Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Start Yer Engines Some More

If you’re a Los Ososian, you got the post card noting that there will be a BOS hearing, Tuesday, Nov 24, at 9 a..m. to “consider a request by the County of San Luis Obispo to modify, supersede, or replace conditions of approval imposed on the previously issued Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit DRC200800103 (Los Osos Wastewater Project) pursuant to Coast Zone Land Use Ordinance . . . .”

Naturally, being the Hideous Sewer Project, this hearing is a bit strange because there are a whole passel of “appeals” before the Coastal Commission, but the BOS is only going to be hearing this one appeal in order to maybe modify the County project to comply with what’s in the CC’s appeal of this project BEFORE officially coming before the CC, while the other appellants have to wait for the actual CC meeting? Sorta like one student getting a do-over of his test paper (complete with answer sheet) before turning it in, while the other students have to wait and take whatever grade the Proctor gives them later?

Which is still kinda odd since the CC Board acts as judge and jury in any project appeal, yet they’ve filed an appeal of their own, which is like a judge getting down off the bench during a trial, going into the witness box to testify against one of the defendants, then going back up on the bench to continue “judging.” Fair and balanced? Uh???

And if the County’s Nov 24 appeal hearing results in “delays” in this project, can everyone now start referring to the County as “an Ultra Opposition Anti-Sewer Obstructionist?”

And now we have the following Press Release. Let the Games begin. Stay tuned and see you all Tuesday morning for some more Waltz Me Around Again Willy.

Press Release:

Land use planner, real estate developer and 25 year supporter of a wastewater project in Los Osos, Jeff Edwards, has filed a request for a temporary restraining order against the County Board of Supervisors. Edwards is asking the Court to level the playing field with regard to the 23 appeals levied against the controversial wastewater project at the state level. In an unprecedented procedural move, the County Board of Supervisors has scheduled a hearing for November 24, 2006 to selectively rehear their approval of the wastewater project on September 29, 2009 . It appears the Board of Supervisors feels changes to an approval condition will obviate the pending appeals before the Coastal Commission.

Edwards said, “The County can’t make up the rules as they go along.” “In my 25 years of experience with Coastal land use policies and procedures I’ve never seen this, it hasn’t been done before.” Edwards is asking the Court to require a new hearing of the controversial project in its entirety if the County wants to make changes as required by existing regulations. Rehearing the 14 appeals from the Planning Commission decision on August 13, 2009, or to hold no hearing at all, “Let the process play out”, he said.

The 23 appeals include those by Coastal Commissioners, Los Osos citizens, out of the area property owners, and multiple environmental groups raising objections including the County’s self imposed condition on the project that defers groundwater management to the future. Condition 97 as written would also allow the County to dispose of treated wastewater outside the Los Osos Groundwater Basin .

The County’s intention at the November 24, 2009 hearing is to modify only one condition. If the Board of Supervisors wants to change the project or condition, they should consider the whole project. Certainly, no applicant other than the County could do what the Board of Supervisors intends to do.


Jeff Edwards can be reached for comment via cell phone, 805-235-0873


Not2010Yet said...

Thank Goodness Julie Tacker or someone related to her has come to our rescue. I was frightened that our drama had lessened, things had calmed down and we were headed to some kind of prompt, sensible resolution before the Coastal Commission. Ann mentioned someone might rev up the sewer engines, and she got her wish. now we can all go to court some more.

Just exactly how much damage does Tacker et al need to inflict on this process? Any other former directors in on this?

I'm not certain whom it applies to, pick your own favorite from among the trolls and beauty queens, but I propose that a new word be added to the OED. Politicopath.

Politicopath pol - et - e - coh - path n. One who disrupts a community to a severe degree, as in Los Osos, CA, financially in the tens of millions, while claiming to have community interest as a sole motivation.

Churadogs said...

Not yet 2010 sez:"Ann mentioned someone might rev up the sewer engines, and she got her wish. now we can all go to court some more."

That wasn't a "wish." That was merely an observation, as in, "Ah, I see it's raining some more."

Ron said...

NY2010 wrote:

"Just exactly how much damage does Tacker et al need to inflict on this process?"

You mean the same Julie Tacker that spoke at about a gazillion Board of Supervisors' meetings throughout 2009, telling that deaf Board, over and over and over again, that the Tonini site was infeasible because it would not return groundwater to the basin, and then they ignored her for a year, and continued throwing money at the Tonini site, and then the Planning Commission got the project and immediately moved the project to the Giacomazzi site so the groundwater would be returned to the basin, and then the BOS approved that project?

You mean those kinds of "damages" by Tacker, NY2010?

Before I go, I can't stand the tension:

Anti-sewer obstructionist!

There, I said it.

(Boy, you know it's gone south for your side, when your stump line has turned into a punch line.)

Aaron said...

No offense to Mr. Edwards, but I'm not clear on what statutes were violated; his standing to sue.

At the same time, people need to understand that lawsuits doesn't necessarily equate to "disrupting a community to a severe degree." I'm not saying that people haven't filed nuisance suits, but on the same token, not all of these lawsuits are disruptive or without merit.

Now, my concern isn't about ulterior motives for filing. It's whether the case being presented makes legal sense or not.

beeooch said...

Jeff hasn't filed NEAR the lawsuits that the "infamous lawsuit meister of Los Osos" has filed. When you think of nuisance, disruptive & those without merit, think of "Al the Scam Barrow". How much more disruptive can HE be?? He has cost this community plenty.

Not2010Yet said...

I misspoke, Ann, thank you. Neither you nor any of common sense "wishes" for more sewer litigation. Sorry.

Yep, Ron, I DO mean Julie Tacker who spoke in lots of places, such as homes electioneering for herself based upon falsehoods, spoke her "yes" vote for shutting down a permitted project to the tune of tens of millions of dollars and tens of millions of gallons of water we all flush into the aquifer annually instead of to Tri-W. Yes she's droned on before the BOS; I've seen them reach for their airsickness bags. Oh and I certainly wouldn't cite our extremist Planning Commission if I were attempting to make a point with anybody. If the Coastal Commission acts emboldened based upon the PC encouragement, they (the PC) will have done more damage to this burgh than this administration is doing to our national currency. And that's a LOT. Both actions are travesties to anyone except a dedicated (and in my opinion self-blinded) sewer partisan such as yourself.

And, Mr. Barrow certainly has been a source of enroilment of our waters. But he didn't set us back tens of millions and five years in intercepting our leach field outputs to the aquifer. That stellar distinction belongs to Ms. Tacker and the other mindless extremists she sat on the board with. For sheer dereliction of duty in public office, for sheer arrogance and idiocy in municipal leadership, for major-league destruction of the affairs and finances of the trusting little town she was elected to help, I will still put my money on the chubby princess from up the hill. Al Barrow is a minor league piker next to J.T. and the LOCSD 4.

Soon we will see what absolute Coastal Commission MAYHEM streams from the actions of Christie and her ilk. I'm thinking it's gonna be a disaster at the CC, and I dearly hope I'm incorrect. You all might have to do without my rantings and third rate postings, if we sell and depart L.O. with a tearful backward glance. We will depart if the genie unleashed by the dunderheads of the Planning Commission doesn't go back into it's bottle.

I really didn't think anybody could approach the damage of the LOCSD5 however all SORTS of mayhem and demands may be coming our way from an emboldened Coastal Commission. Watch for demands for STEP collection(if I moved to Patterson's district can I squander a king's ransom to try and beat him?), demands for draconian outdoor (and probably indoor) water use standards, stuff that would make the Health Care proposals seem fair-minded and Jeffersonian.

Aaron said...

You can talk about Julie Tacker, Jeff Edwards, the "obstructionists" and "chubby princesses" until the cows come home, but you're still bitter.

There's one thing to support a vote or a measure and there's another to enforce that measure. That "yes" vote -- that you're talking about -- was voted in by a majority vote of Los Osos residents. Julie Tacker didn't vote a thousand times. If that were to be the case, yes, that would be electioneering. In reality, it wasn't.

Secondly, labeling the Planning Commission are "extremists" causing more damage to Los Osos than the Obama administration makes you a sewer partisan if not merely a bitter, partisan hack who irrationally compares a department of county government to the federal executive branch.

Those who have been part of the Los Osos "scene," if you will, can tell you that the blame equally goes around. Not one person is more responsible for the mess -- that we're in -- than the other person. To blame the post-recall board for all the wars in the world is to look at only what has happened since 2005 when there have been decades of problems that preceded Tacker and the "LOCSD 4." The same thing can be said about the Planning Commission. You can't say Christie and the board will be fully responsible for the "mayhem" that could surface at the Coastal Commission meeting.

Funny you mentioned Jeffersonian. Thomas Jefferson once said, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Throughout the 20+ years of this sewer saga, one could only dream of what could have happened if everyone stayed silent.

Oh, and this line will make your head spin. Jefferson also said, "Delay is preferable to error."

Sewertoons said...

Jefferson wasn't speaking to 30 years of sewer delay that adds up to this unspeakable and costly error.

BTW, the blame is NOT equal. A bankruptcy wasn't in the mix until the Lisa board came on the scene. That collective lack of judgement is a price we get to pay on top of the sewer itself.

Churadogs said...

Toonces sez:"A bankruptcy wasn't in the mix until the Lisa board came on the scene. That collective lack of judgement is a price we get to pay on top of the sewer itself."

I will argue that the bankruptcy was set in motion by the recalled board majority voting (disasterously) to block the Measure B vote, thereby setting into motion the money bleed when that case had to be settled to avoid an even bigger, court-set settlement. That poison pill was the beginning of the end, as was the decision to unecessrily start work on Tri W before the elction. More poison pill. As intended.

Ron said...

NY 2010 wrote:

"Yes she's droned on before the BOS; I've seen them reach for their airsickness bags."

See? There's the problem.

Because she was 100-percent right on the groundwater/basin issue, instead of reaching for their airsickness bags, the Board should have just listened to her, and stopped wasting all of that money studying a DOA location -- the Tonini site.

My favorite part about this situation, is how Gibson limited her time to speak because he said the same people were saying the same thing over and over again.

Well, yeah, Bruce... Julie WAS saying the same thing over and over again. She was saying that the Tonini site wasn't going to work because it didn't return groundwater to the basin, then, after Bruce's Board threw a bunch of money at the Tonini site, it didn't work, just like Julie told them over and over and over again, while they were wasting time and money on the Tonini ste.

When she had three minutes to speak, she said it like this, "The Tonini site is infeasible because it doesn't return groundwater to the basin."

Then, Bruce started whining, and cut her time down to two minutes, so she had to say it like this:

"TheToninisiteisinfeasiblebecauseitdoesn'treturngroundwatertothebasin. Out!"

And they still didn't listen to her.

Last week, I e-mailed Paavo asking him for a "ballpark figure" on how much money his department wast... errrrrrrrr... spent on studying the Tonini site.

Of course, he never replied.

So, next week, I'll be doing a public records request for that information, and then (here's the cool part) in my public records request, I'm also going to ask for the cost of fulfilling my public records request, that I was forced to do just because Paavo won't answer my one, excellent question:

"How much money was spent (read: wasted) by the SLO County Public Works Department studying the Tonini site as the preferred location in 2008 - 09?"

Aaron said...

Lynette, once again, doesn't get it.

Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) obviously did not live long enough to see what has happened with the sewer, but he understood the danger of making hasty decisions and having nobody question them. I think it's a little absurd to qualify his line of thought with some subjective, one-sided spin that addresses the sewer issue.

And I'm so glad Lynette Tornatzky personally knows Jefferson enough to what the third President of the United States and the author of the Declaration of Independence says in context. What is Lynette going to say next? "Nelson Mandela wouldn't want Los Osos residents polluting the groundwater."

Sewertoons said...

Ann, stopping the project caused the funds that were keeping the District afloat marked the trail toward bankruptcy. Not understanding that the project SRF funding was site specific, yet insisting on a new site, new collection system, new treatment technology MIGHT have sealed that deal, but no, even then, they had a chance to REDEEM themselves. They could have continued on with the collection system while going for that bridge loan to keep that money in play. Instead, they crashed the Blakeslee compromise and fast-tracked the District to bankruptcy.

The community wasn't paying attention earlier - if they didn't like where it was going in 2001, they should have said so voting in a different board. They DID NOT do that.

Stopping a fully funded and permitted project without taking that "out" provided by Blakeslee looks idiotic to anyone who is rational. And idiotic in hindsight now to many who voted for Measure B. Your so-called "money bleed" on Measure B was a drop in the ocean compared to the lawsuits the Lisa Board racked up. The court settlement you refer to is part of larger ongoing settlement behind closed doors with the CSD. It never should have happened - paying for a case the District WON so the Lisa board could hire BWS.

Ann, you know perfectly well that the he contracts were signed LONG AGO, so starting the project when they did is irrelevant. The contracts are what caused the lawsuits, not the work.

Word verification: coffin

Not2010Yet said...

The Mandelas would have necklaced their sewer opponents, and let it go at that.

You know, the old used tire filled with flammable liquid and ignited around the neck of the political opponent style of necklacing. But, one of them DID get a Nobel prize. Wait a minute, so did the Prez, but he's only "necklaced" our economy and currency. There may be a lesson in there somewhere, though orbitaly high over your head.

As to me being a hack, says it well: "in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work".

Thank You, young Aaron. If a critic of limited experience, scope, vision, success and maturity such as yourself brands my work as hackish, well then I must by inference be producing elegance. I accept this compliment.

And as to bitterness? Why ever would a home investor be bitter if they bought after the first assessment and with all appearing to be resolved, lawsuits and delays behind us, with an in-town project producing the most likely for tertiary product water all set to go? We weren't bankrupt, the thing had financing in place and challenges behind it, and only the thinnest of vapid arguments against it that somebody bait/switched something, somebody got a loan but the ratepayers were an unacceptable source of repayment (I always loved the irrationality of THAT argument), and these homes were in a lovely town on it's way to ending it's nightmare? Why EVER would I be bitter at the nutjobs who managed to gain control of, and destroy, our towns wastewater finances?

Further, define bitterness please. Empty hate or anger? Not in my case, not hate, it is justified controlled disgust at four CalTrans @$#@heads doing the unthinkable to their community, with a rag-tag rooting squad of hangers-on who still defend some of their actions.

If you had ever been anywhere else, done anything else or had some vision, perhaps a little national experience at civil engineering projects such as wastewater infrastructure, you might REALLY look at this whole adventure differently.

Until then, I remain I guess, described as your hack.

Sewertoons said...

ron, stop being such a dope. A PIPE FROM Tonini to over-the-basin is what could have returned the water.

Tonini was picked over Giacomazzi for the same reason Tri-W was not considered by the County - to keep the plant out of people's backyards. The County was being sensitive to the content of a popular objection. If you followed this at all, the people who live around Giacomazzi were NOT happy with this switch.

How much of the County's time and money are you now wasting with this request - to prove -- what? Beyond your personal ego needs to defend Julie, does it matter to anyone else?

Aaron said...

If you want to bring Obama into the discussion, fine, but save it for another time before you make a fool out of yourself.

My shamelessly anonymous opponents often refer to me as "young" with "limited experience, scope, vision, success and maturity," and this is coming from someone who calls the post-recall board "four CalTrans shitheads (with the not-so-clever censorship to save face)" and once threatened to take my family to a speedway in Venice, California and "do away with them" (May 17, 2007 on discussion boards). How is that for irony? You should thank me for not calling the police on you and having you arrested. By the way, you're welcome.

People who refer to me as "young" are often men who run their mouths like children, but these people are generally vile and hypocritical in tone. If their behavior is considered to be mature, experienced and larger in scope; if these people see themselves as having model behavior and experience, then I'll forever be young so I don't end up as jaded and as brutish as people like Not2010Yet who anonymously spew bile on a regular basis.

Here's bitterness defined without putting it in the sewer context. Bitterness: "resentment: a feeling of deep and bitter anger and ill-will." I'm not going to go as far as Lynette Tornatzky and say that your concerns are "fictional," but you don't even take into consideration the counterargument as far as why things happened the way they did. I've heard from your camp, "We had the PERFECT solution, but those mean obstructionists ruined everything. They just love to pollute," and Barbara Wolcott clearly catered to that mentality with "Perfect Storm," but never was there a discussion to extract the reasoning. The lack of willingness to engage in such a discussion plays into the fundamental definition of bitterness.

My apologies in advance for bragging. If your vision is that of bitterness, then I can say that my vision is much better than yours. My vision is all about tough love. I may have strongly held opinions, but at least I listen -- and if I disagree about something, I will tell you and explain why. I don't hide behind a nickname and a series of labels to describe people that I don't like.

Not2010Yet said...

Thanks for the lecture, sonny. I'm humbled. Ya nailed me, boy.

By the way, what are you talking about? Please publicly re-post where anybody said they'd "do away with your family". I don't recall myself nor anyone threatening your family, nor would I ever under any circumstances. I do not practice nor advocate violence, except perhaps against enemy combatants by members of the uniformed military, in a declared military engagement and preferably overseas. Violence is uncalled for no matter HOW remarkable or disastrous are the actions of elected officials. I simply think, speak out, and prepare. I also don't use profanity you ascribe to me, there are bunches of clever clean or edgy four letter words to prefix the knuckleheads who directed their political subdivision into the tank, the ground, the bankruptcy.

No, I simply speak out and prepare. Prepared to sell and leave this place if a disastrous collection system is commenced, already have my eye on the next place. Bought ounce gold coins and fractional ounce gold coins, and boy am I smiling right now. Oh that's right, I'm an Obama-mentioning fool did you say? But violence, at a speedway, WHAT are you smoking/consuming/dreaming? Or have you no psychotropic chemical excuse.

There also has never been a speedway in Venice Beach, the nearest being the 1930's part time one at the Culver City airport which is now Jefferson Blvd. and a shopping mall strip, and the wonderful Joe/George Petrelli Steak House now run by the son.

There IS a street or alleyway in Venice Beach named Speedway, it runs right behind the boardwalk properties. I've lived a stone's throw from that, but oops, I better be careful, next you'll accuse me of wanting to stone your family because of my use of a distance analogy. Not true.

My beef is with your opinions, not your safety. With your immaturity not your peaceful enjoyment of life. With your beliefs posted in a town devastated by the actions of elected officials and their supporters.

That municipal destruction was so abominably stupid, it bears repeating and underscoring, remembrance and re-publication. Frequent revisionist posts, some of them by someone named Aaron, require reasoned and admittedly repetitive responses. If you call this "bile", I call it education, history, recognition, repetition. You'd call repeating the lessons of human slavery or internment camps bile too, I suppose. I'm just doing my part as a community member, at least as I see it, while deflecting your junk. Let's get back on topic, which isn't me or you by the way, it's a reasoned debate about wastewater and governance issues. We are probably annoying the adults here.

Have a good day.

Watershed Mark said...

Sorry, I lost his last name and got him confused with your outfit Lynette said: “Getting rid of Paavo would unravel the entire process”

The County, State and Federal Governments are "outta dough" so Ron's point is razor sharp.
Try not to be such a willing dupe, you dope.

Aaron said...

Here's a re-post as requested.

"This paper, The Rock and the family who runs it... the people of Los Osos know how uninformed and how uneducated their opinions are. It's hurting the community. The best way to deal with them is to take them to the Speedway in Venice. It's really nice down there. You drop them off there and you do away with them. Then we wouldn't hear from them."

This was a response to Shirley Devine (Together) who often claimed she uses The ROCK as pavings and lining for her birdcage. Maybe that will jog your memory.

The Tribune removed your post as they also deemed your post to be a threat -- so you can ask them what they're smoking.

I save these posts in the event that people like you conveniently "don't recall" the things that were said -- but wait, you would never encourage< violence. You are much more mature than I am. You are more experienced than I am. You have a better scope of the situation than I do -- and yet, here you are leading by example in the most ironic ways possible. Go figure.

Am I being immature for pointing this out? That's your opinion.

I don't disagree with the basic facts you stated about me. I am young, don't have experience in civil engineering, don't have as much real-world experience as you. If someone my age was regularly targeted by people with extremist views that call for unprecedented socioeconomic impacts, they would not be as "mature" as I would be at this moment -- so for me to be here, telling you that you're full of it without a wave of namecalling and slanderous remarks attests to my level of maturity.

I would love for you to one day point out my "revisionist posts" and factual inaccuracies. I asked Lynette to do so, she never responded. I asked Richard LeGros to do so, he never responded. I asked Pandora Nash-Karner to do so, she never responded. I challenged Taxpayers Watch to debate me. They never answered. Maybe you'll rise to the task and then we can have a discussion.

Until then, you should try to learn your place.

Alon Perlman said...

I posted to the subject of the appeals (and some lawsuits) on Ann’s next blog posting.
Given the discussion here; there have been 2 Sewer locations since 2005.
Others including myself have said it, but Julie’s (paraphrasing here) is the most succinct- The County chose a un-permittable project in Tonini (and arguably for the “right” reasons, as noted by Toons, .A.P.)
And Ron rightfully pointed out Julie’s role, as one of the first people to warn the County, of the inevitable unintended consequence of the Tonini choice. And while reminding everybody that the PC could not had proceeded without the first two letters from the CCC. yes, there is a horse before the cart connection.
To some degree appeals and lawsuits are part of the process, as in Ann’s comment (paraphrasing here) "Ah, I see it's raining even heavier." It is notable that by numbers, individuals with undeveloped property interests are now the largest Class in the appeals.
While I know that “That was then, this is NOW”, is not too convincing to you 2010. (Won’t wash out the bitter taste). You are aware I’m sure, that the unlinking of TERTIARY, though a logical action by the County, is really what doomed Tonini, (long pipes back non-withstanding)and is the relevant action directly and unintentionally concequencing the undeveloped property appeals.
Given that we ALL still live here (figuratively speaking, Ron) I think that making distinctions between perceived bigger and lesser evils, is in your best interest. And I do like Politicopath
but I insist, that “Time Bandits”, and persistent “Nickel and Dimer’s” should be included.
There is plenty of blame to allocate, in the handling of the Blakesley compromise. I found several additional indefensible actions took place, post recall, which included Mr. Barrow’s disruption of CSD Committee agendas, for which he was rewarded by being re-appointed to committees. I think that happened least on Julie’s watch.
I will note also that, in contrast, Ms. Shicker had very little influence in moving the Sewer back from Tonini, does that put her in a “better“ (less Bitter Lager) light?

Not2010Yet said...

THAT was posted under a name which you ascribe to me? Well despite an apparently similar geographic citation, I specifically disclaim and do not recall that post, and therewith any reference it made. I repeat my disapproval of violence or threats in reasoned municipal debate. How would going to a tourist venue do away with anybody anyway.

Back to topic, it is revisionist or at the very least misleading to claim as you do above: "Those who have been part of the Los Osos "scene," if you will, can tell you that the blame equally goes around. Not one person is more responsible for the mess -- that we're in -- than the other person. end quote.

Missteps such as the Nash-Karner Solutions group original scheme reworked to functionality hardly are equally responsible with a board that voted once, yes just one disastrous, groundshaking vote, to unilaterally abrogate about a hundred mil in contracts. Against the sound advice of so many people and authorities around them. To claim as some board members did that it was done with a replacement plan workable or available was foolhardy and destructive. Yes in the past, forming a better faster whatever CSD and attempting to take the job from the county doesn't appear to have worked out smoothly; I don't think I would defend that action either, but the literature I can find on it doesn't seem to support huge clear warnings of devastation to follow if they won their election and proceeded. Not as profoundly clear or anywhere equal as the LOCSD5 disaster. It is this, for example, upon which I claim certain writers to be revisionist.

Churadogs said...

Toonces sez:"The community wasn't paying attention earlier - if they didn't like where it was going in 2001, they should have said so voting in a different board. They DID NOT do that."

I would argue that the community was lied to -- repeatedly -- by that same CSD board majority, that there was no other site available, that moving the sewer out of town was waaaayyyyy more expensive, that we had no choice & etc. Not to mention the SOC and bait and switchy that fooled the regulators. Poor community.

Toonces also sez:"ron, stop being such a dope. A PIPE FROM Tonini to over-the-basin is what could have returned the water."

Uh, I thought the point of Tonini was the "spray fields," as in Tonini Spray Fields, as in spraying the water over the fields (and cover crop) so it evaporates, or goes into the cover crop or ground and sits there?

Not yet 2010 sez:"Let's get back on topic, which isn't me or you by the way, it's a reasoned debate about wastewater and governance issues. We are probably annoying the adults here."

And sez:"I repeat my disapproval of violence or threats in reasoned municipal debate."

and also sez:"The Mandelas would have necklaced their sewer opponents, and let it go at that.
You know, the old used tire filled with flammable liquid and ignited around the neck of the political opponent style of necklacing."

Ah, yes, the old "reasoned debate" and "disapproval of "violence or threats" disclaimer along with, I don't recall, I deny any involvement, it wasn't me, musta been some other guy.

Not2010Yet said...

Oh for goodness' sake, I can't even note a proven though sad historical fact (certain kinds of unacceptable political behavior on another continent) without the notation being held up to unfavorable scrutiny?

I better clear out before somebody accuses me of 1984 style crimespeak.

Peace, friends.

Aaron said...

I don't know how "revisionist" or "misleading" my quote was: to say that a lot of people share some responsibility for their errors throughout the sewer saga, but if that's the best you got, then I have nothing more to say to you.

Yes, peace. That would be nice.

Alon Perlman said...

This is addressed with most respect to; 31 shopping days plus a week till your moniker is invalid.

Please don’t go! (Old school version)
I like your comment posts.

BTW haven’t you noticed a pattern in the communications here? As in irrespective of subject, they pretty much end the same?

The genius in Orwell’s 1984 is in the recognition of the economic patterns, rather than Ideology, in how the world powers align. The World Powers realign according to their product. England and Russia in a block(Energy), China and India in a block (labor) USA and Australia in a block (bread-basket). Wouldn’t mind discussing that with you as it pertains/pertains-not to LO.
(It’s been a while, and that’s how I remember it, IM-not-so-HO)

Please don’t go! (Nitrated version, notice the dog and the PZ electric fence separating LO from ROW (Rest of World)).

Sewertoons said...

Ann, LIED to? Oh, you mean like the recall campaign promises of $100/ out-of-town? Yes, it CAN go out of town at a greater cost, as we now all see!

Bait and switch has be disproved here.

The Tonini project was amended to go tertiary. A pipe could have brought the water back from there. But the Farm Bureau objected to the land use, so the project went back into the already charted waters of placing the plant in a neighborhood. While the fight that looked imminent didn't occur, it could have, hence the initial choice of Tonini. If the argument of Not-In-My-Neighborhood was to be given respect, that same respect needed to go to the Clark Valley Road group, don't you think?

Initially, going secondary was to lessen the cost of the project, leaving the water use options up to the purveyors to figure out at a later date. That didn't happen, so those costs of return and reuse fall onto the PZ property owners solely.

Watershed Mark said...

Sorry, I lost his last name and got him confused with your outfit Lynette writes:

“The Tonini project was amended to go tertiary.”

Why don’t you provide the county’s link which provides the proof of your statement?

“- they have septics that work, why would they want to pay?”

“Getting rid of Paavo would unravel the entire process”

Mike said...

Hey Markie... Where's Paavo's response...??? Maybe he's seen through your smokescreen and wished you luck in going back to selling meat by-products... You lost...!!!

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE little mouse,

Paavo never responded.

He is attempting to hide under his desk.
That isn't sustainable.

Wait and see...