Pages

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, for March 1, 06, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA

Medea in Sewerville

Ah, Euripedes knew a great story when he saw one: Medea marries Jason, he of the Golden Fleece, and does unspeakable things in order to further their ambitions. When Jason dumps her for another woman, in an act so fierce and appalling that it has come down to us through the ages as the epitome of savage, blind revenge, she murders their children. That’ll show him!

This tale came to mind when I read that Taxpayers’ Watch is now attempting to have the CSD dissolved. In a world of ironies, here is a supreme one: The group that wants the CSD dissolved includes many of the “Save The Dreamers” who wanted a sewer plant in the middle of their town, and they in turn are made up of many of the very people who were responsible for giving birth to the CSD in the first place in order to get the Faster! Better! Cheaper! Solutions Group’s $35 million sewer ponds in the middle of their town.

O.K., so it turned out the Solutions Group (but not the voters) knew before the CSD formation election the price wouldn’t be $35 million, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board had already indicated they wouldn’t approve the project, a birth is a birth. And now that the birth mothers have determined it’s time for a death, we have Medea in Sewerville!

And not just the Greeks are at work here. In this attempt at dissolution, do I smell the whiff of a tale of two cities? The Ancien Regime versus the Denizen of Dogpatch?

All communities are run by a cadre of Dauphins, dedicated citizens who care enough to volunteer on all the various advisory committees that actively decide the shape and fate of the community. These worthy, civic-minded people constitute an informal “shadow government,” a sort of Fifth Estate within our official democratic institutions. Their influence is enormous, but human nature being what it is, they often end up viewing themselves as the rightful heirs of governance, and the notion that governmental power derives from the people is often a profoundly annoying notion to them. Especially when the unwashed, unhorsed and unbooted vote to choose a different path from the one they have selected.

In the case of Sewerville, the Denizens of Dogpatch selected a new path and a new CSD Board majority. Instead of working within the official institution to counter that choice – put up a slate of Pro-Tri-W Sewer candidates for election in November, start a new Anti-Measure B initiative or start recall petitions of their own, and etc., the first choice made by the Dauphins was to privately email to beg the RWQCB to “fine the CSD out of existence” (that means you, dear and gentle reader), and then they moved to dissolve the entire system altogether.

Euripides, Dickens, and now the little kid who brings the football to a pick-up game and when his side loses takes the ball, the goalposts and everything else home, thus shutting down the entire game for everyone.

And ironies of ironies, the dissolution flyers falsely conflate dissolving the CSD with “safety” from the recent RWQCB’s Cease & Desist Orders, and with the County magically taking over and building a sewer at Tri-W. In fact, the RWQCB’s prosecution staff made it official: Dissolution will have NO effect on the CDO’s, and they have NO knowledge of ANY county plans anywhere for anything.

Meanwhile, the CSD has been granted Designated Status in the upcoming CDO hearings, which means they will be legally entering the hearings as an active participant – a mother hen able to spread her governmental wings to act both as point man and sheltering cover for her community of targeted chicks. If the CSD is dissolved, so is Mother Hen. And individual citizens will be on their own, left to the tender mercies of a county that views us all as unwanted “red-haired stepchildren.”

Faithless husbands, unhorsed, unbooted voters, the only guardian in town dissolved by conflation and lies, retribution engineered by Dauphins and sorceresses and little kids with their footballs who feel betrayed and set aside by too much democracy of the wrong sort.

So, it’s Off With Our Heads! Children and their smashed toys, Medea and her dead children, Dauphins and sans culottes, it’s an old, old story. The only question left is this: Should it be written this time as a tragedy, or comic farce?

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Oh Lordy!

'Mother Hen' & 'Government Wings' - are you kidding Ann? Is your typewriter ill?

The 'ol 'Mother Hen' pointed in the direction of the homeowners at the ACL hearing with the "hey, the CSD's not polluting!" argument, "go try some other option". Sure enough, homeowners got the Cease & Desist Orders - duh.

'Mother Hen' is more like the headless chicken, running around with it's head cut off, a result of it's own doing. 'Mother Hen' is more like the a Pac-Man legal billing service, piling up more legal bills (the Designated Party status will add one more item for Ms. Biggs and that incredibly astute legal team to pile up more hours of feel-good therapy we have come to know and love). We've gone from overpaying MWH to overpaying lawyers - way to go team!

Cha-Ching!! Ann, it's ok to take off the LOCSD cheerleader outfit and pom-poms every now and then.

Ann as cheerleader:

'Julie Biggs, she's our man, if she can't sue, no one can'

'L-O-C-S-D, what does it spell? Lost Our Community's Solvency & Dollars'

Anonymous said...

The question is not whether they're defending their constituents. The question is whether they're just spending more money in a round-a-bout way to defend themselves and add additional bills to the taxpayers.

You're making an assumption that it's in the best interests of taxpayers to have the CSD continue to pour money into legal fees, when the CSD has failed repeatedly to avoid the situation they are now in.

Hey, maybe the 45 should band together to sue the CSD? Just a question.

Is there nothing about the CSD's request that troubles you?

OK, where should the skatepart have been put?

What has the CSD done for me lately? No sewer, lot's of debt, uncontrolled legal expenses. What a great choice.

Anonymous said...

From reading this blog I have determined the Dissolvers desire the following...

They want the CSD fined as much as possible

They want individual property owners fined

They want the CSD to file bankruptcy

They dont want individual property owners to be able to band together to fight the water board

They dont want the CSD to help individual property owners fight the water board

They dont want ANYONE to fight the water board

They want EVERYONE to pump every other month

They dont want anyone to be able to flush their toilets until a sewer is built

They want people that ARE NOT polluting to be fined for polluting

They dont want the CSD to spend ANY money on legal fees

They dont want ANY businesses to receive C&D Orders

Am I getting this all right?? I know I am because I can back up every statement here with a quote from this blog... ost of them from Sharkly and Pubicworks.

What they want is this town run by a bunch of DOGS... so they can roll over like the last CSD did.

Anonymous said...

Pubicworks said... "What has the CSD done for me lately?"

How about...

Stopped an overpriced, poorly sited, poorly designed travesty from ever being built.

Got Bruce "out of control" Buel, out of control

Supported Prop 218 and property owners rights to fair taxation

Put forth good faith efforts to negotiate a deal with regulators to get the sewer moved out of town

Brought state legislator Sam Blakesleee on board

Stepped up to the plate to protect constituants from unreasonable C&D orders

Initiated the process to get the sewer built out of town

Got us (or is getting us) back in line for the low interest loan program

Enforced the provisions of Measure B - the will of the people


Seems like they've done a lot for me lately... I guess its just a matter of perception.

Anonymous said...

Yes, perceptions are interesting.

'Put forth good faith efforts to negotiate a deal with regulators to get the sewer moved out of town'

(I thought having Tri-W was a condition of the negotiations - are you saying the CSD didn't negoitiate in good faith?)

'Stepped up to the plate to protect constituants from unreasonable C&D orders'

(The only reason there are C&Ds is because of the CSD, they've received status at the hearing, that's all)

'Initiated the process to get the sewer built out of town'

(No, initated the process to get a wastewater system reviewed)

'Enforced the provisions of Measure B - the will of the people'

(Really, didn't realize CSDs had powers of enforcement)

And, you left out the increased costs of $10-$30 million. So far, reductions are all speculation.

Shark Inlet said...

anonymous,

I believe you are missing something here. Dreamers/Dissolvers don't want the CSD fined or CDOs because these things are additional costs for all of us to pay. Dreamers/Dissolvers want to move forward on the only project that they believe had any hope of getting completed before the RWQCB will start serious action. They want the cheapest possible solution rather than continued delay, cost increases, lawyer fees and pollution.

As to your claim that you can back up each of your statements ... bullsh*t. I dare you do find any statement that says that a Dreamer/Dissolver wants individuals to be fined but wants to protect businesses from CDOs.

By the way, I know of no Dreamers/Dissolvers here. Publicworks and I are far from dissolvers or people who loved TriW. If anything we are reluctant supporters of TriW ... not because it is great but because it is the best option we have left. If we continue to burn our bridges and eliminate good choices we'll end up with sewer bills of $500/month and the WWTF on the Sandspit.

As I said before ... do you want to pay a TON of money to fight the State and likely lose? I don't. If this CSD would just focus on doing what they say the believe in ... getting a sewer and plant ... rather than spending their time focused on suing the SWRCB and RWQCB ... we'll be far better off. Not only will our legal fees be lower, we'll not have alienated the officials of the state boards who we'll have to work closely with later down the road.

Anonymous said...

"By the way, I know of no Dreamers/Dissolvers here. Publicworks and I are far from dissolvers or people who loved TriW. If anything we are reluctant supporters of TriW ... not because it is great but because it is the best option we have left. If we continue to burn our bridges and eliminate good choices we'll end up with sewer bills of $500/month and the WWTF on the Sandspit."
wow...12000 rpm??

Churadogs said...

Quote from above: "I dare you do find any statement that says that a Dreamer/Dissolver wants individuals to be fined but wants to protect businesses from CDOs."

Have we forgotten those wonderful emails to Roger Briggs & etc. on the eve of the election and before the recall election was even certified? The emails were made public via a Public Documents request filed by the Tribune and the emails were put up on their website. I won't mention any names here, but here's a few examples sent to Briggs, et al:

"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence," "enforcement action should be swift and strong," "please do this immediately and with the largest fine that is legal for you do do," "I think each and every septic system in the community should be condemned outright," "Move swiftly to enforce the santions against he LOCSD and the indivdual dischargers as well," "I think your office should be both swift and brutal with enforcement action agaisnt my town."

Swift AND brutal, eh? Gosh, thanks guys!I had no idea you thought so highly of me. I'm touched.

Need I point out that at the ACL hearing, the RWQCB stated that they consider that the CSD IS the community and the members of the community ARE the CSD.

So, when your friends and neighbors, many of them Dreamers and Dissolvers, state they want the CSD fined out of existence, they're talking about YOU.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

The problem is that anonymous was claiming that Publicworks and I were making those statements. Even so, there were no e-mails on the RWQCB website that indicated businesses should be protected while homeowners should be fined.

Hoping the CSD gets fined out of existence is very different from wishing fines or CDOs on individuals. By the way, about that ... wasn't it the LOCSD lawyer who argued at the ACL hearing that CDOs against individual polluters was a more reasonable approach to solving the problem than fines against the LOCSD? Yes it was! I've not heard one peep from you about this matter.

Your statement that the LOCSD equals the citizens of Los Osos is now only one of convenience so that you can jump the gap from wanting the CSD fined to wanting individuals to pay. Back in Sep-Dec of 2005 you argued exactly the opposite, that voting for Measure B would protect us from harm because Measure B was beyond the control of the CSD.

Anonymous said...

Incorrect again. The RWQCB stated only that the voters are essentially the CSD.

The CSD is not the community, nor does it represent any community - it's a fallacy you and others promote willy-nilly and creates misconceptions.

Half the town is convinced the CSD is a city, county, state, and Supreme Court wrapped into one entity.

The CSD is a services district, chartered to PROVIDE specific services, which in the case of wastewater it has been an abysmal failure. It is not chartered with land-use, health & welfare, police powers, ....

The CSD is a service provider ONLY, hence maybe you can begin to get it through your head why some members of the community want a DIFFERENT service provider.

If you were being charged monthly fees by Charter Cable, and had nothing to view (which in the case of Los Osos might actually be a blessing), you might be screaming to have a different cable provider. Especially if you were also then subject to fines because Charter had failed to provide you service.

Sorry that this appears to be somewhat of an antiseptic (no pun intended) view of it all.

Ron said...

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

Ann says, "Medea in Sewerville! "

and no one makes a "Pandora's box" reference?

Medea in Sewerville. Great.


Shark, I'll tell you what the problem is. You said, "I believe you are missing something here. Dreamers/Dissolvers don't want the CSD fined or CDOs.."

And then Ann promptly shredded you to pieces with about 10 excellent quotes from those great e-mails that the "Dreamers/Dissolvers" have got to regret sending (seems like they weren't expecting the dreaded public information request), and then in your next post, you just pretend that that shredding never happened. Ohhhhkaaaaay...

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Perhaps I should have been more clear.

Yes, there are some in favor of dissolution who want fines for the CSD because they feel that the best thing for Los Osos (with this board in charge) is to have things go horribly wrong as quickly as possible so that we can get someone else in charge. If it takes a huge SNAFU on the part of this board to accomplish that it will have been worth it is their opinion.

I should have written is that Dreamers/Dissolvers don't want the CSD fined or CDOs because we'll all have to pay but because such actions will cause people to feel more need to "move forward" and "save the dream". Would that statement pass muster with you?

Oh, by the way, Ann suggested that she was finding quotes that would show that dreamers wanted individuals served up with CDOs and businesses protected. She did not do this.

In any case, this whole thing is starting to get a little silly. I as just trying to point out that anonymous was being more than a bit over the top with his comments. You trying to nit-pick at my comments may be a worthwhile way of spending some time, but I'll be spending my time more on the big picture here than on parsing words.

Anonymous said...

"In any case, this whole thing is starting to get a little silly. I as just trying to point out that anonymous was being more than a bit over the top with his comments. You trying to nit-pick at my comments may be a worthwhile way of spending some time, but I'll be spending my time more on the big picture here than on parsing words." Yep, 12000 rpm for sure...

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

If I stipulate you believe that I spin things (I don't believe that I do, but it seems pretty clear that you believe this) would you perhaps post replies only when you have other things to say as well?

Anonymous said...

Pubicworks said... "If you were being charged monthly fees by Charter Cable, and had nothing to view (which in the case of Los Osos might actually be a blessing), you might be screaming to have a different cable provider"

Let me ask, if there were an election to replace Charter and your preferred provider lost, would you then begin a campaign to ban all television in Los Osos??

Anonymous said...

Anon,

The answer is no, (although a ban in television in Los Osos might not be a bad idea - I'll sign up on that one)

Your analogy is off. If another service provider was selected, and it didn't result in a higher cost of service or enforcement on taking away my TV, then I'd be OK with it.

Your analogy was for an election to change the service providers.

The correct analogy was for an election to change the management team; and if the new management team made dumb decisions or was even worse than the previous one, then I would consider changing service providers.

Ahh, the pitfalls of using analogies. At least it's seems less hostile to discuss cable TV changes than sewers.

Anonymous said...

Inlet, I don't care one damn about what you may stipulate about what can I say or when I can say it. I know that it is hard for you, but this isn't the Shark Inlet Spin Blog. This is Ann Calhoun's blog, despite your attempts to intimidate other posters or bully them, misquote or dilute their posts with your whack drival. This ain't your turf, as much as you strut around it trying to convince folks otherwise. Goes double for your fine comrade PublikVerks.

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

Aren't you essentially telling me that I should toe the line and only make comments that you approve of and that Ann would agree with?

If that's the case, why don't you read Ann's comments on such issues ... she is in favor of open discussion such as we have here.

If you don't like what I write, why don't you just ignore it? I made the suggestion that you stop with the spinning comments if that's all you're going to say because we all already know this is your opinion. Saying it over and over without any additional thoughts doesn't do much more for me than a child wailing for a cookie in Ralph's does.

As to your suggestion that I "intimidate other posters or bully them" ... Huh?

Shark Inlet said...

Pretty much anywhere I've said that TriW was the only solution it was in the context of discussing the costs. While expensive, it is the cheapest remaining option. In my mind this makes it both the only solution from my point of view even though I am reluctant because it is so expensive already.

Anonymous said...

The Sharkster: A reluctant supporter of Tri-W. I wonder if, as we move toward starting the new project, the water boards ease up 'cause we're showing progress, and the sites and costs appear for us to consider, how many more "reluctant" Tri-Wer's will appear? Classic, classic!

Anonymous said...

My favorite is the cost analysis mantra: can't possibly be anything cheaper & better than Tri W. An utter certainty, that.
RFPS were turned in today, weren't they?
A $165 million dollar project in the middle of town,50% overbid. A board in power for years is Recalled over their stewardship of this project. Measure B passes and is law. I understand why supporters of this boondoggle would like to discribe themselves as reluctant.
But ya gotta stay the course.
Kafka.
The results of these RFPs are going to be interesting.
Haven't Certainty and Brinksmanship brought so much to our community these many, many moons...?

Shark Inlet said...

Fine ... if you don't want to bother reading what I've written, no big deal. If you want to wait for the site study to confirm that moving the sewer out of town will cost us more it is your right.

One important thing to do when comparing possible sites it to put things in terms of comparable dollars. A $150M project that you can start today is far cheaper than a $120M project that cannot start for another four years ... 10% inflation on construction costs for each of those four years puts the bill of the $120M project at $175M.

I believe that the previous board was recalled because of two things. The previous board chose to start the project before the vote and that really blew up in their faces. Just as importantly, the Recall candidates promised to save us money (they promised us a $100/month out of town plant). Who would vote against cutting their bills in half? Only those of us who saw through the lie.

Had the recall candidates run on an honest platform like "we'll move the sewer but it will cost more money" they would not have won.

When the costs go up, will you volunteer to pay the increase in my bills?

Didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

"When the costs go up, will you volunteer to pay the increase in my bills?"

Wanna tell us how msny times you've used that exact line, self rightous tone and all in how many pompous postings against Ann or Ron or me or anon or whomever doesn't surrender to your pocket calculator, sophistry, or indignation?

Didn't think so.
FYI: Most sharks found in Morro Bay waters are bottom feeders.

Shark Inlet said...

Um.... probably about 100 or so times.

So, I gather that you're not really interested in discussing the costs.

Enjoy...