It’s a good thing our newly hired CSD Public Information Officer is a veteran of Desert Storm. Landing in the hot zone of the Hideous Los Osos Sewer Wars, such experience will stand Mike Drake in good stead. But in the verbal wars now underway with the pro and anti-Recall election and Sewer Initiative campaign underway, I’m afraid he’s already made a horrible blunder.
In the August 10th issue of the Bay News, he’s quoted as saying, “Whether it’s good news or bad news, I don’t spin it no matter what.” Oh, Dear. If Mr. Drake actually believes that, he’s probably found out by now that he’s landed in the wrong town, at the wrong time, in the wrong job because being an Information Officer for the Hideous Sewer Project has to involve spin because somewhere along the line the Hideous Sewer Project itself became nothing but spin.
I’m not quite sure just when that happened, but as it stands now, this Ginormous Sewer Plant In The Middle Of Town has become nothing but a spinning miasmic cloud of smoke and mirrors trailing footnotes and addenda like a diva trailing her feather boa. There is no way anyone can honestly, truthfully and “spinlessly” discuss the issue without pages of caveats, chapters of cautions, selective omissions, careful conflations, volumes of contradictory qualifiers and a credulity that allows one to swallow as true the most absurd things. In short, the only clear thing anyone can say about the Hideous Los Osos Sewer is that it is located smack dab in the middle of the Spin Zone.
Even a seasoned combat veteran and public relations word-crafter like Mr. Drake had better pack a sandwich and bring a flashlight when he leaves the house every morning to go to work. Like the Bermuda Triangle, the Sewer Spin Zone has been known to swallow up people whole only to have them pop out in some other dimension years later babbling about pies flying in the skies. You can see these Sewer Spin Zone Veterans wandering the streets of our town buttonholing anyone they can to ask Famous Unanswerable Sewer Koans.
For example, the CSD has staunchly, adamantly maintained, to the Coastal Commission, among other permitting agencies, that keeping the sewer plant in the middle of town reflects a “strongly held community value” of wanting a much needed, centrally located public park, a park that will include a Tot Lot built next to this busy, industrial sized sewage treatment plant. No central location, no desperately needed Tot Lot.
In reality, young families with lots of tots have moved away from Los Osos because they can’t afford to live here. Sunnyside Grammar School has been closed due to the lack of tots. The town is filling up with aging baby boomers, but no tots. Yet we are told the sewer plant MUST stay in the middle of town so it can have a conveniently located, strongly held community value Tot Lot built next to it.
You see the problem? How do you explain that without spin? Right. It can’t be done.
And if that weren’t enough of a challenge, Mr. Drake is now stuck with the difficult subtext of trying to “neutrally” “explain” things to a community that’s in the middle of a heated campaign to recall three of his bosses, a community where many have lost trust in their elected officials and lost faith in anything coming out of the CSD office. Trickier yet, these various taxpayer-financed bulletins legally must be accurate, no-spin, non-advocacy, factual information-only publications. Alas, everything in the Sewer Spin Zone is positively Byzantine, so, practically speaking, simple, accurate “no-spin” anythings are impossible. Happily, the laws concerning such non-campaign campaigns have enough loopholes in them that a savvy Public Information Officer can legally drive a whole fleet of plausibly deniable, properly spun “advocacy” Humvees through them while using our tax money to do it.
After all, a spin-free, accurate, information-only campaign for or against the recall and for or against the sewer initiative would require all those pages of caveats, chapters of cautions, selected omissions, careful conflations, volumes of contradictory qualifiers and files of footnotes. Which means we’d end up with TV spots lasting for hours and campaign literature too heavy to lift off the porch. And can you imagine the number of campaign posters you’d need? Thousands, all trailing off down the Los Osos Valley Road like those old Burma Shave signs, endlessly ‘splaining and ‘splaining all those No-Spin details.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Let's suppose you are right and that Pandora and Stan and the rest cooked up this scheme just to foist an expensive park on us all.
Why does this mean that a recall (and voting in advocates of moving the sewer) would be desirable. Sure, it would be good to vote liars out of office, but at what cost? I hardly see how taking on additional costs (thru the loss of a low interest loan, thru inflation in construction costs, thru the need to pay additional money for redesigning a new plant and thru the very real possibility of fines) is a good thing.
The current "move the sewer" and "threecall" people remind me of the "better, faster, cheaper" people of a few years ago ... promising us stuff based on wishful thinking (see Ron Crawford's timeline).
As someone famous once misspoke: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Perhaps you could write an entry that would convince us that additional delay to move the sewer and the associated costs would be preferable to the current plan.
Dear Mr. Inlet,
I'm one of those people who foolishly believes that a delayed project done right will end up costing less than a wrong project hurried up for no real reason. The nitrate "scare" is jut that. It will take YEARS to clean up the upper aquifer. YEARS. So, what's a year or two delay to design a project that's better in the long run for the whole community.(And pleeeze don't quote the Kitts report at me. That was spun from day one and is still being spun.)
As I pointed out in a previous column, getting nitrates out of water is easy: getting more water out of NO water is the hard part.
In addiiton to the "fool me once" caveat, I'd also add: Penny wise, pound foolish. What I see in this HURRY! HURRY! OR WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE! rush is pound foolish.
But ultimately, it's the community's choice. They're buying this puppy and they'll be paying for this puppy for a long, long, long time. The Sept. 27th vote is the first real opportunity for them to have any real say in the matter (and please don't bring up the "assessment" vote. That was a sly bit of business that should have tipped off the community that what we were getting was sly bits of business: Instead of preparing two priced out plans with the FULL cost listed up front for bonding, they parsed the project to pretend that the assessment cost (on the tax rolls) would be the smallest amount possible so they could then (heh-heh) call the lion's share a "service fee." Sorry, but that's chicanery -- smoke and mirrors intended to confuse, not clarify. And watching that stuff always makes me ask, "Ah, if you're playing games with that, what ELSE are you up to?"
A P.S. to Mr. Inlet:As an example of the bits of business the CSD has engaged in, I offer the decision to remove several millions in capital costs for dry pressing the sludge in favor of transporting wetter sludge. This was touted as "saving money." When I asked CSD Director Gordon Hensley, "Uh, won't the capital "savings" by doing that just be eaten up by increased costs transporting wetter, heavier (hence more expensive to truck) sludge?" And his reply was, "Yes, it will."
Perfect example of fudging things to make them look good when in reality they're truly pound foolish. The few million saved by that move, will end up costing the community millions more later down the road -- literally. But it looked good on paper: See, Ma, I saved a whole bunch of money! Feh.
I was watching a rerun of the most recent CSD meeting and it seemed pretty clear that the TREEcall crowd was convinced that there would be no fines for not moving forward by the Fall deadline. This is in direct opposition to what the RWQCB has told us. The TREEcall people kept saying that they would go forward with a STEP plan and put it out of town. The STEP plan is part of what the RWQCB has already rejected as unacceptable.
In the meeting, Jan DeLeo (I am sure I have misspelled her name ... apologies) got it right.
I can see that if we redefine the project and cancel the current one that there MIGHT be a savings from lower bids submitted for the next plan, but I rather doubt there would be much savings at all. In fact, with the increase in construction costs, the likely loss of the state low-interest loan and with the next batch of contractors being even more gunshy (due to the last batch having been stiffed), I suspect the next group's plan would cost more, perhaps as much as 30% more ... and that's if everything goes right in the next two years of planning.
Again, if someone can show that the LIKELY result of a recall would be reduced costs, I am all ears. Until then it seem more like the hopes and dreams of "better, faster, cheaper".
To continue to delay is financial foolishness.
Again, when Julie Tacker goes to the CC meeting and cheers when the CC halts progress then again when they CC requires the park to be added back into the plan ... raising our costs it seems like the sewer opposition has revealed their true motive ... to stall and delay at all costs. I resent that she was elected and now speaks against the park aspects of the plan when she was part of the group asking the park to be put back into the plan.
To continue to delay is financial foolishness.
If we don't procede with the current plan it is highly likely that the RWQCB will impose fines and the CSD will go broke immediately. The County has indicated they will take over the current project if that happens. How will this "move the sewer" or save money?
I am begging anyone in favor of a recall to explain why it will actually save money. I have not yet heard anything on this topic that makes any sense.
they don't talk about the financial or aspect of the recall, because they don't know.
Legal Question #1: Property owners have to pay for the current assesment. What happens to the assets of properties, and the potential legal issues could be nightmarish.
Legal Question #2: To fund more design, shouldn't they go back to the properties owners for another assesment. What property owner in their right mind would trust them and the electorate to not monkey wrench the whole process further.
Legal Question #3: Current construction costs are to be paid with the SRF loan, encumbered on the property owners. If the project is stopped, who is liable. The district has administrative responsibility for the project, and thus administrative liability is brought into the picture. The whole district may have to pay.
Legal Question #4: Grant money has been spent - who gets reimbursed, and what are the legalities.
Legal Question #5: 10 lawsuits, all failed, why does anyone trust the opponents judgement with legal issues.
Location Question #1: If a site is out-of-town, there are still churches and homes out-of-town. Why wouldn't we afford that area the same odor control that is in-town. Just because the surrounding area is less dense, shouldn't reduce the obligation and just put it out-of-sight and out-of-mind. Out-of-town sounds great, until the specifics start getting discussed.
Location #2: Is it really any better to put the sewer on agricultural land as opposed to environmentally senstitive land. Yes, the mitigation is more, but ag land has uses in the future that ESHA land may not have. SLO rejected the marketplace in part because of preserving ag land.
Financial Question #1: It is amazing to watch the double-speak. It's ok for them to have 'concerns' such as liquefaction. But when it comes to 'concerns' over losing the SRF subsidy, they just poo-poo it. The bottom line is they have never produced a reasonable spreadsheet showing a risk analysis of stopping the project. And the close-mindedness of stopping the project without proper evaluation is equivalent to what they accuse the present CSD of doing. And by-the-way, the risk of liquefaction on the Broderson site is simply a legacy report engineeing CYA. The risk is minimal, and it has mitigation.
Practical Question #1: Many of these project opponents are saying they can 'fast-track' a project. C'mon, this is a public works project involving the CSD, County, State, CC, property owners, and a litigious populace. The naivety of 'we can re-do it in 1, 2, 3 years' is appalling. Cal Trans doesn't move that fast, and they are basically saying 4 Cal Trans worker are going to fast-track a project?
Their most rational argument becomes this: You should throw out the old screw-ups, and put in some new screw-ups.
Basically, if I understand your premise, it's this: Better to stick with a bad project than move on with a better project?
Hard to know where to start with your laundry list. Interestingly, the questions you raise were and all are ones that you should have raised and gotten answers to regarding the Tri-W project.
Uh, liquifaction is "mitigatable?" How? By dragging the house and muck back up the hill?
As for the State Revolving Fund? It's called REVOLVING, not The One Shot Only Fund. When the new project's ready, take a number and get back on the revolving line. Same as we did with this project.
The ag land most probably in question isn't prime bottom land. It's grazing land, a lower grade, so no veggies will be lost. And with the prevailing winds, and lack of houses out of town, the amount of odor mitigations will simply be less. If there are no houses downwind . . . unlike the middle of town where the plant is surrounded by houses . . .
As for fast tracking, I find it interesting that the Dreamers -- the same people who delayed the County plan by demanding they could do it better, faster, cheaper, then, of course, couldn't because NOBODY could -- it was a dream -- are now the ones DEMANDING no delay, trying to make people think that if we delay we'll all die in the streets like dawgs, GAAA!!. Rubbish. Taking time to do do it right (remember that slogan) will pay off in long term savings on O&M alone.
Another odd thing, at one of the CSD's meetings, one wag stood up and said, "Sky high construction bids --bids well over standard prices -- is engineering's way of telling you you have a bad project."
And, Here's another question the Dreamer's can't seem to answer: If their project is so wonderful, if the community is so supportitive of having a ginormous sewer plant in themiddle of their town, then why are we having a recall? People HATE recalls. I carefully watched three SLO Coastal School Board Recalls, all of which failed to get enough certified signatures. Parents were furious with Ed Denton's rubber stamp board, they were angry what the rubber stamp board's lockstep 3 - 2 votes that were sending the district into financial ruin, yet they were terrified of signing the recall petitions. People HATE signing recall petitions. Yet over 20% of Los Osos residents signed recall petitions, often at a table in public at the farmer's market with their friends and neighbor's watching. That the recall effort resulted in getting enough certified signatures is absolutely astonishing to me. And tells me there's a whole lot of people really ticked off in this town. And please don't say they're all stupid and were duped. I don't think so. Something's gone seriously wrong with both the CSD and this project for a recall to even get on the ballot! That's one thing that nobody wants to talk about, because it forces people to ask and answer some serious questions both about this board and this project.
Oops, a P.S. to Mr. Inlet & Mr.Spectacle: A question: Why didn't you both demand that the CSD do what the CCC requested of them and of their own staff: a side by side comparison of Tri-W with a out of town site. The CCC didn't get the information they requested because, as Steve Monowitz said, "we ran out of time" (??? a gazillion dollar project, years in the making, and for want of a few weeks -- WEEKS? -- we could have had answers that could have saved years??) The only thing that appeard in the de novo report is a brief sentence that said that best guestimates put the plant out of town as costing either a million LESS or five-six million MORE.
Now, would you have liked to have had a side-by side complete comparison of both projects and their estimated capital costs AND O&M costs and then an opportunity to vote on which one you wanted to "buy?" On a $150 mil project, one mil less or 6 mil more is chump change either way. The question becomes, do I really want a sewer plant in the middle of my town or would I prefer it out of town?
You were never given that chance by the CSD. Why not? We were repeatedly told that all opitions were looked at. NOT TRUE, they weren't.
Question, if somebody lies to me about something as small as that, what else are they lying about?
Oh, and regarding the CCC requiring the Tot Lot & etc be put back. The CSD has falsely maintained the amusing pretense that having a Tot Lot and Dog Park next to an industrial sized sewer treatment plant is a "strongly held community value." Rubbish. The community voted down a piddly tax for a swimming pool. Clearly, they demonstrated no interest in "parks," especially not one next to a sewer plant. (Also, please note, the community was never given an opportunity to vote on that "strongly held community value" either. Tying the park to the sewer plant is the only glue that keeps that project in town. It's a hilariously absurd one and once again demonstrates to me the basic dishonesty of what this Board is trying to do. If the community were given the chance to vote on whether they wanted parks in the middle of down if it meant a higher priced sewer would have to be attached to it, what do you think the vote would be?
Appropos the sleight of hand this Board uses, please think about why the original bond issue was split up into the tiniest amount possible -- the $22 a month -- for capital, design costs, with the remainder -- the HUGE remainder, coming in, not as a property tax, but as a "service fee." This CSD never put the whole project, with it's realist, real costs, to a vote. More hugger-mugger. Are you surprised that so many people are figuring out they've been diddled from day one? I'm not.
Yeah, I think so too. You see the problem I keep having with this project?
A PSPS,Mr. Inlet stated that the RWQCB didn't approve the STEP/STEG plan. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the RWQCB can ONLY set and enforce nitrate discharge requirements, NOT the system used to obtain those numbers. There's apparently some misinformation out in the community that the RWQCB can tell us what kind of system to build & where & etc. Wrong. The resolution 83-13 was nitrate discharge numbers. That's all. If we vote in a system that can achieve those discharge numbers by having everyone in town pee in a can and the drive the can over to Fresno to be properly disposed of, the RWQCB has NO say over the matter.
Let me repeat, the RWQCB has NO SAY over what kind of system this town builds. They can only require that the nitrate numbers hit their mark.
Ann,
The reason we don't have the "fancy" sewage treatment plant (the ponding system) is that the RWQCB said they would not approve of it. They said that there was not a track record of such systems lowering nitrates.
It sounds as if they, indeed, have a say in the sort of system the CSD is allowed to build.
It's astonishing to you that 20% signed a recall petition?
It's not to me, 87% basically 'recalled the county' when a County plan was going to cost about $100 (they said about $100 at the time, so I figured it would be about $110-$130)
25% -30% of Los Osos simply is unable to deal with this or any project because they don't like or will be impacted by the cost. (yes, the current location doesn't help.) That was true in the 80s, 90s, and 00s. People have had 20 years to prepare for this and make the appropriate life decision. People who came here in the last 9 years should have know what was coming. Maybe not expecting $200/month, but they would have been naive to not to prepare for $130/month or more. At some point there is no excuse for compaining about the affordibility. It's an unfunded mandate, and it's been known for 20 years.
It's not about the location, because if it was, there would have been an uproar about putting ponds in the middle of town. It's about the cost, it's about avoiding or delaying the cost, and it always will be many no matter what they proclaim about their 'desire for a sewer'.
Publicworks may have it right ... I get the feeling sometimes that the "move the sewer" and "THREEcall" people are primarily older people who are simply hoping to delay their costs. Unfortunately that means that my longrange costs will increase dramatically.
Perhaps I am wrong. I hope so.
But if not, I must say that attemping to lower one's own bills by delaying them and putting them on the backs of others is selfishness beyond the pale.
shark inlet has the delay issue right,
although I disagree about generalizing the opposition as primarily older people - that's an unfair characterization. Yes, some are older people, but there are an equal number of older people who will be heavily impacted by the cost and support the project.
There are a number of other people that want to delay for whatever reason and can also find reasons to reject any project because it is the problem is not an easy one to fix.
Dear Mr. Inlet. Interesting regarding the RWQCB having a (de facto) say in funding. At the time, the CSD could have refused the SRF and financed the Ponds of Avalon on the open bond market (using the bazillions in property as colateral) Gary Karner estimated that such a "self bond" would have added about $5-6 a month to the bill. The CSD apparently never persued the matter. Aand the community was never given an option to vote on that matter either.
As for Mr. Works. The original Ponds of Avalon were sold as a $35 million project versus the County's $65 +++ million. I suspect, thanks to the great PR work of the Solutions Group, the community was willing to make a trade off: Middle of town for $35 million ponds. Until the Sept 27th election, they were never asked if they were willing to do the same trade off but this time for $150 million for a traditional sewage treatment plant. (We'll see what the answer to that will be)
Furthermore, I think there's a whole lot of people here who are seriously concerned that this project is both NOT faster and NOT cheaper but is also NOT better. Bob Semonson stated on the record that one the of the intentions of the original LOCAC/solutions group was to put the sewer in the middle of town in order to limit growth. i.e. surround it by development if if there's pressure to increase carrying capacity the could simply say, Sorry, no can do. However, everyone's overlooking the bill making its way through Sacramento that will put ALL septic tanks in "impaired watersheds" (that's us!) under the control of the RWQCB. How long before they make a finding and requires all the folks outside the prohibition zone hook up the the sewer or install $40,000 - $50,000 special individual treatment facilities? If our center-of-town-to-limit-growth sewer can't handle that capacity, what then? Add on the increasing requirments, both federal and state, for more stringent treatment capabilities, the question should be asked now, before it's too late, is this sewer BETTER? Or simply expedient?
There's a simple answer, when and if the state requires upgrades to properties east and outside the prohibition zone, then they can make a pocket plant outside of town, assuming Measure B would even let them. The property owners, not the community will be asked to assess themselves, which, if Measure B were in effect, would then also allow the entire district to veto a plant which they would need to comply with the law.
Hopefully, Measure B does not pass. Obviously, if east-side properties make a pocket plant, their smaller capacity will actually make ag exhange an easier item to implement. Cabrillo will probably be most feasible to either tie into the new plant (they will have to asses for their own collection system) or they can spend the $40/50k - but in any case, who cares, they haven't stepped up to the plate to form their assesment district to date. And THEY CAN AFFORD IT.
Suppose for the moment that you've convinced me that some really bad decisions were made way back before the dawn of time (or pre 2003).
Why should we vote out the people who've put together a plan that will satisfy the RWQCB when such a vote would most likely raise the total bill considerably? I am taking your silence on the issue of the cost of the recall as an admission that the costs will rise.
Dear Inlet, You shouldn't take my silence on anything as consent. I actually have a life and can only spend my time commenting to comments on this blog when I have time. My job is not to convince you of anything. That's your job. It's your choice come Sept 27th to make some choices. I am puzzled as to why you seem so uncertain of your choices that you keep asking ME to justify your vote. Sorry, not my job. If you genuinely feel that this project is absolutely great, you love the idea of having a sewer in the middle of your town, that you feel this is really, truly the best that we can do, then vote accordingly. Very simple.
Fair 'nuff.
I just figured that because you've got a blog and a point of view that you want to convince us of your point of view. I was raising natural questions and if you don't want to try to convince me that moving the sewer is a good idea, that is your option.
I was asking because I am honestly looking for a reason to vote for the recall. To me (so far) it makes little sense but I am trying to see what the best minds who oppose the CSD are thinking. I will vote against the recall unless someone convinces me that changing horses midstream is a good plan. Not your job ... but then why the blog?
You've argued elsewhere that you believe it would be a good idea to move the sewer and pay more to do so. Fine. Why not explain why? Not your job, I know, but not very convincing either.
Post a Comment