Friday, October 05, 2007

Mater Mia! No Pope For Los Osos, Yet.

The Los Osos CSD voted last night to postpone their vote on their 218 ballots until the next CSD meeting on Oct 18th. I had likened their vote to that of the faithful peering at the Vatican chimney waiting to see a puff of black smoke or a puff of white smoke signaling a the status on the election for a new pope. In this case, the Sewerville Faithful gathered and listened and watched and spoke, but there was no smoke . . . yet. The reasons given by CSD members for the postponement of the vote included some of the following:

-- They didn’t wish to appear to be “electioneering,” even though CSD Attorney Murphy noted that a Prop 218 vote isn’t an “election,” in the usual sense, and the board is free to discuss and express opinions on the matter and even vote to adopt an official position without being guilty of electioneering, since electioneering would involve spending public money to promote, campaign, print ads and flyers, etc. advocating for or against some position or other. (It was also noted that the Board can’t simply vote in closed session and announce they’ve voted but give no further information since the vote involves expenditure of public $$ for the assessment fees, so it needs to be an agenda item, publicly discussed and decided.)

-- Several members expressed the strong belief that, in this matter, they didn’t want to signal one way or the other to the community and so not influence any of the homeowners who have yet to vote. Clearly, the Board’s vote either way will be a sort of Rorschach Blot, the interpretation of which depends on who’s doing the looking. The sentiment expressed was this: We need to wait to determine the community’s will in this matter. Of course, that would be impossible since the community’s will in this matter won’t be known until AFTER the vote is closed, so if the Board applies that logic, it would mean that they would have to abstain entirely. (Oddly enough, the majority of public speakers asked them to abstain with the next highest tally asking them for a Yes vote.)

-- Waiting until the 18th, would give a chance for the emergency services committee to weigh in with impact costs to the Fire Dept for the assessment fees, so some Board members felt they wanted to get that information before voting.

-- Interestingly, one speaker noted that if they voted last night – several weeks before the Oct 23 deadline – they’d be acting like the Recalled Three who voted to start digging up Tri W weeks before the recall vote, instead of waiting until after – an interesting piece of irony. However, in this case, as mentioned above, waiting to vote until after the vot’s over would result in no vote at all. Not that the two CSD properties are sufficiently weighted to influence the count one way or the other, something that may not be true of the SLO Coastal School District, which, according to Julie Tacker, voted Yes on 218 for their huge holdings, which, if true, is a weighted vote, indeed.

-- But one key reason given for waiting is that the Board expressed a desire to – once again – get a commitment and/or assurances or a resolution or something from the BOS on Sept 16 stating that they formally, officially resolve to have Dr. T and the Peer Review Group come in to vet whatever projects survive the Process. Dr. T and his group have already done a similar vetting of the Ripley Report, were lauded by the county and RWQCB and other participants in that workshop, have agreed they’d be willing to return, and Paavo has already stated he’d favor such an evaluation, however, all of that is not worth the paper it hasn’t been printed on.

Right now it’s all just a vague Wish List Hope that can be ignored or denied later. So, what would be really helpful for the undecided voters is if the BOS would make that request much more binding and formal and public. Having some sort of formal promise that top experts will put their eyes on the page would go a long way to assuring the public that their auto de fe vote will have an expert vetting to make sure there’s no “bait and switchy” going on and that engineering calculations are correct and there haven’t been any “Ooops,” missed that can come back to bite or betray the community – again.

That is certainly something I support and hope it’s something Paavo and the Board will take seriously before it’s too late.

Meantime, the CSD will meet again on the 18th to vote their properties, or not, and to discuss the options should the 218 fail, if any.

Again, for your Calendars . . .

The Orenco design team’s presentation and Q&A at the Community Center, Wednesday, Oct 10th. 7:30 pm.

Mr. Murphy, whose company is promoting the “Reclamator,” noted that their website will be up and running Monday and they’re planning a public presentation of their system, to be announced on their website.

As mentioned, the Oct 16 BOS meeting at 2.p.m. if you’d like to speak to having the Board make sure Dr. T’s Team is on board for a Peer Review vetting of whatever project survives the winnowing Process.

Morro Bay’s Harbor Festival this weekend, plus always lots of other great events around the county. So, have a nice weekend.


Maria M. Kelly said...

Hi Ann,
Another event this weekend that is happening in Los Osos this weekend is a Workshop on Drought Tolerant Gardening @ St.Benedict's from 10-2. Right off LOVR and Clark Valley Road - across from the cemetery.
The San Luis Botanical Gardens will be on hand to discuss drought tolerant plants all day. At 10:30 Tim Bolander is going to lead a discussion on residential composting. At 12:00, A Master Gardener from the Coastal zone will give a talk on native plant selection and the reduction of pesticide runoff - water quality topic. At 1:00, Josh Carmichael of Carmichael Environmental will be giving a talk on design and implementing xeriscape techniques.

All these topics are pertinent to Los Osos. It is a pleasure to have Liz Scott Graham willing to come spend the day with us and talk about gardening and the Botanical Gardens. The other participants are local residents who care about Los Osos and the topics that are pertinent to our community beyond all issues sewerish.

This is a nice outlet for participation and interaction and discussion that will benefit our community. It's free, it should be fun and there will be a free raffle of a residential compost unit. There are going to be a lot of great informational handouts as well as plants and books for purchase. I know there is work to do at the Elfin Forest and lots of fun happening along the coast but stop by as you transition around our great community.
Maria M. Kelly

Betty said...


Fot the first time, I am disappointed in you--but for the hundredth time I am dissapointed in my CSD Board.

First, The County staff has said many times, and written in more than one Board of Supervisors agenda item, that their process includes peer review. They have done better than that, however, because I have seen them discuss the fact that they are proactively running key issues by Dr. T to make sure that those issues are covered properly.

It is standard practice for the County to use a peer review (value engineering) process on major projects, and I have read about how their efforts in that regard saved millions on the Nacimiento Pipeline project.

These people at the County know what they are doing, and our CSD Board, and our general citizens do not.

I see this as just one more nit-pick (see Chuck Cesenna's never-ending rant about the official status of the Tri-W project).

It is either a good idea for the County to run the sewer project or it is not. Using these details as excuses to not make a committment is pathetic.

Mike said...

Oh but there is "smoke"...

Gail McPherson is behind the scene "electioneering" of her disjointed idea of local control...

The following e-mail was shared by one of the those who used to believe the CSD could be trusted to lead us through the complex problem of providing public services for this community... Thanks to the activist activities of Gail, Los Osos remains divided and ham-strung by mismanagement and poorly advised decisions...

The following e-mail has up-set a number of those who have finally said no more to this CSD...

From: RonandGail McPherson [mailto: removed for privacy]
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 12:22 PM
To: removed for privacy
Subject: RE: your vote tonite

Hi ....removed for privacy,
It isn't about voting yes or no--it is about the "official Position"
The CSD can vote like everyone else in private. Do it in close session. Report on the 24th.

I am arguing for abstention from taking an "official position", which is a thinly veiled manipulation of the voters. Electioneering under the guise of a call for "leadership" is unacceptable. Further, the district is called to support the "will of the people", not the County, and that "will" will be known the 24th. This is a vote on just 2 district properties, and hardly will determine the outcome of the 218 assessment.

I have heard from many in the community. Many expect the outcome to be a yes, because nearly everyone wants a project, but so many worry about the cost, and trusting the Co keeping their promises. Based upon the many who truly cannot afford this, the 'intimidation factors', and the current risk that the County will break due diligence promises, I hope the vote is close enough to send a message that the community is not satisfied with the assessment cost, no known project, blank check, the TAC , Tri W still on the table, (the Co process), or the many issues that will be read tonight from the citizens resolution.

The CSD should be guarding the community, insisting on a closed vote, affordability studies, best value project, and an unbiased representation of the community through a new advisory panel, and updated Co. process. They should be insisting on keeping the CSD debt out of the County process as provided in AB 2701, instead of allowing the County to make side deals with consultants, contractors and SWRCB debt lawyers.

It is not the directors job to deliver the community vote. They already delivered the project to the County through supporting AB 2701, (incidentally on the public list promises never kept by Blakeslee). In fact the CSD has kept all the conditions, not selling Tri W, not interfering with selection of the CO "team", not electioneering, etc.

I recall four of them ran on a position to assure the community would move the sewer, have a 218 vote, and it would be based on the disclosure of the full cost, a known location, and sustainable type of technology. Hello????? Where's that?

Support: Abstention from an official position, which still allows a vote, but that vote of the district properties must occur in closed session, in a sealed ballot like everyone else. ---TWO PROPERTIES---maybe one ballot for Julie and one ballot for Joe..... ? Just a thought.


Just thought...??? How about just voteing YES on the assessment ballot...!!!! Make the one correct decision left to make...!!!!

Mike Green said...

Evidently no body told certain members of the LOCSD what the definition of electioneering is.

Electioneering is when you can't legally tell the truth in order to influence an election.

Thats why the water board can't tell us what is going to happen if the 218 fails (although we do have a pretty good idea)

There are no such restraints on the LOCSD, therefore be careful, what they could do is campaign which has a different definition:

Campaigning is where you can legally tell lies in order to influence elections.

Now considering the history of all variations of the LOCSD, what would you expect to issue forth?
Campaigning or electioneering, you choose.

TCG said...

The McPherson letter is really interesting. My husband and I do not want the people in Los Osos,or the CSD Board, advising the County on how to build the sewer if the vote passes. There is no need for another technical advisory committee. It will only impair the process.

We do not know how to get a project done. They do. We only know how to create roadblocks, throw up diversions, and get everyone all stressed out over details when it is the big picture that is important.

Churadogs said...

Maria Sez:"Hi Ann,
Another event this weekend that is happening in Los Osos this weekend is a Workshop on Drought Tolerant Gardening @ St.Benedict's from 10-2. Right off LOVR and Clark Valley Road - across from the cemetery."

Thanks for posting that. I hope everyone will come. I've xerescaped my whole yard front and back and it's amazing how beautiful it can be using drought-tolerant plants. (The Botanical Gardens at El Chorro Park is all about plants suitable for this climate. They're loaded with information too)

betty sez:"Fot the first time, I am disappointed in you--but for the hundredth time I am dissapointed in my CSD Board.

First, The County staff has said many times, and written in more than one Board of Supervisors agenda item, that their process includes peer review. They have done better than that, however, because I have seen them discuss the fact that they are proactively running key issues by Dr. T to make sure that those issues are covered properly."

Discussing something at BOS meetings or expressing an opinion that such and such is a good idea, or would be swell, etc. is different than a formal Direction From The Board. This community was lied to, the oversight agencies that SHOULD have caught that lie didn't. Nobody in this community wants a repeat of that. I suggested to Paavo back when Dr. T was coming to that workshop on the Ripley report that he should find a way to get that team back to vet whatever system rises to the top before any vote to give the community assurances tht whichever system they were going to pick was o.k., and Paavo said, great idea, he'd thinkg about it & etc. (This was before it became clear that there would be no real "vote" on choice of systems, just an "advisory," and before it became clear that a 218 vote was required even before ANY plan was in place. Which makes a formal assurance at this point that Dr T & Team will vet whatever comes out of the Process even more important at this stage of the game.)

HOWEVER, commenting tht something's a good idea, is a far different kettle of fish than actually, formally making Dr. T's review team part of the Process. (There is nothing in the CEQA process that says, "Dr. T & His Peer Review Group must come vet this thing.") Which is why I think the BOS on the 16th formally giving direction to Paavo to do that will make it official, on the record, not just some vague Good Idea out floating around there, which in turn will give a stronger assurance to those fearful of voting for another "bait and switchy." In a town as spooked as this one is, a smart Horse Whisperer (or Sewer Whisperer?) would make sure people knew that some clear lights were OFFICIALLY on.

TCG sez:"There is no need for another technical advisory committee. It will only impair the process."

From all reports of the first Dr. T Peer Review Workshop, it was not "just another technical advisory committee," but was declared to be very valuable by all those in attendance. The question with making that review a FORMAL part of the process is this: What's the county got to lose by doing so? What do they have to gain?

TCG said...


When I said that the County does not need another technical advisory committee, I was referring to the idea tha Gail McPherson and a few of the Tuesday regulars at the BOS meetings have thrown out lately--to disband the TAC and form anothr local group of citizens to try and shape the County's efforts going forward.

I was not referring to the proposed peer review of Dr. T's team. I think that is a good idea, and I have seen peer review listed in some of the process documents that Paavo Ogren presented to the BOS a couple of months ago. I do support expert technical peer review, just not bogging the County efforts down with Gail McPherson, Dave Duggan committees.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"In a town as spooked as this one is, a smart Horse Whisperer (or Sewer Whisperer?) would make sure people knew that some clear lights were OFFICIALLY on. "

What a perfect analogy, that is exactly the type of leadership Los Osos needs right now, so what do you get? Roger Briggs and Supervisor Gibson, with this on his web-site:

"Pandora Nash-Karner: "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: watersheds, open space, business, future growth, sprawl, parks, law enforcement, etc."

(Notice how she says, "THE sewer")

What did you say a few posts back, Ann? Something about running in to the corral, screaming and hollering, and flicking firecrackers all over the place... that's the type of horse whisperers that Los Osos is stuck with?

You folks in Los Osos realize that, if the 218 passes, it will just be the five county Supervisors that will make the final decision on the type and location of the sewer system, despite what any survey says, don't you? And you realize that Supervisors almost always follow the lead of the Supervisor of the district in question, correct? And you also realize that Tri-W, inexplicably, is still considered a "viable project" by county officials, right? And that the numero uno grande supporter of the Tri-W project is 2nd District Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, who was re-appointed to that seat by Gibson, earlier this year, si? And that Nash-Karner is a HUGE supporter of Supervisor Gibson, yes?

I just want to make sure everyone's clear on that.

Now, I'm not saying vote one way or another, of course, all I'm saying is that if you have already voted, or plan on voting, that you need to be VERY, VERY clear on all of that.

By the way, the PZ Property Owners editorial in the Trib the other day was correct when it said you can change your vote. It's relatively easy, just contact the county. You have until Oct. 22nd (I believe).

Ron said...

... and, you also are aware that Gibson, whom Nash-Karner speaks with "on many occasions," during a supervisors meeting a coupla months back that saw the Tri-W development permit expire, drafted a letter -- out of the freaking blue -- at the 11th hour, that he wanted to send to the Coastal Commission in a desperate and bizarre attempt to prevent the permit's officials expiration, despite his own staff's recommendation to just let it expire, yea?

(Following an onslaught of highly critical public comment, where a recall effort was threatened on the spot BECAUSE of that letter, Gibson officially "withdrew" the letter from consideration in one of the most awkward, embarrassing moments I have ever witnessed in my 20 years of covering and observing county government. When will these people ever learn? Do not listen to Nash-Karner! If you do, highly awkward and embarrassing moments will soon follow for you, just like they did for Gibson that faithful day.)

Ron said...

As a faithful follower of Calhoun's Can(n)ons, of course, what I meant was, "... that fateful day..."

Some typos I can live with, some I can't.

TCG said...


Not to beat a dead horse, but more to hopefully satisfy you that the County staff will be using a peer review, if you want to see this in writing:

Go to the County Department of Public Works Website, Sewer project section, Board of Supervisors agenda items, August 14, 2007 Agenda Item, Clerk's File, "Exhibit B" Wastewater Project-Selection Flow Chart, (top line, under the first and second quarter work plan for 2008--"Prepare Draft Engineers Report, Peer Review."

This is the report that the staff proposed to the Board of Supervisors, which the board adopted, so that all would understand as much as possible exactly what would be happening if the vote passes. This level of detailed information for the public is more than I have ever seen on any other public project, and certainly more than our CSD provided on any of their project plans.

I also remember hearing this being discussed in other BOS meetings, but this most recent reference should cover it.

I have no gripe with you about this. I just want anyone reading this who has not yet voted to see my viewpoint that the County has been and, I expect, will continue to be very forthcoming on what they plan to do.This is one of the reasons that I trust their process very much. They understand what has to be done to make this happen.

Ron said...

Quick question please:

Does anyone know who the developer is behind the Morro Shores project?

In case you missed, the Trib had an interesting article on how the permits for that project are about to expire in Sept. 2008, and if they do, that developer is going to be screwed, because he/she/they will most likely have to shell out a heck of a lot more cash for an updated permit that has to adhere to updated $tandard$.

However, in the story, they only mention the developer's attorney. So, who's the developer?

My journalism instincts detect all kinds of red flags here.

In the Trib's story, it reads:

"The Board of Supervisors this week rejected its county counsel’s emphatic advice and temporarily kept alive a developer’s plan to build on 91 lots in Los Osos using standards developed in the 1990s."

If they don't listen to their own attorney's "emphatic" advice, what makes you think they'll listen to a community "survey?"

I'm tellin' ya, between Gibson popping out his incredibly ill-advised letter a couple months back and his uncomfortably close relationship with Nash-Karner, and the fact that you have Lenthal, Ovitt and Katcho continually siding with development intere$t$, and the fact county officials, inexplicably, still consider the Tri-W project a "viable project," well, I'm going to be frank here... if I lived in Los Osos, I wouldn't trust those guys at all. Their staff seems to be trustworthy and smart enough (too bad the Supervisors don't listen to them more often), just not that weasily board, and THAT board has the final say in the type and location of the LO sewer plant.

Boy, talk about a gamble.

Mike said...

It's really too bad you don't live in Los Osos, bah... you still live in the past and see conspiracies in every decision you don't agree with... Sorry Ron, your "opinion" doesn't mean diddly in Los Osos...

If you haven't voted yet, please vote YES to put this sort of fact-less mis-direction behind us...

Ron said...

Red alert, Scotty! Red Alert!

Oh, this is soooo good.

In that link I supply above, there's another link to a pdf file of the staff report for that item. Download and read it! It's friggin excellent.

First, as usual, I've answered my own question.

The developer is Anastasi Development Company, and they, according to their web site, "improve neighborhoods by removing blighted structures and replacing them with invigorating new housing."

Here's where it gets very interesting, that project -- the Morro Shores project -- is located right next door to the Tri-W site, and I'm not too sure what to make of that. It's almost like they are (were?) advocating for the Tri-W project because THEY THINK (thought?) it will (would?) be built the fastest, therefore their permits wouldn't be toast come Sept. '08. But those houses would then be built SMACK-dab next door to a sewer plant. Is that their idea of "invigorating new housing?"

Plus, according to the staff report, Anastasi has already spent over a quarter of a million bucks designing the project, and I'm sure that peanuts when compared to the $$$ that's at stake here.

Anastasi was already granted a five year stay in 2002, and according to the report, Government Code Section 66452.6(b)(1)... "the length of the moratorium shall not exceed five years." Clearly, they are out of time. They used their one five-year shot. Yet, three county Supervisor's, against their own attorney's "emphatic advice" voted to "continue" the item instead of just denying it like their brilliant staff recommended.

Yep, Los Osos, those are your "Sewer Whispers," tossing firecrackers all around the corral.

Soooooo Gooooood!

Mike said... go uncover how much money Anastasi Development Company and Jeff Edwards poured into the recall and pockets of a few "loyal" MTS folks... follow the money Ron, you might actually find out "why" some folks have tried so hard to take Tri-W off the table... Have a nice day, the previous Boards had no intention of making money off the community, but can the same be said about the post re-call Directors....????

Shark Inlet said...


You might want to fire your crack research department because the Morro Shores development is not an Anastasi project. No where in the PDF you refer to does it say that the project is Anastasi's. If your researcher had read page 13 carefully, he would have noticed that the developer is asking for the same sort of waiver that the County had already provided for Anastasi.

So Ron ... are you just sloppy or are you intentionally misrepresenting the situation?

Sewertoons said...

Ron said:
"If they don't listen to their own attorney's "emphatic" advice, what makes you think they'll listen to a community "survey?"

How about a whole town's "emphatic" advice. Think that might carry just a little more weight Ron?

Mike said...

Ron...while you're following the money, how about seeing just how much Ripley is "paying" some individuals through PZLDF... Money is changing hands so a couple developers can move forward... If you thought a community park was outrageous, you'll absolutely have a fit over these plans... and Los Osos will still need a real sewer... MTS has never been about no sewer at Tri-W, it's always been about development...!!!

Area51 said...

Maybe Ron is now on the "Reclamators" payroll. Soon to be testimonial on KPIG: "Hi, I'm Ron Crawford, and I'm here to tell you about an amazing new product that actually lets you safely drink your own urine. Just vote no on the 218, send me a generous donation (for independent journalism), and you too can be on your way to sewer independence. The Reclamator. Because everything tastes better the second time around."

Shark Inlet said...


Besides your frigging awesome blunder by popping off before reading ... as always ... I have to ask you another question. If you are concerned about an "uncomfortably close" relationship between Bruce Gibson and Pandora Nash-Karner ... aren't you even more concerned about the relationship between Julie Tacker and Jeff Edwards?

Presumably if the 218 vote fails, Julie would be an employee of Jeff Edwards who would stand to gain or lose more than anyone else in town over the sewer issue. It would seem that this is the sort of relationship that should make you uncomfortable, not a Democrat offering support to another Democrat in a race against a Republican. (You really blew the cover off that can-o-worms, Ron ... next time I need someone to tell me whether the sky is blue or not, I'll call your crack investigative team and hope they can read documents from the national weather service without making a mistake.)

Get some friggin' common sense about where you place your outrage.

You claim to be outraged as a citizen of the County and of the State about how the TriW project was wasting millions of dollars ... yet because of the post-recall board, ever more of your taxpayer money will be wasted than the amount you were previously complaining about. (How's that for compound interest?)

Because I'm a really nice guy, I'll offer some unsolicited advice that will help you if you can only comprehend it. (Please don't complain about my offering unsolicited advice ... I've never asked you for your input on Los Osos issues yet you seem to keep offering it.)

To many it looks as if you're no more than a vindictive person who is out to tar Pandora as the evil queen who can control all government agencies in the state at whim and a paid cheerleader for the wacky folks who think we'll get a more affordable project by continued delays even though it has never happened before. I know that you're not a paid cheerleader or a vindictive guy, but like I said, I've heard from many that you're "take" is simply irrelevant. Maybe if you were to look at both sides of these issues your take could be seen as more ... um ... informative than ... um ... misinformative.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Guess it's time to chime in.

Jeff Edwards is behind the project. That's why he and Julie didn't want a sewer at Tri-W. That was what move the sewer was all about.

But don't let Pandora off the hook. She conspired with Roger Briggs to make sure this CSD would be bankrupt.

Greed. Greed. Greed. Julie, Pandora, Jeff, and everyone on this blog who will make money off the gravity sewer in one way or another. Developers and friends. That's what it's all about.

The sweet relationship with the BOS and the developers.

That's why there's such a strong push for a yes vote, so the developers can finally build and make their money. It doesn't matter that gravity will destroy Los Osos -- just as long as they make their money.

Ron, if you want to investigate a story, try reading S.Durr's Trib opinion on redevelopement. This is what the county has planned from day one. You'd have to say downtown Los Osos is blighted.

Look out everyone -- we're in for a heck of a ride.

No, we will never forget what Pandora has done -- or Julie -- or anyone else who destroyed the lives of so many people just so the developers could finally build!

Shark Inlet said...

Um ... conspiracy boy, while I largely agree with your most recent comment, it is fair to say that even if Pandora and the dreamers said and did nothing after the recall, the post-recall board would still be bankrupt now.

I would also suggest that the push for the "yes" vote is more from homeowners who are afraid if that something isn't done now, they'll be forced to sell at a loss because of the even higher sewer fees.

I'll quickly admit that the Solutions Group played the cards wrong (or worse) and that the County proposal in 1997 might have been much better ... but the conscious choice by Julie and others to further worsen the problem is at least as bad.

Nope, it is folks such as Joe Sparks and Richard LeGros who argued against both the formation of the CSD in the first place and against the recall in 2005 who should be looked upon as insightful here. They bucked the trend at both elections and took the position that later proved correct.

That being said, what does Joe say about the 218 vote?

Who opposes the 218 vote and what is their track record?

Conspiracy Boy said...


You said, "I would also suggest that the push for the "yes" vote is more from homeowners who are afraid if that something isn't done now, they'll be forced to sell at a loss because of the even higher sewer fees."

Houses have already lost $100,000.00. in value -- if they are selling at all. That's a very stupid reason to vote yes Mr. Inlet!

A yes vote is for about $100,000.00 when all is said and done -- when all costs are tallied up in 5-10 years.

You like the math, do some.

And, BTW, the recalled CSD were in financial trouble too, according to Bruce Buel ($2 million debt) and LeGros has admitted to trouble there also (Trib blog) months ago.

And Joe, I've heard him lie over and over. He's the county stooge.
He cares nothing about people.

It's all about development and you can not deny that.

BTW, developers could build faster with a step system.

And it's "Bankruptcy Protection" -- remember that.

Conspiracy Boy said...


Just read what you said on the Trib site:
"The question of the day is this ... do we want to vote "yes" on the 218 vote and allow the County to continue with their "build the sewer" process or do we vote "no" on the 218 and put the project back in the hands of the LOCSD who screwed things up so badly that the legislature saw fit to take the project away from them?"

Oh, what a spin, Mr. Inlet!!

...the legislature saw fit to take the project away? The CSD gave it up! AND Mr. Blakeslee worked on the legislation since the compromise, the county worked on it since the recall and the legislation was based on the lie that all 5,000 septics were polluting the ground water!

Of course, not one test on any septic or leach field was done for Blakeslee. THAT BILL WAS BASED ON A BIG FAT LIE BY MR. BLAKESLEE. It's obvious that Mr. Blakeslee works only for the developers.

He had to lie to get his bill passed. This CSD had to be tricked. They were stupid and someone told them to agree to AB2701 w/the changes rather than oppose the bill. Who is advising this board? Some very bad legal advice, I'd say. And also, the SWRQB was there to lobby hard. Coastkeepers, Sierra Club etc. etc. Everyone's been told the big fat lie.

Again, all so the developers can finally build and have us in the PZ pay for them to do so!!

And the bay, 1/10 of 1%! And where's the test results from when the Congressman was here months ago?

Shark Inlet said...


I'm running late now on something so can't give this reply full attention, but there is one point I feel the need to make right away.

Even if homes are now priced at about $100k lower than 18 months ago, it is not stupid to take action to keep them from unnecessarily falling even further. Let me ask you this ... would you rather your equity be $50k lower than what it is now? Few folks would say "I don't care" or "yep, I want my home to be worth less."

How you get the project as costing us $100k each is beyond me ... the lien is for about $25k. Are you asking us to believe that between interest on the loan, higher water rates and additional loans we'll later feel compelled to agree to (or the amount will be added to our sewer bills) the total will be about four times the 218 value? If so, a justification would appear to be in order.

As for your claim that it's all about development ... I don't see it that way because whether development happens or not, there are are already some 13k+ people living in the PZ who will have to live with the sewer or the implications of no sewer, depending on the outcome.

I can understand your suggestion that Joe doesn't care about people but the way I see it, it is you who don't care. After all, you're advocating we vote no on the County proposal yet you've not offered us any compelling argument that we'll be better off voting no than voting yes. Can you really say you care about your neighbors when you're telling us to vote your way even though you don't know your way will save us money?

Ron said...

Mike wrote:

"... you still live in the past... "

Apparently, I'm not alone on that. If you read through that staff report, notice how often the lawyers and county officials discuss past events, because the sequence and consequences of those events is extremely relevant and important today, as I always point out.

For example, in that staff report, they discuss the June 1998 Coastal Commission meeting that had to be delayed because the Solution Group, surely deliberately, did not supply Questa Engineering with the proper information needed to conduct the Questa Study. If they had, the Questa Study would have wrapped up before that June meeting, and Commissioners would have had no other choice but to grant the County its Development Permit right then and there. That's an AWESOME episode, and it's the closest Los Osos ever came to getting a sewer... that close. If the Solution Group didn't play games with the County and Questa Engineering back in mid-1998, none of us would be here today.

"Had the Solution Group indicated that there were no supporting data at the outset, we would have immediately identified this as a possible "fatal flaw"... "
-- Questa Engineering, 1998

I wrote about all of that here. That's an excellent piece of sewer history, one every Los Ososan should be crystal clear on, for no other reason than because it is so damn interesting.

A51 wrote:

"Maybe Ron is now on the "Reclamators" payroll... "

Nah, I'm much more of a composting toilet type of guy, because it was the staff of the RWQCB that has already said that an "advanced" composting toilet system "will" clean your water. That's why they considered requiring composting toilets in Los Osos, and if the staff of the RWQCB likes them, and according to item 19, they do, then I love them.

That's where the Reclamator guys are f-ing up. Apparently, they are not aware of Item 19, where the staff of the RWQCB has already signed-off on composting toilets, and a quick Google search shows that those "advanced" systems cost about $2,000. So, when it comes to an on-site system, the Reclamator can't touch a composting toilet system, because that system is much cheaper and it already has RWQCB staff approval, according to page 6 of Item 19.

I wrote about all that here

By the way, I still really see that happening: A few Los Ososans printing out page 6 of Item 19 (aka: your permit to install a composting toilet system), then installing an "advanced" (that's the staff of the RWQCB's word) composting toilet system, then not having to pay the sewer fee, then that'll drive up the cost for everyone else, so more of those folks will also print out page 6 of Item 19 and install their "advanced" composting toilet systems, and that'll drive up the cost for all the other folks, and more of them will do the same, and so on, and so on.

See how that works? It's beautiful, and it's completely up to the individual property owners. That's what I love about it. I'm surprised no one's done it yet. Maybe they have?

And, again, that's not me advocating for composting toilets, that's just me reporting that the staff of the RWQCB has already signed-off on them with Item 19.

And what is so very interesting about that these days, is, why aren't they requiring them? The staff of the RWQCB has already said that the "advanced" systems "will" clean the water, so why haven't they required them as part of their CDOs, just like they considered doing in Item 19? Good question, huh?


"To many it looks as if you're no more than a vindictive person who is out to tar Pandora as the evil queen who can control all government agencies in the state at whim..."

Um, you did read this, didn't you? She makes for an AMAZING story. What can I say? I mean, c'mon... that's fairly evident, wouldn't you say?

"Morro Shores development is not an Anastasi project... "

Upon a quick re-read, fair enough. (Huh, a rare f-up. Damn.) Then it's back to my original question -- who the hell is the developer, and why isn't their identity revealed anywhere? All I see are a bunch of lawyers, and I really want to know who that developer is, because the first thing I'll do is research whether that developer has any, teensy-weensy tie to the 1998 - 2005 LOCSD. And if they do... let's just say that'll be fun to report on.

Area 51 wrote:

"... send me a generous donation (for independent journalism)... "

Details on the right side of my blog. Muchos gracias.

Shark Inlet said...


Should we take your lack of comment (yet again) on the relationship betwen Julie and Jeff as your way of saying you see nothing wrong with it?

If so, that would be really odd because you seem to be very quick to point fingers at Bruce for his supposed relationship with Pandora but seem to be entirely overlooking an employer-employee relationship which at face value should cause great concern for all in Los Osos.

Just so that we know where you stand, do you view the Jeff-n-Julie relationship as problematic at all?

Mike Green said...

Ron, composting toilet? sure it would work, and at one time probably OK by the water board.
Now? I wouldn't bet a plug nickel that they would accept it NOTHING that the waterboard has stated has stayed the same, constantly changing goal-posts.
They are still the 900lb gorilla in the room.
Quiet.. for now, but still there.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike Green - You're right, the RWQCB wants and demands only a centrailized wastewater system. That's the only way the developers can really get started? Right?!

SharkInlet - Read your post, and I have to tell you that I picked up the new issue of the ROCK this morning. I read every word, especially the Lake Havasu story/letters to editor. If you can read the story, and tell me that I'm wrong with anything I've said previously, I'll buy you a drink! I sure do understand the big push for a "yes" now, it's ALL ABOUT DEVELOPMENT!

If you or anyone on this blog thinks that the county will really consider anything other than the outdated gravity megasewer -- well, they're brain-dead. And if you all really think that the price won't double or triple -- well, you're just plain stupid, because it will. Who can afford $300, $400, $500 a month?

And that's the County's fault -- not the homeowners here. The county and Pandora screwed around for 25 years (not the homeowners.)

The megasewer is a hoax. There's no testing been done on any septic or leach field (for the past 25 years) like the County and RWQCB were supposed to do (83-13) -- and why not?! The independent tests that some have done show NO NITRATES. Is that why the RWQCB and county never tested?! Hmmmm....

The home values here will continue to drop, this place will be torn up for many years (at least 5 plus) and with so many houses up for sale, forget about it. This "invest in Los Osos" is pure crap. They should be saying, "Go ahead, destroy the enviornment in Los Osos" because that's exactly what the yes people will be doing!!

The real riff-raff are the people supporting the 218 to do their economic cleansing and have their chance to cash in on development.

Mike Green said...

Oh and Ron, I am far more worried about Pandora and Briggs than I am about Pandora and Gibson, at least we can fire Gibson.

Mike Green said...

CB you keep dodging the real issue!
HOW are you going to circumvent the Water Gods?

You have no friggin plan at all! Sue? burn the waterboard in effigy on the supreme court steps?
Sit in a tree and scream?

Yes our situation sucks, ain't fair.
Go climb a tree and weep, nobody is coming to the rescue unless we agree to step up and take responsibility for our water.
I'll scream right next to you when the bills come, but our inept form of government is only good at reaction, not prevention.
Don't believe me? ask New Orleans.
Crap, we can't even get a budget passed on time.

Shark Inlet said...


Most of the folks I know who want a "yes" vote are people who have seen the costs rise over the years while the issue has been delayed.

Are you asking us to believe that we can now save money by delaying the project (yet again) for at least two years by asking the LOCSD to take over? You are sure that the LOCSD can doo-doo it right but I remain unconvinced. If you want me to vote "no" convince me that the LOCSD will, indeed, save me money. It's not enough to say that we could possibly save money ... you've got to show me that it is guaranteed.

Those folks on the street corner every morning seem to forget that they are advocating for a course of action with no limit on the costs and no specific project. Their proposed course of action is exactly what they say they dislike about the County's plan.

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet & Mike Green:

First of all, there is no real nitrate pollution from septics. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The RWQCB has not come close.

Second of all, it's wise to see who is polluting by doing a septic management plan or survey. Then you could have Pio come do some decentralized plants in the areas that need it.

You can't tell me that homes on Highland, etc. have a density problem or are polluting anything (especially if the RWQCB says Cabrillo isn't.)

The CSD does get property tax money. And their legal team should go after the county to get our fair share of our property tax money back and could go after past monies from all the years that they've given to other areas (never us.)

If there's no real pollution, then please tell me -- what's the hurry?

The only reason could be is that the BOS and county are trying to please all the developers that have been waiting so long to build and are about to "blow."

It's all about water, and it's all about development -- not pollution. We're much better here in Los Osos than other places.

The RWQCB will have to answer to someone sometime. They are the ones who break the law, not the homeowners.

Sewertoons said...

Can't you just see those Poly students that rent here in LO taking care of those composting toilets? Bet they'd be digging holes in the yard and poopin' in them once the thing filled up.

Oh, yes cb - those tests you keep referring to: "The independent tests that some have done show NO NITRATES."

How many is "some," when were they done and by whom using what methods? Which website can you refer me to to look them up?

If you cannot cite them, why would I believe you?

What about chemicals other than nitrates?

"Carbamazepine (an anti-seizure drug) was detected in three of five Los Osos water samples. Sulfamethoxazole (a human antibiotic) was found in all five water samples."

"The presence of these two pharmaceuticals is an indication that there is a source(s) of contaminants that has leached, or is presently leaching into the groundwater source. These chemicals will only be found in human wastewater sources. They do not occur naturally nor are they used in agriculture."

"Considering that these pharmaceuticals have been found at low levels in most of the groundwater that you submitted, it is likely that there are other chemical contaminants present in the water as we only tested for a select group."

Excerpts from a cover letter to Mr. Spencer Harris, Cleath and Associates from John D. Vargo, Ph.D. University of Iowa, Hygienic Laboratory, May 16, 2006. The report in all of its precise details follows the letter. I believe I obtained my copy at a CSD meeting around that time.

Now, cb, I have put some cards out on the table as to contaminants in our water. Show me your proof that there aren't any.

Mike Green said...

CB, innocent until proven guilty?
You really are a tool!
And just what court of law and what lawyer is going to come to your rescue?
Plus there is the distinct possibility that you could LOSE!

Maybe you are comfortable with that crap shoot, I will submit that most folks have better sense, especially with hindsight (It hasn't worked yet, in fact we are all worse off)
If you find yourself digging your own grave---- stop digging.

Shark Inlet said...


Surely when you wrote "there is no real nitrate pollution from septics" you meant that the nitrate pollution cannot be proven to be from septics. For otherwise you are a bigger fool than the folks who tell us that we'll save money by delaying a project yet again.

That being said, if you mean to say that the pollution cannot be said for sure to be from septics, you have yet to offer up a theory for how the nitrate levels are higher below the PZ than elsewhere and increasing over the years. The pattern of the nitrate levels over time and space can perfectly be explained by the theory that septics are the source of the nitrates.

Furthermore, this theory also matches with what we know about septic tanks, population density and distance to groundwater.

Essentially, the only "proof" lacking here is proof that individual tanks are the source of the nitrates. As a whole, the PZ is clearly guilty.

As you've told us about innocent until proven guilty, your job is now to provide an alternate theory ... on not involving septic tanks ... that would explain the pattern in the observed data ... otherwise you are like a defense attorney who argues that because the crime wasn't videotaped, your client is innocent even though the fingerprints are on the murder weapon, he has a motive for the killing and has no alibi.

Conspiracy Boy said...


That's bullshit. Test to see what tanks are polluting and fix them!

End of story.

The RWQCB and county created a problem in order to fix it. Illegal.

Resolution 83-13 said to do a septic management plan -- they didn't. The Basin Plan is to be updated every few years -- didn't happen.

This magic line (PZ) that you seem to like so well doesn't cut it. Nitrates read higher below Cabrillo. Wallace has the report.

It's a very expensive hoax. The truth will prevail.


Sewertoons said...


Other than out and out leaks in a tank, it's leach fields that fail, causing pollution. There are many small lots in the PZ that have no room at all to replace that failing leach field. You have to move to a different piece of land to install a new one.

The other point you seem to miss repeatedly is that there are 8 houses per acre in many PZ areas. Septics are generally agreed to work for one house on one acre.

Yada-yada, the County's at fault, boo-hoo. There, now you don't have to bother to write your rant - I did it in shorthand for you! All the "didn't" that occurred are not going to be fixed by doing nothing now. It will only get more expensive.

The prevailing truth is that we must pay to clean up our water. No one is going to do it for us, no matter how many tantrums you display for us here.

Forget about Cabrillo. It would cost a fortune to hook them up - their pollution runs away from our groundwater. They can deal with that problem later. I don't want to pay for it now.

Now, will you kindly refer us to those reports we have been asking you about? Something more specific than "Wallace has the report."

Shark Inlet said...


When I asked you to provide an explanation for why the nitrates are highest under the PZ (especially in areas where the tanks are closest to groundwater) and why the levels have been increasing ... you seem to have completely ducked the question.

Perhaps you didn't intend to back up your earlier claim that the tanks are not the source of the nitrate pollution. Perhaps you overlooked the opportunity you had to back up your audacious claim. I don't know.

I do know that you neither retracted your claim not offered us any evidence to justify it. As such, I'll say that until you do either, you're clearly full of crap on this particular issue.

Ron said...

Anonymous commentor wrote:

"Just so that we know where you stand, do you view the Jeff-n-Julie relationship as problematic at all?"

Keep in mind, there is a HUGE difference between "a hint of impropriety" and "impropriety," and I haven't seen any impropriety, have you?

Plus, I've interviewed Tacker on a number of occasions, and all I ever see is a hard-working, dedicated public servant. However, with that said, if she ever uses her position as an elected official to benefit Edward's developments, I'll certainly take a look at that. But I just don't ever see that happening.

Hey, believe me, the way developers (i.e. POPR, Morro Shores, Dalidio) go about their business, I think they're ALL kind of weasily. In fact, once the Tri-W embarrassment finally, FINALLY goes away for good, I want to switch the focus of my blog to local land use issues. Developers, with their secret language (quick show of hands... how many ordinary working folks can tell me what a "vested tentative tract map" is? "Negative declaration," anybody?) have been getting over on the general public for faaaaaar too long in this county, and others. Anyone been through Orange County lately?

LandWatch, perhaps? Whadaya think?

Shark Inlet said...


It's likely a matter of perspective on this issue. Those who see the TriW project as a bad one and those who brought it to us as evil will necessarily have quite a different take than those who viewed stopping TriW as a bad decision and those who made that decision as fools.

I'll suggest to you that the typical person who knows nothing about the Los Osos situation would view a developer's employee serving on a board that has considerable control over some development issues as far more questionable than a Democrat who is involved in County government issues supporting another Democrat over a Republican (oh, the horrors!).

Let's further suppose that everything you say about how the Evil Pandora Conspiracy (TM) before 2005 is 100% correct. The fact is that there was an approved CDP, an approved SRF contract and construction had started. Even if you are right about the history, it doesn't mean that stopping TriW was a wise thing to do. If our total costs go up more than we in Los Osos value an out of town location over TriW with a park, we lost when Julie-n-company violated the SRF contract terms and stopped the project.

Along those lines, you've also not explained how TriW, if the County picks it and demonstrates that other projects are infeasible (by comparison too expensive, no willing seller of land, Army Corps not willing to provide permit to destroy wetlands, etc.) would still be blackballed by the CCC. The key with government agencies is that they often have to work with conflicting mandates and are required to make trade-offs for the greater good. For example, if the only available site for a WWTF was 5 miles down LOVR, the costs of pumping there and back would be so high that I am sure that the CCC would approve TriW over the much more expensive option ... there would be justifiable overriding considerations.

As such, your argument that TriW needs to be taken off the table now would appear to violate both the CEQA and common sense ... we don't actually know at this stage which project will ultimately turn out to be the least unaffordable one.

On the matter of LandWatch ... I would think it could be a great blogsite. I would hope that you would work with Eric Greening, Bruce Gibson, Jim Patterson and Morgan Raferty from ECOSLO (or a group of similar composition) as a way of getting additional content good perspective. I would read it.

On the question of Dalidio, however, it must be said that he's gotten a raw deal from the City, County, City again and then the Downtown Association before he pulled a fast one with Measure J.

Shark Inlet said...

For those of you who like a good laugh, Ron and I have had a bit of discussion over in his blog ( Reading the recent comment section it really looks as if he can't deal with criticism of his ill-founded conclusions. Good fun.

Remember, if you support Ron's independent "journalism", please donate to him. If, on the other hand, you support my effort to read Ron carefully, you can always paypal me: to show support for ... um ... careful thinking rather than destructive reactionary thinking.

Maria M. Kelly said...

As much as the conversation "thrills" me, I'm saving up for a sewer! Sorry boys, the discussion has to be free, but feel free to donate to my fund!
Maria M. Kelly

Mike Green said...

Sharks don't use money! It must be a Nigerian scam!

I'm so friggin rich I don't need money from any of you!

Just ask C.B.

Area51 said...

Can anyone provide me with information concerning the cemetary and who owns that land? Is it private land, or belong to Los Osos, or the county, or what? I was absolutely appalled to see many "NO on 218" signs tacked to the fence surrounding it yesterday. The cemetary for goodness sake. Appalled, but not surprised, given the integrity, or lack thereof, of some in the no sewer movement. Today they were removed, and I'm just curious about their placement yesterday. I also wonder about money, and how much the out-of-town Reclamator scumbags are pouring into the "campaign" to derail the 218.

Conspiracy Boy said...


Just because you're so polite (same with Sewertoons) I'll give you some info.

Some info I've read has been from the "Soil and Ground Water Nitrate Study" done by the County in 1994. That report shows nitrates are not from septics, but other sources. But the study shows septics do the job! There is also a 1984 memo from Roger Briggs stating surface runoff was showing up.

Also, more info is from Wallace's "Groundwater Risk Assessment for Planning Purposes" and that shows the higher levels of nitrates below Cabrillo (than in the Prohibition Zone.)

Also, the statements made about nitrate levels may not change for 45 years if at all, and that 50% plus of the residents will have to leave, etc. etc. are actually from Gordon Hensley and Stan in a l997 letter to then Gov. Wilson.

There is some important information and reports floating around these days. Maybe you and Sewertoons should read. Mike Green too. I don't think you work on cars Mike. If you did, you couldn't ever afford what's coming our way -- bottom line.

We all know it's a hoax and the "Developer's Dream" as we were targeted for development in 1983 (with the help of the RWQCB) no, Mike, I think you're in construction or maybe you'll make money on the hook-ups -- but working on cars --- no. I don't think so.

Sewertoons: The leach fields have not been tested either. I suggest decentralized in areas that need to be fixed right away. (down by Pandora's) and step would work well in high density areas. But the homes on Highland etc. are fine if Cabrillo is. AB885 is coming up anyway.

How hard is that for you to understand?

Mike Green said...

CB blathered:
"There is some important information and reports floating around these days. Maybe you and Sewertoons should read. Mike Green too. I don't think you work on cars Mike. If you did, you couldn't ever afford what's coming our way -- bottom line."

Baloney, no, pure crap.
I worked as the shop foreman for Rizzoli's Automotive for ten years, then as the shop foreman for German Auto for twelve years. Go call em.
Yes the assessment is gonna cost me, but let me tell you a secret, when I bought my house in 1991 it was disclosed to me that a sewer issue was happening, at that time the county was estimating a 10k aprx assessment. I held that money in a separate account (interest bearing of course) and in the meantime when property values shot up I refinanced and moved some of my equity out of the area, Oregon and Hawaii.
You don't have to be over payed, just smart.
Plus, I'm adding all the sewer bills I have not had to pay. It's almost a wash.
Thats why I can't really blame people outside of LO for thinking we are a bunch of idiot crybabies.
Why the heck do you think Blakesley's Bill got though so easily?
We are the laughingstock of the whole state.

Oh BTW where is your PLAN for dealing with the Water Gods?

Don't assume dummy!

Mike said...

My turn to say "easy now" Mike....

CB would be bitching if the world was perfect. There is no argument, with or without facts, that he can't turn around and complain about some aspect not being to his personal liking... I'm sick and tired of his and the rest of the "move the sewer at all costs, or it's not sustainable or we don't need a sewer" folks crying over their perception of what the perfect Los Osos solution is or maybe will be... Hell, we have the worlds largest conglomeration of sewer experts so we should of had the sewer in and the aquifiers already cleansed by now... so what's happened?

We really have too damn many CB's spouting off and too many cheerleaders keeping them going...!!! Now we have the snakeoil carnivals entertaining the local experts...

You are so right Mike, these folks have no plan for dealing with the Water Gods, but you and I will be paying dearly for these past 2 years plus the next 2 before we see a sewer...

I just hope we get past the 218 vote and let the County move ahead... I certainly am concerned that if Los Osos does not pass that vote, we will soon see just what the legal arm of the Water Gods have ready to go... they may be quiet and not "electioneering" right now, but you can bet they are making contingency plans and Gail with all her PZLDF legal advice just might be finally run right in the ground.... No more trying to work with the community, laugh if you will, but they really have been trying to provide a reasonable approach to how to prod Los Osos to build the sewer... next time it will be more than unenforced CDO's, it will be fines and full legal action...

Shark Inlet said...


Why is it that the nitrate level documents you cite are more than 10 years old? Have the more recent numbers not been matching your claims?

How do nitrates get into groundwater? Certainly in other regions where septics are used, septics too close to groundwater are viewed as a source of nitrates in groundwater. Similarly, population density is associated with nitrates in groundwater.

Why not here? Is it that Los Osos has magic sand and that the rules governing septics that are applied uniformly throughout the country simply aren't needed here?

That the nitrate levels might not change quickly enough is not a reason to stick with septics. If I were to argue that it would take a long time to clean up a landfill so we should continue dumping to hazardous material there, you would scoff. The right way to solve a pollution problem is to first stop polluting.

One benefit of a sewer is that ... even if we have high nitrate levels in our upper aquifer ... we could start blending water from the two aquifers and the saltwater intrusion problem would be lessened. We could also denitrify at the wellhead if we wanted to, something that is only allowed if we have a WWTF.

Your suggestion that Highland is fine if Cabrillo is may be based on a misunderstanding of the underground geology of the region. Geologists indicate that Highland drains to our aquifer but Cabrillo drains to the ocean.

I would also like to point out that if Cabrillo were to be included in the sewer, the cost for the rest of us would not be lowered because even with economies of scale on the WWTF, the extra costs of the collection system would essentially mean that even though their bills go way up, mine wouldn't be impacted at all. Whether they would want to tie in voluntarily should be up to them, however.

Remember, vote "yes" on the 218 vote because those who are advocating a "no" vote cannot tell you where the plant will be or how much it will cost us. They say that a bankrupt LOCSD is in a better situation to get the job done than the County. They're simply not paying attention to the facts.

Reject idiocy and vote "yes".