Pages

Sunday, March 11, 2007

War, Yes. Clean Water? NO!

L.A. Times March 10story, “House OKs clean-water projects bill: The vite sets up a fight with Bush, who has threatened a veto. The plan would authorize $14 billion in four years.”

“Setting up a confrontation with President Bush over spending [Ya gotta stop a take a gape-mouthed pause over that one.], the Democratic-controlled House on Friday approved a bill that would increase funding for clean-water projects, such as those aimed at preventing beach pollution. [Or mayhaps building wastewater treatment systems in small coastal communities?]

“The bill, which would authorize $14 billion over four years, was approved on a 303-108 vote, despite a White House veto threat. It now goes to the Senate.”

So far, 224 Demos backed the bill while 79 Republicans nixed it. Seems the bone of contention is the fact that the provision requires “workers on clean-water projects to be paid the local ‘prevailing wage,’ [which] drew objections from the White House, as did the bill’s price tag. “ (Objections to paying prevailing wages from a man who never saw a Halliburton no-bid contract he didn’t love? Ah, ya gotta stop and take a gape-mouthed pause over that one as well.)

“The bill reauthorizes the Clean Water Sate Revolving Fund program, which helps state and local agencies pay for projects such as upgrading ageing sewage-treatment plants and preventing runoff on pollution water.

“The White House objected to all three, calling each ‘unrealistic in the current fiscal environment.” (Fiscal environment? Oh, that’s right. After already busting the budget with Guns & Butter tax breaks, a gleeful crony kleptocracy of no-bid, non-negotiated big Corporate giveaways (i.e. the drug giveaway to Big Pharma for the Medicare Drug Bill, for example), Bush has no trouble spending more money getting more Surge troops killed in Iraq, but money for water? Nahhh)

Party Time

Sunday March 18, Noon to 6 pm.
South Bay Community Center
2180 Palisades Dr. Los Osos

Benefit for the Los Osos 45 CDO appeal, PZLDF

Food: BBQ Chicken, trimming, drink & dessert. Eat in, take out.
Live Music from Steve Tracy, Garth Wilwand, & Sweetrock
Drawing prizes and other fun stuff.

Tickets are $10, on sale now or at the door. For info, call 528-8408

Come out to support your friends and neighbors and say high to some really nice people who have spent the year getting hammered and jerked around by the RWQCB. With any luck and your financial help, their case may result in getting this whole CDO disaster re-thunk into something far more “doable” and sane.

Which means, helping them is helping yourself.

47 comments:

4crapkiller said...

ANN:

Prevailing wage? Is that union wages, government employee wages, or private employee wages?

Looks like the democrate put some payback for union support into the bill. I still support it, even though the taxpayers will pay far more than necessary.

4crapkiller said...

Ann quotes the LA Times correctly on H.R. 569 which passed.

L.A. Times March 10 story, “House OKs clean-water projects bill: The vite sets up a fight with Bush, who has threatened a veto. The plan would authorize $14 billion in four years.”

However the reporter is full of crap, usual for the LA Times.

The appropriation comes to 1.71 billion, not 14 Billion as quoted.

It was previously posted: the amount on this blog. Ann could have pulled up H.R. 569 and checked for herself. Instead she goes PinK and chastises BUSH.

In my opinion she would never have posted anything about this if the article had not been a Bush hit piece.

And there you have the jist of secular/progressive/commie/symp reporting. She always takes the Trib to task when information disputes her opinions. Not that the Trib is better than the LA Times. It would be nice to get accurate reporting.

Anonymous said...

4Crapkiller, you are a mean old lady. Do not poke fun at Ann. You are crucifying her for an error of omission, and really that of another.

Even though she does it on a regular basis, it is not right for you to do it. You have to give some slack to the confused.

Anonymous said...

Anyone go to the PXLDF event? I hope it was sucessful!

Anonymous said...

Since it is not until NEXT week -

"Sunday March 18, Noon to 6 pm.
South Bay Community Center
2180 Palisades Dr. Los Osos

Benefit for the Los Osos 45 CDO appeal, PZLDF"

Better wait til then to ask...(unless there was another one yesterday?)

:)

Mike Green said...

Homework for Crapkiller
Look up the words and report:
Commentor,
Reporter.

*PG-13 said...

Mike Green > Homework for Crapkiller .....

Zing. Nice. I wish I had your way with words.

4crapkiller said...

To Mike Green:

Ann is a commentator. The LA Times person was a reporter. She commented on a report from a reporter with wrong numbers!

Anonymous said...

Did we just hear a reverse Zing?

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

Do you feel that Ann has any responsibility to get the facts straight or is she allowed to comment on any "news" story as if it were factual.

In my mind, the commentator has as great an obligation to do fact checking than the reporter does.

We all know too well when people start forming opinions and making decisions without getting the facts first. Presumably our resident commentator could set a good example by being more considerably careful than the "average" person in town ...

Also please note that on this issue, I am sure that Ann would have made a correction within a day or two. While she does have a bias here, she is pretty good about making sure she's accurate.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey, in a perfect world people would stand up and be counted, Everyone would give there opinion on subjects and be concidered,
How many people here are willing to have their opinions counted? well let me guess -FIVE?
So ya! I feel it's OK for ANN to write whatever the heck she wants, good on her!
To attack her with lingo like
"secular/progressive/commie/symp reporting"
And to back up that opinion with second hand information is no better or worse than the incorrect information in the first place, it becomes a circular argument, (you know how I adore logic)
There is one silver lining here, you indicate that Ann is possibly above averadge.
I concure!

This new Mac and I are still on a learning curve.

Mike Green said...

Oh, By the way Crapkiller, Thanks for the correction on the information, The federal thing is quite interesting, I hope you continue to keep us informed.

Mike Green said...

PG! thanks for the shout out! you too can have my way with words- type one fingered ;-)

*PG-13 said...

Anon > Did we just hear a reverse Zing?

Good one too. It's a gawl-dang zing-o-rama! My heads spin'n.

Despite all the back and forth and some minor trash-talk'n I'm no more the wiser about what is in H.R. 569. Ann, as is her style, uses quotes to delineate what an LA Times reporter reported in the March 10 issue. And there is nary a quote in any of the responses (except when they are quoting Ann's quotes). So, we have a commentor who attributes her source (The LA Times) and attributes content with quotes. And then we have a pile on ....

4crapkiller > yadda, yadda, yadda ..... "I still support it, even though the taxpayers will pay far more than necessary. "

4crapkiller (again) > "However the reporter is full of crap, usual for the LA Times. The appropriation comes to 1.71 billion, not 14 Billion as quoted. It was previously posted: the amount on this blog. Ann could have pulled up H.R. 569 and checked for herself. Instead she goes PinK and chastises BUSH".

Anon > "4Crapkiller, you are a mean old lady. Do not poke fun at Ann. You are crucifying her for an error of omission, and really that of another. Even though she does it on a regular basis, it is not right for you to do it. You have to give some slack to the confused."

Nice back-handed compliment. Although the statement itself is true. Ann regularly posts errata (sometimes even erratum ;-). Far more often than any of the other commentors on this blog. Indeed, most of don't even bother to use quotes. So much easier that way ;-}

4crapkiller > "Ann is a commentator. The LA Times person was a reporter. She commented on a report from a reporter with wrong numbers! "

Shark Inlet > "In my mind, the commentator has as great an obligation to do fact checking than the reporter does."

Heaven help us all if this is the level of journalistic exactitude required to comment on this blog.

Shark (again) > "We all know too well when people start forming opinions and making decisions without getting the facts first. Presumably our resident commentator could set a good example by being more considerably careful than the "average" person in town ... "

Oh gag me. Yeah, the LA Times should hold their reporters (and their editors) to a higher level of exactitude than was exhibited in this case. Likewise, the NY Times, the Washington Post, the SF Chronicle and the Denver Post (just tossed that one in for laughs). But ya know? They all publish errata. Quite often. But not nearly often enough.

Shark Inlet (apologia) > "Also please note that on this issue, I am sure that Ann would have made a correction within a day or two. While she does have a bias here, she is pretty good about making sure she's accurate. "

Thanks Shark. And of course, none of the rest of us have a bias either? Yeah, that's what I thought too. But thanks to 4crapkiller for pointing out the error.


BTW, Please, 4crapkiller ... what means "she goes PinK" Does this structure mean something special? Sorry, I'm very old-school.

Shark Inlet said...

Biased? Me? Naaah.

On the issue of whether clean water is something the Feds should help pay for (through grants or low interest loans or the like), I tend to agree with Ann.

Small government folks like my father-in-law tend to disagree. What is really ironic is that he lives in a place where electricity is dirt cheap because of federally funded dams. He doesn't recognize that he's received a lot of benefits from the Feds and he wants to cut spending on similar benefits to others because he sees such spending as wasteful. Perhaps it is, but I would have more respect for his position if he would just admit that his life has been considerably easier because of past Fed spending.

FBLeG said...

4crapkiller said...

"Ann quotes the LA Times correctly on H.R. 569 which passed.

L.A. Times March 10 story, “House OKs clean-water projects bill: The vite sets up a fight with Bush, who has threatened a veto. The plan would authorize $14 billion in four years.”

However the reporter is full of crap, usual for the LA Times.

The appropriation comes to 1.71 billion, not 14 Billion as quoted."

It seems like 4crapkiller is full of well... crap.

Here is the LA Times article:

LA Times

I see no mention of HR 569 in this article. Could it possibly be that 4crapkiller has the research skills of a six grader? And possibly making a lame attempt to spread FUD in an ideological rant against the LA Times?

Notice how many here just assumed that the LA Times reporter has made a mistake and our kindergartner, 4crapkiller, turned blogger and amateur media critic was actually the one with the facts. Shame on those who bought it hook, line and sinker.

In fact, if you read HR 569 and try to correlate it with the LA Times article you will see that the reporter could not have been talking about HR 569 at all.

The actual bill that was passed by 303-108 was none other than house bill HR 720:

HR 720

Here's the CBO cost estimates:

HR 720 CBO estimate

The first line on page 5 of this CBO estimate states,

"HR 720 would authorize the appropriation of $14 billion over the 2008-2012 period for EPA to provide capitalization grants for the clean water (SRF) program".

Sorry 4crapkiller, you have been officially marked a total incompetent fool and are obviously an idiot with the research skills of a monkey. Get lost and get an education.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

On the issue of your last statement ... why should we believe that donating to the PZLDF is actually both helping them accomplish their goals and helping ourselves.

It seems that PZLDF (at least those most visible) have been supporters of the actions of the current board even when I see those same actions as having forced the RWQCBs hand. Why should I donate to people who tell me the current board has had nothing to do with the CDOs?

Perhaps if there were something comparable to the PZLDF which were arguing with the LOCSD and County to get a project going ASAP (so that they could show the RWQCB that progress is being made) I could get behind that organization.

Essentially I see the PZLDF as a partisan organization and I don't support what I perceive their goals to be. You might as well tell me, Ann, that by supporting the Bush position on the Iraq war that I am supporting democracy.

Perhaps I am totally wrong about the PZLDF. Perhaps they have been asking the LOCSD to re-start the TriW project just to get a project going ASAP. Perhaps they've been lobbying the SLO BOS to get going on a project that can be completed ASAP.

I am pretty sure that some will tell me that it is better to fight an unreasonable RWQCB ruling than to ask the County to get going on TriW. I wonder whether the RWQCB isn't on solid legal ground here and whether fighting their ruling, no matter how "unreasonable" it sounds isn't just pissing into the wind.

From my simple understanding of 83-13 and things that have happened since then is that the RWQCB is on solid ground and they can essentially tell us we need to stop discharging immediately if they want to. They can also use that threat to try to compel us into taking other actions ... bargaining with us, as it were, into doing something that is a bit more of a compromise than telling us to stop all discharges.

Ron tells us that the RWQCB should tell us all to use composting toilets instead. My understanding is that with such devices, the urine is diverted to a leech field. The nitrates wouldn't much improve with this strategy. Did any of you pay much attention to what he told us? How would the urine be dealt with? What happens to the nitrates?

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"On the issue of your last statement ... why should we believe that donating to the PZLDF is actually both helping them accomplish their goals and helping ourselves."

And also sez:"Essentially I see the PZLDF as a partisan organization and I don't support what I perceive their goals to be. You might as well tell me, Ann, that by supporting the Bush position on the Iraq war that I am supporting democracy."

I would suggest you get a copy of the appeal filed with the State Water Board and read it. Pay particular attention to all the legal complaints & allegations Sullivan is asking the State Water Board Attorneys to take a look at. What the CDO appeal is about, the one filed by some of the CDO recipients and joined by the CSD, since they are also a CDO recipient, has to do with LAW, not Tri W or Sewers and has to do with LAW as it applies to every one in the PZ. Last time I looked, laws are supposed to be followed as a part of legal proceedures, and if some agency is bungling the proceedures, their own rules and violating basic citizen rights (as guaranteed under law) they would be foolish not to file an appeal. The PZLDF's SWB appeal has nothing to do with Tri-W or Sewers or anything but making sure every citzen (that includes you, Inlet) in the PZ is being treated in a LEGALLY correct manner, that the CDOs are, indeed, following the law correctly & etc.

As for the little dust up over the federal water story, Uh, the headline should have given everyone a clue as to my point: "War, Yes. Clean Water? NO!" I found and find it appalling that governments always find plenty of money to kill people but whine they're all poor and broke when it comes to funding infrastructure, and other life-giving needs. Republican, Democratic, doesn't matter. The Military Industrial, Corporate Complex always gets fed first while the rest of us starve and near as I can tell that's perfectly ok with the starving voters because they keep electing and reelecting the foks who Feed the K-Street Beast.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of anyone's positions on the sewer issue, PZLDF, the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund is raising money for the LEGAL DEFENSE of those in the Prohibition Zone who have been targeted for prosecution of enforcement actions. It could have been you. It wasn't you, apparently, since you seem to have no idea what that's been like. For you to even hint that our political views have landed us where we are today is just another indication of your complete insensitivity and lack of connection to those faced with this action. People on all sides of the sewer issue are in this group. No one I know in this group doesn't want a WWTF.

Just because the Water Board had the authority to threaten those actions against individual homeowners does not justify them. Just because a bully has the ability to threaten you and then carry out the threat does not mean that the threat is morally justified. To say that a person's beliefs one way or another justify your support or not of that person when the bully carried out his threat lacks a tone of neighborliness, don't you think? Ten bucks a ticket. Is that too much to ask? If you can't do it for us, then do it for yourself, so you won't have to run a fundraiser and defend yourself all at the same time when your turn comes. Hopefully, when we're done, it will be ALL done. Ten bucks. Come on.

Shark Inlet said...

Suppose that a very nice Republican asks me for money to "support the troops" ... should I give money?

To me it seems like the state goal and the actual goal are often different in politics. Again, when some of the most vocal folks in the PZLDF seem to align themselves with the current LOCSD board and when those same vocal people in the PZLDF voice support for decisions which seem to only piss off the RWQCB ... it is hard to want to support those people in their goals.

Even if the words of the legal brief are just fine and dandy, wouldn't supporting the PZLDF essentially be the same as supporting the decision to stop the development of Tri-W much the same that donating money to "support the troops" typically ends up being viewed as supporting the war effort?


Note: I actually haven't decided whether I support the PZLDF actions or not. When I have time I'll get to reading those documents Ann cites. (Is a link available?) However, until I make up my own mind, I think it worthwhile to discuss this meta-topic.

Anonymous said...

I think having the LOCSD or a Gail-related organization representing me to the Water Board is poison. I don't think throwing pepper in the face of an attacker works for very long, or in the long run is very effective.

Anonymous said...

I think having the LOCSD or a Gail-related organization representing me to the Water Board is poison. I don't think throwing pepper in the face of an attacker works for very long, or in the long run is very effective.

Anonymous said...

Well, then, thanks for the neighborly advice and lack of support. I hope that when you get your CDO you have more compassionate neighbors.

Anonymous said...

OK then anon, 1:25pm. Were you giving me and the anti-recall group support when we advised people to vote no on the recall and no on Measure B?

I didn't think so.

Anonymous said...

Why do you think, 1:49, that you know my politics because I got a CDO? 5000 homes are being targeted for enforcement. Do you know EVERYONE's politics?

Your total detachment from the "neighbor" aspect of the CDO story indicates you have no stake in the PZ and are participating in a purely academic exercise. It appears you are simply using the CDOs as another opportunity to advance your viewpoint at the expense of people who are trying to get a little financial support for a defense against having to "vacate the premises" on 1/1/11.

Mike Green said...

Well well ! my nieghbor "Gary" just sold me three tickets!!!
To Shark and the undecided:
What can you show me that would make me encouraged about the existing government processes?
I mean the whole enchilada, CSD, Water Gods. Co BOS, CC, you know, all of it.
If you are uncertain about ANY of these government entitys then why wouldn't you hedge your position (equity) by supporting some defense?
The PZLDF is us, like it or not, we need to be defended in all respects, some will fail and some will prevail. The most expensive insurance is the policy you DIDN'T buy.
Ten Bucks???

Anonymous said...

I live in the PZ and will not give one cent to that PZLDF! I do not support the efforts of the CSD to pay even a small portion of Sullivan's legal advice!

If you would all quit trying to overturn the State of California and support getting the sewer as designed and on property already owned, there would be no CDO or even the threat of enforcement.

I very much want the County of San Luis Obispo to move forward as quickly as possible as the costs for this stalled project are climbing daily.

Mike Green said...

if you would all quit trying to overturn the State of California and support getting the sewer as designed and on property already owned, there would be no CDO or even the threat of enforcement.

Its too late for that, deal with the here and now!
And just exactly what should we do to "support" the the state?
Agree wholeheartedly to vacate our homes if there is no sewer?

That assumes a lot more than we've been used to, perhaps you would give us some example of government process in this mess that will cause us to buy into that lemming like religion.

I say cover all your bets.

Anonymous said...

Mike Green, this is not a game.

Our CSD sank this community in a financial bankruptcy. They are still fussing about a sewer that they can do nothing about. They have not even begun to attempt to plan a way out of the bankruptcy.

Do you think it's funny to bet on the County building a sewer within the next 3 1/2 years or the CSD claiming insolventcy? We have all lost thanks to the fiscal mismanagement of the CSD!

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"If you would all quit trying to overturn the State of California and support getting the sewer as designed and on property already owned, there would be no CDO or even the threat of enforcement."

You've mixed apples with rutabagas. The CDO appeal to the State Water Board is not about overturning the State of California nor about opposing a sewer. It's about seeing to it that LEGAL RIGHTS are protected. YOUR legal rights. It's about seeing that the process has been done correctly, legally, properly. It's about asking for "another set of eyes on the page." to make sure that, in their haste and anger, the local RWQCB staff haven't made even MORE mistakes than they already have.(If you had bothered to follow these "trials" closeley, you'd be aware of the awful messes the staff has made of this. It's been so poorly thought through, a set- up ripe for injuring people wrongly. INCLUDING YOU WHEN YOUR TURN COMES. Mistakes that may well cost YOU YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.) That's what the appeal is about. And that's why everyone in the PZ should support the appeal; they're simply ensuring THEY will be protected by a correct, clean process as well.

It has nothing to do with sewers or Tri W or the CSD Board (old and new) It's about legal rights.

*PG-13 said...

Ann > It has nothing to do with sewers or Tri W or the CSD Board (old and new) It's about legal rights.

It really is amazing. No, mind boggling. No, not even that. It is sheer out-n-out incredulous stick-your-head-in-the-sand and hope the boogie man goes away, not-me indifference that at this late date, after everything that has gone before, after all that has been written here and elsewhere, after all the discussion and arguments and points-counter points that anybody would confuse defense against a CDO as an anti-sewer position.

Anon > I very much want the County of San Luis Obispo to move forward as quickly as possible as the costs for this stalled project are climbing daily.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the CDO's. Except perhaps for some illegal politicking by the RWQCB to coerce a positive 281 vote.

Anon (again) but mirroring the feelings of others > I live in the PZ and will not give one cent to that PZLDF! I do not support the efforts of the CSD to pay even a small portion of Sullivan's legal advice!

OK, that I can understand. To take issue with who and how to defend against the CDO's is one thing. But to not defend against them at all is .... [RETURN to top of message]

Gee, do you really have so much confidence in the RWQCB that you are willing to bet on that confidence with your home? I like Mike's insurance policy analogy. $10 seems a mighty cheap policy. Probably ineffective but a nice symbolic gesture. I wish there was a way for the PZLDF to become totally self-financed and be completely non-dependent on the CSD for any financial or legal support what-so-ever. That would best. I am against the CSD continuing to pay unto death in support of a sub-set of the CSD membership. But I think its probably waaaaay to late to just cut off an arm or a leg to deal with the sewer. I would vote to place limits on the CSD's involvement with the CDO's. But their (and anybody who lives in the PZ) involvement is appropriate.

Egad people wake up! Sooner or later you gotta stand FOR something. Ya can't just keep saying no, no, no, not now, no, its not my fight, I'm with you but not really, I'm gonna wait and see, no thanks too expensive, that's too dangerous, I'd prefer to just hunker down and let it blow over, maybe we won't have to do anything. Yeah, that's the ticket.

*PG-13 said...

PS - Sorry for that rant. This musta pushed my button. I considered taking my previous message back down .... but oh, what the hey. I meant most of it. Flame On!

Shark Inlet said...

Mike, Ann and PG ...

I think your points should be well taken, especially the point that the RWQCB should not be allowed to overstep their legal authority.

However I think that some points on the other side should also be considered, especially the point that one shouldn't take actions which would needlessly antagonize the RWQCB. Presuming that pissing them off will have no impact on the outcome is naive, I think.

I like the way one contributer earlier summarized their position essentially saying that they don't want Gail to represent them in any way to any regulators. I've seen what she's said in the past and to me it is pretty clear that most everything she's told us has been incorrect and everything she stands for seems to be something I oppose.

With that in mind, I would be quite happy to contribute if I saw that the vocal people associated with PZLDF were less biased.

Again, would you expect me to contribute to the Republican part just because the Republicans claim to have a big tent and claim to represent the "little guy."

Mike Green said...

To each there own sharkey, peace be with you on any road you choose.
I support the PZLDF despite the personages, it seems a good fight to me.

Hope all is well with you and yours

Anonymous said...

Thank you Shark for,
"…especially the point that one shouldn't take actions which would needlessly antagonize the RWQCB. Presuming that pissing them off will have no impact on the outcome is naive, I think."

You are so, so, so RIGHT. The people putting up this defense are the very same people who have caused the Water Board endless time, money and grief.

I live in the PZ and do not want to be represented by Gail or the LOCSD in this.

I look at this a little differently perhaps, but has the Water Board actually succeeded in any of their attempts to put a hex on our properties? They can't figure out what to do with even the CDO's. Can you inagine the legal nightmare for them to actually force people out of their homes? In theory they could probably do it, in practice, that is a different matter altogether.

They don't WANT our properties. They want clean water. How much trust does anyont think the water board would have for a CSD board that stopped a project, then never came up with a concrete plan in one year's time that they bragged they already had? And Gail? I'm not even going to go there!

There is more to this big defense thing than meets the eye.

Tiny Tim said...

to anon. at 8:57, I agree with you, I too, object to our "UNOFFICIAL OFFICIAL" Gail McFleece-us representing me. I didn't vote for HER & I do not for one nano second beleive her to be the "EXPERT" IN THE FIELD OF WASTEWATER" that SHE purports to be.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"I think your points should be well taken, especially the point that the RWQCB should not be allowed to overstep their legal authority."

I wish you would go get Sullivan's appeal "brief" and read it. That's EXACTLY what the appeal to the Water Board (and, if necessary to a "real" court of law) is all about. If you like, consider it like taking a time out to consult the referee to see if the play was correctly played. The time out doesn't stop they county project so much as a minute, indeed, if there are problems with the whole CDO process, maybe the appeal can point up ways to skin the same cat but do it far easier without triggering lawsuits over alleged "electioneering," or lawsuits over the trampling of due process rights or some such that COULD delay things.

Inlet also sez:"
However I think that some points on the other side should also be considered, especially the point that one shouldn't take actions which would needlessly antagonize the RWQCB. Presuming that pissing them off will have no impact on the outcome is naive, I think."

Let's say some regulator gets his nose out of joint and starts an administrative civil hearing and tries to impose some looney scheme on citizens becasue he's "antagonized," the SYSTEM under which he works is DESIGNED for appeals to the SWB and from there to a "real court of law" to prevent abuses. That's what it's there for. Those appeals are like consulting a referee to make sure the call is correct, that the referee hasn't been bribed to throw the game or is angry at a player and wants to punish the whole team and so forth.

The thing I find curious (and sooooo Junior High School) is the notion that you won't support the process (appeal) to make sure the call is legal and proper because you (Eeeuuuuwww) don't like some of the people involved in the appeal, despite the fact that the process may, indeed, prove to benefit YOU and everyone in the PZ by making sure the process was legal and clean and properly done. If the CDO's as issued and done are vetted and found o.k. by a 'real court of law," then no harm, no foul. Everyone in town can rest assured this was all done properly. If not, then this community needs to find the problems in that appeal process and correct them.

Why would anyone have a problem with that, unless you think that a "real" court of law will find problems with the CDO process? Why would that bother anyone? If there are problems, then they can be fixed and done right. What's the problem?

As I said, it has nothing to do with sewers or sides or personalities or anything except following through on the process the RWQCB set in motion.

So buy a $10 BBQ ticket (you don't have to show up to eat the food) or drop by the Coast bank by the Post Office and put some money in the PZLDF fund which will pay for that appeal and support the CSD paying for their share of that appeal (They are CDO holders, too, just and you and me and everyone in the PZ are or will be.) The $10 you donate will end up benefiting you and the community since there is no "lose" here, it's all win-win, but only if the process is properly completed.

4crapkiller said...

To FBLG:

Not so incompetent. It is true that the reporter made no mention of the bill #. There were two bills. H.R. 720 had not been published as yet when I made my comments. However H.R. 569 had.

You had the benefit of looking at the published version of H.R. 720 when I did not. It was published days after H.R. 569.

I stand corrected.

The few republicans voted against the bills because of Union Protectionism.

My major beef regardless
was that this was a "Bush Hit Piece" by ANN.
That did not take into consideration Union Protectionism. I still support the bills, however I feel strongly that taxpayers should not have to pay more than a project is worth because of feathering of union workers saleries and benefits.

It is clear that increased milage standards for automobiles are being fought by Auto Worker's unions because of the fear of losing jobs, or so they say. They want protection at consumer expense and at the expense of emissions.

Not that all the power plant and vehicle emissions combined are equal to cow farts and belches.

However, it is up to the manufacturors of cars to design to those standards.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

You're the one asking me to change my opinion about the PZLDF. Let's pretend for a moment that I am busy and you really want to convince me (and others) that PZLDF is actually worth supporting. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to make it easy for us to see Sullivan's "brief". You tell us that we should go and do the research. Honestly, because I don't think it will change my mind, I'm not going to take the effort to hunt it down, but if you make it easy to access, I'll read it. I'm open to changing my mind, but I'll need convincing and if you don't want to try, you can count on not getting my $10.

Anonymous said...

Ann says:
"If the CDO's as issued and done are vetted and found o.k. by a 'real court of law," then no harm, no foul."

The cost of this is "no harm?"

Sorry, PZLDF can do what it wants, but the CSD is broke and has now decided it will bear the brunt of the costs, to be paid for by PZers and NON-PZers. I can't think that the bankrupt judge will find this sound judgement. The money to pay for it is to come from the assessment bond money? Sounds like more trouble for the CSD, as that HAS to be illegal.

The CSD didn't even let the public comment on it before they committed themselves. How is that correct process? How do you Ann, who are so mouthy defending correct process, going to support this one? By your usual not answering, I will bet.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Shark Inlet said...
Ann,

You're the one asking me to change my opinion about the PZLDF. Let's pretend for a moment that I am busy and you really want to convince me (and others) that PZLDF is actually worth supporting. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to make it easy for us to see Sullivan's "brief". You tell us that we should go and do the research. Honestly, because I don't think it will change my mind, I'm not going to take the effort to hunt it down, but if you make it easy to access, I'll read it. I'm open to changing my mind, but I'll need convincing and if you don't want to try, you can count on not getting my $10."

I'm not asking you to change your mind about anything, I was asking that you got off you duff and actually READ the appeal itself, you know the actual document, not what somebody says about it?

However, than you for your statement above.I can think of no finer example of why we are in this mess than what you have written above. Perfect example. Perfect. Doesn't get any better.

Waaaah, waaahhh. Feed me my pablum. Want me to pre-chew your food for you? Shall I pre-digest it for you as well. How's about letting me breathe for you? I know, breathing is soooo difficult. Takes so much energy.

My God, Inlet. My God.

Anonymous sez:"The CSD didn't even let the public comment on it before they committed themselves. How is that correct process? How do you Ann, who are so mouthy defending correct process, going to support this one? By your usual not answering, I will bet.

1:40 PM, March 15, 2007 "

Did you bother to attend the March 15 meeting on the contract? Do you even know what, for whom and why Ms. Sullivan will be "defending?" and filing the appeal for the CSD. How's about the fact that if the CSD does nothing, the residents of Bayridge Estates and Vista del Oro will have to pay the some $6 million of fines the RWQCB leveied. Do the math as to how much that will cost each home owner (not the whole PZ, just those homeowners)(Consider also, that a successful appeal (in a real court of law) protects the right of the community to (finally) examine the Prohibition Zone 83=13 and the Basin Plan, a vital rexaminaiton that will only benefit any new wastewater project.

I suggest you go get the tape of the meeting and watch it. Or, like Inlet, do you want your pablum pre-chewed also.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Your attitude is not one of a person who wants to actually convince me ... or anyone ... you seem to want to criticize rather than help.

I didn't ask you to tell me what it said, but to tell me how to get a copy. If you want me to get off my duff and read this brief, tell me how to do it. Do you not even bother to read what I write anymore? It seems that you jumped to criticism far too quickly.

You have no idea of who I am and aspects of my life which might make it quite difficult for me to go and hunt down some magic document that you obviously have seen. Why is it so difficult for you to fire up a scanner, put several copies in your mailbox for people to pick up or even tell me who I can contact to ask to get a copy.

To suggest that Los Osos is messed up because people who want information don't already know how to get it is just whacked.


On the topic of the paying of part of PZLDF's bills, you again missed the point of our anonymous friend. Our friend wasn't complaining that there wasn't justification provided for the choice, but that there was no opportunity for public comment before the choice was made.

I can't say our friend is right or not because I missed the meeting where the vote was taken, but I do know that your response is entirely off-topic. She was saying (as you often do) that the process wasn't followed correctly and you are now expressing the point of view that you typically criticize, that it isn't so important if the process is followed as long as the decision is the "right" one.

While your response is off topic, you do bring up a very interesting question. When you remember back to the time of the ACL hearings, Lisa made it very clear that the fines were the responsibility of the entire district and not the residents with community septic managed by the CSD. What has changed in the last 12 months that puts those individuals on the hook when earlier the CSD said it was a CSD responsibility?


Ann it seems that you're feeling quite crabby ... at least this posting seems far more testy than normal. Maybe a walk with the dog would be a good thing to gather some perspective.

Then you can tell me how I can get hold of the document you want me to read. I do want to read it. Please tell me how I can get a copy. Maybe others will benefit as well from the reading.

Anonymous said...

You know Ann, I'll bet if the CSD got off its duff and fully supported the AB2701 process, the Water Board would begin to feel a glimmer of hope. These fines are not written in concrete, and will be swayed I am sure, by what the CSD choses to do on record. They would be swayed positively far more so than "defending" the CSD against the CDO's.

I saw the meeting last night, I do not have to see the DVD. I just view that same meeting differently than you do.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks I know what is tiny about tiny tim.
[Gail McFleece-us representing me. I didn't vote for HER & I do not for one nano second beleive her to be the "EXPERT" IN THE FIELD OF WASTEWATER" that SHE purports to be.]


PZLDF is made up of alot more than Gail. Since you are not paying a sewer bill, don't have a CDO, or paying for legal support, or even pumping your septic tank, I don't get how YOU have been "fleeced"
What are you doing to help your neighbors? Remember the letter to Roger Briggs asking for residents to be fined? Did you write one too?

It is time to support the process toward a project and keep the State from coercing the vote or outcome. Quit with the personal vengence and get to the real issue. Only a legitimate process under 2701 will get us a sewer. Enforcement hurts that.

If you want information or a copy of the Appeal to review, meetings are Mondays at WaMu. 7:00 PM.
We are hopefully living in the present.(218 ahead and alternatives to be vetted) The individual enforcement was drawn up before the recall-That IS electioneering...OK.

Anonymous said...

Kick McPherson out of ANY say in the PZLDF and the CSD!!!

Back the County and build the SEWER!

Anonymous said...

**NEWS FLASH**
Update on post watch of CSD meeting:
The inquirey into the status of PZLDF and their ability to pay their share of the bill and status of structure to fundraise and liability of the 2 property owners who own the DBA of PZLDF as registered with the county turned up this:
The fundraiser being held today is way out of compliance as far as being able to solicit funds.
1. Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF claims to now have a temp Non-Profit ID # but the problem is, under what claims are they non-profit?
2. They claim, on the printed flier I have, to have a website at www.pzlfd.org but that's the wrong acronym - it should be PZLDF and either way, both domain names are OPEN! This smells of how the incumbants via Mrs.McPherson ran their last ad during the campaign with a photo of Assemblyman Blakeslee and a statement by the county - slight slap on the wrist from Blakeslee's office.
3. You can't hold fundraising raffles without following the proper guidelines as set by the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA

As a citizen and property owner living in the PZ there are some real problems with this! They are mis-identifying and mis-advertising themselves and our neighbors who are being used for the smoke screen could get into trouble. There will be little chance of approval for a non-profit tax ID # from our federal govt, there is no web address. It's a sad, sad day when unsuspecting citizens get used for a personal vendetta.

Other than that, Have a beautiful Los Osos day - Common Sense and the truth will prevail.

Anonymous said...

I noticed in the Saturday Trib, Local section, under the "Donations" heading, that the PZLDF barbeque event was posted as a benefit for "Citizens For Clean Water." No mention of PZLDF, Gail, CDO's or any of that political baggage. I guess they thought they could get more money if they advertised that way. In an odd way, besides being deceptive as to the cause of the event, it reminds me of cult recruiting - posing as something else to get new recruits.

Scary and so very, very GAIL, queen of reinvention.