Pages

Sunday, March 01, 2009

Another Viewpoint Viewpoint.

This response is to a Bay News editorial and ran in Feb 26th’s edition. Posted with permission. [Big Oops, dropped this in stet but inadvertently dropped out the author. The viewpoint was written by Julie Tacker, former CSD Board Member, and appeared in the Bay News, as noted above. Wet Noodle for me)

Neil Farrell’s February 12, 2009 editorial “Mr. Hensley, Tear Down That Fence, Listen Up”, gives the recalled Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD) Director way too much credit. Mr. Hensley, while in power as a majority Board member in the summer of 2005, had the power and spent the money to have the fence installed around the Tri-W sewer site. The property was then considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), he also had the power, and did, hire bulldozers to scrape every bit of it. The Board majority he was a party to hired biologists ($90 per hour) to go out ahead of the bulldozers, search each bush and “relocate” some 13 Morro shoulderband dune snails (MSS), a federally threatened species, to suitable habitat (which happened to be on private property adjacent to Sweet Springs Nature Preserve. Today, Mr. Hensley has no power to take down the fence.


Mr. Hensley’s historical account in response to Mr. Farrell’s editorial in the February 19, 2009 edition of the Bay News inaccurately states the Incidental Take Permit (ITP) acquired by the LOCSD from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was issued in 2004, in fact it was issued just days before the groundbreaking ceremony that Hensley was too cowardly to attend in the summer of 2005. The ITP (aka “Section 7 Permit”) was issued because of a federal funding nexus (State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan), that permit is now under scrutiny by the Federal U.S. Bankruptcy Court the premise of the legal question is that the SRF issued a $134 million unsecured loan to the LOCSD for the wastewater project. Hensley asserts that the LOCSD “lost” the loan when is suspended work on the Tri-W project which triggered the loss of the ITP. Today questions related to the permit and the loan remain tied up in the bankruptcy court, which all work is stayed until the County formally assumes the wastewater project (sometime later this year, or not).


While reading Hensley’s response to the Farrell piece, it is unclear which Hensley is writing. Is it the vindictive recalled LOCSD Director that spearheaded the formation of Taxpayers Watch and initiated lawsuit after lawsuit (including actions against individual Director’s) attempting to force the LOCSD to restart the Tri-W project and attempted to dissolve the district? Or is it the so called “environmentalist” that calls himself “Coast Keeper” and watches every move the LOCSD makes to alert outside agencies to the Districts activities -- triggering attorney’s to be hired to defend the actions of the District whether or not the District has violated any laws. To date the LOCSD has spent nearly $500,000 reacting to Hensley/Taxpayer Watch/Coast Keeper shenanigans.


The Coast Keeper may in fact do good work protecting the environment, but his approach is inequitable, he doesn’t call out Joe Citizen for putting up or taking down fences around Los Osos (apparently the only place in the world to support habitat for the MSS). Hensley’s obsession appears to lie with the LOCSD.


Hensley stands behind his organizations, claiming Taxpayers Watch has 3,400 members (once defined as all those who signed the dissolution petition) and Coast Keeper has some 800 members. Never once since his recall in September 2005, has Hensley come to the podium at an LOCSD meeting and made his case before the public and the Board, choosing instead to fire shots from across the bow of his imaginary ship.
Hensley’s response to Farrell correctly states that the LOCSD unanimously voted to remove the fence (the Board at that time included Joe Sparks), and did so as part of an erosion control plan with input from the Coastal Commission and expert guidance from the very biologist Hensley to look for snails when the fence was first erected.
The erosion that has taken place over the past few storms has jeopardized the safety of the property. Someone really could get hurt out there due to the unstable soil and the risk associated with it. The District is caught in a catch 22; can’t put the fence up due to presence of the MSS and they can’t take it down due to presence of MSS. The funds to pay for the fence are running thin; all that is left from the 2001 $24 million wastewater assessment vote Hensley and his Board majority ran through attempting to force-fit a sewer in the middle of town.
Hensley’s majority spent approximately $250,000 attempting to please USFWS with a community-wide Habitat Conservation Plan. They were unsuccessful and that plan was shelved, all are hoping that the County (a co-applicant of the plan and the land use authority) will pick that back up and implement something that allows individuals and agencies to take down fences, put up fences, build new water infrastructure, expand the library, trim ice-plant along sidewalks, pull weeds and put in paths at Sweet Springs Nature Preserve, allow for new development, redevelopment and necessary and desired community improvements.
While the fence at Tri-W remains a monument to our community’s collective stupidity, it is also a symbol to a small slimy species holds our community hostage from change.

Uh, You Want To Try That Again?

Some weeks ago, Pastor Randy Nash wrote a response to my Bay News column on Prop 8, the proposition which sought to ban gay marriage and which the State Supreme Court is now considering. My question to Mr. Nash (and anybody else) was simple: Please give me some compelling reasons the STATE has to ban gay people from getting married. The Supreme Court had already ruled that they couldn’t find any and had allowed gay folks to get married. Which they did, until the marriages were blocked by Prop. 8.

Pastor Nash had a Viewpoint in the February 26 Bay News (http://www.tolosapress.com/) p. 6, called “State Should Uphold Will of Voters,” that declares, “The key question before the court is this: What compelling reasons does the State have in supporting heterosexual marriage at the expense of same sex marriage?” He then goes on to list all the reasons he feels heterosexual marriage is swell.

Well, O.K., that’s nice, but no cigar, since it’s completely off point. The Supreme Court isn’t thinking to ban straight marriage and so needs reasons to allow it to continue. And I also I don’t think the problem they’re considering is how swell straight marriage is, either. What the AG has asked them to do is figure out whether Prop 8 was a “revision” or merely a minor amendment and/or whether the Proposition violated the basic equal rights protections in the state Constitution. The matter is supposed to be heard in March, with a verdict a few months later.

Meanwhile, my question to Pastor Nash remains: What’s the STATE’S compelling interest in seeing to it gay people can’t get married?

93 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

Then there is that infamous Viewpoint/"statement" from Paavo Orgren in mid August 2007 non the SLOCO BOS Record: "If there is a technology that is signficantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard and all the others fall away."

Paavo's statement was made in "this chapter" of the LOSTDEP.
That makes it very relavant to what is about to be served which you all will pay for.

Pay attention people, it is your project and you are paying for it.

Mike said...

Geez Ann... Another well balanced gossip column with a skewed slant...??? Of course Mr Hensley s the most powerful environmentalist in San Luis Obispo County...

...but is there a chance that Lisa Schecker the CalTrans biologist,had something to do with obtaining (actually NOT obtaining) the permit to allow the fence to be removed...????

Is there truth to the Federal Fish & Game response to Lisa's request for permit and "take" information in Dec 2003... Lisa and Chuck both know full well the requirements and instead, chose to be extremely vindictive to the community by ignoring the requirements and set about blaming Mr Hensley. Apparently Mr Hensley actually knows the laws and did make the requirements known to the Board... Again Lisa and Chuck wrung their hands and cried that Mr Hensley was not playing fair... In fact, Mr Hensley did them a favor by trying to help them get the fence removed... They chose not to...!!!!

Ann, your column is not a balanced view, but a vindictive gossip column used to make you feel good and ignoring the truth about the real problems in Los Osos...

Sewertoons said...

WOW! Where to begin!

For tonight I'll simply paste in parts of my Bay News letter-to-the-editor on the fence issue and add some bolding on the relevant parts.

Lame try at spin Ann, you simply don't have the facts. (Where DO you get your "facts" anyway?)

I wrote: "The fence costs are just another consequence from the actions of the LOCSD Board
consisting of Lisa, Julie, John, Chuck and Steve. The stopping of the project
and the subsequent loss of the SRF funding terminated the ability of the Board
to in any way harass, harm, kill, trap, etc., the federally protected wildlife
in the area, the snails being among the protected. However, until that project's
Coastal Development permit expired, the above mentioned Board had the ability to
remove that fence. They chose not to do so, locking in themselves and future
Boards to pay for it. Why?


"Now the fence must remain until a Habitat Conservation Plan is written - a very
costly proposition (which was a part of the old project). Or fence removal now
could be done with an "incidental take permit." However, this requires a
low-effect (but still expensive) HCP, and maybe fence removal does not meet
low-effect HCP requirements. Julie Vandewier of the US Fish and Game Department
has been an ongoing part of this snail monitoring, and Mr. Hensley is really
incidental to this bigger story. But both could have been interviewed to craft
an accurate accounting of events.

"Like the mid-town site or not, there have been very direct and costly
consequences to stopping that project, the fence being a very small and
sidetracking issue."

Ann, maybe you can itemize that $500,000 you claim TW & Coastkeeper cost the District. I think your numbers are way off.

Watershed Mark said...

However, this conclusion is untrue for two reasons. The first reason is that a 20-
year analysis is not adequate for the task at hand because it does not include the
long-term R&R costs associated with gravity sewer.
The second reason is the numerous erroneous assumptions and data that Brown
and Caldwell used.

http://www.orenco.com/pdfs/olympia_response.pdf

Page 20

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

If people are unable to pay several hundred dollars a month for a bloated project that doesn't apply available cost efficient, energy conseving technology and then cannot continue to live in their homes they become: harassed, harmed, killed, trapped, etc.

Los Osos Citizens are literally and unnecessarily threatened by mission creep.

Watershed Mark said...

The Brown and Caldwell report bases all costs on “theoretical” projects. These
projects are based on assumptions and numbers that do not reflect the current
status in the Olympia area. Had the authors contacted local installers, as Orenco
has done, they would have discovered that many of their costs are exaggerated.

Page 18

http://www.orenco.com/pdfs/olympia_response.pdf

Churadogs said...

Toonces sez:"Lame try at spin Ann, you simply don't have the facts. (Where DO you get your "facts" anyway?)"

Oops, thanks, but the spin isn't mine. I pasted the Editorial, STET, but the name wasn't on it, so will go back and add the author, who is Julie Tacker. Guess you missed the original in the Bay News?

Richard LeGros said...

Hmmmm....

Let us focus on Julie's 'facts'.

Julie is incorrect as to when the Take Permit was granted, which was on January 8, 2004; NOT just prior to the grading of Tri-W in September, 2005.

If you refer to the letter sent to the CSD on July 30, 2007 by Julie Vanderwier of the USF&W, the date of the permit is given (in the biological consultation #). That letter also clarifies the connection between the SRF loan and the loss of the USF&W Permit. As I am not so computer savvy, I will send a copy to Sharkinlet; who will hopefully post it.

What Julie T. could be referring to is the 'Performance Bond' that the CSD bought prior to grading. She might be confusing the two (Permit or Bond); so I will give her the benefit of the doubt.

Other than the permit date, there are no additional facts in her viewpoint; just opinion.

That Julie felt compelled to interject herself into a discussion that was between Neil Farrel and Gordon Hensley is odd.

What is even odder is that Julie begins her viewpoint agreeing with Hensley that he does not have any control to take down the fence; that is the sole prerogative of the LOCSD.

The fence issue is one that may only be resolved by the CSD complying with the law. Julie knows this; yet she went to great lengths to malign Mr. and Hensley and his role as 'Coastkeeper' despite his control over the issue.

Insultingly calling Hensley 'vindictive' and 'cowardly', she says that his actions are solely to 'pick on' the CSD; as she opines why he as Coastkeeper does not report on the activities of private citizens too. Julie fails to understand that the sole mission of the Coastkeeper is to watchdog the activities of GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, not as a watchdog of the behavior of private citizens. It is the role of GOVERNMENT to hold private citizens accountable to the law if law is violated; not the Coastkeeper. Anyone who looks into the behavior of the Coastkeeper will see that they watchdog all local governmental agencies and their permitting activities; with his oversight of CSD issues being one of many.

When I read the viewpoint, I get the sense that Julie Tacker is striking out at Hensley because Hensley has her in a corner; specifically she is very fearful of the Taxpayer's Watch lawsuit. That Julie felt it would is good idea to insult Taxpayer's Watch and Hensley on the eve of settlement discussions, especially when there is a mutually-agreed upon 'standown' on said lawsuit, shows her frustration and fear.

In closing, the Julie's viewpoint just highlights the frustration of a woman who has, by her own actions and fears, marginalized herself and her ability to
be taken seriously.

-R

Richard LeGros said...

Oops...I made an error needing correction;

I WROTE: "The fence issue is one that may only be resolved by the CSD complying with the law. Julie knows this; yet she went to great lengths to malign Mr. and Hensley and his role as 'Coastkeeper' despite his control over the issue."

The last sentence should read ".....Hensley and his role as 'Coastkeeper' despite his NOT HAVING control over the issue."

-R

Ron said...

Julie wrote:

"While the fence at Tri-W remains a monument to our community’s collective stupidity..."

Great line.

It reminds me of how I, in Three Blocks, called both "sides" "stupid," when I wrote in 2004:

"In all fairness, let's not just lay the "stupid" label at the CSD's feet. Sure, it's the elected officials in this seaside hamlet that green-light one ill-conceived idea after another, but I'm not sure we can rule out stupidity on the part of the opponents to this (Tri-W) project. For years, they have been too inept to formulate a plan to stop it. But that may be a bit harsh. They can hardly be blamed for letting this project fester for years with few, if any, substantial victories. Their lack of a viable plan of attack is understandable considering the glaring omissions of critical information in the facilities report, and those hideous, misleading euphemisms that are peppered throughout the document."

I've said it before, and I'm going to say it again... Damn, I'm good.

Richard wrote:

"... marginalized herself and her ability to be taken seriously."

That coming from you?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

No problem ... the file Richard refers to is: http://sharkinlet.fileave.com/07.07.30%20FWS.Communication.pdf.

Richard LeGros said...

Additional comments regarding Julie’s Viewpoint:

Julie claims that the legality of the HCP is ‘tied up in Bankruptcy Court’. This is not true.

The US Bankruptcy Court is not the court in which to adjudicate the legality of that issue; nor is the LOCSD seeking such adjudication. The US Bankruptcy Court is strictly set up to allow the LOCSD to temporarily set aside creditor’s debts so that the LOCSD may continue operation until the LOCSD can set up a plan to pay off said debt. Upon the Bankruptcy Plans approval the debts will be paid by the property owners.

On the issue of the HCP, the LOCSD developed a HCP as it was a requirement upon the LOCSD in order to obtain a Permit from the USF&W for the Tri-W Project. The plan was on the verge of approval at time of the recall election.

The LOCSD’s HCP was the legal vehicle by which all Los Osos property owners wishing to develop their property (new or remodel) would have been able to mitigate their project’s environmental impacts without having to go through the Byzantine and expensive process to obtain their own HCP from the USF&W.
The loss of the HCP places Los Osos property owners in a terrible position restricting, even preventing, the ability of property owners to remodel existing homes; with new construction within and outside of the PZ essentially eliminated.

Please realize that the LOCSD’s HCP with attendant mitigation was only for the Tri-W Project; and said HCP cannot be used by the County’s waste water Project.

To date, the County has yet to address in its waste water Project the method by which they are going to mitigate the development of a 640 acre treatment site , disruption caused by the collection systems construction or homeowner hookup to the collection system; nor the costs associated with said mitigation. To wit, the County will have to develop a completely new HCP/mitigation process completely separate from the HCP developed by the LOCSD.

The HCP process will take years; add millions of dollars to the County’s Project for mitigation land acquisition and additional huge fees to property owners to develop their property. Said fees will be used to pay for the mitigation land and HCP implementation and operation.

Lastly, I am troubled by Julie’s statement of “While the fence at Tri-W remains a monument to our community’s collective stupidity….” Julie is not only calling Los Ossian’s stupid; but is attempting to sidestep her responsibility that she bears regarding the decisions she made while serving as a board member on the LOCSD.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

r wrote: Julie is not only calling Los Ossian’s stupid; but is attempting to sidestep her responsibility that she bears regarding the decisions she made while serving as a board member on the LOCSD.

Takes one to know one...

Ron said...

Ohhhhh, Riiickkyyy, joooo gotta lotta 'splainin' to dooooo...

Guess what, Richard?

I'm researching a story, and just a few minutes ago, I was going through some of my old (and excellent) Bay Breeze/News issues that I edited back in 1999, and, in one of them, it reads:

- - -
"A 'Sewer Standing Committee' was created by (the 1999 Los Osos CSD Board), that includes two CSD Directors, Stan Gustafson, and vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, plus one Solution Group member... At the March 18th (1999) CSD meeting, the Board appointed Frank Freiler, Jerry Gregory, Richard LeGros and Virgil Just as the four 'at large' Sewer Standing Committee members. Bob Semenson was appointed as the Solution Group representative."
- - -

Ohhhhh, Riiickkyyy... On March 18th, 1999, Pandora's dead-on-arrival ponding system was STILL on the table, Holmes, and stayed on the table for the next two f-ing years, and YOU helped shepherd it along for ALL of those painfully wasteful months!

So, turns out, not only did Richard sit on a "Sewer Standing Committee" with Pandora Nash-Karner (for god's sake, SHE appointed him to the position!), but it was a board committed to Nash-Karner's failed "better, cheaper, faster" project.

Uhhhh, Richard? I have a coupla questions for you:

At what point did you realize, as an "at large" member of the 1999 Sewer Standing Committee, (created by Nash-Karner, who then appointed you), that the sewer project that was solely responsible for forming the LOCSD in the first place, AND solely responsible for causing the demise of the county's "ready to go" project in 1999, wasn't going to work?

And;

Why did you, as a Sewer Standing Committee member, waste two years chasing Nash-Karner's dead-on-arrival, "better, cheaper, faster" project, when there was a GIGANTIC stack of official evidence (that had existed for months at the time) that clearly showed it was never going to work?

Ohhhhh, Riiickkyyy...

Richard LeGros said...

Surprising fair questions:

1. As I have blogged many times in the past, I did not support the Solution Group, their Plan or the formation of the LOCSD.

I stated my position publicly prior to the formation of the LOCSD; and prior to my appointment to the WW committee.

My appointment to the WW committee was controversial; ironically with Gordon Hensley and Sylvia Smith vigorously opposing my appointment. The theme of the opposition from the board and the public was that I was not 'one of them'. I say ironic as later Sylvia was to enthusiastically publicly endorse my candidacy to the LOCSD board; and Gordon's opposition turned to support and admiration as I gently persuaded him that the Solution Group Plan was not viable and DOA.

2. One must acknowledge the heady and elative character of the times (1998-2000).
The new LOCSD board, composed entirely of Solution Group activists, came into power believing whole-heartedly that their plan was workable; and that by sheer force of will they could challenge the regulators and law to their point-of-view. They were very wrong.

It took 18 months for the Solution Group board to shed their activist roles; which was fighting the very governmental system they were now part of and required to support. Realize that activists can say and do as they please; and need not prove anything to anyone but themselves (Just like you, Ron).

Activist behavior is not possible for elected officials as they are only empowered as far as their oath of office grants them; i.e. they must act and make decisions that uphold the LAW they are sworn to enforce. Elected officials who are challenging / fighting the laws that they are obligated to uphold will only result in poor decisions and poor government as it places their constituents at risk. Now, an elected official that upholds the law AND follows process to change the law(s) they object to is one thing; but to fight the law without attempting to alter the law is, in my opinion, a disaster waiting to happen.

So there I sat on the WW committee gently holding the pro-Solution Group forces feet to the fire over their Plan. Over time, as the regulators and State patiently but firmly outlined the law and it's requirements, the waste water Committee, and the CSD Board itself, went through a huge learning curve. That learning curve culminated in the realization (around 2000), that their beloved plan would not work AND the realization that to continue fighting the other governmental agencies placed Los Osos in an extremely dangerous position if the CSD did not meet the RWQCB Time order.

Realizing their failed plan; and not wishing to cost the property owners any more time or money to promote a plan that would not work; nor wishing to lead Los Osos down a path of regulatory opposition that would harm Los Osos, the CSD earnestly began work on an alternate project that was viable to the regulators and worthy of being funded by the State.


I find amazing the similarities between the Solution Group and the CCLO/LLTTF. Both were activists groups that wrestled power away from others, came into power with a fanaticism not unlike a political coup, and started to about business with chips on their shoulders.

The differences are that the Solution Group (A)- never sued anyone, (B)- the Solution Group actually had a Plan, and (C)- the Solution Group realized their errors and made the switch from fighting the regulators to building a constructive relationship with them.

This last point (C) is, in my opinion, why the post recall board failed so disastrously.... they never realized that they too were bound by their oaths of office to uphold the law and work with the regulators to solve the district's problems. Instead, it became a case study of ‘my way or the highway’. The results have cost Los Osos dearly.

-R

Ron said...

I thought this sounded weird:

"Bob Semenson was appointed as the Solution Group representative."

Want to see ANOTHER great example of just how sneaky Nash-Karner is, and what Los Osos has had to put up with over the past 20 years... check this:

According to my Bay Breeze report, the 1999 Sewer Standing Committee, was to include "one Solution Group member" (which is kind of weird, right there -- why did it have to include "one Solution Group member?"), but look who Nash-Karner appointed as the "at-large" members:

"Frank Freiler, Jerry Gregory, Richard LeGros and Virgil Just."

According to Nash-Karner's 1998, Solution Group newsletter (that I scanned in years ago, and began to make public on my blog... years ago, because I realized what an amazing document it was):

Frank Freiler: Solution Group member

Jerry Gregory: Solution Group member

Virgil Just: Solution Group member

Gets worse:

Nash-Karner: Solution Group member

Stan Gustafson: Solution Group member

Their fellow 1999 CSD Director, Gordon Hensley: Solution Group member

And, of course, Bob Semenson: Solution Group member

There was only ONE person that WASN'T a "Solution Group member" on the 1999 Sewer Standing Committee: Richard LeGros.

But, according to 1999 LOCSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, "the 1999 Sewer Standing Committee, was to include "one Solution Group member."

Welcome to Los Osos.

Richard wrote:

"(B)- the Solution Group actually had a Plan"

That a GIGANTIC stack of official evidence showed was never going to work in Los Osos, and it showed that BEFORE the 1998 election that formed the CSD on the back of Nash-Karner's dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" project.

That "project" formed the LOCSD for no reason whatsoever, and it caused the demise of the county's 1998, "ready to go" project... for no reason whatsoever.

Richard, to use ANOTHER Star Wars analogy, you went to the Dark Side.

Richard LeGros said...

LOL,

Of course there was a 'GIGANTIC stack of official evidence' that the Solution Group plan was not viable. That there was is undeniable fact.
And yes, the Solution Group plan deep-sixed the County's Plan. That too is undeniable fact.

However, have you ever tried to explain the truth to activists (such as yourself) who refuse to hear something they do not want to hear?.....you know, like leading a 'horse to water, etc.' You must realize how excruciating it was to sit on the WW committee for years; with my input being rebuffed because I did not follow 'da party line'.

Anyway, it is NOT illegal to NOT listen and be a stick in the mud, Ron.
To not listen is stupid, time-wasting behavior BUT not illegal.
It is NOT illegal to win an election and kill a project either (same goes for the post recall board too)....just stupid.

As for Pandora supporting my appointment, it was a case of 'hold your friends close and your enemy (me) closer'. I sure my appointment was driven by politics to have an opponent from 'da other side' from which to glean information for 'da cause'.

Sadly the post-recall board did not have a 'Richard LeGros-like character' to hold their feet to the fire and encourage listening to opponents concerns and 'official documentation'/reason!
To Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John, it was 'off with their (opponents) heads....and your little dogs too!' LOL

Ron said...

Richard wrote:

"It took 18 months for the Solution Group board to shed their activist roles..."

Now tell me who the f-ing "obstructionists" are.

Sewertoons said...

Ron, we "GET" it - the Solutions Group messed up!

Yes, they cost this community some time and money - but they REALIZED the futility of their position - they LEARNED something and went ahead with a NEW project that was funded, permitted and actually BROKE GROUND.

A crucial difference with them is that they were against a faceless big government entity - "THE COUNTY," as having put forth a bad plan, which unified the community where the Lisa Board brought hatred right into the neighborhood pitting neighbors against each other. BIG difference.

What we all don't get - is why you never continued with your story on the NEXT mess up - is it because we never agreed publicly that the Solutions Group messed up?

Frankly, the giant debacle to follow is far more bizarre as no one learned a thing and they are STILL defending bankrupting the community by saying that some ideas on paper WAY AFTER THE FACT was actually some sort of "plan!"

What you don't get Ron, is that Los Osos citizens will PAY for this bankruptcy. That is something the Solutions Group did NOT do to us.

There can be more than one set of "obstructionists" - so why can't you realize that and finish your version of this story, you know bring us up to 2009?

Richard LeGros said...

LOL,

Of course the Solution Group obstructed and killed a project! Has anyone ever said otherwise?

As I blogged, there are many similarities between the SG and the CCLO/LLTTF. The BIG difference is that the SG learned from their errors and got on with it; vowing not to take Los Osos down the regulatory-fighting, project-killing path again.

Meanwhile, the CCLO/LLTTF did not learn a thing and would not alter their behavior of 'fighting da MAN' regardless of the damages they were warned about.

There came the moment when the post recall board had to make a critical decision:

EITHER COMPLY with the State to maintain the SRF loan, honor the LOCSD binding contractural obligations and restart the Tri-W Project;

OR REFUSE the State's final offer, guaranteeing the loss of the SRF loan and expose the LOCSD to huge financial damages by defaulting on numerous binding contract obligations.

Their decision is history; with the damages know known.
What is not known is the advice given to them by their consultants (Wildan/Blesky and Julia Biggs/BW&S); advice upon which the recall board based their decision.

While SG killed the County's cheaper plan, the cost of the killing was not placed on the Los Osos property owners (the $5.5 million the County spent was absorbed by all SLO County taxpayers).

With the CCLO/LLTTF, the project-killing costs fell entirely on the Los Osos Taxpayer ($50 million and counting).

Both killings were senseless and stupid; but neither action was illegal. Do we really want to encourage a third failure by playing the process AGAIN?

-R

Ron said...

Richard, as long as you're in the question answering mood...

Here's one that I asked Gordo years ago, and, of course, never received a reply.

Richard wrote:

"... the CSD earnestly began work on an alternate project that was viable to the regulators and worthy of being funded by the State."

Question: Why did the CSD's "alternative project," that required "5 -7 acres," have to go in the exact same location as their first failed project, that required "50 - 70 acres," -- a project that they wasted "18 months" futilely chasing, and was solely responsible for forming the LOCSD, AND causing the demise of the county 1998 "ready to go" project?

How do you answer that question, Richard?

What was the reason?

Two totally different projects -- vastly different from each other -- so why did the second, vastly redesigned project ("5-7 acres") have to go in the exact same location as their first failed project -- a project that required "50 - 70 acres?"

For over five years now, since Three Blocks was published, I've looked for an answer to that question, and I can't find ONE.

With a bit of luck, one of these days, I'll discover an answer to that absolutely FUNDAMENTAL question... that I, alone, ask.

Because, I have to admit, that was AWFULLY convenient for the "Solution Group board" -- that their second project HAD to go in the exact same place as their first, completely different, project.

AWWWWWFULLY convenient.

So, why?

Sewertoons said...

Gee , Ron, even someone who blogs knows the answer to that one! (Richard, do you mind if I take a crack at this? I'm sure you will have a far more detailed answer but to the uneducated [Ron - "stuck in 2005 with blinders on Ron," perhaps mine will do.)

The property was bought! BONDS were sold to buy the property!!! How do you undo that? Pay for another piece of property when the community had just paid for a piece of property? That is why the "move the sewer" thing was so poorly thought out - well, Julie DID think it should be sold to Jeff Edwards - and she merely "worked" for him at that point!!

Ron said...

I wrote:

"For over five years now, since Three Blocks was published, I've looked for an answer to that question, and I can't find ONE."

I take that back. As I recently reported, I do know of ONE... and it's the only one left.

Why did their second failed project have to go in the exact same location as their first failed project?

To cover-up the fact that the "better, cheaper, faster" project that Nash-Karner used to form the LOCSD in 1998, and then toss the county's "ready to go" project" in the trash in 1999 (a County project that took engineers nearly a decade to develop, at the expense of some $6 million to county taxpayers) AND wasted "18 months," according to a former Sewer Standing Committee member, chasing "better, cheaper, faster," had failed.

THAT's why their second failed project had to go in the exact same location as their first failed project -- to cover all of that up.

I mean, what else is there? I'm all ears.

It's the only plausible explanation left.

Following the county's careful analysis, that showed the SECOND Tri-W project to be the exact technological embarrassment that I've reported it to be over the past five years... and counting... it's the only plausible explanation left.

And, if you want to see some beautiful "all... dots... connected" stuff on what I just wrote there, I highly recommend this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/tribune-is-suffering-from-memory-loss.html

... and, if you've already read my Viewpoint at the top of that post, just scroll down to where I answer the intensely excellent question that I pose in my Viewpoint.

Tight, tight stuff. (That part where I'm talking about getting Monowitz under oath? Yummy.)

By the way, I hear that the Sun Bulletin published my Viewpoint a couple weeks back, and the Sun Bulletin is a "newspaper of general circulation" that publishes a least once a week.

MEMO TO THE SUN BULLETIN: Congratulations! Little do you know, but you are now eligible for the Pulitzer Prize in Investigative Journalism in 2009, and, more excellent news; the Pulitzer selection committee allows for "supplemental material" (like previously published stories that relate to the "calendar year" published story) to be included in an entry. If New Times, or some other weekly-at-least publication doesn't run one of my stories between now and December 31, I'll get back with ya. Cioa.

Richard LeGros said...

Part 1 of an answer: 1990 to 1997

You must realize that the Solution Group was largely composed of dozens of long-time citizens that had been involved with (and served on) the early LOCAC (around 1990).

The early LOCAC was organized to provide advice to the County regarding Land Planning issues of concern to Los Osos. If you look at the early LOCAC documents (particularly the LOCAC Vision Statement) you will see a concerted effort to maintain and limit the size and boundary of Los Osos (i.e. Los Osos not to grow into Los Osos Valley); with the added desire that the County address multiple community issues such as the dearth of community parkland, water conservation and maintenance of water resources, the avoidance of the need to import water, the realization of a wastewater collection and treatment project, storm water drainage abatement, automobile circulation, etc. The push behind the LOCAC Vision Statement as adopted by the County was focused on resolving a multitude of unresolved Los Osos resource issues with a single project, or a single Resource Management Plan. In truth, a revolutionary way of thinking about the design of public work projects; and reasoning that is gaining momentum worldwide today.

The compelling reasons for the Resource Management Plan were the perceived cost savings hoped to be realized through co-coordinating multi-project logistics into a definitive, single project; with an added bonus of quicker resolution of the community’s needs in lieu of time consuming, expensive, and uncoordinated multiple projects.

In the 1990's as the County was developing their WW Plan for Los Osos, many Los Osos citizens, especially LOCAC, became concerned that the County was missing an excellent opportunity to incorporate the innovative ideas of a Resource Management Plan into their WW Project. The result of that concern (and responding to the rigidity of the County to incorporate aspects of the Vision Statement), was formation of the Solution Group; which was organized to apply political pressure upon, and a technical alternate to, the County WW Plan; and a Plan based upon the LOCAC Vision Statement.

The rest is history; the County could not resist the citizens of Los Osos uproar over their WW plan; the CCC withheld the County's needed Coastal Permit long enough for Los Osos to organize, hold an election and form the LOCSD; where after the WW Project authority transferred to the newborn LOCSD.

END

Part 2, 1997 to 2001 to come
(To focus on the LOCSD’s incorporation of the LOCAC Vision Statement into the SOC, the failure of the LOCSD’s Treatment Plant Engineers (Oswald-Greene) to provide RWQCB-requested data on the N-removal history of the ponds; and formation of a new plan maintaining the integrity of the LOCAC Vision Statement / SOC while incorporating alternate technologies.)

-R

Richard LeGros said...

Ron,

Before you go off with out-of context postings what I blog as 'proof' of your so-called 'all-dots connected, supper-tight' missive, you may want to try listening for once.

If you are sincere to have an answer, avoid shamefully force-fitting what I blog into the framework of your fantasy.
Keep up the behavior of misuse, and there will not be a Part 2.


-R

Watershed Mark said...

r-It is impolite to both demand and insult in the same sentence.

Why do you need the extra time to formulate your answers?
You've had years to stew and could have written a book about your experiences by now.

Sewertoons said...

Richard, thanks for your history time line. It is very helpful to us bloggers I truly hope that you will continue even if Ron is a jerk.

Watershed Mark said...

hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
Date: 13th century
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"Other than the permit date, there are no additional facts in her viewpoint; just opinion."

Uh, that's probably why they call it a "viewpoint."

Richard sez:"Realizing their failed plan; and not wishing to cost the property owners any more time or money to promote a plan that would not work; nor wishing to lead Los Osos down a path of regulatory opposition that would harm Los Osos, the CSD earnestly began work on an alternate project that was viable to the regulators and worthy of being funded by the State."

So, you were in a position to know and ask: Why did the CSD move heaven and earth, including lying about the unsupported SOC regarding overwhelming public wish for a park in a sewer, & etc, to keep the sewer plant at Tri-W against all opposition, fiercely resist moving the plant when it was clear the original Ponds of Avalon wouldn't work, and when there (always) WAS a non-ESHA viable alternative available and the alternatives weren't waaaaayyyyy more expensive and those options were available and should have been presented to the community? What kept you (?) and the CSD clinging so fiercely to Tri-W. And even later, when people asked for a (vote)choice of in-town and out of town vote, did your Board resist even to the point of tearing the community apart.

That key moment you speak of was one of the critical paths that could have stopped this train wreck. You say you were right there. So exactly what happened and why? And please remember, Ron's connected a whole lot of dots. See if you can connect those few key dots between the Death of The Ponds, and the WMH Tri-W plant. That moment in time is critical and to date remains a mystery. (The "why" TriW site was kept in such a death grip.)

Richard sez;"OR REFUSE the State's final offer, guaranteeing the loss of the SRF loan and expose the LOCSD to huge financial damages by defaulting on numerous binding contract obligations."

You forgot the October compromise which was within a hair's breath of happening,untilthe state put in the killing Hobson's Choice deal breaker. Why did they do that, is another one of those key mysteries. Know anybody up at the SRF office who can (honestly, off the record) 'splain that? And don't say they didn't have a choice. Those boys sent an unsecured loan down. They could easily have worked to make that copromise happen. The community was ready to go. Didn't happen. Why?

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

You can stop feigning your faux anger over the process of how the CSD got to the Tri-W Plan.
We all know you do not want a waste water project at all; so why the meaningless angst?

You should stop maligning people who behaved in the public interest with honesty and intelligence. Those good folks did the hard work to actually resolve the problem and were bringing Los Osos in compliance with the Law. Those folks were trying to protect YOU and all of Los Osos.

You must accept that the recall board HAD A DECISION TO MAKE which WAS ONLY THEIRS TO MAKE.

Here is the decision that Julie Tacker, Lisa Schicker, John Fouche, Steve Senet and Chuck Cesena had to make in the public interest:

EITHER:
ADHERE TO THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE BY OBEYING THE LAW AND HONOR THE COMMUNITY'S CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS; THEREBY PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY AND THE CSD FROM SERIOUS FINANCIAL DAMAGE.

OR:
REFUSE TO FOLLOW THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE BY SNUBBING THE LAW, REFUSING TO HONOR THE COMMUNITY'S CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS; THEREBY CAUSING SERIOUS FINANCIAL DAMAGE TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE LOCSD.

THAT my dear is the critical decision that those holding the reins of power (Julie, Lisa, Chuck, John and Steve) had to make.

THEY failed to make the prudent choice.

THEY failed to accept that THEY did not have the political power or acumen to force the State to comply to THEIR point of view; deciding INSTEAD that no sewer at all with attendant damage was better than meeting their oaths of office in order to sooth their fragile egos!

The fact that today THEY, YOU, ETAL want to AVOID THIS FACT and redirect the shame and stupidity of THEIR disastrous decision on everyone else but themselves is disgusting!

Lady, you ain’t foolin’ anyone!

-R

Sewertoons said...

Ann, perhaps you remember the story about some guy up near Salinas who was elected mayor of a town on a premise that he was going to stop some public works project that many in town hated. He took office and studied the details and changed his mind on the issue that got him elected because he understood that if he went ahead, he'd be causing great expense to the citizens. He probably never got elected again, but he save the town some big bucks.

The Lisa Board had plenty of information to do what this man did, to back down when they saw they couldn't fulfill their campaign promises, yet they didn't and now we are all stuck paying back the bankruptcy costs, more for a sewer and we have ruined our lower aquifer that many years of delay more from salt water intrusion. Was it worth it?

TCG said...

A really sad fact following this irresponsible decision that Mr. LeGros and Sewertoons just alluded to is that over the past several months our State and Federal Legislatures, our President and his staff have been continuing to ignore the consequences of their actions on the public while they play like God and push their personal agendas.

Mike said...

BIG difference... The President is only going to tax the 2% (apparently that's you and me) and give tax reductions and bailouts to the other 98%...like AIG and CitiGroup and GM...

The Lisa CSD thought they also were a soverign nation and had unlimited funds to spend as they felt like doing...

...hmmm... maybe there isn't much difference....

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

'Toons,

That guy you refer to is Richard Katz (I believe), SWRCB board member and he mentioned this story to Lisa when she got up in front of the board and said that she didn't understand why they can't completely redefine the project without SWRCB approval and still keep the SRF loan.

She didn't take the hint.


Ann, again, repeating statements again and again doesn't make them any more true. You fall into that trap two times here. First when you discuss lying about the SOCs. Just because Ron thinks that the SOCs were unsupported doesn't make it so but even if they were unsupported, his belief does not make the SOCs a lie.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, you suggest the SWRCB staff is the group who torpedoed the compromise deal. That is not true. They did try to work with the LOCSD and offered the LOCSD a way to keep the SRF loan (as they asked) ... all the LOCSD had to do was to was to hold a 218 vote. The LOCSD chose not to do so and Dan Blesky explained this decision weakly by saying that they couldn't afford payments on a bridge loan between December and February. This we know now to be 100% bullcr*p because shortly after this the LOCSD hired Ripley to design a whole new system and the amount they paid to Ripley has already exceeded any bridge loan costs. We also know that Dan was willing to move money around willy-nilly (like robbing the fire fund to pay for the corporate jet).

Nope, the post-recall LOCSD board chose to refuse the very reasonable SWRCB offer to let them keep the SRF loan.

Why?

I've wondered for a LOOOOONG time why Lisa and the rest got everything they asked for from the SWRCB and then still refused to sign on the dotted line.

It is sort of like they were shopping for a car and found a really good deal ... exactly what they were asking for at the price they wanted ... and even a month earlier than they expected to buy the car ... and then after getting cold feet they mumbled some sort of statement about not being able to afford the cost of an extra month of insurance that they weren't expecting to have to pay. Heck, if it's a good deal, you can always buy fewer cups of coffee or eat out less often. The LOCSD could have gone with the compromise. They chose not to even explore the possibility in any serious fashion.

Watershed Mark said...

Lyneete,
Your "story" above smacks of your "park at the WWTP in Bev Hills and SF".
If r had done a better job, he would have created the political will he likes to think everyone else did not have, befor he "rushed" to clear cut Tri-W.

His thinking that, once those trees were clear cut, no one would want to stop that leaky pipe project, was not accurate.
That is why r and his board were removed from office.

Billy Dunne said...

'Toons and Shark:

I'm pretty sure that was Russell Jeffries, who was vice chair at the time. I remember him patiently explaining to Lisa his circumstances in Salinas, as 'Toons mentioned. All for naught of course.

Out-of-town bores with monetary agendas wouldn't understand your reference 'Toons. Nicely done.

Ron said...

Ahahaha...

Just dropped by to rub it in.

According to the County's Public Works Department this afternoon:

"The choice is clear, out of town..."

10-percent selected "mid-town" in the survey.

Ahahaha!

Hey, I thought there was a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that ANY sewer plant MUST also double as a "centrally located recreational asset?!!"

Aahahahahahah!!

Sucks being right all the time.

"The (Tri-W) wastewater project is truly a community-based project."
-- Roger Briggs, Executive Officer, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, June 24, 2004

Aahahahahahaha!!!

Oh, I'm gonna have fun with those survey results, for months to come.

Now I'm listening to Garfinkel, who had his Viewpoint signed by Pandora Nash-Karner, whine about some "silent majority."

Aahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Billy Dunne said...

...and 72%!!!! chose gravity. Way to go Los Osos!!

Now I'm listening for Ronnie and Ann to whine about some "silent majority."

Aahahahahahah!!!!

M said...

Would someone stab me in the eye with a sewing needle or something. Now we've got sewertoons doing tag team schtick with (Richard, do you mind if I take a crack at this? I'm sure you will have a far more detailed answer but to the uneducated...
Are you saying that Tri-W land was already purchased for the failed first plan, even though they already knew that it wasn't going to fly?
So what if it was? They can't turn around and resell it? For a profit probably?
Very weak argument.
I'm not so sure the timeline fits either.
Sincerely, M

Mike said...

Sorry M, you don't have the concept of how long it takes to buy a large parcel (just how many were really available in the time period and price range at that time?)... and simultaneously design a WWTF project... It ain't like buying a house...

Sewertoons said...

Thanks for the help Shark and Billy Dunne - I too have wondered why, with all of the warnings, they chose to not hold a 218, thereby irresponsibly condemning the town to massive debt and delay. All I can come up with was that they knew their 218 would NOT pass, and the project would revert to Tri-W.

So now we get to pay for the old project, the new project and the bankruptcy - and probably more costs down the road to get the water from the County project up to tertiary via charges from the water purveyors.

Thanks Lisa, Julie, Chuck, Steve and John. My only comfort is that YOU will be paying these costs too.

Watershed Mark said...

Lyneete,
Didn't your husband state on the record at today's BOS public comment that he was no expert and that you and he moved to LO just four years ago?

Talk about timeline...I gues you really needed "a cause".

Willy, sometimes it takes someone from "outside" looking in to actually see the forest for the trees...

Ron "THE MAN" Crawford sure has it correct, EVERYTIME.(sorry r)

Watershed Mark said...

That leaky bell and spigot sewerage is going to be tough to install in a PZ littered with CDO's.

Sewertoons said...

I find it funny that the town was OK with a pond in the middle of town - with it's very possible smells, yet NOT OK with a plant that had total smell control at the same location. Resist the price of the mid-town plant, yes - you can do that and make sense, but you really can't say a thing about smells on that site if you voted for the CSD in the first place, as the idea was to stop the County project and do a pond, in the middle of town.

Now, with Biolac or Oxditch, the accompanying smells will be out of town and the cost might well be higher than the "expensive" plant in town. Such is the outcome of the democratic process.

Watershed Mark said...

Now, with Biolac™ or Oxditch, the accompanying smells and 900 kWh and 1.1 million kWh respectively verses USBF™ that is odorless and uses 454 kWh.

A co-equal process would show this in memo and a DEIR.

Mike said...

Oh but the sewer obstructionists are already preparing their next round of objections...aren't you Ann...??? ...and this was just a "survey"... not even close to the final design decisions...

Ah yes, the Gossip Columnist is already pounding away on her keyboard... even if STEP would have been the choice, her keyboard would have been smokin' away...

...and we haven't heard from the NIMBY'ers yet... Tri-W is going to sound like heaven before all the smoke settles...maybe even with the Crawford Memorial Park...!!!!

Watershed Mark said...

Swashbuckler Calhoun: The Real McCoy...

alabamasue said...

Ann and Ron, and to a lesser degree, Keith Whiner: Do you enjoy being ass-kissed by Mesa Mark? "Swashbuckler Ann", the "real McCoy"?? And Ron "THE MAN" Crawford?? As for Whiner, he is a real BEAR!? Time to get real. We are going to have a sewer here. We are going to pay a lot of money for it. I've lived here for 25 years, I knew we would have to have a sewer, and have saved money for it. What were the other people in town thinking ? Perhaps Julie's "There will be a sewer in this town over my dead body" (A consummation devoutly to be wished) or there is also " we know how to derail any process".

Sewertoons said...

Yes. We will have a sewer despite the whiners, the obstructionists and the likes of Tom Murphy. These malcontents will have to find ways to deal with their great and perhaps overwhelming disappointment. (We might have a rush on shrinks renting offices here! Or perhaps a third saloon!)

Funny, those who actually want a sewer are not going to stew about it if they don't get their favorite combo of technologies. Those who don't - I'm hoping the County is prepared for fending off some lawsuits. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior… unfortunately.

Watershed Mark said...

Why so angry Sue? I want you to have a sewer too.
I have just now taken off my jacket and will begin to roll up my sleeves.

Lyneete,
Are you thinking of drinking away your frustrations?
Don't you already have a shrink?

Watershed Mark said...

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:54 AM
To: mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us
Cc: jwaddell@co.slo.ca.us; pogren@co.slo.ca.us; mark@nowastewater.com
Subject: FIOA Request
Importance: High

This duplicate copy is for my records.

Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:51 AM
To: 'mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: 'jwaddell@co.slo.ca.us'; pogren@co.slo.ca.us; Karl Hadler; Lou Carella
Subject: FIOA Request

Greetings Mark,

Please provide electronic or hard paper copies which will be scanned into electronic form every detailed billing from Carollo Engineering and Michael Brandman Associates submitted to the SLO County since January 1st, 2007.

The “40 chart of accounts” system you referred to during yesterday’s BOS meeting will not suffice as I am interested in very specific billing information including but not limited to the May 5th, 2007 Carollo Engineers meeting with ECOfluid Systems in their Seattle offices.

Please let me know when these documents are ready for review.

Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"

Ron said...

'toons wrote:

"I find it funny that the town was OK with a pond in the middle of town - with it's very possible smells, yet NOT OK with a plant that had total smell control at the same location."

Welcome to Behavior Based Marketing 101.

Like I always say, behavior based marketing only works when the people that it's targeted at don't know they are being behavior based marketed. Once they become aware, behavior based marketing ceases to work.

'toons, here's your homework assignment...

Read this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html

And then write a short essay explaining why I use that great, perfect "Jedi mind trick" analogy in that post.

A.Sue wrote:

"Ann and Ron, and to a lesser degree, Keith Whiner: Do you enjoy being ass-kissed by Mesa Mark? "Swashbuckler Ann", the "real McCoy"?? And Ron "THE MAN" Crawford??"

Excellent question, and my answer to that question (and, I'm sure, Ann's) is, no.

I don't like it.

I've almost posted something on it a few times, but it's a kind of a weird subject to broach, but, no. I don't like it.

Good question, though.

alabamasue said...

By all means, mark, take off your jacket, roll up your sleeves, loosen your tie, untie your shoelaces, drop your drawers if you want. You still will not be involved in any Los Osos project, despite your constant donkey-braying. You lost all credibility a long time ago...

alabamasue said...

Ron,
Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful answer.

Watershed Mark said...

I Love LO!!

Sewertoons said...

Gee, behavior based marketing - just what Chuck, Steve and John did to get elected! Think they learned that from Pandora? Except this time, a few more woke up and the Directors were recalled by very few votes and Measure B by a mere 20 votes. How about reporting on that Ron? This way you can keep referring to your beloved, Pandora, yet still find a way to write something new!

Many if not most people vote with their emotions, which makes me think public works projects should only be in the hands of an entity big enough to fend off the project killers. I believe the County is up to the task.

Oh, and as to the homework, I must correct you on this statement of yours,
"You see, Schicker and Tacker, as Nash-Karner is well aware, have always favored a wastewater project in Los Osos…" You don't know Julie very well, do you? Ha-ha-ha-ha!!! This statement alone casts doubt on the veracity of all your statements.

I will stop being snarky for a moment though, to say I appreciated your answer to alabamasue.

Mike said...

alabamasue... I'm ready to campaign for you to be President of the USA...!!!!!!! but stay here in Los Osos, we need your insight...!!!!!

Love your responses to Ann, Ron, Keith and the Arizona Ass...!!!! You are right on the mark...!!!!

Sewertoons said...

Go 'ABSue!!!! Keep 'em coming!!!

Aaron said...

People like Julie Tacker need to understand that personal attacks and character assassinations are not the way to go. Also, nitpicking the smallest details will also leave the nitpicker open for some harsh scrutiny.

Tacker constantly feels the need to interject herself into conversations and issues in order to distract the community from the problems that she's incited stemming from her "conflict of interest" relationship with developer Jeff Edwards to deceiving the community by telling them that the board had a plan for Los Osos.

I'm going to put this on the record and say that I am tired of Julie Tacker. I just see that her previous actions outweigh the significance of her words now. There's a "tune-out" factor. I'll read what she writes, but I feel that there is no higher, altruistic purpose that is being achieved from being prejudiced.

Sewertoons said...

Re: Ms. Tacker
Aaron, you have a LOT of company on tuning out.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Just because Ron thinks that the SOCs were unsupported doesn't make it so but even if they were unsupported, his belief does not make the SOCs a lie."

Uh, if something is unsupported, i.e. no evidence that it's real, nothing to verfify its truthfulness, nothing at all to back it up, then it's got to be something made up, false, a lie. For example, I could file an offical SOC that stated that such and such had to be done because Martians had indicated that it was their overwhelming wish it be so. A sane person (or regulator/oversight board member) would (rightfully) say, "Uh, do you have any supporting documentation to indicate that a) Martians exists and b) they actually told you that?

Inlet also sez:"Nope, the post-recall LOCSD board chose to refuse the very reasonable SWRCB offer to let them keep the SRF loan.

Why?"

My question as well.

richard sez:"We all know you do not want a waste water project at all; so why the meaningless angst?"

This, of course, is a lie, but Richard keeps repeating it, which only makes all this other statements equally suspect and certainly one reason why his credibility to me is zip.

Sue sez:"We all know you do not want a waste water project at all; so why the meaningless angst?"

So long as people keep their potty mouths under control, don't threaten (realistic threat) and don't pretend to be someone else & etc, they're free to post whatever they like. I've been called a liar and a fool and an idiot,and what did Richard call me, a donkey?, among other things. It's all just juvenile name-calling and always speaks volumes about the caller, not the callee and always requires that callee and reader alike consider the source.

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

1. The SOC has been codified along with the DEIR in 2001. It cannot be recinded by law; nor is the recall board's resolution to recind it have any legal validity.
THE only way to invalidate it is by legally invalidating the DEIR.

The SOC is a legislative groups listing of merits to be used to shape a public project. They may use whatever basis for setting those merits they please; whether you agree with those merits or basis is moot in a court of law

2. Lady, ya ain't foolin' anneone; and ya is foolin' yaself if ya be'ieve odderwise! Ya dunt wannna sewer as da prof is in da puddin'. Ya gota lot of splainin' to do! LOL

-R

Sewertoons said...

Let's let Ann opine on what she actually wants to deal with the sewerage here in Los Osos.

Ann, you know enough to be specific on technology type and location - what is it that YOU want to deal with this problem.

alabamasue said...

Ann- In your last post you stated "Sue sez "We all know you do not want a waste water project at all; so why the meaningless angst?" I never said anything of the sort. Please do not attribute other peoples words to me. And just where did you read that Richard called you a 'donkey'? It might be a good idea to read what is posted before firing off responses, ya think?

Richard LeGros said...

Hi alabasasue,

Just a heads up; About 2 years ago I called Ann a 'Silly Donkey' for her 'braying remarks'. I later apologized for my impolite comments and told her I would never bring 'it' up again. She accepted my apology

Why Ann decided now to bring 'it' up after my apology and pledge to let it go is baffling.

-R

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

No offense, Ann, but you are wrong.

Lie means untruth ... false. A statement which is not backed up doesn't mean that it is a false statement.

It is entirely possible that Los Osos residents valued recreation in 2001 and yet the SOC submitted to the CCC did not include proof of that statement.

Calling that SOC statement a lie means that in 2001 the public did not value recreation. Do you have evidence of this? Ron's evidence is that citizens didn't vote for a pool. Excuse me? A pool is quite different from adding a park to a wastewater project. Ron's evidence that Los Osos residents hate parks is pretty weak ... I guess you should castigate him next for his lies ... after all, he doesn't have support for his statement.

Richard LeGros said...

Let's not forget the hoards of folks who, since the recall, have repeatedly asked the CSD board if the Tri-W site could not be used for a park. Seems to me that many folks see that site as a perfect locatin for a park despite what Ron opines.

-R

Sewertoons said...

It sure won't wind up as a park if the CSD needs to sell it for money to pay off the bankruptcy. The portion the County intends to use as a pump station is pretty small. Tri-W will wind up making cash for the buyer, and parks don't make money unless the word "amusement" precedes it. I'd guess retail or motel - plus pavement for parking. The work "park" is in parking, anyway.

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

And let's not forget, Ann, that three pro Tri-W boards were elected AFTER the Ponds of Avalon died. If you want proof of the SOC - there it is. Three valid, definitive elections.

The only reason Julie & Lisa were elected in 2004 was because no sane, qualified person wanted to run and subject themselves to the venom of the anti-sewer faction. And the only reason the recall succeeded was because Ticker Schaker and their buddy Gail LIED about having a viable plan for $100 a month.

Churadogs said...

Richard sez;"I later apologized for my impolite comments and told her I would never bring 'it' up again. She accepted my apology

Why Ann decided now to bring 'it' up after my apology and pledge to let it go is baffling."

Richard, please re-read what you're written. YOU are the one who said YOU'd never bring it up again. That was YOUR pledge. I never said I would or woudn't bring it up. YOU did. So I was and am free to bring the reference up any time I wish. Yet here you are playing the aggrieved victim and implying that somehow I'm breaching some kind of implied "promise," which, like so much of what you claim, is simply made up.

Besides which, refering to it fits perfectly in responding to Ron's comment about both butt kissing and name calling.

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

A graciously sincere woman would have accepted my appology and let the issue rest forever. That you brought it up after 2 years just tellls me you did not accept my appology to begin with.

Again, I appologize.

-R

Ron said...

Richard wrote:

"Seems to me that many folks see that site as a perfect locatin for a park despite what Ron opines."

Richard, are really that f-ing stupid?

Unbelievable.

You Tri-W honks are hilariously embarrassing.

I'm SO glad I had a HUGE hand in making your wasted $25 million/6 years-embarrassment go away.

So glad.

Feels great!

Very satisfying.

Sewertoons said...

Might be easy for you to be glad ron, because you are not paying twice to get a sewer, plus paying for the bankruptcy brought to us from the Board that said they could deliver a plant for $100/mo. You won't have to deal with the valley being developed because the plant out of town will be expandable. Thanks ron, you really f##ked us over.

Mike said...

Ron might want to watch his gloat, Tri-W just might come up an bite him... Wonder how much Ron stands to make if Edwards somehow crawls back from his embarassments to propose developing Tri-W into a hideous warehouse project...??? There is only one reason Crawford continues his bleating against Tri-W...

Ron said...

'toons wrote:

"Thanks ron, you really f##ked us over."

My favorite Tri-W honk take.

Richard, Gordon, Stan, Bob, Frank, and Pandora waste over $25 million and 6 years developing a "bait and switchy" park in the middle of town -- a park that also includes a sewer plant next to their picnic area -- and I report on it, and I'M that really f##ked you over.

Nice logic, 'toons.

Typical Tri-W honk.

Mike wrote:

"There is only one reason Crawford continues his bleating against Tri-W..."

Damn, straight... to pimp my upcoming book, which is going to absolutely rock.

Sewertoons said...

ron, don't be a dork. If you (and others) hadn't helped make Tri-W out to be horrible, (it's not -- you just don't like it), we'd have our plant NOW- and YES OUR PARK, and NO bankruptcy fines , NO CDO's and NO NOV's. Comprende?

Churadogs said...

For those of you who would love to see Ron Crawford in the soup, I would remind you of the RWQCB's Stealth Basin updates, now being rushed through to become "law" before anybody notices. That stealth update will turn all unincorporated areas in the state (and this county) into Los Osos. which means Santa margarita will become Los Osos, with all sort of "Resolutions 83-13's" arriving on shakey science, CDO's to follow, more Mad Hatter Tea Party Show Trials, happless citizens singled out for hammering, the whole bit.

On the other hand, if any of the folks who can't stand Ron and are gleefully looking forward to his homestead being turned into a Los Osos PZ with Roger Briggs knocking on his door, happen to live in Los Osos, outsize the PZ, keep a sharp ear out. That knocking on the door. Yep. It's Roger with your CDO. Bwa-hahahah. We'ALL soon be Los Osos PZ now.

Ron said...

'toons wrote:

"Comprende?"

No comprendo.

'toons also wrote:

"If you (and others) hadn't helped make Tri-W out to be horrible, (it's not -- you just don't like it)"

'toons, tell your friends, former TAC members, Maria Kelly and Bill Garfinkel (who had his recent Viewpoint signed by Pandora Nash-Karner), to actually read their own documents, for a change. Because if they HAD read their own documents, they would have seen that THEIR own document says THIS about your embarrassment:

"Here's the Pro/Con Analysis' take on the Tri-W project. This is great:

- "(Tri-W's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

- "It has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns (sic) require most expensive treatment"

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

- "Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

- "All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

- "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site."

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

All of that is found in the TAC's OWN report, and TAC member, Maria Kelly, just recently wrote, "Whatever the county will be able to offer us, in my opinion, isn't comparable to the old mid town site project..."


"(it's not -- you just don't like it)"

Typical Tri-W honk.

Ann wrote:

"... Roger Briggs knocking on his door..."

Wanna hear something funny?

I don't where it is, but I remember writing something about how Briggs is doing this whole "Stealth Basin update" thing, just so he can get back at me.

I picture him coming up the lonely dirt road, all disheveled from the hunt, sweaty and red-faced, with twigs in his hair, and then, about a hundred yards out, he finally spots me, and slowly lifts a crooked finger, and says, "You... YOOOUUUU!!! Enforcement action on YOU!"

And then, in a dusty heap, he just turns and walks away.

And, the entire time, all I would be able to do, is calmly sit there, at my beautiful outdoor bar, with my ice-cold beer in hand, and then quietly grumble to myself, "Damn, enforcement actions on me." [chug, chug, chug...]

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

So Ron ... because the proof is in the pudding ... please explain how a $250/month project with the County (and that's an optimistic number) plus some $20M+ LOCSD debt has us better off than solvency plus a $205/month sewer bill. We've had some 4+ additional years of pollution of our aquifer to boot. Ron, please explain why we are so much better off now.

If you can't (or won't) it will show that your "work" over these past years has done little more than to distract our community from the real goal.

Sewertoons said...

Please explain ron - we get to pay for the land and design on TWO projects, PLUS pay off the bankruptcy, plus pay in the future for tertiary treatment for the water (unless it gets lumped on with the County project now, bringing their estimated cost even higher) - please EXPLAIN this to the old people on fixed incomes and the disabled, to the single parents and those families barely making it, JUST HOW this is a BENEFIT to THEIR bottom line right now?

Sewertoons said...

Maybe while you are at it ron, you can explain how the CDO's - a direct result of stopping the project - have benefitted the community too.

Ron said...

A confused little 'toons wrote:

"Please explain ron - we get to pay for the land and design on TWO projects, PLUS pay off the bankruptcy, plus pay in the future for tertiary treatment for the water (unless it gets lumped on with the County project now, bringing their estimated cost even higher) - please EXPLAIN this to the old people on fixed incomes and the disabled, to the single parents and those families barely making it, JUST HOW this is a BENEFIT to THEIR bottom line right now?"

Earth to 'toon's: You can't seem to grasp this -- I am just a reporter. I didn't form your CSD for no reason whatsoever. You need to ask your question to Bob, Frank, Pandora, Richard, Gordon, and Stan.

Those are the six people that were both Solution Group members AND CSD Directors.

I was NEVER that, and, apparently, your weak little mind will never be able to understand that.

It's kind of strange, actually.

I mean, there's getting Jedi mind tricked by Pandora, and then there's getting Jedi mind tricked by Pandora, and, 'toons', you are the latter.

Sewertoons said...

ron, I was simply augmenting what Shark had written above,
"please explain how a $250/month project with the County (and that's an optimistic number) plus some $20M+ LOCSD debt has us better off than solvency plus a $205/month sewer bill. We've had some 4+ additional years of pollution of our aquifer to boot. Ron, please explain why we are so much better off now."

I notice that you did not bother to answer him. Why? We are not talking about the formation of the CSD to begin with, but STOPPING THEIR PROJECT which leaves us worse off now- please explain THAT part, the part YOU helped to create. You know, your Jedi mind trick that we'd be better off without that project.

Ron said...

Richard, my bad, sorry... it just occurred to me what I posted earlier, and I wanted to come back in and clear it up.

Quick correction:

Richard was NOT, a Solution Group member. He just f-d up as a CSD Director, and listened to them.

BIG Difference.

But, in 1998, he wasn't a SG member, and that's important to note.

Wet noodle for me.

'toons wrote:

"I notice that you did not bother to answer him. "

Bother answering him? 'toons, I don't even bother READING Rat. Had you not posted that, I wouldn't have even known that Rat ask something... still don't, 'cause I don't care.

"We are not talking about the formation of the CSD to begin with..."

That's where you go wrong, 'toons. Everything after that is moot.

Obviously.

Hey, the CSD was formed for one reason, and one reason only -- to yank the sewer project away from the county.

Fast-forward 10 years, and take one guess at who has the project again. So, what was the formation of the CSD all about?

"The formation of the CSD to begin with" is EVERYTHING. But you listen to Nash-Karner, 'toons, so you will never understand how excellent this story actually is. Too bad.

It's great, and you'll never be able to see it.

Sewertoons said...

OK ron, I agree - the formation of the CSD was to build a sewer. There may have been other reasons, but they were not the driving force. You clearly think the sewer the County had proposed prior to 1998 was superior? We just should have stuck with that one? It is a moot point to me, I didn't live here then.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ron,

That's a lot of time spent writing smack when you could have simply answered my question instead. Don't you think people would respect your opinion more if you answered questions instead of just insulted folks you don't agree with?

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
You spend a lot of time writing stuff that you claim to be, but cannot support as fact.
Don't you think people have been treated to your inaccurate rhetoric, long enough?

Please tell us more about what you actually know about the Phoenix aquifer.
Only this time, you may want to use words and phrases that you can actually "back up", at least statistically.

You don’t want to get ”trapped”.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Mark,

I'm not gonna waste my time backing up an offhand comment I made. If I was wrong, it was an offhand comment and no big deal. If you want to spend time showing I was mistaken, great and if I was wrong, that would be awesome. We'll deal with it if you take the time to demonstrate my error. Hell, I'll admit it now, I may have been mistaken about the aquifer Phoenix using being in overdraft. I might have been thinking of some other town. Big deal.

If you think I'm getting pissy, you're right. I think it is rather ungracious of you to try to make this into a big deal. On the other hand, you told me that you would get me data that proved your company had a long term track record of nitrate removal ... and after I filled out forms to somehow justify my request for information, I was deemed as having sufficient need for the data and so it was not provided as you promised.

If you wanna start picking at nits, you're proving yourself irrelevant. If you want to focus on the key issues, awesome!

As for your "inaccurate rhetoric" charge ... I note that you haven't brought up any areas of importance to Los Osos where I am clearly in error. Was I wrong to say that the recall cost us money? Was I wrong to ask Ron to demonstrate how we are better off after the recall?

By the way, I am glad that Ron finally got around to saying he doesn't care that people in Los Osos are wondering why we're now paying gonna pay more than TriW when he was telling us we were gonna save money ... it shows that he just plain doesn't care because it's not his backyard and it shows that he doesn't mind us paying more because he cares more about showing the Solutions Group to be evil to the core than he cares about what is best of us.

Mark, are you sure you want to suck up to Ron?

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
A very key issue is that you do not understand "wastewater biological process" so of course you do not understand that you have the information you think I promised but did not supply.
Ask Lyneete if she believes nitrate removal ability of USBF™.

Of course it is a “Big Deal”, that you make “off handed” comments that you cannot defend and I will hold anyone accountable for their words, especially when it would cost dearly not too.
I can’t participate in these discussions and allow stupid and inaccurate statements to stand unchallenged.

Whatever your excuse, you have kicked your credibility up a notch by admitting that you made a stupid statement.

You are clearly inaccurate about my reasons for being on Ann’s Land.
I’m trying to save the town One Hundred Million Dollars or more that is unnecessarily being considered by using conventional leaky polluting gravity sewer and inefficient energy intensive extended aeration that the county’s consulting engineer refers to as “alternative”.

That is a “key issue”.
Please tell me how it isn’t.

I’m a little uncomfortable about answering your question about Ron “THE MAN” Crawford, given his shyness and reserve.

You are better off after the recall. Better less expensive technology can cure what ails LO. Now you know it. What are you prepared to?

Sewertoons said...

I heard a rumor that County staff monitors the blogs to hear the buzz about town and that they report to the higher ups. I wonder if that is true? I've also heard that you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Mark,

I don't know that I've made an inaccurate statement. You certainly haven't offered even a hint of proof to your assertion.

Are you also telling me that you promised data which demonstrated long term nitrate removal and that you delivered on that promise? Perhaps I didn't spot the proof in the 100M of files you sent. Which plant did you supply monthly readings for over a period of 5 years (what I said I would consider as proof)? Let me know.

As for whether we are better off after a recall ... wouldn't it depend on what happens down the road in terms of both our environment and costs? Only a fool would say that we are better off now without knowing that the outcome will necessarily be better than TriW.

Watershed Mark said...

Rumors and Proof...Hmmmmm...
You two are cute, but still do not understand "process or The Process".