Calhouns Can(n)ons

Friday, September 14, 2007

Uh, Mommy, What are those GINORMOUS metal thingees there with high tension wires running through them? Why, Dear, those are PG&E Power Lines. Let's first pretend that we can build a sewer plant under them, then declare we can't because there are power lines overhead, then declare, "Ooops, soooo sorry, We Just Discovered That The ONLY Out Of Town Site For Our Sewer Plant Has Power Lines On It (Dang! When did that happen? We don't know. A miracle, perhaps?) So We Have To Build The Sewer Plant In The Middle Of Town."

Uh-oh, it's Ron Crawford over at www.sewerwatch.com asking his usual annoying and inconvenient questions. Pest! The man's a pest! This time he's asking about why and how the Tri-W site managed to get carried through the TAC's fine screening report when the so-called Andre 1 site was knocked out of the box as a non-viable site immediately.

Hmmmm, maybe non-viable is simply a matter of where you're standing? Maybe it's like if you close your eyese tight and stand on Los Osos Valley road on a dark, moonless night in deep, deep fog, you can't see those power lines which means they aren't there which means the site is viable . . . . until the sun comes up . . . after which it's not?

85 comments:

Unknown said...: You make those 500,000 volt power transmission lines sound like a something we can do without... Maybe we can! Just go outside your house and turn off the main circuit breaker. If every house in California would do that, there would be no need for those nasty lines or electrical generating plants. Dear Ann, you and Ron must have a simple solution to removing those 500,000 volt lines just so our sewer can be pumped, opps, no electricity for the pumps?

There are some alternatives, similar to drying clothes on the line. We could have individual electric generators in our homes, now that's even easier than installing a sewer...or we could simply return to the days of candle and kerosene lamps, wood or coal burning stoves. Gee, life would be so much simpler and solve all our problems without electricity... Of course, it would be more difficult to blog using smoke signals...; 7:46 AM, September 14, 2007
4crapkiller said...: Ann Balooooooon:

Until the Andre1 site was fully vetted it was valid. The property was available for sale. It was unknown whether or not PG&E would allow access to the site UNDER the power lines by giving a variance to their deed restrictions. It was really a good site, many projects such as nurserys etc. exist under power lines. However when they stated that they would not because they wanted the potential of placing a large underground electrical transmission line into the ground under the power lines, and wrote a letter to that effect, the site was found NOT usable. The letter was proof of previous conversations.

Another balooooooooon poped:

In the meantime, didn't the recall group advocate this site as a place for the Nelson Environmental system? Was not a copy of the PG&E letter to the LOCSD circulated for all to see? Did not someone get up at a LOCSD meeting and speak about the letter and the site. What other site was available out of town? Perhaps you do not know, a SERVICE DISTRICT has no power to eminent domain property OUTSIDE it's district boundries. What other site was available?

Hey baloooooon: Ever read LAFCO law? It was expected that they would put the dissolution up to a vote of the property owners who formed the district and were responsible for it. It is part of the law. This would have been the democratic way. It was reasonable.; 9:32 AM, September 14, 2007
4crapkiller said...: To Balooooooon and Ron:

Did not Ron Crawford advocate this Andre1 site originally? I remember him writing about the advantages of this site over Tri-W. I don't think he ever mentioned the power lines and deed restrictions.; 9:37 AM, September 14, 2007
4crapkiller said...: To Mike:

Baloooooooon would have us follow the advice of her environmental hero AL Gore and have us ride horses instead of driving cars. He never consided all the dried horse crap blowing in the wind due to increase in population.

Horsecrap blowing in the wind like a loose Balooooooooon.; 9:57 AM, September 14, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

The problem with Ron isn't so much that he asks annoying and inconvenient questions ... the problem is that when he asks reasonable questions for the first, 2nd and 3rd time and gets reasonable answers to his questions the first, 2nd and 3rd time he continues to ask the same stinkin' question over and over and over as if it was never answered.

In this case, he's been told ... by folks here, folks on the TAC, environmental scientists, professional engineers and folks at the County who have consulted with the CCC, RWQCB and their own legal team ... that the reason that TriW isn't off the table is that it would violate the CEQA process for selecting another site.

Presumably if Ron or someone really believed that TriW was, indeed, illegal, they could probably ask the RWQCB to go back and reconsider the now-dead CDP for TriW. However, the CCC won't do that because no one has asked to develop TriW. The fact that at one point in time, TriW had been approved is why it must be considered as a viable project for the CEQA process.

Perhaps the problem is that Ron and you have reading comprehension problems. To the rest of us it seems pretty clear ... and if Ron is right that TriW isn't appropriate, the CCC will not approve it if the County thinks it best. However, because Ron only asserts this and hasn't quoted any CCC staff as verifying his "take" on the potential future legality of TriW, it seems as if we're all flying blind ... except for County staff who have been in discussions with the CCC and RWQCB.; 10:00 AM, September 14, 2007
Ron said...: Thanks for the link, Ann, but here's where it should go:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Ann wrote:

"This time he's asking about why and how the Tri-W site managed to get carried through the TAC's fine screening report when the so-called Andre 1 site was knocked out of the box as a non-viable site immediately."

Indeed, but, more importantly, the county is jeopardizing a successful 218 vote by keeping the "divisive" Tri-W project around, when they have a perfectly legitimate (in fact, according to documents, it's illegal if they DON'T eliminate it) way of removing that project from "further consideration."

Why?

The only reason I can think of is behind-the-scenes pressure from the handful of people that developed Tri-W. And THAT, THAT!, is risking a successful 218 vote, and gambling with $2 million more of our (SLO County residents') money. In short, the county, like many, many, many other people, is f-ing up and trusting Nash-Karner -- I can't tell you what a huge mistake that is -- but this time it's with our money.

"Gary and I are supporting Bruce Gibson for Supervisor. We believe Bruce Gibson has the background, knowledge and scientific expertise to help us build the sewer – quickly. Our next supervisor will have to work hard to evaluate the existing data and move forward to stop the pollution and comply with the law. I have spoken with Bruce Gibson on many occasions and appreciate his points of view on the many topics that affect District 2"
-- Pandora Nash-Karner

As a SLO County resident, I demand that the illegal and "divisive" Tri-W project immediately be "eliminated from further consideration" so it doesn't waste $2 million MORE of our money.

As Katcho once said, "That would buy a lot of children's dentistry."

Mike wrote:

"Dear Ann, you and Ron must have a simple solution to removing those 500,000 volt lines just so our sewer can be pumped, opps, no electricity for the pumps?"

How can you miss the point that badly? That has nothing to do with anything I, or Ann, wrote. The point with the gigantic power towers, is that the early CSD threw a bunch of money and time studying the Andre1 site, and THEN said, "Whoooaaa, wait a sec, when did those gigantic towers loaded with huge high voltage lines show up?"

In other words, they just went through the motions of studying alternative sites after their "better, cheaper, faster" plan at Tri-W failed. But, clearly, after that plan failed, they were never going to put the sewer plant anywhere else... no matter how much it cost your community, both in dollars and fabric, obviously.

4CK wrote:

"Did not Ron Crawford advocate this Andre1 site originally? I remember him writing about the advantages of this site over Tri-W. I don't think he ever mentioned the power lines and deed restrictions."

That was one of the early CSD's favorite obfuscation techniques -- the fact that there were TWO Andre properties. The Andre1 site had the PG&E easements. The Andre2 site did not, according to the PG&E Real Estate expert that I talked to on the phone over a year ago. But the LOCSD, at the time, seemed to come down with a bad case of amnesia, and FORGOT that they studied BOTH of those sites in the EIR. And since Andre2 was a "feasible location" that was "environmentally preferable," then it was illegal for the early CSD to select the ESHA-filled Tri-W site for their second project. (The ponding system at Tri-W, that got them elected and the LOCSD formed in the first place in 1998, was their first.)

I wrote about all that here

Plus, the GINORMOUS towers were just a funny afterthought I tagged on to my piece. The real story with the Andre1 site is that the county set a precedence with it by "eliminating it from further consideration" in the Rough Screening Report. That's the important thing to keep in mind.

If they can do it with Andre1, then why can't they do it with Tri-W, now that its precious CDP shield is gone. If you think about it, Tri-W's flaws are MUCH more egregious than Andre1's flaws. Andre1's flaws could have been mitigated just by throwing a bunch of money at moving the towers. Tri-W is illegal. That can't be mitigated.

So, bottom line:

If you want make sure everything is done to ensure a successful 218 vote, you better contact the county and demand that the illegal and "divisive" Tri-W project be "eliminated from further consideration," pronto, just like Andre1.

I did.

Anonymous commentor wrote:

"... the reason that TriW isn't off the table is that it would violate the CEQA process for selecting another site."

That argument doesn't hold a drop of water. All you have to do is think it through -- CEQA requires that municipalities waste money studying illegal sites? That doesn't make any sense. Hey, they studied it, and it's illegal. CEQA complied with.

And if that IS the case -- they have to keep the "divisive," illegal-DUE-to-environmental-reasons project around for CEQA purposes -- then you better get county officials to put Andre1 BACK on the table, or they'll be setting themselves up for a massive lawsuit.; 10:35 AM, September 14, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12:07 PM, September 14, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Just imagine what Judy Vick would say about people actually WORKING UNDER those power lines!!!!! Cell phone towers are nothing compared to these lines!; 1:44 PM, September 14, 2007
Unknown said...: I happen to think they look like very large beautiful dollar signs; very large tax dollars to the county...!!! Ask the Tax collector just who is the largest taxpayer in San Luis Obispo county, it won't be all the combined properties in Los Osos!; 2:03 PM, September 14, 2007
4crapkiller said...: To Ron:

Some of your links on your site do not work. Also your comments are 2005. This was way after TRI-W was under way. What you say about the park and community amenities is not in dispute, I voted to assess myself because of the addition of a park. I figures if we were going to spend the money, might as well spend some more over a twenty year period of time and get something nice for Los Osos, since the county was ignoring us. That was when the failed ponding system was being proposed.

I remember that there was discussion about getting sewer lines across the Andre property, because of electrical conductivity. I know that an optical fiber network next to LOVR crosses it next to the road, but this does not connect ELECTRICITY, only light.

In any case, was Andre 2 available for sale at that time?; 7:43 PM, September 14, 2007
lost in translation said...: Dick le Gross says:

PPS: Did you not know, prior to voting for the recall, that stopping Tri-W would result in all the financial and political damage that has occurred (despite repeated warnings by many government agencies)?
If not, why not?

Let me ask you this question, DICK........
Did you not ask yourself, that supporting a center of town sludge factory next to the library and upwind from the church and Community Center was such a completely and totally horrific and idiotic idea that the citizens of Los Osos would throw you out of office for it?

If not, why not?

Did you not think, for just one minute,
that this idea was so completely stupid and retarded that the citizens of this Community would never let you get away with it?

If not, why not?

Did you not ask yourself that the ignorant pursuit of this really bad concept would cause our Community to basically rise up and FIRE you from your job?

If not, why not?

That's right DICK,
this Community rose up and echoed the words of Donald Trump.....
YOU'RE FIRED!!!!!!

I was just wondering DICK......
How does it feel to be so completely and totally wrong about something that a Community would so reject your bad idea to the extreme extent of throwing you out of office for it?

By the way DICK, incase you haven't been paying attention, the County doesn't seem to be too hot on your bad idea either cause they supported expiration of the the coastal development permit on your bad idea. There is no way in hell the Costal Commission will make the same mistake twice. They were fooled by your lies the first time, they wont be fooled again.
Even a bias TAC Committee has rated TRI-W the most expensive and least desirable.
Great idea DICK.....(laughing my ass off), NOT.

Where is Stan, DICK?
I haven't seen him lately?
What's Gordon been up to?
Is he "working with children" again?
Probably not, he was FIRED from that job too, wasn't he?
I wonder why?

You know, for someone named DICK, you and your buddies have to be the sleaziest and slimiest bunch of ASSHOLES that I have ever witnessed in my entire life.

Congratulations, DICK.

Incase you haven't figured it out yet DICK, TRI-W is DEAD!!!!!!!!

Yes, the TRI-W project and your lies of cheaper, better, faster that cost this Community millions, is DEAD.

Thanks for nothing, DICK.; 8:46 PM, September 14, 2007
lost in translation said...: Oh, I forgot......
Have a nice day!:); 8:50 PM, September 14, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Lost in Translation ...

You seem to have forgotten that the recall was a failure. The recall candidates have not delivered what they promised and pretty much all of the bad stuff the anti-recall candidates warned us would happen has.

By the way, thanks for the mess you've given us. Next time, please don't make the mess in my home without at least offering to clean it up.; 10:26 PM, September 14, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: lot,
(_*_); 11:33 PM, September 14, 2007
lost in translation said...: Shark,

You've seem to have forgotten that the "mess" was created by you and your friends.....the solutions group, aka. save the dream, aka. taxpayers watch. The County was all set to build an out of town sewer that would of cost us all $50-$70/month. The "mess" was created by the lies that were perpetrated on this Community by your asshole friends of "cheaper, better, faster". Everything that Ann and Ron says is true. If it weren't for you and your asshole friends, we'd all be hooked up right now and be paying $50-$70/month. So, my question to you is; "Whose fault is this "mess"? If it weren't for the obstructionist lies of cheaper, better, faster by the solutions group, then we are all hooked up to an out of town County project paying $50-$70/month right now and there would never have been a CSD to recall for a project that was so ridiculous there was noway in hell this Community would ever support it and noway in hell it will ever be built.....with a project in place and no CSD to recall.....the RWQCB would have never been lobbied by your friends to fine the people of Los Osos out of existence. That's right, in the biggest cry baby move I've ever witnessed, your fearless leader, Pandora Nash Karner, lobbied the RWQCB to fine the property owners of Los Osos out of existence. Nice.
Anyway, like I said, no Pandora, no solutions group, no CSD, no miserable failure of at TRI-W, no CDOs, and were all hooked up right now and paying $50-70/month.

Shark, your short-term memory doesn't work.

As for the current CSD and their promises and bad stuff. I'll remind you one more time that it was your friend "cry baby" Pandora that lobbied the RWQCB for "bad stuff"(fines). Pandora and Taxpayers Waste wanted, no begged, the RWQCB to fine the property owners of Los Osos. As for the promises of the current CSD. Well, it looks like we might be on our way to an out-of-town County project. You know, kind of like the one the County was set to build 10 years ago before you and your friends told this Community the great bait and switch lie that would cost us all millions. And according to a TRI-W bias TAC, an out of town gravity or step project will cost less than TRI-W.

I'll say it again Shark, thanks for 10 years of wasted time and millions of dollars.

By the way, it wasn't the current CSD that stopped the project. It was the people of Los Osos who elected them to stop the project.

And finally, to sewertoons.....
I know and you've made it very apparent, that you've been neglected (_*_).
I hope you get the help you so needfully desire.

Have a nice day!!:); 9:03 AM, September 15, 2007
Unknown said...: It really is amazing how much power Pandora still has over the RWQCB. Based on your endorsement rhetoric, I'm surprised she isn't running for Govenator.

Why are you even concerned, the District does not have the sewer project and even if it was returned to them, they are bankrupt... OH, that's right, you don't want ANY sewer!; 9:13 AM, September 15, 2007
Ron said...: 4CK wrote:

"Some of your links on your site do not work."

Some of them may have broken down over the years (or I may have done a rare f-up, and didn't get the html code right). If you let me know which ones, I'll fix them.

"Also your comments are 2005. This was way after TRI-W was under way."

I don't know what you are referring to, there.

"In any case, was Andre 2 available for sale at that time?"

Well, after seeing the way the previous CSD Board went about there "alternative site" selection process, after their first project at Tri-W failed, my guess is they went and found properties that they knew the owners would never sell, and then threw a bunch of money at studying those properties, so they would be able to later say, "Oh, damn, it now looks like the owners aren't willing to sell. So, that site is infeasible. Looks like we're going to have to go with Tri-W... you know, the same site that we were going to build that lemon that got us elected and the LOCSD formed in the first place."

LIT wrote:

"... the TRI-W project and your lies of cheaper, better, faster that cost this Community millions..."

And ripped the community apart. To me, that's even worse than the millions they wasted on "better, cheaper, faster" and "bait and switchy."

"... is DEAD."

Exactly. That's the point of my latest blog piece. The Tri-W site is dead (illegal), yet the county is keeping that "divisive" and "dead" project around during the 218 vote. To be frank, that's really stupid, and risking $2 million of our (county residents') money, just to appease the handful of bitter, sour grape folks that were responsible for Tri-W. What a f-ing joke.

"... your fearless leader, Pandora Nash Karner, lobbied the RWQCB to fine the property owners of Los Osos out of existence."

To help refresh Shark's memory on that little episode, I wrote about that here (not that they'll be able to comprehend that story... or anything).

There's also two Nash-Karner quotes in that story that are very relevant to my whole "keeping Tri-W on the table during the 218 vote is costing hundreds, if not thousands, of "yes" votes" take.

It's these, from Nash-Karner to Roger Briggs, written just hours after the recall election:

"Please... is there any way to salvage the project??????????????????"

and;

"We MUST save this project!"

To me, those quotes sound so desperate. Like she'll do anything to make sure the Tri-W project goes through. And then you throw those desperate quotes on top of this endorsement for Bruce Gibson:

"Gary and I are supporting Bruce Gibson for Supervisor. We believe Bruce Gibson has the background, knowledge and scientific expertise to help us build the sewer – quickly. Our next supervisor will have to work hard to evaluate the existing data and move forward to stop the pollution and comply with the law. I have spoken with Bruce Gibson on many occasions and appreciate his points of view on the many topics that affect District 2"

PLUS the fact that she was reappointed by Gibson as the Parks Commissioner for the 2nd District, a seat she has held since 1991 (1991!, I said), so she has all kinds of "ins" with high ranking county officials, PLUS the fact that she, as part of the initial LOCSD Board, hired Paavo Ogren as the interim General Manager, and, well... if I had a vote in the 218 process, and I saw how desperate she was to make sure the "divisive" Tri-W project goes through, and I also saw how close she was with high ranking county officials, there's NO WAY I would ever vote yes for the 218 vote as long as her precious Tri-W project was anywhere near the table. And I'll give the county a little tip, I'm not alone on that, obviously. And they know that. That's why they call the Tri-W project "divisive."

In fact, now that I think about it, there are actually TWO things that the county could do to greatly increase the likelihood of a successful 218 vote:

1) Eliminate the illegal and "divisive" Tri-W project "from further consideration," just like they did with the Andre1 site.

and;

2) Get Nash-Karner to resign her seat as a Parks Commissioner.

If those two things happened, I'm damn near positive you'd get your 218 vote. As it stands, I'm leaning towards Auditor-Controller, Gere Siebach's (sp?) take, "The vote will be difficult to get."; 10:08 AM, September 15, 2007
4crapkiller said...: To Ron:

Feel free to take Pandora apart. Anyone who supported Gibson and Lois Capps deserves all the aggravation can give them! HA! (A little bit of Republican bias).

You state:

"Well, after seeing the way the previous CSD Board went about there "alternative site" selection process, after their first project at Tri-W failed, my guess is they went and found properties that they knew the owners would never sell, and then threw a bunch of money at studying those properties, so they would be able to later say, "Oh, damn, it now looks like the owners aren't willing to sell. So, that site is infeasible. Looks like we're going to have to go with Tri-W... you know, the same site that we were going to build that lemon that got us elected and the LOCSD formed in the first place."

Ron, thanks for your SPECULATIVE answer as an avoidance of my question. LOL. Wasn't one of the prime sites tied up in litigation by heirs? Was the Andre2 piece of the pie ever offered for sale?

Well, I guess that the property owners will either vote YES for the county to do the job, or vote NO for a discharge permit at $900 a month. (How is that for a brilliant observation?)

Another brilliant observation:

Looks like you pays your money, or you pays your money.; 11:46 AM, September 15, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Lost,

Even if the Solutions Group and the LOCSD board during the 1998-2005 timeframe created the mess (a point which I will not concede right now), quite a few of your "facts" are anything but.

For example, before the formation of the CSD, the County was going to put in the treatment plant at the "Pismo" location ... between residences and the middle school. Hardly out of town. The $50-70/month you are telling us is also incorrect. The monthly amount would have been higher had bids come in above estimated or had any delay at all occurred.

I also wonder about your suggestion that I am friends with folks in the solutions group. Honestly, I've never met a single one of them other than Rose.

It certainly seems that if you're ready to play the blame game, you should evaluate whether you have the cards to win. Even if the Solutions Group could be blamed for a massive f*ck *p, it would seem that stopping the project has cost considerably more.

As for Ron ... it would be nice if he would stop lobbying for the elimination of TriW at this stage. He's been told over and over again, that even if TriW wouldn't be approved for the reasons he suggests, it cannot be eliminated from consideration at this stage because of CEQA rules. It would only be if CCC staffers were to declare the location off limits for any possible project (and thus presumably for any development at all) that the County could take Ron's advice.

So Ron, got that e-mail from Monowitz yet indicating that TriW will not be approved, no matter what the County decides?

It's getting really tiresome reminding you of this again and again. Perhaps if you would just listen for once to the folks on County staff, you would understand why your suggestion is unreasonable.; 4:44 PM, September 15, 2007
Conspiracy Boy said...: SharkInlet:

You say, "Even if the Solutions Group could be blamed for a massive f*ck *p, it would seem that stopping the project has cost considerably more..."

BUT ROBYN HAYHURST (former employee of Sam Blakeslee's office) stated in the recent issue of the Sun Bulletin:
"The LOCSD did not default on the SRF loan. The loan was pulled on the Sacramento end in an unprecedented fashion when it was determined during Sam Blakeslee's negotiations exactly what the citizens were saying all along: There had never been a legally mandated 218 assessment vote to lien their homes for the prematurely started $135 million first phase of Tri-W..."

We all know what you, LeGros, and Crapkiller say, that it would have been done through fees and charges (no 218 needed) BUT there is a limit on how much you can charge for the fees and charges. No way could it be for a $220 million with interest Tri-W sewer...

Please stop defending the recalled board. If the state had not loaned out an unsecured loan and the recalled CSD had not started a bad project destroying ESHA and ignoring the community -- we would be in GOOD shape. It was the State Water Board and the recalled CSD who has caused the $40 some million debt. Period.; 7:39 PM, September 15, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7:40 PM, September 15, 2007
Unknown said...: ...is the CSD bankrupt?

Argue who did what, the fact is the bankruptcy was filed by this CSD... EVEN after keeping the SRF loan with no attempt to return any of the funds... guess they figured the loan was a gift..???; 8:19 PM, September 15, 2007
Conspiracy Boy said...: Richard:

I can assure you that I am the one and only Conspiracy Boy.

Is that all you can come back with? Saying we're all the same person?

Says a lot Richard, doesn't it?

You wanna try again?!?; 8:59 PM, September 15, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7:38 AM, September 16, 2007
4crapkiller said...: CB:

Robyn Hayhurst is sec/treasurer of the PZLDF, McPherson is president.

You quote Robyn:

There had never been a legally mandated 218 assessment vote to lien their homes for the prematurely started $135 million first phase of Tri-W..."

I guess she had been talking to Pam Ochs who took this position before actually reading the law: Just misinformation for the ignorant in an attempt to stop the sewer. Ochs filed well before the recall, then walked away from the case.

So what did I assess myself for, in the beginning, and still pay taxes on? It was for a sewer. It was seed money to get it started.

But, I care. I just want a sewer. A park with it would be nice. Maybe a lot of Los Osos would improve if a nice park was available. The town is deteriorating into a slum in many areas and affecting my property.

Only the county or state has the ability to produce a result. In the meantime, I just do not want to be squeezed by a $900 a month discharge permit on each of my properties. I voted my two ballots YES because I have confidence in the county process. Only the county can hold off the fines and discharge permits by proceeding.

I also have confidence that the CCRWQCB will do EXACTLY what they have threatened. I have absolutely NO confidence that the PZLDF will ever get the financial resources to prevail against the water boards and be able to fight the unlimited resources of the state.

I have NO confidence that any private company on the table will be able to get their own financing to build a project. Any lender will look on the project as a very, very risky loan. There is a strong history of dissent.

Never even mind the INSOLVENT LOCSD.; 9:34 AM, September 16, 2007
Conspiracy Boy said...: To Richard & SharkInlet & CrapKiller:

I will repeat my post to try to get an intelligent response.

SharkInlet says: "Even if the Solutions Group could be blamed for a massive f*ck *p, it would seem that stopping the project has cost considerably more..."

BUT ROBYN HAYHURST (former employee of Sam Blakeslee's office) stated in the recent issue of the Sun Bulletin:
"The LOCSD did not default on the SRF loan. The loan was pulled on the Sacramento end in an unprecedented fashion when it was determined during Sam Blakeslee's negotiations exactly what the citizens were saying all along: There had never been a legally mandated 218 assessment vote to lien their homes for the prematurely started $135 million first phase of Tri-W..."

We all know what you, LeGros, and Crapkiller say, that it would have been done through fees and charges (no 218 needed) BUT there is a limit on how much you can charge for the fees and charges. No way could it be for a $220 million with interest Tri-W sewer...

Please stop defending the recalled board. If the state had not loaned out an unsecured loan and the recalled CSD had not started a bad project destroying ESHA and ignoring the community -- we would be in GOOD shape. It was the State Water Board and the recalled CSD who has caused the $40 some million debt. Period.

And CrapKiller, Robyn Hayhurst worked for Sam Blakeslee before working with Gail. I think she knows what Blakeslee knows, and Richard LeGros can not deny this. He can't address my post.

P.S. I repeat, there is a LIMIT to what fees and charges can be!

P.S.S. CrapKiller, since you trust the county so much and feel they're the only ones who can do the job, why don't you ask why Los Osos is slum like with no paved roads?; 10:15 AM, September 16, 2007
4crapkiller said...: To CB:

Will you please quote any law which limits fees and charges? I am unaware of such on sewers, or water. Ever since prop 13, the state, county, and municipalities have been raising fees and charges, rather than limit their social engineering spending.; 12:44 PM, September 16, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: If you wanna talk about the bankruptcy ... you can blame only the Solutions Group for the bankruptcy if you're willing to stick your head in the sand about the choices the post-recall board made. I can understand the desire to blame the folks who pushed for TriW but I cannot see how one can stand behind the choices of the post-recall board.

In particular, the post-recall board didn't take the right actions to move the sewer without going bankrupt. For example, they could have asked for a 218 vote right off the bat ... asking the property owners to finance the cost of paying the state back for the SRF money already spent and the SRF money already borrowed but not yet spent as well as the cost of designing a new sewer at a new location.

I am convinced that had this been the first action of the new board ... a 218 vote to pursue an out-of-town plant ... had such a 218 vote passed, the RWQCB would have seen that the ducks were in a row and they would have been more willing to play along with the new board. If the contractors had been paid for work already done and the State been paid back for their SRF loan, the issues with debt would be far lower.

It would also be a way of finding out if the property owners (those legally on the hook to pay for the sewer) were in favor of the "move the sewer" plan.

Had that 218 vote passed, they could have hired in a good GM to bring their out-of-town project to pass. Had that 218 vote failed, they could have simply gone ahead and built TriW.

The idea that the can stiff contractors, stiff the state and then make deliberate choices to NOT make any progress on an out-of-town sewer is the massive mess the post-recall board has given us.

This same board who screwed things up after the recall is the very same board who will take the project over should the 218 vote fail. There never has been a better argument for voting "yes". Even if the County plan is a blank check (an argument I don't find all that credible to begin with), the check is even more blank (or should I say bleak) if the CSD is put in charge again.; 3:30 PM, September 16, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: Bruce (CB)..or revealed, or ...oh forget it...your all the same person anyway. LOL,

First of all, Ms. Hayhurst is absolutely incorrect on the issues. Sam will agree with me on that one. Don't believe me...then go ask him. Anyway, she is incorrect because:

1. The LOCSD defaulted on the SRF loan conditions instantly when the recall board stopped the project without following the legal conditions clearly outlined in the SRF contract. Additionally, the SRF contract was defaulted when the District did not repay the SRF
money dispursed (as per the contrct).

2. During December of 2005 the State gave the LOCSD a choice of how the district could retain the SRF loan; BUT THE RECALL BOARD DECLINED THE LOAN CONDITIONS. Just to be very clear on this, the LOCSD REJECTED THE STATE'S OFFER to keep the SRF loan. In short, the State did not "yank" the loan....the CSD DECLINED IT!

3. There is no law that requires a Prop 218 vote for an SRF loan of the type the LOCSD had been awarded. How many times must this be explained to you? Regardless of how much you do not want to hear it, the SRF loan was perfectly legal and secured via the service rate structure.

Lastly, there is NO LEGAL THEORY UPON WHICH YOU CAN BLAME THE BANKRUPTCY OF THE CSD ON THE RECALLED BOARD.
The bankruptcy occurred for a very simple reason....the recall CSD board spent more money than they had in the bank or could generated through service rates. PERIOD.
If, after the recall, any of the CSD board (or that idiotic general manager Belsky)understood finances they could have EASILY AVOIDED BANKRUPTCY through prudent fiscal practices. I repeat........ the bankruptcy could of been easily avoided if the CSD just practed prudent fiancial practices.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Bruce, I hope you vote yes on the 218 vote.; 3:40 PM, September 16, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Richard,

You neglected to mention one thing that should perhaps have been included in your 2nd point. In particular, the LOCSD said that they rejected the SWRCB offer because they couldn't afford a bridge loan to cover the continuation of construction of the collection system during the time between the agreement and the time the 218 vote would pass.

The funny thing, however, is that since then the LOCSD has spent far more money than would have been necessary to cover that bridge loan.

However the past is the past and the current question for PZ folks is whether we want to continue with the County process and pay for it or whether we trust the LOCSD (and whomever would take over after they go under) more to get us a project that is reasonable and as cheap as possible. Simply put, a "no" vote should be viewed as legal evidence in a court of law of an inability to make sound decisios.; 5:13 PM, September 16, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: shark inlet said:
"…since then the LOCSD has spent far more money than would have been necessary to cover that bridge loan."

Which leads me to conclude that they:
1. Never wanted a sewer at all,
2. Spent all the reserves when it was clear that they had better LOOK like they had some kind of plan going,
3. Were stupid and never questioned any fiscal events that would have sent red alarm bells clanging in the head of anyone who knew how to balance their own check book,
4. Got bad advice from Willdan, BWS, Gail, etc.

We can only rely on getting ourselves out of this mess by voting YES on the 218.; 5:34 PM, September 16, 2007
Conspiracy Boy said...: Richard:

Didn't YOU file for bankruptcy protection yourself?! And wasn't your CSD using the SRF money because your board wasn't in good financial shape?! And wasn't it your board who started a project before the vote?!? And wasn't it your board who got greedy with all the MWH big money flying around?

Sewertoons:

The only way I would vote "yes" would be if the county signed a contract with the people of Los Osos to construct a sewer for $200 or less a month. Wouldn't that be fair?!? They could do that. But I still have a problem with the PZ only having to sewer. If the state wants to get rid of septics -- and they've said so, sewer the whole town, because if one septic is polluting, so are the others.

You are not considering the fact that we will be importing water for over $100 a month? Add that to the county's price tag. You can add the 53% increase of our water bills on top of that. How much money are we looking at per month? Why don't you tell me? All projects run over budget. How much will that add to the price tag? And you think it's okay that just the PZ pays for the SRF $6.5 million (when BOTH CSD's spent the money -- not the PZ homeowners?!)....Looks to me like you are asking hundreds if not thousands of homeowners to tax themselves right out of their home. You may have the money to afford $500 a month, but don't you care about anyone but yourself? Richard LeGros is okay, he's moved out of the zone. But what about you? What about the rest of us? And please tell me why YOU think Tri-W is a good spot for a sewer. Thanks.; 7:50 PM, September 16, 2007
Unknown said...: CB (Bruce P).... you really should sell and move quick because you are faced with $2,000,000,000,000 per month sewer bills and the County is going to take your house away. They don't even care what you vote, the project is going to be rammed down your personal throat and you will be the first one they pick out for prosecution... Hope you can afford to pay for the stroke headed your way...!!!; 8:17 PM, September 16, 2007
Conspiracy Boy said...: Mike:

Thank you for your intelligent and warm writings. At least you show your "colors" and who you are.

I asked Sewertoons questions, and I get that from you. Incredible!

And if it's people like you who support the county and to vote yes, well, forget about it!!; 8:24 PM, September 16, 2007
Unknown said...: Bye Bye Bruce... we won't be missing you...; 8:40 PM, September 16, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: cb,

I'd rather that those out of the PZ were not asked to join in. They represent only 15% of the town, hardly a majority. Cabrillo alone would add many, many dollars onto the cost, due to uphill piping and the space between homes. Let's leave well enough alone for right now. Those living on an acre are not polluting either, according to standards put forth by the County and Water Board. Why run miles and miles of extra pipe to bring up the cost further?

You are getting the water importation information from - where? Oh, that's right - you just "know" we'll be importing water. Until you can point us to a County document that states we will, quit confusing the issue with speculation. We have enough water if we use it right and re-use what we have.

LO goofed up big time when the sewer could have been free - they turned it down. When it was way cheaper, they turned that one down too. This place was a mess when I moved here. And I took the gamble - and thought I was going to pay around $200 a month. And now I don't know, but I came in with my eyes open. I'm not asking for a free ride. If I move, it won't be the first time I had to leave a place because I couldn't afford it. That's just life you know. You've never in your life had to move because the rent went up? Well, good for you!

So right now, the best place to get competitive bids is from the County and they will do a far better job overseeing the job than our broke CSD. Orenco will be forced to be cheaper if they are competing with other step companies. Our CSD struggles just to get a GM. Where would they find the cash to hire a project manager to oversee a sewer project? Oh, the sole source company building the project would provide one? Smart move - that'll save some money alright!

Maybe you can tell the folks out of town why a sewer in their midst is the "right thing to do?" Maybe they should have no say in this - because - well, after all, we're Los Osos - and we're special!; 8:51 PM, September 16, 2007
4crapkiller said...: To all:

There are fools and then there are fools expecting some sort of commission or position for promoting something. There are also easily duped old fools, and those who expect government to save their fannies. The only people that have ever been saved by government are those who control government: fact of life.

EXPECTATION! Well, expectation belongs to those who do the expecting. It is THEIR reality.

It has nothing to do with the real world.

There is no free lunch!; 9:19 PM, September 16, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7:53 AM, September 17, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7:56 AM, September 17, 2007
Brass Tacks said...: to Sewertoons 8:51 9/16:
Thanks for reminding me that people who live on over one acre have septic systems that aren't polluting the ground water. I am one of those people and I am very aware that my septic system is not polluting anything, but I just happen to be inside the PZ line and many people right across the road from me that live on only 1/4 acre are exempt from hooking up to the sewer. It is wrong and it is something that needs to be corrected. If septic tanks are polluting the ground water, then everyone needs to be treated the same and that is certainly not happening right now. Does anyone know if LOMS will need to hook up to the sewer? At one point, when the PZ was created, they were also exempt and I have never seen anything in writing that says it has changed. A good start would be to remove the devisive PZ line and treat every property the same, but I don't think that will happen and now the State (AB2801) and CCRWQQB can just say that everyone in the PZ is polluting and illegally discharging, with no science to back it up. There will certainly be no reason to seek change. What a mess and it is certainly unfair.; 9:33 AM, September 17, 2007
Conspiracy Boy said...: Richard:

You say one thing, Robyn Hayhurst says something else. She worked for Sam Blakeslee. Do you? Maybe.

Who to believe? Maybe none of you.

But there is no denying that it was you that picked a very bad project at Tri-W that wouldn't have held up to today's standards. It was you who started a project before it had to be started and caused great financial harm to Los Osos.

I don't care what you say. I don't believe anything you say. You're not a very smart man, and aren't honest either (to say the least.); 10:14 AM, September 17, 2007
Conspiracy Boy said...: To Brass Tacks:

Thank you for questioning the PZ.

The Fair Firm and Consistent State Water Board Policy will play a bigger role as this sewer saga proceeds.

The PZ is wrong, yet the county endorses it. The county isn't on the PZ homeowner's side or they would have never allowed all these homes built without infrastructure (letting the developers off the hook.)

Now, the county wants the PZ to pay the $6.5 million SRF money back...just us? We didn't spend it. Both the recalled board and current board spent it on everything BUT a sewer. I would think it's illegal to put that burden on just the PZ, but seems they are, and doesn't bother them one bit.; 10:21 AM, September 17, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: Bruce (CB, revealed, etc),

Then why bother responding to my blogs if you feel the way you do?

LOL

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: As you have made it clear that your mind is closed and vacant, I see no need to respond to your rambling babblings in the future.; 10:52 AM, September 17, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Conspiracy Boy,

I'll make you a deal.

If my costs end up being more than $205/month (after having included the assessment, the monthly sewer fees and any possible costs associated with settling the LOCSD debt), you can cover my extra costs. In return, if the total is lower than $205/month, I'll cut you a check every month for the difference.

That sounds pretty fair. After all, $205/month is what I would have been paying had the pro-recall folks not been campaigning with unrealistic promises (you know, having a plan that was ready to go and that would cost us about $100/month).

You seem sort of angry with the Solutions Group and the boardmembers elected before 2004 because you feel they sold us a bill of goods. It is ironic that you are not (as) angry with the post-recall board for their similarly deceptive campaign promises.

Another ironic thing here is this ... you're getting all huffy with Richard, yet he is one of the few people who opposed the formation of the LOCSD because he thought it would be a mistake. If you're going to be angry with Pandora, at least give Richard credit for having seen the truth far earlier than you did.

To me it seems as if you are simply someone who is unwilling to agree that Los Osos is in the unfortunate situation of having a very very very expensive project ahead of us and we have less and less wiggle room every month. The saddest thing is those guys on the corner with their signs showing their ignorance ... they don't realize that every time we delay the project (for whatever reason), the project grows in cost.

Folks on large plots inside the PZ have a very legitimate complaint ... just like I do. Brass Tacks is angry with the RWQCB-defined PZ because it makes his costs far more than those of his neighbors. I am angry with both the Solutions Group, the Tacker/Schicker/recall group for their unwise choices that have raised my costs from under $100/month to something probably far closer to $300/month. All in a timespan of 10 years ...

Lastly, the reason the County wants the PZ folks to pay the SRF money back is simple ... if we do pay that money back, the lower interest rate we'll get from a future SRF loan will more than make up those costs. The question really should be this ... would you rather have a lower interest rate and thus lower costs? If so, think of the $6.5M sort of like "points" on a home loan ... if we pay the points, our monthly and total payments will be lower. Sounds like a win-win to me. I suppose that someone who is willing to pay more just to prove a point might make the opposite choice, but I'm not that person.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the whole of Los Osos will be paying for the project in one way ... through increased water rates. The TriW plan would have had only the PZ paying for the sewer ... the County proposal has a considerable portion of the costs paid for by the water companies who will spread the costs across the whole town. I don't actually agree fully with that decision, but certainly it will spread the costs in a way that Conspiracy Boy would approve of.; 11:50 AM, September 17, 2007
TCG said...: To those who keep making suggestions as to what the County should do so that they can get the Prop 218 vote passed: I do not see where it is the County's obligation, or responsibility, to get the vote passed. I believe that is our responsibility.

The County's job was to show that there are viable options, get lines on as much grant money as possible, and establish a process that would allow a project to be built while protecting the general tax payers of the entire County. I believe that they have done all of that.that.

If the vote fails, they will move on to other waiting projects and programs. We are the ones that will be faced with the fallout from the State.; 7:20 PM, September 17, 2007
Churadogs said...: Conspiracy Boy sez:"BUT ROBYN HAYHURST (former employee of Sam Blakeslee's office) stated in the recent issue of the Sun Bulletin:
"The LOCSD did not default on the SRF loan. The loan was pulled on the Sacramento end in an unprecedented fashion when it was determined during Sam Blakeslee's negotiations exactly what the citizens were saying all along: There had never been a legally mandated 218 assessment vote to lien their homes for the prematurely started $135 million first phase of Tri-W..."

This is why I say that breach of contract lawsuit is really, really important to re-start. This community deserves to know -- under oath, with a full discovery process in place & etc -- just who pulled the plug, when and why.; 8:22 AM, September 19, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9:13 AM, September 19, 2007
4crapkiller said...: Why does not the LOCSD simply post a full copy of the loan contract on their web site for ALL to see?; 10:07 AM, September 19, 2007
Ron said...: Richard wrote:

"... the SRF loan was perfectly legal... "

Not so much.

And if the -- "SRF loan funding the millions of dollars of decorative items, like an amphitheater and picnic area, found in the Tri-W project, when its own policy clearly and brilliantly states: 'Ineligible (for SRF funding): decorative items' " -- issue were to ever make its way to a legitimate court, unlike the court of Richard LeGros, it would easily be shown that that loan was, indeed, illegal.

You know what's always bugged me about that? It's that the decorative items -- that the SRF loan was illegally funding in the Tri-W project -- were estimated at $2.3 million, at the same time that Mariposa County, with 80-percent of its population earning less than the state's median income, according to the friendly Mariposa County official I spoke with on the phone awhile back, was trying to get $2.1 million from the SRF loan to fund THEIR badly needed, and amphitheater-less, sewer plant, but couldn't get a penny because Los Osos, with their sewer plant that included things like a $690,000 dog park and a $900,00 "play field," was sucking up all the cash.

That really bugs me.

Regards, SewerWatch; 10:26 AM, September 19, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

You PURPOSELY forgot to add that the funding of 'decorative items under the SRF loan are ineligable'

UNLESS

the items are REQUIRED as part of the project by the permiting agency (in this case the CCC).

As the CCC REQUIRED the park amentites (decorative items)as part of the Tri-W parject in order to issue the CDP, the SRF loan may legally be used to pay for said admenities. This was verified by the State.

Ron, your continued use of partial reading of the SRF loan guidelines without listing the exceptions is, well, just dishonest. Your argument fails to persuade.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 10:46 AM, September 19, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Now it is time for Ron to chime in and say that the CCC did not require the amenities and that Steve Monowitz is really pissed off that anyone from Los Osos would even say that.

The fact is, however, that back in 2004 (you know, when CCLO asked the CDP be revoked because amenities were being taken out ... Julie was essentially asking for the fancy park stuff to be put back in) the CCC said that those amenities were a required part of the CDP.

On the matter of the SRF contract and the breach of contract lawsuit, the contract itself was online at one point in time. I believe it was the Trib who put it online in PDF format. I don't have a copy today but I suspect that someone here does. If it doesn't appear that the file is online anywhere but if the file were to be e-mailed to me (sharkinlet@gmail.com) I'll make sure it gets back online for everyone to read. I am sure that Ron would also be willing to host such a file.

That file confirms Richard's claim. According to that contract, the LOCSD was not allowed to stop work (or even to pause work) without notifying the SWRCB and getting permission to do so. The only exceptions to the advance approval requirement are for things like archaeological artifacts or inadvertently rupturing a buried sewer line that was not known to be there (hahaha).; 10:59 AM, September 19, 2007
Mike Green said...: I have a question, if the LOCSD was not allowed to stop the construction, why did the contractors stop?; 12:47 PM, September 19, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Mike Green,

Why did the contractors stop work?

Because the CSD told the contractors to stop and and suspend all work until further notice. After 90 days of waiting (and the CSD declining the SRF loan), the contractors left town, submitted their final invoices; and have been waiting wver patiently for the CSD to pay up.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 1:37 PM, September 19, 2007
Ron said...: Richard wrote:

"... the CCC REQUIRED the park amentites... "

That pisses them off every time someone like you says that. That's why Steve Monowitz once told me, "It galls me when they say we added the amenities."

If you take a peek at this screen shot from Tri-W's CDP, you'll see the phrase:

"... the LOCSD has agreed to reincorporate the public amenities."

Which, of course, means the LOCSD could have agreed NOT to "reincorporate the public amenities."

Richard, I don't know how to tell you this, but THAT WAS YOUR BOARD that "reincorporated the public amenities." You did it, Richard, along with Semonsen, and Hensley, and Gustafson, and Bowker, and that single, horrible decision instantly locked in the Tri-W site and added more than $35 million to the project in order to make it "urban compatible" for the f-ing park, and that means the Tri-W SRF loan is illegal, because the CCC never, and I mean NEVER, mandated all that park crap as mitigation. Nope. That's 100-percent on YOU, Richard, and your friend, Pandora. Don't you remember? It's almost like you didn't look at an official document the entire time you were in office. You just listened to Nash-Karner.And, as you know now, that ALWAYS a huge mistake.

I'll tell you what, there is one sure-fire way to prove me right, yet again, AND greatly reduce the cost of the sewer...

Los Osos, I've said this before (that's good readin', there), you really need to sue the State of California for illegally funding the millions of dollars of decorative items found in the Tri-W project, and then having that decision add tens of millions of dollars to the project due to the massive delays it caused, when, if they had not made that illegal decision, an out-of-town-site would have HAD TO BE selected... years ago.

That was a gigantic, bureaucratic f-up. And I can even name names. It was Darrin Polhemus and Barbara Evoy at the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of Financial Assistance that f-d up.

Because I'm right, as usual, and the documentation clearly supports my argument, you'd win that, easily, Los Osos, and you would knock anywhere from $50 - $100 million off the price tag... just by getting the State to pay its fair share for f-ing up so badly.

Regards, SewerWatch; 2:05 PM, September 19, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Mike Green,

In the contract, the LOCSD was "the contractor" to the SWRCB who owned the project until the loan was paid off. In other words ... they write the checks and the LOCSD was to follow SWRCB rules. The contractors (the names I forget, that mess is so long ago) were, in fact, subcontractors to the LOCSD. Their contractual obligation was to follow the LOCSD orders.; 3:40 PM, September 19, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: Oh ROnnnnnnn,

Of course the CSD AGREED to 'reincorporate' the amenities.....because without them the CCC would not issue the CDP.

It is not as if the CSD had a choice ,Ron......reincorporate the amenities or you get nada.
In short, the CCC required the park amenities

As for the rest of your post, you are just a mad dog chasing cars....(meaning you are chasing issues of no importance....except for the dog). Chase away Ron as we all need a good laugh.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 3:50 PM, September 19, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

You're a word-twisting weasel lawyer in your other life, aren't you?

You know darn well that if the LOCSD hadn't agreed to put the park stuff back in, the CCC would have likely bounced the CDP. It was not an agreement. It was an order from the CCC: "If you don't spend more money just like CCLO is asking, you don't get to use this site." You also know darn well (as proven by the TAC report) that to move to another site costs more ... even if the other site is nominally cheaper. Inflation's a bitch. To pretend she doesn't exist is grade-school dumb. I know you're not that dumb. Lastly, the RWQCB would have every justification for fining the LOCSD for refusing to make progress if they, in 2004 said "well, because the CCC is requiring a $100k tot lot to build at TriW we'll instead delay the project by two to five years to put the sewer in somewhere else."

As I've been saying for at least two years now, the die was cast way back in 2000 when TriW came out on top in the site selection and 2001 when we voted for the assessment to design and permit TriW and we started spending big bucks.

Maybe many people did mess up, but please remember Ron, that the cost of cleaning up a mess often is greater than the cost of living with the mess.

While I agree that it would be nice to be able to sue the state and even the County for their role in the f-up, you surely are saying that only for rhetorical flourish. Certainly you've never read the rules governing the process of one part of the government suing another. It's far more difficult than your words suggest. I wish it were that easy, but I think we have a lot more hope in getting financial relief via grants and low interest loans than by lawsuits.; 3:53 PM, September 19, 2007
Ron said...: Oh Riiiickeeee,

"Of course the CSD AGREED to 'reincorporate' the amenities.....because without them the CCC would not issue the CDP..."

... for Tri-W! You're damn right they wouldn't have issued a CDP for Tri-W without the amenities, because the amenities were the only reason the Commission signed off on it in the first place. I wrote about all that here. That link even includes pretty little pictures to help people like you and Shark understand why Potter called Richard's board, "bait and switchy."

Of course, Rich, your board could have agreed NOT to reincorporate the amenities, and selected an out-of-town site, but that would have meant making a difficult decision on your part, and you would have had to answer to the RWQCB, so instead, you reincorporated a silly, very expensive park in a sewer plant, and that instantly added $35 million in "urban compatibility" to the project, locked in a "divisive" mid-town location, cost California taxpayers millions, and promptly ripped your community apart -- all because you didn't want to make a difficult decision... of NOT reincorporating a silly, very expensive park-with-a-tot-lot-in-your-sewer-plant. Nice.

An anonymous commentor wrote:

" Certainly you've never read the rules governing the process of one part of the government suing another."

And, of course, you gravely missed my excellent point, as usual. I'm not saying the LOCSD sue the State of California, I'm saying that the property owners of Los Osos sue the State of California -- all class-action like -- for illegally funding the millions of dollars of decorative items that Richard's board "reincorporated" back into the project.

The property owners of Los Osos would win that lawsuit... slam dunk. It would be settled out, quickly, because it's highly embarrassing for the State. (I mean, c'mon, they were funding an amphitheater and a freaking tot lot in a sewer plant when their own policy clearly states: "Ineligible for funding: decorative items.")

But, hey, if you guys don't want to save $50 - $100 million on the project just so people like Richard and Pandora and Gordon can save face, well, that's certainly up to you.; 9:05 AM, September 20, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

Ok...have it your way and continue your silly 'car chase'.
As you are intent on wasting your time on meaningless issues, be my guest.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 9:30 AM, September 20, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

It is really clear that you just don't care about the finances of folks in Los Osos or that you don't understand things financial. It has been explained to you about a million times by me and by others that had the LOCSD chosen in 2004 to take course of action you suggest here, delay, inflation, extra design costs, extra lawsuits and likely RWQCB fines would have resulted.

Let me rephrase the question for you the way any wise person would look at the issue ... would you rather a very expensive plant at TriW or an even more expensive plant somewhere else?

On the legal issues ... I would suggest you consult a lawyer before writing your opinions on these matters because it will keep you from saying really stupid things like you just did. The fact that you haven't taken my advice to consult a financial guy to keep you from saying stupid financial things makes me think you'll reject this advice as well, but I feel compelled to help you out nonetheless.

I would also suggest it is the misunderstandings of laws and finances by folks like you and CCLO and LOTTF that have ripped apart our community and cost many millions. To pretend (as you do) that only one side should be blamed for not immediately agreeing with the whims of the other is overly simplistic.

But then again, what would you expect from someone who ignores every real-life concern (read: "financial issues") of Los Osos residents just so that he can pump up his ego with self-referential comments?; 10:40 AM, September 20, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Just because self-referential comments are excellent and just because I want to show how brilliant I am, as usual, I want to remind the casual reader that when Richard wrote

"As the CCC REQUIRED the park amentites (decorative items)as part of the Tri-W parject in order to issue the CDP, the SRF loan may legally be used to pay for said admenities. This was verified by the State."

I predicted "Now it is time for Ron to chime in and say that the CCC did not require the amenities and that Steve Monowitz is really pissed off that anyone from Los Osos would even say that.
"

and then barely three hours later Ron quoted Richard "... the CCC REQUIRED the park amentites... " and then wrote "That pisses them off every time someone like you says that. That's why Steve Monowitz once told me, 'It galls me when they say we added the amenities.'"

Damn I'm great.

By the way, Ron, did Steve Monowitz ever tell you that even if the County prefers TriW for valid reasons (like cost or inability to obtain the optimal property), that the CCC would now allow a TriW plant? That essentially TriW is "illegal" as you claim? Where's the proof ... or are you over-simplifying his comments on the matter ... or did he ever even comment on the matter? Is it just your unprofessional legal opinion that you are asking to take as gospel?

Boy I am awesome. My take on the situation, even though very one-sided and chock-full-o-misunderstanding, is the only valid point of view one can take and I will belittle or ignore anyone who points out my misunderstanding.

It is nice to be right all the time even when professionals in the area all disagree with my take.; 10:54 AM, September 20, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Oops ...

When re-reading my brilliant comments above I noticed that when I wrote "... that the CCC would now allow ..." I meant to write "... that the CCC would not allow ...".

Damn, I hate it when I type so freakin fast that I make typos like this.

However, I am so brilliant that you should all forgive me for being sloppy. In fact, you should all be thankful that I don't make more mistakes because, as we all know, I certainly don't get paid enough to sprinkle my nitrates all over Los Osos.; 12:32 PM, September 20, 2007
4crapkiller said...: So where is the Balooooon? I am feeling deprived. Sharky, watch your head, pride goeth before a fall, however you truly have a good grip on the situation.

Good show on running Ronnnnnnnnny to ground! Got him in a hole, and based on facts and 20/20 hindsight. We know who the slick word twisting foxen are! Balooooon and Ronnnnnnnnny.; 5:05 PM, September 20, 2007
Unknown said...: REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD PRESS RELEASE:

Regional Water Board Gets Lawsuit Challenging Cease and Desist Orders Thrown Out

September 18, 2007 For Immediate Release

SAN LUIS OBISPO - A San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge threw out a lawsuit which challenged cease and desist orders that the Central Coast Regional Water Board issued to a group of Los Osos residents because it was ambiguous and unintelligible.

The Water Board orders require the residents to cease violations of state regulations prohibiting the use of septic systems in Los Osos/Baywood Park.

On September 10, San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Judge Barry T. LaBarbera signed an order tossing out a lawsuit filed by PZLDF (Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund) and others, calling it "uncertain."

The state's objection to the legal claim argued that the lawsuit filed by PZLDF, the Los Osos CSD and others, was a "kitchen sink" pleading, and legally defective on a number of substantive and procedural grounds, said Michael Hughes, a deputy attorney general.

The current lawsuit by the Los Osos dischargers has been rejected by the court and the petitioners have until October 1, 2007, to file an amended petition (against the Water Board only) correcting the defects stated in the order, if they can.

If the petitioners fail to file an amended petition, the lawsuit is over.

The court summarily rejected the petitioners' request that the court reconsider their request for interim relief. The petitioners had illegally filed the request without notice to the Water Board.

The preliminary court ruling a few weeks ago was incorrectly reported in the press as a victory for Los Osos petitioners, leading to some public confusion. The final ruling is available at the following link: www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los_osos/documents/ordersustainingdemurrer.pdf

This legal ruling in favor of the Water Board continues a string of court victories over many years against challenges to the Water Board's actions to obtain compliance with water quality laws.; 6:15 PM, September 20, 2007
Mike Green said...: Lets see, the WATER GODS win a case before the WIZARDS OF PERPETUAL DELAY

nope, didn't see that one coming.

Question, is that considered judicial electioneering, or judgmental campaigning?

Better pass that 218 folks.
I do believe in water gods, I do, I do,I do.; 6:41 PM, September 20, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: A direct link to http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los%20osos/ordersustainingdemurrer.pdf ... reveals something interesting.

Our good friend and host Ann Calhoun is one of the petitioners in this lawsuit.

Curious that she never told us that she was a petitioner when she was telling us how awesome PZLDF's case was.

I guess that because Ann is a columnist with opinion pieces and not a reporter, it is okay for her to not make clear her biases when she provides her opinion on these matters. After all, it's her blog.

What troubles me is that the Bay News didn't let us know about this bias in their pages. If I were the editor of that paper I would certainly go out of my way to try to inform readers of such things.

Certainly, if nothing else, it explains why Ann is so willing to equate a lack of support for PZLDF with a lack of support for our neighbors in town, a claim I reject.; 7:42 PM, September 20, 2007
Unknown said...: Many Thanks Shark for making the link work properly.; 7:51 PM, September 20, 2007
FBLeG said...: I'm no lawyer, but I read the LaBarbera's decision a couple of times and it seems as though the Water Board is a bit misleading in their press release as to what actually transpired. My interpretation is that the water board raised some objections and some of them were sustained pending an opportunity for the PZLDF to amend their case. It seems to me that the case is still alive and has not been thrown out.

Here's my summary:

Certain individuals in the lawsuit were removed because of lack of substantiation of standing, but were given the opportunity to clarify why they should have standing. Ann Calhoun was one of these people.

Packard & Thomas were deemed ineligible as targets of the lawsuit.

DerGarabedian and Payne were deemed to have standing. This one the water board lost.

The PZLDF needs to amend their pleadings since they apparently were not consolidated. I guess this means that the specific totality of allegations are not entirely clear to the court.

There is something about the PZLDF ex parte application for alternative writ of mandate regarding "supplemental points and authorities". I guess the PZLDF did not make these points to the water board first in an administrative hearing, thus exhausting a potential path for remedy. So, I guess these particular points will not be considered in the lawsuit.

The water board still must produce the administrative record with the cost of producing a copy to be paid by PZLDF.

The case continues on 12/6/07; 12:16 AM, September 21, 2007
Unknown said...: FBLeG... You might want to have a neutral lawyer interpret the findings of the court... The PZLDF lost and will be billed for the costs, that happens when one loses their suit. The winner does not pay those who sue and lose!

Interesting that you think Conspiracy Boy was given some standing, but even more interesting was that the organizer and loudest mouth in the community did not join in the suit. Just where was McPherson? Did she just stir the pot and wind up this group of disgruntled would be obstructionists?

Looks like the PZLDF folks better hold a few more poker games and bake sales unless the LOCSD is footing the bill for Ms.Sullivan. It might be a bit more prudent to save up to pay the assessment to connect to the new sewer coming to Los Osos instead of throwing away more money on foolish lawsuits...; 6:34 AM, September 21, 2007
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez;"Curious that she never told us that she was a petitioner when she was telling us how awesome PZLDF's case was."

You're misleading folks, again. I signed on as an "interested party" (vs. designated party)when this case started nearly two years ago. The RWQCB decided, while they were morphing this case all over the place, that they wouldn't allow "interested" parties any standing. (Interestingly , whether or not you know it, YOU are an "interested party" as well. We ALL in the PZ are.) As for my claiming this case is "awesome" Wrong again. Not awesome, just the only one around working on behalf of some of the The Los Osos 45 (the outcome which could benefit you and everyone else in the PZ) And the only case trying to help friends and neighbors who WERE under the gun, friends and neighbors (some of whome, Inlet, are YOUR friends and neighbors) of whom it's clear that some of you cared not a whit. Still don't.

Fbleg sez:" Certain individuals in the lawsuit were removed because of lack of substantiation of standing, but were given the opportunity to clarify why they should have standing. Ann Calhoun was one of these people."

Exactly. If I understand, "interested parties" (all of us) have no standing in this particular case. Hafta wait until each of us gets our CAO and goes through the Mad Hatter Tea Party Trial & Public Hanging, THEN can get "real court" standing & etc.; 7:46 AM, September 21, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: HI All,

For all practical purposes the PZDIF lawsuit is over.

Why? Because the courts have decided that the administrative record (to be assembled by the State) is to be entirely paid for by PZDIF. As we all know, the price of the record will be so high that PZDIF will not be able to pay for it. End of lawsuit.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Gee....for months you have been harping on the strenght of the PZDIF lawsuit and the need of your readers to contribute to it....all the while you were just trying to support your involvement in it. Very bad form, Ann.; 8:26 AM, September 21, 2007
Billy Dunne said...: We all have our interpretations of what good neighbors are, Ann How dare you imply those of us who want to see a solution to this problem don't care about our neighbors. How overbearingly sanctimonious of you!

Here's a bad neighbor. One who stands on a street corner imploring people to vote no on the 218, so we can all be thrown into yet more uncertain futures, with almost certain disatersous results. Here's a bad neighbor. A renter, who once bragged he could delay a sewer forever, who brings to town snake oil salesmen to confuse those uninformed with promises of yet another magic sewer tonic for $43.00 a month. Here's a bad neighbor. An outsider (of the PZ and until recently the commnity as a whole) who plays Russian roulette with my house to settle old scores with the water board. Don't call me an interested party in that sham, Ann. Here's a bad neighbor. One who supports the efforts of a CSD that misinformed and outright lied to get into power, only to bankrupt the CSD and steal even more money from every home owner in Los Osos.

And here's one more bad neighbor. One who passes judgement as to what a good neighbor is when she herself constantly supports actions that can have catastrophic results to many, many homeowners in Los Osos. Keep your side of the fence clean, Ann, before you complain about someone else's yard.; 8:33 AM, September 21, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

You were a named party on the lawsuit and you didn't tell us that. While you say you were only an "interested party", you were an interested party on the side of PZLDF. You were listed as a petitioner.

When I say this, I am misleading no one. For you to suggest that I am misleading folks by pointing out facts is simply astounding.

However, even though you're doing a little well, I didn't really know what I was doing when I signed up to be on the lawsuit and I didn't think that anyone would care routine, you neglected to give us full information about your involvement (even if you feel it was minimal). The Bay News should feel embarrassed that they also neglected to point out that one of their most regular opinion writers is involved in a lawsuit on which she comments.

If it had been the Trib who had committed an error like this and if the commentator had ties to the RWQCB or TW but the ties were not acknowledged in any way, I would expect that many, you included, would have castigated the Trib as a horrible paper.

No matter ... on to the chief area of your comment, your continued claim that supporting one's friends and neighbors means that one will support PZLDF. PZLDF's legal strategy may simply not be the best use of our time and money. Campaigning for the 218 vote is likely a far better use of my time and money. Passing the 218 vote will end the nightmare sooner, limit our costs more effectively than supporting a lawsuit against the RWQCB and will also stop pollution sooner. Can you argue, Ann, that my spending time and money on PZLDF will help Los Osos stop pollution sooner and limit our sewer costs better than my support of the 218 vote?; 9:27 AM, September 21, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Ann says:
"Hafta wait until each of us gets our CAO and goes through the Mad Hatter Tea Party Trial & Public Hanging, THEN can get "real court" standing & etc."

If the 218 passes, THERE WILL BE NO CAO's OR CDO's. It all goes away! Why can you not GET THIS?

Gail herself said that PZLDF will drop the suits if the 218 passes and the sewer isn't derailed. Oh - maybe you Ann, you are hoping the 218 fails and the suits continue?

I am putting my time, money and effort into passing the 218. And you, Ann? Can you just come out and say in one short, non-convoluted sentence, without caveats and other distracting flourishes, that you will vote YES on the 218? Can you? Gail said on Congalton that she would vote yes on 218. How about YOU?; 2:30 PM, September 21, 2007
Churadogs said...: Area 51 sez;"Don't call me an interested party in that sham"

You are an "interested party." Were from the day the RWQCB issued CDOs to The Los Osos 45. Everyone in the PZ is.; 5:31 AM, September 22, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Thinking people in the PZ Ann, are INTERESTED in getting this problem off our backs. That is why we are voting YES ON THE 218. We have been polluting for 30 years. Whatever the County and Water Board did not do back then is irrelevant now. Its simple. We need to fix our pollution problem.

All kinds of governmental process aberrations go on all the time. Some are real and some are not. Do we think fighting this issue is going to get us a win, so we don't have to build a sewer? NO! You pick your battles. This is not one of ours. We want to get a sewer built so we can reclaim lost property values and build this town into something that isn't a "Bangladesh by the Bay" with poop in it.; 12:28 PM, September 22, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Hey Ann, did you fill out your LOCAC questionnaire on how you would like the center of town corridor to look?; 12:34 PM, September 22, 2007
observation said...: Good Saturday afternoon all,

Although I enjoy Ann's post's, I rarely even enter the comments section. From what I can tell, it's the same people over and over and over posting the same comments over and over and over. The same people who will never change their mind or anybody elses. The comments section of this blog is less of a political forum and more of a group therapy session. I honestly can't think of a bigger waste of time than spending it posting in blogs ad nauseam.
My first observation, the folks that post in here on a daily basis really do need to get a life.

With that said and on the verge of the 218 assessment vote, I thought I'd drop in on the Los Osos sewer therapy group to see what was going on.

I honestly cant remember the last time I posted in here. I couldn't even remember the display name I used so I had to create a new one.
Anyway, guess what? It's the same five or six people on both sides making the same two or three arguments. Do you guys even realize that the only people you are talking to are yourselves? Anyway, for people who are really insecure and fucked-up, I guess group therapy is a good thing. You can surround yourself with people who are just as fucked-up as you and it doesn't make you feel so bad.
Ok everybody, ready for the daily affirmation? Get out you mirrors.
Ok. Look into the mirror and repeat after me....
I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!.....

Ok, with that said, I'll make my annual post and give you my take on the 218............

First, let me comment on previous posts that made me laugh.....

Shark Inlet 9/16 11:50am....

"If you wanna talk about the bankruptcy ... you can blame only the Solutions Group for the bankruptcy if you're willing to stick your head in the sand about the choices the post-recall board made. I can understand the desire to blame the folks who pushed for TriW but I cannot see how one can stand behind the choices of the post-recall board."

FACT:
The 2005 recall election was certified in early April of 2005.

FACT:
The basis of the Recall was the Community's protest over having a sludge factory built in the center of their town next to the library & Community Center.

FACT:
With full knowledge that the Community of Los Osos had gathered enough signatures to stop the TRI-W project by removing the CSD board members who supported it from office, the LOCSD majority, now up for recall for supporting a project the Community does not support, attempt to fast-track and ramrod the project into place before the recall election.

FACT:
The TRI-W CSD 3, could of set the recall election date as early as late July but instead pick the second to the latest date (9/27/2005).
This will give them time to start the project before the election.

FACT:
After the recall is certified, the TRI-W CSD 3, without a 218 vote, ask the state for an additional extension of 50 million(50%) on their SRF loan that the property owners of Los Osos will be liable for.

FACT:
In May of 2005, there is a single bidder on the treatment plant, and I believe two bidders on the collection system. And, guess what? Coincidentally, the bids come in 50% over the district engineers high watermark estimate. How nice of the recalled assholes Stan, Gordon, and Richard, to go out and get an extra 50 million for the contractors.

FACT:
The job of any elected body is to represent the constituents who elected them to office.
With full knowledge that there is a pending election just 3 weeks away to determine if the Community supports the center of town sludge factory, the NOW RECALLED CSD 3 start the project before the election.
Nice move.

Conclusion to Shark Inlets comment of 9/16/07.....

If the former RECALLED LOCSD BOARD had any respect at all for this Community, they wouldn't of pursued the failed TRI-W project until after the recall election. It was the action of trying to fast-track and ramrod this unwanted and rejected project into the center of the town, that bankrupted the LOCSD. If the RECALLED CSD doesn't implement the scorched earth policy of acting against the will of the people, there is no bankruptcy. The current CSD simply went into dammage control mode in responce to the corrupt actions of the former RECALLED CSD BOARD.

And I'll close my response to Shark's misguided comment by quoting an earlier poster....
Lost in Translation stated on 9:15@9am.....
"By the way, it wasn't the current CSD that stopped the project. It was the people of Los Osos who elected them to stop the project."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Next?

Afore mentioned idiot loser rejected by this Community scumbag loser Richard "no dick but I have fucking balls" le Gros said:

"Why did the contractors stop work?
Because the CSD told the contractors to stop and and suspend all work until further notice. After 90 days of waiting (and the CSD declining the SRF loan), the contractors left town, submitted their final invoices; and have been waiting wver patiently for the CSD to pay up."

For a very simple mind like Richard's, who still can't seem to understand why he was thrown out of office and fired from his job of representing this Community, there is a very easy response......

My previous comments clearly explain the answer to this question but I will ask it to your dense and poluted mind again anyway;
"Why did the contractors start work?
With full and complete knowledge that you were petitioned for recall because this Community did NOT support the TRI-W project,
why did you continue to pursue this project?
Let me make this as simple as I can, Richard the Loser Heart,
IF YOU DON'T START A PROJECT THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT AND VOTED AGAINST, NOBODY HAS TO STOP IT, DICK HEAD.

I can't help it but I will once again envoke the quote Lost in Translation stated on 9:15@9am.....
"By the way, it wasn't the current CSD that stopped the project. It was the people of Los Osos who elected them to stop the project."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Finally, let me get to my favorite post of the week........

Area51 9/21@8:33 stated:
Here's a bad neighbor. One who stands on a street corner imploring people to vote no on the 218, so we can all be thrown into yet more uncertain futures, with almost certain disatersous results. Here's a bad neighbor. A renter, who once bragged he could delay a sewer forever, who brings to town snake oil salesmen to confuse those uninformed with promises of yet another magic sewer tonic for $43.00 a month. Here's a bad neighbor. An outsider (of the PZ and until recently the commnity as a whole) who plays Russian roulette with my house to settle old scores with the water board. Don't call me an interested party in that sham, Ann. Here's a bad neighbor. One who supports the efforts of a CSD that misinformed and outright lied to get into power, only to bankrupt the CSD and steal even more money from every home owner in Los Osos.

And here's one more bad neighbor. One who passes judgement as to what a good neighbor is when she herself constantly supports actions that can have catastrophic results to many, many homeowners in Los Osos. Keep your side of the fence clean, Ann, before you complain about someone else's yard."

Nice, I'm going to have some fun with this one.

But first, I think I'll give you all my take on the 218 assessment vote. I have already voted "NO" on all my properties for one simple reason. I'm not going to agree to pay for something if you can't tell me what it's for or how much it's going to cost. Does common sense get any simpler than this? Hello? Anybody home? Ding Dong? If you vote yes on 218, you enter into an agreement with the County that say's, "TAKE ALL MY MONEY YOU NEED AND BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT. Honest to God, I seriously can't believe that anybody would agree to this.

But, I'm just a business man. A very successful one. I can take whatever the County throws at me. But, I didn't get rich by making bad decisions.
Yes on 218 is just bad business.

Now, let me get back to Area51's comment. This one makes my head spin..........
Area51 states: "Here's a bad neighbor. One who stands on a street corner imploring people to vote no on the 218, so we can all be thrown into yet more uncertain futures, with almost certain disatersous results."

Now, as I have stated, I support and have cast all my ballots for "NO" on 218. I drive by the folks on the corner every day on my daily commute.
I honk, wave, and give them the thumbs up.
This is the problem that I have with your comment Area51. I believe that everyone has a right to an opinion on this issue...even if I disagree with them. But if you Area51, or any of your "yes on 218" friends, have a problem with an American Citizen expressing their freedom of speech then, perhaps you and your "yes on 218" friends should move to North Korea. I think you guys will find lots of good and "obedient" neighbors over there. Sieg Hile Area51, that's right, It's time for you to get out that Swastika and dust off your SS lapel pins. Unfortunately for you, this Community will defeat your march towards economic genocide & gentrification. I have an idea Area51. If the 218 does pass(which I know it wont), why don't you just round up all the low income families & retired seniors living on fixed incomes, who can't afford the project, into your Area51 concentration camp and burn them? Grandpa Joe Mengele would be so proud of you!

The truth is Area51, I have no idea what planet you're from. I am very sorry that your space craft crash landed into this free place that has something you seem to be so unfamiliar with called DEMOCRACY. I'm sorry if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Democracy seems to be a concept that is very alien to you. Let me fill you in.....I live in a most beautiful place called Los Osos. A place that hasn't yet be ruined and overrun by the masses. There is no other place like it on this planet. Yet, there are those out there that would trade the almighty dollar and their soul and their family and their Community for the uniqueness and beauty of what we have.
Unfortunately, for the greedy blood sucking rapists like Jeff Edwards, Julie Tacker, Leon Van Beurden, Richard Le Gros, Gorden Hensley, Pandora Nash Karner, Shark Inlet, 4Crapkiller, Sewertoons, Richard Legros, and everyone else who supports "Yes" on 218, Los Osos happens to be in a place called, America.
Yes, these are the people who support "Yes" on 218. Enough said.

In America, we have something called "freedom of speech".

And, If you're a good American neighbor Area51, this is something that you would understand and respect.; 4:43 PM, September 22, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Observation (er Bruce!...Conspiracy Boy, Revealed...etc. ad nauseum)

Gee....after reading your tome, I have one response:

You forgot to explain that none of the alledged actions you apply to the recalled board members or the State are illegal (against the law). NO LAWS WERE VIOLATED.

You may now continue with your rant.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 5:19 PM, September 22, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: So - how WAS that therapy session, observation? Feel better getting that rehash off your chest?

So what do you think a no vote will get us?

Hey, are you Michael Jones? (He's kinda long winded too.); 6:20 PM, September 22, 2007
observation said...: Just finished a nice Saturday evening dinner and noticed there was already a few responses to my post. Wow.

Richard, there are a few things that I really must thank you for....

First, your response to my post in record time illustrats the very first point that I made in my comment.
The point that you are such a complete and total loser that you have nothing better to do on a Saturday than campout and live in a blog.
I'm so sad for you.

Second, I have a question for you....Who in the hell is Bruce? You really are fucking losing it aren't you? The only Bruce that I can think of regarding this stuff is Bruce Buel(sp?). Has he finally come to his senses to realize what a complete and total jackass you are? If so, I'll be Bruce if you want me to be.
As fore Conspiracy Boy, Revealed...you honestly have no fucking clue what you're talking about...Unlike you and them, I have better things to do and too many things to do with my time than waste it in a blog like you and them......
But if it makes you feel better to torture your mind by convincing yourself that I am them, then go for it. Do you really think I give a shit? By trying to claim I'm somebody that I know I'm not, all you've done is convince me that you a complete and total nut job. You're cuckoo.
But, if I can help you out by feeding your insanity, then I'm glad I can help.

Third, I love your argument that the recalled board members "didn't break the law". Just because something is legal, doesn't make it moral, ethical, honest, or right. There are all kinds of ways that you can legally fuck people over. This seems to be an area that you have great expertise Richard. Adultery, for example, is not illegal. But, does this make it right? I'm sure, Richard, you're the type of guy that cheats on his wife all the time and has no problem with it cause it's not against the law. Does your wife know what a complete and total asshole you are? You might not of broken any laws but you and Stan and Gorden and Pandora, and the Solutions Group/Taxpayers Watch cheated on this community and now we're all paying for it.

I just have one last question for you Richard. What contributions have you made to this communmity? I can't think of a single one. At least we can give Pandora credit for the fines and CDO's she begged the RWQCB to enforce on our community. Other than a failed attempt at a project your community rejected and getting thrown out of your seat on the CSD for it, what have you accomplished?
Oh.....wait....wait a second....I just thought of something......
Yes, yes you did contribute something to this community.........

You blurted out the "F" word on public access TV. Ever wonder why you were the biggest loser in the recall?

And Sewertoons, like I said, I look at the comments section and post in here once or twice a year if that....every other blue moon. I will say the funniest thing I noticed this time is everyone trying to identify who the posters are. Do the words "Get a life" mean anything to you? If you think I'm Michael Jones then you must be locked in the padded cell that's next to Richard's. I wish I had Michael's time and energy and, as I said in my first post, I smile, honk, wave and give the thumbs up every morning on my way into SLO. But, If you want me to be Michael and Richard wants me to be Bruce, I'm more than happy to indulge your fantasy. How weak and tried and sad has you trapped existence in the blogosphere become that you have to resort to trying to identify anonymous posters when the truth is you really have no clue. I'll give you a hint who I am, although I watch the CSD meetings on TV, I've never been to one in my entire life. Does that help?
In short, I guess I'll be whomever you want me to be cause the train left your station a long time ago........If you scream loud enough they might loosen the straps on your straight jacket....enjoy the jello......; 7:22 PM, September 22, 2007
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: So observation, what do you think a no vote will get us?

BTW - I was just trying to make an observation on you in a nice way - not encourage you to write volumes on nothing. Sorry I didn't make that clear enough. Now I have spelled it out.

Let's see if you can answer the question posed: What do you think a no vote will get us? (See if you can answer that in 25 words or less.); 12:27 AM, September 23, 2007
Shark Inlet said...: Observation,

Jeeze ... I thought that I was long-winded in my comments. Boy, I was wrong.

I also suppose that my response to you isn't too soon that you'll complain about my timing (talk about petty).

I would also suggest toning down your foul language a bit because it probably makes some see you as an angry reactionary rather than as someone who has thought through the issues carefully.

In any case, you suggested (on Sep 22 in your 4:43pm comment) that it was the will of the people that the TriW project be stopped and that all the problems now are because the pre-recall board screwed things up so badly that the new board needed to take drastic action to change things.

It is interesting that in the 2005 election, the site was not on the ballot at all ... no matter what you might claim, measures B, C, D and E contain enough other content and the campaign promises about these measures included a lot of content other than the site. Furthermore, it was hardly an overwhelming victory.

I'll suggest again, had the recall candidates run on a platform of "we'll stop TriW even though we don't have a well thought out plan and, of course, your costs will go up" (in other words, had they told the truth) they would have lost.

Face it, they promised that they would get us a cheaper plant even though there was evidence to the contrary. They had no hope of achieving their promise. If this promise swayed even 2% of the Los Osos voters (and who wouldn't be influenced by the opportunity to save about $100/month each and every month for 20 years as they were promising), the outcome would have been quite different.

I'll agree that the timing of the recall vote versus the start of construction probably influenced quite a few people, but it is silly to claim, as you did, that people were voting only to move the plant.

In an attempt to sound all fancy and that, I'll add QED.; 8:50 AM, September 23, 2007
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9:29 AM, September 23, 2007
4crapkiller said...: To Observation: I thank you for your posts! The hate, unfounded charges, and vulgarity was really not needed: BUT SHOWED YOUR "SUCCESSFUL BUSINESSMAN'S" MINDSET.

You are excused, money makes people hot! My assessments came to better than $72,000. I voted YES, based upon a bunch of "what if" scenarios.

I find it very strange that a "successful" businessman had not read the text of AB2701 which is the law, and did not understand the process required by the law. I would also think that a "successful" businessman would surely have contemplated more than one "what if" logical scenarios if the 218 does not pass.

WOULD YOU PLEASE SHARE THESE?

I have been going around and around with MY limited intelligence, despite having a MBA from Stern, and my IQ has deteriorated from a former 140+ to a 132 (recent test) due to age. (It just goes to show that one is never intelligent as one once was as one gets older). I need your "successful" businessman's ideas due to mental degradation.

Have you put your "what ifs" by your financial advisor? Have you asked for legal advice as to potential liability from YES voters as to the consequences of NO votes, should $900 a month discharge permits be imposed on their property because of obstruction of Ab 2701? How do you feel about the effects of a NO vote on the bankruptcy proceedings?

THIS INQUIRING MIND WANTS TO KNOW! I CAN change my Votes.; 10:43 PM, September 23, 2007

Pages

Friday, September 14, 2007

85 comments: