Pages

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Entry I:

Uh, Daddy, Why Did The Regional Water Quality Control Board Hold Two Days Of their Auto de Fe Public Beheadings & Weenie Roast Bonfires For The Los Osos 45 And The Tribune, The County’s Newspaper Of Record, Didn’t Carry, So Far As I Could See, A SINGLE LINE ABOUT IT ALL?

Daddy, Does The Tribune Wish The People Of Los Osos Not To Know Anything About What Happened At Those Hearings?

Why Not, Daddy? Why Not?

Entry II

On Monday night, Dec 18, in the auditorium at the Los Osos Middle School, the county held a meet’n’greet followed by a formal presentation to introduce the team that would be taking over the Hideous Sewer Project come Jan 1. Members of the public were encouraged to write questions on 3x5 cards, a few of those questions were asked and answered in public in the short time left after the formal presentation. The rest of the questions will be read by the staff and there are some plants mentioned that staff will put together a FAQ sheet as part of their community outreach.

Since this was simply Day One, so to speak, of a long process, it was premature to expect many answers. But the event was pretty well attended (as always, out of a community of about 15,000 people, I can only conclude that if about 200 show up, that’s considered a sell-out crowd.) The event was televised by AGP, so I can only hope that folks who didn’t know about the event or who didn’t want to bother to actually show up, will watch it on t.v.

So far as I know, there was no attempt to check weapons at the door, so everyone was on their best behavior. I’m sure the long knives of the various Sewer Jihadi Factions will come out later, Alas, as this process moves along. I can only hope that everyone can hold their fire long enough to see exactly what will get born here before they start killing everyone in sight.

And the best way for that to happen is for the rest of the community, oh, say, the 14, 950 non-Sewer Jihadi residents of Los Osos to pay attention, stay in the loop, stay actively ivolved and well-informed, no sleeping at the switch, because there will be no second chances here. If the Process promised by the county is followed, if all sly secret thumbs stay off the scale, the lights stay on, no weird aces up the sleeves, no bait & switchyness allowed, then the Process will result in a successful project.


Speaking of which . . .

On Tuesday, the 19th, at the BOS meeting, it was voted to start the process of setting up a TAC, technical advisory committee, composed of various “lay” experts to “vet” things as they move along. Interested people have until about the end of January to submit their applications to serve. The TAC meetings will be held under Brown Act rules, hence the public will be able to attend, make public comment & etc..

If any subcommittees are formed, it was not known if they would be open to the public as well. I can only hope that they will be at least open to public attendance, but they won’t have to be Brown Act, i.e. folks can sit in to watch and observe, but are not allowed to comment or interrupt. Any questions they might have can be reserved for the official TAC meetings, or can be asked after the subcommittee meetings & etc. That way, the meetings won’t be hampered, but will be transparent and open to public scrutiny.

And, finally, as a suggestion, let me throw out this: One of the key problems is the fact that the 218 vote will come BEFORE the “advisory” vote on what and where. Given the history of Bait & Switch, a lot of people are concerned that we’ll end up with déjà vu again and that if enough people get spooked, they’ll refuse the 218 vote. So, I offer the following: If the Process is followed correctly, there could be 2-3 projects that will survive, with pretty close “guestimates” as to their final costs.

I would then ask the County to enlist the services of the folks at the National Water Research Institute, the same folks who did the so-called “peer review” of the Los Osos Wastewater Management Plan Update, top experts in the wastewater field who have no dog in this fight, to “vet” the projects that are in the final running, and issue a report – a sort of Consumer Report that could reassure the voters that any or all of those selected are sound and will fly. That no matter which advisory vote later selects which specific project, the voters will have the added confidence that all of them are o.k.

I think that added investment in such a neutral final vetting will pay big dividends later down the line.

And finally

Meantime, the CSD Board has agendized for their Dec 28 meeting, whether they can commit seppuku by dissolving themselves right then and there, or whether LAFCO would intervene and prevent the blood from making a mess on the floor until a year has passed, or what.

If the answer is that they can disappear in a puff of smoke before our very eyes, then I might have the answer to a critical question that’s been going through my mind ever since the recall: Will the disappearance of the CSD altogether finally make recalled CSD Board member Gordon Hensley happy, at last? If so, what a post Boxing Day present! Gold in his shoes in place of that awful coal.



.

45 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

On three other matters ...

What did you feel about the unbiased evaluation of the Ripley project costs?

Do you feel it is reasonable or unreasonable to ban community members from a County Technical Advisory Committee based on their past roles (and therefore familiarity) or stated opinions?

Did you go to the Wastewater Committee meeting on Tuesday ... what was the brouhaha all about?

Anonymous said...

I still don't understand how they can have a 218 vote BEFORE the advisory vote. The very nateure of that timing makes it sound like there will be no advising coming out of the advisory vote. It sounds like they are just going to do it to say they did it.

What will we be voting on during the 218 election? We won't know which project is on the table. We won't know how much money we are talking about... assuming the different project choices have different price tags.

What if we approve a 218 tax and then during the advisory vote, we choose a more expensive project? Will there have to be another 218 vote... or will they just take the results under advisement and choose the cheaper project becuase that's all they got paid for under the 218 vote?

It just seems backwards... and it seems to be backwards on purpose.

Anonymous said...

Shark Inlet said... "Do you feel it is reasonable or unreasonable to ban community members from a County Technical Advisory Committee based on their past roles (and therefore familiarity) or stated opinions?"

There is definitely a political element to the selection of these committee members... we are trying to get "buy-in" and build consensus.

Anyone should be able to apply, but the BOS needs to choose very carefully.

I think those that spoke in protest at the BOS meeting needed to focus their effort, not on who should apply, but on giving guidance on who they thought the BOS should choose.

So the answer to your question is "Yes... and No". Noone should be banned from applying... but the BOS should have criteria in their heads that would, in essence, excluse people that fit into certain catagories. It would be the smart move, politically.

Shark Inlet said...

I suspect the purpose of the 218 vote being before the advisory vote for site location is that the RWQCB is saying they need a 218 vote before a certain date or else they'll do "bad stuff" to us.

The County may just be trying to help us out with that.

What concerns me the most here isn't so much the timing as whether we'll be able to get another SRF loan and if we can, will it be able to cover the entire amount of the project. My understanding is that the governor told the SWRCB not to give out another loan for a Los Osos sewer project unless they recover the some $13M they've already given us.

If we choose TriW, we can probably just wrap those debts (save the amount Lisa & company spent on non-allowed things such as BWS bills) into the new SRF. If we choose another site, my understanding is that we'll need to repay the entire thing somehow before we'll get a new SRF loan.

Yes, this would tip the balance in favor of TriW in the minds of many. Would that be biasing the process? I don't actually think so ... those are real costs associated with moving the sewer, just as are costs to design a new plant, get it permitted and fend off legal challenges and inflation.

Again, Ann cares about some things (location and process) more than I do and I care about other things (cost and protecting our aquifer from pollution) than she does.

Shark Inlet said...

I agree that anyone associated with the LOCSD in the past in any way will bring baggage.

Essentially while I don't oppose Bruce or Richard or John Fouche serving on the panel (after all, they have a far greater understanding of these issues than pretty much anyone else out there) ... and while I resent people who would toss out Margetson-like threats if Bruce were to serve ... there are enough brain-dead reactionaries in our community that it would probably help the process if the TAC were entirely individuals who would be viewed as "unbiased".

Where the County will get those folks, I don't know. Perhaps they'll have to come from outside Los Osos or have been nominated by Joe Sparks or some other individual who can be viewed as unbiased.

Essentially, all those from Los Osos with the proper background to participate have already participated in the past and have been castigated by one side or the other and are now on a would be good but ... list.

Sewertoons said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sewertoons said...

shark inlet,

The brouhaha was about the curious behavior of Director Julie Tacker. I was there and saw it. First she spoke very, very long - and when seven minutes of speaking had passed, she was asked to wind up her comments, in a very polite manner by Ms. McPherson. Julie said she had to leave - which is why she was allowed to speak first - and continued on, with a member of the audience also protesting the amount time she took, possibly limiting the time the rest for the audience to speak. When done, she abruptly left, went to the back of the room, and what I saw with my own eyes, was Ms. Tacker kicking - no, KICKING - open the door and exiting very quickly. It made quite a racket. It was really inappropriate behavior by a Director, IMHO.

Anonymous said...

"Essentially, all those from Los Osos with the proper background to participate have already participated in the past and have been castigated by one side or the other and are now on a would be good but ... list."

It doesn't matter who's on the committee - everyone will be objected to by someone.

I find the stink about Bruce or Richard serving on the committee just plain bizarre. Gail McPherson, Richard Margetson and John Fouche are hated by just as many people.

The speakers at recent meetings seem to forget that this community is divided right down the middle, and that obviously isn't going to change.

The best we can hope for is committee members with actual expertise and no agenda.

I'm not holding my breath...

Anonymous said...

"So the answer to your question is "Yes... and No". Noone should be banned from applying... but the BOS should have criteria in their heads that would, in essence, excluse people that fit into certain catagories. It would be the smart move, politically."

I agree with the above, with one exception. Unless someone has valid professional credentials in a particular area (e.g. environmental law, hydrology, engineering) they should be required to own property (or at least) live in Los Osos.

I'm thinking of Ron Crawford, in particular, who has neither professional credentials in relevant areas nor a financial stake in the community.

Anonymous said...

"The speakers at recent meetings seem to forget that this community is divided right down the middle, and that obviously isn't going to change."

I have a lot of confidence, through my correspondence with them, that the county is very well aware of this fact. And after all, what the county thinks is what's important now. I think they have a pretty good understanding of the Richard Margetson's of the community, and how we have been held hostage by these clowns, to our overwhelming detriment, for some time now. At least that's what I hope, or we're all screwed.

Get's my Goat said...

Shark said: "My understanding is that the governor told the SWRCB not to give out another loan for a Los Osos sewer project unless they recover the some $13M they've already given us."

What $13M? The SRF loaned the LOCSD $6.4M that has to be paid back through the wastewater revenue stream...plase explan your figure.

Julie Tacker said...

Dear Sewertoons;
I was angry and in a bit of a rush, when I left last night's Wastewater Committee meeting, my hands were full and I did indeed use my foot to open the door. Not very successfully I might add, as my size 10 shoe slipped off the handle and made quite a ruckas, so sorry you thought that inapporpriate of a Director. I am human too.
I had to get home to my kids, their Dad was out of town and I'd been gone longer than expected during the day.
Don't forget I was the second Director to make comment or ask questions, as you'll recall Pres. Schicker asked questions and had answers for the 7 minutes before my comments.
Ms. McPherson didn't appear to like what I was saying to Paavo Ogren and felt it necessary to interupt me. Mr. Ogren and I are having our own meeting next week, so I don't have to take anymore of your time.

Anonymous said...

Julie,

Your explanation is lame. Face it - you had a temper tantrum, and you did it in front of hundreds of people.

You should really watch yourself. Your facade is beginning to crack. You've publicly made an ass of yourself quite a few times recently. Didn't I hear Eric Greening (and others) apologizing for you at the BOS meeting a few weeks back? Or was it the Planning Commission?

Seriously, girl - you need a time out.

BTW - are we supposed to be impressed that you have your OWN meeting with Paavo Ogren next week? Gail wouldn't let you hog the spotlight (as if), so you're gonna run off and play with Paavo all by yourself?

Could you sound any more childish?

Mike Green said...

The Trivial,yes they suck beyond everyting, what an embarrasment to journalism.
I love to stick their sticky adds right accross the lock for the cash box.
The online price is just about right,
free

Anonymous said...

The county has a 218 vote first because that will be it. There is no second 218 vote. Once the assessment vote would pass (218) we are basically just voting to be assessed for a sewer project. The county BOS will in the end will decide what the project will be for Los Osos. Do any of them live here or have to pay for it?? So, if the project costs $1000. a month, there's nothing that can be done after that, the 218 vote was taken.

BTW, the Tribune didn't cover the CDO hearings or the Peer Review. Can you believe it?

Spectator said...

Ann and all:

All I believe/know is that everybody is right, but will pay the the bill.

Regardless, we will have a sewer, it will be forced down our throats, one way or another: we are poluters under the LAW. We can protest all we want, obstruct all we want, but we are poluters with no standing in the courts. We can blame the water board, blame ALL LOCSD boards, blame Ann Calhoun and Crawdaddy, blame the former boards, blame all we want, including the CCRQCB, blame Spectator, Legros, Sharky for reason or lack thereof, and blame Pandora and TW along with Mike Green. But we are going to have a sewer.

Worst of all, you can even blame Mike Green, (prick, bastard), who simply wishes to be left alone and fish as do I (prick, bastard). And we have this stuff dumped upon us by real prick bastards.

ROUGH TALK: Spectator sez:

May all of you who demanded the stop of this sewer system, right or wrong, bend over, consider the future, and drop your pants. Soap is NOT available. We will pay regardless. "The voters decided" But the property owners will pay. No lubrication! Reality!

PLEASE EXCUSE ME! I never write like this! BUT, and I ask indulgence:

THIS IS A CLUSTER FUCK! I have no other way of expressing the extreme severity of this situation! Everybody knows what this means: All of us are in an impossible situation.

I have absolutely no aswers or speculation as to how to get out of it, except pay the bill. I do not think anyone else has the answers either.

Right now I figure it is going to take each property owner about 8 grand of assesment just to get the disrict out of debt. You will not have to pay it RIGHT NOW. Richard LeGros will come up with the annual figure, added to your tax bill, and he is competent. He will work figures on interest at going rates. This will be paid twice a year.

If we dissolve and void bankrupcy (board decision, MAYBE), we will be forced into a vote. LAFCO will not vote to dissolve because of county wide liability issues. To override this decision, a protest petition will have to be presented.
A disolution will take a vote of the propery owners in the LOCSD. They will have to settle the books with money.

SPECTATOR KNOWS NOTHING OF THE CONSEQUENCES. TIME LINE. ETC. He is also unsure of the law.

Will someone with great exreme knowlege, a crystal ball, and the patience of a saint help us out of this CLUSTER FUCK? Excuse me please?

Jon Arcuni

Anonymous said...

I think the CSD is bringing up voluntary dissolution to see if the agencies are sincere in their claim to be willing to work with us. I don't think it is more complicated than that. It's a political strategy and I think it might actually help us out.

Churadogs said...

Inlet Sez:"Shark Inlet said...
Ann,

On three other matters ...

What did you feel about the unbiased evaluation of the Ripley project costs?

Do you feel it is reasonable or unreasonable to ban community members from a County Technical Advisory Committee based on their past roles (and therefore familiarity) or stated opinions?

Did you go to the Wastewater Committee meeting on Tuesday ... what was the brouhaha all about?"

1. The peer review report didn't discuss any specific project. It's now posted on the CSD's website (supposed to be) and I strongly urge everyone will read it for themselves. Only about 16 pages long, an easy read. Be very alert to certain very interesting staements and especially to what wasn't said.

2. The problem here is that this PROCESS has to be like Caesar's Wife: Not only above suspicion but must appear to be above suspicion.The paranoia level in this community is extremely high (for good "bait & switchy" reasons, I might add) so cranking it up any higher by appointing people who are "tainted," shall we say, seems counterproductive and offers, politically, an excuse for sewer jihadis on both sides of this issue an excuse to go to war, and an opportunity to "taint" the process itself as rigged & etc. Not smart. On the other hand, if everyone at that table keeps their hands on top of the table and in view at all times, the PROCESS is transparent, open, verifiable at all times, then anyone attempting to put sly secret thumbs on the scales (or pull aces out of their sleeves) will be tripped up by a whole set of keen eyes and winnowed out. The county knows this. They also know that to make sure neither side can claim bias, if they have a Croat & a Serb at the table, along with people who have few or no dogs in this fight, the APPEARANCE of fairness will be met. Again, it's the absolute integrity of the process that will ensure a good outcome. And that will happen providing the public and all the players demand that all hands remain on top of the table, in plain view, at all times.

3. Wasn't at the wastewater meeting. Reading the other posts, I gather Julie explained what happened.

Anonymous said...

"I think the CSD is bringing up voluntary dissolution to see if the agencies are sincere in their claim to be willing to work with us. I don't think it is more complicated than that. It's a political strategy and I think it might actually help us out."

How many times in the past year have you watched this CSD do something and said "I think it might actually help us out." And how many times has what they've done, well, actually helped us out? In all my years I have never seen a group of people screw so much up but yet have backers who continue to think they'll get one right. (Well, now that I think about it, there's the neo-cons). Un-freakin' believable.

Sewertoons said...

Julie, maybe it was your your negative, non-stop lecture to Mr. Ogren of why everything he brought up wouldn't work (unlike Lisa, who actually asked respectful questions and waited for answers), that appeared to you to cause Ms. McPherson to ask you to round it up. Your parting words were, "We have been threatened before." Nice touch.

Shark Inlet said...

Our insightful friend of 5:54am has it right.

The threat of dissolution is a threat to the County. LAFCO cannot prevent a dissolution vote by the citizens and they are obliged to follow such a vote.

And if the County gets stuck with the bill they will hurt.

Essentially the CSD wants to make sure the County knows they still have some leverage.

Ron said...

An Anon wrote:

"I'm thinking of Ron Crawford, in particular, who has neither professional credentials in relevant areas nor a financial stake in the community."

I consider 15 years of covering this story as "professional credentials."

Frankly, I think I should be the chair on the committee, because at the first meeting, I would explain "bait and switchy," then the other 10 members would say, "Oh, that's what happened? O.K... well, I guess we're done here."

Anonymous said...

Thank you for explaining me so well, Shark. That's exactly what I meant. If the CSD dissolves, the county will be hurtin' for certain. I think the CSD is using dissolution as leverage...do you want to work with us (rather than file lawsuits against us, stopping sale of TRIW, whatever) or would you like us to just throw up our hands and say to hell with it?

Your Insightful (and paying attention) Friend

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

Using dissolution as leverage will get the CSD some attention ONLY if the CSD becomes pragmatic in it's dealings with the State and County. The County, while they rather not deal with the CSD's debts, realize that they can isolate said debt to the good folks in the PZ...hence, the CSD "threat" only has so much weight.

A pragmatic approach by the CSD would be to focus exclusively on the core services it provides, stop spending money on all waste water issues and CDO's, and get real about dealing with the creditors, County and State as to methods to adjust and pay off debt (through sewer rates when a project is built).

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Two things ... Rob Miller was pretty clear during the "unbiased" evaluation of the Ripley report that the evaluation team said lots of things quite critical of the Ripley plan. Not by name, but when they indicate that it takes time to develop Ag-Exchange programs and that zero denitrification is silly and that the actual costs of each plan need to be fairly compared ... it is pretty clear that they were telling us the Ripley wasn't up to snuff.

Perhaps more importantly ... if you are suggesting the County not choose particular problem people and particular people who are perceived as a problem ... that is fine. If you are telling us that the LOCSD should have the right to veto certain applicants or that TW should, I'll disagree with you ... it's the County's decision.

As for that list of "problem people" that the County might want to avoid should they want to be perceived as unbiased, we might want to develop a list of folks who fit the bill.

On my list of "unacceptable" would be McPherson, Margetson, Tacker, Schicker, Cesena and Senet. I suppose you would suggest Nash-Karner, Hensley, LeGros and Buel. Any other thoughts?

Shark Inlet said...

Oh yeah ... if the County wants "diversity" of opinions and if they want people county wide to see the results of the TAC as biased in advanced they should be sure to choose Ron Crawford to be on the committee. He's great at focusing on the minutiae of some documents while ignoring the entirety of others as a method to reach conclusions.

I suspect that if Ron gets on the committee, Real Estate prices will drop at least 5% overnight because folks will realize we are one step closer to the RWQCB CDO drop dead deadline of 2011 forcing us to all move out.

Anonymous said...

Ron:

You are an expert and a legend in nobody's mind but your own.

Your 'professional credentials' are a joke.

Do us all a favor and butt out.

Mike Green said...

Ann, your comment: "If the answer is that they can disappear in a puff of smoke before our very eyes" jarred a memory.
Jon and I were talking awhile back at the CSD meeting when Sam was there. We were discussing the ways that a CSD could dissolve. Jon asked Sam point blank if the CSD board could by themselves dissolve the CSD, The answer was no. This was a suprise to both of us, I know a heck of a lot more now than then.
Shark thinks that some ethical epiphany will occure that will cause LAFCO to allow a dissoulution vote.
I say when pigs fly.
I say the county set up a 218 vote political advisory commitee.
They will pick the best used car salesmen in the county.
It's going to ba a hard sell, we need experts.

Sewertoons said...

The way this looks to me:

LAFCo will only allow dissolution if services are impinged upon due to lack of funds, as Fire and Emergency services must be maintained - big liabilities for the County I believe if these services are cancelled and/or neglected. (Read the LAFCo rules - this and not holding meetings are supposed to carry weight toward dissolution.)

However, the County has taken away the tax money to pay for these services to insure that the bills actually get paid, instead of being siphoned off by the CSD to BW&S. Where we are in danger is that we have no reserves and no money is being set aside for sinking funds to replace old or damaged equipment. Just how low services can go before they enter the danger zone remains to be seen.

The County does not want our debt, that's for sure, so maybe if necessary they could take over the services but corral the debt into CSA #9 if dissolution occurs. Who knows!! Uncharted territory!

This dissolution threat seems like a big play for power by the CSD over the County. Things would be a lot better if the CSD would drop lawsuits and stop paying BW&S - for what at this pont one might wonder? Do they really need the County's help to figure that one out? (No offense Joe, this isn't addressed to you!)

To bad the CSD did not see this coming last spring when TW was looking to dissolve before all this debt mounted up - had the CSD only found and looked at a balance sheet…

Churadogs said...

Inlet Sez:"Two things ... Rob Miller was pretty clear during the "unbiased" evaluation of the Ripley report that the evaluation team said lots of things quite critical of the Ripley plan. Not by name, but when they indicate that it takes time to develop Ag-Exchange programs and that zero denitrification is silly and that the actual costs of each plan need to be fairly compared ... it is pretty clear that they were telling us the Ripley wasn't up to snuff.

Perhaps more importantly ... if you are suggesting the County not choose particular problem people and particular people who are perceived as a problem ... that is fine. If you are telling us that the LOCSD should have the right to veto certain applicants or that TW should, I'll disagree with you ... it's the County's decision."

Here's a perfect example of why I keep asking if you suffer from ADH or ADD or something. You read the clear, neutral, bland, factual, generalized Peer Report and see in it "criticism" of the Ripley Report and that "zero denitrification is silly." Please tell me where in tht report does it say that zero denitrificaiton is silly? Where do you get this stuff?

Then you make an assumption about what I did NOT say and then proceeed as if it were real. How, out of what I said, could you leap to a conclusion that I was suggesting the CSD get "veto" power over who's on the committee? How on earth do you leap to that completely off the mark conclusion?

It's that kind of stuff that keeps me asking: Do you have comprehension and/or reading problems? Or is this, as others keep claiming, a deliberate effort to distort and spin? It's wierd to see in action, but very interesting, to say the least.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ann,
I believe that Shark's comment regarding denitrification is surmised from the fact that we were told as a community that we were required to denitrify our water - period.
What bothers me more than that is this:
"Here's a perfect example of why I keep asking if you suffer from ADH or ADD or something." (The peer review didn't compare the Ripley plan to anything else, just itself and there were comments made in regards to denitrification and that it would still be required in ag exchange.
But I digress.) It is the the ease with which you throw out ADD and ADHD. Nothing funny about trying to live with that. It is with ease with which a community member the other night threw out this comment, and I paraphrase;"having Bruce Buel on the TAC is like having him rape your daughter and then invite him to the birthday party...", this man has obviously never been raped nor has his daughter because that is such and inappropriate statement. I am continually appalled by the lack of consideration and the ease with which certain members of OUR community are able to be so oddly inconsiderate. At the last LOCAC meeting, a member of our community got up, made public comment and looked a man dead in the eye and called him "stupid". It concerns me that a member of our BOD is able to stand up in front of the community and chastise the county, dismiss any efforts being made to help figure this situation out and openly threaten to undermine efforts of a 218 if it isn't up to her standards.
Do I believe that 50.1% of the community support this behavior - no. I don't agree with Joyce Albright saying that Lynette and Joe and I would "save this town from purgatory". Believe it or not, it has become clear that none of us is the first or the second coming of any savior.
Just for a minute Ann, instead of bringing in the questioning of intelligence and what not - the truth is: It's all about perception. If the community "perceives" that an election is about a sewer project and candidates run a "sewer" project but there are others in the community running on "finances" and the "sewer" project incumbents win, and only one "financial" candidate wins, that isn't a huge win for the "sewer" project because the people that gave them a run were running on "finances". So when the notion gets bandied about that the community voted out Tri-W twice based on an election is off mark. 49.9% of the community were voting for financial responsibility because no where in mine or Lynette's or Joe's literature was there promises of "$153.00" and out of town. In fact none of us promised anything other than to work on financial damage control and guess what, now we have a board who is thinking that they may need to dissolve - I say, never without the vote of the folks who voted the CSD into formation. Losing local control should never be up to a board or group.
We are limping along as a community, not clear on direction and you take time to pick apart and throw out your contrived "perceptions" and that feeds this confusion. I appreciate the humor, I appreciate the time you take to write and I even appreciate some of the "are you kidding me" cavalier attitude, but when you and some of the others in this community start throwing out comments that have clearly crossed a line of decorum that is protected by your freedom of speech, I'm betting that 85% cringe and won't show up at meetings.
Enough is enough, retract the ADD/ADHD comment because I do not want to see that door opened any further - it needs to close.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to sign my name to the above!
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Anonymous said...

Maria,Maria,Maria.
Everything that has gone wrong with sewer system is that it involves Tri-W.
The County was ready to go at a rate of actually I don't remember, but about $70 a month.
Then we bought into $35 a month, which turned into $205 a month and counting.
The thing is, as a community we will never come together. Half will be paying an excruciating sewer bill, and the other half will be enjoying life with their septic system and enjoying our PARK, AND AMPHITHEATRE AND TOT LOT AND WAVE WALLS AND ON AND ON.
I'm sorry, but as a 35 year resident here, I take offense to you coming in and trying to tell us how to behave.
Remember, the only step taken so far to mitigate the pollution we are allegedly producing has been the ill-conceived CDO's. 30 some years and that is the first step.
Somebody, i'm not going to mention names, tried to make Los Osos her bitch. That basicly is why were where we're at today.
Sincerely,M

Sewertoons said...

Well, somebody needs to tell this town how to behave, as our CSD meetings are excruciating compared to attending a BOS meeting.

I also attended the meeting Maria refers to where the "rape" comment was made. You can make that comment in a bar, but it was just way out of place in that meeting.

Anonymous said...

I guess you've forgotten about the decorum of the old board meetings, Rose Bowker rolling her eyes in public comment when a speaker, ney nearly every speaker questioned their intention to go with Tri-W. Hired spies in the meetings. Physical confrontations with those opposed to the old boards agenda. Restraining order against a citizen that was a thorn in their side. Later dropped after it had served it's purpose. Accepting bids 46% over estimate after nearly everyone said 'please, no. Don't do this'. Delaying the recall vote for as long as possible, and starting construction before, even though they didn't have to. Barring two of the board members from the construction meetings prior to commencement of construction with a physical presence at the door.
Immediately calling for fines and dissolution after their recall. Now, some of them contributing to the County and even the Federal level against us.
The prosecuting attorney in Durham, North Carolina apparently has no qualms with throwing the term Rape around. While I am sensitive enough not to use that term, I think the analogy is fitting to what is being done to this community.
Sincerely, M

skewertoons said...

As a 100 year resident around here, M, I take offense at you and your new friends, here for less than half a century, trying to take over our community. Who the hell are you to tell us that pissing in our drinking water is "safe" or that an out of town sewer is better than TriW?

You and your board of newcomers have screwed our community. Get the hell out of my town and let those of us I agree with make all the decisions because your opinions are just not welcomed.

Anonymous said...

You know M, rant all you want, but you can never escape this: Your board promised $100.00 per month; your board promised we would never lose the SRF loan; your board promised there would never be individual CDO's; your board said they had a plan and were ready to go with it. These outrageous lies did more to sway the recall election and Measure B vote, two of the most disaterous decisions this community ever made, then starting consturction at Tri-W. (which, by the way, assured we would get the remaining SRF monies; be well on our way to compliance with the RWQCB; and be spared the CDO's that now rain upon the property owners). Your board is despised by every public entity that exists, which is really wonderful, since they are the ones that hold the hammer over our heads. This community is the embarrassment of the county and the state. The selection of Bruce Buel and Richard LeGros just shows how little regard the county has for current leadership, and the behavior of your people at CSD meetings and now BOS meetings reinforces their opinions. The county now has the project, for no other reason than your board had no other choice because of their actions than to ask for their help, so I'd suggest you get over it, hope a sewer anywhere costs less than $400.00 a month, and hope we are well on our way to the completion of a project by 2011. (As per our incoming CDO's, which, by the way, your board promised would never come). Happy holidays.

Anonymous said...

Who in the hell are you to tell us pissing in our groundwater is unsafe and that in town is better than out of town? You speak and type well for an 100 year old resident. I've only lived here for 35 years so I guess i'm a babe in arms. I guess as a 100 year resident you remember the grove down at the bay? You'll also remember when South Bay Blvd didn't go through to Los Osos Valley Rd. Remember when you could take your dogs to the sweet springs for a swim? Remember when Tony DeJong built his house boat in the parking lot of Los Osos Valley Liquor? If pissing into our ground water is such a egregious thing, how come 1,000 more properties were allowed to be developed in the PZ after the mandate was handed down? How come not one single step has been taken to mitigate the alleged pollution since this started some 30 years ago? Oh wait a minute, there were the 45 CDO's. A year later and where are we at with that? C'mon, this is all about developement and somebody found a way for only a portion of the community to pay for it and they ran with it. This is the "Basin Plan isn't it? Are those of us in the PZ the only ones in the basin?
Alleged Morro Bay pollution. Our you kidding me? Creeks, sewers, boats, birds, dogs, cats, you name it contribute to the alleged pollution of the bay. I remember a member of some group telling us don't let the relative health of the Bay fool us. Huh?
You get the hell out of my town.
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

At $400 a month this will be a ghost town. A lot of good a sewer is going to do us then.
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

M

At $400 per month, not doubt you will move out of Los Osos.

Yippee!

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I believe Maria's comments point you pretty well to where I "get this stuff". Because it seems that you weren't at the meeting I will have to watch the video of the meeting and let you know the times of Rob's comments that make it clear the report told us that the Ripley proposal was insufficient. I won't be able to do that for a while, however, so please be patient.

Sewertoons said...

I find the justification for bad behavior puerile just because it was done in the past. The past is the past. All WE are responsible for is right now. Let's stop the blame game and move ahead. Nitpicking and finger pointing through the past events does not help anything, but just stall solutions and confuse clear thinking.

Anonymous said...

To sewertoons. I do to. Thanks for the new word "puerile". I don't think i've ever heard it before.
I am not trying to condone the acts of the present because of the past. I am ever hopeful that somehow we can recover some of the past that was taken from us.
I often wonder what direction would be taken if this was day one of a mandate to be handed down? The past keeps being revisited because it keeps being revisited.
In my mind, there has to be more up to date options than what it looks like we are going to end up with.
To Anon 10:32am
No, your joy is premature. I will live with whatever is handed down and accept it and move on. Life runs in cycles and this is just one of many for me in my life.
I am a little saddened though at your joy in me leaving. A place I have lived in and loved for 35 years. You never know, I might be one of many silent humanitarians in this community.
Happy Holidays
Sincerely, M

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:" (refering to a previousposting)"Because it seems that you weren't at the meeting I will have to watch the video of the meeting and let you know the times of Rob's comments that make it clear the report told us that the Ripley proposal was insufficient. I won't be able to do that for a while, however, so please be patient."

I was at that peer review report meeting and looked at and listened to Rob Miller directly and nowhere did I get the notion that he thought Ripley was "silly" or "insufficient" or any such thing. He made it repeatedly clear that the peer review DID NOT focus on any one system or particular project but instead was a far broader approach of recommendations and caveats for ANY future project and that he and others at the workshop felt that approach would be far more useful than just some specific point-by point review, which would be far too limiting.

Anonymous said...

Dear Shark,
I know what you are saying. You never said that Ripley was silly or insufficient. You were clearly stating that suggesting we will not be required to have a system that will denitrify our wastewater regardless of use/resue was silly and would be insufficient.
My husband and I were at the review of the review and it was clearly a peer review of Ripley and no other project BUT that cleaning the groundwater is the #1 priority because waiting for a bluebaby or having our supply cut off would mean it was too late.
The review of the review was very clearly reviewing the suggestion of step/steg out of town to the best of its ability without any engineering or design being done. It is conceptual only so it can only be a review of a conceptual system that may serve our community.
The TAC will be looking at components of projects that could work for Los Osos. This will be great because what is becoming clear to me is what I have suggested all along - there is never one solution for every problem, frequently there are many. There was some guidance in the review and it will be helpful to incorporate that into how the TAC will be approaching its work. Thankfully Rob Miller is going to be able to be of assistance to this process - we need a common denominator and he's been a part of this process for quite some time.
I understand that Shark was infering and not being literal and he didn't use quotation marks so he obviously wasn't quoting Rob but it was fair to say that ag-exchange as the answer to not having the added expense of denitrification has been seemingly nixed.
I am grateful for the discussion and appreciate people taking the time to peck away at their keyboards. Understanding the way people communicate is tough which is why we end up in these states of miscommunication - not bad and not good, it just is. As long as we keep trying, there is hope.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly