Pages

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Quick, Get Me Rewrite!


I don’t know how it’s possible to misquote from a letter, but that’s what happened in the Tribune’s April 4th story headlined, “Sewer costs could shift to county taxpayers.” In that story, it was reported that in a letter to LAFCO from Assistant County Administrator Gail Wilcox, that “Wilcox told [told? or wrote?] the Local Agency Formation Commission that county staff believes the district was adequately serving Los Osos residents and that there would be no advantage to the county taking over its responsibilities.”

In a “Correction” the next day it stated that the “letter to the Local Agency Formation Commission . . . did not say that the county staff believes the district is adequately serving Los Osos residents. Instead, she more narrowly addressed the question of whether ‘there is something about the structure or legal authority of the CSD that is inadequate to address the needs of the residents.’ She concluded that, in the opinion of county staff, there is not a structural or legal inadequacy.”

Ah, and there it was, the most interesting question that LAFCO and the community have to answer: Is the Dissolution Group claiming that the structure and legal authority of the CSD is so flawed that it must be dissolved? Or, is the structure and legal authority functioning just fine, but it’s the POLITCAL results that the Dissolution Group doesn’t like. If that’s the case, does LAFCO have the legal power to dissolve a properly functioning structure just because certain folks don’t like the POLITICAL results?

And that’s what’s been so weird about the Dissolution Group from day one – Instead of using the structure to change the political results – public comment and input, serving on advisory committees to effect change, starting a new recall petition, or starting some initiatives, or even fielding candidates for November’s board election -- the Dissoution Group moved immediately after the recall votes were certified to remove the entire structure altogether.

Which is sort of like people saying after the re-election of President Bush, “George is a really, really bad political result, so let’s dissolve the U.S. Government and petition Queen Elizabeth to take us back into the Commonwealth.”

In effect, that’s what LAFCO must decide: If the structure is fine, will LAFCO declare that The People must have to work within that structure FIRST to effect the POLITICAL changes they want to see? Or, can LAFCO step in and remove a perfectly good working structure in order to effect a POLITICAL change, even though the various mechanisms for political change were never even tried in the first place?

We may have an answer in June. Stay Tuned.

29 comments:

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann, you are right, the structure really isn't the problem. The PROBLEM is the COMMUNITY itself. ANY board, new or old, whatever it decides, DOES NOT SATISFY HALF of the COMMUNITY. The result of this reality has been eternal lawsuits, a bad credit rating, no funds, pumping. Fines on property owners will be next.

Changing the board won't FIX any of this. It was a nice experiment to try to have one, but clearly the main reason to have a board at all was having control over the sewer project. How would we evaluate the results? A big fat zero. F-, unsatisfactory. A political change won't fix the problem, just bring on a new set of agendas to rail against. Sorry Los Osos, you are not grown up enough to run a government.

Shark Inlet said...

Perhaps I misunderstand the exact legal definition of the word "structural", but according to the typical usage, there are two Structual issues here that will make it next to impossible for the LOCSD to solve the problem.

First, as Sewertoons pointed out, there will always be a group so mad about whatever the "winner" does that they will sue and do pretty much anything else (including throwing rocks) to fight.

Second, the financial situation of the CSD right now will prevent any moving forward. If all money that is not tied to fire and water services is now frozen, there is no ability to pay Ripley or even to pay for a 218 vote to get more money. Being bankrupt is a structural issue. Perhaps in the eyes of County employees, the possibility of a 218 vote means that there is a way to overcome this problem, but let me say again that property owners will not vote for a 218 assessment to this board while there is the possibility of dissolution. It would only be if dissolution is impossible that property owners would be willing to assess themselves again ... and then only after November and a new board is put in place. Nope, homeowners are angry with the current board for their calous disregard of our costs.

These issues are political in Ann's opinion. Unless the majority of Dreamers are willing to switch over to the CCLO side or visa-versa, these issues are essentially structural as well.

Anonymous said...

The analogy of disolving the US has no basis in law under our constitution, where as there is defined law for a dissolution at a district level.

Your implication that there is something illegal about involking LAFCO to look into the sorry performance of this CSD is simply your style of "spin" and seems contradictory to your almost continuous disparaging of the "Dreamers'" "spinning".

A reasonable person might conclude that this is a very hypocritical standard and look elsewhere for meaningful information on the sewer morass we in Los Osos find ourselves!

Has not Lisa and other directors pushed for bringing the community together? Are your articles contributing toward this goal in any tangible way?

You have a large audiences that respects your view, why not use this to help with a solution?

Anonymous said...

Structural?

Start with a CSD that has no land use authority. Add a prohibition zone. Add multiple water providers. Add a very large income variation, including large number of retirees and low-income residents that have no capacity to deal with any unfunded mandate. Add a 30-35% rental population with no equity stake. Add 4-5 reviewing agencies. Add no retail/sales/industry tax base. Every one of these is a reason for failure - not to point fault - but Los Osos is exactly the community that you would expect to fail on this project.

The politics/structure were there before the CSD formed, it just became more visible and apparent after the CSD formed.

Mike Green said...

Some of these anons pay attention!
Good Posts! Thanks

Churadogs said...

Anonymous said" Your implication that there is something illegal about involking LAFCO to look into the sorry performance of this CSD is simply your style of "spin" and seems contradictory to your almost continuous disparaging of the "Dreamers'" "spinning"."

Please reread what I've written. Nowhere do I state or imply what the Dissolvers are doing is "illegal." I simply find it extremely interesting that the Dissolvers never tried ANY of the remedies offered under the "structure" of the CSD but moved IMMEDIATELY to dissolution when the recall/initiative vote went in a way they didn't like.

By contrast, folks unhappy with the old Board's "political" decisions ran though a variety of "structural" options -- ran candidates, started an initiative, and a recall -- and so far as I know, dissolution never came up as an option, even though those folks felt they were facing the same kind of horrific "policial" decision -- the Tri W project -- that the Dissolvers felt they were facing. I find those two groups' approaches to a similar problem interesting. Nothing "illegal" about either approach.

Ms. Wilcox's letter narrows the focus wonderfully and it remains to be seen what authorities LAFCO will use to dissolve a CSD if they find that it has no structural or legal "flaws," just a political result that X number of people don't like.

So far as I know, maybe The People can vote to willy-nilly create and uncreate CSD's by simply voting them in and out and in and out. I presume that there has to be more involved than that since LAFCO has to get involved and, I think, the County BOS has to agree to the dissolution?? So, the process seems to be a little more complicated than just a majority vote.

Inlet said: "there is no ability to pay Ripley or even to pay for a 218 vote to get more money. Being bankrupt is a structural issue. Perhaps in the eyes of County employees, the possibility of a 218 vote means that there is a way to overcome this problem, but let me say again that property owners will not vote for a 218 assessment to this board while there is the possibility of dissolution. It would only be if dissolution is impossible that property owners would be willing to assess themselves again ... and then only after November and a new board is put in place. Nope, homeowners are angry with the current board for their calous disregard of our costs."

Regarding there being no money to pay Ripley to update the Project Report, please see my blog posting for today. As for your adamant claim that the homeowners will not vote a 218 assessment, I will wait to see what Ripley ends up presenting to the community to make such a flat pronouncement about what the homeowners will or will not do. I'll also have to wait to see what LAFCO will or won't do before I flatly announce X, Y or Z as "fact."

Anonymous said...

"Implication of illegal" is not the same as saying it is illegal. At the very least, the gist of your article is that the "Dreamers" immediately went into dissolve mode, when in fact the movement was set in motion when the SRF loan was defaulted, CDO's were being handed out, LOCSD were fined, etc. etc. Reasonable grounds for property owners to react!

The question still remains, are you going to use your influence toward bringing the entire community together or continue preaching to your shrinking audience?

Ron said...

An Anon said:
"You have a large audiences that respects your view..."

Ann... cool!

"... why not use this to help with a solution?"

Sounds like a reasonable solution chugged out of the station last night. I'm confident that as long as Ripley and crew don't come up with a "project objective of centrally located community amenities," they'll do just fine. Reality-based... gotta love it.

Thanks for the report, Ann.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

We are all assuming this one letter from Deputy County Administrator Wilcox is gold. In it she did make suggestions about looking into the financial situation of the present CSD, which seems a little pointless if all she is going after in her letter is "structural" problems. Will there be other letters? Other points? What are the many sources that LAFCO will consult to ready themselves to make a decision. Non-dissolvers, don't put all your eggs in this little paper basket.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous said, "Implication of illegal" is not the same as saying it is illegal. At the very least, the gist of your article is that the "Dreamers" immediately went into dissolve mode, when in fact the movement was set in motion when the SRF loan was defaulted, CDO's were being handed out, LOCSD were fined, etc. etc. Reasonable grounds for property owners to react"

Perhaps you're forgetting the emails to Roger Briggs even before the election was certified asking that he "fine the CSD out of existence." After the October) "Negotiated compromise" tanked, if memory serves,I heard announcemnts at the CSD public comment period that folks were collecting signatures for dissolution petitions. So, dissolution came before any other "solutions" --ie. petitiions, recalls, running candidates etc. -- were even tried. That's my point. I find that curious and interesting.

Sewertoons said, "We are all assuming this one letter from Deputy County Administrator Wilcox is gold. In it she did make suggestions about looking into the financial situation of the present CSD, which seems a little pointless if all she is going after in her letter is "structural" problems. Will there be other letters? Other points? What are the many sources that LAFCO will consult to ready themselves to make a decision. Non-dissolvers, don't put all your eggs in this little paper basket."

Paul Hood was scheduled to come talk to the community about the dissolution proceedings but that was postponed. I assume he'll reschudle closer to the June 15th hearing? That way people can ask and answer those questions as to just what LAFCO DOES do in cases like that. I do know what Mr. Hood told me when I called, and that is, so far as he knows, LAFCO has never dissolved a "functioning" CSD -- only dissolved non-functioning, on-the-books-only ones. So, this will be interesting what criteria they'll be using.

Anon said:"The question still remains, are you going to use your influence toward bringing the entire community together or continue preaching to your shrinking audience?"

Wait, which is it: If I have a shrinking audience, what's the point of using my "influence" to bring the community together since the community isn't paying attention to anything I say, since I'm someone with a shrinking audience. Some "influence."

Churadogs said...

Anonymous said, "Implication of illegal" is not the same as saying it is illegal. At the very least, the gist of your article is that the "Dreamers" immediately went into dissolve mode, when in fact the movement was set in motion when the SRF loan was defaulted, CDO's were being handed out, LOCSD were fined, etc. etc. Reasonable grounds for property owners to react"

Perhaps you're forgetting the emails to Roger Briggs even before the election was certified asking that he "fine the CSD out of existence." After the October) "Negotiated compromise" tanked, if memory serves,I heard announcemnts at the CSD public comment period that folks were collecting signatures for dissolution petitions. So, dissolution came before any other "solutions" --ie. petitiions, recalls, running candidates etc. -- were even tried. That's my point. I find that curious and interesting.

Sewertoons said, "We are all assuming this one letter from Deputy County Administrator Wilcox is gold. In it she did make suggestions about looking into the financial situation of the present CSD, which seems a little pointless if all she is going after in her letter is "structural" problems. Will there be other letters? Other points? What are the many sources that LAFCO will consult to ready themselves to make a decision. Non-dissolvers, don't put all your eggs in this little paper basket."

Paul Hood was scheduled to come talk to the community about the dissolution proceedings but that was postponed. I assume he'll reschudle closer to the June 15th hearing? That way people can ask and answer those questions as to just what LAFCO DOES do in cases like that. I do know what Mr. Hood told me when I called, and that is, so far as he knows, LAFCO has never dissolved a "functioning" CSD -- only dissolved non-functioning, on-the-books-only ones. So, this will be interesting what criteria they'll be using.

Anon said:"The question still remains, are you going to use your influence toward bringing the entire community together or continue preaching to your shrinking audience?"

Wait, which is it: If I have a shrinking audience, what's the point of using my "influence" to bring the community together since the community isn't paying attention to anything I say, since I'm someone with a shrinking audience. Some "influence."

Anonymous said...

last anon said .........

"At the very least, the gist of your article is that the "Dreamers" immediately went into dissolve mode, when in fact the movement was set in motion when the SRF loan was defaulted, CDO's were being handed out, LOCSD were fined, etc. etc. Reasonable grounds for property owners to react!"

I think what lafco is saying in their letter is dissolution IS NOT something they will let anybody use as a "political tool". They are not going to dissolve a Government body because of decisions board members made for constituents that elected them into office...........
Saying the dissolution movement ISN'T a political move won't pass the LAFCO test. The dissolution movement REEKS of politics based on the fact that the dissolution movement started just weeks if not days after the recall election. If you don't think LAFCO sees this you're blind. There is no way LAFCO is going to set a precedence for using the dissolution process as a political tool. They should and will say that if you don't like what the CSD board is doing then you can run candidates in November.
What I'd like to do now, is thank the "Dreamers" for this final mistake in a comedy of errors.......disbanding committees, breaking ground without permits, starting construction before the recall election, and now this, petitioning for dissolution just months before and election. How in the hell are you going to run a candidate for office who just weeks before was campaigning to dissolve the very institution he/she wants to be apart of? Who wants to sign up to be the hypocritical FOOL OF THE YEAR? Oh boy, I can't wait for this campaign............

Churadogs said...

Some Anon (there's so many, it's hard to keep track, can't some of you add a number to your Anon-ness?) "breaking ground without permits, starting construction before the recall election, and now this, petitioning for dissolution just months before and election."

Just picked up a copy of New Times and turns out the company digging holes in the ground at Tri W went and dumped the fill illegally and Mr. Tognazinni's after them. Hope they had insurance or else that'll be something else the new CSD will have to clean up. Yikes.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Anon, the problem with running new candidates in November (IF there is a CSD in November - once bankrupt, they are gone) is that it will not fix the CSD's ruined credit rating. What are they going to use for money? Maybe they can bag some nice loan for 10 or 11%? Maybe. The three new faces will still be harnessed to Lisa and Julie. This csd has killed THE CSD.

PS, I really get sick of hearing about breaking ground before the recall election. This was an election. You are not supposed to know the outcome before it happens. There would have been penanties had they not proceeded. This thing was only won by a few votes if you RECALL.

Anonymous said...

"PS, I really get sick of hearing about breaking ground before the recall election. This was an election. You are not supposed to know the outcome before it happens. There would have been penanties had they not proceeded. This thing was only won by a few votes if you RECALL."
Revisionist BS spinning at a high RPM. Lets forget or ignore everything that happened BEFORE the recall, because it doesn't serve the dissolution agenda. Ron's Bonaparte quote really really ressonates here. This blog's comments section is becoming fanatic flypaper. "yes your right Shark" "Oh yes so true publicwverks, Ann & Ron are such hacks". "Oh you are so totally totally correct sewertoons" Like clockwork & continous. Pretty soon they would have us believe there was no real recall or opposition to the Great TriW at all. Maybe it was a terrorist takeover. Oh I know, the ballots were fixed. Certainly these poor recalled martyrs did absolutely nothing in their years of rule to to deserve what happened.
I"m tired of hearing the facetious, cynical propaganda and disrespect for the brave local men and women who are trying to do the best for this community. Meanwhile you are constantly posting drival, trying to dismiss or rewrite how this travisty originated. When you get your CDO, do you think the water board is going to give you a pass because you supported the old regime? Or is it because deep down inside you know that you helped create and support a multimillion dollar Boondoggle that was rejected by the MAJORITY of voters in this town. If y'all are sooo rightous, how could you have lost. If this was such a lock down great bit of public policy, beloved by all but the "clueless",how come you guys are not still in power?? IMHO Tacker, Schicker, Cessena, Ann, Ron, et al are the best of local Grassroots, deserving, at bare minimun, respect for their endless hours of devotion & hard work while under constant fire from you clowns. CSD board members being sued personally by builders and their cronies, Shameful. A regular Pandora's box of illness for our town.

Shark Inlet said...

If the best of the local Grassroots group takes actions which raise our sewer bills, take actions which require us to pump our septics and continue pollution for the next several years (as opposeed to TriW which would reduce nitrates sooner) ... we are in trouble.

Even if someone is trying to do her or his best ... if their efforts result in additional pain and suffering, we have the right to complain. Along those lines, I don't remember you complaining when various critics of the former CSD were promoting "cynical propaganda and disrespect for the brave local men and women who are trying to do the best for this community" a year ago.

Anonymous said...

"Even if someone is trying to do her or his best ... if their efforts result in additional pain and suffering, we have the right to complain"
St. Stan's gavel sure encouraged that, didn't it?
The publically funded snitch in the back if the meetings certainly promoted that right.
Oh, Stan & Legros displayed an awesome respect for the public when they filed against that very scary member of the public.
If your three heros were so community minded & secure in the rightousness of their position, they would of had the BALLS enough to postpone construction until after the election's outcome was known. Wreaking that ground was a watershed moment. Arrogance and incompetence revealed. THAT action was the real moment of harm for this community. If the plan was sooo great , they could have waited & would have won the election hands down. But because their actions were seen for what they were by the public, their incompetent, nepotistic regime came to a halt. Now all they can do is sue & try to dissolve. Hypocrasy. Cynical hypocrasy.

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch ...

I can't tell. Was that a "yes, if things go tits up, we are allowed to complain about Lisa and her crew" or a "no, even if the entire commnity gets hosed, you aren't allowed to dis Lisa"?

Along those lines, I hardly see what Stan and Richard or any of the previous boardmembers have to do with the issues I raised. Those issues being getting the job done is more important that trying hard and complaining now should not be verbotten if it was celebrated a year ago.

Anonymous said...

Inlet:
Ann & Ron & several posters have all doubted your powers of comprehension. It isn't just selective sophistry, cheap rhetorical ploys, and downright misstatement of fact with you, is it? You really don't pay attention to whats being said at all, do you?
"the issues I raised" WTF?
The Shark Inlet Propaganda Project:
A Study in Dysfunctional Political Marketing.
Let me be crystal clear:
The policy makers you defend so consistantly and repeatedly are cronies of the worst sort, not at all community minded, not at all Grassroots. Certainly the results of their tenure demonstrates that.
Although for you, easier to blame the mechanism or the usurpers or their supporters. Anything left, minimize it. Forget the past.
Throw a few insults. Front some authority. Post some hateful shit everyday. "Don't feed the Trolls". Talk about trolls? You are the biggest troll under this blog.
No longer Shark Inlet, I dub thee The Twin Bridges Troll.

Shark Inlet said...

Okay Dogpatch,

Maybe you could do us all a favor and explain what opinions we are allowed to express here without you getting all snippy?

You told us we should support the current board because they are trying hard. Essentially I asked "um ... why ... just trying hard doesn't make you right" and now you've decided to rake me over the coals for my question.

Oh ... if our sewer bills end up being far higher than $200/month it will, of course, be only the result of the previous board and my "cheap rhetorical ploys" ... it would, of course, have nothing to do with the choices that this board has made.

Shark Inlet said...

Here's the problem, faux Shark ...

The new group has sold you the same snake oil that the Solutions Group did. You bought it because the last guy wore a striped suit and you now know that a striped suit is bad. The problem is that this new guy is in a plaid suit. Plaid isn't better than striped.

By the time our community figures out we were duped again, the costs will go up yet again from whatever it would have been with TriW.

I guess the problem here is that I feel that I've learned that people who promise cheaper and better can't actually deliver and you haven't. You appear to still trust Julie and the CalTrans4.

Suppose that they can't deliver? Who is to blame? Only those who promised what they can't deliver and those who voted that group into office because they believed the lie.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Reading these posts and the other blogs, it becomes quite obvious, Los Osos is not grown up enough to HAVE a CSD.

New board, old board, board in the future, it doesn't matter. There will always be two diametrically opposed factions at war if a sewer is part of the mix. A few votes one way or the other may win an election, but it does not seem to change anyone's mind about their own treasured position.

Dissolve the CSD, or turn just the sewer part back to the county to build. We can probably manage to vote in/out the people we agree/disagree with for the rest of the tasks. No one is going to get nearly as steamed up about a 3% raise for the fire department or whatever, as it, or the other routine CSD jobs, won't be taking such a horrendous bite out of property owner's pocketbooks.

Anonymous said...

sewertoons, you hit the nail right on the head!!! los osos will never, and i mean NEVER, be capable of building a sewer. Just read the pure vindictiveness with which faux snake wrote about the prior board. And there's enough to go around both sides....and it will never change.
And just an aside. I remember a letter to the editor Keith Swanson wrote to the Bay News a while back talking about the vile and disgusting things people were writing on the Tribune blog, insinuating the supporters of the previous board were vile and disgusting. Just read again the comment from faux shark. I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

Language more important than message? I wonder if you weren't as offended by the Tribune board somehow or another. Watch the MF bombs brother anon, might be offending your betters. The Elite of this town have sensibilities, tssk tssk tssk...

Anonymous said...

That "R" rated language on a public board...
Scandal!

Shark Inlet said...

FauxToons,

You raise a few interesting issues when you write: "But, unlike the former LOSER CSD, this board is going to let us vote before they award contracts and start digging holes and tearing up street. Wow, what a concept. But, I'm sure that when Ripley presents his Wastewater Project Report and if we find out the the environmentally prefered out of town location is also CHEAPER than TRI-W, that you Shark Inlet will be the first in line to vote yes on and support the NEW Wastewater Project and our newly elected CSD."

We don't actually know that this board will let us vote. Measure B says that they have to let us vote from among the choices they studied and that the cheapest and environmentally preferred sites need to be identified on the ballot. If the LOCSD board doesn't study TriW (arguably a site which might be the least costly), we don't get to vote on it. The fact that they have the property on the market before they even know whether it is the best site or not according to Ripley says they don't intend to let us choose TriW.

If Ripley concludes that "out of town" is cheaper ... after including additional design and siting costs, homeowner costs and delay costs (fines, lawsuits, pumping charges and inflation) over a reasonable timeframe, I will indeed, support the plan to move the sewer. Even if it would only cost a small amount more I would think it a good compromise between those who want the lowest costs and those who want "out of town".

On the other hand, if all those costs are included, there is pretty much no way it will be less expensive in terms of $/month.

What I fully expect to happen is that the Ripley report (or the LOCSD board response to the Ripley report) will ignore and downplay many of these very real costs. In other words, I think that the deck is already stacked and that we'll be told it will save us money to build "out of town", but when you add all the costs I expect to be ignoreed (fines, pumping charges, etc.) it will actually cost us considerably more than TriW.

When the Ripley study is concluded and a careful analysis shows that TriW saves a lot per month, can we count on you to go to the LOCSD board meetings and demand they go back to the less expensive plan?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

WOW!!
The real sewertoons has said something painful enough to get a faux sewertoons to respond!

I must haave hit the nail on the head - ouch!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Real toons says that if measure B goes down, which we should hear about pretty soon now and even the present CSD isn't too optimistic about the outcome, the CSD does not have to let us vote on anything.

Shark Inlet said...

Considering Dan Blesky himself said that they would probably have to do a recall of Measure B before they could site a plant, Measure B might be exactly what this board needed ... they needed it to have an excuse to stop the TriW project and they need it to conveninently go away to gracefully avoid the issue of why they won't let us vote on a TriW option.