Pages

Friday, September 05, 2008

CSD Kick-Off Party Date Change

Got the following info regarding Candidate Karen Venditti’s kick-off plans. If other CSD candidates have things planned, let me know and I’ll post the information here.

Just a reminder to change the announcement on your website: the party had to be postponed due to our host's illness. It's now on for Friday, Sept. 12, 5:30 - 7:30. Please note that this is a party for Supporters. We are planning a Kick-Off Rally at the Red Barn for Sunday, Sept. 28, where we hope to draw the larger public.

regret to say that our host is under the weather and that we have rescheduled Karen's supporter party for next Friday.

We hope all can join us then.

KICK-OFF Wine & Cheese Party for Supportersto Elect Karen Venditti... POSITIVELY !
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008
5:30-7:30 p.m.
at the Home of Keith & Beth Wimer 1101 14th St. (last house on left before Elfin Forest)
RSVP ASAP Email Piper at getgreenlo@gmail.com or call (805) 704-7255
Please bring a bottle of your favorite wine to share ... and join us for hors d'oeuvres and roasted veggies to kick off the campaign to elect Karen to the LOCSD board.
Come share your enthusiasm, ideas and support ... and get energized to win this election. Donations of time, talent and dollars to Karen's campaign will be greatly appreciated.
Vote Venditti ... Positively!

Ooooo Noooo, Harry & Louise are Baaaaccckkkkk

Remember during the Clinton administration, when Hillary had her national medical plan and Bob Done had his and everyone was finally discussing some kind of medical insurance plans and reforms when up popped an ad, sponsored by big pharma, the AMA, various insurance companies, featuring Harry & Louise sitting at the kitchen table, all wrinkle-browed and concerned, pouring over the Clinton proposal and crying, “Oh Lord, under this terrible, awful, horrible plan, we’ll LOSE CHOICE, Ooooo Noooo, tell your Senator and Congressmen that we don’t like this plan because we’ll LOSE CHOICE!” And so forth?

Well, so effective was that ad in scaring people that any and all medical insurance reforms and plans were soon tossed into the dust bin, followed by a HUGE sign of relief from all the players who sponsored that ad.

Fast forward 20 plus years. Into the void of any reform or re-done national plan, big businesses were free to herd their employees into HMOs, thereby offering “NO CHOICE” and soon, citizens were waking up to find out they had another “choice” coming down on them: NO HEALTH INSURANCE AT ALL, as company after company kept cutting benefits, or even dropping insurance coverage all together, and rates kept rising thereby forcing more and more millions of Harry and Louises off the health insurance rolls all together, which is truly NO CHOICE.

Now – NOW – all the same players – Big Pharama, AMA, various business leaders, insurance companies, etc. have hired Harry and Louise again, only this time, they’re all wrinkle browed and crying, “Call your Congressman or Senator and tell them WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SOME KIND OF COHERENT PLANS LIKE THE ONES WE TORPEDOED YEARS AGO, HELLLPPPPPP US.”

Feh. Personally, I’d like to see Harry and Louise laying in the street bleeding from their mouths and rectums, dying in the broiling sun, while passersby step over them and keep on walking. Those two (and the big guns behind them) are responsible for years and years of misery and death, all in the name of profit. Let them die, I say.

That Was One For The Gipper

The old guy, John McCain, hit one out of the park last night and set a high tone for the coming brawl which both candidates can follow while letting their various pit bulls and disavowed Swift Boatie Groups free to savage and slash and scare and bamboozle.

Did find it delicious that McCain’s main emphasis (which, ironically, got lots of applause) was all about the politics of corruption in that nest of vipers in Washington, about how he intends to stop all that pork and sleaze and earmarks (while gazing over at his Veep Soul Mate who was an old hand at getting pork for her town and state, having learned under the King of Pork and Emperor of Earmarks – Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska), and change the culture of that Den in Iniquity which has been run for the past 12 years by the very people all those delegates sitting in that convention hall voted and re-voted and re-re-re-voted to keep in office again and again and again!

Well the battle royal will be joined, the hideous stealth swift boaties will be let loose in the land, the very air will fill with half-lies and more lies and hokum and misdirection (and look out for a phony “October Surprise” (Red Alerts! Amber Alerts! Look! Blinking Lights!) to try to terrorize the population into voting for whoever gives them the illusion of “safety” from a phony alert, while continuing dangerous policies that actually keep them in real harm’s way. And Karl Rove’s God, Guns n’ Gays (and the shorthand coded language of not-so-soft bigotry) will be heard throughout the battleground states.


Seems to work every time. Let’s see if the country’s finally figured out the scam. I won’t hold my breath.

155 comments:

Mike Green said...

Helooo from Canada!

The weather up here is getting kinda iffy, (snow)
so we are heading south and should be back in the US soon.
The Canadian take on US politics is quaint, we listened to the Calgary Radio off and on yesterday on our way south, I would hazard a guess that some Canadians think both candidates leave much to be desired.
Maybe we should have an election exchange, we get to pick their leaders and vice-versa.
Anyway there is a quick travel update (click on my name)
I'll report on Canada when we get back into the US

Richard LeGros said...

Hello Eveybody,

For those folks that would like all the Evidence Exhibits backing up the claims argued in the TW lawsuit's MOTION OF OPPOSITION for SUMMAR JUDGEMENT, just ask. I may be reached at arch RBL@aol.com

Of particular interest are the emails (exhibits 2, 12 and 13.). It is very distressing that seated board members were actively involved in the CCLO legal strategy...all the long passing CSD information to the CCLO attorneys from closed sessions. Also, it seems that in October of 2005 there was a serious discussion between the new CSD baord, staff and the attorneys over the costs of the litigation and that it would lead to bankruptcy if a new revenue source was not identified to pay for said lawsuits. Also, Lisa's deposition (exhibit #32) is an example of avoidance in answering questions and evasion...dozens of 'I don't know', 'I don't remember' or "the will not answerer due to.....Very damning stuff.


-R

Howie said...

Today's poem also appears in next week's New Times:

"DOOR TO DOOR"

Maria Kelly
Drove through a stop sign
She was in such a hurry
To get to Joe's house
She parked on the wrong side
Of Binscarth and ran inside
Leaving her car door wide open

It must have been very important
Because later they went up to Richard's house in Cabrillo
For another crucial meeting
Of the Recalled Board,
Taxpayers Watch and Coastkeeper --
Three snails with nine shells

They were all there except Stan
Busy selling reverse mortgages
Door to door on the campaign trail
For pocket change to send quarters
Home to the ghostly Recalled Board
For the final bloody push on
The Killing Fields of Tri-W

The pale, corrupt Recalled Board
Met in secret session at Richard's
Organized by Maria Kelly for
Taxpayers Watch and its 0 to 2000 Non-members depending who's asking
For the sole purpose of returning
The Recalled Board to abuse Power
And line her pockets like Stan

The old kickback Recalled Board
Met in secret session at Richard's
And voted in Maria as President
Because when you vote for Maria
You are voting for (gulp) Gordon And when you vote for Marshall
You are voting for (ugh) Richard,
Taxpayers Watch and Coastkeeper --
For no other reason other than
To "Save The Blowtorch" for Pandora

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Howie,

Nice meter.
Excellent grammar.
Colorful imagery.
A wonder of fiction and fantastic imagination.

-R

PS: Do you want the evidence? Maybe you can write a poem about it.

Mike said...

The "poem" is one of a collection by the perfect wife & Mother Julie... One of the next offerings will be "Over My Dead Body"...

Mike Green said...

Richard, I'm just wondering if you have calculated what the total per capita monetary benefit to each property owner will be if TW wins it all?.(after all legal costs)
You have been all so helpful in the past, I'm wondering if this will turn out so good.
Or are you just all jerking off again?

Churadogs said...

Actually, Mike's question is a good one. What's the per capita cost of the money pounded into the ground by the recalled board's starting the project before the recall election, the cost for trying to get LAFCO to dissolve the CSD, and now this lawsuit cost, and what's the benefit to the taxpayer and/or the community for ANY of it?

Mike said...

...what? No one is interested in asking what the post re-call decisions have, are and will be costing us to NOT have a sewer per the "We have a PLAN"...???

We get to pay double for the mis-use of our assessment dollars, all the mis-spent reserves we paid taxes to be build up and no one cares...??? We get to pay twice for every service in LO thanks to the management of Lisa, Julie, Chuck, Steve and John and you think we should be thankful...???

We're still going to have a sewer, it won't be anymore "perfect" than the previous design, but it will cost twice as much...!!! Great progress by the wonderful post-recall directors...

Get it straight, the post-recall CSD stole and threw away our tax dollars for the NO PLAN lie...!!! Just who should be holding them accountable if not for the citizens of Los Osos...??? Ann Calhoun apparently feels this CSD did absolutely nothing wrong...

We will have a sewer, but thanks to this CSD, we will all be paying at least twice the cost it should have been...

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Ann and Mike Green.

1. $2,200,000 recovered by TW lawsuit / 5700 households in PZ = $386. This is the amount the CSD5 stoled from each home in the PZ.
Think of it this way....by September 5, 2006 (the day of bond payment) the CSD5 had burglarized each home in the PZ of $386....all while the property owners slept.

2. There are no financial or legal theories that supports your claim that the recalled csd board caused the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy is completely the result of the CSD5pursuing their failed attempt to 'move the sewer' and due to the explosion of legal expenses and other costs not included in the approved 2005-2006 Budget. The CSD5knew that bankruptcy was imminent as early as October 20, 2005 (read emails in Exhibit 13, reading from page 00138 backward to page 00134.)

3. The bankruptcy may result in an acknowledged debt of $30,000,000 to the property owners in the PZ.
$30,000,000 / 5700 = $5,263 per property owner.

Also, do not forget that the PZ property owners are currently paying $256 per year to pay down the 2002 Bond Assessment; all money thrown away by the CSD5.

If the property owners wish to recover this $30,000,000 they must insist that Wildan and BW&S be held prosecuted by a future CSD board. There are law firms that will carry prosecution on contingency (30% of award). The time to file the lawsuit will be ripe with the acceptance of the CSD's bankruptcy plan.

-R

PS: Ann, I will send you the evidence. As I do not knoe Mike Grren's email address, you (Ann) can forward the evidence to Mike.

M said...

If a person has held an elected office, it's a pretty good bet that they have either broken the law, or at least done something that has benefitted themselves.
Richard, it sounds to me like you know that all the evidence that might incriminate you in any way has been safely removed.
Shark, was it really necessary for you to inform everybody that you would be out of contact, but would certainly respond to anything Ann might put up in your absence? Is this the height of arrogance or what. Your stance on the sewer, more precisely Tri-W has not changed one dot since I have been attending this blog site for several years now. What could you possibly bring to the table, that has not already been said? As a matter of fact, when I come across your name in the comment section I scroll down past your's because I know it is the same old tired rhetoric.
I only hope that I can hang on until you return.

Mike said...

Richard... This CSD still has not put forth a recovery plan for resolving the bankruptcy...

It's been nearly 3 years, how long before the US Bankruptcy Court Judge gets upset and tosses the bankruptcy protection out...??? Wouldn't that open the LOCSD up to all the creditors demands to be paid...???

Mike said...

m... we learn more on this blog than we have from any of the "transparent" CSD meetings...

No one has ever produced one speck of illegal doings by the previous Boards... If anyone had anything illegal, you can bet it would have been on the table long before now.... However, all we have heard is emotional hand-wringing because a few vocal ego-activists got elected and proceeded to illegally spend tax dollars for "legal advice" without any regard to what a CSD was supposed to be doing...

The crooks you are seeking are the ones who lied about having a Plan..!!!

Richard LeGros said...

M,

According to your view of the world, all elected officals are criminals. It is so easy to throw mud and malign good people. Your post just shows laziness and inconsitancy of thought.

So M, do you want the documents from BOTH sides of the TW lawsuit? They are all public documents free for the asking. Are you just going to sit there and spew uninformed nonesense; or take the time to educate yourself? Your call.

-R

Osos Change said...

Let me remind you all that the entry you're commenting on is about Karen Venditti's Wine & Cheese Party, not about the Taxpayers Watch lawsuit.

Mike said...

Right...now lets get out and elect Maria Kelly for the real voice of reason and honestly "change osos"...!!!!

M said...

Richard, good people don't say "I have f****** balls" in a public forum as you did.
And, actually I said elected officials have either broken the law, or benefitted themselves with their action. Benefitting yourself is not necessarily a criminal action, so you couldn't say that I believe all elected officials are criminals. George W. and Nancy Pulosi come to mind. While you and others on this blog spot are constantly representing the original CSD and the board members until 2005 as simply a group that wanted to do what was best for our community and follow the law to the letter.
You do remember don't you, that they stopped a County sewer ready to go for $77 a month? That was in 1998. Don't give me anymore of you're self rightous crap about us continually polluting the Bay and our groundwater. This would all be history now if it wasn't for this group.
Mike, several moving vans left town after the recall. Maybe the evidence moved out with them.
Sincerely, M

M said...

osos change, Richard started it. Besides, the sewer is out of our hands right? So what is Karen Vendetti going to do for us? Or Maria Kelly, who is on the TAC committee and says that Tri- W is our best option? Where will that get us? I didn't vote for Linde Owens for a seat on LOCAC in the recent election because I felt she might impede the progress with her history on this sewer issue.
Yea, i'm a dreamer expecting the day that someone will come along and put forth a modern technology that will be both efficient and within our means. Although after receiving my last water bill, I doubt many of us will be able to afford to live here.
Sincerely M

Mike said...

...ha ha ha...you must have been watching the CSD documents moving into Gail's front room...at Lisa's directive,... and after 3 years, produced nothing to indicate Richard, Stan or Gordon or any of the past boards gained anything personally, nor has anyone found anything criminal or illegal, nothing, nada...!!! neither Gail nor the BW&S folks found one shread of "evidence"...!!! Of course, now you can ascribe to the "Big Conspiracy" theory and conclude that every government agency outside the CSD5 is out to get them and force Los Osos to accept the Tri-W WWTF or you can do some homework and find out that neither Richard or Gordon care where the treatment plant goes, but they are concerned about the well documented corruption and illegal spending that has gone into dividing this community by the post recall folks...

However you believe, follow the post recall Directors and start asking some pointed questions regarding the District's finances and payments to lawyers... and then wait for the October trial when you will see all the evidence even you will need to convict the post recall directors... Just go do some homework and gain some facts, not emotions.... Please show this blog just how squeeky clean Lisa and Julie are...

Richard LeGros said...

M,

I agree. The Solution Group was not able to do as they claimed simply because they were wrong. That why I and others opposed the formation of the CSD. But once in office, after 18 months of trying to build a project they wanted, they realized that their plan was not feasible. However, they had the honesty and fortitude to realize their err and make the switch to a workable plan. However, if you look at the working of the then CSD boards, you will find that the process and decision-making were vented entirely in the light of public review. In short, despite Herculean efforts by the CCLO, CASE, LOTA, many attorneys, and the CSD5 to find malfeasance and illegal behavior of the prior boards, none could be found as all that transpired was legal. Nothing hidden, nothing lost, nothing concealed. Also, there is no basis for a lawsuit as the then CSD board had every right to make the decisions they did; good or bad.

If you are so mad at the Solutions Group, I may assume that you are equally mad at the CSD5 for yet again driving up the cost of the project.

Also, it does not matter if you think you are polluting the aquifer and Bay as the RWQCB says you/we are; and that issue was long ago adjudicated and won by the RWQCB (via the CAWS lawsuits of the early 1990's.)

Sorry M, your post was seething with anger and mistrust. Meanwhile, why not look at the documents from BOTH SIDES of the TW lawsuit.

As for my infamous "FB" comment, so what? I made a silly err in anger; and it just shows I am as human as the next guy.

-R

Richard LeGros said...

M

Hmmmm.....Karen Venditti is on the same TAC committee (environmental)as Maria; so why critize Maria for being on a commitee that Karen serves on too?

-R

PS: I did not know that the announcement of Karen's campaign kick-off party was a 'debatable issue'; or that offering public documents from both sides of the aisle is forbidden on this blog.

I hope Karen has a nice kick-off party.

franc4 said...

Mr. Legros sez;

"Also, Lisa's deposition (exhibit #32) is an example of avoidance in answering questions and evasion...dozens of 'I don't know', 'I don't remember' or "the will not answerer due to.....Very damning stuff."

....wonder how you would respond at a deposition. Like if you didn't remember something,would you just make something up or maybe guess?

"I am as human as the next guy."
....what "next guy"?

Richard LeGros said...

Franc4,

At my upcoming depositon, I will behave as I always do....answer honestly. I have nothing to hide or fear.

Lisa evaded answering 90% of the questions posed; and for a lady that prides herself on what she knows, she sure couldn't/would't remember a thing.

-R

PS: I will gladly send you all the evidence exhibits, including Lisa's deposition. Just email me at archRBL@aol.com. Or you can ask Ann for them as I emailed them to her to her Mission News account.

franc4 said...

m sez;
"Your stance on the sewer, more precisely Tri-W has not changed one dot since I have been attending this blog site for several years now. What could you possibly bring to the table, that has not already been said?"

....humm, guess younever read the same old song and dance mike, aka REApprasior, aka LoTaxPayer, spouts.....without end, over and over....when he is not gossiping about Julie, that is.

....and aren't you getting alittle tired of Mr.Legros telling us how wonderful he is...fashioning himself (and his fellow "halo wearing" buddies as being "squeaky clean having nothing what-so-ever to do with the current situation?

I would agree, he does have FB ;-)

Osos Change said...

Richard,

Every time you post on this blog, it adds one more shining example of your sheer incompetence. Every time you talk about the CSD-5, I can think of an instance -- involving you on the previous board -- that ignited all this wasteful spending to begin with.

Many of the previous board's activities were borderline fraudulent and outrageously negligent of performing their fiduciary duty as public service.

Because of this, everything you say, everything you do in the name of the greater good is moot -- and it will always be moot as long as truth, rhyme, reason and the law are around.

In short: get lost.

Mike said...

Wow osos change, your mental competence really showed how open minded you are...

I assume you are aware of the "borderline (waaaay more than borderline!) fraudulent and outrageously negligent of performing their fiduciary duty as public service." ...you of course are talking about the post-recall CSD...

I assume you are well acquainted with the illegal activities of this Board...??? I also assume you don't have a clue what laws govern a CSD....???

Do us all a favor and apologise to Richard and Shark and then Thank Richard for having the courage to have not only run, but for having served on the CSD....

Richard LeGros said...

Osos Change,

You are welcome to believe whatever you wish. However, your uncivil behavior is not healthy for you or Los Osos. Try sticking to issues and not degenerate to mud slinging hatred upon folks you disagree with. You will probably find that we all have much more in common than you believe.

-R

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"But once in office, after 18 months of trying to build a project they wanted, they realized that their plan was not feasible. However, they had the honesty and fortitude to realize their err and make the switch to a workable plan."

Actually, that's where it all started going wrong. If the original Board had gone back to the community, and back to square one -- independent review of options, "The Process," that the county used -- and let go of the Tri W site -- THAT was the tar-baby killer -- and gone for a community vote, none of this happened. That's the one puzzle in all of this. There has never been uncovered any evidence to documnent the claim that there is/was a "widely held community value" in having a sewer plant located in a park in the middle of town, yet that was repeatedly sworn to in official documents before the CC, etc. THAT's the key point. Plus, Paavo had it right when he finally fessed up that the original CSD didn't have the resources to do the project right -- it was a preconceived notion that, when it failed, was still forced into place at all costs. The Tri-W site is the fulcrum point upon which this train wreck turns.That's the "holy grail" in this mystery. The TAC shows that project dead last in cost, there were and are other options which makes the CSD telling us THERE ARE NO OTHER CHOICES a lie. So, what was that lodestar at that Tri W site that made it acceptable to lie and destroy a community in order to keep that site at all costs. That's the mystery to me.

Richard sez:"If the property owners wish to recover this $30,000,000 they must insist that Wildan and BW&S be held prosecuted by a future CSD board. There are law firms that will carry prosecution on contingency (30% of award). The time to file the lawsuit will be ripe with the acceptance of the CSD's bankruptcy plan."

What? No mention of the breach of contract lawsuit against the state and contractors and WMH and all the other players? That's odd.

You'd also have to call for a lawsuit against the previous Board (yours) and their attorney who advised you to go into court to attempt to block the Measure B election. THAT horrible miscalculation cost the taxpayers a bundle! Talk about malfeasance.

Well, I've long maintaided that if we won't set up a Truth & Reconciliation Hearing, then the next best thing is Bring on the Lawsuits and let the fun begin!

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

You got to let go of your anger.

The old project is dead and not coming back. Being angry about what happened does not mean that illegalities happened...just that you did not agree with events.The then-CSD Board had every legal right to make decisions based upon whatever community value they felt the community wanted...in this case the need for park land in an accessible town location. That was, after all, the basis of the original ponding plan that swayed the the affirmative 83% public vote to form the CSD to begin with.

As for your claim that the Contractors and State breached their contracts, you will find that the CSD does not have a legal basis to win such a lawsuit(s). Additionally, the CSD HAS filed such lawsuits but refuses to prosecute them. Even if the CSD is in bankruptcy, they have the right to prosecute if they want to.

As for lawsuits against prior boards, on what legal ground would such a lawsuit be based? Again, anger and speculation as to what happened does not cut it in a court of law. Justice is blind to such arguments

Lastly Ann, you do not want ANY SEWER for Los Osos. Your posting over the yaershas shown that you believe that the RWQCB has manufactured the need for one. That is your CORE BELIEF. Your CORE BELIEF makes your criticizism about what others tried to do to bring Los Osos into compliance with the law hypocritical. YOU JUST DO NOT WANT ANY SEWER, PERIOD...Either out of town or in town.

In short Ann, you are howling at the moon. Howling may feel good, but the moon takes absolutely no notice at all.

-R

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

PS: You seem to forget that Measure B has been invalidated twice.

The new CSD board based their policy to stop Tri-W based upon an illegality.

Before making decisions to enforce Measure B they could have determined if it was legal. They would have been better off to have the Appeals Court rule on it's validiity. This would have happened as Measure B had been appealed and was going to be heard in Court in late October, 2005. Instead, they tried to force the issue and avoid ajudication by settling the lawsuits instead.

Mike said...

Just how did you make the jump from the Board making a decision to change the type of waste treatement to needing a "breach of contract lawsuit against the state and contractors and WMH and all the other players?" There were a lot of steps taken before making that decision... There was more "public" input than you would like the readers to believe... There was no snap decision made in private, but as unpopular as you would believe, the Board made the decision they were elected to do...

Measure B was a totally separate issue that was only a quick bandaid by those who wanted no sewer and was so poorly written measure that it could never stand up in any court... You're mixing apples and comquates here... BW&S wrote that poor measure and is another example of the poor advice this Board has been given... You know and all of Los Osos knows it... Measure B was merely a smokescreen to cloud the issues and provide some emotional lift to the big "We have a PLAN" lie...

Osos Change said...

Richard,

What part of "Get lost," don't you understand?

I find your existence in Los Osos is unhealthy for Los Osos.

If you want me to stick to the issues, I'll challenge you to a public debate instead of debating you on this blog.

If you're not going to do that, then get lost.

Mike said...

...a duel at dawn...???

Richard is not running for office, is osos change...???

osos change does seem to have some anger management issues...

...probably from a lack of knowledge of the true facts surrounding the decisions made by all of the various boards...

Ron said...

Richard wrote:

"At my upcoming depositon, I will behave as I always do....answer honestly. I have nothing to hide or fear."

Beautiful. Then answer this question "honestly:"

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

Oh, would I love to see and "honest" answer to that question.

Ann nwrote:

"So, what was that lodestar at that Tri W site that made it acceptable to lie and destroy a community in order to keep that site at all costs. That's the mystery to me. "

Me too.

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

You don't "get it".

Measure B was obviously written for Julie and Jeff to move the SAME sewer out of town. You wanted the Tri-W and so does Gordon (even though Gordon has written that the nitrate situation wouldn't be helped for many many years if at all with that project) nope, please don't try to tell us that Gordon doesn't care where the plant is located.

Richard, you don't "get it" that there was no Prop 218 vote for the Tri-W project (notice how many 218 votes are being done including the Countys) You forgot to mention that law which was required.

In fact, ALL of you knew that there had to be a 218 vote, you, Gordon, Stan, THE COUNTY, the contractors, Jon Seitz, Bruce Buel, etc. etc. You all knowingly did NOT the law.

Now today, you say that Ann doesn't want any sewer. That's just another lie.

Your "made up" history is funny and your conclusions are a riot.

Richard LeGros said...

Ron,

Mr. Potter voted to issue the CDP after he understood what happened and why. But if you want to beat that dead horse of an issue, go right ahead.

You, Ann and OsosChange really need to get control of your anger.So much suspicion, fear, loathing is not healthy. Why not do something constructive instead of just snivling. It would be really great if you folks actually 'rolled-up-your sleeves' to help resolve the problelms of the community instead of mau-mauing those folks that actually doing the work.

As for my 'getting lost', so much for welcoming all points of view on this blog. Do you not wish to calmly and rationally discuss issues that affect us all? Never-the-less, I am not going away.

-R

Richard LeGros said...

Getrealosos,

Wecome to the blog,

Sorry, neither Grodeon or I give a hoot wehere the treatment plant ends up. You need to talk to the County about that issue.

Talk to Jon Seitz and the State Attorney General about if a 218 was required to obtain the SRF loan. You will find that everything done was legal. That issue has been long been settled except for thaose that do not like the answer. If you feel as such, support the LOTA lawsuit as it supports your point of view.

Ann has made it very clear that she thinks the RWQCB has manufactured the need for a sewer here in Los Osos; and will fight any sewer, any location, all the time. That is her right.

As for history, I MADE the decisions...and I stand by them.

-R

Ron said...

Sooooo, Richard, your "honest" answer to this question:

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

is... what?

Mike said...

ron...is your head stuck under your toilet seat...???

Richard has answered your stupid question several times over the past 2 years... When will you ever get it...?? You can't change history no matter how much you think you are God's gift to journalism... By now you have talked with the CCC and know you are just trying more wishful thnking...or do you actually think...???

You need to move forward a few years, no one gives a damn what you think because you don't live in Los Osos and don't pay property taxes here... but ronnie, you just might have the opportunity to help pay for the self inflicted bankruptcy your friends created... All of SLO County may have to pay for the No Sewer/Move the Sewer mismanagement of the Lisa Schicker CSD...

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

You know very well that the SRF loan had nothing to do with the 218 vote.

The 218 vote was needed no matter how Los Osos would get the money to pay for any sewer.

The 218 is a law to ask the people if they want to be taxed. It has nothing to do with the SRF, although the State is required to show a dedicated way for Los Osos to repay the SRF loan, and that is required under both state and federal law.

Richard LeGros said...

getrealosos,

No true. Talk to Jon Seitz and the State for correct information.

Besides, paying for building and using the proposed sewer was not a tax; bute a user cost (rate) for using the system. The users of the sewer were to pay through monthly user rates.

For example, a 218 vote was not required or held for the CSD to aquire tens of millions of dollars in State loans to perform the current on-going upgrades to our water supply system. Those construction loans are repaid via the water rates that users pay to the CSD. Why do you think the CSD wants a new rate study to determine how much to raise our water rates?

-R

Mike said...

...getrealosos or osos change or whatever name you wish to post under... Why are you still stuck in the past...??? but tell us, just when did the post-recall Lisa led CSD sponsor or try to have a 218 vote...???

I sort of missed that...or was it even needed since they, you?, never ever had a real PLAN....???

The past is done...the present began with the recall...had the present actually had a PLAN and followed the laws instead of paying off their friends with our tax dollars we might of had some sewer project. But without any legal footing and NO PLAN, they halted the only planned, designed, fully permitted and legally funded waste water treatment project ever begun in Los Osos...

All Los Osos now has to show for the last 3 years is the loss of the project and a major bankruptcy that this CSD is afraid to resolve...!!!

Ron said...

Richard wrote:

"You, Ann and OsosChange really need to get control of your anger."

Uhhhhh, dude, do me a favor, go back and read my posts, and then read Mike's posts, and then tell me who the "angry" ones are.

Ann is as "angry" as I am, which is none at all. We don't get angry. We're funny, unlike Taxpayer Watch types.

But when Mother Calhoun reads that you wrote:

"Ann has made it very clear that she thinks the RWQCB has manufactured the need for a sewer here in Los Osos; and will fight any sewer, any location, all the time. That is her right."

She's going to be angry. And I don't blame her one bit. That is so unfair, to the point of sickening.

Angry Mike wrote:

"Richard has answered your stupid question several times over the past 2 years...

Darn, I must have missed those "several times," because, to date, I'm the ONLY person I know of (including all other media [and that includes The Bay News] AND the post-recall board) that has answered that question.

And the answer to that question is everything Los Osos sewer. Everything.

The answer to that question is WHY Los Osos has a very, very expensive train wreck on their hands.

So, I'll ask Richard again, because I'd like to see someone other than me answer that all-important question, after all he wrote, "At my upcoming depositon, I will behave as I always do....answer honestly. I have nothing to hide or fear."

Great. So answer this question:

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

Osos Change said...

Richard, you wrote, "As for my 'getting lost', so much for welcoming all points of view on this blog. Do you not wish to calmly and rationally discuss issues that affect us all? Never-the-less, I am not going away."

Oh, but you are, Richard. I'll make that happen.

Mike said...

Nice threat osos change...

Did you train for this form of communication or do you come by it naturally...???

Apparently you don't want any sewer anywhere and at any cost...

You are really just another "open" mind who has found the path you chose to be full of lies and illegal spending of tax dollars, but be sure you thank Lisa for those lies and then thank her for bankrupting the District...

Now sprinkle more of your magic powder, take another sniff and all will be well again...

Shark Inlet said...

M (what the hell kind of lame name is that?) wrote:

"Shark, was it really necessary for you to inform everybody that you would be out of contact, but would certainly respond to anything Ann might put up in your absence? Is this the height of arrogance or what. Your stance on the sewer, more precisely Tri-W has not changed one dot since I have been attending this blog site for several years now. What could you possibly bring to the table, that has not already been said? As a matter of fact, when I come across your name in the comment section I scroll down past your's because I know it is the same old tired rhetoric.
I only hope that I can hang on until you return."


Some (apparently you would be one of them) would not feel it is necessary to let folks know if you're gonna be gone for a while and not reply to messages in a typical time frame. At other times in the past when I've been out of town or otherwise unable to participate, some have commented on my non-replies.

I figured it would be polite to let folks know that I would get back to them on the question of Obama vs. McCain.

If you feel that my position on TriW hasn't changed over time and if I can't bring anything new to the table ... fine. Don't read any of my comments on Taxes or Healthcare on the McCain vs. Obama question.

If my tired old rhetoric (go pound sand, by the way) on the Los Osos sewer sewer question (what is my position? ... heck, I bet you couldn't explain my point of view even if you tried!) has told you how I feel about McCain's tax policies or Obama's health care ideas ... you probably know so much that you shouldn't bother reading anything here at all ... after all, you've heard Ron and Ann and Richard and PG13 and Mike and the rest offer their point of view over and over and over again.

Perhaps you should scroll past everyone's comments and post your irrelevancy without reading or understanding anything anyone else is writing at all.

All the best to you ....

S

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

I believe you need to have a little chat with Getrealosos about posting threats.

-R

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

I did not post a threat (unless you consider my questioning your actions on a 218 for Tri-W a threat)!

You are wrong about the 218 vote. It was required by your board, not the state.

I don't believe you could have had a monthly fee or charge of $200-$250 a month. What if people wouldn't or couldn't pay that fee? How could that be considered a dedicated source to repay any SRF loan anyway? Nope, it had to be an assessment placed on properties.

Osos Change said...

Oh, Richard. Don't be such a baby.

Read what I wrote earlier. There are two options that I've laid out on the table: either you get lost (because you obviously can't back up a thing you talk about on here) or engage in a public debate with me and lay out all your cards on the table.

If you feel I'm threatening you into a debate, that's unfortunate. You don't have to be there, really. I'll show up, accept the victory and celebrate the defeat of Taxpayers Watch. Oh, and by my statement, "I can make it happen," by "it," I meant the debate.

Stop being such a baby and man up to your claims.

Richard LeGros said...

OK folks...time to say it as it is.

It really amazes me and many others that, having posted documentation from both sides of the political aisle, NONE of you have taken the time to understand the TW lawsuit and the laws upon which it is based. Such mental torpitude is confounding; and impossible for reasonable folks to contend/argue with. Arguing with Ann, Ron, Getrealosos, Ososchange, etal is like arguing with spoiled and petulent children.

Your logic is lazy, incomplete, streaches personal reality to levels of absurdity, bending 'facts' and purposely miusinterpeting or completely avoid the laws that we all live by.

Your reliance upon conspiracy theory or wild speculation of what you think others did is laughable. Never do you produce actual hard evidence.
Never do you outline the law upon which you say was not obeyed. Never do you offer constructive criticism.

Your tactics are to smear anybody who dares confront you with opinions or data different than yours. Why do you think nobody ever goes to the CSD meetings? Personal safety is a real concern to those that speak out against the current board. Why do you think the CSD is completely avoided and cut out of the decision making process of other governmental agencies? Why do you think the State, by SPECIAL LEGISLATION, stripped the CSD of the wastewater project. Why do you think the County sued and prevailed in stripping the CSD of receiving the assessment bond revenues and the Property taxes for Fire services? Simple, the CSD is now a renegade organization with absolutely no credibility.

You poo-poo the hard work and professionalism of the professionals who, having had years of training in very esoteric technical fields, are doing the work. These learned professionals are the ones who assume the legal and moral responsibility to make sure the problems they solve benefit the people they serve. If they make a mistake, they pay through the nose with money and loss of reputation. Instead, you call them hacks who are wrong because you have this silly idea that they are working only for their own selfish interests. Again, never a shread of evidence to backup such claims, just jibberish.

You treat your public servants shamefully; always resorting to mau-mauing the very folks that are trying diligently to solve the very difficult problems facing Los Osos.
You just do not want to hear solutions.

You are unable to face up to the awful truth of the astounding devestation the recall board has done to the CSD and the community at large. Sorry, but their shit really stinks; and the courts will agree.

To this day, the recall board has never taken responsibity for any of their actions; always deflecting blame to other. I, many Solutions Groupers and other past board members have opined as to our failings and mistakes; and own up to them. Mistakes were made; but illegal acts never. Decisions were always made in full light of public review; and made to protect the community; and NEVER for self enrichment or personal gain. I and all past board members take full responsibility for each and every act and decision I/we made while serving Los Osos. Meanwhile, we do not fear any legal retribution against us as we acted entirely under the legal and professional guidance of honest and hardworking public servants that understood what good government is all about...and above all we obeyed the law. That was our oath of office. We took it very seriously.

Meanwhile, Julie, Chuck, Lisa, Steve and John do not own up to one damn thing. Shame and Blamee is their game. Actually, it is Shame, Blame and Drain the CSD of it's very lifeblood.

-R

Churadogs said...

Absolutely fascinating. Richard, you either have been misreading me for a long time, or you just lie. I have never opposed a sewer. I loved my Ponds of Avalon and was very disappointed they wouldn't work. I was (lied to)when told TriW was the ONLY and BEST solution -- not true, as we're finding out. I long ago called for a Chinese Menu "vote" by the community, let them decide which plan they wanted to buy at which price. I have questioned the RWQCB's "science" from 1984 onward. Their artificial PZ created more problems than it solved and led to more problems. I completely lost confidence in the RWQCB altogether after watching the appalling CDO Mad Hatter Tea Party. Ghastly and totally unnecessary.(Plus, NOBODY who knew anything about septics would ever, EVER have proposed that mad pumping scheme. Ever. )

What I've felt over so much of this train wreck isn't anger, it's dismay because it's all been so unnecessary. The one bit of anger I do have was anger over the sheer stupidity of your Board in starting the construction weeks before the election. And the sheer stupidity of trying to block Measure B (you truly don't get it -- Measure B wasn't the problem, the court would have taken care of that -- the problem was trying to stop a vote -- the legal record for doing that is and has been plain -- don't do it and if you do you'll loose and the entity that brought that case will be hammered big time -- which is what your Board did to the "entity," the CSD i.e. the taxpayers who were really dinged (so much for your claims of caring about the community -- I find them hollow.)

So, opposing a sewer? Nope. Opposed to the RWQCB? Nope, just their bungling methods and shoddy "science," and some of their asleep-at-the-switch, indifferent Board Members. Ditto so many of the "regulatory agencies" who allowed this mess to simply fall through the cracks. But filled with anger? Nope. I suspect you're projecting. Instead, I'm filled with dismay and sadness, mostly. And curiosity, too. Like just what was Chairman Potter talking about when he used the term "bait & switchy." And had the previous CSD's attorney done his homework vis a vis blocking elections on initiatives & etc. Did he not know how thin that ice was? Or did he know, adivse your Board against filing that lawsuit and you guys ignored him? That's still a puzzle to me, among so many others.

Shark Inlet said...

Well, there you go ... Richard thinks that folks who wanted to move a sewer "no matter how much it costs" are the problem and Ann thinks that the folks mandating us to have a sewer in the first place are the problem. No surprise.

What is still surprising to me (why, I don't know, I should be used to it by now) is how folks who wanted to move the sewer thought that they could just switch horses midstream without consequence. It seems that one would need to attempt a cost-benefit analysis before making the decision to stop TriW. Literally ... will the stopping of TriW cost so much that we'll later regret that choice because "out of town" isn't worth that much more.

Like Richard, I have yet to see any of the big-name "move the sewer, no matter how much it costs" folks fess up to a mistake or to even say that they had any role in the problem. It is almost as if Chuck and Julie are saying "Richard and Stan put us in this untenable position and we had to pay BWS off and we had to hire Dan (the man) Blesky to screw up the CSD and we had to mismanage our fire fund and we had to go some $50M deeper into debt." If you believe that logic, it is not the fault of Steve and Lisa, but entirely the fault of the voters. After all, the recall campaign slogan was "more delay, more debt and more mismanagement!" The voters are to blame. Gordon is to blame. Pandora most of all. Nope, the post-recall board was pre-ordained to make all those poor decisions and they have no responsibility at all to do right by the people in their district.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

... what was Chairman Potter talking about when he used the term "bait & switchy."

Richard "I have nothing to hide or fear" LeGros needs to answer this question (that I've asked four times on this thread alone):

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

Ann also wrote:

The one bit of anger I do have was anger over the sheer stupidity of your Board in starting the construction weeks before the election.

An election that Richard, along with his fellow Taxpayer Watchers, Gordon Hensley and Stan Gustafson, set at one of the latest possible dates, and the extra month they afforded themselves in office with that terrible decision gave them the extra time they needed to exercise their "sheer stupidity."

For a story, I once asked SLO County Clerk-Recorder, Julie Rodewald, if the decision had been hers to make, would she have set that election date at one of the earliest possible dates or one of the latest.

She told me, "I would have set it at one of the earliest dates."

In other words, had the county's TOP election official set the recall election date (instead of those being recalled) -- Tri-W would still be intact, and LO wouldn't be on the hook right now for that $6 mil.

So, to recap, the Coastal Commission called Richard's board "bait and switchy," and the county's top election official told me she would have set that election date at one of the earliest possible dates.

And Richard says, ""I have nothing to hide or fear."

Great. So answer this question:

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

(Damn, I love this story. It's the best.)

Shark Inlet said...

Ron ... you sure love to take a few facts and to spin a story out of them.

First off, wasn't it Potter, not the Coastal Commission who used that phrase that you've taken so much glee in using? Second, are you sure that Potter applied this phrase to the LOCSD board? I remember that he used this phrase to refer to the morphing of the ponding project into the MBR project.

Never mind ... accuracy probably isn't important.

Ron said...

Guppy -- wrong, as usual.

The reason Potter called them "bait and switchy" is this:

Because Richard's friends told the Commission in 2001 that the sewer plant HAD to go downtown so LO residents could easily get to the park that they "strongly" wanted in their sewer plant. (That was a complete lie. The Solution Group's dead-on-arrival plan NEVER had a park, just "future recreational opportunities." OBVIOUSLY, the residents of LO do NOT want a multi-million dollar park in their sewer plant. OBVIOUSLY! That's why Steve Monowitz of the CCC told me, when I phoned him and interviewed him, "It was inappropriate of me to rely on Solution Group members (translated: Nash-Karner) to determine 'community values' for Los Osos.")

So the Commission reluctantly signed off on the ESHA Tri-W site in 2001 for that sole, fake reason.

Then, the moment Richard's friends got that real approval on fake reasons, they immediately ripped the entire park out of the project because they didn't have any money to pay for it. They just used that excuse to lock in Tri-W for their second project, so no one would notice that their first project -- the one that got them elected and formed the CSD in the first place in 1998 -- had failed, as predicted BEFORE the election that formed the CSD.

Then, Potter caught them in their sneaky, little game in 2004 and called them "bait and switchy."

Awesome story. And I'm the ONLY person, including the post-recall board, that's ever told it. That's sad. (Frankly, I don't think the post-recall board even has their minds wrapped around "bait and switchy"... same with The Bay News, and all other local media for that matter.)

I wrote about all of that at these links:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/to-paraphrase-ann-calhoun-paraphrasing.html

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/09/bait-and-switchy-pays-off-for-los-osos.html

So, Richard:

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

Richard LeGros said...

Hi all,

I've made my position crystal clear. Your responses to said position are, ahem, expected and lacking.

At this point in time there is no need to play into Ron's fantasy, or to Ann's mau-mauing, nor to the various anons of hate and misdirection. Let them all spew and stew in whatever nonesense they want.

Meanwhile, TW will continue pressing towards the October court trial; unless the Judge Crandall can put together a workable settlement.

A few predictions for the near futures. You may copy the list, hang it on your refrigerator door and check them off as the predictions become reality.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Prediction. #1: The Superior Court will DENY the CSD5's Motion for Summary Judgement.

Prediction #2: The Superior Court will SQUASH the CSD5's Discovery requests made to the Contractors; as they have nothing to do with the causes of action of the TW lawsuit. Just the proverbial fishing expedition.

Prediction #3: The Superior Court will DENY the CSD5's Motion to Compel regarding the answers provided by TW to CSD5's discovery requests.

Prediction #4: The Superior Court will DENY the CSD's Motion for Summary Judgement in their lawsuit against the district's insurance provider.

Prediction #5: The Contractors will prevail in upcoming BINDING ARBITRATION actions with the CSD; establishing the final dollar amount of damages that the CSD5's actions has cost the Contractors (and to be paid by the property owners of Los Osos.)

Prediction #6: The Superior Court will rule in favor of the Plaintiffs in the TW lawsuit.

Prediction #7: The world will end...someday. Gosh, I hope I am not around to see that happen. LOL
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I appreciate and respect the many folks that have provided their support and hard-earned money regarding what TW is doing for the Community of Los Osos.

To date TW has obtained a court judgement that Measure B is illegal; and forced the resignation of BW&S / Julia Biggs. Watching last Thursdays CSD board meeting, even those folks that condemn TW are happy to see BW&S go AND are even happier that Jon Seitz has been reinstated as General Council. Universally it it accepted that hiring BW&S was a very unwise (but not illegal) action of the CSD5....and that many (Duggan, Swanson to name two) now see that Seitz shouldl not have been sidelined to begin with.

From time to time, I will post on this blog the numerous public documents (from both sides) that are sure to be generated by the TW lawsuit. Use the documents as you wish...either to educate yourself or as lining to birdcages...your choice.

-R

Ron said...

I wrote:

"Ann is as "angry" as I am, which is none at all. We don't get angry. We're funny, unlike Taxpayer Watch types."

And, Richard wrote:

Prediction #7: The world will end...someday. Gosh, I hope I am not around to see that happen. LOL.

See what I mean?

Boy, that's a lot of typing "-R"

Yet, still no answer.

- R, again, here's the question:

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

You don't want the past brought up, yet you bring it up. The past is yesterday, ya know.

Please tell us why TW didn't sue BWS and Wildan rather than suing this CSD board.

Why wouldn't TW sue the right people and sue these firms who actually did wrong and where the money could be recouped for Los Osos?

This CSD board only followed their attorney. Their attorney did wrong.

Can you PLEASE answer this?

Mike said...

You answered your own question...

"This CSD board only followed their attorney. Their attorney did wrong."

If you understand law, the you would understand:

The CSD-5 created the relationship with BWS and Wildan...

The community at large has NO CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP with BWS and Wildan, only with the CSD-5...

You should be asking the CSD-5 why they have not sued their legal council for the poor advice...

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...

getrealosos,

A reasonable question that I will gladly answer.

TW is not the proper entity to sue BW&S and Wildan; the CSD is.
Why? Simply because it is the CSD that was poorly served and damaged by those consultants, not TW.

You best pose your question to the recall CD board as to why they refuse to do so.

-R

PS Ron: I already told you I will no longer respond to your farrago of nonesense. But if you want an answer, just take the time to read my many posts on Anns blog. Good reading.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

One of your points is fair. When I wrote about the ponding system I should have included the park amenities as an integral part of that project. Perhaps I should have been more careful.

On your other points, I think you're full-o-crap.

It is not obvious that the majority of LO residents don't want a TriW treatment plant and park combination. You've pulled this "obviously" out of thin air. The best you've come up with in the past is a vote on a pool. Parks and pools are quite different. Even if you're entirely right about what the LO residents feel on this issue, you don't know that you're right. Thus ... full-o-crap.

Second ... Potter didn't call the LOCSD board bait-n-switchy, but the change of the project and you know it. That you can't pull out a link or a quote here to demonstrate your claim (the self-referential links you did provide are simply giving the same mis-interpretation ...) shows that you are simply wrong in your assertion that Potter was tagging the whole LOCSD with that moniker instead of just the morphing of the park aspect of the project.

But this raises a good question ... if CCLO is complaining about the park (too many amenities and too expensive) and then if the CCC staff and the LOCSD board cave into CCLO demands ... why did CCLO then request a permit revocation? They got what they asked for.

So Ron ... why do you insist that the CCC called the LOCSD board "bait-n-switchy" when it was just Potter and Poter wasn't even referring to the board but to the changing characteristics of the project?

I would think that you would care about honestly and accuracy ... but if you don't, that is fine with me ... just don't get all bitchy when people call you on your crap.

Shark Inlet said...

Hey Ron ...

How are your 2007 predictions for Los Osos going? How many of them have come true? As I count ... you're batting zero for four.

Beautiful.

Why is it that you seem to never link to this past gem?

Ron said...

Alrighty then... how 'bout this question, Richard:

According to the Tri-W Development Permit (that I was going to have instantly revoked had the county not just put it out of its misery. In fact, personally, I think that's WHY everyone but Bruce Gibson wanted to kill the Tri-Dub permit. Because I was going to get it revoked anyway... BECAUSE of "bait and switchy", and Monowitz knew it. That's why he recommend to the county that they just let it die on the vine, methinks. Good reason. Makes sense.), you were on the board that "agreed to reincorporate" the $2.3 million worth of park amenities BACK into the Tri-W project (after Potter caught on to the sneaky "bait and switchy" game).

So, what was your rationale for "agreeing" to "reincorporate" the $2.3 million worth of park amenities into the Tri-W project?

How do you explain that, Richard?"

Please elaborate.

[That link above is very interesting. Scroll down to where I'm writing to Steve Monowitz talking about revoking Tri-Dub's permit.

Here's a quick copy-and-paste:

- - -

Hello Steve,

You know, I've been looking at some of the Coastal Commission regulations for permit revocation, and it occurred to me, that the Commission, according to their own regulations, really doesn't have a choice but to revoke the development permit for the Tri-W project.

According to Section 13105 of the Coastal Commission's Regulations, the grounds for revocation are:

a) Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal development permit application, where the commission finds that accurate and complete information would have caused the commission to require additional or different conditions on a permit or deny an application:

That is exactly what happened with Los Osos.

- - -

Look how right I was. And I know for a fact that Monowitz knew I was right. That's why he told me, "If anyone deserves a hearing, it's you."

"Bait and switchy" WAS "Intentional inclusion of inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information in connection with a coastal development permit application"]

Richard wrote:

"But if you want an answer, just take the time to read my many posts on Anns blog"

Perfect. Now all you have to do is supply the link to your answer to this question:

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

And, now also this one:

What was your rationale for "agreeing" to "reincorporate" the $2.3 million worth of park amenities into the Tri-W project?

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...

Ron,

Brother, are you dense.

As I posted prior:
"PS Ron: I already told you I will no longer respond to your farrago of nonesense. But if you want an answer, just take the time to read my many posts on Anns blog. Good reading."

-R

Howie said...

Thinkers & Drinkers,

After wading through the one-sided, nonsensical, irresponsible and revisionist ramblings of Legross -- who failed his community and failed his fiduciary duty by gambling away millions of taxpayers dollars jump-starting a fatally flawed project in the middle of town (for who and what good cause?)-- I am filled will appreciation that Karen Venditti is running for the CSD.

Finally, someone competent! Venditti is probably one of the first truly capable, balanced people ever to run and serve. She is everything Legross and his pet clone Maria are NOT: mature, intelligent, reasonable, compassionate and honest. I wouldn't wish such an awful job upon anyone, but we need her now, especially with the low caliber of candidates in the race and zealots with dollar signs in their eyes behind every other tree.

Anyone who has watched Maria in action knows she has some serious mental and emotional issues and a yellow streak of bias down her back as thick as yellow lines on the street. Her "little lying problem" and runaway paranoia have turned her into a rude little monster embarrassing the community at every turn in public.

Sitting in the back row of TAC meetings chewing gum, giggling with dippy Marshall and chatting during Public Comment are not only reasons NOT to run for the CSD, they are instant disqualifiers. Serving as the least effective member of the fixed TAC should not allow her to use the TAC as a steppingstone to future failure on the CSD -- the same CSD she has approved of dissolving and suing -- without a stitch of benefit to the community.

As a member of Taxpayers Watch suing the CSD, it is a direct conflict of interest for her to be running at all, and the fact that she intends to deny or ignore the emerging facts of her membership, no, her leadership of Taxpayers Watch, will not escape widespread exposure throughout the community she seeks to further divide. We've put up with a lot the last 25 years, including recalling spin-dizzy Richie Rich and his cohorts, and we certainly don't need Maria masking for Gordon to help us gallop backwards to a past that needs burying.

Finally, thinkers, it is sad and disappointing how much Legross must remind us of Tom Murphy -- two ego-driven windbags making outrageous claims they can't back up in order to stiff the community with a defective product bearing an equally outrageous price tag only he and his cult of profiteers can afford. I wish them both the same speedy retirement.

Legross's past failures and obsession with vengeance offer us no future hope. He is proud to continue the fight. Maria's devotion to the politics of the past are only a road map "back to the future" of corruption and division -- with thousands of Los Ososians paying the ultimate price for their unfiltered greed and selfishness.

Only two words of wisdom for those who wish to remain behind after the tsunami sweeps through: Karen Venditti.

Mike said...

Howie...

You seem to have a problem comprehending that TW IS NOT sueing the LOCSD.... Do you understand that...???

Do you have any clue what is happening...??? Do you still think the CSD has any power to somehow do anything about a sewer project...??? The County has the project, the County will build the project, the County is actually putting together a PLAN... This CSD lost all credibility and lost the project, or maybe you weren't paying attention...!!!

There is a lot of wishful hand-wringing going on in the shrinking circle of No Sewer/Move the Sewer folks, but all the tears and lies are not ever going to see the LOCSD ever get the funding and authority to even think about building the much needed sewer...!!!!

If you want to consider a direction the CSD should be headed, then think resolution of the BANKRUPTCY...!!!!

Neither Richard nor TW, not even Maria Kelly brought on the bankruptcy... and now even innocent Julie thinks the CSD should be dissolved...!!! Me too!!!! I want to know that Ron Crawford is going to be helping Los Osos pay for the bankruptcy brought on by the post recall Directors....!!!!!

Think honesty, vote for Maria Kelly...!!!!

*PG-13 said...

Howie Only two words of wisdom for those who wish to remain behind after the tsunami sweeps through: Karen Venditti.

Oh God, yet another campaign begins. Still, its the Amerikan way. Let's all say Hooray!

Given this, let me reprise my questions from a previous blog This 'n That back on August 28th.

Where I asked > Lot's of heat. So there must something at stake. But I'm not sure what it is. I'm feeling very left out and a bit confused. Could some of you word-mongers please help me? Is there a website listing the candidates and their positions? And what is really at stake in this election? What degrees of freedom and decision making remain for the CSD going forward? Seems to me previous captains of the ship have already run the ship aground. So what difference does it make who the captains are now? Does the CSD still have a decision making role anymore regarding the sewer? Or is this election more about who sits on a board directing its response to the many lawsuits? And/Or tries to dissolve the board?

I asked a number of other questions in that comment regarding the TW lawsuit which Richard has answered. But no one has stepped forward to answer these questions about the next CSD election and - most importantly - why? Other's have asked similar questions since. I gotta ask: Why are citizens continuing to run for a seat on this board? To what end? What is at stake? If a candidate represents a position on things sewer-in-the-past how does this manifest as the CSD moves forward into its current reality?

Mike Green said...

Honestly, I can't imagine why anyone would want to be on the LOCSD.

Travel update, click on my name

Howie said...

Dear Richard(s):

Thankfully most know better than to listen to anything you say. Been there, done that, still paying for it...

You are suing CSD board members. Stop with the semantics. Vengeance is the lowest form of behavior. If you don't like the board, run some decent candidates and vote your losers in -- if you can.

Maria is unfit and unqualified for the job. Sad but true.

The County may or may not build their sewer, your sewer. You act like it's already built, just like the Tri-W was ALMOST built -- but wasn't, was it? -- or don't you ever learn anything except to repeat your mistakes faster and at greater expense to the community.

Richard and TW are exactly responsible for bringing on the bankruptcy, and that's why Maria can't lead us out of it, because she has decided to exploit that which you caused -- which is the Absolute Height of Hypocrisy!!!

Painfully, only ONE person running this year is both fit and qualified to serve on the board: KAREN VENDITTI

Shark Inlet said...

PG ...

I can think of two reasons someone might want to be on the LOCSD board.

Some might want to be on the board to prevent (or push for) the LOCSD from cleaning house and investigating the actions of past board members and their advisers.

The other reason for running is that one may be willing to do the right thing and bite the bullet and do one's public service. Whether named Gordon or Lisa or Joe, do you really think that those on the LOCSD board have personally benefited? If anything, they've sacrificed greatly for our community and I, for one, appreciate their willingness.


As to our friend Howie ... it seems as if you have it out for Maria for some reason ... but you have yet to explain how your preferred candidate Karen is in any way better. I would think that an open-minded voter would be put-off by your attack on one candidate. Perhaps you would like to make more clear the reasons behind your viewpoint.

Myself ... I would be reluctant to support anyone but Maria during this campaign cycle if for only one reason ... it seems as if all the petty and small-minded supporters of the failed recall board are coming out of the woodwork to oppose her candidacy. Makes you wonder, doesn't it? If, after all, as PG points out, the whole sewer thing is over, why would one group be so strongly opposed to her? I can't help but wonder if they are afraid that she'll be willing to ask uncomfortable questions about BWS and Wildan.

Sewertoons said...

Is this the Karen Venditti who was caught carrying out boxloads of CSD archival and permanent documents from the CSD office at Lisa's request to Gail McPherson's house?

Interesting how all that work never uncovered a shred of misdeed to pin on the old Board.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark Inlet,

What is Maria's resume? Where has she worked and what has she done in her career?

I know that Karen has a financial background and I believe she's done a great job with her position on TAC.

Maria on TAC was shown on camera chewing gum and laughing. She didn't contribute much other than trying to make a case for gravity systems and poo-pooing Step System.

Maria is suing the CSD with her friends Gordon and Richard. It's a clear conflict of interest. I would really like to know more about her background. Does she have more than just promoting Tri-W?

Was Maria in charge of the bad calendars? The pine green water tower? The painted bears that seem the same? The ugly fence around the skate park? What? She seems to lack common sense and manners.

Sewertoons:

I seriously doubt if Karen took papers out of the CSD office. Can you prove this?

Mike said...

Sorry to disappoint all you who apparently haven't read any of the legal briefs... but Maria Kelly is not mentioned, not signatory, not any part of the TaxPayers Watch Lawsuit... The Lawsuit as howie doesn't seen to understand, is NOT against the LOCSD... it IS against 5 individuals and their actions PRIOR to and NOT AS A CSD... Those 5 took tax dollars and paid off their personal lawyers for lawsuits those same 5 had already sued and lost against the former CSD... Thye LOST and still went ahead and paid off those same lawyers and then hired them to give legal advice to the CSD...!!!! Now just who was getting paid back there...??? Why was that law firm hired WITHOUT competitive bids...??? and now we're asking why this CSD hasn't sued those lawyers for all the poor advice thes past 3 years...???? This whole legal case smells of someone getting some serious kickbacks....and it sure wasn't the previous Boards...!!!!

TW is only asking that the CSD-5 return the $2M they mis-appropriated to pay their lawyers for bills prior to taking office... and when found guilty, to pay back the CSD spent legal fees to this latest set of lawyers...

After that the State AG may very well want to consider additional criminal charges... Hope the CSD-5 think it was all worth acting as if they are above the civil laws of this State...

Don't take my word for any of this... go read the legal briefs on both sides... Richard has been more than willing to share everything the court has... ask yourself if the CSD has been open and honest about these charges, or do they still think they can continue to play the blame game...????

Sewertoons said...

getrealosos, it was a comment made by someone during a CSD meeting in early 2006. Lisa responded by saying, "I told her to take those boxes out of the office." This seems to indicate that the boxes were taken out. I saw it on TV, why don't you ask Lisa, she'd know.

Ron said...

Richard,

A little advice.

When you have things to hide and fear, don't write:

"I have nothing to hide or fear."

*PG-13 asks excellent questions.

Since AB 2701, what does the LOCSD do? Trash and water?

You Los Ososans... funny

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"The other reason for running is that one may be willing to do the right thing and bite the bullet and do one's public service. Whether named Gordon or Lisa or Joe, do you really think that those on the LOCSD board have personally benefited? If anything, they've sacrificed greatly for our community and I, for one, appreciate their willingness."

Apparently Richard and others feel some memembers named Lisa, for example, have benefited personally and so are being sued personally, with a wish expressed in this comment section, that they go to prison! So much for community service. I am grateful for any and all candidates running, and advise any and all candidates running that if they get elected they take out a rider on their home owners insurance for an umbrella policy to help pay for legal bills if and when TPW or some such group wants to sue them PERSONALLY for board-made decisions. You don't have to be right on any issue when you sue. Suing as a harassment tactic works just fine as well.

Inlet also sez:"I can think of two reasons someone might want to be on the LOCSD board.

Some might want to be on the board to prevent (or push for) the LOCSD from cleaning house and investigating the actions of past board members and their advisers."

Prevent or push for . . . hmmm, interesting point. There's a couple of curious issues here. If Maria Kelly supported the LAFCO dissolution and supports (even behind the scenes) the TPW lawsuit personally suing board/former board members, then that raises a Groucho Marx question: Why would someone want to serve on a Board he/she tried mightly to destroy and wipe out of existence? (And stick county-wide taxpayers with it's debts?) The sewer is in the County's hands, but there's still all kinds of possibilities for sticky little thumbs on scales and the input from an elected Board always carries more weight than random citizens with other government agencies. (cf the "bait & switchy" question. Potter and the CC Board accepted the "explanation" because it was coming from an official Board, during official proceedings, with the assumption that they were sworn to be telling the truth and few on the CC board wanted to ask the hard questions of an Official CSD/government agency they suspected of, uh, lying.) If Maria has expressed a clear preference for Gravity and Tri-W returning, then once elected, if she can get a Board majority to vote to support that option in the county's offerings, that would carry more weight than if Maria Kelly, citizen, expressed an opinion. As for burying the past: He who controlls the books, controlls the past. A new CSD board majority could vote to immediately settle ALL claims, no matter how bogus, agree to absolute non disclosure of all settlements and zip everyone's lips -- no matter how wrong a settlement is -- and so bury everything -- good, bad, bogus, real -- in one veil of legal silence. Or, a new CSD Board majority, could make a point of demanding a full accounting and hearing of all claims and if necessary file the proper lawsuits where necessary, if indeed WilDan or BWS failed in their duties (all of which is covered by their Errors and Omissions policies),or continue the breach of contract suits to determine liability properly, thereby ensuring that in a rush to bury the whole sordid mess, (From Sacramento on down) improper, incorrect claims will get paid off along with real, legitimate claims, and people who are really resonsible for any screw ups will never be held to account.

In short, do we need a board determined to seek justice, not just justification? And if so, which candidates can best accomplish the charge of following the facts no matter where they lead, while at the same time being prudent enough to know that some battles need to be won, while others need to be put to rest -- and know the difference between the two?

You raise some excellent points, Inlet.

And I notice Richard still hasn't answered the old bait and switchy question.

*PG-13 said...

I see I'm a little late posting this comment. I guess I gotta get an earlier start in the morning if I expect to beat Ann ;-) Still, I'll post my comment even if it is a bit redundant now.

Shark Inlet > Whether named Gordon or Lisa or Joe, do you really think that those on the LOCSD board have personally benefited? If anything, they've sacrificed greatly for our community and I, for one, appreciate their willingness.

As do I. I honor the service of all the board members on the community's behalf. No matter how misguided some of that service may have been. No matter how ugly the fallout of some of their decisions. I say this about all the boards - the pre-pre-recall boards, the pre-recall board, and the post-recall board. I do not believe any of them acted totally out of self-interest. At the time they were making their decisions I'm pretty sure they thought they were doing the right thing by their community. Which is not an excuse for making dumb or illegal decisions.

Inlet > Some might want to be on the board to prevent (or push for) the LOCSD from cleaning house and investigating the actions of past board members and their advisers.

Is this in play? Can the new board direct or have influence on these kinds of actions? I realize that sounds like a dumb and naive question but ... just how much power and influence does the CSD have going forward? If it has such influence are the candidates clearly owning up to where they stand on these issues? It seems the new CSD will be more involved in looking backward and managing affairs of the past than looking forward and playing a role (whatever that might be) in creating a sewer & water management solution. Does the new board even have a speaking part in building a new sewer? Or is this now completely out of the board's hands? If their only real power is investigative, punitive and retaliatory does this really serve the community? Even under the best case scenario what lawsuits and legal rulings do we have any chance of winning? Even if we win what exactly do we win? Maybe somebody with more time and a better understanding of the many possible legal wranglings could make a list of the possible legal issues and what might be gained by a friendly judgment on that issue? What are the costs and possible rewards of such actions? What is the cost and the reward of jousting at windmills.

Maria M. Kelly said...

Ann,
"If Maria has expressed a clear preference for Gravity and Tri-W returning, then once elected, if she can get a Board majority to vote to support that option in the county's offerings, that would carry more weight than if Maria Kelly, citizen, expressed an opinion."

I don't have a preference for the mid town project. I have said that on many occasions. That doesn't discount the fact that there are still community members that do. I see the benefits of the out-of-town and I am not afraid of the mid-town project. It was the appropriate design for the location - the trip to Scott's Valley confirmed that. If the project is out of town, I am confident in the process to provide and appropriate plant design and technology for that location.
I didn't support the dissolution, I believe this community deserves as shot at local governance sans a sewer project. I have stated clearly on several occasions that I do not believe that the CSD has the capability to bring a project forward for Los Osos. I do not believe that forcing the rest of the county to pay for our debts is the ethical thing to do.

Clear enough?

Shark Inlet said...

GetReal,

Yes, the resume question would seem to be a good one, along with asking whether this person has shown interest in public service in the past and whether their stated positions (now and in the past) have been reasonable.

If you want to know more about Maria, I suspect that you could contact her and ask for this information ... but you appear to already be supporting Karen. I am not supporting Karen right now (but might change my mind) because I know little about her by comparison to Maria. What is a "financial background"? What sort of service has Karen done in our community? Convince me!


Ron,

You and PG both know darn well that the LOCSD does two thing besides garbage and water ... they are in charge of dealing with the massive debt run up after the recall and they have the legal responsibility to deal with the various lawsuits previously initiated and possibly necessary (like, suing BWS for malpractice, if the board chooses to do so).

These last two responsibilities are probably more important than garbage and water. Heck, if it was just garbage and water, the dissolution question is a no-brainer. I am convinced that you were opposed to dissolution because Julie was opposed. Now that she's changed her mind, do you still think that Los Osos shouldn't be allowed to spread our debt across the County? I think that we should because the County has massive culpability here for setting up a system where Los Osos was polluting our aquifer. They knew that it wasn't a good idea to allow septics at that density and yet they approved construction anyways ... all the while, not putting in a sewer system like they did in other locations. That folks outside Los Osos ... like Ron ... have had their hands on the scales here in Los Osos argues that spreading the debt more widely is appropriate. ($50M across 250k residents is only $200 each while that same $50M debt across 15k Los Osos residents is $3300 each.)

Essentially, the LOCSD could act like Ann's "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" in a way. If they are willing to sue Wildan and BWS, we'll get access to the various documents which show whether there was malfeasance on the part of the current and past boards. We'll likely also recover a ton of cash from the E&O insurance policies of these two firms ... not enough to make up for the damage done by the post-recall board, but it will be a start on paying off the debt caused by these folks.


Ann,

If the documents Richard provided (including those generated by the defense), it does look as if there was, indeed, malfeasance here. Ignoring McClendon's arguments for the settlement (which I know we've disagreed about in the past), a face-value reading of all of what Richard has provided essentially shows the board may have had a great personal temptation to settle with BWS even though they didn't need to. BWS legal services are not so much better than those of other firms that the LOCSD board couldn't have hired someone else instead.

While it might be easy to read vindictiveness into the TW lawsuit, it would be just as easy to read ill intent into the actions of the other side.

I would agree with you that board members might want good insurance policies ... because ... after all ... if a court determines that individual board members benefited from their board votes, they may be liable to repay the district. I would also say that you're ignoring one key issue. So far the LOCSD board has voted that the LOCSD will pick up the tab for Chuck and Steve and the rest. It will only be if TW wins that Julie and Lisa and the rest will be on the hook. Essentially, it will only be if the the board really did misuse CSD funds for personal benefit that there is a problem here.

If TW loses on all counts, you've got a good complaint with them ... because after all, the CSD will have spent money to defend the individual board members ... but if TW wins, you should be happy because we will have more justice and we will have a healthier budget (sure, still deathly ill, but still a bit healthier).


When you write "If Maria Kelly supported the LAFCO dissolution and supports (even behind the scenes) the TPW lawsuit personally suing board/former board members" you do Maria a disservice. You know darn well that Maria publicly opposed the dissolution and she hasn't commented one bit on the TW lawsuit. Your question is like a 2000 Republican push poll in South Carolina asking "Would you still support John McCain if you knew he had a black baby?"

That you suggest it would be wrong for the LOCSD to support gravity or TriW at the County level suggests that you would take a similar position should Lisa or Chuck have opposed TriW or gravity at the County level. Face it, the only reason the LOCSD would now offer their opinion to the County is if there is compelling evidence in favor of one option over another.

When you wrote "A new CSD board majority could vote to immediately settle ALL claims, no matter how bogus, agree to absolute non disclosure of all settlements and zip everyone's lips -- no matter how wrong a settlement is -- and so bury everything -- good, bad, bogus, real -- in one veil of legal silence" I just had to laugh. After all, this is essence of the claims in the TW lawsuit ... which you seem to oppose.

You now tell us that Maria could swing the board towards settling some lawsuits ... which you don't want settled ... you are essentially saying "Maria and a new majority could pull the same crap my side pulled in 2005 and I don't want that to happen." That is not a solid argument.


I am convinced that we need a board that is really committed to seek justice as you say you want ... even if the truth is inconvenient. I believe that Maria will be willing to pursue justice if there is a need. I am not convinced that you truly want this ... because, after all, you seem to have started with false and unjustified presuppositions about Maria. One concerned with justice doesn't start with presuppositions, but with facts.

Maria M. Kelly said...

One more thought, and I have shared this with anyone who wants to chat about it, I have no issue with any director, past or present, personally. This is not personal for me, this is about the community and watching and listening and accepting that the history is full of rancor.

I have no intention or desire to feed that beast. Fear doesn't belong on the board, fear of each other or fear of retaliation. This next board requires the confidence and commitment to address current and future needs - period and get focused on what a CSD is supposed to be used for.

If the community doesn't want that, then they won't elect me. If they want someone who is committed to supporting the community through the next transition out of bankruptcy, then they'll support me.

It's really quite simple. No fear, no collusion, no secret agenda. There are too many alienated voters who have become pawns and ping-pong balls in this back and forth battle for control of the CSD. I don't understand it but I do see the impact it has had on the community and I believe the community deserves a chance for local control to succeed and survive and I would not be running if I did not believe it was possible.

Ron said...

I LOVE contrast!

Yin:

Maria wrote:

"I don't have a preference for the mid town project. I have said that on many occasions."

Yang:

Maria wrote:

"Whatever the county will be able to offer us, in my opinion, isn't comparable to the old mid town site project."

Maria wrote:

"I didn't support the dissolution."

Yang:

LAFCO wrote:

"Maria Kelly... supported dissolving the LOCSD."

Maria wrote:

"Clear enough?"

Uh... no. Not really.

Ann wrote:

"And I notice Richard still hasn't answered the old bait and switchy question."

Yea, I noticed that too.

franc4 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maria M. Kelly said...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
com·pa·ra·ble
–adjective
1.capable of being compared; having features in common with something else to permit or suggest comparison: He considered the Roman and British empires to be comparable.
2.worthy of comparison: shops comparable to those on Fifth Avenue.
3.usable for comparison; similar: We have no comparable data on Russian farming.

Different projects - different outcomes - solve the same problem.
Not comparable - in/out, with/without, more/less etc.

franc4 said...

Lots of good stuff of late.
Shark said:

"arguments for the settlement (which I know we've disagreed about in the past), a face-value reading of all of what Richard has provided essentially shows the board may have had a great personal temptation to settle with BWS even though they didn't need to."

With all due respect, I have never read any proof that "they didn't need to.", has anyone? Why do you take everything Richard says as gospel ?...was he present when it was deceided?

I think pg13 brought up many good points....yet to be answered.

...and then there is Mike (REAaprasor,LoTaxPayer)...the expert on law who blames others for living in the past....his only domain.

" you seem to have started with false and unjustified presuppositions about Maria. One concerned with justice doesn't start with presuppositions, but with facts."

...seems you wrote this prior to Rons' "ying-yang" post. I'll bet he would accept your appology.:-)

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

I am yet again saddened that you've chosen to deliberately mischaracterize Maria's position on dissolution. What is most pathetic is that it was less than a month ago that I pointed out to you the exact spot on the slo-span.org video of that hearing where she says that she is opposed to dissolution. Yet now you trot out the LAFCO meeting minutes which are in error as a way of trying to make her look like a flip-flopper.

These sort of deliberate actions on your part show how little you respect the truth and this town. It is almost as if you want to be known as a liar or as if you think we are idiots.

You owe Maria an apology.


What I can't understand is this ... what would motivate you to ... yet again ... mischaracterize the position of another person?

*PG-13 said...

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) Just having a little fun ;-0


From the SLO LAFCO meeting, 9/21/06 linked above > Joyce Albright, Taxpayers Watch introduced Robert LeGros.

????????
Robert LeGros? Hey, Richard, is this your evil twin? We need to know. Are you really a Bob instead of a Dick?

(Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Please forgive this totally inappropriate sophomoric humor. Even I'm embarrassed. *NC-17 made me do it.)

Shark Inlet said...

Franc,

You seem to believe Ron.

What is sad here is that Ron's lie has had it's intended effect ... folks who didn't do the research to find out what Ron already knows ... will believe that Maria was in favor of dissolution.

Perhaps it is Ron who should apologize to you for misleading you.


As to your earlier issue of whether a settlement with BWS was necessary. Um ... no proof is necessary to present. The LOCSD had won the cases already. To settle with someone after winning is extremely unusual.

If anything, those wanting to settle at great cost (three quarters of a million dollars) after winning should present compelling reasons for why settling would be better. This is a long-standing disagreement between Ann and me. Ann believed lawyer McClendon who argued that we should settle because the award, should CCLO appeal and then win on appeal could be larger. I didn't believe that chance of losing on appeal after already winning was very high. It would only be if the chance of losing on appeal is larger than 30% or so that one would think that settling is a good idea.

Shark Inlet said...

PG ... thanks for making the point that the LAFCO minutes are not to be trusted without verification.

The problem here is that Ron knows from prior discussions that Maria didn't support dissolution and yet he continues to try to use this typo to confuse people.

Karl Rove-ish to the extreme.

Ron said...

A creepy anonymous commenter wrote:

"I pointed out to you the exact spot on the slo-span.org video of that hearing where she says that she is opposed to dissolution."

And a respected government agency wrote:

"Maria Kelly (with all kinds of ties to Taxpayers Watch... the group that spent $50,000 of their own money attempting to dissolve the very agency that they tricked Los Osos voters into forming in 1998, even though if they had been successful with the dissolution they would have handed county taxpayers an up-to $80 million dollar bill)... supported dissolving the LOCSD."

Tell ya what I'll do, if Maria can convince LAFCO to change their records to fix that flip-flo.... errrrrrrr... alleged inaccuracy, then I'll report on it.

Until then?

"Maria Kelly... supported dissolving the LOCSD."

Like I wrote awhile back, had LAFCO said that I had supported sticking county taxpayers with a $50 - $80 million mess, and I DIDN"T say that, I would have been on the phone the next day demanding that it be changed.

I guess Maria is less like that.

Hey Robert:

Why did the Coastal Commission call your board "bait and switchy?"

Sewertoons said...

ron, stop being such a dork. The video showing Maria speaking against dissolution clearly trumps the minutes. What is your problem?

Mike said...

Let me get this straight...

Ron insists that the LAFCo minutes are correct and also Ron has seen the video which contradicts the minutes... and even in spite of video evidence, Ron still insists that unless Maria Kelly requires LAFCo to correct the minutes, he, Ron Crawford, will continue to malign Maria Kelly...

Seems pretty petty and stupid, but then Ron Crawford is ALWAYS correct... he has told us many times how perfect he believes himself to be....

Tell you waht Ron, YOU are one of the reasons TW is hauling the CSD-5 into court...!!!! To get the TRUTH about the continual spreading of lies, which you seem incapable of discerning, out on the table...

Maria Kelly has spoken very honestly and you just want to agitate even though you know you are wrong... You only want to twist and spin every detail into some fantacy to appease your exceedingly poor self esteem... You have no pride in yourself, and certainly no honor as a journalist or a person...

If you had half an ounce of guts, you would call your buddy Paul Hood and ask his take... but YOU, Ron, have absolutely no courage... I am so looking forward to you having to pay for the bankruptcy you helped create...!!!

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Perhaps you don't understand.

Maria was videotaped saying that she opposes dissolution. Some boneheaded staffer wrote down incorrectly that she was in favor of dissolution. Some boneheaded "journalist" thinks that a staffer report somehow tells the truth when there is evidence to the contrary. Same journalist insists that up is down and black is white until there is videotaped evidence to prove otherwise. Oh yeah, there is and he already knows about it.

LAFCO staffers have screwed something up. Only you seem to care here about getting the minutes fixed. Why don't give LAFCO a call and get them to fix their error. For you to continually say that the minutes are right and the videotaped evidence is wrong is both petty and silly.

I expect that you'll be on the phone immediately to LAFCO, asking them to correct the errors in their minutes because your reliance on their minutes is making you look foolish. Let us know how it turns out.

And you owe Maria an apology. How's that apology coming?

Osos Change said...

Maria Kelly is a filthy liar.

Myth 1: "I did not support the dissolution of the LOCSD."

FACT: During the LAFCO-Los Osos CSD dissolution hearings, off the podium, Maria Kelly said to Richard LeGros, "The dissolution of the LOCSD would be favorable for [Los] Osos."

While she has made statements that she's opposed to the dissolution of the LOCSD, she showed no hesitation in supporting those who did without any questions asked.

Myth 2: "I have no issue with any director, past or present, personally."

FACT: Maria Kelly has often referred to the new board as a "group of assholes" and "incompetent neanderthals" during the Town Hall meetings she had organized with the county and members of Taxpayers Watch prior to the 218 assessment vote.

Myth 3: "I am not a member of Taxpayers Watch."

FACT: This is overwhelming evidence that Maria Kelly is a representative, if not a member, of Taxpayers Watch. Stemming from the 2006 candidacy, which she sought Taxpayers Watch's endorsement so that she could run on a ticket with Lynette Tornatzky.

Over the past two years, while vehemently denying for involvement with Taxpayers Watch, LAFCO had referred to Maria Kelly as a "representative" of Taxpayers Watch, a claim that Kelly had not asked LAFCO to clarify or correct since September 2006 nor her supporters.

Myth 4: "I am qualified to be a board director of the LOCSD."

FACT: Maria Kelly is not qualified to become a LOCSD board director. Despite her claim that she is objective and is not willing to play the fear card, she mentions in a few comments above mine, "This next board requires the confidence and commitment to address current and future needs - period and get focused on what a CSD is supposed to be used for. If the community doesn't want that, then they won't elect me."

In translation, Los Osos won't be going anywhere if she's not elected.

She is unfit because she has proven -- time and time again -- that were elitism and arrogance triumph over issues, which she has no prior experience to indicate that she fully grasps the issues.

She is unfit because she talks about being fair but when she made disparaging comments about certain individuals at the last RWQCB meeting, it shows her fairness is merely a gruesome lie that actively deceives the community in the most fraudulent way possible.

Maria Kelly is unfit to lead Los Osos.

Shark Inlet said...

Um ... Osos Change,

You are asking us to believe what your report here as a fact and without any context over the stated words of Maria herself. Might I remind you that you are anonymous here (just like I am) and that without knowing who you are, we have no way of knowing whether you can be trusted at all.

I am sure that you would be the first one to say that members of our community have and will lie just to gain a political advantage. Why should we believe that you are not one of these folks?

You've offered us no evidence that Maria is part of this Taxpayer's Watch group any more than I have offered evidence that she is part of PZLDF. (After all, she knows Joe Sparks and Joe has been to a PZLDF meeting, so Maria must be hidden PZLDF member who wants to impose Gail's beliefs on the rest of us.)

Your tactic of throwing out unsubstantiated charges without any logic or evidence behind them is truly sickening.


In what way does a Maria candidacy threaten you? No one would react the way you have unless there was something serious. Is there something you have done which is illegal which would be uncovered should a new board majority come into power, a board willing to investigate past CSD actions?

franc4 said...

shark,

Thanks for YOUR opinion of stuff. Don't you discredit everyone who see stuff different than you, too?
say you;
"While it might be easy to read vindictiveness into the TW lawsuit, it would be just as easy to read ill intent into the actions of the other side."

I would read "intent of the "other side" as trying to save there ass!

"The LOCSD had won the cases already" You and many folks say this, but I have never heard or seen proof that this is so, have you? I am sure alot of you THINK the LOCSD had won, but why doesn't someone who KNOWS prove it?....besides Mr. LeGros because I believe he will say anything to prove he is "HONEST?".

.....oh, and by the way, if it seems I believe ANYONE who post here, think again. I just enjoy a good "cat fight" since I believe I know more than any of you, the real story.....especially Mike (REArasor, LoTaxPayer)

....and any remarks about the post recall members receiving "personal gain" are totally absurd. The only "gain" I see for their DEDICATED SERVICE is grief due to what they inherited from Richard, Gordon, Stan and Bruce (Phi Beta Krappa). Now if we're talking about the personal gain (monitary)of the previous board..........

Ron said...

Creepy anonymous commenter, you DO realize I'm a reporter, right?

- - -

Hello Paul

Howya been?

I'm working on a story that involves a candidate for the LOCSD -- Maria Kelly.

In the Sept 21 2006 LAFCO minutes it reads:

"Maria Kelly... supported dissolving the LOCSD."

She is now claiming:

"I didn't support the dissolution."

Who's right? LAFCO or Maria Kelly?

Thanks
Ron

- -

The minutes report what was said at the meeting.

Paul L. Hood
Executive Officer
SLO LAFCO

- - -

Mike said...

Geez Mr Reporter... why did you leave out that there appears to be a video segment that could possibly say just the opposite....if so, which is correct...

But you didn't, which is just another way to try biasing the answer that could spun away from the truth to suit the reporters personal bias...

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

If you ask a leading question ... leaving out all the context behind the question you're acting more like a weasel-lawyer than a reporter.

'Nuff said.

Did you also mention that you know that the minutes are in error in at least one other way, Richard's first name...

I guess that someone needs now to go back to Paul and tell him that the "Reporter" reporting on Maria actually a political henchman trying to take advantage of a LAFCO staff error.

*PG-13 said...

Shark said > Did you also mention that you know that the minutes are in error in at least one other way, Richard's first name...

Uh, not to rain on your parade, but do we know yet whether Richard's name really is Richard? Or might his 'other' name be Bob? Er, Robert.

I suppose we could wait for him to clarify the issue. But, uh, ....

franc4 > ... why doesn't someone who KNOWS prove it?....besides Mr. LeGros because I believe he will say anything to prove he is "HONEST?".

So there you have it. Me, I believe in .....

Osos Change said...

Shark,

Seriously, shut up. Just shut up.

Nobody cares or has cared about your input because there are no facts behind your words, period.

Your case is dismissed.

Shark Inlet said...

Osos Change ...

Is this how you react to people asking you to provide information? Does insulting people and blowing them off work for you in other areas of your life?

I absolutely love it. I ask Osos Change to justify her claims and she doesn't answer the question but instead avoids the issue and offers insults.

Where have we heard this kind of crap before? Oh yeah ... "you lost, get over it" comes to mind. Just because someone loses an election doesn't make their position wrong. Just because someone criticizes Maria without facts doesn't make them right.

Osos Change said...

Shark,

What part of "Shut up" don't you understand?

I'm asking you to shut up because you're not coming on this blog with information. It's just senseless bitching, Tri-W cheerleading and witlessly defending Maria Kelly, who, in my opinion, ought to defend herself.

Your credibility was lost as soon as you assumed my gender (and wrongly so). Just because I'm ticked doesn't mean I'm a woman. That's rather sexist.

Get lost or let's have a public debate. Same standards apply to you, pal. If you can't back up what you say, get lost.

Mike said...

Osos Change does sound like Schicker trying to thumb her nose at the taxpaying public as usual... Next month will be interesting to see how she answers some very pointed and direct questions while under oath...

I'm constantly amazed at the reaction to anything TW... They must be pretty darn powerful and have a pretty solid case to cause such emotional outrage...

But wait, I remember the "good old days" when Schicker and McPherson made scripts for the parade of sewer "experts" who swore and threatened the previous Directors until 3 in the morning... I remember a village clown assaulting citizens on the sidewalks and in grocery stores... I've heard and read the lies of Lisa, Julie, Chuck, John and Steve...for more than 3 years... Oh how those "good old days" are coming back to scare the crap out of the CSD-5...

I'm not on TW, but I do send a monthly check to help bring this CSD to a court of law so all their lies and mis-management deeds can be opened for all to see...

Shark Inlet said...

Is it better to question witless attacks on a person's character ... or to witlessly attack a person's character?

Apologies if I've inadvertently used the wrong pronoun to refer to you. I didn't assume that you were a woman because you were angry (heck, most of the angry people I know are men, in fact).

As for losing credibility ... don't you think you shot your wad when you accused Maria of all sorts of things ... all without any proof at all.

I've been her far longer than you and I dare say that I'll outlast you here. If you want to debate an issue, name one. As for your "if you can't back up what you say, get lost" comment, I would ask you to perhaps start by adopting that approach yourself. If you would be so kind as to back up your earlier claims it would be refreshing rather than tiresome.

As for your whole "shut up" shtick ... perhaps your mother never told you to tell others to shut up.

Sewertoons said...

Oh then - does backing up "facts" apply to you too, osos change, or are you above all that? So far you have really said - nothing.

Are you by any chance in 7th grade?

*PG-13 said...

Goooooly, a pretty heated exchange. I'm still trying to figure out its substance. For example, I guess I must be the only one on this blog who doesn't think Maria's take - either way - on the dissolution of the CSD is such an issue in the coming election. Yes, I'd like to know where she stands on the issue. And why. And how that would influence her role on the CSD. That may influence my vote. But right now I'm not sure how it will influence my vote. And dang, I've been trying to pay attention.

osos change says rather damningly > FACT: During the LAFCO-Los Osos CSD dissolution hearings, off the podium, Maria Kelly said to Richard LeGros, "The dissolution of the LOCSD would be favorable for [Los] Osos."

I've supported the various CSD's throughout this long affair. Self-rule is always good. If you can do it. Self-rule turned bad is just as ugly as any other bad. Perhaps worse. And our CSD's have performed regularly between bad and worse. Even though I've supported the CSD's I gotta say I wouldn't at all be averse to the dissolution of the LOCSD. Especially if that means our debt load is spread over the entire county. That may not be good for the rest of the county (sorry about that) but it sure sounds good for Los Osos, eh? And I do believe the county played a significant role in getting us into this mess. So explain to me why 'the dissolution of the LOCSD' would not be favorable for Los Osos?

And whether the LAFCO minutes are more correct than a photo op? I don't know. Maybe she supported the CSD before she didn't. Sound familiar?

Lastly, let's look at the players in this conversation. We all know Ron. He is what he is. Should be no surprises there. And I recognize Shark Inlet, Sewertoons and Mike. I kinda know where they are coming from. But osos change is a Central Coast blogger since August 2008? And franc4 since July 2008? Happy to know ya. But I'm curious how you come by your stridency on this blog given your relatively short tenure. I'm not saying you shouldn't have your opinions. And you can share them however you want. This is a blog after all. I am concerned however. If this is how you feel after only one and two months on the blog I fear for your sanity further down the road.

Mike said...

OMG...The Large Hadron Collider is going to be fired up tomorrow and thus generate a micro-blackhole which will suck all of this life and universe into the darkness...!!!!

We have just learned that the LOCSD has NOT been spending taxpayer funds on lawyers, that was just to keep the reporter off balance and worrying about TW taking over all of Los Osos and half of Bakersfield... The REAL truth has been that they have been developing their top secret Waste Water (and everythng else) Treatment and Disposal System... The wraps are now off and the CSD will together, throw the switch and make all of our waste disappear... Julie Tacker, self appointed spokesperson, has told us; "When I said, over my dead body, I REALLY REALLY meant it...!!! Tomorrow is the end of the Los Osos Sewer...it will be gone... and so will all those terrible State guys and those TW folks... and Pandora..!!! Yup, all you who doubted that we had a plan will sure be sorry tomorrow...!!!"

Schicker and Chuck were unavailable for an interview as they were on a field trip counting and collecting snails for tomorrow's dinner...

Have a wonderful...where ever we'll be this time tomorrow...if time will still exist, but at least we will have seen the PLAN...

GetRealOsos said...

I would like to hear about Maria's work background. What has she done? She doesn't appear to be professional in any way. Can someone fill me in on her professional background and what qualifies her to run for the CSD position?

I watched the TAC meetings and she and Marshall both sat up there chomping on their gum and laughing. I can't understand what they thought was so funny. They both come off as county stooges.

Maria presented false information at the BOS meeting today claiming that the back bay is twice as polluted as Morro Bay and blamed that on the septics in Los Osos (through a letter from a TAC cronie). Maria intentionally distorted the information or out-right lied. Chuck cleared her statement up by pointing out the sample was gathered by the creek which would indeed show pollution from farmers and other sources - not septic tanks.

I have watched Karen on the TAC and she has shown that she does the hard work that the job demanded. Bill Garfinkel seems to like her because she is professional.

Karen is a brave soul to run. This board was set up for bankruptcy and failure from the beginning by the recalled board and Pandora (note the emails to the RWQCB).

Shark Inlet said...

GetReal,

Let's talk fecal coliform in the Bay.

There hasn't been just one sample at one location, but multiple samples over time. Via DNA fingerprinting (or some such) each bit of e-coli found has been classified as from bird, human, cow, dog, etc.

Depending on the season, the "pollution level" changes. During Winter, for example, there will be far more fecal matter in the runoff in the days following a rainfall event, especially near creeks.

During the Winter months, there is also more intermingling between the bay water and the groundwater which is polluted by septic systems too near to the groundwater.

So ... the question of whether Maria or Chuck or both were bending the facts would depend on where that sampling site was and whether it had recently rained or not and whether it would be fair to characterize the data presented (they did use numbers, didn't they?) were characterized by their limitations.

My memory of the study was that a noticeable fraction of the e-coli was from humans and that the rate of finding fecal coliform of human origin was higher near the septic tanks than in the main portion of the bay. Furthermore, the general pattern showed that the nearer the site was to creeks, the greater the fraction of non-human mammal origin e-coli (most likely farm animals).

So .... um ... both are right and to present either as intentionally distorting the facts would be .... um ... a distortion of the facts itself.

As to Maria's chewing of gum and laughing. You are right ... she should be disqualified from consideration because of this. Sheesh!

Maria M. Kelly said...

Here is the article I was referring to:

Fall Rainstorm Runoff Flushes Contaminants into Estuary

Rainfall is always a welcome sight in an arid region, especially in a time of drought. But rainfall can be hard on aquatic life in urban areas. Rainwater runs along our streets, yards and driveways, carrying with it fertilizer, soil, pet waste, oil, and other contaminants. A large portion of this untreated rain runoff is delivered to natural waterways such as creeks or the bay. After a long, dry summer, our urban landscapes are covered with an accumulation of contaminants, many of which are invisible. As the first rainstorm of the season washes over the land, it mobilizes these pollutants and is often referred to as the “First Flush.” The Estuary Program and its volunteers have been conducting First Flush water quality monitoring in the communities of Morro Bay and Los Osos since 2005. Volunteers armed with sample bottles and coolers collect samples from four drains in each community. The runoff samples contain concentrated levels of pollutants that are headed for the Morro Bay Estuary. To measure pollution levels, the samples are sent to laboratories for analysis for bacteria, nutrients, heavy metals and other contaminants. From the samples collected in fall 2007, bacteria was detected at all eight sites, with one site having levels higher than 120 times the level that is considered safe for swimming. The bacteria levels in Morro Bay in 2007 were much higher than in past years, although the highest level in Morro Bay was less than half the highest level in Los Osos. The good news from the 2007 monitoring season was that the detected concentrations of lead were far below the level of concern for protection of aquatic life. But dissolved copper, nickel and zinc values were far higher than the levels determined to be of concern for aquatic life. The values were, on average, higher from the sites in Morro Bay than those in Los Osos. Each year’s First Flush rainstorm sampling takes place under slightly different rainfall conditions, therefore comparing samples from year to year is challenging. However, this sampling does provide important insight into the levels of pollution that are entering our natural waterways. Additionally, sample analysis points out pollutants of concern that should be addressed by the community. For details on the 2007 monitoring effort, visit www.mbnep.org, click the Volunteers tab, then Data Summaries.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark Inlet,

I'll have to study this more to get to the bottom of the truth. Who to believe....Chuck or Maria?

Why won't anyone answer the question of Maria's professional background? What has she done? Where has she worked?

Maria?

Sewertoons said...

getrealosos, why don't you go to Farmer's Market on Monday and talk to Maria? She has a handout with this sort of info on it. Find out for yourself.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Ann believed lawyer McClendon who argued that we should settle because the award, should CCLO appeal and then win on appeal could be larger. I didn't believe that chance of losing on appeal after already winning was very high. It would only be if the chance of losing on appeal is larger than 30% or so that one would think that settling is a good idea."

The legal record is very clear: Courts hate blocking elections no matter how dumb the thing to be voted on is. Unless it's PATENTLY unconstitutional -- not arguably but patently -- they go with the notion of, go forward with the vote THEN toss the measure out. If memory served, McClendon had just won a case on appeal (and socked Walmart, I believe it was) for the court-mandated 3 - 5 X fees)that August and this case was nearly identical. The likelyhood of the court upholding that suit (not upholding Measure B, but the blocking suit) was incredibly high, given the long history of the court to bend over backwards to allow the "sacred vote." I certainly wouldn't have gambled on that issue and was and remain amazed that the old CSD went ahead with the (blocking) lawsuit since even though I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, I knew from general reading how reluctant the court was to interfere with various ballot measures, even ones that seemed to me to be totally loony.

Maria Sez:" Clear enough?"

Yes, and thank you for your statement. Everybody posting, please read it.And I've said before, will say again: Any candidate running for CSD who wishes to send me a Word Doc of their campaign statements, or notices of their campaign 'doings' I'll be happy to post it, STET.

Maria sez re water monitoring: "Each year’s First Flush rainstorm sampling takes place under slightly different rainfall conditions, therefore comparing samples from year to year is challenging."

As the previous CSD board found out, trying to "prove" septic/run-off/coliform issues is tricky -- as the Kitts Report made clear i.e. don't over generalize or Dr. Kitts will spank. All the communities ringing the Bay have to do way more vis a vis runoff, septics, leaky sewer pipes (Morro Bay), ag use, etc. Everything in the whole watershed needs to be changed to keep all sources out of the bay.

PG13 sez:"And I do believe the county played a significant role in getting us into this mess. So explain to me why 'the dissolution of the LOCSD' would not be favorable for Los Osos?"

Don't think LAFCO will allow that.Even if a new board majority up and voted to kill themselves off, wouldn't LAFCO just appoint some "conservators" and keep the corpse propped up and "alive?" After all, the CSD is certainly a "shield" to a whole can of worms that might crawl home if let loose?

And as for Maria chewing gum. Hey. I chew gum. Especially love the brand "5" sugarless gum which is soooooooo gooooood. It also has a really clever package that can be opened with one hand. Very cool. I usually don't chew it during public meetings, but I often wear loud socks to public meetings and have been mocked and dissed over that. I tell ya, It's always something when you're surrounded by people who are still stuck in seventh grade!

Ron said...

*PG wrote:

I wouldn't at all be averse to the dissolution of the LOCSD. Especially if that means our debt load is spread over the entire county. That may not be good for the rest of the county (sorry about that) but it sure sounds good for Los Osos, eh?"

Which brings me to something I've been thinking about lately -- since my last two posts at SewerWatch.

When the argument is: "Hey Joe Los Ososan, if you sign our petition, there's a chance that you'll be off the hook for the up to $80 million that we wasted developing the Tri-W embarrassment, and our dissolution effort won't even cost you a penny because we'll pay the $50,000 tab ourselves."

Why did only 3500 people signed the petition?

Why didn't every single adult in Los Osos sign the petition... TWICE!

Heck. If I owned property in Los Osos. I would have signed it too. Nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

Now, I wouldn't have shown up and publicly spoke in favor of dissolution, like Maria, (because I wouldn't want the rest of the county knowing that I favored sticking them with an $80 million bill because the LOCSD decided to play "bait and switchy" with the California Coastal Commission over a four year span) but I would have signed the petition. Of course I would have. Who wouldn't?

Sounds like Taxpayers Watch messed up by only getting 3500 signatures. You need to step up your game. You should have had me on your side.

Angry Mike wrote:

"Tell you waht Ron, YOU are one of the reasons TW is hauling the CSD-5 into court...!!!!"

Hmmm... all the suing, and all the dissolving, and all the fine out of existencing... because I had good journalism instructors?

Wow. I'm flattered, I guess.

franc4 said...

*pg,

Thank you for your concern for my sanity, but you need not worry, I'll be just fine, thank you.

" I am concerned however. If this is how you feel after only one and two months on the blog I fear for your sanity further down the road."

Your correct about my short tenure on Anns' blog, although I have been a big fan of hers (and Ron) for a couple years...just never had anything to say, because I pretty much agree with both of them....sometimes.

However, I am not new to the issue, having been abused and called names over on another blog, which the Trib saw best to discontinue. The only reason I have been active here is because of the remarks of Mike (aka REAprasor, LoTaxPayer). Shark was wise enough to leave the old blog long ago. He can be interesting, but I notice of late he's displaying anger.(Mike is permanently angry....vengeful and wrong about much....and living in the past, to boot.)He has a vendetta over Julie. He was jilted by her at some time IMHO....otherwise, why does he dwell on her personal life? (Now who's a gossip?) ;-)
I enjoy your comments and questions.

GetRealOsos said...

Ann,

Sorry you feel I'm stuck in the 7th grade.

I don't find it amusing that while Maria and Marshall sit on the TAC committee on camera that they sit chomping on their gum and giggling. I don't understand why they feel that promoting the most expensive gravity system is so darn funny. Where's the joke?

Nope, sorry, their behavior is VERY unprofessional to me.

I don't think it's funny that the county, Maria and Marshall want us to pay for the most expensive gravity sewer that money can buy.

Or is the joke that the sewer will flush the town of middle class homeowners? Doesn't the county see that food, gas and utilities are hard enough to pay for right now? Is it funny that at tax time, Christmas time, people will have to come up with a few extra thousand dollars to pay for the sewer...year after year...for how long? Is that funny? Maybe it's funny that when people get behind on their tax bills the county will take their homes from them in a few years? I'm sure that the county will gladly wait....maybe that's the joke!

Or is it funny that the county allowed the building of over one thousand homes and never collected fees from the developers. I suppose the developers that built during the 80's think it's funny that they got off without paying anything towards the infrastructure (hard to believe).

Nope, I can't find the humor here. It's no joke when people's lives are at stake.

P.S. I can't attend the Farmer's Market to find out exactly what work background Maria has....maybe you know?

Sorry again Ann, for my 7th grade thinking!

GetRealOsos said...

Ann,

I forgot a few more things that may have Maria, Marshall (and Dan Berman) giggling.

Maybe Dan and Marshall live outside the PZ and won't have to pay for the greatly over priced gravity sewer.

Maybe Maria owns a lot and a home and has listened to Jon Seitz... believes Jon when he says that homes will be worth so much more money with the big gravity sewer.

Yep, that might be it!

P.S. Ann, maybe you believed that the county would do the right thing and "follow the process" .... now that's funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shark Inlet said...

Does anyone really think that some of the players in town really want something that is more expensive than necessary?

I rather doubt that this is true. There may be different opinions about what is the best "bang for the buck" system. This was clearly expressed at the County Supes meeting yesterday when two consecutive speakers promoted and dissed STEP as the best and worst system from only cost point of view.

*PG-13 said...

getrealosos Sept 9, 9:48 PM > I would like to hear about Maria's work background. What has she done? ... Can someone fill me in on her professional background and what qualifies her to run for the CSD position?

getrealosos Sept 9, 10:47 PM > Why won't anyone answer the question of Maria's professional background? What has she done? Where has she worked?

getrealosos Sept 10, 10:59 AM > P.S. I can't attend the Farmer's Market to find out exactly what work background Maria has....maybe you know?

Remember way back on Sept 2? Osos Change noted that Maria Kelly has a web site, maria4csd.com. Gee, ya think maybe some of these questions might get answered on her website once it gets published? Maria, please hurry ;-)

With that said I gotta say I don't know all that much about Maria. Except that she posts regularly on this blog and I could probably sort back through the comments and construct a perspective. But I know even less about Karen Venditti. Other than her kick-off party was rescheduled for this Friday. And I know less still about Marshall - who seems to be getting some good press. Or any of the other candidates. When are their kick-off parties I wonder. Where are their websites? I'm looking forward to hearing about all of the candidates. But I can understand if a candidate chooses not to say anything at all about him or herself. That seems the surest way to get elected. The sooner they post any information about themselves the longer they get to roast on the blog.

I hope they publish some positions statements. Maybe why they are running? (Are they crazy? Are they insured?) And what they hope to accomplish? But, as noted previously, I'm not even sure how to interpret such positions. If somebody wants to dissolve the LOCSD that's good right? Except they can't. Right? If somebody wants to sue Wildan/BWS, and/or the RWQRB, and/or The County is that good? Or hopeless? Well, you get the idea. Right? Look, I'm trying here. I really am. All I really know for sure is I don't want Richard/Robert/whatever-his-name on the CSD again. Not that I don't trust him. I just can't take any more!

Mike claims . OMG...The Large Hadron Collider is going to be fired up tomorrow and thus generate a micro-blackhole which will suck all of this life and universe into the darkness... and make all of our waste disappear... and so will all those terrible State guys and those TW folks... and Pandora..!!! Yup, all you who doubted that we had a plan will sure be sorry tomorrow...!!!!!!!

No. Sorry Mike. As much as I look forward to all of that happening that all happens next week when the Collider really cranks up. < sigh >

*PG-13 said...

Wow. I just noticed something. The Collider? The Reclamator? Am I really the first to see the connection?

Please don't answer that .....

Sewertoons said...

The unanswered question between the two collection systems is - who gets to pay for what?

With step, the homeowner gets to pick up the costs to remediate his own property, says one speaker at BOS yesterday.

• Driveway torn up - homeowner pays
• Plantings destroyed - homeowner replaces
• Electrical box not up to snuff - homeowner pays
• Tank under driveway - homeowner pays for heavier tank

These are out of pocket costs - not costs on some 20 or 30-year loan.

Then Chuck Cesena comes up and defends step by saying the cost of all these things can be charged to the project! So you and I with little work to be done on our property perhaps, will pay for the heavier tank, fixing some ones insufficient electrical panel, replacing their driveway and their plantings! We'll get 20-30 years to pay though! Imagine the interest payment on that!

Maria M. Kelly said...

Marshall Ochylski's site is up, mine is in a holding pattern for another several days.
www.restore-the-trust.com

This man has good working relationships with every agency we need positive working relationships with - every single one. He is respected and respectful and someone you want as a representative for Los Osos.

He brings reason and intelligence to every conversation.
Thank you.

GetRealOsos said...

Maria refuses to post her resume here.

It is obvious why. She has no administrative or financial experience. In short, she has no experience that would qualify her to serve on the CSD board.

Serving on partisan TAC and Taxpayers Watch may be nice for some, not for me and many others.

Avoiding her lack of credentials is a sure sign she knows she has much to hide.

So much for open government under Maria.

Vote for truth.

Shark Inlet said...

GetReal,

If you are gonna knock Maria for a lack of experience you should realize that she has considerably more (some would say infinitely more) than did Julie when she was running the first two times. If you like Julie's actions on board, you shouldn't argue against Maria on these grounds.

Even so, I am not convinced by the experience issue. What does irk me is when people say that experience is key sometimes but seem to downplay it at other times (yes, I'm looking at you, Clintons and McCain ... and anyone in Los Osos who is pulling a double standard). A good person without prior experience might be a far preferable choice to an experienced player.

I would also suggest that you flew off the handle without even giving Maria a few days to get her website online where ... presumably ... your questions would be answered. Waaaaay too quick to jump to conclusions. It seems that GetReal and OsosChange are both here primarily for the purpose of discussing (er ... knocking) Maria's candidacy and that makes me wonder. Where were they beforehand and why are they so strident when they seem far less so about other candidates?

Toons, I don't know that a public comment by a Los Osos resident should be considered authoritative.

Depending on the amount of financing the County can obtain and depending on the interest rate, it might be a good idea to wrap these homeowner costs into the project loan. Presumably, if these costs are included in the financing, they could be paid over 20 years and the monthly bill would be higher but the out-of-pocket costs would be lower.

It's gonna be expensive no matter what we do ... and that is why I was opposed to the recall way back in 2005. It still seems to me like the recall will cause our costs to be higher in the long run and this is a mistake.

Osos Change said...

Shark,

I was here in Los Osos long before you started blogging on SanLuisObispo.com -- and I read all the pretentious, lopsided nonsense you've posted on there. I've weighed in about other candidates as well in public as well as posting anonymously.

I find that Marshall does have more experience than Maria. I read his background and I find that to be more pleasing on the eyes than Maria's, who in my opinion, could simply upload her resume on maria4csd.com for people who are interested. As a candidate, that information should be readily available from the very moment they file the paperwork to run for the position.

I'm disappointed in Marshall's position statements, however, because he takes a more specific stance on the wastewater issue instead of addressing the other issues that the LOCSD deals with. Saying, "We must address and have 'laser-like focus' on [insert issue here]" is not a platform. You're telling people that you want to run for the LOCSD but the positions are ambiguous except for wastewater, which leads me to assume that -- like Maria -- there is an agenda. And don't tell me there isn't one.

Realistic1 said...

"And don't tell me there isn't one."

Why would anyone bother to tell you anything? You have already made up your mind about Maria...and will likley do the same with Marshall.

As for Maria's "qualifications" - she is a paralegal, with several years of environmental law experience and community involvement. Look up her application for the TAC on the County website. Her background is listed there.

As for you, Ron, your refusal to accept Maria's actual, video taped, comments from the LAFCO hearing rather than the obviously incorrect minutes is just plain juvenile. Grow up.

Realistic1 said...

OsosChange -

Here is the link to Maria's TAC application:

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/TAC/mkelly.pdf

Osos Change said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Osos Change said...

Let me point out that Maria Kelly listed herself as a legal assistant at a law firm specialized in environmental law. A legal assistant is not the same as paralegal. A legal assistant is the law equivalent of a secretary working at an office.

According to California Business and Professions Code §6450(c), in order to be a paralegal, one must satisfy at least one of the four requirements:

(1) A certificate of completion of a paralegal program approved by the American Bar Association.

(2) A certificate of completion of a paralegal program at, or a degree from, a postsecondary institution that requires the successful completion of a minimum of 24 semester, or equivalent, units in law-related courses and that has been accredited by a national or regional accrediting organization or approved by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education.

(3) A B.A. degree or an advanced degree in any subject, aminimum of one year of law-related experience under the supervision of an attorney who has been an active member of the State Bar of California for at least the preceding three years or who has practiced in the federal courts of this state for at least the preceding three years, and a written declaration from this attorney stating that the person is qualified to perform paralegal tasks.

(4) A high school diploma or general equivalency diploma, a minimum of three years of law-related experience under the supervision of an attorney who has been an active member of the State Bar of California for at least the preceding three years or who has practiced in the federal courts of this state for at least the preceding three years, and a written declaration from this attorney stating that the person is qualified to perform paralegal tasks.

Maria Kelly did not attach any certificate of completion or written declaration -- from an attorney who satisfies the requirements to write one -- to the TAC application. Surely, if she really was a paralegal, she would've done so.

In short, she's not paralegal.

Aside from all of that, working for the PTA and the United States Chess Federation (as an active participant in the Scholastic Chess organization) does not provide any persuasive qualification for her to run for the LOCSD.

Then again, there was no actual resume attached to the application whereas other applicants did attach their resume -- and that leads me to wonder what she's really all about.

Even during the 2006 LOCSD elections, she never provided her resume, but she did cite her involvement in the PTA and the USCF. Overall, after looking at her "qualifications," I just don't see her as a viable candidate and even if she were to become a CSD member, I can't be assured that she'll really understand what's happening.

Realistic1 said...

Like I said, you've already made up your mind.

Osos Change said...

Yes, I've made up my mind because I knew of these things beforehand. Maybe you should do some research before touting the idea that Maria worked as a paralegal. She didn't even mention paralegal in her application anywhere.

Shark Inlet said...

OsosChange ...

Even if you say you were "here in Los Osos" before I "started blogging on SanLuisObispo.com" (funny ... I started commenting here a considerable time before there ... I guess you didn't know that ... maybe the length of your participation here isn't all that long), there is no evidence to prove it. :)

Perhaps had you left a comment ... even intermittently ... over the last ... um ... three years ... you would have a history here which would cause people to trust you. As it is now, your anonymity and the recentness of your joining and flurry of recent comments would make any cautious person hesitant to trust your mud-slinging.

As far as platforms versus agendas go, presumably you should be fit to be tied by the fact that the outcome of the recall was so unlike what we were promised. What were the agendas operating there which caused the actions to be so different from what we were promised ("transparency" comes to mind ... how could a transparent board have a hired gun interim GM in town before the election results were even tallied ... does it really look like the post-recall board was going to be open to any agenda other than the CCLO "move the sewer" "no matter what it costs" agenda even if they promised us it would only cost us $100/month?).

franc4 said...

shark,you posted:
".....without even giving Maria a few days to get her website online"

Please excuse my intrusion into this most interesting exchange, but I DID read the TAC application realistic 1 suggested and it is my opinion (who cares) if that application contains all her qualifications.....she shouldn't bother with a web site....that is unless she has some special chess moves she might want to share or perhaps some ideas for snacks at PTA meetings. You have more qualifications for a director than she. In fact, even I could do the job. ;-)

However, I DO agree with you as to the value of "experience" mattering that much. Dedication, teamwork and lots of insurance are far more important then silly ole' experience.

*PG-13 said...

osos change said, and said, and said, and said > ....... ad infinitum.

Wow. Such animus. Whoa. Where's that coming from? Did her kid beat your kid in little league? Hint: Your rage is showing. And not showing particularly well. Hint: Its no longer serving you whatever your purpose may be. Hint: Take a pill and chill.

osos change > Aside from all of that, working for the PTA .... does not provide any persuasive qualification for her to run for the LOCSD.

Hey, if its good enough to run for Vice President of the USofA its good enough to run for the LOCSD. I didn't realize there were such stringent criteria for running for a seat on the LOCSD.

osos change > Let me point out that Maria Kelly listed herself as a legal assistant at a law firm specialized in environmental law.

Yep. That's exactly what she said on her application. What's your point? That realistic1's comment wasn't precisely worded? And that reflects poorly on Maria how? Do you really want to set the standard of writing a comment so high?

> In short, she's not paralegal.

Got that loud and clear. Typo notwithstanding.

Yet still more > I find that Marshall does have more experience than Maria. I read his background and I find that to be more pleasing on the eyes than Maria's, who in my opinion, could simply upload her resume on maria4csd.com for people who are interested.

Dude, you clearly don't know much about website publication. You don't simply 'upload' a resume to a website still under construction. You do that on monster.com and careerbuilder.com but not to a personal website. Take my word for it, there is a bit more to it than what you are claiming. I'll be happy to walk you through it if you want. You might be surprised how not-easy it is. Nor do I think I've ever heard a resume or listing of personal qualifications to be referred to as 'pleasing on the eyes'. Oh my. You do realize you could get fired for that in today's marketplace?

and still more > As a candidate, that information should be readily available from the very moment they file the paperwork to run for the position.

Now you've really piqued my interest. Please point me to where I can review Karen's resume. Thanks.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark Inlet,

I am not flying off the handle. I'm asking what she, Dan Berman, and Marshall found so funny as they sat in TAC meetings.

Were they laughing at the public comment from the community? What? Or is the fix in and they know it? Didn't Marshall represent the Tri-W sellers? Wasn't Paavo part of that whole Tri-W with Pandora deal?

The sewer issue is 30 some years old and very serious, not to mention extremely expensive and shouldn't be laughed at.

It wasn't really about Maria's work background, but it's nice to know and I am curious. Karen has a professional background and it shows.

As you mentioned, look what happened with Julie Tacker. She's a hockey mom too. Maria and Julie have a lot in common I guess.

Nope, my point is that Maria and Marshall think everything is a big joke. Does Marshall live in the PZ? Or are those two just part of the "big fix" and in on the whole deal? Are they the countys PR people to push though the most expensive project possible (gravity) for favors later?

Maybe Maria and Marshall will think its funny when people can't pay their sewer bills and the county will get their homes in a few years. How many can really afford the few thousand dollars a year on top of property taxes in this economy? Yet both Maria and Marshall won't look at honest numbers.

Maybe David Edge and County Tax guy can pick these very houses up dirt cheap (like insider trading) just like they picked up all those lots for nothing in Caycucos!...what did they cost $100 per lot?

...favors....money....greed....

PG-13,

It should matter to everyone in the PZ who is voted in on the CSD. You obviously don't live in the PZ and won't pay for anything. How many more CSD members and mistakes will be enough for you?

Osos Change said...

Shark,

I'm so tempted right now to just ignore you. I find your comments, your career, your knowledge, your general input on this blog and your input in this community to be outrageously insignificant and fraudulent -- but I can't help but to respond to you. It's like rubbernecking at a scene of a nasty car accident involving Vivian McNeil and a bus full of anorexic supermodels.

PG-13:

There isn't any specific criteria for CSD, but there's nothing, that I can see, that shows she really gets it, know what I mean? If you want to compare her to Sarah Palin, at least Sarah Palin has executive experience as a governor. Maria Kelly was... the president of a local PTA? Yes, Sarah Palin was part of the PTA, but at least she didn't rely on that and her moose-hunting expertise as persuasive qualifications for running for governor.

I don't understand why you're lecturing me about website publication. The truth of the matter is that Maria Kelly has several free uploading services at her disposal. It's quite simple. Upload the resume, link people to it and say, "Hey guys, my resume is just a click away."

Sir, countless politicians have disclosed their bios and documentation pertaining to where they've worked prior to running. It's not uncommon. You make it sound like it's a difficult thing to accomplish. With a few clicks here and there, it's not difficult unless you have an extreme case of osteoporosis, have an illogical fear of the mouse or you're trying to hide something. There are no excuses in the real world.

Mike said...

Just where is the 'osos change' website...??? It doesn't seem to come up on a Google Search....

*PG-13 said...

getrealosos > It should matter to everyone in the PZ who is voted in on the CSD. You obviously don't live in the PZ and won't pay for anything. How many more CSD members and mistakes will be enough for you?

Not even close. Perhaps you mistake my lighthearted approach for not being serious. I am very very serious about Los Osos (now and in the future), the PZ, our water situation, my home, my neighbors, pollution in the bay, government agency incompetance, and the fact that after so many years and so much grief we still don't have a fricken sewer. The last largely because of the CSD. And when/if we do finally get a sewer I have serious concerns whether I and my friends will be able to afford to continue to live in Los Osos. I love Los Osos. I think it is wonderfully uniquely special. I don't want to live anywhere else. We're at a place in our lives we don't want to move. Hell, we can't move. But the writing is on the wall. If something good doesn't happen soon we're sunk. No, this is it. This is where I draw the line. Do not misinterpret my commitment to my family, my friends and my community. I am very very serious about Los Osos. No more devious, deceitful or wrong-headed CSD members or CSD mistakes are acceptable. None. But that doesn't seem to be an option. And now I find myself getting really impatient with some of what passes as commentary on this blog. I might not be the smartest cookie in the box but I'm still trying to figure it out. And I'm trying to make sense of it. And some of you aren't helping. Yeah, I realize its a blog. But its the best thing I've got to try make sense of all this weirdness.

Sorry. I probably should have said: To quote Wavy Gravy - "It just isn't funny anymore when you don't have a sense of humor."

osos change said > The truth of the matter is that Maria Kelly has several free uploading services at her disposal. It's quite simple. Upload the resume, link people to it and say, "Hey guys, my resume is just a click away."

Yes. That is an option. But that isn't what you said Maria should do. You said she should "simply upload her resume on maria4csd.com for people who are interested." Which is something totally different. Kinda like mistaking a paralegal for a legal assistant. Only worse.

Also, you must have missed it. Can you point me to a place I can review Karen Venditti's resume. I'm not questioning her qualifications. I really do want to learn more about her. So far the only place I can find this content is in the TAC files where we found the info about Maria. As you said, this "information should be readily available from the very moment they file the paperwork to run for the position." I believe you. Just show me. Thanks.

Osos Change said...

PG-13:

I was referring to Maria uploading her resume on maria4csd.com as an example of what she could do with it out of other means she readily has available thanks to the wonders of the Internet.

I don't know what rhetorical point you're going after, PG, but I don't have her resume. That's why I'm asking for it. I only know what I've seen and heard. Perhaps you should read what I've written before you try to impress yourself with a "Gotcha!" post.

Shark Inlet said...

OsosChange,

As you can see, I tend to be far too quick to respond to people who are not worth the time.

As for your comments on my input, career and knowledge ... I don't believe you know my career or my knowledge. Your comments on my input ... um ... stand on their own. People 'round here know that I am quite willing to chat and I am not unfair.

Your suggestion that you are willing to have a public debate is belied by your unwillingness to participate in exactly that sort of discussion here. If you really are interested in a discussion of the issues, why not here? If you really want to have a public debate, why not give us your name? If you are all about the "public" of the public debate, why have you chosen anonymity here? All we know is that you claim to not be female and that you claim to have been around longer than me.

And to PG ... well, I guess that OsosChange won't be a votin' for Karen. After all, if she isn't capable of using a free file uploading service to put her resume online by September 9, she is clearly not competent.

Give me a break ... while the job of the candidate is to convince voters to consider them carefully, it is not appropriate for voters to insist that their individual and arbitrary standards should be universally applied.

Sewertoons said...

osos change and getrealosos, your qualifications to be an INFORMED VOTER are appalling. There must be lots like you out there which is why this county, let alone Los Osos, is in such a mess.

Tell me, do you attend CSD meetings? Do you look at the information passed out at each and every one that would give you some idea of what is going on in the District? Do you attend Committee meetings??

I just found Karen's website - http://electkarennow.com/index.php

Take a look. Maybe you care to dish out to her what you have been dishing out to Maria? Or maybe - just this once - you will shut up until both of these candidates get their sites up?

Osos Change said...

Shark,

Unfortunately, I do know of your profession, I know who you are and I don't think you're fair. I don't think you're knowledgeable. I don't think what I just said is all that debatable for the simple fact that you really have not invested in time and effort in backing what you say.

Instead, while you could be going out in the real world, advocating your ideas, you opt for trolling this blog at all hours of the day, acting as this incoherent "spin machine" that does not, in any shape or form, dignify any discussion. It's not worth it, it really is not.

It's not worth talking about the issues here because the issues keep changing and warping to very perverse, disruptive viewpoints that have traditionally held little weight. We're talking about one thing and all of a sudden, it's about how Tri-W and gravity collection is the best solution for the community without even going into technicalities. Ann talks about a kick-off party for Karen and suddenly, the issue warps into the lawsuit with Taxpayers Watch and why Maria Kelly is qualified. Again, much of the initiated discussion is unsubstantiated -- just propaganda coming from the same ol' blowhards with criminal records and shady dealings, who lost miserably in the Recall election.

I did misread PG-13's post earlier. I thought he was referring to Maria's resume, not Karen's, but with Karen, from my understanding, all the information, her background, her job experience is all available on request, but no, I have not seen her resume, but she is not the under the microscope. With Maria, her background has not been disclosed since the 2006 elections. It's almost like she's a part of the Witness Protection Program. Just who is she? The community doesn't know much about her unlike Karen, who has worked for a number of environmental agencies and has established a reputation as a retired senior loan officer and licensed financial representative at Washington Mutual and has served on the LOCSD Grants Committee.

Not to distract from the issue at hand, when the conversation was brought up about Maria Kelly being qualified, I said why she, in my opinion, is not qualified and then the question asked was, "Where is her resume?" because the public only knows of the TAC application posted and Maria has not only run for CSD once, but twice now and since 2006, she never gave the public one iota of information showing her qualifications.

I told Richard to get lost in the past because he's said a lot of slanderous things without proving a thing except toting the idea that he listens to both sides of the argument (but if he's a member of Taxpayers Watch, he's already chosen a side pretty much) and has the documents of the TW readily available if you send him an e-mail, requesting them. I told you to shut up because I have not seen ONE thing from you, Shark, that shows anything you've said verified by an independent, secondary source -- like things are the way they are because you said so. Why should I bother talking to you? Why should I bother putting in the effort when you don't do it in return?

It's an unequal exchange of ideas and communication. All I get this is one-sided "I love the county!" It's like the only difference between a cheap prostitute and being a county fanboy is that you do all the work for free.

Shark Inlet said...

OsosChange,

Conversation and discussion involves the free exchange of ideas, back-n-forth. Both ways. You seem less interested in a debate than in being able to give your opinion, unchallenged.

As for your suggestion that I should shut up because you haven't seen any independent verification. I would suggest that I spend less time promoting my opinion than in questioning silly statements (like when you accuse supporters of Maria of being blowhards with criminal records ... where the heck is that coming from?). I would also suggest that you might want to adopt ... for yourself ... the idea of providing to your readers a way of verifying your claims.

You seem just as pig-headed as you claim I am being.

Even so, you ask why you should bother putting in the time. I would suggest that if you value the people who read here, you will make the time to back up your claims. After all, if Maria is as poor a candidate as you tell us and if there really is documented evidence as you claim ... you could provide it. Heck, you're the one who just told us it is easy to put files on a website. Do it.

Just because you don't think that I'll change doesn't mean you shouldn't try ... after all, if you are not a blowhard, you'll convince people that you are right.

Just to start you off on the right path ... I would suggest you find somewhere where I wrote "I love the county!". Even if I didn't write that exactly (and Ann would say that you shouldn't use quotes if I didn't write that word-4-word) you should find places where I wrote anything like that or that would cause a reasonable person to think I believe that.

If you're willing to rise to the challenge, this could be an interesting discussion. If not, bummer for us all.

Churadogs said...

Let me repeat again: Any candidate for CSD, send me, in WORD, your resume, campaign statement/platform, announcements of your various campaign activities, your websites & etc and I will post it on my blot so readers can read it directly and go to your blogsite for more info or find out where you'll be and go talk to your face to face & etc.

*PG-13 said...

Thank you sewertoons for the URL of Karen's website. I shan't even try to redress the many issues, accusations and misdirections raised by osos change. Time to move on. I've now looked at three candidate websites:

Karen Venditti's at electkarennow.com. At this moment it is more an advertisement for the software delivery mechanism than a candidate website.
Maria M Kelly's at maria4locsd.com. Still a static homepage. No content.
Marshall Ochylski's at restore-the-trust.com. Pretty well developed. See comment below.

They all seem works in progress. Some more than others but none of them are complete in my estimation. So I think it too early to begin parsing their content to gain a clear perspective on what they bring to the process. Marshall's is clearly the most complete website. Like other commentors I see good boilerplate content generalizing about his intentions but nothing of substance about a platform. I suppose one could make an argument that sitting on a CSD is more about representational intent than personal objectives. But I think we've passed that point long long ago. Our CSD's have been ALL ABOUT AGENDAS so I think it only fair to ask our candidates where they stand on the loaded issues they will be working to resolve. As in any election the candidates can say one thing and do another. Or say one thing and not be able to do anything. Still we gotta try, no?

I've not been able to find the websites of the other candidates but I did find these:

Dave Duggan: Candidate information on SmartVoter.org. And an old position statement from 2005 here

Alon Perlman: Just his email address - alonatwork@email.com I always hate to bother a guy when he's working.

I'm looking forward to Ann's blog when this info gets rolled up and we can begin to discuss what the candidates really mean to Los Osos.

Sewertoons said...

I watch CSD meeting religiously. Anyone with cable access can, and those who can't may check out the DVD's from the CSD office. If osos change cites the Grants Committee as part Karen's past, (and that was discontinued in 2005 maybe?) why does osos change NOT refer to the many, many times Maria has spoken at CSD meetings? Her opinions have been put forth clearly - where Karen has only been visible at the last 2 meetings. To disregard all of that easily available information puts my opinion of osos changes awareness of CSD issues and candidate's visibility into question.

How much did we know about Julie and Lisa prior to 2004 when they were elected? And John, Chuck or Steve for the 2005 recall?

Osos Change said...

Shark,

Starting tomorrow, I'm no longer going to pursue a discussion with you, personally, because I see that it's going nowhere. Everything you've accused me of doing is something you've done repeatedly.

With that said, I don't feel the necessity to post issues in-depth on this particular blog because the readership is not enough for me. I believe the issues and the truth is best discussed at a public venue that everyone in Los Osos has access to and knows about.

The truth of the matter is that I'm posting these claims and statements as a handicap. All the evidence, all the necessary documentation is at my fingertips and most importantly, it's real. I'm quite cocky with my statements, true, but that's because I'm confident in what I've said. These "accusations and misdirections" that PG-13 is talking about is all documented in transcripts, agenda minutes, cited by sources who are the very ones who are actively advocating a far different view on this blog.

See, the difference between you and I is that I can deliver in public. You can't. You obviously feel the need to reply to me at all hours of the day either because you're bed-ridden and you have nothing else to do with your time or your overcompensating for your failures and missteps. I don't have to. I can deliver my message in front of Los Osos and I prefer to do that rather than isolate my message to only a small group of readers of this blog.

While I love and respect Ann for what she has done for the community, I'm sure she understands that the expression of specific ideas is best suited for a bigger audience. I want what I have to say to make an impact and that impact won't happen here especially when I'm writing to people who don't listen and have established finite, pre-conceived notions that have no application in the real world.

Realistic1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Realistic1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Realistic1 said...

"With that said, I don't feel the necessity to post issues in-depth on this particular blog because the readership is not enough for me. I believe the issues and the truth is best discussed at a public venue that everyone in Los Osos has access to and knows about."


All evidence to the contrary....How much crap have you posted in the last few days alone?

Your answer is a cop-out. All you want to do is badmouth those that disagree with you. You're not interested in "discussion" or a thorough vetting of the facts. You are a hit-and-run commentator who lacks the confidence to back your statements up with factual evidence.

Personal attacks are the only game you have. You are nothing but a bully hiding behind an oxymoronic blog name. You don't want "Los Osos Change". All you want is more of the same rancorous b.s. that has divided this community for 8 years.

I won't miss seeing you post here.

Shark Inlet said...

OsosChange,

I am saddened that you chose not to actively participate in the discussion here. While you say that you an deliver ... you have chosen not to do so here. Perhaps you underestimate the number of readers here ... perhaps not. Myself, I think that truth is important and personally, I would be reluctant to make claims or to post conclusions unless I was willing to justify them.

That would appear to be the difference between you and me. It seems that you don't mind slinging some mud, making some accusations and then walking away without a second thought.

As for your "expression of specific ideas", you've done very little of that besides the mudslinging.

One last thought ... if you think the LOCSD meetings are a "bigger audience" than here, I would suggest that even with the TV viewership, this is not the case.

That being said ... if you're not gonna play here at all (let alone play nicely), I would think that you might have the same problem elsewhere unless your goal is to have a captive audience of followers instead of thinking people who ask questions from time to time.

All the best ...

Osos Change said...

I think this whole thing of me "copping out" of a discussion is ridiculous. For as long as I've had this nickname, I have said that I wanted to disclose the fullest extent of my beliefs and research in a more public venue.

I refuse to stoop as low as to elaborate on these beliefs when traditionally, I have not received any elaboration from the opposition when I did. The best example would be when Realistic said Maria Kelly was "paralegal" and I went through her TAC application and yes, even talked to Maria herself to verify, and no, she is not paralegal. What's the response I get? "You've made up your mind already." Is that the best you can come up?

So why bother? That's how I feel. Why should I give a damn? Why should I spend 30-45 minutes posting on a blog when the topic is constantly changing, nobody stays focused and it's always OsosChange being "full of hate" and "mudslinging"? Is this the right venue for me to express myself to best of my capacity? No. Is this the right venue when you constantly sabotage Ann's blog with propaganda? No. Is this the right venue when you keep repeating yourself like a parrot with down syndrome? No.

I don't believe CSD meetings are the most appropriate venue that attracts the wider audience. There are community events coming up and I will be speaking at them. I haven't seen you or Realistic speaking anywhere. Maybe that means your cowardice can only be expressed anonymously.

Prepare for a fight. I now have what I need to finally get to business.

O.C.

Shark Inlet said...

OsosChange,

Maybe Gail never invited me.

Here's a question. What is your name? After all, if you stand behind what you say and are willing to make your "fingertip" documentation available to those who ask in a public forum ... it would be great for us to know who to ask.

Realistic1 said...

"I haven't seen you or Realistic speaking anywhere."

How do you know I haven't spoken anywhere? Do you even know who I am? If so, spit it out.

As for whether or not Maria is a paralegal - good for you for asking her directly. My bad for mis-labeling her. That is what I thought she was.

"Why should I spend 30-45 minutes posting on a blog when the topic is constantly changing, nobody stays focused and it's always OsosChange being "full of hate" and "mudslinging"?"

And yet, here you are.