Pages

Friday, January 15, 2010

Here Come de Novo, Here Come de Novo

Well, I'll be hornswoggled. The Coastal Commissioners decided there were sufficient issues raised in the appeals that they wanted to take a second, closer, de novo look at the Hideous Sewer Project.

The Tribune reports this morning that Commissioner Sara Wan from Malibu states, "There are some serious deficiencies in here." [the "here" in question refering to the project reports & etc, I presume]. If I'm not mistaken, Commissioner Sara Wan was a commissioner the last time around, during the old "bait and switchy" days, and if Ron Crawford of Sewerwatch has sent the Commissioners one of his annoyingly thorough and nit-icky and document-linked emails asking about the missing substantial supportive documentation behind the previous (now rescinded) SOC for the Tri-W project, she may be aware that her original vote may have been based on bad or non-existent information so this time she's going to take a much closer look-see?

The Tribune's brief report notes that one of the issues the Commission will be looking at is a "more detailed timeline of the water conservation plan . . ." Good. The Sustainability Group wanted a much stronger conservation element, one that starts now instead of years from now, which sure seems like a good idea to me. So, let's hope the CC will take a look at that and maybe tinker with the requirements.

I'm sure some will spin this delay into an hysterical wail of how we've lost federal funding and we'll all go die in the streets, but I'm pleased with the Commission's ruling. This is a Hideously Complex project and as former County Planning Commissioner Sarah Christie said, we've got one chance to get this right. I would much rather have a slight delay and end up with a far better project than hysterically run ahead and get mired down in messes later, which has been the M.O. in the past.

So, everybody, take a deep breath. There's some work still to be done and I have no doubt the County will be working with the CC staff to address the issues they've raised, then the train will chug forward again.

Breathe. And remember, this a a "cow-free' zone, so don't have one if you plan on commenting below on this turn of events. Thank you.

77 comments:

Mike said...

It is so nice that the "Process" is being followed so thoroughly... isn't this exactly the "Plan"...???

If we delay the sewer long enough, the federal government will have to step in to save Los Osos... or to turn it's back and ignore the problem for another 30 or 40 years.... afterall, no one, at least no one acceptible to all the "experts" in Los Osos, has proved that our few thousand septic tanks are causing any pollution in our drinking water or that polluted mud flat known as Morro Bay...

I'm just glad that we won't have to pay for a sewer any time soon... BTW, when will that mean ol' RWQCB come back to visit...???

Richard LeGros said...

The prior project’s CDP, FEIR and SOC are not the issues before the CCC; the County's CDP is. That is the only project they will look at.
It is wishful thinking to believe that the CCC will waste time to review a project that is not before them. The CCC will only focus n the County’s project.

Also, the SOC of the prior project has NOT been rescinded.
That SOC was codified in the prior FEIR; and can only be rescinded by a judge's ruling in a court of law. Stating, or the LOCSD's passing of motions, that the FEIR/SOC has been rescinded does not make it so. The law states otherwise.


******

The CCC has gone deNovo for there are substantial issues regarding reasons I explained on this blog back in late 2008 and early 2009, which are;

1. Project Mitigation of the County Project must also include conditions to provide mitigation for the old project (i.e. the County will not be allowed to use the prior's project mitigation plan for the new project).

2. The need to balance the aquifer water tables on both sides of the inferred fault in order to maintain existing wetlands that have emerged along the Bay and along the creek corridor (the County's disposal plan fails in this regard.)
I wish to point out that the prior project did address and resolve this very issue by disposing treated waste water via leach fields located on Santa Maria Ave and down by the creek. IN that plan, the water was to be disposed of in the areas most likely see a drop in the water table when the discharges from the areas septic tanks were removed. The anticipated drop in the water table would result in the wetland drying up.
I suspect that a 'reinvention' of the prior projects disposal plan will be incorporated into the County's Project.

Sewertoons said...

And if this Tri-W "reinvention" is applied to this project, I see it as a validation that Tri-W did have positive points that even its detractors cannot refute.

The interesting point for me that also validates the Tri-W project is the fact that the Commission will NOT re-look at STEP, the big point that Sierra Club, Surfrider and Al, Piper, Linde, etc. were trying to push as environmentally more friendly! NOT!

Really, they are just addressing issues that Tri-W had already addressed.

Interesting that Tri-W had a septic management plan and that wasn't even brought up yesterday by the the people who usually do.

Word verification - dripp! It's all about the water…

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"The Tribune reports this morning that Commissioner Sara Wan from Malibu states, "There are some serious deficiencies in here." [the "here" in question refering to the project reports & etc, I presume]. If I'm not mistaken, Commissioner Sara Wan was a commissioner the last time around, during the old "bait and switchy" days, and if Ron Crawford of Sewerwatch has sent the Commissioners one of his annoyingly thorough and nit-icky and document-linked emails asking about the missing substantial supportive documentation behind the previous (now rescinded) SOC for the Tri-W project, she may be aware that her original vote may have been based on bad or non-existent information so this time she's going to take a much closer look-see?"

O.K., ready for some journalism pyrotechnics?

Check it:

Just last year I dug the following amazing quote out of a 2004 CCC document, and added it to my Huge File-O-Quotes, so now, I always have it locked-and-loaded... precisely for moments like this:

"I admit that I probably didn't look at the specific language of the LCP, the way I should have."
-- California Coastal Commission member, Sara Wan, August 11, 2004, discussing the Coastal Development Permit for the Tri-W project.

Nice.

So, basically, the reason there's a gigantic hole in the middle of Los Osos, is because Sara Wan got lazy in 2004, and didn't do her homework.

It sure sounds like she learned her lesson, though... although, a little too late for the CDOers.

From my Huge File-O-Quotes:

"(This prosecution) is there when we help our children with their homework and when we play with our pets. It is there when we talk to our grandchildren on the phone. It is there when we spend time with friends, attend church, or work in our gardens."
-- Anonymous recipient of RWQCB enforcement actions

I have a question (and, no offense to a "Richard LeGros," or 'toons, but, I don't exactly consider y'all primary sources) does this deNovoing-thingy mean that the door is now officially open to discuss how the Tri-W embarrassment got permitted?

Ohhhh... that'd be Sweeeeeeet!

Thanks for the report, Ann, and, mmmmm... cow.

Ron said...

1 more quick thing...

Here are the "Text Donation Instructions" to support Direct Relief International's Haiti earthquake assistance:

"If you'd like to make a $10 donation to support our Haiti earthquake relief work via your mobile phone, text the message Give10 to the number 20222. Answer Yes when asked to confirm your donation. You will then receive a text message confirming your donation.

A one-time donation of $10 will be added to your mobile phone bill or deducted from your pre-paid balance."

Mike said...

Ron, apparently you don't understand what you read... This does NOT open up or redo the Tri-W permit... There are some specific mitigation items needing clarification before the CC issues a permit to SLO County... There is a sewer coming to LO...and maybe a park also...

If the out of town "plan" doesn't address the concerns, then Tri-W will be back before the CC who already issued a permit and did address the mitigation issues...

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

Again, the old project has nothing to do with the current situation before the CCC.

The CCC's going deNovo on the County will not result in the review of the deceased project.

The CCC went deNovo to apply their existing policies and conditions regarding waste water project mitigation, water issues, the protection of wet lands and other coastal resources; as these are substantial issues the County Project has not yet resolved. I expect that these issues will be adequately resolved, and a CDP issued by the CCC, in four to six months.

The CC commissioners acted the only way they could; which was to uphold the law instead of kowtowing to political pressure to do otherwise. Quite frankly, the integrity of the CCC was at stake. Integrity won.

Regardless of whether we insignificant bloggers are 'primary sources' or not, what matters is the accuracy of a bloggers analysis to clarify issues while predicting future events.

That there are folks who continue to tickle their particular Tri-W issues-itch in an attempt to validate fantasies concerning the old project's legitimacy is, well, not relevant. But such flights of ronish fantasy do have great entertainment value.

Mike Green said...

ARGGGG! I promised myself to not post anymore sewer posts, but this question is bothering the heck outa me:
Why didn't Paavo and company foresee these concerns?
If ANYBODY should be cognizant of the ESHA mitigation and wetland issues, dontcha think that someone that has ALREADY USHERED A PROJECT through this SAME EXACT PROCESS. would be able to LEARN from the experience?
WTF??????
Hi Richard, thanks for the posts.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike!

The County knew the 'issues'; they just opted to ignore them.

Historically they were the agency that imposed on the LOCSD many of the 'issues' that they chose not to include in their own project. As to their 'whys' for doing what they did / failed to do, I suspect they have reasons that are protective of overall County interests.

However, just because they chose to ignore the 'issues' does not mean the CCC would (or could); and hasn't. Such is the process we have in place; and has been followed.

Mozel tov!

Alon Perlman said...

I was there, in the locker room and on the field. And since, like in a football game, you can see the actual game unfold better from your couch, I will only have full knowledge of what transpired, including my portion, when I see it.
And since I did not make a third of the very points that I drove down there to make, and therefore none of the over-riding issues, I am, how to say, Verklempt. Did mention time line, though.
Sorry Ron, Richard prognosticated this, Three? Days ago, and he was correct. There is not a new game. No foot in the door for new technologies. No revisiting histories. The De Novo is constrained similarly. The Seven Nails in the Los Osos Coffin, pierced the STEP corpse as they were piercing two fresher corpses laid to rest above it.
The more expensive County sprayfield sewer corpse, and above it ? The till 1/14/10 viable with small modifications, now zombified "within the basin sewer".
That fresh Zombie will reanimate with a small sacrifice to a CCC policy that has, as its only connection to the environment, Dead Squid sequestered Iodine, scratched on bleached, flattened dead wood. (“INK on paper” for those who don’t know how to read allegorical English.)
A slightly less expensive Sewer corpse, then that what Los Osos is going to end up with.
What the commission listened to was constrained to Specific Policy Issues (LCP) . In fact they started to interrupt speakers to tell them so.
I needed a preemptive strike, therefore I said to the affect of “I submitted written materials. Since the Commissioners have read my materials, at least twice, You will find the linkage there. I don’t have to present that here.” Again , this an approximation of what I remember I said. So I recollect that, as a tight spiral. But I was being held, by another player, and because our jerseys appeared to be the same color, the officials were confused. And then the whistle blew. The Officials are still tangling as to the point after in a blow out game.
She has sang her SWan song, but the Opera is not yet over, folks.
Drip? You Plagiarized the words in my thoughts, Toons.
Drip Drip Drip,
The Salts keep marching in.
The current spread? 6 months to 1 year additional delay, 10 to 20 million additional costs.
Permanent damage to the Aquifer? Irrevocable.
Wow started writing at 4 comments, ate a donut, now its 10
Word verification: bommene
Knights of the round poker table -Good hands

Sewertoons said...

I believe the "wetlands" mentioned, and by that I mean wetlands vegetation, did not exist (Alon, you could see that early Los Osos slide, internet viewing was not so hot - but it looked barren) before the people and septics fostered their growth. It is much like the argument about the eucalyptus in Montaña de Oro - should they go (non-native) or should they stay (habitat). Moot point. It is going to De Novo.

I am glad that Tri-W is getting acknowledged where it is long overdue, the recycled water use was no question, better. As was the water quality, via MBR. I'd also like to make the point that Tri-W also addressed a point ron disses ad nauseam, which is the park component. Right now I am on the Parks and Rec Committee of LOCAC. We are comprised of STEP proponents, Centrists and County supporters. And you know - we ALL want to see parks in Los Osos. I'd also like to add, despite our different backgrounds and sewer positions, we have no fights and work seamlessly toward our common goal.

We WILL get a sewer, but at what cost to the community and the environment? What's another 6 months to a year? Guess we'll wait and see. We could be using that last sewer right NOW. It will be interesting to see what the final costs to this new one are.

Mike said...

All unnessary Alon... very unnecessary...!!! By now we would have a legal flush and forget sewer and salt intrusion mitigation and cleansing of the aquifiers... Our past CSD Directors were not stupid, they really did produce a very state-of-the-art system... because they did seek out true experts and plowed through every permit issue put in front of them...

But today, we still have no sewer, no back flushing of the salt intrusion, no attempt to halt the pollution of our own drinking water... What a failure these past 4 years have been...!!!

Alon, I do have to say you are part of what is wrong in Los Osos... You have not been part of a solution, merely a distraction and misdirection... Maybe it's time you opened your eyes and looked for what's right with now the County's solution since you didn't support the past CSD's legal soution... Isn't it time those opposed to a sewer for their own personal agendas to support a major effort, both in design and economy, to begin to correct the damage of concentrated leech fields...??? Does any of you activists understand compromise...??? Does it have to be your way or no way...??? Sorry to be so harsh Alon, I picked on you only as a representative of the several splinter groups opposing any sewer any where... It was easy to band together in a recall, but there is no solidarity today... You'll find the majority of Los Osos are tired of the useless, yet very expensive sewer war... No more snake oil, no more over her dead body, no more mentally disturbed threats, no more hand wringing over some perceived conspiracy... just build the damn sewer....!!!!

Churadogs said...

Mike Green Sez:ARGGGG! I promised myself to not post anymore sewer posts, but this question is bothering the heck outa me:
Why didn't Paavo and company foresee these concerns?
If ANYBODY should be cognizant of the ESHA mitigation and wetland issues, dontcha think that someone that has ALREADY USHERED A PROJECT through this SAME EXACT PROCESS. would be able to LEARN from the experience?
WTF??????
Hi Richard, thanks for the posts."

Richard replies: "The County knew the 'issues'; they just opted to ignore them."

(I would add, chose to ignore them after charging the people of Los Osos millions of dollare "pretending" to look at them?)

While Ron quotes"
"I admit that I probably didn't look at the specific language of the LCP, the way I should have."
-- California Coastal Commission member, Sara Wan, August 11, 2004, discussing the Coastal Development Permit for the Tri-W project."


Read it and weep: In those three quotes lies the tragedy of Los Osos. Government/regulatory failure, repeatedly, to do things right, with no accountability, just stick the growing bill with the tax/rate payers.

Richard LeGros said...

Failure to do things 'right'?
Because of ‘government/regulatory failure; and their lack of accountability'?

How about the failure and lack of accountability of the Los Osos voter?

I submit that it has been we, the community of Los Osos that has consistently kept the regulators and project lead agencies from (via the general vote) from doing what is 'right'.

Los Osos has, at every critical voting juncture, repeatedly voted to change course regarding the waste water project then envisioned. The history of Los Osos's bone-head voting record during watershed general elections has ham-strung government from resolving the worst environmental pollution spill in California History....to date over 12 billion gallons of improperly treat sewage spilt into, and degrading, our water supply.

Ann, we have done this to ourselves.

We have caused the pollution.
We have caused project delay.
WE have caused project costs to spiral into the stratosphere.
WE are the ones who are accountable.
WE are the ones who have failed in our responsibilities.

Mike Green said...

Hi Richard, you bring up a good point, but I think it's rather shallow in depth.
Where are the voters supposed to get educated?
The Newspaper? LOL
How about the printed Voter Pamphlet?
(another LOL as ANY lie can be put in there and made to sound good)
A very good argument can be made that the voters have voted FOR a sewer every time, just a cheaper one than has been mandated by whatever agency is doing the project.
(It's the economy, stupid)
So what does it all boil down to?
Politics, and specifically the complete amateurish, and naive politicians we've had running things.
(some would say downright malevolent)
So you see, some "WE" are bigger than the rest of the "WEs"
(I, am still, as far as I know, the only poster that has publicly apologized to Los Osos for my votes)
What exactly was that thinking behind delaying the recall vote until after the start of construction?

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

The property owners, who have a direct financial stake in the issue, have ALWAYS voted to assess themselves to build a waste water project.
Even as costs have risen from $25 million in the 1970's to over $170 Million today, they have done so. All the project assessment votes (SPECIAL ELECTIONS) over the last 36 years have been supportive of a project.

The property owner voting record does not support your contention that the property owners seek only the ‘cheapest’ project. The voting record illustrates that they understand the need for a project; that all projects have a cost; that project costs rise over time; and it is best to get a project installed ASAP.

However, the property owner’s majority will for a project has been consistently thwarted by GENERAL ELECTIONS.

When it comes to GENERAL ELECTIONS in Los Osos; which allows ALL voters who live here regardless if they are property owners or renters (who are 40% component of the population, and do not have a financial stake in a project or property values); which includes voters both inside and outside the PZ; and which prohibits vacant property owners from the vote (leaving them disenfranchised); have consistently undone the will of the property owners special elections. The fact that a general election can destroy a project, and throw away the financial investment of property owners in the process, is appalling. I question if it is constitutional for a general election to undo a special election (assessment vote) at all


The 'education' of a voter boils down to whether or not the voter chooses to be educated; and which venues a voter chooses to acquire voter information.

It is the responsibility of the voter to determine for themselves what information is correct or not.

It is the responsibility of the voter to make sensible decisions based upon whatever information they choose to believe.

It is reasonable to question upon what information have Los Osos voters consistently voted to reject proposed / under construction projects because ‘cheaper’ projects can be achieved?
Where is/was the data that supports such a belief or vote?
Seems to me that such votes are based upon wishful thinking; and the result of such wishful thinking has been the exact opposite of the desired intent.

There is such a thing as common sense too.
Common sense dictates that to base a vote upon a wish that project costs will miraculously decrease even though all data shows otherwise; and despite impending loss of millions of dollars of community investment; and despite impending financial disaster resulting form the intentional defaulting on legally binding community obligations (contracts) to the property owners, governmental agencies, and the private sector; would be detrimental to ones own interests. Amazingly, that is exactly what the Los Osos voter has done.


In the past I have clearly expounded (on this and other blog sites) exactly what my rational was regarding my actions while a Director of the LOCSD BOD. I see no need to do so again.

Mike said...

Excellent Richard, I do appreciate your efforts...

Mike Green said...

Hi Richard, thanks for the (Response?)
I went back and reread my post, and for the life of me I cant find where I made the "contention that the property owners seek only the ‘cheapest’ project."
I made no reference at all about assessment votes, perhaps I wasn't clear about that, as indeed I was referring to General Elections (including the recall election)
As far as documenting my observation that the "cheapest sewer always won, well.

Cheaper, Better, Faster @ 38.50 a month AND
We have a plan @ 100.00 a month.

Those things were not CREATED by the voters by the way, and they didn't just appear out of thin air either.
You are right on about voter responsibility, I personally have taken that one to heart.
I don't want to apologize again.

If you don't want to revisit the consequences of voting (in whatever capacity) maybe you shouldn't open the door to those questions.
Have a great day, It's been fun communicating with you again!

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

"You get the point.
Los Osos voters have been irresponsibly voting on the 'come' for decades. They made the wrong choices."
I do, we have no disagreement.
But I like to ponder the bigger question.
Why did they make the wrong choices?
How were those choices presented?
What did the presenters do wrong?

Alon Perlman said...

(Intended to follow Mike Greens 10 AM) thanks for continuing with quality guys.
----------------------------
Wow.
BTW, MG "Votes?" as in plural?
I voted for measure B
I voted against Three people I barely knew, other than for the most part via information from the mouths of others. But there was a consistency that I followed. Certain cues caused me not to question.
Hunny Huts? Backfire PR. Delay of election? Seemed to be consistent with Directors acting Inconsistently with the democratic will of the people.
And finally ,
Had the Election taken place even a month earlier, The Move/recall movement would not have been ORGANIZED enough to pass the 19 vote hurdle. 2 months? quite possibly 200+ votes differential.3 Months? Hey, I'm in San Diego on a borrowed computer. Let someone else research the history/remember/revision.
Did I influence 10 people to switch their vote? Some of the entrenched Old timer AgitProps would not give me that "Credit", (In fact, would later revise history to credit their Eco-Lites, who were not anywhere to be seen then). As time progressed, I saw CSD led by a Director who seemed to exist on another more wishful thinking planet, where a caricature version of a liberal environmentalist, Convinced the Regulatory Agencies to reverse legal policies, with the "We are the Victims, help us, you bad people" argument.

The current crop of players has a lot of new faces convinced of the righteousness of their "Brand New Unique Contributions to Saving the Known Universe and Beyond".

Among the Older faces (Not including Flim flam man and the female versions ("My Way is Right , and I hate the arrogant people who don’t see that", "The voters are stupid, tell them about the conspiracy") ) are a few (approx six including myself, don’t even try guessing ) who actually know their stuff, at least as regards regulatory issues and law and the ability to predict consequences unintended by the mostly hardworking county employees and officials.

No Mike, I'm not part of a "Group". This County Imperfect Project is the only solution available in this world. And I asked people I don’t know, to get to “This needs to end”, conclusion.
I recently moved a regulatorily, doomed to failure project from outside the basin where it had been moved too far, back into the Basin, where it belongs. And proud of it. Don’t criticize me for being someone else, or because I'm available on this Blog. There are others who deserve your Righteous wrath. I've accumulated more death threats from that Sociopath then you have, whoever you are “Mike”.
(Speaking of Sociopath, I put more words in County Low Income Housing ordinances, “His” ”specialty” BTW, and I haven’t collected a penny or even been compensated for printing costs, I’m not only about sewers)
What have YOU done for Los Osos lately, MIKE??
A group of people are removed from office by a more PR astute Grass roots movement, what’s the deelio? Happens all the time. Welcome to democracy.
So yes, yeall
===================================
“We have met the enemy and it is ourselves”
_________________________________

Alon Perlman said...

Sticker shock followed by People of suspect ethics and psychological control needs, recruiting naive individuals who want to be heroes.

(It's way more complicated but it fits in one sentence)

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

Hi Richard.
Yes, I know.

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

Now that's awkward, Too bad blogger never included an edit function.
Leaves my comment kinda twisting in the wind after Richard obviously deleted and rewrote his post.

Thanks again to Richard and Alon for the discourse.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

Bud Laurent was obviously incorrect when he promoted 'I have a $7,000,000 solution to the Waste Water project by using the Zyolite System; which is far cheaper than the County's $35,000,000 project!'
He believed his rhetoric...and so did the voters in the 1988 General election.

The Solution Group was obviously incorrect in promoting their Cheaper, Faster, Better 'plan'; and the claimed '$38.50 per month' cost.
They believed their own rhetoric....and so did the voters in the 1997 Special Election. (Forming the LOCSD).

The CCLO / LOTTF was obviously incorrect promoting their (nonexistent) 'plan' with a treatment plant outside of town, a plan they claimed was ready to go while keeping the regulators and contractual obligations at bay; and the claimed $100 per month cost.
They believed their own rhetoric....and so did the voters in the 2005 Recall election.

Senet and Cesena were obviously incorrect promoting the LOCSD Ripley 'plan' (even though the LOCSD had already lost control of the project to the County; and they had no way of implementing it); and the claimed $157 per month cost.
They believed their own rhetoric....and so did the voters in the 2006 General election.

You get the point.
Los Osos voters have been irresponsibly voting on the 'come' for decades. They made the wrong choices.

Sewertoons said...

Thank you for the history Richard. I never heard about the Zyolite thing, nor have I seen these money assertions laid out at each tragic juncture before.

Alon Perlman said...

No Richard, Los Osos Voters are Blameless, Blame the "activists" if you have to, Including me, though I defy categorization.
Blame the pr5ocess where ordinary citizens, are faced with deciding on engineering technologies that would stump the experts. (Stump the legitimate experts, engineers and Scientists who do not operate outside of their professional domains) Los Osos has some extra-ordinary people too, most of those are staying away in droves. The Expertological experts, sewerological Masters All, had no problem KNOWING that Gail Et Al were going to deliver. Now we have thenew blank generation bum rushing the process. Remember I worked in Clinical trials, a Multi-disciplinary area that makes an EIR look like a “ run spot run” primer. And I was a Basic research Scientist(Non-PhD)Prior.
I dont presume to teach you architecture. Please don't presume to teach me about where the rubber meets the road, because I am the Coefficient of Static friction.
I am not "The Enemy", Just someone who knows enough to have predicted most of what happens AND IS HAPPENING NOW IN THE NOT WHAT IF WORLD, before it does. And I had no expectation that my character would not be assassinated, in some cases by people who did it to you.
I'm just your neighbor, in this stranger than paradise town, trying to make sense4 of a crazy world.
Peace out dude, and thanks for teaching me some things I did not know, because that is rare for me.

Sewertoons said...

Who is the "new blank generation" and how is this 30-year process rushed?

Alon Perlman said...

bum steer
misleading instructions or guidance; a misleading suggestion. (Bum = false; phony. Steer = guidance, as in the steering of a car. *Typically: get ~; have ~; give someone ~.) Wilbur gave Ted a bum steer and Ted ended up in the wrong town. I got a bum steer from the salesman, and I paid far more than I needed to for a used car.

Alon Perlman said...

Oops truncated post
My missuse of an Idiom Bum rush is what the process needed. Bum steer is what the process got.
New blank generation- Anyone New to the process (since 2007) that came in on derivitive information, rather than by direct observation. Thus got most of the information from a used telephone salesman.
New Blank Genaration=

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

Happened again?
New blank generation=Anyone who came into the process after '07 and got all their information second hand, (Example; from a used telephone salesman) rather than by direct observation.

P.S>
Batten down the hatches,
Theres a biggun a-comin and her sisters are not far behind
----------------------
truncation test 20 lines intended
20 lines appeared, deleted, reposted

Richard LeGros said...

Alon,

I respectfully disagree.

Activists only attain power if they are elected to governmental positions of power; thereby allowing them to make decisions that can alter the process. It is the voter who makes the fateful decision as to who is elected.
The responsibility squarely rests with the electorate.

The problem is that being an activist is one thing; but being elected into a governmental seat of power is quite another.

An activist may say and do anything without having to prove their position; nor are they obligated to anybody but themselves and their cause.

The elected official is obligated by oath of office to protect the constitution by upholding the law regardless of their personal position on issues. They are obligated to protect the interests of ALL their constituents uniformly regardless of their constituents’ position on the issues. The only way an elected official can serve all their constituents equally is by applying the laws they are obligated to uphold evenly amongst their constituents. Elected officials are not only obligated to uphold the law; but may be held personally liable if they acted outside the law in a manner that resulted in damaging the financial intersts of their constituents.

The problems in Los Osos have arisen when activists attained elected office; yet continued to behave as activists. This was true of the Solutions Group activists and the later the CCLO /LOTTF activists as well.

They erringly continued to act out their political positions on issues; positions that were diametrically opposed to the enforcement of the laws they were obligated by oath to uphold.
The only difference between one group and the other is that one group (the Solutions Group) very quickly realized the limitations and responsibilities of elected office (and corrected their behavior accordingly); the other group (the post recall board) did not.

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"You get the point.
Los Osos voters have been irresponsibly voting on the 'come' for decades. They made the wrong choices."

Choices that were made from what was very carefully pruned and fashioned and spun and edited and presented to them in a very controlled fashion, you mean.

And you forgot the pre-recall CSD's "SOC." And a community officially told that there was no other alternative, that a plant out of town was waaaayyyyy more expensive, that there was an overwhelming community requirement that the plant be kept in town, etc. If there was no substantial supporting documentation (and none has so far turned up)for not following ESHA and locating the Tri-W plant out of town, then that wasn't a "mistake." That was a lie. If you're forgetting "bait and switchy," well bait and switch is never a "mistake." It's always a lie. And you forgot to mention the RWQCB imposing a moritorium in the first place on account of too high a nitrate level caused by too many septic tanks, then issuing permits for 1,100 MORE. That's not a mistake. That's a signal that your original justification for imposing the moritorium is also a lie. And so on.

Mike Green's right: The poor public has a responsibility to get the truth, but it's pretty hard when the "truth" is so often so, uh, malleable and is being manipulated even by elected/appointed officials. Worse yet, and why I would argue that Los Osos has been the continued victim of governmental/regulatory failure, is that our system is designed so as to be unable to correct a lie. The lie stands even though everyone knows it will result in a train wreck. And from one lie can come a community disaster, with no real way to stop, back up, correct the lie, move forward. Especially when so many people have a vested interest in seeing that the lie continue, that the train keeps going, even if it's headed off a cliff.


What has happened (or may soon happen) here now is an amazing form of miracle, in many ways. The people of Los Osos wanted four things: sewer, plant out of town, affordable, saved water. (the Ponds of Avalon were chosen only because of the $38 price tag.) If luck (and stimulus and loan $$) holds, they just may get that, thanks to the efforts of a lot of people. The sorrow is the bloodbath they had to go through to get something as simple as that -- sewer, plant out of town, "affordable" (o.k. not more expensive than Tri-W), save water.

What, in the name of Christ, is so hard about that? It never was rocket science.

As for, "The only difference between one group and the other is that one group (the Solutions Group) very quickly realized the limitations and responsibilities of elected office (and corrected their behavior accordingly); the other group (the post recall board) did not."

Oh, dear, I suspect Ron will have a great deal to say about THAT "correcting their behavior" comment.

Meanwhile, I want to commend you all for having a civil discussion. See? You CAN do it.

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

Ann,

I have not forgotten anything.
That you want to continue to be angry and blame others, so be it. But remember this fact, you put the folks you place so much blame upon into office by voting for them.
That is the point I have made.

I have to say I have enjoyed this small blog-flurry I have taken part in the last few days. Time for it to end, so I am signing off for a long, long while.

Have fun amongst yourselfs! Play nice!

Alon Perlman said...

No Richard, I’m afraid I have to say you are wrong.
Cause you see, I do agree.
The Brown Act, in its wisdom, allows the Public and their Self Appointed Advocates/Activists to lie.
It’s up to the Elected, sworn in, officials to counter briefly.
“And we all may differ in our definition of “Briefly””Jon Seitz, October- November ‘08.
Los Osos Voters are Blameless, because they cannot be expected to have read the Brown Act.
How could many of them understand, that to then Counter the Districts Council with “I Know all about the Brown Act” constituted the most egregious violation of the Brown Act, by any agency, in the recent 5 year History of this tragedy. And in an ELECTION SEASON yet, where additional strictures apply.
(I cannot cover the history of prior years because I wasn’t there to observe it. And I was naïve of what failures were to lie ahead because they were yet to happen, and yes, a learning process. But the tool kit was complete, long before I brought it into this County. And a digression into a two transcribed meetings interaction between myself and RWQCB3 Board president Jeffery Young (under the Begley Keene Act) that demonstrates what one citizen can do, (To create a talking space for CDO recipients for example) would be politically astute at this juncture, but why bother, a newer, lesser history has spammed that impact. )
So why are you posting Richard? Why do you post to the cheesiest other Blog, the one that smells like yellow unmentionables, (not the one that is occasionally a little stale, a consequence of distance) Do you have information that it has a readership? Contention thrives on direct opposition.
I ask because you should have figured me out by now. And when I’m gone, there won’t be another like me for at least a Century. (And also remember, The Current EIR states that the 50 year floods are going to show up at a 25 year frequency (it’s in the submitted sections.) So don’t confuse me with the events that have blown hot desiccating winds in your face. Those fronts that swirl around themselves, the dust devils that have plagued this town for thirteen years or so. Those have spawned lesser swirls that will gather strengths from pressure differentials and increased randomness in the Macro-Weather shifts.
(You do get that I am referring to Local and Global Political atmosphere, Right?)
And on a more practical matter. Promoting Tri-W at this juncture is as delaying to the current process as the promotion of STEP. Statesmanship is about reaching the point of actual implementation.
Drip Drip Drip,
And the Salts keep marching in.
Conservation? The implementation of which is now delayed? Though the essential No-Brainer, it won’t reverse or even de- accelerate Sea-Water Intrusion. (The Larger Model is the US economy. We have to grow at least 2 percent in order not to crash. If we (efficiently) institute the most extreme Carbon reductions within that growth we will only reduce increased Carbon loading by one percent)
The Broderson Experiment is the only direct solution. That too is delayed, the CCC has let Los Osos down.
The PA has announced that “Richard has left the blogging”
That’s Ok, someone will e-mail this.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Worse yet, and why I would argue that Los Osos has been the continued victim of governmental/regulatory failure, is that our system is designed so as to be unable to correct a lie. The lie stands even though everyone knows it will result in a train wreck. And from one lie can come a community disaster, with no real way to stop, back up, correct the lie, move forward. Especially when so many people have a vested interest in seeing that the lie continue, that the train keeps going, even if it's headed off a cliff."

The situation is terrible... as bad as it gets: It's actually in the State's best interest to maintain the "guilt" of the 45 completely innocent CDOers, and all of those lazy State agencies are using lawyers from the Attorney General's office to maintain that fake "guilt," when those agencies now KNOW (thank you very much) that the CDOers are completely innocent.

It's disgusting!

Um, didn't we invade Iraq over stuff like that?

Also, I have a question for the "Richard LeGros(es)"

Do you lend out your blogger log-in information?

The reason I ask, is because your guys' writing voice is all over the map.

Many examples above, but here's my favorite (from past comments)... it's so good, in fact, that I actually have it locked-and-loaded in my Huge File-O-Quotes:

A Richard LeGros wrote:

"Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."
-- Richard LeGros, February 27, 2009

and, A Richard LeGros wrote:

"The LOCAC Vision Statement formulated back in the mid-1990's; which is a substantial document formed over many years by community leaders; and that was used as the basis of the SOC."
-- Richard LeGros, April 20, 2009

So, let me see if a have this straight, "Richard":

The "community leader" that was primarily responsible for the the Los Osos Vision Statement -- a "substantial document formed over many years" -- was Pandora Nash-Karner, who "has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."

Hmmmm... remember my old nickname for the Richards?: Richdora Nash-LeGarner

Hilarious!

Well, at least one thing is crystal clear, she will NEVER stop behavior-based-marketing.

[One more quick thing... and, this is kinda awkward: As if it matters (but I've heard it from a few people now), the person posting as "Crawdad" on the Trib's comment sections, is not me.]

M said...

Well, you got one thing right Richard. We voters certainly did make a poor choice when we elected you into office. Especially now that we know the bankrupt history of several members we elected in.
Sincerely, M

Mike Green said...

Ron:
[One more quick thing... and, this is kinda awkward: As if it matters (but I've heard it from a few people now), the person posting as "Crawdad" on the Trib's comment sections, is not me.]
LOL! sure fooled me;-) Vagabond

Word verification, zingle as in a little zinger

Mike Green said...

M, You do realize that Richard opposed the formation of the CSD? That he has acknowledged the financial results of some of his votes as a CSD board member and that he is the only board member from that board that has taken the time to explain his views on this blog.
Hurling anonymous insults at him degrades you and this blog.

Agree or not with him, he, IMHO does not deserve insults.

M said...

Isn't he hurling insults at us? Albeit not anonymously. Maybe.
Sincerely, M

Mike said...

M, like Alon, and an alcoholic hack and the few with their mindless Plan, have never had any respect for the men and women who actually took a small CSD and took on a huge public works project. ...and they actually developed a complete design and obtain every legal permit required to build it..!! In retrospect, I'm sure most of the past Directors would not vote for a CSD in Los Osos now knowing the nasty war of the few vocal "activists"...

When I hear someone with no real knowledge say the past Directors lied or switched projects, I can only point out how those same folks have never owned up to the outright lies, threats and ennuendo they themselves spread... I think of the ponderous Julie, employed by Edwards and voteing in total conflict of interest... I picture a mentally disturbed person cursing those he disagreed with and then was given district funds to settle a lawsuit he had alread lost... Then there are the followers who don't even live or own property in Los Osos...

Don't ever try to tell the community how the past CSD's lied when you don't have the courage to apologise for the lies and the bankruptcy of the post recall gang... Most of you haven't lived here over 30 years, but you seem to think you know this community, but you really don't... You don't even know what the Coast Commision has actually said and you sure don't know how much all these delays are going to cost...

Sewertoons said...

We will just have to wait and see if those who made all the complaints before the CCC, hammering home alleged deficiencies have done us any favors. If the stimulus money is gone, well, too bad.

Bottom line: how much will this cost us?

We know that as a result of stopping the project we got CDO's and NOV's. We got liens on our homes to pay for the new project. (Remember, those that didn't pay up front are still paying on their taxes for the old project.) We got a bankruptcy. We got fines from the RWQCB. We got delay to fixing the pollution problem. We didn't get that septic management program that came with Tri-W. We are not getting a park with the new project (ron, you are so WRONG about that park, you just have NO idea). We might have to pay more up front as the first payments for the project might require water-saving programs to be done at the onset in addition to paying for the cost to start up the project itself.

There is no way that we can put a price on the pain and medical needs of some of the CDO recipients, and the emotional pain of those whose wishes for closure were put off until some future that we still haven't arrived at. But we can add up the actual costs when the project is built - total the cost of that new project out of town, the costs from the old project AND the costs for the bankruptcy and fines. The years of further damage to our water supply will result in unknown costs that to remediate, they will be slipped in to our water bills. If we want that park we will have to raise separate money to pay for it.

Ann says:
"The sorrow is the bloodbath they had to go through to get something as simple as that -- sewer, plant out of town, "affordable" (o.k. not more expensive than Tri-W), save water. "

If NOT cheaper than Tri-W, we will have to ask if the fight was worth it. Especially if in 15 or 20 years the valley begins to fill with homes. I hope we have all forgiven each other before then.

Mike Green said...

Toons, It's my understanding that ALL the appellants
that "hammered home alleged deficiencies"
were judged to have no substantial issues,
That the only issues that caused the DeNovo hearings were issues ignored by the county itself.(read Alons and Richards posts)
So if I'm right, and the county looses the ability to tap into stimulus money due to passed deadlines, well whose fault is that?

Word verification, shines, like what the sun is doing above those dark clouds out there

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

Mike, 5-10 Million 6-12 month delay
no substantial improvement to the environment or basin recharge.
I'm not doing this to be liked by Lisa, or to be liked by Mike.
I'm doing this, because pretty much, no one else is.

Sewertoons said...

Mike Green, maybe you didn't get the chance to read the appeals. The STEP/pond people had MORE than just those two items in their appeals.

5 of 7 commissioners felt there were no substantial issues, in that just because each mitigation wasn't described to the Nth degree doesn't mean that they were not going to be properly addressed by the project as it was.

No, 7 commissioners were influenced to NEED to pin this down in GREAT detail, and those were points made by the STEP/pond people alone. You think if Wan and Stone had these concerns earlier that they wouldn't have put them in their appeal? No, they were influenced AFTER that.

I found it disheartening that the commissioners were not interested in letting the County back up to explain things more clearly, but chose to stick to their opinions, thereby putting us all in jeopardy for losing a chance at the money.

So whose fault is it? Those pushing any issue that might stick to open this up to a De Novo, so STEP and ponds could be revisited. I think they were surprised when their attempt didn't work! (I DON'T mean the Tri-W proponent or the vacant lot people or those that live that live near Giacomazzi, as they knew that they were longshots, or simply the poetic voices in the dark pointing out the human folly in this process/nightmare.)

Mike Green said...

Toons it's my understanding that the only issues that are going to be studied at the DeNovo hearings are the ones pertaining to details that the county left out of the plan that they submitted.
I think it's very speculative to assume that CC commissioners were influenced to ask for greater detail because the STEP proponents wanted them to.
In fact I think that is kinda silly.
It appears to me that the ball was dropped by the county (either that or it was thrown away)
There is the idea that the county knew good and well DeNovo was going to happen if those details were as Richard said "ignored" as now the CC becomes the "permitting" agency, letting the County off the hook for that duty and thereby transferring the responsibility of not getting stimulus moneys to the CC.
That would be quite a dirty political trick dontcha think?

Mike Green said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sewertoons said...

Mike Green, did you view the hearing?

The County was prepared to defend what they did and why they did it that way, but they were not allowed.

For instance, plowed farmland (plowed yearly I might add), now has to be looked at again to see if there is any wetland on it! I mean, look at the County's chart, listen to the way they did the testing - to protest this is just ludicrous. So the CCC guy couldn't make it. Is he the only person qualified in this state to do a report like this?

Perhaps the commissioners were throwing Sierra Club and Surfrider a bone to mitigate their loss of STEP. I mean, really, outside of STEP, what didn't Sarah Christie throw into this project?

Alon Perlman said...

Toons, Each appellant had the opportunity to submit additional material, and some did. That material should be part of a record but I haven’t found the CCC online site to be revealing in the past. I wouldn't imagine some of the appeals to have significantly different added material, other than what we have seen in the presentations to PC.
Hi poison "Phil" I thought you were banned from this site.
Some appellants were part of a group or are associated with each other and either reinforced each other or split the subjects.
You are correct in that not all details need be pinned down. (for example; the EIR was weak in some respects in the domain of Air Quality. The SLO APCD were not concerned with fixing the EIR because they will prepare an air quality project plan that will supersede the EIR, in fact the movement of the project site makes some of the EIR project's assumptions moot) The agencies that were of concern to me were the territorial overlap agencies- Fish and Game Etc..
I was hoping that there was some way the CCC could get truly involved in Helping the project pass through those regulatory agencies hurdles. In the end I made some points but overall the message I delivered was not the overarching message I wrote. Being that I have minimal net access to download and will be enjoying winter storm travel tomorrow , do you think you could list the De-Novo limitations as stated by chair Neely specifically and also separately the Issues as noted by Sara and other commissioners? I don't think some of the people who were "surprised" were really aware that their attempt "Didn't work", They will pull a victory for their position and will not get the message even after the de-novo. They simply don’t know that they are not experts, as our experience with LOSG member Lisa Schicker has taught us.
The Great Deal of pinned down detail will only hamper the project for the simple reason that it will not be comprehensive, though I do expect that the word "Comprehensive" will appear. Commissioners are really not experts, some more than others. They are dependant on Staff which act independently and where possible according to policy, (but policy is worthless in unprecedented complex situations) until such point that they do receive direction from the commission, which will be a combination of the narrow policy issues and Face politics. As to what swayed 1 or two commissioners, in a supposedly public and ex-partey disclosed process, it is very likely that some pro-TW lobbying, above and beyond Don’s straight forward approach, also helped Sway things to an outcome of de-novo and the attending delays. The Wan Stone Commissioners appeal was scant. The County shorting the discussion was as much due to that, rather than to lack of due diligence. They solved the problem before them and moved on,thinking that was all. Jeff Edwards got it right, neither the county nor the CCC staff knew what the process was. There will be a strong linkage as Ann noted, with Conservation pushed forward but the lessening of flows is subject to other uncertainties. So I am more concerned with the timeline being less rather than more restrictive, Un-implement-abilityof Ideological driven pseudo engineering . My bottom line is that ultimately the County will have to find a home for increasing volumes (due to ramp up) of water,and that is a physical property, not a psychological (and therefore infinate capacity property) and proficiency in marketing ideas is not the same as a proficiency in vetting or understanding the consequences of implementing those ideas.
Any way this is Los Osos and It is subject to a communication environment created by politics, where the last person to state an Idea originated it. So it will be interesting to read some of this elsewhere, later.

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

Wow... the "activists" are still cutting each others throats as they seek to justify their own personal agenda... all in the name of "community"... What a joke...

It's really too bad the Los Egos "public" was/is allowed in CSD / BOS / RWQCB & CCC meetings... The Los Osos "experts" ought to be banished to Santa Margarita or Bakersfield... We would now have had a working, flush and forget sewer in Los Osos without all that "public" input...

Churadogs said...

O.K. children. And you started out so well. Sigh. Goodbye Anonymous Phil. And Mike, knock off the childish name calling or I'll start dumping you as well. If you have nothing to contibute but displaying your immaturity, then go away. There are plenty of other blogs for you to go play on.

Toonces sez:"I found it disheartening that the commissioners were not interested in letting the County back up to explain things more clearly, but chose to stick to their opinions, thereby putting us all in jeopardy for losing a chance at the money."

Isn't that the problem: no mechanism to stop, back up, 'splain, fix, then go forward without having to stop the whole thing, dismantle huge sections, re-start all which delays. Suppose the issues raised could have been 'splained and fixed that same day? (or shortly thereafter.) But, no. It's a system that seems designed to create messes. Sigh.

Mike said...

But Ann, it is YOU who has championed the "Process"... too bad YOU didn't think about the cost to someday build a sewer after allowing all the "public" input...

Please never forget that the prerecall Directors actually fought thru all the public input and lawsuits to actually design and obtain permits to build the much needed sewer for Los Osos... YOU do know that they followed the "process" and YOU still fought against them....!!!

...and please look at the maturity shown by some out of town commenter... he apparently also has a blog of his own, similar to another one supposedly in Los Osos... why haven't you made this a "santa margarita free zone also...???

Ron said...

Mike Green wrote:

" LOL! sure fooled me;-) Vagabond"

That's ALSO hilarious.

Wanna hear something funny about THAT?

I actually had to create an account on CalCoastNews.com awhile back, so I could log on to explain how the person posting as "Vagabond" ALSO isn't me!

That's true!

This story gets better.

The reason I had to leave that comment, was because Dave Congalton left a comment where he thought Vagabond was me, too, and I had to explain that it wasn't.

As I wrote to Dave, just because some folks have excellent reading comprehension skills, AND taste in journalism, and, therefore, kinda-sorta sound like me, doesn't mean they are me.

Then there's that wingnut that posts on my blog, that thinks I leave anonymous comments on my blog to myself. I've always found that take funny.

Too much.

Good god... people, people... like I replied to Congalton, I'm waaay too in love with my own writing to post anonymously.

I don't think I've ever posted one thing in a Trib comment section, or forum... ever... and I've only posted about three times in three years at CCN.

Again, as if it matters, but 95-percent of my comments are here (because Ann's blog is by far the best in the County, and me and Ann go back 20 years [Yo, Ann, remember back in the day, when I was editing the ol' Bay Breeze, and you used to get your column to me via floppy disk, and then we'd end up on the phone every two weeks so you could tell me which words should be italicized? Ah, good times, good times...), and the other 4.999999-percent are on my blog.

If I do post somewhere else (like I have the time), I use my real name.

M wrote:

"Isn't he hurling insults at us? Albeit not anonymously. Maybe."

Beautiful.

See? M comprehended my excellent point, but that doesn't make "M" me.

By the way, to reiterate that excellent (and hilarious) point:

A "Richard LeGros" writes that Nash-Karner is a respected "community leader" that "has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all," and if we say she does, we're "liars."

(Gotta love Richdora, huh?)

Ron said...

Of course I meant...

"Ann and I go way back..." (I suppose if I'm going to mention that whole "editor" thing, I should try to, at least, nail some of the basics... although, guaranteed, many more typos to come ; -)

Glad I'm back, though, because I forgot to finish off that great Richdora take:

I wrote:

"A "Richard LeGros" writes that Nash-Karner is a respected "community leader" that "has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all," and if we say she does, we're "liars.""

This is great!:

From my Huge File-O-Quotes:

"Joyce Albright found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

"Joyce Albright, Taxpayers Watch"
-- LAFCO Minutes, September 21, 2006

So, according to the "Richard LeGros(es)," Nash-Karner is a respected "community leader" that "has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all," and if we say she does, we're "liars," even though she has many, many documented ties with everyone "affiliated" with "the Taxpayer's Watch organization," like Joyce Albright, Gordon Hensley.... ummmm.... and..... errrrrrr..... I run out of names after that.

But I know, I know: if someone says she's part of the Taxpayer's Watch "organization," then THAT person's the "liar," according to the Richdora Nash-LeGrorner(es).

Glad I came back... that was fun (always is).

Mike Green said...

Ron, That is waaaay too funny.
Let me tell you a story about having a name that is so common that almost every permutation of it has already been used as a login name, and it aint John Smith.
So that person is sitting comfortably in their L.O. home next to their aquarium that has goldfish and a refugee from the Cajun Dinner party (worlds luckiest crustacean) when in frustration at trying to register a non anonymous as possible name he gives up, looks to the lucky mudbug and says" I'll bet your name would work"
Voila, Crawdad was born.
Then later, after moving away and traversing the country in a motorhome, CalCoastNews gets going and the old loggin problem hits again.
Vagabond is born.
So you see, they are the same person
who is named a name so common that it's very hard to NOT be anonymous.
Computers and the modern age, dontcha LOVE it!
Thanks for the compliment BTW.

M said...

Splendid. Mike Green calls me out for disrespecting Richard "I have f****** balls" LeGros by suggesting the poor choice we made by electing him. Now we've got apparently Mikes brother Phil (they have the same trait of !!! ... ???) spewing his disdain of anyone not agreeing with him. What is it with the pro Tri-W people (I know you're going to say no, we are fine with a sewer any where, but I don't think thats the case) that makes them so nasty? So vigilant? A tag team? All the name calling? On another comment site a 'Sad To Say' posts constantly on virtually every story. But when it comes to Los Osos, out comes the "fecal four, or fecal followers, and then the rest of the insulting names STS has for his favorite people to pick on. With Mike we get the "quick and final" wishes. Now Phil with how this site has gone to the dogs. How The bad get rewarded and the good punished. Amazing.
Mike, I fought in Viet Nam, a brother that fought in Korea, and two brothers that fought in WWII. We have fought in those wars to protect our way of life which includes public input. If you would rather live somewhere where public input is not allowed, like Cuba, or Iran or someplace like that, then that option is there for you. Just so you know, I will be fine with a sewer no matter where it ends up. Life is nothing but a constant change and I have learned to deal with. I will however take to my grave the memory of all the corruption,graft, lies, bad science, agenda driven crap that I as a long time resident have had to put up with all these years.
Sincerely, M

Mike Green said...

Sorry M, I was enjoying the "cow free" discourse so much I just got caught up in it.
It didn't last very long, sigh.

Churadogs said...

We now return to some "cow free" discourse. No, Mike Green, it didn't last long. Sigh. There's a kind of Pavlovian quality to some posters (and you know who you are). Dog mindlessly chews on ankle. Dog mindlessly chews on same ankle. Dog mindlessly chews on ankle, same ankle, same chew. Wash, rinse, repeat. I don't think they can help themselves -- knee jerk, boiiinnngg! and they're off into cow-ville. The real problem, besides their immaturity and bone-nastiness, is they're so predictably boring, chew, chew, chew, like a bad re-run. I thought anonymous "Mike" could hold it together, but along came Anonymous "Phil" and ka-CHANG! he rang that Pavlovian bell and "Mike" twitched and started in on his usual Yosemite Sam rants, a sorta Phil-Wannabe, each feeding off the other. Booorrring. So, buh-bye.

Ron: Yeah, I remember, 3 1/2 floppy disks. No internet connection, hand delivered with hard copy. Before that,at the Sun Bulletin, it was hard copy hand typed in by Mary and proofed by me, red pencil in hand. Long time ago, that's for sure.

Mike said...

The REAL problem is the total denial that the pre-recall Directors did one hell of a great job in fully planning and obtaining of every permit required to actually build the sewer.

...and then the denial that the CSD5 acted more than hastily in stopping the legal project before they understood the financial ramifications... They then bankrupted the CSD and have put the property owners in the position of having to pay for the unneccessary costs...

I know you don't like hearing that, but that is the crux of why I even comment on this blog... You don't like having a pro-activist acting very much like the anti-activists... you don't like seeing yourselves as the nasty anti-sewer folks, but you were and are...!!!

M said...

Ann, just curious, there was a post by Mike right after my post of 5:44 PM, January 18, 2010 that is no longer there. Wouldn't there be a "comment deleted by author" note there?
Sincerely, M

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

deleted then reduced...
Alon Perlman said...
You Kids, With you’re newfangled Gadgets.
I saw one but it looked more like Four plus square inches of black plastic to me.
They’ll never catch on. What next, trying to read both sides? Make it more concentrated? An array of colors?
What’s wrong with a shoebox of punch cards? Worked for Jacard.

(((I wrote this, deleted another portion, to M---)))
What I said to pre-P---, applies to you, Don’t succumb to the cleverness of nastiness,
Participate in the whirling of wisdom that occasionally takes place here.
Respectfully submitted, for I am not the blog host.

11:22 AM, January 19, 2010

Mike said...

Hi M... I did respond, but your are correct... it's not there...

I didn't delete it... I stand behind what I say, just as i expect you to... I just wish some would realize that there are at least 2 sides to this issue... The pre-recall teams did what they were elected to do... much to the concern of a small, but vocal and nasty activists... They dished it out, but apparently don't like having to see themselves as nasty... SSTB

M said...

So Phil, I bet if you sign your name to your comments the host might be more apt to at least consider the credence of your comment. It is after all her blog. By the way, do the people on your side of the fence have a blog site? Maybe you could start one and show us all how it should be done.
Mike as always either didn't read what I posted or doesn't care. His only response is always about what a wonderful job the pre-recall board did.
If I read you correctly Alon, I will leave these two alone for awhile. I can't imagine anybody taking them too seriously anyway.
Sincerely, M

Mike said...

....you best consider that we are also tax paying property owners in Los Osos... We do know 2 sides to the story and do know who has lied and threatened... We will continue to hold up that mirror of the anti's actions...

If you don't like us, then boot us off, but then you will have exactly the false dream world you would like... If you dish it out, you better be ready to have it handed back with equal vigor...!!!!

Sewertoons said...

Phil, we know who you are against now, but who are you FOR?

Sewertoons said...

Do we think that the CCC is above politics?

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/oct/08/wastewater-plant-gets-exemption/?metro

Alon Perlman said...

We know they never were a-political, but they were still within the most functional of the regulator agencies. I’m concerned that we have a different world now. All these delays and no improvement to the 97 th condition post the County’s correction. The timeline idea will be over-restricted, The Wetlands could be protected at a low cost now it’ll be real expensive, if it gets overpoliticized. Which it will. Project our minds forward to the de-novo, In what ways will it be different?,

Good advice not listened to.
A post that will be deleted is above. It mimics the other longer post that is choking on it's own cleverness.
This time it is a shrill protest by an anonymous who enjoyed the negative tone of extremist from the "Other side" (but the other one was really was on a side of one, existing in the “It’s all about me” world) rather than the free exchange of actual ideas that “M---“ previously did occasionally exchange. IMNSHO

Extremism in the protection of EGO is a vice.

The tragedy is that one has a “within normal” ego and had no need to defend himself. If he paid attention to the line, that was drawn for all, but occasioned for a repeat violator, one known who would be expected to come back anonymous after overstaying a tolerant, patient, once welcome stay. I think “M---“ was well within making most of his points with out going copycat. In other words; the same as a month ago, an occasional good comment by someone who did serve his country, a real person with an opposing view, enjoying a little too much snarkiness, to really be a full representative of that general position (My opinion, based on an assumption of my ability to discern genuine information within an anonymous comment). Repetitious, Distracting AND nasty?
The other was following his own pathology in a trajectory that was obvious a long time ago.
What did we learn? That nastiness is infectious? We already knew that.
If in future I succumb to respond to the uselessly negative,
I will post that separately from relevant sections, so that it is easier to delete, if deemed close to a line agreement.
Regulatory guidance?

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"I know you don't like hearing that, but that is the crux of why I even comment on this blog... You don't like having a pro-activist acting very much like the anti-activists... you don't like seeing yourselves as the nasty anti-sewer folks, but you were and are...!!!"

You're projecting, Mike. And confusing apples and oranges. The problem isn't expressing strongly held opinons about issues. I've given you all more than enough rope to vent all your spleens and kept warning you to get a grip. Some of you refused to listen or maybe it's because you're incapable of doing anything else? At any rate,it's personal attacks for no reason except to vent your vile bile that's gotten ridiculous. Endless ankle chewing for no point. It's childish, and gets boring. So, enough already.