Pages

Friday, December 08, 2006

I Aim For The Stars, But Occasionally I Miss And Hit London”

Reading the Final Report of the Independent Advisory Panel on Reviewing the Los Osos Wastewater Management Plan Update and attending the CSD meeting last night presenting and discussing the same, I was put in mind of the above satiric riff on Werner Von Braun’s autobiography, “I Am for the Stars.” (For those too young to remember, Von Braun was snatched up by the U.S. after WWII and was instrumental in starting the U.S. space program since he was one of the premiere rocket scientists that Germany had and did indeed help develop the V-2s that did indeed hit on London.)

That satiric title kept running through my head, not because the report contained any bombs, but because so much of it sort of kept falling into the, Oh, Duh, category. For example, statement 3.3.2: “Given the number of problematic issues with the downtown site, it is the unanimous opinon of the Panel that an out-of-town site(s) is a better alternative.” Oh, Duh. Or, 3.2.1: “The STEP/STEG system is a well-developed technology and is a viable alternative to the gravity collection system.” Oh, double Duh. And I especially liked this one, 3.2.3: “Regardless of which type of collection system is selected, consideration should be given to the use of vacuum sewers (STEP) in low lying areas along Morro Bay.” Oh, very, very interesting. Speaks to the problem with traditional gravity pipes of infiltration and leaks in high-ground-water areas, something better controlled and monitored with a STEP system. Very interesting, especially since much of Los Osos has high-groundwater areas, and/or areas where the upper aquifer has risen too close to the surface & etc. If a sealed system is safer along the bay, then that begs the question whether it would be safer through the rest of the town.

Over all, the report (which is available at the CSD office and will be on their website and hopefully will be posted on the County’s website soon (www.slocounty.ca.gov./pw) consisted of a series of statements of fact or expert opinion and or advice or consensus of the Panel, among whom was George Tchobanoglous, author of 13 textbooks and five engineering reference books, several of which are considered by wastewater engineers to be “the bible.” In other words, it was a panel of real experts with no dogs in this fight, not just five guys with spoons.

The report also wasn’t just some vetting of the Ripley Project or a comparison between Ripley’s proposal and the Tri W project, but it did contain some very interesting points and caveats which, IF FOLLOWED, could result in a successful project. Happily, the County was part of the panel, as were representatives from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No member of the CSD Board was invited to attend, since this was to be strictly hands-off vis-à-vis any “political” input. I can only hope the participants were listening and will be paying close attention to some of the items. And I hope the members of the public will get a copy and read it too. And pay close attention.

Speaking of Paying Close Attention

The County will be holding the first of it’s Town Hall Meetings Monday and possibly Tuesday, December 18 & 19th at 6 pm (for meet & greet) 7 pm for the program’s start at the Los Osos Middle School. Be there. Early information and input and feedback and Getting Info Straight From The Horse’s Mouth is starting NOW. One of the reasons the Hideous Los Osos Sewer Project went off the tracks in the first place is because too many people in the community were asleep at the switch. I can only hope they won’t make that same mistake again. Just because the County’s “in charge” doesn’t mean this project won’t end up going in the wrong direction, again. Keeping it heading in the right direction is the job of everyone who lives here. No excuses this time.

Lawsuits, We Got Lawsuits, Again.

The Bay News reports that, “Los Osos attorney Shaunna Sullivan, on behalf of seven members of the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF),” has filed a lawsuit against the Regional Water Quality Control Board, claiming that “the defendants [the harassed and exhausted Los Osos 45 and eventually everyone in the PZ, which means YOU, HELLO! WAKE UP! PAY ATTENTION! A TINY FEW OF YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS ARE PULLING AN ENORMOUS WEIGHT THAT IF SUCCESSFUL COULD BENEFIT YOU SO GET OFF YOUR DUFF AND MAKE A DONATION TO THE PZLDF ACCOUNT AT THE COAST BANK NEXT TO THE POST OFFICE IN LOS OSOS SINCE YOU’LL BE HELPING YOURSELF THANK YOU] are being denied due process and equal protection under the law by not being able to depose Briggs.” (Roger Brigs, former CEO of the staff of the RWQCB who’s out of the country (conveniently?) just as the kangaroo court “trials” are to begin Dec 14th and 15th. )

There’s also been procedural cock-ups, muddlements, date changes, procedure changes, more muddlements, all of which have resulted in ZERO IMPROVEMENT IN WATER, but HUGE costs for the Los Osos 45 and HUGE costs for the Regional Board.

The tragedy here is the Los Osos 45 (some of them at least) have been negotiating a possible win-win “settlement” that would avoid kangaroo courts, ginned up trials, and an endless trail of expensive court appeals, huge delays and wasted resources spent “prosecuting” the remaining 4,500 homeowners. In short, a settlement that could be offered instead to the entire community and could result in a streamlined process that could result in immediate ground water improvement by having everyone pump, inspect, repair all our septic systems and offer proof of same. Those few not in compliance could then be rounded up by the Board and shot. Their numbers would be small since I personally don’t know anyone who would refuse to comply with that sensible requirement, nor do I think you know anyone who would refuse. That settlement is sooooo close, yet for some reason, the staff and/or Board are balking and may (again) end up with a lose/lose like last year’s Mad Pumping Scheme that wasted a whole year’s time where real mitigation could have been taking place.

Wait, Did I Say Tragedy? Apalling Farce is More Like It.

Patrick Klemz, over at New Times this week, notes that the upcoming “Trials” of the Los Osos 45, wouldn’t be videotaped and broadcast by AGP Video because – are you ready for this – The regional Water Quality Control board is citing “budgetary shortfalls as the reason” for not video taping the “Trials.”

Budgetary shortfalls?

Excuse me? Excuse me?

This from the gang who wasted gazillions on their appalling Mad Pumping Schemes, “trials,” lawyers, paperwork sent and resent, including one utterly silly piece sent special delivery because of some mix up, more hearings, then the dumping of the whole original “trials” to hire a new Grand Inquisitor to start all over again, gazillions utterly wasted when all that board needed to do last year was a simple directive to the community, no need for CDOs at this point, no need to waste all that money in their shortfalled budget.

But Noooo. Money for all that waste, that they have. Taping their kangaroo court “trials?” Naw, too poor.

Excuse me?

As of this posting, the NT article notes, “. . .CSD attorney Julie Biggs and the law firm Burk, Williams and Sorensen had each pledged $500. According to AGP, water board staff also promised to secure a contribution. The broadcast outfit itself [AGP] plans to make its own sacrifices on a meeting-by-meeting basis.” . . . “We’ll be there,” AGP’s [Nancy] Castle said of the mid-month hearings.”

Hooray for AGP. Boooooo BOOOOOOO to the Regional Board. Hello over there. Hellooooo. You folks are soooooo close to a success, a real win-win success, an actual “I know, let’s do something to actually affect GROUNDWATER, not just paperwork” success. Please, Pllluuuueeeeze, ya gotta tell us why – WHY – you’re continuing to do everything in your power to screw this all up? Why? Makes no sense at all. None.

118 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Did the panel really compare the TriW and Ripley plans? Did they even evaluate the Ripley plan?

To me it seems like they just repeated a bunch of obvious statements and ignored all the difficult questions.


My question has always been and remains this ... if we find out that TriW will be about $250/month and that "out of town" will cost us about $350/month, what will our town choose?

The pre-recall board felt that we would choose TriW at the cheaper cost. Folks who supported the recall felt that out of town would really be cheaper (or at least not that much more expensive).

As Pilot asked "what is truth?"

To me it seems as if we don't live in a vacuum and we can take the available information and work with it to figure out what is likely the best decision. Because folks in our town cannot agree on the question of what "out of town" will cost it is good that the County will step in and give us both options after vetting each and giving us a good estimate of the costs of each.

If "out of town" will actually save us money ... I'm all for it.

However, I really doubt that it will. None of the really sharp people who believes in "out of town" has been able to point to any errors in any cost analysis showing the Ripley plan will be more expensive than TriW.

But ... we'll find out. We'll find out in a year or so whether we should view Julie and Lisa as heroes or something else.

Anonymous said...

Concerning the peer review.....whatever. Show me the money. Less expensive wins. Period. And if all the choices go over $200.00 per month that means I just got robbed by this CSD.

And this week's Bay News offered the perfect dichotomy of Los Osos' sad sordid history. Julie Tacker rails against Taxpayers Watch, saying their lawsuits crippled the CSD. (lawsuits are bad). The front page trumpets members of the PZLDF suing the RWQCB, which I'm sure Tacker wholeheartedly supports (lawsuits are good.) UGH.

Julie Tacker said...

Julie Tacker here, let me just respond to anon above:
It's most unfortunate that PZLDF has to sue the RWQCB. And certainly no surprise.
As in all things sewer Los Osos puts the "Sue" in "Sewer".

Shark Inlet said...

No offense, Julie, but many would say that it is most unfortunate that TW had to sue the LOCSD.

Spectator said...

Why are people still fixed upon "out of town"? Any sewer system will have to be constructed by the County within the limits of the LOCSD. The Blakeslee bill prohibits the county from doing anything outside the jurisdiction of the LOCSD. Only Tri-W and (I am not sure) the Iacano sites are within the jurisdiction of the LOCSD.

Why do not people simply read the Blakeslee bill? Why do people not read the CCRWQCB site about Los Osos? Will you please read the law before opining. It is very unlikely that the Gianaconi site will be included into the district. That would be a whole other ball of glue. Thanks to 4crapkiller bringing this up on the San Luis Obispo blog. It made me take a really hard look at the Blakeslee bill.

Our choices are limited unless we really shoot ourselves in the foot by not assessing ourselves. Do you hear me ANN, Sharky, Mike, and Richard? The Blakeslee bill is LAW! The time has come to start building a sewer as soon as possible so that people can still live in the PZ. Let them stick it wherever it is legal.

Jon Arcuni

Anonymous said...

Ann:

I would hope that Shaunna Sullivan is simply not taking the money of the seven CDO recipients in light of the recent information posted on the CCRWQCB site concerning the CDOs and the modification. Ann, you are right, this would save a lot of individual and taxpayer money, if they were simply accepted. I will accept them for my two pieces of property in the PZ.

I also would hope that everyone reads copies of the Blakeslee bill, the letter of Oct. 6, 2005 to the LOCSD, and the replies to those fighting the CDOs. They are on the CCRWQCB site.

It is time to except the inevitable and build the sewer. It will cause us tremendous finantial harm not to assess ourselves when the 218 vote comes up. I hope the vote is not a pig-in-the-poke.

I agree with you. This whole process has been a fiasco. There has been a complete breakdown in government.

It is time for us to pay the piper and start building the sewer. It is time for us to conform to the law and stop obstructing it. If not, things can become really bad.

In our case, there are a lot more chains than dogs, and the CCRWQCB has all the chains it needs. Besides, they have the full resources of the state should they really need them.

It is time to be practical rather than emotional.

Sewertoons said...

To respond to this:

"Julie Tacker rails against Taxpayers Watch, saying their lawsuits crippled the CSD."

I have a print out of Burke, Williams and Sorenson's billing for 7/1/2005 to 6/30/2006.

Total billed: $521,688.93

Total assigned to Taxpayer's Watch cases: $29,856.40.

Why should less than $30,000 of a $521,000 amount cripple the CSD?? Make sense to anyone out there (besides Ms. Tacker)?

Anonymous said...

Careful, Sewertoons. You might confuse everyone with the facts.

Mike Green said...

Jon, Good to hear from you!
Yes, I keep harping that the WWTF is out of our hands, that the big issues are the upcoming 218 vote(s) and the plight of the "Doomed45" Specificaly the 2010 drop dead decree.
As I understand the Suit from the PZLDF it's that they need to get testimony from Biggs, but he is out of the country, I think it's a fair request, if that's what they need. since the only way you can stop a "court" proceding that is unfairly (in your opinion) proceeding to the detriment of your client, then you have to take it to another court. hence sue.
There are good reasons for wanting judicial oversite of the proceedings, don't you think?
As far as a sewer...
The county better deliver.

Anonymous said...

From what I hear, Briggs is on a sailboat, half-way around the world - a trip he has been planning for YEARS. His absence is not "convenient" with regard to the hearings. There are no sinister motives here - this was all supposed to be over long before he left on his trip.

Mike Green said...

Briggs, yes, sorry for the typo,
Nothing sinister implied, but wouldn't you want your attorney to get the strongest case up front?
Wouldn't you want a judge to determine that the depositions would have no meaningful evidence in your clients behalf?
Briggs might have something to contribute under oath that might be important. (do ya think?)

Mike Green said...

So, in that case, maybe we should all wish him a very happy and looong trip. Like till 2011.

Mike Green said...

Hey!I've got a new slogan!, instead of "faster better cheaper"

"THE COUNTY BETTER DELIVER"

Whad da ya think?

Anonymous said...

Hey Mike...don't you think the possibility exists that the county will deliver, as promised, but the whacked out fringe of sewer "experts" in this town will attempt to sabotage the process at every turn? Gosh I see these people (and you know who they are) as being a thorn in the side of this whole thing. Hope I'm wrong. (But nothing makes me believe I am.)

Mike Green said...

Anon went to the mountian and delivered:
") as being a thorn in the side of this whole thing."
Yep, that's almost evey dang one of us!
Thorns and potholes! "pot holes" get it, I was told the CSD meetings were dens of efrontery with fumes and whatnot in the back rows.
Shoulda stayed on their wine bars dag gummit!
As for the county meeting the deadline, I think you should concentrate on the 2010 decree!
We have only one horse in this race and he aint ever won a race!

Anonymous said...

As usual the RWQCB has all the cards, including what evidence is admissable, what we can and cannot discuss, what witnesses can be subpoenaed, and when the hearings will take place. Given that the water board has discretion on the scheduling of the hearings, one would think that an ethical government agency would ensure that the objects of its enforcement would be extended their civil rights, i.e. the right to face their accuser, among others. The RWQCB has not extended us that right, hence the request for a writ of mandate asking that the hearings continue when Roger Briggs is available for cross examination or deposition.

It would have been hard to conceive ten months ago that the RWQCB might have had no inkling how long the process would drag on, but after dealing with them all this time and living with the gaffes, the incompetence, the coverups, and their vast underestimation of the cognitive functioning level of the citizens involved, it is actually what we've come to expect - no plan, no exit strategy. We have no way of knowing what they expect, but we can guess based on the quality of the settlement order they have proposed. They would like this to end as soon as possible, it would seem, but everything they come up with merely attenuates the process.

At one point Mr. Sato responded to a suggestion that the water board and defendants work with a mediator to fairly expedite the process by explaining that they would be interested, but that they have no money for a mediator... .

As I told the water board in one of my numerous, voluminous communications to them, we had no reason to believe that on April 28 we would not be heard. We had less reason to believe we would be heard on May 10 & 11. And then even less reason to believe we would be heard on November 2 & 9. Will we be heard on December 14 & 15? Do we change our plans? Do we cancel a class not available again for months for which we paid nonrefundable fees? Do we hire an ambulance to transport us, a wheelchair? Do we request personal necessity leave, arrange for a substitute or for childcare? parentcare? Do we plan ahead for the workdays for which we must expect to receive no pay? Do we change travel plans and pay the penalities? Do we spend hours working on our evidence and closing statements, only to have the date moved yet again...and the process changed yet again?

Emotive language of all sorts gets bandied about on this blog with little regard for its meaning, and much more regard for dramatic impact.

"Sinister motives" is just such an example. To attribute this judgement about the water board to those who are engaged in protecting their own civil rights is unfair to those of us involved in the day-to-day of this prosecution, especially coming from those safely on the sidelines of the process.

We all probably know less about the water board's motives now than we thought we did at the end of January. All we know is that their story and orders change regularly. They have rewritten the CDO again.

The hearings are about the CDOs. How does one prepare a defense against a document that changes and procedures that change? We have to keep revising our defense.

We know that the RWQCB chair has denied continuances to many citizens who are unable, because of legitimate, compelling reasons, to attend the hearings scheduled for next week. One elderly couple who has been in the hospital (yes, BOTH of them) were denied a continuance, though they are both still recuperating and one of them will remain nonambulatory for weeks or months to come.

Another elderly couple has been denied a continuance. One of them had a stroke and can barely stand up to move from one piece of furniture to another. The other one is ill.

Others of us have all kinds of important personal business to attend to which we have had to schedule and reschedule around hearings, and the possibility of hearings, for over ten months.

I have to be in Carlsbad on December 14 thru 17 for a class I require as part of my trauma training program. I need Bill to assist me because of my health. It was such a relief when the November hearing dates didn't interfere with a four-day class I had to attend in Santa Barbara in November, nor the Carlsbad class in December. Suddenly that all turned around when the board rescheduled the hearings at the last minute for the very time when we will be away.

Can you imagine having your life interminably interfered with by a government agency, so that you cannot make plans for anything, knowing that they could schedule or reschedule a hearing at any time then simply tell you that government agency proceedings take precedence over personal business. That's what it's like being us.

Now they are telling us that our attendance at the hearings is not necessary. A few months ago we were told that we would be unable to incorporate by reference any part of the hearing - not testimony nor cross examination - unless we were present. Of course, with the new tack that attendance is our choice, and all requests for continuance denied so far, the fewer defendants in attendance, the more quickly the hearings will proceed.

Along with all the other changes, the restrictions on who can present and how the presentations can be made have become increasingly stringent with each new hearing date,as well.

"Sinister motives?" I guess I'll just call it "jaded."

Please remember the PZLDF This fund is your fund.

PZLDF
P.O.Box 6095
Los Osos, CA 93412

Thank you,

Bev. De Witt-Moylan

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"The pre-recall board felt that we would choose TriW at the cheaper cost. "

The pre-recall board refused to allow the community that choice, even when the Coastal Commission offeren them an opening to do just that. Also, the cc. guestimate for "out of town" (using the same technology) was a million cheaper or 5-6 million more, which, at the time, I pointed out, on a 30 year loan would be chump change. But the community was never given that choice.

Bev sez:"We know that the RWQCB chair has denied continuances to many citizens who are unable, because of legitimate, compelling reasons, to attend the hearings scheduled for next week. One elderly couple who has been in the hospital (yes, BOTH of them) were denied a continuance, though they are both still recuperating and one of them will remain nonambulatory for weeks or months to come.

Another elderly couple has been denied a continuance. One of them had a stroke and can barely stand up to move from one piece of furniture to another. The other one is ill"

I would ask everyone reading these comments to think hard and long about what Bev has written here. Please tell me what's the POINT of this? A year ago, the Board could have done something incredibly simple: Issued a formal letter to everyone in the PZ stating that since there were going to be delays in the project, as sensible mitigation, every property owner must pump, inspect, repair their septics, submit proof of same to the Board, then pump again in 3-4 years and submit proof. Simple. IF they didn't comply, THEN the'd have CDO's slapped on them.

Do any of you on this comment section know any one of your friends and neighbors who would refuse to comply with such a sensible mitigation effort (fully supported by the Board's own Resolution 83-12 by the way)? I don't. If the Board had done this a year ago, think how many sytems would already have been checked and/or brought up to snuff.

Instead, you have a board wasting a year jerking around sick old people and wasting gazillions and then having the temerity to refuse mediation because they're poor, and AGP video coverage of their "trials," because they're poor?

I'll ask again: What kind of fool goes to Def-Con 4 when Def-Con 1 gets the job done?

Discuss.

Anonymous said...

I can't take it anymore.
Morro bay sewer rates are going to leap to $21.60 a month. With an apparent nitrate problem still in their water even though they have a sewer.
A $500,000 Grant to monitor the health of the Bay through a volunteer Program. How bout a $500,000 Grant to actually clean up some of the alleged pollution of the Bay?
Richard LeGros selected to participate in our bankruptcy case.
Bruce Buel contacted by the County to participate in our wastewater issue. What's next, Pandora being brought on board by the RWQCB?
Sincerely, M

Spectator said...

To Bev and ANN:

You are absolutely correct about the CDO hearings. Please remember that the CCRWQCB is bound to operate through proceedures.
Also remember that the more proceedures they go through, the more they get paid. They will bend themselves over backwards to make sure they get paid more. And the more they get paid, generally the more in their retirement accounts, so they get paid twice. It would have been nice that they just could have come up with the recent CDO agreement earlier, but this is a strange case without precedent. Never underestimate the greed of lawyers, public servants, and politicians who are lawyers. Never underestimate their duplicity. Everyone should give the 45 defense team some money if they believe in their cause, if not for them we would be pumping every two months.

Of course, our current LOCSD should never have gotten us into this position where we had to go through these kind of CDO proceedures. Unintended consequences that would never happen because of Prop "B". Thank you Julia Biggs. Will you please put a check in the mail to me? Something like $40,000 when all is said and done for two pieces of property. Better win your appeals.

Ann, you are absolutely terriffic on hindsight, and shoulda-couldas. Me too.

Mike Green: Never mind the county better deliver, they will, but whatever they deliver it will not be up to anyone's expectations. What are your expectations? And hey, the property owners will have to deliver a yes vote on the assessment. Any hallies on your last trip? Have you taken a look at Section 1 c of the Blakeslee LAW, first and last sentences? How do you read them?

I read them and it seems that the county will not be able to build on any site outside the jurisdiction (see a map) of the LOCSD.


Jon Arcuni

Anonymous said...

Should make it obvious to you the low regard all the county and state agencies have for the current CSD leadership.

paying attention said...

Attorney bills are not the place to measure the cost of damage done by Taxpayers Watch. Unless you add all the cases up that include those influenced by TW, i.e. ACL's, CDO's, SRF, anything AB2701, LAFCO, breach of contract, Merril, etc...pretty much all things sewer related. Then there's the meddling in PERS of District employees, and attempting to torpedo negotiations with SLOCEA, attorney's have to respond, just like Lisa's viewpoint suggests.

Mike Green said...

Jon, yes, sec. 1 c would support your claim that the county is bound to build inside the PZ, but sec. 1 d, 2 would allow the county to put it anywhere.
What do you parse?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

To suggest that the post-recall board offered us a choice when the pre-recall board didn't is absolutely shameless.

Since the recall, the new board has simply not listened to any opinions at all. Simply put, they've not given us a choice ... but they have given us horribly higher bills.

I hope that Senet and Tacker can sleep at night a few years from now when we find out how much their folly has really cost us.

I hope you can sleep at night too.

Sewertoons said...

paying attention:

WOW! Who knew TW had so much power? You should let them know!!

Stopping the project is what brought out the ACL's and CDO's, not TW. If you think a letter by Pandora made those things happen, then you need help from a shrink regarding your perception of reality. She is not all powerful, contrary to popular belief.

The SRF loan was stopped because the new board stopped the project wthout getting permission first from the State. Simple.

AB2701 was brought to you with the help of Gail McPherson, not TW. It was brought about by the inappropriate spending of the new board which headed the District into bankruptcy. Do you think the County was unaware of that fact? Again, you need a more realistic perception of reality. Had the new board any idea of what funds they had, instead of spending without knowing, they could have come to us and asked for money via a 218 to further their goals. To think that the CSD was rich enough to plan a project without additional funds was not reasonable thinking on their part.

LAFCO did not cost the district, it cost TW, which was trying to stop the spending, which unchecked has left each of us with a huge chunk of District debt to pay off.

Breach of contract was brought on by stopping the project - or would have been brought on by not starting the project. It was brought by the CONTRACTORS, not TW.

Merrill? Explain how TW brought on Merrill?

Clarify meddling with PERS, attempting to torpedo negotiations with SLOCEA.

Now let's talk about the damage done by the "new" board to the District, to you and me - property owners and renters alike - ?

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't have "asked for money via a 218 to further their goals." happened between 2001 and 2004 changed the way things have come about? I am, and have been a property owner throughout and I don't remember a vote on one or the other of technology's and location. Oh wait, there was the Solutions Group pond system at Tri-W, Better,Cheaper,Faster. Yea, if you say so. We now know how that turned out. All along, Tri-W was the most expensive place to proceed with a wastewater plant after the pond system was rejected. Did we have any say so about that? Was there any sort of vote on accepting bids of 46 million dollars over estimate for this project? Yea, there were the three votes of Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, and Richard LeGros.
After constant public pleading of not to do this.
Sincerely, M

Spectator said...

Mike:

I parse section 1 d as being concerned with what the DISTRICT can do. The treatmant plant and sewer system is already reserved for the COUNTY, and it must be built within the confines of the district. Look at it again to confirm.

I was scared that I missed this when I saw what you wrote above. Had this been the case, the whole bill would have had to be litigated for intent and go through an amendment process. That would have hung us out to dry (septic systems).

So now maybe the whole plant can be excavated down another twenty feet, sodded over, and be completely underground at TRI-W. Then we can lease the space above to the county and let the county put a really nice park with baseball diamond etc. above so we could have dual use and recover some of the funds spent for the site. I have no idea what the water level is there, but I know it can be sealed and anchored. We would not want it to float up and out in wet weather. This would be a truely innovative solution.

Even though the plans for the existing system mostly hide the plant from view, in this case it would be totally invisible. Access through one end of a parking lot needed for the park. Egress from the other side. Large elevator for equipment replacement through the turf. (Turf is easily repaired). Sludge drying and composting under a bill board or grandstand with biological filters. I feel brilliant today!

Some big mouth said that there were federal government grants for really innovative solutions. I cannot think of anything more innovative than an invisible sewer plant. I am not kidding about this. Maybe just 1/4 more steel and concrete, and the plant is the least of the expense. Maybe MBR with a combo of STEP, STEG, and straight gravity collection could produce savings. Some of the effluent with the good MBR water could be blended to water the grass at the site and the grass at Monarch school. We would have beautiful grass at both places if the CCRWQCB would allow us to do this. Some could go across the street to the existing park.

So what are we going to write about next? A continual rewriting of history? I rather write about fishing. Let socks take on advocacy of the invisible sewer plant. PANDORA, where are you? I can see it now, "The TRI-W sports complex". Something like this could easily raise our property values $150,000. We could even put a pool on top. I am on a roll! What think you ALL? This is an example of stone soup.

Jon Arcuni

Anonymous said...

I like it Jon! To me your post feels like a new spirit of cooperation in Los Osos! I mean it! Both "sides" and especially those of us who are "in-between" need to absolutely make the best of what the county can do. I've been going back and forth on this issue for too many years...if it has to be at Tri-W then let's go for something really nice. It's gonna cost a shit load anyway. A pool would be my first pick of amenities, then a park area with good stuff like swings, jungle gyms, BBQs, and horseshoe pits. And let's have a vote on it! Do we want to pay or just get the barebones?

Anonymous said...

There are grants for innovative solutions. Just because someone pointed this out doesn't mean they are a "bigmouth." That kind of name-calling is not in the spirit of cooperation. If you helped out on the grants committee you would know why that was said.

Mike Green said...

Jon, I stand corrected, only the district is addressed on sec. 1, d.2. Thank you.
If you folks want to realy recoup some of the cost, well, I love casinos.

FBLeG said...

With regard to the the discussion of the where AB2701 says the County can build the sewer:

It seems clear to me that AB2701 allows the county to build the treatment plant anywhere it wants as long as it is for wastewater collection and treatment of district sewage. The last sentence in 1c is there to make sure the County doesn't exceed its authority and build a collection system and treatment plant for sewage whose source is outside the district. It is ridiculous to assume that that AB2701 would prohibit the County from purchasing property outside the district to locate a treatment plant. The purchased property just becomes part of the district. It's really quite simple.

I guess if someone really thinks this an issue, they could always file a lawsuit and have a judge rule on it.

Mike Green said...

fbleg, what part of the law supports your conclusion?
I cant find anything.

Mike Green said...

Jon. fishing! yes!
Got the polecat going for the barndoors
fished margarita on the troll on the little boat skunk again, no wonder, full moon. Saw a bald eagle and shivered in the morning mist--- good fishing!

FBLeG said...

Mike Green said...

"fbleg, what part of the law supports your conclusion?
I cant find anything."

I guess we can disagree on the meaning of the law, but that's how I read it. Remember, that the intent of the law is important also. It basically gives the County wide latitude in pursuing a sewer solution. Given this context why would Blakeslee be interested in restricting the County's options in solving this decades-old issue? That doesn't make sense to me.

If the County comes around and says that, because of AB2701, the only choice we have is to build a treatment plant at TriW because it is the only place in "the District" suitable for a plant, we will surely be headed for litigation.

I do not think that was the intent of Blakeslee's bill. On the other hand, if Blakeslee wants to make a public statement to the effect that the intent of the law was to force the County to build a treatment plant at a location which is currently within District boundaries and to preclude the County from pursuing other potential "outside" District locations, I will stand corrected.

Spectator said...

Mike:

Can't fish at full moon during the day. Fish feed all night long. Hard to catch them through hunger, got to piss them off. Full moon, fish at night actually better than day. Dark of the moon, 3hrs into high tide, 3hrs into ebb (regardless fresh or salt) absolutely best.

Offshore when the bait is being pushed to the surface, regardless of tide or moon, and the terns and gulls are diving, throw metal jigs. I absolutely love Hopkins. Feel them they go down, and they go down sideways, as soon as you feel a stop, strike. No hook up, bring up fifteen feet and let the jig loose again. You are where the fish under the bait school are. If no luck, count the turns on the handle to retrieve the jig. This will tell you the depth.

One day at Havasu I was with a guide and he could not believe what I was doing with a hopkins on stripers. I limited four people on the boat in an hour. Had to give him the hopkins.

Offshore, if you see fish running through the bait and breaking the surface, use poppers. Twitch, twitch. No need to work a popper fast. Red head, white body ALWAYS works with bucktail on treble. For albicore do not waste the time baiting up, use artificials. The more time in the water the greater the productivity. Throw bait, but do not use it, use artificials.

If you want a big fish use a big bait. I caught a 900+ lb marlin off Kona trolling very slow on a down rigger at 100 feet with a 15 lb yellowfin tuna as BAIT. 50 lb test, 2 hrs, let the fish jump itself out. I could never have caught it if it dived. Duke Kamamaha's boat. Tagged and released. No tournament at the time, and the fish would have cost me $3,000 to mount twenty years ago. I have lost many big baits to sharks, and hooked big sharks, really wishing they would go. But some of the sharks were real pistols, and at times with unlimited 120 lb tackle, thought they would kill me. Cut them off at top of leader. Never killed them at Kona, but have killed real big threashers in Santa Monica bay and sold them. As good eating as swordfish. Always kept small ones for personal consumption.

In Morro bay there are leopard sharks and rays. They are some of the best eating of any species. Got to clean them fast and get them on ice. Steak the leopards. Keep the wings of rays, the wings taste like scallops, and in many cases the sea scallops one buys in the store are circular punched skate wings. For leopards and skates use small strips of squid on the bottom in the sloughs at low tide. Small mouths, small hook.
Set up a drift back and forth on a slough. You will feel your bait going down into the deeper water and let it lie as long as possible.
Dropper rig is best. Let it sit. Flip, and let it sit. Sharks and rays will find it. If not, next case, new spot down or up channel. Move with the tide or wind.

Dog fish if cleaned quickly and kept on ice are very good to eat deep fried. When the British sell fish and chips, the fish is usually dog fish. They actually prefer it to cod.

Today I found oysters at 8.99 a dz at Spencers in Atascadero. Fat babies from Canada, farmed. Did them on the BBQ here. After opening dolloped them with butter. Had to help them open with a knife. When steam comes out they are ready, but they may not be open. Fantastic with bread and chardonay, six people went wild! Bought two dozen. However, they were not as good as the Morro Bay Gaggers I used to be able to get at $25 a bushel. OH for the good old days oyster roasts!

You go on the Bay and you damn well know I do. Mostly I putt around on a 12 ft boat with a 3 horse power Johnson. This bay is silting in, and it is coming from the creeks and is coming from blowing sand from the dunes. The government dredges the major channel up from the coast guard station and deposits the spoils 1/4 to 1/3 of the way down the dunes about 500 yards offshore.
This comes back to fill the bay.

The sedimentation from the creeks has been mosty stopped by human action to stop siltation. But the blowing sand?

They used to pump the spoils north of the rock. Now they dump it into the ocean and the sand eventually finds itself on the beach and is blown up and over the dunes into the middle bay. We are losing the bay quickly. In seven years from my vantage point, high in Cabrillo, we have lost 15 percent of the bay because of blowing sand, and low tide is a much longer time span mud flat.

The bay is getting shallower and less in area because of this. The beach north of the rock is getting very small and the protective dunes north of the rock smaller. Within five to ten years, if this continues, a major storm will wipe out homes north of Morro Rock, and put their sewer plant under water.

Well, we fish. Our friends duck hunt brant. And we have a vested interest. We really care about the bay. The big mouths do not buy duck stamps or fishing licenses. We really understand the importance of the tidal flats and eel grass in this estuary. We spend time on this bay and love it. We wish to preserve it for our kids and their kids. So what to do? Let socks start a conservitive movement?

I am sorry socks lost two of her barkless Basenji dogs. Highly intelligent, expressive, speak with a chortle, and work close on rabbits and coon as said by the wealthy basenji owners. These are expensive woofers, if you pay for good blood, very expensive.
Happiest when working tracking game closely in light cover. I always wanted a pack of Basenji's to work rabbits, but Beedles were far cheaper. I was deprived. In Africa, if they can catch them, they eat them. A lot to them.

And then there are duckie doggies. A discussion on Laberdogs is needed. Right now I am surrounded by Badger doggies.

Jon Arcuni

Spectator said...

To Fbleg:

Thank you for your comments. Your input is welcomed by me. Glad you read the LAW and commented. Now what you need to do is read the rest of the CCRWQCB site as concerning Los Osos. If your SUPPOSITIONS are correct, the bill may be null and void ( not clear, two wide, etc.). However I go with the WORDS. The words seem clear to me without any suppositions.

Any more comments? They would be appreciated on the words of the LAW. Hey, the golf coarse at sea pines is for sale for 9 mill or so. Can we put the invisible sewer system there? Play golf on top?

More comments and discussion is needed on the WORDS of the LAW and interpretation. Maybe the courts will have to decide. If there are enough people to kick into a kitty and hire a lawyer for an explaination from a judge, then the decision can be appealed, again and again. I am no judge, Joe Green is no judge, nobody here is a judge that I know about. Lets litigate! Let's take this to the supreme court! I and Joe Green are simply readers with absolutely no legal standing. OUR conclusion may be wrong!

I quess before we spend money, we need unbiased opinion from without the district. Too bad the LOCSD Board did not do that before they stopped the sewer. The members of the board relied upone the advice of their legal counsel who represented them before the election in their actions to stop the sewer. Of course they got what they paid for: supportive advice. EXCUSE ME! The advice was bro bono and then was not. EXCUSE ME! How come the lawyers were paid to settle suits under appeal that were previously lost? EXCUSE ME! They were paid by the people who gained office who filed the suits in the first place. EXCUSE ME!

EXCUSE ME! I am truely ignorant and need all the help I can get. HELP! Joe Green also needs all the help he can get, after all, he admits he was skunked on a fishing trip! I have been skunked many times also. Just give me that "never fail or money refunded lure". HELP!

Doggie discussion next!

Jon Arcuni

Churadogs said...

Jon sez:"Ann, you are absolutely terriffic on hindsight, and shoulda-couldas. Me too."

I guess you were so dazzled by my silly socks that you forgot to read the dozens of columns I wrote, all headed, "O Lucy, Jooo Gotta Lotta 'Splainin' To Do," wherein in raised all kinds of red flags and warnings about this project BEFORE the recall even was a gleam in anyone's eyes. Near as I could tell, nobody in the community paid the least bit of attention to my sqawks. Zip.

Sewertoons sez:"The SRF loan was stopped because the new board stopped the project wthout getting permission first from the State. Simple."

Whether it's "simple" as you say or not will depend, I suspect, on who did what and EXACTLY WHEN. I would love to be a fly on the wall when that lawsuit gets heard.

Sewertoons also sez;"LAFCO did not cost the district, it cost TW, "

correct me if I'm wrong, but the District had to 'defend' which meant staff time and lawyer time for the hearings and paperwork. Don't know if the district has separated out the cost to do that. Wonder if it's the same amount ($27,000) as charged to TW?

Inlet sez:"To suggest that the post-recall board offered us a choice when the pre-recall board didn't is absolutely shameless."

Inlet, are you making stuff up, again? We've talked bout this before.

Jon sez:"How come the lawyers were paid to settle suits under appeal that were previously lost?"

The really costly one was the decision of the recalled CSD board majority to sue to block Measure B BEFORE the election. Oooooo, really, really bad decisions. To this day I can't imagine Jon Seitz not pitching a fit in closed session when they must have discussed what they intended to do. A google law search would have shown presedences up the wazoo for abolutely losing such cases and getting slapped silly as "punishment" for daring to pre-block voters from voting on their initiatives, no matter how potentially silly (or illegal) the initiatives may be. That error on the part of the previous board cost this community about, what was it? $300,000, and lucky it didn't cost them more. Ouch.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ann,

You wrote: "To this day I can't imagine Jon Seitz not pitching a fit in closed session when they must have discussed what they intended to do. A google law search would have shown presedences up the wazoo for abolutely losing such cases and getting slapped silly as "punishment" for daring to pre-block voters from voting on their initiatives, no matter how potentially silly (or illegal) the initiatives may be. That error on the part of the previous board cost this community about, what was it? $300,000, and lucky it didn't cost them more. Ouch."
************

As I told you before, Jon Seitz supported and encouraged the suit to void Measure B. To Jon, Measure B was plain unconsitutional....which it is.

The cost of the suite was less than $8000. The CSD WON. There was no reason to settle a won lawsuit.

Got It?

Ask Jon yourself instead of offering up only your opinions... call him at 543 7272.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Now that the Federal Bankruptcy Court has formed a Creditor's Committee, The District's revenues and espenditures will be carefully audited. No doubt the settlments will be reviewed too.

Shark Inlet said...

Am I making stuff up, Ann?

Did the post recall board actually offer us a choice? Did they actually say anything like "TriW will run you $250/month and "out of town" will run you XXX/month and will also take another 4 years before we can start, do you want us to stop construction at TriW or not?" Did the board actually give us a choice?

If they didn't, to complain (as you did) about the past board not giving us a choice is without simultaneously offering up the same complaint about the current bozos to suggest that the current board was better. Yes, I know that you can parse and slice the wording to make your statement sound so darn reasonable, but please remember that as a professional writer you are capable of choosing your words carefully. If you didn't intend to make that suggestion, I apologize.

Even so, here's a novel question for you, Ann. Do you think the post-recall board has been listening to our community? Do you think that they've actually given us choices before they've done things like borrow from the reserve accounts to pay for a Ripley study that they could not otherwise afford to do?

Julie Tacker said...

Ann says: "correct me if I'm wrong, but the District had to 'defend' which meant staff time and lawyer time for the hearings and paperwork. Don't know if the district has separated out the cost to do that. Wonder if it's the same amount ($27,000) as charged to TW?"
Lawyer bills alone were $30,000 for dissolution, the staff time, Director time, citizen effort time is immeasurable.

Anonymous said...

Hi Julie,

It was not appropriate for the CSD to spend one DIME regarding the dissolution hearing. Over 3500 citizens signed the petition to dissolve the district. It was a POLITCAL action driven by the electorate. The CSD cannot politicize an issue. The campaign NOT TO DISSOLVE the district should have come from the grass-root level, not from the CSD itself campaigmimg for itself.

It was improper for the CSD to spend any money regarding that issue. Realize, that 3500 of the people that the district serves was behind dissolving the district.

Regards, Richard LeGros

FBLeG said...

RLG said,

"It was not appropriate for the CSD to spend one DIME regarding the dissolution hearing. Over 3500 citizens signed the petition to dissolve the district. It was a POLITCAL action driven by the electorate. The CSD cannot politicize an issue. The campaign NOT TO DISSOLVE the district should have come from the grass-root level, not from the CSD itself campaigmimg for itself."

Holy smokes! I fell over in my chair after reading that one. My head hurts!

Methinks RLG needs to remind himself of the vote he cast for the date of the recall election and the decisions to (as Ann likes to put it) pound (taxpayer) money into the ground weeks before aforementioned recall election. There was nothing political about those decisions I am sure. And as such, I don't believe there was anything political with the current CSD defending its existence from the boneheads of TW.

By the way Rodewald only verified, I think, 1000 or so, of those dissolution petition signatures, not the 3500. How do you square the 3500 with the results of the latest CSD election? If they had voted consistently for the TW slate, Chuck and Steve would not have won reelection. TW may have 3500 signatures, but they obviously don't have 3500 supporters.

It just occurred to me that if TW really has 3500 supporters, they have an easy way out of their financial difficulties. A mere contribution from each of $8, would cover the TW tab with LAFCO. Why not solicit donations from their supporters? The solicitation letter could read "C'mon TW supporters, for the price of lunch at Sylvester's you can help Joyce and Gordon pay the LAFCO tab. Please send your $8 to ...."

Anonymous said...

You've got it fbleg. For a long time now I've applied your same logic to the recall and the debts incurred from stopping the project. All those, and only those who voted for the recall should be the ones responsible for paying for the result. And all those who supported the recall should be paying at least double of anything over $200.00 per month for a project. For me, I should be responsible for ONLY what the cost of the Tri-W project was. Nothing more.

Julie Tacker said...

Richard,
I have the petition, I have read everyone's name who signed it, there were 1,600 signatures. (Approximatly 150 of which live outside the PZ, Dissolution was about Divestiture; which AB 2701 did (sort of), those signatures should not count, since yours and others don't pay.
Using the logic you posted at 10:38 AM, December 10, 2006, the District should never have paid for the lawsuit against Measure B (you say $8,000, I say much more!), never should have paid $27,000 for the Maslin Survey (How to find out how to pass a 218 vote; conclusion ...scaring voters about fines and presenting a rosie picture of a downtown sewer), never should have sued Budd Sanford, never should have hired Michael Drake, Maria Singleton, or Faith Watkins. In the grassroots effort to force the sewer downtown, Taxpayers Watch (then called Save the Dream) should have mounted a campaign to sugar coat the horse pill that came with beginning consruction before the recall vote. Oh, they did that. But, the District, under Stan's rule financially assisted STD's, including "cleaning" the ($22,000) model of the sewer, in order for Pandora to snap its picture while the plexiglass was off. The LOCSD utility crew picked it up from the office and took it apart so she could get the photos used in the campaign (and used by the District on the site).
Richard, when LAFCO began asking for files, Dissolution became CSD business; which you well know includes attorney's redacting documents that are confidential to the District...costing big bucks! Among other tasks attorney's have to do, including show up at hearings and travel.
You call what the District did "campaigning for itself"? I saw no flyers, no signs, no booths, no tabling, no efforts by the LOCSD to dissuade dissolution...merely reaction to the process your group still won't pay for.

FBLeG said...

Anonymous said...

"You've got it fbleg. For a long time now I've applied your same logic to the recall and the debts incurred from stopping the project."

Actually that's not my logic, it's yours. I understand the (subtle?) difference between private debt and public governmental debt.

To illustrate the fallacy of your logic:

My 5 year old daughter has not voted in any federal election and has not lobbied in favor/disfavor of any legislation or political candidate. Therefore, when she becomes of age to pay federal taxes, her obligations to the fed should be reduced by an amount equal to the federal governmental expenditures for which she was not a direct beneficiary as a 5 year old.

That kind of reasoning will not get you too far. Just ask Wesley Snipes.

Anonymous said...

Richard, Julie,

Don't forget the attempt by Richard and Stan to enjoin the CSD to the Richard Margetson restraining order case...

Was that getting the CSD involved in a political strategy??

You all have to watch Richard LeGros very carefully. He likes to act like his hands are clean. It's very comical to me that many of his baseless accusations are actually things he did himself while serving n the CSD board.

Richard, do you think by making up allegations you are somehow deflecting the scrutiny of your past actions? Are you trying to justify your past actions?

We all know what you are... trying to shift the blame, and shame others is not going to untarnish your image.

Many people here want you to go away, I do not. I appreciate you being here because it reminds everyone on this blog what we used to deal with before we threw you out of office. Please stick around so we are all reminded what we want to avoid at all costs.

Mike Green said...

Jon! here is my award winning BBQ oyster recepe.
Morro Bay oysters, as many as you think you need.
1/2 pt. tequilla
1/2 pt. heavy cream
juice one lemon and a few limes.
5 or so serrano chilis chopped
1 stick butter
cilantro chopped fine

DO THIS OUTSIDE ON THE GRILL! FLAMES!!!

Put chilis in a cast iron pan add enough butter to coat the pan, saute chilis untill soft.
add tequilla and reduce by flame.
catch it on fire and reduce by 1/2
blow out flames when diminished.
slightly cool pan then add cream and a little more butter, saute untill reduced, thick and bubbly, a little salt and pepper then the citrus juice
stir a lot

Put oysters on grill when starting sauce, when open take off top shell and return to the grill, put a spoonfull of sauce on each oyster and grill untill carmelized.
Sprinkle on cilantro.

cool then serve.

Anonymous said...

I like these recipes... Ann, how about starting a cooking blog??

I never can find oysters when I feel like eating them.

When is oyster season and where do you guys buy them?

Mike Green said...

Anon. go to Giovani's in Morro Bay,
They will put you on a will call list for most anything you want, my personal favorite is the spot prawns.
Glad you liked the recepe.

Anonymous said...

Hi Richard - You keep telling us about all the people who signed the petition to dissolve the CSD. Which is more significant...petitions or results of elections?

Anonymous said...

OK Gang,

My my! You're all are throwing a lot of stones my way, but none have even come close to hitting me. Ya'all throws like a bunch of little dainty girls.

It is obvious that none of you have any proof that I or the old board did anything improper or even closely illegal while in office...all I read from you is much blustering hogwash expressing your fear, frustration and general bad manners.

Do you not find it odd that after one full year in office, with full access to all CSD records that the new board have not been able to support any of their claims of malfeasance that they claim the old board are guilty of? Wanna know why...CUZ THE OLD BOARD FOLLOWED THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT PROCESS TO A "T".

Meanwhile, at the end of the day regardless of all your silly taunts, Los Osos is bankrupt, saddled with very bad government, hobbled by a CSD that
Continues to spend your money without regards to revenues, and has a CSD that every other governmental agency in California frowns upon.


Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:55:
Don't you think they're both significant? Or do you think this CSD (or the Bush administration before the recent elections) should only govern to their 50% base and ignore and totally disregard the other half of the community (or country)? Did you like it when you felt it was the other way around with the previous board? Seems to be a big problem here in Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

Goverment representatives represent the majority... that's what they are supposed to do whether it is 50.1% or 99.9%.

Laws and the courts protect the minority from the majority. But the majority still rules.

You are right, I didnt like it much when it was "the other way around"... but I did something about it... I changed the majority.

Through education and public awareness the minority became the majority.

If those in the minority now feel the same way, they should do what they do best... convice the majority that they are right though misinformation, threats and coersion... or get right.

The fact is that every day that went by since the assessment vote meant fewer supporters for the Tri-W project. EVERY - SINGLE - DAY that passed meant more people heard the truth and became aware of the tactics of the old board and changed sides.

Richard, I hope this makes you feel better... I am convinced that if the recall election had been held earlier... even weeks earlier, then you would have won the election.

Pretty ironic huh... by putting off the election as long as possible, you allowed MORE TIME to educate the public about how bad a representative you were.

Anonymous said...

LeGros said... "with full access to all CSD records"

Yeah, except for the records that were destroyed or moved out of the CSD office before the election...

What was going on in the CSD office at all hours of the night with the lights on?

What was in those file boxes that Stan was unloading into his garage in the week before the recall election?

Has Jon Seitz given the new CDS board full access to his CSD files he keeps at his office?

And except for the files and records stolen from the MWH offices.

Too many coincidences, Richard.

Anonymous said...

"You are right, I didnt like it much when it was "the other way around"... but I did something about it... I changed the majority.

Through education and public awareness the minority became the majority."

And how's that working out for you?
Largest public bankruptcy in the history of California. Constant gifts of public funds to attorneys. County takeover of the project, and for all intents and purposes the return of the project to Tri-W. And oh yeah, a sewer bill most assuredly more than $200.00 per month. Very, very nicely done.

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

Blah, Blah, Blah...that's all I hear from you. All baseless accusations and conspiracy theories...no facts, just fear and loathing. In short, your all full of hot air.

All the minority (CCLO, Task Force, Julie, Al, Lisa, et al) did over time was to confuse the majority into beleieving their baloney.....you know, 'We have a Plan, it will be cheaper, the State will cooperate with us, we will not lose the SRF loan, the RWQCB wouldn't dare fine the Los Osos CSD out of existance, Etc.' You have all heard it before. Pure Baloney. How's the new board's plan to fight the State working for ya? Not going well is it.

Well, You were warned. You were wrong. Live with the consequences.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Spectator said...

Mike Green:

As I read your recepe, I can taste it. I will try it. However when you say "cook until carmelized" I get visions of shrivelled up oysters in the shell with brown goop on top. I like plump oysters, not cooked to nothing oysters. Are you sure? Clarify and I will try the recepe shortly. There seems to be a lot of farm raised oysters from Canada on the market, fat plump beauties. Please expand on the cooking time, texture, and color. Or am I dealing with unfounded speculation? Maybe it would be best to just buy em and cook em. But this is a lot like kill em and grill em. I like to know first.

Thanks!

Jon

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"As I told you before, Jon Seitz supported and encouraged the suit to void Measure B. To Jon, Measure B was plain unconsitutional....which it is.

The cost of the suite was less than $8000. The CSD WON. There was no reason to settle a won lawsuit.

Got It?"

Did McClendon "get it?" It was either settle for $300,000 or whatever or risk (gamble) on a judge setting 2-3-4-5 times that amount. If that suit had been brought AFTER the election, it wouldn't have cost this community near that much to get it tossed out. it was blocking the voters BEFORE the election that was the problem, not the initiative itself. Get it?

Jon sez:"I am sorry socks lost two of her barkless Basenji dogs. Highly intelligent, expressive, speak with a chortle, and work close on rabbits and coon as said by the wealthy basenji owners. These are expensive woofers, if you pay for good blood, very expensive."

Actually, no more expensive than any purebred dog. But they are indeed amazing critter.

Anonymous said...

Ann

Your last blog was so pecksniffian that you should win an award. Keep braying away, you silly donkey!

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike Green said...

Jon, I use Morro Bay oysters (gaggers)
shrinking them down a little intensifies the flavor. The best way to know when they are done is for the cook to keep tasting them, so get plenty of extras.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said... "You all have to watch Richard LeGros very carefully. He likes to act like his hands are clean. It's very comical to me that many of his baseless accusations are actually things he did himself while serving n the CSD board."

Richard said... "Ann, Your last blog was so pecksniffian..."

The Charles Dickens Dictionary... "In truth, Mr Pecksniff, though in appearance the most upright of men who prated about high moral principles and benevolence, was an awful hypocrite, full of meanness and treachery."

Richard, there you go again!!!

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

I am please you took the time to look up Pecksniffian. It describes Ann to a T. You too.

All of what I blog is based upon FACT. Why do you not provide fact to back up your comments? Well, you cannot, for you do not have any FACTS.....just more of the same...fear and loathing.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Here are a few FACTS for you to think about.
I would be very interested in your response as to why you would support such behavior by the new board.

FACT: the CSD collected about $1,600,000 in property taxes and bond assessment payments in April of 2005.

FACT: of the $1.6 million collected, $1,470,000 was restricted to be exclusively used to pay for the CDF fire fee ($759,000) and the 2001 bond assessment payment ($715,000).

FACT: the collected revenues were entirely deposited account 1012, Operations. No revenues were deposited in any other account.

FACT: By June 4, 2005, the CSD had less than $500,000 in account 1012. The CSD had spent the lion-share of the April tax proceeds on attorneys and unbudgeted consultant fees. (Violation of penal codes 424,425 – felony acts)

FACT: On June 5, 2005, the board secretly directed Dan Blesky to withdrawal $760,000 out of the LAIF account 1011, to be used to pay the CDF fire fee. This transfer is documented by a receipt from the LAIF Bank, which references the directive of the CSD board and the purpose of the withdrawal. Note: the LAIF account 1011 exclusively contained the CSD’s entire water department and fire Department RESERVES (totaling $816,000). (Violation of Government code 6503.1(a), violation of California constitution, prop 13, prop 218)

FACT: the CSD contacted the Bank of New York in early August of 2005 to inform them that the CSD did not have the bond payment revenue need to make the September 6, 2005 bond payment of $715,000.

FACT: in order to make the payment and avoid a default, the Bank allowed the CSD to use $716,000 of the $1,167,000 in the Bank of New York Wastewater Project Trust Fund, account #1017, with the understanding that the money was loaned for a period of not more than 1 year. (Violation of California constitution, prop 13, prop 218)
FACT: in both cases where the board decided to borrow money, the CSD board did not inform the public by agenizing (either in open or closed sessions) their intent to borrow money, as required by law. The public was not aware of or allowed to participate in the board’s decision to borrow money.

FACT: the board has committed the taxpayer (you) to repay $1,475,000 in loans even though they HAD the money in hand on April 16 to pay the CDF fire Fee and the bond payment. In essence, the board has forced the taxpayer (you) to pay the CDF fire fee and the bond payment TWICE.

Sewertoons said...

And the question still remains, HOW are we going to repay that money, as there are no more reserves to raid. I am pi**ed off and afraid - how DARE they do that to us!

Anonymous said...

Richard said... "the board secretly directed Dan Blesky"

If it was a secret, how do you know about it??

Secondly, this is twice now that you accused the board of actions that took place in 2005 during your watch.

Are you mental? Do you have a problem with dates?

It's 4 numbers... how can I trust any of your numbers if you keep getting that one wrong.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon,

Oops! Silly me.
I had cut and pasted the FACTS list; but forgot to correct the dates.
ALL DATES ARE FOR 2006.

I know the board's actions as they are now a matter of public record, as detailed on the LAIF bank receipt of June 5, 2006. The receipt clearly and undeniably shows that the bank was acting on the decision of the CSD board to withrawl $760,000 from the LAIF Account (reserves)to pay the $759,000 CDF fire fee; and had given Dan Blesky the authorizatin to do so. If you widh for a copy of the LAIF receipt, I will email a copy to you.

It is law that if a special district board is to borrow any money, that the loan be agendized in open sessin for public discussion and discloure; the result being a resolution to borrow funds, at what interest rate, and source of money to repay the loan. None of these required events occured; which you may verify by reviewing all CSD board meeting agendas and minutes (open and closed sessions) both prior to and after June 5, 2006.
SO IT IS UNDENIABLE THAT THE CSD BOARD MADE A CRITICAL DECISION IN SECRET, THEREBY VIOLATING A KEY COMPONENT OF THE BROWN ACT.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

We've discussed the question of settling the Measure B suit with Al and BWS before but it would seem that you may have forgotten because you bring up McClendon's point again as if it made good sense.

To settle with Al/BWS for some $300k when they had already won would only make sense if the case was appealed and if, when appealed, there was less than a 1 in 3 chance of winning.

Let me ask you ... in cases such as this, what fraction that are appealed result in a successful appeal? Was there some error in the ruling that McClendon spotted that made him darn sure they were likely to lose?

McClendon and the board, when presenting the reasons for the settlement didn't point out any reason for settling other than "well, we could have lost and we were limiting our liability." To be honest, I wonder from their presentation whether they weren't raising the our liability from zero to $300k.

The lack of specifics given during the explanation along with the fact that this board all supported Measure B and the fact that they hired BWS right following the settlement makes a compelling case that they settled because they wanted Julie Biggs as the district attorney and she wouldn't be willing to play that role without some cash for previous work she had done.

There are tons of other lawyers out there with expertise in water law and CSD law and the like. Why go with the *one* firm who has been most closely associated with suing the CSD in the past and who would likely require the largest settlement before taking over as district counsel?

To me the facts just scream out for an explanation from the board and the one offered to us was simply insufficient. It looks like a cash payout to a friend and this board hasn't even given us enough respect to try to convince us otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Richard Le Gros . we have losts on the prerecalls! You let the general manager sign contracts with engineer MWH before he was even sworn in !!! You accepted bids way over 50% Approx 50,000,000 when the community was pleading NO!!
You did sneaky deals behind our backs. You barred Lisa from important secret sessions wher big buck deals were being sneaked through. You changed a underground facility into a ugly 38 foot sludge factory in the center of town. You hid from us the location and used the Pecho site as a decoy. You disrespected our community. And you always seemed mis informed... except to the agenda to agree with anything the prerecall board wanted (now taxpayers watch) Basically you were a nitemare to the community members, and you don't even live in the PZ. You are cruel and corrupt!

*PG-13 said...

Richard > Ann. Your last blog was so pecksniffian that you should win an award. Keep braying away, you silly donkey!

Richard. Sometimes I fear you are your own worst enemy. And other times I know that to be a fact.

Re: pecksniffian. A truly splendiferous word. Was this word really part of your working vocabulary? Or did it happen to land in your mailbox as the Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day as distributed to the M-W's Word of the Day mailing list on Dec 10? Whereupon it seems you just couldn't wait to use it. In which case your very usage of the word in this blog the very next day seems far more pecksniffian than Ann's blogging.

***********************************************************

The M-W's Word of the Day for December 10, 2006 is:

Pecksniffian • \pek-SNIFF-ee-un\ • adjective: unctuously hypocritical : sanctimonious

Example Sentence:
"His book suffers from excessively long harangues against Pecksniffian prigs and temperance types who, he claims, are still trying to ruin our fun." (Mark D. Fefer, Seattle Weekly, January 22, 2003)

Did you know?
Seth Pecksniff, a character with a holier-than-thou attitude in Charles Dickens's 1844 novel Martin Chuzzlewit, was no angel, though he certainly tried to pass himself off as one. Pecksniff liked to preach morality and brag about his own virtue, but in reality he was a deceptive rascal who would use any means to advance his own selfish interests. It didn't take long for Pecksniff's reputation for canting sanctimoniousness to leave its mark on English; "Pecksniffian" has been used as a synonym of "hypocritical" since 1849.

***********************************************************

If someone here is preaching morality, bragging about their own virtue and trying to pass themself off as an angel Ann isn't the first one to come mind.

Anonymous said...

Richard said... "It is law that if a special district board is to borrow any money, that the loan be agendized in open sessin for public discussion and discloure; the result being a resolution to borrow funds, at what interest rate, and source of money to repay the loan."

I think you are caught up on the word "borrow".

If money was borrowed from a creditor... a bank, lender, etc.

But was this money borrowed in this way? Or is the money the CSD's money to begin with?

Borrowing money from a CSD account is not the same as borrowing from an outside lender.

Is this what your accusations are Richard... am I describing it properly.

If I am correct are you still saying that it was illegal?

Can you quote me again the code section you allege was violated?

Anonymous said...

To PG13... my thoughts exactly.

That's why it is so much fun to read LeGros' comments.

It is very comical to me that each and every accusation he has ever made... fits him TO A 'T' (to use his words).

Anonymous said...

Shark Inlet... I know you are not dense... your allegations are just part of the misinformation campaign...

To clarify:

Measure B

Issue 1: Should the people be allowed to vote on Measure B?

Issue 2: Is Measure B unconstitutional?

Issue 3: Is measure B a good idea?

The settlement was about Issue 1, AND ONLY ISSUE 1... get it... got it... good!!

Issue 2 is what the San Luis courts should have based their decision on in the TW suit.

Issue 3 is what the San Luis courts based their decision on... which they have no right to do.

Issue 2 and 3 is debatable... and we can do that on here all day long.

ISSUE 1 is NOT debatable!!! Shark likes to confuse the issues because doing so supports it's agenda. ISSUE 1, and only Issue 1 is a no brainer, and clear according to the Califrnia Supreme Court... therefore the CSD settled.

If ISSUE 1 had been pursued, the CSD would have lost... by more than a 3-1 chance...so the smart thing to do would have been to settle.

Got it!!!

Spectator said...

Ha! I love it when people take on Richard LeGros as an attempt to place blame on the previous recalled board and he comes up with the history of their thinking. So far I have seen no history of thinking with those who opposed him, although I asked for it from Julie with no response. All I ever understood was that "the voters decided" and understand that well. However I do understand "due dilligence", "good faith", "oath of office", and "do no harm" for elected representatives. In light of a slight majority of 1/2%, I have a great deal of difficulty in understanding their thinking to stop the sewer in light of the warnings given them on Oct 6th, 2005. If I had been on the board and received a letter like that I would have soiled my pants, and gone to county council.

I really wonder what they were thinking.

Now in light of the Orange county bankruptcy, I fear for them, although the damages to the community and individual costs are very, very unclear, and highly speculative.

Richard brings up violations of the Brown act by the current board. I do not see anyone being prosecuted for these violations any more than I see people being prosecuted for perjury. It seems clear they have violated this law from the evidence presented by Richard, and his name is on the line. There may be a problem of proving intent to break the law. I have no idea.

Jon Arcuni

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 12:55 above,

Again, all accusations and NO FACT. The old board NEVER HAD ANY SECRET SESSIONS. All decisions were made in the full light of public review.

Lisa was not allowed into a contractor-sponsored pre construction meeting. ALL board members were barred from that meeting, including myself. Lisa just could not understand the fact that the contractors did not want board members to interfere or hinder with the candid that contractors have between themselves.

As for your opinion of me, I will survive.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

You go, Anon 12:55! The actions of Mr. Le GROSS make me sick to my stomach.

Anonymous said...

It is truly unfortunate that you will survive. We could move forward if you would leave town like your buddy Stan.

Shark Inlet said...

Um...

If Issue 1 (as you call it) is the only issue relating to the lawsuit we are discussing ...

Are you telling me that Al Barrow directed his lawyer to spend $300k worth of hours just to allow us to vote on Measure B? At a rate of $500/hour this is some 600 hours of work. That's 15 full weeks of 40 hours per week.

If the CSD spent $8k or $30k on their lawyer for the same case it would seem pretty odd that the opposing attorney would spend about 10 times as much.

Please explain because this seems a bit incredible.


Maybe your understanding of the issues is a bit mistaken or maybe you are not explaining yourself very well because the facts don't match up to your explanation very well.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 2:37,

Whenever a CSD board needs to borrow money from an outside entity (such as a bank), or borrow money from an in-house dedicated fund for other uses (such as water reserves being used for CDF fire fees...or...from the restricted 30th year bond payment trust fund being used to pay a bond payment), the district must hold public meetings about the debt. The purpose of these meeting are to disclose to the public that they (the public) need to borrow money of a given amount from a stated source; that they are going to be obligated to repay said debt within a given time frame and at a given interest rate; and that they are informed as to the source of revenue the district has to repay said debt. Before the loan may be acquired, the district must approve (in open session) by a majority of the board a resolution stating all that I have just outlined above. Once that resolution is passed, the loan may be acquired. This basically is the protocol that must be followed. To not follow this protocol is a violation of the California constitution, prop 13 and prop 218 in that the district is taking on debt without public oversight...essentially a hidden tax.

The described protocol was not followed when the board borrowed $760,000 form the Fire reserves and the Water reserves; or when the board browed from the Bank of New York.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

An interesting memory I have about the board meeting where the money was moved from one account to another ... it appeared that Blesky had already done the transfer but that a board action was required so the board ... after the fact ... and without debate ... and possibly without even agendizing the action .... approved his action.

Hmmmmm...

Anonymous said...

HI Anon 2:52,

Hmm,

In case 1, you are saying that the public has the right to vote on and approve an initiative even if the courts rule prior to the election that it is illegal (which it was). Are you saying that the public right to, and make decisions based upon, an illegality?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 3:07 / 3:08

Now that you have vented, what do you think of the ISSUES.

Regards, Richar LeGros

Anonymous said...

I think you have legality ISSUES and that I have morality/ethical ISSUES. I think you bailed on your responsibility to this community. Perhaps the new board has as well. But you are not any better than them, "Ricar". You just think you are. We don't. BTW, you never answered my question about why you didn't let us have a vote after the CC (and Gordon agreed) it would be a good idea. Why didn't you allow that vote, "Ricar"?

Anonymous said...

How bout this for an issue Richard?
You're seemingly joy at our demise is unsettling. Your constant "typo's" leads one to wonder how accurate your findings are.
Is all this information you are sharing with us Public record?
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

C'mon you guys...it's Richar not Ricar. I have a degree in architecture but that has never helped me with my spelling or my listening skills.

Anonymous said...

Hi M,

Yes, it is public record.

I see serious structural problems with the CSD as it is currently administered; and have real questions if it can survive. I do not take pleasure in it's current situation or it's possible demise.

As for typos, I am just human (who happens to be very tired today). More important than typos is the message.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

I think we're starting to get to the bottom of this... and we are doing it, not by examining the CSD's actions, but by finding holes in Richard's arguments.

Richard said... "To not follow this protocol is a violation of the California constitution, prop 13 and prop 218 in that the district is taking on debt without public oversight...essentially a hidden tax."

Now, when you first started making your allegations, you stated that the board was guilty of a FEDERAL offense. When pressured to cite a federal code that was violated you couldn't... instead you cited state code.

Now, after more scrutiny... you are dropping the state code from your argument and simply citing general references to Prop 218, Prop 13 and the California Constitution.

Your main allegation is a Brown Act violation, which as we all know has NO TEETH as your board proved many times. Have you contacted the Brown Act Police?

FYI: Brown Act violations are only enforced after someone or some group files a civil action... is Taxpayer Watch planning another lawsuit on Brown Act violation allegations?

Secondly, you said... "... or when the board browed [sic] from the Bank of New York."

You present this as if it was a loan from this bank... the bank held an account on behalf of the CSD... the money was borrowed from the CSD's own account, not from a lender.

I think your allegations hinge on the definition of "borrow"... and you will have a hard time making a case because money was not "borrowed" it was simply shuffled and transferred from account to account.

Ironically, you made the argument during your TW case that the CSD's money was co-mingled... now when you need the money to not be co-mingled you are making that argument.

You can't have it both ways.

Again... it's a credibility issue with you, Richard.

Don't get me wrong... I'm sure the CSD has some culpability here with how the transactions were conducted. It looks like Blesky may have been a huge part of the problem. But like I said before... in a bankruptcy, when you are trying to hold on... sometimes you have to shuffle and sometimes things are last minute. Richard, I am sure you know what I mean... since you went through a personal bankruptcy yourself.

It looks to me like the CSD is doing the best they can under the circumstances, and if Blesky did something improper they tried to fix it the best they could. You knew about it... Sharky just above this post remembers the meeting they did that... not a big secret if you ask me. We all know about it, so its not much of a secret.

I think the Brown Act thing is the best you got... fire up the ol' money maker at Tax Payer Watch and file a claim if think you got it... but I hear fundraising amongst you guys is getting pretty tough after all your recent defeats.

As for your other allegation, I doubt anything will come of them... other than you bloviating about it every chance you get. (see if bloviate was a "word of the day", Richard).

We'll just have to wait and see what the Fed's do... oh wait, I mean the State... oh, sorry again... I mean the Brown Act Police.

Anonymous said...

LeGros said... "In case 1, you are saying that the public has the right to vote on and approve an initiative even if the courts rule prior to the election that it is illegal (which it was). Are you saying that the public right to, and make decisions based upon, an illegality?"

That's EXACTLY what I am saying!!!

And I think I heard someone else say that too... who was it?? ummmmm.. oh yeah... The California Supreme Court said that.

Thanks Richard... we're all figuring it out now.

The people have a right to vote... and if you understood that, then you never would have supported the lawsuit against Measure B and the new board never would have had to settle with BWS... so really, Richard, YOU cost Los Osos however much the settlement was!!!

How does that make you feel?

Anonymous said...

Shark said..."Please explain because this seems a bit incredible."

How am I supposed to know... I think all lawyers get paid too much... but consider this:

More than one lawyer on the case... there were two at the hearings and the whole firm worked on the case.

Appearance fees... that always costs more than their regular hourly office/consulting rate.

Travel expenses for the hearings.

Filing Fees.

Other expenses... you know lawyers charge for every copy and staple.

And dealing with Al, I thing they add on a good chunk of money for that... wouldn't you??

But mostly... I think the figure was based on some sort of formula that the courts allow for reimbusement of legal expenses.

I know Ann knows about this... maybe she can chime in here?

Ann, how was the settlement amount arrived at?

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent anonymous poster ... it seems that you aren't really addressing any of the issues Richard has raised. Just because an action was a violation of several rules that Richard mentions at different times doesn't mean that he has changed his story or that the act was just fine.

Suppose that some guy (maybe named "Dan Blesky" for fun) happens to be both an embezzler and a tax cheat. If I describe the guy as a tax cheat in one part of a paragraph doesn't make him suddenly innocent of embezzlement.

It seems pretty clear to me that in your desire to throw stuff back in Richard's face that you've jumped to a few hasty conclusions.

Maybe go back and consider what he wrote and ask yourself whether it is okay in a legal or ethical way for a board to, without prior public input, commit each and every one of us to pay extra money to cover their misdeeds. It would seem that this is the crux of the pro-recall argument ... that the board members should have asked and listened before acting. Why are such actions (but a bit worse because illegal) suddenly okay with you?

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 5:22

Morality/ethical issues?
Gee, the various religions (heck, the entire population of the world, living and dead) have been fighting over that conundrum for about 5000 years.

What you "think" about my morality/ethics is of no importance.

What I "think" of the new board's morality/ethics is of no importance either...but their actions as to the LAW are of importance, a valid concern, and cannot be avoided.

In regards to not having a vote after the CC hearing, such a vote was not a requirement. My decision on that matter was based on what I believed to be in the best interest of the community. Now, whether it was a right or wrong decision is a debatable but side issue.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 5:59

How does your post make me "feel"?

Well, I "feel" you are a fool to rely upon an illegality; especially if you think that you can stand / shield yourself behind an illegality in order to justify decisions that have resulted in damaging the taxpayers by tens of millions of dollars.

You asked.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

LeGros said... "you think that you can stand / shield yourself behind an illegality"

Is that kind of like when you purjured yourself in order to get a restraining order against a community activist??

Or maybe when you accepted an illegal SRF loan because the state CHOSE not to enforce the 218 vote requirement? Was that shielding yourself because you knew you could get away with it?

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

Yada, Yada, Ya...you fail to provide any FACTS, just fear and loathing.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Sewertoons said...

anon 5:55pm said,

"I think your allegations hinge on the definition of "borrow"... and you will have a hard time making a case because money was not "borrowed" it was simply shuffled and transferred from account to account."

Are you referring to the payment made from the bank holding the monies from the bond?

What Richard said was:

"FACT: the CSD contacted the Bank of New York in early August of 2005 to inform them that the CSD did not have the bond payment revenue need to make the September 6, 2005 bond payment of $715,000.

FACT: in order to make the payment and avoid a default, the Bank allowed the CSD to use $716,000 of the $1,167,000 in the Bank of New York Wastewater Project Trust Fund, account #1017, with the understanding that the money was loaned for a period of not more than 1 year."

The CSD is bankrupt. How do you think this money will be paid back in one year? Shouldn't we have know about this, as we might get stuck with paying it back?

Shark Inlet said...

To the anonymous poster who attempted to justify some $300k in legal expenses for pro bono work by BWS on behalf of Al/CASE ... no dice.

As I calculated earlier, that's over 600 hours of work on a simple issue that you (was it you? I find it hard to keep all you anonymous people apart) claimed was so stinkin' obvious that everyone knows the answer ... except the judge who decided the original case.

There is no way that BWS would do that much work for free (pro bono, you remember) if the issue was just that one item you suggested (the right to vote on Measure B). The settlement must have been for pretty much for all the fees that BWS had accrued for all of their work for CASE, not just the one issue suggested before.

The settlement was for just the amount of the work done by BWS. They presented billing records to justify the amount and because they settled there was not any "multiplier" applied.

Again, the key issue here is just whether the work done by BWS for the $300k was just work on "issue 1" (as termed by the anonymous of 2:52pm). No way.

skewertoons said...

sewertoons ....

please remember that in this discussion the issue isn't whether we have a right to know or discuss the question of whether we should borrow money or how it will be paid back ... this discussion is all about trying to come up with reasons to criticize Richard for his actions on the board.

when you remember that and can come back with an appropriate criticism for Richard (preferably one that is personal or uses foul language) that is off the topic of what he is saying, please come back and post then. just to start you off properly, "Richard, that doesn't matter because when you were in office you got your hair cut more than Al Barrow did so you must be driven out of this town, JERK!"

see how easy it is?

it is simply unfair of you, sewertoons, to have raised questions that we were trying to avoid.

Sewertoons said...

Hey skewer-!

Sometimes I just have to cut loose and rabble rouse! :–)

Anonymous said...

Hi Skewertoons,

While laughing reading your post, I unfortunately snorted my morning coffee out of my nose.

Damn...now my keyboard is all sticky.

Cleaning Up, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmm...I'm not suprised that Richard is not interested in supporting his morals/ethics. Could it be that he's "bankrupt" in this area as well?

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon above,

Now that you feel better by purging your opinion of me (ala skewertoons), what do you thnk of the ISSUES.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

You're right. I feel great, except for one ISSUE...how we got screwed by your people, starting in 1998.

Anonymous said...

anon 11:49am,

The CSD was formed in 1998. As I recall, Richard was against the formation. You want to aim your RANT at the VOTERS who VOTED to have a CSD, don'cha? Don't lump everyone together - that makes you look like you don't have a grasp on the history! BTW, did you VOTE on that decision?

Anonymous said...

Mr. LeGros,
Here's some issues for you

Issue 1: You are not doing too wel at convincing alot of people that you were/are as great as you think you are.

Issue 2: You had a chance to be twice as good as you think you were/are but, you screwed up.

Issue 3. Why don't you just stop, already? Your making youself look worse than WE think you were/are.

Issue 4. Move to Panama with Spectator. You could have some great "one on ones" with him....with a little input from Lighght.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 11:49 above,

My "people"?

If you are referring to the Solution Group, then you’re mistaken to include me in that group. I opposed the SG and the formation of a CSD in the first place.

I did not believe in the SG: but I assume you did.

I am not surprised that their proposal of ponds, etc. was not feasible or cheaper, let alone faster; but I assume you did.

I always believed that a CSD would be to politically and financially weak to move forward on a wastewater project; But I assume you believed a CSD was just the type of government needed to get the job done.

If my assumptions are correct, then I suggest you scr***d yourself; no help from me required.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:58 above,

Please refer to post by Skewertoons @ 9:48 AM above...you do not quite have the shame and blame style down yet.

Regars, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Are you really Richard LeGros? You can't be tired now. You just signed off as "Regars, Richard LeGros". Typo after typo. How many zeroes do you typo into your figures?
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

Regard has an d in it, Richard. BTW please support your appointment to the "creditor's committee." I think it is fascinating that you want to serve on a committee when you guys shut down our committees. Don't you agree that we should have "outside" eyes looking at this? Or do you think we should have old (ousted) officials looking at us? Oh! I know! I won't look at the ISSUES! But we did Richard, we did! And we elected a new board! Hello?

Anonymous said...

If you believed a CSD was too weak to implement a project then why did you run and then support such a lame ass project? Dude, you're running us in circles now.

Anonymous said...

BTW, Richard, see you at the RWQCB this week? After all, you care about the community, right?

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 6:22pm who suggests that if Richard opposed forming the CSD in 1998 that he shouldn't have run to be a boardmember later ... you've clearly not been paying attention.

Richard has been an advocate of whatever he has felt is the best available option at the time. When the choice was "County plan or new CSD with fancy ponding" Richard didn't believe that fancy ponding would work or that the CSD would save us money.

Once the CSD was formed, he had the ... um ... willingness ... to serve as boardmember even if the CSD had made mistakes in the past. He was willing to help them fix the mess, as it were.

This is pretty similar to the campaign Joe Sparks ran ... certainly you wouldn't criticize him for his willingness to serve alongside Lisa and Julie and Chuck even though he may view their past actions as dumb beyond belief.

Anonymous said...

anon 6:20 said:

"I won't look at the ISSUES! But we did Richard, we did! And we elected a new board! Hello?"

Now my sides are hurting from laughing - great job - new board!!!! Look what a freakin' mess they made!!! Maybe they should have looked at the issues that mattered - the possibility of fines, CDO's, a lost loan - oh, and how about a PLAN?

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

I'm just sitting here waiting patently for somebody on this blog to just once really want to talk about the ISSUES. What a joy that would be.

I must say that taunts no longer have any affect on me...just a waste of effort on the part of those that blog them (all of which I find very funny).

Business is getting very interesting on the Federal Bankruptcy Creditor's Committee. Does anybody out there have advice on what they hope the Creditor's Committee achieves?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Yes, I hope the Creditor's Committee brings to light the incredible financial abuses by Burke, Williams and Sorenson. I hope the money owed to them is completely erased.

Then I hope that the information exposed brings on a lawsuit against them for their unbelievably bad advice.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 1:36 PM above,

Thanks for your input. I will relay your thoughts to the committee.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Knows LeGros said...

Richard asks: "Does anybody out there have advice on what they hope the Creditor's Committee achieves?"
I'd like to see the creditors committee reconize and remind the court that contractors were warned not to come to town, by Budd Sanford and others and theyentered into contracts at their own risk, and are owd very little if anything at all. I'd like the CC to recognize that in August before the loan was let, the citizens (through BWS, when they represented CASE& CCLO) sued the SRF and told them not to loan the money in the first place, and tell all the creditors who a circling like vultures that they don't deserve a dime. The CC should recognize that the LOCSD reserves spent in anticipation of the frozen funds released should be replaced before on thin dime goes to any of the creditors. The CC should tell the County to buy Tri-W for a park, so the CSD has money to replenish their accounts and/or buy wastewater property in an appropriate location, OUT OF TOWN! The CC should tell the County to stop litigating, they are depleating the pie that one day might be divied up amoung the creditors, and they'll have spent it all. There comes a time when it's time to stop fighting, or what your fighting for won't be there any more, in this instance it's the very money they all think they are entitled to. Settle, settle, settle!

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 5:54 PM above,

Thanks for your input. I will relay your thoughts to the committee.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

knows legros said:

"…remind the court that contractors were warned not to come to town, by Budd Sanford and others and theyentered into contracts at their own risk, and are owd very little if anything at all."

Hilarious!! So we owe Budd Sanford a twisted note of thanks if this absurd piece of logic flies - which it won't. What kind of a mind even comes up with BS like this? A mind just like Budd's - hey - ARE you Budd?

Knows LeGros said...

Ask judge Riblet if the contractors are due any of the $2.1 SRF funds that will be unfrozen in 90 days?

Knows LeGros said...

Not only Budd sent warnings to the contractors, just driving up to the RWQCB's office in Feb. for the bidders conference, the noisy protest, and later in those contractor meetings that Julie and Lisa were barred from, they asked about all the Move the Sewer and Recall signs around town, what might happen...They were assured the "funding was secure" by Leo Sarmiento (SRF fame). Contractors have a clear claim against the state for that assurance that was jilted when all hell broke loose, thanks to you Richard.
BTW, how much did you donate to Maxine Lewis Homeless Shelter? Did you match what you still owe Margetson? Or that bench at Tri-W you were gonna donate? Maybe it was that measly $300.00 you promised the LOCSD Park & Rec. fund that you never paid...but stood at the podium and took kudos for (2002), right after you were elected to office...some of us will never forget.

Anonymous said...

It is time to be said again. The laundry list litany of past "perceived" crimes of people in this community is a waste of time at best. While it is continued, there are others of us with other things on our mind and it would be nice to get some help from those who need a break from being "keepers of lists" of who we all are allowed to like and dislike.
I would like to talk about Global Warming. Just as there is science for the effects of nitrate levels in water, there are effects of CO2 and CH4 - carbon dioxide and methane- on our atmosphere which is problamatic at best. I really am not a waste water expert but I like to break things down and ask questions and do some looking around and here are some concerns. Carbon has to go somewhere. In anaerobic ponding systems, there are increased levels of methane emmissions, which are worse than plain CO2. In activated sludge systems, the carbon is typically tied up in the sludge and can then be "managed" and put back in the soil, thus keeping it out of the atmosphere. Methane is 21x worse than CO2. Now, one could try to "harvest" the methane and convert it into electricity but the process is difficult - the dairy pond at Calpoly has tried it and it required too much management and was labor intensive. (some of this information is from tech reports that my husband helped decipher for me-if you are interested, please email me)
Second issue, but equally near and dear to my heart is growth. I have been doing some research on the term "Smart Growth" - filling in the gaps, integrated neighborhoods, small footprints of buildings and so on. Keeping infrastructure close to users. Look at larger urban areas ie LA and Seattle and others that see what changes are needing to be made as we continue to take up more and more land.
Hope everyone has a great weekend and maybe see you on Monday at the Jr.High.
Side-note: I was at Lynette's house last night and there was a small group of us talking about life and her sweet husband brought out some scotch that was bottled in 1937-what a treat! We had a toast to life and friends and it felt like we were right where we needed to be. I wish everyone that sense of peace of good friends and some good scotch, and a toast to those from the past, the present and the future. Any residual effects of the scotch is worth it for the glow of the moment.
Please feel free to email me for report cites and I'll try to pull them in.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly
mariakelly@charter.net