Pages

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Oops, my bad, my bad

Doggone, I forgot to ask an important question.

On page 7 of the LOCSD's Response and Request for Continuance to R3-2005-0137 ACL Complaint, the CSD attorney cites three code sections -- 33 USC section 1383 (d) (1) (c); 40CFR section 35.3120(a)(1)(4) and California Water Code section 13480(b)(1)(c) and states in the next paragraph, "The LOCSD asks the CCR board to take official notice of the above three provisions. The SWRCB's reference to those provisions constitutes an admission on its part that (1) it apparently agreed to fund the SRF Loan without first considering what impact the approval of Measure B would have on the SWRCB's obligation to comply with those code provisions; and (2) that Measure B must, at this time, be accorded a presumption of validity."

Then in Wednesday's Tribune, you will note that a key provision in this "new deal"is that the community must NOW vote to pass a Prop 218-type assessmen district which will ensure aNEW dedicated revenue source, i.e. property taxes instead of the old "fee for service."

Which, of course, begs a few questions:

*Was the original State Revolving Fund loan improperly or illegally secured in the first place?

*Did it violate the various codes cited?

*Is that original loan illegal?

*If it isn't, why is the State NOW demanding a do-over so it can be done right, this time?

* And are they maybe hoping nobody will notice? Especially if the threats are scary enough?

Well, all I can say is this: The CSD better resolve the question of whether the original loan was properly done. Otherwise, done-deal or not, no matter what kind of blackmail, threats, carrots, or booby-prizes the State dangles our way, somebody's gonna sue just to find out. Thereby delaying this project even further.

Nope, time to go back to the start of this loan and have a judge clear up, once and for all, whether the loan itself was legal and proper. And if it was and is, then there's no need for any mail-in election to form a taxing district.

5 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Why a 218 vote now? The CSD has pretty much lost the trust of the SWRCB. The 218 vote is necessary to guarantee the loan. Back when it seemed like we would "do the right thing" the state probably should have required this, just to be sure, but they chose not to bother.

The original loan is not illegal. It was just unwise.

Assumming the CSD now does the right thing and continues at TriW, I wonder how I should vote on the 218 obligation. This CSD has not convinced me that they are trustworthy. I am afraid that if they do something stupid (again), my own home will be on the line.

Today I am feeling sort of pissed off at my neighbors who were so easily convinced by the lie that we could move the plant out of town and it wouldn't cost us a penny more. They should have to pay more but not me.

NewsstandGreg said...

Ann,

I think it's working ok. Keep up the good work, it looks like the process is never ending! -G

Shark Inlet said...

So Ann and others,

Do you think that the best strategy (now that the state has told us to simply comply with the loan agreement or find our own financing) is to sue them?

It would seem reasonable if we had a case to begin with, but to sue them because they didn't make us do a 218 vote which (you claim) we likely wouldn't have approved of in the first place isn't a very compelling argument. If anything I suspect a judge would say "okay, you are claiming you wouldn't have agreed to the terms you are now insisting on having included ... you lose ... case closed." Even if the judge were to give a victory to the CSD in such a lawsuit it would seem that we'll perhaps "win" the ability to not pay the state back for some $6M they've already given us plus maybe even some additional money to pay off contractors.

It seems like we would be essentially saying "yes, we choose to pay some $70M more in interest by borrowing at a substantially higher interest rate to save maybe as much as $20M now."

Would any of you be willing to give me $70 next month for $20 now? How about $700 for a $200 loan? How about $7000 in a year for $2000 today?

The low interest rate of the SRF is what is making this horribly expensive project even somewhat affordable. If you all want to "move the sewer no matter how much it costs" please admit it openly. Please tell us how much more you would be willing to pay on a monthly basis to have the plant out of town. Please tell us how many people being forced to move out of Los Osos would be acceptable to you.

If you can't do this or are unwilling to do this you are unable or unwilling to consider the hard choices before our community. You will have given up all the moral authority the "move the sewer" people have.

Again, if anyone can explain how we can pull off an out of town plant for anything close to the same monthly cost without the SRF, please speak up. If no one can do this (and no one has even tried at all for the last month), please just admit it will cost a lot more just like the Trib spelled out.

Anonymous One said...

Shark inlet.

You are the only one on these two blogs (Ann & Ron) that writes clearly and without bias. I appreciate the effort, the logic, and the direction you offer. Unfortunately, this board and their followers are intent on NO sewer. This has been the objective for decades, as I've mentioned previously on earlier blogs. Now with the cost so great, they will argue that the community can not pay for construction nor fines, so litigate us to death. The anti government people must be very pleased!

Churadogs said...

Dear Anon 1, I have to disagree. This community wants a sewer. What they didn't want was a sewer plant in the middle of town and a sewer plant anywhere that costs more than the one in town. They also wanted the opportunity to vote on which plan they were being asked to buy. Measure B offered them that opportunity.

There are a few folks in town who remain convinced that we don't need a sewer. And there are folks in town who look at the recent well-water-nitrate averages for all wells in town and see that the average is 10.4 nitrates and that the State allows 10.0 and ask, "Uh, what's the emergency, I thought we were all gonna die in the streets like dawgs? Point 4???" And find out the that previous CSD spun and maniuplated Dr. Kitts DNA study so he had to write and tell everyone to stop doing that & etc. Because of all the lies and manipulation, it's no wonder the paranoia level is high.