Pages

Thursday, September 06, 2007

Professor Henry Hill Hears From The RWQCB

The second email posted here (below) is from Mark Lowe, and presumably Mr. Murphy of Advanced Environmental Systems on their proposed onsite “Reclamator” system . The last email (below) from me to Mr. Lowe is in response to his original email. And the first (directly below) is the response to Mr. Lowe’s email , from Matt Thompson of the RWQCB.

As I noted when I posted Mr. Lowe’s original email on this blogsite on 9/4/07, the battle between the AES and the RWQCB hinges on data and statutory and legal “definitions,” as in, What constitutes Waste & Water & Discharge & Pollutants & Reclamation & Tertiary & ReUse & Recycled & What needs a Permit & What Doesn’t and Who Sez & Neener Neener, So’s Yer Momma & Whose Definitions Prevail & If It’s Permitable HOW MUCH Can Be Charged For A Permit & Should It Be Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Testing? So We Can Make Sure The Testing & Permit Requirements will be WAAAAAAYYYYY More Expensive than ANY Central Municipal Wastewater System Picked By The BOS & Etc. (Not That We’re Telling You What Kind Of System To Pick, Mind You, No, That Would Be Illegal) & etc.

Herewith the email response from the RWQCB. ( Of particular interest to me is Matt Thompson’s notation regarding the need for potential actual full costs (absent any grants), including guestimates of homeowner, out of pocket onsite, post-installation, re-landscaping costs & etc. Such real-time, real world guestimates would enable homeowners to compare that with the guestimates for the various systems the county has already looked at.)

And a further reminder that under the county Process, Mr. Murphy's system will be looked at as additional "alternative technologies," during the required CEQA and due diligence phase of determining best technology and best price & etc.

Also, a reminder, the RWQCB is meeting Friday, Sept 7 at their Aerovista headquarters in SLO Townfor a county update report, set for the afternoon session (ca. 1:30 pm?) . If public comment is allowed, I'm sure a lot of people plan to be there to ask that the Board rescind the 45 CDOs and CAO's and promise to "stand down" so this election can take place on a level playing field with no perceived threats and unfair coercion & etc. There is a genuine opportunity here for a "Virtuous Cycle" to begin. The choice is, again, in the Regional Board's hands.


Email to Mr. Lowe:
Mark,

The claims you make are very misleading and must be corrected before we will seriously consider your proposal. The BESTEP 10 is simply a conventional wastewater treatment technology packaged in a small system for household use. Although the system may reduce nitrogen, the system still discharges waste, which would not comply with the Basin Plan prohibition of waste discharges in certain areas of Los Osos/Baywood Park. The RECLAMATOR is essentially a small membrane bioreactor. Although the system may produce tertiary quality effluent that is suitable for recycling, the system would require regulatory oversight. In California, recycled water is jointly regulated by the Water Board and the California Dept. of Public Health (CDPH). Anyone installing the RECLAMATOR and claiming 'indirect potable reuse' would be required to submit a Recycled Water Engineering Report to the Water Board and CDPH, and obtain and comply with water recycling requirements. Indirect potable reuse typically requires tertiary 2.2 quality recycled water, with daily total coliform monitoring to ensure system performance. Both the BESTEP 10 and RECLAMATOR are complex and must be operated by a state-certified operator.

Your claim that that the system will cost a typical homeowner a one time cost of $3,500 and then $46 per month is based on a questionable assumption that the federal government will pay for 75% of the system cost. Unless you can provide written correspondence from the federal government to substantiate this assumption, it is more appropriate for you to represent the full cost of the system.--

Matt ThompsonEnforcement UnitRegional Water Quality Control BoardCentral Coast Region895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101San Luis Obispo, California 93401V (805) 549-3159F (805) 788-3572

Mr. Low’s cc original email to me concerning this system: (previously posed on 9/4/07)

>>> "Mark Low" 9/3/2007 1:17 PM >>>Ann:This will serve to keep the focus on the Technology as is required by USC Title 33 Chapter 26 (C26).The last paragraph of the AES Technology Description defines the quality of the water produced by the RECLAMATOR.The The 1994 NSF Report demonstrates the "BESTEP" Process.Tom, on his own volition, paid to have the Nitrogen testing done because he knew "then" the importance of it.I know of no other "at source" alternative technology which can achieve the level of treatment as demonstrated in the testing data.Within the past 3 years, he has added an ultra filtration spiral wound membrane into the decanter to enable the BESTEP (UF-900) to meet the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLG) which is the US EPA Standard which defines water having no pollutants, the national treated drinking water standards. The MCLG, not to be confused with the MCLs, is "The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals." Please make note of the "non-enforceable" component of this definition.(See: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html ) When the "discharge of pollutants" is eliminated, the requirement for a "discharge permit" is also eliminated, as a "discharge permit" is a measure of enforcement. Additionally, C26, Section 1311 (a) additionally clarifies no discharge permit is required unless there is a discharge of pollutants. The BESTEP UF-900 does not discharge pollutants.A Membrane is a physical "definite" barrier the discharge of pollutants. Unlike a process which solely uses biological treatment, the addition of a definite barrier membrane "consistently and reliably" assures the quality of water which is produced. The quality of water (reclaimed/repurified) produced by the BESTEP UF-900 is: 100% removal of colloids and particulates larger than 10 nano meters, turbidity less than 0.1 NTU, over log 6 removal of bacteria (99.9999% removal), over log 4 removal of viruses (99.99% removal), and removal of large molecular weight organic compounds (above 100,000 Daltons). BESTEP + Membrane = BADCT (best available demonstrated control technology)The BESTEP eliminates the need for any collection system and thereby complies with the requirements of C26. The post federal grant cost to each DUE will be $3,500 with a monthly service fee of $45.75 per month.Any other area-wide waste management solution which might be proposed by the County, as is required by C26, would have to have a life-cycle cost of not more than 15% of the most cost effective alternative. (See Sec. 1281 (j)) This means that, to comply with federal law, such solution if it were to be proposed by the County, would 1) have to be equal in technology and performance, and 2) be required to cost no more than $20 million dollars "installed".BADCT is required to be promulgated and used when possible, as required by C26.Howard Kolb previously communicated to Mr. Murphy that if the LOCSD had proposed the BESTEP 10 as the solution for Los Osos, the State WaterBoard would have approved it.Mark480.363.1154

My email response to the original above email:

Mark@ModernHunter.com writes: To all interested parties: Please see attached;

Thanks for the file. I trust you'll be submitting your test data & etc to the RWQCB staff Friday (if not before) as well as meeting with Paavo. I believe everything you're proposing here will likely hinge on that data. Ann Calhoun Los Osos, CA

22 comments:

4crapkiller said...

FRAUD ALERT>>>>>>FRAUD ALERT!

4crapkiller, admitted FRAUD, an anon, is writing:

Calhoun, a true socialist, states her opinion of great weight as an obstructionist property owner probably as a result of the $50,000 sticker shock on her two properties. Of course, it is ALL the water board's fault: EVIL! Blunders! Fools!

LUUUCY, JUICCY, I DON'T WANT TO PAY, LET THE RICH FOLKS PAY, DELAY, DELAY:

"As I noted when I posted Mr. Lowe’s original email on this blogsite on 9/4/07, the battle between the AES and the RWQCB hinges on data and statutory and legal “definitions,” as in, What constitutes Waste & Water & Discharge & Pollutants & Reclamation & Tertiary & ReUse & Recycled & What needs a Permit & What Doesn’t and Who Sez & Neener Neener, So’s Yer Momma & Whose Definitions Prevail & If It’s Permitable HOW MUCH Can Be Charged For A Permit & Should It Be Hourly? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Testing? So We Can Make Sure The Testing & Permit Requirements will be WAAAAAAYYYYY More Expensive than ANY Central Municipal Wastewater System Picked By The BOS & Etc. (Not That We’re Telling You What Kind Of System To Pick, Mind You, No, That Would Be Illegal) & etc."

The FRAUD comments:

Conviction of the water board (Briggs) before the case is heard.

Briggs comments may be valid according to what the BOARD has ruled in the past. However, they are clearly based upon perception that the AES solution is strictly for individuals only. We heard all about this from the Steve Paige system, which was an individual solution. So Briggs wants more information. SO DO I. So will the county.

It seems to me that Briggs wants this proposal to be fully vetted as other than an individual system.

The water board is chained by the law both state and Federal.

Definitions are proscribed within the law. You will note in any law that there usually are a long list of words defined for clarity. This stops lawyers from arguing what the definition of "Is": is.

At this point we know nothing about what is required to make this a suitable system for the PZ. We even do not know how the system works, or septic tanks will need to be replaced to make it work.

We know nothing, Ann, you know nothing, and the water board knows nothing. YET!

We know nothing about possible conflicts between federal and state
regulatory rulings or laws. Until we learn, hold judgment.

Your distrust, perhaps hate of the water board for trying to enforce the law for clean water and to stop pollution is apparent. Unless you get something for nothing. Not likely.

That is why we need to vote YES on the 218 assessment vote. The county will decide if this is a valid system.

TCG said...

4crapkiller and Ann may know nothing, but I know something. After seeing these guys twice--once on TV and once in person, I know that they are whackos!

They make Al Barrow look like Walter Cronkite.

Mike Green said...

Regional
Whacko
Quantifiable
Chaos
Bozos

4crapkiller said...

To tcg from the FRAUD:

While I am glad for your first hand report of your personal impression on these people, I want to see what they propose. Sometimes people are not what they seem. I simply await information. If they end up as a diversionary scheme to advert attention for the 218 assessment vote, I will be truly disappointed at the perpetrators. In any case I will send my ballots marked YES tomorrow.

If these people have the answers, only the county can decide.

Churadogs said...

Ding! Ding! Ding FRAUD ALERT. Self-identified FRAUD, aka Crap, is chiming in on Sewerish matters, even though she/he has set clear parameters that only opinions from property owners are non-fraudlent while refusing to identify herself so her/his property-owning status can be verified via public record. There's a word for people who set one standard for themselves and another standard for others. Oh, yes, that's right, Hypocrite. So, ding-ding! FRAUD HYPOCRITE ALERT. Crap's back. Caveat. Especially when FHC sez:"Calhoun, a true socialist, states her opinion of great weight as an obstructionist property owner probably as a result of the $50,000 sticker shock on her two properties. Of course, it is ALL the water board's fault: EVIL! Blunders! Fools!"

alas, FHC has fallen into the semantic trap of her/his own making: "obstructionist." It's a false and meanless word that blinds the user to the reality on the ground. It's the sort of Karl Rovian tactic -- invent a bad sounding but meaningless or often false word that can be used like sand in the face to distract and deflect and, most important, MISDIRECT and MISLEAD. Fraudulent Hypocritical Crap is foolish enough to have fallen for it. Aw, Dang, and I hoped he/she had more sense. He/she has always presented a phony persona of being smart and clear and on top of things. Guess that persona's a phony as PHC him/herself. Darn. Meantime, PHC, Go back and read what I have been writing about for years, and this time,PAY ATTENTION.

Mike Green sez:"Regional
Whacko
Quantifiable
Chaos
Bozos "

After watching the staff and board at work during the long, drawn-out ACL & various CDO hearings, I can't argue with you and I also can't tell you how sad it makes me that I can't argue with you. There are so many tragedies involved in how badly this whole system went awry, but one of the most discouraging was actually seeing our Regional board and staff at work. The SWB's Science & Engineering recommendation report on the RWQCBs in general doesn't even come close to the systemic issues that have gone so wrong here, beginning with the original formation of the PZ. And that's truly a shame.

Mike said...

What will it take to remove the artificial Prohibition Zone (PZ) and get real... the septics in the Los Osos area are a significant cause of pollution in our drinking water.

Remove the PZ designation, open up and require ALL properties on less than 10 acres to connect to a full sewer collection and treatment system... No, not the ABC Mega-Regional thing, but a large community system... Cabrillo, Clark Canyon and all the way to Turri Road...

Just a thought, but if you like the PZ....

Churadogs said...

Oops, a Post Script. BWA-HAHAHAHAH, I have to amend Crap's name yet again. He/she now has to be known as the self-identified: Fraudulent Hypocritical COWARDLY Crap, or FHCC.

Excerpted from her/his posting of 11:47 a.m. Sept 6: "To ANN: from the admitted anon FRAUD, 4Crapkiller, who choses not to reveal her name so her property can't be looked up: FOR VERY GOOD REASON. FRAUD ALERT:" . . . ."

. . . . .

"Both of these groups EXIST and have the capacity for violence. Not ALL members within each group, but SOME. All it takes is ONE."

There you have it. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. One set of standards for Fraudulent Hypocritical Cowardly Crap, another set of standards for others. But here's the question? What's wrong with looking up public records? They're public? After all, that was the bland reply by FHCC when another poster expressed outrage at what FHCC had done. I guess public records are public for others, but not for FHCC, right?

Bwa-hahahahah. Fraud Alert is right.

Maria M. Kelly said...

When you look at an aerial view of Los Osos with the parcel map overlay, Joe and I had one at the farmer's market the other day, the PZ very clearly delineates the smaller lots. There are a couple of lots inside that are larger but with the view, you can see that they are developed multi-family. There are still aspects that have the "appearance" of arbitrary but over all, it's pretty consistent.

Many folks found it to be helpful because from that view, it doesn't appear as arbitrary as it can when we talk and have feelings about it. I understand the frustration and it has struck me as odd. But then I found the map and thought about where development happened and the sequence. The bulk of the PZ was developed first and we are approximately 85% of the population. On top of that it is always good to remind people that the issue doesn't just involve the septic tanks it has to do with our leach fields. They do fail over time and on our small lots, we don't have a lot of options. Septic tanks in this density was never a long term solution but it was a decent band-aid.

Trying to pin point the villains in this is great fun as a hobby but doesn't really "do" anything to accomplish any sort of outcome.

I think it's time for us to find a new hobby! My hope is that it involves many inane conversations about far off cultural rituals that we adopt as our own and a new slew of villains.

See you at the water board!
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

4crapkiller said...

To ANN from the Fraud:

"There you have it. Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. One set of standards for Fraudulent Hypocritical Cowardly Crap, another set of standards for others. But here's the question? What's wrong with looking up public records? They're public? After all, that was the bland reply by FHCC when another poster expressed outrage at what FHCC had done. I guess public records are public for others, but not for FHCC, right?"

My property records are available to the public. Everyday I get solicited by snail-mail to refinance. They get their information from the property records. My handle here is anon as is almost everyone's. Unlike you, I am not a loose goose, or a loose cannon.

You have chosen to give weight to your half truths, quips, and nit picks by doing so under your real name. You probably even get paid by the Bay News to do so. I saved you from fraudulent rumors concerning your property ownership, I cannot save you from your bias, and agenda. It is well documented.

In a heated environment such as this, perhaps you are either very brave, stupid, or both. Let the reader decide. It may be of no importance.

In the meantime if you were so sure of your opinions as being absolutely correct, and did not suffer guilt for stirring the pot into a $42 million indebtedness, loss of local control, and complete polarization of the community, perhaps you would not bark at this moon. The moon exists.

Apparently facts, figures, the law, pronouncements from a regulating board (chained by the law), and rational opinion derived therefrom are your worst nightmare.

They make your opinions look foolish. So get down to the seriousness of this problem, and stop being foolish. Use reason and facts, not emotion.

As long as you make twisted assumptions based on half truths, ferment false hope, and defend the indefensible, the nightmare will not go away.

A YES vote on the assessment will go along way to eliminate this nightmare.

Yep, whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting!

In the meantime we have a yellow page of misinformation put out by a committee that is unknown. Apparently you support this by omission.

A potential $900 a month discharge fee is a very good reason to vote for the assessment. Faith in the LOCSD is a very poor reason to vote NO. They sure have put us into a pickle when they stopped the sewer. They were warned of consequences, and everything they were warned about has come to pass.

4crapkiller said...

The CCRWQC board today, hearing the pleas of those who were singled out for enforcement, created Dec. 7th as to how to handle the inequities to those receiving CDOs and those who signed agreements. Apparently they wish to handle everyone equally. In the meantime there will be no enforcement.

This agenda item will be after the results of the assessment vote is known. Hopefully the whole question will become moot. However, if the vote fails, I have no idea what they will do. They might just issue CDOs to everyone in the PZ. Who knows?

The staff will NOT use "NO" 218 votes to single out people for enforcement, at the boards informal direction.

The staff slapped Murphy and Low for false information and not interpreting Federal law correctly.

Same as the letter they sent them, telling them to stop the misinformation and referred them to the county. A copy of the letter is on the TT blogs a .pdf file.

Otherwise, Paavo did a great job of updating the CCRWQCB and Bruce Gibson urged them to drop the CDOs against the "45 not 45" which turns out to be 13.

Racano was there for a regional solution. The sewer operator for Moro Bay and Caycucos testified that their systems were deteriorating to an alarming degree and suggested that some regional small pipe solution could be a solution.

Someone got up and made the point that Moro Bay was going to have tertiary treated effluent dumped into the ocean at more than a million gallons a day. We could use the water to recharge the basin.

Of particular note were about three people taking the county to task for permitting septic tanks and the allowing of building in violation of Federal law in the PZ. We will see where that goes. It seems to me that the county caused a great deal of our problem.

I say vote YES on the assessment, let the county build the sewer, and then take the county and state, who failed to perform oversight, to task for their negligence. It would be nice to get a good hunk of this sewer paid for by them.

I have no idea who will be able to do this, the LOCSD is broke, due to the boards own negligence.

I sort of got a feeling that the CCRWQCB was afraid of McPherson's suit, I MAY BE WRONG. Cesena spoke to potential legal problems to the CCRWQCB if the suit prevails.

I think it is far better to plead with them for mercy and ask for help, than insult them. Tacker did, Cesena did, and Senet did. Even Al Barrow made meaningful and polite comments for a change. It was refreshing, only the insults of Alon Perlman were notable.

Seems like a big change in attitude since the county has been doing such a good job.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Maria,

You just don't get it (or don't want to for some reason --) the people in the hills are polluting if homes in the lowlands are.

People on Highland are polluting and Cabrillo isn't? Get real! There isn't a density problem in either place.

If the state wants to get rid of all septics in California -- sewer the whole town!

Or is the county in such a rush to get us to commit to the megasewer before AB885?

There is absolutely NO defense for the PZ! None Maria! Don't even go there!

Everyone benefits from water and you can't have the PZ foot the bill. You can't have others outside the PZ hook-up when and if they want to. How fair is that? After the PZ has already paid for a sewer and all they would have to pay is to hook-up and monthly charges? They would have no liens on THEIR homes! How fair is that Maria?

And can't YOU get in trouble for violating the Brown Act by endorsing the 218 when you're on the TAC which is part of the county?

You think what you're doing and endorsing is right?

No, Maria, it's wrong. And you're wrong!

P.S. And now Maria you are an offical liar too. You say the sewer will cost homeowners $25,000. when you KNOW, you KNOW, it will be much much more. Bad Girl!

Conspiracy Boy said...

CrapKiller:

You missed a few highlights of the RWQCB meeting today.

First of all the Fair, Firm and Consistent rang strong.

Their attorney, John, is going to retire. He's the one who oversaw the 45 CDO's who didn't get Fair, Firm or Consistent treatment.

Can you spell "Fall Guy?"

The RWQCB can't follow it's own Enforcement Policies and want us to follow their enforcement when they can't prove any pollution from individuals and it's required by law that they do so?

Give us a break! All of you are full of crap.

And LeGros has a new look! What a crew!

Conspiracy Boy said...

Crap:

P.S. Yeah, the county's done a great job of taking our homes (or trying to anyway.)

Great job!

4crapkiller said...

CB:

I would not be surprised if all the homes within the district and out of the PZ would loved to be sewered for a $35,000 assessment and monthly sewer bills. You see, you do not understand the the most expensive part of the system is the distribution lines with pumps to service them. A fare share of the homes outside the PZ are high and dispersed. About 15%. The cost of running distribution lines to these homes would probably increase the cost of distribution by 35%, maybe more. Now if the people in the PZ would wish to subsidize these homes by hooking them up and pay even more assessment, $35,000 instead of $25,000, fine. I guess the property owners outside would be in agreement. The benefit would be the same. So you would increase the cost of the project 35% or more to include 15% more homes. In addition the maintenance would go up also. Go for it. Too late now, however. And moreover some of these homes have their own wells with water rights.

Perhaps this could be sold in the future. Certainly the increase in value to these homes would more than pay for their assessment.

Septic tanks are a pain, require pumping and maintenance. Leach fields clog and sooner or later need to be replaced. Nothing like "flush it and forget it".

Do the figures, get out a map, and check the distances involved.

Do you know that septic tanks actually work well? Some of the higher homes are 150 ft above ground water and certainly cannot be considered high density housing.
No overload. Just about all are on 1/3 of an acre or more.

Great idea: rob the poor and give to the wealthy. It is the Mexican way of life! I am not in favor or any hair brained schemes that would increase the cost for those in the PZ. I own property in the PZ.

4crapkiller said...

CB:

I don't think anyone is going to hook up to a sewer without agreeing to an assessment. Those out of the PZ, when the time comes will be required to pay according to benefit.

Conspiracy Boy said...

CrapKiller:

I sure hope so.

I still say that the whole place should be sewered. The whole place should pay. The water companies and state should pay.

All the above benefit.

Churadogs said...

WOA! FRAUD ALERT AGAIN!! This one's a doozie! The mother of all FRAUDS. Fraudlent, Hypocritical, Cowardly Crap i.e. FHCC (all self-identified, by the way) sez:"My property records are available to the public. Everyday I get solicited by snail-mail to refinance. They get their information from the property records. My handle here is anon as is almost everyone's. Unlike you, I am not a loose goose, or a loose cannon."

Really? So what's your name so others can look up your property information to indeed verify that you aren't a FRAUD and a Liar? Oh, I see, and we're to take your word for it? The word of an "anonymous" self-identfied FRAUD who claims not to be a loose goose but whose every utterance -- and there are so many -- come from a self identified . . . Fraud? Ah, I see.

Well, unlike you, a self identified FRAUD, I put my name to my opinions. So does Maria Kelly, for example. So do several more posters here. Makes you wonder what YOU"RE afraid of. You claim you're afraid of Wackos. Hmmm, I wonder why Maria Kelly isn't afraid of Wackos? Maybe it's because she isn't -- under your own defintions -- a FRAUDLENT COWARD, like you? Maybe she actually has the integrity -- unlike you -- to own her opinions and stand by them . . . unlike you. Oh, and let's not forget HYPOCRITE, one who holds standards for themselves that are very different from those held for others. You're batting 1,000 FHCC. Batting 1,000. Yet there you are, continuing to enlessly nakker on about 218 votes and sewers -- things you have absolutely NO credibility on since you've already declared yourself a FRAUD, which means anything you say is one endless litany of Phony, including this silliness: "I say vote YES on the assessment, let the county build the sewer, and then take the county and state, who failed to perform oversight, to task for their negligence. It would be nice to get a good hunk of this sewer paid for by them." -- Oh, Dear, Fraud, there you go, misleading the reader -- again -- by opining that they can take the county to task and the state to task. This from the same FRAUD that declared the PZLDF case a waste of money, that you can't fight the waterboard, & etc.wouldn't lift a finger for the Los Osos 45. Lordy, what a phony.

And then, this howler: " I own property in the PZ." Bwa-hahahahah Oh, Fraud, Fraud. Of all your lies, that's the best one of all. Wheee! Bring on the dancing bears!

Maria Kelly sez:"Septic tanks in this density was never a long term solution but it was a decent band-aid."

Yup, which makes the county's continued issuances of permits all the more puzzling. They KNEW they were taking this town into harm's way. It's especially puzzling why the RWQCB also permitted those 1,00-some "extra" homes even after the moritorium was declared. How on earth did they justify that, or if they've even tried?

4crapkiller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
4crapkiller said...

To Churadogs:


"continuing to enlessly nakker on about 218 votes and sewers"


What does this mean? It is just about as clear as the rest of the stuff you write, and makes as much sense.

It seems you surely don't read what you write to make sure it contains INTELLIGENT OPINION.

In any case I will continue to pop your balloon to let the stale hot air out.

I deleted the previous post, It started to sound like Calhooooooon.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

It seems as if Crapkiller has gotten underneath your skin. Your responses to her lack the aplomb you typically have for others.

Let this issue go because it isn't helping us move the discussion forward or even sideways ... only backwards.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"It seems as if Crapkiller has gotten underneath your skin. Your responses to her lack the aplomb you typically have for others.

Let this issue go because it isn't helping us move the discussion forward or even sideways ... only backwards."

Under my skin? Lordy no. Crap is a gem! The perfect example of the kind of fraudulent poseurs who show up "anonymously" to blog here, full of lies, deliberately misleading info, phony threats. Crap is a self-declared fraudlent, hypocritical, cowardly phony delight who decries this blogsite and me while spending endless hours typing away with more false, unverifiable info. Crap is, in short, a hoot! A phony hoot, but a hoot!

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

What is troubling me is that you've gotten into a shouting match with Crapkiller where the two of you are saying about the same thing and it seems that neither of you are taking the steps toward a more productive discussion.

I'm not claiming that I'm the best example of this either, because we've all got our issues (mine is cost, yours might be a untainted process or TriW as a site, Crapkiller's might be property owners versus renters, who knows) but typically you are more able to rise above the silly name-calling than you've been in your recent discussions with Crapkiller.

Little benefit for our community even though you find it a hoot.

It's your blog, but to me it seems that focusing on the issues is more important calling Crapkiller someone who is full of lies and deliberately misleading info.

If you're going to explain how any of her particular claims is misleading, fine. If you're just going to toss that out there as an insult or as a way of trying to say Crapkiller is worth ignoring, not fine. That being said, has she given out false information about the nature of the 218 vote, the County process or the financial status of the LOCSD? Has she lied to us about having some secret plan to win the war in Vietnam ... er ... pardon the slip ... sewer our community for less than $100/month or $150/month?