Pages

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Sewer Tales Redux, Again, Some More, Sigh

Dagnabit! Why doesn’t anyone bother to listen to Mother Calhoun? I just finished posting a Can(n)on ‘splaining how the Tribune keeps getting the story wrong and here we are, Saturday morning, May 26, with a story on the CDO recipients (and CSD) who have filed a Writ in Superior Court. On the jump page is the sidebar, MOREONLINE, with this Question: Should the residents have waited to file the lawsuit until the water board decided what it was going to do? while suggesting readers go on line to post comments on that amazing question.

What’s so amazing about the question? Clearly, whoever wrote it (and the editor who left it in,) had NO CLUE what this story and this Writ was about. Instead, a reader scanning that side-bar would just conclude, Oh, For God’s Sake, Look at those lawsuit-happy Los Osos Loonies, couldn’t wait until the Water Board had a chance to decide something. Nope, didn’t give those poor Board members a chance. Just rushed into court, willy nilly.

And, I dare say, anyone reading the whole story would come away not really understanding exactly what was actually going on here or that, perhaps, a more accurate headline should have read: Reluctant Targeted Home Owners FORCED to Go To Court Because RWQB Refused to Stop the Clock.

In short, what the writ is all about is the sad fact that this whole CDO mess is a complex, time-sensitive, administrative pas de deux, with iron-hard time-lines that must be met. If they’re not, if you haven’t jumped through all the preliminary hoops in the proper way, if you miss those deadlines, you’re – how can I put this delicately? – Totally Screwed. That is, you can lose your rights of appeal, lose the record, loose any chance of getting to a “real court.” Screwed.

That’s why the writ was served. At the last meeting, the RWQCB did NOT rescind the previously given CDOs. The clock was ticking on them. Plus, they added a few more at the last hearing. The clock was ticking on them, too. The Board did NOT do anything that would in any way stop that clock, stop the required hoops in the administrative procedures allowed to the CDO recipients. In short, it was a case of You MUST Use It Before Such And Such A Date Or Loose It.

Yet, there’s that sidebar question:

“Should the residents have waited to file the lawsuit until the water board decided what it was going to do?”

As Mother Calhoun has already pointed out: Wrong questions, wrong answers. That’s how you get The Story Wrong.

Speaking of Which.

In the Same May 26 Tribune, former Supervisor Shirley Bianchi had a rather curious “Viewpoint.” In discussing her participation in a Cal Poly class on collaborative planning, Ms. Bianchi mentioned some of her “insight into what can make or break a group effort, “ by citing some of her experiences with the Los Osos sewer project, including the notation that “All [the various agencies involved] wanted success for Los Osos and were willing to cooperate within the confines of the cultures of their various agencies. After the Los Osos recall, I also offered to assist the newly elected board but never received a response.”

Ms. Binachi then went on to state that a failure of a group effort can come about if there are members of the group “who come to the table with ‘secret’ information. By this I mean someone has told them something in ‘confidence’ that they believe they are not at liberty to divulge, but which prevents them from collaborating in good faith. This happens more often than one would like to believe, and I believe, happened in Los Osos with the second set of directors.” [does she mean post-recall? The CSD has had several “sets” of directors before the “recall” set.]

Ms. Bianchi doesn’t spell out what “secret” information she’s referring to, but what popped to mind when I read that “Viewpoint” was an October 20, 2005 letter, written on official BOS letterhead, signed by Shirley Bianchi, Supervisor District Two, addressed to Arthur G. Baggett, Jr. Chair, California State Water Resources Control Board, in Sacramento.

She opens with, “My County Supervisorial District includes Los Osos, a community and its problems I believe that you are aware of? (I do hope any irony is coming through in my words.)”

Then goes on to state that she has enclosed information concerning the so-called “Andre” site (then being discussed as a possible Out Of Town sewer plant site), as well as other material. She closes with this: “This is a particularly difficult situation since the current District Board either will not or cannot understand any government process. At one point I was asked [she doesn’t say by whom] if the political will exists here in San Luis Obispo County to assume the management of the project [the Tri-W project that was on hold at that point] if, for whatever reasons, the District were unable to continue with it. Let me assure you that you have my full support, and I believe that the other Supervisors would give great weight to my position.”

Interestingly, the cc list at the bottom of the letter includes Senator Maldonado; Assemblyman Blakeslee; Celeste Cantu, SWRCB; Jeffery Young, Chair, RWQCB; and Roger Briggs, CEO of the RWQCB.

There was no c.c. listed that would indicate that a copy of this letter had also been sent to the post-recall CSD, the one Ms. Bianchi said she “offered to assist.”

This is astonishing since it was the only legally elected body that—one would have thought – should have received a copy, since the letter was dealing directly with them and their jurisdictional issues. (Hmmm, October 20, was the recall election even certified at that point? Were the Negotiations that Weren’t Really Negotiations Heh-heh underway? What issues was the newly elected Board dealing with during that “stand down” period?

If Ms. Bianchi had offered to “assist the newly elected board,” as she notes in the “Viewpoint,” surely she would have sent them a copy of this letter, wouldn’t she? Especially since Ms. Bianchi was noting that this newly elected group, the same one that she had “offered to assist,” “cannot understand any government processes.” Perhaps that explains why she was suggesting to Mr. Baggett that she was more than willing to work behind the scenes – and get the other Supervisors to go along with that --since they “would give great weight to [her] position” to, for example, take over the Tri-W project?

So, why did that letter pop into my head while reading Ms. Bianchi’s “Viewpoint?” Two things made The Story go wrong: 1) Ms. Bianchi stated that she had “offered to assist the newly elected board,” while actually sending a private letter to Mr. Baggett (no c.c. to the CSD to let them in on the little chat) that concluded that she didn’t think that board could understand much of anything (i.e. wink, nudge, they’re wackadoodles and incapable of governing, so let’s you and me think about taking over that project, heh-heh). And (2) then noting a few paragraphs later, her apt and correct observation that when certain people come to the collaboration table with “secret” information, that secret information undermines any “collaborating in good faith.”

Indeed.

Couldn’t agree more. Secrets official letters and wackadoodles and behind-the-scenes agendas have sunk many a collaborative ship, that’s for sure. Which is why I am hoping that in the present Process the County is now undertaking, The Process will stay transparent and all those secret thumbs will stay off the scales.

87 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Secret information" such as:

"....we have a plan" and
"....we know we will not lose the SRF loan" and
"....you will not get fined if Measure B passes".

Anonymous said...

Ann sez: "Which is why I am hoping that in the present Process the County is now undertaking, The Process will stay transparent and all those secret thumbs will stay off the scales.

Ann: You mention "process" twice... What "process" are you talking about? There are many "processes" at work here, e.g. Gail McPherson's "process" a/k/a the County's "process" a/k/a the water board's "process." All these "processes" are the same. None of these "processes" are transparent. All thumbs have been on the scale from the very beginning of this "process," which began in Blakeslee's office in secret, in the shadows, hidden from the community and lied about by the board, even as it was going down.

None of these "processes" are the Democratic process.

The fact is, this "process" is nothing more than a euphemism for total surrender, which the people of Los Osos will pay for with their homes.

"Process" that...on your way out of town.

Anonymous said...

Once again, provide proof of your claims Anon 5:51. Some more wild and reckless accusations from you without providing us with any proof that the "thumbs are on the scale." We'll wait.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Bianchi had a personal ax to grind with the recall board and apparently still does. She couldn't seperate out the community from the whacko jobs. Mr. Gibson is doing a much better job.

Anonymous said...

"Proof that the "thumbs are on the scale" are everywhere anon 6:03 PM, May 26, 2007. Are you blind or just part of it? I suspect you are part of it and feel you must defend yourself. There's nothing to wait for. We've been thumbed in the eye, and it's bleeding bad.

The headline of the Trib should read:
"LOS OSOS RIPPED OFF OF ADVISORY VOTE." It's now been downgraded to just a survey, diluted by input from outside and inside the PZ -- totally useless for any purpose but academic. It carries no weight whatsoever.

First we were ripped off for the interagency agreement, then ripped off by stacking the TAC, and now ripped off of our advisory vote -- which the BOS wasn't bound by, but haunted by.

So they killed it. They eliminated it because they were afraid it would go againt their choice -- and they didn't want to be held accountable.

Gibson is playing us for the fools that we're not. He is the wackojob we have to monitor constantly since he is beholden to Shirley and panders to Pandora, and is a spineless weakling.

You who seek proof are part of the problem, not part of the solution. If you were honest, you'd be looking out for the community, not the BOS.

But you are paid in ego points, and that's more than enough for you.

Anonymous said...

I agree it is horrendous that the community advisory vote is now a "survey." Will they show us the results of the survey? Who will answer the survey? Why is it now a survey? Gibson is a traitor at best. I knew when I voted for Judy Vick it was a good choice. I wish she had made it to the finish line.

Anonymous said...

Ooh the thought of pandering to Pandora makes me sick to my stomache.

Anonymous said...

The process keeps getting dumbed down more and more.

Anonymous said...

I've heard that Julie Rodewald told the county that they couldn't call it a vote. Perhaps, if it was a vote the BOS would have to go with it. So, now it's a survey of everyone (people who don't have to pay.) That clears the way for the BOS to pick what they've always wanted. Besides that, with a 218 on just funding a sewer project, indeed clears the way for the big sewer they all want.

Remember, always remember, it's about real estate. There are always distractions, but it's ALL ABOUT REAL ESTATE. Low to middle income out and the rich in. The County makes more from property taxes. The developers get to tear down houses and build. The realtors get money when the house sells and with the new buyer. It's a whole food chain. Everyone get rich while we in the PZ lose our homes because we are taxed out of them. A win-win for everyone except for the people who live in Los Osos right now.

P.S. I remember when Pandora hosted Rodger Anderson and Bruce Gibson at her home, but wouldn't invite Judy Vick.

Anonymous said...

The 45 CDO's were a tactic to push the Tri-W. All the people in the know were made aware that as soon as the project started the CDO's would be lifted.

Pandora, the county, Sam Blakeslee and the RWQCB had to make sure the people of Los Osos would be scared enough to pay for the big project.

It's a horrible thing, but Gail knew all this. It's unbelievable the extreme measures that the RWQCB has gone though to push for the Tri-W. There are millions to be made off of the PZ homeowners.

You have to remember that we were on our way with Dana Ripley for a step system when Sam Blakeslee had to step in for the county to take over. They do not want a step system, or anything affordable for that matter. It's not like there aren't other modern systems that cost less, that are not funded by SRF loans.

It's amazing that we will have to pay for the most expensive system that won't do a thing about any nitrate problem for 40 years, if at all. Now the county will force imported water (so the developers can build) that will kill us with mercury and other pollutants from the mines. The county knows how bad the water is, yet will spend $190 million to poison us. Wow!

Please don't tell me to trust the county or the county proecess.

Churadogs said...

Anonymice sez;"Ann: You mention "process" twice... What "process" are you talking about? "

I'm talking about the process the county has put into place since taking over the wastewater project. It includes a screening of the various feasible wastewater systems, a report (due out pretty soon) of those results, the formation of a TAC to review those systems still standing for pro & con analysis, the shape-uyp of what's left standing after that with (hopefully) ball-park guestimates as to price and shape and site, a 218 vote, more "due dilligence" followed by an advisory survey to determine if there is any clear winner in the community, followed by a BOS selection that, if we're lucky, will coincide with what the community survey shows. Also, Paavo has indicated that he will try to get the same Peer Review experts in to take a look at what's on the table (they've already taken a look at the draft screening report and made a few suggestions) and vet what's there as being ball-park accurate and doable at that point. During this time, the various engineering reports will be available for scrutiny, public input at town-hall type meetings will be taken, the county website still takes input and comments, the community can decide what and where and how much.

There are many thumbs that can secretly go on that scale while this is going on. It's up to the public to keep a sharp eye out. That doesn't include unsupported paranoid raving.

Comments from some folks on this site make it clear that they favor one particular type of system and nothing else will be acceptable to them and they have vowed to sue or block any other choices (this profoundly anti-democratic viewpoint has been asserted for both gravity and STEP),so partisan battle lines have already been drawn. That's fine, that's part of the process as well. The rest of the homeowners and community may feel differently, one way or the other. Until they check in, we won't know what they have in mind. Right now it's too soon to tell.

It has been apparent for some time that NOBODY -- not the Feds, not the State, not the County -- NOBODY gives a foodle about follwoing Federal EPA guidelines as to "affordability," any mention of EPA guidelines gets a shrug and a, Well, yes... which trails off into silence. Unless someone knows a lawyer with lots of pro bono time on his/her hands who knows of a way to force the County to adhere to those EPA guidelines, now's the time to call them up. Otherwise, "affordability" will remain off the table.

As for it being all about real estate and driving the "riff-raff" from their homes. We live on "The Gold Coast." Slowly, surely "poor" people simply can't live here anymore -- from San Diego to the Oregon border. It's The American Way -- Marketplace Rules. Up and down the Gold Coast it's all becoming unaffordable. Period. Tribune business page notes that the median home is now $600,000. Hello? An "unaffordable" sewer will only speed the process. And, as I said, nobody gives a foodle. And nothing done here will be "affordable" to a certain group of people. There's talk about a "cheap system" (i.e. Orenco) but such a system does not solve water overdraft. If we have to import water, Ching! more unaffordability. About the best anyone can do for both water & sewer is to consider that there's "unaffordable" and "more unaffordable," and "Holy God! Unaffordable!" and go from there.

Anonymous said...

Ann misunderstands EPA guidelines completely and continues to misrepresent their purpose. They are GUIDELINES. They don't say that standards of treatment may be relaxed to make a system more affordable. They don't say that that 2% of income is a cap on a system cost. They don't say that Los Osos (or whoever) can only afford X anount and so the County will only collect 40% of the houses or treat 40% of the effluent. The only way for the County or State or Feds to adhere the guidelines is to FUND the difference. Ann can add the CSD and years of local obstruction to the list of doing nothing to meet affordability.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Don't you think the recall candidates campaign promise of a $100/month solution was putting a thumb on the scale?

After all, had that promise not been made ... or had they given us a "real" number rather than some wishful thinking ... the recall would not have been successful.

The slimness of the margin would argue forcefully that telling us that they could do it cheaper (a total lie, by the way) tipped the balance.

So ... is lying during a campaign okay but electioneering not? Is promising something that you have no hope of delivering not wrong?

Ann, your outrage seems rather selective.

Anonymous said...

To Ann: We are talking about middle income people. We are talking about working families. We are talking about seniors. We are talking about people who own their homes outright but will not be able to afford $400 or more a month. That is crazy anyway. A sewer should not force people out period.

To Mr. Inlet: How about addressing promoting a sewer that is the most expensive in the county that won't do a thing for any so-called nitrate problems for 40 years if ever. Can you please address that.

Can you address the imported poisoned water that the county is spending $190 million to deliver, and that we'll have to pay an extra $100 or so a month on?

P.S. The fine screening will be out on Friday.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Inlet: I meant the most expensive sewer in the COUNTRY THAT WON'T SOLVE NITRATE PROBLEMS FOR 40 YEARS IF AT ALL. PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC HERE.

Anonymous said...

what document says the nitrate problems will not be solved for 40 years? complain, delay, complain, delay - that's what it's all about

Anonymous said...

to 10:46,

Read Dr. Ruehr in the Rock. He is a scientist. What are you? Vegetarian?

Mike Green said...

Anon blithered:
"You who seek proof are part of the problem, not part of the solution"

We seek proof because we are tired of the false "solutions" that have been pawned off on us so far!

I want proof, hard data, logical conclusions, educated discourse, and attainable solutions.

Try it, you might learn something

Anonymous said...

Dr. Ruhr is a scientist for soils, he is not a wastewater scientist. Read is diabribe - not science -politics.

Anonymous said...

Mike sez: "Try it, you might learn something."

I gave you ample proof, but you can't read and can't think, so what's the use? Take another drink and another Tri-W payoff. You should have to wear an ankle monitor. We need to ship our dumb to Santa Maria landfills.

Mike Green said...

Just what is it? What are you trying to prove?
That Ms. McPherson is evil incarnate? That the whole sewer mess is a monument to poor government?
That Bruce Gibson is a weasel?
That I need a drink?

You are confused and incoherent.

Either that, or you have some brilliant plan that involves a no vote on the 218 that will leave us in better shape than the alternative.
Bring it on. I'm all ears.
But it better be ROCK SOLID with letters from an attorney that is working PRO BONO and some PEER REVIEW. and oh ya, Don't forget, it needs the blessing of the Water Gods too.

Whacha got there braino? Some Slogan?

Shark Inlet said...

To our friend of 10:21 and 10:23am ...

Whether the nitrate problem will be solved in only 30 years or whether it will take 40 years or even more depends on whether we're willing to move forward quickly. Had the CSD not been voted into existence in 1998, the nitrate loading problem would have been entirely solved by 2003 and the health of the aquifer would follow even if it would take time. The problem is that because we've taken an additional 10 years it will take at least that long (if not double that) to get the nitrate levels in the upper aquifer down to a reasonable level.

So ... are you arguing that delay is good thing or that delay doesn't cause problems?

Certainly we have seen one thing over and over and over again ... that any delay comes with huge costs ... inflation.

Sure, you are right to point out that the TriW system was really really expensive (although not out of line when you consider similar systems proposed for unsewered areas in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties) ... but any delay seems to raise the costs even more.

So then ... how do you think we'll get our bills lowered by going with something other than TriW. I would love to see a reasoned argument for that point of view ... I've seen nothing at all that makes any sense that would suggest delay and out-of-town would lower our costs.

On the matter of State Water ... it would seem that delay in solving our wastewater problem has played right into the hands of those who would want State Water. Frankly it would seem that developers would most benefit from State Water and a huge "mega sewer" that could handle a build-out of 25,000.

There is no magic bullet here, but certainly we should all remember from looking at the last two CSD boards that when "regular people" attempt to "fix things" they tend to really mess it up.

I won't say that TriW is the best we could have come up with in 2000 but I will say that by 2004 hit, the costs of moving away from TriW would swamp the TriW costs. I will also say that I am sick to death of people saying how there are thumbs on the scales and how wrong TriW is or how wrong the earlier County plan was without being able to at least point to a better solution. If you don't like TriW, fine. Just explain how we'll get something better and cheaper and you'll have convinced me. If you can't explain how there is a better option that will fit the requirements of the RWQCB, the County and the CCC, you're no more than a distraction who is getting in the way of a real solution for our community.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

You were not writing to me, but I'd like to respond anyway.

I would have liked Judy Vick over Bruce Gibson any day. I'm not a Bruce Gibson "groupie" like some (know what I mean?) Bruce is loyal to the Shirley and Pandora (Taxpayers Watch) crowd. He's an oil lobbyist that now says he's an environmentalist.

The sewer mess IS due to bad government. I do believe that the county is at fault and should have done a project long ago, helped pay for it, and should have paved our roads! I also believe Pandora saved the county's ass, formed the CSD, lied about a having a descent project and was rolling in a lot of money for herself on the deal (some for Gary too.) The CSD boards have not been honest and/or capable of building the proper sewer for Los Osos. The county permitted septics and allowed building (creating the density) and made tax money off those 1,100 homes all these years! This was fine with the RWQCB too! And these agencies are Gods to you????

If the vote is no on the 218, all the CSD would have to do is sign a contract with someone like Orenco and let them do the job. It's not like it's the SRF loan or nothing.

I do not agree with what you call "water gods" - they are not gods, they were appointed positions, use absolutely no science, and have been in on the scheme from the very beginning (i.e. drawing a phoney PZ line around town) and have definitely abused their power. They have NOT been neither fair nor firm with enforcement in Los Osos which was recently pointed out (the State Water board will have a workshop on this soon.)

As far as Gail McPherson is concerned, she's run the CSD into the ground with nothing but bad decisions and lies. She never had a plan, dished us over to the county who plan to tax us out of our homes. If you will make money on the "big" project, that's nice, most won't and will have to sell (losing around $100,000 from what they could have sold for a couple years ago.)

As far as slogans, I've got one, "NO BLANK CHECK" - and WHEN PEOPLE FIND OUT THE COST OF THE COUNTY'S PROJECT THEY WON'T VOTE THEMSELVES OUT OF THEIR HOMES. People vote with their pocketbooks.

Your post above makes no sense at all. We are being "conned" by Gail, the county and Blakeslee and Taxpayer Watch, and if you don't see that, then you're part of it!

Anonymous said...

To Shark Inlet,

If there is a will, there is a way. There are so many experts that have come so far in the wastewater field (all over the world!) These options deserved to be examined, and if the nitrate problem won't be solved for 30-40 years and the Tri-W costs so much, then why not take an extra couple of months to examine ALL of the new options and technologies? I don't get that at all.

4Crapkiller said...

Ann got it mostly right on her blog this time. However, much was left out.

Bianchi is a democrat not destroyed by an emotional passion. Refreshing in this "hate Bush" era. She has experience and knows how the government works having been a long time government employee. She was severely taken to task by the nut cases in Los Osos simply because she understood the consequences of an obstructionist agenda.

Why would she communicate with the recall LOCSD board who had an obstructionist agenda? To boot she had been vilified by members of this board and their supporters.

She actually did a great job as a member of the BOS in my opinion, and I am a conservative Republican. She was loved and respected by the other members of the BOS, and rightly so. She worked for consensis.

She was a moderate democrat as opposed to Ann Calhoun who wears striped socks, is excentric in her opinions, and always makes it easy for me. Her followers, irrational apologists for nut cases, and in fact nut cases also make it easy to show the unfounded speculations and lack of facts to support their speculations.

I support the filing of the writ! Let us see what comes of it. Better the AG defends against it rather than us. Let us put this to rest. Maybe one way or the other the BS will stop. I feel that it will fail, and will be seen as just another attempt at obstruction of the law.

However, I really object that my tax dollars are going to help this legal defense. I was never asked to vote funds for it. I was never asked to vote funds for any of the LOCSD legal suits against the state, etc. As a property owner, I was never allowed to vote for stopping the sewer and to accept the consequences. The sewer is and will be a property owners liability. We, as property owners get to pay for it, it should have been exclusively our vote.

We also need a ruling on the breach of contract suit against the state for the alligation that the state, not the LOCSD, stopped the sewer and that the LOCSD could use the state loan money for another project. I agree with Ann. I have not seen the contract, but a contract is a contract! Has Ann seen it? Surely two members of the board, Tacker and Schicker, saw the low interest loan contract prior to the recall election. Have these members of the board lied to the electorate or are they correct? Why has not the contract been posted?

I agree with Mike Green's posting above. Give this old lady the facts. I can't eat pie in the sky.

What is the benefit to McPherson outside of revenge for all of this?

Is she really out to help those who will have a real problem in paying for the sewer?

And how about Ann Calhoun? Is she influenced by Tacker, who is on Edwards payroll, or Vick who wants political office? Questions for enquiring minds.

We have the effects of emotional decisions, we just do not know what we all will pay. Yet! But soon!

Anonymous said...

4CrapKiller,

You'll never know what the big sewer bill will be. It will grow and grow every year. Energy costs alone will rise dramatically. We have to pay to pave the roads. We have to pay for hauling sludge. We have to pay for the digs for Cal Poly. We have to pay for any accidents during construction. We have to pay for breaks in the pipes, fines and odor. We have to pay for imported water. We have to pay for the 24/7 plant operators etc. etc. etc.

Get the lady the facts.... well the fine screening will be out on Friday. We'll see what it looks like. The county has the project and facts should be provided by them. It's in their hands. If the county doesn't want to look at modern technology at a lesser cost then they won't get a 218 vote (unless it's rigged like with the Bush elections.)

P.S. You like Bianchi so much, but how would she feel if a sewer was in the middle of her town? She's always promised Tri-W and loves the recalled board. She's a fake Democrat like her buddies Pandora and Bruce Gibson.

Mike Green said...

Anon Posted (quite politely I might add, Kudos!)
"If the vote is no on the 218, all the CSD would have to do is sign a contract with someone like Orenco and let them do the job. It's not like it's the SRF loan or nothing."

And where exactly will the CSD get the money to secure funding for that contract?


Let me guess, A 218 vote?

You know I've been kind of like the black sheep here, I opposed TW dissolution, not because I thought they were wrong but because once I saw what LAFCO was I thought it would be a huge waste of time. I am seldom wrong politically.

Political bungling is the Los Osos trademark.
as far as I'm concerned the fewer votes the better,


As for calling them Water Gods, that is a satirical
name that I made up, just for the reasons you describe.

keep trying, where is the pro bono lawyer and peer review to back up this claim?

Gotta keep comparing apples to apples you know.

Mike Green said...

Oh, I forgot MY Slogan


NO MORE CHEAPER BETTER FASTER EVER!

GIT R DONE

Anonymous said...

Mike:

"GIT R DONE RIGHT!" ...that's my slogan.

P.S. What are you talking about a pro-bono attorney and peer review? ...the county is working with at least one top expert (that held up the fine screening)

And regarding Orenco, they've agreed to come in. They know what they're doing and they're meeting with Paavo on 6/4. They know the problems here and aren't afraid to do the job obviously.

Mike Green said...

Got no problem with Orenco GOOD ON EM!
All the other projects that have made it though the rough screening have peer review . as far as needing a pro bono attorney for legal advice, remember the CSD is bankrupt, if you are going to win some legal fight here it needs to be rock solid enough to get legal advice without money up front.
simple economics.

Mike Green said...

Anon Sloganeered:
"GIT R DONE RIGHT!" ...that's my slogan.

Give it up! We are not going to be afforded a perfect, or even great solution!
What we will have is the perfect opportunity for redress.

Political truth: Its easier to acquire relief than planning!

Anonymous said...

Dear 4crap-
There was no breach of contract with the SRF loan. The now insolvent board knew prior to the recall that the loan would be pulled if the project was stopped.
It will come out, it is documented, it just takes time.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"On the matter of State Water ... it would seem that delay in solving our wastewater problem has played right into the hands of those who would want State Water. Frankly it would seem that developers would most benefit from State Water and a huge "mega sewer" that could handle a build-out of 25,000."

On the matter of "State Water," recent court rulings again make it clear that if you buy State Water, what you're actually buying is a State Water PIPE. There may or may not be any water in it. With growing demand on Delta water, for example, and/or changing weather pantterns, and court rulings, depending on imported water is now and will get even more "iffy."

It's something we'd better keep in mind. If we have a "cheap system" proposed that does NOT include a water re-use component, then everyone needs to seriously think about being penny wise and pound foolish and ask: IF water is available, how much more will it cost to import it and IF there IS NO WATER, how will this ssytem and this community function? Ditto high energy costs to run whatever is guilt and sludge hauling that may or may not be banned for out of area dumping & etc. In short, I hope the community, in considering the various options, keeps in mind the end game as well as the starting gate.

anonymous sez:"Ann misunderstands EPA guidelines completely and continues to misrepresent their purpose. They are GUIDELINES. They don't say that standards of treatment may be relaxed to make a system more affordable. They don't say that that 2% of income is a cap on a system cost. They don't say that Los Osos (or whoever) can only afford X anount and so the County will only collect 40% of the houses or treat 40% of the effluent. The only way for the County or State or Feds to adhere the guidelines is to FUND the difference. Ann can add the CSD and years of local obstruction to the list of doing nothing to meet affordability."

You misrepresented what I said. I said, Nobody cares a foodle about affordability. They don't. I said if you know a pro bono lawyer who can "force" those EPA guidelines to be followed, do let us know. I've seen no interest by anyone in even attempting to adhere to those guidelines. Zero interest. So I'm not misrepresenting anything vis a vis affordability. There are no caps, except an aggregate of the collective worth of the property values, which in the case of Los Osos are off the charts. And due to the aggregate high value of the property within the PZ, we could build a gold-plated sewer system (literally, and put rubies and emeralds on the taps) and run the tab up to thousands a month and STILL not hit the aggregate cap. We could force abandoment of 90% of the PZ due to high price and still the feds and state and everyone else would shrug and say, well, it was just a "guideline," after all. What's the problem?

Anonymous sez:"There was no breach of contract with the SRF loan. The now insolvent board knew prior to the recall that the loan would be pulled if the project was stopped."

So far as I know, there was a no-harm, no-foul, 90-day "stand down" period. That is, everyone could sit on thier hands for no reason at all for 90 days BEFORE the contract could be considered to be "stopped" or "terminated" or "breached." If memory serves, wasn't the second loan check stopped within that 90-day period? If so, methinks we need a judge (or jury) ruling whether or not, under contract law, that constituted a "breach" or not. And in the contract, wasn't there a binding agreement that in case of any dispute, all parties would go to mediation/arbitration FRIST and only after that faild, would they go to court? Did that happen?

Nope, I'd love to be a fly on the wall during discovery if the case goes forward, which it needs to, just to see the timeline.

Inlet sez:" will also say that I am sick to death of people saying how there are thumbs on the scales and how wrong TriW is or how wrong the earlier County plan was without being able to at least point to a better solution. If you don't like TriW, fine. Just explain how we'll get something better and cheaper and you'll have convinced me. If you can't explain how there is a better option that will fit the requirements of the RWQCB, the County and the CCC, you're no more than a distraction who is getting in the way of a real solution for our"

Sadly, the previous CSD Board was given the opportunity by the Coastal Commission's de novo hearing to do what the CC requested: a side by side comparison of Tri-W with an "out of town" plan, one that CC staff member Steve Monowitz'stated in the staff report was guestimated as being a million cheaper to 5-6 million higher than Tri W, then let the community take their pick, hold a securing 218 vote, then get on with it. Indeed, the previous CSD Board was AGAIN offered an opportunity by the SWB when they went to ask for gazillions MORE dollars in cost over run money with a 218 vote challenge in the pipeline AND a recall looming, and didn't a SWB member ask the three (soon to be recalled) CSD members, Do you want to go back to you community and make sure this is what they want? and those members say, Aw, heck no. Pay no attention to that tiny handful of noisy loonies, give us all that extra (unsecured) money, everything's fine. Had they, at that point, gone back to the community and asked for a 218 vote, even on the additional money, which, in reality would have been a vote on the whole Tri-W project, the outcome might well have been vastly different.

As for a "better option," Let's see what Friday's screening report is and then see what the TAC makes of it, pro and con. (And, hopefully, the Peer Review group takes a peek as well.) before we all start shrieking and blowing ourselves up, shall we?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I had just explained to you and others why at the point of time of the de novo hearing you refer to it would have been really unwise from a dollars and sense point of view to shift gears and go with another site.

Did you not understand what I wrote or did you disagree with what I wrote? If you misunderstood, I would be happy to explain again more carefully. If you disagreed, could you explain what I wrote you find fault with? I may prove worthwhile to discuss the details more carefully.

I guess the issue here is this ... you're saying that back in 2004 the CSD should have come to the people and said "hey, we could move it out of town but it would cost more" and I am saying that essentially they did exactly this. The the various agenda items and public discussion on those items was the CSD soliciting the point of view of the people. In representative democracy the board doesn't go back and ask the people to vote on every issue. They take public comment and make up their own minds ... they are our representatives. Certainly sometimes they do make mistakes, but that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.


One more question ... perhaps I missed your response ... how is it not putting a thumb on the scale for the recall candidates to promise a sewer solution which they had no hope of delivering at the promised cost. Do you feel that no one was deceived? Please remember your outrage at the architect's rendering of TriW and how you felt it was misleading and how it was so wrong ... don't you feel that promising people to have bills that are cut in half is going to influence the votes at all? How was this campaign lie not wrong?

Anonymous said...

Ann misrepresents what Ann says. Is it any wonder she confuses the whole situation?

Here is what Ann said in her 1st post:

'It has been apparent for some time that NOBODY -- not the Feds, not the State, not the County -- NOBODY gives a foodle about follwoing Federal EPA guidelines as to "affordability," '

Above in her most recent post, Ann says she said.

' I said, Nobody cares a foodle about affordability. '

Check again Ann and see the difference. Subtle, very subtle the incomplete information and innuendo that tears Los Osos apart. Ann she has the gall to suggest her words were misinterpreted. Twisting her own words and statement about affordability from EPA guidelines, which she cannot substantiate anyway. So if you can't trust Ann on simple things, you can't trust on anything she writes. Let's just call her Missing Info Ann (MIA). Care to twist it around one more time, Ann?

Anonymous said...

"In representative democracy the board doesn't go back and ask the people to vote on every issue. They take public comment and make up their own minds ... they are our representatives. Certainly sometimes they do make mistakes, but that is exactly how the system is supposed to work."

Shark, you hit the nail smack dab on the freakin' head!!!!! We live in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. We elect people to make decisions for us, and we have departments, like a public works department, to build things most in the general public have no idea how to build. The problem always in Los Osos is that there are people who think they should have have a say and have a vote in EVERY freakin' thing that comes before their representatives concerning a sewer. It is no wonder that 30 years later there is still no project. It's absolutey absurd. And it leads me always to believe that it's not a lack of understanding about what representative democracy is with these people, it's a simple case of obstruction because they do not want ANY SEWER AT ALL. Ann can protest as much as she likes, but I will always believe the vocal obstructionists in this community are NO SEWER obstrucionists.

Anonymous said...

I agree with a lot of what 10:55 just said. The County Board of Supervisors laid out a very specific process for it's staff to follow involving the rough screening, fine screening, TAC pro/con analysis, town hall meetings, 218 vote, additional work if a yes vote occurs, a community survey based on the latest and best project alternative information---then a public hearing and final project decision by the Board of Supervisors.

While there is no doubt in my mind that this is the process (and I think it is a good one), every stinking week when I turn on the TV for the replay of the B/S weekly review of the project status, there are the same people telling the Board why one specific project is better than another. What don't they understand about the process described above?

I actually think that they do understand the process, but are afraid of such a representative form of democracy. I am OK if the above process is completely carried out and something other than my personal choice for a project is built. I just wonder how many others can say the same.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 10:55,

You are lying. There may be 2 or 3 people who believe septic tanks do the job in Los Osos. That may be true too! The EPA likes clusters and septic tanks. The problem L.O. has now, they say, is density. The density was created by the county & RWQCB by allowing over 1,100 homes to be built after 83-12 & 83-13!

No, the realtors told everyone that their homes would increase in value with a sewer...okay...so 99% of the homeowners have agreed to be sewered.

FOR YOU TO SAY 'OBSTRUCTIONISTS' DON'T WANT ANY SEWER AT ALL IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE! and liars lie.

The TRUE AND REAL PROBLEM IS THAT THE TRI-W (OR SAME OUT OF TOWN) IS A BIG MONEY PIT. Got it??? A BIG MONEY PIT!!!!

It is all about real estate and that's the bottom line.

Many people want a good project, but you are satisfied with an expensive (way expensive) system that isn't good that will have more problems than you can imagine. You want people out of their homes, because you only care about yourself and your property value. BTW, your property value has gone down so much and the sewer lien on your house will be so high, you're not increasing anything. You are really stuck on stupid.

You want us to pay for the developers to develop, and that's what the county wants too. What a cozy relationship they've had over the years.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:22, let's hope the majority of homeowners in the PZ feel the same way you do!!

Anon 12:28, your paranoid, anti-sewer ramblings have become tiresome. Talk about stuck on stupid. Your stupid tank never runs dry. Have a great day.

Anonymous said...

To 12:22,

You are in on the corrupt "process"!!! The county has done nothing but show their bad intent from day one (starting with Pandora telling the county to take over the project during the recall.)

They stacked the TAC with Tri-W supporters, they took away the advisory vote and changed to a survey (which means nothing,) they hired Corollo and Montgomery Watson Harza who only do gravity systems, the refused to do a proper 218 with one project and one price to vote on (but used their many lawyers to go around the 218 to trick the voters) -- can you see the pattern here?

Keep pushin' your money-pit, mega-sewer that 80% (PZ) of the population can't afford. But you have to live with what you've done to the community and the people who have done nothing wrong or illegal. That's the burden you have to live with. Good luck.

Anonymous said...

TO 12:28,

There you go again! Anti-Sewer?? You love to lie. Pandora school of lies? Good goin' and keep up the good work on your con job!

Lambs to the slaughter house for a money-pit mega-sewer that won't correct nitrate problems for 40 years if ever!

Tell me you're not a thief!

4crapkiller said...

To anon 12:44:

It seems logical to me that reducing the nitrate load to our aquifer through low nitrate recharge will stop an increase in nitrates. As the upper aquifer continues it's path to the bay (seeps and Sweet Springs) dillution will occur. Use of upper aquifer water for irrigation will help the process along with water blending.

What makes you so sure that the nitrate problem will not come down to potable levels in far less than 40 years?

Septic tanks accumulate sludge and have to be pumped. Same for gravity sewers. Sludge is sludge, and energy is energy. This is whether it comes from a septic tank pressure pump or gravity fed central "Mega sewer".

If you consider pumping new technology septic tanks (5000) every ten years and filter change every two years: it will come to a concentration of pumping every ten years of 5000 septic tanks. That is a lot of stink within one year and a lot of truck trips. Septic pumpers do not have the ability to concentrate sludge. Conventional sewer plants do. Far less trips plus the benefit of composting. At the same time you are looking at 2500 inspections and filter cleaning/changes every year. Hopefully not all at the same time, but that comes to fifty filters a week, and it never stops. When you compare the cost of energy with the cost of labor, energy is far far less. There will be plenty of gasoline or diesel fuel used to service septic tanks, pumps, and filters. Labor is additional. Look to total costs.

I would just a soon get rid of septic tanks and the costs associated with them. Besides, they do not last forever and can be breached by roots. The "big pipes" today are not the cast iron pipes of the past. They are semi rigid, repaired easily, the joints are plastic welded, and they do not rust inside or outside. They can be internally cleaned.

While you speak of a central sewer plant as a "mega sewer" as opposed to smaller cluster units, there is a great saving in a central location. The cost of permits and land aquisition alone make a cluster system more expensive for retrofit. Retrofit is the key word.

I wonder if you are on the payroll of a septic pumper. These are the only people truely benefiting from a septic system. In the short term the pumpers will make enough money from decommissioning septic tanks and installation/connection of sewer lines from home to street to last them for years. Thereafter there will be lucrative contracts let for "big pipe cleaning" and other maintainance. They have the equipment at substantial capital cost. They have the expertise.

Anon 12:44 and 12:38: You are entirely full of speculation. So you have a solution? Tell it to the county! Earn your commission!

This old gal will write some letters if it makes sense. Prove you are simply not an obstructionist or someone trying to line their pockets by fooling old folks on fixed income.

Anonymous said...

To 4crapkiller,

As long as the county is working with Dr. T, we have a chance to have good input on a project. He's the man and we are very fortunate to have his expertise. It is my understanding that his input held up the fine screening. I would hope that Paavo will have the peer review also. We'll all await what comes out Friday.

I still find it odd that when the county took over the project Paavo said everyone would pay for the project (inside and outside the PZ) with special and general benefits. Then they changed their mind and only have the PZ pay for the entire thing. That doesn't make sense.

It's funny you should mention septic tank pumpers, as I see that Al's Pumping has a new plumbing company with new trucks. He's obviously ready for 5,000 hook-ups.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"I had just explained to you and others why at the point of time of the de novo hearing you refer to it would have been really unwise from a dollars and sense point of view to shift gears and go with another site."

The guestimate at that time was a million less or 5-6 mil more. The CC asked for that comparison and didn't get it. It was not given to the community for a vote, an advisory vote a 218 vote. I doubt that most in the community even knew anything about it. When anyone asked, they were told that Tri-W was the ONLY way to go because any other solution would be WAAAAYYYY more expensive. My point was and still is, the price difference (Minus 1 mil, plus 5-6 mil)on a project as expensive as Tri-W cannot possibly be described as Waaaa more expensive, and/or that Tri-W was the ONLY way to go. There were clearly two opitions that had already existed and the community should have had a chance to vote on which one they wanted. That vote would have avoided this train wreck since the 218 was in play and Measure B, both of which dealt with voting and choice.

Anonymice sez:"'It has been apparent for some time that NOBODY -- not the Feds, not the State, not the County -- NOBODY gives a foodle about follwoing Federal EPA guidelines as to "affordability," '

Above in her most recent post, Ann says she said.

' I said, Nobody cares a foodle about affordability. '"

Please find me somebody in a position to do something to somehow require that federal guidelines will be followed as to "affordability." I haven't been able to find a single person. Members of the public don't count since THEY HAVE NO POWER OR SAY to force those guidelines be followed -- unless you can track down some pro bono lawyer who can somehow find some law that will force those guidelines be followed? Someone? Anyone?

Anonymice sez:""In representative democracy the board doesn't go back and ask the people to vote on every issue. They take public comment and make up their own minds ... they are our representatives. Certainly sometimes they do make mistakes, but that is exactly how the system is supposed to work."

Yes, and recalls and initiatives are ALSO part of the process. And sometimes, "smart" boards, dealing with one of the biggest projects in the hstory of this town, would have either (1) when the original Ponds of Avalon crashed and burned, (2)at the de novo hearing, held an "advisory vote" of some kind or(3) held a 218 vote for the increased costs for the Tri-W (something the State Water Board implied be done in some form by asking asking if the community supported the project even with its huge cost increase & etc.) In short, a SMART board would have made sure the community was actively involved in the process and had checked in, so to speak. (relying on the handful of people who showed up at CSD meetings wasn't really smart since you tend to only get active "fringes" not the large lump in the middle.

Anonimice ses. I still find it odd that when the county took over the project Paavo said everyone would pay for the project (inside and outside the PZ) with special and general benefits. Then they changed their mind and only have the PZ pay for the entire thing. That doesn't make sense."

If I understand Paavo correctly, the difficulty they're facing is this: How do you separate water from wastewater? With private purveryors of water under no legal obligation to pay a penny for clean water, how do you get them to pay their share (pass thru to customers) so those benefiting from clean WATER and living outsdie the PZ pay for their share, while figuring out the actual cost of the SEWER part for those in the PZ who get and pay for both benefits. It's a sort of legal baby and bathwater deal that may take King Solomon to figure out.

Anonymous said...

"In short, a SMART board would have made sure the community was actively involved in the process and had checked in, so to speak. (relying on the handful of people who showed up at CSD meetings wasn't really smart since you tend to only get active "fringes" not the large lump in the middle."

Bingo!! Right on!! Dead on accurate Ann!!

Of course, I think we're thinking of different boards here. And why is it again you think this applies to the prior board and not the recall board?

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"... the CC requested: a side by side comparison of Tri-W with an "out of town" plan, one that CC staff member Steve Monowitz'stated in the staff report was guestimated as being a million cheaper to 5-6 million higher than Tri W... "

Don't forget, that "million cheaper to 5-6 million higher" figure did not include the estimated $2.3 million in park amenities that the LOCSD had ALREADY "reincorporated" BACK into the project when they conducted that "comparison, nor did it include the estimated $3 million O & M for the park over the next 20 years. If they had included those costs, it would have shown that the out of town site could have saved over $6 million, according to LOCSD documents. In other words, they lied to the Coastal Commission, again.

I wrote about all that here.

An Anon wrote:

"P.S. I remember when Pandora hosted Rodger Anderson and Bruce Gibson at her home, but wouldn't invite Judy Vick."

If that's true (and I'm sure it is), that's vintage Nash-Karner.

That reminds me of how large corporations throw money at both the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates in an effort to hedge their bets. That way, no matter which candidate gets elected, the corporations still have their hooks in the President. Smart, if you think about it.

Quick show of hands: Everyone that has hosted candidates for County Supervisor at their home, raise your hand. Yea... that's what I thought.

Just to give you an idea of how Nash-Karner loves her "hooks," she spearheaded Bud Laurent's campaign in 1992 for a seat on the County Board of Supervisors (anyone remember, "Take a stand. Make a difference."? Yep, that was Laurent's campaign slogan. I'll give you two guesses on who came up with it), and that saturation, of course, marketing campaign defeated then-Supervisor, Bill Coy. Coy was a "Yes" vote on the BOS to continue with the county's project. Laurent was a "no" vote... for eight years.

Anonymous said...

Do you think Aldous Huxley had Pandora-obsessed Crawford in mind when he wrote this?:

"Single-mindedness is all very well in cows and baboons; in an animal claiming to belong to the same species as Shakespeare it is simply disgraceful."

Shark Inlet said...

Ann and Ron ...

The two of you really need to check your reading comprehensions skills ... because either you're reading far too quickly to really understand what has been written or you just need to think when reading. Well, there is a third possibility ... you might be trying to deftly avoid the issue which was being discussed.

The sad thing here is that you were both given two opportunities to discuss why you disagree with my contention that Andre (either) would have actually been "WAAAAYYYY more expensive" but you both just ignored the substance of my comment to repeat (yet another time) your mindless argument that $1M less to $6M more is "about the same".

Let's repeat ... and this time I'll type more slowly so that you can follow better ... the $1M less to $6M more did not include any redesign costs and any inflation from the associated delay. Once one includes these two additional costs it becomes quite clear that "out of town" would cost anywhere between $0 to $50M more. Perhaps you could address this rather than simply repeating the same misleading statement over and over.



Oh ... one more thing Ann (he says in a Columbo sort of way) ... when the recall candidates promised a $100/month solution, was it a lie or just optimism on their part?

If you tell us it was a lie you should probably be castigating them for putting heavy thumbs on the scale. The recall would have failed had they said they wanted out of town but that it would cost more.

If you tell it was just optimism on the part of these candidates, you've got to explain two things ... why they didn't know back in 2005 what I could figure out then, that moving the sewer out of town would cost more ... and also why you haven't castigated them in the same way you've castigated the Soutions Group for essentially the same thing, thinking they could quickly achieve what those who know the process said would be impossible.

If promising $38.75 (or whatever) was wrong, why isn't promising $100 wrong?

Will either of you now step up and admit what is obvious to the rest of us ... that there was no realistic plan with enough detail to justify a claim of $100/month and that without that campaign promise, the recall would have failed?


One the matter of famous quotes appropriate for Ron's consistency, I prefer Emerson's.

Anonymous said...

SharkInlet,

Orenco can do everything for $50 million, the collection, treatment, disposal. That's way cheaper than anything else. Isn't that worth looking into???

Anonymous said...

can you post the cost breakdown & official quote from Orenco here? apparently it's public info since you have it.

4crapkiller said...

To anon 12:07:

The system and collection is in the hands of the county. Have Orenco contact the county. There are sewer experts available and they should look into this. Does Orenco have enough finantial strength to get a completion bond to insure what they say is true, and the price will not end up far higher? Is $50 million a complete price for permits, land aquisition, etc. Or is it back loaded with high user costs? Orenco should solicit the county.

Anonymous said...

"Orenco can do everything for $50 million, the collection, treatment, disposal. That's way cheaper than anything else. Isn't that worth looking into???"

Absolutely, where may we obtain a copy of the breakdown of that $50M?

Shark Inlet said...

If Orenco could do everything for $50M, why the hell did we hire Ripley who told us the total bill would be a hell of a lot higher?

Either you are right which implies that the current LOCSD board *and* previous LOCSD board are all bought-and-paid-for or certifiable idiots ... or the devil really is in the details with this $50M project. For example, perhaps they could get the pipe in and get a ponding system going but the RWQCB denitrification requirement (which would allow for a SRF) might not be met and perhaps the aquifer recharge might not be done effectively. Is Orenco proposing a 50 gallon per person per day volume when we're producing far more than that? So, where's them details?

As others have said, Orenco should probably approach the County. You telling us that they'll do the job "better, faster, cheaper" isn't all that effective.

Anonymous said...

"For example, perhaps they could get the pipe in and get a ponding system going but the RWQCB denitrification requirement (which would allow for a SRF) might not be met and perhaps the aquifer recharge might not be done effectively."

Shark,

Eligibility for the SRF loan not withstanding- if the de-nitrification isn't up to RWQCB standards, doesn't that defeat the purpose of putting in a sewer? We'd still be under the gun for the pollution we're creating, wouldn't we?

If we put in a sewer that doesn't meet the pollution control and cleanup standards set by the RWQCB, then we will have paid a whole lotta money for no reason....and we'd still be fined. So what's the point of pursuing a system that doesn't meet the RWQCB standards?

P.S. This isn't necessarily a question for you, but rather for the swarm of other "experts" on this blog...

Anonymous said...

I can't understand why, if Orenco really has such an affordable system, just why aren't there scores of those plants in every coastal city in the USA. Is it that Orenco really can't produce a cost effective system, just has a voval marketing team?

Anonymous said...

Ann says: We live on "The Gold Coast." Slowly, surely "poor" people simply can't live here anymore -- from San Diego to the Oregon border. It's The American Way -- Marketplace Rules. Up and down the Gold Coast it's all becoming unaffordable. Period.

Since when is it "The American Way" to kick someone out of their home because they can't afford to flush their toilet?

Since when is it "Marketplace Rules" for a "market" to be artifically manipulated by real estate and development special interests to "cleanse" an entire town?

Ann, obviously you can afford the unaffordable sewer, which explains why affordability was never your issue -- nor Gail's for that matter. (Of course Gail doesn't have to pay a dime for the sewer -- and gets her payoff.) Neither of you have any handle on this issue at all...as your comments clearly, shamefully demonstrate.

Gail gave it to the county, which cares about affordability as much as you twin icicles do.

Anonymous said...

Orenco will probably meet with the county and/or Carollo in June. The figures should be available then.

Anonymous said...

"..probably" "..should"

Just more of the vague illusion that some miracle solution is just around the corner waiting to drop into the LO equation, magically cleansing the aquifiers and a holistic treatment of human waste.

This miracle will be a balm to soothe the savage discourse, instant rapture and endless choirs singing kumbaya.

Until "probably" and "should" are replaced with words of meaning, the hope for a Orenco miracle is merely another smokescreen of delay.

If Mrs.McPherson actually toured the Florida Orenco headquarters at Taxpayer cost, then she should be as forthcoming with her version of the meeting as she has been in sueing to protect the community.

Someone, anyone, please step up with a set of honest cost figures for an ENTIRE Orenco designed system. None of the half a project stuff, a complete project!

So far all that has been said here and in Carlocks is wishful babbling of "..probably" "..should" Just more smoke and mirrors!

Anonymous said...

"Someone, anyone, please step up with a set of honest cost figures for an ENTIRE Orenco designed system...."

...If for any other reason than to finally either hail the guy who's constantly screaming for the Orenco miracle here as a hero, or shut the dude up once and for all.

Mike Green said...

That is music to my ears! Folks demanding hard data!

Maybe there is hope after all !

Shark Inlet said...

Glad that we're moving past FUD ... too bad that some of our big names political leaders didn't bother with facts earlier.

4crapkiller said...

To anon 2:53PM:

"Since when is it "Marketplace Rules" for a "market" to be artifically manipulated by real estate and development special interests to "cleanse" an entire town?"

What evidence do you have that this market is being artificially manipulated by real estate and development interests? It seems to me that the real estate brokers are having a hard time selling homes here in the PZ to ANYONE. I have heard nothing about developers coming in and low balling existing homes for sale. I have heard nothing about developers coming in to assemble blocks of property for development (apartment complexes) or large homes.

You were artifically manipulated by the false promises of the "pie in the sky" recall board. You THINK you can't afford the sewer, and probably can't without a reverse mortgage to take care of your sewer bill, if you qualify. Then there is the option of renting a room to a boarder, or providing eldercare services. Then if you stay in your home, there will still be the problem of what the insolvency of the LOCSD will do to your pocket book. The property owners will pay and you are one of them. Stick it out and let the process work out. After the figures become clear, it will be time for action. I do not think you will be paying anything until the sewer is constructed and you hook up. Real Estate values are starting to recover elsewhere, and you live in a prime area. Beware of listening to anyone who tells you not to asess yourself. The consequences may be terrible.

At this time, it is the uncertainty that is killing the PZ real estate market. I feel sorry for every property owner in the PZ, and I own two pieces of developed property there. I hope you have options. The obstruction of the sewer has made things very bad for those on fixed income and those who can't get raises for various reasons.

When Ann pulls your poop that this is the "American Way" she is making a snide comment. Her liberal/progressive/socialistic attitude requires that the government would pay for you and own your house and land. Of course there would be no problem for you then, but you might be required to live with five more people to solve the homeless problem. Perhaps she would allow you to move in with her. She is a socialist and her writings prove it. You have my sympathy, nobody is taking care of me now. My parents are dead.

Gail is another situation. She is out for herself. If the county can do something to help your situation, they will. They are agressively looking for grants to reduce any cost. How much is your house worth if you bailed out. $300 grand? If it were not for prop 13 you would be paying $4500 a year for property taxes @ 1.5%. Consider those less fortunate than you. Can you still work? You have options.

Worry is counter productive and destroys health. Without your health you have NOTHING.

Mike Green said...

To give the Shark a segue:
"Glad that we're moving past FUD ... too bad that some of our big names political leaders didn't bother with facts earlier."

Amen, my boneless buddy! (sharks have no bones, like bananas)

Perception is reality and the political sciences are the manipulation of perception.

It's too bad critical thinking isn't required for voting, then again, if no desires, or nearly unattainable goals are not in the mix, where would we be now?

"to achieve the impossible dream" That's one damn good slogan! Got a catchy tune to go with it too!

It seems to me All of our political leaders live in a world that resembles the "Dream Time" of the Austral Aborigines.

Not far removed from "cargo cult" by building a imaginary reality wherein wishes exceed capability, but that dosn't matter, wishes are the perception.

I see lots of problems with stuff in our government, from the way we grow food to the way we make our livings, there is a whole lot that can be better.

Hows things going under the sea?

Anonymous said...

It was annouced (I heard) at the last "after hours" meeting that the county and/or Carollo was meeting with Orenco. I would think the numbers would be discussed there.

Anonymous said...

Until made public, and that's ALL of the community public, then all you heard and spread are rumor. Either there are either real "numbers" or there is political wishful thinking to get re-elected!

It's past time to hold those who make innuendo to the fire.

Dammit, all we want is some honesty about the sewer, the sewer is not a way of life! It's just a collection of pipes to separate human waste from human drinking water! That's all it is folks!

Anonymous said...

4CrapKiller:

You said: "What evidence do you have that this market is being artificially manipulated by real estate and development interests??

The market will crash when the sewer bills start coming in the mail. If you think the inventory is high now, just wait. And when people are desperate and HAVE to sell, they'll lower their price, and that will lower prices for everyone trying to sell. The CDO threats and fines are artifically lowering the market to force a yes-on-218 vote on homeowners in the PZ. Once there's a yes vote, values will magically rise...some. But there will be ZIPPO VALUE to homes during disruptive big pipe construction, and no buyers willing to endure it. The hard evidence you seek will be coming at you in a few short years when you can more clearly see who profits.

You said: "Beware of listening to anyone who tells you not to asess yourself. The consequences may be terrible.

Not voting to assess myself may be my only protection from the unaffordable sewer. You are offering me a "choice" between "horrible consequences" and "terrible consequences," which is no choice at all. I would never recommend a reverse mortgage to anyone, except an elderly person with no relatives or heirs they like. Then they better pray they don't outlive the value of the mortgage.

You said:"When Ann pulls your poop that this is the "American Way" she is making a snide comment. Her liberal/progressive/socialistic attitude..."

I admit I miss some of Ann's nuance. Maybe more than "some." But I am not one of Ann's readers anyway. She doesn't write for me or for my edification. Too obscure for me. But I don't think she is any of those political labels you mention, because those are labels of groups that claim to care about PEOPLE, and, as far as I can I can tell, Ann only cares about ONE PERSON. That is not socialism, that is mesmerism.

You said: Gail is another situation. She is out for herself."

Absolutely. See above.

Someone suggested making "JAIL GAIL!" t-shirts. I think it's a great idea. I already have pre-orders for 12. What do you think?

Anonymous said...

anon 1:40pm, you said, "Not voting to assess myself may be my only protection from the unaffordable sewer."

So what is going to happen if the 218 fails? The State will come in and build it? Orenco will give a bankrupt CDD a great deal that so far we have only had rumor about? No fear of the unknown, anon??

Seems like "town cleansing" has been greatly aided by the obstructionists. We WILL have a sewer here, and all this delay has driven up the cost. Wonder of the obsrtuctionists know they have been used by the "developers" and "real estate" opportunists?

Churadogs said...

Anonymice sez;"Of course, I think we're thinking of different boards here. And why is it again you think this applies to the prior board and not the recall board?"

Don't think they had an opportunity to do that. Once the Ripley plan was completed and submitted, then would have been an ideal time to go back to the community and say, O.K. advisory vote time, here's Tri-W, here's Ripley, take your pick and we'll move on to due dilligence etc. There was a modest attempt at something like that during the negotiations that weren't negotiations -- heh-heh-- when an awful lot of people showed up at that Amazing October meeting wherein there was a beginning of a "compromise." Alas, events soon overtook the Board. Interesting that the County is now following a Process that, had the original Board done the same, very probably wouldn't have resulted in this mess. It is a Process that, as Paavo noted at a recent PZLDF meeting, the CSD didn't have the resources for, which may be the fatal flaw right there. i.e. this sewer project was doomed to failure from day one.

Inlet sez:"The sad thing here is that you were both given two opportunities to discuss why you disagree with my contention that Andre (either) would have actually been "WAAAAYYYY more expensive" but you both just ignored the substance of my comment to repeat (yet another time) your mindless argument that $1M less to $6M more is "about the same"."

It's you who need to re-check your reading skills. The mil less & 5=6 mil more isn't MY claim or YOUR claim, it was in the staff report at the de novo hearing. And being told that out of town would be waaayy more expensive isn't MY claim or YOUR claim, it's what the community was told repeatedly by members of the pre-recall board, that "out of town" was simply way more expensive than Tri W, that Tri W was the ONLY solution, etc. If Ron's posting above is correct, then the "out of town" site would have been Waaaaaa more cheaper?

In addition, at a CSD meeting a few years ago, Bruce Buel guestimated that the cost of running an out of town pipe would be about 5-6 mil more. So, those aren't MY numbers or YOUR numbers.They're the CC staff's and Buel's. So you need to go holler at Steve Monowitz and Bruce.

Inlet also sez:"One more question ... perhaps I missed your response ... how is it not putting a thumb on the scale for the recall candidates to promise a sewer solution which they had no hope of delivering at the promised cost. Do you feel that no one was deceived? "

Campaigning, electioneering, are not "thumbs on the scale." Those are "fair game" public lies that can be corrected or refuted openly. "Thumbs on the scale" is all the stuff that happens behind closed doors, in state capitol hallways, in closed offices, in quid-pro-quo "deals," in fudged numbers, lies to regulatory offcials, secret emails and in official letters from various elected or appointed officials plotting palace coups, hidden agendas resulting in falsely weighted "science," etc. etc.

It's you who need to re-check your reading skills. The mil less & 5=6 mil more isn't MY claim or YOUR claim, it was in the staff report at the de novo hearing. And being told that out of town would be waaayy more expensive isn't MY claim or YOUR claim, it's what the community was told repeatedly by members of the pre-recall board, that "out of town" was simply way more expensive than Tri W, that Tri W was the ONLY solution, etc. If Ron's posting above is correct, then the "out of town" site would have been Waaaaaa more cheaper?

Anonymice sez:"I would never recommend a reverse mortgage to anyone, except an elderly person with no relatives or heirs they like. Then they better pray they don't outlive the value of the mortgage."

Get out those calculators, folks. How much do houses appreciate, on average, in general, in this Gold Coast Area? How much do houses appreciate in general in areas on the coast that are surrounded by non-buildable greenbelts, with buildability severely limited by lack of water? In short, there will be a limited number of homes available ever. Then, assume a a paid off mortgage, and a $300 a month sewer and a $300 a month reverse mortgage, then compare the over all appreciation of real estate in this sort of area over, say 30 years, then tell me how much the house will be worth in 30 years and how much will be owed when the house is sold (and the reverse mortgage paid off)? Anonymous thinks there will be nothing left by the time the reverse mortagagee dies or the house is sold, that is that houses will NOT appreciate even so much as by $3,600 a year. Calling all real estate agents. Are houses generally appreciating by more or less than $3,600 A YEAR? If historically, they're going up by more than $3,600 a year, then our high-equity, reverse mortgagee can live in his/her house for years, have the sewer bill paid, then sell and hand her/his heirs a ginormous chunk of change.(

Where all this will hit with absolute ferocity is for people who do not qualify for reverse mortgages, people who have no equity in their homes and high costs, renters on fixed incomes or whose salaries cannot meet the huge sewer costs, and so forth. I have refered to this whole process as The American Way. Crapkiller thinks I'm being "snide," but then goes on to indicate from her comments that she has NO CLUE what I'm really about and contents herself with wrongly claiming I'm some kind of socialist.

A hint, Crap, I am being both snide AND absolutely honest: Unfettered Market Forces ARE The American Way, murderous Darwinian economics ARE The American Way. What remains in dispute and in constant flux from one extreme pole to the other, is the delicate balance between the Value of the Commons and the Value of the Individual. It's a "dance" that's been going on since 1776 and it's a converstation we've been having with ourselves ever since.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

the sewer project wasn't doomed from day one of the recall board.

The recall board did have the opportunity to have a 218 vote to raise money to hire Ripley and pay BWS and Wildan and to actually design and build a new system.

They didn't bother. They chose to try to spend the SRF money in ways that violated the loan contract so that they didn't have to hold a 218 vote. Perhaps this is because any 218 vote would have an estimated price tag that far exceeds the estimated monthly cost of the "unaffordable" TriW. Maybe it was because they thought they would lose a 218 vote with property owners who are by-n-large less supportive of the new group. Who knows, but they certainly screwed up by not holding a 218 vote early in 2006 to cover the costs of moving the project out of town.

To argue that they were doomed from day one (and completely ignore that they could have come to the property owners asking for another bond to cover the costs of moving the sewer) is to argue that the recall should have been voted down. If the whole goal of the recall was to move the sewer and if it was impossible, wouldn't a costly recall be simply a huge mistake?


On the matter of the $6M more ... perhaps you should go and re-read the document you refer to. Just because you tell us it said up to $6M more doesn't make it so. That document doesn't include any cost to redesign of the plant to fit the Andre (I or II) footprint and it doesn't include any costs associated with delay and inflation. If you don't believe me, go and re-read it. In fact, if you do and find I am in error, please tell us where they do include these costs.

That being said, I presented a reasonable set of calculations that show that an attempt to move things out of town could cost as much as $50M. You didn't dispute these calculations. And certainly if they are ballpark right, it would be considerably more expensive to move the plant out of town whatever Ron might say.

Essentially I am asking you to back up your claim, Ann. You made a claim ... that the cost estimate of only $6M more was reasonable ... and I challenged your claim. I even explained my reasons.

So far you've only bothered to repeat the claim with something like well, that's what the document says. That's really weak when I've already pointed out several very real factors that the document doesn't address.


Lastly, I am troubled by your response that undeliverable campaign promises are fair game. Yes, I know that they can be openly refuted, but you do have to admit that nonfactual information adds to the confusion. Along those lines, when Ron argues forcefully that the Solutions Group knew in advance that they could not achieve a sewer for $38.75/month so shouldn't have advertised that they could ... presumably it was a mistake for the recall candidates to similarly promise something they should have known they couldn't deliver. I guess what I am asking you, Ann, is this ... morality aside, do you admit that the $100/month promise was misleading even if perhaps unintentionally so?

4crapkiller said...

To Ann who says:

"A hint, Crap, I am being both snide AND absolutely honest: Unfettered Market Forces ARE The American Way, murderous Darwinian economics ARE The American Way. What remains in dispute and in constant flux from one extreme pole to the other, is the delicate balance between the Value of the Commons and the Value of the Individual. It's a "dance" that's been going on since 1776 and it's a converstation we've been having with ourselves ever since."

4crapkiller says:

Thank you for your explaination.

However, I see regulation everywhere, and no "murderous Darwinian economics" lately. Perhaps "unfettered market forces" were in the past, but lately it seems they are chained.

I guess "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
















.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

I disagree with your analysis of reverse mortgages. I still think they are a bad idea and should be avoided by anyone with relatives or heirs they care about. The biggest problem with your analysis is your financial IQ and silly figures...that spell real trouble for anyone who takes you seriously.

You say: "Anonymous thinks there will be nothing left by the time the reverse mortagagee dies or the house is sold, that is that houses will NOT appreciate even so much as by $3,600 a year."

You base your figures on a $300 a month sewer bill. When all sewer-related costs are factored into the mix -- backend O&M, paving and repaving roads, hook-ups, decomissioning, hauling and sludge -- your true sewer bill will be closer to $500 a month. That's right. Do you factor in imported water? That $500 is climbing. Let's get real. Nowhere do you factor in inflation and rising costs across the board. Home appreciation values will not stand up to the accumulated rate of inflation, and reverse mortgages will never leave you with the big nest egg you claim. That's what banks want you to think, but that's not how it plays out...

Under the microscope of reality, your numbers are hallucinatory, and dangerously suggest reverse mortgages as a viable option, when they are really a last resort of the desperate. They are certainly not for everybody, and I wouldn't go around endorsing them as a universal panacea for paying sewer bills when they are anything but, especially with the nutty-putty numbers you throw out there. You set a bad example for seniors in financial trouble. I sincerely hope they ignore you.



You say: "A hint, Crap, I am being both snide AND absolutely honest: Unfettered Market Forces ARE The American Way, murderous Darwinian economics ARE The American Way."

I appreciate the historical perspective, Ann, but you seem to be paying homage to it here, rather than trying to do something about it. It's your job to shed light, not enforce the status quo. Are you as a writer helping to counteract what you call "The American Way" by skirting the issue? This isn't honest at all. The snide comes through, yes, but not the honesty. If you truly gave a damn about your brother and sister Los Ososians, you would not gloss over the cruel economics that will force thousands out of town as "capitalism as usual." You should be decrying "the process," not promoting it. 4Crap thinks you are a "liberal/progressive/socialist" but I think she's got it all wrong. You don't really care about people, never have. You've never shown any care about the poor here, only in your conviction that "The American Way" will send them packing -- and that's life. You have a platform to help and inform, but you have squandered it for a pat on the back from Gail. Sorry, but you are as insincere as your mistress.

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 12:18pm.

I agree with you that Ann's understanding of finances is about as solid as Julie Tacker's.

However, that being said, I don't think that she doesn't care. I think that in her misunderstanding of economics and finances, she thinks that nit-picking over perceived flaws in the process won't have a huge financial impact on the middle class in Los Osos and won't force out all those below middle class.


Now the reason for my comments to you. What do you suggest is the best path into the future for Los Osos?

It would seem that you don't like Ann's approach of going along with the County all the while watching to make sure that they give us all reasonable options but ultimately voting down the County plan if you like the alternative (and the associated consequences) more than what the County suggests. So what in that do you disagree with?

Anonymous said...

Shark,

Julie's solution to finances was to marry Jeff. Recuse me if I'm wrong, but I can't help but believe the CSD's best solution to Julie's solution is D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

I don't much disagree with your analysis of Ann -- or me, for that matter. We're going to get a sewer system. I don't think the County is going to offer me the affordable system I require. If they do I'll be shocked.

Sharky, there's a lotta shit going down here. You and I know it. I can't spell out my path here, but I can tell you this:

First, it will takes years to un-do the damge that's been done by all sides in this pitched battle going on right now today. We need to be on an austerity budget -- and I don't see it.

Second, we need to reclaim the CSD. That is, re-establish order and democratic principles of self-government we have squandered by believing we had no other choice, no alternatives but to accept less from our leaders.

I only know that your "best path into the future" begins by serious changes in the present, by the way we run our government, conduct our meeting, pick our candidates and make our decisions, and that has not changed, unfortunately. Instead, all we are perpetuating is a failed experiment in self-government. We could do much better.

Anonymous said...

I vote to remove ALL government!

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Essentially I am asking you to back up your claim, Ann. You made a claim ... that the cost estimate of only $6M more was reasonable ... and I challenged your claim. I even explained my reasons."

and "So far you've only bothered to repeat the claim with something like well, that's what the document says. That's really weak when I've already pointed out several very real factors that the document doesn't address."

and "Essentially I am asking you to back up your claim, Ann. You made a claim ... that the cost estimate of only $6M more was reasonable ... and I challenged your claim"


Let me try again. I didn't claim that. It's not my claim. The CC staff report claimed that. What I have "claimed" is that if that were true, then that information should have gone to the community for a choice and a vote. You need to write to Steve Monowitz and complain. He will undoubtedly tell you he got his numbers from Brue Buel and/or the CSD? Then you'll need to write him/them and ask them to back up their claim & etc.

And" the sewer project wasn't doomed from day one of the recall board."

I believe that the sewer project was doomed from day one of the formation of the CSD.

Crap sez:"However, I see regulation everywhere, and no "murderous Darwinian economics" lately. Perhaps "unfettered market forces" were in the past, but lately it seems they are chained."

Need to tell that to the pet owners with dead dogs and poisoned kids using poisoned toothpaste in Panama and so forth.

Anonymous sez:"4Crap thinks you are a "liberal/progressive/socialist" but I think she's got it all wrong. You don't really care about people, never have. You've never shown any care about the poor here, only in your conviction that "The American Way" will send them packing -- and that's life. You have a platform to help and inform, but you have squandered it for a pat on the back from Gail. Sorry, but you are as insincere as your mistress."

Oh, pluuueeeze.I have been "informing" at the top of my voice on various issues for a long time. For example, Here's what I learned while "informing" the public for years on a schoolboard that was heading for the tank & taking millions of tax $$ down the drain with them: The taxpaying Public, including parents whose kids ended up being the most affected, DIDN'T CARE ENOUGH TO DO ANYTHING. They didn't know, they didn't care and they didn't care to know. That's what I learned "informing" the public about schoolboard. It's the same thing I learned "informing" the public about The Sewer Wars with ongoing columns over the years all headlined by the following: "Oh, Lucy, Joooo Gotta Lotta 'Splainin' to Dooooo." Here's what I learned from that experience. The public didn't know, didn't care, didn't care to know, didn't want to bother getting any 'splaining done, until it was too late and the train was flying off the track. IF my "informing" the public had any impact at all, at critical key points, the public -- thus informed -- would have shown up at CSD meetings by the thousands to pound on the podium and demand certain things at key times. They didn't. I would wish it had been otherwise, but is wasn't. That's "reality," and, your nasty and false rhetoric aside, I believe you know that as well as I do.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"If Ron's posting above is correct..."

It is.

An LOCSD document titled, Response to CCC, dated, June 28, 2004, contains both this statement:

"... the (District) Board, on June 17, 2004, agreed to add the picnic area, tot lot, amphitheater, (etc.)..."

and in a separate part of that same document, the following memo (Item 3-C):

MWH Memo comparing costs of TriW with Andre.

In that memo they have itemized a dog park ($60,000) and "bike paths" ($100,000) at Tri-W, but fail to include the cost of the other amenities that the LOCSD had already "reincorporated" BACK into the project at the time of Item 3-C. Those amenities would later be estimated by the District at over $2 million. O & M added another estimated $3 million over the next 20 years. That figure was also omitted from the memo, although other 20-year O & M costs were included in the comparison. Combined, over $5 million, at least (and, likely, much, much more than that) omitted.

So, like I said above... In other words, the LOCSD lied to the Coastal Commission, again, in 2004, in an effort to keep their second project at Tri-W.

That's TWO highly documentable lies -- the made-up "strongly held community value," and the deliberate low-balling of the costs in Item 3-C in an effort to show that there was "no economic incentive" to relocate the facility. Both lies unnecessarily kept the project at Tri-W, and cost taxpayers everywhere a BUNDLE.

So, these days, here's my question: How many documentable, and very expensive, lies to the California Coastal Commission does it take to trigger an investigation either by the county Grand Jury, or the D.A.'s office?

I guess they just don't care that California taxpayers shoveled out tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars to cover-up the early LOCSD's f-ups. Whatever.

Ann wrote:

"I believe that the sewer project was doomed from day one of the formation of the CSD."

That is correct.

Anonymous said...

Ann says: "IF my "informing" the public had any impact at all, at critical key points, the public -- thus informed -- would have shown up at CSD meetings by the thousands to pound on the podium and demand certain things at key times. They didn't. I would wish it had been otherwise, but is wasn't. That's "reality," and, your nasty and false rhetoric aside, I believe you know that as well as I do."

You've made my point. You have no impact. My "nasty and false rhetoric aside," I just tell it like it is -- and I don't need your revisionism to make you sound more caring than you actually are.

Fact is, your column, or whatever you call it, has aboslutely no impact on the public, because no poor person could EVER possibly understand what the hell you are writing about. That is your failure as a communicator to communicate, not the failure of the majority of the public to understand your arcane, obscure writings. In reality, you write for very few people who majored in European literature in college. That's about it.

I am tired of elitists like you who blame the poor for not understanding you. The reality is obvious: You don't relate to them and they don't relate to you. That's what they didn't do anything after reading columns with such "inviting" headlines as "Oh, Lucy, Joooo Gotta Lotta 'Splainin' to Dooooo." I mean, what the hell is that? Garbage.

You need to learn to write for the many, not for the few. Until then, you offer woefully little to the community you claim to speak for.

Nasty and false rhetoric? Hardly. You're old enough to know better.
Live and learn, Ann. Or stay in the narrowed ditch you've planted yourself. I have come to expecxt very little from you as a fair and honest communicator representing anybody in Los Osos but yourself and Gail McPherson.

You made that choice, not me, and you'll just have to live with it and the justified criticism that deservedly comes your way.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

If you're not going to stand behind that $1M less to $6M more as based in fact, why did you bring it up?

Sure, someone made a cost estimate for some aspects of changing the location of the WWTF. Sure that cost estimate was $1M less to $6M more.

You brought up this amount as if it were true. You even gave your own revision to the cost estimate by referring to something Ron wrote. I gave my own revision based on other factors yet you seem very unwilling to consider the argument I put forward.

Do you want us to trust this cost estimate or not? If not, why bring it up? If so, why not explain why it is worth trusting ... even when I've pointed out that it is essentially overlooking inflation.

Presumably you had some reason for bringing up this biased cost estimate? Why?


On another matter, if you believe the project was doomed from the formation of the CSD ... why did you oppose the dissolution? It would seem that dissolution would then both allow a project to move forward and also the community to escape the debts of the CSD.

Anonymous said...

Thank you shark! A bunch of us are now waiting to see what irrelevant, specious dissembling Ann will spout to answer you. Or maybe she will, as she often does, ignore the posts for which she has no ready answer.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Do you want us to trust this cost estimate or not? If not, why bring it up? If so, why not explain why it is worth trusting ... even when I've pointed out that it is essentially overlooking inflation.

Presumably you had some reason for bringing up this biased cost estimate? Why?


On another matter, if you believe the project was doomed from the formation of the CSD ... why did you oppose the dissolution? It would seem that dissolution would then both allow a project to move forward and also the community to escape the debts of the CSD."

One of the problems with answerwing your questions Inlet is that you always seem to utterly distort what I've said.

Let's try again. One of the points I have repeatedly made has been this: At key points in this process, the CSD could have gone to the community for a vote, even an advisory vote. One of those key points was the Coastal Commission de novo hearing. It's the one where a seated commissioner used the term "bait and switchy," never a good thing to hear from a seated commissioner. In that staff report, given to the Commission, Steve Monowitz -- not me -- sated that a guestimate of the in-town, out of town- was a mil less to 5-6 more. The CC asked for an in-town, out of town comparison. They never got it. I asked then and still ask, Why not? As for Mr. Monowitz's numbers, it was not my job to verify those numbers, it was not your job to verify those numbers. It was the job of the CC to persue their own question and get those answers, because the ESHA law is clear: You must use alternative sites if there any suitable (and there were and are.) What the CSD did was to present the SOC -- which Ron has been on about for some time, i.e. can't find any evidence that the SOC was indeed true --hence it was fraudulent ) and -- here it comes, Inlet, IF the mil-5=6 mil was even ball park accurate, then the matter should have gone back to the CC, and/or the CSD should have gone back to the citizens with what I called, at the time, a Chinese Menu -- do you want Plan A for X$ or Plan B for Y$. If the CC had done their job the matter could have been brought before the community THEN (weirdly, in the same way it will be brought to the community now with the County's various plans)Please tell me what's so hard to understand about that?

As for the LAFCO dissolution: My caveat on that was simple. Precedent. Was the CSD, at the point of the hearing, viable or not? If so, it needed an up or down vote. Instead, there was a very real sense of "blackmail" and a sort of cherry-picking, not to mention way too much "Medea" at work to be a neutral, clean process. The rules concerning CSD's formation and dissolution should apply to all CSD's and what I saw at work were some strong "political" forces that could very well set a dangerous precedent to other communities and later come back to haunt LAFCO and the entire process. Los Osos isn't the only hard case in this county. It was unique at the time, hence precedent-setting, hence my caveat.

As a matter of practical reality, what was being engineered I described at the time as being like a pregnant dying mother who has a hard choice: give birth and hand the baby over to Weird Uncle Hal in hopes he'll take care of the kid, or try to give birth alone and face the possibility the baby and Mother both die in childbirth, in which case,Weird Uncle Hal takes over anyway.

Also, why would you think it right to stick the entire county for the debts of the CSD? True, many feel that the county bears a large burden for helping to create this mess, but . . .

Anonymous sez:"Thank you shark! A bunch of us are now waiting to see what irrelevant, specious dissembling Ann will spout to answer you. Or maybe she will, as she often does, ignore the posts for which she has no ready answer.

1:40 PM, May 31, 2007"

Actually, I ignore a lot of posts because they're ANONYMOUS (hard to take anyone's opinon seriously when they refuse to stand by their own opinions with their name) irrelevant, specious and dissembling, deliberately twisted (see Inlet above)& etc, and because I actually have a life.

Anonymous said...

Ann says: I actually have a life.

What a shock! You're a real person? I thought you were a political cartoon in the Bay News.

P.S. If you, Ann, ignore a lot of posts because they're ANONYMOUS -- which is ridiculous -- then why don't you just take ANONYMOUS off your site blog identities and maybe we'd get somewhere.

You offer ANONYMOUS but disrespect and ignore much of it, because you apparently don't like what ANONYMOUS stands for...which is tearing you an honest new one for being a blind and biased old turkey vulture. Of course you don't like ANONYMOUS.

Your logic is so muddled it's hardly worth dealing with you, other than to see how low you'll go to promote Riverside trash.

P.P.S. How come we have to take two eye tests just to post something on your silly site (that you ignore anyway)?

Are you sure you have a life?

Why don't you describe what your life is here, and let your bloggers decide if you have one or not?

You might learn something new about yourself to ignore.

Anonymous said...

11:50

You are a disgrace to the human race. Animals have more compassion. There are so many hateful people now, here in Los Osos. I want to leave this rapidly-turning-retched town, but a lien on my property prevents this. The only interested buyers are the real estate agents and contractors who surround me, willing to pay pennies on the dollar.

Someone's crying Lord, Kumbaya

Anonymous said...

Ann,

You say, "Why would you think it right to stick the entire county for the debts of the CSD? True, many feel that the county bears a large burden for helping to create this mess, but . . ."

It would be right for the county to pay back what it's witheld from Los Osos all these years. They gave none of the property tax dollars back to Los Osos, but collected quite a bit over the years. That amount should be put towards a sewer. They permitted septics built an additional 25% and collected money off those---where's the money?? It's too bad the county will have to be sued to collect what it owes Los Osos.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"Your logic is so muddled it's hardly worth dealing with you, other than to see how low you'll go to promote Riverside trash.

P.P.S. How come we have to take two eye tests just to post something on your silly site (that you ignore anyway)?"

Your comments Illustrate my point exactly regarding "Anonymice." Plus, I didn't design this website and its "eye tests." If they're so annoying, why do you bother?

Anonymous sez:"because no poor person could EVER possibly understand what the hell you are writing about. That is your failure as a communicator to communicate, not the failure of the majority of the public to understand your arcane, obscure writings. In reality, you write for very few people who majored in European literature in college. That's about it.

I am tired of elitists like you who blame the poor for not understanding you."

Since when did being poor have anything to do with being well read? Libraries are free. Reading comprehension has nothing to do with income. Being educated also has nothing to do with going to college. My father-in-law never finshed high school and he was one of the most well read men I've ever met. You make it sound like you think poor people are stupid. They aren't.

anonymous sez:"It would be right for the county to pay back what it's witheld from Los Osos all these years. They gave none of the property tax dollars back to Los Osos, but collected quite a bit over the years. That amount should be put towards a sewer. They permitted septics built an additional 25% and collected money off those---where's the money?? It's too bad the county will have to be sued to collect what it owes Los Osos."

I agree. The question was raised in the matter of dissolution, i.e. disoving the CSD would stick the county with debts, some of which were unrelated to the sewer costs or county bungling & etc.

Anonymous sez:"You are a disgrace to the human race. Animals have more compassion. There are so many hateful people now, here in Los Osos. I want to leave this rapidly-turning-retched town, but a lien on my property prevents this."

What "you" are you refering to? Since you have a lien on your property, can I assume you're a CDO recipient? If so, were you aware that a small but hardy band of people were working on your behalf to help any CDO recipients who wanted help, raised money in order to do hire a lawyer to help defend your rights, are still collecting donations, while most of the community remained clueless or indifferent, or from the comments on this blogsite, actively hostile to you and your CDO? This town isn't meaner than usual or even meaner than other towns. I'd say it's pretty typical. Unless people are directly hit, they tend to ignore everything and turn away from neighbors who are hit since they don't want to get involved, are frightened, are in denial & etc.. That's pretty normal, I'm sorry to say.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

To call my comments deliberate twisting of your words doesn't help our discussion.

I do understand your key point to be that back in 2004 the CSD should have come to the property owners and asked "hey, would you prefer TriW or out of town". I am disagreeing with your contention that it wouldn't have cost much to do that. Essentially I am saying that I agreed with the CSD board who said that TriW was "waaaaaay cheaper" than out of town.

As evidence of it not costing much more, you brought up a cost estimate that considered only some of the costs.

If you would like to explain why I am wrong when I point out that the likely cost would have been considerably more than $6M, go ahead. If you don't want to get into the details of this that is fine as well.

The upshot ... you think the people should have been given the right to choose (even though this is a representative democracy where we elect people to study the issues and make choices for us) and you think that it wouldn't have cost all that much more to have the plant out of town (even though I've explained countless times why this is incorrect).

Yes, a chinese menu approach would be great. The problem, however, might very well be that the cost estimates are all so darn uncertain and the impact of lawsuits and time delays makes those uncertain costs even more uncertain. Maybe a chinese menu with items such as:

Gravity: $80+/-20M
STEP: $70+/-40M
TriW: $60+/-10M
Out-of-town: $50+/-30M

would be helpful. Essentially the margin of error on these cost estimates has never been presented but it is the tail that wags the dog here. Quite often the cheapest possible solution ... if the idealized assumptions that make it the cheapest don't actually come to pass ... is the most expensive solution.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Essentially I am saying that I agreed with the CSD board who said that TriW was "waaaaaay cheaper" than out of town.

As evidence of it not costing much more, you brought up a cost estimate that considered only some of the costs."

Let me repeat this AGAIN. The One mil less and 5-6 million $$ more were numbers that were given to Steve Monowitz from whom? The CSD? I didn't give them those figures. You didn't give them those figures. So where did they come from? The CSD? If so, then where did the CSD get those numbers? WMH? If the numbers are WRONG then whose responsibility was it to see that the numbers were correct, especially as they are appearing in official documents which will be ruled on by, for example, the CC in their official rulings.

You apparently seem unable or unwilling to understand that fact.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I am not unwilling or unable to understand who generated that cost estimate, who reported it and how the CCC relayed it to us.

What I have issue with is your telling us that this number is a realistic way of assessing the actual cost changes of moving the sewer to an out of town location. Perhaps because you've not read it any of the several other times I've patiently tried to explain it to you I should try again. This cost estimate does not include inflation associated with delay. If the CSD had, in 2004, tried to move to an out of town site there would have been additional delay ... years.

Perhaps you don't mean to suggest that inflation doesn't exist or that the design and permitting process happen within the matter of weeks and not years, but there is no other way that inflation could be avoided. Thus, any chinese menu style approach that you advocate should have included the additional cost associated with that delay.

In short, when you cited the $6M figure, you were doing so inappropriately ... you were using the number in a way that those who came up with it did not intend you to use it. I have tried to point this out for about a week now.

So ... checking in ... do you now understand why I am harping on your original misuse of the number? I don't care who came up with the number ... just that you're using it wrong. Sure an kumquat and a grapefruit are both fruits of the citrus variety, but if you hand someone a grapefruit and tell them it is a kumquat and because it is a kumquat it is small so they should eat four or five ... you're mixing stuff up.