Once again, thrilling headlines in this morning's Tribune. The State Water Board apparently offered it's "new plan" to the Tribune BEFORE sending it along to the CSD. But then, why should that be surprising since it's clear from this "new plan" that the CSD and the voters of Los Osos are merely annoyances to what remains a Done Deal.
The "new plan" says, "If you want the low-cost state loan you have to build the sewer plant in the middle of town, set aside your Measure B vote, and form an assessment district and vote to fund the very plan and plant that you recently voted out. In short, if you want the nice money, you have to go back to square one and do what the recalled-3 previous Board locked you into, a deal you voted to get out of, but since you're of no account you'll do what the previous board decided.
And buried on the jump page, the most interesting little snippet of all: First up on the "new deal," is this: "The district must agree not to bring legal action against the state for witholding loan payments." i.e. the breach of contract that occurred when the CSD notified the state that they had apparently violated their own contract by abruptly cutting off the money.
Curious, no? Why would the State Water Board make that not only a priority but an absolute requirement?
A few days ago we read that if this loan defaults, it would make history by being the first one. Also very interesting because if anyone would bother to examine why this loan is even on the verge of default, they would have to ask and answer some peculiar questions, like Why did the State Water Board grant that loan in the first place on unsecured revenue, when its own statutes require it to have a secured, dedicated source BEFORE signing off on the loan. They didn't do that in this case. Why not? Also, why on earth would the State Water Board not only sign off on the loan but increase it some $40 million -- also unsecured -- on the say-so of three board members who were under threat of recall and against pleas by two other board members and members of the community to simply wait until AFTER the election.
Meantime, before anyone in the community panics (the intended result of this "deal," methinks), they need to get down to the CSD office and get a copy of the LOCSD's "Response and Request for Continuance to R3-2005-0137 ACL Complaint." Page 8 is particularly interesting. Aw, heck, it's all interesting.
Then, do plan on attending Thursday's CSD meeting. Maybe somebody there can answer one missing question: Why didn't the "new deal" include requiring the recalled-3 CSD Board members be reinstated?