fight for. Every single employee and customer deserves the right to marry.”

The company is also calling for other California businesses to publicly endorse allowing gay couples to marry.

Not surprisingly the announcement was met by less enthusiasm by supports of the proposition, one of whom quipped that he couldn't call them up and tell them to turn off his power.

But then again, maybe such a move might generate good publicity.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Emergency Preparedness, Emlen: "We were Fortunate"; Atria Has Serious Explaining to Do

On Tuesday night at the Davis City Council meeting, the city finally received a full report on the handling of the storm from early January along with its subsequent power outages.

In some ways, this report seems a bit late especially in light of the fact that a good portion of the storm season passed us by before the report was delivered. Moreover some of the events simply were not as fresh in our minds as they would have been a month ago. On the other hand, it did give the city council a chance to evaluate in a thorough and reasoned manner what went right and what went wrong in the city emergency prepared plan.

The discussion began with what I thought was a very stark and appalling admission by city manager Bill Emlen:

"When we left this a couple of weeks ago, we kind of acknowledged that we were fortunate in that the incident that we dealt with during those few days could have been something far more greater, but what it did do was provide an opportunity for us to really go back and look at our approach to these situations in our emergency preparedness in general. [Fire Chief] Rose [Conroy] and she's preached to us many, many times and I think we didn't always take her as seriously as we should because we haven't had to deal with this sort of thing all that often as we went through that we realized the benefits of thoroughly thinking out preparedness and so as we came together as a group, Rose put together an emergency response team and we went through the whole event and things that we need to do differently as well as things that we did do right."

There are two points that the city manager raises that I think bear scrutiny. First the acknowledgement that "we were fortunate." This is a key point I think a lot of people who were involved in the discussions immediately after the event failed to recognize. The complaint for the most part was not that we were in serious peril during this particular storm, or that it was for most of us anything more than simply an inconvenience. Rather it was an acknowledgement that in a real emergency, it did not seem were were ready. The city manager essentially acknowledges that complaint as valid.

Second and I think more problematic and to use the word again, appalling is the admission that Fire Chief Rose Conroy had been warning about preparedness in emergencies and that we, and I assume he means city staff, did not "always take her as seriously as we should." I am hoping he was being a bit flippant there, because he was not, that is very disturbing that the city was not taking heed warnings they were getting from the fire chief.

If we did not take emergency preparedness seriously enough before, we need to now. As was pointed out by all involved, this event really was about an electrical outage with some corresponding fallen trees. The roads held up well. There was no need for evacuations. There was no need to have to clear major thoroughfares for evacuation routes. Next time if this is a flood, a fire, or an earthquake, the problem could be far more serious.

Chief Conroy spent a good amount of time talking about what worked and did not work. I think it was a good and forthright discussion. This will focus mainly on what did not work but at the outset, I want to stress that a number of things worked well including public works and their ability to keep the streets clear and usable throughout this emergency.

A lot of the problems had to do with the failure of communications devices between the public and the city and the city and the public.

The 911 phone lines went down for 18 minutes--again they were fortunate that there were no major emergencies during that relatively short period of time, but that is a big concern in a larger emergency.

The internet was largely unreliable, it went down during from Friday morning until Saturday evening.

They did not utilize the AM Radio 1300 as they could have to provide key information to the public. This was a big area of focus by the council as radio is the easiest and most reliable means for getting emergency information during a storm.

A PG&E spokesperson spent time going through PG&Es response. People at the time were concerned with the length of time it took to restore power. Frankly I think that is difficult to evaluate and depends largely on how widespread and severe the outage was.

The worst problem was really lack of good information and updates. I think their spokesperson was forthright about that. The 800 number was not updated frequently enough an the internet was not properly utilized. Remember a lot of people had access to the internet in a variety of different ways in the age of wireless connections and internet phones. Many also were waiting elsewhere for when the power would be restored and having people drive unnecessarily to see if the power is back on presents its own hazards depending on the conditions at the time.

There is also the issue of the shelters. I am still unclear as to why there were not shelters on Friday night, particularly for elderly residents.

Chief Conroy acknowledged:

"Not one of our shelter locations had power during these events."

Clearly that is something that they need to plan for in the future. Obviously they cannot predict who will and who will not have power. But they can plan with emergency generators to have operational shelters in the event of a city-wide blackout.

Atria Covell Gardens

During the course of the presentation Chief Rose Conroy told the council:

"In the fire department, we contacted, we made as many contacts as possible over the phone, or by person going to that address, where large numbers of vulnerable populations live. Those included assisted living facilities and apartment complexes with large numbers of elderly."

To me that simply did not square with the litany of complaints offered up by residents at Atria Covell Gardens a few weeks ago during their demonstration.

At that time, residents had serious complaints about the impact of power outages, the most serious had to do with availability of oxygen for infirmed patients, another was seriously injured during a fall.

For most of us as I have said before, this was simply an inconvenient situation. I think Councilmember Don Saylor was exactly correct when he said that by Sunday he getting anxious and annoyed that the power was still out and he could not use his TV and computer. That's a convenience issue, not a safety issue.

That is not the case for seniors. So spoke with Chief Conroy after the agenda item had concluded. I am appalled (to use that word again) by what she told me.

She told that she had called the facility at least five times on Saturday morning to find out how the residents were doing, whether they need assistance. She was told that everything was fine. That the residents were having a party together and that things were going well and that there was no need for assistance. She told me that she personally called them multiple times throughout the day to insure everything was alright.

As we have discovered, this was not an accurate picture. She was not sure why residents did not call the fire department if there were problems--but there clearly were and the description given by those at Atria was completely inaccurate.

Frankly the city or someone with jurisdiction over this matter needs to investigate this incident and determine exactly what happened.

If it turns out that Atria was dishonest and put their residents in peril then the public needs to know about.

Again, I think we need to look more into this situation, but based on what the fire chief told me last night, I am very concerned.

Overall I think we learned valuable lessons. The fire chief told the council that only three people were injured during this event. The most serious was an individual who was hit by a tree that fell as they went from their house to their car. This underscores the fact that we ought to stay indoors as much as possible during such events.

The chief also mentioned that we need to plan to be self-sufficient for up to 72 hours during an emergency--that means being prepared with food, water, flashlights, batteries, and radio during that time frame.

Finally I share again the evaluation of the city manager--we were fortunate that this was not more serious. It is better always to be lucky rather than good, but this gives us a chance to rectify our weaknesses in a situation where mistakes turned out not to be fatal ones.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Growth Discussions To Continue Tonight

Tonight at 7 PM at the school district conference room the General Plan Housing Element Steering Committee will meet in part to discuss the results from the workshop two weeks ago.

It is not altogether clear what the results of the workshop were and how much they will affect the final decisions made by the panel. It seems that there were only nine ranking changes on six different sites that were suggested by 15 or more people. Three of these dealt with Covell Village and two Nishi.

Only two of the suggestions were to raise the ranking. That included the Lewis Cannery project which was recommended from Medium to High. And the full Covell Village property which was also recommended from Medium to High.

(see all eight summary charts of the workshop).

A few quick thoughts on these changes and then some more general comments.

First, the recommended move of PG&E makes some sense. I know it is a convenient area to consider since it is infill and not all that useful at this point in time. However, from what I understand the city would have to pay the moving costs for PG&E to relocate their property and that would run around $60 million. I know the Mayor has been a strong advocate for this project and location, and perhaps there is some aspect of this I am missing, however right now I tend to agree with the comment: "Not realistic for development."

Two of the Nishi proposals were lowered one from high to low and one from medium to low. I agree with that. Access is a huge concern. Right now realistically it looks like you would only have access from Olive Drive by car. That is a highly congested area as it is and adding more vehicle traffic would just be problematic. The bicycle access plans are a good idea, but this is just not realistic until you fix the traffic.

Many suggested that Signature be reduced from medium to low. In general, sprawl is opposed by the public. This is really something that our city leaders need to take into consideration. I do not believe that the sports park development is a sufficient reason to develop inside the Mace Curve at this time.

Then the 800 pound gorilla--Covell Village. There were significant recommendations moving the development in both directions. The traffic congestion issue is the big one that led voters to reject it in the first place but a close second would be the sprawl factor, the agricultural land factor and the very fact that the voters just rejected this a little over two years ago.

On the plus side, you have people citing it as a unique infill location (it is not infill), a great location for senior community, and close to shopping and schools.

The bottom line, is that you can argue that it is close to downtown relatively speaking, but overall it is a bad place to grow the way that Davis is currently configured. You simply lack the infrastructure and access to put more people in that location. There is no freeway access. All traffic would have to dump onto Covell, and Woodland is developing down Road 102, which means that traffic is going to be going from Davis to Woodland.

At the end of the day, I'm not completely unhappy with the way the HESC process has played out. But there are a number of concerns that I will go into briefly.

First, if Covell is the 800 gorilla, the 1% growth rate is the brontosaurus. Everything that was done by this committee now depends upon how much we should grow. At the last council meeting, the council majority, specifically Councilmember Don Saylor and Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson, talked about the need for housing. I just couldn't disagree more at this point in time given the housing market, given the strains on city budget and infrastructure. People think of housing as a means to raise city revenue but you basically get a modest one-time development fee, and we do not get enough for that to begin with, but that is far trumped by the cost for service.

Bottom line here is there seems little or no need to surpass RHNA guidelines which adds just under 500 units in the next six years.

Second, I think we need to take a more holistic approach here. And I'll divide these comments two-fold.

The council has recently heard from the Simmons property folks and the Horse Ranch development. These two projects are moving along at this time along with the Lewis Property. That's three developments that are moving forward outside somewhat of the confines of the HESC. That does not make a lot of sense from the perspective of the work done by this committee and planning for the future.

Along the same lines we have multiple factors moving at the same time. We just spoke about the sphere of influence from LAFCO which will be discussed in February and March. The council is discussing the 1% growth rate next week. You have new RHNA numbers about growth allocation and fair share of growth. You still have the Yolo County general plan with the fact that those study areas are apparently not dead. Along with that you have the pass-through agreement. You have the HESC. None of this is being discussed in totem. How do all of these factors contribute to the overall growth picture?

In some ways I feel that this process is almost ad hoc. And that decisions are being made on each of these steps independently. There are different maps and different processes. And the result will be what exactly? Does the public or even our leaders on council know?

By the end of March we should have a good idea of the answers to some of those things--but on April first will our leaders be able to tell us what the future of Davis looks like?

Add one more point--is the council majority going to continue to support Measure J as we currently know it? A lot of these decisions are being made suggesting that Measure J will protect us from growth. It permeates each issue. But will they keep it in place in the current form?

These next few weeks of discussions should tell us a tale. We'll have to find out where we stand after that.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis City Council Delays Proclamation to PG&E While Woodland "Studies" Public Power Issue

PG&E had a representative waiting in the audience to receive their award for donating $10,000 to the Davis Street Smarts program. But they will have to wait at least until the next meeting to receive it because Davis City Councilmember Lamar Heystek made a motion that would result in a delay in the proclamation presentation until a future meeting when the council could concurrently offer up a resolution similar to Woodland City Councilmember Art Pimentel's to support future efforts to develop public power.

The move began at the start of the Council Meeting Tuesday night. Mayor Sue Greenwald asked for the approval of the agenda. Councilmember Heystek instead introduced a motion to approve the agenda with the exception of the proclamation to recognize PG&E's contribution. Mayor Greenwald seconded the motion. And Heystek explained that he thought the council since Measures H and I passed overwhelmingly in Davis should join Pimentel's efforts by affirming their commitment to public power at the same time they award PG&E, the city's present provider who spent millions to defeat the public power initiative last fall.

Councilmember Don Saylor looked visibly shaken by the turn of events but eventually caught himself. When Ruth Asmundson spoke in support of Heystek's motion, it was all over and the motion passed without dissent. Coucilmembers Heystek and Stephen Souza will be submitting resolutions that dovetail on Pimentel's Woodland resolution and staff will iron out any differences. When the vote comes back to council, we can expect it to pass unanimously.

Unfortunately things did not go as smoothly last night up in Woodland. Instead of passing a rather simple resolution, the council has directed the formation of a subcommittee composed of Art Pimentel and Skip Davies. The passage of it will be tenuous as best as it is clear that neither Jeff Monroe nor Bill Marble will support public power again. Mayor Dave Florey may hold the swing vote there.

This is a rather disappointing turn of events, as just a few months ago, the Woodland City Council had been unanimous in their support of Measures H & I. However, the City of Woodland overwhelmingly voted down the measures on the November ballot. I am very disappointed with Jeff Monroe. Monroe is supposedly a Democrat, who has future ambitions for higher office--some have suggested possibly sheriff. Too often he is not reliable in supporting core Democratic principles. Supporting public power over the massive corporate entity of PG&E should be a no-brainer. But that might require Jeff Monroe to take a risk now that the Woodland voters so overwhelmingly opposed H & I in the wake of the disinformation campaign put on by PG&E to confuse the voters. Instead of fighting to educate his community, Monroe is playing it safe.

It may seem like a small victory, but the actions by the Davis City Council loom large as PG&E who had been pounding on the Woodland City Council and using the full force of their power and influence to prevent the passage of the resolution, were denied an honor the same night down in Davis. They will get their turn, but only as the Davis City Council renews their professed commitment to public power.

The PG&E representative, obviously caught off-guard by the actions on Tuesday, was forced to give a brief statement during public comment expressing support and commitment to safety issues.

It was not a perfect day for advocates of public power, but the Davis City Council stepped up and did the right thing. Now it will be interesting to see if PG&E wants to expend the same efforts to pound on the Davis City Council that they did to the Woodland City Council. I will go out on a limb and say they will not because they see the writing on the wall.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Why is the City of Davis Recognizing PG&E?

Last fall Measure H & I, a measure that was unanimously supported by the Davis City Council, was placed on the ballot. In a rare showing of unity, the councilmembers came out in support of public power as a mean not only save money but to produce cleaner energy not subject to windfall profits.

In response, PG&E waged an expensive, dirty, and misleading campaign.

As Stephen Souza co-wrote a letter to the editor in November with County Supervisor Mariko Yamada:

"Davis voters sent an unmistakable Election Day message about public power — we want it! The twin SMUD annexation Measures H and I passed here by a nearly 62 percent margin despite PG&E's unprecedented $11 million disinformation campaign to defeat us. Unfortunately, their efforts to frighten and confuse Sacramento SMUD ratepayers and West Sacramento and Woodland residents were too great to overcome — this time."

Because of these deceptive efforts, PG&E decided it needed to do damage control. After all there was a good deal of bitterness in this community and PG&E recognized that it had to mend the fences--otherwise it would only be a matter of time before the next Measure H & I was proposed.

After an $11 million campaign to keep their stake in Yolo, the company basically threw down some chump change to contribute to the development of the Davis City Street Smart public education program at the platinum level. Hey if they were willing to spend in the tens of millions, what is $10,000 to them.

Now the city of Davis has a contract with them to honor them in exchange for this contribution to the Street Smarts program. This is not something that the City Council wants it is being dictated to them by non-elected staff decisions. Who runs this town again?

Meanwhile as we have seen in the last few days, PG&E in response to a resolution before the Woodland City Council sponsored by Art Pimentel has set up a full-blown answering service to direct calls in the Woodland City Hall opposing the rather innocuous resolution.

The resolution declares,

"The City Council of the City of Woodland supports the continued assessment of power alternatives that would lead to less expensive, more reliable and more earth-friendly electric power for the citizens, businesses and property owners of Woodland and throughout the Yolo County region."

So tonight at the Davis City Council, PG&E will be honored for their community contribution. At the same time, at the Woodland City Council they will be intimidating and browbeating the Woodland City Council in opposition to a resolution supporting the concept of public power.

If PG&E wants to donate to Davis Street Smarts that is fine, but we do not need a proclamation honoring them.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Fight for Public Power Continues Post-Measure H and I

PG&E last fall spent over $11 million in Yolo County to turn back a several year movement to bring public power to Yolo County. They did so by overwhelming the more modest efforts of those supporting public power. They did so by turning back the rare united effort by Yolo County elected officials. And they did so by confusing the issues in the voter's minds making them believe or at least doubt the financial outcome of such a change. In Yolo County this lead to the barebones defeat of Measure I. In Sacramento County it led to the massive defeat of their companion measure that would have authorized expansion of SMUD.

However, the fight for public power was not a short-term battle by any means. Measures H and I were several years in the works and the result of hard fought efforts by a number of activists, public officials, and local efforts. Those efforts did not die at the ballot box last November. PG&E may have defeated that effort, but now they will have to defeat future efforts as well. And at some point, PG&E is going to be the one that ends up on the losing side.

This Tuesday, April 17, 2007, the Woodland City Council is taking a very modest step toward public power by sponsoring a resolution that basically demonstrates their commitment to public power.

The resolution declares,

"The City Council of the City of Woodland supports the continued assessment of power alternatives that would lead to less expensive, more reliable and more earth-friendly electric power for the citizens, businesses and property owners of Woodland and throughout the Yolo County region."

Art Pimentel, Woodland City Councilmember is one of the key supporters of this resolution.

"We need to look at all options and alternatives to PG&E and bring this issue back to Yolo County voters in the near future."

PG&E if you can believe this, has already hired a company to defeat the resolution--a resolution that is very basic and does not mention SMUD as the alternative to pursue. They have actually created a call center that will link callers directly with Woodland City Hall.

"The resolution was not even made public until this afternoon and already had around 50 calls into City Hall to oppose a Resolution "supporting SMUD" As you can see the resolution has nothing to do with SMUD, but looking at other alternatives/options to bring Public Power to Woodland and Yolo County."

As the Realist writes:

"This has nothing to do with bringing SMUD back on the table. It just says we should be vigilant and keep exploring other alternatives. A monopoly in my opinion is not the best alternative. The control is out of our hands. PG&E may in fact be our best solution to power, but it will hurt nothing to investigate it."

Supervisor Matt Rexroad lended important support to Councilmember Pimentel and the cause on the Woodland Journal Blog:

"I support Art in this effort. Look -- whatever you think about Art -- he is standing up for what he believes in. You have to respect that. It is really easy to just try to make everyone happy all the time. That is not leadership. Art is out making things happen proactively. He is not out there waiting for things to come his way. This resolution has nothing to do with SMUD. It has nothing to do with the guys in the blue trucks. It is about public power and exploring that option for Woodland."

Pimentel and other supporters hope that other communities will pass similar resolutions supporting public power.

"I hope, West Sacramento, Davis, Yolo County, and others can pass the same resolution and be committed to the cause."

To view the full resolution see The Woodland Journal.

From the comments on the Woodland Journal, Mr. Pimentel could use our help and hopefully the Davis City Council can look at a similar resolution. Davis helped to pass Measures H and I overwhelmingly, and we need to help communities like Woodland continue the fight.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

2006: The Year in Davis Review

These last days we will have a countdown of the top 10 stories from Davis in 2006. We continue with our second installment, No. 5 PG&E spends $11 million to defeat the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Yolo Annexation Vote...

There was a long-time effort on the part of Yolo County elected officials to bring public power to Yolo County through the annexation of the Yolo County power infrastructure to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). The remarkable thing is that elected officials who can hardly agree that the sky is blue all came together to support this proposal--city councilmembers from the three major cities in the county, every member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, and even school board members and special district unanimously supported the SMUD annexation.

In many ways, it seemed like a slam-dunk--at least in Yolo County. Unfortunately, this was not a level playing field. It was one heavily tilted toward the electricity giant, PG&E. Yolo County had to pass not one but two measures--H and I-- and Sacramento County had to consent to the expansion of SMUD into Yolo County through the passage of Measure L (not to be confused with the Davis Measure L in support of Choice Voting).

The battle lines for this election were drawn early.

• SMUD estimated Yolo County energy customers would save $148 million over 20 years if they switched providers.
  
  
• Pacific Gas & Electric Co. estimated the move would cost this area's customers $835 million.

The dispute had to do with the value of PG&E's infrastructure and facilities.

• SMUD estimated that value was between $86 million and $133 million.
  
  
• PG&E on the other hand, estimated that its facilities were worth more than $500 million.

Those cost differences accounted for roughly half of the difference in the projected cost to Yolo County energy consumers. The rest of the difference was derived from predictions about the future cost of natural gas, a key component for generating electricity.

PG&E aside from the structural advantage of only having to prevail on one of three measures, had one other key advantage--virtually unlimited resources. They spent $11 million on their campaign to convince Yolo County voters that this was too risky. SMUD, on the other hand, could spend no campaign money as they are a public agency and prevented from doing so. So grass roots citizen driven campaign organizations ran the Yes on H & I (Yes on SMUD) campaign in Yolo County raising from local businesses and the general public just over $100,000 to fight PG&E's propaganda machine.

PG&E's strategy was first, to cast doubt on the fact that Yolo County consumers would save money by switching to SMUD.

Second, PG&E presented themselves as environmental friendly and SMUD as enemies of the environment.

The People's Vanguard of Davis devoted numerous articles to discussing this topic.

One of the more duplicitous tactics by PG&E and their campaign consultants was the mailer sent to Davis households that suggested that a vote for PG&E was equivalent to a vote against Covell Village.

In the end, the deck was stacked against a victory by SMUD. Measure H narrowly prevailed in Yolo County. Measure I narrowly was defeated in Yolo County. But Yolo County was irrelevant as Measure L was overwhelmingly defeated by a huge margin in Sacramento County.

As I wrote in the post mortem:

"Even granting the large defeat in Sacramento County, I'm a bit disappointed with the Yolo County results. Had Yolo solidly voted to support SMUD, it would have been a loud and clear signal. First, that PG&E could not buy our votes with their ten million dollar plus campaign, fraught with deception. Second, that we were not happy with our service from PG&E."

In the end, the process concerned me much more than the outcome. In politics you win or lose. But there is a bitter pill to be swallowed when you face a corporation with unlimited resources who unleashes their money and propaganda in ways designed to confuse the voters.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Dunning's Ridiculous Lampoon of Souza and Yamada

As far as letters to the editor go, it was pretty uneventful and unnewsworthy. Yet somehow it becomes fodder for the sardonic humor of Dunning.

On November 15, 2006 County Supervisor Mariko Yamada and Davis City Councilmember Stephen Souza wrote a rather ordinary and standard letter of thanks to the contributors and supporters of Measures H & I. Completely unremarkable unless you are Bob Dunning.

Public power quest is still alive

Davis voters sent an unmistakable Election Day message about public power — we want it! The twin SMUD annexation Measures H and I passed here by a nearly 62 percent margin despite PG&E's unprecedented $11 million disinformation campaign to defeat us. Unfortunately, their efforts to frighten and confuse Sacramento SMUD ratepayers and West Sacramento and Woodland residents were too great to overcome — this time.

On behalf of Yolo4SMUD, we wish to thank all of our contributors and supporters — including The Davis Enterprise — for advancing the dialogue on the clear benefits of municipal over investor-owned utilities. The quest for local power, which began nine years ago in Davis, is still alive, strong and well. Stay tuned, and thank you.

Mariko Yamada, chair

Stephen Souza, treasurer

Dunning writes:

let's correct that statement about a "62 percent margin" … there was no such thing … SMUD got 62 percent of the Davis vote … a 62 percent margin would be 81 percent "yes" and 19 percent "no." …

Okay, they misspoke or mistyped, they got 62 percent of the vote not a 62 percent margin. Let's haul off and write a column on it... oh yeah, he did. Must have been a slow news day.

You might want to read that last sentence again … Davis folks, you see, were too smart to be frightened or confused … but the lowlifes in those other cities we're forced to share a county with just couldn't put two and two together and were thus at the mercy of the merciless power company …

Yes this letter to the editor is a clear example of "our elitism shining through." I won't defend Souza on this score, but anyone who knows Mariko, knows she is anything but an elitist. If anything she's humble to a fault.

Moreover I just don't see any evidence of elitism in this letter. What I see is frustration and anger that PG&E spent $11 million plus on a campaign to distort the issues and their record on the environment. The only difference between Davis and Woodland and Sacramento is that Davis is a bit more liberal and it took more to convince them that PG&E was an environmentally friendly company than a fradulent "No on Measure X" flyer purporting that a vote for PG&E was a vote against Measure X (or something like that).

If Dunning wants to be outraged, how about being outraged at PG&E for dumping $11 million into a campaign to keep their services in Yolo County and using every trick in the book to try to confuse the issue.

And if we are to be outraged, perhaps we shoud be upset that Dunning is filling our newspaper space with such banalities. Oh yeah I forgot, he's funny. Can anyone explain to me the humor in this column, because the only one I'm laughing at is Dunning himself for writing about this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Souza's shot in the dark on PG&E

At Tuesday's City Council Meeting, Councilmember Stephen Souza got up before council to talk about the recent SMUD-PG&E election. Souza was a strong supporter of the SMUD annexation attempt in Yolo County.

One of the key parts of the election was the dispute between SMUD and PG&E over how much it would cost for SMUD to purchase PG&Es infrastructure. SMUD believed it was worth between $86 and $133 million while PG&E focused on the number $520 million.

Souza never really understood this point, he got burned by it at a Measure H & I debate by the PG&E spokes man. Here's my best understanding of the rule. For electricity infrastructure, fair market value is not determined by current worth. Rather it is determined by replacement value. Hence PG&E is claiming that the fair market value for their infrastructure is $520 million. SMUD was disputing that figure and placed it much lower at between $86 million and $133 million. I do not know enough to know which figure was accurate.

However, regardless of PG&E claims, they are not being assessed at replacement value but rather at actual value. The Board of Equalization is the one that assesses their value and the amount that they are paying taxes. The Board of Equalization is certainly going to be far better aware of the assessment laws than Councilmember Stephen Souza and it is unlikely that they have been assessing PG&E's current taxable value incorrectly.

Of course, Souza could have discovered most of this if he had asked questions in private about how taxes are assessed versus fair market value issues that arose during the campaign. Instead he has suggested that council agendize this. We see no purpose for this and believe it a waste of staff time and resources and that council should put its energies into other areas.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The PG&E Aftermath

I have delayed my writing of the PG&E decision until a week after the election (hard to believe it has only been a week). The problem with any analysis is that while H&I were extremely close elections, the fact that Sacramento had to approve it as well and it wasn't even close to passing in Sacramento, makes it difficult to do a true post mortem. It is disappointing though not surprising that it would fail by a large margin in Sacramento. After all, the benefits to Sacramento rate payers are not as immediately evident and it is far easier for PG&E to scare them.

Still I believe that had H & I passed in Yolo County it would have sent several loud and clear messages to PG&E. That message is mooted by a split decision. Dunning thought this was an odd outcome not understanding why someone would vote for one and not for the other. But in actuality it's not that odd with one passing by 400 or so votes and the other failing by a similar margin, as close as the two are to each other, this amounts to little more than random error by a small number of people not fully aware that these are two sides of the same coin, it's likely that 98 percent of the people voted the for both and only a tiny percent split their vote.

And yet, even granting the large defeat in Sacramento County, I'm a bit disappointed with the Yolo County results. Had Yolo solidly voted to support SMUD, it would have been a loud and clear signal. First, that PG&E could not buy our votes with their ten million dollar plus campaign, fraught with deception. Second, that we were not happy with our service from PG&E. (Obviously PG&E prevailed by casting doubt about the SMUD move more than by convincing us that we liked them).

This was a rare election in so many ways. There was near animous support among Yolo County Elected officials--every member of the three major city councils and all five members of the Board of Supervisors won. How is it then possible that PG&E wasn't soundly defeated in Yolo County?

The obvious answer was the slew of deceiving mailers and TV ads in Yolo County. PG&E managed to turn the strength of SMUD into an uncertainty by casting doubt on their ability to lower the bill for rate payers. This had to do with the costs of annexation. Watching the debate between SMUD and PG&E, it seemed that the pro-H & I side was ill-prepared for this argument even though they knew it was coming. Frankly after watching the debate, I had doubts myself about their plan even though I knew going in I was going to vote for SMUD regardless. The PG&E arguments were extremely effective unfortunately.

The second problem was that just like Target, PG&E tried to turn the issue of the environment--one of their weaknesses in their favor. So they launched a massive campaign to convince Yolo County voters that PG&E was environmentally friendly and perhaps as importantly that SMUD was not environmentally friendly (easier to convince people of negatives). They even went as far as to compare PG&E's effort to the No on X effort which we covered.

The bottom line of the PG&E effort was to convince the rate payers that they may not like the current system, but a new system may be worse, so stick with the devil you know. And when you have a resource advantage, it's easy to convince people to stick with the status quo by voting no. The no side almost always has the advantage in these types of races.

It is obviously difficult to fight back when you are facing a 10 million dollar plus campaign. But one way that might have been helpful would have been for each of the 20 officeholders to contact their core constituencies with a direct message of support for SMUD and an explanation of why it was important for them to support H & I. I'm not being critical of the SMUD effort, because they did very well facing overwhelming odds and an overwhelming resource disadvantage. At the end of the day, given that disparity, it was hard to win. I had hoped that the voters in Yolo County would see through the smoke and mirrors, but it seems very obvious that PG&E was able to obtain their by creating enough confusion and uncertainty to nudge a defeat on Measure I.

As I said previously, it was rendered moot by the large and overwhelming defeat in Sacramento County. This was a long and difficult process, so it is hard to know if this is the end of the fight or if they will try to revisit it. If they do wish to revisit it, they need to conduct a long and very concerted education campaign prior to the fact and they need to make it very clear exactly how much this will cost, so that PG&E has a more difficult time of mucking the waters.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Chamber Clarifies Their Positions

Anyone see the letter to the editor in Thursday's paper, it was kind of buried but it was from Jeff Adamski and Sherry Puntillo:

Chamber reiterates its positions:

The board of directors of the Davis Chamber of Commerce wishes to reiterate its positions on Measures H, I and K. For Measures H and I, the SMUD annexation proposal, the Chamber has not taken any position and will not do so. With respect to Measure K, the Second Street Crossing development, while the Chamber supported the project through the planning process, we have updated our position to neutral.

Okay we're all clear now. Thanks for that.

Anyone wondering what that was all about?

On October 17, the People's Vanguard of Davis reported on the Chamber of Commerce's perplexing change from an endorsement of Target when it was a City Council issue, to no position once it became a ballot measure. The rationale behind that change is perplexing. Moreover, most of the key people in leadership positions are all personally supporting it and the change in position was never formally announced.

Meanwhile, a few days later we discovered that Bruce Gallaudet of University Honda, a board member on the Chamber of Commerce (and husband of Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis) used the Chamber of Commerce attribution on the Sample Ballot Statement against Measure H.

It is nice that they clarify that they have no position on SMUD or Target, but that's all they tell us. There is no public announcement repudiating the use of the attribution by Gallaudet and there is no explanation as to why they would support Target in June but not November.

This seems standard policy by the Chamber to not publicly deal with issues of these sorts, but it's almost like there is a cloak of secrecy involving some of this stuff.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

PG&E buys Target Votes

A few weeks ago I suggested that PG&E’s campaign against SMUD may actually be Target’s best friend. A few days before the November 7 election, I think that notion needs to be explored again, especially in the wake of the financial disclosures this week.

Recall back to a year ago—the Measure X campaign rubbed people the wrong way with the amount of money they spent but also the professional looking brochures that bombarded the public on a daily basis. Flash ahead a year later, and we see that the Measure K campaign has actually slightly outspent the Measure X campaign. However, they have toned down their assault on our mailboxes while assaulting us with a slew of cheaply produced TV commercials.

However, much of the scrutiny is off the Target campaign, because whatever excesses you can accuse the Target and the Yes on K campaign of, they pale in comparison to what PG&E is doing to us.

This Monday, and I know I’m not alone because I’ve read it elsewhere, I opened my mailbox to find not two but FIVE different mailers from PG&E in there. FIVE. And because they sent to my wife as well on some of them, there was a total 8 mailers in my mailbox on Monday. They were professionally produced, multicolor mailers. PG&E isn’t shy.

While Target has spent in excess of $200,000, PG&E has spent $10 million plus in fighting to keep its market-share in Yolo County. TEN MILLIION DOLLARS.

PG&E is obviously committed to staying in Yolo County. Target on the other hand, I guess just doesn’t want our business nearly as badly.

I’ve said this several times already, but it bears repeating. I have favored the SMUD annexation for quite some time, but the PG&E campaign has really raised the stakes on this election—but then again, I guess $10 million will do that for you. If they are willing to spend that on a campaign, you can wonder how much this County is worth to them—a fairly small county as California goes.

I think we all knew PG&E would fight to keep Yolo County, I’m not sure anyone expected it to this extent. You have to wonder if they aren’t trying to send a message for future reformers. I think we all need to send them a message on Tuesday—Yolo County cannot be bought.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

PG&E Now Under Investigation for Campaign Activities

This morning's Sacramento Bee reports:

The increasingly aggressive election battle over electricity service in eastern Yolo County landed on the steps of the Capitol on Tuesday, with several lawmakers calling for an investigation into Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s campaign tactics.

Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, and Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, denounced PG&E for using a customer service telephone line and billing inserts to oppose ballot measures that would enable part of Yolo County to drop PG&E and buy power instead from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Ortiz and Jones -- along with Assemblywoman Lois Wolk, D-Davis, who was not at the news event -- wrote a letter dated Tuesday to the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee and the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Commerce requesting that PG&E be asked to demonstrate that none of its inserts, telephone recordings or other political activities was paid for with ratepayer funds.

While we are certainly glad that people are starting to take notice about the campaign that PG&E has run against H&I, this issue only covers part of the story including the misuse of campaign and city logos for campaign purposes, the complaint filed by the No on Measure X campaign, the complaint filed by the City of Davis. The entire PG&E campaign has been misleading. The central issue in the campaign is over whether or not there will be savings for county ratepayers--the question I have to continually ask is whether you trust any claim that PG&E makes, because I sure don't. At this point, I would at least be inclined to investigate a claim that the sky was blue. That's how little credibility they have with me. I'll be honest, I was always going to vote for SMUD, but it wasn't an issue high on my radar until I watched the utterly contemptible campaign emerge.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Enterprise Reports on PG&E Using unauthorized logos

On October 20, we reported that the No on H & I campaign was trying to fool voters by using the No on X logo implying support by the No on X campaign for PG&E. A few days later we received a letter from the No on X campaign, demanding that PG&E retract "the implication that the No on X Committee has anything to do with your campaign against Measures H and I."

Finally, nine days after we first ran the article, the Davis Enterprise has run a story on the controversy. The main focus of the story is the unauthorized use of the City of Davis logo (see top right of the image above). Harriet Steiner wrote a letter to the FPPC and the Yolo County District Attorney's office. The City Council complained that they were not asked permission for the use of the logo and would not have granted permission had they been asked. You may recall that all of the members of the Davis City Council have endorsed the SMUD Annexation, along with the member of Woodland, West Sacramento, and the County Supervisors.

This follows another snafu from the PG&E backed group, where a ballot designation of the Davis Chamber of Commerce was used by Bruce Gallaudet, husband of Davis Enterprise Editor, Debbie Davis. Surprisingly that story has not been published by Davis Enterprise. Nor has the Davis Enterprise printed the complaint by the No on Measure X people, despite the fact that they sent the same letter to the Davis Enterprise that they sent to us.

---Doug Paul Davis Reporting

PG&E Continues its "Green" Makeover

Some things in politics just take your breath away and leave you shaking your head. The PG&E campaign is one of them. Actually in some ways, Target and PG&E are using the same script. If these were candidates, you'd be thinking, that they suddenly found environmentalism.

Theresa Francis wrote to the Davis Enterprise:

I'm going to open a Hummer dealership in a giant LEED building; that way I can help save the environment.

Bob Dunning of all people writes:

would we allow a strip joint on the site just because it was housed in an award-winning building?

(Personally I think that Bob just wants a strip joint, but that's just me).

PG&E is using the same play book. First, they use the No on Measure X campaign to tell us that a vote for No on H & I is just like a vote for No on X. Now they are leafletting the town (or at least my residence) with a door hanger that pronounced them the guardians of the environmental order and SMUD as the evil polluters.

Look I can understand them wanting to hold onto their natural monopolistic market share and that they hate it when competition comes along, but good gosh, give us at least some credit for having some intelligence. Just because you call yourself environmentally friendly doesn't mean that you are.

This is a company that built a nuclear power plant on an earthquake fault and that has been cited for numerous unauthorized releases of radioactive waste.

"Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has agreed to pay $96,000 in penalties for losing track of radioactive spent fuel at its defunct Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant. (12/05)"

"Facing fines of $25 million per day for the last 15 years, PG&E, owner of Diablo Canyon, faces a make-or-break ruling in June when the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control board decides whether to slap a cease-and-desist order on the plant for its thermal pollution and resultant marine environment kill-off -- allegations that PG&E denies. That could be on top of the $14 million PG&E was fined by the state and federal governments in a related case for withholding evidence of pollution. The utility is currently in negotiations with the board over the case that could include a potential trade of some of the 13,000 acres (including 10 miles of coastline) surrounding the plant. PG&E's customers, however, have paid for that land over the years and no one can explain how a trade of ratepayers-to-public ownership can work. (5/22/2000)"

The San Francisco Guardian reports:

• In 1997 PG&E was tried and convicted in criminal court for endangering the lives and property of gold country residents by failing to trim tree branches near electrical wires frequently enough to prevent major fires. Evidence showed that PG&E executives had diverted tree-trimming money to fatten profits and salaries of top corporate executives.

• The story of the company's poisoning of community water supplies in Hinkley became a major Hollywood movie called Erin Brockovich, and a similar environmental disaster is still underway just south of San Francisco. Meanwhile, residents of the Bayview-Hunters Point district in San Francisco are suffering from alarmingly high rates of asthma and other illnesses that they link to PG&E's dirty power plant in the neighborhood (see "Poison Power," 1/28/98). In addition, the nearby Potrero power plant, which PG&E sold to Mirant Corp. in 1998, is scheduled for expansion.

• PG&E stole nearly $200,000 from San Francisco by illegally running its power lines to the Presidio, according to a 1995 lawsuit the city filed against the company. Indeed, PG&E's service to San Francisco residents is illegal, according to the terms of the 1913 Raker Act, which requires the city to operate a public power system. The company's monopoly has led to decades of structural corruption at City Hall (see "How PG&E Wires the City," page 26).

• In 1998 a major blackout hit the city – leaving nearly half a million San Francisco residents without electricity (see "Still in the Dark," 12/16/98). Officials determined that a failure to make a key backup safety check at a San Mateo substation caused the outage. For several years the company had been cutting back on maintenance staff to fatten profits.

• In 2001, after lobbying for the 1996 bill that deregulated part of the state's electricity industry, PG&E shuffled off more than $600 million in profits to its holding company, gave its top brass $50 million in bonuses and raises, and declared bankruptcy. Since spring 2001, rates have soared 40 percent and customer service for everything from hook-ups to billing problems has worsened (see "Feeling the Crunch," 9/4/02).

• Under its proposed plan to get out of bankruptcy, PG&E wants to free itself of the last vestiges of state regulation while at the same time making a very anti-free market demand: ratepayers must protect its shareholders and CEOs from any potential future losses (see "Competing Energy Visions," page 30).

• PG&E has a long record of harassing internal whistle-blowers and reporters who dare to take on the giant company.

Whistle Blowers Beware

Also from that article in the Guardian:

Silencing critics

Although PG&E likes to insist it is a tolerant and responsible company, it has a long history of retaliating against any employee who blows the whistle on its irresponsible practices.

In the 1997 Nevada County fire case, one of the prosecution's star witnesses was Jim Sprecher, a PG&E engineer who had written a report concluding that the company was letting trees go untrimmed for too long and jeopardizing public safety. Instead of heeding Sprecher's concerns, the company demoted him, relegating him to an unimportant job and ostracizing him socially, he testified.

He also testified that the report mysteriously disappeared from his unlocked filing cabinet at work at some point between 1993 and late 1996, when he was contacted by Nevada County prosecutors (see "Vanishing Report," 5/21/97). The report's recommendation to increase spending on tree trimming was ignored by PG&E higher-ups.

At PG&E's April 1998 shareholders meeting, Neil Aiken, a shift foreperson at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, stood up and told shareholders about safety problems that came from cost cutting at the plant. He told the audience he came forward only in desperation, because he had exhausted all possible routes of solving the problem within the company. He also released a report detailing the safety issues called "Going Critical" (see "Nuclear Leak," 4/22/98).

That year PG&E executives forced Aiken to undergo psychiatric evaluation. He was locked out of the plant and forced off his job after 24 years (see "Plugging the Leak," 11/18/98). The Project on Liberty and the Workplace took up his case, and the U.S. Department of Labor found PG&E guilty of retaliation in November 1999 (see "PG&E Fires Whistleblower," 4/5/00).

PG&E also has a history of blackballing reporters who challenge the utility. Energy writer J.A. Savage sued PG&E in 1988, charging that the company had gotten her fired from two jobs because she had once worked for an antinuclear group and had written for the Bay Guardian. She settled the suit for an undisclosed sum in 1995 after the state Court of Appeals found that her allegations had enough merit to go to trial (see "Reporter Beats PG&E," 11/8/95).

"PG&E wields considerable power over the press covering its activities," Judge Williams Newsom wrote in a 1993 appeals court opinion dealing with the question of whether PG&E should be able to blacklist reporters who work for the Bay Guardian. "In the case of a public utility enjoying such extensive monopolistic authority ... there is an important public interest in assuring the freedom of the press in reporting on matters lying within the exercise of its franchise."

PG&E has used its formidable power to undermine that constitutionally protected freedom. The haze of P.R. the company generates regarding its operations has proved effective in protecting the utility's empire – at the direct expense of the public's financial interests, safety, and health.

Campaign manipulations are one thing, outrights lies are another. PG&E is about as environmentally friendly as the Bush administration. Yolo County voters should not get sold down the river on this.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

The Real Environmental Record of PG&E: Manufactured Studies to Cover-up Environmental Crimes

For those who have seen the movie “Erin Brockovich” you know the story—residents of a small rural town in the Mojave Desert, Hinkley, California, alleged that PG&E contaminated drinking water with the carcinogen hexavalent chromium—chromium-6 and that this exposure led to widespread illness and disease. They used the chromium-infused water as a coolant at some of its natural gas compressor stations but the discharged water tainted local groundwater supplies. Earlier this year the company agreed to pay $315 million to settle the dispute, nearly a decade after agreeing to pay around $160 million.

Typical of settlements, the company refused to admit wrong doing however, PG&E spokesman Jon Tremayne issued a statement Friday saying, "Clearly this situation should never have happened, and we are sorry it did." (USA Today, 2-16-06).

Given that those practices go back to the 1950s and 1960s, it’s not clear that we should use this case to taint PG&E. More stunning however, is their recent attempts to manufacture a study that demonstrated no link between chromium-6 and cancer.

From the USA Today article:

In December, the Environmental Working Group published a detailed account of PG&E’s alleged attempts to corrupt a previous medical study on chromium-6’s carcinogenic effects.

Drawing on records obtained under California’s Public Records Act, the public interest group chronicled how shortly after the first Brockovich case resulted in the huge plaintiffs’ award, a PG&E-paid; environmental consultant persuaded a respected Chinese scientist to participate in an update of his 1987 study that found chromium-contaminated water in rural China was linked to an increase in villagers’ cancer.

The new study found no such link between chromium-6 and cancer. In its investigation, the Environmental Working Group alleged that the revised study, published in the influential Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, was written by PG&E consultants rather than by the now-deceased JianDong Zhang, whose revised paper misspelled his name three times.

The public interest group obtained records from California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment that supported its doubts about the revised study, including the sponsors’ alleged failure to disclose who actually wrote the manuscript and who paid for it, in addition to their allegedly incorrect use of several epidemiological terms, according to the Environmental Working Group.

Here’s the full report from the Environmental Working Group which documents how PG&E conspired to reverse findings of a cancer study.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the San Francisco-based consultants, ChemRisk, "conceived, drafted, edited and submitted to medical journals" a "clarification" of the Chinese study, according to documents filed in another chromium lawsuit against PG&E. They did so despite a letter of objection from the Chinese scientist who led the original study, calling their reversal of his findings an "inappropriate inference."

Davis residents who listen to the rhetoric of PG&E may want to read through that report. It is very illustrative—first, PG&E is running on its green record and while the actual Hinkley case did occur decades ago, the attempts by PG&E to manufacture a study to exonerate their past behavior is utterly indefensible and is a matter of recent record and behavior. Of course these facts have not been brought up in the current campaign, but I think Davis residents need to know about it.

The issue here is about responsibility and this is how PG&E reacts when they have made a mistake, instead of making things whole and doing the right thing, they try to lie and connive their way out of responsibility.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

PG&E Who are you trying to fool?

Someone actually warned me that this was coming in the mail, and it's probably the only thing that saved me from dropping dead, because I've seen a lot of things in my time (and my time has not been that long), and yet, I really don't have good words to describe this. Recall back to last year when a bunch of developers supporting Measure X gathered around and sung "We Shall Overcome." That's the kind of moment that this campaign brochure evokes when you see it.

When I was growing up, PG&E built a nuclear powerplant in my backyard on an earthquake fault. Now PG&E claims to be green and suggests that it is not easy being green (cue up Kermit). And evokes the image of the "No on Measure X" as an argument to support PG&E. This is almost like shooting fish in a barrel. If I'm Dick Livingston, I'm suing.

YES ON K TV ADs and Rich Rifkin

I have to laugh everytime I see the "Yes on K" TV ADs and there is Ted Puntillo trying to sell us on Target. And at some point he talks about how he would like to do all his shopping in Davis and not have to go to Woodland and Sacramento. Do people see through this stuff? First of all, has Ted Puntillo ever gone to Target in his life? Second, even if he has, does all his shopping out of town entail going to Target? It's amazing suddenly if we have a Target in Davis we go from not being able to buy socks and underwear, to never having to shop out of town again. Wow! Target is not just a superstore, it's a miracle worker. And good grief--the very same people who are selling us on Target are the very same people who would never ever shop at Target.

And then you have Rich Rifkin. I will never forgive or forget Rich Rifkin who ripped the HRC for having too many periods in their report on racial profiling. It was embarrassing that the Davis Enterprise gave space to that drivel.

He may have topped that on Wednesday.

"I wouldn't suggest that all members of FETID are stinky, malodorous and in need of a bath. But if you get close enough, you'll find that most FETID don't buy deodorant or soap or undergarments. They never shop at Target. They despise "big box." They are enraged by the idea that the rest of the people in our fair city might actually want a store in town that sells ordinary consumer goods at a decent price, because FETID apparently aren't keen to be clean."

Darn it, he's found me out. He must have read my last blog entry and figured I was on a mission to deprive people of socks and underwear. That I even need to dignify this crap with a response is flat out insulting to me and you. So I'll just leave it up for posterity.

I guess a couple of "substantive" arguments need rebuttal.

"The planners exclaim, "It's four times larger than the permitted store size in the General Plan." That's true, too. It is a big store. But it's a ruse to lean on the General Plan to argue against Target. The General Plan was designed by the people of Davis to serve the needs of the people of Davis. The people, then, have every right to change their General Plan, if it is not serving their needs. That is why we are voting on this question."

Actually the General Plan was designed to protect us from large developments that might harm the character of the city. It was designed specifically to prevent this kind of growth. Now he's correct that people have the right to change the General Plan, but the opponents have the right to remind people that we have the General Plan for a reason.

Let me repeat what Paul Navazio, the finance director for the city of Davis, told me a few months ago: Target will generate $659,000 in new net revenues for our city government. That's a lot of cash. That money's now going to Woodland, Vacaville, West Sacramento and other surrounding cities.

I love this one--oh, he told you that Target will generate $659,000--that must make it so. In a previous blog entry, we cast doubt on that figure. Regardless, that figure is based on a comparison to an empty field rather than a comparison to an alternative development project there that doesn't involve a big-box corporation.

Unlike the geniuses on our Planning Commission, I think most people in Davis would like our city government to keep our sales tax monies. If we vote against Target, we know for certain that the city of Davis will lose $659,000 a year.

Now he insults the Planning Commission. This is flat-out insulting to the Planning Commission and the residents of Davis. They certainly spent a lot more time and energy researching this than he has. If he wants to disagree with them, fine. But be a little respectful of people who volunteer their time and energy.

That's perhaps the biggest beef I have with Rifkin--his irreverence. This type of column backfires because people in Davis are not stupid. They read this stuff as mean-spirited and over-the-top. It's not worth the paper it's written on.

Let's have an honest debate on Target and the future of the city. This is just a bunch of insults wrapped in psuedo-satire. The people of Davis deserve better than that.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Davis Chamber of Commerce Attribution on Sample Ballot Unauthorized

Thanks to a tip, The People's Vanguard of Davis has learned that Bruce Gallaudet, a board member of the Davis Chamber of Commerce and husband of Davis Enterprise Editor Debbie Davis, signed the "Argument Against Measure H" and also the "Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Measure H."

According to reliable sources, the Chamber has not taken a position on Measures H & I, which would authorize the Yolo County takeover of electrical services by SMUD replacing PG&E. Moreover, Gallaudet was not authorized by the Chamber to use its name as his attribution. This of course creates the mistaken perception that the Davis Chamber of Commerce opposes Measure H.

(Click on the image to the left for the full sized version)

---Doug Paul Davis reporting