Pages

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Awww, Gaaawwd, Would Somebody Please, Pluueeeeze Stop Giving The Regional Water Quality Control Board Embarrassing Pills?

So I can’t get away from work in time to see the opening County sewer update presentation before the Regional Board on Friday, but did hear that, as promised, Supervisor Gibson did indeed ask that the Board give consideration to rescinding the CDOs on The Los Osos 45 so as to remove any taint of electioneering and coercion.

By the time I got there, public comment had started and speaker after speaker got up to point out their concern over electioneering and coercion with only some of the community singled out for prosecution while others don’t face that threat. Indeed, one CDO recipient noted that she was forced to vote Yes on the 218 because of that CDO and even used the analogy of having a knife at her throat.

And then CSD Director, Julie Tacker, got up to describe how, in the previous assessment vote, someone had gone in and looked at her ballot (they’re all public documents) and then printed that information in a letter to the editor and she was afraid that the same thing would happen here.

[Trust me, it will. An anonymous poster on this blog has already stated that she/he intends to do just that regarding my vote, while her/his vote remains hidden and unknown. I’m sure other anonymous blog posters will do the same, thinking that such postings will embarrass or injure whoever they wish to “get” in some way.

If the Board wants to see Truly Ugly On A Stick, they only need to read some of the anonymous posters on this and other various blogsites before professing shock that anyone would care who voted which way, and then dismiss a genuine fear many in this community have that will intimidate them into NOT voting at all, thereby tainting the process and calling the vote’s outcome into question.]

In addition, Tacker said she was also concerned that the Board would use those ballots to single out and selectively prosecute people based on their vote, and so she wanted the Board members to give the community assurances that the Board wouldn’t look at those ballots or use them for any kind of selective prosecution.

And then the various board members went to great lengths to explain that they were shocked – SHOCKED – that anyone would think, even for a nanosecond, that they would ever, EVER, use selective enforcement, that their policy is to treat everyone in Los Osos equally and that any enforcement would be placed on everybody equally, totally forgetting that they had already singled out for selective enforcement, The Los Osos 45.

Awwww, Gaawwdd, did these people take Stupid Pills? Do they not listen to what they’re saying? Maybe they’re suffering a weird bout of amnesia, an especially troubling possibility since many of the people making public comment identified themselves as being Selectively Enforced CDO Recipient Number such and such?

So then the Board started huffing and hemming as to how voters should not think for a moment that electioneering was going on or voter coercion since the Board had already indicated that they were not going to take any action on the selectively enforced CDOs already issued, but they would consider maybe setting up an agenda item to discuss maybe officially putting those selectively enforced CDOs on the agenda for a hearing, but because Chairman Young and the board failed to even consider doing that months ago – thereby making sure it was too late to be considered at yesterday’s hearing – a truly careless piece of indifference since yesterday would have been the perfect time for the Board to rescind those selectively enforced CDOs and thereby generate huge headlines just as the 218 ballots were hitting the mailboxes of the residents.

But, noooooo, they couldn’t be bothered. So they futzed around for a while and first thought to agendize the item for their next meeting, which would have been October 19th, totally OBLIVIOUS that the point of rescinding the CDOs was to level the playing field for all voters BEFORE the vote becomes history on October 23 (when the ballots are due) Then they yakked about maybe agendizing it for December, again OBLIVIOUS that the 218 vote would be history come October 23.

In short, they blew any chance to eliminate a possible stumbling block on this vote. That’s how “concerned” they are about leaving the door wide open for potential lawsuits on electioneering and voter coercion. (And remember, a lesson already learned by Los Ososians and apparently completely missed by the Board: You don’t have to win lawsuits, you only have to file them to end up with delays. So, Why would this Board even want to leave so much as a toehold for a possible delay, when they had, at their feet, headlines that money can’t buy, headlines that would have taken a huge gust of wind out of any of the anti-218’s sails? Tin ear? Sheer incompetence? Cluelessness so complete that it doesn’t even come close to the definition of Permanently Out To Lunch? Whaaat?)

But while they were discussing that agenda item, the one to consider rescinding CDO’s even though they had completely blown the point of the item in the first place, Harvey Packard semaphored the board and hopped up to start in, Umm, Uhhh, Awwww, Gaawwwd, if we’re holding public hearings on CDOs, uh, what should we do with the CAOs? And what about all those OLD CDO’s ones given out years ago, does that open the hearing up to those? (Old CDO’s? What are those about? More selective enforcement? ) And what about settlement agreements (oh, like somebody with a settlement agreement is gonna come in and say, OH, NO, don’t remove those $5,000-a- day fines from my property, puullleeze don’t?) and aawww, gawwwd, if it covers all CDOs do we even know how many old cans that’s gonna open up and jeeeezzze gaawwdd, who knows how many worms are going to crawl out, awwwww, uuuhhhh, ummmmm . . . . until a legal beagle piped up that, Naw, it was O.K. to have a hearing but just discuss selective CDO’s, while keeping the others buried, deep, deep, with all the other mismanaged, decades-long bungles that makes anyone watching this Board keep asking, WHO’S GIVING THESE GUYS EMBARRASSING PILLS, ANYWAY?

We are warned that there are two things we should never see being made: sausages and law. To that I would add, Watching the tin-eared, tangle-footed, clueless, embarrassing Regional Water Quality Control Board at work.

Awww, Gaawwwd, indeed.

And Speaking of Embarrassing

Friend called to say , Did I notice that my assessment ballot had two peel’n’stick labels on it and two post-marks and underneath the top peel’n’stick label is a label with somebody else’s name and address but maybe your assessment number on it? She then asked me, Uh, do you know what’s going on here?

Beats me. I tossed the envelopes on the desk and haven’t had a chance to look at them yet.

Paavo?

Also of note:

Harvey Packard, RWQCB staff personage, did note that Mr. Murphy & Mr. Low’s Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc “Reclamator,” (noted in a previous posting) would have their test documents checked and verified, would have their system and proposal included in the CEQA and “due diligence” phase by the County, (if they’re still interested in same) but Packard wanted to let the citizens of Los Osos know that any claims that the AES Reclamator doesn’t produce wastewater are false. Whatever it produces is considered Wastewater, according to Mr. Packard.

Thus we have, as predicted, Dueling Definitions, one of the problems created when the RWQCB came up with their demand for “Zero Discharge” (whatever that means.)

In Closing:

Have a nice weekend. If you have a dog, the El Chorro Regional Park’s Off Leash Dog Park is having their annual Canine Capers, Saturday, Sept 7, from 10 a.m. – 2 p.m, which is a fund-raiser for maintaining the park [full disclosure, I’m on the board of SLO-4-PUPs, the group that created and maintains the dog park, the very first (and best?) one in SLO County, brag, brag.] There’ll be a Canine Good Citizen Test offered, low cost micro-chipping and Rabies shots, demonstration, information booths, games, silly dog tricks, prizes and munchies and fun. So grab your pooch and come out for some non-sewer fun.

87 comments:

TCG said...

Thanks for the recap, Ann.

I heard that if anyone requests the ballot information from the County Clerk during or after the Prop 218 voting process, they have to register to get it. If so, it will be very easy to verify that the Regional Board staff stayed away, as their Board said they expect them to. Based on this, I'm tired of hearing about this latest excuse by some of the people to not have to make a long overdue decision.

It's down to this: Do the people want a community sewer system, or not? / Do they trust the County to develop and build the project and get the best possible financing, or not? / Or do they prefer to put their faith in the CSD with it's limited resources and lack of expertise, and face whatever the State brings next?

Area51 said...

Ann, I've never understood this about you. You write an opinion piece. You have said this on many, many occasions. And your opinion is very much biased and one-sided. For you to not admit this is ludicrous. So when one writes an opinion piece that is consistently biased and one-sided, one HAS to expect "truely ugly on a stick." It is the very foundation of editorial writing. The very fact that you have chosen sides, constantly ridicule those you don't agree with (ie: RWQCB; the previous CSD board; the county; etc),while ignoring the misdeeds and outright destruction by those you agree with (ie: the current CSD board; Gail McPherson, etc), you inlame those who disagree and you HAVE to expect what you get. Geez, I have to give Ron props here, and the guy drives me nuts, but Ron seems to take pleasure in pissing people off. That's a qualilty I can appreciate in someone who writes an "opinion" piece. If you have an extremely biased and one-sided opinion, be proud of it and shove it down everyone's throat if you have to. But don't complain about the responses you will engender. It's disingenuous, and rather immature.

And here's a bit of advice to rid yourself of the RWQCB; pick up your assessment ballot (when you can find the time), vote yes, and mail it in. Then tell your friends who are busy trying to find a way not to pay for a sewer to do the same thing. Simple as that. You're welcome.

M said...

uh, is this a "community sewer system", or a Prohibition Zone sewer system?
Do I trust the County? I'm not so sure. They issued a thousand permits in defiance of the order by the water board.
The County went ten years after the 1988 prohibition without yet breaking ground.
The County has been defended by those who say that a few No Sewer people has caused all this havoc.
When they finally were about ready to go with a project they readily gave it up to a group with a plan that was already known to not pass muster.
Do I trust the County? I'm not so sure.
Sincerely, M

TCG said...

Responding to m's comments:

Many people in Los Osos think of the CSD not as one continuous body but, rather, as a series of distinct groups of governing boards. Each board had it's own way of doing business. So, just who is the "CSD?" Is it the original Pandora group, the subsequent group that started the sewer project at the Tri-W site, or the current group who may have their heart in the right place but, nevertheless, made specific decisions leading to a bankrupt service district?

I think of the "County" in a similar way. The County governmant of the 1970's and 80's, and the way that they did things then is very different than the County of the past 8-10 years.

The public works people then were very traditional engineering types. The current group is one that seems to understand that it takes not just engineering, but environmental efforts, financing knowledge, and public outreach to develop a major project like our sewer system.

I trust the current "County" and believe that they are the best chance that we have to finally get this done.

Mike said...

Good responses this morning.

I too trust the "current" County.

I totally distrust the "current" LOCSD.

Let's get those Yes ballots back in and support this "current" County!

4crapkiller said...

To Ann BALLOON, who opines lots of air, little substance:

1. I have never, ever heard a constructive idea from YOU on your blog. You are great at nit picking things apart, but you can't put the pieces back together. My criticism of you stands as an "obstructionist" for this reason.

2. The water board reads this blog, at least the staff and county to get an idea of political will. I don't think they pay much attention to your INANE destructive comments, but it in not hard to filter out the common sense from those who write intelligently. The board is composed of reasonable men, their staff the same.

3. This blog and the TT blog is a public forum, and long ago the wheat has been separated from the chaff. I choose to accept Ron's assessment of the hits on this blog, and clearly it is NOT from just those who comment here. This sort of made you proud, but is a double edged sword. The foolishness of your thought process is clear to everyone who employs reason and lives in a real world.

4. If the CCRWQCB is going to treat everyone equally in the PZ, all property owners in the PZ will get CDOs. The CCRWQCB may issue CDOs to everyone if the YES vote fails, RIGHT AFTER THE VOTE has been counted and submitted. They have promised informally to issue CDOs to everyone in the past, and this is the way to get rid of the SELECTIVE argument easily. It is only the timing that is in question.

5. The CCRWQCB struggled with the timing of putting relief on their agenda because of the problem with noticing. If you think they were not aware of the timing of the 218 vote, you missed the early part of the meeting where it was all explained to them. You made a foolish and destructive comment as to the CCRWQCB being "OBLIVIOUS" based upon your ignorance: you were not there.

YOUR conclusion, based upon IGNORANCE (you were not there in the early part of the meeting):

"We are warned that there are two things we should never see being made: sausages and law. To that I would add, Watching the tin-eared, tangle-footed, clueless, embarrassing Regional Water Quality Control Board at work.

Awww, Gaawwwd, indeed."

I do not think that any one in their right mind would come to this conclusion watching the CCRWQCB board members work at this last meeting.

6. The only reason for ME or OTHERS to access the NO voters if the vote fails is to file suit SELECTIVELY for compensation from certain NO or NON voters for the costs of a discharge permit or loss of rent. This assumes that I would be treated equally, and could not receive mitigation for my attempt to comply with the water law.

I would have to pay because of THEIR action. How the courts would rule upon this is uncertain.

The question would be: "If a property owner attempting to comply with the law is prevented to do so by the Public Vote of other property owners, not wishing to comply with the law, and receives fines etc and damages as a result of their actions, is the property owner entitled to compensation from those not wishing to comply with the law?" "Is the damaged property owner able to selectively pick out those with the most assets and ability to pay for damages?"

Surely it will not come to this. Those who wish to comply with the law will vote YES on the assessment and we will do what is right for water and environment. There are far more good people than law breakers. I am reasonably sure you will be on the YES list. The consequences of NO is fraught with uncertainty, but one thing is certain: there will be a stop to the pollution, and there WILL be a sewer, be it from the county, state, or private party.
As Mr. Dooley says: "There are a lot more chains than dogs".

Conspiracy Boy said...

To All:

Trust the county? Yeah, right! Only a moran would.

After all the years of (Los Osos) paying property taxes to allow sewers and roads to be built throughout the county, now the county feels that no county wide taxpayer should help us, OR that the state shouldn't help us (when by law they know the state should,) and only "SELECTIVE" homeowners pay for the most expensive sewer money can buy!

Oh, and the county made it so the PZ is liable for anything and everything. The county is off the hook. Yep, the county has stuck the PZ homeowners with more than it can handle (including the SRF loan's $6.5 million -- paid for by the PZ!) ALL THIS IS ILLEGAL, YET YOU WANT TRUST?

The county has shown how they feel about Los Osos (for the past 30 years) and now some bloggers urge us to trust and to vote ourselves right out of our homes. How nice of you all! Exactly how stupid do you think the people of Los Osos are?

The county clearly knows that everyone benefits, and not everyone is paying. The county clearly knows that we will pay WAY more than $25,000. per home.

It's all a dog n' pony show (paid on our dime,) it's all lies on their part. The county wants us to pay for their developer friends. They are probably seriously considering Regional so that their "friends" can build like crazy not only here, but in Morro Bay, and Cayucos. Yep, let's everyone in the county bring their shit to Los Osos...lovely.

...that's what it's all about my friends!

Out with the homeowners in the PZ -- in with the rich who can afford $500 a month for a sewer and water!!!!!

P.S. Thank you Paavo for sticking with Pandora and group, thank you Sam Blakeslee for making a law to say we're polluting with no proof of any of the individual homes polluting like you said. Oh, and thanks to the county, recalled CSD, RWQCB, and Mr. Blakeslee for allowing your friends in Cabrillo out of it (their septics work fine and their shit doesn't run down hill, it only does on Highland and Mar Vista)...THANK YOU ALL FOR COSTING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THEIR HOMES AND LIFE'S SAVINGS! I'm sure you all sleep well at night too!

Mike said...

CB says: "Trust the county? Yeah, right! Only a moran would."

You may want to check this out:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/n/U/moran.jpg

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Bruce (CB)

You Wrote: "Trust the county? Yeah, right! Only a moran would.
"

Better to be a "moran" than a moron.

Vote Yes on the 218

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Nice to see you yesterday at the RWQCB meeting.

PPS: Thanks for noticing my "new look." LOL

Mike said...

Maybe a "moran" is just another word for Paine.

4crapkiller said...

To CB:

You Do make valid points!

Had the county and water boards followed the Federal law, permits and high density housing would not have been allowed in the PZ. There would HAVE to be a sewer for development because of high ground water areas.

You would be living elsewhere if you could not have afforded the property in the now PZ.

The PZ would look like Carmel, Del Mar, Cabrillo Estates, Cayucos, or Cambria. Check out the price of homes for sale there. Check out what they sold for way back when.

In the meantime, hold your water. Nothing has happened yet, and EVERYTHING is still uncertain.

Just vote YES on the assessment, the LOCSD is in a position to do NOTHING by law at this time. It may even be dissolved by LAFCO LATER as a result of insolvency. No help can come from the outside until we get a project on the table. We surely do not want the help of the state who will surely take the easy road at a much higher cost.

Many communities are in the same boat throughout the nation and cannot afford large complex public works projects, and yet the law requires them to. Our problem is a universal problem, and the cost problem can only be solved through the courts and legislatures. This is widely recognized.

Don't be bitter, reconsider!

Mike Green said...

Richard, You are pretty competent with figures, so can you tell me something?
Since the County (if the vote passes) is funding the system (whatever that turns out to be) with a 218 assessment which I can, if I choose to, pay off entirely.
and cover my on lot expenses at once also.
That only leaves the monthly O&M of about 40/mo. (according to corrected figures in the Triv)
It seems to me that paying up front instead of bi-yearly would save me over 25 thousand dollars in interest accrued for 20 years (life of SRF loan).
I am also assuming that any property that changes title would probably pay the assessment off as part of escrow.
It seems to me that if one could take advantage of this windfall (being able to pay off the debt all at once) that the county taking over the sewer biz is one of the greatest things possible, and that stopping TriW when it happened (although a bit too late) should be applauded.
Did we have that option before? could we have paid off TriW? and only covered O&M?
Or were we locked into paying fees for the entire 20 year span?
I'm sorry if this is a little foggy, maybe I've got it all wrong.

Thanks

Area51 said...

I just sent off my affirmative ballot to the Clerk-Recorder, and though I didn't have any problems with my peel and stick, I did see something that bothered me. On the envelope it says "Do not delay or discard." What?! Who the heck is Julie Rodewald to be telling me not to delay. This can be construed as electioneering I tell ya. And I have to provide the stamps? Why I oughta.......

Paavo?

Embarrassing indeed.

4crapkiller said...

To Mike Green:

The way I understood TRI-W was that it was financed by a low interest loan, interest and amortization paid off monthly in addition to other charges. There was no assessment to be paid off. The original assessment is being paid off. 20+ mil. Added to property taxes. This was not a low interest loan. It was done at prevailing bond rates + underwriting.

Consider this: If you would take $25,000 from your pocket book to pay off a loan at 3%? interest when the same $25,000 could be put in treasury bills, or tax exempts, lets say at 5% or Aaaa corporate bonds at 6%, would you forgo the difference of interest into your pocket? Some people do not like to owe money. There is another thing to consider, and that is inflation. Inevitably, except in periods of deflation, loans get paid off with cheaper dollars.

Just something to consider. I await Richard's comment.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike Green,

A property owner may pay off an assessment any time during the life of an assessment. The sooner you pay the assessment, the less money you will pay. Also, the assessment stays with the property if you sell said property.

The big question is how long you plan to be in the home that has the assessment. If you are in the home for a short period of time (say less than 7 years), paying off the assessment is a questionable strategy (it is doubtful that the cost to pay the assessment would be recovered at the time of sale). If you are in your home for the long term, early payoff would save you a sizable chunk of change...but do not forget that you will be paying the assessment with future money having less value than today's. If you apt for early payoff talk to your investment advisor to make sure that you would not be better off investing the money (to get a higher return) than if you just paid off the assessment.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike Green said...

In any event, the early pay off was NOT available with the funding schedule of the previous TriW project.
This locked in an extra 25K of interest payments regardless, no option.
With the assessment you have an option of early payment and if you are thrifty, stash the extra 180?mo in a interest bearing or profit bearing account. in 20 years you will realize a huge profit.
The county plan still rocks!
Even if it's only 7 years.

FBLeG said...

With the county's assessment, won't we be able to write off the yearly assessment as property taxes on our federal and state income taxes?

On the other hand, the way TriW was originally set up (paying off obligation with monthly sewer bills), we would not be able to write the cost off on our income taxes.

Seems like another plus for the county's method of funding construction.

Steve said...

Mike, fbleg... welcome aboard...

these are all things the LOTTF and Recall committee lobbied for when we testified at the State Water Board in protest to the revenue plan and the issuance of the SRF loan.

Did you also know that the SRF has a program that would have given us somewhere around 75% of the needed funds AT ZERO INTEREST if we could have borrowed the remainder elsewhere??

Too bad Save the Dream wanted everyone to think we were against a sewer of any kind...

How nice would it have been to have a 218 vote on the Tri-W project to realize the early payoff on the high interest money AND get zero interest on the remainder AND get tax savings on BOTH... too bad Richard wasn't listening...

Even I might have considered overlooking the travesty of a center of town site selection had the old board at least had the foresight to fund it properly.

Mike Green said...

Steve, The reason I posed my question was to illustrate the desirability of having the county handle the financing of the project opposed to a local CSD.
To me, this is just another good reason to approve the 218 assessment.
Remember, all versions of the LOCSD failed to get us a 218 vote.
Enough has been said negatively about this process, I wanted to bring up some positive angles.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Guys,

The SRF loan under Tri-W could be paid off any time by the property owner.

Yes on the 218.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike said...

Richard,

Didn't Schicker and Tacker know the terms of the SRF and the financial structure of the project??? It seems they were on the Board and were included in those discussions and decisions.

After the recall, didn't they clearly explain the terms to the community? So why were so many confused as to what the SRF loan was and was not?

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

Folks hear only what thay want to hear...not what has actually been said, explained or illuminated by fact.

As to whether Julie or Lisa understood the terms of the SRF loan, ask them....however I doubt they understood. In their minds, they considered (incorrectly)that the SRF loan was 'illegal'; so why would they bother to understand the terms of the loan?

At this juncture, the community has no other choice than to vote YES on the 218. Today's Editorial in the Tribune pretty much sums up why the 218 must pass.

Regards, Ricgard LeGros

Mike said...

So even though Lisa and Julie went to Sacramento and met with the State Water Board to discuss the SRF, they did not understand the terms of the loan?

They "considered" the loan illegal? Didn't they spend a lot of the Districts funds on lawyers to correct that "misunderstanding"?

Has a court ever heard the case and made a ruling? Was the SRF Loan legal or illegal?

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

The SRF loan is (was) legal. There are no court rulings that say otherwise.

And yes, they spent (and continue to spend)a lot of the taxpayer's (your) money to back up their claims (and have failed).

Do you want that money back and returned to the LOCSD? I do.

Why the recall board desires to have and spend the SRF money, even though they believe the loan to be illegal, is a paradox.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike said...

Will the CSD run out of money to spend?

Mike Green said...

Richard wrote:
" At this juncture, the community has no other choice than to vote YES on the 218. Today's Editorial in the Tribune pretty much sums up why the 218 must pass".
I just gotta do this, seeing as Triv. bashing is one of my favorite pastimes.
Look at the lower left hand corner of the editorial and you will find "What do you think?"
with a link for the online site....
BWA HA HA HA! It aint there, typical incompetent Triv
They will probably get it up sometime next week, long after most folks forget about the article.
(although I agree the 218 needs to pass)

Area51 said...

Mike Green, this is the first time in my memory that the TT didn't have a link online to an article they wrote. Almost every day there is something related to LO in the TT that one can comment on. I'm certainly not a TT apologist, but that's the kind of nit-picking stuff that Ann and the obstructionists engage in, with everyone and everything sewer realted (not just the TT). Except, of course,the current CSD. Nothing is ever questioned there.

It's just all attention-diverting, which I'm sure is a big reason they do it.

Let's get this 218 passed gang.

Mike said...

Yes, the whole purpose for this blog seems to be to make mountains out of mole hills with sensational headlines to divert all attention away from the actions of the CSD!

Thank goodness there are the Sharkinlets and CrapKillers, Insider, Area51, Maria Kelly and Mike Greens who are showing facts and squashing the lies and misconceptions.

Vote Yes and let the County produce the waste water project we need. It sure won't get built by the hyperbole of Ann and Ron.

Mike Green said...

A51, sorry if its nitpicking to you, but I've been generally appalled at the Trivs. coverage since the beginning.
There is just so much history there and so many instances of a "free press" dropping the ball that I just gotta comment.
A factual free press is important, isn't it?

I mean, do you think we would be having a 218 vote today if the Triv had exposed the solution group fiasco sometime in those first two years?
HEADLINE!!! PONDING PLAN FLAMED OUT BEFORE ELECTION! READ CUESTA STUDY AND RWQCB REPORTS!
Nope, never got that one.
Good ol Triv. I promise I will never let them off the hook again!
If that bugs you, I'm sorry.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

The CSD already has run out of money to spend. They are looking for more; and will find it by raising water and garbage rates again and again and again.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike Green,

We all know the Tribune is not the best newspaper in the world.

We all feel that over the last 9 years there have been laspes in the Tribune's coverage of Los Osos events.

However, I do appreciate the coverage it does provide, as well as the Tribune's printing of Letters to the Editor and Viewpoints. As Los Osos has bigger issues other than the lacking editorial excellence of the Tribune, best we all focus on resolving those issues first.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Mike Green said...

Richard, I can't ague with a word you wrote,
Let's just say I want better excellence, and I'm not focusing on their editorial opinions at all, there should have been articles with headlines and facts.
We got nearly squat.
Hold em to a higher standard than blogs, I say.
What say you?

Area51 said...

"A factual free press is important, isn't it?"

Couldn't agree more Mike. But keep in mind everywhere in the good 'ol USA, people complain about their local paper. Sure as the sun comes up.

And I'd be interested in your take on The Rock, a "paper" the equivalent of the National Enquirer. As part of the "free press," aren't they to be held to the same standards? And where is the outrage with their "reporting?" (Which in my opinion has the capability of doing far greater harm to Los Osos than the Trib ever could.)

Michael Jones came to my door Saturday with a "no blank check no on 218" pamphlet to put on my door. I opened the door just as he got there, and much to his credit, he was nice and polite when I told him to take a hike. But I realized he and his cronies are out in force to kill the 218, and we can't rest on our laurels and assume anything. I guess all I'm saying is that this is where our focus needs to be. It has to be. Or we're all in deep shit. Pardon the pun.....

4crapkiller said...

To Mike Green:

Consider this: Our education on all things sewer has increased twenty fold since the early days before the formation of the LOCSD. Just look at the volume of information published by the TAC and county on it's website. Consider that even today there are people who do not understand about nitrates and what is necessary to reduce them to standards. There are even people like Ripley that did not understand what was needed, until the CCRWQCB slapped them, and the LOCSD paid these experts some money up front.

The ponding solution (Step/Steg), presented to the voters before the vote to form the LOCSD looked good. Most of us knew that ponding systems had been working just fine in Arcata, and St. Helens and septic tanks worked well elsewhere. There really was not any real technical opposition. The water board sat on its hands as required by a bad part of a good law. The Tribune, not noted for any expertise in anything, sat aside also. It was an exercise in stupidity, and inaction, based upon ignorance. Of course there was big opposition by groups that simply did not want a sewer, but their opposition was not based upon technology. So the solution groups solution failed, but well after the LOCSD was formed, and an assessment vote passed, and grants were being received. Tri-W was contracted for.

I strongly feel that the LOCSD and the CCRWQCB was made reactionary by the nut cases who did not want a sewer, denying the need for a sewer, and the CCRWQCB pressuring us to build one, but unable to tell us WHAT to build to achieve the stoppage of pollution.

Thank goodness we now have the county staff working with the CCRWQCB staff to make sure this does not happen again.

It has been along and expensive learning process. We can all look at our early postings and comments and see how the learning process has developed. Unfortunately "too soon old, too late smart!"

4crapkiller said...

To All:

This is why I voted to establish the LOCSD. How did this go so wrong? I guess there was no proof of nitrate reduction for ten years from a ponding system, problem with septic tank inspection on private property, septic tanks would have to be replaced, etc. I assessed my self to build this system.


http://www.scc.ca.gov/coast&ocean/spring2000/pages/ptwo.htm

Mike Green said...

A51 The Rock is a small podunk, highly entertaining free paper stuck on my driveway occasionally.
The articles all have some bias and quite frankly I think you give it way more weight than it garners,
when they start using API and other news feeds , I think they should step up to the highest standard, some would say they already have, at least concerning the LO sewer wars. You can't tell me that every bit of information you have read in the Rock is general information, I've learned a few things. If you have a critical thinking filter (and I do) then it has value.
Why the heck are you here anyway?

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard:

Nice of you to point out my typo, yet you couldn't address anything else. That's says a lot.

So, I'll repeat:

"
Trust the county? Yeah, right! Only a moron would.

After all the years of (Los Osos) paying property taxes to allow sewers and roads to be built throughout the county, now the county feels that no county wide taxpayer should help us, OR that the state shouldn't help us (when by law they know the state should,) and only "SELECTIVE" homeowners pay for the most expensive sewer money can buy!

Oh, and the county made it so the PZ is liable for anything and everything. The county is off the hook. Yep, the county has stuck the PZ homeowners with more than it can handle (including the SRF loan's $6.5 million -- paid for by the PZ!) ALL THIS IS ILLEGAL, YET YOU WANT TRUST?

The county has shown how they feel about Los Osos (for the past 30 years) and now some bloggers urge us to trust and to vote ourselves right out of our homes. How nice of you all! Exactly how stupid do you think the people of Los Osos are?

The county clearly knows that everyone benefits, and not everyone is paying. The county clearly knows that we will pay WAY more than $25,000. per home.

It's all a dog n' pony show (paid on our dime,) it's all lies on their part. The county wants us to pay for their developer friends. They are probably seriously considering Regional so that their "friends" can build like crazy not only here, but in Morro Bay, and Cayucos. Yep, let's everyone in the county bring their shit to Los Osos...lovely.

...that's what it's all about my friends!

Out with the homeowners in the PZ -- in with the rich who can afford $500 a month for a sewer and water!!!!!

P.S. Thank you Paavo for sticking with Pandora and group, thank you Sam Blakeslee for making a law to say we're polluting with no proof of any of the individual homes polluting like you said. Oh, and thanks to the county, recalled CSD, RWQCB, and Mr. Blakeslee for allowing your friends in Cabrillo out of it (their septics work fine and their shit doesn't run down hill, it only does on Highland and Mar Vista)...THANK YOU ALL FOR COSTING THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THEIR HOMES AND LIFE'S SAVINGS! I'm sure you all sleep well at night too!

PSS Now, another question, how can Paavo fold the $6.5 million SRF monies to our assessment for only the PZ homeowners to pay? You guys spent $2 million of it on God knows what, this CSD spent the other $4 million of Julie Biggs and God know s what else. So, why should the PZ homeowners only get stuck with that bill. I believe it's also illegal to fold it into the assessment anyway. Isn't it?

PSSS The court never ruled on the SRF loan being legal or not. Some say it was, some say it wasn't. I say it wasn't and will be investigated on a Federal level in the near future.

K. A. said...

Conspiracy Boy,

It sure looks like you are trying to throw a lot of stuff at the wall and hoping that something sticks.

That being the case, I'll reply to just a few of the issues you've raised and note that most of what you mention has been discussed here already ... and that just because you didn't like the answer doesn't mean that the question hasn't already been answered.


First off, it's "moran", not "moron".

2. On the issue of everyone benefiting but only some paying and the total cost being more than $25k per home ... the County has made it clear that there is a general benefit associated with cleaner water and that they expect the water companies to kick in money to cover these costs. The water companies will then pass those costs on to all who buy their water. If I didn't live in the PZ I would resent having to pay more for water just because some folks feel they should have the right to piss in my drinking water. Face it ... if the PZ is the group legally and scientifically responsible for the problems in our aquifer, why don't they have to pay the entire cost of cleaning up the mess they've created?

3. The point to having a "regional" septage processing capability is to lower our costs here in Los Osos, not so that the Coast can grow. There are water limitations on growth that will prevent such growth as you write about unless we choose to go with State water ... and that decision is made community-by-community, not across the whole of Estero Bay.

4. If one wants the lowest possible sewer/water costs, one should vote "yes" on the 218 because the chance of costs going down when the LOCSD taks over again (should the 218 fail) is less than the chance of George Carlin being elected president in 2008.

5. The point of including the previous SRF money into a new loan is to achieve a lower interest rate. As has been demonstrated here before, the PZ absorbing that LOCSD debt would allow for lower monthly costs to those in the PZ than if the County didn't agree to wrap that debt into the total cost.

What strikes me as interesting is that on some of these issues you argue that you want the costs to be limited yet on other of the issues, you argue on principal against measures that would limit our costs. Do you want the costs to be lowered or not?

Conspiracy Boy said...

To K.A.,

First of all, I corrected the typo: Only a "MORON" would trust the county, especially after all that we've seen and experienced. And it isn't a matter of throwing a lot out there to see what sticks. THERE'S A LOT OUT THERE TO BE ADDRESSED. Period.

2) The Water Companies HAVE ALREADY RAISED THEIR RATES (which is not reflected on our bills yet - but there will be "sticker shock" when that happens (after a 218 vote probably, afterall it's all about timing now isn't it?? and when people see a water bill for $100 a month they won't be too happy) -- they're raised over 50%!! -- so they've covered their ass already!)

Also, there was no science to the PZ line. The RWQCB has picked 'SELECTIVE' homeowners to sewer and pay for it. Federal law says you can't create a problem to fix it; and that's EXACTLY what they did. If one septic is polluting they all are. Why don't you tell us what the exact science was for the PZ line. I'd like to hear that one! What about the basin plan that should be updated every three years. Can you tell us why that hasn't been done? Can you tell us why they want to do it AFTER the sewer (why they waited 25 or so years??)

And if you feel you are drinking "piss" water then you should call your water company and tell them. We pay a lot of money for water. The Health Dept. should be informed that the water company is selling water with 'piss' in it. Come on!

3) The county has already intended to import water. The documention is there. Have a look. It's coming anyway.

The Regional Plant would not help PZ homeowners. Are you telling us they'd take money off our assessment? Are you saying they'd send us a check?

THERE IS A PLAN IS THE PROJECT RETURNS TO THE CSD AND WE WON'T BE TAXED OUT OF OUR HOMES LIKE WITH YOUR PLAN.

I'll post an interesting newspaper article that shows there is NO WAY our sewer will cost $25,000. per home. No way, that's a trick and YOU know it. They'll add all the charges on later (NO VOTE NEEDED once this 218 passes) Only MORONS believe it will only be $25,000! What about cost over-runs -- AND LOTS OF THEM! Get real and stop the lies and tricks.

And about rolling the SRF monies in the assessment -- that added $6.5 million wipes out any "low" interest rate. It was an unsecured loan anyway. The CSD (old and new along with their lawyers) should be held responsible for public waste on that matter. We don't know how the bankruptcy will rule there anyway, it may be pennies on the dollar.

The only way to lower the price is to have the state, water companies, federal, outside the PZ etc. pay their fair share for benefit -- and to go with a design/build/finance project that wouldn't require a 218 and wouldn't require a lien on any home.

What can't you understand about that? Or are you just a moron? Or Richard, or Gordon, or ....?

Mike Green said...

CB, you really are a hoot!
First
THERE IS A PLAN IS THE PROJECT RETURNS TO THE CSD AND WE WON'T BE TAXED OUT OF OUR HOMES LIKE WITH YOUR PLAN.
Then:
The CSD (old and new along with their lawyers) should be held responsible for public waste on that matter.
Yep! give it back to the CSD!
YEE HAA, What ARE you smokin?

Mike said...

Ha Haaa Ha....

And just WHO will hold the CSD accountable? Hell, they haven't paid any one but their own lawyers, certainly not the contractors or the fines already leveed. This CSD has acted like they are above all laws for the last 2 years!! The previous Board at least respected the laws and were a heck of a lot more transparent and responsive to the public that this band of crooks!!!

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike & Mike:

There is a plan where the CSD wouldn't have to pay but a small amount for an RFP.

There is a plan where there would be no 218 needed.

There is a plan that would require NO liens on the home.

There is a plan that would cost homeowners less than $150 per month.

You're both fools if you think the county won't go over budget with gravity another $50 million or more. YOU WANT A BLANK COUNTY CHECK MY FRIENDS!

Do you really think it's just $25,000 per home?

The prior CSD got us into this mess, the county and RWQCB feel that they can break laws right and left (same with the recalled board.)

Joe Sparks and Chuck have already violated the Brown Act. Both should resign. I believe Maria has done it for the county too.

What are YOU smoking?

P.S. What are the cost of laterals now, up to $9,000?! Glad you're rich (or don't live in the PZ.)

Conspiracy Boy said...

To All:

The article below shows how much a system will REALLY cost. That community already declined gravity because it cost even more.

Also, they are honestly letting the community decide and vote on their system that they have to pay for.

And, they're looking at grant funding for design!

Council Mulls Alternate Sewer System for District 5
Costs for a traditional gravity system were estimated to be astronomically high due to terrain factors.

By Charles Cooper

The La Cañada Flintridge City Council was briefed in a workshop held Monday on a low flow sewer system to be offered for homeowners in proposed District 5, south of Foothill Boulevard.

The council will make final decisions on the proposal at a special meeting July 30, and will present it at a public meeting in September.

The District 5 sewer system has been widely debated for the past several years. A gravity system such as was used elsewhere in the city was more considerably more expensive for the Flintridge area and was rejected in an informal poll of its residents.

Archer Consulting was one of three firms to propose alternative systems, and along with Fraser Engineering has been holding talks with the city and a council committee.

According to Mayor Dave Spence, the proposed low flow system has several advantages, including being less expensive and less disruptive to local streets to install.

"There wouldn't be an added cost for the connection between their property and the sewer line," he said. "It's all one package."

The cost for ratepayers would range from about $36,000 to $66,000 for the larger estates.

The city will have to identify about $3 million in funding to fully design the system before it is built, Spence said. "We'd be looking for possible grant funding for that," he said. The system would also be more expensive in annual operation and maintenance.

La Cañada will once again rely on an advisory vote from residents before proceeding formally with the plan, the mayor said.

A question still to be answered is how much pressure the state's water quality board will put on the city to complete the system quickly, as a way to improve the local watershed.

La Cañada, long relying on septic tanks, has been building a sewer system since the late 1990s, using state loans and city bonds. Districts 1 and 2 have been completed and District 3A/3B is under construction (there is no District 4).

Construction delays and the cost of individual assessments have made the program a controversial one, and have given the city public works department a large assignment to run the program. Deteriorating septic tanks and concerns about water quality have driven prior public acceptance of the program.

Everyone (or many) know that the county "low balled" that $25,000. to get a yes vote, and they'll stick it to the fools later with fees and charges.

If that's not a blank check, I don't know what is.

Maria M. Kelly said...

You know CB, while I appreciate, in a weird way, your contributions because they bring a lot of insight into some of the current thoughts swirling around Los Osos, I don't believe you actually understand the Brown Act.

I am not an elected official, I'm a volunteer, no one is paying me, I have never met with more than 3 other people at a time from the TAC and so I'm curious as to your perception of my violation? For me to violate the Brown Act, I would have had to have secret meetings with 4 or more persons of the TAC without the public present for comments.

In regards to the alternative project by the CSD, this is highly unlikely. There has been no statement made by the CSD and there has been no agendized item for public comment on this issue and there is no money in the waste water funds to even pay for an RFP and unless I missed something in the budget, I didn't see any additional items being added to address and RFP.

It sounds as though you are getting desperate and throwing around any type of accusation or misinformation you can to delay a project for Los Osos.

As a property owner, I resent this tactic and will do everything possible to protect my home from the irresponsible and unfounded threats ands assertions that you make and that are appearing in print around the community.

If I was Orenco, I would be concerned that my trademarked name is being used on fliers to fail a 218 - I wonder if they gave their permission?
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Richard LeGros said...

Bruce (CB),

You will gain supporters for the "plan" if you provide us with documentation descibing the "plan, along with RWQCB and County of SLO documentation supporting the "plan".

It is as simple as that.

Without the documentation there is no plan...so how can we decide if the "plan" you blog about has merit?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Conspiracy Boy said...

To Maria:

You are one a sub-committee of the county. You are on the TAC and have to follow the same laws as the county does. You've stated many times as a TAC committee member to vote for a 218. You've gone so far as to say that was part of what TAC was to do, to ensure a positive 218. That was NOT TAC's job.

To Richard:

The plan will be announced soon enough. Who in the world why try to convince you of anything other than your MWH plan?

Gain supporters? Not trying to do that. Certainly not you and the gravity bloggers on this site.

Glad that you and Maria are following the blogs so closely.

Care to address any of the other points I addressed to you? Shall I post my blog again to refresh your memory? And what about that article? No comments about that from you OR Maria?

How interesting!

Conspiracy Boy said...

Maria:

You say, "It sounds as though you are getting desperate and throwing around any type of accusation or misinformation you can to delay a project for Los Osos.

As a property owner, I resent this tactic and will do everything possible to protect my home from the irresponsible and unfounded threats ands assertions that you make and that are appearing in print around the community...."

That is bullshit Maria. Name any misinformation that I've posted. I'll wait. You never answer my questions to you anyway. But I'll wait this time. And what exactly are the unfounded threats and assertions that are in Print? I'll wait for that information too.

Mike Green said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sewertoons said...

cb,
LIES- You said about Maria, "You are one a sub-committee of the county. You are on the TAC and have to follow the same laws as the county does. You've stated many times as a TAC committee member to vote for a 218. You've gone so far as to say that was part of what TAC was to do, to ensure a positive 218. That was NOT TAC's job."

You cannot document ANY of this, YOU ARE MAKING IT UP. STOP LYING.

Oh, and on that note of your lies:
"There is a plan where the CSD wouldn't have to pay but a small amount for an RFP.

There is a plan where there would be no 218 needed.

There is a plan that would require NO liens on the home.

There is a plan that would cost homeowners less than $150 per month."

Plan??? Think we are going to be sucked in by this bull@#*t??

THINK AGAIN.

Richard LeGros said...

Bruce (CB),

As I wrote before, simply provide the documentation from the RWQCB and the County supporting your Double Uber-secret Mystery "Plan" (aka D.U.M.P.) and you will have support

Regards, Richard LeGros

Richard LeGros said...

Bruce (CB),

I will gladly respond to your 'points'....once you make some 'points' that are rational and worthy of a response.

What is 'interesting' to me is that you really believe what you blog; supporting your 'points' with nothing more than blind faith and a prayer.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Sewertoons said...

cb,

With the lack of community support for the 2 snake oil salesman (they were shot down with tough questions by the community, then further discredited by the letter from the Water Board), why do you think anyone is going to fall for YOUR unsupported promises?

Your Pie-in-the-sky is being recognized for what it is - Poop-on-the-shoe.

Shark Inlet said...

CB,

If you live in the PZ, your urine is the primary source of nitrate pollution for the entire community. While you say that there is no science behind the PZ and I say there is, the issue has already been settled. Folks inside the PZ have been deemed polluters and folks outside haven't. That being said, the polluters need to step up and pay for the cost of the pollution they're causing.

The fact that the water companies are willing to help spread the cost across the entire community should make you happy because you want the entire town to pay for the sewer. This will partially happen with higher water rates.

The County cannot make us take State water. (A vote of the property owners would be necessary.) However, folks who use too much water and folks who argue against building a sewer and WWTF ASAP may make state water an unfortunate necessity. If you are arguing against the County plan and if you voted for the recall, you are partially responsible.


I'm calling you out on your contention that the LOCSD could get a sewer done cheaper (and better and faster). You've made this claim in a variety of ways and I think you really believe it. Even so, you've presented us zero evidence that it is even a possibility, let alone a likely outcome of a "no" vote on the 218. Sure, you don't trust the County, but it seems clear to many that trusting a bankrupt (financially and possibly morally) LOCSD to get the job done quicker and cheaper is simply a huge mistake.

Show us your data ... or else please do the right thing and stop claiming the LOCSD has a plan that will save us money.

Mike Green said...

CB just some more of your BS right back at ya,

The average income of your valhalla in Flintridge is almost 100k/year.

And you accuse us of being rich like its some sin.

It's HOT in Bakersfield, swamp coolers work great!

Revealed said...

Mike Green,

For someone who practices and preaches critical thinking skills, you lack any sort of opinion. Instead, for the past couple of months, you've failed to disclose any sort of position.

Instead, you've committed to detecting the logical fallacies of other posters while making a series of whimsical, uninspiring comments.

Who are you trying to impress? It sounds like you're trying so hard to appeal to both sides of the argument when all you really are is a half-hearted flip-flopper. Are you trying to run for a seat on the LOCSD already?

Mike Green said...

revealed,
OK, lets have a contest,
Name one poster here that has expressed more opinions than me.
(sharkinlet dose not count)

Mike Green said...

Seat on the LOCSD? HAH!
I want to be KING!
If I were King of the Sewer, Not queen, not duke, not prince.
My regal robes of the sewer, would be Charmin, two ply not chince.
I'd command each thing, be it fish or bowel.
With a woof and a woof and a royal growl - woof.
As I'd click my heel, all the trees would kneel.
And the water gods bow and the Al Barrow kowtow.
And the CODs would take wing - If I - If I - were King!
Each rabbit would give smart pills to me. The dragon ladys genuflect to me.
Though my tail would lash, I would show compash
For every under-thing!
If I - If I - were King!
Just King!
Monarch of all I survey -- Mo--na-a-a--a-arch Of all I survey!

With apologies to all you OZites.

Mike said...

Is there still a CSD?

Or is it now just Julie Tacker, mouth piece for all???

Revealed said...

You? King? That's as believable as the time LeGros said he was learning tango when he was caught playing footsie in an airport bathroom.

As for Shark Inlet,

How can you say the "issue has been settled" (alleging pollution)--without showing data--when you ask CB to provide data? Isn't that a bit of a double standard? It's alright for you to make these unfounded assertions yet you criticize others for doing the same thing.

I would like to raise the stakes and have you put your cards on the table. I'd like to see nitrate studies, isotopic studies, independent analysis, thorough research and the decency to say that maybe you don't know.

I would like to see you prove to us that there is no such thing as an affordable sewer. The burden is on you to make the calculations and provide the data. This is not a "chicken and egg" argument. It doesn't matter who should be providing evidence first. You are obligated by logic to comply.

Also, I have read all your posts on Calhoun's Cannon and SanLuisObispo.com and not one of your posts cite any sort of documentation whatsoever. At the most, you would provide a Used Car Salesman analogy that was recklessly oblivious.

At times when you were cornered, Richard LeGros would provide PDFs given to him from Karen Vega and the RWQCB that would conveniently distract everyone.

Please, I can read you like an open book.

Mike said...

Nice little piece of distraction. You have said/asked nothing positive, Shark and Richard have.

From the tone of your message, I would assume you don't want the County to build the sewer, but do wan the CSD to do it. You would also have to assume that the direction of the CSD would remain constant and steady toward that goal over the next 4 to 10 years. Get real, some of these current "Directors" are headed to court and hopefully to prison!

Medical said...

Hi,

This blog is very good and informative.
Ecommerce Solutions
Free Directory

khan

Churadogs said...

TCG said:"I heard that if anyone requests the ballot information from the County Clerk during or after the Prop 218 voting process, they have to register to get it. If so, it will be very easy to verify that the Regional Board staff stayed away, as their Board said they expect them to. Based on this, I'm tired of hearing about this latest excuse by some of the people to not have to make a long overdue decision.

It's down to this: Do the people want a community sewer system, or not? / Do they trust the County to develop and build the project and get the best possible financing, or not? / Or do they prefer to put their faith in the CSD with it's limited resources and lack of expertise, and face whatever the State brings next?"

I emailed Paavo to ask re the ballots: Per Paavo: The ballots are confidential prior to the close of theprotest hearing (the 23 Oct) "Currently, we are targeting to sort the ballots on 10/24 and open on 10/25."

Also, ". . we do not intend on posting the ballot information (i.e. property byproperty details). Yes, someone who wants to obtain the information will need to fill out a form for public information similar to all other requests for public documents."

I asked Paavo if the "request for public documents" themselves would be "public documents." If done propertly, then there would be a public trail, so to speak, to check to see just who looked at what, unless someone used a phony name (not sure if you have to show i.d. to make a public request?)

As for your other comments: Exactly.

Area 51 sez:"Ann, I've never understood this about you. You write an opinion piece. You have said this on many, many occasions. And your opinion is very much biased and one-sided. For you to not admit this is ludicrous."

Area, hate to tell you this, but opinion IS bias, it IS one sided, it's one or two choices and choices are "bias," that's the very nature of opinion.

Crap sez:"To Ann BALLOON, who opines lots of air, little substance:

1. I have never, ever heard a constructive idea from YOU on your blog. You are great at nit picking things apart, but you can't put the pieces back together. My criticism of you stands as an "obstructionist" for this reason."

Then why do you spend so much time on this blogsite? You're probably one ofthis blogsites most DEVOTED and CONSTANT commendors. My JOB as an opinion columnist IS to "nit pick." That's the point -- to view with alarm, point with dismay, so that people can pay attention enough to fix what's broken that I'm pointing to. That's not being an "obstructionist," that's being a "Can we clean the crap out of the pathway so the way forward is clear and we're not heading off a cliff, please?"

So, sorry, Crap, you are a self-identified FRAUD, (which also carries with it the baggage of your also being a coward, a hypocrite and now a silly who wastes endless hours on a blog she/he claims is worthless. How much hypocritical can someone get?) Well, the best than be said about such an anonymous person is that, clearly, they have zip credibility.

Richard sez:" If you are in your home for the long term, early payoff would save you a sizable chunk of change...but do not forget that you will be paying the assessment with future money having less value than today's. If you apt for early payoff talk to your investment advisor to make sure that you would not be better off investing the money (to get a higher return) than if you just paid off the assessment."

Exactly. And I would also urge people who may qualify to inquire about reverse mortgages. Lots of people talking about "poor seniors" but, depending on the equity in those "poor seniors'" homes, they may have access to a great deal of money denied to "poor young people" and "poor working people" and "poor renters." Property value increases in The Gold Coast, especially in an area that may see NO BUILDOUT for years (no water) will mean whatever amount you borrowed would return in increased property value when you move or die or whatever. Lots of people think reverse mortgages will eat their property up and leave nothing for their heirs. In a place like Hog Spit Nowhereville in a house sitting on top of a sink hole, that might be correct. But green-belted, building-moritorium, Gold Coast Los Osos???

Area 51 sez:"I'm certainly not a TT apologist, but that's the kind of nit-picking stuff that Ann and the obstructionists engage in, with everyone and everything sewer realted (not just the TT)."

while Mike sez:" A51, sorry if its nitpicking to you, but I've been generally appalled at the Trivs. coverage since the beginning.
There is just so much history there and so many instances of a "free press" dropping the ball that I just gotta comment.
A factual free press is important, isn't it?

I mean, do you think we would be having a 218 vote today if the Triv had exposed the solution group fiasco sometime in those first two years?
HEADLINE!!! PONDING PLAN FLAMED OUT BEFORE ELECTION! READ CUESTA STUDY AND RWQCB REPORTS!
Nope, never got that one.
Good ol Triv. I promise I will never let them off the hook again!
If that bugs you, I'm sorry."

And there you are: "Nit picking" Just think of the grief and money that could have been saved IF the public had paid attention to those "obstructionist" NIT PICKERS who don't have anything "constructive" to say, but just point out,. . . problems and potential messes and etc. Instead, we get Shoot the Messenger because they're Nit Pickers? I can hear Ron Crawford howling with laughter here.

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent and yet somewhat confused friend revealed,

When discussing the pollution of the PZ issue as having been settled, I was referring to the fact that the PZ was set up by the RWQCB based on sound principals and scientific data and that the definition of the PZ has already been challenged in court and it was determined that the RWQCB didn't act inappropriately when setting up the zone.

However, if you want the data, there are hints of these data on the LOCSD website. Look for the Cleath report they put online ... you know, the one that showed medical waste in the aquifer under the PZ. That report shows (yet again) that the nitrate levels are highest under the PZ and lower outside the PZ.

As for using Rhodium to verify that the nitrates are from septics, it is sad that neither the County nor the LOCSD have chosen to fund such a study. Maybe it would quite down those who say that the pollution under the PZ has no relationship with the homes in the PZ.

Let's discuss the scientific method for a moment because you seem to have it backwards. There is an accepted theory out there (the excess nitrates are from homes in the PZ) and for one to argue that this is not so, one has to present an alternative theory that both makes sense and is shown by data to be superior to the accepted theory. That being said, how could you explain the excess nitrates under only the PZ, that the nitrates have risen over time in the PZ and only in the PZ?

As for the issue of no affordable sewer out there ... if someone provides a definition of affordable, we could discuss. Until then I'll just say that I was trying to key off those who said that $75/month is the maximum appropriate. I would also refer you to the County report where the cost estimates are all in the range of $130 (if we're really lucky) to $275 ... and that's before a $40 monthly fee. If you would like to define $200/month as affordable and don't want to include LOCSD bankruptcy costs as sewer costs, you might view that as affordable, but I don't.

TCG said...

I just read the red "Vote No" flyer put out by the www.Nowastewater.com group that was being handed out at farmers market by the Reclamator guys discussed in today's Tribune.

Almost every sentence in it is incorrect, but my favorite is: "Voting 'NO' will encourage the Regional Water Control Board to suspend cease and desist (CDOs)(sic)against 4,500 homeowners in the 'Prohibition Zone,' since passing the 218 might define 'sufficient progress'for them toward building a sewer by a reasonable date."

This is about as rediculous as it gets, and I am thououghly disgusted with these carpetbaggers for trying to use fear tactics to take advantage of our property owners.

The negative campaigning is getting really bad, even for Los Osos.

4crapkiller said...

To Ann:

Sorry Ann, your opinions just do not hold water. There is no reality to them. You are a balooooon filled with hot air and with no substance. Take your arguments to the nut cases who support your arguments out of ignorance. What do YOU think about the salesmen peddling the contracts for people to sign?

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"If you would like to define $200/month as affordable and don't want to include LOCSD bankruptcy costs as sewer costs, you might view that as affordable, but I don't."

Please refresh my memory. What was Tri W pegged at when they started construction? I thought a guestimate was $205 month?

Fraudulent Crap sez:" Sorry Ann, your opinions just do not hold water. There is no reality to them. You are a balooooon filled with hot air and with no substance"

So do you want to tell us again why you spend so much time on this blogsite and in the comment section responding to my comments since you find them hot air with no substance? Seems to me only a fool would spend endless hours batting at empty air. Seems like an awful waste of time and silly to boot. But then that's just my, uh, biased opinion.

4crapkiller said...

To Ann Baloooooooon:

Count your blessings! You are a great court jester! Everyone laughs at your outlandish opinions.

I just make everyone laugh all the harder at your Punch and Judy show!

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

When Tri-W was halted, the projected cost per month to property owners (SRF loan, OM&R 2002 Bond Payment, and property owner connection costs) was between $185 (if vacant lot owners were allowed to build at a rate of 25 homes per year) to $225 (With no new homes built). These costs were without Federal or State Grants; which if awarded would have lowered monthly costs to $140 to $185 per month.

Looking at the County's ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS for WW projects (other than Tri-W); and adding in OM&R, property owner expenses, paydown of the 2002 assessment debt, and paydown of the LOCSD $42M debt, the monthly costs to property owners will be between $320 to $400 per month.

So let's recap (assuming no grants)....

We could have had Tri-W built (and be operational today) at a high-end cost of $185 to $225 per month today......

BUT can now expect a WWTF (maybe operational by 2012 if lucky) at a month cost of $320 to $400.

ANN, WAS THE RECALL YOU SUPPORTED WORTH THE COST? I look forward to your answer to this question.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Please note that the alternative project capital costs projected by the County have a monthly payback cost (not including OM&R, payback of the 2002 bond and paydown of LOCSD debt) which are MORE EXPENSIVE PER MONTH than if Tri-W had just been built.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Glad you commented on the cost issue. Since the cost estimates went above $100/month, I've said that it is unaffordable ... but that to delay to study the issue again would result in even greater costs and even more homeowners being forced to move, sell at a (most likely virtual) loss or take out reverse mortgages. Our community should not stand for continued inflation when we have the chance to cap it in some way now. That is the best reason to vote "yes" on the 218. The second best reason is that the LOCSD has a snowball's chance of hell of doing anything positive for us, sewerwise and the State will likely need special legislation to take the project over. The third reason is that the RWQCB will be forced to act and our lives will become more painful because of our poor choices to continue polluting.

Yes, the estimated TriW cost was $205/month and then costs would have gone up and/or down based on grants, the building of homes and inflation and the like.

The upshot on costs is this ... you cannot criticize Richard on the cost issue. He is right. Even though in 2001 there were other sites which, in retrospect, might have been cheaper, by the time we hit 2004, the die had been cast and delay has only raised costs. Bummer for us.

Even so, the two of you are not focusing on the issue at hand, which is whether it is wiser to vote yes on the 218 vote and to assess ourselves some $25k each (over 20 years with a 2.5% SRF it would be be about $130/mont and over 30 years at 8% it would be $180/month) or not. If we do vote for that assessment, we'll also get to make monthly O&M payments (called a sewer bill), the costs that will be borne by the water companies and passed on to us and possibly additional payments if the actual costs exceed $25k/home. The contractor debt of the LOCSD, the lawyer, Wildan and Ripley debts and the RWQCB fines don't really play a role in this discussion because they will be paid (or not) the same whether we go with the County or not.

What is the alternative to voting "yes"? A no vote means that we get additional delay and the associated inflation. As was demonstrated before the recall and since in several calculations presented here, a "cheaper" solution isn't cheaper if it is a later solution. Inflation seems to swamp any savings from "doing it right" or being "sustainable".

Simply put, any folks who promise a $150/month plan are trying to sell you something that is not grounded in reality. Their motivation (whether ill or good) is irrelevant because they're presenting a false picture of the implications of a "no" vote.

Mike Green said...

Richard, Richard, Richard.

I respect you but you have the political timing and sense of a baboon.

Why speculate on maximum possible monthly costs now? how is that going to help secure a positive 218 outcome?
Or dose your ego and disdain for Ann preclude clear thinking?

I can see the Triv. headlines now!
Recalled CSD member reveals cost estimates as published in the Tribune are incorrect!

Thanks Richard, now please go sit down.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Shark inlet,

Yes, the ONLY issue at hand is the 218 vote. Until Los Osos commits to pay for ANY project and have the County move forward on a project, NO progress will be made.

A no vote means no solution and higher project costs. In short, a ‘no’ vote will be a financial and environmental disaster for all home owners in the PZ.

Meanwhile, Ann needs to answer my question (which you have asked too in past blogs).......was the recall worth it?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Revealed said...

To County Employee, Shark Inlet:

You're not playing with a full deck.

Cleath Report tested illegal, unkempt wells. This, by no means, provides individual pollution. It shows collective pollution, but California water code does not have any sort of statute that requires a blanket CDO to be issued:

1831. (a) When the board determines that any person, is violating, or threatening to violate, any requirement described in subdivision (d), the board may issue an order to that person to cease and desist from that violation.

It's true that the RWQCB had hearings per individual but it is required by law to do so when a CDO is issued under 1834(a), however their essential case is that PZ is collectively polluting and thus, CDOs must be administered in order to prevent any further pollution. That's like having a few kids misbehaving in a classroom and the teacher decides to punish everyone for it.

There are also reports that conflict with the Cleath Report so it's not exactly the word of the gospel especially when it's brought up in court.

Once again, you show nothing. It's just more spin from a county employee.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike Green,

I completely understand your angst.
I too want the 218 to pass.

But please remember that the costs of a project are not a secret.

The County has made it very clear that their estimates are for the CAPITAL costs only; and that the money needed to build any project will cost property owners around $200 per month for 20 to 30 years.

The County has made it very clear that their estimates do not include OM&R, nor any costs associated with the abandoning the old project (which the County rightly contends is a LOCSD issue that the County does not have the responsibility to resolve).

Los Osos voters understand that County costs are seperate from LOCSD costs.....and that these costs added together represent the probable total monthly cost to the property owner. Los Osos voters also understand that voting no will result in even higher costs, continued environmental damage and likely enforcement action(s) by the State.

Sorry you do not like my comments about the cost...or what you consider bad timing. As I blogged earlier, I understand your angst.

However, I have made statements clarifying probable home owner monthly costs for a WWTF for over a year now. Remember the Ripley Project vs Tri-W project cost calculations (with monthly cost payment estimates) I posted in August of 2006? It is better for folks to know what is happening and vote YES on the 218 rather than not understanding the issue now and later hearing howls of protest as reality sets in.

Mike, thanks for your concern. I know that you are being honest.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

To our new friend, Revealed ...

You are incorrect when you suggest I am a County employee. Your suggestion probably detracts from the quality of your comments.

Please also note that my earlier comments about the PZ weren't related to the CDO issue at all, just the definition of the PZ. The very same issues that govern whether Counties will (typically) approve of the use of septic systems ... the density of homes and distance to groundwater are the way the PZ was defined.

I note that you also did not suggest a theory for how the nitrate levels are highest under the PZ and rising over time. I'll presume that this means you essentially are in agreement that the collective pollution is caused by homes in the PZ (and perhaps elsewhere, but mostly in the PZ).


I am unaware about how the minutiae of water law would allow or disallow the actions of the RWQCB for I am not a lawyer. I do know, however, that I've been hearing for many years about how no individual homes can be shown to be individually polluting. I've also been hearing for many years about how the RWQCB doesn't care about that issue. If this is the only relevant section of state water law and if there haven't been any court cases to clarify the question of groups of individuals (like the whole of the PZ), you have a good point that the RWQCB decisions would be open to a legal challenge. The question for you, then, is this ... is this the only section of water law which applies and have there been any court cases where the decision would speak to the issue?

The Cleath report and all the other reports which look at nitrates over time show a rather clear picture. The nitrate levels are higher than allowable under the the PZ and that the nitrate levels have been increasing under the PZ.


Here's my question for you, Revealed ... do you believe that the pollution isn't a big deal and that the teeth of the RWQCB are not as sharp as many fear and that the community doesn't need a sewer and treatment plant? Someone with that opinion should certainly vote "no" on the 218. However, it would seem that folks who do think that there is pollution, that we should have a sewer or even that the RWQCB will be able to make our lives painful if we don't have one should be voting "yes".

Maybe your issue isn't the 218 vote, but that's the main question I see before us this month and next in Los Osos.

Revealed said...

I am correct when I say you are a county employee. Everyone here is a county employee to a degree. While you may not have a paid county position, you still work for them.

Stop telling me what you are not and tell me what you are.

Collectively, there may be pollution, sure, it's rather unarguable when you have a high-density area but is the case valid? Not at all. Naturally the nitrate levels are going to be higher in a dense area than in areas with lesser density. However, the RWQCB's case is fundamentally flawed because they have individual hearings for individual recipients when, as you said, there's no case precedent that has determined individual pollution.

Pollution is a big deal. Nobody wants to be drinking their own urine. While pollution is an issue, the legality and the fear behind it is debatable. The RWQCB is acting more as an advocacy group than a regulatory branch of government since their enforcement proceedings are directly founded and inspired by former CSD board members and real estate developers.

The 218 vote that the county has isn't a real 218 vote to begin with. It was made for the wrong reasons.

Shark Inlet said...

To our new friend, Revealed ....

I have am not a County employee. If you want to redefine the meaning of the word employee to suit your purposes, it would be nice if you would put that upfront rather than doing a post-hoc song-n-dance to make it look like your earlier nonstandard usage of the word "employee" was reasonable.

I would rather not tell you who I am and what positions and degrees I hold. In my mind, that should be irrelevant. What I think should matter is the content of my comments. If you disagree, I apologize, but I don't intend on telling the general blog audience here my identity. While you won't likely give me any credit because I am not going to present any credentials, I would say that they are enough for my opinion to be given some weight even if my own area of expertise is not directly in things sewerish. Hell, it doesn't take much to have a good "take" on the situation ... just a calculator and the ability to add and then figure out monthly payments from a total, term and interest rate. Too bad that Ron and Ann have never availed themselves of the spreadsheets I have provided in the past ... perhaps they would have changed their tune some time back.

I won't discuss with you the case the RWQCB may have until you tell me whether there is any other part of CA water code which applies (besides the part you've already cited) and whether there have been any court cases where judges have rendered opinions on the matter. You say the RWQCB case is debatable, I view their case as already settled. Unless you're going to tell me you're a lawyer with a specialty in CA water code, I'll just say for now that without more solid information, we should just agree to disagree.

I would want to toss out there, however, the idea that if I am wrong (and that the RWQCB doesn't really have a solid case), it still might be wise to pass the 218 vote and go with the County plan. However, if I am right (and the RWQCB CDO case is pretty solid), then voting no on the 218 could have very serious and very negative financial implications.

I'll reject outright your contention that the RWQCB is acting more like an advocacy group than a regulatory group. I've not seen it ... I've only seen claims of electioneering from the folks who want to downplay the possibility of possible RWQCB action.

During the recall campaign season, the RWQCB was pretty clear that they intended to take action if a new board took action to stop a permitted project. I saw it in the paper. Even so, many who campaigned for the recall (and even Julie and Lisa) whined when the RWQCB did take action, saying "we didn't know" and "you didn't tell us". Perhaps the RWQCB isn't electioneering, but making clear ... more clear than they did in 2005 ... their intention to take action should the 218 vote fail.

Lastly, when you write "The 218 vote that the county has isn't a real 218 vote to begin with. It was made for the wrong reasons" it is not clear at all what you mean. Could you please tell us what you do mean and perhaps add an explanation of what a "real 218 vote" is, being sure to point out how the current 218 vote doesn't fit the definition. I am curious.

All the best ...

Richard LeGros said...

Revealed,

WOW!!!....I am impressed!

Your last post was pure pyscho-babble lacking any sense of reality.

-Everybody works for the County?...I want to be PAID for my work performed! You should demand payment too!

-The RWQCB is an advocacy group controlled by past CSD board members and real estate developers?...Actually, I and past board members (along with developers) also control the world and beyond too!

I have never met anyone who actually lives in the Twilight Zone. How's the view?

Regards, Richard LeGros

Sewertoons said...

Hey conspiracy boy - are you and revealed related?

Churadogs said...

Revealed sez:"Cleath Report tested illegal, unkempt wells. This, by no means, provides individual pollution. It shows collective pollution, but California water code does not have any sort of statute that requires a blanket CDO to be issued:

1831. (a) When the board determines that any person, is violating, or threatening to violate, any requirement described in subdivision (d), the board may issue an order to that person to cease and desist from that violation.

It's true that the RWQCB had hearings per individual but it is required by law to do so when a CDO is issued under 1834(a), however their essential case is that PZ is collectively polluting and thus, CDOs must be administered in order to prevent any further pollution. That's like having a few kids misbehaving in a classroom and the teacher decides to punish everyone for it."

What was so fascinating to me during the "Trials" of The Los Osos 45, was the way the CDO language kept getting changed and then the repeated Question of the RWQCB staff (i.e. Matt Thompson/ Harvey Packard)regarding individual CDO recipients: "Do you have any imperical evidence that Mr. So & So is polluting the waters of the state of California?" Answer, repeatedly, "No, no evidence." & etc. Nonetheless, Mr. So & So was found GUILTY and promptly hanged. Fascinating.

Revealed also sez:"However, the RWQCB's case is fundamentally flawed because they have individual hearings for individual recipients when, as you said, there's no case precedent that has determined individual pollution."

If that is indeed true, then what was the RWQCB doing EXCEPT attempting to intimidate and threaten and bully and coerce people to build Tri-W (by law what they're specifically forbidden from doing, specifying any particular system or plant) and they did so using the law (or misusing the law) to do it? Who's to stop them? State AG Jerry Brown? Naw, he sent his minions to court to hammer the few 45 who struggled to get their abuse even heard in court. Is this all abuse of power? Who ya gonna call to stop them? Jerry Brown, again?

Shark Inlet said...

Revealed and Ann,

The point about the distinction between individuals and groups with regard to pollution isn't that individuals need to be determined to be polluters before they can be prosecuted, but that individuals within a group ... by their membership in the group ... can be prosecuted for the pollution of the group.

In other words, if one is de-facto guilty of pollution by living in the PZ, it doesn't matter if one's septic system is individually part of the problem or not. The argument "no one has proven I am to blame" presumes that individual pollution must be proven.

I'll suggest this is not the case.

Certainly if it was, there should have been a successful lawsuit some years back challenging the legality of the PZ.

Revealed said...

Shark,

I don't care who you are. The question I ask you, sir, is what are you? For someone to invest hours and hours of time by posting recycled spin-riddles, your devotion to these issues raise a few eyebrows. I'm not fond of conspiracies, but I can only rely on instinct. That's all I have to say about that.

I will tell you what I am, though, in all fairless. I am involved in the paralegal field so if I spout some legal jargon and cite statutes, you can see that at least my words are backed by experience and research in this area.

Again, I stress that voting yes on Proposition 218 is not a wise decision because you don't know what kind of sewer you're going to be paying for and how much. Costs, as determined by LOTAC, start at an average of $275/month, which will be an unarguable burden on the middle to lower-income residents of the PZ. Since there are no alternative financial plans at this time, the one that stands will force economically burdened residents to move.

You say, "I'll reject outright your contention that the RWQCB is acting more like an advocacy group than a regulatory group. I've not seen it ..."

... then let me elaborate. Pandora Nash-Karner, Jerry Gregory and a few other like-minded individuals urged the RWQCB, through private, active correspondence to fine the community "out of existence" and the RWQCB did not decide to proceed with the TSO and enforcement hearings until immediately after that correspondence.

Secondly, no other RWQCB has acted in this matter and I'd challenge anyone to find a case that has a similar legal proceeding to that of TSO 00-131. If you find one, then great, we'll sit down and analyze it together.

Respondin' to your second post: I've never heard of such a thing. You either prosecute a group or an individual. The CDO recipients are literally individuals within a group but you can't have the prosecution rely on collective evidence when they have individual hearings.

Here's another analogy: you have a police line-up and you have a row of possible suspects standing in front of a one-way mirror. You sit behind the mirror and you pan your pointing finger from left and right. You say to the police, "They all committed the crime." The police have evidence of the crime. They have a gun but there's no fingerprints nor is there any DNA to be extracted from the scene of the crime. You know a murder happened but you don't know who committed the murder.

Doesn't this sound a whole lot like the game, "Clue"? If I played that game, I'd put my money down on the man who wore women's sweaters and a occasional scarf at CSD meetings.

Richard,

Psycho-babble? "Sufferin’ succotash!" Just like you, Sylvester is also a cartoon character except at least he doesn't cross-dress.

Richard LeGros said...

Revealed,

Babble on you fool.

You need to see a psychoanalyst about your obsessive desire and longing that I be homosexual (which I am not). You obviously have a perverted crush on me.

RBL

Shark Inlet said...

Revealed,

It seems that you are curious about the amount of time I spend reading and commenting. Far less, I assure you, than the amount of time spent by, say, Linde Owen or Mike Jones. Why would any of us spend this much time? Probably three things ... we care about the truth (as we individually see it), we care about our community and spending the extra awake hour on TV or a book would be nowhere near as entertaining.

As for your comments about Richard ... I find them offensive both to Richard and to the gay community.

If you're a gonna discuss the issues before our community, at least do so without the distracting comments that detract from the value of your other opinions.


On the issue of Cal water code and whether the RWQCB could pass out CDOs to all in the PZ without proof of individual homes polluting, my opinion is based, in part, on the fact that if the definition of the PZ hasn't already been challenged successfully (literally, a prohibition on any discharges without a permit) ... and it hasn't been ... the individual versus group issue you are complaining about has already been settled.

If you have a good counter argument based on your involvement in the paralegal field (does this mean that you are a paralegal or that you aren't?) I would be very interested.

Sewertoons said...

The density here in the zone is absurd with no infrastructure. Blame all you like revealed, and it won't fix a thing. I prefer to fix this. I already voted yes on the 218 to get a sewer and I don't care where or what kind.

I bought a home here knowing I'd have to pay for this eventually. The houses in MB and other coastal areas were more expensive - they already had their infrastructure.

What would be the sense in finding out that I on a hill don't pollute, but my neighbor down the hill does? He should pay for the project and not me? And there are good financial reasons to not include Cabrillo in this project as they would make my share much more expensive than it already is. Their density is far different than in my neighborhood and their pollution goes off in another direction altogether.

We are not going to change one thing about this at this stage of the game. Let's just vote yes on the 218 and get it over with. I don't want to die still fighting on and on, with ever higher penalties and costs. Life is too short and that tact is just too useless.

Revealed said...

Shark,

At least Linde Owen and Michael Jones walk from door to door and physically commit themselves to their beliefs. You? You and 4crapkiller post so frequently and argue the same points over and over again, it leaves me to wonder--as well as any reasonable person--about your intent. Are you educating or propagating? It sounds a lot like propagating to me.

Richard,

What would you rather have me talk about? You being a homosexual or you--along with the other recalled members--filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and thus, mooting any sort of criticism you have of a financially inept LOCSD and both claims can be proven in court.

I'll explain a little more about these comments. This will put them into perspective and maybe someday, they'll mean a whole lot more than "babble" to you.

I personally believe that you have yet to show any sort of community service--but then you may be asking, "Then what do you call being a board member of the LOCSD?"

I would sit in the front row and watch you pull a Rip Van Winkle and literally sleep while the community spoke up against your elitist conduct, your comments, your opinions, your conclusions, your mistakes.

You were recalled for good reasons and you were disgraced by a majority vote, you go on SanLuisObispo.com boards and leak classified information from the LOCSD offices and the RWQCB onto the site before the press release date. You took, "For immediate release" literally.

And furthermore, you have a lot of skeletons in your closet and you know what? You're the only non-skeleton in that closet at the moment. Might as well come out of the closet if you have the [bleep] balls.

Shark Inlet said...

Revealed,

Interesting. You think it okay to walk door to door to spread one's beliefs but you somehow think it wrong to do the same thing but via the internet. Whether the intent is education (my motive) or propaganda (what you believe my motive to be) seems irrelevant. Could you explain yourself a bit more.

Richard LeGros said...

Revealed....

Oh...it's you again.
You have bloggrd us all in the past under different blog names.

My response to you is as before.....you're full of baloney. Your blogs are all babble with no facts or conection to reality.

und2gtalf,Bruce

Regards, Richard LeGros