Pages

Saturday, November 01, 2008

Uh, Oh, Don’t Tell Ron

Letter in the Tribune yesterday touting the candidacy of Maria and Marshall for LOCSD and signed by, among others, Pandora Nash-Karner. Plllluuueeeze, nobody tell Ron Crawford of [correction, sorry, it's]: http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ or else he’s sure to log onto this blog and start in on the long, long list of people he cites as coming to grief by listening to Pandora.

Speaking of Letters

This time in New Times yesterday, a news brief on the new storm water collection standards and rules recently adopted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Seems that Paso Robles city officials are worried because the standards “. . . will require a truckload of environmental studies and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.” And “city officials worry whether the new rules are even achievable for small governments. ‘We don’t know how to do it and we don’t know how to pay to figure out how to do it,’ Paso Robles City Manager Jim App said.”

“Builders and city officials said they agree with the ends, but the means are tricky.
We really believe that the water board is sincere but doesn’t fully understand the ramifications of what its trying to do,’ said Jerry Bunin, public affairs director of the Home Builders Association of the Central Coast.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Ah, Jerry, you have NO IDEA.

As the story goes on, “If the water board doesn’t change the current language, cities within the Central Coast region will have to adhere to the standards or will not receive a stormwater permit and could face daily fines. . . . City managers in the district will meet with the water board and county officials to try and hammer out a compromise in mid-November, but so far board members have stuck to their water guns.”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, ah, poor Central Coast Cities. They have no idea, either.

Oh, Thanks so Much Richard

Recalled LOCSD board member, Richard LeGros (or somebody claiming to be him) logged on the blog comment section (of the previous posting) and posted what he gleefully says are tentative agreement numbers determined by the arbiter of the debt that the CSD owes. (If you’ve heard of the term Crocodile Tears, well, Richard’s posting voice in these matters often combines Crocodile Tears with triumphant, overbrimming glee. The overall effect reminds me of the late Heath Ledger’s stunning performance as the Joker in the last Batman movie: Oxymoronically & Creepily amazing.) I can’t attest to the accuracy of the posting since Richard has posted stuff here, then crowed about it only to have to back track and say, oops, sorry, posted the wrong info, heh-heh. So, be warned. But according to Richards latest posting:

The Arbitor has determined that the following debts are owed by the LOCSD for stopping the Tri-W project:Monterey Mechanical: $4,600,000(reduced from $8,876,000)
Barnard Construction: $5,540,314(reduced from 12,000,000)

So, right there, the community may owe over $9,000,000, but please note how Richard describes that as money lost by stopping construction of Tri W. But here’s the puzzle. Wasn’t that money actually lost by STARTING construction of Tri W? Nine mil pounded into the ground, a total, unnecessary waste? He and the other recalled Board members might as well as just had a big bonfire and tossed all those dollars on it. At least the community could have brought weenies and had a party.

According to Richard’s figures, all the various debts owed add up to an average for each homeowner of about $3,880. Hmmm, can that be right? Only $3,880? Well, if so, and if the new project comes in slightly cheaper than TriW (or even slightly cheaper on lower long term OMR costs) then that $3,880 wasted might well wash out. Which would be ironic, since that might end up being the “price” the community was forced to pay to move their sewer plant out of town. I say “forced,” because a good chunk of that cost was totally unnecessary had the recalled three simply waited until after the election to begin work.

Well, if this does turn out to be a wash or a near wash, I know that’d make Richard very, very unhappy. But, we need a shout out to Richard and the other Recalled Two. Hey, Thanks for the parting gift, it’s one that wasn’t needed or wanted and but is sure one that keeps on giving!

Your Saturday Poem

From “Sure Signs," new and selected poems, by Ted Kooser
(Living in sandy Los Osos, on a dirt road, this one’s especially apt)

CARRIE

“There’s never an end to dust
and dusting,” my aunt would say
as her rag, like a thunderhead,
scudded across the yellow oak
of her little house. There she lived
seventy years with a ball
of compulsion closed in her fist,
and an elbow that creaked and popped
like a branch in a storm. Now dust
is her hands and dust her heart.
There’s never an end to it.

52 comments:

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

In the letter to the editor signed by Bob Semensen, Pandora Nash-Karner, Sylvia Smith, and Frank Freiler the Editors note: The above are all former Los OSOS Citizens of the Year. So what, is this supposed to give more weight to their stance?
The Editor might also have noted that they were all founding members of the Solutions Group that got themselves elected into power in Los Osos and then stopped a ready to go sewer system. Ten years later and still no sewer.
Who picks Citizens of the Year? I've certainly never been polled for my opinion. I heard once that former winners had a great deal of say in who the next winner would be. What kind of odds would you give that we would ever see a Keith Swanson, or a Bo Cooper as Citizen of the Year?

Ron said...

Ohhhh, I'm so disappointed.

When I read that Ann had written:

"... signed by, among others, Pandora Nash-Karner."

... my eyes lit up.

I thought there might be a chance that the "others" would be new blood in town -- people that I had never heard of, and I was going to give them a friendly "heads up" about "the perils" of what happens when you listen to Nash-Karner.

But no such luck. (I guess they don't have any new recruits... other than Maria, and Lynette.)

Turns out, the "others" are the exact same people that Pandora's been kickin' it with for years -- Bob Semenson, Sylvia Smith, and Frank Freiler.

Semenson and Freiler were part of the Solution Group along with Nash-Karner, Gordon Hensley, and Stan Gustafson. Semenson and Freiler would also later become CSD Directors. (Yep, five of the first seven LOCSD Directors were ALL Solution Group members.)

Sylvia Smith was on the initial LOCSD Board along with Nash-Karner, Hensley, Gustafson, where they wasted two years and a lot of money pursuing Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster" project that was never going to work, according to every objective professional that looked at it... before the Nov. 1998 election that formed the LOCSD in the first place... solely due to "better, cheaper, faster" at a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75."

Sounds like ol' P. has gone to one of her favorite "behavior based marketing" tactics -- the coordinated "letters to the editor" strategy.

In She IS Los Osos, I wrote:

- - -
In an e-mail to her "Undisclosed List", forwarded to me by a reliable source, Nash-Karner writes:

"Hello all,

It's time to launch a serious letter writing campaign to the local media."


I want to stop right there. It's time? So blasé, like she's done it a million times, "Yea, well, here we go again, time for me to orchestrate yet another one of my serious letter writing campaigns to the local media, blah, blah, blah..."

What kind of person does that? I've met a lot of people in my life, but I only know one person that coordinates "serious letter writing campaigns" time and time and time again. The weird thing is, she usually self-appoints herself to that role.
- - -

Of course, my favorite quote from that piece regarding her "serious letter writing campaigns" is this excellent one:

"Joyce Albright (of Taxpayers Watch) found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."

(Hey, Richard? Is that "hearsay" too?)

And, of course, my take on her "lose our credibility" take was:

- - -
Memo to Pandora Nash-Karner: I can't speak for all of the other media members in the county that you've coddled for decades, but, just so you're clear on this -- SewerWatch recognized your efforts long ago, and, long ago, you lost your credibility around here.
- - -

You know, that multiple name signing thing that they did with that letter must be another "behavior based marketing" trick, because they do that a lot.

I even wrote a blog piece on that particular strategy at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/08/creating-obstacles.html

But what makes me laugh about that letters to the editor section where their letter appears, is that, Joe Sparks, in ANOTHER letter, says the post recall board is responsible for "lack of transparency and dwindling community participation."

Joe, Joe, Joe. My man... (Talk about someone that f-d up and trusted Nash-Karner.)

Tell ya what, Joe, you might have a point there.

When the your boyz (and girl) were doing anything (and I mean anything) they possibly could to continue their cover up of the fact the the project that got them elected and the CSD formed in the first place had failed, you're right, I have never seen more "community participation" then at those great pre-recall CSD meetings.

Now THAT was some serious "community participation." (Damn, those meetings were fun to attend.)

So, yes, Joe. Bring these people back into the fold -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Gordon Hensley, Richard LeGros, Bob Semenson, and Frank Freiler, and Sylivia Smith -- and you'll see LOTS of "community participation"... again.

So to recap: Maria Kelly has the support of Pandora Nash-Karner, Gordon Hensley, Richard LeGros, Bob Semenson, and Frank Freiler, and Sylivia Smith.

Great.

Every single one of those people was responsible for first wasting two years chasing their dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" project, and when that failed, as predicted, they quietly "bait and switchy-ed" their SECOND sewer plant -- NOT better, NOT cheaper, NOT faster -- into the wildly unpopular, costly, ESHA, mid-town Tri-W site, and then bundled into their second sewer plant a bunch of expensive, nonsensical things like a picnic area, amphitheater, and tot lot... in a sewer plant.

Heck of an endorsement you got there, Maria.

Hey Maria, you do realize that the county just made it official... they're not going to build Nash-Karner's, and Hensley's, and Gustafson's, and Freiler's, and Smith's, and Semonsen's embarrassing "sewer-park" in the middle of town, that they wasted over $20 million, and nearly seven years developing, right?

The reason I ask is, because that is the exact same brilliant decision that the post-recall board made.

Unknown said...

Geez Ron, come up to 2008...!!!!

Please explain the Switch and Bait game currently played by Lisa, Chuck and Julie... Why is the CSD paying 100% of the agreement with PZLDF...???????? Has Gail pocketed the few dollars collected by PZLDF and fled to Redding for an extensive rehab session again....????????? But bottom lione is that the CSD simply has been giving a $5000 per month allowance to the social club of PZLDF which in turn never paid their legal fees, but instead paid Gail's rehab costs....?????

TCG said...

As the big election date draws near, and I read the blogs and letters to the editor, two questions keep coming to mind regarding the CSD candidates.

1. Other than pledging to have the CSD follow the state law (AB 2701) and stay out of the sewer project that the County has underway, of what relevence is it what they think about the proposed project, and which type of collection system it may have? This is a matter between the County Government and all Los Osos PZ property owners, not the CSD. This is not an authorized CSD service.

2. What are the candidates' positions regarding the district's payment of all PZDLF legal bills regarding the CDO's, when in public session the Board only authorized a 25% subsidy at a time when the District is so short of funds for the services that is is charged with providing?

These are the questions that have meaning to our community now, and answers to them would sure help clarify who the best candidates may be.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I'd like to know where long-time resident Julie was in 2001 when the project direction could have been changed? Oh yeah, I remember, that is when she was saying "…we'll have a sewer in Los Osos over my dead body!" OK, where was Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John? Didn't they live here then? What were they doing? Attending meetings and speaking out?

Suppose the work had not started. The contracts were signed, the equipment was in place, the families of the men set to work on the project had been moved into town. The "new" board is sworn in and.... then what?

It costs up to $20 million to have plans drawn up and YEARS for permitting. What would these contractors BE DOING while all this was going on? Would they sit for years - - waiting?

Where we REALLY got ripped off was when the "new" board, at the Blakeslee compromise, REFUSED to give us the 218 vote that they had been screaming about as being so unfair when the Old Board hadn't held one. WHY did they NOT give us the vote? They had even accepted gravity, I recall a tearful Julie reporting to us after the compromise failed. We never got a solid reason from the board as to why it failed at the time.

So the 218 they complained about NOT having, they refused to give us. AND they didn't want us to know about it. Why would that be? Perhaps they knew it wouldn't pass and the old project would have to start up again. And NEVER MIND that the town may have changed its mind when realizing the alternatives at that point. Or perhaps they all along were "no sewer" in "move-the-sewer" clothing.

Or perhaps their egos were so fragile that losing their "move" cause was simply unacceptable to them and they could not give US, the citizens of Los Osos, the REAL CHOICE of deciding to build THAT sewer after all - a choice grounded in the REAL costs to us, not the airy campaign promise of $100-out-of-town. How pathetic is that.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ron, STOP IT - "the wildly unpopular, costly, ESHA, mid-town Tri-W site" was NOT wildly unpopular. Broderson was purchased to mitigate the ESHA issue and the site only became less favored when the LIE of $100/out of town was floated out there.

COSTLY is what we are facing now, with bankruptcy debt, unresolved water issues, a further impaired aquifer and greater pollution, due to delay. But I guess none of THAT is interesting enough for you to write about.

Hey, do you realize how DORKY your "Pandora obsession" makes you look?

franc4 said...

sewetoons:

"Hey, do you realize how DORKY your "Pandora obsession" makes you look?"

...wonder how you think you appear with your same old (mis-informed) rhetoric?

You and mike must be trapped in the same rut.....sadly. ;-(

Shark Inlet said...

Surprise ... Ron is repetitive, boring, focused on only the past and yet still manages to misstate facts relevant to today.

Face it, the post-recall board has been anything but transparent.

If you want more of the same, ask yourself which candidates are supported by those who seem to support the current board.

Of course, if you are named Ron, you don't get a vote in the Los Osos election so you might need to try to influence things by dredging up the big lie you started telling years ago ... let's all blame Pandora. If we just kick her out of town all will be better ... if we just wish hard enough and all clap at the same time, the state laws will change and we can make a bankruptcy disappear and maybe if we even sing "we shall overcome" loud enough a sewer will magically appear without any real costs ... oh yeah, sewerfairy, please make it STEP or we'll lynch your ass!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

franc, you are back! And sounding more like Julie than ever! We know ron is in love you Julie, hence your defense.

Now, will you kindly point out my statements that are misinformed? Please be specific!

Unknown said...

Does anyone who supports this post recall CSD live in Los Osos...???

Ron, franc, mark...????

Does Julie Tacker-Edwards-nextguy even live in Los Osos...??? A tent trailer with utilities, especially a legal septic/sewer doesn't really qualify as "living"...

Where is Gail, away in rehab....???

Guess it's down to Ann to be the cheerleader for the "home" team... Oh wait, maybe Lisa the sewer fairy can shed a few hundred pounds, throw another angry fit and "poof" the magic sands will filter the pollution and make the Bay all better... Afterall, we don't need no stinkin' sewer, just ask Ron or franc or julie, Lisa or Al or Gail.... yep, all our experts...and all of them with a load to deliver....

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

Mike sez:"Why is the CSD paying 100% of the agreement with PZLDF...???????? "

Did you just make that up? This is cool. You make up a "fact, post it here, then a bit further down somebody posts that "fact" you just made up as if, well,it were a fact and pretty some people will begin citing this "fact" as "fact." Wheeee!

Richard sez:"join in the movement to support a CSD that files a lawsuit against Wildan (Blesky) and BW&S (Julie Biggs) to recover the $50,000,000 in taxpayer funds lost as a result of their advice given to the CSD5."

Did you just make that up too? Movement? What "movement?" Oh, you mean Taxpayers Watch? That's a "movement?"

How's about supporting a CSD that will take a long hard look at the lawsuits already in the pipeline and see exactly where the hipbone joined to the thighbone (i.e. the breach of contact suit, the WMH one, for example) before inventing a "movement" to start more lawsuits. The hipbone may point in a slightly different direction and the CSD should proceed accordingly.

Mike sez:"Afterall, we don't need no stinkin' sewer, just ask Ron or franc or julie, Lisa or Al or Gail.... "

See? AGAIN making stuff up. Were you not paying attention over the years wherein Al,Julie,Lisa, Gail ALL have spent ENDLESS HOURS pushing for a sewer system, one that was less costly (i.e. Ripley, Orenco, remember all those workshops and presentations??) and one that didn't have a sewer treatment plant in the middle of town. ENDLESS HOURS pushing for a SEWER SYSTEM.

How could you possibly have missed all those endless hours of SEWER SYSTEM info? Were you in rehab out of town and so you just missed all those endless public workshops, endless public outreach and information drives, all for the sake of a SEWER SYSTEM? Or are you just lying and making stuff up in order to confuse and mislead people. Mike, mike. Tsk. Tsk. That's beneath even you.

Unknown said...

Where were you during the endless hours the pre-recall folks put into actually creating a legal sewer...???? The wonderful post-recall CSD created exactly what...??? Well, they did create a Bankruptcy...

Now Ann, you never answered why the Bait and Switchy deal cooked up by this CSD..."Why is the CSD paying 100% of the agreement with PZLDF...????????"

Why won't you answer that question Ann....???? Is there an agreement or is this just an opened allowance beiing paid to the PZLDF....?????? Is Gail McPherson being paid...is Ann Calhoun being paid....?????????? Is ANY legal fees being paid....???????

Frank said...

uuuhhhh, Al and the rest of the crew, and that includes you Anny-pooh, have spent endless hours talking about sewers but not pushing a sewer. sorry Anny-pooh but none of those usual suspects have supported passing an assessment, and that includes you Anny-pooh, so really let us not kid ourselves about what no sewer or pro sewer means because anyone can say they support a sewer but where the rubber meets the road is actually doing something about it so a real, and not a Al/Lisa/Gail fantasy, sewer actually gets built.

so maybe let us just say that Al & the crew are pro-talk-sewer but definitely not pro-sewer see that doesn't sound as bad as no sewer or better yet how about we just call them non-sewer because francly that is what we have a non-sewered community due to their pro-talk-sewer and non-sewer efforts

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

Like I say, journalistically speaking, Pandora's the best.

She's a never-ending source of quotes like this:

"Joyce Albright (of Taxpayers Watch) found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."

I mean, look how great that is.

"Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility"?

Think that through.

If you read between the lines there, she's fully aware that by doing here little "serious letter writing" campaigns, where, through a deliberate strategy, she can make it appear that more people favor something in Los Osos than actually do, is a tad scam-my.

(In fact, it's that exact kind of "scamminess" that got LO into this mess to begin with, when Pandora, as vice-president of the LOCSD, tricked the Coastal Commission into believing that there was a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos for a centrally located "sewer-park," and, of course, that "value" never existed, and she knew it.)

Awesome.

That's not an "obsession," that's recognizing an amazing story... think about it. It's one the best stories I've ever seen (let alone reported on... extensively, and exclusively):

A marketing professional meddling in local politics for 18 years (and counting), through something called "behavior based marketing," in a small town.

18 years (and counting) of marketing that has ripped the town apart, and cost taxpayers everywhere a fortune, and then, she demanded that the town be "fined out of existence," and now, seemingly completely oblivious to her previous disastrous actions, she continues to pop out "serious letter writing campaigns" where she refers to herself as a past "citizen of the year."

Wow.

Trust me, stories don't get much better than that.

Ann wrote:

"I say “forced,” because a good chunk of (Richard's alleged cost for prematurely starting the Tri-W project) was totally unnecessary had the recalled three simply waited until after the election to begin work."

Even better: Had the law allowed for the county's top election official, in our case, Julie Rodewald, to set that election date in the first place, instead of Richard and the other two recalled CSD Directors, not a penny of that money would have been wasted, and the Tri-W site would still be the beautiful, tree-filled, mid-town place where one could go for a nice stroll.

That law must be changed. It's striking that it is even on the books to begin with. What were they thinking?

Frank said...

uuhhhh, Ronny-pooh, had the recall date been earlier you have no idea but for your wild imagination about what would and would not have happened but had the mid-town plant been completed by the pre or post recall board then we do know that all the lawsuits would be moot and there would be an operating sewer that also provides recharge of the aquifer which is something neither Ripley or even the County could or can guarantee with their post recall projects that are going to cost more than having simply built the old project so Ronny-pooh all your info might have been interesting at one time but is not really pertinent to the County building a sewer at this time

Unknown said...

In looking back at Ron's past history ramblings, it has become clear that Ron's only 3 arguements have always been... 1) Pandora turned him down (Julie said yes though), 2) He didn't get to participate in the development of the plans and permits (he doesn't live in LO, so he couldn't vote) and 2) he hates parks (and children and dogs and people enjoying life)...

Yup, Ron just sits there on his straw toilet and just grows old and more senile each passing day....

Shark Inlet said...

I love that Ron is so quick to say that Pandora is wrong when she suggests words for others but has never said anything about Gail doing the same thing.

Here's a question for the group as a whole ... is Ron a journalist who is interested in the story, wherever that story may take him ... or a partisan hack who promotes one point of view no matter what the facts may be?

I view Ron as more like Bill O'Reilly than Carl Bernstein. After all, Bernstein actually followed up on loose ends and pursued the truth whatever it happened to be.

So Ron ... are you gonna choose to be a journalist ... are you gonna choose to be partisan hack?

Do us a favor. Let us know if you choose to actually care about the truth.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ron is so emotionally tied into love of Julie and hatred to the old Board, his ability to be objective is hopelessly clouded. What journalistic idealism ron may initially have had has eroded into partisanship. One wonders that should he continue to write -on topics other than Los Osos - would his judgement be as floppy and biased as he has shown us here.

His inability to apologize for his mistakes shown us that his ego is too fragile for honesty in public. Likely he has fooled himself as well. ron, get a shrink - we'll all be happier.

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

I can't believe it, but I finally agree with you on suing BWS and Wildan. If Maria and Marshall win, would they sue?

This CSD listened to the advice of their attorneys and what bad advice did they get for paying the firm so much money?

Biggs is a municipal law attorney and knew better than anyone how illegal it was to settle with herself. She knew better than anyone else NOT to spend the SRF money, especially on her own legal bills! She knew better than anyone else that a 218 had to be done. (Does anyone know about her expense account. Did we pay for all her meals and stays at the Inn at Morro Bay?)

One thing I don't agree with you on is the fact that some liked Murphy's technology, not the person. Clearly Murphy is in Los Osos only to sue and won't leave until he makes money that way. But the technology is there.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Murphy did not have the proof required by the Water Board that the thing actually worked as advertised; he only claimed to have it, but refused to show it. Would you take a drink of that stuff that came out of the Wrecklamator? Yechhhhhhhh.

getreal, why do you think the CSD refused to do a 218 at the Blakeslee compromise? Do you really think that was Biggs' idea and not the Board's?

Shark Inlet said...

Yes, Richard and Toons ...

That was an interesting issue way back in late 2005. The state worked out a compromise with the LOCSD ... that they would allow the LOCSD to keep the loan, construction would move forward on the collection system and they would be given 2 years (the amount of time Lisa told the RWQCB they would need) to get an out of town system designed and permitted. For a group who had plans that were "ready to go" and the plans were so precise that they could guarantee us a $100/month cost ... this should have been a no-brainer. Everything they wanted handed to them on a plate.

With one exception. The State would require a 218 vote ... something supported by many of those who supported the recall.

So, what was the catch? Lisa and Dan told us that the LOCSD couldn't afford a bridge loan to cover the cost of continuing construction until the 218 vote could be taken.

How much would such a loan cost? To justify refusing such an awesome deal without telling us how much it would cost and without telling us how much money we had left in the accounts is simply maddening. Kakistocracy for sure.

Ron said...

'toons wrote:

"His inability to apologize for his mistakes..."

What "mistakes?"

The only mistake I ever made was immediately following the recall election, when I wrote:

"Now I know how late night talk show hosts felt after President Clinton left office. Such a rich source of material, gone. All of a sudden, this is just a boring sewer story again."

I mistakenly thought that after seven years of shredding the community fabric of Los Osos into tiny pieces with their "sewer-park," while at the helm of the LOCSD, the Solution Group types (Pandora, Gordon, etc) would just go away after the recall.

WHOOOOAAAAA, was I wrong! (Thank God... for the sake of my book, of course.)

Had I been right, and they had just gone away, my story would have been without all of that great "fining out existence," and "dissolving," and suing. It's all so beautiful, journalistically speaking, of course.

'toons wrote:

"...his (my) ability to be objective is hopelessly clouded."

'toons? Did you ever see the movie, "Good Night and Good Luck?" Great flick.

Remember the scene where Ed Murrow (brilliantly portrayed by that excellent actor who I don't feel like Googling right now), after showing that McCarthy was just waving around blank documents and saying that they were real documents, said something like:

"Equal time? No. If McCarthy is just going to wave around blank pieces of paper and say that they are real documents, he doesn't deserve equal time."?

That's me.

Murrow and I agree 100-percent on that.

Pandora and Co. were accurately called "bait and switchy" by the California Coastal Commission. Once that happened, no more equal time for them.

"Bait and switchy" doesn't get equal time.

In fact, that's always kind of cracked me up -- you guys whining about covering both "sides."

Trust me, "bait and switchy" isn't a side. Murrow's right. There is no side to cover.

Yep, Murrow would've been a HUGE SewerWatch fan.

Unknown said...

Ron...Are you smoking a new load of crack this morning, or still working on your Saturday night toot...??? Your old-timers half brain has you so be-fuddled that you are missing the last 3 years and today's real Bait and Switch game between the lame-duck CSD and the PZLDF... and through your foggy thought, you may be disappointed to not see Pandora or the powerful Taxpayer's Watch...

nope, the CSD did this one all by themselves...

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I write:
"His inability to apologize for his mistakes..."

ron writes:
What "mistakes?"

Oh!? You apologized to Maria for stating that she supported dissolution when the playback shows she DID NOT? Guess I missed THAT post.

Shark Inlet said...

Here we go again ...

Ron will write that he quoted accurately from a document he didn't know was flawed (nevermind the fact that Robert LeGros was listed as speaking ... you know those LAFCO folks never ever make mistakes) and that he didn't need to bother looking into the videotaped evidence because ... you know ... getting the quote right is more important than the truth.

Shark Inlet said...

ps - I should have mentioned that the "captcha" (word verification) on my last comment was "furon".

franc4 said...

Well, Mike,
I have been gone for a while, but I see you haven't changed....still a bottom feeder gossip monger with a one tract mind. No classatall!

franc4 said...

'toons,

Mybe "mis-information" was too kind since you know nothing about anything 'sept what Mr. LaGros tells you.
Do you REALLY know what the Blakeslee compromise was?

Ron said...

Speaking of "real documents"...

I always like rolling this out from time to time:

Noel King, recently retired Director of the SLO County Public Works Department/SewerWatch fan.

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/07/noel-king-director-of-slo-county-public.html

boo-yea! (hop... hop... hop... fist-bump!)

'toons, you a football fan?

You know how the refs go to the instant replay booth, and if the video evidence is inconclusive to overturn a call on the field, they stick with the original call.

Well, the original call on the field was, "Maria Kelly... supported dissolving the LOCSD."

And, I've gone to the instant replay booth, and have determine that the video evidence is inconclusive.

Therefore, the original call on the field stands:

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

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Only you would spin "I do not support dissolving the LOCSD" as inconclusive.

My gosh, you are full of yourself. If you really care more about Los Osos than your own ego and if you really care about keeping Maria out of office, do yourself a favor and stop making comments about her. You make her look better every time you attempt to spin a twisted story about how she is the second coming of Satan's spawn.

I still stand by my suggestion that Ron cares more about getting a quote right than the truth. Ron, convince us that I'm wrong on this one. Do us a solid and own up to your mistake and apologize as any real man would do if he is found to have made an error.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Shark says to ron,
"…own up to your mistake and apologize as any real man would do…"

Maybe ron is simply spineless. Kind of soft in the head too, with his football analogy. Doesn't work in this context ron.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

franc4 says,
"Do you REALLY know what the Blakeslee compromise was?"

You seem to think I don't franc, so why don't you enlighten us.

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"The wonderful post-recall CSD created exactly what...??? "

Gee, remember the Ripley Report? That was a swell piece of work.

Mike also sez:"is Ann Calhoun being paid....??????????"

Aw, Mike, you're making stuff up again. Quick, if you check, you'll see your pants are on fire. Mike, Mike, why do you do stuff like this. It doesn'thelp your "anonymous" credibility at all. Is there a "less than zero" category?

Frank sez:"sorry Anny-pooh but none of those usual suspects have supported passing an assessment, and that includes you Anny-pooh,"

Oh, my god, Mike lies are now infecting Frank. You're making stuff up, just like Mike. Not support a vote? Ya gotta be kidding. Long, long ago, waaayyy before pre-recall, I called for a chinese menu VOTE. I have repeatedly asked for the community to be able to decide which sewer plan they wanted to buy. You haven't been paying attention and are just parroting Mike's Let's Make Stuff Up game.

Mike sez:"Yup, Ron just sits there on his straw toilet and just grows old and more senile each passing day...."

Yup, it's just Mike making stuff up again. Look out, "Frank"is now parroting Mike's Let's Make Stuff Up ploy. I suppose the real question is, do you really think anybody follwing these comments for years hasn't caught on to your Make Up Stuff ploy? Or is it all a matter of tossing everything you can think of, no matter how dishonest or ugly or stupid or wrong or false or a great big lie, just toss it all on the wall in hopes that some of it sticks? Or shocks the reader? Or gives you a giggle? Uh, I don't think that does anything for your credibility, not even a teeny bit.

Inlet sez:"I view Ron as more like Bill O'Reilly than Carl Bernstein. After all, Bernstein actually followed up on loose ends and pursued the truth whatever it happened to be."

Inlet, Inlet, have you caught the Let's Make Stuff Up bug from Mike and now Frank? You clearly have not bothered to read all the "loose ends" that Ron has patiently woven into the only (sor far) coherent whole. All those connected dots, all those posted and linked actual documents, real quotes, real official paperwork. That's pure Bernstein, patient as Penelope with all those interesting strings and dots.

getreallososos sez:"I can't believe it, but I finally agree with you on suing BWS and Wildan. If Maria and Marshall win, would they sue? "

Wait, wait, is the world now turning upside down. I've heard nothing but screeching about all the lawsuits wasting taxpayer money (from people suing the CSD and thereby wasting taxpayer money) and now some TPW supporters are calling for a NEW lawsuit? Whaaaaattttt??????

Shark Inlet said...

This is rich ... because I think that Ron has ignored a huge issue and has chosen to perpetuate a lie about Maria's position on dissolution (possibly in an attempt to torpedo her candidacy, who really knows) ... Ann says that I have "clearly not bothered to read all the 'loose ends' that Ron has patiently woven into the only (so far) coherent whole.".

First off, I've read Ron's stuff. All of it. He spins a nice story that is suitable for publishing (after a bit of work) in a good political thriller ... you know the one ... the small town person who pulls all the strings and get her way no matter what because she controls everything.

Second, Ron has decidedly avoided questions on the real costs of dumping TriW since at least the time I've started reading his stuff.

If TriW was as bad as some say, the recall would still only make sense if a recall wouldn't be worse (you know, higher costs, more delay, more pollution, etc.). Ron has always blown this question off entirely. You have done so almost as much. You give lip service to the idea but act as the lack of full information about costs means that all options are comparable in cost.

Face it, TriW was a highly priced system, but insisting on stopping TriW will be costing us even more and we're gonna get even less. We turned town the chance of getting a Jaguar (expensive, lots of features, could break down a lot) in 2005 at MSRP and now are being forced to buy a Taurus in 2010 at double the cost of the Jag. Not a good deal at all.

Unknown said...

I'm sorry Ann feels I'm "making this up", but as of today, there has been absolutely no response from the CSD, the PZLDF or Ann regarding the cozy little agreement wherein the LOCSD is supposedly paying the legal costs of the PZLDF....

There is a "rumor" that the CSD has paid 16 checks of $5,000 each to the PZLDF this year...

Would someone, ANYONE, please clear this up...!!!!

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Inlet sez:"I view Ron as more like Bill O'Reilly than Carl Bernstein." (I had to get that quote from a "Churadog" post, because I never would have seen it otherwise. That particular anonymous commenter is 1) over-the-top creepy, and 2) a terrible writer -- loose, unclear, not funny, deliberately misleading -- you know, the exact opposite of SewerWatch, so it is rare that I glimpse at... whatever that stuff is. I always just scroll right through it. So, like I've posted before, those creepy people [or, whatever they are] get to tee off on me, and, almost certainly, I'll never respond, because I will have never read it. The only time I see that... whatever it is, is when somebody else, like Ann, quotes 'em.)

Ann wrote:

"Inlet sez:"I view Ron as more like Bill O'Reilly than Carl Bernstein."

What? No love for Woodward?

I saw Bob Woodward on Meet the Press, when he was plugging his book on the Iraq war, and Russert asked him about how Cheney claims that something in Woodward's book is inaccurate.

And, apparently, anticipating that question, Woodward said, "Well, if that's the case, then why do I have this document here?"

And, in front of him, he goes right to the document that shows he's right, and holds it up. Beautiful journalism.

That's me, too.

"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, September 28, 2005, one day after a hard-fought and bitter election defeat.

"Pursuit of the Solution Group alternative also has the potential to result in significant delays to the implementation of a wastewater treatment project for the Los Osos area."
-- Steve Monowitz, former staff member for the California Coastal Commission, October 1998

I think O'Reilly, for the most part, is an idiot, but he does have a couple of good takes.

One of them is, when it comes to argumentation, it is very weak to justify your side's bad behavior by pointing to your opponent's bad behavior.

I know it comes from O'Reilly, but I love that take, and it's something I see the Taxpayers Watch types do ALL OF THE TIME.

Here's their typical whine (read this in really whiny voice): "uhhhh... so what if the Solution Group lied to us about a "better, cheaper, faster" project in 1998, Julie and Lisa did the same thing in 2005 when they told us they had a project ready to gooooo... waaaa."

Here's the HUGE problem with that weak argument.

Much like Woodward on Meet the Press, I have a CD of an October 2005 Los Osos CSD meeting, one month after the recall election, and on it is Lisa Shicker, meticulously and specifically laying out a sewer project for Los Osos that sounds a helluva of a lot like what the county is considering these days -- STEP collection with an out of town site.

And that's the HUUUUUUGE problem for the Taxpayer Watch types.

Pandora's 1998 project, that she sold the town on, was a fantasyland that was never going to work, according to a gigantic pile of evidence that existed BEFORE the election where she used her dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" project to form the LOCSD.

And Julie and Lisa's "ready to go" project in 2005 is, these days, after careful, $6 million worth of county analysis, really beginning to sound like it WAS ready to go.

Now think about this. It'll blow your mind:

How motivated do you think people like Gordon, and Richard, and Pandora (and everyone else that had a hand in wasting that $25 million and seven years developing a "bait and switchy" "sewer-park" in the middle of Los Osos) would be to make absolutely certain that the people that just beat them in a recall election didn't fix everything in a month.

Think about that. It's awesome.

Put yourself, in, oh, let's say, Gordon Hensley's shoes after the recall. Would YOU, after you just spent $25 million and seven years developing a "bait and switchy" "sewer-park" in the middle of Los Osos, and prematurely began construction on that embarrassing project -- a decision that would add another $30 - $50 million to your total -- just sit back and let the new board solve Los Osos's sewer problem in a couple of months, with a MUCH better plan?

Or would you do anything and everything you possibly could (dissolve, fine out of existence, sue) to make sure they did not succeed?

Think about it.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

The Ripley "plan" is even now incomplete and didn't become final until DECEMBER 2006.

Ripley WASN'T EVEN CHOSEN as the planner until MARCH 2006 (he won over an unknown and Pio Lombard's group - different technology altogether).

SO - how can you state, "…Julie and Lisa's 'ready to go' project in 2005 is, these days, after careful, $6 million worth of county analysis, really beginning to sound like it WAS ready to go."

2005 is NOT 2006! Poor journalism ron, but decent spin to the gullible, I'll give you that.

BTW - the $6 million in County analysis covered a WHOLE LOT MORE than just Ripley.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ron, I guess you forgot that Lisa herself stated at the December 2005 Water Board hearing that there was no plan. Do you think that is what she really meant - that THERE WAS NO PLAN? Or can you spin something else out of that, like she was just kidding or something.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

The problems here are twofold.

First, the videotape shows the LAFCO minutes are wrong. Your "documentation" is flawed and you know it and everyone else does as well.

You also have no documentation on any of the financial issues we've bee asking you to address for some time now. Again, to only partially address the story ... to thoroughly look some parts (even with some documents) but to completely ignore other parts doesn't provide readers a context for reaching a reasonable decision.

Let's take the Bill Ayers and Barack Obama thing. Sure, they both served on the board of some educational foundation at the same time. There are documents to show this. But if you ignore the facts that the foundation was created by a republican and that the majority of the other board members were republicans, you might think of this foundation as something leftist or evil and the association between these two as proof that Obama is "associating with terrorists". In fact, the foundation is very mainstream and if Obama is associating with a terrorist, so are all these other highly-placed republicans. A Karl Rove-like approach to the facts allows you to spin a good story for our community, but a more thorough investigation of whether the whole "out of town" movement made sense or not was misled by your refusal to address some very key issues.

If you want to roll back the clock to 1997, it seems clear that we maybe shouldn't have voted for the CSD ... but if you want to address the 2005 question about the recall or moving the sewer was a good idea, the past flubs of the Solutions Group aren't all that relevant ... the only relevant question is whether continuing with TriW would be better than a recall and an attempt to move things out of town.

Fast forward to 2005. You seem to be pretty down on Maria for her association with Gordon. Why not Karen? She also has done work with the groups Maria has. If Gordon screwed things up and Maria is associated with him and so is tainted ... Lisa most certainly screwed things up even more and because of that, Karen is at least as tainted ... but we don't hear you looking into any of the post-recall screw ups. It is almost as if you believe that the fines, lawsuits, gift of funds to BWS, mismanagement of Willdan and bankruptcy are no big deal. For a journalist who claims interest in Los Osos issues, you aren't putting that much time and thought into any of the recent news.


Lastly, when you write "
And Julie and Lisa's 'ready to go' project in 2005 is, these days, after careful, $6 million worth of county analysis, really beginning to sound like it WAS ready to go."
you seem to be really confused. We have seen zero documents at all about this supposed plan. How can we know if anything proposed by the County is close to the "ready to go" plan or not unless we see these plans. For someone who trumpets documentation so loudly in the first part of your comment, you seem awfully quick to make unfounded assumptions and run with them.

Face it ... there is subtlety in the process of negotiations between entities such as the CSD and the CCC and the RWQCB and the like. They each are given their mandates and rules and they need to figure out a how to make these often seemingly conflicting rules work out for the public good.

Let's take a few rules, for example, that have been discussed here about sewer plant location. One rule says that (if all other things are equal) the least environmentally sensitive site must be chosen (but that if there are overriding concerns that would suggest choosing another site, a more environmentally sensitive site may be chosen). Another rule says that (if all other things are equal) a site currently used for agriculture cannot be used (but that if there is a good reason to choose an ag site, it would be okay). A third rule says that the most cost effective site should be chosen. A fourth says that sites must be chosen with regard to the current zoning regulations for the County which are based on a County-level master plan. There are more rules as well.

According to the LOCSD at the time, TriW was the best site. The County, CCC and others all signed off on the site and technology. Before construction started, you could have asked the CCC to revoke the CDP for the reasons you seem to keep stating as if they are solid. The funny thing is ... you didn't bother asking and no one else did either. And even if you had asked for a revocation hearing, there is no guarantee that the permit would have been revoked.

So ... let's draw this to a close by asking you (yet again) why, in 2005, you never ever ever investigated the (relatively simple) question of how much it would really cost to move the treatment plant out of town? To write about the evils of TriW and the permitting process but to not address the cost issue at all is definitely misleading for your readers.

Oh yeah ... you also were wrong about Maria's stand on dissolution and you don't seem to be man enough to admit it. Pathetic, really.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Mike, I'm hoping this PZLDF topic will be actually discussed by the Board on Thursday night. Unfortunately, I'll be late to the meeting because of a prior engagement.

February 1, 2007 the Board approved the Sullivan contract, retroactive to January 1, 2007.

From the March 1, 2007 CSD meeting at about 8:09 p.m.:
IGM Annajane Hugh states that the staff recommends that the Board accept the terms of the contract, which were part of the Board packet.

AJ states, "Basically coming from a conversation that I had with Miss Sullivan to try to nail down what the expected costs might be, um, was that, um, if the uh costs should uh exceed $30,000 in the rest of this fiscal year that the Board should re- reconsider their involvement basically, just simply have another discussion about it and that we are asking the Board to also um, estimate the ongoing costs to the District for the next fiscal year and reconsider the contract prior to the finalization of the 07-08 budget. There'll just, you know, there's some changes in the District in the capital fund etcetera and felt we needed to address those issues and not just, kind of, give an open contract."

At 8:28 Gail McPherson says in the defense of the District taking the case is that the Fire Station, Vista de Oro and Bayridge Estates will share a piece of the $6.4 million dollars if the the ACL appeal is won. Not the rest of the District, just those home alone.

8:31, after Mr. Margetson questions how Shaunna Sullivan is getting direction from the Board, Chuck says in response to how we are working with her (Sullivan) "…we meet with her separately without PZLDF, just Sullivan and Associates and the Litigation Ad Hoc Committee and uh, in closed session she has come several times."

The defense is NOT supposed to be for any individual in the defense of CDO's, yet it has been said on more than one occasion that this is what it does, (I recall Lisa saying this) and CDO recipients have thanked the District.

1. Should Shaunna Sullivan's participation with the Ad Hoc Committee at the very least been reported in the Committee Reports, if not from closed session?

2. I doubt that the $30,000 was knowingly reached at least by the public between January and June only because Ms. Sullivan was notoriously late on presenting her bills. Was the cap discussed - I tend to think I protested it at a Finance Committee meeting, so I think it came up. The decision is lost in my notes.

More fun evenings with those and the CSD DVD's I guess.

Unknown said...

Good Morning Fellow Bloggers and especially those who actually live in Los Osos... Congratualtions to Maria Kelly and Marshall Ochylski...!!!!!!!!!

The CSD will have a decidely different look shortly and we can expect that finally after 3 years, a clear Audit will be among the first items to be requested...

Anyone want to bet that that PZLDF "agreement" will be dumped real soon...!!!!!

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"According to the LOCSD at the time, TriW was the best site. "

Ah, there's the problem. The Fox stated that the siting of the chicken coop was perfect, the best possible. And the watchdogs, lazy and/or and busy chasing other chickens and foxes, said, "Yeah, sure, whatEVER. Move on! Move on!"

Sewertoons sez:"The defense is NOT supposed to be for any individual in the defense of CDO's, yet it has been said on more than one occasion that this is what it does, (I recall Lisa saying this) and CDO recipients have thanked the District."

As you well know, definitions often get toally fuzzy or misued both at meetings and in this comment section. CDO, ACL, PZLDF, all those are often "overlapping" issues, so one has to be blindlingly specific when making reference to any of them. WHICH CDO, WHICH ACL, etc. For example, the original ACL hearing put into the record huge amounts of documents, all of which are then incorporated by reference in the (private) PZLDF case, with the issues coming up in both cases, since they're already referenced and even though the original ACL hearing was "public." & etc. As you well know, people often use a sort of short-hand, or buzzwords, that soon get muddled and cease to mean what the speaker meant. You see this constantly in the Dreamer's use of "anti-sewer obstructionist" to refer to anyone who disagrees with them. The term was very specific and refers to a tiny handful of people who actually are anti-sewer, but was deliberately used as a broad brush to tar a whole swath of people, including PRO-sewer/plant out of town people. I've often been at CSD meetings when a vague term was used to reference something, but you have to be careful to find out if it meant CDO1 or CDO-2 or Case #6 or Case 5 or was it a sort of catchall generic reference, & etc. In sorting out the CDO "PZLDF" "case," you have to be careful of just what is actually being referenced. But then, you know that very well indeed, don't you?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Your analogy is wrong. The watchdog stated the chicken coop was better than the other alternatives and the foxes convinced the chickens in a 51% to 49% vote that moving the henhouse outside the fence would be a good idea. Then after, the henhouse was moved outside the fence at great cost, the chickens started disappearing, leaving only feathers behind. Then Churachick started complaining that the dead chickens were all the fault of the watchdogs who didn't give them the option of having the henhouse outside the fence early enough because with two you get eggroll.

Soon Churachick will tell us that all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

My word verification today is "farce".

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Shark your post earns The George Orwell Animal Farm Award for Best Adaption of an Orwellian concept to a local government!! Bravo!!

Realistic1 said...

Shark,

You said -

"The funny thing is ... you didn't bother asking and no one else did either. And even if you had asked for a revocation hearing, there is no guarantee that the permit would have been revoked."

Actually, Tacker/CCLO were granted a de novo/revocation hearing by the CCC in the summer of 2004. It was the hearing where ONE commissioner used the "bait & switchy" phrase that Ron so loves to attribute to the entire commission.

The CCC ultimately voted either unanimously or with one dissenting vote to uphold the permit (I can't remember which).

Tacker & company went down in flames that particular day when a full busload and several carloads of Tri-W supporters showed up at the hearing in Southern CA to dispute Tacker's claim that she was "speaking for the community".

Opponents of the project were outnumbered 2 to 1 by a sea of "Moving Forward" supporters dressed in kelly green and carrying signs. It was a sight to see. Tacker's face went positively ashen as she watched the bus unload in front of the hotel. Sorry, I digress, but that is a particularly fond moment for me. I was there to see it first hand. Anyway...

Ticker and Shacker then ran essentially unopposed in the November 2004 LOCSD election and enjoyed a "landslide" victory - not tough to do when no other truly viable candidate dared enter the ugly, ugly frey at that point.

Emboldened by Ticker/Shacker, the "move the sewer" propaganda machine (led my Gail McPherson) fired up in earnest after that, the recall based on false promises happened the following November and the rest (as they say) is history...and Los Osos is MILLIONS of dollars in debt.

Shark Inlet said...

Realistic,

Ron's issue that I was referring to isn't so much the whole "bait and switchy" one but that he says that there was no evidence presented that would support the contention that there was community support for central located recreational facilities.

Realistic1 said...

Shark,

My comment about "bait & switchy" was intended as an aside, but sort of pushed itself to the front of the line. Sorry about that. The fact that Ron likes to make it sound like the entire commission said it, when in fact only one commissioner did, has always annoyed the crap out of me.

I think the rest of my post points out there was, in fact, a lot of support for the Tri-W site and its ammenities. The miniscule margin of victory in the recall election bears that out as well. If Ron wants evidence, there it is.