Oh Loooooocy. . . . . .
Whole lotta 'splainin' going on over at Ron Crawford's www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com. Wanna follow the bounching bait and switchy ball? Take a visit. Read it and weep. Ron says he's working on a book. It'll be a doozie.
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(186)
-
▼
August
(16)
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA, ...
- Yeeee-HAW! Election Time! Crank Up Your Mis-Inform...
- BOS 218 Meeting TodayAt 2 p.m today, in the BOS ch...
- Bwa-hahah. The Tribune makes a funny.The Tribune ...
- What Dogs Can Teach UsThe following is one of thos...
- Oh Loooooocy. . . . . .Whole lotta 'splainin' goin...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA, ...
- TIC, TIC, TACThe Los Osos Wastewater draft TAC rep...
- More Reminders:This just in: The Final Fine Screen...
- RemindersThe PZLDF case will be heard Tuesday, Aug...
- Oh, For God’s Sake, Roger, Sit Down And Shut Up an...
- PAAVO & 218 Q&A’s TONIGHTAnd don’t forget the BoS ...
- Viewpoint from LOCSD Board Member, Joe SparksThe f...
- Mommy, Mommy, Why Are Roger & Gordon Hopping Up An...
- 218 Assessment Vote Q&A, TAC meeting & Most Impor...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons,, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA,...
-
▼
August
(16)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
52 comments:
Sorry Ann.
Ron Crawford's work of f(r)iction will not bring him fame nor fortune. Crawford is merely a malcontent with his own tale of woe as seen through the eye of a extremist bent on obstruction of a sewer in a community to which he has no connection. He's not even a good compost salesman although he tosses enough of it around!
Do I detect a pattern here? Crawford writes (or rewrites) old news, settles old scores with his old obsessions, Ann comes on here with her tired Ricky Ricardo schtick, and tells everyone to "read it and weep."
What nice neighbors we have. Crawford I understand, he, as we all know, doesn't live here and gets his jollies from agitating and watching us homeowners in the PZ struggle with our investments. But what is Ann providing to the community with her "oh loooooocy" BS? Never quite got it. Never will. I guess for some looking for blame in the past is far more satisfying than supporting solutions in the present. Ugh.
Ann,
I would like to toss out there (yet again) the comment that even if Ron is 100% right on everything that happened in Los Osos before 2004, it doesn't mean that his advocacy of Julie's point of view, the recall and Measure B was the right thing.
This can perhaps be well explained by something I was discussing with Mike Green. I've got a 1999 Van worth about $3k. It has a dent in the door and I have a few choices (but essentially there are only two). Presumably I could pay to get the dent fixed "properly" but that would run several hundred dollars. I could also buy a fancy spray paint that deals with rust protection and do the job myself for about $10-20 in an hour or two.
Similarly, if the TriW site has some drawbacks, it might be cheaper and better to live with the drawbacks than to get them fixed at additional time and cost.
SharkInlet:
You said, "...even if Ron is 100% right on everything that happened in Los Osos before 2004, it doesn't mean that his advocacy of Julie's point of view, the recall and Measure B was the right thing...."
I have to agree with you on this one. Julie has been working with Jeff Edwards all along. No wonder she liked Measure B and Julie Biggs so much (when Julie Biggs should have been fired, or better yet never hired!) My God, she spent the SRF money to settle with herself!
Julie Biggs' Measure B only paved the way for the big gravity pipe project out of town (as she left out the collection part in the Measure) which makes Jeff Edwards one happy man. No, Measure B had errors that Biggs blamed on Barrow. Biggs works for developers. What a trick laid on the residents who didn't like the Tri-W location. Like Gail said in the past "these people in Los Osos fell off the turnip truck.." while others state that people here are "ripe for the pickin'"...
...and the recall...it looks like Chuck works for Jeff Edwards/Julie/Gail too. He wants the same as Julie. And Lisa, she's shattered and not very bright. Can someone please tell her how to dress before the BOS? Steve Senet, is he even half alive?
No, this is Gail's and Julie's show. Promising a $100 project. The Gail & Julie show with Chuck following orders from the two women.
P.S. Isn't everybody happy I'm back?!
To Richard LeGros:
I'm just catching up and wanted to respond to your last post to me.
You said, " when you become uncomfortable with our questions or comments about your blog, you resort to vile personal attacks."
Bull Richard. You said pipes wouldn't be 20 feet deep or 28 feet deep and the pro/con said so. Remember those big gravity pipes have to be level...it's you Richard who doesn't answer the specific questions raised, you twist and spin.
If I said that Chuck said the bankruptcy judge said the SRF loan was unsecured -- so what? Chuck not only said it, he said it before the BOS. I don't see you speaking at any meetings, oh, I forgot, you don't have to attend because you're privy to all county information...you get it directly from the horse's mouth.
As far as hearing things from the county -- of course you hear more than I do. You've been right there with the county and Blakeslee from the day the recall passed.
But I've heard what I've heard and know what I know. You can try to dismiss what I have to say, but I totally expect you to.
cb said:
"You said pipes wouldn't be 20 feet deep or 28 feet deep and the pro/con said so"
Yeah, the total percentage of pipes for the project that go that deep is 1%. Call him a liar for 1%. BFD.
Maybe Mr. LeGros does not attend meetings because the crackpots make a big stink out of his being there and the entire meeting is disrupted. Perhaps in the interest of getting anything done in these meetings he stays away. That would be my guess as I saw a meeting fall apart a few months back when he was in attendance. It's so hard for the crackpots to act like adults and be civil! I guess it is just asking to much for them to grow freakin' up!
Area 51 sez:"But what is Ann providing to the community with her "oh loooooocy" BS? Never quite got it. Never will. I guess for some looking for blame in the past is far more satisfying than supporting solutions in the present. Ugh."
Apparently you weren't around or reading my various "Oh Loooooocy . . ." columns when they were written years ago when getting answers to the questions I was raising weren't "past," but were very much present and if they had been pursued and answered at the time, they could well have prevented this train wreck.
As for my looking for solutions for the present, you clearly haven't been reading what I've been posting here either. Like you forgot to read the TIC,TIC,TAC posting of 8/15, THREE FOR THREE? Mucho positive, if you ask me.
Inlet sez:"I would like to toss out there (yet again) the comment that even if Ron is 100% right on everything that happened in Los Osos before 2004, it doesn't mean that his advocacy of Julie's point of view, the recall and Measure B was the right thing."
The recall and Measure B occurred because a sufficient number of people in this community finally became aware that Ron was 100% right on what happened and how it happened, that they had been lied to, bait and switchied, conned, gulled & etc. Once a community finally gets the correct information to figure that out, they have two choices: Do nothing and live with (and pay for) the lie; change directions and live with (and pay for) the truth.
Inlet also sez:"This can perhaps be well explained by something I was discussing with Mike Green. I've got a 1999 Van worth about $3k. It has a dent in the door and I have a few choices (but essentially there are only two). Presumably I could pay to get the dent fixed "properly" but that would run several hundred dollars. I could also buy a fancy spray paint that deals with rust protection and do the job myself for about $10-20 in an hour or two.
Similarly, if the TriW site has some drawbacks, it might be cheaper and better to live with the drawbacks than to get them fixed at additional time and cost."
The community had that choice and made it. You wanted to live with the lie. Others didn't. There was a vote, a choice. You obviously disagree with that choice. Others don't.
as for "additional time and cost." Time, yes, but cost and perhaps better results still remain in play. There may be another "car" analogy and that's you don't settle for a cheap patch spray job, which won't last long, will lead to other very costly problems later, and instead, get the car fixed right, pay less for it, end up with a better car that lasts longer and costs less to maintain and gets better mileage.
Once again, if that's what happens, you'd have to then decide which choice was the better one.
OMG, Truth & Fiction for Ann in Wonderland:
'The recall and Measure B occurred because a sufficient number of people in this community finally became aware that Ron was 100% right on what happened and how it happened, that they had been lied to, bait and switched, conned, gulled & etc.'
Yikes!! Maybe 100 at best sewer jihadis know who Ron is, despite his efforts at self promotion & to paint a simplistic picture and use only 3 or 5 documents to brush the canvas. But that theory is only part of the story. There were two years of open meetings and committee meetings leading up to the 2001 assessment. They confirm the rationale, however flawed, and that a public process was followed, including an EIR that was not challenged. How come Ron didn't file a challenge to the EIR????
'Once a community finally gets the correct information to figure that out, they have two choices: Do nothing and live with (and pay for) the lie; change directions and live with (and pay for) the truth.'
Lie vs. truth? Barf! Good vs. Bad? Double-Barf! Pandora vs. Gail!! I'm agonna throw up.
What correct information was that, Ann in Wonderland?? We have a plan? Zilch. No plan. Talk about a lie. So the choice was a liars poker game presented by none other than Ann in Wonderland. The choice was
A) to live with a project that had changed after deceptive electioneering on a incomplete hatched plan or
B) No plan (not MTS but vapor-ware). To help Ron in his snoozie of a book maybe Ann in Wonderland can post plan B (ya know, the Los Osos plan that lives by Ann's rules of no regulation and Money for Nothing, and puts a competent GM and attorney in the closest to set the stage for spending gobs of SRF money (and also why would anyone spend SRF money if they thought the loan was illegal in the first place?) on a new GM and new attorneys). Ann in Wonderland insults the intelligence of half of Los Osos because the recall & Measure B was also about killing or stalling a project as well. After all, it is there in the public record that there was no plan and from the proponents who have stated over and over that Los Osos doesn't need a stinkin' sewer or doesn't pollute or doesn't pollute that bad (the last one is Ann's own opinion, one can read it over & over in numerous Ann in Wonderland columns).
Conclusion: Ann in Wonderland or is deceptive or dishonist.
Ann,
If you're telling me that I wanted to live with the lie of TriW ... and I was fully aware that moving to another site would cost more money ... how do you describe the folks who voted for Measures B, C, D and E because they wanted a cheaper sewer? "Lied to" by folks who promised better and cheaper. Perhaps it is you who would rather live with a lie.
Don't you think that the recall would have had a different outcome if John, Steve and Chuck promised to go some $40M into debt and to lose control of the project in their attempt to move the site? We all know they were advocating moving the sewer, but no one should suggest that their promise to lower our bills had no effect. That would be like saying the Solutions Group promise of $38.75 had no effect...
Simply put, the situation is not as simple as you are saying and it unfortunate that many have downplayed or ignored the costs of moving the sewer (perhaps by saying "we don't really know the cost yet").
Conspiracy Boy,
I was 2/3 of the way through a reply to you last night when my computer crashed and this morning I completely overlooked that I hadn't sent the reply to you earlier.
I would be very quick to agree that your assessment of the situation in the 8:54pm message of Aug 18 is quite reasonable ... but I am unsure that Gail wants gravity ... I don't think she cares.
Here's another rather reasonable assessment that I've heard ... Gail wants to be kingmaker at all costs, Julie wants to be king at all costs and the other players (Lisa, Steve, etc.) are either duped or going to gain something from some development (like a strip Mall at TriW, some condos at the end of Palisades, some additional homes out near Clark Valley Road).
I won't fully agree with that assessment, but it would be fair play to bring that up when so many folks have been so quick to discuss even more poorly founded theories of ill-motives of the Solutions Group members and Dreamers.
Oh ... I didn't even notice that you had been gone, but I certainly am glad you're back. Where did you go?
SharkInlet:
Gail doesn't want gravity? Oh brother have I got news for you!
I've heard from more than a few people that Gail is the one who brought Julie Biggs in. Julie Biggs brought Atty. McClendon in. Biggs brought in Wildan (they sucked all the money out of the CSD so they could never do a project.)Measure B was written at her house. McClendon's meetings at her house.
And why do you think that Gail (and Julie) didn't have a plan, remember that $100. a month plan? There was no plan.
Also, Robin (developer girl/Blakeslee girl) has her name on the deed at Gail's house. Hmmmm.
And Joey, didn't he stay at Gail's in the beginning -- using her address to vote? There's a lot of Orange County developer connections.
Besides, doesn't Gail want to run the big regional plant -- or at least have family member(s) do it? They wouldn't have a big fat salaried job with a step system.
Gail talks out of both sides of her mouth remember?
She had to look like she was in favor of step to be able to run the opposition. She doesn't even like those people. She doesn't live in the PZ and has nothing to lose. Why would someone work so very hard 24/7 if there wasn't something in it for her? Oh, there's something in it for her alright.
What a soap opera and fun connecting all the dots!
P.S. Went up to S.F. for a few days and always good to get "sewer off brain." Are you from NE by any chance?
Wasn't Gail's son-in-law punished also for the deception? Once you've trashed your reputation in the sewer world, I heard you'd be unemployable in that field. I'm sure there is something big in it for Gail, i'm just not sure that is it. Does she hold some other property under someone elses's name that could be developed once the sewer is in and the water situation is figured out? Lotta bucks there. Or is her whole schtick just revenge against the Water Board - that plus her immediate reward of being "in the news" (the effluent-tinted spotlight in this case).
CB, you don't know what you are talking about... Gail never met Julie Biggs before the recall started... in fact noone "brought her in".
Julie Biggs vacations regularly in Morro Bay with her husband and happened upon the recall campaign and the dreamers tabling in front of Ralphs one weekend. She and her husband are political junkies and spoke to both groups... it didnt take her long to see that the dreamer's were full of crap.
SHE volunteered to help... no one brought her in.
Measure B was NOT written at Gail's house. Julie Biggs wrote Measure B from her house in Southern California.
Ah Steve, you one funny guy. "We've got a plan. We're ready to go. $100.00 a month. You'll never get fined. The water board doesn't have the guts to issue CDO's. Trust us. Trust us."
How's your CSD working out? How are their financials looking? What's that you say, bankrupt?
Yep, them dreamers sure were full of crap.
You're a funny guy.
Conspiracy Boy,
I'm not saying that Gail doesn't prefer gravity to STEP ... just that she hasn't said or done the sorts of things which would allow us to conclude she does.
As for as Julie Biggs and her motivations ... it would seem that it is difficult to know exactly her motivations when she also got paid (a buttload double plus) for the work she did for Al and CCLO.
As for Steve's suggestion that Biggs got involved because of meeting folks stationed at tables around town ... if she volunteered to help ... why did she end up charging us for it? It would seem that some in the LOCSD wanted her as chief counsel and they were willing to pay a price (the settlement of those lawsuits) to get her so they hired McClendon as an intermediary to smooth the transition.
SF is always a fun place to visit ... last time we were up there we went to the Exploratorium and had a blast. I also like the food in the Richmond neighborhood and the Toronodo pub (although not everyone like Belgian beer and LOUD music together). Nope, I'm not from NE (New England, I presume ) I grew up in Santa Barbara before living in LA, the Bay Area, Virginia and Los Osos. Where are you from?
Steve:
You don't have a clue.
Measure B was written (in part anyway) at Gail's house with Lisa and others.
Aren't YOU the one who said that Gail built a sewer?
If you really think Julie Biggs just happened to be in Los Osos and just happened to run into Al and just happened to want to work pro-bono....boy, are you "out to lunch".
Julie Biggs works for developers and government. She forms cities. She didn't come here to work pro-bono - OBVIOUSLY!
What kind of lawyer would spend the SRF money to settle with herself?
What kind of lawyer would write Measure B, make huge mistakes, and then blame the mistakes on Al Barrow?
I'm still waiting to hear where Gail's sewer is.
Are you Steve Sawyer -- the guy who thinks that Gail is his mom?
Area 51:
Sounds like Steve may be Franc from the Tribune...defending his CSD and Gail. Oh boy!
Sharky said... "Biggs got involved because of meeting folks stationed at tables around town ... if she volunteered to help ... why did she end up charging us for it?"
Biggs volunteered to WRITE Measure B... and to my knowledge never got paid for that... SHOW me otherwise if you allege this to be untrue.
Who would have known that the recalled LOCSD would challenge the VOTE of Measure B??
If they would have allowed the VOTE to go forward and THEN challenged the measure itself -- NOT whether it should appear on the ballot, which is what the suit was about -- then there never would have been a challenge because the post recall board never would've filed that suit... and there never would've been a settlement... Biggs would've got nothing in regards to Measure B.
But that didnt happen... and we all know the rest of the story.
"Steve Sawyer", "Franc from the Tribune"... keep guessing...
It's funny anons trying to figure out who I am...
Yup, Measure B was ruled invalid!
A poorly written measure and waste of taxpayers money!
Conspiracy Boy... that is a perfect name for you...
A lawyer on vacation on the Central Coast... who woulda thunk it??
What "huge" mistakes did she make on Measure B... as far as I know, Measure B is still in effect.
Sure there are some things in the measure I would've written different, but it served its purpose.
The biggest mistake in the Measure B saga was trying to keep it off the ballot... it was a major blunder... and a major failure...
Whatever the outcome of whatever legal action Taxpayer Watch brings in regard to Measure B, IT APPEARED ON THE BALLOT... and because of that HUGE failure of the original LOCSD... it cost us dearly...
But in the big picture of what the original LOCSD cost us... that mistake doesnt even make the top 10.
Steve:
Still waiting for you to tell us where the sewer is that Gail did...
Steve said:
"Biggs volunteered to WRITE Measure B... and to my knowledge never got paid for that... SHOW me otherwise if you allege this to be untrue."
Gee, the Grand Jury in 2006 thought that the payment to Biggs was not only made but made in such an odd fashion as to call for an investigation. Does that count as proof?
Gee Steve (…as far as I know, Measure B is still in effect). You are batting zero. Measure B is NOT in effect, but the CSD is wasting more of our nonexistent money to challenging that it should be in effect. Guess Gail doesn't think much of it either, or she never would have brought in Pio Lombardo with his idea of 10 acres of little sewers spread all over the town. (You can't do this with gravity, hence Gail must favor step. Unless of course gravity is chosen and then she will rewrite history to say that she was for gravity all along.)
Inlet sez:"If you're telling me that I wanted to live with the lie of TriW ... and I was fully aware that moving to another site would cost more money ... how do you describe the folks who voted for Measures B, C, D and E because they wanted a cheaper sewer? "Lied to" by folks who promised better and cheaper. Perhaps it is you who would rather live with a lie."
The TAC report would suggest otherwise. And it remains to be seen what value engineering and competitive bidding that Paavo's promising does to the price of whatever project is selected as well.
Steve sez:"If they would have allowed the VOTE to go forward and THEN challenged the measure itself -- NOT whether it should appear on the ballot, which is what the suit was about -- then there never would have been a challenge because the post recall board never would've filed that suit... and there never would've been a settlement... Biggs would've got nothing in regards to Measure B.
But that didnt happen... and we all know the rest of the story."
Yep, and if McClendon's correct, the settlement was set by a court formula, was a heavy, heavy penalty because the courts really frown on blocking elections, so the decision the [new] CSD had to make was this: Settle at a lower cost or keep going ahead and lose (tradition and previous court rulings indicated an ultimate loss because . . courts really frown on blocking elections ...) and pay out a much, much higher, judge-set formula payment. That huge chunk, caused because the recalled CSD majority challenged the vote )not merely the initiative once it had been voted on) in court, thereby helping to set into motion the cascading costs that helped drive the CSD into bankruptcy. (which, since the recalled three were also interested and involved in the LAFCO dissolution was just one more stake through the heart of a body they no longer ruled and so would do anything they could to see die. It was, indeed, Medean to the teeth!
Ann,
Thank you for pointing out something that I wrote that was unclear.
Yes, according to the TAC report, TriW, as (over) bid by contractors (when the LOCSD was taking bids) is more expensive than the hypothetical STEP/biolac/Giacomazzi combination without an identified way of recharging the aquifers.
Even if a direct comparison of these two projects was fair and even if the hypothetical STEP/biolac/Giacomazzi plant is designed, permitted and constructed on time so we don't have to deal with additional inflation and even if we start with the hypothetical lower end of the cost of this project, there is still the issue of the debt of the LOCSD that essentially makes this new "cheaper" project more expensive than TriW was going to be.
Yes, I still am optimistic about STEP/biolac/Giacomazzi and think it may very well be the best choice to date, but it will be good to wait until some more final numbers come in before we jump on the bandwagon.
I would also want to point out that McClendon's legal advice was based on his experience with a WalMart case which was different from the LOCSD situation in significant ways. It would have been good to request another legal opinion before settling ... unless we settled just so that we could hire BWS. I would also want to toss out there again (even though Ann disagrees ... it is not true that courts universally frown on stopping citizen referenda when the measures are unconstitutional at face value) it was not a sure thing that the LOCSD would have lost the appeal and thus been doomed to pay. Assuming so would be convenient for those wanting to hire BWS.
Ann,
One other thing ... the lie behind measures C, D and E was "$100/month." Has that $100/month plan come to pass? Even two years of inflation on that $100/month, the recall candidates plan would have been maybe $130 at most and yet the County is telling us that the best we'll be able to do is $140 ... and that's an optimistic scenario.
Don't you think that promising folks $100/month was misleading and don't you think that those overly optimistic numbers influenced even a few percent of the votes?
I have trouble believing those promises had no impact on the election when you consider that the cost of the project seems to be one of the driving forces behind many people's opinions, pro or con.
Area 51 wrote:
"Crawford I understand, he, as we all know, doesn't live here and gets his jollies from agitating and watching us homeowners in the PZ struggle with our investments."
According to the latest TAC reports, a sewer plant out of town is going to save you a lot of money per month. You mean, "struggles" like that?
C. Cat wrote:
"Maybe 100 at best sewer jihadis know who Ron is"
.. and then wrote:
"How come Ron didn't file a challenge to the EIR????"
If less than 100 people know who I am, then what difference would that have made?
Anywhoot... first, I wouldn't have challenged it, I would have just reported on the fact that the entire environmental review process had to be overridden in order to get that document certified. And the reason I didn't report on it? Well, the answer to that question is kind of interesting.
You know who you can blame for that? And hate to say this, because he died a couple years back, and I always liked him, but it's 100-percent true -- ol' Steve Moss, New Times founder.
After my first New Times cover story in 2000, where I showed that the ponding project that was responsible for getting the LOCSD formed in the first place was going down the drain, I received my check for that complex, investigative story from New Times... $120.00. The moment I opened that envelop was the same moment my freelance journalism career came to an end. And the check wasn't even signed, so I had to make an extra trip down to the NT office just to get it signed so I could cash it.
So, from 2000 - 2004, you guys were pretty much on your own. Investigative journalism is hard, and if you do it, you're going to have to put up with a bunch of a-holes hell bent on discrediting the messenger -- a key component of all behavior-based marketing campaigns, so, sorry, but $120.00 doesn't come close to cutting it.
You know what got me back into it with Three Blocks in 2004? Two things: The Tribune, and my conscience. The Trib's reporting during all that time was flat-out awful. (Still is.) If they had done the slightest bit of follow-up to my first NT story, trust me, NONE of us would be here right now, because "bait and switchy" would have been caught at the "bait" stage, and not at the "switchy" stage, as when I caught it in Three Blocks.
I kept reading the Trib during all that time, and I kept seeing how badly they were missing the story (still are), until I finally had to say to myself, "Look, even though the pay is next to nothing, I HAVE to write that story because 1) the Trib never will because their reporting is terrible, and if I don't, I'm going to regret it for the rest of my life, and that's not how I'm wired. I don't care if 20 people read it, at least I'll go through life not having that regret. Very, very, very sweet. I'm SO glad I did it... you have no idea.
"Maybe 100 at best sewer jihadis know who Ron is"
Then they must be a pretty influential 100, because the make-up of the LOCSD Board and the direction of Los Osos pre-Three Blocks/SewerWatch was DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT than the make-up of the LOCSD Board and direction of Los Osos post-Three Blocks/SewerWatch.
To really see that, you have to have lived in Los Osos since at least 2000. I mean, those early CSD Boards were just sailing along, despite all of their sneakiness, because they controlled the message 100-percent. Not only did Nash-Karner have HER behavior-based marketing (BBM) machine cranked up to 11, but, in case you haven't noticed, she's also on a first-name basis with every influential media person that has anything to do with Los Osos. Just ask Dave Congalton or Bill Morem or King Harris or Tony Prado or Dean Sullivan or...
The only, and I mean THE ONLY, time her BBM machine was countered was with my two NT stories, and then my blog. And look what happened. You ended up saving a lot of money and you won't have a sewer plant in the middle of your beautiful coastal community for no reason whatsoever?
So, what's the problem? Why the hate? I don't get it. It doesn't make any sense. Uummmm... you're welcome, I guess???
Hi Ann,
YOUR WROTE: “the settlement was set by a court formula, was a heavy, heavy penalty because the courts really frown on blocking elections, so the decision the [new] CSD had to make was this: Settle at a lower cost or keep going ahead and lose (tradition and previous court rulings indicated an ultimate loss because . . courts really frown on blocking elections ...) and pay out a much, much higher, judge-set formula payment.”
RESPONSE:
I agree that attorney fees may be awarded by the courts to a lawsuit’s winning attorney after a court trial.
However, in this case Ms. Biggs did not win in court. After the recall, Biggs and the new CSD Board never went to court to adjudicate their own (the CCLO) appeal. If the new CSD did not go to court, there was not a winning judgment on Measure B for the new CSD board or Biggs.
Without a court win, Ms. Biggs is not entitled to an award. The only ‘win’ she had was the win in the general elections in which the political direction the CSD changed. This political ‘win’ does not constitute a win in court; therefore Ms Biggs was not entitled to an award. Sadly, the ‘award’ was determined by Bigg’s own law firm (BW&S), not the courts. In essence, Biggs settled with herself to be awarded attorney fees for a lawsuit that she lost. This is why the Attorney General is suing Biggs to disgorge the award.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Ron,
You wrote "According to the latest TAC reports, a sewer plant out of town is going to save you a lot of money per month."
What is funny is it is only shortly after my own comments which I presume you hadn't read first ... because had you read them you would realize that we're not going to save any money compared to the LOCSD version of TriW ... the various debts of the LOCSD are going to more than wipe out any savings, even if savings do exist.
Perhaps you ought to read the TAC report more carefully with an eye to finances and engineering. I know that these are not your strong suit so perhaps you've overlooked those sections. However, if you don't understand those things, you should probably be more hesitant to make statements about how we're going to save money ... at this stage, no one knows this for sure, not even those with a financial and engineering background appropriate to understand such statements. While I know you are underpaid for your investigative reporting and because of that you may be reluctant ... but if you call Paavo and Waddell you might find out that there are no guaranteed savings.
What they did say is that if TriW starts back up in 2009 or the hypothetical best-case out-of-town plant and best-case collection system face no permitting delays and construction starts in 2010 ... then TriW would likely be more expensive.
From what I've read, I agree.
However, by comparison to the LOCSD TriW ... which had already started construction ... it is unclear whether the out-of-town plant (now likely our best option) will be less expensive ... inflation and especially debts will cause our bills to be higher than whatever Richard and krewe were going to give us.
Now some will do a "yippy-skippy" dance if we get STEP and they will declare a victory. Others will shout "hallelujah" because the plant will be out of town and they will declare a victory. The wealthy among us won't care a whole lot and will be glad the situation has resolved itself. The rest of us? Most of us will be angry with both CSD boards because of choices they both made which have made our costs higher and our lives worse.
Is it a victory to get a new location and STEP? Some would say "yes" but many will be annoyed that we have to pay more every month just to have an out-of-town plant.
That being said ... thanks for your investigative journalism. Will your next story be on the flawed decisions of the 2nd LOCSD board? I am still convinced they could have achieved their goals had they just played their cards right and been honest with us from the start. I would want to learn why the made those silly choices. Are you game?
Ron, you said:
"The only, and I mean THE ONLY, time her BBM machine was countered was with my two NT stories, and then my blog. And look what happened."
You mean we get to blame the resulting mess on you?
Ann said:
"That huge chunk (of money), caused because the recalled CSD majority challenged the vote )not merely the initiative once it had been voted on) in court, thereby helping to set into motion the cascading costs that helped drive the CSD into bankruptcy."
So now that you see that it wasn't money the Court decided needed to be paid by the CSD as no lawsuit was won, but money Mrs. Biggs wanted to be paid, do you see that event helped set into motion the cascading costs that helped drive the CSD into bankruptcy?
Hi All,
Regarding project costs, time will tell just how expensive it will be.
While the County has been doing a great job reviewing potential projects, remember that they are at the 'conceptual phase' for all projects except Tri-W.
What does this mean?
Well, for one is at this stage of cost estimating Tri-W will naturally be the most expensive project option for Tri-W is the only project being reviewed that has actual construction cost bids and is completely understood down to the last nut and bolt.
Tri-W costs are very well know and solid.
In comparison, the alternate projects being reviewed by the County are CONCEPTUAL. No construction documentation exists that describe quantities of materials, the mechanical systems required; nor has there yet been any input from the regulating agencies that will undoubtedly add requirements (with additional costs) to a new project. All these unknowns result in cost estimates that are just a rough guestimate of costs. Normal industry standards regarding the accuracy costs of a project at the CONCEPTUAL phase are given with an accuracy of +/-50% . Imagine if the alternative project costs given to date by the County are, say, 25% too low? Hmmm.
We can all expect that as the County further develops the project alternatives that the true costs will become known and INCREASE . Until the alternative projects are better defined, we will not know which project is really ‘less expensive.’
As I wrote earlier, time will tell.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Sharky... "Don't you think that promising folks $100/month was misleading and don't you think that those overly optimistic numbers influenced even a few percent of the votes?"
For every percent of the vote influenced by the recall campaign... there were 2% of the vote that believed the sewer was underground... or that it would not stink... or that Tri-W was the only feasable location... or that the SRF loan was legal... or that Richard was competent... or that Gordan was trustworthy... or that Stan wasn't a liar... or that Buel wasnt making bad fiscal decisions to move the project forward at any cost... or that you cant cross a creek with aa sewer main... or... or... or...
If you want to trade vote for vote based on campaign promises I think I have you beat by a long shot.
Don't forget to throw renters (and carpetbaggers)into the recall tally Big Steve. With the 218, we'll have a true snapshot of the only people who count: those of us responsible for shouldering the financial burden of the sewer. If the 218 passes, and my guess is it will, I'll come away thinking the recall never would have passed if only those who had a financial stake were allowed to vote.
And sorry, the fear of having your rent increase by $50.00 a month doesn't compare with the fear of losing you lifetime investment worth 100's of thousands of dollars. Not even close.
Steve,
You did not supply fact to support your position regarding the state of the CSD staff, board or project prior to the recall. Without fact, your comments are opinion.
Your opinion does not change the hard fact that Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John (and Gail) promised that they had a out-of-district WWTF plan that was ready to go, would not slow down the process, would not result in fines, would not result in the loss of the SRF loan, and would cost $100 per month. That was the campaign platform that they sold to the voting public. Shark inlet is correct to point out that their untrue comments swayed more than a few percent of the vote.
But this issue is old news of little importance. The only focus now is to build a WWTF ASAP through the County process.
After the WWTF is built, we can all focus on reviewing the project history, those responsible for LOCSD's $40M debt along with a means to recover (on behalf of the Los Osos property owner) the debt that the LOCSD has incurred.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Ann, Ron and Steve;
"...Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John (and Gail) promised that they had a out-of-district WWTF plan that was ready to go, would not slow down the process, would not result in fines, would not result in the loss of the SRF loan, and would cost $100 per month. That was the campaign platform that they sold to the voting public."
This is at the heart of what Sharkinlet has asked Ron to speak to this in his investigative journalism. So where is any response? That summary was not just an idle comment!
And if you have the courage to respond, please don't patronize with some "that was just election campaigning and no one was expected to really believe it" excuse.
That's a good point, Mike ... if Ron is going to hold the Solutions Group to their promise of $38.75/month it would seem that he would feel some sort of obligation to hold the recall boardmembers to their promise of $100/month. If we flip that around a bit ... if Ron isn't willing to hold Chuck to his "$100/month" "ready to go" plan ... er ... lie ... he shouldn't feel comfortable saying anything about the Solutions Group's "better, faster, cheaper".
In any case, the silence on the question is troubling from folks who are members of the media, whether they be investigative journalists or opinion writers.
Perhaps Mr.Crawford is following in the ink splots of Jayson Blair and consulting with Dr.Hwang Woo Suk?
Because I needed to look up these familiar sounding names just to remember who they were...
Links are Jayson Blair and Hwang Woo-Suk.
Probably those are unfair because Ron doesn't invent stuff ... he just tends to quick to trust his initial "take" on the story and he seems uninterested or unwilling to probe any aspect of the story that doesn't support his preconceptions.
That's entirely different.
I would think that Ron, however, might feel comfortable calling folks KKKarl Rove, trying to imply that they are intentionally spinning facts. My question is this ... is intentional spin any better or even any different from a choice to focus only on facts which support your own opinion?
Unfair? Hardly! Ron not only is too quick to judge and does not go beyond surface, but he is more than willing to create sensationalism to justify his surface "take" on the various actions taken by many good folks in this community. He has thrown too many under the bus.
Ann has taken sensationalism to describing anything she doesn't agree with as leading to a train wreck while not seeing that the previous crew got off 3 stations ago and the coming wreck is completly in the hands of the current crew.
Steve on the other hand is a member of that crew and will be whistling kumbaya all the way to the bottom of the gorge. He is right there with Jayson Blair in writing accuracy!
Mike,
In keeping with your metaphor, while Stan, Richard and Gordon got off the train some three stations back and were replaced by the rookie crew of John, Steve and Chuck ... Ann would argue that the crew that got off the train overloaded it and that the new crew were not responsible for what happened to the train they were running because of the heavy load.
Ah, but the "heavy load" was driven by the experienced engineers of Lisa and Julie who told all around the community that they had it all under control and had a plan to proceed on down the track! Maybe they should have looked down the tracks before cranking up the steam?
Richard:
This is the first time I'm in agreement with you.
You said: "Sadly, the ‘award’ was determined by Bigg’s own law firm (BW&S), not the courts. In essence, Biggs settled with herself to be awarded attorney fees for a lawsuit that she lost. This is why the Attorney General is suing Biggs..."
Is that why Steve Onstot left the firm suddenly without having another job to go to?
SharkInlet was right. She settled with herself so she could then become legal counsel for the new CSD.
Don't YOU think Biggs is working for Jeff & Julie for the big pipes out of town? Afterall, she did leave out the collection part on Measure B and did write that the sewer had been dealt with at a reasonable cost...What do you think?!
Scanning back over Ann's columns, I noticed this:
"The PZLDF case will be heard Tuesday, August 22 in Dept 2 of the SLO courthouse on Monterey St starting at 9 a.m. (The various demurrers & etc. were filed a few days ago) The judge will be asked to rule on a variety of procedural and legal issues regarding the “hows” and “whats” of the CDO’s and CAO’s. The outcome of the hearing will affect the entire community, one way or the other."
That's tomorrow. The outcome will affect - DAMN! I don't support this useless exercise and waster of CSD money AT ALL. I live in the PZ. I DO NOT want anything to do with this case. Who gave Gail permission to do something that will affect the entire community - or specifically me?
ALSO, I sure would hope that anyone actually LISTED on this lawsuit would not have the nerve to protest the 218 vote as being unfair because the voting results are available to the public by a public records request. I think it is clear where these people stand regarding the Water Board. As to whether or not they vote no on the 218 - who cares? They are Water Board toast already. I WANT the Water Board to see I voted yes, even if that vote cannot save me from being toast too, should the 218 fail. I am polluting, and am frustrated that I can do relatively little about it. The 218 cannot come soon enough for me.
'toons wrote:
Ron, you said:
"The only, and I mean THE ONLY, time her BBM machine was countered was with my two NT stories, and then my blog. And look what happened."
You mean we get to blame the resulting mess on you?
Well, I guess that would be one way to look at it. Blame the guy that REPORTED on "bait and switchy."
Another way to look at it would be to blame the people that actually DID the "bait and switchy."
Your choice.
Ron,
You forget (or pretend that it isn't so that) the bait-n-switchy comment was over park components being removed by the LOCSD as a cost-savings measure in response to CCLO complaints about the cost. The CCC staff agreed with the removal of those limited park components ... but then when CCLO complained that the park stuff was gone ... Potter took the bait. If he was up to speed on the issue or if he wasn't so quickly swayed by the roomful of zealots complaining that the LOCSD had done exactly what they had asked the LOCSD to do (remove the expensive portions of the park), he never would have used the phrase.
The bait-n-switchy wasn't either bait or switchy. If you want to talk about saying one thing and then doing another you might want to probe the whole "we have a plan", "ready to go" and "$100/month" promises of the recall candidates.
All the best to you ...
Ron,
You have omitted the fact that the maker of the 'bait and switchy'comment, commissioner Potter, VOTED YES TO ISSUE THE CDP after CC staff explained to him the park situation (as clearly explained by Shark inlet in the above blog).
Regards, Richard LeGros
So we have Mr.Crawford continueing to use the bait and switch thing even though it was taken out of context and even after CC review, which never was the cause celeb??
Just more hypersensationalism over nothing??
How about Mr.Crawford actually doing a piece of investigative journalism on the the "...whole "we have a plan", "ready to go" and "$100/month" promises of the recall candidates"????????????
Richard -
I just love how Ron continues to sink his teeth into ONE comment, made by ONE commissioner, who (as you pointed out) subsequently voted to issue the CDP.
Out of the thousands of "official" comments made on a complex project that passed EVERY legal challenge it faced prior to its approval - this is the comment he focuses on because it conveniently feeds his "Pandora is the Devil" obsession every time he uses it.
YAWN.....get a life, Ron.
Post a Comment