Pages

Friday, May 11, 2007

Hold Onto Your Hair, Maudie, I Think I Feel a Gust of Sanity Blowing Through the Room!

It was electrifying. There we all were at the RWQCB’s May 10 Torquemada’s Mad Hatter Tea Party and Auto de Fe for the carry over of trying and burning the remaining Los Osos 45 and to hear the Prosecution Team’s New! Improved! Mad Scheme to slap CAOs on the rest of the 4,500 residents of my Beloved Bangladesh By The Bay.

The meeting started out as the usual Mantra of Mindless Insanity, plod-plod-plod, when out of the blue, Board Member Dr. Press started quietly asking questions and making comments and with a whoosh, a gust of clarity and real-world, real-life sanity swept through the room, transforming it utterly.

And just what was Dr. Press’ astounding breakthrough? He expressed discomfort with the proposed daily fines of up to $5,000 a day, was afraid that those threats were so scary that they served only as deal-breakers on any proposed project, were deal-breakers on any hope of “settlements,” or on anything the Board was trying to impose on the community via the CDOs or now the CAOs.

He further thought the $5,000 per day fines were counterproductive, were destructive, were likely screwing up the Board’s whole efforts with CDOs, and so it might be a wiser tactic to back off the scary threats and fines and put a saner, real-life cap on such amounts, something that would encourage compliance but not threaten sudden death and the loss of one’s home, a very real, brain-stopper tactic that had the community in an understandable swivet.

Then, as if Dr. Press had opened a door, Board Member Mr. Shallcross added his agreement that perhaps there was other ways to skin this cat, that maybe the looney-tune prosecution efforts were all turning out badly, creating an awful distracting mess and maybe it was time to take a deep breath, step back, get a grip and take another tack.

Like a fever that finally breaks, Dr. Press and Mr. Shallcross’ comments dropped the oppressive blind heat of the room and suddenly the illumination shot up into enough clarity that everyone was finally able to see that there were other paths. Indeed they had been there all along but had been hidden by the mindless furies unleashed by EO Roger Briggs, unstopped by a Board washing their hands of any responsibility for the year-long train wreck, and the counter furies rising out of the desperate community in response.

It was clearly now a new game for everyone on the Board, except for poor Chairman Young who kept fussing with repeatedly elaborate “explanations” to defend his contention that a $5,000 a day fine and legal notice that as of 2011 there was an order of ZERO DISCHARGE, so a person could not use their shower, sink, toilet, dishwasher, DID NOT mean the law would force you to “abandon your home.” Nope, no connection whatsoever that within 6 months you’d owe more in fines than your entire home was worth, but one had nothing to do with the other -- a de-linking of cause and effect that was ingenuous to the point of utter, snort-through-the-nose fatuity. It was a pure Chairman Young moment that soon became embarrassingly irrelevant in the newly changed zeitgeist.

So, besides Dr. Press’ moment of clarity, what else was behind this transformation? Well, the Board of Supervisor’s unanimous letter to the RWQCB asking that they “stand down” and let AB2701 and the county project work in peace certainly helped. While Supervisor Gibson and project head Paavo Ogren were in Sacramento on other pressing matters and so unavailable for questions, Karen Venditti of the TAC was there to speak and her comments made a huge difference by letting the Board know in some specific detail just how far along the project was moving, how many of the benchmarks had been completed and which of the critical ones were due shortly.

The Board also heard from many members of the community who expressed a real fear that the threats coming from the Prosecution team Notice of Violation letter and proposed CAOs were being seen as “electioneering,” and as such could present a real problem down the line if anyone challenged the 218 vote. A psychologist spoke to remind the board that fear disengages the functioning of the intellect and so what was needed here wasn’t more frightened lizard brains, but cooler smarts.

And another speaker pointed out a critical point: In issuing blanket CAOs now, the community would only have 30 days to file an appeal [failure to do so could put your rights in jeopardy] at the same time the TAC would be presenting its fine screening report (which also would require public comment for 30 days), so the question was asked: Which is more important to getting a project done? That the community focus on the project proposals? Or spend time dealing with CAOs in order to protect their property?

And it probably helped that a representative from the County Air Pollution Control District showed up to remind the Board – again – that the new proposed CAOs would involve a Modified Mad Pumping Scheme thereby triggering diesel truck air pollution requiring A Plan and all kinds of annoying, expensive, time-consuming details, none of which had been worked out when the topic showed up during the January ‘06 original Mad Pumping Scheme, thereby indicating to the Board that the Staff STILL hadn’t done their homework and these mass CAOs were – again – not a very good idea, certainly not at this critical juncture.

The upshot was that the Board closed public comment, began discussion and in doing so sent a “signal” to staff and to the community as a whole.

Here’s some of the “signals.”

The County was invited to give a presentation to the Board in July and again in Sept as to where the project was and how it was shaping up. The seven remaining CDOs would be held in abeyance, for now. The CDO holders of the Los Osos 45, still had their CDOs but some language would be worked out so as to let them know that they’d also be in some kind of limbo, for now. And the planned mass CAOs would be held . . . for now.

The Staff was to give the Board clear benchmarks as to what they feel is important, tangible evidence of progress by the County or community so the Board would have something more to go on than just vague promises that things are going along well.

If the Board felt that there were to be delays, if the initial 218 and/or another follow up vote fails, or material progress on a system stops, or any other some such, staff was instructed that doing a mass Auto de Fe mailing, where everyone would be treated equally instead of torturing a few for a year, would be the preferred method, that CAOs would be easier than CDOs, that a settlement agreement [this time properly labeled as actually being a voluntary CAO not some other misleading document, as the proposed draft had it] would have a few more substantial carrots than a regular CAO would, but that both would make it clear that the counterproductive $5,000 a day fines would be capped into something related to real-world cost and hence more likely to get compliance, not defiance.

[As a side note, this community needs to understand, that CAOs are far different than CDOs. With CAOs your judge, jury, and executioner may well be EO Roger Briggs, now he’s back in town, and the “appeal” you are allowed will be read by the State Water Board. It does not take a cynic or a psychic to predict with 100% accuracy what the “verdict” and “appeal” on any CAO will be.]

The Board’s fear is that they’ll be taken for chumps – again. That they need to honor the public trust to protect water, but also realize that the focus here needs to be on water, not lawsuits and vacating homes and doing real harm to real people who have no way of complying with anything, [since the Board and staff have closed off all avenues in an effort to direct a certain outcome, while ingenuously denying same.]

That . . . “water quality is the issue here, . . . clean water is the #1 deal,” that the Board “doesn’t want to let enforcement get in the way” of clean water, that what’s needed here is, as Dr. Press put it, a “virtuous cycle rather than a vicious cycle.”

A virtuous cycle rather than a vicious cycle. Tragically, that virtuous cycle should and could have been present and heeded a year ago . . . but wasn’t. That wasted year was and is sad proof of a system broken, a system and procedures that failed, to the detriment of whole community and, ironically, to the Board itself.

Yet, finally, here we are. And as the meeting was adjourned, suddenly soft strains were heard filling the room . . . Kumbaya, my lord . . . kumbaya. . . . . And Mr. Shallcross leaned back in his chair, chewing on his pen, looking for all the world like a Cheshire Cat.

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bev. De Witt-Moylan here:

In the comments attached to Ann's previous blog posting I mentioned how long it takes for a developing child to hear something before it becomes part of their functional language. Thousands of times. For well over a year CDO defendants and potential defendants had been telling the board that their enforcement was scaring the people and taking attention away from water quality. Yesterday we heard Dr. Press say that the enforcement was scaring the people and taking attention away from water quality.

A few monthwith Retired General Wesley Clark, who had been the Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe during the Balkan War. He was being asked his opinion of the prosecution of the Iraq War. He said three things that demonstrated his deep understanding and compassion for people that could well be applied to any conflict between an enforcer and an enforcee.

He said that people tend to be proud of where they come from. So if you attack them on their home ground they will fight you. His advice was, "Don't use force unless you have to."

Churadogs said...

Things here went WAY beyond the sane into relms Medean, Freudian, Shakespearean and CYA-ean. Which is a tragedy because so much of this train wreck was totally avoidable if everyone had simply used their heads and kept asking The Basic Questions -- EXACTLY what are we trying to accomplish here? and Is what we're doing likely to accomplish that?

Anonymous said...

I commend the board for trusting the county process. But couldn't help watching them and think: "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me about 2 dozen times, I must be an idiot."

The campaign to vote against the 218 vote has begun in earnest. Soil scientist and obvious sewer expert Tom Rhueur and his letter in the Bay News has seen to that. Emboldening those who seek to obstruct, or those who refuse to play nice when the name Tri-W is mentioned, can once again potentially back-fire in the face of the Water Board. I hope not, but c'mon, who hasn't seen this movie before?

I commend the Water board's actions. I'm thrilled the threat of CAO's has been delayed. I've always maintained you can catch more bees with honey than vinegar. I cringe at those who strutted like peacocks at the CSD meeting. And I watch patiently to see when and if the lunatic fringe once again throw crap on the tracks to derail the train.

Rob Shipe said...

Anne Norment (sp?) was the lady who pointed out that the 30 day window to appeal would be the same 30 day window to review the fine screening report.

It was definitely a wake up moment in this entire process. IMO, Anne and Karen were the MVPs yesterday. Their comments were dead on accurate and made all the difference in the world. A big thanks to both of you ;^)

Mike Green said...

Kumbaya!

I for one am going to do everything I can to keep the Water Board away!
A special thanks to Bruce Gibson for his hand in drafting the letter of support from the co BOS!

Lets git r done!

4crapkiller said...

I thought the MOST interesting thing about the meeting was when some "asshole" alluded to the chairman as a terrorist, and the board as terrorists. Chairman Young was quite offended by this, and brought it up later.

If anyone wants the board to work with the county, it would be best if nut cases stand down.

As usual, Ann would never report on this, because it reflects her feelings that the board are UMMMMM? "terrorists."

Another nut case made fake coffee in a pot while saying nothing of consequence.

Then there was the renter Dougan there working against one of his property owning neighbors, trying to get the board to deny a "fixture for fixture" bathroom replacement.

The gigantic ego Racano from Moro Bay spoke of his activist accomplishments and pushed his ABC regional sewer solution like the county would ever consider it for Los Osos.

Despite the nut cases, the board made a good decision.

At the end, it was mentioned that while the board admitted that everyone wanted a sewer, there were a lot of "ifs" about the sewer mentioned: affordable, out of town, etc. Many came up and spoke that the "Move the Sewer group" wanted a sewer, but only "out of Town".

My instinct is that everyone should vote for the 218 assessment. Beggars can't be choosy. In any case the property owners will pay: it will either be in fines, or for a sewer. The board is clear that the fines will be more thant the costs for the sewer if the 218 vote fails.

Of course, the nut cases will do their best to insure anarchy. They have before, and will do so again.

Stand down, Ann and Ron. Get er done.

Anonymous said...

"Electioneering" became the buzz word concerning the RWQCB the past few months. Ann, I was wondering if you could tell me how the board's decision to suspend the CAO's is still not "electioneering," since the "threat" of CAO's is still there if the 218 doesn't pass. In fact, how is any threat of enforcement not considered electioneering by you guys? Just wondering.

Mike Green said...

A "threat" is not an action, an action could be electioneering, remember:

Campaigning is when you can legally tell lies in order to influence elections.
Electioneering is when you cant legally tell the truth in order to influence elections.

4crapkiller said...

I am concerned about the repayment of the monies consummed from the low interest loan that is REQUIRED to be paid back before we can get a new low interest loan. Where will THAT money come from? The recall board broke the district. Are we going to have to assess ourselves for this in another assessment vote? Double the existing water fees?

Shark Inlet said...

Good question, Crapkiller.

I suspect the cleanest way of getting that issue figured out is that the new SRF loan documents will be drawn up to include the repayment of the money already borrowed. If would then be included in the one 218 vote the County would be holding.

Shark Inlet said...

In the 2nd comment in this this thread Ann has some intresting comments. My question is whether she's referring to the RWQCB or to the post-recall LOCSD board when she writes:

"Things here went WAY beyond the sane into relms Medean, Freudian, Shakespearean and CYA-ean. Which is a tragedy because so much of this train wreck was totally avoidable if everyone had simply used their heads and kept asking The Basic Questions -- EXACTLY what are we trying to accomplish here? and Is what we're doing likely to accomplish that?"

Anonymous said...

The water board saw the wisdom in standing down and allowing the "process" to work.

It is time for crap killer shark and the rest of TW Ousted board wolves to do the same.

This is exactly where we would have been with the water board after the recall, had you NOT begged for fines and spread the lies about having NO project. Lobbied for Briggs to help you crash the new board’s project changes---
The first Blakeslee compromise proved we did have a fundable plan, but the Tribune uncovered the records on TW work with Briggs and Cantu to destroy chances to save the loan and avoid nearly 2 years of wars. The SAME majority of the community who voted to recall and move the project have been working to save their homes, not from the water board---who finally “got it” but from YOU..

The Board made the mistake of listen to the Hensley lobby mob of TW propaganda, and shame on them. They won’t do that again!
So mush for the continued efforts to destroy the district.

Now the truth that the majority of the community was NEVER anti sewer----BUT ANTI THE DECEPTIVE TRI W bait and switch $168mil debacle-----those who booted Hensley, Legros and Gustafson will continue to work on a sensible and attainable project.

So seeing this you go after the old debt being illegally folded into a 218 vote. Knock it off fools! That is still disputed debt, and will be worked out on its own in the courts. It is NOT to be combined at this point into any new project.

AB 2701 specifically separates the disputed CSD debt for the County project.

Is this your way to toss more salt into the wounds---gas on a burned out fired in a scorched earth plan you cooked up if you lost the election?

Are YOU trying to prove yourself right by bringing this up to crash a 218 vote....You have been part of the problem long enough. Be part of the solution

It is over...support the 218 and a sensible project, and the sincere work of those in the community who are working at solving the problems and clearing the way to a successful and affordable project. Leave the battle field or pick up a plow and get to work with the rest of us!

In the majority.

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous noontime friend...

Is it really that the majority was opposed to TriW, to "bait-n-switch" or was it that the majority wanted to have a cheaper solution like the recall candidates promised?

Once the project was pulled from the LOCSD because of incompetence, those wanting to "work together" should really be open to whatever the County and TAC come up with and should consider the options carefully.

Perhaps you've missed my many postings here where I've indicated that I would prefer the cheapest reasonable solution. If your goal, like mine, is to keep the system as affordable as possible, you should probably be going after those who threaten to vote "no" on 218 vote if TriW isn't taken off the table first or unless the project location isn't fixed in stone before the 218 vote.

Yes ... please work with us in the majority who want a break from the past foolishness of the LOCSD board (or should I say "boards"?).


Crapkiller raised a really good question. Even if LOCSD debts are separated from the County project, according to the Governator's signing statement, no project for a Los Osos sewer and WWTF will get a SRF unless the money they loaned us in the past is repaid.

Understanding the various aspects of the challenge we face is part of "working together". Whether you or I blame Pandora or Lisa for the debts we have doesn't so much matter as that we'll need a few extra million tacked onto a 218 vote somehow if we're going to get a SRF. Without that being included in some fashion, the change in interest rates between SRF and the bond market average will make the project far more unaffordable. Think of it like points when buying a house. If you pay a bit extra up front you can get a lower rate. Sometimes the trade off is good and sometimes it is bad. In this case, the cost of paying the points up front lowers the rate soooooo much that we would be happy to do so.


Lastly, you chastise me for spreading lies about the new board "having NO project". I'm sorry if you were offended by my choice of words. I would have assumed that had the new board actually had a plan that would have cost us $100/month (like they promised when they ran) the would have revealed the details sometime in the last year and a half since they've taken office. Like Nixon's "secret plan to end the war in Vietnam" I view this promise as a campaign gimmick ... a lie designed to get votes from those willing to trust and unwilling to ask for details.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:00:

I appreciate your desire to let the county process unfold. I am with you 100%. I have a couple of questions for you.

1. As I said, I am COMPLETELY in support of the county; the TAC; the advisory vote; the BOS. I just want a project. I'm tired of the whole thing, and quite obviously the CSD, any CSD, just wasn't going to get it done. Whatever the county comes up with, with my input and advisory vote of course, is fine with me. Can you say the same? I suspect you can by reading your passion to support the county, but just thought I'd check.

2. Tom Ruehr just wrote an opinion in the Bay News telling people not to buy "the bill of goods" being offered by the county, and to vote no on the 218. Do you agree with him? Is he a member of TW because he opposes the 218?

3. Do you think there will be people who will work against the 218 vote who are not in TW, in fact are just the opposite, they hate TW? If gravity and/or Tri-W passes the fine screening and is actually supported by the majority of the people through their advisory vote (I don't think this will happen, but let's just pretend it becomes the most affordable of all options and the majority of homeowers support it), will you still support the county and the 218 vote? I will, because like I said I support the process and just want to get this all behind me. How about you?

Thanks for your answers. And let's get a project going!

Anonymous said...

To poster 12:00 PM - you are part of the whisper that continues to feed into the division within our community. There are many, many people working to bridge gaps and extend hands of help and hope.

My discussions with people in the community, people who were/are active with TW, people in the county and state levels of government are open to many possibilities of how this may all come to resolution. One thing is very clear, they are tired and frustrated with vilification being the tactic to dissuade and persuade the voters.

The energy at the CSD meeting was great last night. Then, all it took was a couple of public comments to put the tendrils of fear and mistrust back into the conversation. Was it me or did anyone else notice that it didn't take long for almost 1/3 of the public there to get up and leave and not even continue to try to participate. Out of the blue, there were barbs tossed at TW and the waterboard and the CSD board and that was it. The moment faded and it was back to business as usual. One member of the community was so frustrated that the implication of a lack of presence of other members of our community was due to fear and thats not it! There are members within our community who want to be able to come to a meeting and be a part of a discussion that doesn't define the line as: if you aren't with us than you are against us.

It doesn't bother me to sit there and be comfortable with the fact that I disagree with some of what is said back and forth. It does bother me that the only rallying cry is to lump all our problems into one ball and toss a lob at TW! It's a silly tactic that has been very effective and confusingly so.

My resolve is to continue to work where my passions lie. I resolve to work with whomever is willing to step forward out of that shadow and stand for community. Thanks to all that do, thanks to the many who endure the ongoing debate and to any who don't know, TW is not the enemy. The lob bombs at them are smoke and mirrors and I know that many see right through that hyped acrimony. It just makes the struggle to find common ground a little more tenuous. The accusations would be laughable if they weren't doing so much damage at adding to suspicion and fear.

Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Anonymous said...

Does all this mean that Shauna Sullivan is no loner needed by the CSD and that they will NOT pay her any further?

Anonymous said...

Shark - For your information, a statement made by the governor is not a law. It's a statement made by the governor.

Anonymous said...

Hi Maria

I agree it is unfortunate that we have some folks who insist on a negative, nasty, never-ending fight. They thrive on it. I say we should ignore this behavior, from whatever side it comes from. I'm still basking in the glow of last night's champagne...we deserved it! Please thank everyone on the TAC for their dedication and hard work. We are going to get a great project. I just know it.

Anonymous said...

Shauna Sullivan is a wonderful neighbor for stepping up to the plate. Just chill while this plays out. She helped save us from the RWQCB! What have you done to help?

Anonymous said...

"It is time for crap killer shark and the rest of TW Ousted board wolves to do the same."

Right back at ya, neighbor. Why don't you tell your "move the sewer at any cost" friends the same thing!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO SHUT THE HELL UP AND LET THE COUNTY DO IT'S THING BEFORE YOU DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE THE 218.

Anonymous said...

Shauna Sullivan is just another lawyer the CSD (that's US folks!) can not afford. Get the CSD and lawyers out of the sewer business and on to the bankruptcy recovery...or does the CSD intend to ignore that "little" problem?

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 1:09pm ...

Perhaps you are unclear about what a signing statement is. It is more than just the opinion of the governor in this case. It is the governor's direction to the state agencies he controls about how they are to implement the various laws they are supposed to enforce.

Unless challenged successfully in the courts, a signing statement is essentially as good as a law.

For better or worse, we're on the hook for that money we borrowed.

Anonymous said...

On Shaunna Sullivan -

"She helped save us from the RWQCB!"

NO, what saved us was a project in the hands of the County. What saved us was the letter by Bruce Gibson and the BOS. Those two things were the trigger that got the Water Board to finally listen to the people. They saw progress on a project and they tooks the words of the Supervisors as words to trust. No the lawsuit by Gail and the CSD did one blinkin' thing!

IF the Project gets somehow sidelined, IF the 218 fails, IF lawsuits are brought forward by the no sewer obstructionists, we will be getting CAO's so fast all the F. Lee Bailey's in the world can't help us.

Please - stay on track people. We will never get a chance for CHOICE again, whether the CSD takes the project or the State of California.

Anonymous said...

If the Governor wants us to pay the money back, that's all the more reason for a self-financed project.

It's horrible that the CSD (both CSD's) spent the SRF money. It's horrible that the county never gave the proper amount of money back to Los Osos from our property taxes (which made the CSD's dip into the SRF loan to pay for legal and other things.) It's horrible that the State Water Board gave out an unsecured loan to begin with. If they would have allowed a 218 vote before they started the Tri-W, we wouldn't be in this mess, and the State would get their money back because we would have voted to do so!

It's all up to the county now. If they're smart they will look at the best project, and get off the idea that Tri-W is the only way to go, because it's not. (I know Shark will disagree with this, but, remember, the 2001 bond money paid for land that we own and can sell.)

It will be up to the county if the 218 passes or fails. I hope they do the right thing! I hope the BOS picks the right project out of the selection they will have.

P.S. Mrs. Hunter of the RWQCB showed up at the CSD meeting (I never see her) to remind the folks who were all celebrating that this is a move by the board is just for awhile, obviously, the RWQCB is saying that if a 218 fails the CAO's could be in the mail the next day, which is quiet electioneering.
But regardless, the RWQCB clearly showed a different attitude towards the residents of Los Osos. Hmmmmm.
Somebody higher up is watching. Hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

Just what private entity would loan any amount of money, $100M to $500M, to a District run so poorly that they went bankrupt and can not repay the original low interest loan? Ain't gonna happen chum.

*PG-13 said...

> Hmmmmm. Somebody higher up is watching. Hmmmm.

Dog be Praised!


(Oh, I just love this one! Thank you anne r. allen!)

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:42:
Clearly that "different attitude" came from the fact the county now has the project and is making some progress. Your commnet "somebody higher up is watching" is typical of the "move the sewer at any cost" crowd's thinking that all is a conspiracy against Los Osos. And how do I know you are a "move the sewer at any cost" person? This quote from you: "If they're smart they will look at the best project, and get off the idea that Tri-W is the only way to go, because it's not."
Where in God's name did you ever get the impression from the county that Tri-W was the best project? You need to stay informed and stop your misinformation. You and your ilk do a great disservice to the community.

Anonymous said...

Why all of the complaining (by a couple of posters)about the loan repayment requirement as a condition of a new loan? This looks like a lame attempt to raise something negative about the process that is underway, and get people to forget(we won't) the positive outcome at the RWQCB yesterday.

The County will look at all available financing options and choose the one that is the least expensive overall to pay for the project. That simple. If the cheapest overall package includes the cost of repaying the first loan that the CSD burned through, then so be it. We will get the cheapest overall financing package. Is there something wrong with that?

Shark Inlet said...

To our math challenged friend of 4:42pm ...

If a project would run $200,000,000 and we owe the SWRCB an extra $10,000,000 just to get a lower rate ... it would be just plain dumb to insist on stiffing the state because the difference in the interest rate (supposing it's 2.5% versus 6%) would end up costing you $64 dollars extra each and every month for 20 years ... a total of $15,000 in unnecessary payments on your part.

So ... would you rather pay more just to make a point or less?

(Just a technical note: yes there are some who would give lower rate loans, but only by charging points on the loan so that they essentially will make about the market rate across the life of the loan ... a zero percent loan, even if it does exist ... won't save us unless it is from an organization willing to lose money on the loan ... like the SWRCB is.)


Also, when you write "It's all up to the county now. If they're smart they will look at the best project, and get off the idea that Tri-W is the only way to go, because it's not. (I know Shark will disagree with this, but, remember, the 2001 bond money paid for land that we own and can sell.)" I wonder whether there is another who posts here with my name (it has happened in the past, you know). You see, I've continually argued that the cheapest reasonable project is the one we ought to go with. Now I believe that it is likely to be TriW if the numbers are compared in a fair way, like with a lifecycle costing approach. Essentially the reason that I've repeatedly said that TriW is the best is that the extra design costs and delay associated with another location make it far more expensive. Essentially I would be rather surprised to see another location coming out on top ... but if it saves us money, I'm all for it!

In fact, if the TriW property ends up being purchased by the County for soccer fields or additional park space, I would be downright overjoyed. If we end up with a strip mall there, I'll be disappointed.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey bubbled:
"In fact, if the TriW property ends up being purchased by the County for soccer fields or additional park space, I would be downright overjoyed"

Me, I'm still hoping for the casino and wine bar, but hey, if it's got to be a sewer then I hope we get the wave wall with the plaque of blame.

Anonymous said...

"On Shaunna Sullivan -
"She helped save us from the RWQCB!"
NO, what saved us was a project in the hands of the County. What saved us was the letter by Bruce Gibson and the BOS. Those two things were the trigger that got the Water Board to finally listen to the people. They saw progress on a project and they tooks the words of the Supervisors as words to trust. No the lawsuit by Gail and the CSD did one blinkin' thing!"

Does anyone else find it interesting that the RWQCB decision to back down coincides with the Shaunna appeal heading into a REAL courtroom? Or that they are now trying to sweep that tragedy of errors under the rug by resending the CDOs? Or that they will then be able to issue new CAOs to the 45 citizens that they persecuted for over a year without the dirty laundry attached? The RWQCB wants their illegal loan money back and they will find a new strategy for collecting.

I think it best we keep Shaunna looking out for us. She is one of us, a homeowner in the PZ. She understands the way the big boys play, and calls them on it when they step over the line. Our constitution protects all citizens, even in Los Osos, and Shaunna is there to remind them.

We can then truly focus on the project without worrying about being blindsided.

Kumbaya

Anonymous said...

Hey Shark, are you Richard LeGros? Where did the $10 million owed to the state come from?

There is no way our project should ever cost $200 million to begin with. Orenco can do a project for about $11,000. per home rather than what you want which may be $100,000. per home.

The gravity project comes with problems that we'll have to pay for (broken pipes from earthquakes like in Oceano) and much more. You never factor any of the added costs that a big pipe system will bring!

The Tri-W should be a park, since the county took our only park away and replaced it with a skate park.

Anonymous said...

Shark:

P.S. We wouldn't "stiff" the state - remember they were the ones that gave out an unsecured loan with no 218 vote. If we would have had a 218 vote we would be paying it back because we would have voted on it. It could have been worked out if both CSD's hadn't spent the money. No bank would ever do what the State Water Board did because they would have to "eat it" and you know it!

Anonymous said...

TRIW should be a park with swings, BBQs, picnic tables, lovely gardens, and drinking fountains. No soccer field (we have one) and no ampitheatre (too much noise too close to homes).

Anonymous said...

Yeah Shark, you should admit that the state messed up big time. Quit blaming your neighbors! It is of no help! Did someone put you in charge of the SRF or something?

4crapkiller said...

To noon anon "In the majority":

I do not care where or what any project the county suggests. I do not care if they spray sewerage into the winds. I do not care if they put it at Tri-W, or put a cluster plant next to your property. I do not care if they decide to put it "out of town", "in town", next to you, my property, or up your ass.

I simply care about a project that will succeed and stop polution and mitigate our water problem. I also want it before the CCRWQCB decends upon us for obstructing the law and hits us with fines that buy us nothing but the ability to live in our homes (if we can pay the fines).

Obviously the recall board only really screwed sewer things up on a time wise basis. They also made us insolvent. I WANT TO SEE THESE PEOPLE IN JAIL. The consequences of their actions have not been realized as yet. Unless you are a renter, and actually own property in the PZ, you are going to pay, as I, for this. What is in your pocket?

As of this time I see no way that the property owners in the PZ will be able to wiggle out of paying for the recall board's stupidity. Already you have seen vastly increased water rates. Maybe you are a renter, and the landlord pays for water, but expect a rent increase.

I have two pieces of property in the PZ at risk.

My properties has taken a terrific hit in value. They are in prime coastal land: Low heat, no air conditioning, clean air, and in the most scenic area of California.

It used to be a nice town but was taken over by the gullible. I was one of them, and have admitted it in the past. I voted to establish a LOCSD, never considering the amount of fools in this town.

I will vote for the least expensive option that will get the job done, regardless of site or system. I will vote for the 218 to get the job done. The BOS will decide, and I will support their decision. They are not fools.

I just wonder that if the county decides to put the sewer "out of town" at a far greater cost than at the existing TRI-W site, whether YOU will be bitching and complaining "Unaffordable", "Unsustainable", "Energy hog", "Stinky", etc.

As I see it, if the 218 vote to fund the sewer does not succeed (it will be a vote by the property owners and I have two votes), we will be in a far worse situation than what we are in now.

I will never vote for a 218 to get the district out of bankruptcy unless I see the recall board prosecuted.

There is no free lunch. We may have to pay for it, and not get to eat it, if the nut cases continue to dupe the rest of the nut cases in Los Osos. I can think of nothing more rediculous than paying fines for obstruction and getting nothing for them.

Beware of the dictatorship of democracy. Lots more fools than wise people.

Anonymous said...

The Fair Policital Practices Commission is looking into the RWQCB's electioneering. The AG's office is also looking into the Los Osos situation. The truth always comes out - it may take time - but it always comes out! I'll be waiting.

I'll be waiting for something to happen with this so-called PZ too. The county screwed up with that. I'm not trying to be negative, I'm trying to keep the county honest.

Anonymous said...

Crapkiller,

I wish you would calm down. I wish you would spell "pollution" right or just plain spell correctly. You've lied, you label people that don't agree with you, and are just plain wrong.

The CSDs (all of them) screwed up. The county screwed up by not putting in the sewer for decades. The State Water Board screwed up big time for giving out a bad loan. So, why do you just call some who prefer an affordable sustainable project "nut cases" or any of the other labels you like to throw around to distract from what they're really saying?

Anonymous said...

"The AG's office is also looking into the Los Osos situation."

Thank goodness and it's about time. Julie Tacker and Lisa Schicker will look just mah-va-lous in orange.

Anonymous said...

I would like an affordable, sustainable project. It's important to do the right thing. I own two properties in the PZ and you can ask anyone who knows me...I am not a "nut job." But if Crap keeps this up, he/she might qualify. BTW why aren't you on the board since you seem to know everything about everything, Crap? Maybe you're afraid to run because some nut job might threaten to put you in jail!

Mike Green said...

Crappy, you need to go fishin,
Let the coppers do their job,

Chill out, The water Gods are appeased "for now"

Take a boat ride, reflect.

peace

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry that I don't share your enthusiasm that the SLO AG would look at Los Osos. He has sat on his hands for the past 3 years accomplished nothing other than scratch his butt!

I too own a couple rental properties, and will make them month to month agreements should the County fail to get an agreement and not begin constructing a sewer by June 2009. I will thereafter increase all sewer costs directly on to the monthly rents. I'm sorry to have to be put into this position by the failure of our local CSD, but I can't afford to subsidize renters housing. Rental housing is not intended to be a not-for-profit investment. I have some very nice renters currently and I am slightly below market in price. But I'll be damned if I'll let the cost of a sewer that was being designed and soon to be built some 30 years ago, ruin my retirement that I worked very hard for. I'm not a whinning CalTrans wantabe politician with a State retirement. I'm just a hard working guy who used to believe Los Osos was a great community. Renter better look to their wallets, we can't afford to give you a free ride. If you don't like that, then go buy your own house, otherwise, look forward to some hefty rent increases.

Anonymous said...

If you own "a couple" rental properties your retirement might not be too bad. After this shakedown our property values will maintain pretty well. This will continue to be a desireable area in the long run. Of course if you are ready to retire now, it might be a problem.

Anonymous said...

Oh, really. I am so disappointed with Ann's totally biased take on this, I wonder just WHY I come on here and even respond.

The fact is, that the LOCSD cannot come up with the funds to repay the hideous draw down to fund the payola to the lawyers who represented CCLO, CASE and whomever, to the tune of $488,000.00!

So, where do we go from there?

The LOCSD in their infinite stupidity have exhausted all reserve funds, just to pay for periodic charges from the CDF for our fire and paramedic services, and the charges on the bonds previously sold. (GOD!!! I am SO glad I did not INVEST in LOS OSOS!!! I almost did!!)

Los Osos is in a world of hurt, financially, by their own hand.

The LOCSD needs to realize that they are not in any bargaining position, insofar as dealing with the SWQCB or any other governmental agency; also insofar as contractual obligations they have already defaulted upon.

LOCSD: LISTEN UP!!!!!!

Better back down from your lofty position! You are circling the drain! Grab the lifeline the County is throwing to you, without a whimper, without bitching, without squabbling, without that spoiled-brat attitude so evident when your Board members get up to the microphone.

Understand that YOU are most fortunate to have a County that will come to your rescue, when you, yourselves snatched defeat out of the jaws of VICTORY, when you STOPPED the Sewer Project.

You better count your lucky stars, quit your whining and bitching, and just shut the hell up, so the big boys can step in and do the job you failed to complete.

LOCSD BOD: You are pathetic!

Shark Inlet said...

To our friend of 7:23 ...

Yes, the SRF loan was unsecured and we didn't put our homes on the line to get that money. On the other hand, if a bank were to have lost some millions on dollars on unsecured loans, you can't really expect that same bank to go an make another round of loans to the same community who just stiffed them.

I guess I just don't see the wisdom in cutting off one's nose just to spite one's face. Yes, if we don't want the lower interest rate a SRF would provide, we might be able to avoid paying the SWRCB back. However, the benefit of that lower interest rate is large enough that it is worth it. I gave you all some numbers earlier to show that. It is only those who are both wealthy and stupid who would want to pay more just to prove a point.


To our friend of 7:28pm ... you are right and wrong. The State did, indeed, screw up with an unsecured loan to us of that amount. I've said so before several times here. You are wrong to suggest that I am blaming my neighbors for the state's mistake.

The questions really are these ... will the SWRCB loan money to the County for a sewer and will we be required to pay them back for the LOCSD debts to get a low interest loan?


To our friend of 7:19pm ...

I used $200M as a figure because that is what the Paavo recently guestimated the total cost to be. If you want to argue that it will be lower (like about $55M as you suggest) you should probably talk to him about it. If you're right we could save a ton. To suggest that I would want the costs to be about $100,000 per home ($500M) is simply silly. You make yourself look bad when you start tossing around such false accusations.

On the issue of whether gravity systems have a greater likelihood of damage from earthquakes than STEP systems (as you suggest) I would be interested to see an explanation of why this is the case.

Anonymous said...

To Anon above @ 8:57

I don't like the almost 1/2 million in settlements either, but what about the 1/2 million that went out to Dana Ripley after the RFP? That went right down the drain, because the county stepped in to help?? Thanks alot. Why don't you talk about that?

Give us a break, the county took over right after the recall. Pandora asked them to. They had to have their project back, so while we were well on our way with Ripley along comes the county to take it out of our hands - thanks to Sam Blakeslee.

By the way, did Sam Blakeslee ever try to weigh in our CDO problem? No...I remember in the early stages of the 2701 legislation, Sam said all would not be happy with it...just like Jeffrey Young said yesterday...we would not all be happy with what's chosen and it's not a perfect world...

4crapkiller said...

To 7:44 PM yesterday:

Well I can't spell. I admit it. I also make typos! But I admit my mistakes.

I admit that I made a mistake in voting for the formation of the LOCSD.

Can you admit that your vote for the recall did not contribute to insolvency and the county takeover of the reason that the LOCSD was formed? Can you admit that we had a legal and fully permitted sewer in progress before the recall board stopped it?

I guess the consequences are all because the devil made it happen.
It had nothing to do with "Prop B will save us", the CCRWQCB has "no teeth", it was an "illegal loan", etc. I guess it had nothing to do with stopping the sewer based on the above bull crap.

I bet you are just like a person that believes that a tatoo can be removed easily. The tatooer says that, the doctor wants $10,000 to remove it.

Wake up! Sorry I pissed you off by calling you a renter. You may not be, but I still have the opinion that "nooner" and the voters who voted for the recall on the basis of "pie in the sky" were fools. They were duped, and the proof is insolvency. Especilly since the consequences were well documented before the vote. I ADMIT I was a fool in voting to establish a LOCSD. And I WILL pay for it! I just did not understand that there were so many fools in Los Osos who thought that they could obstruct the law in Los Osos and put property owners at risk over "pie in the sky". I should never have pought property in this town of fools. Especially since renters are allowed to vote on matters that effect property owners leading to liens on their property.

I am a traditionalist that believes that a bird in the hand is worth ten in the bush. In retribution for my comments




















































I will give you the bird.

So I guess I just started the ball rolling with my foolishness.

To Mike Green: fishing would be good for this old lady. One of the kids has a 22 foot ranger and has been asking me to go bass fishing.

However the boat gos sixty miles per hour and if it hits a wave my boobs will hurt terribly. Been there, done that. Speed demon. Need to fish from a bank.

4crapkiller said...

To 8:12 Pm yesterday:

Why would I run for a board when my elected representatives were doing a good job to comply with the law? I was happy with them. They actually came up with a solution to save me from fines, CDOs etc. Perhaps not the BEST solution, and perhaps not the WORST solution, but a solution! And it was financed!

And now why would I run for a position on the recall board when it was clear that insolvency was on the table, a petition for bankruptcy filed, and all effective power for wastewater removed from the board? The board is in the hands of the courts. Their only purpose is to handle the bankruptcy filing and that is not happening.

So I should run for the board and tell the electorate that the only way they can save the LOCSD, who can do nothing because they are insolvent, is to tell the property owners that they will have to asess themselves to save the district, and even if they don't, they can be assessed regardless.

I do not think the LOCSD can be saved. Even the Locsd board, looking now for dissolution, does not think they can save the district.

The courts will decide. They eventually will call for a vote of those encumbered, the property owners. We, the property owners will pay. Sooner now cheaper, later more expensive.

I want justice! If I served on a board that could make decisions that would cause insolvency, I would be very clear to call for "due dilligence" and clarity of possible unintended consequences.I would leave a paper trail to insure that I could not be sued for "violation of oath of office" and I sure as hell would not be lying that I had a plan when I did not.

Next case!

What is happening now with the LOCSD board is posturing and an exercise in futility. The bankruptcy filing should be their agenda. If they do not get off the stick, the filing may be denied.

And then what? The property owners from outside the PZ will file suit to avoid liability in that the insolvency was incurred for "pie in the sky" benefiting those in the PZ.

Anonymous said...

Uh, Crapkiller, wasn't your name on the Solutions group Vision report or something? Weren't you part of what has brought us to this point?
To want to see Lisa and Julie in jail is telling in that it show's your zeal for this issue. Zealots always bother me because they seem to have their own agenda. An agenda they try to force on someone else.
If you're so worried about the pollution going on, why have you not been complaining to the County, or Water Board, why they have not taken any remedial action in the known hot spots of pollution?
We're talking alot of years here.
Are you saying that all those times you spoke at the old CSD meetings, where you praised the Board members to high heaven about what a commendable and honorable job they were doing was in retrospect wrong?
Sincerely, M

Anonymous said...

Crap is part of the Solutions Group? Well, they really brought us a solution didn't they. Community mayhem, conflict , a recall, a waste of good years.

Anonymous said...

Crapkiller,

The old board was just about insolvent, right? Isn't that why THEY (Stan, Richard and Gordon)had to dip into the SRF monies?

No, I can't admit to the Tri-W being legal. I believe we were entitled to a 218 vote, but were denied that vote (and it's "Measure B" not "Prop B") I believe the state gave out an unsecured loan. I've heard many say this (including Gordon Taylor, Chipping, Gail etc.)

And, who really did stop the sewer?? I believe it was the state, and the documents show that they would not continue with (more)loan money until a 218 was held and Measure B stuck down. So, if I were you, I'd stop blaming this board for everything that's happened. They were put in this spot by the recalled board on purpose. It's what Pandora and Jerry Gregory asked the RWQCB to do.

Now I'm starting to understand why you write what you do. You're just not the brightest star out there. You're the one who's bought in on all the lies and misinformation.

You should read more and learn. It helps with spelling too!

Anonymous said...

Oops, Crapkiller, I made a typo too. Should be State wanted to strike down Measure B.

I guess I should not criticize you - sorry.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 7:48 on 5/11,

The AG for the State (not the DA for the county - he'll never do anything to help) but rather Jerry Brown's office just might be looking into Los Osos. Below is their "Mission Statement" (so it doesn't really matter that they have to defend the State Water Board.)

"It is our duty to serve our state and work honorably every day to
fulfill California's promise. The Attorney General and our Department's
employees provide leadership, information and education in partnership
with state and local governments and the people of California to:

* Enforce and apply all our laws fairly and impartially.
* Ensure justice, safety, and liberty for everyone.
* Encourage economic prosperity, equal opportunity and tolerance.
* Safeguard California's human, natural, and financial resources
for
this and future generations"

This would seem to mean that, in the best of all possible worlds, he
must take the side of whatever California citizens are in the right,
whether or not they happen to work for
State agencies.

We'll see!

Anonymous said...

Cheshire cat indeed!

Anonymous said...

to 8PM,

Check this out and perhaps some should right to Jerry Brown, our Attorney General for the abuse the RWQCB has put on the 45 CDO people and the rest of us. Below find his mission statement:

"It is the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the
state are uniformly and adequately enforced (California Constitution,
Article V, Section 13.)"

and

"Mission Statement

It is our duty to serve our state and work honorably every day to
fulfill California's promise. The Attorney General and our Department's
employees provide leadership, information and education in partnership
with state and local governments and the people of California to:

* Enforce and apply all our laws fairly and impartially.
* Ensure justice, safety, and liberty for everyone.
* Encourage economic prosperity, equal opportunity and tolerance.
* Safeguard California's human, natural, and financial resources
for
this and future generations"

This would seem to mean that, in the best of all possible worlds, he
must take the side of whatever California citizens are in the right,
whether or not they happen to work for
State agencies.

Hopefully, that is what he is going to do with regard to Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

Oops, I meant to write to Jerry Brown for justice.

4crapkiller said...

From 4crapkiller to anon 4:57 PM:

What can I say except that you are intitled to drown in misinformation and speculation?

I have been duped also. We WILL see how this all works out.