Friday, June 15, 2007

Hellooooo, HeeelllloooOOOOO, Los Osos! TAC & Town Hall Meetings

TAC Community Meeting Monday, June 18, 2007 - 7:00 PM South Bay Community Center - 2180 Palisades Avenue, Los Osos

Please note the change in meeting time from 7:30 pm to 7:00 pm.This meeting is scheduled to be broadcasted, live, on Charter Cable channel 20 in Los Osos.

Public Input SlipsIf you have a question or wish to speak either on a specific item on the agenda or in general comment, please fill out a slip and hand it to a member of the Project Team staff.

Please make sure that your questions or comments are on topics within the subject matter of the TAC.

Written questions and comments will be considered during our general discussions. Questions to the Project Team will be responded to as time permits.Questions sent in advance to: will be answered when that topic is on the agenda.

Agenda TAC Business Item 1: Approval of Minutes from previous meeting (5 minutes)
Item 2: Pro/Con analysis of Treatment Technology Alternatives (Chapter 4) Comments from the Chairman (5 minutes) Ad-Hoc Working Group Reports (30 minutes) Engineering & Water Resources Sub-Committee analysis Environmental Sub-Committee analysis Financial Sub-Committee analysis Public Comment on Treatment Technology Alternatives in Chapter 4 (30 minutes) General discussion and pro/con analysis including responses to written (60 minutes) questions and comments from the public
Public Comment on other TAC issues (15 minutes)
Adjourn meeting at 9:30 PM

TAC meeting must be a place for open dialog leading to the successful development of a comprehensive PRO/CON analysis on the various project alternatives. We agree and acknowledge that this process demands time and patience and the engagement of the community.
As volunteers working on behalf of the entire community, we will develop this analysis based on clear, objective, and accurate information. We encourage input and participation from the community and have the following meeting expectations:
We expect all participants to avoid creating opportunities for harassment, intimidation and conflict. Constructive dialog is not possible with interruptions and distractions. We will listen and ask for the clarification and accuracy of statements. We will respond as appropriate so that the flow of information is constructive and informative.
We will present the agenda items and commit to staying on topic so that our meetings are productive and provide information for consideration.


A Town Hall Meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 19, 2007 from 6:00pm to9:00 pm in the Los Osos Middle School Auditorium at 1555 El Morro Avenue,Los Osos.The County of San Luis Obispo's Project Team will present technical optionsfor solving the septic pollution from Los Osos and developing approaches tolong term sustainable water management. The Project Team will be availablefor questions and discussion from 6:00pm to 7:00pm, with a formalpresentation on the "Draft Fine Screening Analysis" beginning at 7:00pm.This information can also be viewed on the Project website


Anonymous said...

The middle school is the perfect location for a bogus pep talk from Paavo, Taxpayers Watch and Gordon Hensley. Maybe someday they'll graduate with a degree in honesty, and turn from frauds and liars to truthsayers.


Right Paavo?

Anonymous said...

You need a life!

Anonymous said...

Just not your life!

1:10 PM, June 15, 2007

Anonymous said...

Conspiracy Boy shouts.....we're all gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

This town is pathetic. I'm tired of everyone being politically correct and letting those who will do anything to stop a project stick their noses in the middle of a process that they have no intent of assisting in.

Anonymous said...

Hey Al, word on the street has it that Orenco is in financial difficulty because they can't perform per contract? Have you been paid for your work yet?

Glen said...

To anonymous above: Show us the pfoof that Orecnco is having financial "dificulty" because they "can't perform per contract"...Give us MORE than an EMPTY BLANKET STATEMENT.

Anonymous said...

Gee Glen, we've been asking for "proof" that Orenco has some mystical Plan that could save Los Osos by using some new, state-of-the-art sewer technology. So far, nothing! Could be that Orenco has never built a sustainable system for a community larger than 500 homes. Financially Orenco seems to be having some internal problems and when asked to guarantee their project for 30 years, they can't. Now when the County was to meet with Orenco, they backed out. You can draw your own conclusions, but it appears Orenco can build small, rural systems of 100 to 500 connections and may even be having some financial problems. Los Osos is too large a community to take a chance with Orenco.

Glen said...

To anonymous above,
If you have so much "proof" regarding Orenco's financial status, as well as their "PERFORMANCE RECORD", PLEASE be kind enough to SHARE that "PROOF" with the rest of us. No more EMPTY accusations. YOU are apparently attempting to STIFLE ORENCO because YOU are AFRAID OF their TECHNOLOGY & price.
Until YOU can SHOW US THE PROOF regarding your "accusations", ORENCO is still the MOST COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION FOR LOS OSOS. You need to do better homework, bud.

Anonymous said...

Where is "PROOF" that Orenco can guarantee they can meet all county and state requirements?

We have heard lot's of noise and viewed the website, but having Al Barrow as spokesman doesn't prove anything. Actually Al Barrow's endorsement with no facts coupled with Orenco not wanting to meet with the County has closed that door. They can play in Washington and Oregon all they want, but Los Osos doesn't need a "maybe" sewer, it needs a proven sewer.

If you believe in Orenco that much, then you put your money on the table, you go obtain RWQCB approval to install the system and if you really want to help the community, you get Orenco to finance the entire operation with 30 year payments. A guarantee for 30 years is also an absolute requirent! Your turn, put your money out there! Until then, I'm backing the County Plan!

Anonymous said...

enough about Orenco already, when the County puts the project out to bid, after the PROPERTY OWNERS approve the 218, and after the BOS selects the project, Orenco can bid like any other sewer designer or supplier and we'll see what they got.

Until then....all the squawking is irrelevant. How come Orenco didn't submit a bid when the CSD put out for a project update? They had their chance once already.

Shark Inlet said...


When you write "ORENCO is still the MOST COST EFFECTIVE SOLUTION FOR LOS OSOS" it piques my interest. I've looked over the Orenco materials (their presentation for the LOCSD and their website) and I don't see that their "solution" will necessarily work for us all that well.

For example, the permitting and lawsuits will change design requirements, making the system more expensive than they're telling us now. If the current proposed design isn't realistic, the comparison between Orenco's cost and what the County is telling us is a bit silly. In particular, I worry about Orenco telling us that their system will handle 50 gallons per per person per day ... why would they propose a system that has roughly half the capacity that the County system is designed to handle? If the County has that design requirement to satisfy permitting requirements (and reality as well), the Orenco system would be undersized and need to be redesigned at a higher cost.

This is all to ask ... how do we really know that Orenco is as cheap as they say?

Anonymous said...


The County + RWQCB + Blakeslee = Axis of Evil

They want your home -- and you and your family out on the street.

Let the rich eat the rich.

Vote "NEVER!" on Axis of Evil 218.

Your "NO" vote is a big "YES" for a diverse Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Ann, he never made into Jr Hi!

Anonymous said...

The 218 is not about a project. It's about allowing the county to tax us the maximum amount for the project of their choice. There is no cap and no spending limit, and it's very possible that the project could go 30 to 40 million dollars over the 218 amount and that doesn't include all other back end associated costs.

I'm furious that the homeowners have to bear the entire cost. We are paying for the sins of the county. It's an outrage and highly illegal. Someone will stop this project cold, if not today, then somewhere along the line it will catch up with the county who is trying to bury their sins and cover it up with the sewer as quickly as they can before anyone can do anything about it. And that explains the big rush for the big fix.

If the county wants the 218 to pass they must give us PROJECTS, not a funding license, with a range of prices. Anything else is a fix and indicates that the county has already made up its mind and we never had a choice in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Take your anger out on Schicker, on Tacker, on Barrow, on Swanson, on McPherson, on Racano!

They were instrumental in halting a sewer which would have worked and would be half completed by now!

Anonymous said...

To Anon 8:08

What you forget to mention is that we couldn't have a sewer completed by now because we didn't have a 218 assessment on it.

Paavo has stated himself that a CSD or the county has to have a 218. I've heard the argument that it would be paid by fees and charges, but I don't believe you can place a lien on homes (for a $200 million plus system --not an upgrade on an existing plant) by fees and charges, and apparently Paavo agrees with that.

Anonymous said...

This is indeed, a complete, "Waiting for Godot" replay. This will never be resolved by the citizenry involved. This must be taken out of the hands of the completely immature Los Osos constituency, and handled only by a more mature governmental agency.

The LOCSD should be dissolved, and the County should take over all functions of this incompetent agency. All elected officials should be taken to task for the role they played in duping the constituency into voting for them:
They had no plan, there would NEVER be a $100 per month solution.

You want to talk about "Bait and switchy? The Recall Board is about as Bait and switchy as it gets!

I was lucky- I sold out early, at a loss of only $150,000 or so. My condolences to all who have good sense, yet are still remaining in LO. The Als and Keiths and Julies and Lisas are still there to run you to the poor-house.

Anonymous said...

You understand unlike the immature poster! We will have a sewer, built by the County and the obstrutors will whine forever more!

Anonymous said...

To the anons above (obviously the same person):

Yes, the county should dissolve the board AND PAY for the sewer. The county permitted over 1,100 homes, created any pollution, collected tax money from those 1,100 homes, permitted those 1,100 homes even though they had illegal septic discharges, allowed the developers to build those 1,100 homes and not pay a dime towards infrastructure, and failed to put a sewer in Los Osos for 20 years! And now blame the homeowners for all their mistakes, and pay big time, to a tune of how much per home? $50,000, $60,000, $80,000...when will it stop? Can you tell us please!?

and you say, "This must be taken out of the hands of the completely immature Los Osos constituency, and handled only by a more mature governmental agency.

Oh, sure, the county is real mature.



4crapkiller said...

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - District Attorney Mike Nifong was disbarred Saturday for his "selfish" rape prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players - a politically motivated act, his judges said, that he inexplicably allowed to fester for months after it was clear the defendants were innocent.

"This matter has been a fiasco. There's no doubt about it," said F. Lane Williamson, the chairman of the three-member disciplinary committee that stripped the veteran prosecutor of his state law license.

There seems to be a similarity between the actions of Mike Nifong and the recall LOCSD board of directors.

1. There was an election involved and lies with false promises. Evidence was withheld as to suitability of Andre and failure of proposed alternate project nitrate removal. In Nifong's case, false accusations of rape were fostered early on and evidence withheld to assure reelection.

2. The LOCSD board failed to follow their "oath of office" upon taking office. Nifong withheld evidence, a violation of his oath of office.

3. There was no "due diligence" and they stopped the sewer.
Nifong steamed ahead without due diligence in considering evidence. He never listened to or met with the accused. The recall board never met with or listened to the CCRWQCB who were on record as to consequences.

4. The LOCSD board's action was taken to impress highly vocal activists, mostly renters and those from out of the area. In Nifong's case, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the "New Black Panthers" were the vocal activists in play, all from without the area.

5. After it was clear that the action was wrong to "stop the sewer", they continued their course of action, listening only to vocal activists and crony lawyers. They paid crony lawyers to defend their course of action as payback for supporting their election. The activist lawyers supported the actions for financial gain. Nifong simply continued, listening to no one.

Nifong has been disbarred in disgrace. He will face possible criminal charges, and certainly face civil charges for his actions toward the victims. He will have a hard time finding any job in the future. I would not be surprised if we hear more about Nifong. Possibly self destruction. He has thrown his education, lively hood, and respect away.

6. Unlike Nifong, who has accepted all blame for his actions, the recall LOCSD board has accepted none. "The voters decided". They wish to blame others, especially the previous board.

7. We have heard nothing from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or "The New Black Panthers" as contributing to the injustice to the three lacrosse players, their team, their coach, or their University. They believed Nifong's lies and acted on racist lines. Nobody has apologized for the death threats to the three victims. Members of the former LOCSD board received death threats. There has been no apology for our insolvency and misappropriation of funds by the supporters of the recall board.


The property owners within the LOCSD are victims. When will we see prosecution of the recall board? When will the State Bar bring the LOCSD lawyers to justice by holding hearings?

Justice demands it.

Anonymous said...

Los Osos Obstructionists think justice is:

"Take every single Dreamer and Taxpayers Watch member on a bus ride to Mexico, dig some shallow graves, and tell them to get on their knees and pray that God will forgive them in the end."

Anonymous said...

"Take every single Dreamer and Taxpayers Watch member on a bus ride to Mexico, dig some shallow graves, and tell them to get on their knees and pray that God will forgive them in the end."

What bothers me here is that this tale is very much like the end of "The Sopranos" -- very inconclusive. What really did happen on the last episode of "The Sopranos"? Were they wiped out? Did they live? Will there be a movie? They just cut to black.

Whatever the writer in italics above had in mind, he left out the ending, cut to black. I hate when they leave what happened up to the viewer! We may never know...

What do you think happened to the Dreamers and Taxpayers Watch in the story above, kidnapped by Obstructionists, taken on a bus to Mexico and forced to dig shallow graves...?

Let's vote for our favorite ending. Here are the choices for alternate ending:
(1) The Dreamers and Taxpayers Watch are executed by an overdose of laughing gas, after being forced to eat donuts from Carlock's while reading a book from Volumes of Pleasure and watching slow motion re-runs of recent CSD meetings.
(2) The Dreamers and Taxpayers Watch are buried alive, but since most are lower than earthworms anyway, they survive by breathing dirt and escape.
(3) Pavvo, Noel, Gibson, Jerry, Jeffrey and Sam "The Sham" Blakeslee arrive just in the nick of time by helicopter, kill the Obstructionists, and the Dreamers, Taxpayers Watch -- and the County Gang return home heroes and build a monument to themselves at Tri-W that can be seen and whiffed from every corner of town.

What do you think? Please vote your favorite ending here -- or make up one of your own!

Will it be thumbs up... or thumbs down on the Dreamers, Taxpayers Watch, Richie Rich Blakeslee & the County Gang????

Their fate lies in YOUR hands.

Newguy said...

Got my cable back, but reading the blog is better entertainment!

Anonymous said...

The county has lied big time:

1) Lied about the 218 and said everyone would pay either special or general benefits, but then changed their mind and said people outside the PZ could pay if they wanted to.

2) Said the Tri-W was on the table because they were afraid of lawsuits, since when has that stopped anyone? There is always a threat of a lawsuit.

3) Said they were picking TAC members from the community, but they only picked Tri-W supporters, including Dan Berman who's paid by the RWQCB--All Tri-W people except Karen.

4) Said there was grant money, knowing there would be NO grant money unless the SRF was paid back first.

5) Said they hired Corollo to study alternatives, yet knows Corollo has NO expertise in alternatives ONLY gravity.

6) Wrote the RWQCB about CDO's when they had already been assured, along with Sam Blakeslee, by the RWQCB that as soon as the project started the CDO's would go away.

7) Lied on the Fine Screening pumping up the Step/Steg figures and making gravity look reasonable.

8) Said from the beginning that they would involve and inform the community through the process, yet refused to tape and air TAC and "after hours" meetings (they may now because maybe their legal told them to.)

to be continued...

Anonymous said...

Just was reading the Tribune Blog, and it's nothing compared to Ann's.

I found this entry interesting though:

From: 4CrapKiller

How about putting all the sewer facilities underground with a park on top at TRI-W? It is all planned, just have to dig deeper.


Anonymous said...

To the One who knows about all the lies in Los Osos;

Now that you're exposing all the lies, could you finally prove or disprove that there was a Plan that Lisa said they had? and why didn't the Schicker CSD want a 218 Vote immediately after taking office, or at any time in the 18 months before they filed for bankruptcy?

Thank you for being the leader of the open and honest MTS gang.

Love your note: "Take every single Dreamer and Taxpayers Watch member on a bus ride to Mexico, dig some shallow graves, and tell them to get on their knees and pray that God will forgive them in the end."

Anonymous said...

Dear 6:11 above:

FYI, that was not my note about the Dreamers and TW.

My entry was about the county and the lies -- and not about this CSD board either.

I can not defend them. There was no plan. I personally don't think any CSD could do the job of building a sewer. I personally believe the county should be paying it's fair share of the cost though (along with being more honest.)

If the county collected property tax money for the 20 years since they allowed the 1,140 homes to be built with illegal septic tanks, they've collected at least $45 million of those homes.

The county should kick in that money and give us an affordable sewer and we should pay no more than $150. per month.

But we are looking at liens now for how much? $50,000., $80,000., and with your big gravity sewer the costs will always be increasing. Remember, this 218 vote is only the first assessment of many more to come.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 7:01PM,

You said:
Remember, this 218 vote is only the first assessment of many more to come.

I heard Bruce Gibson say the same thing.

Anonymous said...

and the sky is falling, yada,yada BS

Anonymous said...

Oh, come on Crapkiller, that post at 9:24 was funny. Go get a job, oops, I forgot you already have one. You're paid by the county to endorse all the evil they're doing with our sewer, their water pipeline, and anything else they need you to promote!

Why don't you take a break and go watch some more of Sean Hannity to get more of his phrases and descriptions of liberals.

4crapkiller said...

The candidates for the recall were selling the Nelson Environmental enclosed ponding system out of town at the Andre site. I knew the Andre site would not be applicable early on because of the restrictions on the deed. The Nelson Environmental System (step/steg) lacked any documentation for a period of time for nitrate removal. At the time, and as far as I know, there is no documentation for a ponding system to remove nitrates. They simply have not been documentated: it does not mean that nitrates are not removed, especially through a wetlands system (this was NOT). So essentially we were being sold a site that could not be used, and a system that would not pass the nitrate documentation requirements by the CCRWQCB.

The people running for the recall board were told of this and ignored it. There was no viable plan, just smoke and mirrors to gain power. There was no "due diligence".

Anyone who understands the bankruptcy realizes that a 218 assessment vote will be required to get out of it. If we have to take state water, it will be raw water, a pipeline and a treatment plant will have to be built to insure it is potable with another 218 vote.

So if Bruce Gibson stated as 8:13PM heard, he told the truth as to potential 218 votes. He understands the problem.

There was no 218 vote after the sewer was stopped. The LOCSD rejected the state compromise. A 218 vote would have assured a system at TRI-W. The LOCSD board would not stand for it and would not let the property owners decide. The Blakeslee bill requires a 218 Vote because the LOCSD board defaulted on it's sewer financing contract that was site specific and failed to agree to the CCRWQCB compromise.

Anonymous said...

To: Crapkiller again. I forgot something.

If you're paid by the county to blog and convince the community to vote yes on the 218 AND you heavily promote the Tri-W (with a park) that means the county is going for the Tri-W project and this is all just a big expensive "dog n' pony" show now isn't it?

You're busted, you phony!

Anonymous said...

To: Crapkiller

Your post sounded good until the last paragraph, then it turned into bullshit:
"There was no 218 vote after the sewer was stopped. The LOCSD rejected the state compromise. A 218 vote would have assured a system at TRI-W. The LOCSD board would not stand for it and would not let the property owners decide. The Blakeslee bill requires a 218 Vote because the LOCSD board defaulted on it's sewer financing contract that was site specific and failed to agree to the CCRWQCB compromise."

Crapkiller, that's not what REALLY happened, and it's not what Paavo said either. It may be the way you would want to spin it, but it's not accurate.

Paavo stated that a CSD or the county must have a 218 vote period.

The CSD didn't stop the compromise. The CSD didn't stop the SRF loan. It was the State Water Board who stopped everything because they allowed money to be loaned out without the prior CSD having a 218 and it was an unsecured loan. The law says they had to. Paavo said so. I've heard that David Chipping, Gordon Taylor and others say the same. Are telling us that Paavo, Dave, and Gordon all lied?

Pick one crapkiller, either you are lying or they are!

Anonymous said...

May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind always be at your back.
May the sun shine warm upon your face,
and rains fall soft upon your fields.
And until we meet again,
May God hold you in the palm of His hand. Amen

Shark Inlet said...


About the 218 vote after the "compromise" ... the SWRCB required one before they would continue loaning money to the LOCSD. The SWRCB also was asking that construction restart immediately. This put the LOCSD in the place where they would need some money to restart construction but that was money that they claimed not to have. The LOCSD says that they couldn't afford a bridge loan to cover construction during that time period so they declined.

One can blame the SWRCB for requiring these things but from another point of view, the requirements seemed pretty reasonable ... it was just that the LOCSD had managed to get themselves in a position where they couldn't meet these reasonable expectations.

One could also blame the LOCSD but the SWRCB definitely set some expectations that couldn't be easily met.

It takes two to tango.

I look at the failed negotiations and the compromise as evidence that the SWRCB was flexible in many ways ... and that perhaps the LOCSD didn't deal with the situation in the right way. But that's a topic of another post...

ps - Ann, I would again encourage you to work with newsstandgreg to prohibit people from posting anonymously (and I am using that word in the blogger sense). I think it would cut down on the hit-n-run comments by people far too willing to be rude and far too unwilling to follow your suggested guidelines.

pps - To those who have offered up insults and derision ... I would ask you how you expect such a tone will help our community heal? Even if you have the right opinions, is it worth it to insult others? I can't see the regular insulting of others as creating a healthy and helpful situation.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"ps - Ann, I would again encourage you to work with newsstandgreg to prohibit people from posting anonymously (and I am using that word in the blogger sense). I think it would cut down on the hit-n-run comments by people far too willing to be rude and far too unwilling to follow your suggested guidelines."

aren't you an "anonymous?"

Anonymous said...


Let Gary run his own blog and monitor it the way he wants to.

4crapkiller said...

To anon 10:11:

It is not a question of lying. The record exists. How the record is interpreted is another matter. The courts will decide if given a chance. I wonder where the LOCSD will come up with the money to fight. Where are the "pro bono" lawyers?

Tri-W was funded by a low interest loan to be paid back by user fees. There is an exception in the 218 law that makes this possible. All homes in the PZ were required to hook up or face fines and CDOs. These potential fines and Cdos made the loan secure, but not secured by property. Read the law and you will see the exception to an assessment vote, specific to sewer systems.

We got the loan, it was approved, and it was based upon a fully permitted sewer acceptable to the water board at a specific site that was owned by the LOCSD. It was also based upon an assessment vote that paid for the development of the system and land. The property owners took on a debt of almost 20 million for this and it is part of our property taxes. We received the first part of the installment, which is now required to be paid back because we defaulted (stopped the sewer) at a specific site. The water board stopped the funding because of this default. The new (recall board) was on record as to wanting to move the site and change the system. This matter is in the courts, but nothing is happening due to the CSD filing for bankruptcy.

The state water board stopped the funding because of breach of loan contract which is in dispute by the LOCSD Board and their lawyers.

The 218 Vote for a sewer system is now required because it is part of the Blakeslee Bill, now law. Other communities can get a low interest loan for a sewer system or upgrades based upon user fees.

Paavo is correct. There must be a 218 vote. NOW.

I cannot tell you that Paavo, Dave, and Gordon all lied. I am receiving second hand information from you as to what they said to an unknown question, filtered by what you wanted to hear. We have all received second hand information on this. The loan contract has not been published as far as I know. The 218 law is there for all to see, including the exception.

The edict by the water board after we stopped the sewer and defaulted is written history. The water board wanted us to continue building the sewer, but in light of the default, required a 218 vote. The LOCSD, citing measure "B" refused. The stoppage of the sewer by the LOCSD is fact. Measure "B", and "the voters decided".

The governor has required the repayment of the monies from the loan that were used to be repaid before we can get another low interest loan.

When you state: "It was the State Water Board who stopped everything because they allowed money to be loaned out without the prior CSD having a 218 and it was an unsecured loan.", you are mistaken.
In their eyes, we defaulted on the loan and the site specific purpose for the loan when we stopped construction.

Had we continued to move forward, we would have continued to receive funding. It was not in the interest of water law to pull a legally approved loan, with funding already started.

Paavo is on record that the county can place a sewer plant outside the jurisdiction (limits) of the LOCSD and the Blakeslee law simply allows the county to construct the system within the jurisdiction of the LOCSD. This will surely be adjudicated by the property owners outside the LOCSD in close proximity to an "out of town treatment plant". The question will be: "Why should the county be allowed to place a plant in our back yard when an already permitted plant and site is available within the limits of the LOCSD. The property owners in the PZ assessed themselves 20 million to develop this. It was thrown away by a general district vote and not a vote strictly by the property owners. We are not part of the problem, and do not deserve the sewerage of the PZ. We have never been allowed to vote on the problem, and our septic tanks function as per design and permit."
"The Blakeslee law is not perfectly clear on this." "Besides, the intent of the law is to return the system to the LOCSD after it is constructed, and it would cease to be out of county control and outside the district boundary.

However, it is clear that there will not be a sewer constructed anywhere by the county unless a 218 assessment vote passes. It is also clear that an insolvent LOCSD cannot construct it anywhere unless outside funding can be had. It would be very hard for an insolvent district to secure any funding at any interest rate.

An outside corporation or private party could come in and construct a sewer, not subject to a 218 vote, and could finance payback through user fees, but that would take very deep pockets (private), corporate capital, or corporate bond funding. The interest on the bonds would depend on existing corporate debt and underwriting. If they decided that the risk was worth the potential profit, they would still be subject to suit from "out of town" property owners. They would have to buy them off with some agreement.

So far all we have speculatively heard about is Orenco, and apparently they have stepped away from the plate. They are responsible to their stockholders, are profit motivated, and must weigh risks vs. returns.

It all comes down to an assessment vote from the property owners in the PZ. If the assessment vote fails, the county will wash it's hands and be done with the problem.

We will not have a sewer, and the property owners will have CDOs and/or temporary discharge permits. You can be assured that the permit costs will be far greater than any cost of a sewer, and we will have nothing but expense for nothing.

So the property owners can pay for something that solves our sewerage and hopefully our water problem or pay more just for the temporary right to live in their homes and continue to discharge pollution into our upper aquifer.

You vote, but regardless, you get to pay your money. A yes vote gets a sewer, a no vote gets you nothing but delay and increased costs for even more money.

At this time, past mistakes mean nothing. We must look to the future and consequences:

We have an insolvent LOCSD that can do nothing. Their bankruptcy has not been accepted, there is no plan.

As yet there is no knight on a white horse to save us if we vote NO on an assessment.

To anon 11:51: Your prayer is productive. This community needs all the help it can get. Amen.

4crapkiller said...

To All:

4crapkiller does not post as an anon. She posts as 4crapkiller. If you differ with her opinion, please submit facts and documentation. If she is in error, she will stand corrected and admit the error. It is the correct thing to do.

Shark Inlet said...


Perhaps you should read and understand what I post before you reply. In the blogger sense, an individual with a blogger or gmail account can post is not anonymous.

If your point is that everyone should have their names known, I would submit that none of us knows that even you and Mike Green are the real Ann Calhoun and Mike Green.

The fact about the internet is this ... when individuals have to choose a screen name, an identity as it were, the likelihood of bad behavior goes way down.

If you want to take me up on my suggestion you'll find out. If you want to argue that it is still possible that someone could hit-n-run broadcast random crap to your blog ... you are right. However, people don't tend to want to create new logins for each hit-n-run event yet they don't want to have their words essentially ignored because their login name has lost it's value because of some bad behavior in the past.

Give it a go and see ...

Anonymous said...

After the verbal brutality and stench of anger - it's a good idea to be grateful for what we do have and give blessings to strive for balance.

Anonymous said...

Don't You Know...?

Blog at your own risk. People blog for different reasons. Demonstrate balance and you will receive balance. Demonstrate violence and you will receive same. (Golden Rule of Life, Even Internet Life?) The people who complain the most are often the worst offenders. Everyone needs to regulate their own behavior. Be who you're afraid you're not. Don't wait until tomorrow. It's not up to THEM, it's up to YOU.


Anonymous said...

To Crapkiller,

I've been out of town and just catching up on the blogs. You said a couple things that I don't understand at all and would love an explanation.

Crapkiller says:
"Tri-W was funded by a low interest loan to be paid back by user fees..."

User fees for what? If there's not a sewer in place and no pipes or a working wastewater system -- what's to use?? Besides that, how can you have $50,000. or $60,000. or higher in user fees?

Then Crapkiller says:
"There is an exception in the 218 law that makes this possible..."

You are right about that Crapkiller. There is an exemption for sewer. But I believe the exception for a sewer is just that, not a sewer that doesn't exist yet!


Then Crapkillers says:
"These potential fines and Cdos made the loan secure, but not secured by property."

Fines secured the loan? CDO's secured the loan? Well, that's a good one...haven't heard that before. Are you telling me that the State Water Board is supposed to do business this way? I THINK NOT!

Lastly Crapkillers says:
"Other communities can get a low interest loan for a sewer system or upgrades based upon user fees."

I don't know who you are talking to about this, but I've spoken to the State Water Board about this and they definitely need more than user fees. Where do YOU get your info, Crapkiller?

Phred said...
This comment has been removed by the author.