Pages

Monday, January 16, 2006

And Now, Let's Hear From Our Other Guest . . .

The following is from Los Osos Technical Task Force member, Gail McPherson. The "dreamers" and the Tribune have recently been happily conflating the idea that disolving the CSD will be fast, easy, quick and poof! a few signatures here and there and the Sewer Plant will rise like Phoenix from the Tri-W site, the big, bad ogre Briggs will stop snarling and go away, all will be forgiven and like magic Los Osos' problems will disolve like morning mist.

In speaking with Paul Hood of LAFCO, that smiley-faced fairy tale is far, far from the truth. I do hope he'll come talk to the community at a CSD meeting.

What's interesting about some of the steps outlined below is the puzzling question: Why didn't the old CSD do those things, i.e. feasibility/affordability study, detailed comparison between systems, a vote on, say, the top two systems & sites (with accurate costs, no "hide the salami" deferreds), followed by a Prop 218-type vote once the full costs were known and so forth.? And, above all, why on earth did the Recalled-3 start pounding all that nice money into the ground before the election? Clearly, there were options. And instead of promoting more disinformation, why didn't/doesn't the Tribune ask those questions -- even now?

I know, the Tribune? Bwa-hahahahah.

If anyone wonders why we're in such a mess today, I would suggest taking a look at the steps NOW being taken and especially the order in which they're being taken. I think therein lies a few clues as to just what started this original train wreck. Nobody can say the old CSD wasn't warned. There were so many red lights and red flags going down that nobody could have missed the signals.
___________________ ******* ____________________

YES, the CSD HAS A PLAN....BEFORE THE ELECTION AND NOW. And the TRI W project is dead. GET OVER IT.

TO SAY NO PROJECT, NO LAND, AND NO PERMITS IS EXACTLY RIGHT!
It's true...The dreamers can claim that because it was legally impossible before the election TO BUY LAND, DESIGN A PROJECT OR GET PERMITS. But a project plan was in place and is moving. After all, to gain the ability to represent the majority of the community, TO BUY LAND, DESIGN A PROJECT, GET PERMITS, and deliver an acceptable wastewater project, was the very reason for the recall. And stopping the successful delivery is the only goal of the ousted directors.

The new CSD developed a project report and plan long before the election. Workshops and town hall meetings, reports and display boards allowed the community to hear about the options that would be studied, and had copies of the proposal and costs for the Nelson pond project. The plan is the road map for delivering a project, and the same plan that the CSD has been implementing since the election.

The CSD efforts for a new project hasn't stopped, even as Briggs delivered the complaint for fines, which were ready to go even before the election was certified. Work was in progress even as the ousted board & dreamers lobbied the State and pressured them to pull the funding, and even before the CSD had a chance meet and discuss the implementation plan for the new wastewater project and its steps and process schedule.

The State gave the old CSD until September 20, with additional 90 days to just award the contracts. Construction never needed to start, except for the malicious need to create huge risk of financial damage to the community. Plenty of time was there for learning the outcome of the election before committing taxpayer money or locking in contracts and spending loan funding. Yet the start of construction 20 days before the election tells the motives was to deny the voters a say. The ousted directors made a promise of fiscal destruction if the community voted against their leadership. Just as voters’ objections were crushed for the last 3 years and a vote denied. The CSD ousted-3 worked against the best interests of our community to spend us into submission, obligating the rate payers to $10-$20 mil in debt before the election was certified. That promise was in THEIR election flyers. Surely that would either win them the election or preserve their project!

But they underestimated the resolve of the community. A dose of fear with $11 mil in fines- Won't that dissolve up any hope of a new out of town project? But even with all the assaults, the new board won the election, and with the promise of determination, directors and staff is working on the wastewater project. The Tri-W project is dead. The community can stop arguing against it now and put our efforts on compliance with water quality. The fastest path to a project is to let the CSD do their job. TRI W -It is GONE....dead, and we should bury it. Tri W is no more possible now than was the County project was after the CSD election in 1999.

While the old board tries to kill a wastewater project, the handful of ardent dreamers calling themselves- ironically “Taxpayers Watch” lead by Gustafson and Hensley, try to delay the CSD's progress. They have filed 5 lawsuits, and hope their efforts to date would bankrupt the CSD.

The CSD has stepped up efforts to get the new project off the ground. Dreamers emails indicate a hope the CSD won't have the funds to design and build the project. But they are failing. So now Dreamers hope the threats by the RWQCB of individual fines against citizens will boost their efforts to dissolve the CSD. That is their only hope to stop the potential success of the new CSD, who if not stopped will most certainly deliver a wastewater project.

The CSD is focusing all their work on the project plan, and the process to deliver a wastewater project that addresses the needs of the community. Yes, the plan they still insist CSD doesn’t have. The one presented featuring ponds or the oxidation ditch technology in the negotiations with Blakeslee and the State. The PLAN that the State can fund and the water board must permit, because it DOES meet the regulatory requirements.

The Tri W loan was too high a risk for the State, and I believe they must be relieved to have terminated it. There is litigation, but a new loan application is being drafted, and the State will put the safeguards in place the old loan never had. And that is ok, because it protects us too. Now the "process" has to be followed to assure a 218 vote, and will assure we have a wastewater project that is legal and acceptable.

That means the CSD has to produce a facility report. That report was in an unofficial draft form before the election. The next step is to take the report and elements of the 2001 report through a feasibility study. Here the CSD must give other technology and processes a fair look. That means to put the PLAN up against the other alternatives, to assure we are selecting the best value. To do this we identify the possible land sites for projects, and put a cost table together. The State requires this for the loan, and it is needed for CEQA, and measure B. But could this be accomplished before the election? Of course not.
.
Why don't we have land?
I know I am likely repeating myself, but IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THE CSD TO BUY LAND, OPTION LAND, OR DESIGN A PROJECT WITHOUT THE PUBLIC PROCESS BEING FOLLOWED.
It was and still is a ridiculous demand by dreamers who know it is impossible, yet give misinformation that the supporters of the recall should have purchased land and designed a project before the election. The process for developing a project must follow the CEQA laws. The funding is actually dependent upon the CSD following a legal process within the loan application. (A process the old CSD fudged over and over and one that could not begin until after the election).

YES The CSD has a plan, and is well into motion because they have all the existing project reports and studies. The CSD will use them in developing the wastewater project. The CSD has elements of the 2001 facility report and the LOTTF alternative report that contains the pond plan that the State reviewed. The plan was the basis of the compromise for funding that was later rejected, but water board staff agreed we could save $25 mil.

The plan is a roadmap to for the CSD to follow the legal process to deliver a wastewater project. More will be presented to the public in the public board meeting and workshops, now that funding and fines are in the legal arenas.

So with the question of a plan answered, as well as land and permits, the defeated directors shift to “dissolving the CSD”. They accused the CSD of causing the debt, and say the new CSD promised no fines, and no loss of funding.
That is another one of their twisted lies.
The Save the Dream election documents actually promised
1. YOU WILL BE FINED!
2. YOU WILL LOSE THE LOAN!
3. YOU WIL BE DISOLVED AND THE COUNTY WLLL TAKE OVER!

Recall proponents said, while that might happen in a divided community, if we work together we can prevail. Either way, the new CSD would defend the community. Fear was not a good enough reason to accept bad government, the fatally flawed unsustainable and unaffordable project, or Dreamers corrosive politics.

The DREAMERS worked very hard to bring their promise to fruition both before and after the election. E-mails to regulatory agencies and other documentation reveals the dreamers group was begging for help to assure fines and loss of funding. In spite of the state agencies requirement for objectivity, obligation to work with the new legally elected CSD members, with the authority to exercise discretion, and with the responsibility to protect the taxpayers of the State, the dreamers tried to make good on their promises. (The apparent influence or electioneering with help from the state is particularly disturbing).

As the prior minority board and later the new CSD explained the possibility and the process of fines, and the funding requirements to the public, they were told they were naive. They educated the community, and described the wide range of options and discretion available in the water board policies, only to find they would never consider exercising that power.

The new CSD and this community always knew the fines and funding risks, It had been hammered on them for 7 years, and yet they made these commitments:
1. Work to deliver an affordable and properly sited wastewater project.
2. Work to avoid or mitigate fines to the best of their ability, and defend the community against abuses by the RWQCB.
3. To work to preserve the funding through project amendments possible before construction, and through negotiations for an amended project and compromise after:

a. Willingness for compromise and to provide the legal authority through a 218 vote and passing measure B project approval.
b. To apply and reapply for loans and grants, and provide necessary surety
c. Conduct affordability studies, and apply for loans, grants and funding instruments that assure a wastewater project is completed.
4. To defend and protect the community based on a code of conduct, and their oath of office.

The CSD is working to fulfill those promises, and others made in the 'first 100 days -contract with Los Osos', because THIS CSD HAS the legal authority to deliver a project. This CSD is the only agency that CAN LEGALLY deliver any wastewater project.

Not the county, the state, not the RWQCB, or bitter ex-directors or their supporters. The CSD holds the authority.

The TRI W project is dead. GET OVER IT. It is our hope that all interested parties will recognize this reality, and stop their divisive actions, and work with the CSD to deliver a legal and acceptable wastewater project.

Don't say Move Forward...say MOVE ON>>>>>!

Gail McPherson
Los Osos Technical Task Force
805-534-1913

36 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Without even reading the entire set of comments from Gail, I have to start by commenting that she doesn't seem interested in "working together" with the entire community.

Saying something like "we won, get over it" doesn't help bridge the gaps created by the recent election.

I would further suggest that whether dissolution is easy or hard, the actions of this board have motivated many to make that attempt. Frankly, there are many people who see this board as making choices so bad that they think the best thing for our community would be to lose local control.

Let me suggest an analogy for choice that many people think is what they are facing now. Suppose you need to buy a car and that you think you'll have to pay list price plus 30% no matter when you buy. Would you rather buy a car in two years, but it has to be a Honda and the dealer will get to choose which car off the lot he'll sell you ... or would you rather get to choose exactly the make and model you buy, but you need to wait seven years until you get to buy. If you will have to pay for cabfare, busfare or a rental car during the timeperiod between now and when you get your car, you will likely want to buy a car ASAP even if you don't get all the choices you may want. The delay here may considerably be more expensive, even if you buy a less expensive car than average a few years down the line.


I'll get back to reading the rest of what she says when I have the time ...

Anonymous said...

Hello Ms. McPherson and welcome! I appreciate your contribution to this blog but must advise that this is probably a "preaching to the choir" for most of us. However, there are also those who debate with Ann in an informed, thoughtful, and intelligent manner, and I think they, too, are willing to hear what you have to say. Regardless of the "side" people are on my thought is that in order to bring people on board with the new board you folks have got to SHOW the public the plan, costs, etc. Give people a project to think about, to chew on. Get the alternative out there. The recall supporters all know about it...they were following along the whole time. My guess is that many in the community have no idea what "project" you guys are talking about. Seriously! There are lots of folks who are willing to consider a plan that is feasible and affordable. If you have, let's see it! That's the only way to get past this quagmire. P.S. "Get over it" won't help us heal. It only makes people more angry and upset.

Anonymous said...

Yes I agree. The new board needs to show progress toward the new project. I know that they have had to spend time and $$$ on other stuff, but people really need to see something TANGIBLE. Put Rob Miller up there - people trust him! Show us "the plan!"

Mike Green said...

I think it might be most helpfull if the
CSD would start a running talley and publish it regularly.
Let us know what the options are with real estimates on cost.
You can never know exact costs but there are guidelines for obtaining a reasonable estimate.
(What the heck did happen with the last engineering estimate anyway, off by 50%???)
If the CSD leaves out personal water treatment facilitys, they will have in my mind overlooked a possible solution.
As for my esteemed friend Sharkey;
Would you trust any car salesman (I know, thats a hard to swallow thought) that quoted you a price that was 50% below what the real cost would be and you only find out AFTER the deal is gone through? AND It's not the first time he did it?
Would you fire him?
There is a real cost in politics my friend and the CSD3 was a big ticket item, right or wrong, they lost,
Ms. McPherson is right about it, get over it, it's muddy water under the bridge.
Rarely is it the politician that pays the price of their decisions.
In the case of Los Osos, they ALL will.
Even the CSD3, I believe, were trying to do thier best.
Whatever strange process brought them into ordering start of construction when they did, should be examined in the totality of their service.
In that light, it was not suprising at all that some kind of dissasociation with reality set in.
After all, we all fell for it once, right?
Well they got fired.
And as I've speculated before, Tri W is a dead parrot.
Instead of harping about the old CSD.
Lets keep the new ones toes to the fire.
It will do them good.
Thats if they listen.
I hope I'm not hoping too much.
History is not on my side

Shark Inlet said...

On the bids comming in about 50% over estimated ...

First, Would I trust the used car salesman who underestimated the actual cost? If, after a look around the "overpriced" car is still less expensive than all comparable cars within a five year drive ... hell yes! While I understand the mistrust for the CSD3, I don't understand why the same people who mistrust those politicians for "lying" about the costs would feel comfortable trusting the new group of politicians who would appear to have mis-estimated pretty much everything else they've considered so far.

Second, the reason the cost came in so high is supply and demand. The estimates were probably pretty close to accurate but becuase of the time schedule order, actions designed to limit the number of contractors bidding on the contracts and the general litigous nature of our community they came in much higher. You blame Stan, I blame Bud.

Do you honestly think that this new group will listen? I think that they've got enough supporters who are urging them to ignore the rest of the community that they'll continue to keep on with their plans.

Perhaps if they commissioned a poll they could find out what the community does actually want. It would certainly be less expensive than many of the items they've paid for recently (and committed to pay for) such as the affordability study. I would even think that a poll asking people what they do want and what they could afford would be far more worthwhile than a formal affordability study.

Mike Green said...

Ah, thank you Sharkey
The reasons (at least some) of the bids were so out of sight were due to " actions designed to limit the number of contractors bidding on the contracts and the general litigous nature of our community" (your quote)
What would you expect?
Those bidders were REAL companys
Not some rosy eyed CSD'ers
The reason the bids were so high is because (drum roll)
The pepole bidding on it saw right through it for the farce that it was!
They are REAL buisnessmen with NO reason to lie, they protected themselves just like I would want to.
P.S. don't EVER believe a used car salesman

Shark Inlet said...

If I'm not supposed to believe car salesmen, I suppose that I should warn you not to trust politicians who will lie to you just to get elected. Might I suggest that at least one of "better, faster, cheaper" and "we'll keep the SRF and we won't be fined" is at least hopeful optimism rather than a clear presentation of undisputable facts.

Yes, there was risk to contractors in the Los Osos jobs, but the risk to the contractors wasn't because the project was bad but because of those threatening to cancel the project if they were elected.

Mike Green said...

Dear Sharkey.
Have I led you to believe that I believe in either?
Perish the thought.
I trust politicians as much as I trust used car salesmen
The project was bad Because of EXACTLY what you said.
Do you think for a second that they were NOT listening to detractors?
That they didn't weigh those factors?
Those people were not born yesterday.
They are sucsessful for good reasons
and not getting burned is one.

Anonymous said...

The bottom line is that we lost the state loan, the CSD and prohibition property owners are to be fined and there is no acceptable solution at hand. This blog reminds me of the "If you can not Dazzle them with Brilliance, Baffle them with BullS...t" It is rather easy for those that do not bear any of the consequences to be so glib (non prohibition owners and renters, e.g. Mz Mcpherson and Mr. Barrow and Mr Sanford)

Churadogs said...

A question for everyone: According to documents posted on Ron Crawford's site, the "Solutions Group" knew, before the election, that the Ponds of Avalon wouldn't cost $35, but $78 million and likely wouldn't meet the nitrate figures. Yet the RWQCB gave the new board TWO YEARS to fuddle around trying to make it work.

If memory serves, the WMH plan was finally in the works around 2000. Which means the old CSD had about 4 years to design and start a massive public works project, even faced with numerous delays, lawsuits, & etc. Does anyone involved in this discussion think 4 years is a "reasonable" time line for such a project? Bruce Buel testified that he didn't think it was reasonable. But I'm curious to see how many of you think 4 years was "reasonable."

The next questions is, Why didn't Briggs file an ACL on the new 1998 CSD even before the CSD election was certified when it became apparent the new Board had every intention of ignoring his and the CC's pre-election reports and go ahead with the Ponds, even though that would result in delays of an UNKNOWN length? It's a puzzle why he did nothing for the two years of fuddling, yet even before the election on this CSD was certified, he's preparing an ACL draft and even though the Negotiated Negotiations that weren't Negotiations set a time line of two years (not some unknown time)to move the project, but he's still scribbling away on his ACL.

When the bids came in over 50% estimates, the RWQCB & SWB all said, Take your time to reconsider before signing the contracts. The old CSD didn't take their time. You can't claim they were under the gun and HAD to sign, because they weren't. Ditto for rushing to pound money into the ground. Why did they do that?

And why didn't the old CSD take the extra time allowed by these regulatory agencies to get a final price and then hold a Prop 218 vote to secure that State loan? They KNEW there was a lawsuit filed regarding the lack of same, so why didn't they step back and secure that loan before pounding money into the ground?

I know that one of the folks who comments on this blogsite apparently dislikes the fact that I ask questions, but until the ANSWERS to those questions arrive, nobody in town can know just what happened here. It reamins all speculation and assumptions and presumptions. True, if something's quacking and waddling and has pinfeathers and webed feet you can probably pretty safely presume it's a duck, but a lot of the questions I've been asking have answers.

But so far, the folks with the answers aren't talking. Which bets another question: Why not? uzzle.

Anonymous said...

OK, let's play devil's advocate and take a stab with some limited knowledge (and Ann can respond with more questions of course).

I don't think anyone thinks 4 years was sufficient, except with the possibility of the waterboards (it turns out the 4 years was the waterboards practical enforcement action against the old board).
But your question was, was it reasonable. I think if you take into account that the CSD inherited design work from the County, maybe one could argue that.

Why didn't he file a claim? I'm not sure he could. File against the County? They no longer had the project. File against the CSD. They were a new entity. Plus there was no coastal permit, for better or for worse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the ACL was written prior to the non-negotiations. If the non-negotiations had resulted in the CSD getting back to compliance, by the RWQCB's own statements, the fines would have been drastically reduced if not dismissed.

Good question, go back and review the tapes around the time of the bids. The question was one of accepting bids or re-bidding. Would re-bidding have reduced the project costs? That was the question at the time. They were still under the gun, it's not like the CSD was going to be given another year, just time to re-bid. We can go over all sorts of scenarios - It was re-bid, but construction never started and an election resulted decisions by whomever in the project stopping - then you're back to fines.

If I recall on the 218, I thought Seitz stated he asked the state if it was acceptible, and the state's response was yes. So it's clear, at least to me, that the state bears all responsibility IF the 218 issue succeeds.

Regarding the folks with the answers, didn't the hearing that just occurred provide a lot of those answers?

BTW, people on this blog do not dislike you asking questions, it's that questions that probe only one side of an issue come off as biased. Where were all your questions back in 1998? Or did you just not bother to ask them of the Solutions Group before the election? Did the following scenario occur in 1998 Ann?

1998: Ann to SG: how can you get away with sewering less than half the town?

SG response to Ann: Because we can, and it will be cheaper, better, faster.

Ann: OK, I'll vote for you.

Anonymous said...

You folks should do a little more research before you draw you conclusions. The engineer estimate had several flaw, such as missing esculation, not having enough $ for asphalt $5mil right there! As far as the old board they held up signing the contracts till the last day before the bidders were available to with draw their bids and by that time fuel had risen $.50/gal. I would say wake up and smell the coffe but it looks like you folks like to wake up and smell the SEWER!

Churadogs said...

Publicworks said the Solutions Group "inherited design work" from the county plan. They supposedly had a ready-to-plan just waiting for a CC permit. The community and the Solutions group lobbied the CC and got them to hold the permit until the formation of the CSD. The board members runnon as a slate, the Solutions Group slate, promised to dump the ready-to-roll county plan. But Briggs didn't write up an ACL in preparation of them stopping the project, a project that was supposedly ready. Also, the Solutions Group dumped all the design work to the tune of about $5 which the county "ate." Yet Briggs gave the new CSD years to fuddle around. That's a puzzle to me. Public works said they were a new entitiy. So was the newly elected recent CSD, a new entity with a new plan, just like the Solutions Group.

I still don't know why the old CSD started pounding money into the ground. They had to time wait until the election and if the community decided to chage course, the ACL would have been filed, but millions wouldn't have been lost into the ground. That move on the part of the old board remains a puzzle. They had room to maneuver and time to manuever, but chose, deliberately, to start pounding. Why?

As for the ACL hearing providing answers, did I miss something? I didn't see Stan or Gordon or Richard at the meeting, under oath. Those are the guys who have the answers, and the community hasn't heard a peep out of them. Except for filing lawsuits.

And here's another question that still remains unanswered: When the Ponds of Avalon failed, the ONLY reason left to keep the in-town site disappeared. (central location for the step/steg piping) Yet the CSD clung, to the end, so ferociously to that site. So ferociously, in fact, they were willing to divide and destroy the community, pound gazillions into the ground to put the community into unnecessary debt, all in an effort to cling to that site. Why?

And don't say, because it was "cheaper." Even the CC report ball-parked either $1 mil cheaper or $5-6 mil more expensive with an out of town site and on a $150 mil project (even that price is lo-balled because of the deferreds and hidden O&M costs) even 5-6 mil is chump change and certainly was well within a financial perameter that would make having the voters decide a sensible option.

But that was adamantly refused, time and again. Why? The only time the community was asked about how strongly they felt about "parks" they turned down a miniscule property tax to fund a pool and a tiny park & rec program. So why would they be adamant about wanting to pay more to keep a sewer in the middle of their town so they could have a dog park? I makes absolutely no sense to me.

Shark Inlet said...

Why cling to TriW after the ponding system evaporated?

Possibly because to start all over with a new location would delay the project more than continuing with the same site. Dunno, exactly, but that reason alone makes good sense. Inflation and fines are pretty good reasons to take quick and "decisive" actions that move us toward a solution.

S

Anonymous said...

You're wearing me out, Ann.

Re-take your civics class. The CSD in 2005 is not a new entity. It's the same CSD it was in 1998.

The CSD got fined because of a new law the CSD passed that a) resulted in stopping progress towards compliance, b) makes a barrier to comply, and c) is legally dubious.

Why would the CSD3 speak at the ACL? They didn't stop the project. They gave various explanations when they were directors. They don't represent the CSD so there was no reason for them to speak. Besides, judging from the new President's statements @ the ACL, it was hard for me to tell if she was representing the CSD.

Were you listening to the ACL hearing? A lot of questions should have been answered for you. I think it's pretty obvious they got behind the 8-ball with the waterboard, and so sticking with the site was part and parcel of making sure they didn't get fined. We can 2nd guess all we want - it doesn't change that moving the project has always been 'potentially' cheaper, but not necessarily so.

The only sure thing about cost is for a project that gets bid.

Look, I could care less about the Solutions Group or the recall bunch. But keep up the questions, maybe someday you'll even get a project.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me, but did you and others like you "Move on" when you weren't getting -your- way with the sewer?

No, you did not. You pulled every dirty trick in the book for 30 years, until you got us all the fine mess we're in now.

No I'm sorry. I will NOT move on. You've ruined people's lives with this. You and those who think like you should bear the responsibility for that, forever.

Anonymous said...

Uh -oh. Here we go with 30 years again! Let's see...I'm 36 years old so that means when I was six I was delaying the sewer! Cool!

Churadogs said...

To Public works, in 1989 the county was under a building moritorium already. When the CSD was formed and took on the duties of wastewater, it fell under the same prohibitions as the county. They weren't given a clean slate. Plus, the solutions group had already submitted their plans and those plans were strongly discouraged by the RWQCB and CC staff, so, while the voters didn't know the projected real price and didn't know the plans had already been, even as they were voting, pooh-pooed aby the very agencies that would later sink the project. If the RWQCB had wanted to file an ACL I beleive they would have had adequate legal ground to stand on.

And Anonymous (I, II, III?) it's not clear who the "you" refers to. You, who?

For .,

Anonymous said...

You said it yourself, the CSD was given a clean slate. The CSD didn't change in 2005, only the board. CSDs and US Presidents unfortunately both inherit actions of their predecessors.

I think you oversimplify the waterboards response in 1998. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Coastal board (not staff) either revoked or did not approve a permit, and their actions allowed the CSD time to form.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Gail for your continuing good works for our community. If you say Tri W is dead, I'll believe it. I'd be happier though if we planted a stake through its heart, cut its head off & stuffed it with garlic. This project is like Dracula, I fear that this unholy beast could rise again. Still are some "Renfields" around, as demostrated by their ceaseless gibbering on this blog. Until they see that their Master is truly gone, they won't move on, they'll just keep offering up our necks to supplicate its needs.
By the way, a gentleman who complimented you on the day after we'd won the recall put it concisely:
"Dollar for Dollar spent, we won by a landslide".
Keep up the fight.

Churadogs said...

Publicworks, my point is, the project, the prohibitions, the moritorium, the county plan for a sewer plant to be located over on Pismo, none of that changed when the CSD was formed. Yet they were given a clean slate and allowed to start back to ground zero with a NEW plan entirely, with NO time limit set,no ACL filed, even though they were out of compliance starting at day one. Now the reason the RWQCB held it's fines were explained by citing "events beyond the control of the CSD," in this case the CC's holding of the permit until the CSD could form and come back with the Ponds of Avalon plan. "Events beyond the control of the CSD." Color me stupid, but that sounds a lot like Measure B. Yet even before the election was certified (did measure B pass? did it not pass?) Roger was drafting the ACL. That is a puzzle to me. Why THIS board, especially since the original CSD's plan had already been vetted by Rogert and given a failing grade. That's very strange to me.

Shark Inlet said...

Come off it Ann.

Now you are complaining that Roger reads the newspaper and decides to start working "early" on a task that he is highly likely to have to accomplish. If he had started work on the ACL the day after the election was certified, nothing would be any different in the ACL and the LOCSD would not have made any different choices at all. A non-issue.

Why this board and not the previous board? Because this board chose to stop a project that would have solved the problem and the other board did not. The other board had great support from the CCC and water boards and some would even say from the County when they were starting out. There was the notion that local government is a good thing and that Los Osos should and could solve their own problems.

I think that people who are actually trying to do the right thing and are making progress should be cut some slack from time to time. This board was warned before they took action that stopping the approved and funded project would result in "bad things". Why would they be warned? So that no one would vote in ignorance. The fact that people campaigned for the recall and for Measure B saying that the state water boards wouldn't go thru with what they said they would do is unfortunate. It was misleading. That lie probably swayed the election results.

Anonymous said...

Ann, it's nice to try to simplify it like you've done. The fact is 1) the CSD was a different agency (not true now), 2) The CC did not permit, 3) and this is important, there were two definitive plans that the waterboards and CC could compare (something that's not true today). Now we all know of the defiencies in the old plan.

Is your conclusion that if we were fined back then, we would have gone rushing back to the County plan, which also wasn't perfect? If so, how come if we're fined now, we're not rushing back to the Tri-W plan?

Why is it such a puzzle he was drafting the ACL? Wouldn't you want the new board to know sooner, rather than later, the consequences? What if he had sent the complaint on October 30, if contracts were terminated. Can you imagine the complaints 'well, why didn't you tell us sooner, we never would have stopped the thing'. Jeez.

Churadogs said...

Dear Publicworks: A question: If, prior to the vote to form the CSD, you had a report in hand from both the CC & and RWQCB staffs that said they were convinced the Ponds of Avalon won't work wouldn't support the technology, AND that the best guestimate of cost is $78 million NOT $35 million and that the County Plan was approvable right now and was best guestimated at $85 mil and If the voters went with the Ponds of Avalon Briggs would start working on an ACL even before the election was certified, since moving to dump a ready-to-roll plan in favor of one that would take "years" to complete was stopping forward movement on solving the discharge problem, how many people would have voted for the CSD, since it was linked at the hip to the "cheaper" Ponds?

My guess is they would have turned the CSD down and gone with the county plan. But they weren't told $78 mil, they were told $35 and they weren't told Briggs was busy preparing his ACL either.

Instead, Briggs testified that at the time, he wanted to "help" the CSD, and, at the ACL hearing, said nothing of the previous RWQC report stating the Ponds wouldn't work and the RWQCB wasn't supportive of tht project. Not a peep about that report. Which I found interesting.

Anonymous said...

Question to Ann,

Why did you believe it would actually only cost $35 million? Why didn't you question that at the time? Why do you continue to badger the Solutions Group for misleading, and not the current board/staff? Why did you vote for the Solutions Group if you did? Are you telling all your readers that you are gullible, and your judgement is questionable?

Your question about the RWQCB has been answered - it's called the Coastal Commission Board interference.

You really like to simplify things and then frame questions around your simplifications. It really is quite clever.

Anonymous said...

Why is your question relevant? Really? Are you saying people in this town were too stupid (after 10 years) to understand the prohibition zone (now about 20 years)? Go ahead and answer your own question, because it's a question with an underlying premise. Any idea what the premise is?

Anonymous said...

She's badgering the "Solutions Group" because THEY GOT US INTO THIS MESS.

Churadogs said...

My question was: If this community had known that the best guestimate of the Ponds of Avalon would be $78 million (vs the county's guestimate of $85) and that the RWQCB and the CC staff had already "pre-disapproved" the plan, would the community have voted for the CSD which promised a THIRTY FIVE MILLION project? (The numbers were questioned at the time in various public meetings and Gary Karner was ADAMANT his numbers were correct.)

Anonymous said...

Karner's numbers were based on partial sewering, just like a Septic management district is.

So long as the prohibition zone exists, that plan or a septic management plan would not then or will not now obtain regulatory approval, period.

So why wasn't the public adament in it's response that violating the discharge prohibition could even remotely be expected to solve the problem.

So you are saying when someone states something adamently, you or they believe it. Like, when someone says 'the plant will have major spills', over and over and over again, and never produces any supporting documentation??

Thanks for the heads up, from now on, I'll always try to be adament.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann, you ask a very reasonable question about whether we would have approved of the CSD at all had we known in advance that their plan would not fly and that the costs would be comparable to the County's plan.

I suspect that some would have voted for the CSD because they like the idea of local control. Others would have voted no just because of the delay.

You are good to suggest that had the campaign included an honest and full accounting of various facts it might have resulted in a different outcome. Fast forward some 7 years. The same thing just happend in the most recent election. The funny thing here is that you are criticizing the solutions group and their board for lying to us when they told us it would be less expensive than they knew (or should have known) it would actually cost. During the recent campaign we were repeatedly told the new board would save us money. Any reasonable accounting of likely costs shows this is not true. A thorough reporter who is not hung up on the defficiencies of the previous board could have quickly verified this and given the info to the public. No one did. You, as a columnist even went so far as to promote the recall. Here's why I find it funny. You are complaining about the high costs of the previous board but you refuse to consider the high costs of the new board.

You can't have it both ways and be honest with yourself and your readers.

Anonymous said...

inlet & works. The dReamer tag team. Oh Ann, where would you be without their ever so fair and balanced oversight?

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

Don't you mean "Fair and Balanced (TM)"? I thought that Fox had registered that phrase as a trademark.

I guess that you don't think it is acceptable to comment on commentators or appropriate to question those who promote one side in political discussions.

Just so that I don't get on your bad side, who do you want me to support in Sacramento and Washington ... I don't want to raise questions that would make you ... gasp ... think about the issues.

Anonymous said...

Actually Al Franken beat the snot out of Fox in court on that one. I'm so impressed that you recognise those you emulate, the propagandists at Fox. Your punditry stylings, your sophistry,& overall, your continous condescension fit right in with those whose agendas you support.
Q: Why don't you start your own blog, if your so sure of the legitmacy of your stance?
A: Because you think it is more important to try and dilute the good efforts of others. What I find to be a really offensive aspect of your yammerings is how you couldn't recognise good journalism even if it hauled off and knocked you from your high horse. Your disingenuity betrays for the true believer that you are. For you, "issues" are only grist for the anti CSD propaganda mill, and then only as you define them. As long as you & works & expectorater & "laughing at you" & the ilk continue your sniping campaign against these dedicated community minded folk, I'll be here counter sniping. As long as I am welcomed by them, not you.

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

My you seem sure of yourself. You presume I am a conservative or a Republican.

I would suggest that it is you who doesn't want open and honest discussion. You seem to spend more time complaining about my thoughts and beliefs than adding your own reasoned opinion to our discussion here. That sounds pretty much like Fox "News" to me.

Why not start my own blog? Don't have the time to write and edit. Besides, Ann is such a good writer.

I find it funny that you are pretty much defining "dedicated community minded" people to be those who agree with you and the current board. That definition is way out of line because it presumes that a person cannot be working toward the benefit of Los Osos unless they agree with the current board. Did you trot that same line out five months ago and insist that "community minded" people support the former board?

As to your other comments, they don't deserve a reply.

Again, if you are interseted in discussion issues here, please write back. Just let me know that you are interested by adding a comment here that discusses the issues rather than a simple bad-mouthing of my name, opinions and character.

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

I probably wrote the last two posts here too quickly. I aplogize if I've offended you.

As you've suggested, perhaps I shouldn't bother adding any comments here. If Ann agrees with you, I'll simply leave. If I am disrupting her goals with this blog, I'll get out of the way.

If she requests this I just might start up my own blog on this issue.

Honestly I would rather not, but I'll leave this up to Ann.

Churadogs said...

To Inlet, MY rules for keeping this "Add A Comment" section to the blog are simple: Snarkey is o.k. Nasty and snotty and abusive and sophomoric and stupid is not. You guys have come close on occasion to getting snotty with each other and me, but usually pull back. The point of this entire NewsMission blogsite, started, by the way, by "News Stand Gred," was to create a group of local writers, commentators, etc. let them blather on as they will, then give a forum for the readers/public to comment on whatever they're blathering on about. And discuss issues of importance to the community, a sort of marketplace of ideas on the Central Coast. So long as folks mind their manners, I'm happy to keep the "comment" section open and, so far, nobody's gone off the deep end to spoil it for everyone, and I hope nobody does.