Many have been wondering, how could Sandberg have voted for the water company buyout? I think it’s because he painted himself into a corner. I suspect he’s actually for the buyout, but realizes it’s wildly unpopular, so he was looking for a way to vote against it without having to come out specifically in favor of it. So, he seized upon the repayment to PAAG of the one million dollars they put up to research the feasibility of the city purchasing the water company. As long as that provision was in there, he would vote against it (which was a good point, actually).
The problem was, PAAG and Grayeb immediately called his bluff. Jeff Giebelhausen said the PAAG group didn’t ask for repayment and urged Sandberg not to vote against it on that account. Then Grayeb amended his motion to exclude repayment. Since Sandberg cited the repayment as his only objection, what else could he do? If he still voted against it, he would look insincere, but if he voted for it he would be flagrantly disregarding public opinion.
In his post-vote interview with WMBD-TV, he said he voted for it because he’s a basic-services guy, and there’s nothing more basic than water. Nice cover. But that argument only makes sense if there is a real or perceived problem with the water quality or service we’re currently receiving. So far as I can tell, no one’s complaining about water quality, and the only ones complaining about water service are council “progressives” and PAAG. Our basic services for water are being met — arguably to the satisfaction of 82% of residents who would have voted for the buyout otherwise.
The basic services residents are concerned about (and that are not being met) are sidewalks, lighting, code enforcement, crime reduction, improved public schools, etc. It’s a shame that this whole water buyout fiasco has distracted our council representatives and city staff from researching solutions to the real problems facing this community.