Pages

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

PZLDF Public Meeting

Please mark your calendars. Another chance to get information directly from Paavo Ogren, who’s in charge of the Wastewater Project.

Public invited:
Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) Meeting
Monday February 26, 2007 -7:00 pm Washington Mutual Bank

"Compliance is linked to a project….and A PROJECT to a successful process..."

Guest speaker: Paavo Ogren, SLO Co Los Osos Project Director, will discuss the process toward a successful project for Los Osos.

Background:
In January 2006, 45 residents were randomly selected by the Regional Water Board as a test case for unprecedented enforcement action against individuals. However, all 5000 properties-residences, and businesses- in the Los Osos prohibition zone are targeted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for prosecution in the near future.

Regulatory compliance requires a wastewater solution for Los Osos. The primary legislative intent of AB 2701 (the Blakeslee Bill) is to create a process for the county to assume control of the Los Osos wastewater project, and to provide the means and expertise to deliver a successful project. Paavo Ogren, SLO Co Los Osos Project Director is the invited guest speaker Monday February 26, 2007.

Enforcement taken now does not improve water quality or further that process. Individual enforcement undermines the County’s ability to succeed in delivering a project, because it further divides the community.

The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) is for everyone who favors a project in the foreseeable future, and an end to the division in Los Osos.

The association’s mission & purpose cuts across any political factions or ideologies. PZLDF goals of Clean Water, Regulatory Compliance, and Protection of Property Rights, are a common concern for ALL citizens.

Concerned that recent water board enforcement against individual residents is unjust and counter-productive in achieving the water board’s goals, PZLDF assisted the community in proactively defending residents & business owners.

"Misapplied enforcement deprives citizens of their due process, equal protection, and property rights." According to spokesperson Gail McPherson. PZLDF keeps lines of communication open with the water board, the county and the district. PZLDF proposed proactive enforcement options to improve water quality, and offered constructive settlement plans in lieu of orders. PZLDF recently joined to file a “petition for Review” with the State Water Resources Control Board (Feb 16, 2007) for Cease and Desist Orders and settlement Clean up and Abatement Orders issued December 15, 2006. Shaunna Sullivan is representing designated parties in the appeal of the Regional Water Boards enforcement action.

For more information:
Gail McPherson (805) 459-4535 or for reservations Laurie McCombs (805) 528-8408
The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund holds weekly meetings every Monday at Washington Mutual Bank, the public is welcome.
Donations to the fund can be made at Coast Bank or Checks payable to PZLDF P.O 6095 Los Osos 93412

58 comments:

DannyLee said...

What's up with the "RUMOR" I just heard that McPherson will be the "FACILITATOR FOR THE COUNTY"? What the HELL is going on? We've had our fill of McPherson & HER shady schemes. The County had BETTER wise up. If they need "proof", I've got all the sites they can check the FACTS.

Anonymous said...

What, is McPherson running the community now?

Anonymous said...

STOP SPREADING RUMORS. If you've got facts, fine, but repeating rumors along with expressing opinions about rumors is pointless and counterproductive. Let's take advantage of an opportunity to get more information and communicate like adults, shall we?

Anonymous said...

Since when are PZLDF meetings open? It would appear that they won't be discussing litigation since people have been turned away from their meetings in the past and/or asked to leave and/or voted out when not present. Trust Gail? Not.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely agree with Anon 7:03. Please, give it a rest and let's be responsible, please.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing reasonable about having Gail McPherson even in the meeting. She should be left out of all meetings with the County!

Anonymous said...

Like Richard LeGross should be left out of the creditor's committee?

Churadogs said...

Danylee sez: "DannyLee said...
What's up with the "RUMOR" I just heard that McPherson will be the "FACILITATOR FOR THE COUNTY"?"

Well, well. See how this sick game is played? I post a press releas on an upcoming PUBLIC meeting put on by PZLAD wherein Paavo Ogren will be speaking to any one who wants to come and maybe get information direct from the horses mouth, so to speak, and here's somebody identifying himself/herself as "DannyLee" who starts a "RUMOR"

Now, how many of you folks reading this blog comment section believe what he's just invented and are now getting all worked up because McPherson "will be the "FACILITATOR FOR THE COUNTY"? Can we have a show of hands as to who fell for this? Nobody? Well, good for you.

Anonymous said...

I agree with anon. @7:45, the pzldf "meetings" have NEVER been open to the ENTIRE prohibition zone & I HAVE to ask WHY? We're all being affected by McPhersons UNSOUND & BIASED OPINIONS & SHE is NOT even a resident of the prohibition zone. Get Off the soap box Ann, Gail has long ago FALLEN FROM GRACE. We all see her for what she is: a POWER GRABBER & an EGOMANIAC.

Anonymous said...

COMMUNITY ACTION: WHAT DOES 218 MEAN TO YOU?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 6 pm to 7 pm on Thursday March 1, Maria Kelly and Lynette Tornatzky have organized a community meeting to discuss details of the County proposed 218 vote to fund a sewer project.

Representatives of the County will be on hand to provide information and answer your questions.

The meeting will be limited to 1 hour so Maria and Lynette are asking, if you have questions regarding the proposed 218 vote, to please email or call with your comments or questions by Friday February 23.

Maria Kelly, 534-9890 mariakelly@charter.net

Lynette Tornatzky, 534-9196 luneto2@yahoo.com

Anonymous said...

Good Morning,
I appreciate the post at 7:48 and I support anyone who is seeking information to participate wherever they can when it's convenient. I know that time is valuable to all of us and having different options is always helpful. Good luck on your informational journeys! Maybe we'll all land a little closer together.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Anonymous said...

I second what Maria had said!

Also, we have scheduled this meeting in between the CSD's closed session meeting and the regular meeting, so bring your dinner in a dish if you like, this is going to be pretty informal - !

If you are able to attend, even if you haven't called us with a question, that is fine. The objective is just to learn what we can about something very important to all of us PZ'ers.

Thank you for this space on your blog, Ann.
Lynette Tornatzky

Anonymous said...

I think this 218 meeting is premature. Paavo has changed his mind on several issues and still doesn't have things straight (and won't for a while) -- there is no clear, fair, 218 process yet. If Paavo doesn't know all the answers yet, how can the county employees who attend the 3/1 meeting know more than Paavo?!

Just asking...

Anonymous said...

Maria & Lynette:

This meeting will be at the Community Center?

Anonymous said...

To Maria, Why are you insisting that people e-mail or send their questions to you & Lynette PRIOR to your 218 meeting? Don't you feel confident that the people you have arranged to come from the County, are qualified enough to answer questions on the spot? What knowledge and/or expertise do either you or Lynette have concerning prop. 218? These are all fair questions.

Anonymous said...

It's Maria and Lynette's meeting and they have every right to format the meeting in the manner they want.

It seems presumptuous to second guess the competence of the speakers or the moderators. If you wish to submit questions, simply comply with the notice to e-mail or USPS mail them to Maria and Lynette. If the intent is merely to be distruptive or inject your own commentary, you should possibly refrain from attending.

Anonymous said...

Hello,
Meeting is at the little old School House.
We are trying a different format- just to see if it works and to encourage participation from people who may not be comfortable speaking up in public. Paavo is the person we made arrangements with and in all likelyhood, he will have 1 or 2 others with him.
The 2nd reason to field questions is because of the time factor. We are not going to exclude any questions. All the questions will be made available but really, for efficiency and accurate information, we will only have time to thoroughly examine 3 or 4 to start.
If this format works, we may try it again and if it doesn't, we'll try something else.
The 3rd part of this activity will involve the chalkboards. We tried a process activity at my house one night with 10 people - The results were that there were 10 themes regarding the future of Los Osos and they kept running back into the 218. This is why we chose to start here, it percolated as a natural starting point.

I will post these themes and encourage comments and the potential for further discussion.

I think this community has become so cautionary and fractured that when we are offered an opportunity to participate in another fashion, mis-trust and speculation over take common sense.

I have nothing to gain by offering to host an event in neutral territory other than an opportunity to listen and become better informed. The NWRI Report said - the county should be lead agency and the lead in the disseminating information, it's a great place to start.
Thanks and hope everyone is enjoying the rain.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Anonymous said...

"Now, how many of you folks reading this blog comment section believe what he's just invented and are now getting all worked up because McPherson "will be the "FACILITATOR FOR THE COUNTY"? "

Ann:

You jump all over this B.S., but when someone claims that Paavo said ("in the hall, away from the cameras") there wouldn't be an advisory vote, you said NOTHING. That claim was just as ridiculous, yet you didn't chastise that blogger about spreading rumors.

What a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

Maria,

Glad you cleared up the location. Many people would have shown up at the SBCC, expecting to see you folks. I would suggest, before you have another meeting, address the basic questions:

Who
What
When
Where
Why
How

You can't make ANY assumptions. Ever.

Sincerely,

A Survivor

Anonymous said...

Having questions beforehand, enables the speaker to be prepared to supply succinct and complete answers. Unless YOU want to spring a lot of crap on that speaker? It has been done before, in Los Osos.

High time it stops, NOW.

- A Survivor

Anonymous said...

Maria,

I didn't know Paavo would attend, I hope he does.

The questions being submitted before hand is not always best, maybe you were not here when it was done like that with Julie Biggs and the Measure B. The questions were filtered, and I for one, just don't like it. I prefer an open process.

Anonymous said...

Maria,

Please count my vote for having the questions before hand to filter out the duplications and to give the speaker an honest chance to be prepared.

Anonymous said...

I don't get it why bloggers here are picking on Gail McPherson, especially people who like the Tri-W project.

Gordon Hensley got her to get involved in the first place. She has worked with Montgomery, Watson in the past. She also has stated that gravity is cheaper than step!

Why in the world are you picking on her? She helped with AB2701 and had the obstructionist group agree on the "compromise" to move the same gravity project out of town. What's wrong with that? She is not the enemy. Leave her alone, and let her do her job!

Anonymous said...

Gail is working very hard on behalf of our community. I guess some have decided that because she supported the recall she must be somehow "EVIL." Pay attention folks. Gail should not be lumped in with the no sewer whackos. She is trying to get us a sewer that we can all agree on and get behind (all except the extremists of course). Do your research before you start blasting people.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"I agree with anon. @7:45, the pzldf "meetings" have NEVER been open to the ENTIRE prohibition zone & I HAVE to ask WHY? We're all being affected by McPhersons UNSOUND & BIASED OPINIONS & SHE is NOT even a resident of the prohibition zone. Get Off the soap box Ann, Gail has long ago FALLEN FROM GRACE. We all see her for what she is: a POWER GRABBER & an EGOMANIAC.

7:36 AM, February 22, 2007 "

This is simply NOT true. When the CDOs were first issued there were so many public meetings. The only "closed" meetings were when the time crunch was in and the actual CDO recipients who wanted to work together chose to have private meetings so they could concentrate on their cases without the distraction of general public, plus when they were meeting with attorneys that would necessarily be private. Your information is simply wrong.

anonymous sez:"You jump all over this B.S., but when someone claims that Paavo said ("in the hall, away from the cameras") there wouldn't be an advisory vote, you said NOTHING. That claim was just as ridiculous, yet you didn't chastise that blogger about spreading rumors.

What a hypocrite. "

Oh, plueeeeze, that comment was just as rumorish as the one cited above. I suggest you attend both the PZLDF meeting on Monday and the 218 meeting Maria's organizing AND ASK PAAVO DIRECTLY. YOU CAN EVEN MENTION THIS OVERHEARD COMMENT AND ASK HIM IN PUBLIC TO 'SPLAIN IT TO EVERYONE IN THE ROOM AND CITE THE SOURCE & ETC.

Anonymous sez:"I think this 218 meeting is premature. Paavo has changed his mind on several issues and still doesn't have things straight (and won't for a while) -- there is no clear, fair, 218 process yet. If Paavo doesn't know all the answers yet, how can the county employees who attend the 3/1 meeting know more than Paavo?!"

At this point THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PREMATURE. It's critical that this community remain engaged while things are fluid. if Paavo doesn't have all the answers, he still needs to know the questions and concerns directly from the citizens themselves. So, please attend all these meetings to let your issues be directed to the Guy In Charge. Don't just sit typing on a blog comment section. Paavo may read this blog and may read your comments, but it's much more important to take your concerns directly to him. In person.

Anonymous said...

Ann:

"Oh, plueeeeze, that comment was just as rumorish as the one cited above."

Which is exactly what I said, but I don't recall you jumping all over the poster who made that claim. That's where the hypocrisy comes in...

Anonymous said...

Ann's is an opinion column, dude. It's not Scientific American.

Anonymous said...

I guess it's verboten to spread rumors about St. Gail, but perfectly okay to put unverified words in Paavo's (or the County's) mouth.

What a joke you are, Ann.

Anonymous said...

To above:

If Ann is such a joke, why do you spend so much time on her site?!?

Why would she have to comment or oversee any blogs? That's not her job. Some rumors, some facts...it's for the reader to take in and decide.

Anonymous said...

And yet she found it necessary to criticize a blogger for spreading unsubstantiated rumors about Gail. She always finds it necessary to scold bloggers for being mean to her friends, but NEVER when someone makes foul comments about those who disagree with her, or about the regulatory agencies.

Hipocrisy at it's finest.

Anonymous said...

5:14 - You'll never have your own blog because you can't spell! Besides, who wouldn't stick up for their friends? That's what most people do or else they're not friends, IMO.

Anonymous said...

Who says I can't spill?

On other matters ... I do have to agree about Ann ... but she is perfectly entitled to her opinion just like TW folks are entitled to their own. I'll bet that if you get 30 Los Osos residents in a room you'll get at least 20 different opinions on the matters Ann raises.

The problem of Ann not being "fair and balanced" (TM) about her opinions is not unique to Ann.

Anonymous said...

ONLY 20 DIFFERENT OPINIONS?

Anonymous said...

On a different subject:

BUYER BEWARE!

If anyone IS WATCHING the county "process" you will notice that Paavo went back on his word at least twice!

First time he said (in public) that everyone in the district would pay on the sewer project, NOW he's changed his mind.

Second time he said that we would have A project before the 218 vote, NOW he's changed his mind.

He's changes the rules like the RWQCB. Paavo has a clear conflict of interest since he helped with the original Tri-W project and worked on the county take-over with Mr. Blakeslee and wanted ONLY THE PZ to pay for ALL OF THE CSD'S DEBTS!

You all can watch (and trust) the county's process, but there's nothing you can do when they turn around after you vote "yes" on 218 and give the Tri-W back to Richard and Pandora...Pandora the county "doll"...They adore Pandora...

Anonymous said...

anonymous 7:59, plug in your hearing aid! Whenever did Paavo say " we would have A project before the 218 vote?" I've been to all the meeting, he has NEVER said that!

Everyone in the district WILL pay for the "general benefits" of the project, probably through the water purveyors' rates. The "special benefits" belong to the PZ, as they are the ones receiving them.

Mr. Ogren is not involved with the CSD's debts. The bankruptcy court - and hopefully eventually the CSD - if Joe has any say in it - are involved in the restructuring of the CSD's debts.

The COUNTY is interested in keeping the CSD solvent to implement AB2701.

Jealous of Pandora are you? the County has, nor will they, "give back" the project to anyone.

Sounds like you need to pay a little more attention to what is actually going on around here.

Anonymous said...

To 8:26,

I know more what's going on than you, by far! You can keep up the good PR work for the county though, it's a free country -- or is it? Not in L.O.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:26,

You haven't seen the memos from the county to Blakeslee? I guess not, you do not know what YOU'RE talking about. Paavo was VERY MUCH involved in the legislation and having the PZ ONLY to pick up the entire tab!

Paavo DID state in public that we would have a project before the 218 vote.

You're way off base on the 218, and special and general benefits -- or are you an attorney who specializes in the 218 law?

Anonymous said...

I am having a difficult time understanding why anyone would think that folks outside the PZ should pay anything more than folks in the County in general should pay.

According to the RWQCB, the PZ was determined to be the source of the damage to the aquifer so the PZ has the responsibility of solving the problem.

If you break someone's window by throwing a rock through it ... you should be the one responsible for getting things fixed ... you shouldn't say "well, they'll get the benefit of a less drafty home so they should pay too."


Now if you are going to make an argument that the County as a whole should step up and help pay because the County helped create the problem, I'll agree with you ... but the PZ alone is responsible for fixing the damage caused by folks in the PZ.

Anonymous said...

Using Anon7:17am logic, how about those in the prohibition zone who are not contributing to the pollution? The guy across the street from the boundry line skates out on the $400 a month sewer bill?
Isn't this the "Basin Plan"? Has there been ANY implementation of the Basin Plan other than trying to get a sewer built? What about everyone outside of the PZ? Shouldn't they be involved in some way in the Basin Plan? Had they been in the beginning we would probably not be in the situation we're in today.
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

anon, of:
"You're way off base on the 218, and special and general benefits -- or are you an attorney who specializes in the 218 law?
8:49 PM, February 23, 2007"

Were you at the meeting last Thursday at the SBCC? If you were, you would have heard Paavo talk about special and general benefits.

Please cite your source for - "Paavo DID state in public that we would have a project before the 218 vote." You may be confusing that with the need to put a price on the 218 vote. That will be the price of the most costly of the special benefits of the 4 projects that will be offered for the advisory survey AFTER the 218 vote.

You really ought to get out to more meetings.

Anonymous said...

If the RWQCB and the county continue to lay all expenses on the PZ, the CDO defendants must continue their fight through the courts. The data used to justify the PZ was faulty. And the line that divides us needs to be erased. We need to work together for a solution that includes the whole basin.

Anonymous said...

Maria,

Thank you for your logic and reason here. The PZ had created the division in the community. It's not fair, and I don't think legal either.

Anonymous said...

to 11:54AM,

Paavo stated it at the first meeting and it was televised. I was there and saw it re-run on TV. He has stated the very same thing to others UNTIL he changed his mind.

I'm glad that you're noting that it's not an advisory vote now, but a survey. Have I made my point now that Paavo keeps changing the rules in the game?!

I've also talked to Paavo one-on-one and know exactly what he said to me. Thank you very much.

Anonymous said...

Why doesn't the CSD - Chuck - expand the PZ and that would be it? He could get the RWQCB to agree to this because there is no science that would show the PZ is polluting any more than others outside the PZ.

Anonymous said...

To suggest that the PZ is not polluting any more than areas outside the PZ is simply laughable. In particular, if you look at the nitrate levels in the upper aquifer they are highest directly below the PZ and are lower elsewhere.

What we know about septic systems is pretty sound. Too many per acre is bad and they need to be a considerable distance above the groundwater as well. Those two rules pretty much govern how many homes per acre can be built elsewhere. Around here the County dropped the ball in the 1970s and just approved every request to build even though the County Health folks said this would be a mistake.

In any case, the PZ is pretty much an artificial dividing line (even if based in science) and the results of drawing the line have been quite unfortunate.

Anonymous said...

To: Anon 5:53 PM,

Whether the opinion survey that the County would do if the Prop 218 vote passes is technically called an "advisory election" or a "community survey" makes absolutely no difference to me. In either case, the County will gather information for the Board of Supervisors to consider when they would make a final decision on which project to build.

I know that this is a very complex process that the County and Rob Miller are going through right now, and we have caused it to be so complex, as the County is trying to develop a process in which we can choose whether we want to pay for a project or not, and have a fair opportunity to let the Board know which project most people prefer.

Just like any other project team working on a project of this scope, I'm sure that they are learning some things along the way and making adjustments as they go. Example: the Board of Supervisors initially told the project team that they could only consider gravity collection, then later changed their direction to the staff on that, so the team is now reviewing that option. I'm glad that they were flexible. They have established a process and are keeping us informed as they move ahead. I an happy with this approach. Let's let them do their job--no one else will for us.

Anonymous said...

To Above:

The county's second brochure is full of s - h - i - t -- it's hard to trust the county when they're passing out false and misleading information!

Anonymous said...

Kinda like listening to the CSD?

Anonymous said...

guess so...

Anonymous said...

Anon - 12:20 PM, February 25, 2007 said:
"it's hard to trust the county when they're passing out false and misleading information!"

Which specific information?

Anonymous said...

Like the 6.4 million owed is in banruptcy court for one. That's that, and shouldn't be added to any loan and shouldn't hold us back now from any grant money.

Just read and you'll see more.

Anonymous said...

P.S. The bankruptcy judge will have to decide all this in March.

Anonymous said...

It has been made very clear (by the Governor) that unless Los Osos pays back the 6.5 million from the SRF loan it will not receive another. It matters not if that is in bankruptcy; if it is dismissed or whatever. No pay back, no loan. And that makes perfect sense. What part of "full recovery" don't you understand? Do you think it says "full recovery, unless the money is all spent by the CSD and it's now lost forever in bankruypty." Jeeeeez.

Anonymous said...

Believe me it will be answered in Bankruptcy court. Many will attend to see what awaits us.

Anonymous said...

"Like the 6.4 million owed is in banruptcy court for one. That's that, and shouldn't be added to any loan and shouldn't hold us back now from any grant money."

Are you crazy? Read what you wrote, until you pay back bills you owe, why would anyone loan you more money?

Bankruptcy Protection means just that, protection from your creditors until you repay the bills. It does not mean you have a "free card" to start all over with no debt and never have to pay back the old bills.

Until Los Osos repays all of what it owes, no one will loan or grant Los Osos anything but advice.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 9:01 on 2/25,

Maybe since the governor wants the illegal loan back, we should self-finance and save the 6.5 million, afterall, the grants aren't REALLY there. Just a show. Just a PR trick (again). Just electioneering for the 218 vote. It worked last time, and they're betting it will work again.

It will be interesting when people get their assessment ballot and see what they're going to have to pay! Then when they're made aware of all the fees, charges, hook-up fees, imported water, O & M, etc. Wow. We'll see.

Most likely we'll have a Flood/storm runoff public works project after that -- what will it all cost? $1,000 a month? The liens on the homes will be huge. Golden State Water already went up 50%! when will it stop?

Who in the world is crazy enough to buy here? Real Estate speculators will.

Anonymous said...

Didn't the CSD know the loan was illegal? Why did they spend what they could before the funds were frozen?

Anonymous said...

To Above,

The CSD listening to Julie Biggs. She knew they shouldn't have touched the SRF loan monies, but she paid herself with a lot of it.
How much was it? One million...maybe more...

What was the CSD thinking? The CSD knew the loan was illegal and so did Julie Biggs. But did anyone ever hear Julie Biggs utter the number 218? NO! AND THAT'S HER AREA OF EXPERTISE! Unbelievable!