Pages

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Ron Crawford, Where Are Youuuuuu?

Aw, Dang. I had to work so couldn’t attend the recent SLO County Planning Board meeting. But then Ron Crawford, he of the Sewerwatch Blogsite, didn’t attend either. So some real fun was missed by all.

The purpose of the meeting? According to the Tribune, a report presented to the Planning Commissioners stated that if the CSD decided to sell the infamous Tri-W parcel of land, “Whoever buys those parcels might need to ask that the county change the General Plan. That would require approval by the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and the state Coastal Commission, and it could take several months to two years.”

Might need to ask the county to change the General Plan?

Aw, GAWD! Can you hear Ron now? For years he’s been squawking on his blogsite about the Coastal Commission issuing a permit to put a sewer plant in the middle of the town, a permit for land that comes under its jurisdiction since it’s in the Coastal Zone, a permit based in part on the old CSD Board “Statement of Overriding Considerations,” which included the “fact” that the community had an overwhelming community value of having parklands and park amenities in a centrally located place, and so overwhelming was this community value that the community would pay any price, bear any burden, do anything, in fact, including having a sewer plant stuck next to Tot Lots and playfields, if that’s what it took. Even pay more for a sewer plant if that’s what allowed for those amenities to fulfill that strongly held community value & etc.

Or maybe that was backwards. The strongly held community value of having centrally located amenities and parks and Tot Lots was the number one priority of the community so a sewer plant HAD TO BE located in the middle of town so these amenities could be stuck on it thereby sneaking a permit past the CC since the CC would never had issued that permit since there were always better, non-ESHA, out-of-town sites for the sewer plant but they didn’t have those overwhelming centrally located public amenities and so forth.

Well, either way, the same SOC’s were used for the County Planning Commission AND the Board of Supervisors, all of whom were told about all those overwhelming community values vis a vis Tot Lots before voting to change the zoning from commercial R-2 and residential to INDUSTRIAL just so that sewer plant could be put in the middle of town.

And now the County is claiming that changing the zoning back to the way it was before it was deliberately changed to accommodate this overwhelming community value would (could?) be made onerous in order to discourage any new buyer so the county could maybe keep their mitts on the parcel in case they decide to try to stuff the sewer plant back into the middle of town, even after the recall and Measure B and civic train wreck caused by that Overwhelmingly Valued Sewer Tot Lot?

That’s where Ron should have come in.

Literally come into the Board chambers with eighteen HUGE Irish navvies pushing hand carts piled to the ceiling with reports, files, documents, transcripts, in fact, every damned piece of paper involved with the prohibition zone and sewer project from day one.

Ron could then have strode to the front of this mountain of paper work, slapped the side of the mound heartily and declaimed in a booming voice, “Ahem, Honorable members of the Planning Commission. A couple of years ago, you voted to change the zoning of this parcel of land from a bucolic residential, mixed business, multi-residential highly sensitive and valuable piece of ESHA land into, if I’m not mistaken, a PUBLIC UTILITIES/INDUSTRIAL zone specifically to accommodate a sewer plant in the middle of all this bucolic beauty. I now challenge you, Gentlemen & Ladies, to find one piece of paper, one scrap of evidence, one official study, vote, certified poll, something, anything in this mountain of yellowing paper to justify your original vote and support the old CSD’s SOC that the community had an overwhelming value to put a Tot Lot next to a ginormous sewer plant in the middle of their town."

“Go ahead,” Ron would have said, gesturing grandly at the ceiling-high pile of papers, “Start looking. I’ll come back in a couple of years and see how you’re doin’.”

He also could have added, “And please tell me if falsifying SOCs with no evidence is permissible and if not, please tell me why you aren’t calling for a re-hearing on this original land use plan. The Coastal Commission staff member Mr. Monowitz has indicated to me that if this matter comes again before them, they’ll be taking another look since, apparently, they’re not amused by “bait & switchy” snookering over faux Tot Lots and unsupported overwhelming community values. So, how’s about you guys doing the same now?”

Aw, but that didn’t happen. Dang.

Not known is why a buyer of the TriW site might (note the use of that weasel word) “need to ask that the county change its General Plan.” I wonder what a new buyer of that land might want to build there that could violate the INDUSTRIAL zoning that’s there now? Hmmmm, now that’s worth thinking about. As for “Public Utlities” use, gee, do you suppose that would include . . . a Tot Lot?

Also not known is why the Planning Commission would somehow send what appears to be a threatening signal to a potential buyer that amending the county plan could take “several months to two years.” Several months? Two years?

When it comes to developing anything in the Coastal Zone, two years isn’t a “problem,” it’s a fast track.

65 comments:

Ron said...

Hmmmm... let's see... How can I put his without sounding awkward? Ann, I love you.

"Or maybe that was backwards. The strongly held community value of having centrally located amenities and parks and Tot Lots was the number one priority of the community so a sewer plant HAD TO BE located in the middle of town so these amenities could be stuck on it thereby sneaking a permit past the CC since the CC would never had issued that permit since there were always better, non-ESHA, out-of-town sites for the sewer plant but they didn’t have those overwhelming centrally located public amenities and so forth."

IT'S THAT ONE!

Oh, that was a "number one priority" all right, but it was never the "number one priority" of "the community." Ask Steve Monowitz whose priority that was. He has a great answer to that question.

How many times have I said it? Los Osos you do not have a sewer controversy, you have a park controversy! A park-project-that-contains-a-sewer-system controversy.

That’s where Ron should have come in.

I have called public works and e-mailed them several f-ing times (including as recently as yesterday!), and they will not answer my questions -- mainly, "Is the county considering including a amphitheater and a children's play field in its sewer plant for Los Osos?"

"I now challenge you, Gentlemen & Ladies, to find one piece of paper, one scrap of evidence, one official study, vote, certified poll, something, anything in this mountain of yellowing paper to justify your original vote and support the old CSD’s SOC that the community had an overwhelming value to put a Tot Lot next to a ginormous sewer plant in the middle of their town."

“Go ahead,” Ron would have said, gesturing grandly at the ceiling-high pile of papers, “Start looking. I’ll come back in a couple of years and see how you’re doin’.”

Ann, you are so damn funny.

I'll never forget RWQCB staffer Sorrel Mark's reaction when she told me over the phone, "Well, they're the ones with a strongly held community value to include a park in their treatment facility." And I immediately asked, "What's the source of that?" Then she immediately seized up like a blown engine, and said -- and I quote -- "huh.............. ." And then there was a really uncomfortable five second silence, until I finally jumped in and said, "Sorrel, don't worry about it. I'll find it." That was more than two years ago, and I'm still looking. (By the way, that was the last time I spoke with her. The next time I called her, after Three Blocks was published, she hung up on me!)

After reading the county's staff report on this issue, it's clear they have no concept of this reality:
No park amenities -- no Tri-W.

And it's my guess, they will be running head-on into that very soon, and when the advisory vote comes up next year on which sewer system Los Osos wants to pursue, and Tri-W isn't one of the choices, well, the Solution Group/early CSD Directors are going to have a hell of a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Ann said of me not attending that meeting:

Aw, but that didn’t happen. Dang.

Hey, the County Government Center's an hour drive for me. Have you seen the price of diesel fuel lately? Almost makes me want to switch to a gas vehicle... almost.

Mike Green said...

Interesting idea Ann about what could possibly be built at the TriW site that would not violate the existing industrial zoning.
How about a privatly owned wastewater treatment facility?
Silly, right?
Gee, I wonder who would be lining up to "buy" their services come 2010?
I'll bet they would'nt even take the chain link fences down either!
Too bad, No Wave Wall of shame either!

Whatever the County puts out there, I think there is a real limit that the property owners wont cross which will shoot ANY sewer plan down.
If its way cheaper to install holding tanks and buy pumping trucks look out.

Shark Inlet said...

Too damn bad that Ron and Ann want to keep us focused on a decision made about six years ago and refuse to discuss the realities of the day, that revisiting those old decisions will cost us a horrific amount of money. Too bad that neither of them care about the folks in our town who will be forced out because of the actions of CCLO, LOTTF, Julie, Lisa and Chuck. Too damn bad that some would rather be right than compassionate.

Oh yeah, welcome to Maria ... don't mind Ron ... he's just bitter.

Anonymous said...

Joe Sparks may not be a messiah but he will be good to have on the board. I voted for the recall but that doesn't mean I won't support a new person with intelligence and experience in the sewer issue. My impression has been that he is sort of "bipartisan" also very smart and practical. He's lived here a long time (unlike Kelly and Tornatsky), knows the issues and the players, and will represent us well. I think we should give him a chance. He's said he wants to have an objective evaluation of all the possibilities. That seems fair to me. Remember the recall when we said "Look what the people voted for! The people have spoken!" Well Joe Sparks was the top vote getter. Clearly a broad section of people in Los Osos elected Joe. Let's be civil and not turn this in to a tar and feather party. Haven't we had enough of that?

Anonymous said...

Except there are two still on the Board that do need to be run out of town on a rail. Those two gals have run ragged over the guys, and frankly don't know a damn thing. I would like to see Joe seek some real balance on this Board, where common sense overpowers ego. We have seen too much ego, posturing, and self-fulfilling agendas as the real issues on this Board. We need someone not looking to feather their nest or satisfy their physical needs to get a grip for Los Osos, and bring us back on track.

Anonymous said...

Ron Crawford has completely ignored some basic facts of the waste water project at Tri-W. He keeps harping on "park". If memory serves correctly, a park was mandated within some requirement (Coastal Commission, SWQCB, etc.) so it was added in. The design of the facility was such that parks, etc., WERE feasible. But Ron kept ragging on and on. He keeps saying the park was the main purpose of putting the facility at Tri-W.

He kept saying, "Why a park?"

Everyone kept saying, "Why NOT a park?"

He even omitted this argument on his silly blog, stopped public comment, and criticized like a complete paranoid.

What's the matter, Ron? Too logical for you to comprehend?

Anonymous said...

Ann, I too have seen Ron illogically argue about this District. First of all, I cannot believe anyone who does not live in this community can be so involved, and, anyone still listening to them. They will not feel any effects from any changes in this community. Why the strong, opinionated blog? What is in it for him? Has anyone investigated this? This guy is a crank!

I have read some of your non-Los Osos items, and I think you are, indeed a thinking individual. Hou can you possible align yourself with someone who is a crackpot like Ron? He is over the top.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Too damn bad that Ron and Ann want to keep us focused on a decision made about six years ago and refuse to discuss the realities of the day, that revisiting those old decisions will cost us a horrific amount of money. Too bad that neither of them care about the folks in our town who will be forced out because of the actions of CCLO, LOTTF, Julie, Lisa and Chuck. Too damn bad that some would rather be right than compassionate."

Oh, Plueeezzze, Inlet. You know that's a crock even as you wrote it. shamey, shamey.

Anonymous sez:"Ann, I too have seen Ron illogically argue about this District. First of all, I cannot believe anyone who does not live in this community can be so involved, and, anyone still listening to them. They will not feel any effects from any changes in this community. Why the strong, opinionated blog? What is in it for him? Has anyone investigated this? This guy is a crank!"

Nope, not a crank. Ron edited the Bay News, even started the "Sewerwatch" section, has obviously been keeping abreast of the interesting ins and outs, and, far from crankish, he's kept his eye on some interesting proceedural wrinkles that -- alas -- were overlooked by a wide variety of "Powers that Be," powers that, had they been doing their jobs instead of quickly declaring, Oh, WhatEVER, and shoving this project off their table, "wrinkles" that had they been PROPERLY dealt with at the time, in that plodding-for-a-good-reason bureaucratic, dot each i's and cross every t properly manner, WOULD have prevented this train wreck in the first place. Pointing all this out isn't crankish; it's what investigative journalists do, or are supposed to do, unless they work for the Tribune, that is.

Ron said...

Coupla comments from Ann's previous post:

Maria wrote:

"... the Merrimaker - where no sewer talk is allowed..."

Is that true? If so, 1) that's hilarious, and 2) what a great idea!

and an Anon said:

"... couldn't stand the political environment of this community. You guys know it sucks . Let's keep it fun so it doesn't suck so much!"

Perfectly put!


Now, on to this batch of comments, and, unfortunately, Shark's first.

"Oh yeah, welcome to Maria ... don't mind Ron ... he's just bitter."

Shark, perhaps you misread (nothing new, of course), I said she was a "good blogger," and then I said -- my personal favorite part of that take -- "much better than Shark."

Bitter? Why would I be bitter? That makes no sense.

An anon said:

"If memory serves correctly, a park was mandated within some requirement (Coastal Commission, SWQCB, etc.) so it was added in."

You memory does not serve you well. Please refer to my blog -- where the comments section, I am happy to report, has been function perfectly fine for 95-percent of SewerWatch's existence. (You can chalk up that other 5-percent to a certain marketing specialist's "behavior based marketing" tactics.)

"He keeps saying the park was the main purpose of putting the facility at Tri-W."

No. I don't say that at all. What I've been SHOWING for the past two years is the park was THE ONLY REASON for putting the facility at Tri-W.

Ann wrote:

"Ron edited the Bay News, even started the "Sewerwatch" section,"

I also reported for the Bay News, on lovely Second Street, from 1990 - 1992. (For God's sake, I've interviewed Bill Coy on this subject!) And, during all that time I spent reporting and editing in Los Osos, NOT ONCE did someone criticize me for not being a resident of Los Osos. Hmmmm...

"Pointing all this out isn't crankish; it's what investigative journalists do, or are supposed to do, unless they work for the Tribune, that is."

"When the press acts as a conveyor belt for the lies of government, the lies take lives."
-- Amy Goodman

The irony of that quote? I just read it in a Tribune story.

Shark Inlet said...

To Ann ...

No, we don't know that you and Ron care about those in our community who will be displaced because of rising sewer costs. Other than saying an a study should be done to see what is affordable, the vast bulk of the actions you've advocated have raised our estimated costs. Hardly sounds like you care. Of course you can always stand behind some sort of statement that we don't actually know the real costs and that I am just speculating, but if you really did care about the poor and the middle class in our town you would take some effort to verify the whether my and Richard's cost guesstimate numbers are reasonable before you blow them off to advocate for yet another change in plans which will cost us yet more money. Rather than claiming you care, how about showing you do!

Why Ron is bitter? We don't know. Perhaps it is because he keeps harping on something from the past which most of us see as irrelevant to today's questions. Maybe he's bitter because he's not very good at math and cannot follow a simple cost analysis.

Anonymous said...

To annon 8:45 Nov.11

...Just wondering, who the hell are you to say "the ladies don't know A damn thing"? Where did you get that idea? You some kind of "expert" or are you privy to what goes on in closed session, or what? You and people like you....know nothings....are so quick to say others "don't know a damn thing". Maybe you should look in a mirror and see who REALLY "doesn't know a damn thing".......about anything but shooting off your stupid pie hole.

Spectator said...

"Just wondering, who the hell are you to say "the ladies don't know A damn thing"? Where did you get that idea? You some kind of "expert" or are you privy to what goes on in closed session, or what? You and people like you....know nothings....are so quick to say others "don't know a damn thing". Maybe you should look in a mirror and see who REALLY "doesn't know a damn thing".......about anything but shooting off your stupid pie hole." Anon 10:52 AM, November 13, 2006

Maybe this current board is SMARTER than anyone thinks. Maybe they made us insolvent BY PLAN, wishing to make sure that the district would never produce a sewer. Maybe after looking at the tax base, they realized that we never would have the resources to support ANY sewer. Maybe they realized that if the government mandated it for the "greater good", the government would eventually have to spread the cost around to all taxpayers who would benefit, ie the tourist industry in SLO County, all those who use the bay, and all those who benefit from the estuary. After all, our polution of the upper aquifer, eventually flows into the bay, and effects the wildlife supported by the bay, including transient birds, etc. Of course they would never admit this, because it would be a ticket to jail.

When one goes to the sites of other municipalities, one can see sewer costs of $20 to $40 a month for property owners. This is usually based upon water usage. Check out the Stockton MUD. They even have a private company administering their utilities at substantial savings versis union government pay scale employees.

How can the state or county expect property owners, who cannot afford a sewer, pay for it solely. Surely our government should look at the role of government in our situation. The septic tanks were permitted by the county. The CCRWCQB looked away for years, never taking a hard stand to force the county to build a system. The county was glad the LOCSD was formed, the problem was off their back. And now it is on the back of the county and next the state, with the potential that those least able to afford the sewer, the property owners in the PZ, will have to pay for it. Even if the costs are spread out to all property owners in the district, we still cannot afford it!

LAFCO refused to dissolve the district to avoid the sharing of liability to the county, and the Blakeslee bill passed which would avoid all liability by the county who issued the septic permits in high density housing areas.

So who or what will rescue the property owners of Los Osos? We can argue for years about the actions of the last board, the actions of the current board, what will happen with the new board, and whether or not the bankruptcy petition will be accepted with whatever plan to get out of bankruptcy. We can argue about what site, where, and what system. We can speculate about whether or not the insolvency of the district will require it to be dissolved, and when. All of these arguements do not mean a handfull of beans.

The question is: "Where will the money come from to pay for this sewer when it is clearly unaffordable to the property owners of the district?" Why should the property owners of Los Osos pay far more per capita than other sewer users in California?

Folks, we have been looking at the hole in the donut. We need to look at the donut which is MONEY and where it will come from.

We darned well better have a donut, before we can look at the hole. Ideas are needed for funds:

1. Can we be declared a toxic waste area and federal funds procured to clean it up with a sewer system?
2. Can we be declared a disaster area because of our polution and receive federal funds?
3. Is there any way we can become a renewal area for funds to build a sewer?
4. Can we tap state bond money for the county to build this sewer?
5. Can Lois Capps get a large grant to help us and the county out, now that she is in the majority in congress?
6. Will Kevin McCarthy do the same?
7. Can we be adopted by the Saudis, Arab Emigrates, Venzuela, Dubai, or anybody and receive some of their oil money?
8. Since the US Govt sends so much money as foreign aid to foreign countries, can they send some here?

We need ideas and need to keep the county looking at the donut. The potential actions of the state or county to build a sewer here and pass on rediculous costs to the property owners of Los Osos at this point is not acceptable.

We have an environmental and potential finantial disaster here. Help! We need serious professional help, but unless we all come together, we will never be able to pay for it.

I hope the county, with far greater resources, will pay for the help. I hope Blakeslee and Maldonado will help with state resources. I hope Capps and McKarthy will do the same with federal resources. It would be great if the governator would do the same. Maria, where are you? We are beggars! What say you ANN? Can you publish something on this? What say the editor of the Tribune? Ron, how about you? Sharky? Mike Green? Where are the environmental groups on this: Sierra Club. How about the ACLU? Joey Racano? Let us look to the future and not the past.

Jon Arcuni

Anonymous said...

Jon, sometimes it's hard to tell which side of the fence you're talking from, but this time it sounds like you are on the same side as I am. The only grants I remember us ever receiving were for like $50,000-100,000, in that range. While that is a good chunk of change, it pales in comparison to what we are being told to cough up. I remember a few years back a group received a grant of 10 million dollars to buy some land somewhere on the coast around here. I don't remember where. To protect it. Fine, how bout a little help here too. I'm against government giving away money, but if you don't get it someone else will. Heck, they probably have grants to study whether pigs mate during full moon sessions in months beginning in odd numbers.
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

Let's see..the two ladies don't "know a damn thing" but their board just got re-elected plus a new guy (whom most seem to think is a pretty good choice). So, does that comment about the ladies and their board refer to we voters who have kept them in office? We won again and so we don't "know a damn thing?" Get a message about Los Osos folks. Just leave if you think we're so horrible. Give it up! We want a cheap, no nonsense, out of town system. Other communities in CA have them and we want one too. We don't don't want to be Beverly Hills or whatever place Joyce Albright thinks is so wonderful. Hopefully the County will understand this and give us some reasonable choices. The Tri W design was bad, bad, bad and don't ask me to explain why again.

Shark Inlet said...

The funny thing really is this ... inflation on our $150M project is on the order of $30k per day. If we delay our project by a month just to write out the application for a $200k grant we have to pay about a million extra dollars just to get the grant for $200k ... a net loss of $800k (or about $160 per property).

Time equals money, folks. Asking us to delay ... for any reason ... is asking us to pay more. The only acceptable reason for stalling the project for four years (a good guess at the minimum amount of time between the Recall election and the start of construction by the County is that we are estimated to save $40M. If "out of town" would ... today ... be only $110M in total, the extra four years of delay would cause it to equal about $150M by the time construction starts.

Jon's question about the County and LAFCO failing us raises a question ... if the LOCSD were to request LAFCO to dissolve us, could we stick the County with our tab? If LAFCO refuses, could we force a public vote? If the LOCSD dissolves, could the County add to our sewer bill tab? Could they legally charge more to provide sewer services? I would think that individuals could sue the County because it would seem quite illegal.

I would think this could be the real role for the board ... trying to get as much of our debt to go away as possible. Is this unethical? Dunno. Would it be the best way to represent our interests? Hell yes!

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent anonymous friend who wants a cheap no nonsense out of town sewer plant ... if you were forced to choose between out of town and cheap, what would you choose?

Anonymous said...

Hello Shark Bait - I would choose cheap, of course. I own property in Los Osos - Valley of the Cheap.

Mike Green said...

Jon. Great Post!
Unfortunatly I don't buy the Robin Hood storey about the CSD.
Planning the debacle while all the time yelling "It Wazn't Us!
But a good threory like that can only be good if it holds some truth.
You are certainly right about the LO sewer benefits to a larger community, the very reason we are mandated by the State to build a WWTF is to benefit the greater populace, not us.
Remember, not one single person in Los Osos or anywhere else has been directly harmed by the nitrates in the upper aquifer.
Nope, no blue babies anywhere. In fact with a simple filtration machine and RO system in your house (costco/ cheap)
The water you consume could beat using pure evian.
Getting back to Robin Hood,
The only way I know (I've said this before) that you can get money from upper government is to become a disaster.
So far there ARE no old ladies pushing wagons down LOVR. (she rides a rascal)
Bevieve me, if there was, your wishes would come miraculously true.
Maybe we should look into being our own Robin Hoods.
Voting down ANY 218 vote that costs more than ($?) a month might do it
Then All the landlords should start eviction proceedings.
The property owners should all (if they can) stop all tax impounds on their mortages
and send a letter to the County of San Luis Obispo cc State of Calif. that you are going to hold said moneys in an escrow account untill this unfunded mandate is funded!
I hope we get the same cell block.

Anonymous said...

What's up with the vote counting? Shouldn't they be done by now?

Mike Green said...

Oh, my Favorite Idea is for everyone to give their land back to the Chumash. We could be a sort of an adopted tribe,
Of course TriW will be the casino on top of the WWTF.
Craps anyone?

Mike Green said...

Vote counting will conclude on thursday.
The Wheels of Democracy roll SLO!
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/clerk.htm
Click on uncounted ballots

Anonymous said...

If you think those two old gals do know anything, then you should be doomed to forever suffering financially from all of their stupidity.

If you cannot learn from the mistakes that have gone on for the past year, you shall see repeats of the same old crap over and over again.

Shark Inlet said...

Before the recall election I offered the following deal to any takers:

If the recall results in a cost lower than $205/month, I'll still pay the $205 ... and you can keep the difference as long as you are willing to pay my excess costs over $205 should the costs go up.

Sadly, no takers. I guess that the folks who said that out of town would save us money didn't really believe it anymore than the rest of us.

Mike Green said...

Don't feel too bad Sharkey, nobody takes many of my bets either.
What ever happened to Publickworks and Doggie?

Spectator said...

Mike: The same cell may be an option: padded. When this problem gets over we will all welcome it. In the meantime you have produced some possible options. What if the outside site is found to be a Chumash burial ground? Apparently the Chumash have their act together.

As to "M": we want the same thing. 1. No sewer, let government leave us alone (no blue babies yet). 2. An inexpensive sewer that will not force us to move and sell our homes. 3. Let our property values go up from the terrible hit we have taken in the PZ, so we can move. 4. Stop the polution of the bay as long as we do not have to pay for it. 5. Let the pending bankruptcy dissolve all of our debt.

Well, we are not going to get any of the above unless money is found. HOWEVER:

If every property owner put up $2000 (which many do not have), we may be able to drag this through the courts for fifteen years all the way to the supreme court, and probably still lose. Mostly all of us will be dead. Maybe we need to asses ourselves for legal expenses. Let the new property owners pay for this mess. Procrastination is the father of invention. Help!

Padded cell!

Mike Green said...

Bribe the Wizards of Glacial Reveiw!
2K? I'm in!
Blood contract?
I hate needles.
How about a promisary note?

Anonymous said...

To Spectator:

Concerning the Chumash: They had been treated with respect and any burial grounds were treated with the reverence they deserved, concerning Tri-W. The Chumash representatives had met with Mr. Buel, and were satisfied that their ancestors would be relocated to a burial place within the Los Osos Cemetery which met with their approval.

Who is to say that this Board of Nincompoops will follow suit? The previous Board had an archeological team from Far Western Archeological Survey come onto Tri-W and completely assess the site, and other critical areas throughout Los Osos. I suppose Lisa and her followers will completely ignore these findings also, as she has also been proven to ignore the reports of other professionals, concerning things about this District.

Should a Chumash burial ground be found in a location found suitable by Lisa and company, would the respect, conference, agreement and possible relocation be provided by her also? I wonder.

FBLeG said...

Ok, sewer junkies,

Looks like someone said "Uncle":

Say uncle

What the proposed settlement is has not been posted.

Anonymous said...

Nice work fbleg! I'm impressed.

Ron said...

What's up with our local media?

First the Tribune completely blows their election coverage on the Los Osos when they wrote, "Los Osos elects two new directors," before all the ballots were counted (as the counting currently stands, they have elected ONE new director.) Then, as if that wasn't bad enough, last Sunday, their editor pops out this:

"We’ve heard much praise from readers like you who found our (election) coverage useful, comprehensive and insightful."
-- Sandra Duerr, Ask The Editor

Notice how she didn't use the word "accurate."

Then there's reporter, Patrick Klemz, at New Times with this post election gem:

"Incumbent Chuck Cesena held his spot in Los Osos, but Steve Senet lost his seat in a five-candidate bottleneck for three casting calls on the Central Coast's favorite public stage.

With the sewer project out of CSD hands and a hefty bankruptcy to deal with, Los Osos voters gravitated toward the more mild-mannered candidates.

Engineer Joe Sparks led the way with 17.3 percent of the vote, followed by Cesena (16.4) and community activist Maria Kelly (15.6)."


First, more mild-mannered than Senet? Someone might want to check to see if Sparks and Kelly have a pulse, and if they are, indeed, "more mild-mannered" than Senet, then you're going to have to look really hard. Second, I'm sure Los Osos really appreciates the wildly inaccurate reporting... just what the town needs at this time.

Shark said:

"Why Ron is bitter? We don't know. Perhaps it is because he keeps harping on something from the past"

Again, Shark, not bitter. No reason to be. Very happy. Please improve your reading comprehension skills.

As for "harping on the past," as I've also said many times -- again, Shark, that whole comprehension thing... I highly recommend you work on it -- as long as Tri-Dub is even remotely on the radar screen, everything I've been writing about over the past two years is as current as today's headlines. Very, very relevant... as you'll see when the advisory vote comes up next year and Tri-Dub isn't even an option. Then everything I've been writing for the past two years will be in the past, and there's a good chance you'll never hear from me again.

Jon said:

"Ron, how about you?"

Did you read my last post. I lay out -- with pretty damn strong arguments, if you ask me -- how Los Osos can potentially save some $100 million on the project, and, yes, I'll help out.

An Anon asked:

"What's up with the vote counting? Shouldn't they be done by now?"

November 16th is when it'll be done. (I know, I thought that was kind of strange too.) Should we notify the local press?

If you're a CDO recipient, or soon to be (read: all LO property owners) you need to download that document that Fbleg links to. My question is: What's the settlement?

I'm sure Ann will have a nice piece on that soon. Thanks in advance, Ann.

Shark Inlet said...

Maybe Ron isn't bitter ... but he certainly doesn't seem to want to deal with any cost questions ... questions that are intrinsically part of any discussion about the location of the plant. Still sounds like he just plain doesn't want to actually deal with the whole of the question.

He could ... at any time ... explain why Richard and I are wrong for our conclusions that out of town means more expensive. We've put our analyses out there and Ron has criticized them even while he doesn't seem to understand them well enough to offer any insight into why the conclusion might be in error.

So ... maybe not bitter. Maybe Ron is happy as a clam to be both ignorant about financial issues and ballsy enough to make recommendations to our community based on his misunderstanding of key aspects of our situation.

Anonymous said...

annon 6:09 pm Nov 11

Your childish ignorance defies description! Why don't just stuff it?

Anonymous said...

Somebody on this blog said something once about paying $150 a month for something sewer related. I got to thinking, what if every property owner started paying $150 a month NOW, and when we go on-line, if we ever do. If nothing else, start a regular pumping or maintanence program paid for by this fund. If nothing else it would ease us into the burden that is going to come if cooler heads don't prevail. Although like Spectator say's, Alot of us are probably going to be dead before this is done.
Sincerely M

Anonymous said...

Hello all...was just told about the Tribune blog and checked it out. Sorry to say it is a poor excuse for a discussion group. Ann, thanks for making this blog available and keeping up the quality control.

An Admirer

Mike Green said...

M, good idea,
We've discussed setting up escrow accounts before.
In reality it would prove to be a bit trickyer that it first seems.
The general concensus at that time, if I remember right, maybe sharkey will verify this, is that it would be more efficient if every individual property owner just set aside about that amount themselves
(A good idea anyway)
A septic maintenance district should be a real no brainer.
The only honest reason I've ever heard why there isn't, is that no agency wants to administer it.
Go figure.

Mike Green said...

Oh I should add, I do believe the CSD has offered to adminiser it (finaly) but it hinged of course on the mad pumping sceme cooked up by the "water gods".
As fbleg (another great catch, by the way) posted, there seems to be something afoot .
My guess is that a septic management district is very close.

Shark Inlet said...

Um....

Please remember, Mike, that Julie and Lisa voted against septic management for some reason just two years ago. Why? We don't know.

I just wonder why they've changed their tune on this issue.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"No, we don't know that you and Ron care about those in our community who will be displaced because of rising sewer costs. Other than saying an a study should be done to see what is affordable, the vast bulk of the actions you've advocated have raised our estimated costs."

Once again you have proven that you haven't been reading what I've been writing in my columns for years. You're not only trying to shoot the messenger, you're shooting the WRONg messenger.

About the link to the RWQCB's "alternative" settlemnt. CAUTION, CAUTION! Do NOT believe what you read there. The CDO Los Osos 45 report they haven't even been given a copy of ANY of this yet, even though they've been in intense negotiation to craft a win/win agreement for the whole community, an proposed agreement that is poised to founder utterly IF the RWQCB insists on one profoundly important and deadly "poison pill" detail -- and yet it's now publically "posted" already??

How do you spell "trial balloon?" "Electioneering?" "Spin?""Public manipulation?" Proceed with caution with this document. Extreme caution.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Have you ever done a cost estimate? Have you ever actually read those of others? Have you seriously considered what Richard or I have written? I didn't think so.


I guess the problem is that we are both stuck in different historical time periods.

You are stuck in 2000 when the decision to put the plant at TriW was made and you want to continually go back and revisit that decision. I am stuck in 2005 when the decision was made to stop construction at TriW and I want to go back and revisit that decision.

The problem is that neither of us can roll back the clock. If we do try to change things (for example, by moving the plant location and design and the design of the collection system) there are costs that will be involved. One should attempt to count those costs before making the decision.


Our new board has far fewer responsibilities and the question is whether they will be able to make wise choices for us. I trust that they will do a good job once the politics of sewer location is removed from the equation.

I would suggest to this new board that their first decision should be about whether they request LAFCO dissolve the CSD. If the LOCSD baord votes to make the request, LFACO cannot ignore the request. At a minimum, they would have to allow the citizens to vote.

Frankly, if we've got even just $20M in debts it might be worth trying to dissolve the CSD to avoid those debts. It would put the County in a pickle, but nothing in AB2701 would protect the County from a dissolution. The County might also be unable to legally pass their costs on to us in the form of increased sewer bills because the sewer bills are legally tied to the cost to build and run the thing.

As Jon suggests, the County has some culpability here.

Even if the entire County would be angered by a dissolution, it would cost each household (county wide) only $0.06 for each dollar a Los Osos household would have to spend to pay off that debt. Essentially, rather than asking each Los Osos family to pay $4000 to cover $20M in debt, each family countywide would be on the tab for $230.

Los Osos has provide property taxes to the County for a long time and our roads are ... um ... still dirt. We have far fewer parks and acres of park space than other County residents. The County hasn't really fulfilled their obligation to us in any way.

Maybe if we just dissolve the CSD they'll actually do the right thing and spend some of the tax money we've paid over many years for something that will benefit us.


As for the "poison pill" you've mentioned ... what is it? Will the RWQCB actually ask those in Los Osos to put in a sewer? Details!

Julie Tacker said...

Shark said: "Please remember, Mike, that Julie and Lisa voted against septic management for some reason just two years ago. Why? We don't know."
I have explained my vote before, perhaps you missed it.
I voted NO on the pursuit of AB2706, the bill carried by Maldenado and then Blakeslee because it did not include septic systems INSIDE the prohibition zone. I asked over and over again at committee meetings that it would and the former board refused to ammend it. FYI, the bill really only gave the LOCSD franchise authority over pumping, it wasn't really a septic maintenance program, we do not need special legislation for that. That is why we have an ad hoc committee working on a voluntary program now.

Shark Inlet said...

So ... you are opposed to septic management inside the district but outside the PZ? Huh? If making sure that septic systems are working well is a good thing it makes no sense to oppose such a measure.

I understand the desire to get septics inside the PZ to also work well, but you've not given us a good explanation for your vote.

Maybe if you give us more detail we can understand better because right now it looks to me as if you were opposed to septic management (outside the PZ) just two years ago ... something you say you are in favor of today.

Mike Green said...

I wonder what kind of poison pill the water gods are cooking up for me.
If past performance is any indication..
Oh! for the love of God, NOOOOOOOOOOO!

Mike Green said...

Sharkey Bubbled:
"I would suggest to this new board that their first decision should be about whether they request LAFCO dissolve the CSD. If the LOCSD baord votes to make the request, LFACO cannot ignore the request. At a minimum, they would have to allow the citizens to vote."

I wouldn't bet on that one,
LAUGHCO is a political entity.
Made up of representatives from other areas and they have no meaningfull oversite at all, unless of course you want to sue them for their decisions
(a realy futile endeavor)

No, I think it's futile to hope for dissolution, always have.

Forming the CSD was like stepping in a stream, you can't step in that water again.
Not with our form of government.
Personaly, my warning radar is beeping.
What hath the Doomed 45 and the Water Gods wroth?

Mike Green said...

Oh,Ms. Tacker, Thanks for posting! anytime you want to chime in would be much appreciated by me, and I'm sure many others.
Welcome.
Mike Green

Shark Inlet said...

Mike ...

Even if LAFCO would be disinclined to dissolve the CSD, a formal request from the CSD board would force them to at least allow a vote of the citizens. If the district wants to dissolve, LAFCO cannot keep them from doing so.


And Julie ... one more thing. You've told us that the vote on septic management a few years ago (was it 2004 or 2005?) didn't include septics inside the PZ. My understanding (perhaps based on faulty memory) is that the issue wasn't inside/outside the PZ but rather sewered/unsewered areas of the district. Of course, if the PZ was to be sewered, it would hardly matter much. On the other hand, considering the PZ isn't currently sewered and considering that you voted to keep it from getting sewered in the quickest possible way, it would seem to be something you would want to clear up. Perhaps you could get a copy of the exact language and let us know for sure...

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"The problem is that neither of us can roll back the clock."

What I have repeatedly said is the old observation that those who do not understand the past are condemed to repeat it. If you do not see where the errors were made, they're gonna crop up again. It's critical people in this community understand that since the county is supposedly starting the Process again. If they make the same missteps, they'll likely end up in the same ditch. That's why it's important to NOT repeat the errors, but you can't do that if you don't understand what they were.

As for dissolving the CSD: Do you think it's ethical to stick the county with the cost of bad decisions (and huge mistakes) made by the citizens of this community? I sense you're trying to justify such a "sticking" by saying, well, the county owes us big time & etc.

As for the RWQCB's posted Nov 7th letter regarding a notice of proposed settlements agreement. I sent a letter of inquiry to Matt Thompson. Am awaiting a reply. Stay tuned.

Julie Tacker sez:"I have explained my vote before, perhaps you missed it.
I voted NO on the pursuit of AB2706, the bill carried by Maldenado and then Blakeslee because it did not include septic systems INSIDE the prohibition zone. I asked over and over again at committee meetings that it would and the former board refused to ammend it. FYI, the bill really only gave the LOCSD franchise authority over pumping, it wasn't really a septic maintenance program, we do not need special legislation for that. That is why we have an ad hoc committee working on a voluntary program now.

5:49 PM, November 15, 2006"

Shark inlet Sez:So ... you are opposed to septic management inside the district but outside the PZ? Huh? If making sure that septic systems are working well is a good thing it makes no sense to oppose such a measure.

I understand the desire to get septics inside the PZ to also work well, but you've not given us a good explanation for your vote."

Uh, you wanna run that by me one more time? Tacker said she voted against the particular bill because it DID NOT include septics inside the PZ and she specifically wanted it to include septics inside the PZ, and Inlet sez, You're opposed to septic management inside the PZ. ?? Hello? If you want septic managment INSIDE THE PZ and a bill comes along that DOES NOT include septic management inside the PZ you'd oppose it because . . . it DID NOT include that. How then, does that translate into your not wanting spetic managment inside the PZ? Hello? Hello? Inlet, are you doing one of your weird AD/ADH numbers here?

Anonymous said...

Ann,

Try to follow -

At the time that the District was voting on the septic management plan, the Tri-W project was close to start-up. Because it would have been completed within a few years, a septic managment plan for the PZ wasn't necessary BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT TO BE SEWERED (a concept approved by all of the regulatory agencies).

The District was trying to implement the permanent SMP for the un-sewered areas of the community, as required by law. It was never intended for the entire community BECAUSE THE PZ WAS ABOUT TO BE SEWERED and there was no need to inflict the additional costs of an SMP on the property owners of the PZ.

Get it?

Ron said...

An Anon said:

"Tri-W project was close to start-up. Because it would have been completed within a few years..."

Yea, right, "completed." Please define "a few." And please tell me how Los Osos was going to get around that entire-community-benefits-from-park, but-only-a-portion-of-the-community-pays-for-park thing? (And, of course, every time I bring up that excellent point, I also have to add: That is, if you consider a park in a sewer plant a "benefit.")

Ann said:

"Hello? Inlet, are you doing one of your weird AD/ADH numbers here?"

What do think? I'll add another acronym: DTW (Deliberate Twisting of Words)

Good to see J.T. posting.

On a similar note -- I was bored the other night, and reading some of the late comments from Ann's previous posts, and there was one from Maria Kelly (5:39 PM, November 14, 2006 -- linked here [towards the bottom]). It's excellent. Just the right amount of smack, and smart-ass and f-you, and with all kinds of tight takes mixed in.

A card carrying member of USCF? Great!

Kelly, it would appear, is a welcomed addition to Sewerville.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Essentially I am saying that I believe that either Julie or I have a misunderstanding of the SMP issue she voted against about two years ago. I believe that the way the issue was worded it would have allowed for septic management of unsewered areas but she says it was for *only* homes outside the PZ.

If I am right, she voted against septic management ... the exact sort of thing she is now in favor of. If she is right, I had a misunderstanding of what happened two years ago.

Now that you and Ron have joined Julie's side in this discussion to accuse me of being confused or attempting to deliberately twist someone's words ... it would seem the burden of proof is on the three of you. So ... can any of you actually show that homes inside the couldn't have been part of a septic management program that Julie voted against a few years ago?

Until one of you three offers some proof I will continue to believe that it is Julie, not me, who has a faulty understanding. This would be something like my continued belief that moving the WWTF out of town will raise our costs. Ann and Ron, you two have been pretty quick to dismiss my belief that delay means additional costs but neither of you have actually bothered to demonstrate in any way where my conclusion is incorrect.

Again, as always I am open to hearing a reasoned explanation or a good argument. But weasel words and dancing around the issue simply don't cut it. Our community deserves better than saying things like it's a revolving loan ... we just get back in line and we'll get another one or our plan will cost only $100/month ... er ... $154/month without any careful thought.

Ron and Ann are right about one thing ... campaign promises that are more hopeful than factual and a lack of attention by the governed have a huge and negative impact on our community.

Spectator said...

Welcome Julie Tacker!

Nowhere has anything been written about the logic the board used to stop the sewer immediately after taking office, other than Lisa's "the voters decided". Were any consequences ever presented to the board by the legal staff? Was the legal staff aware of the posted writings of the CCRWQCB, warning of the consequences? Were you aware? Did the legal staff have copies of the loan contract, and the construction contracts? Did you ever get a copy of the objections of PG&E to the Andre site and the restrictions on use of the site? You must remember at the time that the Nelson Environmental solution was being proposed for the Andre site by the recall candidates. They came and presented their solution before the recall vote. If I remember this was a 14-16 million solution. What ever happened to this? It looked good to me, however there was no documentation of nitrate removal over a period of time, although it surely seemed that it would comply with nitrate removal requirements.

Is the current legal staff working for pro-bono in their suits against the state and CCRWQCB, or is their billing just piling up as creditor debt? Did Ripley guarantee that their solution would be acceptable to the CCRWQCB or they would return any funds spent for the study? I never heard anything about this. The funds given to them clearly put us over the top for insolvency. It is clear that our insolvency has been caused by legal expenses, repair of roads, the Ripley Report, and costs of an Interim GM. We have not paid one cent for fines, or money to the contractors since the recall (with the exception of road repair), or am I mistaken?

Now I know you signed an oath of office, and with that oath, you agreed to work for the benefit of the entire community. This would not be for just those in the PZ.

I would like to know how the thinking progressed. As a member of the board for two years prior to the recall, you must have been aware that finances were always tight, as they are in any other district. There never is enough money.

When we look to the future, what kind of plan are you thinking about to get us out of bankruptcy?

Jon Arcuni

Mike Green said...

Well, I just checked the slo rolling wheels of democracy at our Clerk recorders office
The absentee votes will be posted tomorrow, but the provisional count will wait untill the 22nd.
Wow, what a (dune) snail race!

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"Ann,

Try to follow -

At the time that the District was voting on the septic management plan, the Tri-W project was close to start-up. Because it would have been completed within a few years, a septic managment plan for the PZ wasn't necessary BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT TO BE SEWERED (a concept approved by all of the regulatory agencies)."

Please try to follow yourself. Resolution 83-12 was passed years ago and for years the county then the CSD did nothing and the RWQCB whose resoulution is was, did nothing. Nothing. For years. Even when CAWS (pre CSD) pleaded with the County to turnkey 83-12. Nothing. And I'm not talking 2004 here, I'm talking waaaayyy before the CSD even existed.

Inlet sez:"Our community deserves better than saying things like it's a revolving loan ... we just get back in line and we'll get another one "

But IT IS a REVOLVING loan. That's what it's called. REVOLVING. People use the word "lose" (which implies gone forever bye-bye) in the same sentence as REVOLVING LOAN and it's an oxymoron.

John sez:"Did Ripley guarantee that their solution would be acceptable to the CCRWQCB or they would return any funds spent for the study?"

There were two parts to the Wastewter update that Ripley did: One part was to bring all the previous work into one place, compare/conrast the numbers, present the various options, systems that could be used etc. That's the update which the County has. The other part was their "recommendation" for this community which was the ag exchange, zero discharge, step/steg system they pencil out at about $154 a month. If I understand correctly that type of system has already received RWQCB Board approval in other places (Monterey county for ag exchange, etc.) Nobody can get RWQCB's "prior" approval. First you have to come to them with a project and specs and etc THEN they'll think about it all and let you know. (Sorta like first you build the house and then the inspector comes along and tells you you can't build the house) Legally, the RWQCB can't tell you wht to build. They set discharge standars only. How you meet those standards is up to you. (I know, I know. Bwa-hahahahahah) It's an amazingly backward system that clearly can cause all kinds of problems. On the Ripley Plan, the various Tech memos were sent to the RWQCB staff, who raised questions and concerns which are now being addressed by subsequent and final tech memos. The independent peer-review of the update & Ripley plan should be done soon, then those will certainly go to the RWQCB (and County) for their look-see.

John also sez"Is the current legal staff working for pro-bono in their suits against the state and CCRWQCB, or is their billing just piling up as creditor debt?"

I would guess: Both. Also, please correct me if I'm wrong, but if the CSD wins their various lawsuits, doesn't the other side pay the legal fees?

Inlet sez:"Ann and Ron, you two have been pretty quick to dismiss my belief that delay means additional costs but neither of you have actually bothered to demonstrate in any way where my conclusion is incorrect."

Wrong again. What I have said repeatedly is I'm gonna wait to see what the numbers come in as when the County finishes its Process. Tri W was penciled in at ball park $205? Ripley's Plan is penciled in at ballpark $154? Whatever plans the county presents when they're finished with the process of evaluation will pencil in as ballpark ????

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Your last comment sounds exactly like you agree with me. Again you've dismissed what Richard and I have said about delay and inflation and the deficiency of both the Ripley plan and the $154/month figure. You've dismissed my concerns about cost by saying that we should wait-n-see. I claim that there is enough information to know now that the Ripley plan isn't the solution for our community.

If, after the entire process is completed and we have a sewer ... if the total sewer bill we have is higher than the $205 (or the $326) will you then be willing to admit that stopping the TriW development was a mistake, just like stopping the County plan in 1998 was a mistake?

Just to make this fair, I'll offer up something comparable ... if ultimately we end up with sewer bills under $200/month and the plant is out of town, I will admit that I was wrong about the move the sewer movement spearheaded by Julie and Lisa.

Spectator said...

Ann: I understand what is going on with the Ripley Plan, and I also know about the limitations of the CCRWQCB. What I do not know about are the terms of the Ripley CONTRACT. Do not you feel that it would be the height of stupidity to pay RIPLEY the kind of money they received, and that which is still owed, if their plan was unacceptable to regulating boards?

Another thing. If Prop "B" is again found illegal, will the lawyers refund their fees? If the state prevails on the other suits, will the lawyers refund their fees?

I don't think so. The LOCSD will have to sue the lawyers. Maybe it is good that $750,000 plus has been budgeted for lawyers.

Julie Tacker said...

Jon,
FYI, I was seated on the LOCSD Board in Dec. 2004, just 9 months before the recall, not the two years you assert.
Now for the meat and potatoes of your questions, much of what you ask was covered in powerhouse closed sessions, of course we knew what the consequences could be, what we didn’t know is how fast or how hard they would be to overcome.
You mention the advocating of the Andre site, I never “ran” on a project that was site specific. But, it was Montgomery Watson Harza who coined the phrase; “Hypothetical Andre”, in their June 2004 response (Exhibit 3C) to the Coastal Commission after substantial issue was found with the project. There are acres and acres of “Andre-like” property out there, adjacent to Andre, including Ripley’s choice Gacamazzi.
You ask about the $14-$16 million solution, again, I never ran on a specific project, the recall effort may have had figures attached, I never paid attention to the exact amounts, because I always new whatever was out of town would be better for all and cheaper without wave walls, negative air pressure, attempts to bury the building, etc. Comparable treatment plants gpd/size, not including land were Pismo ($12.3M) and CMC/Cuesta ($16.8M); treatment plant for treatment plant, Tri-W’s plant was $46M!!! the prices you mention I think were related to a plant only, not a whole system that would include collection. And I never listen to Al Barrow’s figures, they don’t include prevailing wage, which a public agency such as the CSD and the County will have to pay.
Nitrate removal is a separate issue, it really depends on where your wastewater is headed whether it needs nitrate removal or not, we could have even done part of the wastewater, not all, saving money. But, with ag exchange nitrate removal isn’t necessary. I have concerns over Ripley’s assertion that he can handle all the water, and am looking forward to the peer review, I have some tough questions yet to be answered, or even asked, and there hasn’t been a format for me to ask them. I’m sure you have some too.
You ask about “Pro Bono”, I’m afraid not, legal staff is being paid as they bill, not much right now, not much is going on since bankruptcy has ‘stayed’ most everything and the pending election it wouldn’t have been prudent to pursue much until that outcome is certain.
I don’t know if Ripley guaranteed anything, but I didn’t ask for that. He’s caught in BK, too. That should be of some consolation to you. I couldn’t tell you if others asked for guarantees.
You are correct in your assertion related to who has been paid, contractors (to a point), lawyers (to a point), Wildan (to a point), etc. Many are now caught in bankruptcy, including Jon Seitz, McClendon, Wildan and Burke, Williams & Sorenson.
Jon, you mention I took an oath of office to represent all of Los Osos and not just the PZ, which is so true; I happen to be a property owner both in and out of the PZ and am currently a renter too. So, I believe I represent all points of view. Let me digress a moment here for Shark; that’s why I wanted the SSMP to be district wide, there’s no way the PZ would be hooked up to the sewer in 2 years, no physical way! Septic education as part of the program, even to those who will one day be sewered it’s good education; it’s all the same advice. You don’t want to put anything down your drains now with a septic tank that you wouldn’t with a sewer too. The difference is you will be paying for someone to pull it all back out of the wastewater, i.e. treatment process (filters, screens, chemicals, biology, and benefited employees paid premium bureaucratic wages to undo what we do to our water through household use).
Jon, you ask how my thinking progressed – that’s all I can share, my own point of view – not necessarily that of the board.
Here goes, once recalled the election results were certified three days later, it was Fri. Sept. 30 before the boys were sworn into office. Saturday, Oct. 1, sewer work was still going on in the streets of Los Osos, I had a lady call me crying, she’d voted to stop this crazy thing and they were tearing up her street. The first board meeting was that night, we had Bruce Buel in Closed Session, he assured us “the check was in the mail”, (check #2 from the SRF for another $6M) to pay contractors. We “suspended” work to do a project inventory and ask our engineer what our options would be at this point and come up with a salvage plan. We sent Rob Miller to work on it, he returned a few days later (in closed session) and gave us a presentation of where the work had gone on and was going and what could be used no matter where the sewer plant went. He recommended where work could proceed and which contractors could wait and still complete the project on schedule or with a very short delay. Meanwhile the community would go through the Measure B vote and site selection process, we expected to have that by January.
I still believe we would have had a better project, no BK, and a project underway today if not for the Gordon Hensley lobbying of Richard Katz at the SWRCB to pull the loan if the project was not at Tri-W. That loan was amendable, that’s what we intended to do. Big mistake Gordon and friends, the whole community lost due to your meddling. Fines (lawyer fees are all we’ve incurred, until we go to court who knows if we’ll have to pay any fines) could have been avoided, the district had until Dec. 20 to start the project before the August start up, but GH and friends didn’t wait for the community sentiment. And it all blew up.
Thanks for the good questions; I hope I’ve answered them satisfactorily.
Julie

Sewertoons said...

Julie, you are right. You could have moved the plant location at some point in the future if pipe continued to be laid in the ground. Why did you stop the pipe laying?

Anonymous said...

Ms. Tacker,
There needs to be a lot more education of the public to stop putting things down the drain, sewered or not. Cruise the cleaning aisles at Ralphs or Vons. Do you think they would stock all those chemicals if people did not buy them?

Anonymous said...

Julie,

What you wrote is nothing but piles of appologetic crap.

The way you, Lisa and gang tell the story, you make us old CSD Board members so powerful, competent, well-connected with powers to sway the actions of the State, the Water Boards, the County and the Courts that we approach the status of "supermen". Here we are, the "X-DIRECTORS", out of office, yet just by existing we can unravel all your efforts. POW! ZAP! BABOOM! HOGWASH! Your acquisations that we "mettled" in the actions of the new CSD board causing you to fail is pure baloney. Didn't happen. The simple truth is that you and the new board are so incompetent that you screwed up the CSD all by yourselves (No help from the X-DIRECTORS required here) So Julie, take responsibiltiy for your actions, your stupidity and your lack of concern for the poor souls who will have to pay for your actions....and get on with it! After all, YOU are the one in office, so enjoy your achievements!

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Have a great Thanksgiving.

Anonymous said...

I believe "meddled" is spelled with a d, not a t, you moron. Julie has the guts (like Maria) to come on this blog and explain her position, and this is the response? Why don't you go back to the now defunct Tribune blog where people like you tend to lurk? We are trying to have an intelligent discussion here.

Anonymous said...

Welcome back Julie! Nice to have an attractive woman speaking her mind as opposed to the old leathery dudes we have been subjected to for lo these many years!

Anonymous said...

Hi Anons 7:13, 7:16 above,

Obviously you have not been on this blog long enough to know that I have explained my position many, many, many times before. Feel free to read my past blogs.

Before the recall Julie, Lisa and others insisted that I stop the Tri-W project for a variety of reasons; and that stopping the project would not result in RWQCB fines or loss of the SRF loan. I REFUSED, and for that I was recalled. After the recall the new board did exactly what they wanted me to do, (stop Tri-W), and guess what...stopping the project resulted in a 6.4 Million dollar fine from the RWQCB and loss of the SRF loan. So tell me; how good was their advice given to me prior to the recall?

Seems to me that most folks on this blog just want to "talk" about the sewer, but never do anything to solve the problem. So talk away....and remember as you are doing so that YOUR project costs are rising at the rate of $25 per minute, $40,000 per day , $1,200,000 per month, $14,400,000 per year ($16,800,000 since the recall; which adds to YOUR PERSONAL debt at the rate of $.005 per minute, $8 per day, $240 per month, $2,880 per year ON TOP of the debt you have already acquired (over $35,000 and counting).

But as you decided to stop the project, you, along with Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John can reap (or weep)the rewards of your actions. If you want to spend double for a project, go right ahead.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: As for Julie "speaking her mind", she is a woman of few words as Julie doesn't have much of a mind to speak of.

Shark Inlet said...

Julie,

I am sure that you wanted CSD wide septic management ... but I wonder aloud again why you voted against septic management. Yes, you told us that you believe that the septic management was only outside the PZ, but please look at the language again. The measure you voted against would have allowed septic management for unsewered areas ... essentially the entire CSD except Monarch Grove.

If you want to dispute my claim, go ahead, but please provide the exact language that said outside the PZ only. Otherwise it is just your memory against mine ... and we all know pretty well that the record of the current CSD board "I didn't know it was site specific" is pretty faulty.

Shark Inlet said...

Julie,

You also write about your plans to move the project to another site yet keep the SRF (and the only problem was that Katz was lobbied to vote no).

That doesn't match up with the fact that about a year earlier you and Lisa were told by the SWRCB board that no, you couldn't move the site and keep the loan.

Furthermore, at a face value reading, the SRF contract pretty much says that any changes in the plans must be approved in advance. (The contract also says that any stopping of work must be approved in advance unless for emergency reasons like finding native american artifacts ... but it seems you didn't read that part either.) It would seem that before stopping the work it would have been good to have an attorney look over the contracts carefully and give a professional opinion about how likely your strategy would be to actually work.

In any case, it would seem that such a risky strategy would be unwise to pursue without knowing it is highly likely to work.

As if you asked, I'll offer (yet again) my opinion about what you all should have done.

Right following the passing of measure B you could have paused the construction just to verify with the courts whether measure B applies to the current construction. That process could have easily stalled construction by a few months. During that time you could have negotiated with the SRF to keep the portion of the loan for the collection system and asked whether due to Measure B, they would consider allowing the change in sites. It probably wouldn't have worked either.

In any case, even if you had kept the SRF loan, inflation would have more than eaten up any theoretical savings from moving the plant. Nope, inflation from delay is huge and you don't seem to care that things are going to cost more now than before. Frankly, I am pissed off that my friends and neighbors were already being hosed by the TriW project being so expensive (in part, by the way, because of CCLO delay) are now being completely screwed by the actions of the current board. Even without the bankruptcy, the Ripley bills, the money for Dan and BWS, the inflation from the delay is causing the costs to go up from about $200/month to considerably more.

I do appreciate your willingness to explain your reasoning, but please realize your explanations sound as if you all didn't consider the possibility of bad outcomes that many folks told you all in advance were pretty likely. Your explanations don't make you sound very wise.

Perhaps it is because you aren't providing enough details in your explanations.

Could you tell us perhaps some of the details of the cost analyses for the "out of town" project you did before stopping a funded and permitted project. Be sure to explain your estimates of time before construction would start as well as estimated project costs and the inflation rate. That will allow us to understand the logic behind your decision.

Anonymous said...

Ain't gonna happen, Shark. She is clueless as to the costs.

Anonymous said...

anon 7:16 11/20 said......

"Welcome back Julie! Nice to have an attractive woman speaking her mind as opposed to the old leathery dudes we have been subjected to for lo these many years!"

Julie Tacker is about as smart and attractive as a porcelain china doll. She is an empty shell of a human being. She and some may think she is attractive on the outside, but on the inside? Nothing. A soulless void. For sale to the highest bidder. Six months ago, she wept for the ESHA that was destroyed at the Tri-W site by the former board. Now she supports her new employer's slaughter of 400 eucalyptus trees at the gatewat to Montana de Oro. How phony and disingenuous can you get? Speaking of old leathery dudes, Julie decided to place herself in the pocket of and lay down with one of the oldest and slimiest leathery dudes of them all........the lying, permit ignoring, tree and ESHA butcher himself, Jeff Edwards. When she's not absent from meetings for having to recuse herself from representing 14000 people because of her relationship with 1 person(Jeff Edwards), she's trying to push thru Edward's agenda. All you have to do is listen to her comments. She has reduced herself to being nothing more than Jeff Edward's parrot and puppet. Before the end of her term, whether it comes sooner(by recall) or later(by a failed reelection attempt), this Community will know by her own actions that she no longer represents Los Osos. In many ways, she is just as bad if not worse that the former recalled board members. The former CSD sold out to the State Waterboards and contractors. Julie has sold-out to developers. Julie Tacker has sold-out like no other. How sad. She has completely lost touch with this Community of Los Osos. Thankfully, by her own actions, she has lost all chance and hope of reelection. Then, we shall see how long it takes for Mister Edwards to dump her once she's lost all power and influence. Prepare to witness the demise of one of the most selfish and self centered sell-out divas, Julie Tacker.............