Pages

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Bankruptcy 101, More or Less

At the August 31, CSD meeting, the bankruptcy attorney was on hand to answer some questions. The following is taken from my notes. I am not a lawyer and don’t even play one on TV. So far as I can see, Chapter 9, Municipal Bankruptcy, is a very, very complex issue and a lot of questions remain, but some issues seem relatively clear. Such as:

--Private property and the value of your private property will NOT be affected

-- If LAFCo votes to dissolve the CSD and the voters affirm that dissolution, Chapter 9 goes away with the CSD and the county assumes all the debt and liability and assets, something the County has made clear it doesn’t want to touch with a ten foot pole.

-- Repayment of any debt is based on the Districts “best efforts.” Basically, that means you can’t get blood from a stone. The creditors cannot jeopardize essential services to settle the debt. If the CSD has no assets other than those needed to supply essential services, then they’re a stone with no blood, so that’s that. Not clear is whether the community could set up some sort of repayment plan based on future revenue, or vote to assess themselves some “taxes,” “assessments,” or “fees,” etc. so as to repay the legitimate debts actually owed and so restore municipal credit-worthiness & etc.

-- In Chapter 9, the District can sell any assets it has, so long as that doesn’t jeopardize delivering the essential services. For example, it can’t be forced to sell the firehouse or water office to settle any debts, but if it has some extra land that’s not being used for anything, that could be sold to pay off the debt. Not clear, at this point, whether land and rights of way that can/will be used for a wastewater system are considered “extra” or would be “essential services” related, since wastewater treatment is an essential service.

-- The revenue from the previously sold bonds cannot be touched.

-- The District can hire professionals POST filing of Chapter 9, and the Court will review their payment, i.e. oversee the bill for their services to make sure the fees are proper and in line with other municipalities, etc.

-- Lawsuits brought against the District (in LOCSD’s case, the majority of the suits are against the CSD) will be “frozen.” Lawsuits BY the CSD to defend the community and the interests of the district, are allowed to proceed.

-- All unpaid-legal fees billed to the CSD PRE Chapter 9, are considered unsecured debt (i.e. take a number, get in line, good luck) (Julie Biggs, the CSD’s attorney has stated that despite the unpaid, “unsecured” debt still owed for all their previous work, they intend to stay in the trenches working for the CSD, which means, if they want to get paid for work already done, they’ll have to take a number like everyone else, get in line, and good luck). All the lawyer-bashing folks in this community might want to think about that for a while. RWQCB fines are considered “unsecured debt.” and repayment again will be based on “ability to pay.” (blood from stones, take a number, get in line, good luck.)

-- Not clear yet is the status of the CSD vis a vis their being a designated party in the CDO hearings. Defending their own interests (Fire house, water office, etc.) appears to be allowed, but it’s possible that they could argue before the Bankruptcy judge, that the cost of defending that CDO is damaging financially and threatens the budget, hence “essential services,” and so ask for a stay.

-- Pay Attention to this one: For individual homeowners who have or will get CDOs ( that means all of us in the Prohibition Zone), Chapter 9 will have no effect. Neither will dissolution or non-dissolution. Nor will the County taking over the project “save” anyone either. The only “defense” the community has is the CSD as “lead defendant,” and/or each person’s personal attorney and/or any “group” attorney hired by the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (private donations being accepted at the Coast National Bank.) And the only “hope” the community has is to contact the RWQCB itself to ask the Board to reconsider their Mad Pumping Scheme and instead come up with a Faster! Better! Cheaper! voluntary,(initially, later mandatory) interim Septic Tank Maintenance Program with a variety of mitigation efforts possible until a wastewater project can be built.

-- For the immediate future, the Chapter 9 judge could try to expedite the release of the now-frozen funds, which would ease the crunch. She will likely be calling all parties together to get a first-hand look at this tangled mess (Lord help her). Then, it’s a matter of setting up a reorganization plan, the trying and/or settling of various suits, the outcome of the Blakeslee Plan, what happens when/if the County starts on the wastewater plans & etc.

Since this is Sewerville, stay tuned.


The T.A.B. Conference

The Talk About The Bay conference at the Morro Bay Veterans Hall, Saturday, Sept 2, was well attended. SLO City Councilwoman, Christine Mulholland moderated. Featured speakers included Dan Berman, Program Director for the Morro Bay National Estuary Program, Peter Douglas, Exe. Dir. of the Coastal Commission, and Assemblyman Pedro Nava gave some excellent and informative speeches. Haydee Debritz, the UC Davis Researcher, brought along the results of her research into Toxoplasma Gondi (commonly known as “catch scratch fever” in humans) which is sickening and killing sea otters. I had first seen her several years ago when she started her research by addressing the “pet owning community” in order to get help with getting ahold of cats and cat poop to test. The research results pointed up just how complex this natural world of ours is and how many unseen linkages there are and how, like a game of pick-up-sticks, in science, when you pull out one stick ,two or three more may come along to point you in two or three different directions.

Come to think of it, all of the speakers focused more on less on just that: The importance of taking the long view, the critical issues of interconnectedness, sustainability, and the necessity of rethinking old paradigms

The conference was taped by AGP Video and will be replayed. I suggest tuning in and watching it. Most informative. And if you own a cat, and are unaware of Toxoplasma, you should take a look.

Peer Review

The following is a Press Release, Aug 29, 06, from the CSD. Am looking forward to reading the report when it comes out.

At an “It’s All About Clean Water” Town Hall meeting earlier this month, the Los Osos Wastewater Plan Update was presented to the public by Ripley Pacific. The milestone plan now goes before an even tougher audience: As the nexst step, the integrated approach to wastewater management will undergo independent scientific peer review from the National Water Research Institute.

The peer review service is part of NWRI’s mission to create new sources of water through research and technology and to protect the freshwater and marine environments. The review panel will consist of water and wastewater specialists from academia, private sectors, public utilities, and regulatory agencies.

“The focus, interdisciplinary objectivity and real-world expertise they will bring to bear will be invaluable in shaping and ensuring the best plan possible, “said Lisa Schicker, district board president.

The peer review process, overseen by District Engineer Rob Miller, is expected to be completed later next month.

112 comments:

Sewertoons said...

I am confused. The now frozen funds belong to the state of California - the remaining SRF funds. How could these be released to pay for anything other than to pay back the state of California?? - Even the contractor's claims might be iffy - I wouldn't think the State thinks it has any obligation to donate those funds to poor, bankrupt Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

Hi Sewertoons,

Hope you’re having a nice Labor Day weekend.

It is going to be very interesting at the bankruptcy hearing as the CSD tries to explain to the judge why the courts should unfreeze the State SRF Money for the CSD to use; all-the-while as State Attorney General Attorneys and the Contractor attorneys stand there to counter the arguments the CSD. Our CSD does not have a chance in hell of having that money released to them.

Anna Jane (the temp CPA at the CSD) made it very clear at the last Finance meeting and CSD Board meeting that the 2006-2007 budget depends upon the SRF funds being unfrozen. Without the SRF funds, the CSD is INSOLVENT. Bankruptcy is one thing; but insolvency is an entirely different (and serious) issue.

As a government agency, the CSD cannot escape debt. While Ann correctly says the creditors cannot damage services, she forgot to mention that they may take over the service and rates as payment. The WATER SERVICE comes to mind immediately. To pay off debts, the CSD could be forced to sell the community water system to, let's say, the Golden State Water Company for X dollars. X dollars would then be used to pay the creditors. Quite frankly, if the CSD is no longer in the water business, they might as well dissolve.

I have to run. Off to visit friends for the holiday.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Sewertoons said...

Thank you Mr. LeGros - looks pretty scary for the CSD. No wonder they seemed rather afraid about dissolution at that last meeting. Without funds to run the biz of CSDing, what indeed are they there for?

Anonymous said...

Hi Sewertoons,

EXACTLY. No need for a CSD if it is unable to provide services.

The CSD has not yet comprehended the ramifications of last weeks termination of ALL the construction contracts. With the terminations, the Tri-W has officially ended. No propject exists. This may please some folks in town; but there is a side effect of this action. If you remember, in 2002 the CSD passed an assessment bond. 790 property owners opted to prepay their assessemnt to the CSD (raising $2,900,000) on the documented promise from the CSD if the Tri-W project was not built, the property owners would get their money returned plus interest. By terminating the construction contracts, the CSD has inadvertently forced itself into having to immediatley pay the $2,900,000 plus interest to the property owners. I have calculated that the repayments with interest total $3,875,000. This is a debt secured prior to all other debts the CSD has incurred; and must be paid.

I believe that the canceling of the contracts has sealed the fate of the CSD; i.e. to be dissolved either through LAFCO or by a CSD resolution to LAFCO). At this point in time, a dissolution would stop the hemmeraging of money out of the community, and stabilize our services. There is no other option that makes sense either financially or to protect the citizens.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: This is very sad situation, for if the CSD had not cancelled the contracts, a bankruptcy resolution could have worked.

Shark Inlet said...

Richard,

In the same way that the prepaid folks should get their money back, do those of us who pay monthly get to have our monthly payments stopped and/or our previous payments returned. That $20/month for the last few years would certainly be handy to have.

Anonymous said...

First dumbass statement from Dick Le Gross.........

Richard Le Loser says "Bankruptcy is one thing; but insolvency is an entirely different (and serious) issue."

What in the hell are you taking about Dick? I mean really, how fucking ignorant and retarded are you? Insolvency is not an entirely different issue from bankruptcy. Insolvency is why people declare bankruptcy.

Second dumbass statement from Dick Le Barnard Butt Boy "While Ann correctly says the creditors cannot damage services, she forgot to mention that they may take over the service and rates as payment. The WATER SERVICE comes to mind immediately. To pay off debts, the CSD could be forced to sell the community water system to, let's say, the Golden State Water Company for X dollars. X dollars would then be used to pay the creditors. Quite frankly, if the CSD is no longer in the water business, they might as well dissolve."

UMMMMMMM......
Sorry asshole, this isn't how Chapter 9 works. I guess you had your head up your ass while Counsel Michelson explained that in Chapter 9 the necessary functions of the CSD are off limits. Any funds required to maintain the services the CSD provides are untouchable..
One of two things Dick, either you're a complete IDIOT or you think the people of Los Osos, who threw your dumbass butt out onto the street, are too stupid to see threw your BULLSHIT spin........

Next pinheaded,jackass,statement by the dimwit Dick Le Prick: "I believe that the canceling of the contracts has sealed the fate of the CSD;"

Do you know what Democracy is Dipshit Dick? The sole reason we tossed your ignorant ass out onto the street and elected a new CSD WAS TO STOP THE PROJECT!!!!!! You refused to listen to us so, we ejected your stupid ignorant fucking ass and elected someone who would.
When the CSD stopped the project and canceled the contracts it was representing and acting on the will of the people who just elected them. Now, I know you're a Nazi Facist Asshole. Sorry Dick, Los Osos is still in the United States of America. Go fuck yourself.
Evertime you post in this Blog Dick Head, or shall I just call you Mister Head MWH Barnard BUTT BOY BITCH...everytime you post in here, I will remind everyone that if you and your asshole buddies didn't act in collusion by going to the state for a 50% increase in the illegal SRF(no 218 vote) loan. And, then guess what? There is a sole 50% over-bidder on the project HMMMMMMMMMM..........
IF YOU FUCK WADS DON'T START THE PROJECT BEFORE THE ELECTION, THERE ARE NO CONTRACTOR LAWSUITS AND WE AREN'T IN THIS MEES. But, you knew the community didn't support your corruption so, you ran the CSD into the ground by starting construction before we threw your ass out onto the street.
By they way, I know insiders at the County and the County will have nothing to do with the $40 million dollars of debt that you created. If you think LAFCO is going to dissolve, you're still dreaming. HA HA

By the way, blaming the current CSD for Bankruptcy would be like blaming Arnold Schwarzenegger for all the economic problems that Gray Davis caused.......this claim doesn't pass the laugh test. Sorry idiot.

The next interesting think Dipshit Dick who completely screwed our town over says"sealed the fate of the CSD; i.e. to be dissolved either through LAFCO or by a CSD resolution to LAFCO)"
Interesting. Are what you saying is that the Facist who are supported by Taxpayers Waste(Kelly, Sparks, Tornatzky) are you saying that the first act if these three get elected would be a resolution to dissolve?........
NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE.
Thanks for the tip Dick. What's their campaign slogan "vote for us, we want to take your vote away." or "Elect me to NOT represent you." I guess you folks at Taxpayers Waste really must not believe in Hell. I guess your just a bunch of gluttons that want to take what they can, while they can get it.....Yep the candidates of Taxpayers Waste who promised us all cheaper, better, faster in 1998 and presented us with a Sludge factory next to the Library for $250 a month....the candidates of Taxpayers Waste that ran our local government into the ground, bankruptcy, and lawsuit after contractor lawsuit by starting a project against the will of the community three weeks before we got the chance to say no and eliminate these idiots who refused to listen to their constituents...and now, three candidates whose first act will be to take our vote away and our local Government if they get elected...... sharpening their knives so they can stab us all in the back one more time.

Sewertoons said...

So Anon 10:12pm, you have chosen to vote for Chuck and Steve then!! Who is your third candidate?

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:12 AM

1-800-838-1381.

Mr. LeGros

Churadogs said...

Sewertoons sez:"Sewertoons said...
I am confused. The now frozen funds belong to the state of California - the remaining SRF funds. How could these be released to pay for anything other than to pay back the state of California?? - Even the contractor's claims might be iffy - I wouldn't think the State thinks it has any obligation to donate those funds to poor, bankrupt Los Osos.

12:23 PM, September 03, 2006"

If I have this right, weren't some of the first chunk of SRF funds dedicated to pay back work already done before the actual Pounding Of The Millions Into The Ground began, i.e. the [old]CSD had advanced its "own" $$ which then were to be reimbursed by the first chunk of the SRF loan and it's that money that "belongs" to the CSD to replace money advanced previously, but is now all frozen until the judge can separate that money from the rest of the Part 2 SRF loan & etc. I think.

Note to Potty Mouth Anonymooose: Your points can be made without all the potty talk. Actually, I think they would be even stronger without all the bleeping distractions of using bleep, bleep, bleep, IMHO.

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent anonymous friend...

One of the things you wrote (in the context of Chapter 9) was "Any funds required to maintain the services the CSD provides are untouchable". Shouldn't that pretty much be the way the CSD is run in general? That is all to say, if we provide money for fire services to the CSD thru property taxes, shouldn't that money go only to fire services? Similarly, if money is provided to the CSD for payment of the bond, shouldn't that money go only to bond payment?

The only bills the CSD really needs to pay are salaries, bond payments, fire services and stuff related to providing water. Presumably if the CSD wants to spend money on other things (say a report by a guy named Ripley) they could ask us to borrow more money in a bond to cover such expenses.

The only reason we are in this problem (bankruptcy) it would seem is that the current CSD board has made choices to spend all the money intended for fire protection and bond repayment on other things entirely.

If you are going to say that it was the fault of the previous board (because after all, they didn't need to start pounding money into the ground 20 days before the election) you have to admit that the Dreamers were right when they said that stopping the project would cost millions. It seems to have done exactly that.

In this high-stakes game, none of us are winners. At least we all have someone to blame and someone to hate. Myself, I'll think of Julie every time a friend of mine has to move out of town because they cannot afford to live here anymore. You are welcome to blame Pandora ... both are fair targets.

Anonymous said...

WOW Shark, thanks for this post. Thanks for illustrating to us all how the folks at Taxpayers Waste are really starting to lose it. It's your arguments that are starting to dissolve.

What bothers me about the posts from you Shark and Dick Le Gross and the like is the complete lack of respect you show for the intelligence and intellect of the citizen electorate of Los Osos and the visitors to this blog.

shark says:"If you are going to say that it was the fault of the previous board (because after all, they didn't need to start pounding money into the ground 20 days before the election) you have to admit that the Dreamers were right when they said that stopping the project would cost millions. It seems to have done exactly that."


WOW, and I thought Sewertoons was the biggest idiot that ever posted to a blog. Your back in the running Shark.
Let me make this as plain and simple as i can......

First, IF WE DON'T START THE PROJECT, WE DON'T HAVE TO STOP IT, DO WE?!!!!!!!!

Second, I know that Dick Le Gross is a facist nazi pig but please don't tell me Shark that you're a facist nazi pig too. The current board whose sole job as elected officials is to represent the community that elected them into office ran on a platform to STOP the TRI-W project whch never shoud of been started in the first place.

The only reason we are in this problem is because the former CSD board should of never started the project in the first place.

When you say"If you are going to say that it was the fault of the previous board (because after all, they didn't need to start pounding money into the ground 20 days before the election) you have to admit that the Dreamers were right when they said that stopping the project would cost millions. It seems to have done exactly that."

You are 100% right.
STOPPING A PROJECT THAT NEVER SHOULD OF BEEN STARTED IN THE FIRST PLACE, HAS COST THIS COMMUNITY MILLIONS. THANKS, TAXPAYERS WASTE.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Richard Le Gros,

Wow, you do have FUCKING BALLS don't you.

Thanks for giving us all your personal and direct phone number(1-800-838-1381).

I tried calling so we could speak directly to eachother regarding the issues of the day but they told me that you were in the isolation unit locked up in a padded cell. I guess it's kind of hard to talk on the phone when you're in a straight jacket, isn't it. Oh well, maybe next time.
If anybody wants to contact Richard Le Gros, he's given us all his personal contact info(1-800-838-1381). If he's not locked up in a padded cell or whacked out on all the medications he's on, I'm sure he'd be very happy to chat with you. But if you can't get a hold of him don't worry. It's really very, very hard to reach Richard these days. He's having a hard time dealing with the fact that his community has rejected him and his idiotic ideas. But don't worry about Dick, I understand that he has several imaginary friends keeping him company in the isolation unit. Kind of like those imaginary numbers he pulls out of his ass everytime he tries to sell his bullshit lies and spin.

have a nice day:)

Anonymous said...

With a term i'm not really comfortable using, but I feel is appropriate,Julie has not tried to make this town her 'bitch' as Pandora has. My kids grew up with Julie and I use to work on projects with her Dad, so we go back a long time. To blame Julie for the mess we are in is absurd. Not only are we long time residents, we are also concerned about what we leave behind us. I am torn between the beauty of this towns slow pace. Very few traffic lights. The ones we have seem to work in harmony with the traffic. Unlike SLO. Our roads, other than a few spots here and there have been untouched for ages. They use to do shoulder repair with redrock in the early days. Remember that? Not anymore. What we have ahead of us is what we are going to leave behind. If we are going to remain a community that has among other things, no theater, no pool, no clothing stores, no auto parts store, no fast food, i'm sure i've left things out but you get the drift of what i'm saying, then we might as well go ahead and build a lousy sewer plant at Triw. Actually, i'd rather see the Dreamers rendition of what will be built at Triw if not the sewer, rather than allow something like the VanBuerdan ugliness.

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:13AM,10:27AM, 10:57 above,

Call 1-800-838-1381.

You are ill.

The doctors can help you recover from your anger and Tourets Syndrome.

RL

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 10:57 AM,

Sorry....you were not meant to be on my blog above.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Sewertoons said...

Anon 10:13, you seem to forget that the recall barely passed, and that useless and expensive piece of work, Measure B won by 20 votes - and those, won on a lie.

You underestimate estimate the number of people who now have changed sides in hindsight. Or have now bothered to get informed and are heartsick about what has happened.

It seems to make you feel good to rant and rave about what should have been in your mind. Get over it and move on. "Should have happened" isn't solving anything now, is it?

Anonymous said...

Interesting. Once again, in the the face of truthful facts that Dick Le Gross cannot defend and are way too disturbing for him to even argue or contemplate, all Dick can do is play the "you're crazy" card.
Dick's impotent impuissance is cadaverous.
I would say "nice try, Dick", but your response is weak, very very weak.

Regarding Tourets Syndrome, I have no problem posting as anonymous in a blog and using "colorful" language to emphasize my points. However, when I'm in public places like the grocery store or church or say a MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT MEETING, I have absolutely no problem controlling myself. I've attended many of the CSD meetings and I can honestly say that I've never used the "F" word. I would be way too embarrassed to be identified as such a potty mouth in public.

I mean everyone has to agree with me, even you most extreme dreamers,
For Richard Le Gros who shouted into a microphone "I HAVE FUCKING BALLS at an open public meeting as a representative of the community......for Richard Le Gros to accuse anybody of Tourets Syndrome is really quite hysterically absurd.

To Richard "I HAVE FUCKING BALLS Le Gros, I'm sure you're an expert on Tourets Syndrome. I hope you've been treated for it. If not, I'm sure if you call your home phone number that you keep giving out, that number that you seem to have memorized, if you call it I'm sure they have you on record and can find someone to help you out.

Have a nice day:)

Anonymous said...

As anon 10:57 Though I totally disagree with you, thanks for deleting me from your previous post.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:52,

This is my last post to you.

You babble nonsense and hatred.
Call County Mental health services for you are ill. If you will not talk to a doctor, talk to a clergy person, family or a trusted friend.

RL

Sewertoons said...

Anon 10:13, you seem to forget that the recall barely passed, and that useless and expensive piece of work, Measure B won by 20 votes - and those, won on a lie.

You underestimate estimate the number of people who now have changed sides in hindsight. Or have now bothered to get informed and are heartsick about what has happened.

It seems to make you feel good to rant and rave about what should have been in your mind. Get over it and move on. "Should have happened" isn't solving anything now, is it?

Sewertoons said...

Anon 11:52. You DO need help.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess Sewertoons doesn't want to be out-done by Shark as the biggest idiot to ever post in a blog.

This isn't the first time I've said this and I'm sure it won't be the last. Sewertoons, you never cease to amaze me. Just when I thought you've made the most ignorant and retarded most completely stupid statement that I've ever heard in my entire life, you out do yourself. You truly are the biggest idiot that i've ever seen post in a blog.........

Sewertoons says:"you seem to forget that the recall barely passed, and that useless and expensive piece of work, Measure B won by 20 votes"

Disclaimer: This statement comes from he same person that said:"If you lie to someone it's ok, because it's their fault for believing the lie."

Well Sewertoons, I know that Dick Le Gros is a Nazi Facist Pig. I'm begining to wonder if Shark is a Nazi, Facist Pig. But you Sewertoons? I mean, I've always thought you were a bit naive and ignorant but please don't tell me that you're a Nazi Facist Pig also.

In what country is it you live Sewertoons, that the losing side of an election gets to set the policy?

The closest election in the history of our nation was the 2002 Presidential Election. Al Gore received 500,000 more popular votes than GWB. Al Gore lost on the electoral vote when the Republician Supreme Court handed GWB the state of Florida. More people voted for Al Gore than GWB in 2002. Did Al Gore get to set National policy? NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! As well he shouldn't.

In what county is it that you live Sewertoons that the losing side of an election gets to set the policy?

Sorry Sewertoons, I live in Los Osos and Los Osos is still in the United States of America.

Next retarded statement from Sewertoons:"You underestimate estimate the number of people who now have changed sides in hindsight."

Are you really asking us to believe this mythological made-up bullshit spin again? This unfactual fantasy dreamer statement. I guess you're still dreaming. It was a nice tactic but it failed and it failed miserably......

Dreamers are on record at at CSD meetings before the recall election and are still today foolishly claiming today that "the people who are agaist the TRI-W PROJECT and that support the CSD are just a handful of "obstructionists" who show up to CSD meetings........and that people have since, changed sides

Well, there you go again, this is what you ARISTOCRATS claimed throughout the Recall Campaign and still claim............

Let's examine this...............

You had five times as much money as us............
You out spent us 5-1 on advertising............
You had CAMPAIGN COMERCIALS ON THE "TODAY SHOW"!!!!!!!!!!!
and guess what?
you still lost.
In this day and age, where the "money" will win 99 out of 100 elections...........you still lost.

This truly shows how morally bankrupt the position of Taxpayers Watch is.........

I would say "nice try Sewertoons" but, like Dick Le Gros' empty replys to the truth, your comments are weak........very, very weak. :(

Shark Inlet said...

To our friend with the foul language ...

Do you really believe that the support for the current CSD board is as strong as it was right after the election?

Anonymous said...

No, Shark. I think it's stronger.

I guess you don't quite yet have your finger on the pulse of our Community yet, do you?

You and Taxpayers Waste campaigned for fines, CDO's, and lawsuits against your friends and neighbors, yet, every CDO recipient I know, supports our CSD.

When Mary Kelly , and Lyn Tornatzky and Joe Sparks are exposed for their intension to dissolve the CSD by resolution if elected, the people of Los Osos will rise up like you've never seen before. Against all money and odds, we will defeat you.

Believe me, it is early and you have no clue.

Sewertoons said...

Anon 1:15, it wasn't about setting up policy. This current board didn't give even a nod to the other side in a small community such as this - not a smart move. Not listening to speakers at meetings with ideas other than the board's own was not a smart move. Not giving even the volunteer committees that backed the board enough information to make opinions to present the board - was not a smart move. Making financial and even environmental decisions without consulting the board's own committees, lost the board some better deals and valuable input. Hiring Wildan and BWS without letting anyone know what THEY were about - well, anyone can see the results of that - bankruptcy.

I guess if keeping the community divided was the goal - THAT worked. Alienating half the town, angering water boards, losing SRF money, garnering fines and CDO's - just to jam their opinion down everyones' throat with no knowledge of how politics works or using the gentle art of finessing, did a service to no one, especially themselves. They just wouldn't listen to anyone who disagreed with them.

Where is their beloved project now? In the hands of the County. Good job LOCSD. And where is the CSD itself now? Teetering on the edge of dissolution. Too bad they were such know-it-alls. This is why even if you win, you don't alienate the other side. You learn from them. You try to win them over, not run them over, kapische?

I am so very flattered that you remember what I said ages ago. But you misquote me. Everyone has to be responsible for the decisions they make, right or wrong, and own up to it. Being informed is the key to better decisions, to discovering the lies. If you believe a lie, learn from it and educate yourself to know better next time. Don't blame someone else because you believed it.

By the way, "Biggest Idiot" - aw c'mon anon, can't we at least SHARE the title???

PS :–) I like noses in my emoticons. My friends would laugh their asses off to think of me as an aristocrat. What gives you that idea about me?

Sewertoons said...

Anon 10:15, how many CDO recipients do you know out of the 45? Think their minds may have changed a bit since the bankruptcy? Think that Ms. Schicker and the board will be able to go ahead with the CDO defense with the uncertainty of funds at hand (this is according to Mrs. Biggs). Think their inability to carry through has hurt their popularity?

It really doesn't matter what candidates want once in office. LAFCo decides, very firmly based in law, and the unique circumstances of a CSD, as to dissolution. If there is no money to provide services that CSD's are required to provide, you'd better hope LAFCo dissolves so the County can step in and provide them. CSD directors don't dissolve the LOCSD.

Shark Inlet said...

To our Foul Language Friend ...

You think that support for the current board is higher now than a year ago. Among people I know (including many who voted for the recall) there is little support for the current board. I guess we might find out which of us is right in two months.

No matter, if we are talking about folks running for the no clue award, I think that you should get at least a nomination. You are horribly incorrect in at least two key ways in some of what you wrote. I did not campaign for fines or CDOs and Joe Sparks does not have any intention to dissolve the CSD.

It seems that you have a very different take on our community than I do. Again, no matter because the County will be taking the project over. I just wonder how one of us could be so wrong. It is likely because pro-sewer people tend to feel more comfortable talking about the issue with pro-sewer folks and anti-sewer people feel more comfortable talking about the issue with anti-sewer folks ... we may all be getting a sense that we're in the majority when certainly some of us are not.

Ron said...

Sharky said:

"... pro-sewer people tend to feel more comfortable talking about the issue with pro-sewer folks and anti-sewer people feel more comfortable talking about the issue with anti-sewer folks..."

"Anti-sewer," Shark? Who's anti-sewer? Me? Ann? Are we anti-sewer? Is Julie, or Lisa, anti-sewer? Chuck? Steve? John?

Just who are these "anti-sewer people" you speak of? The only one I can think of is maybe Al. Yet, there it is... that classic Pandora-esque spin that we're all really sick of.

Haven't you learned your lesson yet, Shark? These days, when you say something stupid like that, foul-mouthed Anon is going to come in and hammer away at you, as he/she should. Because as Ann says, engaging in that kind of spin is not ummmm... helpful. But, it's my guess, you're not getting paid to be helpful.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ron,

Yes.

Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve, John, Ann, You and many others are anti-sewer. Your behavior tells me that you rather argue and play the "shame and blame" game rather than resolve the waste water issue here in Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

I support the current board and I am not "anti-sewer." I am anti TriW MBR sewer. These stereotypes are a huge waste of time. Both sides do it and it's a shame. Didn't you learn not to lump people together into stereotypical categories?

*PG-13 said...

It does seem an all too easy to make claim: Anybody who doesn't like my sewer must be anti-sewer.

I thought we had moved beyond this. At least most of us anyway. Including Shark Inlet. I'm hoping this is just one of the those old habits are hard to break things. Assuming this was an inadvertant loose-language mistake I think the other point Shark was making is true. That we tend to hang with friends of a feather and that skews our perception of the world. And/Or that my perspective is sooooooo valid, logical and well thought out that any other perspective running counter to my view is invalid, illogical and not well thought out. And, of course, I assume my friends agree with me. Cuz their my friends.

As so often previously noted in this blog, friends don't let friends design sewers.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 11:09,

Sorry, but you are anti-sewer.

You stopped a fully permitted and funded project that would have brought you into compliance with the law by 2007, avoided CDO's and fines; all because you believed you had a cheaper plan outside of town (all lies). By stopping Tr-W you have destroyed the ability of the County or the CSD to resolve wastewater problem for YEARS.

Your overblown fears over locating a treatment plant at Tri-W using MBR technology, resulting in a vain attempt to look for "better" solutions is not logical nor financially prudent.

As for Julie, I have heard her say many times over the years that she will never allow a sewer to be built in Los Osos; and if she ever has her way no more buildings or homes will ever be built here either. Her "move the sewetr" platform was nothing but bunk.

The lip service given by Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John over a substainable sewer protecting water is bunk as we continue to defy the law, polute our water, and do not have the means to provide sewer services for Los Osos.

No, your definately no sewer.

Anonymous said...

Like I said, the stereotyping continues! You know nothing about me, the properties I own, or anything else. It's this labeling that divides us. Would you like me to say that because you like the TRIW project that you are "pro moving the riff raff out of town." I wouldn't say that because 1) it's a stereotype 2) therefore it may not hold true for you. Just because some folks want something different doesn't necessarily mean they are anti-sewer. Who came up with that political label anyhow?

Sewertoons said...

My opinion as to how that lable came into being was that the "we don't need no stinkin'" folks jumped in with the "move-the-sewer" group, as all the problems and delays work to their benefit of delaying a sewer as long as possible, if not stop it outright.

As I too have heard about Julie's public stance to not want a sewer here ever. Now that she is a leader in the "move" team, I wonder about her sincerity about just MOVING the sewer, or is she still believing covertly that she can stop it from this platform.

Anonymous said...

ANON 3:48

Sorry...your anti sewer.

You stopped a project that was under construction just because you didn't like it. Saying you wanted to change it is, quite frankly, bunk. Are you an expert on sewer systems? Why did you stop it. Was it too expensive for you? (sorry, it is now going to cost much more) Was it not in a location you liked? (an aesthetic reason). Were you afraid of possible odor? (again, an aesthetic reason). Do you not care you are discharging into the water basin; violating many State and federal environmental laws?

Nope, your anti-sewer because you think you can continue to violate the law as you feel without consequence. Well, your actions have resulted in coming fines, CDO's and rising costs. By the time this mess is resolved you will end up spending double what you had to.....because you just didn't want the sewer.

Anonymous said...

Sorry...You're has an apostrophe in it when used to represent "you are." As in, you're determined to continue to lump all the BOD supporters into one "anti-sewer" category. Suit yourself.

Anonymous said...

"You're" right. Ah, the dangers of typing too quickly.

So, if your pro-sewer, why stop a sewer project just because you didn't like it? Really now. Be honest. Please tell me how your actions make you pro sewer; or the very least why you do not like being called anti-sewer.

Anonymous said...

Fair enough. I would like a sewer in a different location. I would like it to use low-energy technology. I would like a sewer that is not near the bay in case it spills. I would like a sewer that doesn't put X amount of gallons on a hillside directly above my home. I understand that the regulatory agencies don't care about these "personal opinions." And yes I admit I am upset about the fact that I voted to create a CSD that promised one thing and delivered another (like what is going on now). I know this BOD has made mistakes. So have they all. That does not make me anti-sewer, at least not in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Wow! There is an anon with hindsight none, and who believes that because he writes, it makes his spittle true! Can this be JJJJJJJJJJOOOOOOOOOEEEEEY, or does he have a clone? There is nothing that he writes that makes any sense!!!!!! Foul spiritpen! Has to be him, he knows nothing about what happened and the issues before he got here. SHAME! Criminal fool!

If the current board has this kind of support, it is good reason to DISSOLVE! Can't wait until he speaks in Bankruptcy court! Can't wait until he tried to speak at a supervisors meeting. He must be a supporter of Gibson!

Hey all! Did you see the tribune story today about Bruce Gibson trying to feather his own nest in the "viewshed" contriversy? He tried to push a law through to benefit himself........never mind the property rights of others.

He made it so hard for a neighbor that they had to put their property up for sale. Guess you can't fight a neighbor (Gibson) on the planning comission. Now this is heavy handed corruption! Maybe Gibson was looking for a payoff from the neighbor (under the table of course).

You want this kind of a guy to represent you?

Anonymous said...

Signing off now. Insinuating that I am Joey is not much of a response. As far as I know Joey is not a homeowner.

Anonymous said...

Anon 649 PM September 05,2006 said:

"Hey all! Did you see the tribune story today about Bruce Gibson trying to feather his own nest in the "viewshed" contriversy?"

Jon, what does this have to do with LO's bankruptcy problem?

P.S. Did you miss:

"The personal fight may not have as much traction as Gibson's opponents hope. Gibson outpolled Anderson in Cayucos and Cambria in the June election and he, too, had some ranchers on his side."

P.S.S. I do like your support for getting a sewer built along with Crapkiller's though.

Mike Green said...

Wow! Ann this is pretty funny!
People with no identities arguing about
things they have no control over.
The WAR OF THE ANONS!!

The Sewer Wars are over folks, the cards are played,

It will be interesting, but from here on out its just a ride.

Saw Jon last Monday at the farmers market. said he was leaving next month.

*PG-13 said...

Mike Green > People with no identities arguing about things they have no control over. The WAR OF THE ANONS!!

I'm glad you thought so too. So much of this seems so, how should I say it, yesterday's news? So much of this thread seems like a whole lot of everything that has gone before .... just not as thorough, or as thoughtful or even as thought-provoking. Most of this only qualifies as static. Not even good static. Oh well, this too is part of the blog experience. Let's talk about Adirondack chairs some more. That seemed so much more meaningful and constructive.

Mike Green said...

Personaly I'd rather discuss orchids and fishing. Two most unheathy addictions.

*PG-13 said...

Have ya ever caught fish using orchids as bait? Those are not only fine tasting fish but pretty good lookin too.

BTW, is there such a thing as a healthy addiction?

Mike Green said...

Well, breathing is a heathy addiction.

Not a bad idea orchids as bait, I've got some nice oncideum that might fool a fish for an octopus!
Thanks PG, I'll let you know how it works!

Shark Inlet said...

Jeeezzzee you guys are all pretty touchy.

I wrote "anti-sewer" as a little joke. It actually is funny because it has a bit, but only a bit of truth. Few folks are anti-sewer in Los Osos ... but there are some ... and all of them that I know of essentially support the actions of the current board.

Ron ... if Julie isn't anti-sewer, when did she change? She used to be one of the most anti-sewer people in our town.

Nevertheless, when people took down the "no sewer" signs from their front yards and replaced them with "move the sewer" signs I took them at their word.

One of the many anonymous posters following Ron's vent did have a good point worth echoing. In particular, if one's goal were to stall the sewer as long as possible, it would be hard to do a better job than the current board has done. They've taken a project that was already started and delayed it by at least two years, probably more.

Also to Ron ... you've insinuated before that I am not one person but a committee and that I'm getting paid to make comments here. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that you don't take me at my word is a bit irritating, but also shows a bit about your skills at reaching solid conclusions from the facts. In this case, you've invented this out of whole cloth, something that Ann despises. You might want to watch out because she'll take you to task.

Ron, I don't mind our foul language anonymous friend. At least it is really clear that he cares about our community. I do wish (for his sake) that he would make his points in a way which doesn't cause so much distraction.


Lastly, a note for my nit-picky friends (Ron included) ... note that nowhere in what I wrote did I say that that anyone in particular was anti-sewer ... just that anti-sewer people tend to hang out with folks they tend to agree with. If you wanted to read into what I wrote an implication that I believe that many in our community have this viewpoint you would be doing something that Ann (our gracious host) despises. It seems to me that she sometimes tries to imply things (like when she writes that there isn't proof that nitrates are caused by septics it seems to me that she is saying that she wants more science done before we take any action) but when I (and others) call her on what she seems to be implying, she backs up a bit and says something to the effect of "that's not what I wrote."

In any case ... gotcha!

Anonymous said...

To anon: 7:02

And you are a homeowner? You do not care about the expense that you are going to pay here because of the malfeasance of the current board? You do not care about others less fortunate than you? Do you think that there will be no consequences? Do you think this board will be able to save you, those who squandered the money of the district?

Well, I do not blame you for totally opposing any sewer, obviously you cannot afford to pay the tab. Sorry! Should have sold out EARLY before property values in the PZ TANKED. Sold right before this current board took over! You could have sold at a profit and had the money to move!

You blame "Taxpayers Watch" and "Save the Dream" for your own stupidity? Bye-Bye. Tent city! Live in your car! Upside down, no help! You will not be missed! By the time this all comes down there will be a lot of shoulda-couldas. Where in California can you find "affordable housing"?

You are a maroon, because you are a moron.

YOU ARE GOING TO PAY FOR YOUR STUPIDITY, and so is Ann Calhoun. Ron Crawford will not! Joey Racano will not! Al Barrow will not! Alan Perlman will not! Many of the big mouths at the meetings will not!
Property owners will pay, but government will not pay to take care of you. The minimum price of a house and land in Los Osos prior to the stopping of the sewer was $350,000.

Now houses are not selling. But get ready for financial consequences. Nothing is going to save you from the financial consequences. Thank the board of directors of the current LOCSD. They stopped a sewer, and put us into bankruptcy. Swear at them, or bang you head against the wall.

If you have $100,000 equity in your property, you are not poor. If you cannot pay your bills, adjust you budget. Obviously you can save a lot by not smoking pot, or drinking booze. Your writing reflects this.

Now you will be given the chance to vote to for the fools that caused this problem, or intelligent people who will be hard pressed to maintain MINIMAL services by increasing garbage and water rates, and decreasing para-medic and fire services. No more community clean up, no more chipping of brush, etc. You may have to rent a room to someone with tatoos and gang affiliation to make ends meet, and then you will have to worry about missing stuff. If not you, look to your neighbors, and the extra cars in their driveway. Sheriff services will be made MINIMAL.

The bankruptcy lawyer did not speak to MINIMAL SERVICES.

Swear at your beloved board.

Marooned with no place to go! Sorry! You have been fed a load of crap all these years, and believed the crap. You ate it!

Signed with absolutely no respect for the duped: Ann Calhoun, Al Barrow, Perlman, Racano, Ron Crawford, McPherson, etc. The proof is BANKRUPTCY. Need more proof? Insolvency? This LOCSD cannot survive unless it sells the water assets. Then scream as the water rates are doubled! Thank you LOCSD!

Signed,

Crapkiller (just coming to this blog dominated by a foul writing anon maroon)

May the maroons have a bad day, week, month, and year! They have brought it upon themselves. Sorry!

Mike Green said...

You know, I was just thinking, that a lot of folks don't grasp how truly powerless the common citizen of Los Osos have become.
Quite frankly, I don't blame anyone for not voting next time.
Sad, but that's my opinion.

Anonymous said...

To Lisa Schicker:

"The peer review service is part of NWRI’s mission to create new sources of water through research and technology and to protect the freshwater and marine environments. The review panel will consist of water and wastewater specialists from academia, private sectors, public utilities, and regulatory agencies.

“The focus, interdisciplinary objectivity and real-world expertise they will bring to bear will be invaluable in shaping and ensuring the best plan possible, “said Lisa Schicker, district board president.

The peer review process, overseen by District Engineer Rob Miller, is expected to be completed later next month."

Bring it on! I hope it is just not another false start. She hasn't been right in the past, and what will the CCRWCQB have to say? Will they stop the CDOs? Sometime the odds will be in her favor, but based upon past observation, I cannot believe a word she says.

When they come up with a solution, I hope it will cost less than $50 a month!

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"It seems to me that she sometimes tries to imply things (like when she writes that there isn't proof that nitrates are caused by septics it seems to me that she is saying that she wants more science done before we take any action) but when I (and others) call her on what she seems to be implying, she backs up a bit and says something to the effect of "that's not what I wrote." "

Unbelievable! When you make stuff up and put words in my mouth, so to speak, I tell you "that's not what I wrote," so you AGAIN are making claims about stuff I NEVER WROTE . . are you totally unaware of what you're doing?

Plus, you all need to define what you mean by "anti-sewer." That term now has absolutely no meaning except to stop thinking altogether. It's been so corrupted into a maningless and misleading "shorthand." In semantics, the first thing you learn is Thing #1 is NOT Thing #2, is NOT Thing #3, etc. Anti-TriW is not Anti Sewer, it's Anti-Sewer AT TriW. Big difference.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

When you complain that we don't actually know that septics are the source of the nitrates and you also complain that the PZ isn't based in science and you complain that we shouldn't rush to build a sewer if we don't know that a sewer will solve the nitrate problem .... what do you want us to think?

Are you going to now tell us that you haven't written that we don't know that septics are the source of the nitrates? That the PZ isn't based in science?

Are you going to play Tony Snow now and say that you didn't mean us to connect the dots, that you were just making three unrelated statements.

On the "anti-sewer" ... it was a joke. If you want to take it seriously ... labeling folks of your opinion "anti-sewer" is about as useful as blaming TW for the financial woes of the CSD.

Ron said...

Ann said to Shark:

"... so you AGAIN are making claims about stuff I NEVER WROTE . . are you totally unaware of what you're doing? "

That's the problem. They seem to know exactly what they are doing, that's why they keep doing that over and over and over again. It's obviously part of their strategy.

If we've learned anything over the years, it's that a key element of an effective "behavior based marketing" strategy is to discredit opponents. And almost always, the discrediting is baseless, and usually manufactured.

Shark, you've said that moving the sewer plant out of town would be the cheapest and best thing for Los Osos, and that you don't plan on running for the CSD Board because you think the current board is doing such a great job, so which do you think is the better location for the new treatment facility -- the site near Clark Valley Road, or the site for Ripley's plan, behind the cemetery?

(Payback's a bitch, huh, Shark?)

*PG-13 said...

Me > So much of this seems so, how should I say it, yesterday's news?

Mike Green > The Sewer Wars are over folks, the cards are played, It will be interesting, but from here on out its just a ride.
.......
You know, I was just thinking, that a lot of folks don't grasp how truly powerless the common citizen of Los Osos have become.
Quite frankly, I don't blame anyone for not voting next time.


I tend to agree with this assessment. It seems we are playing out a deck filled with nothing but junk cards. Still, hidden among the wreckage are some subtle but interesting things.

For example, if the county assumption of sewer siting, design and construction is a fait accompli BUT the county wants the CSD to remain a viable intermediary body what would be the county response if the CSD votes (or LAFCO decides) for dissolution? What are the ramifications of candidates campaigning to be elected to the board for the sole purpose of dissolving it? If all the dissolve-the-CSD candidates - for whatever their reasons - were elected would there be sufficient votes on the board to dissolve itself? Do they even have that power? Sewertoons says the CSD CAN'T dissolve it self! Is dissolution solely a decision of LAFCO making all this dissolve-the-CSD rhetoric just that? As already briefly discussed, if the CSD is dissolved what happens to the CSD debt?

Another thread of interest is how all of this is influencing property values and homeowner options. This was briefly discussed in this blog a few weeks ago. Most of this discussion focused on property values in the PZ - as well it should - but Los Osos is more than just the PZ. Costs, penalties and liabilities accrued by the PZ will have carry-over effect to the rest of Los Osos. PZ affairs and impacts cannot be surgically separated from the rest of the community - now and on into the future. Everybody focuses on the monthly expense of a new sewer ($50, $150, $300/month for 10, 15, 20, or 30 years) which does indeed have immediate and significant impact on property values in the PZ. We're now seeing that the liabilities of the PZ vis-a'-vis other community services are extending throughout the valley. There is now and will soon be - once a sewer is built and the building moratorium is lifted - much more to Los Osos than just the PZ. I'm betting donuts the county's going to take a long view on this and will not build a small limited sewer just for the PZ. Landowners hunkered down outside the PZ should be paying close attention as they (and they're pocketbooks) being pulled into this too.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron ...

You know damn well that nothing I wrote about Ann's comments is way off base. If it was you could explain where I am wrong. Ann could as well. However, neither of you have done anything other than the lame "that's not what I wrote" comeback. It is almost as if you are being lazy ... but that wouldn't be surprising from you ... you promised a few months back that proposed Ripley project would cost less than TriW would but when Richard showed this to be incorrect you couldn't explain to us where he was wrong.

The funny thing here is that you are accusing me (and presumably others) of using rhetorical techniques to mislead but your own writing in the comments here and in your own blog is ripe with changing the topic and ducking questions. Even when you do answer questions, they are done in a way which oversimplifies the argument of those you disagree with.

I don't presume that you will care what I write because you've shown in the past that you just don't care about much of anything in this debate besides scoring points for your position of "it's Pandora's fault."

Sewertoons said...

I'm curious (again) - WHICH candidates are CAMPAIGNING to be elected to the board for the sole purpose of dissolving it? I see no candidate's statements (of the ones I have seen so far) that states that… where did you find this info?

Shark Inlet said...

Sewertoons,

Ron the journalist who never makes mistakes says that the candidates which will vote to dissolve the CSD are Shipe, Duggan and Edwards.

While they have not actually said such things in public, he talked with each one on the phone and they assured him that they are so irritated with the current "bait-n-switchy" CSD board that if they are elected they'll vote that the CSD formally requests LAFCO to dissolve the CSD.

Anonymous said...

Whoever gets in to take the place of Cessna, Fouche, and Senet should start by passing a resolution condemming and censuring these board members and the two women and also the legal representation. They should pass another resolution asking the state attorney general to prosecute them. Thereafter, they should fire the lawyers and IGM, make George Milanes GM, and sue the lawyers for errors and omissions with some of the tax money coming in in December. I bet the lawyers settle quick.

Crapkiller

Sewertoons said...

Thanx shark!! You've made my day!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:20

I am not poor considering I have equity right now about $850,000. Bought a property in 1989 and another in 1993, both in the PZ. Been waiting a long time for decent planning here, maybe the county can deliver. Been waiting a long time for that as well. No tent for me, I'm in it for the long haul.

Sincerely,
Moron, Marooned, Anti-Sewer or whatever other labels you have for me

Anonymous said...

Here's some "behavior based marketing" for you:

at 11:33 AM, September 06, 2006 Shark Inlet said:

in regards to Richard LeGros' budget projections... "he was wrong"

and finally Shark Inlet admits... "it's Pandora's fault."

Anonymous said...

Sharky... finally coming around.

I am glad to see you are finally seeing the error of your ways and agreeing with some of the things Ron has posted in the past.

Its nice to see bridges being built.

Everyone... a nice round of applause for Sharky... burying the hatchet and coming to an understanding with the "anti-sewer" crowd.

Its so nice to read your kind words... in fact I'm going to scroll up and read them again.

Anonymous said...

I too was surprised to see and read that Sharky has changed his views... wow!!!

Anonymous said...

Ron you have a new fan...

Sharky said... "Ron the journalist who never makes mistakes"

I thought you two were on opposite sides of this?? It seems Sharky has changed his mind.

What did it, Ron? How did you finally convice him?

Anonymous said...

Hi Ann - Could you please comment on what Blakeslee had to say about Los Osos at "Talk About The Bay"? I heard he was a speaker. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

To anon 6:05 PM:

I am glad you are in it for the long haul, at this point most will be marooned in a very bad situation until all this sorts out. Although you have perceived equity of $850,000 right now, the question is how will additional payments of $625 to $700 per month (2 homes) affect your cash flow and disposible income in the future? How much will you be able to pass off in increased rent? The other question is in the long term, what will happen to the homes in your area, when each homeowner is deprived of $1,800 a year or greater for potential maintenance? (Difference in costs due to time delay and increased costs of construction for sewer system). (Never mind those who will be hard pressed to pay for any sewer) And then there will be an assesment for LOCSD debt, at this time unknown. Since you live below the Broderson potential leach fields, this neighborhood has been deteriating for years, and those marooned property owners will be hard pressed to turn this around. Your home is only as good as those near it when it comes to resale, and you will never get the money out of it when it becomes the best home on the block or in the neighborhood. Especially when you have a dump next door and across the street. I drove through the neighborhood today, it has MOSTLY deteriated drastically in outside appearance since you bought originally. Kudos to those who have done proper maintenance and have fixed up their homes! However the shame is that most of their neighbors have not.

There is no doubt that your neighborhood occupies prime coastal land, and the principle value of you homes lie with the land. In the long haul, after a sewer is in, and that is a possible very long haul ( six to ten years) if it is built out of town with an energy efficient design that everyone would like, then your neighborhood will start to turn around as baby boomers come in and improve the neighborhood, house by house. This assumes that the CCRWCQB will continue to allow 1.2 million gallons of septic discharge to continue to flow into the upper aquifer and thence into the bay every day.

There is another factor: The CCRWQCB. This board wants this done quickly. Like most others in the county, they consider the people of Los Osos fighting Tri-W kooks and nuts. The televised meetings have not helped! The pollution problem has been going on for thirty years, and now it has come to a head, although as of this writing the Blakeslee bill has not been signed by the governator. The county will bow to the board, and come up with the fastest solution possible to avoid fines and pumping. I bet it will be Tri-W.

Actually you will benefit and your home will not slide off the hill. But if the county decides to defy the CCRWQCB, or drags its ass, Los Osos does not pass a 218 vote, expect pumping and every other trick they have to compell you and the county to accept their decision. The penalties will rest squarely on the shoulders of the property owners in the PZ.

You know, if wishes were automobiles, beggars would ride. We never get anything that is perfect. The people that have kept this sewer (any sewer) from being built for thirty years, for ANY reason, have destroyed the property owners of this district, themselves included. Consider your pocketbook.

You have been waiting a long time for decent planning here, but this is a retrofit. What we got we got. Sorry for all of us.

You are obviously not anti sewer, and not a moron, and apparently not the foul mouth in your recent posts. You, perhaps, have been taken for another anon. The only thing you can be criticized for is high expectations, but the expectations belong to you. Government does not give a rats ass about your expectations, consider the bankruptcy of the district and severe insolvency.

Do not feel smug about your $850,000 equity. Even if you cash out , you will need $1,000,000 to achieve a safe income of $50,000 a year for retirement, plus your other investments and social security. You will pay taxes on this. What you have left may not take care of your needs. And please do not complain about the high cost of gasoline. If you drink bottled water at $1.50 a pint, this water costs you $12 a gallon.

******* Denny Crane ****** Denny Crane*****

*PG-13 said...

Oh man, I'm rolling back and forth on the floor laughing my fool head off. (RbafOFLmfho). You guys & gals are very very funny. With a not-so-subtle mean streak.

The "behavior based marketing" outtakes were hilarious. The pile on afterwards even funnier.

Shark > On the "anti-sewer" ... it was a joke. and Ron the journalist who never makes mistakes ...

Note to Shark, I think subtle humor is beyond this crowd. Don't take it serious, we still love ya.

Ron said...

Shark said:

"However, neither of you have done anything other than the lame "that's not what I wrote" comeback."

And then they said:

"Ron the journalist who never makes mistakes says that the candidates which will vote to dissolve the CSD are Shipe, Duggan and Edwards."

Sharky, that's not what I wrote. For God's sake, I don't even know who Shipe is. (Although, you are right about me never making mistakes... in my reporting, at least.)

"While they have not actually said such things in public, he talked with each one on the phone..."

I did? Or is that just some more of your "subtle humor?"

Anons 6:29 PM, 6:30 PM, 6:32 PM... funny.

Anonymous said...

Apparently sarcasm is lost on Ron and several other posters...

Anonymous said...

To Anon 9:22

Thank you for your civil, thoughtful response. You made some good points, many that I agree with even though I wish it weren't so. Yes I am guilty of high expectations and this collective mentality may be the cause of this whole recall mess. I am what one might call a "true believer"! (That doesn't make me more or less intelligent than anyone else in this community.) The worst label is "Joey" (almost worse than being called anti-sewer!) I voted for the recall but have no business whatsoever with this Joey person. Hope everyone has a nice day.

*PG-13 said...

Thanks anon 9:22 (aka Denny Crane). Yes, these are the kinds of things we might start thinking about beyond the aggravations of which sewer is going to be put where and exactly how much per month is that going to cost us. There are loads of derivative issues which are going to be weighing the community down for many years into the future and we've not even begun to identify them much less address them. As you point out with some clarity our equity and financial condition is more than just a monthly cash flow thing. As if that wasn't enough! We assume so much about the stasis of coastal property values I think we forget how much our property value (read: equity) is based on our neighborhood and our community.

Let's count it up. In addition to the interestingly large monthly fees for sewer service and CDO compliance/defense for the PZ. There will also be increased service fees for all of Los Osos, not just the PZ. How the huge debt load is going to be sliced and diced is anybody's guess. But $40 million (and still climbing) debt is seldom discounted to nothingness. Truth is, the PZ alone simply cannot pay it. This too, in some way, is going to be a distributed shared expense whether by the rest of Los Osos or the county or the state or ....? There are no free lunches. And we still don't have a long-term source of potable water, paved streets, or much in the way of community infrastructure or amenities. Even if the money isn't ripped off its gonna be a long time before the pittance in the pool fund can pay for a pool. Does anybody think we're ever gonna get a city park now? (uh, that's a joke ;-) (sort of) I guess we could all become most excellent skateboarders. Best not crash and hurt yourself though cuz the one ambulance is going to be very busy. As anon 9:22 points out, all of this is going to weigh heavily on money typically used to maintain houses and support the community. Los Osos is already the poor ugly step-child of the central coast. How much worse can it get? Sadly, probably quite a bit worse. Can somebody please help me see a silver lining here?

An interesting paradox noted throughout history: During exceptionally hard times there are two growth industries - churches and bars. While the churches may produce higher spiritual returns the bars tend to produce better capital returns. How many bars do you think this town can support?

Shark Inlet said...

Ron ....

Did you take your stupid pills this morning or are you just dumb every day? We would expect better from someone with above average research skills and some writing ability.

Oh ... you also forgot to give kudos to anon 6:26, a far better comeback.

Perhaps you should take more time to read messages here and compose your replies ... it seems as if you are now trying to simply criticize what I write without putting thought into it ... it is almost as if my name is Pandora.


To our most recent anonymous friend ... you are right. It is high expectations that caused most of us to believe that the solutions group could do a better job than the County and high expectations that caused many of us to believe that out of town would be a practical or workable solution. The unfortunate thing here is that we screwed up twice now and we're paying more because of our screw-ups. (Please read my comments here to include lawsuits which have delayed the project ... every 3 month delay in the construction is costing us about $400 each so we should read Al and Julie bragging that they've delayed the sewer by 2 years as having cost us each about $3000.)

Shark Inlet said...

PG ... I agree that just the PZ shouldn't bear the burden of paying for the various debts. Similarly, once the "creative accounting" of Blesky is deciphered, we'll figure out who has been paying for CDO defense, the Ripley study and ACL hearing defense costs.

The debt associated with the district fines and the district lawsuits should be borne by the entire district. However, even if you include those outside the PZ, you shouldn't expect that the monthly fee will change much. According Richard's ballpark guesstimates, we're only talking about $50/month for each property in the district (for the next 30 years) ... if those outside the PZ are included, that's still $43/month.

I do like your joke about the park ... but as Ron reminds us, if the County doesn't want the park, they'll have to go before the CCC to get those changes approved. It might be cheaper to include the park than to deal with the delay associated with another CCC hearing.

The silver lining may be that the only people who will be moving into Los Osos will find cheaper home prices and will likely bring wealth with them so we'll get some gentrification. For the humor challenged (read "Ron"), what I mean by that is that due to the actions of our five most recently elected boardmembers we'll get the same plan that the previous board had, but we get a whole lot more debt and higher interest rates and more of our friends will have to move out of town. Thanks Ron for encouraging those well intentioned people who have damaged our town!

*PG-13 said...

Not really wanting to hog the blog and turn this into a chat-fest but it seems its just you and me on-line right now. Nor do I wish to get into another piss-off. Seems there are plenty of those already. But I do feel compelled to point out some inconsistencies in your commentary.

You honor that we have all fallen prey to high expectations and that we have all erred - first one side and then the other - and now we are all going to pay the price.

Shark > To our most recent anonymous friend ... you are right. It is high expectations that caused most of us to believe that the solutions group could do a better job than the County and high expectations that caused many of us to believe that out of town would be a practical or workable solution. The unfortunate thing here is that we screwed up twice now and we're paying more because of our screw-ups.

Nor can I nor will I defend (what I consider) the fringe interests represented by Al and Julie as you describe here:

Shark > ( ... every 3 month delay in the construction is costing us about $400 each so we should read Al and Julie bragging that they've delayed the sewer by 2 years as having cost us each about $3000.)

But I gotta take exception with your conclusion:

Shark > ... what I mean by that is that due to the actions of our five most recently elected boardmembers we'll get the same plan that the previous board had, but we get a whole lot more debt and higher interest rates and more of our friends will have to move out of town. Thanks Ron for encouraging those well intentioned people who have damaged our town!

Oh please spare me the social fiddles and blaming the messenger. Put down your swords gentlemen. What I'm seeing here - not just in your commentary but in others as well - is that the first group/set/board/perspective is allowed to make terribly expensive mistakes over a long period of time. But the alternative/counter perspective is not allowed to make similar mistakes in response (in a very short period of time) without being blamed for everything. Yeah, as the game progresses the conditions change so depending where on the timeline you focus the parameters are different. These are the dynamics of an ever-changing world. OK, its a stretch, but the dynamics are similar to one perspective got us into a questionable war ..... now what are our options? Stay the course regardless of changing information and circumstances? Or cut bait (orchards?) and change course. (Please note, I said change course not drop everything and leave asap.) Either choice is going to be painful and expensive. But one seems more correct in time. (See: "... high expectations that caused many of us to believe that out of town would be a practical or workable solution." Dang, you can't have it both ways. You either hafta pick a side and defend that side regardless of changing circumstance and parameters. (Read: Committed to a strategy regardless of circumstance. This is often called blind commitment.) Or you gotta accept that there is going to be inefficiency, pain and cost in responding directly to the current and ever-changing situation. You can't blame those who come after for the errors of those who came before. You can ask and expect them to address the current situation. To keep coming back and blaming the current board for ALL the ugliness of our current dire situation is, I gotta say it, childish. And I know you are not a child. Nor are most of the other bloggers on this blog (potty mouths notwhithstanding). It just seems so childish to keep pointing fingers and casting blame over the past when the only thing that matters are the decisions ahead of us. Yes, we can and should learn from our mistakes. But I'm seeing far more blame casting and precious little learning in these 'the old board did that and now the new board did this and now who's to blame for the crap we're sitting in?' arguments. Geesh, both boards suck! They have seemingly made nothing but bad decisions. But they seemed good at the time - at least to those making the decisions. (See: questionable war above.) I guess what I'm saying is let's deal with the issues before us, consider how we got here, try to not make similar mistakes, but cut the blame and get on with it.

Anonymous said...

Shark said... "every 3 month delay in the construction is costing us about $400 each so we should read Al and Julie bragging that they've delayed the sewer by 2 years as having cost us each about $3000.)"

Lets see, $400 every 3 months comes to $133 per month.

And $3000 every 2 years is $125 per month.

Both of those costs are less than what a monthly sewer bill would have been.

Sharky,are you saying that we are actually saving money by delaying the project??

According to your figures for every month we delay we are saving $166 each per month (using the $300 per month estimate Richard has projected).

That's fantastic!!!

And all along I thought this delay was costing us money.

Thanks for enlightening us Sharky, and for supporting the "move the sewer" plan.

Shark Inlet said...

PG ... you are right.

Both the Solutions Group and the new group made mistakes and I seem to be harsher in my comments about the new group. There are essentially two reasons.

First, the 1st group learned from their mistakes and eventually put forward a plan that was approved by the CCC, the CCRWQCB and the SWRCB while their mistakes may have cost us in terms of $/month, a sizable portion of the increases in cost before the recall can be attributed to lawsuits or other stalling tactics (like the CCC permit revocation hearing where Julie essentially complained that some aspects of the park had been taken out of the TriW plan) from those who were either "anti-sewer" or "move the sewer".

The second reason is that the new group seems to have horribly accelerated the rate of increase in our costs. Not only do we have costs associated with the delay, we have costs associated with fines, legal fees, lawsuits and the rest. Pretty much all of these things were predicted in advance of the election yet those who promoted the recall were telling us that it would be easy to move the WWTF location and that it would be cheaper than TriW. Before the recall I (and many others) pointed out that it wouldn't be cheaper. Now after nearly a year we finally have the Ripley report which shows (if you put things in fair terms) that it will cost us more than TriW would have and even more than TriW will if we try to start it up again.

Yes, I am frustrated and angry with both groups but moreso with the recent group because they've done more damage to our community and because they're still out of touch and blaming everyone else for the harm that seems to be the result of their own actions.

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent anonymous ...

You seem to forget that these "savings" aren't savings at all.

The real question is sort of like this ....

Would you rather pay $200/month for 20 years or would you rather pay $130/month for five years followed by $200/month for an additional 20?

Admittedly there are a few who would reasonably prefer the second option, but very few.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey, bubbled:
"First, the 1st group learned from their mistakes and eventually put forward a plan that was approved by the CCC, the CCRWQCB and the SWRCB while their mistakes may have cost us in terms of $/month, a sizable portion of the increases in cost, ect."
Whoooeee!!!
That is a world class rose colored glass, unabashed SPIN!

How about this rewrite.

First, the 1st group when confronted, after two years, with the fact of their ego inflating dissacociation with reality were forced to swindle the CCC in order to put forth a project that the CCRWQCB and the SWRCB could buy into without having to get rid of the horrible mistakes they had already made.
the rest of it concerning costs and what not are right on.

Cartinalageous catharisis.

Mike Green said...

Hey, anybody want to help me with the "Wave Wall" Timeline of shame?
I'm thinking a nice brass plack.
Where shall we start it?

Anonymous said...

Shark said... "like the CCC permit revocation hearing where Julie essentially complained that some aspects of the park had been taken out of the TriW plan"

I dont know how many times you have said this... at first I thought it was just an oversimplification but everytime it is repeated it proves to be you trying to rewrite history... again.

First of all the park issue was discussed during the De Novo hearing, not the revocation hearing...

But both hearings were not about adding park elements back in that were removed... they were about the sewer plant being entirely different than the one that was in the original EIR and project report.

I'm not going to rehash that all here, but just briefly mention that it was the size, technology, impacts, cost, and above groundedness of it that lead to the revocation request.

The CCC focused on the removed amenities due to the fact that the only reason they approved the site was to provide the amenities.

Julie's contention was that there had been so many changes to every aspect of the plan that the EIR should have been amended... the CSD never did, instead deciding to issue an addendum when clearly an amendment would have been more appropriate.

Who knew, that with so many changes to the original plan that the CCC had approved, that they would focus on the park.

The opponents mistake was allowing the focus to remain on the park... which in hind site turned out to be part of Buel's ploy to get the SRF to pay for the park (as he admitted on Dave Congleton's show last September).

Ironically, by removing the park amenities and having the CCC mandate their inclusion, he was able to use SRF funds to pay for them. The opponents played into his little scheme that he had planned from day one.

So to say that the hearings were about park amenities is absolutely incorrect... it was way more involved in that.

Your implication is that Julie just wanted her tot lot and amphitheatre and never had issue with the rest of the plan... and that since she couldnt find any other fault with the site or the plan she just used the amenities to stop the sewer...

That is absolutely false... there was plenty wrong with the plan, and Julie rightfully brought all of it to the CCC.

So, again, please stop focusing on the park... that's not what the fight was about.

Anonymous said...

Shark said... "the Ripley report which shows (if you put things in fair terms) that it will cost us more than TriW would have and even more than TriW will if we try to start it up again."

Would have...

That is a flat out lie... the Ripley plan clearly shows that it WOULD HAVE been cheaper than the Tri-W plan if the original CSD had chosen to go that way.

In addition... the CSD's own documents show that the out of town plan WOULD HAVE been the same price if they had decided to move it there in April of 2004.

And... the post recall negotiations clearly showed that the out of town site WOULD HAVE been cheaper.

As far as WILL BE...

You are basing all of your statements on information you have received from Richard LeGros. We all know how relieable his finance abilities are from his action while serving on the CSD board and Fianance committee...

Basing anything on his information is just not credible.

Anonymous said...

Intermission:
Frogs is funny
Yea dey is
Dey hops aroun an says "Gee Wiz"
I likes the green ones in de trees
I bet dey thinks dey bumblbees
Some is big
Some is small
If you axed me, I likes dem all
I loves to see dey floating eggs
And loves to eat det crispy leggs


p garret

Shark Inlet said...

Mike

I'll help with your plaque as long as Ann, Ron and I all get our names on it!

In terms of your comment on my spin about cost increases during the solutions group LOCSD board, Al and Julie proudly boast of causing some two years of delay in the project. It is during exactly that timeframe that the estimated project cost went up so dramatically due to hyper-inflation in construction costs. You can blame the solutions group or the previous board for these costs but I would argue that had Al and Julie simply not fought the LOCSD during this timeframe, the total bill would have been far closer to $125/month.

Your point about the solutions group being forced to swindle the CCC suggests you believe Ron's story. Considering the quality of his analysis of late I have to wonder whether he is as right as he sounds when he discusses the ancient history of 1997-2004.


Some of what our anonymous friend of 6:49 writes sounds so much like Ron that I've got to ask ... Ron ... is it you? (And, if it is you, I find it amusing that Ron applauded another anonymous poster with many of the same posting conventions as our current anonymous friend and Ron ... could it be that Ron is posting as himself and as an anonymous and even giving himself "attaboys"?)

As to which hearing had the argument, I would suggest you look at the staff report for the permit revocation hearing. That staff report contains the charge "they took out some park stuff" from CCLO and the staff concludes the change was so minimal that it is of no consequence. Yes, other changes were mentioned, but when you complain that the park is now smaller than you were promised it sort of sounds like ... um ... you want a larger park. The funny thing is that the LOCSD and CCC had already agreed to scale down the park to save money. You tell me, if the complaint wasn't about the park, why did CCLO make a point to complain about the park?

If it is Ron who wrote "So, again, please stop focusing on the park..." I just have to smile. The irony of Ron writing this just warms my heart.


Our other anonymous friend shows some confusion about issues financial.

The hugely biased Ripley document (which ignores inflation entirely) shows that if the design was already accomplished and if there were now lawsuits and if the project was already approved that the out of town plant would be cheaper. The problem here is inflation. Furthermore, the 100% ag-exchange idea won't fly because not enough farmland is irrigated with water from our aquifer ... in-lieu simply won't work. Furthermore, the RWQCB will never approve a water treatment plant that is designed to work as long as we all cut our water use approximately 60%.

The CSD's own documents don't show that the plant would have been cheaper. They show that it could have been cheaper and it could have been more expensive. Furthermore, those comparisons at the time ignore the costs necessary to design a new system and WWTF ... extra costs.

As far as your attack on Richard ... it conveniently avoids actually discussing the issues. If you have a single valid criticism of the analysis he's provided, tell us. The fact that none of Richard's opponents (and there are many) have been able to point out a single error in his conclusions. If you had the truth on your side you could point out an error. Knock yourself out and get back to us if you have anything other than misleading information and ad hominem attacks on Richard's anaysis.

Anonymous said...

Shark said..."Would you rather pay $200/month for 20 years or would you rather pay $130/month for five years followed by $200/month for an additional 20?"

Change that to 30 years and it may have a huge difference on how you answer that.

Compare this debt to a mortgage... how many people truly look at what they pay for their house in terms of length of making the payment. Most want an affordable monthly payment.

You ask... would you make 5 additional years of payments to have a discounted payment for the first five years?

Of course... that's why they have 40 year loans now... that's what an interest only loan is. That's what you get when you refinance.

What a silly question.

I dont look at my home loan in terms of length... I assume I will always have a monthly payment.

Who knows what tomorrow will bring... I may have to sell and move, or refinance to take equity out to pay for the up front sewer costs, or I may lose my job, or get sick and have to refinance to lower my payment.

Besides... why am I worried about 5 years worth of $200 a month payments that I will have to make in 30 years. In 30 years $200 won't be what it is today... that might be what we pay for a movie and a bucket of popcorn on a friday night.

And... If I dont live in Los Osos, I wont have to pay it anyway.

So... why not delay this thing as long as possible... as long as your $120/month projection is less than the sewer bill... when it gets to be close to the same then we'll talk.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey bubbled:
"In terms of your comment on my spin about cost increases during the solutions group LOCSD board, Al and Julie proudly boast of causing some two years of delay in the project.
Here is my direct quote:
Mike Green (me) wrote:
" the rest of it concerning costs and what not are right on."

Sharkey, please sharpen up!

Plaque? is that how you spell it?
I like plack, sounds like plank, as in "walk the"

Sure! contributors names are welcome!

Anonymous said...

Shark said..."If it is Ron who wrote "So, again, please stop focusing on the park..." I just have to smile. The irony of Ron writing this just warms my heart."

No I am not Ron... there is more than one person out there that can remember how things actually went down... not reinventing history like you.

Shark said... " You tell me, if the complaint wasn't about the park, why did CCLO make a point to complain about the park?"

I already answered that... the revocation request was based on the fact that so much has changed with every aspect of the project that the CCC approved... including the park. Why leave out the park when it was one of those things?

I just said dont FOCUS on the park.

The point is that with the changes the Tri-W site was no longer appropriate... and you could argue that it was never appropriate, but especially so with the changes.

One of the arguments was that the wave wall was rediculous... but Julie wasnt asking that the wave wall be removed and the plant be built without it...

Just like she wasnt asking for the plant to be built with a park.

I'll say it again... all the issues, added up made the argument that the plant was not appropriate for Tri-W... that was the case then... and is still the case now.

Tri-W is inappropriate for a sewer plant... always was, always will be.

Had the CSD amended the EIR it would have never been approved with all the changes... they knew it!!!

That's as much as admitting that Tri-W was a poor site.

Mike Green said...

As far as beliving Ron's Storey
No, I dont need Ron to tell me what to think.
All you realy need to believe is that Bud Laurent gave the Cuesta study to the Nash- Karners when he did.
What happens after that is history.

Frogs is funny...

Mike Green said...

PG pontificated:
"An interesting paradox noted throughout history: During exceptionally hard times there are two growth industries - churches and bars. While the churches may produce higher spiritual returns the bars tend to produce better capital returns. How many bars do you think this town can support?

Well, I'm glad you asked.
My guess is 5000.
4999 to go!

Septic Syrah, anyone?

Shark Inlet said...

To our 7:58pm anonymous friend.

Yes, for some people it is "better" to have no (or low) payments now but much higher payments later. I would suggest, however, that because the total bill goes up, most of us would be far better with the lower total. If you are going to argue that we all should pay much more down the road because a few of us would find it financially more convient to make our payments later you are being selfish and not recognizing that there are other consequences of not building a sewer ASAP. Additional pollution and CDOs and saltwater intrusion into our aquifer are other problems with your approach of delay. Convince me that we'll all be better or that at least the average person in Los Osos would be better with the delay and you'll have made your point.


To Mike ... sorry. In my desire to clarify my point I inadvertently implied that you had disagreed with me.


To our anonymous friend of 8:10 ... you seem to be telling us that the CCLO complaint listing was to emphasize the way in which the project had changed. You seem to forget that the CCC approved of the TriW project. They listened politely to the CCLO arguments and after careful consideration said the changes (which were essentially required by the RWQCB) were just fine. The problem I have here is that when folks complain about the amount of money spend on the park portion of the project, they need to realize that the CCC and LOCSD had agreed to spend less on the park but that the CCLO complaint about the park shrinking in cost caused the CCC and LOCSD to put those more expensive things back in.

There is no perfect site for a WWTF in Los Osos. TriW, like each possible site, has benefits and drawbacks. The review process by the RWQCB and CCC is designed to verify that the site isn't stupid. Had the site been as bad as you suggest neither board would have approved the site. The benefits include proximity to the households, proximity to the broderson recharge location, and at least by 2002, a WWTF at TriW could be done sooner and cheaper than any other site. Maybe had another, out of town site been chosen in 1997-2001 we wouldn't be having any argument at all, but you do have to admit that in 2001 the community was pretty much squarly behind the TriW plan. When regulatory agencies or engineering or geological concerns required changes they were made. There is no way in advance of choosing the site that we would know all of the problems that would be associated with the site just like we cannot now know all the problems with the Giacomazzi site that the new board likes better. In situations like this (like in life in general) sometimes you've got to pick a strategy and go with it. Perhaps the CSD in 2001 should have two projects in parallel just to see which was best after all the design work was done. Somehow I suspect that had they asked for $25M in bond money instead of just $18M there would have been complaints.

Another strategy in 2002-2003 would have been to walk away from all the planning and work on TriW when we found out that the type of plant would have to be different than we had originally intended. Now, in retrospect, it seems like that would have been wise when you consider the various lawsuits and other cost increases associated with those who felt strongly that TriW was a bad location ... because those cost increases caused general unrest which caused the recall to be successful which had caused our costs to go up yet again. However back at the time you are essentially asking that the CSD have forseen all the problems and walked away from an investment of millions of dollars for an uncertain alternative that had already been studied and determined to be even worse.

Who knows ... maybe you just have better forsight than the rest of us. Actually, now that I think about it, probably not. If you voted for the recall, knowing in advance that it would ultimately mean and extra $40M in debts, the County taking the project over and building at TriW anyways, increased pollution and the likely dissolution of the CSD you probably would have voted against the recall. The point here is that we made mistakes in the 1998-2002 timeperiod (the biggest was voting in the CSD to begin with), but the best solution to these mistakes isn't going back to square one. Sometimes the best solution is to work around the problems that are too expensive to fix.

Anonymous said...

Take a look, the bastards at the SWB just launched their next salvo (and they mention Ann by name):

RWQCB website

Ron said...

Mike: 6:17 PM, September 07, 2006 -- excellent post.

An Anon said:

"Ironically, by removing the park amenities and having the CCC mandate their inclusion, he was able to use SRF funds to pay for them."

All while other cash-challenged California communities couldn't get a penny of SRF money for their non-amphitheater projects. "Bait and switchy" paid off... well, almost. I wrote about all that here.

Sharkster said:

"Considering the quality of his analysis of late I have to wonder whether he is as right as he sounds when he discusses the ancient history of 1997-2004."

Yea, that ancient history of 2004.

Also, don't forget the ancient history of 2006 when I reported that Nash-Karner developed a "strategy" to have the RWQCB fine Los Osos in late 2005, and when I also reported that the only way the initial board could keep their second project at Tri-W is if they overrode their environmental review process, which they promptly did... with a document that doesn't hold a drop of water. How was the quality of that analysis, Shark?

I wrote:

"If we've learned anything over the years, it's that a key element of an effective "behavior based marketing" strategy is to discredit opponents. And almost always, the discrediting is baseless, and usually manufactured."

And then Sharky wrote:

"Some of what our anonymous friend of 6:49 writes sounds so much like Ron that I've got to ask ... Ron ... is it you? (And, if it is you, I find it amusing that Ron applauded another anonymous poster with many of the same posting conventions as our current anonymous friend and Ron ... could it be that Ron is posting as himself and as an anonymous and even giving himself "attaboys"?)"

Uhhhggg...

Mike said:

"All you realy need to believe is that Bud Laurent gave the Cuesta study to the Nash- Karners when he did."

Quick clarification: According to one of my sources at the county, Laurent "hand delivered" to the Karners a long list of problems in the Solution Group's plan that county staff identified. Problems that "any developer would have to deal with," the source said. And when I asked him, "What did they do with that list?" He said, "They just sat on it."

The Questa Study was a separate, huge piece of evidence that showed that the SG's Plan was dead on arrival -- along with the Coastal Commission's own comparison, and the RWQCB telling them that partial sewering of the PZ simply was not going to fly.

And the Solution Group was aware of all of that before the election that formed the CSD on the back of their non-plan.

And then, after almost two years of chasing that dead-on-arrival plan, all of them -- the county, the Questa Study, the CC's own comparison and the RWQCB -- would prove to be exactly right.

Niiiiiice. How's that taste, Los Osos?

And what makes all of that much less "ancient history"-ish is that those same people that did all of that are still, still pulling on all kinds of strings in LO.

Any questions on why you have a civics train wreck?

*PG-13 said...

Shark > ... The point here is that we made mistakes in the 1998-2002 time period (the biggest was voting in the CSD to begin with),

Amen. Now there's something I think darn near alllllll of us can agree on!

Anon 1:08 > .... the SWB just launched their next salvo (and they mention Ann by name):

The specific report noted by Anon 1:08 is here . Reference to Ann is on page 18 as follows:

> In summary, only 14 of the 37 technologies for which performance data were available are rated to treat domestic wastewater to less than 10 mg/L total nitrogen–the minimum performance necessary to eventually restore Los Osos’ groundwater to drinking water standards. And of those 14 technologies (e.g., sequencing batch reactors, membrane bioreactors, and wetlands), all are complex treatment systems that require significant operation and maintenance. None are commonly applied to individual properties for these reasons. ....
>
> Another commenter, Ann Calhoun, said that Dr. John Alexander has an effective onsite-nitrogen removal system that has been proven to this "RB staff's satisfaction." Staff met with Dr. Alexander a few years ago and he indicated that his system would not be applicable to residential use. Staff understands that the system is not commercially available. ........ Contrary to Ms Calhoun's claim the system has not been proven to staff satisfaction.


Curiously, it appears Ann's name is the only citizen's name explicitly stated in the entire report. I propose that this most definitely makes her wave wall memorial brass plaque material. Slam dunk!

While this amended staff report makes for an interesting read I would have expected more at this stage of such a complex and controversial project. If I was a university professor (which I'm not) and this report was submitted to me as a semester project in County Planning 1A I would give it a B-. It is well written and easily readable. And it is fairly comprehensive in scope. An A grade so far. But its coverage of the technical and engineering issues seems a tad shallow. And big sweeping conclusions are drawn from seemingly limited, sometimes dated and often conflicting engineering reports. For example, in this snippet alone there appear to be a couple of inconsistencies which would seem to confuse and contradict the conclusions made about the efficacy and availability of on-site nitrogen removal systems. The report cites a 15 year old study, a study of noted questionable validity, as proof that such systems are not effective. They also a cite a very dated (1986) report which claims such systems "appear to violate all laws of chemistry". It mentions nothing about the Pirana system and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) standard #IGC 180-2003 which can be used to measure and qualify the performance of on-site systems such as the Pirana. Which IS commercially available. And, according to more than one net citation, has received some positive response from the RWQCB. Apparently that doesn't translate to "staff's satisfaction" but if they're going to quote and deny Ann's assertion so strongly and directly they should probably also explain how she might have been mislead to believe otherwise. Staff certainly may still have issues with on-site treatment but the conclusions derived from their documented analysis is murky at best. B-

Now back to your original programming ...... He said/ She said, No I didn't ever say that, Are you always this stupid?

Mike Green said...

Thanks for the correction Ron, I get the two reports mixed up sometimes.
It realy dosnt matter at all in the telling of the tale.
Both reports said the same thing.

Lots of reasons for the "train wreck" though,
Some would say that incompetance and egos were the root of the evil, maybe they have a point.
I think that Los Osos was almost gauranteed to be in this mess.
The state method of large project infrastucture has a severe break down when confronted by such a small community attempting such an expensive undertaking to solve a problem that is not causing any observable problems.
The other problem is that people are allowed to make campaign statements without fear of any real consequences.
Most people vote on what is published in the official voter pamplet.
This needs closer study.
Also, the way we mandate then enact enviromental laws needs work.
The county should have never been allowed to give up responsibility of a problem that they (The county board of supervisors)had created, plain and simple.
There is something karmic and comic that they are now back in control.

FBLeG said...

To be clear, I am not Richard LeGros.

Just testing Blogspot registration. Doesn't seem like there is any reason for people who regularly post to continue to be an anon. It's an easy process to register and post under any name you'd like apparently.

Anonymous said...

Hi f**king-balls-legross,

LOL...your obviously have a fixation about my balls. Your a sick little donkey. But I do not have a problem with your blog name. It just adds character to my public image.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Previously on this blog, mention has been repetedly made of the pirana system, which is no more than and air powered agitation system using proprietary bacteria inside a septic tank.

Nowhere, ANYWHERE, have I seen any scientific data that it removes nitrates, or the nitrite that eventually produces nitrate. through bacterial action. Can some expert help me with this?

Anonymous said...

I guess after losing the great Tourette's Syndrome debate(anon 11:05&11:52 9/4), this is all Richard(Dick) has to say. Also interesting that Dick doesn't seem to have a problem with someone else having a fixation on his balls. Well the kids are back in school so maybe you should give Gordon a call Dick. I'm sure Gordon needs something to play with and I'm sure you're tired of playing with your own balls. If this were the Middle Ages both of you would be locked in the center of town stockade with rotten produce hanging off your face. Dick also seems to think that his Tourette's "I HAVE FUCKING BALLS" outburst at a public meeting for all the Community to see and hear "adds character to his public image". Well Dick, it might add character to your pubic image although I'm still betting you're a neuter that has a serious case of penis envy. When I think of you screaming "I HAVE FUCKING BALLS" at a televised CSD meeting, "character" isn't the first word that comes to mind. The words that come to mind are.....infamy, dishonor, and shame. Who is it that you're supporting for election to the CSD? Oh, that's right, you're supporting Maria Kelly, Lyn Tornatzky, and Joe Sparks. Thanks for letting us all know who NOT to vote for.

Have a nice day:)

p.s. anon11:17...........I believe they are testing this system at the Fire Station and there is already lysimeter data that shows it's working. ;)

Anonymous said...

I also read the most recent pronouncements of the CCRWQCB. It seems like the staff has softened their position with a hard look at reality, and leaving options open.

However, everything said about the problem has been previously said by them in the past. Why have fools been fighting them to no avail? Or have the fools prevailed?

Anonymous said...

To anon: 11:31 AM, September 09, 2006

Keith, why are you so fascinated with LeGros's genitals? You've repeated this approach about a half dozen times now. Do you feel insecure about your sexuality?

Have a nice day ;-}

FBLeG said...

Anon 11:31am said:

"I also read the most recent pronouncements of the CCRWQCB. It seems like the staff has softened their position..."

I agree. It actually seems like they are recommending a septic management system whereby septic tanks will have to be pumped once every 3 years and the required pumping will be verified. Right now this does not sound too intrusive (and it is similar to what the current CSD has been trying to negotiate with the RWQCB). I also believe that they should go the route of CAOs instead of CDOs (or just leave us alone entirely until the sewer gets built - out of town!). The current recommendation lets them save face since everyone knows that the CCRWQB cannot mass evacuate 10,000 Los Osos residents (or force them into bankruptcy) in 2010 no matter what happens.

Anonymous said...

Keith? Whose Keith? Guess he must be one of Gordon & Richards new boy toys. We all do know this though, Gordon and Richard are not insecure about their sexuality. They know they're queer.

Anonymous said...

Silly Anon 11:31 and 2:27 above,

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Yourrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Boringggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

Anonymous said...

Ann,

At the time the initial check from the SRF loan was received, the LOCSD operating account was reimbursed for all monies expended on behalf of the project.

Forget what that asshole Bleskey says, by his sworn declaration, he has no education in Accounting and he refused to listen to anybody that did.

This guy should go back in the Navy and be keelhauled.

Anonymous said...

FYI,
It was Julie who learned the EIR and Project Reports frontwards and backwards along with the Coastal Act to find as many things as she could to throw at the Board of Supervisors and then the Coastal Commission, without lawyers no less, to make them all wake up to the broken promises to the environment the project was making. Bigger than any stupid park, the fact that there was no HCP and no water management plan for buildout is what halted the project through De Novo. The revocation revealed the Tri-W sewer is indeed large enough to bring in Cabrillo Estates and other areas outside the PZ, meaning the PZ pays to build the damned thing and those areas buy a little pipe and get plugged in for a song. Then of course, there was the revelation that the "harvest water" had no home, once the CCC said no harvest water in the Bay (the sewer was going to dump in the Bay people!), the scheme to pump it back to the plant to burn electricity was on...and ag exchange was added to the deferred list for buildout to pay for.
Julie did a helluva job (read the appeals to BOS and CCC) showing the many flaws of the project. The County had 79 conditions of approal, the CCC added a few more for a total of 83 but, no water and HCP were the doozies, and the project wasn't going to deliver developability to vacant properties, that was a tough revelation for realtors and developers. It became a harsh reality to all in the sewer's revenue plan, adding $50+ per month to those online in at the start. Julie isn't "anti sewer", she was anti-THAT-sewer. The wrong sewer, wrong price, wrong place. On the contrary, Julie wants development on vacant lots and outside the PZ so as to spread out the cost of the sewer. Talk to her yourself. She's not afraid of the RWQCB, she's afraid of the Department of Water Resources, they are the ones who can hammer basin managment, pollution is easy to fix, basin managment is difficult, litigous and expensive.
Don't claim to know Julie's motives without talking to her yourself, I know her well, she's got a brain and a heart and a trademark smile for every situation...give her a break, she didn't propose the most obsurd idea ever -- a sewer plant disguised as a park in downtown Los Osos...come on, how did that happen? How did it get so far? We should have helped Julie stop it long before it got started.

Anonymous said...

Right On!

Shark Inlet said...

Julie has "got a brain and a heart and a trademark smile for every situation" and a willingness to do pretty much anything to stop the TriW sewer even if it means that we all will pay more ... a whole lot more.

If it hadn't been for her actions and Al's actions, the TriW plant and sewer would already be online and our monthly bills would be well below $150.

Hell, even Ripley (with his biased estimates that ignored inflation and the actual water usage patters of our community) says we'll pay at least $150/month.

Somehow Julie's winning smile doesn't do much for my friend who will have to move out of town because she can't afford the new "improved with a smile" pricetag.

Anonymous said...

shark says"If it hadn't been for her actions and Al's actions, the TriW plant and sewer would already be online and our monthly bills would be well below $150."

yes shark and if it wern't for your asshole friends at TAXPAYERS WASTE, who in 1998 promised us all CHEAPER, BETTER, FASTER and 8 years later presented our community with a SLUDGE FACTORY NEXT TO THE LIBRARY FOR $250/month(which means $300/month)....NOT BETTER, NOT CHEAPER, NOT FASTER, if it weren't for these lies that have divided our community and cost us all MILLIONS, if it weren't for these JACKASSES THAT YOU SUPPORT, we would all be hooked up to an OUT-OF TOWN COUNTY PROJECT AND BE PAYING WAYYYYYY LESD THAT $100/MONTH.

IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME DIPSHIT, I WILL PAY IT WITH YOU ALL DAY LONG AND YOU WILL LOSE EVERYTIME.

I think Pandora & Co. should have to foot the bill for the entire project whatever it is.

GO FUCK YOURSELF AND ALL YOUR TAXPAYERS WASTE FRIENDS THAT HAVE COMPLETELY FUCKED THIS COMMUNITY OVER.

have a nice day:)

Shark Inlet said...

To our Foul-Language Friend (FLF?)

Again...

You seem to have problems reading or remembering or you just plain think I am a liar.

I am not associated with Taxpayers Watch in any way and I have had nothing to do with the Solutions Group.

If you feel that Pandora should pay for the entire bill ... fine with me. I sort or think a few things ...

Folks who voted against the formation of the CSD and against the recall should pay $100/month.

Folks who voted in favor of the CSD but against the recall should pay $200/month.

Folks who voted in favor of the recall should pay their share of the difference between the total project costs and whatever the above two groups pay. (Note: whatever this is, whether more or less than $200.)

People buying a home in town after today should have to pay $400/month. That way they'll know in advance what their charges will be and they can't complain. Furthermore, if that $400/month figure allows the the above amounts to be lowered as more and more people move into town, the above amounts should be lowered proportionally.

Sounds fair to me...

I would even think that you would want to agree with my plan. After all, if you voted against the CSD you would pay what the county plan was estimated to cost. If you liked the Solutions Group plan you get to pay what their plan would have cost (minus a bit because of Julie's actions) and if you really believe that you can save money with an out of town plant, you get to take that risk and benefit from a lower bill if, indeed, it is cheaper out of town. Heck, even future buyers might benefit from this plan because they're not going to buy into an uncertain situation.

Anonymous said...

Shark: why do you even waste your time with that puke? The loser is absolutely out of his mind from the fact his beloved CSD has completely srewed the homeowners of this town. And as most uneducated and angry losers do when backed into the corner while having to face reality, he just lashes out. It's all he has left. And I'll tell you. I know very little about Taxpayers Watch, but if that extreme lowbreed has so much filth to say about them, they MUST be doing something right.

Anonymous said...

Shark and the last anon are not a members of Taxpayers Watch.
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!
Please guys. I was born at night. But, not last night. Do you really think anybody in here believes you when you say that? Do you disrespect the intelligence of those who post in here that much? Do you realize how full of shit you sound when you say that? I too, wish the foul mouth would stop using obscene language but everything he says is true. If Pandora and the Solutions group(aka Taxpayers Watch) had not told the big LIE of CHEAPER, BETTER, FASTER, we would indeed, right now, be hooked up to an out of town County project for about $50-70/ month.

Shark Inlet said...

Hold on a minute ...

I said that I'm not part of TW and that I think that forming the CSD to begin with was a mistake.

You (or some other anonymous) say that I am a part of TW.

I say I'm not.

You say that my claim to not be part of TW is disrespecting the intelligence of some folks.

I don't get it.


It would appear that you are unwilling to take me at my word on this issue. Yes, "better, cheaper, faster" was a mistake. Presumably some (like Richard for example) thought it to be a mistake to form the CSD because "better, cheaper, faster" wouldn't be any of the above.

[Parenthetical remark: Here's a novel thought ... how about checking into the legitimacy of various positions before voting? Did you vote against the formation of the CSD because you believed then that the Solutions Group was full of it? Richard did. If you weren't wise enough to vote against the CSD then you shouldn't now treat Richard as if he is part of the enemy team because frankly he showed in 1998 that he was smarter than you.]

Nope, I'll tell you the truth about my life and beliefs and thoughts. If you are unwilling to take me at my word, our conversation will be over.

Life is too short to spend time discussing things with folks who are unwilling to participate in a reasoned discussion or take me at my word.

Let me know if you want to play nice.

Churadogs said...

PG-13 sez:"Another commenter, Ann Calhoun, said that Dr. John Alexander has an effective onsite-nitrogen removal system that has been proven to this "RB staff's satisfaction." Staff met with Dr. Alexander a few years ago and he indicated that his system would not be applicable to residential use. Staff understands that the system is not commercially available. ........ Contrary to Ms Calhoun's claim the system has not been proven to staff satisfaction.

Curiously, it appears Ann's name is the only citizen's name explicitly stated in the entire report. I propose that this most definitely makes her wave wall memorial brass plaque material. Slam dunk!"

If you had read a later update to that reference, you would see that I wrote a formal letter to the Staff & Board to object to their taking my statements OUT OF CONTEXT AND SO LEAVING THE RECORD FALSE AND MISLEADING.

That they would do that should give you a clear indication of what they're willing to do to distort the record. and that makes everything else in their official record suspect.