Pages

Friday, February 23, 2007

Yes, Taxpayers Watch AND Atascadero Are Going To Hell In A HandBasket

Oh, noooo, not another ironic lawsuit! The Los Osos citizen group known as Taxpayers Watch is being sued by LAFCO (Local Area Formation) to get payment of the $27,747.50 LAFCO charged the group to go through the whole Los Osos CSD dissolution preparations and hearings. To date, the Los Osos CSD has not billed the group for its cost to defend against the dissolution of itself. (For more irony, the Tribune story notes that, “Taxpayers Watch has not determined whether its members would approach the services district for support.”

No, that’s not a sick joke. Apparently, TW is thinking that since the CSD has hired an attorney to join with some of The Los Osos 45 [private citizens] who have filed an appeal of their CDOs from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, well, maybe Taxpayers Watch [private citizens] could also get some help from the very group they so recently tried to disappear to death. (Since defending against the dissolution cost a bunch of money, it’s not clear whether any help the CSD might offer now would have to be deducted from whatever TW has already cost them. And, to keep apples from oranges, the CSD itself is a designated party in the CDO hearings, so signing on with this particular appeal may “help” the private citizens only coincidentally—they are simply running on parallel tracks.)

TW is disputing some of the charges and will try to negotiate the costs down. Meantime, I would suggest that everyone in the community who signed the dissolution petitions needs now to step forward and send a few bucks to Taxpayers Watch. Time to put your money where your pens and pencils were and support the folks who were doing your bidding. Supposedly there were some 3,000 signatures on that dissolution petition, so if each of those folks coughs up $10 bucks, that’ll do the trick. (Or maybe $15, if the CSD bills TW for, say, ½ of the $27,000 bill for their share of the costs?)

Also meanwhile, I think all of us might want to think about these charges. The process itself is there to be used by citizens in forming and de-forming CSDs and such like. Being charged for using the process does indeed, as Ms. Albright notes in the Tribune, “. . . [take] away citizens’ ability to petition their government. They’re going after the group that even dared bring up the issue.”

So maybe what was needed here (and is still needed here for the future) is some method of separating “frivolous” (politically motivated, hidden-agenda, anger/personal driven) dissolution requests from “non-frivolous” (clear evidence of financial meltdown, illegal governance, inability to govern, illegal fraud) driven dissolution. It should also be policy that dissolution can only be approached when other methods have failed. In this case, there were options to dissolution – another recall, an upcoming election to change the Board, petitions to create a new measure on the ballot to do such and such, & etc. In that way, dissolution would be a truly serious LAST step that, if lost, could cost you a bundle, which would make citizens very, very cautious about approaching LAFCO in the first place.

Atascadero, hand me that hand basket.

The Atascadero school board has now flip-flopped and voted again, this time to NOT to allow students off campus to attend religious instruction.

I found this whole story so utterly weird. It was modified déjà vu all over again.

When I was in Junior High, way back in the Jurassic Era, Catholic kids, with their parent’s permission, were allowed once a week to attend catechism classes for one hour a day, off campus. When I was in High School, seniors with a certain GPA average who had completed all their graduation requirements, were allowed, with their parents permission, to skip the last period and leave campus at 2 pm, rather than 3 p.m.. In my case, I opted to go home an hour early, thus freeing me up for further study, homework and/or to work on special projects. None of this was a big deal.

Now, apparently, it is a big deal. And apparently, some of the discussion has gotten truly weird. This from the Tribune story: “ . . . sophomore Brandon Istenes, delivered a spirited speech dressed as a pirate in which he explained that even fringe religions wanting to hold classes would have to be considered if the motion [to let kids attend off-campus activities] passed.”

Uh, and your point is? Where I grew up, Catholics were considered a “fringe religion,” but if the parents wanted their kids excused for that “fringe” activity, they were. And in high school, when you were off campus, the school had no say in what you were up to, even dressed like a “fringe” pirate. That was your parents’ concern and the police’s concern, if you were up to no good. Not the school’s.

Our schools are too often doing a cruddy job of educating our kids. What they do need to do is set policy that focuses on exactly what requirements they feel kids need to be minimally educated and if the kid meets those criteria, then so be it. If their parents want them to leave early to attend Holy Basket Weaving classes, fine. What’s the problem? It isn’t the school’s role to decide what religions are “fringe.” It’s the school’s role to try to make sure Johnny & Janey can read, write, do math, Please God think critically, and know enough history to be able to spot bunk and hokum when they see it.

73 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ann,

Now that you've asked TW members to step up and pay their RWQCB staff costs and LOCSD costs associated with their dissolution request ...

Why don't you ask those who voted for the recall to step up and pay for the RWQCB fines associated with stopping the project? Your share would probably be about (let's see, $6M in fines divided by 2000 voters for the recall) $3000.

Once you cut that check and mail it in to the CSD or RWQCB to be applied to CSD debts, we'll know you are actually being serious.


Now to the point. If the recall effort was democratic and legitimate, the dissolution effort was as well. You can't complain about one without complaining about the other. You can't support one without supporting the other ... unless you want to be known as someone who uses a floating ethical standard where the desired outcome affects which principles one would choose to apply.


Oh yeah ... one more thing about those TW legal costs and dissolution requests which have hamstrung the board ... the total bill in dollars and staff time is still dwarfed by the bills and time spent on resolving BWS "pro bono" work.

Anonymous said...

I was pleased to read about the Taxpayer Watch/LAFCO lawsuit in yesterdays front page Tribune. It's about time that Joyce Albright, Sharon Fredrickson,Richard LeGros,Gordon Hensley, Stan Gustafson, & Bob Crizer, et al be held accountable for what they have done. They brought about the lawsuit, now it's time to PAY UP & SHUT UP.

Anonymous said...

Hi All,

Just to clear the air regarding TW:

TW has always intended to pay LAFCO; and will pay the bill. Paying LAFCO is NOT THE ISSUE.

-THE ISSUE IS that this is a
contract dispute revolving
around costs billed to TW that
are questionable.
-TW wishes to review the bill with
LAFCO before payment.
-LAFCO REFUSES to review or adjust
the bill.

Instead of going to arbitration to resolve the issue, LAFCO decided to sue TW instead (almost immediately); I suspect for political reasons.

You can stop blogging your nonsense that TW will not pay the bill, or that they are deadbeats, or that they are going to jail. TW will pay LAFCO.

As for "shutting up", no way.
For that matter, it is shameful that Anon 10:11 seems not to understand that free speach is protected and a right of all citizens under the US constitution.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

All,

Typo correction: free "speech"

RBL

Anonymous said...

Hey Anon 10:11: When are YOUR peeps on the CSD going to pay back the 6 million dollars THEY owe? Now THERE is a group of people that need to be held accountable for what they have done. They took the money, now it's time THEY pay up and shut up, you think? (And if I'm not mistaken, that's taxpayer money, unlike the private money for TP. Ouch, that IS truly reprehensible to refuse to pay THAT money back, isn't it. I call that stealing.)

Mike Green said...

Richard said:
"Instead of going to arbitration to resolve the issue, LAFCO decided to sue TW instead (almost immediately); I suspect for political reasons."

Gosh Richard, Political decisions made by politicians?
Whoda thunk it!

I do admire your accounting skills but your political skills are something else

Anonymous said...

To 2:47 --

The 6.4 million (SRF) is in bankruptcy court!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps there would NOT have BEEN a bancruptcy, had it not been for the TW frivolous lawsuit in the FIRST place.

Anonymous said...

Frivolous Law Suit?

Which one of the CSD's suit's against the State?

Just how many lawsuits did the mighty TW file against the CSD and what were they for?

blueberries said...

Ricardo,

Thank you for the, ah, clarification regarding Taxpayers Watch skipping out on LAFco. I don't buy it. Neither do the other 13,000 residents of Los Osos who didn't sign the petition to dissolve.

You are too busy doing damage control attempting to minimize this latest most embarrassing episode. To top off your overflowing cup of baloney juice, now you allege LAFco is suing TW for "political reasons"?

Now wait a second. Didn't you and the TW "braintrust" petition LAFco to dissolve the CSD for "political reasons"? So, now the tables are turned and you accuse LAFco, a county agency, of taking TW to court for, what, "political reasons"? Always blaming others for what you did to yourself with your own tiny brain! What a shining example of your good judgment and clear thinking in action!!

You are done, put a fork in you. You TW "experts" on financial responsibility have been exposed by the very county you "trust"! And now you say THEY are mistaken... and THEY refuse to review the bill you walked out on??? Why should they review your negligence and give you a discount for bad behavior? This latest act of sheer stupidity totally undermines any lingering credibility you might have claimed to have left, exposes TW's financial pundits as nothing more than imposters, sideshow jugglers and kamikaze obstructionists, and buries Taxpayers Watch once and for all. R.I.P. (Roast In Pain)

Mr. Legros, why don't you write me back and tell me how you plan to rewrite history to explain away this latest humiliation. Maybe you can tell me how this fresh humiliation ranks among your greatest humiliations, from which you have many to choose. Mr. Legros, nothing you can possibly do or say from here on in can change history's view of you as a charlatan and a fraud. The best I can say for you is that you earned your fool's stripe the old fashioned way and wear them well.

Anonymous said...

Once again, on cue, the Spoiled Brat of Cabrillo has fouled his nest, and oh what a stink it is! Phew!

Somebody change dat diaper QUICK!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Blueberries,

PHsstttttttttttttttttttttttttpt !

(The sound of a R A S P B E R R Y
given in your honor.
You know NOTHING about what is going on between TW and LAFCO.)

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

Latest humiliation??!! Dingleberries, obviously you haven't been around too much this year to witness some real ass-kicking humiliation. Your CSD has redefined the term "humiliation." Where the hell you been?

Mike Green said...

Am I the only one getting it here? It's been the political, egotistcal, self serving, and completly human train of behavior that has rendered us this fiasco.
From top to bottom, beginning to end (whenever that is) we make the same mistakes over and over.
GIVE UP YOUR HOPELESS DREAMS!
Join the cargo cult!
(At least its something different)

Anonymous said...

blueberries, of the "…Neither do the other 13,000 residents of Los Osos who didn't sign the petition…"

Last time I checked, part of Los Osos' population of approximately 14,000 souls was children. You might want to re-think that number (13,000 in case you forgot), as last time I checked, minors are not generally allowed to sign petitions that are for VOTERS.

Oh, that swishing sound? That is your credibility blueberries, flushing down the toilet.

Anonymous said...

To Mike Green:

We make the same mistakes over and over? I don't get it..

From 1984, the Regional Water Board has known (and stated in writing) about the illegal wells and the sewer not being able to do anything to clear up "the over-stated" pollution. The county didn't want to pay for a sewer, afterall, it's all being done from scratch and most places only have to upgrade. So along comes Pandora to save the day, and make a bundle for herself and her husband, and hey, even rid the town of the riff-raff all at the same time. Now wonder she's the county's hero. All her lies and marketing skills to pull a fast one on Los Osos. And she's still at it to this day.

Mistakes, the current CSD's mistakes are because rather than listening to any attorney, Judge or anyone with a brain, they ONLY followed Gail's instructions and remember Gail was the one who (like Pandora) comes up with language like: "we have a plan" or "we won't be fined"....and they let this woman run the show even though she has a criminal record.

Oh, brother!

Anonymous said...

Gail had the CSD hire Ms. Sullivan, and the CSD did that without presenting it to the public first, and right in the middle of the Grand Jury investigation into public waste of the CSD board. That should help the TW suit against the board! I know Pandora wants the CSD board in jail, but what is Gail thinking? Does she want them in jail too?

Gail hired an attorney that works with the very people that want Tri-W....The Bay Foundation...Gary (Pandora)...worked with CSA9...offers the proxy 218...

How can one place be filled with so many stupid people?

THE BIG FIX IS IN PLACE -- GET READY!

Anonymous said...

Who the hell is Paavo (county), Sam Blakeslee, and the Regional Water Board protecting up there in Cabrillo Estates? They don't have to pay a penny for clean water in the basin or to clean the bay. Now Paavo (Bay News) says that they can voluntarily pay...right...like they're going to. Does anyone know who's up there, who drew the ridiculous PZ line to begin with. Ron? Ann? Anyone know?!!!!

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"If the recall effort was democratic and legitimate, the dissolution effort was as well. You can't complain about one without complaining about the other. You can't support one without supporting the other ... unless you want to be known as someone who uses a floating ethical standard where the desired outcome affects which principles one would choose to apply."

I had and have some serious questions about the whole LAFCO dissolution process from day one,(wrote a column on the matter, if you recall, had the word "Medea" in it. )especially since it seemed they had put some thumbs on the scale vis a vis separating out the wastewter project and implying a kind of blackmail: give the project back to the county OR we'll continue forward on the dissolution hearings. I wrote LAFCO at the time that they needed to do a straight up or down vote; either they had enough evidence that the CSD wasn't able to continue or they didn't. There also didn't seem to be any method to determine whether the dissolution process was being started for "personal/politcal" reasons or "real" reasons. It seemed to me at the time and still does, there should be a high bar to set before dissolving an entire government. I also found then and find now a disturbing conflict with LAFCO since the "Judges" were county officials and in this case the "County" had a gazillion-dollar dog in this fight. (getting stuck with the whole sewer and debt) Not good.

Apropos of which, someone signing on as Richard LeGros sez:"-THE ISSUE IS that this is a
contract dispute revolving
around costs billed to TW that
are questionable.
-TW wishes to review the bill with
LAFCO before payment.
-LAFCO REFUSES to review or adjust
the bill.

Instead of going to arbitration to resolve the issue, LAFCO decided to sue TW instead (almost immediately); I suspect for political reasons."


This is just one of the troubling aspects of the dissolution process.

Anonymous said...

To 10:07pm. The PZ line was drawn
by staff at the water board.
If you talk to staff they will tell you that the PZ can be expanded(but not downsized)by the CSD passing a resolution to do so and then would be reviewed by the Water Board and they would say yes or no.
My understanding is that the CSD knows this, but has not requested the PZ be expanded.
Just call the Water Board and ask. They provided the info above without a problem.

Anonymous said...

LeGros said... "THE ISSUE IS that this is a contract dispute revolving around costs billed to TW that are questionable."

"TW wishes to review the bill with
LAFCO before payment."

"LAFCO REFUSES to review or adjust
the bill."

"Instead of going to arbitration to resolve the issue, LAFCO decided to sue TW instead (almost immediately); I suspect for political reasons."


Funny!!

THE ISSUE IS we do not want a sewer built in the center of town, the site selection process being questionable.

The People wish to review the process with The Recalled CSD before they build it.

The Recalled CSD refuses to review or adjust their plan.

Instead of going to arbitration to resolve the issue, The Recalled CSD decided to tell The People to fuck off (immediately); I suspect for political reasons.

Anonymous said...

To Mike Green, Everything you said about McPherson is accurate. Ms. Sullivan has been paid quite a "hefty sum" already, so I guess my question has to be is this: Would YOU trust YOUR money to someone who has had a "FELONY GRAND THEFT CHARGE" against them, but was able to avoid JAIL TIME by paying restitution???

Mike Green said...

To Anon above, You are confused, I have never stated anything about McPherson, ever.

Anonymous said...

9:05 AM

You are certainly off on the wrong foot. The LAFCo vs TW has NOTHING to do with the sewer!

The dispute is because LAFCo is trying to OVER CHARGE for the work they claim they had to do for the Dissolution Hearing. Charging for Paul Hood to give a TV interview is pretty bogus.

The CSD financial mismanagement is a case all of it's own making and has nothing to do with LAFCo vs TW.

You aren't even close with your comment.

Realist said...

We have been screwed by The LOCSD BOARD, The WATER BOARD, BLAKESLEE, LAFCO, THE COUNTY, and THE STATE. They will do nothing to help us. They will take our money, however. It will be a lot of money. Wait until we get the bills!

Of course we set the ball rolling by screwing ourselves when we stopped the sewer by listening to rubbish and recalled the former board. Most did not vote!

Was all of this necessary just to "Move the Sewer"? And after all this, chances are it will NOT be moved, but even more "unaffordable".

Anonymous said...

Realist, you are right. You can add the cost of a 41 million bankruptcy to this mess. Property owners will have to pay this.

The LOCSD is chopped chicken liver. Insolvent. Very limited life. You going to vote an asessment upon yourself to allow bad governance and fiscal irresponsibility to continue spending money on blood sucking lawyers who got us into this mess?

Thank you LAFCO for NOT putting the issue to a vote, and covering the county's ass.

Anonymous said...

Bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court will take what little money is left (what is it now $10?) and pay the $10 out to creditors. Right?

If the homeowners had to pay the $40-$41 million dollars, we would have to have to Prop 218 vote on that. Who would vote, what benefit would the homeowner get?

Blakeslee was all too ready to try to have JUST THE PZ pay it ALL, but county lawyers had him change wording in the legislation because it couldn't be done without a 218 vote (previous case proved that)

Ann was right about LAFCO, it was sort of like blackmail. Give it to us or be dissolved...the county never had any intention of dissolving the CSD because they didn't want the CSD debt!

Anonymous said...

Ann,
When you and I were kids, over 25% of the nation was Catholic. More concentrations in major cities in the east, but nonetheless a large portion. Considering the other religions were concentrated in cluster communities, Catholicism was a major religion. I went to school in California, where in the 6th grade, once a week, you could participate in religious education off campus, if your religion offered the opportunity.

What is the big deal now?

If a church, temple or mosque offers the education, and if parents want their kids to attend, so what?

Atascadero needs to remember that it is still in California, the land of tolerance and flexibility.

Mike Green said...

To Anon "and flexibility" Right on, When I attended, some of us were excused from school because we were up all night tending smudge pots in the orchards. Be it religion or practical matters, I do believe the education should include things not taught in the classroom, our oversensitivity and political correctness has been a disservice to the youth.
I've lived all my life in California, when I travel abroad people treat me with great kindness when they find out I'm from California.
We do have something special here, I believe we should protect it.

Anonymous said...

To 2/23/07 @ 10:07 PM:

Do the words "terrain" and "topography" mean anything to you? Are you familiar with both as applied to greater Los Osos?

If so, you may have noticed that properties in Cabrillo Estates slope toward the *ocean*. (That means any run off, whether it be drainage or septic effluent, will progress toward the ocean, without contact with the bay.)

That being said, just why would Cabrillo be responsible for effluent that originates in the PZ?

Cabrillo properties are on large parcels. (*Not* polluting the bay.)

In the PZ, there could be as many as 13 homes, with septic tanks and leach lines, ***PER ACRE***, considering lots can be as small as 25' x 125'.

Some people have a hard time envisioning an acre. For them:

1 acre = less than 210' x 210'.
1 acre = 43,560 square feet.
1 acre = In the county, you must
have at *least* one
acre to accomodate one
well and one septic tank.

OK. Now that you have had your real estate lesson, tell me:

WHY the hell should Cabrillo be responsible for anything that goes on, within the PZ.

Anyone?

ANYONE??

Anonymous said...

Blueberries sounds like a bad case of "Dingleberries" to me.

We don't need any more frigging "Dingleberries" in Los Osos, thank you.

Anonymous said...

To Richard LeGros @ 9:41:

The wastewater system is to clean the basin. The whole water basin. Everyone who lives in the basin should pay to clean it. Everyone. Everyone BENEFITS from clean water, Richard.

You don't want to pay, you want only the rich to live in Los Osos. You think you are KING of Los Osos. I hate to tell you but you are not. You are a dingleberry.

Anonymous said...

Who can't understand that everyone benefits from clean drinking water?! Everyone has to pay. Cabrillo included. Paavo will get it right sooner or later.

Anonymous said...

Maybe a discussion about 'special' versus 'general' benefits is in order.

Is not the county project team focusing on separating the two benefit categories so that costs can be spread to those that benefit?; PZ to pay for cleaning their waste (special benefit) up to a point of water recharge,recycle,
exchange, etc.(general).

The costs will therefore be more fairly spread!

Realist said...

To anon 11:34 and 11:53:
Great Idea!
Hey! Lets sewer Cabrillo Estates! Nothing like a sewer. Who wants the lousy septic tanks anyway! They have to be pumped and they always stink when pumped. It will increase the value of the homes. Of course it will cost far more to put in a distribution system than in the PZ. It would be great if those in the PZ would be so kind as to subsidise Cabrillo even though they do not need a sewer. But if you expect them to pay for a sewer, you better give them one.

At the same time we might as well do the entire outlying homes in the district not in the PZ. Might as well subsidise them also.

Got to be fair! Good for the goose-good for the gander.

As far as the rich living in Los Osos: Those who stopped the sewer made this a certainty. Of course anyone owning a PZ house that used to be worth a minimum of $450,000 can't exactly be described as poor. However, since the sewer fiasco, these houses are now worth about $325,000 (if you could sell it) which still would not be described as accomidations for the poor. If someone buys that house for $325,000, he will pay $3250 + in taxes every year if he cannot apply prop 13 carryover. What you paying in taxes, rich person?

Incidentally, a house worth $325,000 in N.J., if you can find one, pays more than $6000 a year in property taxes. Every couple of years it is reappraised and the taxes go up or down accordingly. The same $325,000 will buy you a mansion on an acre of land in many parts of our country and you will pay taxes of about $3250.

I just heard that Golden State is trying to raise it's water rates by 50%. Still cheaper than state water. I guess we all will have to pay a premium for clean air and low heating bills. Air conditioning? Look to Paso Robles and Atascadero electric bills this last summer.

Yes, anyone who ownes a home in Los Osos is rich by any standard. So how would you figure an affordability index for a sewer? 2% of a $325,000 house is $6500 a year. Certainly if you are rich enough to own a $325,000 house, you should be able to pay the tab at 2% but 1% will be $3250 a year.

Paavo is certain to get it right. But you are not going to like the price. Tri-W in the past will look like a very very good deal with all it's minor faults. Especially before the obstructionists started their law suits.

I wish you well.

Ron said...

An Anon wrote:

"Tri-W in the past will look like a very very good deal with all it's minor faults."

Which Tri-W project from the past are you referring to? The first project at Tri-W -- the ponds, or the second project at Tri-W -- the industrial sewer plant with an amphitheater and picnic area?

and;

Minor faults? Minor faults like: the only reason to build the second project at Tri-Dub proved to be false? Minor faults like that? 'cause I gotta tell ya, stuff like that can be a real pain when planning a major public works project... just ask Stan, Gordon, and Richard.

"Especially before the obstructionists started their law suits."

Again, which "obstructionists" are you referring to? The "obstructionists" that stopped the county's project in 1998 for no reason whatsoever, or the "obstructionists" that stopped a project that had no rationale whatsoever behind its siting?

Hey, this is Los Osos... we gots to be clear on this stuff.

Richard wrote:

"LAFCO decided to sue TW instead (almost immediately); I suspect for political reasons."

I have no idea what that means? What political reasons could they possibly have, other than getting their cash?

That reminds me, where's the editorial in the Trib about that unpaid $28,000 tab?

Anonymous said...

"Hey, this is Los Osos... we gots to be clear on this stuff."

Too bad your sorry ass doesn't even live in Los Osos. So don't continue your line of misconception. Either come on over and buy a house here or get back on you smelly sawdust toilet and wipe your butt with The Rock.

Realistic said...

To Ron:

I went to your site to find out how the second project reason "proved to be false" and found nothing except a wish for donations to your sorry site for sorry writing, twisted facts, and unrealistic spin according to Crawbaby (Or is it crybaby?).

I am glad you have a $20 check on your desk from an unknown. (This is called priming the kitty). Why don't you find a real job and write for the Lewd Times or the Tribune. Chance are they won't have you. It would be a slide in accuracy leading to reader discontent. In any case:

On your sorry site, I noticed some kind of whack at Hensley for not living up to YOUR expectations. Good picture however. Cute guy!

This picture is the only realistic thing found on your site. Or is the picture of a stand-in for Hensley?

Well, I will do my best to pass the hat for the assumed indigent Crawdaddy, if the crawdaddy stops spinning. Good thing you are not facing a BIG sewer bill here in Los Osos. One might have to settle for Santa Margareta. Can one buy a decent house in Santa Margareta for $350,000?

Anonymous said...

To anon 9:14 2/24
"Would YOU trust YOUR money to someone who has had a "FELONY GRAND THEFT CHARGE" against them"

Why not? didn't you trust 2 folks who couldn't manage their own money with "YOUR" money after they were bankrupt? do I need to name names? If you don't recall, their initials are Stan and Richard.

Anonymous said...

To All the Pro-Tri-W, Pro-unaffordable, Pro-PZ:

Please remember that there is no science proving any individual homeowner's septics are polluting. You say Cabrillo Estates is not polluting and you haven't proved the PZ is, but yet want an over-priced mega-sewer that won't do anything if there were to be a problem.

This is a water basin and should be treated as such.

If you insist on your mega=sewer that you say will clean our drinking water -- then everyone who drinks that water should pay for clean water. You've never been able to prove that the PZ is polluting the bay either. The birds pollute the bay. Pet wastes pollute the bay. Pandora may pollute the bay.

The RWQCB has never implimented any septic survey, and there's a reason for that. How many years haven't they done this? And still won't to this day. It's too easy, that's why, if they found a problem, they could have corrected the problem many years ago. It's not about pollution and you know it. It's about the land and a land grab.

The big fix is in, I agree with that.

Anonymous said...

You bet the big fix is in!!! And know how I know? Oliver Stone told me. Research for his new movie. And if you think you know how deep this conspiracy runs, think again. This thing criss-crosses the globe, touches every governmental agency known to man, and makes the search for WMD's seem like child's play. Yes, Los Osos will be vindicated; the world will no longer plot against her every move; and peace and harmony will reign! You'll see.

Anonymous said...

anon 941 said
"you may have noticed that properties in Cabrillo Estates slope toward the *ocean*. (That means any run off, whether it be drainage or septic effluent, will progress toward the ocean, without contact with the bay.)"

Wrong. The flow of the aquifers is not necessarily the same as the surface topography. The more recent studies refute your claim.

Anonymous said...

To anon 1:07:

What recent studies concerning Cabrillo? Hey, maybe the people up there CAN get a sewer since some fools want to subsidise it? Do you think that the county is going to go to the trouble of making the project even more expensive? Do you think you are going to be assesed for the collection system based upon your geography? Obviously those who live the farthest from the sewer should pay more than those closest.

Spock said...

To anon 12:10:

Well, if you read the info on the CCRWQCB's site they would strongly differ with you on the science. What do you think the CDO's are all about? And so nitrate contamination has not been going up in the lower aquifer? And where have the traces of drugs come from?

What about the DNA testing?

Beam me up Scotty!

Anonymous said...

To the brilliant blogger above:

A wastewater plant will do nothing about traces of drugs or anything else. You fool.

Anonymous said...

To the brilliant blogger above:

A wastewater plant will do nothing about traces of drugs or anything else. You fool.

Anonymous said...

"A wastewater plant will do nothing about traces of drugs or anything else."

However, the miracle Los Osos sand pile filters out all traces of nitrates and drugs.

Ron said...

"I went to your site to find out how the second project reason "proved to be false" and found nothing..."

Well, then, you didn't download the Statement of Overriding Considerations, did you? That document is great! If you're not familiar with it, you should be. That was the four-page document that the early LOCSD Board popped out so they could override the entire environmental review process... that's right, the original LOCSD homeboys/girls thought it would be a good idea to brush aside, kick to the curb, the entire environmental review process -- a process that pointed to downwind, less expensive, out-of-town sites -- for the sole reason of jamming a mid-town, multi-million dollar park in your sewer plant. And if they did not kick the entire environmental review process to the curb, they would have been forced to choose an out-of-town site. State environmental law (CEQA) would have demanded it, as I reported on my blog.

And, if you remember, the CSD Board rescinded the SOC last year. Brilliant. I love that move. That's my favorite post-recall move.

If you don't have your mind wrapped around all of that (and, by now, you really should), I highly recommend that you get clear on it... it's awesome stuff.

And it's also stuff that the county is just now becoming aware of. What? You don't think the Technical Advisory Committe is going to review the SOC? Of course they are (personally, I suggest they start there), and when they do, watch what happens. Their take is going to be along these lines: "You overrode what, because of why?"

I can't wait for that. It's going to be beautiful. That's why I'm such a fan of the formation of a Technical Advisory Committee these days. It's going to be great when official types (outside of the LOCSD) finally see "bait and switchy," and a nonsensical Statement of Overriding Considerations, and why, exactly, there's a picnic area and an amphitheater planned for a mid-town sewer plant -- all up-close and personal like.

That will be great to watch... can't wait. I mean that. I... can't... wait. That's going to be so good.

An Anon said:

"Too bad your sorry ass doesn't even live in Los Osos. So don't continue your line of misconception. Either come on over and buy a house here or get back on you smelly sawdust toilet and wipe your butt with The Rock."

Boy, you really don't like me, and I don't know why. I'm such a nice guy. Anyhoot... your logic is very flawed. Let's, for a moment, just pretend that I haven't been paid to report on this story since 1990 (1990!). Using your logic, only property owners in Los Osos can have an interest in this amazing story -- a story that has wasted millions upon millions of SLO COUNTY and CALIFORNIA taxpayer dollars over the last nine years, and has led to the continued pollution of the State's (translated: my) water, according to state officials.

What's happening in Los Osos is not happening in a bubble, Anon. Do you have any idea how many people OUTSIDE of Los Osos are blown away by this excellent story? I've recently corresponded with a wastewater expert in Canada (eastern Canada!) that knows all about Los Osos, as does the vast wastewater expert group that she belongs to.

Anonymous said...

It still doesn't change the fact, Ron, that you seem to get your jollies from recounting this sad saga over and over and over and over again. You disguise it (not too well mind you)as doing something good for all of California, or the world for that matter, but I think we all see through that BS. You have an ax to grind, and you grind it over and over and over and over again. And you do it with a smile on your face and a song in your heart. Meanwhile, we property owners sit in the PZ and have to face some serious decisions about our future. And you just can't be a big enough wise ass about the whole thing. Over and over and over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Ron,

You sure seem full of your yourself and you sure seem quite willing to twist the words of others to make your points.

Just because the previous anonymous asked you to stop meddling with internal Los Osos affairs doesn't mean that you can't be interested.

The point he was trying to make is that you've been continually trying to push for one side's goals and that as a "journalist" you've not been fair. You see and report on all the flaws of the Solutions Group and CSD before September 2005 but you seem to put little effort into reporting any of the missteps of CCLO and the CSD since September 2005.

Fair reporting from those outside Los Osos is fine. Advocacy in the guise of reporting is not ... especially when it's from someone outside our community.

Anonymous said...

"Fair reporting from those outside Los Osos is fine. Advocacy in the guise of reporting is not ... especially when it's from someone outside our community."

Ya mean like the Tribune? I don't think we have any examples of fair reporting rgarding the Los Osos sewer controversy. When the regional paper picks and promotes a side, all smaller sources will follow suit. If Pandora would get her pickled pinkies off the scale, (and stop controlling her buddy at the Trivial) we might have a chance.

Anonymous said...

You really need to get some anger management. Pandora is off doing her own thing and has not had anything to do with the sewer follies in a couple years. Why not bite the two very large targets still trying to influence the sewer.

Both Tribune writers over the past 2 years actually live(ed) in Los Osos. You sound like someone from Cayucos.

Anonymous said...

You say that Pandora isn't right in the middle of this, anon at 4:39, she is in charge of our mess, always has been and always will be.

Yep, Pandora is off doing her "own" thing alright. Maybe that's because she worked so hard at recall time to insist the county get the project, and they did. She can lay low. Her job is easier now.

Pandora has done more damage then anyone that lives in Los Osos. How can she ever live with herself.

To Ron: THANKS RON!

Spock said...

Please excuse me from a mistake. When I wrote about drug traces and nitrates in the lower aquifer I meant the UPPER aquifer. Sorry.
I know of no studies of nitrate or drug trace problems in the lower aquifer. Just salt water replacing fresh water in the lower aquifer as we overdraw it faster than the fresh water is replaced.

To the fool that thinks the miricle sand pile of Los Osos filters everything, she must believe that a WTF is not needed. Well, partially right. The sand is a fabulous filter. The problem is that it does not have enough carbon source to effectively let anaerobic bacteria to convert nitrate to free nitrogen. I have checked facts concerning this readibly available on the internet.

What does she think this whole thing is about in the PZ?

To Ron: That statement of overiding considerations looked pretty good to me. Your objections are based upon many speculations. You have explained your speculations over and over and over and over and over again. They are still speculations.

So what do you have to say about a 41 million bankruptcy and services being cut? How about some facts and not speculations.

Beam me up Scotty!

Anonymous said...

BS! You are just an lonely, angry old fart.

You ought to open your eyes to the financial damage directly attributable to Schicker, Tacker and McPherson.

Try to understand BANKRUPT!

The sewer is no longer a discussion! How do you suggest we get out of bankruptcy? See if you have any thought in your feeble mind that does not include blaming everyone you disagree with. I don't think you can! It is a damn good thing you have nothing to do with the selection of the location or type sewer which will be constructed.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ron

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for telling the story over and over and over and over. Sometimes that's how the truth eventually outs. Thanks again from a PZ property owner (2 properties)

P.S. On a recent flight returning to SLO, my seatmate, upon hearing I live in Los Osos, asked me "what's going on with the sewer?" She lives in Washington D.C. Of course I proceeded to tell her, including the SOC and everything else. She thanked me for telling her what really happened (my version, of course!)

We love you Ron. You are doing us an awesome service. People are going to write books about this (yes they're in the works) and no doubt you will be continually thanked for your detailed documentation of EVERYTHING that has transpired.

Spock said...

Where did Pandora work so hard during recall time to make sure the county got the project? She and others had the forsight to see what would happen if the recall succeeded. Her group warned everyone. The CCRWQCB was on RECORD! It was clear that the "move" group was plastering lies to the electorate. She did everything she could to get the electorate to listen to the CCRWQCB. And now, because of the lies, the low income residents have their teats in a wringer.

Beam me up Scotty!

Anonymous said...

Well, perception is everything, ain't it? Seems people see what they want to see and not much else.

Spock said...

To anon 5:24 PM.

When your seatmate bothers to check up on the veracity of your story, she will be convinced that everyone in Los Osos is a fool, having met one.

Beam me down Scotty!

Anonymous said...

Ron: You are the quintessential HACK. You wrote one miserable little article years and years ago and you are still crowing over it?

You silly little hack. You are not even worthy of the title, "journalist"


All your BS centers on "baity-switchy" (which only a single individual-voted down- said)

You base all your blather on lies, suppositions, BS, and PURE FICTION!

Ron, you do not have enough journalistic integrity or stamina to continue to comment on the Los Osos issue.

You are a "ONE-TRICK PONY"

You had one shot, that was it. Were you invited back for an encore?

Don't think so.

Were you put on staff of either New Times or the Tribune?

Don't think so.

Hve you contributed anything worthwhile to any website, including your own?

Dont think so.

So, all-in-all, you are nothing but some one-shot BS artist who has continued with a cohort-Ann,and keep "begging" people to come onto your stupidly slanted and bogus website.
You need to find something worthwhile to do with your time, other than foul the internet and this blog with your phoney-baloney.

Mike Green said...

sorry everyone, this is a test.

Mike Green said...

Who Hoo! went from a pc to a mac!

Nice!

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

Hope you like the change.

I've got both and definitely realize some HUGE benefits of a mac.

S

Anonymous said...

Mac person here. Wouldn't trade, but I keep my dear old PC around for certain tasks, such as filling out forms online that don't allow Macs to participate. Such as applying for a job at Cal Poly!

Mike Green said...

Thats why I got an Intel based one, hoping to run paralells and either XP or Vista.

Anonymous said...

Hate to be a dope Mike, but what are parallels?

XP and Vista are Windows OS's for PC's - and you can get a program to run Windows on a Mac (- Microsoft Virtual PC for Mac for Windows XP -)

Fill me in!

Mike Green said...

http://www.regnow.com/softsell/nph-softsell.cgi?item=13166-13&affiliate=46333
what do you think?
Google windows for mac

Anonymous said...

Mike!
Thanx for the tip - very, very interesting. I too have an Intel based Mac - and the sites that require a PC, altho not encountered that frequently, have been a problem. Hey - this thing is really inexpensive, too! Much appreciated!

Green Fiend said...

Mac actually have superior hardware. They have mediocre software. If you use your Mac for simple purposes, it is wonderful. If you need a specifc application to perform a purpose, it will be hard to find. Less than 5% of the computers used are Macs. If you need help because of a software conflict, you may not find a solution. The key to a Mac is to keep it simple, stupid.

Usually people that own cats, use Macs. But they bought their Mac because they have toxoplasmosis.

Virtual Pc is a slow joke. As a Mac user I welcome you to the Mac cargo cult. Keep twisting the dials and better software WILL arrive.

Mike Green said...

OK Jon, nice try.

Mike Green said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Green said...

Got any smart pills?
I'm gettin low.

Anonymous said...

Gee, green fiend, I don't agree with you as far as KISS concept goes for Macs. I can run PhotoshopSC2, IllustratorCS2, Quark6, IndesignCS2, MS Word, get my e-mails and view web pages all at the same time! Some of those are pretty hefty and complex programs. The very few times I have crashed, I can force quit the faulty application and keep the rest running.

The low 5% of Mac users vs. PC are just a sad fact of not marketing soon enough and to the (wrong) esoteric crowd, (not businesses), and PC's grabbed the market. A lot of the more specific software for Macs is a little hard to find, if you even can find the name of it. I will agree to that.