Pages

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Your Sunday Poem

This is from BillyCollins’ new book of poems, Ballistics, which can be ordered from your local bookstore. Support a poet today; buy his book. And a dictionary to look up the title of this poem.

Aubade

If I lived across the street from myself
and I was sitting in the dark
on the edge of the bed
at five o’clock in the morning,

I might be wondering what the light
was doing on in my study at this hour,
yet here I am at my desk
in the study wondering the very same thing.

I know I did not have to rise so early
to cut open with a penknife
the bundles of papers at a newsstand
as the man across the street might be thinking.

Clearly, I am not a farmer or milkman.
And I am not the man across the street
who sits in the dark because sleep
is his mother and he is one of her many orphans.

Maybe I am awake just to listen
to the faint, high-pitched ringing
of tungsten in the single lightbulb
which sounds like the rustling of trees.

Or is it my job simply to sit as still
as the glass of water on the night table
of the man across the street,
as still as a photograph of my wife in a frame?

But there’s the first bird to deliver his call,
and there’s the reason I am up –
to catch the three-note song of that bird
and now to wait with him for some reply.

29 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

Love your new format!
The inbility to expand the comment window, not so much.

Ron said...

Ooooo... colorful!

However, quick question: Isn't that pic at the top of the new format from Turri Road, with the Tonnini Ranch in the foreground?

I'm just sayin'...

And, oh, those puppy pics are cute! (Cooper? Ahhhhh...)

However, if I may recommend a companion link to dailypuppy.com, it's this:

http://www.petharbor.com/results.asp?searchtype=all&bgcolor=383868&text=F0F0F0&link=3868E7&alink=38E768&vlink=38E768&col_hdr_bg=66CCFF&col_bg=1874cd&col_bg2=1e90ff&rows=25&imght=100&imgres=thumb&view=sysadm.v_sloc&fontface=Verdana&start=4&nomax=1&zip=93401&miles=200&shelterlist='SLOC'&where=type_DOG&NewOrderBy=Breed&PAGE=1

That (lengthy) link shows the dogs that are currently available for adoption from the local shelter.

If dailypuppy.com whet's the dog-ownership appetite, petharbor.com can satisfy it.

(I just checked that link to see if it works, and, wow, they're awesome. "Pepper?" Wow.)

"But there’s the first bird to deliver his call,
and there’s the reason I am up –
"

Where I live, there are these roosters at the ranch next door, and... uh, don't get me started!

Alon Perlman said...

The sage, The Sage.
So Calming....
Somthing was bothering me but no more...
I've forgotten what I've started fighting for...

Ann, Congrats.
Please let the Puppy deJour out of it's box.
Technical- If a picture is larger than the space dedicated to it, the defult is to give it a browser bar/window, ("How much fer that dawggi inder winders XP") so it can "fit" in.
There is HTML language and stuff" :--left; width: 500px; min-height:" that can be devined by web gurus. a few pixels more room and the under and side bar may disappear.

It's been five years since I fell off the turnip truck, I'll take a shot at your comment RON. My first guess was the Other Turry, The south bay Blvd Turry where a Sewer placement was considered (Free land in exhange for development rights). That was in prehistoric times. My second guess was as you say Hollister, but in an angle from the Los Osos side of LOVR facing north east where only the sprayfields would be visible, and the foreground would be neighboring to but not Tonini, the twinned High power lines are a giveaway. And finally the hidden caption My+Mountain+Hwy+1+1.
I still don't know, Turnip still concussed. Ann?

Alon Perlman said...

Watermark

good request try hitting the F11 key

Word verifiction:gulsoil
O O
V

Watershed Mark said...

F 11 it is Alon. Thanks!

Churadogs said...

Thanks for your suggestions.

Hit f11 key and the comment window opens up? Weird. So why would the Yahoo blogoPeople keep that a mystery? Like making the enlarge icon disappear?? What's with that?

And the counter that used to be at the very bottom has disappeared. Well, I'm still fooling around with this format but it's frustrating since things go missing with the new layout for no known reason.

Will try to figure out the puppy pic. Didn't want a huge picture there, also don't want that stupid blue bar either. Would be nice to figure out how to link to local shelters. I'll go back in and see if they have a space to type in Ron's link at pet harbor.

Well, this is a work in progress from a confirmed Luddite, so . . . we'll see.

Photo at top. Hollister peak from Hwy 1 north of Cuesta College.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"'I'll go back in and see if they have a space to type in Ron's link at pet harbor."

With this bad boy, I HIGHLY recommend copying-and-pasting ; - )

http://www.petharbor.com/results.asp?searchtype=all&bgcolor=383868&text=F0F0F0&link=3868E7&alink=38E768&vlink=38E768&col_hdr_bg=66CCFF&col_bg=1874cd&col_bg2=1e90ff&rows=25&imght=100&imgres=thumb&view=sysadm.v_sloc&fontface=Verdana&start=4&nomax=1&zip=93401&miles=200&shelterlist='SLOC'&where=type_DOG&NewOrderBy=Breed&PAGE=1

"Photo at top. Hollister peak from Hwy 1 north of Cuesta College."

Mystery solved, and beautiful shot. Nice lighting.

Bev. De Witt-Moylan said...

The rescue animal link is a great idea. Because of Ron's link to two SLO Animal Shelter dogs in the comment section of his blog late last year, we adopted a gentle, intelligent, warm-hearted, playful 10-year-old Australian Shepherd we named Beau. It took till March for it all to work out, but we are so glad for this opportunity and experience. After raising three puppies, it was a welcome respite to have a dog come to live with us who is - after an initial orientation phase for all of us - settled and set, who picked up the routine very quickly, who is housebroken, who sleeps through the night - and a portion of the day, who doesn't require constant vigilance for destroying the furniture and carpets, who figured out how to walk on leash well enough for an old guy with no prior training, who plays gently and doesn't need our undivided attention for training and stimulation, who quietly and calmly welcomes my clients, and who is ever grateful for his own bed after enduring years of very unfortunate living conditions in Paso Robles. Without that link we would still be dogless, since we were not looking for a dog at the time and were not checking out adoption web sites on our own. But more than the link to the shelter, it was the link to the dogs' own pages that piqued my curiosity. We wouldn't have even thought of adopting a dog, let alone a senior dog, if not for the specific web page references for each animal. A featured animal page might be a nice idea.

P.S. We can't say enough about the grit and determination, not to mention the dedication, love, and devotion, of the foster parents who care for as many of these animals in a home environment as they can. We have been fortunate to know two of Beau's wonderful foster moms who nursed him through the worst of days when he was too sick to be adoptable. One of them lives right around the corner from us and comes to clip his nails every few weeks just to keep in touch with Beau. He loves seeing her, too. Both foster moms have offered to dogsit for no compensation, and one of them, herself a struggling nursing student, volunteered to pay for a surgery Beau might need to be sure that Beau's possible medical needs didn't ruin his chances for adoption. That's dedication.

Alon Perlman said...

Ron Ann U2 Bev Showing right now (6:30 pm). Planning Commission Channell near you
The Tonini Sprayfields Are (_____________) fill the blank.

{note to self;
post comment then go to see what Ron has posted on SWatch)

(oh so what , acouple extra letters)
Word Vrification: Abbiliti

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

On June 27 at 7:02 AM under 'What is the Tribune up to this time? you wrote the following:

“There, sadly -- an curiously -- is the real tragedy and mystery. The community didn't ever say, "no sewer," despite all the lies. The community said, simply, "no sewer PLANT" in the middle of town. A perfectly reasonable request.

Interesting, it soon became obvious that what was really at work here with the Tri-W, recalled 3, & related folks ("fine them out of existence," and TPW let's get LAFCO to shut the CSD down crowd, that what this was really all about was slash & burn ego,CYA fear and certainly not about the community, not the about the "water" not even common sense -- from the recalled 3 all the way up to the screw-ups in the Sacramento SWB office and the furious-ego of Roger Briggs. No clear heads in the bunch, it was all Bleep You And The Horse You Rode In On…..?”

As you may surmise, I do take issue with your statement.

Let us start with: “The community didn't ever say, "no sewer," despite all the lies. The community said, simply, "no sewer PLANT" in the middle of town. A perfectly reasonable request.”

Did not the community vote in 1998 to form a CSD; a vote that had a 90% voter turnout AND resulted with an 85% plurality to form the CSD? And was not the cornerstone of that Community Vote focused on taking away the County’s then WWTP authority in order to pursue a WWTP as proposed by the Solutions Group’s plan to build a sewer plant in the ‘middle of town’ (at the Tri-W property)?
The LOCSD diligently work from 1998 to 2001 develop a treatment plant in the ‘middle of town’ (beginning with the later-rejected open-air pond system treatment system in lieu of a buried and enclosed odor-controlled treatment plant). All that conceptual design work was conducted under full public review at both the Waste Water Committee and open LOCSD Board meetings. If you review the agendas, minutes and tapes of those meetings, there were no public objects to the Tri-W location at all. Not one objection.
Even through the review and adoption of the Final EIR in the spring of 2001 there was not one objection to the ‘mid town’ location made publicly or as written responses to the DEIR by the public or the reviewing or permitting agencies. Not one objection.

Even as late as October 22, 2002 (when the Waste Water Project Assessment Bonds were sold) the location was NOT an issue; and those very Bonds were sold with full public knowledge and understanding that the WWTF would be located at the ‘mid town site’ known as Tri-W, and as described in the DEIR.

The first time the ‘issue’ of the WWTF location was raised occurred during the political campaign of 2002; specifically Julie Tacker’s bid for the LOCSD Board election. She started to push that question in late October AFTER four years of public review without one objection concerning the WWTF location at the ‘mid-town’ site. She lost that election; with 1,200 fewer votes than the three then elected.
Additionally, all records from 1998 to 2002 clearly show that until the 2002 election, Ms. Tacker had for years fought the LOCSD WWTP by claiming a sewer was ‘not needed’ in Los Osos; that the RWQCB could not force Los Osos to do so; and that she completely backed the claims of the failed 2001 ‘total recall’ attempt that the CSD board was corrupt.

TO BE CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

Richard LeGros said...

CONTINUED:

By the time the issue of the ‘mid-town’ location of the WWTF was raised in late 2002, the LOCSD had:

A. Spent over $3,500,000 of public funds over four years to go through the project process to define and acquire the FEIR. The FEIR IS THE PROJECT. Without an FEIR a project does not exist at ANY location.

B. Had sold, UNDER CONTRACT, $19,700,000 in assessment bonds; with the promise to repay those bonds over 30 years (which are doing today, costing each Los Osos Taxpayer $265 a year until 2032).

C. Gathered $3,500,000 from Los Osos property owners prepaying their assessment obligations under that SAME ASSESSMENT BOND CONTRACT.

D. Been issued and subject to not only the RWQCB 1983 order to prohibit septic discharges from on-site septic systems into the aquifer; but additionally the RWQCB had issued a TIME ORDER placing the Community of Los Osos under great peril if the LOCSD failed WWTP was not build ASAP.

E. Had obligations to the SWRCB in order to maintain access to over $68,000,000 in SRF funding; funding that would be denied if the LOCSD did not vigorously stay on schedule to construct a WWTP as per the RWQCB time order.

As a quick recap, by the time what you claim uour “…..perfectly reasonable request.” was made to move the WWTF out of town, Los Osos had already had $3,500,000 in public funds sunk into the project as defined by the DEIR, was under serious abatement and time orders issued by the RWQCB while under threat of substantial fines if the LOCSD did not produce the WWTP ASAP, was under contract via the Assessment Bond to pay off $19,700,000 in bond funds and obligated to the hundreds of property owners who prepaid $3,500.000 in assessments, AND the SRF funding was precariously close to being withdrawn by the SWRCB if the LOCSD faltered in building a WWTP.

CCONTINUED NEXT POST:

Richard LeGros said...

CONTINUED:
Sorry Ann, but your ‘reasonable question’ and request to ‘move the sewer’ was an UNREASONABLE and an IMPOSSIBLE REQUEST.

Essentially, you and othrs were asking the LOCSD Board to;

A. IGNORE their obligation to protect the Los Osos property owner to not waste all the millions of dollars of public funds spent to that time on the WWTP as per the DEIR.

B. IGNORE the LOCSD’s contractual obligations by actins that would result in breaching legally binding contracts.

C. IGNORE the LOCSD’s obligations to uphold the law as enforced by the higher regulatory agencies such as the RWQCB; thereby exposing the community to huge monetary fines.

D. IGNORE the real possibility that the SRF funding offered by the State EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PROJECT AS DEFINED IN THE DEIR AND THE ASSESSMENT BOND CONTRACT would be withdrawn if the LOCSD changed it’s mind on the WWTF location.

To drive these points home to you, after the recall and the subsequent stopping of the project, the recall board’s decision to IGNORE the LOCSD’s warnings AND prior contractual obligations as listed above resulted in the loss of the millions of dollars in community assets sunk into the project, the loss of the $139,500,000 low interest SRF loan and the RWQCB fining the community $6,500,000. Worst of all, when the LOCSD failed to honor its' obligations, the State stripped the LOCSD of the waste water authority. That one act lone destroyed the community’s ability to control the waste water issue AND its’ ability to control and secure the community’s water resources.

These warnings were drowned out by the incessant din of many public statements ; such statements as ‘this project is too important so the SRF funds will not be withdrawn.....you are just using scare tactics!’ and ‘the State does not have the backbone to fine our community....how DARE they?’ or ‘there is no cost to move the sewer....in fact it will be cheaper’ and ‘we have an alternate plan ready to go costing only $100 per month!’.

So before you shamelessly claim that the all EIGHT prior CSD board members who supported the Tri-W Project acted out of “...slash & burn ego, CYA fear and certainly not about the community, not the about the "water" not even common sense -- from the recalled 3 all the way up to the screw-ups in the Sacramento SWB office and the furious-ego of Roger Briggs. No clear heads in the bunch, it was all Bleep You And The Horse You Rode In On.”.......
realize and understand the true conditions and true intent that those eight LOCSD board members were actually acting under; which was their honest desire and intent to PROTECT LOS OSOS environmentally and financially by following the LAW as required of them by oath of office, and from orders enforced by the State and Federal Governments.

-R

Ron said...

I LOVE your story, Bev.

And to steal a Jerry Seinfeld line: What's this wet, salty substance coming out of my eyes?

Bev wrote:

"... after an initial orientation phase for all of us - settled and set, who picked up the routine very quickly, who is housebroken, who sleeps through the night - and a portion of the day, who doesn't require constant vigilance for destroying the furniture and carpets, who figured out how to walk on leash well enough for an old guy with no prior training, who plays gently and doesn't need our undivided attention for training and stimulation, who quietly and calmly welcomes my clients, and who is ever grateful for his own bed after enduring years of very unfortunate living conditions in Paso Robles."

Gotta love Aussies, huh? They are "Aus-some!"

Richard, I have a question: Do the "all EIGHT prior CSD board members who supported the Tri-W Project" ever grow tired of being absolutely humiliated by county officials?

From simply allowing the Tri-W development permit to expire when all they had to do to keep it alive was fill out a little paperwork, to not even selecting the "mid-town" site to the short-list of potential treatment facility sites, to laughing (out loud) when asked (by me) to put themselves in the shoes of the people responsible for the Tri-W project, to conducting a community-wide survey that showed the Tri-W site to be wildly unpopular, county officials, over the past three years, have repeatedly shown the Tri-W project to be exactly what I've reported it to be for the past five years, starting with my second New Times cover story in 2004, and continuing on "SWatch" -- a colossal, $25 million embarrassment.

Alon wrote:

"{note to self;
post comment then go to see what Ron has posted on SWatch)
"

Hey, Richard, wanna see the latest colossal embarrassment for you guys, dished out by county officials? Go read the quote at the bottom of my latest "exclusive."

F-it. I'll save you some time:

"The (SLO County Los Osos wastewater) Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation. ... the Tri-W project was the LOCSD's project, not the County's project."

OUCH!

"... the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan..."

Heck of a job, "all EIGHT prior CSD board members who supported the Tri-W Project!"

To: Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, Richard LeGros...

Gentlemen,
Granted, it's late, but could the LOCSD transfer the sewer project to the county BEFORE the current CSD-3 leave office?
... Please...is there any way to salvage the (Tri-W) project??????????????????

-- Pandora Nash-Karner, 09/28/2005, 12:40 a.m. -- the night of the recall election

Be careful what you ask for, P.

Aaron said...

Couple of observations:

Google has a system which archives old data that was removed or altered on top-domain web sites. With that feature, I looked at the LOCSD agenda, minutes and information pertaining to the WWTP that was under your CSD's control and there was a clear void of information. All I could see is that Tri-W was it and the decision was final. There was no documentation readily available to the public that showed your board's methodology -- no explanation of the "objective screening process."

Maybe there weren't as many objections at the time because you weren't exactly giving the public full disclosure when it was your fiduciary duty to show transparency. The only public knowledge was available in the form of the Bear Pride, which was a newsletter that was filled with ambiguous language.

I understand the steps that were taken, but I don't think your CSD, Richard, did enough to educate the community at large to the same extent that the County is currently doing. It's no longer my place to say whether there was malice behind the lack of transparency, but I can see that you pushed Tri-W through without a second opinion.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Aaron,

A very astute observation about the LOCSD Board not being able to get the 'message out'.

It is my one regret that the board could not figure out a way to GET THE WORD OUT over the din of negative comments being made at the time. Realize that the LOCSD, by law, may not spend public funds to 'politic a position'. The LOCSD can give out factual information, but politicking is an absolute no-no.

The recall was concerning the policies of the three members of the LOCSD Board majority; and as individuals we are allowed to politic during an election. However, the Brown act prevents us from communicating with one another.

Therein was the problem...the board majority understood theirs' and the community's contractual obligations under the law; and understood the damage that would result if a new board majority did not carry out on those obligations. Review the old board meeting tapes of that time; attempts were made to get this point across. Sadly, by that time so much confusion had been wrought in the community by others that our comments were not heard. Without that information, the electorate was so confused that they made a choice that many of them now regret. Really Aaron, do you ever hear anybody saying that they wish they HAD voted for the recall when they opposed it; or those that did are pleased with the results of their vote?

On this issue Aaron you are partially correct. The LOCSD board majority failed to 'get the word out.' However the LOCSD's and board majority's fiduciary responsibilities were met, just not heard and understood; and the very process itself was as transparent as it could be; and conducted per the law.

++++++++

As for the County getting the word out, are they?

Now you are correct that I believe that restarting Tri-W is the most pragmatic way to solve the WWTP impasse today; but that is only my opinion and as such has no weight as the BOS are making all the decisions.

What the County staff has failed to do in 'getting the word out' is discuss in the EIR AND agendized at the BOS level an earnest discussion regarding the possibility of restarting the Tri-W project. Those are the discussions that must happen under CEQA (and be included in the EIR) as Tri-W IS UNDENIABLY a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE; especially now that the County is going to full tertiary treatment.

Now I cannot predict what the EIR would determine; or what the BOS would do in such discussions. If they decided not to restart the project after throughout review, that is their right and that would be the end of the matter. BUT FOR STAFF TO NOT EVEN ALLOW THOSE DISCUSSIONS AT ALL IS NOT LEGAL UNDER THE CEQA PROCESS.

Additionally, for the staff to now threaten the BOS that either they adopt staff's position or reject the WWTP authority altogether is just a blustery attempt by staff to AVOID the Tri-W restart issue at all (see my post to Ron below).

In all Aaron, great talking to you.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

"r" Wrote:

What the County staff has failed to do in 'getting the word out' is discuss in the EIR AND agendized at the BOS level an earnest discussion regarding the possibility of restarting the Tri-W project. Those are the discussions that must happen under CEQA (and be included in the EIR) as Tri-W IS UNDENIABLY a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE; especially now that the County is going to full tertiary treatment.

Note to "r" Vacuum and USBF(tm) are undeniably viable and costs less than the project you attempted or are atte4mpting now.

But that is "the story" that matters to those would will pay for it...

Watershed Mark said...

Why weren't those very viable technologies studied?
Why aren't they being studied now?

$28,000.00 ought to just about get a quick paper denouncing them written.

Aaron said...

Hi Richard,

There is a way to get the word out without politics. What your board should have done -- as well as the County -- was to have a brochure or a PDF document that talked about the options that play a part in important decision-making processes (important, meaning decisions that could potentially impact Prohibition Zone renters and homeowners) and how the district arrived at those crucial decisions.

As a homeowner coming into Los Osos in 2005, the only information that was readily available to me was the decision itself. It was Tri-W, the middle of town, and there was a ground swell of homeowners who completely objected to the sewer plant being there. It took me a couple of years to trace the district's footsteps to figure out how you came to that decision, but that information was not readily available to the public.

The County has an archive of technical memos and past documents as well as archived meetings readily available to watch or download. I like the library of information, but they still don't come forward to explain why the responsible governing bodies make these crucial decisions. I see staff recommendations and summarized opinions in the minutes, but the decisions are still questionable.

The recall is another can of worms that I personally won't get into much anymore because it's out of sight, out of mind in terms of the bigger picture.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Aaron,

The documents you emtined....brochures and all were available.

As for the 'ground swell' of resistance to the choosen location; as I said above by the time that occured the community contractural committments it could not alter or ignore without realizing huge financial damages. There is know doubt that the LOCSD could have moved the location....the BIG question was how much more the property owners were willing to spend to do so. From what we could then see the monthly cost was already high; and that adding to that monthly cost would have not benefited the community at all. Additionally, those fighting the LOCSD gave the false impressin that moving the WWRF was a cost saving measure; whcih is an obvious misstatement purposely done to gather support for confused citizens.

It is odd you bring up location as the chair of the County Planning Commissin just yesterday gave a lengthy statement regarding their choosen locatin by the cemetary; in that she found that having a WWTF in residenctial areas is 'no big deal' as many communities have WWTF in residential areas, that the WWTF thus so are good neighbors and have no ordor problems at all. Hmm.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

"r" wrote:

As for the 'ground swell' of resistance to the choosen location; as I said above by the time that occured the community contractural committments it could not alter or ignore without realizing huge financial damages.

Translation: Trust "me", as I whack trees while holding back the recall date..."Pandora, my crew and I know what is best for you."

No wonder you were removed from office and Lisa wasn't.

stuart smalley said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
stuart smalley said...

Hi. It’s me again. The recovering Sewer Obsessed Blog Poster addict that drops in once or twice a year. I guess I’ll have to attend another SOBPA meeting as it seems I’ve relapsed again. I appreciate Ann’s appreciation of poetry and I am wondering how her weekly poetry post immediately dissolved to shit in the comment section. Seems to me, the regular posters in here need a heavy dose of poetry. Ask your doctor. I’m on 28 stanzas a week. Stanzas are highly addictive. I know. I use to deal them on the black market................like this one.......

The Bar


In the Springtime, go down to the Bar
and what do you see?
A bitch feeding her puppies.

On a long summer day or any Monday night in the fall,
go down to the Bar, and what do you see?
A ballpark.

Go down to the Bar during the Holidays....
And what do you see?
Dusty Christmas lights strung out along the Bar.
Just screw with one, it ‘ill turn on.

Go down to the Bar on a cold Winter day,
and see the headstones of an empty graveyard.


I learnt some time ago that art is not necessarily something you like or something that makes you feel good.
Anything that makes you feel anything is artistic.........

Anyway, since this poetry post has gone to shit, I’d like to take another political crap on it by rejoicing in the fact that the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled today that Al Franken was willfully and rightfully elected to represent the great State of Minnesota in the United States Senate. I’ll take this as small.....................a very small consolatory karma looking back to the tragedy and farce of 2000. Say what you want about Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator. He was not a Muslim Jihad extremist. After 9/11, I seriously doubt the Gore administration would have pointed it’s finger at Iraq.
The secular dictator Saddam Hussein is dead. So, what happened to the Muslim Jihad extremist Osama bin Laden? You know, the guy that actually attacked America on 9/11? Now, after “mission accomplished” it really doesn’t matter, does it? The spirit of Osama bin Laden will live on in the hearts of the religious Muslim extremists who will ultimately control Iraq. We killed Saddam. In the process of removing Saddam, we have done nothing more than pour fuel on the fire of those who hate America in the Middle East region. Guess what happened after we killed Saddam Hussein? What happened is a religious civil war broke out in Iraq between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq. These two Muslim religious factions hate each other but there is one thing they both have in common.........
they both hate America.
Thank’s George. Nice fucking work GWB...............

I need to take a stanza and go for a walk.............

Anyway, congrats to my friend Al. I’ve never met Al but I am a huge fan.
Although his appearances on SNL were few and far between. He worked as a writer on the show for 15 years. Al doesn’t act comedy as much as he writes it. His satirical cynicism is dear to my heart. Satire and Cynical are highly addictive drugs which are very dangerous if taken without Humor. Sorry Ann, based on my amateur diagnosis, your posters could use a dose of humor. I want to take this opportunity to remind everybody that when you go to the movies or watch a TV show.....98% of the words(dialog) you hear was written by someone else.......the man behind the curtain called the “Writer”. The Stars(and I have my favorites too) get paid for reciting words that don’t even belong to them....and the writer writes on.......
Al Franken’s election to the Senate gives the Democrats the exact number(60) to overcome Republican filibusters.
How ironic that it took a comedian to bust the filibuster.............

Take it from me, Satire and Cynical are highly addictive drugs which are very dangerous if taken without Humor......

But we all know why Senator Franken was elected............

He was elected because he is good enough, he’s smart enough, and, doggonit, people like him...........

Ron said...

Yin:
"Tri-W IS UNDENIABLY a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE"

Yang:
"... the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan..."

S. Small wrote:

"I am wondering how her weekly poetry post immediately dissolved to shit in the comment section."

Blame Richard.

"I’ll take this as small.....................a very small consolatory karma looking back to the tragedy and farce of 2000."

Don't get me started!

"Sorry Ann, based on my amateur diagnosis, your posters could use a dose of humor."

Hey, I quoted Seinfeld, and my "Yin/Yang" take is always kinda funny... at least to me ; - )

Let the Al Franken decade begin!

Richard LeGros said...

Ron,

It is no great surprise that the County staff issued the 'statement' you just posted. They have decided for POLITICAL reasons (NOT TECHNICAL REASONS) to avoid the Tri-W Project. Their statement reflects the County fears it will be sucked into the LOCSD Bankruptcy IF Tri-W is restarted (which by the way they be regardless of what they do).

1. The Staff’s statement is baloney as the County APPROVED AND PERMITTED the LOCSD’s disposal plan in 2005 with full blessings by the very same Planning and Public Works staff which is NOW claims that the LOCSD disposal plan is 'infeasible'. Their claim of infeasibility is based upon the following ‘reason’ (a ‘reason’ which was known and understood BY BOTH THE LOCSD AND THE COUNTY in 2005):

The adopted LOCSD disposal system definitely works, BUT their remains one ‘unknown’. That ‘unknown’ was that at FULL BUILD OUT of the community at 19,600 residents (around AD 2035) would the LOCSD have ‘adequate disposal capacity’ for the 'anticipated treated waste water volume’ produced?

It was understood, and part of the CDP issued, that in the ENSUING
3O YEARS UNTIL FULL BUILD OUT THAT THE LOCSD WOULD MONITOR AND COLLECT REAL-WORLD WATER DATA TO DETERMINE IF....IF....ADDITIONAL DISPOSAL WOULD BE NEEDED.

The LOCSD plan did this because pragmatically WHY INITIALLY BUILD EXPENSIVE DISPOSAL OPTIONS THAT THE ENSUING 30 YEARS OF DATA COLLECTION COULD SHOW THAT THOSE DISPOSAL OPTIONS WERE NOT NEEDED AT ALL!

Also, it is well known that the County's own proposed project does not have adequate disposal options either; with the stated intent to possibly abandon expensive spray field disposal in the future IF THEY ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE NEEDED. In all, the issue of ‘infeasibility’ is a red herring.

2. The Staff’s Statement is clearly a THREAT.

The threat is that IF the County BOS finds the Staff's project EIR inadequate that the BOS should NOT ADOPT ANY WWTP authority at all, as per AB 2701. This is an amazing statement unto itself; and is made to avoid the very discuss of restarting the Tri-W Project (see post to Aaron above).

Their claim is that the LOCSD project does not belong to the County. This is unmitigated bulls**t as AB 2701 TRANSFERRED ALL LOCSD WASTE WATER PROJECT ASSETS TO THE COUNTY. The only barrier to the full transfer of assets is the LOCSD bankruptcy; the very bankruptcy the County is trying to avoid.

Let me be very clear, Ron.
The County Staff threat is very real. IF the BOS does not pursue the current EIR, the BOS does have the right under AB2701 to reject the waste water authority.
If THAT HAPPENS, the LOCSD bankruptcy will fail.
The Bankruptcy's success completely depends on the County building the WWTP.
THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED IN THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT PROCEEDINGS; and the reason why the LOCSD has not been able to come up with a bankruptcy plan to resolve the LOCSD debts.

If the bankruptcy fails, the LOCSD will be destroyed by the many lawsuits filed by the CREDITORS in order to acquire the LOCSD's assets to pay the already court-adjudicated CREDITORS debts of over $14,000,000, payback the $6,500,000 SRF loan and pay the $6,600,000 RWQCB fine!

-R

Watershed Mark said...

"r",
A few points in response to your "attempted threats":

1-Quack and Fib is not a threat.
2-After you read AB 2701 would you please cut and paste the language that transfers "WWP Assets" to the county.
3-Experience can teach most folks with common sense.
4-In 2035 water may be considered as something to be “disposed of”…There are already many communities that do not “dispose of” this precious resource.

Alon Perlman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alon Perlman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alon Perlman said...

Is this language
NEXUS 5)Specify that the County's effort may include programs and projects for recharging aquifers, preventing saltwater intrusion, and managing groundwater resources to the extent that they are related to the construction and operation of the community wastewater collection and treatment system.
In a final form of 2701?

Watershed Mark said...

“Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.” (A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer’s hands.) -- Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD