Uh . . . .
If you think the Tribune’s regular stories are often skewed beyond weirdness, you’ll love the Editorial that appeared Sunday, June 4, 2006.
“Los Osos needs a stand-down. All Sides need to compromise now before more money and time are gone.”
The editorial continues:
-- that “the regional water board should hold it’s $6.6 million in fines in abeyance while giving a realistic timeline for sewer completion.”
--that “concessions would be made on all sides. For instance, Taxpayers Watch would relinquish its all-or-nothing stance on the Tri W midtown sewer site; it’s a nonstarter.”
--“And the district board should exhibit real leadership by showing flexibility. How? Not nitpicking every item in a compromise.”
--“The state water board – if its goal is truly to clean up the community’s pollution as quickly as possible – should reinstate the $135 million low-interest loan.”
--“Contractor claims should be fairly resolved. And the lawsuits filed against the district should be dropped.”
Uh, o.k. Stand-down sounds like a good idea, but is the Tribune serious here? For example, were they aware, when they wrote the above, that the CSD had already voted 5 – 0 to re-apply for the State Loan?
--Or that the CSD, from day one, is and has been involved in the required contract resolution discussions with the contractors? In addition, before contract problems can be resolved, if there have been violations of law involved, I don’t think those can or should be ignored. Is the Tribune unaware that such allegations concerning one major party in this drama were sent to the Tribune (among other media sites. See this blogsite’s posting of May 16, 2006) and to date not a peep about any of these allegations has appeared in the Tribune. Instead we get the Tribune consulting lawyers about the CSD’s law firm charging 20-cents a copy for Xeroxing. Why not run the formal letter of complaint sent to the Construction Management Association of America past the Tribune’s legal consultants and see what their take is regarding allegations of any legal violations, violations that may be stalling contract resolutions.
--And if the Tri-W midtown sewer site is a nonstarter, why would asking Taxpayers Watch to drop their “all or nothing stance” be a “concession? Conceding to a nonstarter isn’t a concession, it’s simple common sense.
--And how can the CSD board show “real leadership” and “flexibility” by “not nitpicking every item in a compromise.” Compromise? What compromise? Is the Tribune unaware that the project update report hasn’t come in yet? And until it does, there’s nothing to “compromise” about . . . yet.
I’m delighted that Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee may be working on any legislation that could “bring the state, district and community together in finding a solution.”
As for the Tribune’s bottom line editorial advice: “Get a site and get on with it.” Uh, gosh, thanks for the advice, guys. But that’s what the CSD has been doing from day one, in spite of all those groups mentioned in the editorial diligently trying to block the way and/or break their kneecaps and “dissolve” them to death.
I thought those kinds of things would have been obvious, even to the editorial board of the Tribune, but I guess they didn’t notice.