Pages

Friday, December 29, 2006

Los Osos CSD Lives To Stagger Forward Another Day! Regional Water Quality Control Board Pulls A Bait & Switchy. It’s A Humpty Dumpty Moment! Again!

I had a prior commitment on the evening of Dec 28, but did manage to poke my head in about 9 pm. to hear some of the public comments concerning discussion of dissolution by the CSD. New Board member Joe Sparks noted that the Board was examining all options before it, including dissolution, because they had a duty to ensure the “maximum protection of the homeowner,” which had me muttering under my breath, “Too bad the recalled Board didn’t exercise that “duty” when they voted to gamble with the homeowners’ money by pounding it into the ground before the recall, thereby losing a bundle and precipitating the present mess. "Oh, well.

I can only hope that the County and the CSD will not all collectively lose their marbles and will realize that an “alive” CSD able to deal with its debts and responsibilities will be better than a Dead Duck and so work out a win-win compromise regarding assets and the apparent muddelments to be found in Blakeslee’s bill.

It should also be apparent, that an “alive” CSD with sufficient assets to defend and challenge and so offer the “maximum protection of the homeowner” mentioned by Mr. Sparks from various lawsuits and claims that may be improper or false, is the ONLY protection those homeowners have. Does anyone think the County would give a foodle about, for example, finding out whether a loan was illegally or improperly written in the first place and hence may well be invalid? Or just who DID pull the plug on the Breach of contract SRF lawsuit and . . . exactly when? You know, fun questions like that.

Speaking of Fun.

In their latest posting, The Regional Water Quality Control Board is following in the tradition of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland’s Through the Looking-Glass: “When I use a word, “Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “It means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”

The left-over CDO recipients will be tried and beheaded Jan 22 by a “panel,” instead of the full board, which means their verdicts (Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!) will have to be conveyed up to the full board and voted on . . . later .. . Which makes me wonder if the game now hasn’t changed (again) to “I Know, Let’s Do The Panel Thing As A Way To Drag This Out And Thereby Keep Anyone From Getting Anywhere Near A “Real” Court For As Long As Humanly Possible Because A “Real” Court Might Just Toss This Entire Mess Out On Its Ear Thereby Making Us Look Bad.”

But here’s the real Humpty Dumpty moment. The original CDOs were justified by the responsibility claimed by the RWQCB to protect natural resources and the environment, to prevent “discharge of waste that could affect waters of the state,” and so forth.

Now, on Page 4 of their Notice of Panel Hearing posting, the game has changed utterly. “The Water Board does not have to find that discharges from subsurface disposal systems within the prohibition zone are causing or contributing to conditions of pollution or nuisance in order to issue Cease and Desist orders for discharges of waste that violate the prohibition.”

See? Gone. Zip! Poof! There’s now nothing whatsoever about the waters of the state. You could put in a brand new septic tank and system, run a garden hose of fresh drinking water through it and whatever came out the pipe of this brand new septic tank (fresh drinking water) would render you GUILTY of violating the Prohibition Zone and hence, KaZAM! you’ll get a CDO slapped on your property.

Weirder still, the “Settlement Agreements” already signed still says that if you propose an “alternative method of ceasing all unpermitted discharges,” “If the alternative involves a discharge of waste that COULD AFFECT WATERS OF THE STATE, . . .” you need a report and permit and mitigation & etc.

So, we have an (old, signed) settlement agreement that is based on something affecting the waters of the state, and a NEW! Improved! document that will be used to try and convict the remaining CDO recipients with nary a mention of any waters anywhere. Doesn’t matter if Property X’s discharges are not doing anything whatsoever to the waters of the state. No need for evidence that anybody’s polluting anything anywhere. Nope. Simply change the language and, Poof! Anyone living within the boundries of the prohibition zone is . . . GUILTY! Period. Hang ‘em!

Ah, Humpty Dumpty would have loved it!

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

Those wishing to watch the December 14 & 15th CDO hearings may do so on line at www.slo-span.org after pulling a comfortable chair up to the computer and filling the popcorn bowl.

The best part is watching Chairman Young's performance, including a serious berating of CDO recipients for not taking personal responsibility for the condition they're in here in the PZ, followed by a truly touching reference to the difficulty of the position he and his regulatory agency are in, "we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't."

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the bankruptcy is the only way out of this mess.

Here's how I understand it:

The CSD has to present a plan to the courts on how that can pay down some of their debts. This plan is based on the CSD's best effort to pay... considering what ability they have to pay.

The most they would have to pay is everything they have... right now that looks to be about 6 million dollars (cash and property).

If the court approves that plan then anything owed over the 6 million dollars is discharged, meaning it never has to be paid.

So the bankruptcy seems to have saved us, potentially, $34 million.

The problem:

If the county takes the $6 million then there will be nothing left to present to the judge in the bankruptcy case. If we have nothing to present the judge then there is no bankruptcy and there is no way to get the debts discharged.

Regardless of what LAFCO does, without the bankruptcy the Los Osos homeowners will eventually have to pony up that money to all of the creditors (either through civil judgement or as a fee added to some future sewer project).

Here is the scary part... if the CSD loses its ability to fight the creditiors (either through the bankruptcy or in civil court with a paid legal defense)... then the creditors will all receive a default judgement... for the full amount of their claims... which now totals over $40 million.

Now, I don't care who's side you are on... this is a no brainer.

Do we want to save money or not?

The only way out of this debt is to support the CSD's negotiations with the county to allow the CSD to keep the cash and property... and to support the bankruptcy.

Any action other than this, is action that will result in increased costs.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how the county would want to take the cash and property, and therefore prevent the CSD from completing its bankruptcy.

There is too much risk to the county if the CSD is unable to either discharge the debts through bankruptcy, or negotiate/settle cases for lowere amounts than the claims.

If, by taking the CSD's ability to fight away, the creditors can get default judgements... it is a risk that the county would have to assume that debt.

Whether you think the county's genereal fund is at risk or not, why would the county want to add that debt amount to the Los Osos sewer project and jeopardize a 218 vote.

I can't see any alternative for the county other than to let the CSD keep the cash and property and use it to pay off creditors.

Can anyone else enlighten me?

Anonymous said...

It looks like we may have to let the CSD sell off Tri-W in order to complete the bankruptcy.

According to the above poster, it could potentially save us $34 million dollars.

Anonymous said...

Hey Richard, can you plug these new numbers into your spreadsheet.

On the out of town side you need to change your $40 million to $6 million.

And on the Tri-W side you need to add $34 million. Which is the cost of keeping Tri-W.

Le tme know what you come up with.

Anonymous said...

Would the better plan be to leave the County to build the sewer and obtain grants and low interest loans which the CSD is not able to do? Let the CSD continue to work on the bankruptcy, would be possible with the resignation of the 2 ladies and 2 new appointed members to focus on the financial matters. In 5 or so years down the road, once the sewer is operational, then have the CSD take over Operations and Maintenance. It seems the CSD is not a very good engineering management group or financial managers.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Director Tacker was busy this afternoon......

Well, we all know the reason Director Tacker wants to "move the sewer". Director Tacker wants the CSD to maintain control of the Tri-W property so it can be sold to her "employer" Jeff Edwards so he can build his Sandy Hills strip-mall on the Tri-W site. Nice try Julie..............

Judge of Sanity said...

How does the taking of cash and property (bought with funds meant for the WWTF) have anything to do with the bankruptcy? Did you read the Blakeslee bill which is now law?

To fund the removal of the bankruptcy it will take a 218 vote. Otherwise a judgement from the bankruptcy judge to put the only significant asset on the block: The water district. Surely this has a value of better than 20 million.

To anon 3:26. I cannot understand your post. Plug what for what, to take the place of what. This was a very humerous post.

Humpty Dumpty Friend said...

Humpty Dumpty kept taking dumps, and then climbed on and off the fence to take dumps.
He was causing bad environmental problems.
The law came along and told him to stop: he said I will continue to take my dumps.
The county could not stop him, without breaking his shell.
The RWQCB said if you do not stop, I will break your shell.
Neighbors banded together to save Humpty Dumpty with a sewer.
They tried twice and failed because it was not accepted by the RWQCB.
The third time it passed, but a small majority of the neighbors did not want to pay the price.
The small majority took control of the sewer project.
They stopped the sewer, and let the RWQCB break Humpty Dumpty's head, and everyone else who lived near him.
Now there is nothing but spoiled egg and lost money. Not even an omlet.

Anonymous said...

These blogs crack me up. I love how anon 3:22 refers to anon 3:20 as "the above poster"..........
I'm not very good at math but probability would dictate that anon 3:20 and 3:22 are the same person...someone who is very naive, selfcentered, and obtuse. Someone who likes to stick their head between their legs and kiss their own ass...........

Humpty Dumpty Friend said...

To 6:34:

Wrong! A rotten egg sucker, ugh! Can you imagine the intelligence to do that?

Anonymous said...

Ann,

You are letting the juvenile vile posters have a little too much leeway, again.
Do you not read this junior high school drivel?
Do you let them post, just to have something to fill the space? No post at all, is far better than their feeble attempts to shock or disgust.

Anonymous said...

"......had me muttering under my breath, “Too bad the recalled Board didn’t exercise that “duty” when they voted to gamble with the homeowners’ money by pounding it into the ground before the recall, thereby losing a bundle and precipitating the present mess. "Oh, well......"

Anything but the truth, hmmm?

Los Osos is in this mess because the egotistical BOD couldn't just let the damned sewer go in. They HAD to have their own way. Now, we are going to get stuck with their egotistical crud. The books were balanced, the SRF funds were coming in, and the budget was, and would have continued to be balanced. THEY SHOULD HAVE JUST LET THE DAMN SEWER GET BUILT. This Board hired the overpriced out of towners, who sucked this District dry. And, this Board had no financial accumen to properly assess their revenue position. They sought no help. They frittered away yours and my tax dollars. We will get stuck holding their bag.
I hope they have to answer for their malfeasance of office, and be held accountable. Los Osos will never get out of the hole.

Anonymous said...

Even if the WWP had not been started, the fines from the Water Board would have occurred. There would still be the CDO's. You can't blame everything on the previous Board. (Then again, knowing you, you will certainly try.)

And, the horse's patoots on the Board would still have hired those expensive morons from down south to drain our money into their pockets.

Mike Green said...

Here is an aproved system, already installed:
http://loviews.blogspot.com/

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"Los Osos is in this mess because the egotistical BOD couldn't just let the damned sewer go in. They HAD to have their own way. Now, we are going to get stuck with their egotistical crud. The books were balanced, the SRF funds were coming in, and the budget was, and would have continued to be balanced. THEY SHOULD HAVE JUST LET THE DAMN SEWER GET BUILT."

You're forgetting the VOTERS voted for Measure B, which legally (until it could get sorted out in court) stopped the project, the VOTERS voted for three candidates who ran on a platform of moving the sewer out of town, and you're missing one of the supreme ironies here: The recalled three gambled with the taxpayers money by starting to cut trees and pound money into the ground only weeks before that recall vote, betting that most voters would see this all as a done deal, a fait accompli and would shrug and turn away. Instead, that absolute arrogance and indifference to them very likely pushed that recall vote over the top. In short, the recalled three gambled with your money and lost not only your money but their gamble also lost them the election. You used the word "egotistical." I agree. Good word choice, wrong BOD.

anonymous sez:"Ann,

You are letting the juvenile vile posters have a little too much leeway, again.
Do you not read this junior high school drivel?
Do you let them post, just to have something to fill the space? No post at all, is far better than their feeble attempts to shock or disgust.

8:48 PM, December 29, 2006"

I think "Juvenile" speaks for itself. For silly wastes of time, simply scroll down to find someone's post you can agree with or you find acceptable. The problem with dumping "juvenile" is someone may think YOUR postingis juvenile and want YOU dumped as well. Excessive potty mouths will get dumped, so I'll ask nicely, let's stay on point. Plenty to discuss among yourselves without getting totally stupid.

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"Mike Green said...
Here is an aproved system, already installed:
http://loviews.blogspot.com/

9:31 PM, December 29, 2006 "

This gets you to Steve Paige's "approved" urine separator system. BUT, if you read the New posted language of the New CDO's not even his sytem will save him from a CDO since the New language doesn't say anything about nitrates or pollution or waters of the state of california or pollution loading or mitigation or ANYTHING. Are you discharging anything (which Steve is: toilet, showers, sinks, etc) you're GUILTY and will get a CDO. So, here's a guy who went the full mile to meet the previous RWQCB's criteria for mitigation, only to have the entire game and rules changed on him. (Since the new rules say nothing about "mitigation" and now make no linkage to pollution or mitigation or anything, he can't really claim an exception since the new rules allow for nothing but zero discharge. Has Mr. Paige been screwed royally by the RWQCB?)

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to wish all you clueless extremists a Happy New Year, although that would be something else all you whinners will cry about.

Oh and a special New Year to Ann (Rita Skeeter) Calhoun for provide the endless laughter over your column of cheery prattle. It would be a shock to read something from you that was somehow based in fact.

X&O's to everyone who has made this blog into the ultimate fiction.

Anonymous said...

To All:

Everyone blames the recalled CSD or the current CSD for the financial mess that we are in. This is wrong. The blame falls on The State Water Board.

If they hadn't loaned out the SRF money, we wouldn't have ANY of these problems.

In Santa Barbara court on December 15th, the judge asked the Attorney General if the state had secured funding, and his answer to the judge was, "I don't know" which is a "NO"!!!

The state's illegal actions caused all the problems and NOT THE CURRENT CSD. So get the facts straight. The recalled board KNEW that the state's loan had no secured funding and now the ATTORNEY GENERAL IS ON RECORD IN THE COURTS AS STATING SO.

Sewertoons said...

How is "I don't know" a "No?' Huh? Would that stand up in court?

But suppose the loan turns out to be illegal. The present board spent some of that same SRF money. Did they do so knowing or thinking it was illegal? Is that ethical? They must have thought it was legal enough to spend it, right?

Suppose they said to themselves - "This money is illegal - we can't spend it" - how then would the CASE lawsuits been paid off - would we have had NO Burke Williams and Sorenson as a result?

Just a thought.

responder said...

To Anon of 3:20 PM, December 29, 2006: Just read the papers filed by the County in BK court. They don't want the CSD to have anything left, they want control of ALL assts to "further" a project. Who pays for the project so far? How about LeGros?
To Anon of 5:58 PM, December 29, 2006:
did you read the paper when BWS analyzed the conflict between Edwards and Tacker, the District CAN NOT enter into ANY contract with an employer for a Director (that includes escrow/sale), they shot any future deal in the foot when he hired her. Have you read the agenda's for the school district? They're in litigation with Edwards, over Sunnyside. Sand Hill is on the skids.


To anon 8:57 PM, December 29, 2006: A bankrupt district is better off than a bankrupt community...the Tri-W projet would BK many families, in the meantime, until a solution is found, the families will stay and enjoy their quality of life without a sewer plant stuck in the middle of our town.

To anon 9:02 PM, December 29, 2006: Remember the RWQCB always let the old board off on "things beyond their control", the bids were one such example that they could have rebid and gotten a better price. Also "beyond the control of the District" is the passage of Measure B. Which meant the LOCSD had better stop the project until B had been sorted out.
To anon 10:33 AM, December 30, 2006: The old board is still toblame for the mess, they spent nearly every nickle in pursuit of that loan, and as LeGros has said before, they would have been BK by March if they hadn't have started the project.

Anonymous said...

To Sewertoons,

You are avoiding the subject. If there was no SRF money distributed then how could the CSD board spend it?

And, an "I don't know" by an attorney (in this case the Attorney General) is a NO and would absolutely hold up in court. Say what you want. If the AG's answer was "Yes", that would have been a different story.

I STAND BY WHAT I SAID, THIS IS THE STATE WATER BOARD'S FAULT AND NOW THEY WANT THE PZ TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY DID ILLEGALLY.

Could it be because MWH is our Halliburton of the State Water Board?
Just asking.

Anonymous said...

Interesting discussion, mostly because it is heading in a different direction.
Loans in any form are an interesting topic. How many of us obtained loans on our home when our debt to income ratio didn't pencil out? I'm guessing that there are many in this financial climate of California where we all stepped above our means because no one really ever expects to "own" their home, you just get to "borrow" it based on potential income to pay it off. Doctors can get loans on homes, equipment and businesses before I could because their income potential is higher. The state can loan money on potential revenue from a waste water project whose goal is solve a solution that has been delayed and gathering dust. There was a lot of money in the 80's for funding projects because the feds were getting ready to cut us all off from their resources. The state now has the responsibility to fund projects that we are required to have to preserve our water.

I find it ironic that the taxpayers of Los Osos are being asked to fund that fight against the SRF loan. What is becoming clear to me is that our reserves are gone and we are bankrupt because there is a portion of Los Osos community members who believe that we should be paying for this fight. Money was used to establish the possibility of a project. The SRF was to be used to repay ourselves for investments we made towards a project, including the passage of a bond that is heading towards junk status. Again, why are the citizens of Los Osos being asked to risk services, water, fire and garbage services to fight the state and an SRF loan? There are sitting directors who seem to think we can afford the debt of the fight. Whether or not Tri-W was the project anyone wanted or not, fighting the state with our money and jeopardizing our services is not sitting well in my house or many of our neighbors and friends. I would rather have an "o.k." project under construction than no project, increased debt and uncertain litigation and a bankrupt district. Regardless of the actions of the "old board", we shouldn't be sitting in bankruptcy or under mountains of litigation . That veil is wearing thin and Los Osos is starting to question the direction of "the fight".

The "success" of "the fight" has been an increase in dissension in our community. The meeting on Thursday was able to show us again that there are enough people who are refusing to listen to anything other than their myopic vision of how that fight might turn out. It will turn out badly for the majority of the population of Los Osos. Los Osos should not be bearing the financial burden of fighting the state or the federal government. That section of the community should have started a lobby group and found financial support from outside the community. They should not have used money that was raised from the bent backs of the people for the district to manage the business of the district. Then, they could have gone to Sacramento or Washington DC and really had people with actual power listen to them. We are being held hostage in our own community and being forced to sit here powerless and listen to the powerless because they weren't clear on where the fight was supposed to go. Here is where I agree with the board, we are losing any power we had. The outcome is that the attorneys have our money and has change been made? Have we done something for the betterment of our future or our children's? Has the fight been worth it and what are the casualties we are willing to accept before it has gone to far? Is the price only financial? Is this our legacy? I will not allow my children to be drafted into this fight, we will resist the call to "fight" the county, the state or anyone else. We are ready to sit down at the table to discuss all and any options and more specifically the ones that involves any and all financial damage control.

My financial resources are not exhaustible but my resilience is. My spirit is strong, my neighbors are the best I have ever had and my eyes are on their future, we will not be a casualty of yet another misguided battle that ends with the "murder" of a dictator and civil war is never the answer. My children will not be drafted into this quagmire of misinformation and endless debate. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, you can see the forest through the trees and you can get stuck in the mud, but not on my dime. I will not be convinced that looking backwards and saying, " yeah, but.......", holds any actual advantage or offers anything to this discussion. The resolution is in front of us, the mistakes are behind us and the focus needs to come from a place where any agenda has been set aside. If people can't set their personal agenda aside then they have nothing new to contribute to the conversation.

I am looking forward to the New Year. Should be a doozy!
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Sewertoons said...

Thank you Maria!!! You are EXACTLY on target.

To anon 12:13,
You said to me:

"You are avoiding the subject. If there was no SRF money distributed then how could the CSD board spend it?"

Are you then saying that the SRF loan was LEGAL as it WAS distributed?

There is lots of "blame" to go around. Lots of anger to vent. Is it getting us anywhere? Why don't we put all that energy into a positive direction toward getting everyone on-board for a YES on the 218 vote.

Salubrious Solution said...

If anyone has a solution other than just let things play out and beg for mercy, I will help finance a statue!

Right now it seems that the statue will be erected to the state. Interresting that the AG's office was at the bankrupty proceedings. Surely taking notes.

Anonymous said...

Maria said... "There is a light at the end of the tunnel, you can see the forest through the trees and you can get stuck in the mud, but not on my dime."

WOW!!! I've never seen anyone string together so many cliche's so artfully.

It makes me tired just reading it.

Francerloonie clone said...

Something has passed by me. Who is "Rita Skeeter"? Surely some character in something? Am I missing something or should I google the name? Can this be productive? Is there something to be learned? Help!

Anonymous said...

anon 5:58 pm, December 29, 2006 said;

"Well, we all know the reason Director Tacker wants to "move the sewer". Director Tacker wants the CSD to maintain control of the Tri-W property so it can be sold to her "employer" Jeff Edwards so he can build his Sandy Hills strip-mall on the Tri-W site. Nice try Julie.............."

responder 12:05(Julie Tacker posting from her lunch break at Woodside) said;
"did you read the paper when BWS analyzed the conflict between Edwards and Tacker, the District CAN NOT enter into ANY contract with an employer for a Director (that includes escrow/sale), they shot any future deal in the foot when he hired her. Have you read the agenda's for the school district? They're in litigation with Edwards, over Sunnyside. Sand Hill is on the skids."

Director Tacker,

As an employer of Jeff Edwards, I'm sure you would like us all to believe that Sand Hill is "on the skids" as the perpetuation of this myth is a hope on your and Mr. Edwards part that this Community, that doesn't support the Sand Hill Strip-Mall, will pause and stand-down against it. I am sure that based on Director Tacker's conflict of interest as an employee of Jeff Edwards that the CSD can not sale the Tri-W property to Jeff Edwards. HOWEVER, WHAT WOULD PREVENT THE CSD FROM SELLING THE TRI-W PROPERTY TO A THIRD(GHOST) PARTY THAT COULD INTURN SELL THE PROPERTY TO JEFF EDWARDS FOR HIS SANDY HELL STRIP MALL?
Really Director Tacker, how stupid do you think we all are?

Why do I know that the Sandy Hell Strip Mall is not on the skids? I attended the last LOCAC Vision Committee meeting. Jeff Edwards and Bob Semonson need drool bibs to control themselves over the zoning and commercial development of the Tri-W site. Bob actually had the audacity to whip out his drawings of an Orange County style Strip-Mall and then tried to sell it to the Committee by saying; "this is what we all want". Are you FUCKING(sorry ann) kidding me? THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS WHAT WE MOVED AWAY FROM!!!!!!!!!!!

Director Tacker's comment that Sandy Hell is on the Skids is her feeble attempt to get our Community to STAND-DOWN against it in hopes that one day we will all wake up and it will be under construction and it will be too late for anybody to do anything about it..........like the fucked up skateboard park...........

For anybody interested in what their own vision or Mister Edwards intentions are regarding the development of this Community, I would ask that you attend the LOCAC Vision Committee meeting on January 2, 7pm at Washington Mutual.

Love Kids said...

Yeah, that skate board park got pushed through without anyone really noticing. BUT it actually turned out well! The kids enjoy it! It is good to let kids skate rather than sitting at home checking out porno on the internet. I wonder how many come from out of town? Maybe some day we will have the championships here! No homework or bad grades, no skate park!

loves democracy said...

love kids,

Are you actually advocating that development projects get pushed thru without notice?
Sounds like your part of the Tacker/Edwards camp. Is this you again Julie?
In the late 30's and early 40's Hitler's Nazi Germany "pushed through" half of Europe without anybody really taking notice.
The United States of America was ambivalent until it got a wakeup call at Pearl Harbor in 1941.

Based on my knowledge of history, not taking notice(IGNORNACE) usually doesn't work out too well...........

Anonymous said...

Again, Maria is off target. Way off.

"I find it ironic that the taxpayers of Los Osos are being asked to fund that fight against the SRF loan."

Fund what fight...against whom?

This comment and everything that comes after it is utter nonsense spouted by a candidate who has absolutely no idea what she is talking about. Short of any facts or specifics, it's pure fiction. For what purpose? To reveal collosal ignorance? Why? To see if anyone is paying attention? Or is it because you are laying ground to take Richard LeGros' spot for finance on the county's committee?

Your analogy to bank loans is ridiculous. The state water board broke not only state law but federal law. There's no comparison like the one you're trying to make. None. Why do you do that? Who are you doing it for?

All this yarn spinning with no real knowledge is a dangerous thing. You are driven by blind ambition, and possess a weak grasp of the truth.

Paavo has already lied to the community a couple of times. His intention is quite clear. And you expect us to trust a proven liar...when out homes are at stake? What kind of guide are you? If you are not just plain dumb or impossibly dense, you are in on the big fix.

The saddest comment I can make about your gibberish is that you sound a lot like Gail McPherson without the criminal record...many words signifying nothing but concealing an agenda miles deep.

I'm sorry YOU think you're not pulling your kids into this, because you already have. When you decided to run and get involved it the politics, you dragged them in right behind you. Or maybe you're lucky enough to have someone watch your kids while you're blogging on and on and attending CSD and related meetings. To think you won't involve your kids is not only naive but displays a lack of insight into your own situation and casts doubts over your ability to ever sit on the CSD board, which seems to totally absorb you. Stop running! The election is over!

You might have fooled some of us, Maria, but you can't fool all of us. Having Richard LeGros' full endorsement is a telling sign for most of us...the sign of the Beast.

Write less and say more. Be specific. Avoid rambling generalities based on misconceptions.

Forget history and we're doomed to repeat it, especially when you're telling us to trust the county.

Rosebud

Anonymous said...

To: Sewertoons,

I am saying that the loan WAS NOT LEGAL, AND THE STATE SHOULDN'T HAVE DISTRIBUTED ANY OF THE SRF LOAN UNTIL A REVENUE SOURCE WAS CREATED TO PAY THE LOAN BACK. That's what state and federal law say.

If the SRF money hadn't been distributed the project couldn't have started, the contractors couldn't have started and the Regional Board couldn't give CDO's for the Tri-W not starting. And the CSD couldn't have spent money that was never received. Now do you get it??

The State Water Board SHOULD follow the law, so should the RWQCB. But they didn't. And now it looks like the county won't either.

And you want to pass a 218? Without a specific project and price tag? Come on, we won't be fooled again. The county is asking for us to vote on a blank check for the 218. That's not the way it works, but it is what the county will TRY to get away with!

I sure hope you're rich and out of the PZ.

Anonymous said...

Dear Rosebud~
Hmmm, interesting perspective. I am lucky enough to have a very supportive husband and children who are being raised with an awareness of the importance of community and our committment to it. I'm not running for any election, I'm taking the opportunity to present another perspective and work towards preserving any chance that we have to stay here with our family. I am not naive to the damage perpetrated on this community and to imply that my agenda is deep or sided shows how deep your fear has gone and that lack of perspective is not one that I am comfortable with being the resounding voice to represent our community.
Richard Legros is one man, one voice and human. I was at the meeting on Thursday and have been at every board meeting since August and several before. I have been watching this community become saddled with a debt that we will have to pay whether a sewer gets built or not. I suspect that you may not be completely clear on how this will all be pulled together and the continued responsibilty we have to pay for our services.
You have your truth and I have mine and many others have theirs. Resolution will also come in the form of tolerance. I appreciate you sharing your opinion and please take the time to review the meeting from the other night, I think it will clarify the fight that is being continued.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Anonymous said...

Rosebuddy says many factual points like:

"All this yarn spinning with no real knowledge is a dangerous thing. You are driven by blind ambition, and possess a weak grasp of the truth."

"Write less and say more. Be specific. Avoid rambling generalities based on misconceptions."

"Forget history and we're doomed to repeat it, especially when you're telling us to trust the county."

WHERE ARE THE VERIFIABLE FACTS IN YOUR BLOG? PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH COMES TO MIND!

Anonymous said...

To Maria Kelly, the Candidate Who Never Stops Running, Not for a Minute:

You are a virtual geyser of bad and wrong information. Considering where you get your information from, it's hardly a surprise. It's your degree of certainty rhat is so alarming.

You parrot the discredited philosophies of other rejects, and act like they are "new" and "progressive" because they come from you -- when we've heard them ALL before. And they sound no less appealing coming from you than they did coming from criminal community killers Gustafson, Hensley & Legros. Like the water board commands the CDO recipients to prove their innocence, you must prove you are not a criminal just like them. Until you do, since you carry their agenda for them now, you are just as guilty as they are.

Why don't you stop your rambling, self-serving, rhetorical nonsense? Go back to your kids -- they need you more than we do. You trust the county and will not fight for affordability as most of us define "fight," you are hopelessly weak and uninformed about sewer options, and too obviosuly have been educated by the Los Osos, County and Cal Poly Mafia.

You think you know everything, and that's scary. If you knew you are nothing more than a shill of all the grief that's come before and all the division awaiting us in future, what would you do about it?

Would you stop running?


Mizz Pizzed Off

Anonymous said...

Mizz PO'd

My are you on the rag today, you should try Midol or stand in the middle of LOVR for an hour to reduce the pain.

It is easy to see you are an extremist who hates authority, bet you tell off the IRS with equal intelligence. We, who will have a sewer salute you and your new CDO and portapotty.

Anonymous said...

You know, if Julie Tacker told me it was daylight out, I would go outside to verify that fact for myself.

I, and many others in Los Osos have learned that Ms. Tacker is not the most reliable source of true information. In fact, she has been known to say things that are beneficial to herself, and to the agenda known only to her.

Julie Tacker has lost all validity with the community of Los Osos, long ago. She thinks she is exempt from all the rules that you and I have to live by, but she is not.

She will have to answer to the people of Los Osos, who have now had just about all we can stand, of her duplicity, self-serving and bull-onie.

Julie, you need to do everyone a great big favor:

RESIGN, JULIE!!

Anonymous said...

It is easy for me to see why the waterboards selected Los Osos as the test site for individual CDOs. They corrctly predicted that the 45 selected victims would be quickly forgotten by their community as the radical fringe battled each other and the average Joe hid his head in the sand. Guess what folks, they are planning to use these actions to set precedence, allowing them to rape and pillage other towns in California to pad their budget in the name of AB885.

So as we so righteously fight one another, we are totally missing the opportunity to join together against this power grab by the Waterboards and truly make a difference for the future generations.

Outside Observer said...

I cannot understand the belief of people that have been led to believe that our low interest loan was illegal because a 218 vote was required. This load of bull comes directly from Pam Ochs who writes the Rock. If one reads the law, sewer systems are exempt from a 218 assessment vote to secure the loan. It is absolutely clear that the funding can be secured by user fees. The user fees are secured by CDOs should one defy connection and continue to discharge. The CDOs are attached to violators property. Try and sell your property with a CDO attached. No one will buy it, in essence your improvement (house) becomes not saleable when discharge must stop. The law was carefully crafted with this exception to ensure that funding "for the better good" would be available and secured, despite local objection. Otherwise there would never be ANY sewer built to stop pollution.

There is no question that this is bad law and opressive. Unfunded mandates are illegal, but the government gets by this by offering low interest loans. In other words, it funds the unfunded mandate by a loan. This is more bad law.

The Blakeslee bill requires a 218 vote and is law. How this will work out in the courts is unclear, because it changes the intent of the Porter Cologne bill. However it is specific to the Los Osos situation, and specific to an emergency situation.

There is no requirement that a low interest loan be granted. However, there is a problem with unfunded mandates, and cleaning up polution or stopping it. It is in the best interest of the people of the state to work around unfunded mandates by offering loans. The choice is clear: CDOs, fines, etc. on your individual property or district property, stop discharge, or submit. The unfunded mandate effects a large area defined by law. There is no unfunded mandate on your property, you are free to vacate it or farm , so you have no constitutional standing in court. Nobody who owns a vacant lot in Los Osos, will get a CDO on the lot. There will be no fines or CDOs on vacant land. No building permits either for residential housing, or any business either that is required to have a functional toilet.

There is no answer to this problem but to change the law.



You can thank the Feds and State for these laws. However responsible citizens do not wish to polute, but they don't want to pay either.

Anonymous said...

Dear Outside Observor,

Your take on Proposition 218 is interesting, but doesn't quite jibe from what I've read and heard.

The county won't have the project if the 218 vote fails. They've said so.

The 218 vote will fail if there is no definite project with a price for people to decide whether or not they want to be assessed for that particular amount.

I really don't think the people will vote for it if there's no price tag.

People would vote yes on the 218 if there is a decent and affordable project.

The recent peer review says "out of town" is best and to look at STEP systems.

I don't think it's a matter of people not wanting to pay, but a matter of truly have a choice to select the best project for Los Osos that is affordable to most of us.

I didn't see anything in AB2701 about the 218 vote.

Chris

Anonymous said...

CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATIONS DEPT.

To: Civilized Universe
Fr: Gatekeeper

I'm sorry to report that the blogger Outside Observer is actually Taxpayers Witch kamikaze tagger 4CrapKiller from the Tribune blog, who gets paid chump change to deface this site with slander and misinformation.

Her mission: Eternal Division.

We've been tracking her for some time. Be advised she is in this sector and highly active.

She identifies herself here as Outside Observer and says on the Trib blog that she doesn't live in Los Osos.

Know who you're not talking to at all times.

GK
cc: J. Albright

Anonymous said...

SUBJECT: TRIBUNE BLOG ENTRY TONIGHT

From: 4CrapKiller Dec-30 7:38 am
To: TedRPeterson (3 of 7)
1391.3 in reply to 1391.2

You are wise not to trust the press! Just read what Ann Calhoun writes! Of course it is opinion and nothing but spin. Some people actually believe her.

Edited 12/30/2006 7:42 am by 4CrapKiller

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"In Santa Barbara court on December 15th, the judge asked the Attorney General if the state had secured funding, and his answer to the judge was, "I don't know" which is a "NO"!!!"

The AG "didn't know" whether or not the SRF loan was secured? Huh? Can this possibly be true? Is it possible the AG's rep would have shown up in bankruptcy court for a hearing and NOT have all the facts regarding the case at his fingertips? Who out there was in that room? Please log on and post exactly what the AG's rep said. I find this . . . IN credible, to say the least.

anonymous sez:"And you want to pass a 218? Without a specific project and price tag? Come on, we won't be fooled again. The county is asking for us to vote on a blank check for the 218. That's not the way it works, but it is what the county will TRY to get away with!"

IF the County follows The Process, as promised, it will end up with, maybe two, projects that will float up on their own weight and practical "doability," and a pretty good ballpark of total costs including OM&R on the assessment ballot. There will be added costs -- there always are -- but the promised assessment ballot will be for the total project, unlike the original Tri W which was a miniscule "design" start up amount, with an open-ended total amount, (no caps) and the GINORMOUS rest of the costs (including 40% costs over bid etc.) to show up in the form of "service fees." It's up to everyone in Los Osos to PAY ATTENTION and make sure the county follows THE PROCESS, which will mean a clear ball-park 218 vote, not some blind, blank check.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

If you watch the latest CSD meeting, Mr. Onstot said what happened with the judge and Attorney General in court. I think Mr. Onstot meant the Deputy AG, not a rep, because he said AG.I don't know who else was there, I was just going by what Mr. Onstot said at the CSD meeting in response to Bruce Payne's public comment. Mr. Onstot was clear about what happened and seemed surprised also.

You write about the 218 and if you recall what Julie Tacker and others have said, the county is having the 218 in the wrong order. The advisory vote should be first, then the 218 on one project with one cost. The county may have the vote backwards in many people's minds.

I think the 2001 assessment was our 218 and it was for bonds for about $20 million. I think that money was for the purchase of land and design of the plant and not the Tri-W project itself. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I understand it.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Steve Onstot is a lawyer of the truest cents, his function is create doubt through misdirection and distortion of facts. He has been hired to drag out the proceedings as long as possible. Mr. Onstot would easily change hats and argue against the CSD. All he really cares about his getting paid, it matters not who wins or loses.

paying attention said...

The problem with the 218 is that "Rates and Charges" won't be included in the price. Those fees are associateed with operation and maintenace and ongoing repair...for example; lawn mowing at Tri-W would not be included in the 218, nor would the toilet papaer at the public restroom, or the water, electricity, painting wave walls and whatever the sugar coating costs.

Churadogs said...

Paying attention sez:"The problem with the 218 is that "Rates and Charges" won't be included in the price. Those fees are associateed with operation and maintenace and ongoing repair...for example; lawn mowing at Tri-W would not be included in the 218, nor would the toilet papaer at the public restroom, or the water, electricity, painting wave walls and whatever the sugar coating costs.

6:57 AM, January 01, 2007"

That's my understanding as well, however the difference between what the County is supposed to come in with and what Tri W came up with should be, the County has promised a much closer finished number than Tri W ever was. If, for example, the original Tri W bond had been worked up, not for design and start up, but for a projected full(er) amount, would the community have voted for that? The problem with Tri W is that the tiniest amount was assessed while the GINORMOUS "
real" amount was going to show up as fees. There was a huge imbalance there. And another 218 vote on the "real" amount was denied by the old CSD board majority. That the county should end up with a much better ball park total amount will give everyone abetter idea of what the finished product will be. True, there will be unknowns, as there always are in every project.

I suppose the difference is if you pay a contractor a million to design a house and the contract is open-ended and he never comes back to you with another contract to sign with a closer final amount, but instead starts digging the foundation then presents you with a $200 million dollar final bill, you'd have a cow.

By better figuring the "real" amount, the county should be able to present, for it's 218 vote, a much better ball park number.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

When will you get it about the 218 vote? When will you stop believing everything that Gail tells you?

The New Times stated it correctly:

"the assessment vote date - via a mail-out ballot approving the property lien required to fund the sewer - LONG BEFORE the actual selection of a project."
12/21/06

Anonymous said...

As far as the 218 vote goes, it won't stand a prayer of passing, unless & untill the County gives us a "price tag" & a "cap" on the charges. No way will the people of this Community be taken FOR THAT RIDE AGAIN.

Anonymous said...

To blogger above:

The county will try hard to fool this community again. They think that we're all fools.

I'm sure a major PR campaign will come along. Our mail boxes will be filled with their big sell job.

Of course we'll have all the threats (again) by the RWQCB and we'll have all those stories from the Tribune to tell us we have to vote "yes" or vacate our homes. Gail McPherson already is doing this in the Bay News. Scare us, threaten us, hand out plenty of CDO's, and whatever they can do for a yes vote.

The county meeting at the Junior High was a big PR stunt and allowed a whopping 5 or 6 questions to be answered by the people (after they sat there listening to all the bull for hours). They're going to work real hard to trick us. Real hard.

Anonymous said...

If the County can't tell us what it's for and how much it's going to cost, who in thier right mind would vote for it? If the County doesn't show me something, I will vote NO!!! I already voted yes once for a fantasy project. I wont make that mistake again. Any property owner that chooses to assess themselves without knowledge of what it's for deserves to get screwed ten ways to Sunday just like we all got fucked in the ass in 1998. Who want's to get bent over and fucked in the ass again? San Luis Obispo County, tell us what it is you intend to build and how much it will cost or WE WILL VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sewertoons said...

All of you who say that you will vote no - look into the future - what do you see? Anything? How do you think a sewer will magically appear here in Los Osos? What do you see as the next step after the NO vote? You had better have an answer and then do a reality check.

Anonymous said...

Sewertoons,

If the county does the right thing, then they might get their "yes" 218 vote. If not, they won't. It's that simple. It's the county's choice really. But we will all be watching very carefully.

Sewertoons said...

Yes, we all will be watching. But it isn't the County who NEEDS the "yes" vote. If they could pass on this huge, messy project, I'm sure that they wouldn't mind at all. The RWQCB will not be too thrilled with a "no" vote, however. It will meen much additional work for them. The vote is really for us, the homeowners of the PZ.

But the question still remains, what will happen if we do not pass the 218? That needs to be answered BEFORE any vote is cast.

Anonymous said...

To the blogger above:

I think that is a question to be asked of the county. Paavo doesn't seem to know and I think he should get that question answered (from the state), and then tell us the truth.

All I have heard is that if the 218 fails the county will turn the project back (to the CSD?) and there we go again.

Sewertoons said...

anon 6:29:

Very scary thought. If there still is a CSD.

Well, if we think the Water Board is tought to deal with now and unfair, I suspect that we have seen nothing yet.

I can just see what sort of barrel Orenco could strap us over if the CSD thinks it can deliver a project with private money! Ha-ha-ha - triple C credit rating - we'd get something REALLY expensive… that, or face $5,000 a day in fines - or we could just leave.

Somebody might want to contact the state, but as an answer may depend on lawyers parsing through a legal haystack at who knows what cost to find that answer, they might just give us a stall instead of words. Or maybe they just come right in and build what they want and where they want and at the cost they feel like charging.

All the nay-sayers to the 218 vote really need to think about what might come next. I don't want them dragging this thing down from having not thought ahead. It would be nice if one of them would post what they see as the result of the 218 failing.

Anonymous said...

Sewertoons,
There's no way in HELL that this Community will approve a 218 vote unless it comes WITH A PRICE TAG & A CAP. Why is it so difficult to understand that we DEMAND FIGURES THIS TIME. NO MORE BLANK CHECKS. I have every confidence that ORENCO or Pentair Pumps could & would get us private financing at a fair & reasonable price & the project would be MUCH CHEAPER, both in terms of CONSTRUCTION & OPERATING EXPENSES.

Sewertoons said...

anon 10:33,
Point 1: The County, should they propose a blank check, is different than a CSD offering a blank check. Point 2: Accurate figures can't be offered without huge amounts of work and money up front. The County has $2 mil to spend, which will not cut it.

If we had the County behind us with their impeccable credit rating, then we should get a decent interest rate for what Orenco or Pentair offers. The County will consider these options with their private financing.

However, the interest rates presented to us alone, with our CCC credit rating would be absurd, so don't think that waiting for that option to happen in hope that the 218 will fail is what will save us. The State may well step in and take the project, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

Who said that the state can step in and take the project? Who has confirmed that from the county?

Anonymous said...

No one from the County is confirming that, the County merely gave the example of some polluted creek that couldn't get the citizens behind the clean up and the State stepped in due to some law or other and charged a freakin' fortune to do it, far above what the citizens would have paid should they have chosen to assess themselves. Can someone recall the reference?

I think that there is a lot of gray area with AB2701 which means if the 218 does not pass there will be litigation as to what can happen next. Meanwhile, those of us who cannot afford the fines imposed by the RWQCB will no longer care as we will have moved out, selling at a loss, and the developers will be waiting in the wings, drooling…

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"the assessment vote date - via a mail-out ballot approving the property lien required to fund the sewer - LONG BEFORE the actual selection of a project."
12/21/06 "

In order to properly assess each property's benefit, (which is what they'll have to pay each year) you have to have a reasonably close ball park figure of the total cost of the project so you can figure what benefit each parcel gets. That's what the assessment engineers will be working out before the ballots are written and sent. OM&R and other fees and cost overruns will come later (as they did with Tri W) Tri W's assessment was for design and start up, not the full project. The hope here is that the County will have a better handle on the total cost and will figure the assessments accordingly.