Pages

Saturday, March 31, 2007

TAC Schedule for April – July

The Los Osos Wastewater Project TAC will hold its next meeting Monday, April 2 from 12 - 2:30 pm. at the SLO County Government Center, Room 161. ON the Agenda will be a discussion of the Rough Screening Report with a Q & A session with County Staff, then at 1:30 there will be a Public Comment Period on items NOT on the agenda.

Then the next TAC meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held in Los Osos, at the South Bay Community Center, Monday, April 9, 2007 from 6:30 or 7 - 9:30 pm (watch the paper or check the CSD's office window for any changes of meeting site, dates or times.) The public is encouraged to attend.

Then, the TAC 's new tentative schedule is to meet every other Monday starting April 23 through July 16 from 12 – 2:30 at the SLO Gov. Center Room 161, with further critical meetings scheduled every so often for Los Osos in the evenings, so the community has a better chance to attend.

Please plan to attend as many meetings as you can, both in SLO and in LO, and make any and all comments at the time provided, and/or send any questions and opinions to the TAC or directly to Paavo Ogren. The Rough Screening Report is now available at the Los Osos Library, the CSD Office and online (www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm and click on link for report)

In short, NOW is the time to make sure your 2-cents worth is being heard. Don’t wait on the sidelines until it’s Do-Or-Die-Time, then come out to holler or call your lawyer. It’ll be too late then and may result in another train wreck, something which I don’t think the majority of Los Ososians want. So, Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace. Thank you.


21 comments:

Anonymous said...

It really bothers me that the vast majority of the meetings are to be held during normal working hours. This excludes the input of our workers, those that will be paying the bill.

I am afraid that the train will be rolling before we get to the LO meetings. TAC members have special interests to protect, and I will not know if their interests are for the good of the community until it is too late.

Anonymous said...

The minutes from these meetings will be posted on the County's website. And as Ann says, you can send your questions and opinions to Paavo Ogren.

Anonymous said...

"Not enough input" is the single-most riduiculous thing coming out of Los Osos since, well, "better, cheaper, faster" or "We have a plan, we're ready to go." The problem has always been too much input from this community....way, way, way too much input. Let the TAC do it's job. Let the county do it's job. Support the process and get the freakin' hell out of the way for a change. Hopefully finally Los Osos gets it this time, 'cause if we don't, the future is bleak. And you'll find most of those willing to gamble on the future and make all the noise don't have a financial stake in the outcome.

Anonymous said...

Which is precisely why the meetings need to be held at another time. Why not some Saturday meetings? Our course is contstantly influenced by people who have too much time on their hands, and with not enough input by the working (and tax paying) public.

Anonymous said...

There has been way too much "public" input!

There doesn't need to be any more, just produce the plan (something our post recall CSD could not accomplish) and let the property owners vote. We don't need any more "interested" parties, just put it out to vote by the tax roll property owners.

It doesn't matter which system or where the treatment plant would go. The costs are going to be more than most will want to pay, but that's what happens when any project of this magnitude is allowed to grow out of control. There has been very little, if any, realistic public input for the past 30 years!

Now it's back in the County's lap and it will be built! Even the TAC and the 218 vote will be a pat on the head and then the County will proceed. With any luck, the County and State will find a way to partially fund this major public works project, actually, it's the largest public works project in San Luis Obispo's history.

So stand back folks and let them get it done. I know that sounds nice and sweet, but the reality is that too many of you folks think you may actually have some perfect solution and want to force it upon the community and the County. The County doesn't want or need your input! They already have the answers they need to layout 4 alternative systems and really are just going through the "legal" steps or as Ann puts it, "process". They have to put on the show because the activists in our community have shown that they will sue over anything they perceive as not going their way.

The truth is there is no perfect solution, but our community has screwed up every step of the way. Now it's time to stay out of the way and let the County get moving!

Anonymous said...

I agree with a couple of the above posters. The TAC is discussing information being produced by the Consulting team. That discussion will be factored into the final information from the team, plus information that will be made available to us by the TAC (pros and cons of final alternatives).

I don't want the process impaired and delayed by the excessive private input that always seems to drag down every local effort. Ever been to a seven hour CSD meeting that should have been completed in three or four?

We will have plenty of time to review and provide feedback when the draft final alternatives report comes out. There is no need for meetings to be held out here until then. Also, meetings out here in the evenings or on Saturdays require overtime by County staff, and I believe they are already working plenty of that on this project, plus significant additional consultant cost. That is the main reason why the majority of the meetings will be, and should be, in SLO at the County offices, I presume.

Anonymous said...

Were any of the regular posters on this site selected for the TAC? Such as PG-13? I think I would feel better about the process if I knew the TAC included voices of reason. I do know that it includes some scammers.

Anonymous said...

All of Los Osos has been spoiled rotten by having meetings at night.
I suggested long ago that BOD meetings be held in the daytime, to keep the rowdy drinking crowd to a minimum. I have walked past people at LOCSD Board meetings who reeked so badly of alcohol, and they were 6 ft. away!

Daytime meetings are more civilized- none of the stupid regulars howling at the moon- and I am sure that some of the senior citizens who may not drive at night would be able to come to the meeting and offer *their* input, instead of the usual gang of thugs.

Daytime meetings?

I'll be there!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Maybe we should just trust our supervisors and those on staff who interviewed to select the TAC members. I thoroughly believe they can discern intelligence and the ability to think. There are some on the TAC that I am not crazy about, but I also know that they are intelligent people, and like a jury, will be capable of being unbiased and fair.

Look folks, it has never been this good before and it's not EVER going to be better than this, so let's not blow it, OK?

Anonymous said...

I'm convinced as we speak there is a contingent plotting to campaign against the 218 vote, and will go to great lengths to continue to subvert the TAC; the county, and the process as a whole. (I suspect some sit on our very own CSD board). I think it's imperative we continue to let the county know we support their efforts. Drop by their website if you can't make the meetings and let them know how you feel.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

Come on. Do you really think TAC will listen to what anyone has to say? Has the BOS? Has our CSD (for that matter?)

Some experts have weighed in on the rough screening and see it as very biased already.

I would like to think you are smarter than that. At least Judy Vick and others (including Don Bearden) are questioning the fact that we won't be able to have one project on the 218 (which is Wallace will have a rough time with.)

The advisory vote should be on two projects, not three. Otherwise, Tri-W will win as votes will be split on the other two alternatives. The county knows what they're doing. It's a dog N pony show, and you fell for it. Now, that's a shame.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 11:52 AM:

You think the people have too much "say" ... these people are the ones who have to pay for a project that may cost $250 million dollars -- for just 5,000 homes!

Please remember the mobile homes will only pay 50% and homes in places like Bayridge Estates will pay less too, so the burden on all other homes will be even more!

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:52
I am quite aware of what might be the cost of the project, since I am a homeowner smack dab in the middle of the PZ. I wouldn't be posting my opinion here if I wasn't one of those responsible for paying. But you will find many, many of the vocal few who attend CSD and BOD meetings are NOT homeowners in the PZ, if they're homeowners at all. And that fact really irritates me. I also understand the idea of inflation, and the project is getting more expensive with each passing day. I say trust the process, and keep those with no dog in the fight as far away form the process as possible.

Anonymous said...

Above was for Anon 7:57. My bad.

Anonymous said...

My BAD. God I hate that phrase. It sounds like some uneducated ghetto rat.

Can you speak English, as is spoken on the Central Coast?

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"The County doesn't want or need your input! They already have the answers they need to layout 4 alternative systems and really are just going through the "legal" steps or as Ann puts it, "process". They have to put on the show because the activists in our community have shown that they will sue over anything they perceive as not going their way.

The truth is there is no perfect solution, but our community has screwed up every step of the way. Now it's time to stay out of the way and let the County get moving!"

The point of encouraging public input and attention is this: The last project derailed becasue at key points along the route to the train wreck the vast majority of people sat silent. Think what would have happened, for example, if 2,500 people had written to the Coastal Commission at the de novo hearing and said, Whatever. or 2,500 had written to the SWB to say, "Woa! Don't add on that $40 million extra and release the SRF funds until AFTER the recall election," and so forth. I think there would have been a far different outcome -- either way -- if that had happened. Same here. If 2,500 people write to Paavo and say -- whatever -- early on in this process, that will give him a far better gage as to what the community is looking for than if only 55 people (the same people) keep writing over and over.

Anonymous sez:"Come on. Do you really think TAC will listen to what anyone has to say? Has the BOS? Has our CSD (for that matter?)"

Wierdly, re the CSD, No and Yes. The recalled CSD didn't listen and were recalled, the newly seated CSD did, i.e. they ran on a move the sewer platform and when elected voted to attempt to do just that.

Anon sez:"Some experts have weighed in on the rough screening and see it as very biased already.

I would like to think you are smarter than that. At least Judy Vick and others (including Don Bearden) are questioning the fact that we won't be able to have one project on the 218 (which is Wallace will have a rough time with.)"

Given the history of this project(s) and this community/county, there will be a real problem with the 218 if it offers a clear opportunity for "bait and switch." Alas, there doesn't seem to be any way to set it up any other way. I'm only hoping that by the time the 218 vote is held that there is sufficient information as to clear options (Two or Three systems with pretty good guestimate as to total price, site, etc.) so that voters will be able to accept and live with either three or two or whaever ends up getting selected. That's one reason I've lobbied Paavo to see if the "Peer Review" group could come vet the options and issue a report BEFORE the vote."

Anon sez:"The advisory vote should be on two projects, not three. Otherwise, Tri-W will win as votes will be split on the other two alternatives. The county knows what they're doing. It's a dog N pony show, and you fell for it. Now, that's a shame. "

Was there some talk of doing run-off voting, as in Pick 1, and if it gets a clear majority, go with that, if it's evenly divided, do a run-off vote with the final two, & etc? That might avoid a three-way tie. In any event, the BOS will pick the project they want. If the "fix" is in, by that time, it won't matter because how this project is set up for financing will, in large measure, determine what we end up with. If the BOS is acting for water carrier for the SWB and the $6.5 mil SRF loan, then any and all projects will be determined by the SWB, NOT the community.

Anonymous sez:"My BAD. God I hate that phrase. It sounds like some uneducated ghetto rat.

Can you speak English, as is spoken on the Central Coast? "

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the English language has ALWAYS re-created itself from words and word usages that bubbled UP from the "uneducated ghetto rats," of all stripes and nationalities and races, rather than being a languaged that trickled DOWN from the ruling aristocracy. That's the beauty of it's grace, power and flexibility.

*PG-13 said...

Anon > Were any of the regular posters on this site selected for the TAC? Such as PG-13?

Don't know about the others. I can only speak for myself. No, I am not one of those selected for the TAC. I think it would have been a truly interesting experience but I don't have any of the background experience they were looking to seed the board with. I agree with Anon 5:15 I believe the nomination and selection process of the board to be fair and about as good as we can get. Like the anon there were some selected that I'm not crazy about, one not selected that I would have like to be selected and a few not selected which I am glad weren't selected. This isn't a perfect world and this may not be a perfect board - whatever that might be - but I believe the TAC is not the worst part and may well be one of the better parts of this long misbegoten process. I wish them good luck.

Tomorrow's shaping up to be a very busy day.

Anon > Some experts have weighed in on the rough screening and see it as very biased already.

Really? How so? It's not a perfect report (ah, there's that elusive goal again). And there is some history re-visited there. But dang, its so far ahead of anything else I have ever seen prepared for and about the sewer, If it had been pubished years ago I think we would be somewhere else right now. Better late than never. Better here and good than not here and perfect.

Anonymous said...

Amen to everything that PG-13 said above. Good points, and well said.

Anonymous said...

Ann spouts:

"The point of encouraging public input and attention is this: The last project derailed becasue at key points along the route to the train wreck the vast majority of people sat silent. Think what would have happened, for example, if 2,500 people had written to the Coastal Commission at the de novo hearing and said, Whatever. or 2,500 had written to the SWB to say, "Woa! Don't add on that $40 million extra and release the SRF funds until AFTER the recall election," and so forth. I think there would have been a far different outcome -- either way -- if that had happened. Same here. If 2,500 people write to Paavo and say -- whatever -- early on in this process, that will give him a far better gage as to what the community is looking for than if only 55 people (the same people) keep writing over and over."

Your speculation is possibly correct. However at the last, the contracts with the contractors were signed and legal.

And you would expect the former board to listen to a very vocal minority with strictly obstruction in mind? Driven by renters and known malcontents? Their suits FAILED.

Or would you be listening to the vast majority of property owners who assessed themselves and wanted a sewer?

I would err on the side of reason.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"And you would expect the former board to listen to a very vocal minority with strictly obstruction in mind? Driven by renters and known malcontents? Their suits FAILED.

Or would you be listening to the vast majority of property owners who assessed themselves and wanted a sewer?

I would err on the side of reason."

An anonymous commentor some time ago stated the obvious: Because only a handful of the same old faces kept showing up at CSD meetings, the previous board ignored them. it was easy to dismiss them as malcontents. Becasue the majority of residents stayed hom and quiet, nobody knew what they were thinking or wanting because they didn't bother to get off their duffs and let their elected officials know. It turned out to be a dangerous trap for the previous board. Because I had covered School Board for so many years, I knew first hand how much people HATE recalls. HATE THEM. Which is why, when the recall petitiions were certified, I knew the previous CSD was in real trouble. Clearly, they didn't see the danger or arrogantly ignored it, to the point of going to Sacramento to ask for gazillions more dollars and when asked by the SWB if they wanted to go back to their community to make sure that additional loan debt was o.k. they arrogantly dismissed the "dissenters" as being a mere minority. Huge mistake. And a HUGE mistake for the community that waited too long to speak up. Which is why I keep urging the community to pay attention, let your wishes be known to the folks in charge of the project and do it NOW, not at some 11th hour. Like the other project, there are key points in the process where you have to speak up or forever hold your peace. Elected officials are not mind readers. THey have to hear from their constitutents and if they're politically smart, they also understand that silence does not necessarily mean consent.

4crapkiller said...

The small minority wishing to stop the sewer simply lied to the electorate to gain political support. They won by a very small majority, very small.

They certainly can not be excused from the blatant lack of "due dilligence".