Pages

Friday, November 16, 2007

And The Sewer Project Goes To . . .

In my Nov 8 blog entry, A Mouse Tail , I stated, “ . . . . but you thought the RWQCB “stood down.” Which means you think these people [The Los Osos 45] are “safe” from CDOs and CAO prosecution. You think that because of the 218 vote, the County “has” this project so you’re in the clear.

“Errrrnnkkk, not even close. The RWQCB didn’t “stand down.” The County doesn’t have this project (and won’t have it until the BOS votes to accept it, somewhere waaaayyy down the line) Which means, dear and gentle Homeowners of the PZ, YOU and your home have never left the RWQCB’s cross hairs.”

Well, after posting that, some folks logged on to comment that I had rocks in my head, that the County DID have this project, that a (unnamed) Supervisor said they had the project and so forth. So, I emailed Paavo Ogren to ask him a couple of questions: (1). Did the county have the project? And (2) if it does, “what does it intended to do about The Los Osos 45? They’re still left hanging in the wind . . .”

Here’s Paavo’s reply and my partial reply to his reply. For the folks who claimed I had rocks in my head, sorry, not this time. To the anonymous poster who claimed a Supervisor TOLD him directly that the County DID have the project, please, please contact that Supervisor and send him a copy of Paavo’s email. Clearly, the Supervisor is gravely misinformed, which is soooo not good.

Paavo’s email is followed by one from the Staff of the RWQCB and an e-mail from Gail McPherson sent to Mr. Thomas in response to his email concerning the Dec. 7th agenda.

Read it and weep, Dear and Gentle Homeowner. The Mad Hatter Tea Party Continues Down The Rabbit Hole. Then scroll further below, to the Nov 8 entry, and re-read A Mouse Tail.

Paavo’s reply:

Ann
We need to go through the "due diligence" efforts that are included in AB2701 before the Board of Supervisors considers the formal resolution totake on the project or not. Also, the County cannot begin levyingassessments (making people pay) before that resolution and the duediligence period.

John can help with the details on our upcoming work that will include duediligence, EIR efforts, CDP efforts, technology and site selection, and theresolution.Hope this helps.

Paavo OgrenDeputy Public Works Director

And my partial reply:

Thanks. I also asked about the Los Osos 45, and since you didn't address that, am I correct in assuming that the answer is -- The county can do nothing for them since . . . the County doesn't have the project?. So they're still left twisting in the wind?

And now, an official email from the staff of your local, friendly RWQCB, concerning the December 7th, meeting.

From: Michael Thomas : Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:24 PM
Subject: December 7 Water Board meeting

The next Water Board meeting is on December 7, in San Luis Obispo. The agenda will be mailed this Friday. There will be a Los Osos information item on the agenda, but it will not be a hearing. The Board will discuss the status of the enforcement actions and the County's process, and may give direction to staff, but will not take action on the CDOs at that time.

Thank you,
Michael Thomas


And now, some interesting comments from Gail McPherson to Michael Thomas regarding this missing agenda item. She reviewed the tapes of the meeting. I didn’t review any tapes, but I sure remember the last meeting. I remember the Board instructing staff to put this item on the Dec agenda so the Board could consider and be able to ACT (if they so chose) on The Los Osos 45’s CDOs and CAOs. (The October meeting didn’t give them enough time for an action item.)

Now, isn’t that funny, how that instruction apparently somehow just magically disappeared. Or an action item suddenly became merely an information item, which can’t be acted upon, but would have to be delayed until some other meeting waaaaayy in the future sometime, maybe., Oh, Darn, Sorry about that. Or, maybe the instructions all just went down a rabbit hole, along with the Mad Hatter. Which means, once again, dear and gentle PZ homeowner, you’re still – despite voting for 218 – in the RWQCB’s gunsights. And you thought the staff and Board would be doing the right thing. That you were “safe.” Think again. Since the County DOESN’T have this project, you’re IT.

(Oh, and need I remind you, some of the Los Osos 45 have hired Shauna Sullivan to file a lawsuit in order to try to secure their (and your) due process rights. If you think they (and you) deserve some help, then give Shauna a call.) .

McPherson’s email: (printed with permission)

Mr.Thomas

Mr _______sent me your message . . . [above] . . . concerning the December water board meeting . I had been looking for the Dec. agenda daily in anticipation of an action item to consider vacating the orders. It is my understanding that the board cannot take action to vacate the orders unless the action is noticed 30 days in advanced and those with the orders are noticed. I have reviewed the tape of the Sept 8 meeting at www.slospan.org the RWQCB staff was directed to do this, and said they didn't have enough time for the October meeting in Santa Barbara. The staff were then told to do it for the December meeting.

I don't understand why staff has refused.

Apparently with the overwhelming passage of the 218 assessment, the county project that is ahead of schedule, the individuals[in] full compliance with all the requirements of the orders- even prior to their issuance- has made no difference to the prosecution staff bent on punishing voters for the 2005 election, as promised.

I am sadly disappointed, and hope the board (and staff) will reconsider and agendize a special meeting to vacate the orders against individuals, level the playing field ASAP.

The Water Board attorney at meetings in May and September has alerted all property owners of their additional ongoing liability that is over and above the individual enforcement orders. He explained that each property could be prosecuted at any time for millions in potential fines for the alleged illegal discharges since 1988. Certainly with that risk and liability hanging over every property in Los Osos should be a sufficient threat to allow the Board to vacate the 46 special orders placed randomly on a few for added emphasis.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please copy this to all the regional board members and SWRCB.

Gail McPherson




And Now For Something Truly Horrible.

News story recently informed us that the “Small World” ride in Disneyland will be closed for renovation. You remember that torture chamber, don’t you? You get into little boats and ride around from little minature cutzy-poo country to little miniature cutzy-pooo country while that hideous song, “It’s A Small World After All It’s A Small World After All It’s a Small World After All It’s A Small Small World It’s A Small World After All It’s A Small World After Alll It’s a Small World After All It’s A Small Small World,” peeps at them on a continuous feed loop, a torture much more effective and suitable for breaking Al Qaida suspects than waterboarding.

Well, it seems Americans and their children have gotten so fat that the little boats keep sinking lower and lower in the water until they get stuck on the bottom and staff as to come pry them off.

Instead of shutting down that appallingly hideous ride, the good folks at Disney are going to make deeper canals. Or floatier boats. And disappointed patrons being sent away were given . . . wait for it . . . yes .. . . . Food Coupons.

21 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

You are reading volumes between the lines here. You seem to be inventing stuff for us to be afeared of.

The process, that you say needs to be followed carefully, is. AB2701 proscribes what will happen and who does what with regard to a Los Osos sewer and wastewater treatment plant. Right now, the County is the only group who is legally allowed to be considering these questions. That they have not yet finished their due diligence period and voted to adopt one particular design doesn't mean the project is not currently their responsibility.

To make the point, let me suggest the following.

The County is making progress.
The County has the legal authority.
No one else has authority.
The County cannot refuse all possible projects ... they are required to choose one.

So what's the problem? To me it sounds like a misunderstanding between you and Paavo over the word "project". You are using the word to describe the process and end result and he is using it to describe a detailed particular plan the Supervisors will later vote to adopt.

Maybe if you ask him again ... this time using words like "is there any way the County can wiggle out of their commitment to Los Osos?"

Realistic1 said...

"Maybe if you ask him again ... this time using words like "is there any way the County can wiggle out of their commitment to Los Osos?""

Exactly, Shark.

I asked Ann the same question.

Under what circumstances would the County elect not to proceed, now that they have the full backing of the property owners? She's yet to answer.

I accused her then of splitting hairs and fear mongering, and I accuse her of it again now.

Yes, the sups need to pass a resolution - but does anyone honestly believe they won't?

Certainly not the sup I talked to.

Ron said...

Ann asked, and, of course, never received an answer to:

" I also asked about the Los Osos 45, and since you didn't address that, am I correct in assuming that the answer is -- The county can do nothing for them since . . . the County doesn't have the project?"

Here's the "due diligence" language in AB 2701:

- - -
(i) After the approval of a benefit assessment, the board shall complete a due diligence review before deciding to proceed with the construction and operation of a wastewater collection and treatment system. The board shall consider any relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the prompt availability of reasonable and sufficient financing, the status of enforcement actions [bolding mine], the successful development of reasonable [bolding definitely mine] project technology and location options, the availability of any necessary permits and other approvals, and the absence of other significant impediments. At the completion of this due diligence review, the board shall adopt a resolution declaring its intention to proceed or not proceed with the construction and operation of the wastewater collection and treatment system.
- - -

There you have it, folks... the county does NOT have the project, and "the status of enforcement actions" comes into play, big time.

Additionally, upon reading that language, I just sent the following e-mail to Paavo:

- - -

Hello Paavo,

On Ann Calhoun's blog, she quotes you as saying, "We need to go through the "due diligence" efforts that are included in AB2701 before the Board of Supervisors considers the formal resolution to take on the project or not. "

In the due diligence section of AB 2701 it reads, "the successful development of reasonable project technology and location options."

Considering the numerous egregious "cons" regarding the Tri-W location found in the Pro/Con Report, do county officials still consider the Tri-W location "reasonable?"

Apparently you must, since it is still considered a "viable alternative."

So, here's my question:

What is it about the Tri-W location that county officials consider "reasonable?" Cost? Environmental friendliness? Community acceptance? What?

As always, much thanks
Ron
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

- - -

I won't hold my breath for a response.

Mike said...

The Tri-W site IS a viable site, as are a few others at this time... so RON, what is YOUR motive for condeming the Tri-W site? You don't live in Los Osos, you don't even own a lot or house or business in Los Osos... Could it be that you have an interest in aquiring directly or as an investor in developing a commercial project for financial gain on the Tri-W site...???

You've spent more time condeming the site, that one has to wonder just what your real motivation is... it certainly seems as if you have a financial reason to not want to see a public service facility block the commercial development of the Tri-W site...!!!

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Because I'm a really nice guy, I'll give you a helpful tip. You are not one who should complain about people not answering your questions. The pot shouldn't call the kettle black, you know. It makes you look silly.

Thanks, though, for posting the exact language from one section of AB2701. Your interpretation, as usual, is wrong. Ann is wrong as well. The language you quoted, implies the County does currently have the project and that they could later choose to say "no thanks". That the whole point of AB2701 was to give the project to the County only makes it more clear. Until the County says "no go", no one else is allowed to work on the project.

That you then tell us the County doesn't have the project confirms my suspicion ... your reading skills are sorely lacking. You only seem to be able to read for details when you perceive the details will favor your preconceived point of view ... when the details don't match, you seem remarkably obtuse.


Even suggesting that the County doesn't have the project can only be done by one who is both ignorant and paranoid or by one who is intending to obscure the truth for some reason.


As to your continued argument with TriW ... it would be really nice if you would actually answer questions people ask of you about your belief that TriW "will not work" and "is illegal".

Of course, holding my breath waiting for a response would be a huge mistake.

Mike said...

Nicely said Shark... Ron has made such a gigantic issue of the Tri-W site, that there has to be something besides just wanting a nice park for the people of LO... of course he wouldn't want his personal dealings to be known, so we're left with his smokescreens... Maybe he just likes escargo...???

Ron said...

I meant to add something to my comment above:

Ann wrote:

"Instead of shutting down that appallingly hideous ride, the good folks at Disney are going to make deeper canals. Or floatier boats. And disappointed patrons being sent away were given . . . wait for it . . . yes .. . . . Food Coupons."

That is so damn funny.

Remember the Simpson's where Lisa drank some of the water from the Small World ride and fried her brains out?

Must be something in the water at Disneyland rides, they've been in the news lately for some... wait for it... bizarre reasons.

Mike wrote:

"The Tri-W site IS a viable site"

Well, great, that's one anonymous person's unattributed take, now if we could only get Paavo's answer to why it is "reasonable," then we'd be on to something.


"... so RON, what is YOUR motive for condeming the Tri-W site? You don't live in Los Osos..."

I've said this a million times -- the story is flat-out, straight-up excellent!

I mean, c'mon, ten years ago, a small community group promises Los Osos a "better, cheaper faster" project at the Tri-W location, a bunch a water quality professionals document that that project will never work, they ignore those professionals, and hype that project, all over-the-top like, and it forms the LOCSD. They chase the project for two years and it fails, just like all those professionals predicted, then that same small community group turned elected officials, goes all "quiet" like, after all that noisy hype for their first project, and promptly switches the project to a "not so better, cheaper, faster" project, and then pursues THAT project with every ounce of energy they have for four years, and, of course, THAT promptly shreds your community apart and costs California taxpayers a fortune.

A better story in this county you will not find... not even close.

And you ask me what my motive is? Uhhhh... you DO know that I've reported on this story since 1991, right?

"Nicely said Shark... Ron has..."

Ah, nuts, does that mean I have to scroll back up and waste my time reading and responding to one of their posts? Damn.. oh well.. here goes... haven't done this in a while...

You've got to be kidding me, Mike. THAT was "nicely said?" That was awful... and a perfect example of why I don't waste my time, like I just did, reading that crap.

It's unattributed word-twisting, always, and anonymously. How someone can find ANY substance in that crap at all, is beyond me.

uhhggg...

Mike said...

Thanks for yet another smokescreen Ron...

For a person to spend such an inordinate amount of time and words castigating the Tri-W site, I certainly do question your motivation... but as Shark nicely says, you won't answer... and even if you provide one of your phewlitzer award whinning convolutions, why should we believe you...???

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

On the assumption that you're neither a doofus nor someone who is trying to be deceptive, I re-read the text of AB 2701.

Nope, you are either a total doofus or someone who is trying hard to pull the wool over the eyes of the easily misled.

AB 2701 is very clear. The project is in the hands of the County and no one else now. Should the County choose ... after careful consideration ... to return the project to the LOCSD they have that right. However, to say that the County doesn't own and control things now is simply misinformation and I have to wonder about what would motivate someone to put that much spin on the facts.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"That you then tell us the County doesn't have the project confirms my suspicion ... your reading skills are sorely lacking."

Sorry, but it's your reading skills that have gone missing this go around. Please go back and read the blog posting in context -- the CONTEXT was the Los Osos 45, the Mouse Tale, the RWQCB enforcement, the failure to agendize the 45 as an action item, the fact that since the county does NOT have this project, enforcement remains on the individual homeowners and my presumption is that the county will do nothing for 45 of our friends and neighbors who are still left hanging since the county does not have the project. That was the Context, plus the failure of this community to understand that the RWQCB never did "stand down," and did NOT agendize as an action item the CDOs for the Los Osos 45 for the December meeting, which leaves these people -- about which apparently you care not a fig -- still twisting in the wind. And you in the RWQCB's gunsites as well.

Inlet also sez:"However, to say that the County doesn't own and control things now is simply misinformation and I have to wonder about what would motivate someone to put that much spin on the facts."

Context, Inlet. Context. For the purposes of enforcement by the RWQCB the county is NOT responsible at this point for anything. Zip. Zero.They can't be fined for delays, CDO's can't be issued against them -- they don't have th project, remember? Nada. So guess who -- for the purpose of enforcement -- is in the gunsights? That's not spin. That's a fact. And I'll go so far as to conjecture that during the Dec 7th RWQCB hearings, Chairman Young will make washing motions with his hands and great crocodile tears will roll down his eyes as he announces that HE and the BOARD are HELPLESS to do anything for the happless Los Osos 45 since his staff "misunderstood" (Oh, darn, oh dear, my bad) and uh, "forgot" to make the item an action item, so, Oh, Woe, WE helpless Board members can't do anything until, ummm, well, no, can't have a hearing in January, we're booked up, no, February and March are not good, either, ummm, well, we'll instruct staff to set a hearing date later and we'll let you know.

That's been their MO from day one. and that's not fearmongering or spin, that's history.


realistic sez:"Yes, the sups need to pass a resolution - but does anyone honestly believe they won't?

Certainly not the sup I talked to."

Were you the "anonymous" poster who said a supervisor told you the county HAD the project? I don't recall that anonymous poster saying the Supervisor said while the county didn't yet have the project, he fully expected to vote to take it when the time came. I also recall posting a comment that said, in effect, nothing in Sewerville is "real" until it's signed, sealed and delivered. We've all seen too many slips between cup and lip. That's not paranoid or fearmongering, that's history.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I am surprised that you misunderstand. Please don't think that I am going to make every comment center about PZLDF, the doomed 45 and the RWQCB.

My main comment was limited to the question of whether the County has the project or not. You say no but AB 2701 says yes.

The context in which you set your false statement doesn't make it any more true. Does 2+2=5 suddenly if you set your mathematics inside the context of a charming story about the death of all the animals on a farm.


On the question of whether the County can be fined for delays ... it is an interesting one. Presumably if the County does drag its feet during the due diligence period, the RWQCB would want to do something. On the other hand, I hardly see that being something that the County staff is likely to do. The previous LOCSD either. When delays occurred in the past, they were typically matters that were beyond the control of the CSD and the RWQCB waived off the various timetables. They will continue to do that in all likelihood.

If you're gonna key off that and say "well it's not a guarantee" you should explain exactly why the County will intentionally delay things. That would be a definite change from past behavior.

Ron said...

Mike wrote:

"For a person to spend such an inordinate amount of time and words castigating the Tri-W site, I certainly do question your motivation"

What would be ordinate? Anyhoot...

"... why should we believe you..."

Again, as I've also written about a million times, you don't have to believe me, in fact, I rarely say anything. 99% of the time, all I do is report what other sources, like official documents, say. It's completely up to you whether or not you believe those sources.

For example, when I link to the "cons" of the Tri-W site as found in the county's Pro/Con Report, that's not me saying that Tri-W "requires the most expensive treatment and higher costs overall," or that it has the "greater risk associated with system failure," or that it is ESHA, or that it has "limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades or alternative energy," or that it is smack dab next to a church and a "high density population area," or that it has and continues to rip your community apart through its "divisiveness," or that it will f-up your traffic "in the center of town." No, Mike, that's not me "castigating," that comes from county officials. If you want to get on someone for "castigating" the Tri-W site, maybe you should lob of an e-mail to Paavo Ogren or Noel King, or a TAC member.

All of what I just reported on there, comes straight from them, not me, so, like I said, you don't have to believe me, however you DO have to believe the Pro/Con Report. If you don't? Well, there you go.

And, of course, all of that means that the question now becomes, "Why wouldn't someone castigate the Tri-W site?"

There's only one answer I can think of? That person was responsible for developing it.

So which one are you, Mike? A Tri-W castigater, like everyone else (sans its developers), or a Tri-W supporter? And if you're the latter, and DIDN'T have a hand in developing it, well, that just doesn't make any sense.

I mean, is there REALLY one person in Los Osos, today, that didn't have a hand in developing Tri-W, that is running around saying things like:

"Listen, county officials, I don't care if Tri-W "requires the most expensive treatment and higher costs overall," or that it has the "greater risk associated with system failure," or that it is ESHA, or that it has "limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades or alternative energy," or that it is smack dab next to a church and a "high density population area," or that it has and continues to rip apart our beautiful community through its "divisiveness," or that it will f-up traffic "in the center of town," damnit, I WANT A PICNIC AREA IN MY SEWER PLANT AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO EASILY ACCESS IT! So build Tri-W now!"

Where is that person? Seriously, is there one? Because, IF there is, I want to interview him/her. That'd be an awesome interview.

You know what killed the Tri-W site, and they didn't even realize they were killing it when they mae the decision? The moment that county officials decided NOT to develop a "project objective for centrally located community amenities."

As I've shown for years, using official documents -- including Tri-W's own project report -- no "project objective for centrally located community amenities," no Tri-W.

And smart county officials like Noel King and Paavo Ogren weren't about to develop a "project objective for centrally located community amenities."

Which means that, without that project objective, building a sewer plant at Tri-W makes no sense. So, why is it still around? Again, that doesn't make any sense.

It's completely unreasonable, yet King and Ogren consider it "reasonable," apparently, according to AB 2701 even though they didn't develop a "project objective for centrally located community amenities."

That doesn't make any sense at all, which means something fishy is happening behind the scenes. And we may never know what that is, because they won't answer our questions, and that sucks.

Shark Inlet said...

So Ron, if you rarely do anything but only tell us what others ... officials and public documents say ... which document says "TriW is illegal" and which official says "TriW will never work"?

Or were those just your opinions seeping in?

Still waiting ...

Sewertoons said...

Ann wants to know why the Water Board didn't agendize the removal of CDO's on the "Los Osos 45."

I wonder if that could have anything at all to do with the "Obstructionist 15" who are trying to get Mr. Morgan to take the case to crash the County's 218 vote?

We have until Tuesday by my calculations (two weeks was given to accept or reject the case), to see what his answer is…

Los Osos has been famous for stepping on its own feet.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Sewertoons:

You are outta your mind.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"My main comment was limited to the question of whether the County has the project or not. You say no but AB 2701 says yes."

It's not I who sez . . .It's Paavo who sez. According to Paavo the county DOES NOT have this project. It will not "have" this project until further down the line. If you disagree with Paavo, I suggest you contact him and show him the error of his ways.

Inlet sez:"When delays occurred in the past, they were typically matters that were beyond the control of the CSD and the RWQCB waived off the various timetables. They will continue to do that in all likelihood."

If that were true, then why were 45 people singled out and hammered by the RWQCB for the delay of the recall and Prop 218 when there was NO evidence given or taken that any of the 45 caused the delay, were responsible for the delay, had any power to prevent the delay, or any way of un-causing the delay or doing anything at all about anything. Further, if you listened to the testimony of Roger Briggs during the various CDO hearings, he has NO INTENTION of backing off CDOs for the whole town. NONE. The only modification is he's switching to CAO's -- require no hearings or due rights measures, ka-boom, you got one and it's even more onerous than a CDO with fewer protections -- And the RWQCBoard itself washes their hands by claiming that Roger alone has the power and they are helpless. If past behavior is a predictor of future behavior, then I have NO confidence in anything the RWQCB does and zero in what Briggs says. None.

Sewertoons sez:"Ann wants to know why the Water Board didn't agendize the removal of CDO's on the "Los Osos 45."

I wonder if that could have anything at all to do with the "Obstructionist 15" who are trying to get Mr. Morgan to take the case to crash the County's 218 vote?

We have until Tuesday by my calculations (two weeks was given to accept or reject the case), to see what his answer is…"

1. The county does NOT have this project (I don't care what Inlet claims, Paavo stated it as clear as can be.) At this point they cannot be fined by anybody for anything since they don't have the project.
2. The CSD does not have the project either -- not until the county officially decides NOT to take it and formally votes to NOT take it at which point it reverts back to the CSD.
3. Who's left?

Right. The Los Osos 45 and all the rest of you homeowners. That's who. And, as I stated above, there was never, ever any testimony to determine where or how individuals were responsible for "delays" or anything else -- indeed just the opposite -- individuals do NOT have the power to either build a community system themselves NOR will they be allowed to install an onsite system (Briggs won't allow it) so individuals' homes are being threatened for something over which they have no individual control -- none -- and which they will not be allowed to have individual control.

So, Briggs has made in clear in CDO testimony, a direct question by Jeffery Young to Briggs, he has no intention of not issuing CDO's to the rest of the community. Young claims that the Board is helpless, it's all Roger's responsibility & etc. So, you're both Briggs and the board and the County doesn't have this project and the CSD doesn'thave this project and Mr. Morgan may or may not file a lawsuit that could result in delays, what would YOU do? Who will you continue to keep in your gunsights?

Right.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Please re-read both Paavo's reply to you and AB2701. The County currently has the project and is the only agency legally allowed to do anything towards a sewer in Los Osos. Paavo's comment was perhaps written quickly and open to misinterpretation by you, but he is saying that after the due diligence period the BOS must vote to proceed (continue the project, as it were) before any assessments can occur.

I understand you have a desire to stir the pot, but don't pull a Ron by neglecting to consider the obvious answer that is based on other supporting documents. Ron is likely to take a single word and read into it his grand unified theory of Los Osos while ignoring the stacks and stacks of documents showing him to be wrong.

Sewertoons said...

Ann,

The County is now going ahead with the EIR work, CDP work, refining technology information and looking at site selection. You are trying to tell us that this somehow means that at the end of that, they will say, "…hmmm, ya know - we think all of this was a bad idea, let's not build that plant for Los Osos after all!"

Are you so insecure that you have to have someone claiming the project? Are you so paranoid that you actually think that after all of this the County is going to back out? Is not the County doing actual work toward the project not enough? Have you considered seeing a shrink?

Maybe if you wrote in your column discouraging useless lawsuits by groups such as the one pursuing Mr. Morgan and instead detailed the actual work the County is doing, you would feel better and not need to obsess over the Water Board doings. You have to know that getting a WWTF in Los Osos will be the one sure way to make the Water Board stand down.

Try this line out of the Serenity Prayer:
"GOD, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference"

Sewertoons said...

By the way, and to remind you Ann, I LIVE in the PZ. I am not at all afraid of the Water Board. I am trusting the County Process and the County's 218. I think the County can handle obstructionist lawsuits as well.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Sewertoons:

You site a prayer? Now that's funny.

On one hand you site a prayer, and on the other hand you want to force thousands out of their homes and ruin their lives. Old people, disabled people, working families, AND CHILDREN!

Wow, you are a piece of work. How about, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."????

You're a part of the scam and will profit. You're part of the greatest cons of all time. Part of the scam that will have the most displaced homeowners by a NON-NATURAL DISASTER along with the most expensive sewer in the country.

Aren't you proud of yourself?

As far as any 218 lawsuits, the burden of proof is on the County. They could have done the 218 legally, but they didn't want to. Why? The same reason the recalled board didn't do a 218? The same reason the 2001 assessment wasn't done right either? Hmmmmm. I smell lots of corruption. Aren't you so proud to be part of it?

Sewertoons said...

cb,

Why didn't the new board do a 218? Got any ideas?

Do you KNOW that the 218 was illegal or do you KNOW that Mr. Morgan is going to take the case?

cb said,
"you want to force thousands out of their homes and ruin their lives. Old people, disabled people, working families, AND CHILDREN!"

Hmmmmm. I smell lots of spin cb. Do you KNOW that your hypothesis will happen?