Pages

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Put Your Hands On The Table And Step Away From the Hideous Sewer Sardoodledom!

Uh, oh, I see by the June 5 Tribune, that the cat’s out of the bag: The Tri-W project has been carried into the fine screening process and will be considered along with the other projects being looked at, despite it’s having been basically rejected by the voters in both the recall and the Measure B election. It’s also in the mix because, at this point, so far as I know, whatever “fatal flaws” it has now were ignored since it already has it’s permit. Which, of course, raises another question, one that Ron Crawford over at Sewerwatch has been raising for some time: Was that permit obtained by means of, uh, er, fraud? That is, was the Coastal Commission given wrong information by the previous CSD, information contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations concerning the “strongly held community value” that would require that any sewer plant being considered must also be centrally located so a park could be added to it. Ron’s been looking high and low for any evidence of that “strongly held community value,” and has so far come up empty handed.

But then, Ron’s also got other questions concerning Tri-W. For example, here’s one he sent Paavo for the TAC for their consideration: “The Tri-W project included leachfields at the Broderson site and additional sites on the east side of town as the only reuse/disposal alternative. The sum of the capacity for disposal by the sites in the Tri-w project did not meet the required capacity for buildout flow. The shortfall in capacity was deferred to a future project to solve.”

Here’s [Ron’s] question:

“If it was discovered that one of the ‘Viable Project Alternatives’ scrutinized in the Fine Screening Report for the Los Osos wastewater project required a second, ‘future project’ to ‘meet the required capacity for buildout flow,’ would that be considered a ‘fatal flaw’ for that alternative, or will the TAC allow another project (other than Tri-W) through the fine screening process that will also require a ‘future project’ to meet the planning needs of Los Osos?”

Excellent question. If you stopped and asked a hundred Los Ososians if they knew that Tri W was only a partial plan, that in order to meet buildout, the community would have to build another project, my guess is they would say, No, Nope, Didn’t know that.

So, why is this interesting? Well, for one, the Ripley Plan was proposed in phases. Collect X amount of the town, see how that goes and how water reuse is going, then move on to Phase II and so forth. If Tri W always was/is, in reality, a phased project, then so is Ripley, so, perhaps are other projects being looked at, then they’ll have to be judged by the TAC as apples with apples for cost. (No good comparing Tri W, thinking the price is all inclusive, when, in fact, it was a phased project whose real, ultimate cost would remain unknown.

As for the Tribune noting that “Critics urge the county to drop the site, arguing that the community exercised its will when, by a very narrow margin, voters approved an initiative that precluded the Tri-W parcel for a sewer plant,” I would have to disagree. I believe the key reason for wanting Tri-W off the table is the result of two things: The sense that Tri-W was rigged from the beginning (It wasn’t the ONLY solution, there wasn’t any “strongly held community value” requiring an in-town site so a park could be attached to it, etc.), the permit was obtained by means “bait & switchy” and there is a very real fear that the same a-priori rigging will happen again.

The critics are right. Bait and switchy remains a very real possibility, but if the process was rigged from day one, then the only way to un-rig it is to start again and this time keep the process clean, keep rigging thumbs off the scale, compare apples with apples, include total prices, including OM&R and future water needs and buildout numbers and flexibility if things change suddenly, (i.e. climate change resulting in no outside water availability, extreme increases in fuel costs, etc.) then see what’s left standing on its own merits. The voters will then decide whether they trust the process (and the BOS) sufficiently to give the County the go-ahead with their 218 vote to continue forward with more screening, more evaluation, harder numbers, and an advisory vote on what’s left on the table.

To start rigging things now, before the TAC has had a chance to even evaluate what’s been given them, would be to start the whole bait and switch process again, which, I suspect, the community is tired of. True, the RWQCB rigged the entire deal from day one with their scientifically indefensible PZ, followed by allowing 1,100 homes to be built even after passing Resolution 83-13, thereby putting the rest of the community in jeopardy, not to mention their ongoing game of Hobson’s Choice, but if there is no political will to un-rig that game, then this community will have to accept those imposed limits and swallow (and pay for) whatever is given to them. The choice is theirs.

Meantime, Spencer Harris of Cleath & Associates is scheduled to present Chapter 2 of the Draft Fine Screening Report – End stage Water use and re-use – at the joint TAC/CSD meeting at the South Bay Community Center, Thursday, June 7 starting at 6:30 pm.

Personally, I think that starting at the back end of the project first is really smart. As far as I’m concerned, this project was always about WATER, not sewers, and deciding just how and where the treated wastewater comes out and what’s to be done to it and whether the basin can be balanced without imported water, is absolutely critical to knowing what kind of project would need to be built exactly where in order to accomplish the end goal.

98 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

To say that TriW was rejected by the voters in Measures B, C, D and E is silly. We've talked about it before yet you persist in saying such nonsense.

You might as well say that the voters wanted their sewer at TriW because of the formation of the CSD and the elections of 2000, 2001 and 2002. If Ron is allowed to make the repeated point that the CSD was formed because of a promise of $38.75 per month, one must quickly admit that a promise that one's sewer bills would be cut in half by a recall most definitely tipped the balance.

I contend that the voters didn't basically reject the site but were largely voting on the cost. They were voting based on a hope that the costs would go down by choosing another site or they were voting to delay the bills.

As for Measure B, I contend that because the Measure was portrayed as giving the citizens a vote on the site, again the balance was tipped. Had the Measure read "TriW or somewhere else ... you pick", you could make your claim.


On other matters, again it seems that you're falling into the trap of perhaps not remembering past discussions here ... the previous CSD's statement of overriding considerations isn't relevant. If the County wants to use TriW for a WWTF but doesn't want to include a park, they have to come go through the process of getting a new coastal development permit from the CCC. The SOC would then read "it would simply cost waaaaaaay more to put the plant at any of the out of town sites" and it would be approved by the CCC with no questions ... a simple presentation of estimated costs would suffice as evidence.

As for Ron's question about whether the extra costs of TriW to meet full buildout flow would be included, Mike Green already has given an answer based on the TAC fine screening report. Hell, you posted a link to the fine screening report. Perhaps you and Ron should read it carefully before rendering opinions. If nothing else, pay more attention to Mike's comments. He and PG are some of your more valuable contributors and their opinions should be listened to carefully.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody find this strange?: There is a nuclear power plant a few short miles away from Los Osos, yet Ann and Ron and others have a fear about a sewer at Tri-W that makes a fear of nuclear irradiation seem trivial. It's just odd. What is it about Tri-W that makes them so very very afraid? I think it's obvious it won't be considered when all is said and done, and right now it's kept alive simply to placate some and avoid potential litigation. So really, why the fear? Just put the numbers on the table and let the people "advise" as to their choice and stay calm. You have nothing to fear Ronnie and Ann but fear itself. Really.

Anonymous said...

As it's been said before.
The sewer is the sacred cow and the elephant in the room is Diablo.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey! Thanks for the compliment, A big shout out right back at ya!
Your argument below is going to have a very rough reality:

"If the County wants to use TriW for a WWTF but doesn't want to include a park, they have to come go through the process of getting a new coastal development permit from the CCC. The SOC would then read "it would simply cost waaaaaaay more to put the plant at any of the out of town sites"

Please direct your attention to table 7.4 of the fine report:
Total Project Costs:
STEP $134-173/ $145-180 /$143-178 $145-179 /$164-201 /$164-198
Gravity $152-185/ $161-189/ $160-187 $162-188/ $181-210 /$181-207

So much for WAAAY cheaper, in fact TriW in some instances could be more expensive!

Again I ask, why is there no comparisons of land value? The TriW site is obviously worth more than ,lets say, the cemetery property. selling the TriW site and using that money to purchase land out of town should have a dramatic effect on the projected cost of the STEP system, dont ya think?

4crapkiller said...

Ann: Stop already! The county will decide!

Measure "B" passed by twenty votes. If you take the renters Racano, Perleman, Duggan, and Barrow off the tally, it passed by 16 votes. It passed because of false promises and lies. We were duped, diddled, and conned. Why do you not address this?
Thank dog the renters will be out of the loop.

20/20 hindsight is available. I guess you want to keep your friends on the board, who think as fuzzily as you, from jail.

By the way, your logic and questions and suppositions is equivilent of me asking you: "How many times a week do you kick your dogs?"

The question presupposes that you kick your dogs, and just asks how often. Of course you could answer "I never kick my dogs!" However you have been falsely accused, indicted, and left with the burden of proof. Stop it!

There are others that can use this ploy just as effectively as you. The sorry part, is if you use this enough, the ignorant believe you.

Anonymous said...

Ann:

Here you go again, you say, "The voters will then decide whether they trust the process (and the BOS) sufficiently to give the County the go-ahead with their 218 vote to continue forward with more screening, more evaluation, harder numbers, and an advisory VOTE on what’s left on the table."

I MUST REMIND YOU AGAIN, IT'S NOT AN ADVISORY VOTE, IT'S AN ADVISORY SURVEY - BIG DIFFERENCE. THE BOS WOULD HAVE TO HOLD TO A VOTE, BUT A SURVEY IS JUST THAT - A SURVEY! Please don't make it sound like we have a real decision or vote in this process, because we don't!

Another thing, Rodger Anderson said at the time he was running that Tri-W would have to have another stage or phase for build-out. He knew and so did others "in the know."

Also, Paavo's letter at the beginning of the fine screening said that the Tri-W was permitted and funded, to which I say the permit was bait & switch and the funding was unsecured, in fact illegal because the State Water Board had no dedicated source of funding therefore breaking state and federal laws. So, just like the legislation was based on a lie that said ALL 5,000 septics were polluting, the fine screening is based on a lie also.

THIS process (just like Tri-W) has been rigged from day one. FYI.

Anonymous said...

People are using the word "rigged" when in actuality they don't "understand". It was never hidden that there were future costs with the previous project. The bulk of construction - more specifically, infrastructures have phases. They don't always require full implementation at the time of construction but have to prepare for future demand.
There was a condition on the CC permit and it required a phased in water management plan. Very few people seem to have read that and yes, it was 15 years of implementing various degrees of conservation and development of resources.
"rigged" no; "misunderstood" yes

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:15....When Tri-W is not the preferred sight when all is said and done, can we expect an admission from you that you are a conspiracy-obsessed moron and you were just trying to sway the 218 vote all along because you do not want to pay for a sewer? Thank you.

Or that you're Al Barrow. Whichever one fits.

Anonymous said...

Measure B is DEAD

There is one more appeals hearing and it's official, finally once again!

Then of course, the CSD will want to begin the process of appealing to the State and Federal Supreme Courts? Just how much pro bono work can the CSD's army of lawyers really do? Wouldn't it be beneficial to actually begin working on resolving the Bankruptcy?

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Which, of course, raises another question, one that Ron Crawford over at Sewerwatch has been raising for some time: Was that permit obtained by means of, uh, er, fraud? That is, was the Coastal Commission given wrong information by the previous CSD..."

According to my research into what constitutes fraud, three things need to happen.

First, there needs to be a lie of some sort, but that's not enough. The person telling that lie needs to know that it is a lie. For example, if an elected official were to tell the Coastal Commission something that is untrue, but they didn't know it was untrue, then that is not fraud.

Now, here's where it gets interesting. Even if a person were to tell a lie to the Coastal Commission, for example, and they knew that what they were saying was false, that STILL does not constitute fraud.

For fraud to happen, according to my research, the person, or agency, must tell a lie, know it's a lie, and then, and here's the kicker, that lie must benefit that person and/or agency in some way.

All three of those criteria are met with Nash-Karner, as vice-resident of the LOCSD, and what she told the Coastal Commission in 2001 -- that there was a "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a "centrally located" "recreational asset."

1) That was a lie. Not only is there not a shred of evidence, obviously, that supports that extraordinary claim, but all the evidence that would support it, like election results (Measures E-97 and D-97) and public opinion polls -- evidence that the 2001 LOCSD had in its possession, but failed to reveal to the Coastal Commission, according to Commission officials -- showed the exact opposite community value in 2001. Los Osos taxpayers were in no mood to start shelling out millions of dollars for public recreation stuff at the same time they were staring down a massive sewer assessment.

Furthermore, almost immediately after the Commission signed off on Tri-W in 2001, solely due to that "community value," District officials ripped out of the Tri-W project, almost entirely, the elaborate park that Nash-Karner told the Commission was "strongly" wanted by Los Osos residents. That's when this disaster got REALLY bad, because it wasn't until THREE YEARS LATER that Dave Potter spotted the removal of the amenties -- the only reason to site the facility at Tri-W -- and then called them "bait and switchy." Excellent catch by Mr. Potter. (However, that's when the Commission f-d up. They shouldn't have allowed the LOCSD to "reincorporate" the amenities, they should have just denied the permit. It would have been completely understandable, along with massive fines from the RWQCB in 2004 for "bait and switchy.")

2) Nash-Karner knew it was a lie. She spearheaded both Measures E-97 ($10 increase in property taxes a year for "recreational services" in Los Osos) and D-97 ($40 a year for a pool facility), and both of those Measures failed. Yet, just three years later, as an elected official, she's telling the staff of the Coastal Commission that there's a "strongly held community value"... . She'll counter that the 87-percent of the voters that favored her ill-fated "Community Plan" in 1998 (that formed the LOCSD in the first place) were voting for a "sewer-park" at Tri-W, no matter what the cost. But, according to her own documents, that project NEVER included a multi-million dollar park, just "future recreational opportunities." Her documents also stated that the Community Plan would be a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75/month."

3) She benefited from that lie because it allowed her to keep the project at Tri-W after her "Community Plan" -- the plan that got her, and other Solution Group members, elected AND the LOCSD formed in the first place -- failed, thus saving her massive embarrassment, especially since numerous water quality professionals had documented, before the election that formed the CSD, that her project was never going to work.

Three strikes, your out. All three, lined up perfectly.

No made-up "strongly held community value," no "bait and switchy," no Tri-W Development Permit. Clear as day (unless that day happens to be in Los Osos in the summer).

And if Ogren and the TAC would just stop listening to Nash-Karner, they would see all of this in about two seconds, Tri-W would immediately fall off the table, like it should have YEARS ago, EVERY taxpayer in the state would save a lot of money, and a sewer project that actually has rationale behind it would be built faster.

In the cover letter of the Fine Screening Report, Ogren writes:

"However, the objectives that tilted the scale in favor of this site may no longer have the weight they were given when the site was originally selected. In other words, “amenities”, like community parks, will not obscure the goals of providing the most efficient and cost effective
solution to wastewater and groundwater problems."


Here's wrong there. Right out of the gate, he's wrong.

He's wrong when he says, "the objectives that tilted the scale in favor of this site may no longer have the weight..."

The "project objective for centrally located community amenities" NEVER had the "weight" he discusses, and it's imperative that he is clear on that. A 15-minute phone call to Steve Monowitz at the California Coastal Commission would go a long was in making that clear to Ogren.

To me, at least, that "project objective" is a clear case of fraud... massive, very, very, very expensive fraud. (These days, I ballpark that fraud figure at about $100 million worth of CALIFORNIA taxpayer money. Yea, but I know Los Osos, if we don't live in your town, we don't get a say in your controversy, right?)

Shark:

"As for Ron's question about whether the extra costs of TriW to meet full buildout flow would be included, Mike Green already has given an answer based on the TAC fine screening report."

And that answer is this:

"The Tri-W project did not include adequate disposal capacity to meet the buildout flow. To
make the comparison of the Tri-W project equivalent to the other viable project alternatives
developed in this report, additional costs for routing flow to a spray field site is included."


O.K. so what's this mysterious "spray field site" that county officials have all of sudden lumped into the Tri-W project?

From the Tri-W cost estimate:

"Includes a pipeline to Tonini Property and 100 acres of spray fields to dispose of harvest water.
Not included in original Tri-W design but included here for comparison to other viable project
alternatives."


That "Tonini property" is a $7 million, 600-acre ranch east of town. So, now, here's my question, if the county is going to purchase a 600-acre site so Tri-W will actually work, then why don't they just build everything out there to begin with? Why not just build Tri-W's "future project" today. What happens when the "future project" is complete, and everyone looks a couple of miles upwind and says, "Why do we need the Tri-W plant, now?"

Anon:

"What is it about Tri-W that makes them so very very afraid?"

Not afraid, intrigued.

Imagine if Diablo was sited due to a "strongly held community value" that it also be a centrally located recreational asset. It wouldn't be where it's at, it would be at the Trader Joes/Food 4 Less complex in south SLO.

Ron said...

Some typos I can live with, some I can't:.

I wrote:

"Three strikes, your out."

Three strikes, you're out.

#$$%#@$%##... grumble, grumble, #$*%!

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

Surely by "fine report" you mean the "fine screening report" and don't intend to imply that you like what you read.

Now, to the issue. First, this table is a comparison of the generic STEP and generic gravity systems. Yes, there are project costs associated with both, but if we go with a TriW, the project costs line that corresponds with design and permitting costs will be cut in half.

The footnotes in table 7.4 make it clear where the issues lie. Assuming that June 2011 is the mid-point in construction doesn't seem legitimate to me for both TriW and out-of-town. Essentially because TriW is already designed, the construction would start far sooner and a project that first needs a design and to go through the permitting process would start later. If there is a 18 month difference in the start of construction between the two systems (and going with TriW as opposed to a new design) would allow the "more expensive" gravity system to be cheaper.

Between the lowered design costs of TriW and the greater impact of inflation on a new design, TriW will indeed, be waaaaaay cheaper.


On the issue of selling off TriW ... I would suggest that those who argue that this is a good way of financing the sewer construction shouldn't also argue that TriW is ESHA and so can't be developed. If it is so sensitive that development is a bad idea, we certainly shouldn't put homes or a strip-mall on the site. You didn't suggest this, Mike, but some here have tried to play both sides of this issue and I wanted to point out the duplicity of doing so.

Yes ... if TriW won't be used, by all means, sell it ... sell it to County Parks to develop into something that benefits our community. Even if they're not willing to pay full market value for the property, the difference on your monthly bill won't be much ... but our community would really benefit from extra park space. Even if it were just a demonstration garden and coastal dune scrub hiking path, it would be a nice addition.

Anonymous said...

Selling Tri-W to another Public Agency would NOT be done at Fair Market Value! It would be considerably BELOW FMV!

Selling to a Private enterprise or individual SHOULD be at or maybe only SLIGHTLY below FMV!

Now the real question is; What is the Fair Market Value for the Tri-W site? For Broderson? This NOT a simple question!

If one of the parcels outside the "downtown" area were to sell, do you really think they would sell at a reduced price just out of patriotic concern for siteing a waste water treatment plant?

There will be no simple answer to selling or even "tradeing" the Tri-W site and then re-acquiring another site or two. Where will the funding come from? It would be a monumental disaster if the Tri-W site were disposed of with no replacement already secured.

For those who think a commercial or residential development of Tri-W would be the best use for the land, consider the requirements for water and sewers to any new development. And with the concerns that 1100 new homes were built after the prohibition, do you think ANY development would be allowed by SLO County to take place until after a sewer is in place and operational? How many YEARS will pass before any development other than a WWTF could be built on the Tri-W site?

thank dog! said...

Anon > For those who think a commercial or residential development of Tri-W would be the best use for the land, consider the requirements for water and sewers to any new development. And with the concerns that 1100 new homes were built after the prohibition, do you think ANY development would be allowed by SLO County to take place until after a sewer is in place and operational? How many YEARS will pass before any development other than a WWTF could be built on the Tri-W site?

Gadzooks! An existential conundrum. Forget the chicken and the egg for a moment. Which comes first? The sewer? Or new development which makes the sewer happen?

These are the kind of things that keep me awake at night ever since I moved to Los Osos. Thanks a lot!

Anonymous said...

Go to sleep and dream about the new sewer to be built!

No new developments are getting around the moritorium until a real sewer is in the ground and operating!

So enjoy the sunsets and sleep peacefully.

joey said...

Dear Editor,

An article in todays San Luis Obispo Tribune states that the Tri-W parcel in Los Osos remains under consideration as one possible site for a Los Osos sewer (Tri-W parcel to be considered for Los Osos sewer plant to avoid suit, Sona Patel, San Luis Obispo Tribune, June 5th 2007).

But the Tri-W site is no longer a viable alternative for siting a Los Osos wastewater treatment plant, because of the new SMR (State Marine Reserve) designation in the Morro Bay Estuary.

Tri W is a low spot, and just uphill from the Estuary. Because the Tri W sewer was designed as an old-fashioned 'gravity' system, plant siting in a low spot was actually required! However, siting of a sewer at Tri W, because it is in a low spot, literally garuantees the sewer will use the Estuary as a raw sewage overflow during storm events. This raw sewage will most certainly find its way to the quite nearby SMR portion of the Estuary. This would kill marine organisms, which is strictly prohibited in an area with SMR designation.

Considering the lawsuits at San Simeon, the pollution at Pismo, dying Otters at Morro Bay, and the list goes on, it is becoming increasingly obvious that a regional plan is what is actually called for to solve the sewer problems of the Central Coast. Such a regional plan must utilize progressive technologies, rather than antiquated gravity systems that require sewers to be built dangerously close to the bodies of water they are supposedly designed to protect.

If life is irony, it is shown here quite clearly as San Luis Obispo CoastKeeper Gordon Hensley's threatened lawsuit is what keeps Tri W 'on the table' as a possible site for the Los Osos sewer, and yet the State CoastKeeper organization is considered a champion of the MLPA process!

Small wonder many are calling for a new CoastKeeper for San Luis Obispo County.


Joey Racano, Director
Ocean Outfall Group

805 748-3233 cell

PO Box 1260
Morro Bay Ca
93443
talkaboutthebay@yahoo.com
www.stopthewaiver.com


For maps and coordinates, visit www.dfg.ca.gov and click on MLPA's. Go to State Marine Reserves, then choose Morro Bay SMR from the list. There you will find both maps and charts, in both low-res J-Peg and high-res PDF.

Here are the Morro Bay State Marine Reserve coordinates for the SMR within the eastern back bay of the Morro Bay National Estuary:


Morro Bay State Marine Reserve


Boundary: This area is bounded by the mean high tide line and straight lines connecting the following points in the order listed:
35° 15.25’ N. lat. 120° 54.00’ W. long.;
35° 15.25’ N. lat. 120° 56.00’ W. long.;
35° 11.00’ N. lat. 120° 52.40’ W. long.; and
35° 13.30’ N. lat. 120° 52.40’ W. long.
Permitted/Prohibited Uses: Take of all living marine resources is prohibited.

Anonymous said...

Joey,
If you knew how to be polite and be honest when discussing issues, maybe you would be invited to environmental discussions rather than having to organize your own just so you can participate.

Anonymous said...

to 10:31 -

No, not Al Barrow. No, I'll pay for a sewer, but not an over-priced, out-dated monster sewer. I will not vote to assess myself for a sewer that will cost over $200 million when we can do it for half as much. I also know the county plans to import water no matter what. Afterall, all the realtors want to build on their vacant lots and they're pushing for the imported water. They'll be so many more costs associated with this monster sewer too. The bill will grow and grow and once this 218 is passed, there will be no turning back. But that's the trick, isn't it?

I love how you NEVER address any of the issues, you only say Al, anti-sewer, or that I don't want to pay for a sewer.

The whole issue of the PZ, the pollution, AB2701, and now the fine screening are all based on lies. There is evidence and proof of that. We are living in "conpiracy land" and Pandora is right in there.

I'm not a moron, you are for wanting the most expensive, waste of money plant that money can buy for only the PZ to pay. The district should be paying as a whole. How many county lawyers did it take to go around the 218 so it's barely legal?

It doesn't take a moron to figure out that it's all about real estate, not clean water. I know you can't wait for some of the houses here to be torn down and the town fixed up pretty and then there will be lots of money to be spread around (you've worked so hard, you deserve it...)

Anonymous said...

To Ron -
Not only Pandora, but it sounds like we could put Sam Blakeslee under the category of fraud with his AB2701. He lied and said all 5,000 septics were polluting. He knew the State Water Board broke state and federal law by loaning out the SRF with no secured funding and that the recalled CSD had no 218 vote, and he and the county benefit by collecting more tax money when people that are forced out and homes then are resold for a much higher amount (much higher tax base) so the county directly benefits from this!

FBI? Department of Justice?

Anonymous said...

You are not taking yor anti-conspiracy meds! You offer nothing but YOUR opinion backed by zero facts.

Anonymous said...

Nice to see you aren't still screaming about "big pipes" but you really don't know what you are talking about!

Anonymous said...

To 6:58 & 7:06

The facts are all there in black and white. Why don't you have another drink and keep posting all night!

To Ron,

What about Pandora's marketing contract for over $700,000, isn't that a benefit from her actions?

Anonymous said...

7:06,

You see, at the last RWQCB hearing, Jeffrey Young went on record saying that there WAS NO PROOF THAT individual SEPTICS WERE POLLUTING only collectively (the proof is not all there either.) Sam Blakeslee out right lied when writing the legislation when he said all 5,000 septics were polluting.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Friend, I don't drink, but you are working way too hard to find some minutia to something you don't understand. If you are so consumed about finding the triggering point to cause the Tri-W site to be removed from any consideration, then you really need some mental therapy.

If this sewer bothers you that much, you should be very concerned about what would happen to you should the main waste water treatment plant be located on the Tri-W site! You sound like someone ready for a heart attack and there is no one to blame except yourself and your obsessiveness! You might seriously consider moving somewhere with a sewer as there is no guarantee that the Tri-W site won't be used.

Anonymous said...

"The facts are all there in black and white."

Once and for all, for all of us who are too dumb to see it, PRINT YOUR PROOF HERE of the various conspiracies you speak of. Just take your time, and offer proof of all the conspiracies and how they all tie together.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

No Friend,

I'm talking about fraud. The whole thing is fraud. 30 years of fraud, and now (you and) the county wants to build a sewer over it to cover it up!

What about those 1,100 plus homes that were built after 83-13, ... the county has collected property tax money from all those homes for all these years. Hmmmmm

The fraud and corruption bothers me just as much as a stupid sewer in the middle of town (and don't tell me it's not the middle of town with our community center there and all it's events and a park too) -- no friend, I don't like being ripped off! Los Osos has been ripped off too many times!

P.S. Maybe I would pack up, sell and move, but this market is so depressed and it's not going to get better for a long time according to the experts that I've listened to on cable news lately. It's worse here though -- so with the huge inventory, low prices, and horrible construction -- FORGET ABOUT IT! YOU'RE STUCK WITH ME!

Anonymous said...

Dear 7:51 PM, June 06, 2007

There are hundreds of pages. If you want to tell me who you are, I'll be happy to show you, but this blog is no place to document.

If you really want to see all the documents from 1983 on, let me know.
We'll meet for coffee or lunch!

I'll look forward to it!

Anonymous said...

What about those 1100 homes? What about them? The PZ was already in place, so where's the fraud? Understandable claims if Ann and Ron are the lead attornies and scientists on the case. Ron (Pink Panther) is an expert on fraud so he should be able to help on that one. I think journalists are frustrated lawyers at least lawyers still make money when their wrong.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey bubbled:
"Surely by "fine report" you mean the "fine screening report" and don't intend to imply that you like what you read."
I mean EXACTLY that! Tell me where on earth we can get a better report that is accessible and readable?
It is a fine thing indeed!
Lets peruse your issue:
"The footnotes in table 7.4 make it clear where the issues lie. Assuming that June 2011 is the mid-point in construction doesn't seem legitimate to me for both TriW and out-of-town. Essentially because TriW is already designed.
First rebuttal: I have asked the TAC if considerations and adjustments will be made in the screening to include cost escalation due to delays in development of the alternative projects as compared to TriW.
I was assured that consideration would be in the fine screening report. You will have to take my word for this, as I can't find the correspondence to paste here, my apologies, it was when I was changing from the devil infected PC to my angelical MAC
Rebuttal deux. It won't matter a fig what you or I think, the bible of compliance is being written before our eyes. If it's in the report, it holds weight, heavy heavy weight!
As for selling TriW ,if it will lower my bill for an out of town cheaper Step system I'm all for it! Im sure you would agree.

Anonymous said...

Claims are one thing, even Joey has made lot's of claims, but having a judge or jury agree, well, there is a lot more than just making claims. Neither Ann or Ron have been so sure that they are correct or they would have sued the RWQCB over any of the many claims. They haven't and they won't! They only want to see themselves in print.

I particularily like Sharkinlet and Mike Green's approaches. I see reason and logic with their statements and questions. With Ann and Ron, all I see are emotions and a compost toilet salesmans pitch.

It is becoming clear that there will be a sewer, no one knows really where the processing will take place, but it sure won't be as a direct result of this blog!

Anonymous said...

Short Version Summary of the Fine Screening Report(or Final Screwing Report) depending on your POV:

Choice #1:
Yes on 218, $160 a month assesment, a project somewhere sometime, no more RWQCB hearings, more lawsuits & more angst

Choice #2:
No On 218, $0 a month assesment, no project anytime anywhere with any end in sight, RWQCB hearings 24/7, lots and lots of lawsuits & more angst

Any Questions?

Anonymous said...

To 8:14,

You asked:
"What about those 1100 homes? What about them? The PZ was already in place, so where's the fraud?"

The county collected tax money from these homes which is the profit and gain from their actions:

The county built the homes knowing they were creating pollution, knowing the septics were prohibited from discharging, but they permitted homes with septics anyway (of course this wasn't disclosed to home buyers.) Wasn't that actually breaking the law?

Now it's been rumored that a memo surfaced saying they built the homes so they could build a sewer.

All this is okay with you???

How about the RWQCB getting in some trouble for their own policy of "fair firm & consistant enforcement" -- 45 homes picked lottery style and terrorized?

Can you defend that too? Can you at least address that?

Anonymous said...

Bible of compliance! brilliant!

Anonymous said...

The homes have been built. Done deal. Unless you want them boared up or torn down?

RWQCB was in a very unique position having never had 5000 illegal cases to deal with. Had the CSD not halted the sewer construction, there would not have been any individual enforcement. However, the CSD forced some form of enforcement. It is probably unfortunate that only 45 were the test cases, but as this has all sorted out, there are now some 5,000 cases. The Water Board has to do something to enforce the laws we asked the legistlature to enact. Los Osos has skipped under the law for some 30 years. Now through the actions of the CSD, Los Osos is being required to get a sewer built. The only way to get our attention apparently is to take legal steps. That doesn't mean they want our homes, they certainly do not! But unless this sewer gets built, some serious action must be taken! We are polluting our own drinking water!

Anonymous said...

To: 9:05 PM, June 06, 2007

Now it's time for you to take your medication!

Yes, the homes were built, but probably illegally and the county has to take responsibility for that. If the RWQCB was going to fine ANYONE it should be the county for doing what they did, not homeowners. So, it's clear that the RWQCB is only fining to make sure the TRI-W or the same out of town is built and the 218 is passed so they can built that big over-priced system.

Tell me exactly why the county has refused to look at projects like Petaluma and Arcata. Tell me why they refuse to think out of the box to have a sustainable project when the State Water Board requires that for SRF loans.

Why don't you stop blaming this CSD board (granted they've only listened to bad advice from BWS, Wildan, and McPherson) but the recalled board denied us our 218. We had the right to vote on whether we wanted to be assessed or not. Besides that, the State Water Board stopped the loan and project as evidenced by Blakeslee's compromise. So, I don't know how you can say it is Los Osos that skipped under the law for 30 years. The county should have built the sewer BEFORE homes were built, especially this many homes. The developers should have paid towards the wastewater system. That's the way it's supposed to be done. You put the sewer in first! But the county didn't. Just like the county doesn't pave roads here.

Our drinking water is okay, or the water companies couldn't sell it to us and the Health Dept. wouldn't let them.

And the realtors, developers, etc. do want some homes. Maybe not yours, but they want the town cleaned up and riff-raff out. They can resell the homes, remodel, tear down some and everyone in the food chain makes a big profit. Like Crizer and Edwards. The county gets a heck of a lot more property tax money too.

Try again!

Anonymous said...

9:35, time to take a nap, obviously it grates on you and has hardened you because you do not own a home anywhere and now you can only tear down people and the thought that a sewer could actually result in environmental progress and economic improvement while you wallow in jealously and the sad thought that you really have no ability and credibility other than creative and rambling delusions you believe or promote

what a morbid state to exist in

Anonymous said...

To 9:48,

Is that the best you can come up with? I owe a home. You have no answers to the fraud and corruption points I've addressed, obviously!

Take your meds you need them.

I'd rather take my chances voting against the 218 and taking on the fines of the water board than signing on for the unaffordable sewer. I've made my choice between the two evils.

Anonymous said...

You are so full of your conspiracy theories that you are blind to everything, so no sense trying to discuss the sewer with you. I will wish you a full recovery in your impending cardiac arrest.

Anonymous said...

To 9:48

I had a typo. I "own" a home.

Try again! You're sounding pretty lame.

Anonymous said...

To 10:03,

You never address one thing. Good goin'...and there were no consiiracy theories, just facts that you obviously can't defend regarding the recalled CSD, the county or water board.

How typical of you.

Anonymous said...

For me, it's finding the lesser of two evils...like someone else mentioned above...

If I vote FOR the 218, I vote to tax myself out of my home...

If I vote AGAINST the 218, I vote to fine myself out of my home...

After careful consideration, I will vote AGAINST the 218. Because I stand no chance with the county, which has made up its mind in advance, regardless of what the majority of Los Osos wants or needs. Whereas, I'll take my chances with the water board in court. They have revealed many Achilles' heels in their prosecution, and they will be overturned in the Supreme Court.

And, by voting AGAINST the 218, the community will have no choice but to self-finance at a price it can afford. Finally. We have to go through all that to get to this.

So, not only is it the lesser evil -- it is the greater good, Arrived at ass-end backwards, the only way Los Osos does how to do anything right. By accident.

This is the logic that will prevail in the end, because this is the only way out, the only REAL choice the county is offering -- and it will be the choice NOT on your Prop 218 ballot.

Read this twice and hold it up to a mirror.

Anonymous said...

Someone answer me this:

Paavo seemed to say in the Tri-W article in the Trib that he had to keep Tri-W alive through the fine screening to avoid a lawsuit for not including it, presumably from Taxpayers Watch...

With TW owing LAFCO about $25,000, where would they get the money to sue the County when they don't even have the money to pay off their LAFCO bill?

Lynette??? Joyce??? Richard??? Bob???

Anonymous said...

Why not simply contact TW and ask?

eyeongovernment@sbcglobal.net

TW is in much better financial condition than the CSD and TW is actually working for the entire community!

Also, please tell our readers just HOW MANY lawsuits TW has filed against the CSD and just what they are for. Or are you just trying to mislead others?

Anonymous said...

Could Paavo also "seemed" to indicate Jeff Edwards or Al Barrow or Keith Swanson or the CSD could also file lawsuits? This is Lost Osos, training ground of sewer lawyers everywhere!

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"To say that TriW was rejected by the voters in Measures B, C, D and E is silly. We've talked about it before yet you persist in saying such nonsense."

Because you assert something does not make it so. What was up for grabs during the recall election WAS Tri W. If the voters had been happy with Tri W, they would have defeated Measure B. If the voters had been happy with Tri W, they would have rejected the recall (the candidtes running were all opposed to Tri W). That election and Measure B was all about Tri W. What else was it about except TriW, both site & cost and no 218 vote and . . . .

Anonymous sez:"Just put the numbers on the table and let the people "advise" as to their choice and stay calm. "

Which is EXACTLY what I was asking for YEARS ago. Put up real numbers of in-town, out of town,then have the voters pick which one they wanted.

Anonymous sez:"I MUST REMIND YOU AGAIN, IT'S NOT AN ADVISORY VOTE, IT'S AN ADVISORY SURVEY - BIG DIFFERENCE. THE BOS WOULD HAVE TO HOLD TO A VOTE, BUT A SURVEY IS JUST THAT - A SURVEY! Please don't make it sound like we have a real decision or vote in this process, because we don't!

Another thing, Rodger Anderson said at the time he was running that Tri-W would have to have another stage or phase for build-out. He knew and so did others "in the know."

oops, sorry for the slip. Yes, ADVISORY WHATEVER -- I dont' know at this point whether that will take the form of an ADVISORY "ballot" where people will "vote" for their choice, or a random phone poll or what. Should have put the word "vote" in Quotation marks.

As for build out on Tri W, I said that if you asked the average Los Ososian on the street they would have been unaware of that. I did not say "people in the know."

Ron sez:"Imagine if Diablo was sited due to a "strongly held community value" that it also be a centrally located recreational asset. It wouldn't be where it's at, it would be at the Trader Joes/Food 4 Less complex in south SLO."

Bwa-hahahahahah. Well, that would be o.k. so long as they put a few of those put-in-a-quarter mechanical pony rides by the front gate.

Anonymous sez:"The Water Board has to do something to enforce the laws we asked the legistlature to enact. "

Here's the puzzle regarding the 1,100 homes allowed to be built AFTER Resolution 83-13 was passed. We are to believe that 83-13 is LAW, we are to believe that 83=13 FORBIDS discharge of any kind within the PZ, we are to believe that meant that no more building permits would be issued for more toilets which would pollute more. So why didn't the RWQCB IMMEDIATELY issue CDOs or CAO's to each of those 1,100 additional homes? So far as I know, that never happened. Why not? Instead, they wait some 25 years then go hammer 45 random people who probably weren't among the 1,100? Makes no sense.

anonymous sez:"Tell me exactly why the county has refused to look at projects like Petaluma and Arcata. Tell me why they refuse to think out of the box to have a sustainable project when the State Water Board requires that for SRF loans."

One of the problems with this particular RWQCB (perhaps others) is Boards are 1)limited by their own knowledge and understanding of an issue and b) they're limited by the information given to them by their staff. If you have a poorly educated staff giving their Board bad information, you'll get bad decisions. If the CEO of your staff has a particular point of view, no matter how bad or limited or poorly informed, his recommendations will remain badly chosen, BUT it's a rare Board that will cross him. (Solidarity and all that.) What this staff and Board have been playing at for years is the game of "Hobson's Choice," i.e. you can pick any system you like AS LONG AS IT'S THE ONE BY THE DOOR -- not that I'm telling you what to do since I'm forbidded from doing that . . . heh-heh.

Automatically, the "game" is rigged. You will ONLY be allowed to have whatever system Staff has decided you'll get and it'll all be hidden behind the vote of a Board that may not either care or know what the hell's really going on.

If you want to read something really, really sad and scary, read the Science & Technology Report the SWB ordered, regarding the state of the various RWQCB's & Staff throughout the state. Sad and Scary how bad their science is, how little access they have to good science, how hampered they are by budget, bureaucracy, zero out-of-the-box thinking, and the Peter Principle at work. Yet these people and their staffs have the power to put you out of your homes and make really BAD "scientific" decisions that can adversely affect whole communities.

Anon sez:"Paavo seemed to say in the Tri-W article in the Trib that he had to keep Tri-W alive through the fine screening to avoid a lawsuit for not including it, presumably from Taxpayers Watch..."

I read that to mean some FUTURE lawsuit by somebody -- a given in Los Osos. The rough screening eliminated "impossible" projects,(i.e. Can we agree that having everyone in town pee into a bucket and driving the bucket to the Treatment plant in Morro Bay would fall into the category of "Impossible" project? ) so it makes sense to me to keep all "possible" projects on the table so nobody can come back later and sue by claiming a "possible" project didn't get a fair hearing under various laws & etc.

Anonymous sez:"And, by voting AGAINST the 218, the community will have no choice but to self-finance at a price it can afford. Finally. We have to go through all that to get to this."

I presume the Finance sub committee of the TAC will be looking into various funding mechanisms; i.e. private project/private funding (i.e. a BOOM type project), county funding via bonds, SRF, etc. I hope you'll bring up such questions at the Finance TAC sub committee meetings.

Anonymous said...

"Because you assert something does not make it so. What was up for grabs during the recall election WAS Tri W. If the voters had been happy with Tri W, they would have defeated Measure B. If the voters had been happy with Tri W, they would have rejected the recall (the candidtes running were all opposed to Tri W). That election and Measure B was all about Tri W. What else was it about except TriW, both site & cost and no 218 vote and . . . ."

What people voted on was "$100 a month", and even at that, measure B passed by 19 votes. Most of the recall votes were on the average 100 difference.

This board ran with that as a mandate and chose to completely ignore the citizenry that asked for them to be cautious in their considerations.

Chuck C. said at a meeting shortly after the recall that he liked all the people being there and that it meant people were involved and that was important to him. I wonder what it means to him now when there are approx. 10 people at board meetings anymore and its the same people every time. Does this still mean people are involved and being heard?

Anonymous said...

Hasn't Measure B been struck down by 2 Courts as being an illegal measure?

Ron said...

An Anon wrote:

"To Ron,
What about Pandora's marketing contract for over $700,000, isn't that a benefit from her actions? "


She didn't get that contract, although she submitted a bid for it. Maria Singleton ended up with that contract for over $500,000. What I tried to find out in my last post at my blog is if Nash-Karner was ever a paid "writer" or "other assistant" for Singleton, but I never found out because Singleton is all of a sudden very hard to find.

Joey wrote:

"Small wonder many are calling for a new CoastKeeper for San Luis Obispo County."

You know what bugs me about Hensley these day? He signs all of his correspondence, "San Luis Obispo CoastKeeper," but he personally hasn't done a thing, that I know of, that curtails his daily water pollution into said "Coast," like Steve Paige has, yet I'm pretty sure Paige doesn't sign all of his correspondence, "San Luis Obispo CoastKeeper."

Anon:

"I think journalists are frustrated lawyers at least lawyers still make money when their wrong."

So do journalists, just not as much. (I course, I really wouldn't know, because I'm never wrong.)

Ann wrote:

"Well, that would be o.k. so long as they put a few of those put-in-a-quarter mechanical pony rides by the front gate. "

Right next to the $3,000 eucalyptus benches.

An Anon wrote:

"Paavo seemed to say in the Tri-W article in the Trib that he had to keep Tri-W alive through the fine screening to avoid a lawsuit for not including it, presumably from Taxpayers Watch..."

A couple of days ago I sent Richard Legros an e-mail asking him if TaxpayersWatch would sue the county if Tri-W was removed from consideration. He replied:

"Taxpayers Watch does not have any plans or intentions to sue the County for any reason."

and added;

"The story said that "other groups" intent to sue if the County discards Tri-W. As to which groups are considering lawsuits is anyone's guess. As TW is not privy to the conversations that the County has with other groups, we do not know which groups the story referred to."

So I sent Paavo this e-mail:

Hello Paavo,

In a story in today's Tribune, it reads:

"Excluding Tri-W from analysis, they (county officials) add, could make the county vulnerable to lawsuits from groups who want the site considered for a sewage treatment plant."

Today, I e-mailed Richard LeGros, a spokesperson for Taxpayers Watch, and asked him if his group -- a group that has historically supported the Tri-W site for a sewage treatment plant -- intends to sue the county if the Tri-W project is discarded by the county.

He replied:

"Taxpayers Watch does not have any plans or intentions to sue the County for any reason."

and added;

"The story said that "other groups" intent to sue if the County discards Tri-W. As to which groups are considering lawsuits is anyone's guess. As TW is not privy to the conversations that the County has with other groups, we do not know which groups the story referred to."

Paavo, here's my question:

Which groups were you referring to when you told the Tribune that excluding Tri-W from analysis could make the county vulnerable to lawsuits from groups who want the site considered for a sewage treatment plant?

To date, I am only familiar with one group, Taxpayers Watch, that supports Tri-W for a sewage treatment plant. I'm curious to know which groups (plural), other than Taxpayers Watch, also support Tri-W for a sewer plant, so I can contact them for my story.

As always, much thanks,
Ron
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

---

Of course, he never replied.

... love your blog, Ann. It makes for great (well, guilty pleasure) reading.

*pg-13 said...

This is a carryover from the previous blog. It's late but I was hoping to keep it active as I'm really really interested in an answer. Thanks.

>> PG-13 sez: "What is the reallocation of funds (on a per-capita basis) of income versus expenditure. As you pointed out, somebody has this data. Where can the rest of us get it?"

Ann responded > I recall years ago Supervisor Bud Laurent tried to get that informtion and found out it was impossible. There wasn't any mechanism in place to access that information except in the vaguest way. And he was a supervisor. I was amazed. Clearly, nothing has been done to rectify the situation since. (Seems logical that Supervisors would need that information at their fingertips when they have to vote on fund allocation, to ensure their districts are being treated fairly. But if there's no way to track that money . . .? Very odd, if you ask me.


Yes, it does seem odd. I can appreciate reducing such numbers would make for an interestingly complex analysis. And it won't be exact. But still, its not rocket science. As you point out having any numbers would be better than no numbers. Assuming anybody in government really wanted such numbers. That's a big assumption. I can appreciate that some government reps and agencies would probably prefer such numbers didn't exist. Too much information. Much easier to govern without such distractions. What the people don't know won't hurt them, right?

The more I think about it the more one has to wonder why this data doesn't exist. Maybe the Anon who so helpfully posted the embedded links to SLO County accounting documents which never really addressed the question can post another link? Or add to the conversation? Any other civic minded accounting types out there willing to jump in? I can quickly and easily see the challenges and pitfalls of trying to shake such numbers out of a hugely complex government budget and accounting data set. But still its just data. It can be sliced and diced any way you want it. As more and more data becomes GPS-tagged geographic specific government income and expenditures should also be more easily mapped. If such a report really doesn't exist generating one would be a pretty straight-forward semester project, senior report or Master's Thesis. Surely someone out there is willing and interested enough to do something like this? TIA.

Ron said...

Real quick... I want to add something to my previous comment.

All smack aside, I want to publicly thank Richard for that e-mail I mentioned above. His response was prompt and his answers were good, solid answers. I appreciate that. I wish county officials were more like that.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ron:
I've always been curious about something, so I thought I'd ask. You have on many, many occassions written about Pandora and her role in the Los Osos sewer saga. You call her story "intriguing," and other things as well. My question to you is this: Do you not find the story of Gail McPherson, her past problems with the water boards, her past problems with "race relations" accusations, etc in Riverside, and her magical appearance in Los Osos at the time of the recall, intriguing as well? Really, and honestly, if there was an important player in the saga on the TW or "save the dream" side who magically appeared with the baggage McPherson has, wouldn't you find that something worthy to write about? Some I think would aruge that not only would you write about it, but you would constantly, loudly, beat the drum about it. Am I wrong? And if I am, could you shed some light on why you do not think her past history and her subsequent arrival in Los Osos is not "intriguing" and worthy or your expert reporting. I should add I'm not part of any "crowd" or "side" in Los Osos, and certainly not a McPherson basher (which, along with Pandora bashing, seems to be a sport here). I just try to always stay informed, and watch people in this story very carefully. But I readily admit, her presence in Los Osos and her miriad of roles here, as well as her influence on board members, has me very leary of her.

Thanks for your answers Ron.

4crapkiller said...

To Ron:

There is a group of property owners outside the district (aprox 60) around the cemetary area that feel that they should not be subjected to the sewerage from the district. They have been quite vocal as to their objection.

Where the hell have you been? I guess just listening to yourself.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Should we take your most recent comments to mean that you believe that the $100/month promise to have had no effect on the outcome of the recall election?

If you believe that, just come out and say it. If you don't believe that, essentially you're agreeing with me that had it not been for the promise, the recall would have failed.

My questions about the $100/month promise are whether it was a pipe dream and if not, did the boardmembers take realistic steps toward achieving that goal?


I also find it interesting that you seem to support Ron's continued harping on the Solutions Group's campaign promise of $38.75/month as unrealistic and one which quite possibly swayed the outcome yet on this essentially identical campaign promise you tell us that we can't really know the truth anyways.


I'll put out the assertion once more ... had the recall candidates said something that was realistic, like "we'll move the thing out of town but it is likely to cost about as much or maybe a bit more" they would have lost or, had they won, it would have been an honest win where they really could make the claim that the town supported their actions.


I'll also put out there again, that this was the gang who couldn't shoot straight. Had they thought out the situation carefully they would have realized they would need a 218 vote for another $20M bond to design the out of town plant they wanted. Instead they decided they could try to take the state's money, loaned for the specific purpose of building TriW, to design a different system. Not very wise.


As you write, Ann, "Because you assert something does not make it so." Your suggestion that the promise made no difference is just that, a suggestion and no more. Furthermore, because logic argues that I am right, your suggestion is still laughable.

4crapkiller said...

The JJJJJJJJJJJJJJOOOOOOOOOOYYY says:

"Tri W is a low spot, and just uphill from the Estuary. Because the Tri W sewer was designed as an old-fashioned 'gravity' system, plant siting in a low spot was actually required! However, siting of a sewer at Tri W, because it is in a low spot, literally garuantees the sewer will use the Estuary as a raw sewage overflow during storm events. This raw sewage will most certainly find its way to the quite nearby SMR portion of the Estuary. This would kill marine organisms, which is strictly prohibited in an area with SMR designation."

Well, it is "uphill" and then it is a "low spot". Hard to find uphill low spots. The area was never a "low spot" except in relation to "high spots". It is uphill from most of the PZ "Low spots". As far as overflowing during storms is concerned, that is the "high spot" of unfounded speculation. I am not aware that we are going to gutter all of the PZ into storm drains and pipe the storm drain water into ANY watertreatment plant. If we were to be required to do this, look at a 600 mil project.

More brilliance from Racano. (activist hero). Why does he have to speculate and lie to gain acceptance of a "regional solution" that the county is not even considering? Or does he always spout off half cocked?

The county will decide.

Anonymous said...

Anti-sewer activists:

1. Geezers who want to die before spending a dime on a sewer.

2. Conspiracy Theorists, who, having missed the grassy knoll, are glad to have gotten in on Tri-W from the beginning.

3. Narcissists.

4. Anal Retentives who enjoy storing their poopoo in a box in their front yard.

That's it. Property owners (not renters) will make the only sane decision: Yes on the 218 for (please!) a SEWER, ANYWHERE, of ANY KIND, SO LONG AS IT IS A SEWER.

Anonymous said...

Even potential permanet General Manager candidates are seeing this Los Osos CSD as so screwed up that there is no hope. It is time to end this farce and dissolve the Board!

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"I'll put out the assertion once more ... had the recall candidates said something that was realistic, like "we'll move the thing out of town but it is likely to cost about as much or maybe a bit more" they would have lost or, had they won, it would have been an honest win where they really could make the claim that the town supported their actions."

Here's what I think, long before the recall even got sufficient signatures to qualify for the ballot, the (old)Board SHOULD have stopped cold (If membory serves, they had unitl Dec of that year before the TSO clock would run out, and I have NO DOUBT that the RWQCB & SWB could figure out that pausing for even an advisory vote would be the wiser course( and had they not started pounding $ into the ground or moved into court to try to legally stop Measure B from going on the ballot, various factions could have formed their "election committees" and there could have been two campaigns: Tri W will cost X, Out of Town will Cost Y: Take your pick. (both sides could offer their versions of actual costs and the voters would decide). Then, a campaign that said: Measure B is not needed since you're getting to pick, in town and out of town vs. Measure B is needed since we don't trust the (old) CSD. Had that happened, I think we'd be looking at a vastly different outcome.

WHY that didn't happen remains a questions that does have an answer, I just don't think we've gotten an honest answer yet.

Anonymous sez:"Even potential permanet General Manager candidates are seeing this Los Osos CSD as so screwed up that there is no hope. It is time to end this farce and dissolve the Board!

5:57 AM, June 08, 2007"

Stated at Thursday's CSD meeting and again in Friday's Tribune: the GM told the board while being intereviewed initially, that he had some personal problems (mom ill in L.A. area) and what was stated last night, Mom not only ill but dying so he took a job to be near her. Now, the CSD will re-interview the other candidates and see if they're still interested. It'll be a tough but interesting job for the right person.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I find it odd that in your response to a posting where I asked you a direct question and raised at least two others ... you responded to another issue entirely ... an issue that wasn't one I had addressed at all.

I would think that a careful reader would view your answer as shifty.

I know you're not a shifty person. Mike Green and Jon Arcune both speak highly of you. Perhaps you would like to correct any false impressions people might have of you by actually addressing the issue I raised.

Either that or state that you don't intend to address it at all.

Anonymous said...

Again, the recent Trib story said that a plant would "hopefully" help the pollution, building the most expensive sewer per capita in the county for "HOPE" is very upsetting. Maybe they should pray instead of hope. A hope that forces hundreds of people out of their homes. Gotta love the county, MWH, Stan, Richard, Gordon and Pandora!

If it's only hope and the big expensive plant and pipes won't clean up anything for so many years, then the county should be looking a the best price solution, the most enviornmentally sound system, and one that we can all live with (even if it takes 6 - 8 months more, so what?) Why is that so darn hard for the county to do? The designers of Arcata and Petaluma have always agreed to help Los Osos, but Paavo never picked up the phone.

Ron said...

An Anon wrote:

"... could you shed some light on why you do not think her past history and her subsequent arrival in Los Osos is not "intriguing" and worthy or your expert reporting."

Due to your kind and accurate use of the phrase, "expert reporting," no problem.

Because McPherson's past has nothing to do with Los Osos, even if it did include some alleged improprieties, and I don't see anything worth reporting on regarding her "subsequent arrival." Who cares? Has she done anything that raises some type of red flag. I don't see it. I receive her press releases all the time, and they're all just matter-of-fact, straight forward stuff, you know, the opposite of "compelling language."

Plus, she's a private citizen. It's not like she's an elected official. It would be like me reporting on Joyce Albright. How is that a story? All I see are two private citizens that view a matter a certain way, and feel like they need to get involved. Good citizens, both of them, if you ask me.

I interviewed McPherson briefly at a CSD meeting before the recall election, and I was a little surprised by her lack of knowledge on some of the issues. For example, she once wrote that there was no criteria behind the Tri-W siting. That's incorrect, and she wrote it at a time when there was already a lot of confusion circulating around the rationale behind the Tri-W siting, so that wasn't cool.

Truth is, there was criteria behind the siting. The problem was, one of those criteria (criterion?), the DECIDING ONE, was false -- the "community acceptance" one that said that any sewer plant must also double as a centrally located public park (The irony of that criteria is so thick. It's saying the community won't accept a sewer plant anywhere else but downtown, when the actual "community acceptance" was, and still is, a sewer plant out of town, as Ripley identified in his interpretation of "community acceptance." Yep, Ripley's definition of "community acceptance" is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of Nash-Karner's idea of "community acceptance." Which one do you think is accurate?)

At the time I interviewed McPherson, she also wasn't aware of the "strongly held community value" or that the park was dictating the location, and she had been an outspoken opponent on Tri-W for a long time [I also want to add here, that I talked to a number of other people from her camp, and not one of them had any clue to the real reason Tri-W was sited where it was. To this day, I still find that odd... how a group of presumably smart people could fight so hard to move a mid-town sewer, yet never see the flawed rationale that led to its siting in the first place. If that group had used my arguments for their Tri-W development permit revocation request in 2004, instead of their's, Tri-W's development permit would have been revoked in 2004... slam-damn-dunk.]

Interestingly, during an appearance on the Dave Congalton just last year, I heard McPherson use the phrase "strongly held community value" for the first time, after Congalton asked her why Tri-W was selected. I wrote Three Blocks in September, 2004. She mentioned "strongly held community value" for the first time in 2006. Oh well, better late than never, I guess. Welcome to the party.)

But, trust me, just because someone in Los Osos isn't straight on all the facts, no matter how vocal that person is, that is simply not newsworthy, ESPECIALLY if that person is from Los Osos and those "facts" pertain to the sewer. Let's just say there are a couple of those types in your neck of the woods. In McPherson's defense, however, she does seem to be much better on her facts these days, as her quote on Congalton shows.

Now, if McPherson owned a marketing business, concocted some nonsensical sewer project, and then saturated Los Osos with less-than-truthful marketing material trumpeting her project, and then that marketing plan and nonsensical project got her elected and the LOCSD formed in the first place, and then that project flamed out just like a bunch of professionals predicted before the election, and then she used her "behavior based" marketing knowledge, as an elected official, to cover-up the fact that the plan that got her elected and the CSD formed had flamed out, and then that cover-up leaves the community fabric of a once-cohesive (translated: pre-CSD days) town in absolute, and very expensive, tatters... if McPherson were to do all that, you bet I'd be intrigued, and I'd report the hell out of that.

"I should add I'm not part of any "crowd" or "side" in Los Osos..."

I guess that makes two of us (well, three of us. I'm going to include Ann in on our little club).

"... along with Pandora bashing, seems to be a sport here... "

Let the record reflect, I do not "bash" Nash-Karner (o.k., maybe just a little, when she deserves it... which is quite frequently, now that I think about it), I simply report on what she does. But what she does is so abhorrent that it reads like I'm bashing her.

"I just try to always stay informed, and watch people in this story very carefully."

Well done. Tell your friends and neighbors to do the same.

"Thanks for your answers Ron."

You're welcome.

PG-13 wrote:

"What is the reallocation of funds (on a per-capita basis) of income versus expenditure. As you pointed out, somebody has this data. Where can the rest of us get it?"

Jerry Siebach (sp?) at the county government center is your hook-up for the info you seek. I believe he's the auditor/controller, or something like that. He's a nice guy, approachable (he'll take your call), and he's a mountain of information when it comes to the stuff you're talking about. If he doesn't know the answer, he'll be able to point you in the right direction.

Hope that helps.

Anonymous said...

Re: 12:02 PM, June 8 post--

It constantly amazes me that, no matter how many times the County folks outline verbally and in writing the various steps in the process that they have undertaken to provide sewer options that the Board of Supervisors will carefully review our opinion on, a certain number of people continue to lobby for a change to that process.

I get, and like, the fact that there is more than one way to build this damn thing, and more than one level of ground water recharge that can be acheived in conjunction with a sewer project. In the fine screening report, they just told us what those options are, and roughly how much they will cost. More information is coming soon. The TAC will develop pros and cons on all of the options, plus the Tri-W option, and the County staff will have a cost per month financial model completed soon. And all this in five months.

This entire process is about us understanding what the options really are, and deciding what we (the majority of our community) prefer.

Why are so many people afraid of having a fair and impartial community opinion, based on some good current information, used to guide what happens here?

The process is a decent one. Let's stop criticizing the process and take advantage of what it gives to us. If I am in the minority on which project I prefer, and something else is built, I can live with that. Apparently, certain others in our town can not.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

You seem to be saying that because you don't already know of how Gail stands to profit from her participation her wrongness doesn't matter to you at all.

On the other hand, our anonymous friend who asked you 'bout Gail was suggesting that you look into it a bit. Maybe you didn't get the hint. If you're really a muckraker who cares about Los Osos you would probably want to look into all the hidden motives of all the players.


Note: I'm not suggesting there is a story with Gail at all ... just that you missed the point of the comment.


If I were to come up with a wishlist for Ron's research inclination it would include:

1 - the payoff of BWS and the choice to select Julie Biggs as lawyer

2 - the choice to select Wildan/Blesky and the choice to continue with his management even when he clearly was in over his head

3 - the decision to use SRF money for purposes it was not intended and the lack of the recall board not pursuing a 218 vote for another bond to provide enough cash to design an out of town system

Just my thoughts...

Anonymous said...

Thanks for your response Ron. And it's good to see that you didn't manage to twist your answers about McPherson into another rant about Pandora.

Wait.

That's exactly what you did.

Oh well.

Anonymous said...

Online Poll:
Would you take the job of GM of Los Osos for90K/ Yr?

Yes..

No..

Anonymous said...

Ron has every right to rant on about Pandora. She got us into this mess! Everyone property owner who has lived here for awhile knows that! Oh to not have voted for the CSD in 1998...we were duped and evidently doomed as well.

Anonymous said...

Those of you that force us to live in the past are selfish and bitter. We are not doomed. We are in a position to make some clear and rational choices. You can gnash your teeth and flail yourself but for what end?
You go ahead and sit in your dreary history of malcontent. I think her vision was clear and could have been fabulous. Better to have loved and lost then to never love at all. At least she tried! What can you say you have done?
Besides, it's fairly evident to the even keeled, that she didn't drive this "off the cliff". Those that wanted NO PROJECT EVER took some hacks and committed us to this cesspool of fear and misinformation.
Let Pandora be, focus on right now and how do we swim up and out.....

Anonymous said...

If one doesn't want TRIW, they want NO PROJECT EVER? Hello, I support the county process totally but am still pissed off at what the original CSD did to this community. BTW I have tried. I have participated in many ways, more than you will ever know. And yes, Pandora had a "vision" and it was nice but it was unrealistic and she was not up front with us. Not at all. So, you may see it as "living in the past" but I see it as living with knowledge. Yes swimming up and out is the way to go. I agree there.

Anonymous said...

Aren't we tired of the Pandora bashing? We could sure do the same for Schicker or Tacker! We all know the 4 letter words, but none of that is getting a sewer built. Just grow up out there!

Anonymous said...

To 6:57,

You say, "Let Pandora be, focus on right now and how do we swim up and out....."

Swim up and out? We're gonna DROWN with what the county has planned for each homeowner in the PZ.

There will not only be layers of assessments, there will be WAVES of assessments! This is what Pandora brought upon this community. Don't tell us she hasn't been working with the county to TAKE the project as soon as the recall happened.

Once a yes vote on the 218, it opens up the gate. It's only the BEGINNING. They will never get the true cost of the sewer from the county or the CSD. So, the community better hold the line here and force if necessary the most affordable project by rejecting the no-choice 218.

The county's only choices are expensive and more expensive in a failed attempt to make gravity look affordable!

Can you believe it?!?

Anonymous said...

No, "swimming up and out" is NOT "the way to go" -- unless you're a salmon or Peter Pan.

Anonymous said...

I'm surprised people haven't gathered at Pandora's house with pitchforks and torches!

She's gonna cost a lot of people their homes, they just don't know it yet.

Anonymous said...

Stick up for Pandora all you want...she blew it big time. It's all coming out with the county, who initially had the project.

Anonymous said...

You really are an angry shit! I honestly hope you have a massive stroke and are gone so we don't have to pay any more welfare to keep you alive!

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:57 (aka Anon 7:38 and 7:19 and 6:51) shows up here every night, my guess after he's tilted back a few, and spews his incredibly immature and ignorant stuff. Also known as Orenco Boy and Conspiracy Boy, his sole purpose is to try to persuade property owners to vote against the 218 and chase once again pie in the sky BS. I'm sure this will continue for, oh, another 3 or 4 months, then hopefully, he'll be gone (I think he's said he would move when/if the 218 passes).

Anonymous said...

To 8:13PM,

You write:

"You really are an angry shit! I honestly hope you have a massive stroke and are gone so we don't have to pay any more welfare to keep you alive!"

I say: Aren't you nice? The truth gets you real angry huh? YOU have a temper problem.

Pandora got the county off the hook of building a sewer and helped to figure how to get JUST the PZ to pay without a vote. Oh, Pandora, the county hero who brought us to the place we are. The most expensive project anyone could DREAM of. She bankrupted the community. Blame her. She delivered the project to the county so she could have her TRI-W plant she's always wanted (if it's moved out of town, it's still the big monster that only someone with millions, like her, in their pocket can afford) -- she's treated Los Osos citizens like sheep and she's lead them to the slaughter house. Yes, she can afford to stay but by the time the county is done with us, we won't be able to afford to put food on the table or gas in the car! Imported water, deferred costs, more and more assessments, flood/storm water assessments, energy costs, and on and on. We could very well be looking at $600 a month. Thanks Pandora. NOW THAT'S HOW YOU CLEANSE A TOWN!

I hope all the people who support Pandora and the county process realize what they're voting for, not just for themselves but for their neighbors too.

P.S. I'm not on welfare. Keep up the lies to detract from the truth.

Anonymous said...

DEAR 8:38 PM, June 08, 2007

WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME PERSON!

MANY HOMEOWNERS CAN'T SUPPORT THE 218 (AND COMMENT THIS ON THIS BLOG) BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S DONE. THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO KNOW IT'S A BLANK CHECK.

ONLY SOME CAN AFFORD THE COUNTY'S PLANNED PROJECT. THIS IS EVIDENT BY THE FINE SCREENING WHERE THEY'VE TRIPLED THE PRICE OF WHAT STEP/STEG SHOULD BE AND LOWERED GRAVITY NUMBERS. IT'S A BLANK CHECK, AND I AGREE WITH AL BARROW AND OTHERS ABOUT THAT. I WILL NOT VOTE TO ASSESS MYSELF OUT OF MY HOME. I WON'T BE BLACKMAILED OR TRICKED (AGAIN)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Did anyone notice that "Gail McPherson Has a New Title" was pulled today from the Tribune Blog?

Must be that Lisa brought up blogs at last night's CSD meeting and they don't want an ex-con selling the county's process.

Gail apparently has pull at the Tribune and county.

She is using her non-profit status to push a political agenda (promoting the 218) which is illegal, but doing things illegally is nothing new to McPherson, and until somebody or something stops her she'll keep on doing it.

I guess Abe Lincoln was wrong. You can fool all the people all the time.

I wonder how long it will take for this entry to disappear.

Anonymous said...

Gail McPerson has been nothing but trouble for this community. But if she's promoting the 218, I'd say she's finally doing something right for the Los Osos homeowner.

As for your entry disappearing, if you disappear along with it, it can't happen quick enough.

Anonymous said...

To above:

I don't think McPherson is doing anything right at all by promoting the 218. She's promoting the blank check, out of order, open-ended, no cap 218 -- with no economic impact analysis and ultimately no choice betwen the expensive and more expensive sewer, which right now could be Tri-W...even though she said last night at CSD closed session that Tri-W was dying a slow death in the fine screening.

To those who want me to die or disappear or both, you will be distressed and sad to hear that I can afford to remain in Los Osos and be your neighbor long after you can't afford to be mine.

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 9pm ... I find it interesting that you're blaming Pandora for the really really high costs.

Had CASE, CCLO and LOTTF never thrown up roadblocks, hurdles and taken other actions to stop TriW at all costs ... surely the TriW sewer project would have already been finished and the cost would probably be about $140 per month. Any costs above that can be attributed to the desire to move the sewer no matter what it costs.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Shark for pointing that out. I don't think Pandora should be the poster child of the failures of this community.
The responsibility ultimately lies with those who decided that stopping the project would save our community from "?".
The delays cost us, not Pandora and a vision of hope. Hope still lies with many of us and we will vote to assess ourselves, again.

Anonymous said...

What "Shark" fails to mention is that Pandora and group (Richard, Gordon, and Stan) failed to give the voters their 218 on the Tri-W project before it started. We had the right to vote whether we wanted to be assessed for the project (the 2001 assessment vote was for the bond money, and that vote had a cap.) Then they started a project weeks before the election which has cost millions from the contractors lawsuits. Just imagine if they hadn't started the Tri-W. Just imagine if they could have held off just a month or so. But, no, they had to start Tri-W, so there would be no turning back. The loan was unsecured and the permits were bait & switch. Now that the county has the project and wants the blank check for an unknown project, again, we have a situation where there's no turning back. We will have layers of more assessments by allowing this (first) 218 vote to pass. This is only the beginning.

Pandora can take a huge amount of the blame. She not only endorsed starting the project without a vote, but took control of the project with the county at the time of the recall, and asked the RWQCB to fine us. She bankrupted the CSD along with the recalled 3. Look at what bankrupted this board: fines that she asked for, SRF money that had no secured funding, and contractors' lawsuits! Looks to me like it was Pandora and her board who did all the damage here.

You, "Shark", know better than most the real reason the Tri-W stopped. The state wanted a 218 before any more money was distributed and they wanted Measure B struck down.

Pandora's so-called vision of hope was a big lie!

Anonymous said...

Had the project not been stopped, the funding would have continued and the sewer would be half completed today!

Measure B has been struck down...twice!!

Both Lisa and Julie knew exactly what would happen BEFORE they halted the project.

Before this is all over Lisa and Julie WILL be procecuted for the misuse of public funds!!!

Anonymous said...

Lisa and Gail will be prosecuted for violation of the Brown Act and the illegal storage and destruction of Public Records and Documents!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:29's ignorance is surpassed only by his inability to state the obvious. If the project at Tri-W isn't stopped, there simply is no bankruptcy. Simple. Because there's no fines. There's no threat of CDO's and CAO's. There's no lawsuits. There's no pulling of the SRF loan. Period. End of sentence. End of story. Exclamatioin point. I just can't figure out what kind of dopey anti-reality these people have that they can't understand this. It's like dealing with pre-schoolers, I swear.

Anonymous said...

I've never seen such stupidity! That poster is one of the craziest people around. If it is a memeber of the CSD, then there is absolute proof why the went bankrupt. If the CSD even knows that poster, then they are either encouraging such comments or lying to give the idiot even more misconception to spout off about! If it's Al Barrow or Kieth Swanson, it's understable where the crap is coming from, but still not acceptible!

Shark Inlet said...

Hold on, our anonymous friend of 11:36pm ...

I am not holding Pandora blameless ... she and her krewe decided that they could do a better job than the County ... and while I am not convinced that they were lying sacks of weasel dung by Ron's arguments ... I do think that a clear case can be made that they should have thought thru these issues a bit more carefully. In particular, they seemed to underestimate both the willingness of the RWQCB to stick to their denitrification guns and the willingness of of Los Osos citizens to fight them. Essentially the Solutions Group, the Clinton administration (at least the 1st term) and the Bush administration are all guilty of hubris. They all thought that because they were elected that the people would support every action they took.

The saddest thing is that the recall board realized this but committed the exact same sin. If your campaign is based on "vote out the self-important folks who aren't listening to you", you shouldn't stop listening to the citizens the moment you are elected.

Back in 1998, there wasn't a well known set of facts that would allow one to conclude that the Solutions Group was proposing a project that wouldn't fly. In 2005 the facts were well known and those facts would all point toward the recall as likely to cause a problem. The recall board could have made the choice to do the right thing and have a 218 vote ... but they chose not to do that. Essentially the recall board was worse than I expected. I figured that they were just lying to the public with campaign promises they couldn't hope to achieve. They weren't lying ... they were clueless. Chuck and Lisa and the rest had no thought out plan about how to legally achieve their goals of getting the WWTF moved out of town. Had they immediately taken a 218 vote right after the election ... they could have told the public the truth ... that they needed some $20M to even design a new out of town plant. Had the property owners agreed to assess themselves some $20M to pay back the earlier SRF and to start the design process.


To our friend of 10:29am ... yes a 218 vote is appropriate and necessary in various contexts. Assessments require such votes. For example, to issue bonds which will be paid back from assessments, the property owners would have to approve. However, in this case, the SRF arrangement between the LOCSD and the SWRCB didn't specify an assessment. The revenue stream to pay off the loan was the monthly charges for sewer services.

You may view this as a slight of hand to achieve the goal of financing TriW. I wouldn't disagree. However, because both parties to the SRF loan agreed to the terms it would seem that a 218 vote wasn't technically necessary. No one's rights were violated.

If you want to make the point that the Feds should sue the SWRCB for making an unsecured loan to the LOCSD you would have a good argument, but the one you put out there doesn't carry water.

As to your contention that the County wants a blank check ... again you're wrong. They are promising us a particular maximum payment for a particular service. This is exactly how a 218 vote should work. If you need to know the particulars before you'll vote yes, you'll find yourself always voting "no" on these things. Simply put, there is no way that the County can know in advance whether they'll need to make any changes to conform the project to CCC or RWQCB requirments or to satisfy various judges of lawsuits filed by those who don't like the project the County proposes.

You can't tell us honestly you expect to be presented a complete design that won't be changed in any way before you'll be willing to vote yes. You can't be telling us that you expect that the County will present us two or three complete designs that are already finalized before you'll vote yes. Only an certified idiot or a person engaging in rhetorical bluster would say such things.


You are right that Pandora should take some blame ... but please don't think that Julie, Lisa and the rest are somehow absolved because Pandora played a role. To say that all Shiites are right because some Sunnis have done bad things is just plain oversimplification in exactly the same way as Julie and Lisa haven't hosed our community due to her lack of wisdom just because Pandora and her side made some rather unwise choices. I don't mind if you want to give Pandora and the Solutions Group even 70% of the blame ... as long as you're willing to admit that the others should get the rest. Myself, I would tend to give the Solutions Group about 35% of the blame and the most recent boards the rest.


On your last point about why TriW was stopped. You claim it was only stopped because the state wanted a 218 vote. Here's my question for you ... why didn't the LOCSD initiate the 218 vote process that the state wanted?

Anonymous said...

11:03, it's called perception is reality. You say something often enough and people start to believe it. Different when you tell it to the judge.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't anyone remember how disliked the last County project was? People objected to chlorine gas tanks stored right next to the Middle School. That is why the CSD was formed.

This time around, the County is smart enough to get tons of input from Los Osians (and others who don't live here) and are giving us choices. Why would we think WE should get the project back, as it is quite clear that a CSD - any CSD - cannot handle a project as big as this.

We objected because the old board had "no 218 vote" - which was not true but for the sake of argument from one side anyway, we could say that. Then, the new board did not do a 218 vote when it was quite clear that they didn't have enough money to push anything forward, we objected to that. So now the County is doing a 218 vote.

Sorry, the naysayers about the County "forcing" a particular project is just more "no sewer" hogwash. I'm not buying that at all, and will be very angry if someone tries to take my choice for a project away from me.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 10:52 AM, June 09, 2007 said...
"Lisa and Gail will be prosecuted for violation of the Brown Act and the illegal storage and destruction of Public Records and Documents!"

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the CSD office broken into immediately following the recall election, so recalled candidates could sweep up the incriminating evidence?

Seems to me that Lisa didn't have a chance. The project was already corrupted to the point that continuing the coverup was more important than a wastewater treatment facility. Too so many influencial behind the scene, power brokers with too much to lose.

Anonymous said...

Different situations, contractor trailer, not CSD office was broken into; myth busted!

Lisa to have a chance and she tried to go around the law! Doc's should have (required by law) gone to a secure County storage, NOT Gail McPherson's living room and then Lisa bragged about it! Lisa busted!

Project was not corrupted until 10 days AFTER halting the project.

Then the CSD never even tried to produce any acceptible project. Both Lisa and Julie had attended all the meeting with the State and knew the rules! They simply felt they could run the CSD in any direction they chose.

I like the very pertanet question Shark asked last evening:

"In your last point about why TriW was stopped. You claim it was only stopped because the state wanted a 218 vote. Here's my question for you ... why didn't the LOCSD initiate the 218 vote process that the state wanted?"

This CSD has filed for bankruptcy protection and as such has put itself directly under the microscope of the State AG. An elected local government like a CSD is held to laws and standards. When a situation such as a backruptcy occurs, it undermines the concept of local government. From discussions with legal observers and the AG's office directly, this CSD has raised quite a number of red flags. There will be a State Audit! Members of the past CSD have been questioned and have no qualms about having a full audit. This CSD however should be squirming. There is some protection for Board Members until serious mismanagement, especially financial mismanagement, is determined.

Whatever the final outcome, Los Osos will have a sewer, some rules will be addressed in the State Water Board, residential development will resume and there will be some legal action against some members of the community.

Anonymous said...

I don't think there should be any legal action against members of the community. That will only perpetuate nasty, vindictive behavior for which we are well-known already. I don't understand how that kind of activity would improve the situation. I say support the county and let the Los Osos individuals go. They've all done enough damage already.

Anonymous said...

Don't underestimate the State's responsibility to assure local agencies perform within the laws or they destory public trust in local government. This is not just picking on a simple Los Osos bankruptcy. The failure of this CSD is very serious. LAFCo should also have been showing much more concern.

Elected officials do make promises they couldn't fulfill, however, this group has lied and has admitted that under oath.

Every detail of each government is under review almost continuously. Government is paid for by you and I. If they fail, they have thrown away our tax dollars and our trust. Without trust, there is no government.

Anonymous said...

Let 'em go or we'll have to skewer 10-12 people. What a bunch of time, money, and energy that would be better put toward a wastewater project.

Anonymous said...

If Schicker and Tacker had not lead the legal crusade against all who disagreed and then soiled their hands in throwing away the District funds after lying about having any Plan. No, they stupidly bit the public hand that allowed them to grow fat at the community's expense. They both are entitled their day in court and we are entitled honest government. Those who violate the oath of office should be procecuted in accordance with the laws violated.

Anonymous said...

To "Shark"

When you said, "Back in 1998, there wasn't a well known set of facts that would allow one to conclude that the Solutions Group was proposing a project that wouldn't fly. In 2005 the facts were well known..."

You can't tell me that Pandora didn't know the Regional Water Board would turn down ponding or that she wouldn't have found out that information from day one, or that there wasn't enough land for ponds -- Pandora didn't know that either?
Come on, you're smarter than that!

After reading your post and thinking about all this, the one clear fact is that ANY CSD board would not be able to pull off a sewer project of this size. The county should have done it and never should have expected any CSD to do a project for so many homes, and a project from scratch. The county has admitted they have never done such a big project, so how in the world could anyone think the CSD could do it?

Shark Inlet said...

I suppose that if the Solutions Group should have known in advance that their ponding idea wouldn't have passed muster with the RWQCB, the argument can be made that the recall board should have known even more that what they were telling us (that we wouldn't lose the loan, that there would be no fines and that they had a project that was ready to go and would cost less than $100 per month) was just plan fibbing to win an election. Julie and Lisa had been told face to face by the SWRCB that the SRF was site specific yet they pretended it wasn't so.

I'll agree with you that any CSD would be poorly suited to achieve the goal. Perhaps we should acknowledge the wisdom of those few of us who voted against both the formation of the CSD and against the recall.

Anonymous said...

To Shark:

I can't believe how this CSD board has acted. We were all shocked that they had "no plan" and wondered what the Technical Task Force had been working on all that time.

The current CSD has gotten nothing but bad advice from someone, and apparently were not smart enough to think for themselves and realize something was wrong.

When you state, "the argument can be made that the recall board should have known even more that what they were telling us (that we wouldn't lose the loan, that there would be no fines and that they had a project that was ready to go and would cost less than $100 per month) was just plan fibbing to win an election."

I agree with you 100%, but look who made these mis-statements -- Mrs. McPherson. She and Julie have been behind the whole mess (with their own agendas.) Lisa turned her job over to Gail because she was too lazy to do things herself.

Boy, did we ever get screwed.