Pages

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Quick, Watson, Hand Me That Flyswatter, There’s A Great Big Irony Flying Around The Room


The Dec 20 Bay News reports, “Richard LeGros, who was one of three members of the CSD Board of Directors ousted in a September of 2005 recall election, was appointed by Peter Anderson of the Office of U.S. Trustee, an arm of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. . . . LeGros is one of three people who were selected to serve on the Creditor’s Committee. He said, ‘the purpose of the committee is to ‘work with the debtor to put together a viable and fair debt reduction plan.’ . . . LeGros said he was appointed to represent Taxpayers Watch, a group that seeks to have a sewer built as soon as possible. Taxpayers Watch failed in its efforts to have the district dissolved despite a very successful petition drive calling for the district’s demise. . . “. and . . . “The CSD was ordered to pay some $39,000 for legal expenses to Taxpayers Watch’s attorney, Kate Neiswender, for being on the losing end of the court battle over Measure B.” . . [Uh, which means he’s an official representative of a debtor while serving on the committee that is overseeing the bankruptcy reorganization so as to pay back debts owed to debtors, like Taxpayers Watch, of which he’s an official representative?] . . .. and . . . “At least one member of the current CSD board is not happy with the selection. ‘I’m outraged,’ said Julie Tacker. ‘I find the irony incredible. His collective decision making prior to the recall election to proceed with the project is part of the ripple effect that causes bankruptcy now.’”

NOT more fully explained was that Mr. LeGros, while still on the recalled Board, voted with the Board majority to start work on the Tri-W project weeks before the recall election, thereby imprudently gambling with millions of the taxpayer’s dollars that the recall would fail. He lost that bet and lost the taxpayers’ millions. Ironically, it was a choice he didn’t have to make. One vote would have held the start of construction until after the vote was taken. Instead, the money was pounded into the ground, one of the precipitating events that helped lead to later insolvency.

NOT mentioned at all was that Mr. LeGros, while still on the recalled Board, voted with the Board majority to file suit to block measure B from ever getting on the ballot, an incredibly ill-advised and fiscally imprudent move that cost the taxpayers a bundle to settle or face an even more horrendous court-mandated bundle had the new CSD not settled, a settlement that was yet another precipitating tip into insolvency.

NOT mentioned either is that Taxpayers Watch, of which Mr. Le Gros is an official representative, still owes the County about $27,000 in County costs for undertaking the dissolution process. [Correction: 12/21,06, Received from Noel King, an email that states, in part: "LAFCO is not a County agency, it is a State agency. When the County initiates business for LAFCO, we have to fund the LAFCO fees and other expenses just like any other agency. So, Mr. LeGros does not owe the County money."] [12/22 addendum: . . . uh, so TPW, of whom Mr. LeGros is the official representative, owes the State, but it still doesn't solve the following question: Will, or can the CSD claim TPW cost them a bundle and should pay up their share of defending against the dissolution action? ] It’s not known how much it also cost the CSD to defend against that process as well. Will the CSD, like [correction: LAFCO, not ] the county, present Taxpayers Watch with their share of that bill? If they do, then Mr. LeGros, as an official representative of Taxpayers Watch, serving as an officially appointed member of this bankruptcy committee, will be making decisions about a debtor in the Measure B case (Taxpayers Watch) and what should also be a target owing the CSD a bundle (again Taxpayers Watch), all while officially representing . . . Taxpayers Watch.

And finally, this:” An architect, LeGros said he will apply for a finance committee that is being created by the county to help with examining alternatives for a new sewer project. ‘I have extensive background in the operation of the CSD and its financial issues,’ he said.”

I’ll say!

37 comments:

Sewertoons said...

Ann, please tell us who else is on the Bankruptcy Committee, as you seem to know.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"NOT more fully explained was that Mr. LeGros, while still on the recalled Board, voted with the Board majority to start work on the Tri-W project weeks before the recall election..."

Worse yet, he voted with that same majority to hold the recall election at one of the latest possible dates, thereby affording them the window of time needed to start work on the project just weeks before the community bounced them out of office. Absolutely unconscionable, especially in light of the fact that County Clerk-Recorder, Julie Rodewald, told me that if setting the recall election date had been her decision to make -- as it should be... people up for recall shouldn't be setting their own recall election date -- she would have set it at one of the earliest possible dates, therefore NOT affording the Recalled-3 the window of time needed to start the project and needlessly waste millions of taxpayers dollars. Nice job, Richard (and Stan, and Gordon). With decision-making like that, I'm sure you'll do just fine on that bankruptcy committee.

If at first you don't succeed, fail, fail again.

Anonymous said...

HI Sewertoon,

The members of the Creditor's Committee are:

Richard LeGros, representing Taxpayer's Watch.

Mr Lavoie, an attorney representing WILDAN (dan Blesky's firm).

Mr. Roger Woodhull, president of WRA (the firm hired by the CSD after the recall to manage the contracts with the contractors)

Ann,

Your silly (or should I say donkeyish) opinion about me or the past board means absolutely nothing; especially since your vain attempts to discredit me will not have any affect on the process of resolving the bankruptcy.

I am on the committee.

I will do my job fairly and pragmatically.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Hi Ron and Ann,

Your sour-graping will only turn you into vinegar.

The irony of the situation is that I am on the committee as a direct result of actions by Julie, Lisa, Steve, Chuck and John. You see, their actions to not pay the court-ordered attorney fees to TW created an uncontested unsecured debt; thereby allowing TW to be on the Creditor's Committee.

But not to worry. I will be fair.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Ron said...

Richard wrote:

"Your sour-graping will only turn you into vinegar."

So, putting the recall election at one the latest possible dates was a good decision? Hmmmm... and all this time, I thought it was a poor decision, and so did Rodewald. But I guess we were wrong. My bad.

Anonymous said...

Ron,

Your really are a boring guy.
It was my decison to make, not yours.

I see no need to waste my time in the future responding to your delusional opinions on issues you do not understand.

Good Bye and Good luck!

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Isn't Richard flip-flopping regarding the CSD insolvency? First he said that the CSD would be solvent in eight months, now today he states that the CSD can survive if they are brave, etc.

Which is it Richard?

Anonymous said...

Referring to the Tribune front page article today regarding the dissolution: isn't it odd that LAFCO, from the beginning, over-stepped it's bounds and authority when they presented their Option A (let the county take over the sewer project) and Option B (CSD work with the county on sewer project)? For LAFCO to stick their nose into the sewer project was ridiculous and to indicate to the CSD that if they didn't agree to Option A or B they would be dissolved--that was unethical to begin with.

When the CSD voted for Option B, that didn't happen. Option A happened, not B. LAFCO's role is deciding the creation, dissolution and boundaries for government agencies, not to blackmail the CSD to sign onto one of their options or be dissolved. Did LAFCO members take the "Ethic Training" that was required by law before the end of 2006?

Besides, LAFCO had no intention on dissolving the CSD because the county didn't want the L.O. debt. It was just another trick and scare tactic on the county's part to take over the very project they want.

Steve Paige said...

Just posted the continuing story about Nitrogen Sequestering on my property at:

http://loviews.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Dear Richard,

I don't know how you can serve "fairly and pragmatically" as a member of the Creditor's Committee when you carry such a spiteful attitude towards the dissenting opinion (Ann and Ron among others). You litter the blogs (both this one and the Tribune discussion boards) with examples that show your deep-seeded bias towards the LOCSD.

You are clearly unfit for the position based on that principle alone.

Anonymous said...

HI Anon 11:53,

You need to relax, as I am resolved to deal with the LOCSD bankrupty in a fair and pragmatic manner.

Your opinion as to my being fit or not to serve is moot.

Other anons above,

Hmmmm...just 10 weeks ago the CSD said at LAFCO that everything was fine and dandy at the CSD....and now they have changed their minds and want to be dissolved?

My opinion is that the CSD has already inflicted fatal wounds; however, it is also my opinion from studying the CSD financial picture that if the CSD Board focuses only on CORE SERVICES, stops dealing with the sewer issue and CDO's, focus on revitalizing its administrative staffing, and deal in a pragmatic way on bankrupty issues that the CSD MAY survive.

If the current board does not have the will to do these things, or have the ideas or knowledge on how to proceed or are just unwilling to perform the job they were elected to, then they should resign and enable new folks to grapple with these issues.

Regards, Richard LeGros

steptoe lighthill said...

My Dear Richard,

You put your ego above the community the same way you did when you mis-served on the board not so long ago that the scars have yet to heal. They've opened again. Wider. Wider than ever before.

The first tragedy is that you were offered an application in the first place. That shows Paavo is deaf, dumb and blind. Anyone in his position dumb enough to put you and Buel on the committee either (a) doesn't want 218 to pass intentionally or (b) doesn't have a clue that by bringing on you and Buel he has turned the 218 into a referendum on you and Buel, instead of one on a sewer project. Any idiot, except Paavo, should clearly see by the last few elections that the legal majority of the community does not want the gravity sewer at Tri-W but something more afforable out of town. To bring in certified losers like you and Buel, even before the county takes over on Jan. 1 is both a bad smoke signal to this legal majority and a collosal blunder of 218 vote-killing proportions.

So here you are, sitting on this committee, back again, acting important. Well bully for you and your all-destructive ego. You win, the community loses. Despite the shocking reality that at least half the town wishes you on the moon, you and Paavo choose to widen the divide into a chasm no one can or will cross -- no matter how many millions in PR will be spent to cross it. All because Paavo thinks the losers are winners and the winners are losers -- and you can bray "I'm back!" What a waste of public funds! It ought to be investigated right now, before it begins.

Your responses to comments on this blog only implicate you as perhaps the single most culpable individual for dragging the community over the cliff into bankruptcy. Your attitude confirms beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are deeply biased, scarred by your disgrace, uncontrollably vindictive, and a hopeless liar. This is what you bring to the committee and to the community -- and we don't want any part of it, or 218 -- if you come with it. That's not just baggage, that's tonnage.

You tell one blogger to "relax." Why? So you can rape us good one more time just like you did the time before? We should "relax and enjoy it," I suppose! Rape really isn't so bad if we just relax! And, I suppose if we struggle to unseat you Paavo will just make it harder on us?

Richard, if you really truly gave a damn about Los Osos you would decline the offer to divide us. You would understand that this isn't about you, it's about everyone else except you. But you just can't do that, can you? Like your Tri-W sewer, you're just the wrong guy in the wrong place at the right time, and if called, will serve.

You haven't really thought this through, Richard, because if you did, you'd know how it ends because for you it ends badly. Just like it did before. Because, in the end, you're just one helluva big loser, and that's all you know how to do is lose -- and lose big.

Unfortunately, it's always the community that has to pay for your mistakes, and this time will be no exception.

I think somehow, though, it will all backfire on you and Paavo, and the community will be able to use your and their blunders as leverage to flip the project back to the community where saner minds than those that now sit on our board will prevail and the community will finally build a sewer it can afford.

My condolences to you -- and thanks for being helpless but to play moth to the flame.

Steptoe

Shark Inlet said...

To our poor misguided Steptoe,

When you write that it is clear to see from "the last few elections that the legal majority of the community does not want the gravity sewer at Tri-W but something more afforable out of town" it shows you've bought into the lie.

What lie? That delay and out-of-town are cheaper.

This is exactly why we cannot base any conclusions on the last two elections ... the voters were lied to. We were told that the project would be under $100/month if they voted for the recall (when the "dreamers" were telling us that TriW would run $200/month. More recently, the campaign for Senet and Cesena told us that their Ripley plan would run $150/month but that TriW would run over $300.

The voters responded to all the information and some of them believe these lies and voted for cheaper.

We are all going to suffer because of the recall.


I've offered some quick analyses here as have others that demonstrate that even under the most optimistic of assumptions, an "out of town" system won't actually save us money at all.

I contend that the votes in 2005 and 2006 weren't about the location anywhere near so much as about the money. And they voted for the candidates who promised something they knew they couldn't deliver instead of for the candidates who provided an honest assessment of our situation.


You do have a good point ... that Richard played a big role in the history of what happened ... but your analysis completely overlooks the fact that things have gone from bad to horrible in the last year ... for reasons entirely unrelated to Richard.


Again, if you vote against a 218 assessment just because Richard is on the County committee you are simply shooting yourself in the foot. Not only do we get a choice between reasonable options according to the County plan, if we reject a 218 vote, the CDOs from the RWQCB are pretty clear that we're hosed. If you are a property owner, a 218 vote failure means your property drops in value. If you are renter you just might not care about what bills the rest of us will have to pay. If it gets "bad" for you you can just move away.

Reactionary thinking isn't.

Anonymous said...

Steptoe -

I guess you missed the post where Richard stated he won't serve on the County committee.

He has his hands full with the Bankruptcy committee (to which he was appointed by the Federal Bankruptcy Court).

Also, you said: "Despite the shocking reality that at least half the town wishes you on the moon..."

You should correct that to read "at MOST". Sentiments regarding the old "old" board have shifted in the past year.

November's election was another razor thin victory for your side, and as Shark pointed out, a victory based once again on hollow promises of "better, faster, cheaper".

Anonymous said...

"Despite the shocking reality that at least half the town wishes you on the moon,"

And the other half want an affordable sewer built that meets RWQCB standards; want to avoid CDO's brought on by this incompetent band of miscreants; and looks forward to the county doing what Los Osos itself has proved incapable of doing forever.

"it will all backfire on you and Paavo, and the community will be able to use your and their blunders as leverage to flip the project back to the community where saner minds than those that now sit on our board will prevail and the community will finally build a sewer it can afford."

Saner people? Who will those people be, and what is your idea of affordable? 'Cause buddy, you're never gonna see $200.00 per month again. Ever.

Anonymous said...

Mr. LeGros has a very thick head. He can't seem to comprehend that it would be better for him not to be involved anymore.

Mike Green said...

Can anyone direct me to an online description of what exactly the Technical Advisory Commitee will do and how they would go about it?
Thanks

Mike Green said...

Oh and a very Happy Holiday season to all!

Steptoe Lighthill said...

Dear Mr. Inlet,

Your pretzel logic may entertain light thinkers, but very little of what you tap out adds up to much more than an attempt to drum up support for yet another failed coup by the town's favorite villians and stooges, Taxpayers Watch. With Richard rides your flickering flame of hope, your brat-white knight in tarnished armor.

"This is exactly why we cannot base any conclusions on the last two elections ... the voters were lied to."

Of course you were lied to, you idiot! You guys wrote the book. You know full well that anything goes in politics, that you win at all costs. Suckers! You just ran a lousy campaign against lousy candidates, and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. You lost! Yes, lost against two tree stumps. Had you supported your candidates the way you supported the Recalled Trio in '05, we'd be looking at a 3 to 2 board, you could have recalled Julie -- and we wouldn't be sitting here having this discussion. But you threw it all away, blew it, when you had it in the palm of your hand...37 votes from glory.


"Again, if you vote against a 218 assessment just because Richard is on the County committee you are simply shooting yourself in the foot. Not only do we get a choice between reasonable options according to the County plan, if we reject a 218 vote, the CDOs from the RWQCB are pretty clear that we're hosed. "

It's clear to most that Richard is a divider. We will not get any "choice between reasonable options" as you propagandize for Richard and the county, when we know full well, as they have already clearly demonstrated, that they have absolutely no intention of working with the the CSD, the half+ of the community that voted for them -- lied to, stupid, wise or just punching in candidates as randomly as the RWQCB selected CDO draftees -- and that they intend to bowl over the community on their way to Sewer-premacy.

Take Richard out of the equation, maybe there's a chance. Leave him in and we've got absolutely none. Do the math.

The county's 218 is just another blank check, and you know it. I've lived here 27 years, and don't try to tell me differently, sir!

The big lie is believing there's no big lie.

Steptoe

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"Can anyone direct me to an online description of what exactly the Technical Advisory Commitee will do and how they would go about it?
Thanks "

In the Tribune's 12/20 editorial it notes that "Applications will be available soon: check the project Web site, www.county.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm for updates." The BOS has already voted Rob Miller, the CSD engineer onto the committee, and will vote to pick the rest from the pool of applicants, but the details of the bylaws, or rules under which they will operate will likely be set by the committee itself after the committee is selected. Paavo made it clear that the committee itself will operate under Brown act rules; not clear yet is how the subcommittees, if any are formed, will operate (i.e. allow the public to sit in to listen but not participate, etc.)

Inlet sez, quoting from Steptoe:"When you write that it is clear to see from "the last few elections that the legal majority of the community does not want the gravity sewer at Tri-W but something more afforable out of town" it shows you've bought into the lie.

"What lie? That delay and out-of-town are cheaper."

Uh, actually, as far as I can see, Steptoe is correct if he means by legal majority the majority of people who voted. The vote clearly indicated to me that the majority of those who voted wanted "something more affordable out of town." That's what they wanted. And as near as I can see, it's not an unreasonable wish.

Now, whether they'll get it or not remains to be seen.

Anonymous said...

Uh, actually, as far as I can see, Steptoe is correct if he means by legal majority the majority of people who voted. The vote clearly indicated to me that the majority of those who voted wanted "something more affordable out of town.

Correct Ann. But the lie comes in the fact that Lisa and crew said they would deliver a project for $100.00 per month. And they wouldn't lose the SRF loan. And there wouldn't be any CDO's. And they were ready to go. And a year later, Steve and Chuck still had the nerve to campaign on $154.00 per month, instead of the real issue, which was bankruptcy. Lies. Lies. Lies. And more lies. They are shameful. And you're equally shameful for not admitting their deceit and failures which have caused property owners in Los Osos tons of grief, hardship and money.

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

The problem with steptoe's assertion is that it isn't correct.

He writes that we can infer from the last two votes that people would prefer cheaper and out-of-town. Because the two issues of location and cost were muddied it seems to me that some people were indicating with their votes that they would prefer cheaper and if out-of-town was cheaper, they would support out-of-town. The problem? Unless out-of-town really is cheaper we don't really know what the people prefer.

This is why I suggested that a poll be taken ... right following the recall ... that asks people questions like "would you be willing to pay more to get the sewer out-of-town?" and "how much more per month?".

If the new board had this information and realized that people aren't willing to spend more they could have proceeded more carefully and gotten a real estimate from a real engineer, lawyer and financial wizard before embarking the path of destruction.

Ron said...

Mike asked:

"Can anyone direct me to an online description of what exactly the Technical Advisory Commitee will do and how they would go about it?"

Here ya go.

An Anon wrote:

"November's election was another razor thin victory for your side, and as Shark pointed out, a victory based once again on hollow promises of "better, faster, cheaper". "

Key words in that sentence: "another," and "victory."

You'll never hear a professional athlete say, "We only lost by a few points," because they are well aware that a loss is a loss, whether it's by a field goal or five touchdowns, and the ONLY thing they are concerned with is their overall win/loss record, which in Taxpayer's Watch case is 0-8-1 over the last three elections.

Looks like you guys aren't making the playoffs this year.

Anonymous said...

There are other members in this community who are actually "playing" another game. Part of my comments under "Why not Daddy,..." can respond to that statement.
My question is: am I considered TW just because I agreed that financial responsibility should be our focus into the next 4 years since the county was/is taking over the project? Interesting lack of any logic and only adding to the continued pressure and widening the divisions in this community.
Any book ever written on community building or developing good relationships would suggest that we all step back, catch our breath and start working on a different vision. I think there are others who are ready and I keep meeting them and enjoying our discussions.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Anonymous said...

Dear Steptoe~
Have you ever been raped? Be careful with how far you will go to incite an emotional response when one of technical and tactical thought need to be considered. Feeding into the emotional charge of a situation makes it far more difficult to get a seat at a table for any discussion. High emotions tend to lead into irrational thought and rampant mis perceptions, I think we have had enough of that. Please retract your statements that equate Richard Legros and Bruce Buel with rape - it's offensive and in very poor taste. Our community needs a chance to compose ourselves and not be dragged under with these types of analogies. We are better than that. We are ready to start considering the possibilities of our futures and have some hope. I haven't been here 27 years but I would like to be and the only way I see that happening is by getting involved and working for resolution through open respectful discussion. I have no one to blame and no burden of years of animosity so if you can't have that type of discussion, let those of us that can, have a chance to talk. There are many of us who will not be deterred by obvious levels of hostility, we care too much about our community and its future.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Anonymous said...

Uh Shark, if the present CSD had taken a poll and advanced more prudently, how far along would Tri-W have been? How prudent would it have been to stop it then?
You say Richard had no part in what has transpired in the year plus since the election. How about if he hadn't went along and started construction of Tri-W before the recall election? Seems to me the worst we would be is 11 million in fines, but on the road to something more acceptable.
What about the picture taken in the park in 2004? Prominent in the front of the huge group was a sign that said "MOVE THE SEWER". My wife and I are in that picture.
I constantly hear of how many additional years it is going to take to do something different from Tri-W. It's always more years than what it took to come up with Tri-W. Can you explain that? Why would a site somewhere else take longer?
What option were we ever given other than Tri-W?
Sincerely, M

Steptoe Lighthill said...

Dear Mr. Inlet,

You are utterly inescapably incorrect. I restate: Your logic is broken from the get-go. Everything that comes after that is just plain "dreaming."

It's as obvious as the hole in your head that people prefer out of town. Where have you been, Rip Van Winkle? You either missed it, are in denial that it ever happened, or, as you implied earlier, want to overthrow the elected CSD in a coup because you were lied to.

The vote plainly pointed the way out of town, and out of town IS cheaper than in town -- but only IF we build a "temple" to affordability rather than a monument to stupidity, one based on what the community can afford, one that preserves the perfect fabric of our diverse community, instead of sacrificing it on the altar of big money.

Your question, "would you be willing to pay more to get the sewer out-of-town?" and "how much more per month?" simply perpetuates the myth that any and every project MUST be expensive, and if it's not as expensive as hell it can't possibly be any good! How patently absurd and divisive of you to be spreading such lies disguised as logic! The only one here pounding the path of destruction is you.

Maria Kelly: Yes, unfortunately, you must wear the yoke of Taxpayers Watch because you joined Taxpayers Watch in completely ignoring the depth and breadth of the sewer issue, relinquishing all control to the county, and focusing solely on financial responsibility, however important that might be. By your post, it's quite obvious that you continue to be oblivious to the fact that your lack of independent thinking -- or at least your inability or willingness to communicate independent thinking -- will persist in being your undoing until you achieve the balance that comes with time spent. You simply have not lived here long enough to catch up to the learning curve. After 27 years I see that curve far back in the distance in my rear-window mirror. I see you back there too. This is not a criticism. You are a good lady. A few more years maybe you'll see more clearly. Maybe. If you care enough.

No, Maria Kelly, I will not retract my rape analogy! I've lived through the sewer wars a long time, but some of my closest friends haven't fared so well. A few have even died from the stress and constant worry about losing their homes. Maybe if it had been your mother or father you'd feel differently. You may not like the rape analogy, but what about murder? What about attempted murder -- heart attacks and strokes, people hanging on to life that way...at this very moment? Is that OK with you, dearie? Would you feel better if I accused Mr. Legros, Mr. Inlet and the RWQCB of murder? Because that's closer to the truth than rape. I softened it for your sensitive little ears. People on your side have used rape referring to this board -- look on the Tribune blog, it's there now -- and I've never seen you call for an apology from them. Why is that? You seem to be stuck on a seesaw.

Diluting the truth for you -- just because you haven't lived here long enough to go through what some of us have gone through and lost so much -- lied to, intimidated, abused, even physically attacked by, yes, those who you choose to align yourself with by default -- just so it's easier for you to take a seat at the table...will do absolutely NOTHING to help anyone who have lived here longer than your blink of an eye. Again, this is not a criticism of you. I believe you want to help. Right now you simply lack the wisdom to know how.

Steptoe

Anonymous said...

By Steptoe's logic, only those who have lived here more than say 25 years should have a voice? Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

We are all in this together now, SO GET OVER YOURSELF!

Anonymous said...

Dear Steptoe,
I am very aware of the depth of the distress and damage done but what is clearly resonating in this community is that at one point, this was a cohesive evolving community. This resonates from the overwhelming support of the formation of the CSD. I don't need you to tone it down for my ears, its my heart and the heart of the community. If there is one thing I did recognize throughout this campaign was the fact people were suffering extremely from the stress of it all. It was one of the primary reasons I ran for a seat on the board. It is obvious that people are weary and tired of the fight. I never once said that we should relinquish control to the county what I said was that I was willing and wanted to work WITH the county to come to resolution. No where did I ever state we should "roll over". That is what was construed from those listening and not hearing.
I don't really care who aligns me with who, I know what my intentions are and I know that my future in this community hangs in the balance due to the misunderstandings. I won't stand by and be a victim of circumstance because life is too short and even in this muddled mess I am making sure that we are having fun and living life and not being overwhelmed by the "fear and loathing" that could be Los Osos.
There is never one truth in messes like this. There is perception and there are many, many stories of sadness, distress, illness, birth and death. This is life, this is the one we choose. We don't chose when we get to jump into the story, but we do get to chose our role in it. I don't believe that time or alignment is going to determine my destiny, only my intentions. If you have ever sat and talked with me, you would know that aligning me one way or the other adds to the confusion. Don't retract your statement, I just had to ask because we cannot as a community sit idely by while our futures are being ripped apart. You think I don't understand! You would be suprised at how much I actually do.
We have all seen suffering, we have all seen struggles and I have been with people when they have died and the full circle should be one of light, not bitterness, anger and malicious will. Let's think about our legacy and what we have to offer, not the foibles of those before.
My husband and I struggle month to month and we both have good educations and decent jobs. This "affordability" issue has blanketed California and most of the West Coast. I will state again, the fight belongs in Sacramento and even Washington DC. We are one of many, many places that are struggling with this issue. Who suffers? The middle class - we make too much money for any services and too little to ever get ahead. We pay for healthcare we don't need - over $1000 a month out of an already meager paycheck to pay for SS, healthcare, and everything we may never get back, we don't qualify for any assistance but live only a few hundred dollars over the poverty line. We don't pay for cable, go to movies(except for the drive in) and eat out a couple times a month, we don't buy clothes except twice a year and our favorite store is goodwill. We do as much as we can for those less fortunate because we can work and more or less provide. Because we moved here when prices were going up, our property taxes are over $6000 a year and we live in 1400 square feet - the only way we could buy was by taking out monumental loans from a bank and my parents. Do you really question my lack of understanding of whats at stake? My children's future is at stake and from where I'm sitting, in my short life, the fight I need to have is not with my neighbor and it involves lots and lots of discussion.
Have a blessed holiday and thank for the kind words you are able to pull together. Even with the burden of debt and foreboding regarding the future, I wake up everyday and look for hope in something. Nothing can take that away and all I can do is offer.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Brass Tacks said...

I am a first time poster to your wonderful blog, Ann. Even though I have been reading it for a loooong time. Could you please correct your post of 5:24, it shows an incorrect URL for the County website it should be:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm

Although, I didn't vote for Maria, I wish more people showed her grasp of the situation and what needs to be done to heal our community and get on with it. I have lived here for over 32 years. I was in the photo to move the sewer. I supported the recall because I feel the former board was doing the wrong thing for our community. I attended the County town hall meeting and was beginning to feel hopeful that perhaps they REALLY will evaluate alternate choices to Tri-W and give us a better sewer that is functional and cost effective. I hope that we can come together and stop the train wreck that was Tri-W, but I guess we will just have to wait and see. I will hope for the best in 2007. We have been waiting for a very long time.

Shark Inlet said...

To our dear confused friend Steptoe ...

If you would be so kind as to let us know exactly how out of town will be cheaper it would be greatly appreciated.

You see, several here have done some calculations and see absolutely no realistic way this could happen.

Perhaps if you give us enough details to justify your thoughts about how we'll save money we can have a reasoned discussion.

Mind Polluter said...

Dear Maria,

I hate to break it to you but the approach you took in the campaign was very minimalistic. You come on here and say that you decided to run because people were "... suffering extremely from the stress of it all..." and yes, you ran that campaign in par with that philosophy, but that's just a philosophy, not a real political position. You took a very passive position in your candidacy and people did not vote for you because nobody truly knew where you stood except for Taxpayers Watch.

I'm not necessarily saying that you are/were a member of Taxpayers Watch but when you say things like, "I don't really care who aligns me with who," there is room for interpretation. You once said early in your candidacy that you were not a member of Taxpayers Watch, but you did nothing to distance yourself from that organization since there has been several TW mailers, which put you on the slate with Lynette and Joe. Let's be frank: you should care about who you're aligned with or who people think you're aligned with. You lost the election because you never truly declared independence and to this day, your motives and intentions are unclear. You may know what your intentions are, but we don't. Maybe you and Richard LeGros know. We don't.

Sewertoons said...

mind polluter:

Maybe Maria "lost" the election because she was relatively new to the community, not because she was on the TW "slate" with Joe and Lynette. Joe won the most votes if you didn't notice, and he had as much control as did Maria about being put on that "slate." Also, she was behind Steve Senet by something like 37 votes. That's not much mind polluter, so clearly many, many people understood Maria's position and agreed with it. Your words come across as some kind of personal anger as the facts don't bear out your position.

If anyone is going to make peace in this community, they had better just be cool with who choses to agree with their ideas, as staying in separate armed camps is clearly not working. Maria clearly shows that putting down all the hostility to open up minds to discussion is how we will all get through this thing.

PS I saw Maria speaking to Lisa Schicker at a LOCAC meeting a couple of weeks ago. What do you think that means?

Anonymous said...

It seems funny that the only side that needs to change their way of thinking, are the ones that don't want Tri-W.
Tri-W,Tri-W,Tri-W. I am so sick of Tri-W. Make it go away and all of this acrimony will go away. Can't anybody see this?
Sincerely, M

Ron said...

Step wrote (great post):

"The vote plainly pointed the way out of town..."

As did the Environmental Review Process. That process was overridden by the 2001 CSD Board in one of the shakiest maneuvers I've seen in this entire story... and that's saying something.

That's two: the voters and the environmental review process. Both point the way out of town.

"Centrally located community amenities" does not.

"... a monument to stupidity..."

Funny.

"How patently absurd and divisive of you to be spreading such lies disguised as logic!"

Welcome to the Shark Inlet party.

"People on your side..."

I have a question: If that "side" has been called "bait and switchy" by a prominent member of the California Coastal Commission, on something extremely important, are they still considered a "side?" I mean, for God's sake, they were called "bait and switchy" by a prominent member of the California Coastal Commission, and they deserve some type of balance? Why?

I think that is a very, very good question.

Maria wrote (great post, too... you and Step are both good.):

"There is never one truth in messes like this"

The fact that Dave Potter called the LOCSD "bait and switchy" in 2004 is one truth.

If I may be so bold as to impart one tiny pit of advice to all that post/and/or read here... it's this: Study up on why Potter called the LOCSD "bait and switchy" in 2004. You can either use my blog -- it's all over the place in there -- or you can do the research independently. But, "bait and switchy" should be perfectly clear in everyone's mind, and right now, I don't think it is... not even close.

For example, if it was clear in Paavo Ogren's mind why Potter said that in 2004, he would realize that the TAC is a complete waste of time, money and resources, as is that silly advisory election slated for the first half of '08.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

You've made your point again and again that you believe the Solutions Group did some unwise things and pulled a fast one or three.

What you've never really addressed is this ... if the cost of fixing the problem they've created is greater than the cost of living with the mess ... why should we be forced to fix the mess?

Churadogs said...

Brass tacks sez:"Could you please correct your post of 5:24, it shows an incorrect URL for the County website it should be:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm"

Please note correct url. THanks!