Why is it so hard for DB CSD officials to be honest and accurate when they talk to reporters?
In the June 23 Discovery Bay Press story regarding the next year’s budget and the next two years’ water/sewer rate hikes of more than 30 percent, DB CSD General Manager Rick Howard is quoted as saying “there are no dollars in this budget that help support future development.”
That statement is not true. The 2011-12 DB CSD budget contains dollars for a new well that the town’s own consultants have said, in writing and on the official record, is needed to “serve projected growth …” I believe Mr. Howard’s inaccurate and misleading statement has tainted the protest process whereby we have until Aug. 3 to object in writing to the two-year rate hike. This rate hike was predicated on more than $600,000 in spending to partially complete a new well.
Why are the developers not being asked to invest up-front in this new well (and other infrastructure expansion) as they seek to profit from building more houses in DB? Why, in these economic times, are the current residents of DB being asked to pay for new infrastructure that will primarily benefit developers in their quest to build more housing tracts … and yes, these housing tracts are already in the county approval process.
If this does not seem right, you have the opportunity to submit (by Aug. 3) a signed Statement of Protest (protest of the two year water/sewer rate hike) to the DB CSD at 1800 Willow Lake Road. If enough residents submit a protest, the CSD board will be forced to readdress this issue and hopefully shift the infrastructure expansion burden away from the current residents and onto (prospectively) those who are seeking to profit.
I believe seeking to utilize the residents’ water and sewer funds in this way and not being up-front about it only serves to further undermine the DB CSD’s credibility.
Jeff Barber, Discovery Bay
I think I understand whose_fault's points and would like to clarify my remarks.
First, I don’t think the facts are in dispute (DB-CSD Director Brian Dawson took developer money into his campaign account then paid a large portion of it to his wife) but apparently not everyone agrees with my opinion that his actions were inappropriate. We all have our ideas about what constitutes sleaze and I certainly while I disagree with “whose_fault’s” willingness to accept Brian Dawson’s actions as legitimate and decent I am fully prepared respect it.
I think it’s a little sleazy that developer advocate Tom Koch named his PAC “Contra Costa Coalition for Business and Jobs”. I know these clever and purposely misleading names are very common, not just for PACs, but for legislative bills, ballot measures and propositions, but being commonplace doesn’t make it right.
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call the Koch’s PAC “Coalition for Elimination of Open Spaces”? Ok, that’s unfair, but what about “Coalition for Residential Development Projects”.
Koch’s PAC purposely hides its mission with its completely non-descriptive name to allow politicians with easy political cover. In this case Dawson is able to accept the money with little likelihood that most people will ever know he accepted developer money.
So that’s the underlying level of sleaze that many would say is simply a political reality. Donors hide their name and identity through PACs, candidates take the money with little fear of anyone finding out the real purpose of the PAC, and then the interests of the donors are served by those they paid for. No doubt the PAC feels the money is a good investment and I think it is fair to expect Dawson will support his largest donor even if that donor is an out of town developer. One of the problems with the system, as it stands, is that Dawson never actually admitted that he accepted his single largest contribution from an out of town developer special interest group. He was able to hide that behind the phony name of the PAC.
I don’t think an out of town special interest pro-development PAC issuing $1500 payments to two guys running for the board or our local Community Services District is a good thing because I don’t believe our little election should be influenced by these out of town interest groups. You may feel differently, but how will you feel when the out of town special interest group is on the other side of a major issue?
Dawson and Graves should have both declined the offers from the pro-developer PAC. Neither did what I would have hoped, but Dawson went even farther.
Not only did he accept the out of down developer money, but he funneled $1000 of it to his wife, and therefore directly into his personal family finances. That is, I believe, a pretty good example of lining one’s pockets with developer money and I think it is more inappropriate than simply taking the money from the developer to be used in the election campaign.
Your point that "anyone that Dawson paid lined their pockets with developer money" is interesting. It’s fair to say that ThePress did receive money that Koch’s PAC paid to Dawson. In that sense, Dawson was lining ThePress’ pockets with developer money.
The difference here is that Dawson was lining HIS OWN POCKETS with that $1,000 that ended up in his personal family finances. That developer money went to the personal benefit of Brian Dawson. I think that is very wrong. Putting aside whether or not my opinion matters (it really doesn’t matter to anyone but me), I hope you would agree that it is important that the public is aware of Brian Dawson’s actions as they pertain to developer PAC money finding it’s way into his personal family finances. I think we can also both agree that the FPPC is the proper body to determine if Brian Dawson violated any laws in doing this. While I will be satisfied with there decision, I will continue to believe that Brian Dawson’s actions were inappropriate and do what I can to make sure that the community is aware of them.
This is especially relevant since the DB-CSD is implementing a 64% water rate increase over the next two years and a portion of that increase stems from cost associated with a new well that the DB-CSD’s own consultants say is unnecessary to support the current homes, but is necessary for future development.
See how that developer money that found its way into Brian Dawson’s personal family finances creates the appearance of an unseemly quid pro quo?
Feel free to disagree – hope I’m not offending you by sharing the information and my opinion.
Don Flint
By your logic, every person he bought something from is lining their pockets with developer money. That includes advertisers, like The Press. Or are you saying that any payment made out of a campaign account for work done has to be made to a professional business (not part of campaign finance rules), which I would imagine is vastly more expensive - a much farther reach for a small campaign budget for a small town election. And this seems far from comparable to a presidential candidate using PUBLIC FUND MATCHING (in the millions) to support his mistress and their coming child. Are you aware that Federal Glover's wife was paid for work she did on his campaign?
Lastly, has anyone ASKED Mr. Dawson what his wife's contribution to his campaign was? It seems to be prevalent in today's society and media to shoot first, ask questions later. (Oh the Oslo bomber was a Muslim, was he? No? Oh, scratch that - sorry American public!) You can continue to be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution.
I had forgotten, but at the time I was concerned that these guys were being bought and paid for by developer interests.
To make matters worse, Dawson "paid" his wife $1,000, allegedly for campaign consulting services. I do not know if Dawson's wife has a bona fide consulting business or if that was her first paid campaign management gig, but I can guess.
Either way, $1000 went from Tom Koch's Pro-Development PAC into the Dawson family finances after a brief stop in his campaign fund.
This doesn't just sound bad. Lining one's pockets with developer money through a campaign fund into your family finances is bad!
To be clear, it is not up to me to decide if Brian Dawson violated the law. That is up to the proper authorities (FPPC, AG, etc) to determine.
As US Senator John Edwards has recently been made aware, the law prohibits diverting political contributions for personal use..
How can the good people of Discovery Bay be protected against a well funded Pro-Development PAC?
It will take public awareness and pressure. We need to support the Directors (Mark Simon, Chris Steele and Ray Tetreault) who have not voluntarily jumped into Tom Koch's sandbox.
As Developer Advocates say when they cut the checks to local politicians campaign funds, "You get what you pay for!"
Don Flint
If these statements have any validity, maybe the public utilities commission should review this in more depth. This appears to be a hidden tax or bond (64% rate hike ?) rather than just a fee increase. As far as the political aspect, maybe the fair political practices commission should review the contributions for their legality. More development without proper mitigation will only deteriorate our county roads more.
The DB-CSD is NOT telling the truth! They should eliminate from the two-year budget and rate increase ALL infrastructure improvements that are ONLY necessitated by potential future development. And even if they refuse to remove the developer mandated items from the budget and our rates, at least they should tell the truth.
A typical homeowner in Discovery who can expect to pay the district $285 annually for water services right now will pay 64% more, $468.60 in FY2012-13. I know an increase is necessary after many years of under-funding our infrastructure, but there is no excuse for including any funds for the development of a new well that is COMPLETELY unnecessary for our current residents and then not telling the truth about it.
I have heard board members say (privately) that Well#7 amounts to a relatively small amount of the budget and rate increase this coming year. Fine, we can debate how large the cost of those items are, but don’t keep saying they amount to “not one dime” as Rick Howard is doing.
I have already sent my letter of protest, along with a request to the CSD that they tell the truth. So far they have ignored my request. General Manager Rick Howard and Board President Kevin Graves have refused even address this concern publicly. They want to ignore it and hope that it goes away so that the current ratepayers (you and I) will fund new projects that are only necessary for new development. And make no mistake, Graves sets the agenda for the board and could have come clean at Wednesday night’s meeting.
Why are Howard and Graves so anxious to have more upside-down homes to go along with shuttered fire stations? Do they believe that more development will bring more money for fire protections services? That would be a first!
I hope that our community will let the CSD know that we expect to be treated with honesty and integrity and do not want to see any of our money collected for a new well that we do not need.
Please send an email to rhoward@todb.ca.gov or a letter such as this to:
Discovery Bay CSD
Attn: Rick Howard
1800 Willow Lake Road
Discovery Bay, CA 94505
RE: Proposed rate increase
Mr. Howard:
I object to the proposed rate increase.
Thank you,
Name
Street Address
Thank you,
Don Flint