Pages

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA, for August 29, 07


Oh Looooocy, Now Jooooo Reeeely, REEELY Gotta Lotta ‘Splainin’ To Do!

It was a defining moment. The Pro/Con TAC Analysis Report on the sewer alternatives was out and there it was, in black and white. Something had indeed gone very, very wrong in this community with the sewer project. No matter how you sliced or diced it, the Tri-W project still kept coming up more expensive than any of the alternatives being proposed.

Which meant that when this community was repeatedly told by the recalled CSD directors that there were no suitable sites out of town, that putting a project out of town would be waaaay more expensive, that the Tri-W project was the cheapest project available, that there were no options, that Tri-W was the best and only choice, well, all that was hokum and had been hokum from day one.

Worse, as Ron Crawford has outlined and documented on his website www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com, the now-crashed Tri-W project was indeed what one Coastal Commissioner called “bait and switch,” and to add insult to injury, the community was never asked for a vote on whether they were willing to pay waaaaay more for a sewer system that was deliberately being kept in the middle of town by an unsupported Statement of Overriding Considerations just so it could have some centrally located park amenities attached to it. As the new TAC report now makes clear, the failure to seriously ask and answer that question early on meant that this town was given a deliberately engineered a priori train masquerading as an unchallengeable “given.”

And instead of the vital checks and balances in place that could have made course corrections early, this poor community was subjected to an appallingly unnecessary train wreck caused by a series of lies, unchecked egos, cover-your-behind flummery, bring-down-the-temple Medean weirdness, a crazed RWQCB staff that kept a gun pointed at the head of an already eerily stubborn and dangerously off-course CSD screaming that they had to put MORE coal in the firebox for even MORE speed so the train would fly off the cliff even quicker and if they didn’t it would be FINES!FINES!FINES! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE INNA STREETS LIKE DAWGS!

And all of this insanity compounded by a lack of due diligence, deliberate misinformation, seriously negligent SRF loan managers (Who in their right mind would release a gazillion-dollar unsecured loan to a community awash in lawsuits and countersuits only weeks away from a recall on a critically contested sewer project?), grotesquely negligent CSD directors (Who in their right mind would start pounding millions of that same unsecured money into the ground only weeks away from possibly being recalled?), public apathy, misdirection, confusion and fear, an inexcusably blind county newspaper-of-record, bureaucratic incompetence or indifference that resulted in a cascading failure on the part of a whole array of governmental agencies whose whole point of existence was to look out to make sure the tracks were clear and the train was truthfully constructed and NOT heading for a cliff.

It’s a saga that’s usually the stuff of Grand Jury Reports, Freud’s couch, or a great novel, with the only question being, Should it be written as a comedy, a tragedy or as farce?

Meanwhile, The County Process moves ahead. With the TAC report completed, the 218 assessment ballots being prepared, if the upcoming vote is successful, the various alternatives can then continue to undergo further scrutiny and strategies that could result in even lower “real” prices than the present “guestimates.” Which makes it clear to me at this point that the reasonable “messages” in the recall and in Measure B are finally being heeded: The majority of voters wanted: (1) a cheaper, more “affordable” plan (2) with the treatment plant located out of town and (3) a 218 vote on the matter.

IF everyone continues to keep their sticky fingers off the scale, their eyes on the wheels of The Process to see that it stays clean and clear from behind-the-scenes, hidden-agenda, electioneered monkey-wrenching by various Sewer Jihadis, then it seems to me that at this point the County’s delivered three for three.

If so, then there’s the possibility that The Hideous Sewer Sardoodledom may have a tragicomic ending after all – better than expected, far, far worse than necessary, a state of affairs that always results when The Process falls victim to the slow-motion tar-baby tangle of human folly and an unchecked, repeatedly bungled System Failure.

40 comments:

TCG said...

One lesson that I take from this is that every time a group of Los Osos local folks with special interests (no sewer, cheap and pretty ponds,save face and force a wrong project into the Tri-W site, etc) the effort ends up going sideways and resulting in delays, community strife and much higher ultimate costs.

The main reason that I am starting to see a faint light at the end of this tunnel is that by have a neutral party, the County, run an impartial process, supplemented by the TAC, which has worked hard to provide an objective analysis, a few key facts are actually getting sorted out and made available to us.

There are no fun final result here, but at least a legitimate process is taking place and informed decisions can be made.

There will always be the few who claim that the County or the TAC has pre-determined goals for this effort, but I don't agree with that. This is a too highly reviewed process for that to occur even if it was someone's intent.

For quite some time now, I have agreed with what Maria Kelly said at the Board of Supervisors this week--this is an investment in our property, like putting on a new roof or adding another bedroon/bathroom. It will not only make the quality of our lives better, it will protect and enhance our property values and allow this town to get on with dealing with other needed services and infrastracture.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Now that the info about the 218 vote is out and now that you've had a chance to read it ... do you support a "yes" vote?

Area51 said...

If 10 people read Ann's column today and decide to vote against the 218, will she deem this a success? 20? 50? 200? I've always been curious about what she uses as a standard to gauge her success.

Ann, your trips down memory lane hand and hand with Crawford do NOTHING to help this community. I would say the same thing to Gordon Hensley, Richard LeGros et. al., who no doubt will weigh in on your tripe. I've said it before and I can't stress it enough, you are one of the many in this community who find looking for blame in the past far more satisfying than supporting solutions in the present. And please spare me your "you obviously don't read what I write" crap or call me uninformed or asleep at the wheel or and all the other things you call people who disagree with your perception of reality. You and your people don't help Ann, you hurt. You don't inform, you ridicule and tear down. You don't bring anything positive to the table, you hunt for negatives and bitterly hammer them home (disguised in some folksy dialect you obviously think charming and helpful in getting the "common folk" to agree with you.) And of course, since you are correct that you write an opinion column and you are not a journalist, I find you dishonest in not coming right out and "commenting" about how you really feel about the 218. Because for me at least, it's quite obvious. Instead you do your folksy little "oh looocy" schtick about all the past injustices (none of which deal with the current CSD, which IMMEDIATELY should send red flags into the minds of everyone who reads your stuff), rail against every governmental agency that has had their hand in this mess (except the current CSD, which should IMMEDIATELY send red flags....), and dance around the very issue like the best of politicians.

Contrary to what conspiracy dopes like Conspiracy Boy say, the county has bent over backwards to appease the vocal Los Ososans who complain, whine, nit-pick, threaten, and blame. They have done an incredible job of carrying this process to this point, given the obstacles and cries of wrong doing, and conspiracy, and electioneering, and monkey-wrenching constantly thrown in their direction. They certainly deserve more than "it seems to me that at this point the County's delivered three for three" (from Gail McPherson's mouth to your pen Ann).

I will support my fellow homeowners in the PZ, and I will support my investment against those in my community who wish to play Russian roulette with it, by supporting the county and the 218 vote.

Ron said...

Great article, Ann.

Where to begin?

"And all of this insanity compounded by a lack of due diligence, deliberate misinformation... public apathy, misdirection, confusion and fear, an inexcusably blind county newspaper-of-record, bureaucratic incompetence or indifference that resulted in a cascading failure on the part of a whole array of governmental agencies."

I've always found this interesting -- that's exactly what happened with the Iraq war mess, too.

And, if you think it through, there's only one thing that explains all of that, and links it all together: behavior-based marketing. That's the ONLY continuous thread, from Laurent's election in 1990 to, well, today.

"... this poor community was subjected to an appallingly unnecessary train wreck..."

Completely unnecessary... over a seventeen year span!

"... seriously negligent SRF loan managers (Who in their right mind would release a gazillion-dollar unsecured loan to a community awash in lawsuits and countersuits only weeks away from a recall on a critically contested sewer project?)"

A SRF loan that was also funding millions of dollars worth of decorative items, when the policy that governs the SRF loan so clearly and brilliantly states: "Ineligible (for SRF funding): decorative items."

And if that loan had NOT covered the millions of dollars worth of decorative items found in the Tri-W project, then Tri-W COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED! The SRF loan would never have been released, bankruptcy would have never happened, and Los Osos would have had an out-of-town facility years ago... but none of that happened simply because the SRF loan managers, inexplicably, made the decision to fund millions of dollars worth of decorative items in the Tri-W project... when their own policy so clearly and brilliantly states: "Ineligible (for SRF funding): decorative items."

That's right, Barbara Evoy and Darrin Polhemus, I am looking in your direction.

"Which makes it clear to me at this point that the reasonable “messages” in the recall and in Measure B are finally being heeded: The majority of voters wanted:

(1) a cheaper, more “affordable” plan.
Check

(2) with the treatment plant located out of town. Check

(3) a 218 vote on the matter. Check

Area 51 wrote:

"... you are one of the many in this community who find looking for blame in the past far more satisfying than supporting solutions in the present."

I can't speak for Ann, but for me? Oh, hell ya! Of course. Guilty as charged. MUCH more satisfying.

Look, the solution, that's been sitting right in front of everyone for the past decade -- an amphitheaterless sewer plant out of town -- is obvious and boring. But analyzing who's responsible for the train wreck, and how it cost all Californians anywhere from $50 - $100 million since the formation of the LOCSD in 1998, and how the Los Osos CSD was formed on a lie to begin with? Now, that's an awesome story! It's SO damn interesting. And a civics lesson that MUST be learned to prevent it from happening again.

You know what mental image keeps popping into my mind? The image of people like Area 51 and Shark Inlet sitting down in a couple of years to scratch out their bi-yearly property tax check -- a check they'll be saving gobs of money on because Tri-W's history -- and at the same time they're scratching that check, they're grumbling things like:

"You and your people don't help Ann, you hurt. You don't inform, you ridicule and tear down. You don't bring anything positive to the table, you hunt for negatives and bitterly hammer them home..."

Uhhhhh, you're welcome, A-51, I guess? How 'bout this -- buy Ann lunch sometime for all the money she helped save you. I'll take beer.

Thanks for the link, Ann. (I made a Calhoun's Can(n)on... wooowhoo! Wow. I remember when we used to get her column in at the old Bay News office when we were on Second Street, across from the Merrimaker. Little did I know at the time that my name would show up in that column... 17 years later. Like I said, "Wow.")

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

If, when the final bill comes in I end up paying less than $205/month for the total of the LOCSD debt payment, the sewer assessment and my monthly sewer fees, I'll buy you a case of beer ... the good stuff.

Even though there isn't a fair way of comparing the costs that we will all agree on (Ann claims the real cost of TriW would be higher, Julie claims it would be lower, I say that the out-of-town projects don't have the same sort of water re-use capabilities as MBR, etc.), at least we can add up the bills for the assessment, the LOCSD debt-related costs that are clearly passed on to me and then the monthly sewer bill.

Heck, if it's less than $250/month, I'll buy you a case of beer (but not necessarily the good stuff).

In return, all I ask you is that if the cost ends up being more than $250/month you admit that you were mistaken in your claim that moving the plant out of town would save us money.

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shark Inlet said...

One more thing ...

For all the sturm und drang about the Trib's front page error, none of those complaining noted that the Trib corrected their error in a fact-filled story which contained far more solid information than Ann's opinion piece.

Now, Ann's opinion is valued (by the way, what is her opinion on the 218 vote, yes or no? ... boy it would be nice if she told us what she thought when she gave us her opinions in her opinion column), but it clearly shouldn't be thought of as more factual than the Trib.

Even though the Trib has errors, Ann's opinion column isn't even bound to the same journalistic standard as reporting. Even though the Trib overlooks a lot (as Ron is so good at reminding us), it should be noted that opinion pieces like Ann's and Ron's are even worse about overlooking relevant facts.

One should also ask themselves whether various folks authoring opinion pieces are willing to offer up corrections (like the Trib does) when they make mistakes. Individuals who never admit mistakes or apologize always raise suspicion in my mind because I know darn well how often I make mistakes.

Ron said...

I was just re-reading my last post, above -- because if there's one thing I enjoy more than writing my blog entries, it's reading my blog entries -- and I noticed something that was a little confusing.

I wrote:

"-- a check they'll be saving gobs of money on because Tri-W's history --"

That can be read as meaning, "because of the history of Tri-W."

That's not what I meant.

What I meant was, "because Tri-W is history" -- as in "toast," "gonzo," "paperweight,," "someone break out the paper shredder," etc.

And that's important, because if it is read, "because of the history of Tri-W," all humor is lost in the rest of that take, and that "mental image" take is funny. I can give details... close your eyes and picture it with me:

It's about 11:00 at night, dead silence, all is dark but the dim, orange glow of a 60 watt bulb barely illuminating a small kitchen table. Sitting at the table, in a bathrobe and white t-shirt, is [insert Ann/Ron hater her], and in front of them is their checkbook. One hand is scribbling out their bi-yearly property tax check -- a check that they will save potentially hundreds, if not thousands of dollars on every time they write it because the Tri-W project is toast. The other hand is on their furrowed forehead.

Now, and here's the funny part, picture them, while they're scratching out that check in that dim, orange glow, grumbling things like:

"Stupid, Ann... grumble, grumble... doesn't inform, ridicules, tears down... grumble, grumble... why did I back the wrong horse?... grumble, grumble... SewerWatch, hack... grumble, grumble, grumble, grumble..."

Now, picture that exact scene happening two times a year for the next 30 years.

Richard wrote:

"... after Tri-W was selected, designed and bonds assessed that to change the project (read mnove it) would only increase project costs significantly."

More than the $35 million dollars, according to the pro/con report, worth of "urban compatibility" it takes to accommodate a mid-town sewer plant like Tri-W?

According to the LOCSD's own 2004 document -- Item 3-C -- moving the facility out of town was estimated at about $5 million.

By the way, in light of recent county documents that were created using an open, public, objective process -- as opposed to whatever the LOCSD was doing from 1999 - 2005 -- that incredibly important Item 3-C document is an absolute, horribly misleading, wildly inaccurate mess.

Richard, according to recent county figures, you could have moved the plant in 2004 and saved some $30 million. That's why Tri-W is listed at $55 million in the pro/con report, and all other out-of-town sites are listed at about $19 million.

Is that your idea of "increase project costs significantly?"

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Either you already know all of which I am about to write (and in which case, you've gone out of your way to intentionally mislead those who read this comment, maybe some 4000 people as you point out) or you don't know what I am about to write (in which case you deserve a swift kick in the pants for not reading and thinking carefully). [I guess there is a third logical case ... you are not capable of understanding complex problems ... but your past articles would suggest that the author is more than capable.] Essentially I think you are deliberately obscuring some important details or you are being sloppy. I can't tell which.


In any case, that $5M for "moving the facility out of town" was an estimate and that estimate did not include any design costs, any RWQCB fines and any inflation. Across the first and third it would be at least $20-30M.


It is also out-of-line to suggest to Richard that the LOCSD could have moved the plant and saved $30M. Perhaps you should finally take the advice I've been giving you for at least the last year or two ... run your random thoughts by someone who is good at accounting and finances before you put them online.


I wonder, however, why you've not done this. Is it because you are more interested in blame than in what is best for Los Osos (as you admit above) or is it because you are simply afraid of dealing with facts and figures because you have a quantitative reasoning deficiency and are embarrassed to confront the problem.


Face it, either you know you are playing with the numbers unfairly (in which case you are a liar) or you are unaware that you are playing with these numbers unfairly (in which case you are speaking as an authority in an areas where you should be getting a second opinion).


Hell, if you're a journalist instead of just someone interested in writing opinion pieces that are not fact-based, you should at least ask Paavo or the author of the LOCSD document for a comment on your interpretation of their documents before you pretend that your own "take" is fact. Along those same lines, if you can present evidence that Steve Monowitz will black-ball any county SOC for the TriW site, it would be nice ... you've told us that TriW is illegal many many many many times ... but you've never offered us evidence that your statement is anything other than your opinion.

Sewertoons said...

OK, enough with the history. Heard it all before and hopefully this will be the end of that (but I doubt it). I think we have all gotten Ann's and Ron's stance on this by now. Let's look ahead, that is where our future is.

I own in the PZ. I want the 218 to pass. What I want to know - Ann, if you could vote - you are a renter I know in the PZ - would you vote YES? I would ask the same question of Gail, but she lives outside of the PZ and also will not vote on the 218. That is really all that matters now - to get the 218 to pass. Would you support a YES on the 218 vote? If you remain silent you do not support this community even as much as those who say vote no.

Shark Inlet said...

Are you saying, Toons, that you believe Ann to be a renter rather than a property owner?

If that is the case, it would explain a lot because the property owners and renters in this community face very different cost/benefit analyses on the sewer issues.

4crapkiller said...

Hey Ann. I can't believe many things that are posted on this site. I usually have to do my own research.

So, is you a renter or is you not? Honesty is required. It would have a lot to do with the bias that you have shown over the years. Any one know the address where she lives? It is not in the phone book. Someone has it, and I will be glad to go down and verify the ownership question in the public records.

Has sewertoons verified the claim that Ann is a renter? Give it to me. Sharky is right: It would explain a lot. I hope she owns property in the PZ. After all her rants, I would expect that she owns property in the PZ.

We know that Ron is ego driven, does not own property in the PZ, and is looking for some kind of award, but Ann? Don't let the property owners down, Ann, despite your OPINIONS. Just tell it like it is.

Sewertoons said...

That is the word out here in the 'hood, shark. And she lives in my 'hood - the PZ. Maybe she would want to clear this up as that is what is being said about her? She has never stated that she has a personal stake in this as a property owner - not that renters don't have a stake too, it's just not the same stake.

And if I am wrong - and I could be - what would be her reason to NOT support the YES on 218 here in the Zone? (For instance, the The Taylors make their position very clear as to why they are voting no.) I would like to think that Ann would identify her stake as an owner and why she either does or does not support the YES on a 218 as she is so public on her opinions on everything else.

Sewertoons said...

Ann, you said:
"The majority of voters wanted: (1) a cheaper, more “affordable” plan (2) with the treatment plant located out of town and (3) a 218 vote on the matter"

Can you tell me if the facts put out here in an eariler column by a blogger are true? It has been said that the October compromise failed because a requirement for our new CSD board was to levy a 218. And even though they compromised on accepting gravity, they would not go for the 218 vote. Is that true?

If true, maybe a 218 vote was NOT part of what everyone wanted.

Well, either way, we have a 218 now, and a chance for a cheaper plant, and a chance for it to be out of town. Those who were OK with the project to begin with (49.1% or so of the votes) and now those (according to you) that wanted a 218 (50.9%) but didn't get one. What could hold us up this time? People who want no sewer at all?

Conspiracy Boy said...

Sewertoons (Lynette?):
Richard LeGros:
SharkInlet:

Nice of you all to push Gail and Ann so for them to endorse the 218.

Just like the BOS and Bruce Gibson is trying to get this CSD to do so. They are coming very close to electioneering, and going on record asking the CSD to do so.

Getting nervous, are you?

You think people are going to vote for the county's $300 (for starters) project? .... especially when they know a solution can be done for far less?

To Lynette, maybe people didn't want a 218, both CSD's didn't. But it's the law. If Richard's prior post was true and that this was the state's project all along, then why would the county need a 218?

Area51 said...

Conspiracy Dope, I just love the way you try to guess who people are. It's so....so...so...you.....

Hey, I've been meaning to tell you that at the end of the BOS meeting, Jerry Lenthall said something like "Now I hope the people of Los Osos step up to the plate" meaning, I think at least, he hopes they do the right thing and OK the 218. Bingo CB!!!! That had electioneering all over it!!! Get on it big fella. Contact whoever you think needs to be contacted and finally put your your big fat complaining whining words into action. Do something CB!!! And by all means let us know how that turns out for you. We want to be proud of you CB. We want to be proud.

Mike said...

CB Paine We could still recognize you in those dark glasses before the BOS. Yup, ya sure told them off! Ya done good!

Shark Inlet said...

Conspiracy Boy,

I'm not trying to get either Ann or Gail to say something they don't believe in ... I am simply noting they've not supported the 218 vote and they've not said it is a bad move. It would be great if these two people who are very full of opinions and who are rather willing to share their opinions would come out and be clear about how they are feeling about this issue.

Both have done everything but some out in favor or opposed to this vote.

There is no new information out there that would cause a reasonable person to change their mind ...

What it comes down to is this ... I think that the two of them are opposed to the 218 vote but are unwilling to state it publicly for some reason I don't understand.

Perhaps they would be willing to clarify their position and to explain their reasoning if they are opposed. After all, all the logic comes down on the side of "yes", so anyone saying "no" should explain how rejecting the County provides a more solid and secure future than voting "yes" on the County plan.

Churadogs said...

tcg sez:"The main reason that I am starting to see a faint light at the end of this tunnel is that by have a neutral party, the County, run an impartial process, supplemented by the TAC, which has worked hard to provide an objective analysis, a few key facts are actually getting sorted out and made available to us.

There are no fun final result here, but at least a legitimate process is taking place and informed decisions can be made."

I have maintained from day one that this is not rocket science. It never one. Accurate information unbiased and properly sorted out (i.e. a clean "Process") would have led to a far better result than the train wreck that occurred. Paavo Ogren said something at a PZLDF meeting some time ago that I think is the key to what happened here: The (original) CSD did not have the resources ($$$) needed to do what the county's now doing -- i.e. when the Ponds of Avalon bit the dust, back track and actually scope out and study alternatives & etc. (also pay for a Ripley Report and the Dr. T peer Review & etc) And because we also now know that process was skewed by the non existent "overwhelming community value of having a park attached to a sewer plant" SOC, that process was set on the wrong track from day one. There's the tragedy. This was all preventable.

Area 51 sez:"Ann, your trips down memory lane hand and hand with Crawford do NOTHING to help this community"

I have said before and say again: Far wiser people than I have noted, "In our past is our prologue" and t"Tose who do not know history are condemned to repeat it." I believe it is critical for this community to understand what happened here so they aren't conned again and understand just how the system failed them, again so it doesn't happen again.

Inlet sez:"In return, all I ask you is that if the cost ends up being more than $250/month you admit that you were mistaken in your claim that moving the plant out of town would save us money."

Seperting out apples from oranges will be the real challenge here. i.e. what portion of the "final" costs would have to be applied to sewer, what to water, what to unnecessary trainwreck, Who Killed Jr. i.e. the breach of contract lawsuit, and so forth. Parsing out that will be. . . uh . . . interesting but could only be done if the truth of who did what when can be known. Maybe the State Audit can track the money?

Richard sez:"PPS: Also, I do not recall any CSD board member saying that less expensive options did not exist...."

When the Ponds of Avalon disappeared and morphed into the bait & switchy Tri W, Stan Gufstafson looked me and a whole lot of other people in the eye and assurred us this was the cheapest and best and ONLY option, that the other options wouldn't work, putting a plant out of town would be waaay more expensive & etc. etc. All of which have proven to be untrue.

Inlet sez;"What it comes down to is this ... I think that the two of them are opposed to the 218 vote but are unwilling to state it publicly for some reason I don't understand."

There you go again, Inlet, seeing angels you've made up dancing on heads of pins you've also made up. In a short while you'll have created a whole back story for those made up angels, complete with inventing a whole tiny little town for them to dance in, then make up all kinds of stuff about their imaginary universe. It's amazing to watch you sieze a snippet of non-information and non-fact then leap onto your hobbyhorse and whip yourself into a lather and gallop away crying, HI-YO Silver!

Sewertoons sez;"It has been said that the October compromise failed because a requirement for our new CSD board was to levy a 218. And even though they compromised on accepting gravity, they would not go for the 218 vote. Is that true?"

You need to email your board members who were there during the deliberations or compromise talks and see exactly what was proposed to them and voted on.

Steve said...

Richard sez:"PPS: Also, I do not recall any CSD board member saying that less expensive options did not exist...."

If that isn't an attempt to rewrite history, I dont know what is...

Richard, your whole project was based on... "there are NO OTHER FEASIBLE LOCATIONS!!!"

Out of town... nope, you cant cross a creek.

Andre... nope, power lines.

Near Andre... nope, ag land.

Tri-W ESHA... we have to... there is no other choice!!!

Richard, your quote is such a lie... it is amazing... even from you.

Richard LeGros said...

Steve,

Re-read my Aug 30 10:40 AM blog

I did not blog that other feasible locations did not exist. There were (are) other sites.

What I blogged was that after the project was defined (read FEIR), a $19.7M bond issue passed and the project designed, that to try to move the project would be more expensive than leaving it be. This scenerio is becoming reality.

I also blogged that past boards never denied that less expensive options did not exist. The boards were not required to select the least expensive option. The CEQA process allows a community to decide what would be best for it even if the costs are greater. For example, using MBR costs more to operate, BUT produces treated waste water orders of magnituded cleaner than the next level of tertiary treatment. MBR may be more expensive than Clarifiers, BUT MBR neeeds an equipment area of 400 sf for the equipment, and may be covered, while Clarifiers (of which Tri-W had 2 originally), needed an equipment area of +3500 sf and be placed outside a building. The point is that in all projects there is a balancing act between cost and the level of treatment you desire.

4crapkiller said...

To Ann:

Taking the fifth on being a renter? Stonewalling? Apparently sewertoons is citing "rumor". I guess I will have to go down and find out if you are on a property owners list. If you are a renter, and not on the list, it would explain your bias. Not that it would matter much. I stopped being duped a long time ago on the sewer issues.

4crapkiller said...

TO ANN:
Well Ann F. Calhoun, TRE, sometimes I just have to look things up myself. It seems that as an owner of two double lot parcels in the PZ, both developed, on two separate addresses, you get to pay also. You are definitely a property owner. You get hit double by these sewer costs. Since you cannot occupy two houses at the same time, you probably have to be concerned for your renters, as am I.

AS A PROPERTY OWNER YOU HAVE A STRONG VESTED INTREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THE SEWER AND LOCSD PROBLEMS. Your property is at stake.

Since you have these properties in trust, you are concerned with probate costs, and thus concerned with heirs.

This gives a GREAT AMOUNT of weight to your opinions. It also shows that YOU are not operating as a FRAUD in property owner matters.

Sewertoons, inform you neighbors and friends of this. Appology for posting a rumor IS required to all of us, especially ANN. You are no Conspiricy Boy, or Joey Racano.

And there it is!

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"When the Ponds of Avalon disappeared and morphed into the bait & switchy Tri W..."

I've never liked that word -- "morphed" -- to describe what happened between the first project, the Oswald ponding system, and the second project, the Montgomery/Watson reactor project.

That's exactly what the early CSD Boards wanted everyone to think -- that their first project, the one that got them elected and the LOCSD formed to begin with in 1998, simply went through some "design changes" and, over time, "morphed" into what it is today.

But that's not accurate at all, and it's a KEY point.

As we all know now, the first project, in reality, never morphed into anything. It failed outright (exact date still unknown, amazingly). They were two totally different projects, with two totally different design teams, and two totally different project reports.

The only thing that was the same was the location, and because the original LOCSD board was able to retain the Tri-W location for their second project -- a project that required exactly ten times less acreage than their first -- through their sneaky little "bait and switchy" game, they were always able to point to it and say, "See? There WAS a reason to form the LOCSD in the first place. We promised you a 'better, cheaper, faster' sewer plant at Tri-W, and, by God, there's a sewer plant at Tri-W... just minus all that 'better, cheaper, faster' crap."

What they -- and by "they" I mean Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, Pandora Nash-Karner, Rose Bowker, Sylvia Smith, Frank Freiler, Bob Semonsen and Richard LeGros -- never wanted to do was make the difficult decisions, like going back to the community after the Oswald plan failed and saying, "What should we do now?"

That would have been a very difficult decision to make, and it also would have been the decent, honest, moral, decision to make, but none of them made it, and now, these days, they rationalize their decision making. I see it in Richard's posts all the time, like when he wrote:

"... after Tri-W was selected, designed and bonds assessed that to change the project (read mnove it) would only increase project costs significantly."

See what's happening there? He's saying that because it sounds like it should be solid reasoning for his actions, but when you scrutinize the documentation, his rationale for keeping the facility at Tri-W during his time in office doesn't hold a drop of water, not even close.

I'm almost positive that when Richard took office, he, like everyone else in Los Osos, had no idea as to the rationale that led to the siting of the CSD's second project at Tri-W, and I think he is still in denial of all that.

For example, again, he wrote:

"PPS: Also, I do not recall any CSD board member saying that less expensive options did not exist...."

Steve's 100% right. That's a complete re-write of history.

Obviously, Richard, to this day, is unaware that Tri-W's own project report contains this quote:

"The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents in the manner that a central location such as Resource Park (Tri-W) could."

He's wrong about the cost of moving the facility (missed it by some $30 million, according to county documents), and he's wrong about other options.

Clearly, as we are seeing today, other much less expensive site options do exist, however not a single one of them will "provide an opportunity to create a community amenity" that is "readily accessible to the majority of residents."

It's a little embarrassing these days to watch the rapidly dwindling amount of Tri-W supporters, especially the ones that were responsible for Tri-W, like the LeGros and Hensleys of the world, go about their business. As I've written many times, the Tri-W facility was/is a $55 million park-project-that-included-a-sewer-plant, and it tore Los Osos apart. Yet, because the LeGros and Hensleys of the world were so saturated in behavior based marketing for so long, they can't step back and objectively see the big picture these days. And that big picture is the fact that they pushed through the system an unpopular, unnecessarily expensive, "bait and switchy" park-project-that-included-a-sewer-plant. And that, folks, is embarrassing to watch.

For example, Richard also wrote:

"The CEQA process allows a community to decide what would be best for it even if the costs are greater."

Again, obviously he's not clear on the fact that the entire environmental review process was overridden by the early CSD just for the park... that added about $35 million to the project, as county documents clearly show.

That's why he says things like this:

"The CEQA process allows a community to decide what would be best for it even if the costs are greater."

That's embarrassing to watch, because it shows the he's unaware that the Statement of Overriding Considerations -- the 4-page document that tossed the entire environmental review process for the Tri-W project out of the window -- says this:

"An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:

- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and

- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"


And that's it... the reasons stop there. Just those two are listed as the OFFICIAL reason swhy "an in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations."

That first reason is ridiculous. Again, embarrassing. It doesn't make a bit of sense because the central location adds $35 million to the project, according to recent county documents, and that would have paid for miles and miles and miles of extra collection system... and that just leaves ol' #2 hanging out there to dry, and that's highly embarrassing for the people behind Tri-W, like Legros.

Richard also wrote:

"... paydown of +-$40M of debt associated with stopping Tri-W... "

That's extremely insulting to everyone.

That $40 million he talks about there, and blames on the post recall board, was the $40 million that was wasted developing the unpopular, unnecessarily expensive, "bait and switchy" park-project-that-included-a-sewer-plant... that tore Los Osos apart.

He's in complete denial of the fact that a big chunk of that wasted $40 mil is directly on his shoulders.

That's one of the main things that bugs me about the early CSD directors. Not one of them thinks they did anything wrong. The people directly accountable for wasting that $40 million and tearing Los Osos apart, won't own up to it at all. And, not only do they not own up to it, they try to blame it on other people. And, to make matters worse, that wasted $40 million is being kicked around as a reason these days for why Tri-W is still on the table. As Ogren recently put it when fumbling around for an answer on why the Tri-W project is still on the table, "A lot of money was spent on it."

(Boy, talk about a difficult decision to make. County officials, like Noel King and Paavo Ogren, are no dummies. They, like all other civil engineers...everywhere, recognize Tri-W for what it is -- a colossal embarrassment. They also know that when they finally pull the plug on that embarrassment, that they will be flushing $40 million straight down the "bait and switchy" drain. So, put yourself in their shoes. What an amazing decision to have to make. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to keep the Tri-W project around -- it could simply just go the way of the Andre1 site that was removed from consideration during the Rough Screening analysis -- yet, the nano-second they make the decision, it will become crystal clear that the "+-$40M of debt" was NOT "associated with stopping Tri-W," it was associated with developing an embarrassing, unpopular, unnecessarily expensive, "bait and switchy" park-project-that-included-a-sewer-plant. Then what? Do all the people that were responsible for wasting that $40 million and ripping Los Osos apart just throw up their arms and scrunch their shoulders and say, "Oh well, what the heck? Throwing $40 million at an amphitheater and a tot lot in a downtown sewer plant sounded like a good idea at the time.")

Obviously, Richard got caught up in the whole "morph" scheme, like everyone else, including the Tribune. He wasn't clear on the fact that the first project failed completely, and that an excuse -- "strongly held community value" -- was made-up, manufactured by the LOCSD, before he was elected to the board, to keep and force their second facility at Tri-W in an effort to cover-up the fact that the first project had failed. And, what little modesty I have aside, their little "morph" scheme would have worked if it wasn't for my reporting over the last three years.

I can tell by his postings that Richard is not clear on any of that. If he was, why he would continue to support the Tri-W project like he does? It doesn't make any sense. He thought there was actually a reason to build a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos. There wasn't. In short, he, like many, many, many other people, f-d up and trusted Nash-Karner. That's always a big mistake.

Ann wrote:

"There you go again, Inlet, seeing angels you've made up dancing on heads of pins you've also made up. In a short while you'll have created a whole back story for those made up angels, complete with inventing a whole tiny little town for them to dance in, then make up all kinds of stuff about their imaginary universe. It's amazing to watch you sieze a snippet of non-information and non-fact then leap onto your hobbyhorse and whip yourself into a lather and gallop away crying, HI-YO Silver!"

That's excellent. You just came up with that off the top of your head? Wow.

4crapkiller said...

To RON:

By the time the Oswald step/steg system was discovered to be not acceptable, TRI-W was already in contract. Other sites were looked at out of town previously and were not suitable (Andre1-powerlines etc.) or not available for sale. The LOCSD had no powers of eminent domain for property outside the district. The CCRWQCB was pushing with the threat of fines, and you know how that turned out (No teeth?). What happened, clearly and was well known at the time, is they fit the best project they could that would take care of water recycling with high quality effluent, on the TRI-W site.

It may still come to this, RON. There are suits planned by the out of district neighbors, there is a law that requires a plant to be built within the confines of the district if a site is available, and then there is AB2701 which, as I read it, requires the plant to be built within the confines of the district. And then ANN has brought up the problem with crossing a creek with sewer lines.

Now while you are stuck in the past, proving that you were always correct, in an effort to fix blame, with no row to hoe, the problem is in the county hands, and the LOCSD can do nothing. They will decide if we "flush it and forget it" or "flush it and worry". At the same time they will be considering our severe water problems. If the bankruptcy is not accepted, the contractors may end up with the TRI-W site. It is an asset. This whole thing is and will be in the courts, and I have no idea how it will be resolved. The LOCD may not be able to survive.

All your stuff is moot at this time and you are beating a dead horse.

Mike said...

Shark... Glad to see you've finally dropped the kid gloves...!!!

The whole issue will be resolved in court due to the actions of our LOCSD within the past 20 months. It serves no purpose to continue harping on who did what and when. It is possible the Bankruptcy hearing next month may bang the gavel on the existence of the CSD anyway.

The issue today is; vote to assess ourselves or prepare to fight the State. No other options. No past, no park arguments, on more bait and switch monologue. Yes or No!

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I was quite clear in my proposition to Ron ... what "counts" is my monthly assessment, my monthly sewer bill and the costs associated with the LOCSD debt. As you point out, it will be difficult to compare TriW with any out of town plant which doesn't treat the water as thoroughly and deals with aquifer recharge differently. That is why I proposed a "simple" comparison of the costs, even if the systems have some differences.

Crapkiller told us that she considers the TriW plant to have some features far superior to what the other hypothetical plants have promised. I've mentioned that I don't know that inflation associated with delay was calculated in a realistic fashion. You've told us that TriW would possibly require state water. It is certainly tough.


I also find it interesting that rather than telling us your position on the 218 vote and volunteering whether you're a renter or an owner, you're castigating me for "seeing angels ... dancing on heads of pins". If you answer the questions posed to you, people won't speculate on the answer.

I would suggest it is very reasonable ... when so many have come forward to support the 218 vote ... that those who haven't yet done so are opposed to it. This might be especially true of people who continually tell us to "watch out" and warn about trains going over cliffs and the like.

Again, I don't know what you believe and to a large degree, I don't really care. What I do find really really odd here is that as a person who comments on the good and bad in the minutiae about all things sewerish, you've given no opinion about this very very important matter.

Just the other day, you told us it was stupid to support or oppose the 218 vote before the details were known. Now that they are known you can't use that as a reason to avoid the question.

If you're not going to tell us what you believe, perhaps you would at least tell us why not, why not yet or when you are likely to reveal your opinion.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

As far as your comment for Richard goes, that Stan said TriW was the cheapest and best and only plan ... this was before the overbids on the TriW job (courtesy the Rock of the RWQCB and the hard place of citizens threatening contractors). This is, in fact, the main reason TriW now looks more expensive than the other options ... the County engineers were comparing TriW (over) bids to engineering guesstimates of the costs of other systems and sites. Furthermore, once you look at inflation, extra design costs and then possible RWQCB fines (much like I did for you some two years ago) it is really clear that these "out of town" sites aren't necessarily cheaper at all. It is delay that raises all costs and starting over means more delay which means greater costs.

I know you won't believe what I write, that you'll say that I'm counting angles dancing on pinheads. I'm answering your charge for others who have an open mind.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

I thank you for your most recent comment in response to Richard.

You've shown yet again that you are really really not good at math and complex financial issues ... or that you're willing to dishonestly gloss over important issues for what you perceive to be "the greater good." In either case, you've shown yourself to be untrustworthy even if pretty facile with a subset of the important historical issues.


What you're accusing Stan and Gordon and Pandora of is this ... wanting and planning ... before 1997 ... to put in an MBR plant at TriW with a scaled-down park component. The problem here is that you've offered us no evidence for this grant claim. Perhaps the simpler explanation ... that the ponds failed because the RWQCB would not allow SRF financing of ponds because of a lack of historical record of nitrate reduction in ponding systems ... should be preferred until you show us the evidence behind your conspiracy theory.

Frankly ... I had thought until just recently ... that you were a pretty reasonable person with a tendency to stand behind your original "take" even in light of new evidence. Now I suspect you've got a problem with inflexibility and a family history of shame-n-blame. Your theory above has no evidence behind it ... it seems as if you are just trying to blame Pandora, Stan and Richard for everything that went wrong.

What is really funny is that after 2001, pretty much all blame for delays and cost increases can fall squarely on the shoulders of CCLO, LOTTF and Al Barrow with one exception. What I believe is that had Stan, Gordon and Richard voted to have the recall election as early as possible and the construction start later, the recall would have failed. While I don't blame the three of them for the stupid decisions of the Lisa board, I do think that their decision on timing of the recall election influenced the outcome.

In any case ... Ron ... get some psychological help or get a friend with some experience in the financing of large projects because otherwise you will continue to embarrass yourself.

See, I'm a nice guy after all ... I'm trying to help Ron out even though he's been a bit of an asshole of late.

4crapkiller said...

Blast from the Past:

With recall campaign literature in hand, stapled to the handout from Nelson Environmental (in color)and after going to the Nelson Environmental web site, just now, a few comments, since misinformation caused the recall:

1. The beautiful colored handout, meant to convince voters states that their "high performance technologies within the ponds to ensure optimal treatment efficiency to meet ALL waste discharge requirements". No place on their web site is anything that would lead us to believe or is found documentation of nitrate reduction from wastewater to 7ppm. They are not even now in the business for this. Also fully noted were their claims of 14 million budgetary capital (not including collection system). For what? A system then that would never succeed. Duped!

With the blue YES on recall flyer in hand:
Steve Sawyer with the help of Rosemarie Arnold and Marlene McQueen produced a wonderful flyer of all sorts of information. Sawyer was spokesperson for the recall committee. The committee endorsed the candidates stating "Few people know this project better, from stem to stern, than these candidates", "The recall CAN move the sewer" noting that "The truth is, the recall is the only thing that can move the sewer, or more importantly, allow a cheaper wastewater alternative to be built out of town". He then makes the arguement: "The most obvious alternative has always been the same plant at another location."

He states: "The downtown location doubles the expense, ignores all sound community planning principles, defies common sense, and doesn't solve the problem". (Cost I guess).

"Vote for Chuck Cesena, John Fouche, and Steve Senet for a liveable community, responsible wastewater priject, and responsive government".

On page three we have in headlines: "Hensley secretly appointed as CSD lobbiest".

I don't think they knew squat about wastewater projects, and it is damn clear they did not understand the law, and worse than that never bothered to find out.

I wonder where the money came from to finance this recall effort, maybe Steve Sawyer will tell us. Hey, Steve? I think the money came from a lot of people and was a gift of "faith". Great flyer, not enough by 87 did not believe what the "Save the dream" people said. Bull shit rules! Get ready folks, Ann is correct! The real battle has just begun.

Get out your old flyers folks, read em and weep. Now it is up to the property owners to consider the costs if the 218 does not pass.

Better do you own research.

Sewertoons said...

Thank you 4crapkiller for the perfect intro to my tardy apology. (Been off the blogs for a couple of days.) It WOULD have been better to do my own research. I apologize to all bloggers, readers and most of all Ann for the unfounded gossip that Ann did not own property!

4crapkiller has researched this very well, Ann DOES own property in Los Osos! To quote 4ck, "owner of two double lot parcels in the PZ, both developed, on two separate addresses."

I will stamp out the rumor wherever I find it! And I await Ann's opinion on the 218.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Again, I don't know what you believe and to a large degree, I don't really care. What I do find really really odd here is that as a person who comments on the good and bad in the minutiae about all things sewerish, you've given no opinion about this very very important matter.

Just the other day, you told us it was stupid to support or oppose the 218 vote before the details were known. Now that they are known you can't use that as a reason to avoid the question."

Just as I thought. You apparently read what I've written but still have no clue what I've said or what my opinions are? Gotta be a comprehension problem, as I've suspected. And you don't really care? Uh, which certainly explains why you you spend so much time on this blogsite commenting on what I've said, which you don't care about???? Uh . . .

But, here's you homework, Inlet: Please reread every column I've written about Sewerish matters,(all 58 or so of them) starting with my first one in 1990) and see if you can find one where I told anyone how to vote or what I wanted them to do or say or think or told them how I was going to vote so they should, too & etc.

Crap sez:"This gives a GREAT AMOUNT of weight to your opinions. It also shows that YOU are not operating as a FRAUD in property owner matters.

Sewertoons, inform you neighbors and friends of this. Appology for posting a rumor IS required to all of us, especially ANN. You are no Conspiricy Boy, or Joey Racano.

And there it is!"

So Crap thinks that I am not operating as a "fraud" because being a property owner ". . . .gives a GREAT AMOUNT of weight to your opinions. . . .?"

No it doesn't. My opinion is my opinion, just like your opinion is your opinion whether you own property or rent or live in a van down by the river. You've conflated property ownership with . . . what? intelligence? wisdom? some sort of pseudo-aristocracy perhaps? Like if you own property your opinion is worth more than the unwahsed, unbooted and unhorsed? Yikes, Crap, get over yourself.

Sewertoons sez:"Thank you 4crapkiller for the perfect intro to my tardy apology. (Been off the blogs for a couple of days.) It WOULD have been better to do my own research. I apologize to all bloggers, readers and most of all Ann for the unfounded gossip that Ann did not own property!

4crapkiller has researched this very well, Ann DOES own property in Los Osos! To quote 4ck, "owner of two double lot parcels in the PZ, both developed, on two separate addresses."

I will stamp out the rumor wherever I find it! And I await Ann's opinion on the 218."

Here's what I don't get. Crap and Sewertoons must have thought that the "rumor" that I was a "renter" had some kind of power to inflict damage -- that's the point of starting a "rumor." I mean, if I start a rumor here that CrapKiller is a Martian, it goes nowhere. But if I set it up that "renters" are frauds, evil, dirty, disgusting people who are trying to destroy the aristocracy of this town (i.e. property owners) and property owners are the only people with a ligitimate voice in the community and all others are dangerous, fraudulent traitors & etc, then I can start a "rumor" that Ann is . . . evil, dirty,fraudulent, disgusting, traitorous because she's a "ugh, renter,"Psssst, pass it on. . ."

But I don't buy your original premise. (I also find it hypocritcal in the extreme that certain self-defined rental-property owners have logged onto this blog to make disparaging remarks about "ugh, renters" while happily pocketing those same "ugh, renters'" nice money, knowing that if those same "ugh, renters" moved out leaving their rental-property sitting empty because unaffordable, they'd soon lose said nice rental-property because they likely couldn't cover the bank note that was being paid by those disrespected, "ugh, renters.")

So, sorry. I don't buy your tar-brush smear attempt. To me, young, old, white, purple, brown, green, homeowners, renters, landowners, business leasees, business owners, etc.ALL of us are a vital and critical part of Los Osos and all of us have a stake in this Process and all of us have opinions.

The only "fraud" I'm seeing here is the sadly revealing mind-set of some commentors here.

Shark Inlet said...

Again ...

Ask Ann a simple question like "do you support voting yes on the 218 or not?" and she dances around the issue saying stuff like "you don't comprehend" or "you didn't read". Sheesh. When I said earlier that I suspected you were opposed to the 218 vote you criticized me for jumping to conclusions. Now you criticize me for asking your opinion rather than reaching a conclusion based on your earlier expressed thoughts.

Just because you've not told people in your columns how to vote or how you were going to vote doesn't mean that you can't choose to do exactly that in the comment section in your blog. Furthermore, if you look back on the 2004-2005 columns of yours, it is very very very clear that even though you were saying something like pay attention, your other comments like unnecessarily pounding millions into the ground were very clearly advocating a particular position. Don't act as if you don't have a position, the lie doesn't suit you.

On whether I care what you think doesn't mean that I don't care deeply about what others think. I have consistently and tirelessly argued that we in Los Osos shouldn't do something that is financially unwise. Can you say that your own writing on the sewer issue isn't to influence people to get them to see things as you do?

To suggest that Sewertoons was trying to smear you is silly. As I pointed out, renters face a very different cost/benefit analysis than do homeowners on the sewer question. Even though the opinions of both types is to be valued, it would not be surprising to me at all if the opinions, by-n-large, of these two groups were quite different.



Okay, let's be clear about something. The 218 vote is very important. To vote "yes" is very important. The arguments that we ought to vote "no" tend to be of the "blank check" or of the "it's just not right to ask us to vote on a project that isn't 100% defined" variety. Both of these arguments fall flat, however. The "no" vote for "blank check" reasons still doesn't cap our costs. The "no" vote because the process "doesn't seem right" doesn't imply that we'll get the opportunity to define the sewer and plant to our liking after the County backs out. Likely it will involve higher costs and even less community input.

The County has gone way out of their way to get community input. The folks complaining about a lack of community input seem (to me) to be exactly those who will tireless complain unless they get their favorite desired outcome (whatever that is would appear to vary from complainer to complainer).

Let's be clear again. Voting "no" on the 218 vote is just plain dumb for our community.

M said...

Ann, i'm surprised your response wasn't a little more vitriolic. I think mine would have been.
How desperate are these people that they go and look up your private information? And then make it public.
I guess we will next hear of your water usage. Just so we will all know which side of the fence you are on.
One part of me knows that I have to vote yes on the 218. Then Crapkiller makes an out and out threat, if I vote no. Seems a bit coercive to me.
Ann, please go go back to an anonymous post blog. Ever since this current format started it has been Crapkiller, Shark inlet, Mike, Area51, Sewertoon, Mike Green, TCG. And then Conspiracy Boy, and Steve.
Crapkiller made the comment that the State people and members of various Boards pay attention to this and other blogs concerning this issue. Could we be seeing another form of Marketing, where one voice drowns out all the rest?
Sincerely, M

Conspiracy Boy said...

TO: M

You asked, "Could we be seeing another form of Marketing, where one voice drowns out all the rest?..."

YOU GOT IT! That's what happened to the Tribune blogs and why many stopped writing there (and here!)

TO: Ann

It's clear that SharkInlet wants you (and Gail) to come right out and say "yes" on the 218 for the people you might be able to influence. He's working real hard to get you to "come out."

Why's he so desperate? Has the Tribune "pumped" up Gail as the big leader now so she can then correct the writer and let the public know she's for the vote?...that she didn't mean the county should have a project first?

It's ironic how Gails' been in charge all this time, and we've come to this point looking at an out-dated gravity system that will cost $350 or so and maybe add imported water to that bill. This is what we have after the wastewater expert/leader of Los Osos move the sewer/all the workshops etc. have done for us? That's pitiful. She doesn't live in the P.Z. and her mistakes have cost all of us.

I don't think half of these regular bloggers live in the P.Z. and if they do, they'll probably make money on the big sewer (even if it's just hooking up the laterals.)

Some won't vote yes; not because it's not what they wanted or because they don't want to pay. I believe it's a matter of trust. Can you trust the county with your checkbook?

I for one, think the county picked TAC members who only supported the previous Tri-W project (except for Rob & Karen) and members who have a definite conflict of interest. Dan Berman is funded by the RWQCB and The Golden State Water guy, John, has absolutely no business on TAC.
Marshall had dealings with Tri-W. Same with Bob. etc. etc. etc.

Hey, didn't Paavo hire Bruce Buel? He was involved with Tri-W and Pandora and has a conflict of interest himself. It's a fix that's very clear to see.

The county moved up the 218 ballot mailing at least three times without explanation (what's the big rush? -- I know, but do you?)

The county says they have to go by the legislation, but they were the ones who initiated the process with Sam Blakeslee, and could only do so by tricking this CSD that LAFCO would dissolve them (when they were never going to do so.) The county couldn't have pulled this off unless they got this CSD to sign a resolution to "work with" the county. Have you seen how they've worked with the CSD? Have you seen how they treat the CSD? Especially Lisa?

I don't understand how anyone can trust the county or how anyone can think this will be a "Carmel" -- Carmel has paved streets for goodness sakes. The county collects more property tax money from Los Osos than other communities, yet we get absolutely NOTHING BACK! How in the world can they expect the community to trust the county?!?

Sewertoons said...

So who are you gonna trust - the CSD?

4crapkiller said...

To ANN and M:

Public information is public information, and meant by the people of the state, through their laws, to enable people to use it. I could have posted the exact address of each of the properties, but chose not to do so. It is there for ALL to see. Nothing private about it. "M" is indignant about a false premise and clearly wrong.

The 218 is a PROPERTY OWNERS VOTE. Those who are not property owners, who live here, or those who have no vote, should not be trying to influence this vote. It is none of their business. They will not be saddled with the liens on their property. How the sewer charges based on water use will be another matter. That is the reason why

Prices for rents are determined by the rental market. People are free to move elsewhere for more, or less rent. A property owner just can't raise rents more than 10% per year to an existing tenant. It is the law.

At the same time it is unfair to try and lay the total expense of a sewer on a renter's back, and it cannot because of market forces.

Ann, or M: when you lay your sewer or process opinions or comments down in a public forum, do not try to tell me that it is NOT for the explicit purpose of influencing people. In effect YOU are putting YOUR hands on the scale. So if you would like to shut off opposing opinion in matters sewer, in most cases backed up by research, stick to Adirondack chairs, dogs, or flowers. The intelligent readers will decide on the validity of your opinions, based upon their own research as to the correctness of the research. The stupid readers will accept your undocumented opinions as fact. You, a TT reader, when you find misinformation in the TT, are quick to correct it. People here do the same to you and other commentators on this blog. Of course you whine, but you are Always correct and Never wrong. The TT writes corrections. Where are yours, or Ron's for that matter? You have never corrected false information from people that support your opinion and agenda, never come up with a spreadsheet, or quoted the law.

CB has never come up with facts and figures that can be verified as to what can possibly happen if the 218 vote fails. The CCRWQCB has: $900 a month in discharge permits starting in 2011. They can change their minds however, THEIR call. Unlikely.

ANN sez with total speculation and lack of knowledge of the political process:

"Here's what I don't get. Crap and Sewertoons must have thought that the "rumor" that I was a "renter" had some kind of power to inflict damage -- that's the point of starting a "rumor." I mean, if I start a rumor here that CrapKiller is a Martian, it goes nowhere. But if I set it up that "renters" are frauds, evil, dirty, disgusting people who are trying to destroy the aristocracy of this town (i.e. property owners) and property owners are the only people with a ligitimate voice in the community and all others are dangerous, fraudulent traitors & etc, then I can start a "rumor" that Ann is . . . evil, dirty,fraudulent, disgusting, traitorous because she's a "ugh, renter,"Psssst, pass it on. . ."

Crapkiller says: Bullcrap and YOUR poor choice of "click" words based on some sort of concept of class warefare.
IF you are a renter trying to influence a vote strictly for property owners, you are free to do so. Same for a property owner. But the opinions of someone who is not taking on the responsibility and cost to his property is the same as a "Martian" and has as much weight. Opinions and pronouncements are backed up by a stake in an issue. The weight of these are determined by the size of the stake. Get it?

There is a lot to be said for "No row to hoe? Butt out!" This is the political process and has been going on from the beginning of free speach.

Churadogs said...

M sez:"M said...
Ann, i'm surprised your response wasn't a little more vitriolic. I think mine would have been.
How desperate are these people that they go and look up your private information? And then make it public."

These people somehow thought that public information has some sort of power to intimidate or threaten me. It doesn't. It just exposes them and their tactics for what they are. Remember Crap and "her man friend" the one who's known at the Supreme Court who was going to hold people responsible for their opinions, threat!threat!threat! And how folks logged on a hooted at her for such pathetic "threats." When I spoke of verbal "anal leakage" that oozes out of posters here -- ANONYMOUS posters who lack the courage of their convictions, ANONYMOUS posters who think that looking up public informaiton and making it public is somehow a "threat" while hiding behind their own ANONYMINITY (C'mon Crap, let's have your real name so we can look up your property tax roll sheet to see if you really do own property in the PZ or whether you're a "fraud.")

M continues"
I guess we will next hear of your water usage. Just so we will all know which side of the fence you are on."

Yep, and how I voted and aything else they can get their hanbds on to "threaten" with. They're just cowards, hiding behind their anonymous posting tags.

M continues: And,
One part of me knows that I have to vote yes on the 218. Then Crapkiller makes an out and out threat, if I vote no. Seems a bit coercive to me."

That's what these folks do. What does that say about their ethics? Ummm, yep.

M continues:"
Ann, please go go back to an anonymous post blog. Ever since this current format started it has been Crapkiller, Shark inlet, Mike, Area51, Sewertoon, Mike Green, TCG. And then Conspiracy Boy, and Steve.
Crapkiller made the comment that the State people and members of various Boards pay attention to this and other blogs concerning this issue. Could we be seeing another form of Marketing, where one voice drowns out all the rest?
Sincerely, M

11:04 AM, September 03, 2007"

I stopped the open posting because some of these "anonymous" people were just getting stupid and slanderous and sophoromoic and too potty mouthed. What's interesting to me is the claim that The Powers That Be actually read this blog.(Wasn't it Crap who claimed only 10 people read this blog wherein Ron noted that 4,500 separate hits were actually coming in -- so which is it? 10 or 4,500?) and Inlet noted that he doesn't care what my opinion is, yet he's one of the steadiest of posters, spending ENDLESS time commenting on my opinions while claiming he doesn't care a fig for them. Silly.

If the Powers That Be also read these comments, I wonder what they must think of the sleazy "anal leakage" that oozes out of some of these folks, the queasy "morals" and "ethics" such tactics of ANONYMOUS folks like Crap and others, with their "threats" and bully-boy stuff indicate. Pathetic.

Inlet sez:"Don't act as if you don't have a position, the lie doesn't suit you."

Once again you are not able to read what I've written. I have always had a position and point of view. What I have NOT DONE is to urge anyone to vote for anything. BIG difference that apparently you are undable to fathom.

Inlet also sez:"
To suggest that Sewertoons was trying to smear you is silly. As I pointed out, renters face a very different cost/benefit analysis than do homeowners on the sewer question."

Are you suggesting that renters will not pay the pass-through costs of this sewer? Also, if Sewertoons tries to start a "rumor" and then "apologizes" for the "rumor," why apologize for something that isn't negative? What WAS Sewertoons was trying to do that required an apology? You don't apologize for neutral or beneficial things. Only negative ones or things you think are negative.

Also, let's have the real names of Crap and you and Sewertoons because I'd like to check your public records -- after all, it's nothing negative, certainly nothing to be afraid of -- public records are public, as Crap notes here:" To ANN and M:

Public information is public information, and meant by the people of the state, through their laws, to enable people to use it. I could have posted the exact address of each of the properties, but chose not to do so. It is there for ALL to see. Nothing private about it. "M" is indignant about a false premise and clearly wrong."

so, how's about it Crap. What's your real name and why are you hiding behind an Anonymous -- but apt -- tag? After all, public information is public information, right?

Crap also sez:"Opinions and pronouncements are backed up by a stake in an issue. The weight of these are determined by the size of the stake. Get it?"

By your logic, President Bush has and should have NO SAY in the Iraq war. His daughter's aren't serving there so he needs to butt out.

Sewertoons said...

Yes, but President Bush lives in America and happens to be President. Nice try Ann.

We now see that you DO have a stake in this 218 vote. One twice as big as my one house. I will vote YES on the 218 and I am happy to say that to anyone who asks. Why are you so shy to make that kind of statement, Ann? Do you think we can wiggle out of having some form of wastewater treatment? Do you think the CSD has enough money to do a "clean process" if the 218 fails?

I have followed all that the County and TAC has done and am satisfied with their honesty and information. The County has explored every option so far and will continue to explore other options as they surface.

Oh, I didn't try to start a rumor, it was already out there without any help from me at all. The information turned out to be incorrect, so I was apologizing for repeating incorrect information which as you apparently don't understand, is NOT neutral OR beneficial.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

What is becoming really clear is that whenever you say that I am "unable to fathom" or that I "don't understand" or that I "have a reading comprehension problem" it is you who is misunderstanding what I write or that it is you who is insisting that my comments fit in a nice little box for you to comprehend. If my comments are on things you don't understand, perhaps you should ask for a clarification rather than toss out an insult.

What I find funny is that you're saying others are cowards for their questions and comments, yet you consistently take the cowardly way out and refuse to address the issues that naturally come up in our discussion. Of course, I cannot change how you act or what you write. I can only suggest you consider making changes yourself.


Now lets consider a few specifics of what you write.

Ann ... even though I am engaging in discussion with you and others, there is nothing silly about my not caring about your opinion. This discussion involves far more folks than just you and me. If my comments and my dialog with you help some of other readers clarify their own opinions, I have done my job. Many people have open minds and are willing to consider a variety of opinions and it is for them that I participate.

Next Ann claims that she has not urged people to vote for anything (or against anything, I presume). Hahahahahahaha! Snort. Giggle. Let us simply remember back to the recall election and see if Ann's claim passes the Bob Dylan Test (you remember, "It doesn't take a weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing"). Seriously, Ann, do you really think that you weren't advocating for folks to vote for the recall?

On the question of whether renters will end up paying ... we've discussed this before. The summary: renters will likely pick up some, but not all of the costs. If a landlord tries to pass on the entire cost, tenants could simply up and move outside the PZ, perhaps to Morro Bay, Oceano or Paso. The total cost can only be passed on to tenants if currently rents in Los Osos are enough below market that after the increase, they would be right at market. However, to believe that a third of the housing units in Los Osos are renting for below market is silly. It ain't so.

I don't believe Sewertoons was trying to start a rumor or was apologizing for making a negative statement. He was offering up an explanation for your opinion and the apology was for passing on something which ended up being not factual. Why you would view this as a cowardly attempt at intimidation or negative is beyond me. I've been a renter and an owner and I know many folks of both types in Los Osos. The only distinction that I make on this sewer issue is this ... if the sh*t hits the fan, renters can bail out with a whole lot more ease and with a whole lot less lost.