Pages

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

RWQCB to All of Los Osos and The Los Osos 45

Here’s the meat of the RWQCB Staff Report for the Regional Board Meeting on December 7, 2007 at Aerovista Place, SLOTown. The staff report should be posted on the Waterboard site.

Because of the lawsuit filed by Shauna Sullivan on behalf of some of the Los Osos 45 (in reality on behalf all the homeowners in the PZ), the Advisory Team “recommends against scheduling a hearing to consider the Cease and Desist Orders . . ..” The Water Board can schedule regular closed sessions to discuss the ongoing litigation regarding the Cease and Desist Orders and settlement agreements and to base its decision on scheduling a hearing on the closed session legal discussions.”

Translation? NO action for the 45. They’ll be left hanging in the wind. Also, NO action concerning the rest of the homeowners in the PZ. They’re also left hanging in the wind.

Noted “staff”, “There is no compelling reason to rescind the Cease and Desist Orders and settlement agreements at this time. The Orders and settlement agreements do not require any burdensome actions now or in the near future. Parties subject to the Orders and settlement agreements are not treated differently with respect to the recent 218 assessment. The orders and settlement agreements may have a negative affect on property values; however, this possibility was known prior to adoption and is not a reason to rescind them.”

And, while rescinding the Orders “would be a good will gesture to the community considering the 218 assessment vote,” because of the Sullivan lawsuit and a possible challenge to the 218, there is “the very real possibility that attempts will be made to derail the project again.”

Translation? Bleep you, community. No “good will” for you. And if you 45 suffer property value loss (unlike your neighbor, say), well, Bleep you as well. You, dear homeowner in the PZ will remain in the gunsights of the RWQCB since the County does not have this project, the CSD does not have this project and while you, Dear homeowner may have voted overwhelmingly to support the 218, the RWQCB will not allow you to install any onsite systems to solve the problem they’re threatening you with and you individually have absolutely no power to build a community project yourself, but that doesn’t matter – You’ve been deliberately trapped in a Catch 22 and your home is still threatened and under the gun.

And finally, “the Water Board should not schedule a hearing to consider the Cease and Desist Orders and settlement agreements without first meeting in closed session to discuss the ongoing litigation. Multiple closed sessions hearings may be necessary as the court case progresses.”
PLUS this recommendation, “Regarding future enforcement actions, if any, the prosecution Team has indicated its intent to take enforcement action against all residents simultaneously. "

. . . And, “If the Prosecution Team proceeds with enforcement actions in the future, the Advisory Team my pursue the option of “paper” hearings, which means the enforcement actions would be processed entirely via written submittals, and there would be no oral hearings before the Water Board. This is a legally appropriate approach and would facilitate relatively promptly processing of the approximately 4,500 cases.”

Translation? The RWQCB has not stood down, has no intention of standing down, will not even bother with due process rights for individual homeowners, and the STAFF can, at any time, slap CAO’s on you – no hearings – and instantly retroactively fine you up to $5,000 a day since 1983 and/or institute criminal proceedings against you, anytime they wish, with Zip due process.

which is why at least some people think that Sullivan’s attempt to make sure that homeowners in this community at least get their due process rights heard in a “real court” and hopefuly protected by real judges following real laws is an important undertaking?

And for all of you in this community who think you’re “safe.” Think again.


And now, What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Front page story in the Tribune. Friends and family members of a young man killed in an accident at the Ocean Dune State Vehicular Recreation Area in 2006 expressed anger that the man being held responsible for the accident only got “30 days in County Jail and two years of probation and 200 hours of community service.” Mr. Evans pleaded”no contest to vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence, a misdemeanor.” And “No evidence showed [Evans] was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, attorneys for both sides acknowledge.”

The accident was caused when a truck being driven by Sean Evans, 25, went flying off a dune and crash landed on top of a multi-passenger ATV filled with four people that was on the other side of the steep dune, and so out of sight of Mr. Evans. One of the passengers in the ATV, Jerry Carter, 27, was killed.

I can certainly understand the sorry that the family of Jerry Carter must feel. He leaves a widow and two small children behind. But here’s where I’m having trouble with this story:

The whole point of the Oceano Dune Vehicular Recreation Area is to get in cars and trucks and tippy ATVs and go roaring up and over huge sand dunes – shifty and unpredictable terrain at best – often flying up and over the top at high speeds. There is no posted speed limit in most riding places, no spotters at the top of the dunes to warn a rider that there’s something or someone at the bottom or whether the wind has undercut the tip, thereby guaranteeing a bit a airborne flight and possibly a rollover.

In short, the Dunes is a very dangerous place where about 300 people a year are injured – some permanently – and every year, like clockwork, the headlines announce a death or two. And who knows how munch grief and loss and expense will haunt families forever. All for a few hours of pleasure zooming dangerously about a dangerous place.

Yet the friends and family of Jerry Carter want Sean Evans put in prison and punished more, apparently overlooking the sad fact that in an eyeblink their dead son could just as easily have been the one who killed Evans and so would end up in the dock facing prison time.

That’s just how arbitrary, risky and dangerous the Dunes can be – lives can be ruined in an eyeblink. Yet how many people who are regular users will tolerate various safety rules and limits that could make the place less lethal? After all, isn’t the whole point of the place the thrill that comes with that danger?

Of course, when things go wrong, everyone is then very sorry and will then spend the rest of their lives in the hell of hindsight and regret, living in the dark land o . . . If Only . . .


Plus, Let’s Hear From The Department of BWA-HAHAHAHAHAH


I love this one. Story in the Nov 20 L.A. Times: “Critics reject claims of GOP health proposals: Cancer survivors – like Giuliani, McCain and Thompson – might no be able to get coverage.”

The GOP candidates are touting various health plans to ‘fix” the mess we’re in now, but it turns out that if these fine candidates didn’t already have their very nice taxpayer-paid health coverage and to go get health coverage on their own – you know, like millions of regular Americans have to do every year – it’s likely they would be denied or, if offered any plans, those plans would be highly restricted as to what would be covered or be too expensive except for the richest among us. (Which, of course, wouldn’t be a problem for these three, but sure would be a problem for normal folks.)

Why? Well, all three of these men are cancer survivors and in the insurance industry, cancer survivors are NOT welcome, and often not welcome at any price.

Continues the Times story, “All three have offered proposals with the stated aim of helping the 47millionpeople in the U.S. who have no health insurance, including those with preexisting medical conditions.

“But under the plans all three have put forward, cancer survivors such as themselves could not be sure of getting coverage – especially if they were not already covered by a government or job-related plan and had to seek insurance as individuals.

“Unless it’s in a state that has very strong consumer protections, they would likely be denied coverage,” said economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, who has reviewed the candidates proposals. “People would not be able to get coverage or would not be able to afford it. “

Adds, Karen Pollitz,”a Georgetown University research professor who specializes in the field, “Most companies won’t touch you if you have a cancer history within five years, and with some companies . . . if you’ve ever had cancer, you can’t get coverage.”

And there’s the problem – legislators and presidential candidates who have very nice tax-payer financed health coverage presuming that their nice policies are available for everyone. Clearly, these three boys have NO IDEA of what real people face in the real Insurance world.

Adds “Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a health policy research group, “ People who advocate the individual market have a lot of work to do to explain how they are going to get better results than we get today. . . . One of the ironies is that that takes regulation by government and Repulbicans running in the primaries don’t like to talk about that.”

Well, let’s hope regular people can connect some dots. Meantime, millions of Mexicans head north looking for jobs and a better life, things sadly in short supply in their badly mismanaged oligarchic country. So, I keep waiting for millions of Canadians to start fleeing their country to come south to America so they can get better health care than their system allows. So far, I don’t see them coming. What’s the problem? Don’t they know we have the best health care system in the world?

And Now, Some Clarification, Please

I got the following email Press Release from Jeff Edwards. There follows my email request for clarification, followed by Scott Anastasi’s reply. In the world of Press Releases, where “spin” is the name of the game, sometimes clarification really does matter. My thanks to Scott for that clarification. Sometimes a gift really is a gift, which is why it’s important not to mix it up with things that are NOT gifts, such as mitigations and conditions.

Jeff’s email:

Los Osos-This Thanksgiving will be unlike any other in Los Osos thanks to the generosity of Anastasi Development Company, LLC. The local builder is donating a gift to the bayside community – a brand new decomposed granite sidewalk that will benefit the neighborhoods of Monarch Grove, Monarch Cove, Sunset Terrace, Cuesta by the Sea and provide a safe walkway for the school children going to Monarch Grove Elementary school and visitors to the Sea Pines Golf Resort along Pecho Road. For years locals have strolled through the eucalyptus tree lined roadway without the benefit of a safe path on this north/south artery. The trees have been trimmed, the path has been prepared and the gravel will be installed and compacted in the days before Thanksgiving, just in time to walk off that turkey and pumpkin pie. This improvement is one of the many gifts Anastasi Development Company has given as part of their commitment to the community of Los Osos over the past 10 years. Most memorable of which was the Monarch Grove Butterfly Preserve on the western edge of the community, a gift of approximately 18 acres of preserved habitat that remains a destination for nature lovers. Anastasi Development Company, a Redondo Beach-based firm with a strong sense of community and dedication as an exemplary corporate citizen. Founded in 1962, Anastasi builds each and every home with passion for excellence and enduring value. It’s for this simple commitment to excellence that so many of Anastasi homeowners come back as repeat buyers.For more information feel free to contact Scott Anastasi, Anastasi Development Company, LLC - 511 Torrance Blvd, Ste. 200, Redondo Beach, CA 90277, 310-376-8077 extension 265, cell 310-567-3866, or ScottAnastasi@Anastasi.com.

My reply:

Hi, Jeff. Thanks for the Press Release. One question: Was the butterfly preserve you describe as a "gift" really part of the legally required mitigation to offset the impacts of cutting down most of the grove in order to build those additional homes in the "new" Monarch Grove development? Ditto for the new pathway you mention. Was that also part of the original mitigation requirements or is the path part of some mitigation requirements for some other development project somewhere else?

Thanks for any clarification.


Scott’s reply:

Hello, my name is Scott Anastasi. The butterfly habitat was a condition of approval of the Monarch Grove subdivision. Besides the dedication of the land, Anastasi Development worked closely with Dr. Kingston Leong [Cal Poly biologist] to create and endow the habitat.
The new pathway is not part of any project or any mitigation requirements. Anastasi Development worked in conjunction with Sea Pines Golf Course to perform the work.
If you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Scott

34 comments:

Sewertoons said...

"And, while rescinding the Orders “would be a good will gesture to the community considering the 218 assessment vote,” because of the Sullivan lawsuit and a possible challenge to the 218, there is “the very real possibility that attempts will be made to derail the project again.”

Thanks Gail and Pam for bring lawsuits to the Water Board's attention. No, we are not out of the woods thanks to the likes of you.

Shark Inlet said...

Presumably some feel that the process will be tainted if the RWQCB keeps the pressure up and others feel that unless there is some pressure to take action, some will stall again and again and again.

I can see the point of the RWQCB ... and of those who want the RWQCB to stop the CDOs.

I would think that the wisest choice now would be for the RWQCB to stop these CDOs but make it clear that the entire town will face CDOs should the County process be unreasonably stalled.

Mike said...

The end of this year and the holidays are upon us... so I'll wish you all Happy New Year and bow out until we see what lawsuits actually come out of the woodwork... at least I'm confident I won't be losing my home this year through Foreclosure or Bankruptcy....and the CDO won't be enforced for a couple more... God Bless the County and the RWQCB... and now build the sewer...!!!

Churadogs said...

Sewertoons sez:""And, while rescinding the Orders “would be a good will gesture to the community considering the 218 assessment vote,” because of the Sullivan lawsuit and a possible challenge to the 218, there is “the very real possibility that attempts will be made to derail the project again.”

Thanks Gail and Pam for bring lawsuits to the Water Board's attention. No, we are not out of the woods thanks to the likes of you."

Sullivan's PZLDF lawsuit is an attempt to protect the due process and property rights of individuals with CDO's (and will apply to the whole PZ homeowners as well.) IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DERAILING THE PROJECT. The supposed 218 challenge only has to do with doing the 218 legally and also HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DERAILING THE PROJECT. If Sullivan wins her case, the Waterbord will simply be required to re-do the CDOs correctly and hopefully level the playing field for everyone, which is what the Water Board says they want -- remember "fair treatment for all?" And if the supposed 218 challenge is filed and successful it will only mean that the county will have to do the vote over, which I have no doubt will result in a nearly identical result. NEITHER ACTION WILL HAVE ANY EFFECT ON DERAILING A PROJECT OR EVEN SLOWING THE COUNTY'S PROCESS DOWN A WHISKER.

Shark Inlet said...

Lemmie ask a question.

If a 218 lawsuit will only result in a re-vote and if a re-vote will give nearly identical results. What is the purpose of a 218 lawsuit?

With these premises, the only two possible purposes of such a suit would be to delay the project (if the County doesn't have a formal "go ahead" they cannot and will not move to the next stage ... the process will be slowed to a stop until the suit is resolved) or to collect some winnings from the County.

That being said, isn't this Sullivan lawsuit simply bad for Los Osos and little more?

Sewertoons said...

Oh Ann, (sigh), what do you think all that is going to cost us in money, time and grants or even a loan? Your simplistic thinking amazes me!

(Or do you know these costs and are tying to make us think there will be no cost because any delay in getting us a sewer will be another 6 months, a year with NO SEWER - which is your true wish? I can't believe you are that unable to think out the consequences of these actions! You seem quite intelligent. Hey - we are not stupid either. So please don't talk down to us if that is the case.)

Due process my foot! PZLDF's underlying angle is to break up the PZ - don't you think that might derail the project just a tad? Or cause time delays?

Re-doing a 218 requires lots of effort and money. Who will pay for that and the eventual increased costs of construction? US MAYBE?

Perhaps the State will just come in and build the d**n thing and relieve Los Osos from trying to have any control. Clearly PZLDF and Morgan (if he takes the case - haven't heard yet) are heading us in that direction. Legislation regarding Los Osos passed rather easily last time around.

I am hoping you will come to your senses on this. Happy Thanksgiving anyway.

Jane said...

Shark
This country was established with a constitution that was designed to protect citizens from government persecution. You say that the individuals who stood up to the RWQCB when faced with a "test case morphing persecution” are obstructing the process. This is outrageous. Sullivan is only trying to protect individual rights. Her efforts are the reason you do not have a CDO/CAO right now. Remember that once precedent is set, the ability to win in court is greatly reduced so you would have limited recourse when your CAO arrived in the mail. And don’t somehow get the idea that the RWQCB would play fair with you. Their vindictive nature always trumps their environmental concerns.

The SWRCB, on the other hand, is only interested in damage control at this point. They can't fire the whole incompetent central coast bunch without admitting liability, but once this is over you can bet they are going to clean house. Early on they sent in their top lawyers to clean up. It is truly a David and Goliath fight. Sullivan has proved a worthy opponent.

Putting this case in front of the world has opened many eyes to the corruption and incompetence in unregulated branches of government. The SWRCB has quietly conducted some in-services to try band-aid fixes. The water world no longer thinks of Los Osos as obstructionists, but rather as the little town that is tired of being screwed by governmental corruption. I hope that Sullivan’s efforts can prevent this from ever happening to anyone else. That is the true American dream.

LOPZ said...

Might make some sense except you see so many 'we don't need a sewer' folks in PZLDF. Another tired speech painting Los Osos as victoms and we've heard it all before. Just another twisted opinion Jane, ooooohhh, wowwww, you must be 'in the know' about what is really happening. .... The reason we don't have CAOs is because 80% voted for an assessment and want a sewer, nothing less, nothing more, and nothing to do with PZLDF. Get over it. Anything else is just more garbage opinion pulled out of an arse or some ego-manical agenda.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Lopz:

80% voted for an assessment?

NO WAY JOZE!

30% didn't vote.

20% voted no.

more than 10% was county, CSD and school properties. What was VanBurden's share?? Maybe 10%? Don't know exactly, but a lot.

Besides, it was a threat for a vote -- vote yes or been fined out of your home -- vote yes or you'll have CDO's. ...

NO FAIR VOTE AT ALL. MORE LIKE A SADAAM VOTE!

Keep spinning the lies.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Lopz,

You say, "Might make some sense except you see so many 'we don't need a sewer' folks in PZLDF..." to "Jane" blogger.

WHO ARE THE SO MANY THAT SAY WE DON'T NEED A SEWER???? Except me of course. Because we really don't...

The developers NEED the big sewer. People who want an economic cleansing need the big sewer. But in reality, we're fine and I'd go for a step system to compromise.

But we do NOT need the Tri-W mega monster sewer (in or out of town) that will ruin our enviornment and health. It's a very expensive diaster that only the very stupid would want -- unless they make a lot of money off it and don't give a damn about the enviornment or the dis-placed families.

Shark Inlet said...

Jane,

You are right. I wrote "Sullivan" when I meant to write "Morgan". I was responding to Ann's comment that essentially any 218 lawsuit would have no effect.

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

I would hope that a 218 lawsuit would require the State to pay for a portion of the project (and the Federal Government) because it's to their benefit. We have a National Estuary. Government agencies are not exempt from the benefit of a project that will clean the bay. Again, the 218 is about benefit, and not so-called "polluters" -- so that would be a good thing. If a vote had to be taken all over again, legally (hopefully) -- it would be general benefit for ALL. That I believe, would require a 2/3's vote. Right? (I very much doubt that people in Cabrillo and outside the PZ would vote the "BLANK CHECK" THAT WE JUST DID!)

The county didn't want to ask the state to pay. They should have, and could have. The county has done nothing to help bring down the cost.

Since Los Osos homeowners paid for other projects (including wastewater) for other areas in the county -- why do they not want to help us now? It's just plain wrong. It only looks like a cleansing by the county's actions so far.

Shark Inlet said...

Conspiracy Boy,

I don't believe that benefit to the State and Feds is part of the 218 suit ... at least not the way it was presented here.

Presumably if you feel these are solid issues, you could hire a lawyer to make this argument before a judge.

If you do, I suspect the outcome will be to reject your claims of benefit to the State. After all, the waters of the state would be clean if we hadn't been polluting them. I suspect that another reason for rejecting such a claim would be that through a SRF loan the state and Feds are already pitching in a huge ammount.

In any case, I would suggest consulting a lawyer because if you are right, we might be able to get some help in paying. On the other hand, if such a suit stalls the project enough that inflation outweighs whatever savings we could gain by getting state buy-in.

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

You must remember that Sam Blakeslee took up glossy pictures of the bay to sell his legislation that Los Osos (and nobody else) was polluting that beautiful bay.

That's how the bill was sold to Sacramento.

And, the state is not helping with an SRF loan. They are asking for the 6.5 million twice. First in Bankruptcy Court and AGAIN with points on a loan. The county and state did not do a FCA for the loan either. No, the state is not helping and I do know at least five legal experts in this area that have agreed that the county should have included the state and Federal government to share the cost and benefit.

P.S. There are 20-30 other polluters to the bay. It's not Los Osos septics -- if it is, it's very little and something that the RWQCB should have identified long ago and corrected. That's what they are there to do, but didn't. Why? Hmmmm..only wanted that big fat sewer huh?

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"If a 218 lawsuit will only result in a re-vote and if a re-vote will give nearly identical results. What is the purpose of a 218 lawsuit?"

If the cops break the law while arresting some guy, our laws say he has to go free and the DA has to decide if he wants to do a "do over." The "lesson" the cops learn is this: Do it right the first time. Ditto if a DA violates the laws during trial. Requires a do-over. Again, the lesson is: Do it right the first time.
Unless you want to live in a country where laws simply don't count?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Perhaps you forget inflation.

If a 218 lawsuit and possible re-do of the 218 vote takes an additional 6-12 months and if the project is already about $150M, the delay will cost us about $6-12M ... or $1200-2400 per home. If you finance that for 30 years at 7% it is $8-16 per month.

Is it worth some $6M to our community to do right?

Insisting we spend extra to do it right ... even though the result will not be different in any way is both foolish and rude. Foolish to throw good money after bad and rude to make me do that as well.

How can you live with yourself? How can you live with the continued insistence on actions which essentially only raise our costs and force more and more of us out of Los Osos?

I can appreciate that making sure that the "i"s have been dotted and that the "t"s have been crossed is important, but if, as you've said, there would be "the supposed 218 challenge is filed and successful it will only mean that the county will have to do the vote over, which I have no doubt will result in a nearly identical result"
don't you think that you're carrying things a bit too far here? Is the process so important that as a community we should pay an extra $6-12M to dot our "i"s?

TCG said...

What makes you (Ann and others) think that if the Prop 218 vote was thrown out the County would go through the process again ? They could, and may, just exercise their option to bail on the project. Not everyone in the County likes the amount of funding and staff time that this takes at the expense of othr issues in the County getting worked on.

Sewertoons said...

tcg - I think THAT IS the purpose of the suit - get the County to STOP helping us, bring the project back to the CSD, which will bring in Ripleys and Reclamators to incite the Water Board to REALLY get mad this time.

Here is my opinion:
The "no sewer-my-kind-of-sewer" bunch wants only the kind of sewer they approve of - which is first - no sewer -- and second, a "environmentally friendly, sustainable project" using step and ponds, with wind power turbines and solar cells covering the farmland and knocking down the bird population.

Doing a community survey on the project we want is NOT an option because we may choose the "wrong" type. (So much for the democratic process.)

Also, the project can't cost more than $75/mo. per household.

Sewertoons said...

cb said:
"And, the state is not helping with an SRF loan. They are asking for the 6.5 million twice. First in Bankruptcy Court and AGAIN with points on a loan"

Maybe you can explain what that means. The State disbursed $6.5 million, the CSD spent it. Wasn't it a loan requiring repayment? If it gets repaid (good luck), it will not need to be paid back in a new loan. If it is not repaid (the more likely case), the lost amount goes into the new loan for repayment.

Sewertoons said...

cb, please list the 20-30 other polluters to the bay.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Sewertoons:

You are wacked out of your mind.

The $6.5 million is in bankruptcy court. The judge ruled it stay in bankruptcy because it WAS A UNSECURED LOAN.

That's where it is, and the county and state SHOULD NOT ASK FOR IT AGAIN (TWICE)

As far as other polluters, why don't you go up to Morro Bay, look in the water, and then tell me it's our septics. Why don't you start with the M.B. Plant, Energy Plant, boats, etc. etc. I'm not going to list because all polluters have been listed before, and you don't care anyway.

What a nut you are! Totally out of your mind.

Sewertoons said...

cb,

I am certain that Los Osos will not have to pay the loan back - twice. Once will be good enough.

No, I'm not going up to Morro Bay, the energy plant, boats. etc. I guess I wasn't clear. I am asking you for documentation, not speculation, on the others who are polluting. Where was this listed before and by whom? Please don't be lazy and give me more generalities.

Does calling me names make you feel better? I'm happy to be providing some therapy then.

Conspiracy Boy said...

Sewertoons:

I call it like I see it -- and you have definitely "lost" it.

Shark Inlet said...

Conspiracy Boy,

Perhaps you've forgotten, but this has already been explained to you before.

The Governator told the SWRCB in his signing statement for AB2701 that there were only to give another SRF for a Los Osos sewer if the $6.5M the LOCSD stole is returned. (If you think "stole" is the wrong word, I apologize, but but if you take money for one purpose, use it for another purpose and refuse to pay it back according to the agreement, I think the word fits.) The SWRCB will follow that. Even if Arnold didn't put it in black and white, I am sure the SWRCB would have done the same thing anyways.

That being said, the County has already figured out that even if the PZ folks were to repay the entire amount (that I feel the entire LOCSD owes), it will reduce the costs to those inside the PZ enough that it will be worth it. Lemmie ask you ... would you rather pay only $225/month (for 20 years) for a sewer knowing that some $7/month of that cost is associated with paying back that $6.5M ... or would you rather pay $260/month for 30 years? The SRF is HUGE!

I know of no one who would rather pay an extra $35/month just because they want to take a stand on the principal of being able to stiff the State and Feds.

However, there is always a first. Perhaps Conspiracy Boy is some super wealthy radical who would rather pay an extra $32000 over the life of the loan just because he wants to make sure the state pays for giving us an unsecured loan the 1st time around. Across the community, however, the extra amount lost over the next 30 years would be $160M. To insist on paying $160M extra to "save" $6.5M is simply dumb.

Sewertoons said...

…and really selfish of cb to promote such an idea when there are people who will suffer or even move should we not get a low-cost SRF loan.

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet & Sewertoons:

First of all, the County wanted Arnold to sign to repay. They requested that. I don't think Arnold knows exactly what happened. Ask Paavo about that.

Second, the SRF loan is in Bankruptcy court. Period.

Third, if they want their money back for a second time, why not hold the recalled CSD responsible for spending 2 million of it. They could be sued for public waste. Let this CSD (or should I say Julie Biggs) be sued for the 2 million she spent. Now you have 2 million left, the CSD still has that money. Let them give that back.

What do you think? It should be paid back by the ones who spent it foolishly, not the homeowners in the PZ. I'm sure that would be illegal too. Why can't anyone seem to follow the law here?

Sewertoons said...

cb said:
"Let this CSD (or should I say Julie Biggs) be sued for the 2 million she spent."

WOW - we actually AGREE on something!! Only let's sue also for damages which could net us a lot more.

However, the CSD does NOT now have that remaining $2 million you think that they have.

So what if the County wanted Arnold to sign? The CSD spent the money, it needs to be paid back so the COUNTY can get a us new SRF loan.

Also, the recalled CSD was spending that money on a legal, permitted, funded project. Don't think that case will stick to the wall, no matter how much you wish it could. I'd rather cook up a case to sue the obstructionists who stopped the project and threw the CSD into bankruptcy, for which no plan for recovery has yet surfaced.

Shark Inlet said...

Boy,

I don't care about how the signing statement came about (although your story sounds suspicious to me, it doesn't really matter) because our choice right now would be to lump it, incorporate that $6.5M into the loan and save a bundle or to be principled, insist on not paying the extra $6.5M but pay an extra $160M over the life of the loan.

To me the choice is obvious.

I would rather not force more people out of town. If you feel differently, I hope that you are willing to donate money to those forced to move. After all, if your choice forces them to move, it would be the right thing to do...

Mike said...

The real suit should have already been initiated through a CLAIM against BWS's E&O for terrible legal advice... of course the claim would have to be initiated by the LOCSD, maybe now the new GM will take a look at that aspect...??? However, as long as BWS represents the 5 individuals, no claim will come from the CSD...

It would be interesting to hear CB's take on that....

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

I will say again, the $6.5 million is in Bankruptcy Court. If that bankruptcy plan works, the state will get pennies on the dollar.

The state can not have the money twice. Period.

Even if the bankruptcy didn't work out, the state and/or the county can NOT put that burden on just the PZ when monies were spent district wide on legal matters, etc. by Julie Biggs, etc.

That would be illegal.

Why do you promote illegal activity?????

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike,

My take on BWS. This CSD is as dumb as it can be and now they'll probably have Biggs defend them against what HER actions and advice caused the public waste suit to begin with.

What a bunch. Clearly there are no leaders in Los Osos and the CSD should go. But the County should take over, and the sewer, and have county wide taxpayers pay for the sewer, because we paid for their sewers and public works projects all over the County.

We've paid more tax money to the County than many other areas and the County should help us now.

Mike said...

...now your are sounding reasonable and I fully agree...!!!!

Have a great day and don't let yourself go so wild...we're all going to pay more than any of us wants...

Shark Inlet said...

Conspiracy Boy,

I will say again, not paying back that $6.5M will burden the PZ with some additional $100M+ in payments over the next 30 years. Why would you want this? You have yet to explain why and I find it troubling.


Even if that money is part of the LOCSD bankruptcy now, the County can structure a loan deal with the SWRCB so that the LOCSD debt is taken out of the bankruptcy. I believe you are confused, no one is asking for the money to be paid twice.


It is also not illegal for those inside the PZ to be willing to take on the entire $6.5M debt burden even though it should be borne across the entire district. If we choose to do so, we'll save a lot.


On the matter of whether the County has an obligation to pay and whether they have a moral responsibility to pay ... they created the problem, so they should play a role in solving it. That they chose not to solve the problem way back when it was cheap to do so and that we've paid tons of money into the general fund that we've benefited little from makes me think the County should offer up something like $30M just to help out.

However, because we Los Osos residents voted for the CSD, torpedoed the County plan and then the LOCSD plan makes me think that the County has any responsibility for anything above the $85/month that the previous County plan was going to cost us.

Sewertoons said...

cb said:
"…the state and/or the county can NOT put that burden on just the PZ when monies were spent district wide on legal matters, etc. by Julie Biggs, etc."

Well, unfortunate as that is, we PZ people GOT that money to pay for a sewer - so WE GET to pay it back. We ELECTED the bozos who spent that money ILLEGALLY. Some of us also paid an assessment up front and some of us are paying on our property tax bill for 20 years for Tri-W, Broderson and a design for a sewer. Unless we go back to the old project, we won't be seeing much return on THAT investment either.

Los Osos is very adept at shooting itself in the foot.

This is a poor County - not much of a tax base, not much revenue.

Compare ourselves to other towns - Santa Margarita, or you name it - we aren't so much worse off. We are whiners though, so it just seems that we are worse off.

We cannot compare ourselves to cities, we do not have the revenues they get off of sales tax.

The places that are looking spiffed-up and good are new and have been paid for by developers.

Hey - we got 11th Street re-paved!

As much as we'd like to see money from the County, we should also look at the dollars chalked up on THEIR dime of late FOR Los Osos. We are getting paid back in a way - what other town gets a 2:00pm slot on the BOS meetings? Do any other entities get to take up as much staff time as Los Osos with phone calls, document requests, etc.? (Oh, that's right, I forgot - WE are SPECIAL! It is our RIGHT!)

I would bet anything that the current staff has privately cursed their County predecessors that left such a MESS for them to solve. I'd bet they silently, invisibly stand beside us in that.

And I can't imagine the "fun" of having to listen to our vocal, nit-picky, nasty crew, day in and day out for years. There has to be extra credit somewhere for that.

cb, whine all you like - but please face reality. We are not blameless in this mess.