Pages

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Errata! In my previous post on the LAFCO hearings, I ended by noting that . . . "Lisa Schicker, CSD Board President noted at the hearing, "Democracy is rampant in Los Osos . . . " The quote was a pull quote from the Trib and I've just been informed it was in error. CSD Attorney, Julie Biggs, was the one who made that wry, droll and very apt observation in her remarks to the LAFCO Board. Apologies for the mis-attribution.

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Ann:

I have a request. Please spin the Tacker works for Edwards thing. I love your spin, I find it creative, wild, and like all spin, always BS. And for added enjoyment, please spin it in light of say, if the old board members were working for the major local developer that would be the most unethical thing you ever saw, but for Tacker, it's perfectly OK. Looking forward. Thanks. PS: Feel free to have Ron jump in as well. I know how much he idolizes Tacker.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ann,

Not only is Julie working with Jeff, she's "in bed" with him too.
The woman is a sociopath. Disgusting!

Anonymous said...

Ann,

With the announcement that Julie is working for Jeff Edwards, she just destroyed her support by the enviornmental community.

Remeber that Julie was endorsed by the Sierra Club....and now it comes out that she is working for and supporting the interests of the most despised developer in Los Osos...a developer who also happens to be running for the LOCSD Board that Julie serves on?

The CCC in the past has cuddled her activities as an activist. By her working for Jeff Edwards (one of the few people ever to have a CCC development permit revoked for misdeeds), the CCC will now see her as fighting against CCC interests and policies.

Julie has so sense of propriety. Shew should resign from the CSD!

Anonymous said...

I've always felt there was no place for name calling in an intelligent debabe, so I always cringed when I saw "Tacky Tacker." Now, I'm not so sure it's not fitting....

On another front Ann, being the proverbial mouthpiece for this CSD, could you get to the bottom of the infamous 45 word "typo" in last week's agenda? I'm sure it was just that, but I'm wondering if that happened with the old board if it wouldn't have warranted a scathing piece from you. You must admit, it made Schicker and the CSD look, well, like they were lying, you think?

Anonymous said...

Ann:

Thank you for correcting your misinformation as to the Shicker quote. IS THIS A FIRST?

Care to go back and correct all your misinformation in light of the bankruptcy and the removal of the sewer from the hands of the LOCSD? Why do you not write an extended discourse on how you were duped and where you got your misinformation? Surely you have hindsight.

Anonymous said...

Boy, Taxpayers Watch loses something and they come out of the woodwork.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't know Taxpayers Watch if they walked in my house with a sign that said "I'm with Taxpayers Watch." I'm just looking for Ann or ANY CSD supporter to acknowledge this current board is just as capable of screwing things up; just as capable of misdeeds, misinformation, and outright lying as they accuse the old board of being. And painting everyone who disagrees with the atrocious and damaging actions of this board with the Taxpayers Watch brush is just ignorant. That's way too easy, and lazy too. Just ask around town.

Anonymous said...

A PS to Anon 10:26:
I fully support LAFCO's decision not to dissolve the CSD. I find it unethical and unfair to pass the debts of this screwed up community on to the county taxpayer. So I hardly consider their decision a "loss."

Anonymous said...

It always seems to come back to Tri-W. What is the link that all of you keep fighting for? Ask around, nobody wants a sewer there. So why is it being forced down our throats? If the previous board had not acted the way they did, the worst we would would be down is whatever the fine would have from the RWQCB. 6-11 million versus what were up against now. Yea, we would still be polluting but how serious is that? 1,000 permits issued after the RWCQB issued their edict to the County to cease using septic tanks. Just think about the fact that zero remedial efforts were undertaken in this 30 year odyesey(sic) to mitigate any of the perceived damage from "suspected leaking septic tanks". Well at least not until the Pirahna system was installed at the Fire station. The fact that Tri-W is the worst and most hated spot for this sewer is the root of this whole issue. And who do we have to blame for this?

Anonymous said...

Anon above,

The process to build at Tri-W was a speeding train that could not be stopped...years of design and permitting went into that project. The old board did what they needed to do to protect the citizens of Los Osos from the very train wreak that the new Board has caused to Los Osos by stopping the train. If you so hate Tri-W, you should have resisted it back in 2001 PRIOR to the approval of the FEIR. To not have done so is irresponsible on YOUR part. It is obvious that your dislike of Tri-W overwhelmed your common sense, for a new project will cost MUCH more than Tri-W. You must be very proud of all you have accomplished.

As for Julie, her actions over the years have shown her to be a liar, a hypocrit and now a gold-digging whore who has abandoned her 'environmental activist" role to become a lobbyist for developers. Realize the woman is married with three children; she abandons her family to habitate with Jeff Edwards openly PRIOR to getting her divorce. I would have no problem with this if she was a single, unmarried woman; but her actions are not acceptable nor moral.

Anonymous said...

I don't know who you are talking to, but every PZ PROPERTY OWNER I've talked to wants the darn thing done ASAP, and they agree the Tri-W would be the fastest, cheapest way to make that happen. You seem to forget the community overwhelmingly voted to put a sewer on Tri-W when they voted to form the CSD. Sure, the technology changed, but a sewer is a sewer is a sewer. It was still going to be in the middle of town, and and after the technology changed, it was going to be one-tenth the size of the romanticized "ponding system".

Anonymous said...

It would seem Julie Tacker is lying down with dogs in more ways than one. I for one don't give a damn about her sex life, but anyone who believes she is "recusing" herself during discussions about CSD dealings with Edwards - I see another turnip truck headed this way.

Anonymous said...

I read previous attempts to discredit the personal lives of previous board members on this blog with utter disgust, and I feel the same way about current board members. Their private lives are just that--private. And none of my business. But what concerns me is Julie Tacker has stated that a bankrupt and divided community is better than having a sewer downtown. (see Ron's blog). And now we find out she is working for a man who this CSD has been in negotiations with, I understand a heartbeat from closing escrow, who could successfully take away the option of Tri-W, which is her desire. And according to her, this would be better than a united community and a solvent CSD. I still look forward to hearing how this is not considered, both in reality and perception, a conflict of interest. (I remind everyone Julie does not just represent the no-sewer (sorry, I mean move the sewer) faction of this community. She represents the enire community.)

Anonymous said...

Actually, I did resist it. As many others have. It seems to deaf ears though. I may have gone along with the plan in 1998 at $35 a month, but it kind of morphed from that. Now this site has wrought untold peril on this community. Put it at Pismo st. or on the edge of town and all of this will go away.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 11:33, Since i'm not going to be around probably when this is all said and done, I think about what i'm going to leave behind. To appease the agency now, when 10-20 years down the road it either doesn't work as planned or it doesn't serve the current need,is shortsighted and selfish. Then the current residents will be stck with a sewer plant in the middle of their town. I say, spread the cost out to include future residents and build something to get the job we need done.

Sewertoons said...

I don't think it was the site, it was the cost. The "bad" siting was used to beef up the cost argument. Where was the protest to a smelly pond on that very same site??

Moot point now. It can go wherever it is going to go. It's going to cost a lot more than $35. It's going to cost a lot more than $200.

Anonymous said...

FYI, Richard LeGros works for Jeff Edwards(and did the whole time he was on the Board!) Unlike Julie, LeGros failed to recuse himself from Edwards related votes, somehow thinking that if they weren't the project he was working on (Le Gros designed the Monster House on Rodman) he wasn't colored by Edwards. The FPPC would see it differently, that was a conflict! But who's got time to chase old stories like that or LeGros' personal bankruptcy?
Question to bloggers; What Edwards matters is the CSD working on right now? I remember they were suing him (LOCSD vs. Corr)and his offer on Tri-W a few mnths ago, so what else? Anything since Julie started working for him?

Sewertoons said...

LOCSD vs. Corr is a right of way issue for piping to out of town. It has been hanging around since the old board.

Since the WWTF is being taken away from the CSD, my question would be why are they still spending money and hashing over this case?

Anonymous said...

They are still spending money on the case because the lawyers are advising them to do so. Of course, this lines the pockets of those overpriced attorneys, but they are there to squeeze the last dollar from the CSD coffers.

Insofar as Julie is concerned, she has been in the back pocket of Edwards for a lot longer than the length of her employment with him.

To 12:41 PM, Richard LeGros DID recuse himself, several times, as did Stan Gustafson.

Churadogs said...

Anonymoose sez:"Hi Ann:

I have a request. Please spin the Tacker works for Edwards thing. I love your spin, I find it creative, wild, and like all spin, always BS. And for added enjoyment, please spin it in light of say, if the old board members were working for the major local developer that would be the most unethical thing you ever saw, but for Tacker, it's perfectly OK. Looking forward. Thanks. PS: Feel free to have Ron jump in as well. I know how much he idolizes Tacker.

8:43 AM, September 23, 2006"

Hi, Anonymoose. Sorry to disappoint you, but when I read the headlines I burst into laughter. (Then wen to go see "All The King's Men," which resonated wonderfully well. Plus ca change . . . As a later poster notes, old board members worked for Jeff as well. Goose and Ganders? Bwahahahahah. If you wonder why I keep repeating myself that the community needs to PAY ATTENTION, here's why. Connect the dots, follow the money, if any of you think this game is now over because The County has taken over the sewer, THINK AGAIN.

Anonymous said...

Gee Ann. It sounds like you really enjoy this. Me? I've got way too much at stake to consider this a game. Maybe to you and your fellow obstructionists who look upon the sewer as their religion. Zealots who gleefully plot to see how they can further delay paying for a sewer project. Any sewer project. You're all common thieves to me. No different than a person who breaks into my house and robs me blind. Game my ass.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:Gee Ann. It sounds like you really enjoy this. Me? I've got way too much at stake to consider this a game. Maybe to you and your fellow obstructionists who look upon the sewer as their religion. Zealots who gleefully plot to see how they can further delay paying for a sewer project. Any sewer project. You're all common thieves to me. No different than a person who breaks into my house and robs me blind. Game my ass."

That statement tells me that you have absolutely no idea of what I've been writing about for years on this issue. Nor the warning bells I've rung, in print, the head's up I hollered about, the questions I've asked or even the "Modest Propsal" made years ago to put a "chinese menu" selection of sewer options, with price, and have the voters choose which one they wanted and do a Prop 218 vote to put their money where they mouths are. All of this pointed clearly to a system heading wrong, and warning of a Train Wreck Ahead. Nobody listened. Sewer obstructionist? Not even close. This train wreck was not my doing. It was caused by a series of decisions and/or missed steps that had an inevitable outcome. I use the metaphor of a Sewer Train because, when you build a track your very first rail MUST be laid correctly because you get almost NO CHANCE to change direction once you start. The community had several key points where they COULD HAVE have made the correct course corrections and done things correctly. But they didn't. Too many people were asleep at the switch, the SYSTEM itself made it very hard to correct itself, many of the players were operating with hidden agendas that the community didn't know about, there were deliberate mis-representations (i.e. Out of town would be Waaaaaay too expensive, is not possible, can't be done, etc.etc. Simply not true) and so forth.

You're angry. I don't blame you. And this blog is an easy way for you to anonymously vent. But you're aiming at the wrong target.

Anonymous said...

No Ann. I think I have all the targets correct. Right from the very start. No one is spared when I look at this disaster. But you seem to be the one who conveniently misses a very big target. And that is the current CSD and their disasterous decisions in the past year. That is the small contingent of anti Tri-W and anit-sewer zealots (and please don't act like there is not an anit-sewer faction in this community.) I'll give you the build at Tri-W zealots. Why can't you in turn admit the decisions of this current BOD have been equally destructive.
The constant staring into the past continues to avoid the fact that a sewer must, and will be built in Los Osos. And the price continues to go up. The maneuverings of those who can't bear this thought are costing me plenty. As an example I use Bo and Lacy Cooper. They fashion themselves "community activists" because they claim 6,000 people will have to leave Los Osos if a sewer is built. But they support a CSD who once agained delayed a project, driving up the cost even further. So what now: 8,000 people will have to leave? 10,000? Their logic is absurd. With community activists like that, who needs enemies?
The blame game is a game of Russian Roulette. And like I said, it's costing me plenty. I don't care where a sewer goes. I don't care who is to blame. I don't care who sits on this ridiculous CSD board. I'm just tired of all those who consider this a game, their religion. My feeling is simple and succinct. You can't bear the thought of a sewer project in Los Osos that won't cost $75.00 (those days are gone; or $120.00 (those days are gone; or $200.00 (those days are gone, then leave. Plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

1:45 anonymous...you are mistaken with regard to LeGros recusing himslef on Edwards' issues. He voted to eminent domain Corr easement in Closed Session, I remember Seitz reporting out. Ironically, Seitz has made a bundle on this and it is the very case Julie recused herself from Thursday night. What did Gustafson recuse himself from related to Edwards? I remember well, Hensley recusing himself from Farbstien in April, 2005, but didn't in 2000 (for the same thing). LeGros recused himself from Farbstien too, leaving only Stan, Lisa and Julie to vote on it, when Lisa got sick at 3:00am, the item was continued and has yet to be heard today. If it ever comes back, Julie can recuse herself and the
Cal Trans board can vote on it. Or maybe it just waits until after the elction when Jeff and Julie can both recuse themselves and let Lisa, and whoever ends up on the Board with Edwards, vote on it.

Anonymous said...

To 12:07 anon:

Julie's personal life is her own, she has't been happy in her marriage for a long time. The break up is amicable and civil.

To everyone else:
Out of respect for her kids, keep the language clean here and anywhere else you post. If you don't like Julie's choices, let Julie know, not the globe, her children could get hurt and they're fragile right now...as they're all teenagers in their formitable years.
Cut it out!
BTW; It's really none of our business who she sleeps with.
Have you seen her around town lately? She's a work'n fool, she doesn't have too much time to fool around. She looks great with the weight off (she really hasn't been happy, until now)?

Anonymous said...

Sewertoons said...
LOCSD vs. Corr is a right of way issue for piping to out of town.

Hey Toons: The Corr property is between the nothern boundary of the Catholic Church and Ramona Ave.(across the street from Bob Crizer's house). That transmission line was to Tri-W...the board must have proceeded with litigation to further the collection system, just so a pump station could go underground at Tri-W (you know they are moving the plant don't you?) That's what MWH showed the Coastal Commission in Exibit 3-C of their response to Substaintial Issue. The one where they said it was $5 million "more or less" to move the sewer in 2004, and the old board didn't let the people vote, BIG mistake! Look at us now.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymouse 1:08 PM:

The person who should be concerned with Julie's kids feelings, is Julie, herself.

Even in a small town, she could have conducted her personal life in a way that would not be reflected badly on her kids. After all, Morro Bay is only a few miles north, with plenty of motels, if you get my drift.

Her thing with the Interim General Manager was all over town, too. That was pretty much of an "in your face" way of having a relationship,too. (If you can call it that)

Julie is positive that she is the "darling" of Los Osos, with everybody smiling indulgently as she carries on with whomever. She needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

If her children become upset because of the talk at their school, they have no one to point to but their mother.

Sewertoons said...

Anon 1:17pm said:

"That transmission line was to Tri-W...the board must have proceeded with litigation to further the collection system, just so a pump station could go underground at Tri-W (you know they are moving the plant don't you?)"

Anon, who is "they?" The CSD isn't moving anything sewer and the County - well, whatever they do, what has this to do with LOCSD vs. Corr?

*PG-13 said...

Anon > Remeber that Julie was endorsed by the Sierra Club....and now it comes out that she is working for and supporting the interests of the most despised developer in Los Osos...a developer who also happens to be running for the LOCSD Board that Julie serves on?

< sigh > Romance often nurtures strange bedfellows. It's kinda the joker in the deck of life.

Anon > BTW; It's really none of our business who she sleeps with.

That's true. Up to a point. IF, as long as whenever her official responsibilities intersect with her personal life she recuses herself then there should be no issue. This holds true for lots of potential conflict of interest scenarios. The romance & bedroom scenario just tends to be the most salacious.

Anon > I for one don't give a damn about her sex life, but anyone who believes she is "recusing" herself during discussions about CSD dealings with Edwards - I see another turnip truck headed this way.

Turnip truck alert: Given the sticky entanglements and past recusal history in the governance of this community I don't think an assumption of proper etiquette and complacency is warranted. We should leave discussions of morality out of it but we should also hold our representatives fully accountable to perform honestly and appropriately. Gawd, what a concept! I'm more than a little curious - what are the grounds for identifying conflict of interest and the means to enforce recusal if it isn't owned up to in the first place? What is the protocol for evaluating and enforcing recusal? What is the recourse if somebody doesn't recuse themselves when they should? And what happens if at some point a good number, possibly even a majority, of the CSD is recused for one reason or another? Can they still do business?

Dang, I hate living in a soap opera.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone other than me hear Barbara Mann say "I'm going to go get drunk" right after the LAFCO hearing was adjourned? Or am I imagining things?

Anonymous said...

Sewertoons asks...


"Anon, who is "they?" The CSD isn't moving anything sewer and the County - well, whatever they do, what has this to do with LOCSD vs. Corr?"
The Board is "moving" on Corr. To either further the County project at Tri-W or get out of what the old board entered into...your guess is as good as mine on what they decided Thurs. night with regard to LOCSD vs. Corr.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:22 said...
"If her children become upset because of the talk at their school, they have no one to point to but their mother."

Don't you get it? The kids at school arent' going to talk about Julie Tacker, it's this and other sewer blogs that any kid can read for themselves. Just keep it clean.

*PG-13 said...

Anon > Did anyone other than me hear Barbara Mann say "I'm going to go get drunk" right after the LAFCO hearing was adjourned?

I dunno. I say that often when I read this blog. If its been an especially hard day for me or a especially busy day for the blog I often don't wait til I've adjouned the blog. I'm now thankful you all can't hear me. Whew!

Anonymous said...

Once again showing the weak coverage by the Tribune. Can't even get quotes right.

Mike Green said...

Notice how the Trivial has jumped all over endorsements for the Los Osos elections?
Helloo! nope, nobody home in our illustrious "fourth" branch of government.

Did anyone else get "The Rock" this weekend?

PG! you can pull up a seat at the wine bar anytime.

Mike Green said...

Oh ya! I'm the one that fell off the turnip truck and has addled cognition due to cookware accidents.
he he
I called this one spot on, a week after the petition was recived if I remember.
Go check the archives.

Anonymous said...

I heard The Rock is online now... does anyone know the web address??

Churadogs said...

Anonymoose sez:"and please don't act like there is not an anit-sewer faction in this community.)"

The true "anti-sewer," as in build absolutely NOTHING, no collection system, nothing, is so small a group as to be off the radar. What was interesting was to see how easily "move the sewer" morphed into "anti-sewer" in the minds of so many inside the outside the community. It's a case where a word went from meaning one thing to meaning something completely the opposite. Wierd.

Anonymoose sez:"Coastal Commission in Exibit 3-C of their response to Substaintial Issue. The one where they said it was $5 million "more or less" to move the sewer in 2004, and the old board didn't let the people vote, BIG mistake! Look at us now. "

Actually,if memory serves, the brief mention in the CC staff report said, one million LESS to $5-6 MORE. That staff "guesimate" (The Coastal Commissioners themselves asked for a fuller side-by-side analysis, never got it and never asked why they never got it. That alone should have raised a red flag.I recall saying at the time that 1mil less to 5=6 mil more on a (then) $150 million dollar 30=year project was chump change and should have gone to the voters. Too bad nobody listened to me. Alas.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann and anonymous (one of you, I can't really tell any of you apart) ...

You both grossly misrepresent the study which says that the plant at the other location would likely cost about the same. They did not include any design costs in that comparrison. Furthermore, they did not include any costs associated with any delay (does anyone think that Clark Valley neighbors wouldn't sue to prevent a sewer plant in the middle of their community?). If the project was $150M at that point in time, adding another $5M for lawsuits and to retrofit the TriW design onto the new site plus three years of delay would make the project far closer to $185M (I backed out the $20M to site and design TriW before adding inflation at 8%). If you want to re-design the MBR plant for sustainability it would add another $5M in design costs at least as well as an extra year at least bringing the total up to $205M.

You say that we would be better off had we listened to you and had a vote on this matter? I say that we would have been better off had you checked out my cost estimates and put them into your columns. Maybe the Recall would have failed and maybe Measure B would have failed as well. Far cheaper.

Ann, I would suggest that representative government ... may be far more efficient that having a vote on every issue.

Anonymous said...

All Lisa meant with the "typo" comment was that the item had gotten onto the agenda by mistake. If you go to meetings regularly you would know there are lots of mistakes on those things! I agree it is paranoid to twist that "typo" comment into something other than the reality of the situation. But then again there are many different realities in Los Osos...that's our problem.

Anonymous said...

www.rockofthecoast.com

Sewertoons said...

Let's just see if the sale of Tri-W and the purchase of Giacomazzi reappears on an agenda at any point prior to the bankrupcy judge acknowledging it, then with the open offer of it for sale to the to the County (sorry Julie, your little temper tantrum in front of LAFCo does not qualify as an "offer"), then we will know if it was a "typo" or not.

We might also ask who orders items to be put on that agenda.

I think the funny part was the word "typo," instead of just admitting that it was on there by mistake - an attempted minimizing of what this meant in the light of LAFCo's censure.

Ron said...

"Anonymoose sez:"Coastal Commission in Exibit 3-C of their response to Substaintial Issue. The one where they said it was $5 million "more or less" to move the sewer in 2004, and the old board didn't let the people vote, BIG mistake! Look at us now. ""

Ahhhh... dated documents. My favorite.

As with most things pre-recall CSD, that important document -- Exhibit 3C -- is a mess... wildly inaccurate, and nothing can be concluded from it. It was nothing more than a piece of flak used in an effort to fend off the Coastal Commission's final inquiry in 2004, and it worked.

But Exhibit 3C was more than just another waste of time and money, it would prove to be highly misleading -- a bad combination for a document that was very influential in securing the final development permit for the Tri-Dub project.

Not only did it ignore the millions that had already been approved for the project's park amenities -- and if that figure had been included, it would have greatly impacted the document's conclusion -- the numbers used in Exhibit 3C would prove to be badly skewed to fit the CSD's cause.

Here's an excellent example: In Exhibit 3C, MWH lists the dog park in the project at $60,000. Less than a year later, that same engineering firm would list that same dog park in another official CSD document (no .pdf available) at over $600,000. Missed it by a factor of over ten.

Here's my question: If MWH is missing numbers by a factor of over ten in official documents, then how much faith should we have in the numbers in MWH documents?

Exhibit 3C was nothing more than a piece of flak to keep the Coastal Commission away, and it worked.

Here's how I would have answered the Commission's excellent question in 2004:

Commission: Why wasn't an "environmentally preferred," out-of-town location selected in the first place?

Me as honest CSD spokesperson: Because we adopted a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" that allowed us to override the entire environmental review process that pointed to those downwind, out-of-town, "environmentally preferred" sites, and instead, forced the project in at the "environmentally sensitive" Tri-W site because we wanted a park in it.

Commission: Y... y... y... you did what?

Me as honest CSD spokesperson: I said, we adopted a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" that allowed us to override the entire environmental review process that pointed to those downwind, out-of-town, "environmentally preferred" sites, and instead, forced the project in at the "environmentally sensitive" Tri-W site because we wanted a park in it.

Commission: Oh... o.k. ... permit denied.

See? It should have been that simple. A one sentence answer. Yet the CSD launched into full-on engineering mode, and produced an expensive document that never answered the CC's excellent question, and a document with numbers, that today, are laughable.

In fact, looking back on some of those dated documents -- Exhibit 3C, the EIR, the Final Project Report, and more -- in the new daylight of the current board, is very interesting. And I'm starting to see more and more massive discrepancies between what Los Osos was told over the last seven years, and what was the actual situation.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post, Ron. Thanks for continueing to tell the real story that has unfolded for lo these many years. Some of us really appreciate it. I continue to be apalled by the actions of the old board. That Statement of Overriding Considerations should be burned once and for all. The anti-recall people are forever screaming about obeying the boards and blah blah blah while their preferred board was overrriding the environmental concerns! They totally scammed the CC and everyone should know about it. Now people are going to say...where were you? Why didn't you bring it up back then? Well I did. I was at the meetings. I wrote letters to the CC. I made phone calls. I appealed to the LOCSD. Now look where we are. Ah the mouse that roared. Don't underestimate us. This board, in cooperation with the County, can bring us a good project out of town IF THE SOUR GRAPES WOULD GIVE IT UP ALREADY.

Let the County and our board get on with it. We're not dissolved and we have an election coming up. Do you want to continue the war or let this process take it's course? The more we fight the more it will cost...I know you've heard those words before but it's time to think about them again...

Anonymous said...

This board, in cooperation with the County, can bring us a good project out of town IF THE SOUR GRAPES WOULD GIVE IT UP ALREADY. and "Let the County and our board get on with it."

I think you can pretty much count on the fact that come November, "this" board" and "our" (your) board isn't going to be "this" board. Will you sitll support them when they're not "this" board?

"I appealed to the LOCSD. Now look where we are." So did I. And you're right, look what their actions led us to: lost SRF loan; fines; CDO's; bankruptcy. Damn.

Anonymous said...

I will support any board that cooperates with the County. See you at the polls.

Anonymous said...

I have an idea. We should only support candidates whom we know are not at either extreme end. I think Joe Sparks is one of those people. Most of the others seem to be "extremeists" and we know where that gets us.

Anonymous said...

Anon's above:
I am with you 100%!!! But do me a favor and ask Ann. Ask Ann "do you support any board that cooperates with the county?" When and if she answers, listen to her and see if you might think that Ann represents the "extreme." (And of course Ron, but he doesn't live here so his loyalties are insignificant.)
And IMHO Joe Sparks is THE right choice to be leading this CSD through bankruptcy. (which is what 70% of their efforts will be doing.)

Anonymous said...

I agree that Sparks appears to be a good choice. But what about Kelly and Tornosky? Who are they? How long have they lived here? What is their experience?

Shark Inlet said...

Here's my question for Ron ...

You suggest that "MWH is missing numbers by a factor of over ten in official documents ... where is that?

You see, if you're going to be picky about MWH cost estimates you've got to have a reason ... and you've got to be willing to let others criticize your guesstimates the same way you criticize MWH. Might I remind you that you told us that the Ripley team would produce a plan that would save us money versus TriW. Since Richard showed your claim to be full of crap you haven't responded to his claims other than some lame ad-hominem attack like "why would I trust an ousted boardmember over an engineering firm?" The funny thing here is that the engineering firm was comparing apples to oranges and we all know it. Comparing the costs of TriW in 2006 to the costs of some mythical out of town project that can magically begin construction in 2006 is simply a lie.

So, if you are going to play the "Ripley is better than MWH" or the "MWH is sloppy" game you've got to provide some evidence.

Not all of us are as quick to believe you as our anonymous friend above. Oddly enuf, when you often make claims that you don't back up people begin to question your veracity.

Anonymous said...

My question is why this Ron Crawford is such a fanatic about a town in which he doesn't even live.

It is my understanding that Ron lives in Santa Margarita, doesn't own property in Los Osos and seldom even comes here. I know he wrote some article several years ago, but he doesn't seem to be able to get off this kick.

I question the sanity of someone so immersed in another town's business that he has a blog about it and contributes to this blog incessently.

Ron, get a life.

Mike Green said...

Maybe he just reads and writes fast, so it's realy not much work, or, he see's that the Los Osos Sewer War is a microcosm of all the weaknesses of our government, which effects everybody.
Do you think that the current results of our government reflect an efficient and fair system?
Interesting.
I don't blame him a bit, In fact, I thank him for his work.

*PG-13 said...

Anon > My question is why this Ron Crawford is such a fanatic about a town in which he doesn't even live.... I question the sanity of someone so immersed in another town's business that he has a blog about it and contributes to this blog incessantly.... Ron, get a life.

< sigh > I do get tired of having to defend Ron in this environment but I feel I must.

So, uh, what about blogging, independent journalism, and the amorphous non-delineated boundaries of the internet don't you understand? Hey, Ron smells a delightfully odiferous story in the Los Osos sewers wars. And he's an independent journalist. Kaching! Ya gotta admit, it has been an interesting, nee, compelling saga. Far more interesting than the reality TV shows being poured into my TV. As such he see's opportunity. An opportunity to dig, uncover, expose and then write about - often creatively and engagingly - on facts and perspectives about a very contentious and highly controversial civic matter. How many of you knew about and appreciated the impact of any number of things Ron has brought to light? I could list them but the list would be too long (and detract from my point). Who care's where he lives? What the f*** does that matter? Read what he writes. If it edifies you in any way about your local situation what does it matter where he lives? What is it about domicile location that bugs so many of you? Simply put, does what he writes have relative import to you? You may not agree with him but, uh, does he know and write about some things about your/our situation that you didn't know before? Who cares where he lives! I appreciate whatever new information and perspective anybody can bring to this ugly ugly scenario. It's a terribly trite phrase but: don't shoot the messenger. The messenger is not the message. If you've got a problem with what he reports then address his reportage - not his mailing address. Sewertoons and Shark Bait have regularly confronted him about him the dollars and cents issues of the various sewer options. Cool. Fair play. I can appreciate their frustration at not being able to argue dollar-based analysis. Some of us have the numbers and the time to run such analysis. And many of us don't. But what do such numbers have to do with questionable legal process? Process is not numbers specific. It is process specific. There are two different levels of discussion and argument here: financial projections of the cost of a sewer and proper procedural government. There are many areas of grey between the two. But they really are separate issues.

I daresay Ron has done a better job of documenting the in's and out's and the up's and down's and the many twists and turns of the Los Osos Sewer Saga (herein tagged: LOSS) than any other reporter or journalistic agent. If you disagree name some names and post them here. The Trivial? Or any of their many shuffled reporters? Get real. OK, go ahead and post them. It should be interesting. The Trivial's blogshpere? Lots of chat, precious little focus. A pretty poor example of blog effectivity. OK, I admit, I'm kinda partial to Ann's blog. Partly because I appreciate how she maintains focus, partly because I tend to agree with much of her commentary, but mostly because I appreciate the neighborhood. Why does Ann keep referencing Ron's blog? Cause she's a writer and he's a writer and they appreciate their craft. Ask yourself why do you keep logging in to this blog? And posting comments? Then ask yourself if their (Ann's and Ron's) style of journalism isn't largely why you keep coming back? If it bothers you that much then stop logging in and satisfy yourself with The Daily Rag. If you enjoy the unfettered dimensions of the internet then suck it up and enjoy and appreciate it. Granted, a little antagonistic and ritualistic localism is always appropriate. That's a spice of broadband communication. But don't make it a major issue. And don't try to make it a most significant issue. You're shouting into your own ear.

Churadogs said...

PG-13 Sez:"Process is not numbers specific. It is process specific. There are two different levels of discussion and argument here: financial projections of the cost of a sewer and proper procedural government. There are many areas of grey between the two. But they really are separate issues.

I daresay Ron has done a better job of documenting the in's and out's and the up's and down's and the many twists and turns of the Los Osos Sewer Saga (herein tagged: LOSS) than any other reporter or journalistic agent."

Amen! When the process is allowe to work fairly, honestly, no thumbs-on-the-scale, no ginned up, phony SOCs, no square pegs in round holes, no bait and switch, then you're waaaayyyyy more likely to end up with -- in this case -- one or two projects that float to the top on their own mertis and those are the ones that the community should be able to vote to "buy." i.e. pay for via assessment votes. When you distort the process you too often end up with civic train wrecks. Not good.

And the role of the Watch Dog "press" is to make sure the process IS fair and honest and if it isn't bark loudly to wake the public up to the fact that somebody's in the pantry stealing their cheese, call the Cheese Police!

Ron said...

An Anon said:

"My question is why this Ron Crawford is such a fanatic about a town in which he doesn't even live."

"Fanatic" might be a bit strong of a word, but I love Los Osos. Since 1991 (1991!), I've covered your town in one form or another, and got to know its people and places and issues, so I feel like I have a strong connection to your beautiful town, probably more than most that live there (remember my story about those Population/Elevation signs at the entrance to your town?).

Plus, I guarantee you, if the Trib had done the slightest bit of follow-up on either of my New Times stories, you would not know my name today. You see, unlike the Trib, my journalism ethics won't allow me to abandon a town in its time of need. But, I'm also very lazy, and investigative journalism is very hard, so I'm kind of mad that the Trib just went to sleep on this very important story for seven years, because that meant my journalism ethics had to kick in, and override my extreme laziness... and that pisses me off, because if there's one thing I hold near and dear, it's my laziness.

Mike said:

"Maybe he just reads and writes fast, so it's realy not much work..."

There's also that. It really isn't that much work, and I enjoy it. The story's great, and it keeps my chops up.

"I don't blame him a bit, In fact, I thank him for his work."

You're welcome, and I appreciate your humorous posts. We'll have to swap stories sometime over a nice bottle of Zin at your septic tank/wine bar.

To Pg-13 (12:57 AM, September 28, 2006):

Great... now I'm blushing. Thank you so much for the kind words.

Sharky said:

"Since Richard showed your claim to be full of crap you haven't responded to his claims..."

Yes I have, many times, and I'll do it again. Richard puts the cost of an invalid SOC and "bait-and-switchy" on the new board. That is f-d up. And not only does he blow that number up to something ridiculous like $200,000,000, but, according to his "honing," that number is increasing by one million dollars a day. [Joke alert... joke alert] Even MWH thinks Richard plays a little too loose with his numbers.

Plus, as I've said before, since the rationale behind the Tri-Dub project proved to be completely invalid, any discussion about cost comparisons is irrelevant. A waste of breath, or, in this case, a waste of keystrokes.

On a related note:

If I get around to it today, I'll call Pavo Ogren at county engineering and ask him if they plan on putting an amphitheater in their sewer plant.

Because, as we all know now, no amphitheater, no Tri-Dub.

Can't wait to hear his answer.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

First, you know darn well that your selective quoting of me (check out what follows the ellipsis) was misleading.

Second, your "response" here is just plain off-topic. You said Ripley would save us money over TriW. Richard demonstrated that this was not true, even if the Ripley numbers could be taken at face value. Even if Richard plays too loose with the numbers, you have not offered us any insight into where the problems are to be found.

The red-herring of the SOC, "bait-n-switchy" and the like is simply not relevant to your claim that Ripley will be less expensive than TriW. Strip out all the fines and debts of the CSD from Richard's analysis and you still see that the keys here are inflation and delay.

What I am trying to figure out now is whether you are trying to duck the question because you know the answer shows you to be wrong, whether you don't know how to answer the question because (as you've admitted) math frightens you or whether you are just plain denser than a lead statue of the Cheshire Cat. In any case, the fact that you cannot successfully back up your claim that Ripley will be cheaper is telling ... you aren't to be trusted.


I've e-mailed with your buddy Steve Monowitz. Based on what he wrote it seems to me that the CCC will be involved yet again in approving whatever the County intends to do. If the County selects another location, the CCC needs to sign off on the choice. If the County goes with TriW and keeps the park, the CCC will approve ... in large part because they've already approved that project and because the cost of moving the project elsewhere can be shown to increase the costs considerably ... i.e. a new SOC. If the County goes with TriW and removes the park, the CCC will need to reconsider the question because they are required to do so for any change in the project but again, unless someone can show a better alternative today (i.e. better for the environment and no more expensive or cheaper and no worse for the environment), a new SOC will be quick to write and will carry the day.

The key I got from that e-mail discussion is that the past is the past and the CCC and their staff will be looking at the issue from today's point of view. In other words, even if you are right, Ron, about Pandora being Satan incarnate, the CCC won't care. What they will care about is that the County project be the best one possible today.

Anonymous said...

To: PG13 12:57AM
Excellent post! One would think it would put the issue of Rons residence and reason for his reporting to rest. Saddly, it won't, because of a few "hard heads" who can't see the forrest for the trees.

To Shark: Excuse me for being so ignorant of financial stuff and all them numbers you and Richard like to throw around, why would the CCC care about any additional costs? Do they "hand out" the SRF loans?.....and if so, so what?......and it seems, if Rob Shipe gets elected, he would rather not go with the SRF loan, for reasons he explained over on the other blog.

Shark Inlet said...

The SWRCB is in charge of determining who gets SRF Loans.

If the County makes the decision to go with a low interest loan we'll save HUGE on our monthly bills by comparrison to if the County chooses alternate methods of financing (assuming the same amount is to be borrowed). Could you summarize Rob's point of view here.

The CCC typically doesn't require community to make the best choice for the environment if it would cost far too much. A statement of overriding concern that says "we like TriW best ... today ... because even though another site might be a bit better from an environmental point of view, the alternative site would just plain cost too much" would do the trick. Trot out a cost estimate that shows out of town equals $400/month and in town equals $300/month and the vote is a lock.

Sewertoons said...

Keep in mind regarding the WWTF loan; it is up to the County, not the CSD to find loans. Then as to which loan is chosen is up to the County, not the CSD. If they so choose, they may give us a choice between them. Then each person will vote which is preferred for their situation.

I imagine any candidate can make statements to prefer one sort of this or that over another, but if it doesn't relate to running a bankruptcy, it shouldn't be an influence over anyone's vote, as running a bankruptcy is what the CSD will be doing for the next 4 years. I think that point is being ignored.

Shark Inlet said...

I believe that there may be a way in which the CSD has some say over the County project, but it is based on my memory and I am unsure about the facts.

In any case, I recall that when the Governator signed AB2701, he also directed the SWRCB to not loan money for a wastewater project for Los Osos until the LOCSD pays back the money borrowed and not yet returned.

In other words, the CSD may need to get their house in order before the County can get a low interest loan.