Pages

Friday, February 10, 2006

Secret Society.

The Tribune, bless them, filed a California Public Records Act after the Regional Water Quality Control Board refused to make public the 45 property owners getting nailed with this latest folly – RANDOM homes RANDOMLY selected and required to pump their septic tanks six times a year.

What used to be known as The Los Osos Fifty have been reduced to The Los Osos Forty Five because apparently, in their hast to get this ill-thought-out, mad scheme on the road, the RWQCB sent five RANDOM Cease & Desist Orders DEMANDING that they pump their septic tanks six times a year to some folks living in Bayridge Estates, a development that has no individual septics to pump. Uh, oops.

And since the notices weren’t even sent out Return Receipt Requested or Certified Mail, and nobody seems to know whether the addresses hit were simply RANDOMLY picked street address or RANDOMLY selected from property tax rolls and so hopefully the notices might stand a chance to get to the owners of the property, not merely folks renting since they might get the packet and shrug and toss it in the garbage, thereby leaving the property owner in the dark until the mighty forces of General Roger Briggs, CEO and Point Man for the RWQCB, descended with the sheriff on the hapless owner during foreclosure proceedings arising out of the fact that the CDO paperwork was mis-delivered and the poor owner remained clueless that he was on the target list until it was too late, the Tribune probably thought, What the heck, let’s find out who’s on the list.

To which the RWQCB first dragged their feet to the legally allowed deadline then, the Tribune reports, apparently claimed that “they would consider releasing only information that the targeted homeowners wouldn’t object to being made public,” and quoteed from a letter by our CEO Roger Briggs: “The water board will not provide copies of the requested information where an individual’s privacy or safety interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

Privacy? The RWQCB is suddenly concerned about, uh , an individual’s privacy? This is certainly interesting in light of the January 27th Target Letter, signed by Roger Briggs, that includes, among other things, that a landlord of a Target Property MUST submit a report that includes: “name(s) of all current tenant(s) over the age of 18; date the tenancy commenced; whether the lease is written or oral;’ the lease term (e.g. month-to-month, annual, etc.)” and so forth, all without a mention that perhaps SOMEBODY had better check as to whether or not a landlord has the legal right to give that information to the RWQCB, information that MUST become part of a PUBLIC record with the onset of the PUBLIC Cease & Desist Hearings on March 23, all without the tenants’ knowledge and permission?

Privacy? Once the March 23 CDO hearing begins, the word “privacy” will be a thing of the past.

And, “safety?” How does knowing the names or street addresses of people who got targeted involve “safety?” Does the RWQCB think citizens of this fair burg will go toilet paper the homes of The Los Osos Forty Five? If I know my Beloved Bangladesh By The Bay, everyone in town will bring them aspirins and chocolate cakes and sympathy cards!

And if this is all so secret, what will happen to The Los Osos Forty Five come March 23rd? Will they have to sneak into the hearings wearing paper bags over their heads?

Feh! Listen closely. That gurgling sound you hear? I think it’s the credibility of the Regional Water Quality Control Board going down the drain.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Nice work, Ann. And for those of you who are interested in Ron's opinion (not!)please visit the Sewerwatch sight ASAP. Things are gonna happen...just wait...:)

Shark Inlet said...

Good of Ron to bring up the 2001 poll:

... in that study it says:

What is the most important issue that you would like to see local governments in the Los Osos area do something about?
From a list of answers, respondents answered:
Open space/park protections -- 1%
Wastewater treatment/septic tanks -- 64%

Another question from that same study asks:
No matter which way you might be leaning on the wastewater treatment vote, of the statements I just read which one stands out as the best reason why someone should vote FOR this measure?
From a list of answers, respondents answered:
Will create park -- 7%


Unfortunately Ron had earlier told us that the poll indicated there was "zero support" for the TriW sewer/park plan.

Ron should take an introductory statistics class sometime.

If he were to do so, he would realize that the questions on the poll do not allow us to measure support for the park at TriW. Simply put, if some 64% think that a WWTF is the most important thing the LOCSD could do is doesn't mean that there isn't support for the park. In fact, there might be 100% support for a park at TriW. Similarly, if only 7% said that they think the best reason for the assessment is that it will create a park doesn't mean that there isn't 100% support for the park.

Face it, Ron. This community cares deeply about getting the wastewater problem solved. There may be additional communtiy support for a park. Your claim that this poll shows otherwise is false. The poll reports you've presented here show no such thing.

So, let's review. Ron claims that there is zero support for a park at TriW. Ron cites a poll which, after a careful read, shows no such thing.

I'm not going to claim here that there is (or even was) 100% (or even 50%) support for the park. I am going to claim that Ron has no evidence for his claim. Perhaps he'll be more careful in the future.

Ron said...

"... almost zero support," is what I said, Shark.

It's my opinion that Shark needs to be more careful.

Ann...

"Feh! Listen closely. That gurgling sound you hear? I think it’s the credibility of the Regional Water Quality Control Board going down the drain."

"Listen closely?"

Luv ya!

Anonymous said...

The Regional Water Board is a bunch of feckless thugs...

The one and only reason for not wanting to release the names of the Los Osos Forty-Five is to prevent the organization of the Los Osos Forty-Five.

I am sure most of that group would band together and fight the RWQCB and share the expenses to do so.

Thankfully a new group called SAFE has formed and is attempting to reach all forty-five homeowners in order to help them... despite the attempts by the RWQCB to prevent that.

Here's wishing you all luck and continued courage in your fight.

Shark Inlet said...

Whether you want to slap an "almost" in front of "zero support" or not, there is no information in the poll results you cite that would ... at all ... suggest the support for the park is low.

Think about it this way. Suppose you ask a bunch of church-going folks the question "What is the most important thing in life?" and give them the options "loving God", "loving your family" and "helping others". If you find that only 5% say "loving your family" it wouldn't mean that a minority of church-going folks feel that loving their family is important.

The question was one of relative importance. In Los Osos, solving the sewage problem is far more important than getting a park for most people. Even if 95% of people thought the park at TriW was a great idea, it would surprise me to get more than 10% on either of the questions you stated above.

So ... who should be more careful? The one who inadvertently leaves off an "almost" in a quote or the one who misreads poll results and turns them into a major part of his campaign to get the former LOCSD boardmembers and staff investigated for various sorts of criminal actions.

Maybe I will go down to the office to get a copy of the poll results. Sounds like something that one would want to read carefully.

Churadogs said...

Dear Inlet, I think what's gone missing is the fact that "centrally located amenities" was an extremely heavily weighted criteria when looking at siting.It's one that keeps repeately coming up in the project report and CC testimony. In the project report, the "out of town" sites were REJECTED because they didn't allow for "centrally located amenities." Nowhere in the project report does it say, Site X was rejected becasue it COST LESS. As a matter of fact, if yuo took the heavily weighted "centrally located aminities" requirement OUT of the project report, what site would have turned up at the top of the list for cost and non ESHA land?

When you weight a project, you've pre-selected your results. If your project is heavily weighted for COST & Being ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERED, then you'll get X result. If you weight your project for "Centrally Located Amenities," then you'll get Y result.

What the polls show is that the weighting the old CSD gave to "centrally Located Amenities" does not jibe with "cost" or "solving wastewater" & etc.

It's like I make up a monthly budget. I understand that Mortgage really needs to be at the top of the list, but I reallly, reeeeaaaly want a new car, so I reshuffle my bills so that everything having to do with "car" comes out on top and everything having to do with "mortgage" gets shuffled to the bottom of the pile.

Guess where the mortgage bill ends up?

Shark Inlet said...

I guess you are saying that there was another site which was probably superior in every way except for the park...

Okay, which site?

Churadogs said...

To my knowledge, only one so-called "Andre site" was vaguely identified as the environmentally superior site and guestimated as being a million cheaper or 5-6 million higher, but it was also dismissed as (1) having PG&E restrictions on it.(2) being too far away for the park amenities & etc. To my knowledge, no other sites were looked at and the Coastal Commisison's request for a detailed look never happened. Again, why not? The present CSD claims to know of 5-7-8 sites "east of town" that they will be looking at. Since the present CSD doesn't have the "strongly held community values park" restriction, it will be interesting to see what comes up during the evaluation study.

Shark Inlet said...

I appear to have overlooked something important for nearly half a week. Apologies for not getting back to you earlier.

It would really be nice if the current board were not to sell off TriW and to include TriW in any comparrison. Unless they do this there will always be a debate about whether TriW would be better than "site x" or not. This board is going to undermine their own choice by not allowing a head-to-head site comparrison.

Here's the important thing you said. To your knowledge, of the sites the CSD was considering back in 2000, there were no sites that were deemed superior to TriW in every way. Furthermore, the only site which was deemed superior in any way was both more expensive and unavailable in a practical sense. In other words, according to your memory, TriW was the best choice even if the park issue was deemed unimportant.

Sure, there were other sites even further away, but those would be even more expensive.

Along those lines, I have no idea why "Andre II" (why do I keep thinking of Rick Moranis singing "Suddenly Seymore"?) wasn't included in the earlier comparison. On the other hand, even without the easements, it would still be likely more expensive than TriW.

In other words, you've just told us that it wasn't the park that drove the site selection, it was the cost.