Pages

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Psst, America

Before President Obama was elected, the voters were all one big whine, “Gaawww, we gotta have health care reform, we’re dying out here, dying! Help, Help, Help, We want single payer, we want a public option, we want, we want, we want.”

Then they elected Obama AND re-elected and elected a sufficient number of congresspeople who are philosophically and practically utterly OPPOSED to single payer, or anything even resembling real reform or any public options.

So Congress sets to work to make sausage without a veto-proof number that would enable them to actually deliver some sort of single payer, public option, medicare-for-all type plan the public said they wanted. The result was a sausage that sold the American public to the insurance companies, guaranteed their continued high profits with only minor tinkering around the edges instead of real “reform” in how we deliver health care, and a fat deal cut for big pharama – EXACTLY what one would expect when you have a non-veto-proof congress composed of anti-public programs, status quo, insurance company/big pharma water carriers.

At which the American people start whining, “Eeeeuuu, we don’t’ like THIS health care bill, we want ANOTHER one, we want a blue one, this one’s green, we don’t like green, plus we want a public option, we want, we want, we want.”

Errrkk, Sorry, America. Ya gits whatcher pay for. You elect people who do not believe the government has a role to play in people’s lives, who believe that the free market will solve all their problems, who believe that the status quo is just fine, who believe that their only job is not to actually govern but to do everything in their power to keep themselves in power, no matter how damaging that is to the rest of the country, then that’s exactly what you’ll get. So, zip it. There’s an election coming up. You want “real change,” America? Well, here’s your chance. Laws are made in Congress, not in the White House. In the meantime, stop whining.

Speaking of which . . .

How often have you heard the comment, “It doesn’t matter who’s president,” well last night’s State of the Union had an interesting example of how wrong that idea is. Right down front sat the Supreme Court who recently voted to grant “personhood” free speech rights to corporations. President Obama commented to their faces that he thought that was a bad idea that would open America up for more money corrupting the political process, plus allowing foreign corporations a huge foot in the door of our own home-grown national pastime: Buy A Congressman.

Weirdly, everyone stood up to applaud his whacking this recent Supreme Court decision, even Republicans who mostly remained seated throughout the speech, even when the President noted he had cut taxes, a Pavlovian phrase that usually automatically brings Republicans to their feet, cheering.

But there it was: Presidents who appoint Supreme Court members actually DO matter because the Supremes then go on to “legislate from the bench” and thereby impact real people’s lives long after the President who appointed them has gone.

How this recent ruling shakes out remains to be seen. But you have to admit, the idea of China, Inc. OWNING our Congress is delicious to contemplate. But that Chief Justice Roberts would make a ruling that would open the door for just such a “corporate” move should come as no surprise. Chief Justice Roberts was a “corporate” guy from day one. His promise to respect legal precedence during his confirmation was hokum designed to get him confirmed. But that’s how our kabuki theatre of Supreme Court confirmations go. As with all things, leopards don’t usually change their spots. And we shouldn’t expect them to do so. Once again, ya gets whatcha ask for.

Which is why . . .

America needs to stop whining about President Obama being some sort of flaming Liberal. That’s more hokum Republican talking points. Obama was and is a firmly planted centrist. And it’s no use whining that Obama needs to take the reins and just drive this wagon. He’s not a “driver,” either. Never was. He’s a “community organizer,” through and through. And while Sarah Palin sneered at that occupation, she failed to understand the basic mind set of “community organizers:” Bottom up, self-generated, consensus, centrist.

Community organizers don’t “lead.” They allow The Community to chose the path and the method and then enable movement. Which is exactly what Obama did with the health care issue. Congress was the “community,” representing the people who elected them, so it was up to Congress to craft a plan that would be bottom up, self-generated, consensus and centrist. And leaving aside the corruption of Congress by the health care/big pharma industries and other lobbying forces in removing key components (single payer, public option) even before the discussion began, that’s exactly the health care proposal they ended up with – bottom up, self-generated, consensus (all the wheeling and dealing designed to get everyone on board), centrist.

And, of course, that’s when the whining started. Eeeuuuu, it’s blue. I don’t LIKE blue, I want green. And so forth. Which is caused because the American people don’t seem to realize that our system of government is based on “community organization.” Congress IS our Community Organization and depends on all members seriously working together to craft laws that will solve problems. The system works only if all parties work to actually get things done (make sausage), understand that nothing centrist will please everyone, and know that pragmatic compromise is the name of any Community Organizing game. And the system fails to work if a sufficiently large number of organizers simply turn into a Party of NO and block any efforts that aren’t to their liking.

And seeing to it that our National Community Organization (Congress) functions properly is the job of the voters. If they want a functioning Congress, they need to vote in people who will actually work to get things done. If they want a dysfunctional Congress, they’ll vote in whole Parties of NO or keep electing or re-electing Wholly Owned Subsidiaries of Corporation X whose constituent isn’t The People, but is Corp. X, or they’ll keep electing strictly partisan, regional Bringers of Local Pork who don’t give a fig for the rest of the community (the nation).

In short, here in America, we get the Congress we deserve. The choices are always ours. So enough with the whining. Ya gits whatcha asked for.

86 comments:

Richard LeGros said...

I have taken the liberty to slightly alter a portion of your post:

......At which the American people(insert LOS OSOSIANS) start whining, “Eeeeuuu, we don’t’ like THIS health care bill (insert THIS SEWER), we want ANOTHER one (insert ANOTHER ONE OUT OF TOWN), we want a blue one (insert AFFORDABLE), this one’s green (insert TOO EXPENSIVE), we don’t like green (insert PAYING FOR A SEWER CUZ WE REALLY DO NOT NEED ONE TO BEGIN WITH), plus we want a public option (insert STEP/STAG, cuz we say it's way cheaper. Really! Trust us!), we want, we want, we want.”......

Yup Ann, you hit it on the nose. Los Osos gets exactly whet it voted for; then complain about it.

Mike said...

Chuckle Chuckle... Thanks Richard...

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

Thanks Mike!

Just a few weeks ago I made the point that the voters have to take responsibility for the results of their vote. Back then Ann and others strenuously objected to that point.

I am amused that Ann in her latest post now makes the very point I expounded then.

Oh well...we all now know when Ann runs around an issue she doesn’t wear Nikes, she wears Hypocrites.... as the shoe fits!

Mike said...

hey Richard... have you seen/heard anything about LO actually obtaining any grants in this economy...and given the readiness of the sewer project...??? or is it just wishful dreaming...???

We don't seem to have the same level of import as a high speed rail system, will there really be grant funds coming our way...??? We'll probably have to include a park in the design to qualify for a grant...

Richard LeGros said...

Golly Mike....I hope, wish and dream about all that manna/money from heaven/the Feds.
We really need it.

I just hope the Feds do not paint Los Osos as ungrateful, or in a negative / nutty way, just because Los Osos stopped the prior project thereby precipitating a municipal bankruptcy, huge environmental fines and default on a $135,000,000low interest State loan (which was sourced 100% by Federal money too).

But heck, I hope eternally that the County succeeds; and the best of luck to them!

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

You are just too much.

I haven't been on the blog in some time, but have to respond to your stupid comments.

Remember the compromise? They wanted a Prop 218 vote, as did the State Water Board, as did the County!

You broke the law, and don't give us the story about fees and charges. You CAN NOT charge "fees and charges" for a plant that doesn't exist!

And your Tri-W sewer was a very bad project, and the County's project is just as bad.

You sure high tailed it out of the PZ. The PZ is illegal. You don't pay a dime and you can't prove that you're not polluting. The Prop 218 says entire district and talks about benefit. If your ground water and bay is cleaner you should pay. But you won't, will you? ... and you think that's legal and/or fair ...

You screwed the town ... well the people in the PZ (you took care of your friends in Cabrillo Estates) .. so keep telling us that everyone else is wrong ... go ahead .. it doesn't make you look too good.

And, also, the County could have done a green project and a vacuum system with ponds would have cost one third the amount. Why do you have a problem with that???!!

Oh, I forgot, the deal was made with MWH long ago and they reward folks like you!!

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

A wise person once said, "BUILD WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD..."

...AND

"THE PZ IS IN PLACE TO PAY FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP..."

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

Aw heck, all you gotta do is BELIEVE in stuff, like CARGO CULT.
Go down to the new sewer site with some poles and string and cardboard and build the sewer!
Heck, it worked once! the only fully permitted plant so far! Story poles! That's the ticket!
Bow and Pray!
Maybe we can all conjure up some kind of behavior based marketing voodoo on the federal paymasters.

Sewertoons said...

GRO, do you REALLY think that the Farm Bureau would approve those 70 or so acres for poop ponds?? Did you miss all of those Planning Commission meetings?

Do you really think vacuum would work given their touchy nature and the huge amount of student rentals around here?

Would you be the generous person to house the valve pit for 2 or 3 or more houses on YOUR property? Think you'll get a higher price than your neighbors when you sell housing a utility on your now smaller lot?

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

Richard, at the risk of drawing the ire of Mike Green, let me remind you that I did agree with your earlier post. I agreed that the voters made a huge mistake in voting you into office. We made a huge mistake in voting in the Solutions group as CSD. The main theme was we will control our own destiny since the County obviously doesn't care about us. Had we known at the time that we were going to control ourselves into the highest per capita sewer system in the U.S., at the most expensive site possible, things would have gone differently. As it is, we're still cleaning up your mess.
Sincerely, M

Sewertoons said...

No, we are cleaning up the mess the recall and Measure B caused. There is no cheap sewer for Los Osos. Depending on how the CC hearings go, and the availability of money, we might be OK. If certain factions persist with lawsuits and urge more delay at the CC, we will pay FAR more than that $189-205/mo on the old project. Don't forget, we have a bankruptcy to pay for too.

I wasn't here when the CSD was formed, but having a CSD was a good idea - in hindsight, just maybe creating one to do a sewer project wasn't so hot…

M, were you here at the forming of the CSD? How did you vote? Did you approve of the County sewer over by the middle school?

Richard LeGros said...

M,

Your regret about the results of your voting decisions are reasonable; however your incessent need to blame others is not reasonable.

We are in this 'mess' as the electorate majority did not listen to, let alone heed, the warnings and dangers expressed by the voting minority in the 1998 and 2005 elections.

I am puzzled that while you understand that the outcome of the 1998 election did not lower project costs that you expected that your vote in 2005 would. Why do you blame others for the 'mess' when the situation you regret could have all been entirely avoided if you and the electorate majority had voted otherwise to begin with?

I know you will never concede this point; and continue to blame others (myself included). I do not fret over such opinions simply as at the end of the day none of this angst matters at all.
What does matter is what we do tommorrow.

M said...

Richard, aren't you laying blame yourself?
About bankruptcy, look around at people or municipalities that have declared bankruptcy. Doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Some even live up on the hill.
I know what $205+ a month is going to cost me. Since the only price we really know about is Tri-W, i'm not willing to accept that as the benchmark.
Sewertoons, do you know that two of the previous CSD members associated with Tri-W have allegedly filed for bankruptcy?
Sincerely, M

M said...

filed for bankruptcy in the past I should say.
Sincerely, M

Sewertoons said...

M, a lot of people file for bankruptcy.

It is interesting to note that not many CSD's file for bankruptcy however (if any).

Stopping the wastewater project that was in process of being built caused that. None of the Lisa board of directors has filed for bankruptcy, have they?

So what exactly is your point?

Alon Perlman said...

Ah, why ask why.
The metaphor is obvious. So, I will leave you with an old Jewish mother joke. (the mother was middle aged, it's the Joke that's an old groaner, I first heard it in the blue /Green version)

Mother; Happy Birthday son, I got you these two shirts, I hope you like them.
Son; Yes I do, one blue, one green. and the size is perfect, thank you!
Mother; Well, go and try them on, I'd like to see how they look on you.
Son; Sure mom.- He goes to the bedroom, toses the packets on the bed, pulls off his shirt, reaches back, grabs one, puts it on, and buttons it up on the way back to the living room.

Jewish Mother; So...
You didn't like the green one?

Richard LeGros said...

M,

Every time I make a decision I take responsibility for it. I expect the same from every other adult.

As I have said many times before, I willingly accept full responsibility for every GOVERNMENTAL decision that I made while serving on the CSD. I will temper my last comment by saying that I also accept responsibility for all my POLITICAL decisions too.

There is a huge difference between the two.

POLITICAL decisions are those that essentially relate to ones popularity among men/women, ability to work with others and the skillful use of popularity to influence events. I readily admit that I have made political errors (heck, I was recalled for crying out loud!). But you must understand that political decisions are solely the prerogative of the individual; and as such not subject to the requirements of the oath of office that all elected officials take and must abide to. In short, good, bad or indifferent political decisions are neither ‘legal’ nor 'illegal'. Law does not apply here. Political decisions are only good or bad in relation to the politics resultant affect upon popularity, acceptance and persuasiveness.

GOVERNMENTAL decisions are not subjective to personal political whims, but objective and absolute in that the decision must be made within the dictates of law. Period! Governmental decisions can only be framed by what the law dictates; to wit the law must be applied equally to all citizens regardless of rank as it is the law that equalized all of us. The only CORRECT governmental decision is one that strictly adheres to the constitution and the law. If an elected official willfully fails to follow and uphold the law that they are obligated to serve, and imposes his or hers own political agenda contrary to the law, then their action is illegal.

I make the distinction between Governmental and Political decisions for two reasons:

1. To make it perfectly clear to you that your claim that my POLITICAL decisions were ‘illegal’ is false, without meaning or merit. You can use adjectives that my political decisions were smart, stupid, made in haste, nasty, kind, etc.; but illegal no.

2. To make it perfectly clear to you that while many have claimed my GOVERNMENTAL decisions were ‘illegal’ that their accusations fail to persuade for the public record makes it very clear that my governmental decisions were entirely based upon and to the law. Numerous accusations that my decisions were illegal because of ‘Prop 218’ or other ‘reasons’ have not held up,and evaporated before, the intense light of legal scrutiny. To this day neither I nor any other pre-recall board member has been sued or prosecuted. Why? No lawsuits have been filed simply because the alleged illegal activities or decisions did not occur. To this day I know that every GOVERNMENTAL decision that I made was done with the intent to exclusively protect and serve the interests of the citizens of Los Osos as required by my oath of office and strictly according to the law.

To be continued next post

Richard LeGros said...

Continued:

However, this cannot be said for the recall board. They are being sued; and those lawsuits are being successfully prosecuted as the lawsuits are based on the law, hard evidence verifying their violations of the law and the collaborating documentation from the CSD itself. They have reason to be very worried.

Lastly, you opine that I ‘blame’ others.

I do not ‘blame’. Blame is pointless and not constructive towards solving our collective problems.

However, I do hold my elected officials (and to a lesser degree their acolytes) up to the scrutiny of the law; and that elected officials uphold and obey the law as required by the oath of office. As a firm believer in the rule of law over the tyranny of strongmen, I believe that the only defense against tyranny is enforcing the law equally amongst all men and women. I do not just sit around ‘blaming’ others. I firmly believe in what I have just explained to you; and have taken direct, affirmative action to uphold my constitutinal rights by working with TW to press legal suits in the courts to those that have clearly shown that have not upheld the law they were sworn to protect and abide.

Sewertoons said...

Bravo Richard, crystal clear and very well said.

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"GOVERNMENTAL decisions are not subjective to personal political whims, but objective and absolute in that the decision must be made within the dictates of law. Period!"

O.K., so where's the substantial (objective) evidence behind the previous CSD's SOC? Ron's been searching high and low for it, especially the part about the community demand for a central location so there could be public amenities next to the sewer and there being NO alternative sites but for the in-town ESHA site. & etc. Substantial evidence for that surely isn't (shouldn't be?) some political whim but something that can be documented. But where is that documentation?

And "Governmental decisions can only be framed by what the law dictates; to wit the law must be applied equally to all citizens regardless of rank as it is the law that equalized all of us."

Oh, you'll have to 'splain that to The Los Osos 45, that part about "applied equally."

as for your analogy, If you believe the county's survey, 99.99% of the community isn't whining at all. They did indeed get what they asked for. They voted for a change in direction. They got a change in direction. They wanted gravity, out of town, cost less than TriW. Right now they got gravity, out of town, and with any kind of luck, loans, decent bids, they'll have same (or close) costs, which will be three out of three. Two out of three or Three out of three. Los Osos got what it asked for, but do you hear the vast majority of people whining? I sure don't.

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

Ann,

The SOC is a POLITICAL document/decision, not a GOVERNMENTAL document/decision.

The formulation of an SOC is the POLITICAL part of the CEQA process by which a community can 'custom fit' a project to the needs and desires of their particular community. The SOC, as a political document, is the embodiment of the desires and point of view of the composers. In the case of the LOCSD, the SOC was fashioned and reviewed by a LOCAC and SG dominated WW committee and CSD BOD. The composition of the SOC was conducted in the full light of dozens of public meetings. The SOC was then accepted; incorporated into the DEIR; and later adopted and codified into the FEIR after public/agency review.

The fact that YEARS later that there are individuals who question the formulation of the SOC, demanding 'proof' of the SOC's determinations, is pointless.




The RWQCB decision to randomly cite 45 homeowners was conducted under the dictates of law. As regulators/enforcers of the water laws they are empowered to enforce by any means at their disposal that are within the limitations of the law. To this day their Governmental decisions stand valid; especially after the PZLDF lawsuit failed to prove that the RWQCB acted outside the law.




As for the community decision to ‘change course', my response is a big DUH! The point I am making is that as the community decided to 'change course' that they must also accept full responsible for the results their decision to do so.

In regard to you entoning ‘1, 2 or 3 out of 3’, your expectations about the WWTP project have dramatically shifted from what you politicked at time of the recall to your more realistic position of today. Back then your position was that moving the WWTP out of town was WAY cheaper; that the decision to move the sewer would not result in the loss of the SRF loan (the State wouldn’t dare!), that the LOCSD would not be fined (The SWQCB wouldn’t dare!), and would not result in delay. Your view today is your way of sheepishly admitting ‘oh never mind that I was wrong ‘cuz we got a project out of town…eventually…and at a price similar to the old project too!!’

But your new and improved point of view avoids to acknowledge one tiny point; and that point is that the cost of the new project consists of the cost for the County to build the project, PLUS the cost to the community for ‘changing course’.

The ACTUAL TOTAL COST of the new project that must be paid by the community are the County’s ESTIMATED project cost of $165,000,000; PLUS $21,000,000 in costs for ‘changing course’ by stopping of the old project (and to be paid through resolution of the bankruptcy); PLUS $19,500,000 the community has already invested in the old project (and is already paying for via the yearly assessment bonds payment).

So Ann, the true cost to ‘change course’ is $165,000,000+$21,000,000+$19,500,000, equaling $205,500,000.
As the old project had a total cost of $159,000,000, has it been worth the extra $46,500,000, (or to put it another way, paying 29% MORE than you had to) to ‘change course’ to realize ’1 out of 3’?

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"and that point is that the cost of the new project consists of the cost for the County to build the project, PLUS the cost to the community for ‘changing course’."

You forgot to include the disasterous decision of the previous CSD Board to block the measure B election, which set in motion the potentially humongous damages awards,(avoided by an equally damaging settlement to avoid the worse damages awards,) plus the costs to the CSD to defend against being "fined out of existence"(Sorry, Richard but the Mad Hatter Tea Party was expensive and pointless then and expensive and pointless now and didn't do a single thing to clean a single drop of water), ditto the TPW efforts to get LOCAC to literally undo the CSD,, all of which was pointless and useless, and of course the enormous cost because three people decided to NOT wait for the election before tearing up TRI, more pointless waste.

And sez:" Back then your position was that moving the WWTP out of town was WAY cheaper; that the decision to move the sewer would not result in the loss of the SRF loan (the State wouldn’t dare!), that the LOCSD would not be fined (The SWQCB wouldn’t dare!), and would not result in delay."

You've forgotten my enedless calls for a Chinese menu and a vote, the COUNTY showed a plant out of town would be cheaper (even years ago it was in the ball park, which is why I supported the Chinese menu vote), the SRF loan program is still in place, (because one loan goes away doesn't mean the whole program goes away.) Will the County be applying for SRF funds for this project?) and the it remains to be seen if the CSD's CDO "fine" was legally executed. So, no, Richard, my litany is still the same as it's always been. And had the previous CSD held off on their F--k You construction before the vote and the recall vote failed, you'd not have heard a peep out of me. Community chose via a vote -- Chinese menu: Tri-W or recall/move the project. Yes? No? Finished. (All of which could have been accomplished years before by the previous CSD holding that simple election, with out the trainwreck that was totally unnecessary and a total waste.

As for the SOC being a "political document," you mean people can make up any old lie with absolutely NO supporting evidence and then insert it into legal documents such as Coastal Permits?

Really? Then this is cool. I want the County then, to build a damn on Los Osos Creek and declare to the Coastal Commission that there is an overriding community demand for a large lake near town so people can water ski, so they need to issue such a permit, and overide any quibble-bibble about ESHA or environmental damage, since I've got this SOC here that is an OVERRIDING document that I just made up out of thin air. Yes, very cool indeed.

Mike said...

I didn't think Ann could answer Richard with any rational thought and she didn't surprize, just fired off her emotional bleating... Ann, you heard the entire plan and decision making process for Tri-W and then twisted all that into your own version of "that's not my plan so I won't support yours"... Well Ann, your Plan never made it through the first hurdle while you and your friends slammed Los Osos into this sewer war... You didn't like Tri-W, you don't like the County plan... You don't get it and apparently never will...!!! You and your friends have cost the rest of us in Los Osos 4 years and millions of dollars... and quit whinning over the very dead Measure B, it was poor, poor, poor and YOU know it...!!!! Why aren't you pushing for the CSD to file a claim against BW&S and WilDan...???? Their "legal advice" helped propel this disaster... and while you're at it, check out Jon Sietz liablity in his "legal advice"...

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"As for the SOC being a "political document," you mean people can make up any old lie with absolutely NO supporting evidence and then insert it into legal documents such as Coastal Permits?"

Wanna hear something hilarious about that, Ann?

That's EXACTLY how I discovered that SOC's MUST be "supported" by "substantial evidence in the record."

When Blakeslee was having that silly "What Ought to be a Law" contest a coupla years back, I was going to submit this idea:

It ought to be illegal to override an entire environmental review process with a simple, made-up, 4-page document, that I could pop out in an afternoon (just like the LOCSD did in 2001 with their made-up, 4-page SOC).

THEN, during my research for writing-up my great idea, I discovered that it's ALREADY ILLEGAL to do that!

I first wrote about that exact subject, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-ought-to-be-law-part-ii-oh-wait.html

Very funny.

Someone posting as a "Richard LeGros" wrote:

"In the case of the LOCSD, the SOC was fashioned and reviewed by a LOCAC and SG dominated WW committee and CSD BOD."

Whatever that means.

Uh, guys? That's faarrrrr from "substantial evidence in the record."

CEQA law demands that you actually be able to point to something.

So, point to something, right now... point... to... something.

What? The Vision Statement?

That document is, frankly, nothing, just like I exposed (again) at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-slo-county-governments-laziness.html

But, I'll even give you THAT -- that the beyond-flimsy Vision Statement IS something. Great. Now, point to something in the Vision Statement that's "substantial evidence in the record" that supports that made-up SOC.

Trust me, I already know that there isn't any, which means that the project delays have absolutely NOTHING to do with the CDOers, and EVERYTHING to do with lazy government agencies that failed to do their job, and approved an illegal project because they never asked for the "substantial evidence in the record"... like I did!

And, Ann? Your little water-skiing analogy above, is both hilarious, and dead-on accurate.

By the way, as long as I'm here... hey, Mike Green, did you see The Shredder this week, where Shred says, "(Bruce) Gibson looks a lot like a wise old otter. Or maybe an Ewok..."?

Yo, Shred, if it's not asking too much, could you please stop stealing my jokes (scroll to the bottom... funny stuff).

Mike said...

Sounds like someone who signs on as "Ron" has been into the sauce a bit early this morning...

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"and quit whinning over the very dead Measure B, it was poor, poor, poor and YOU know it...!!!!"

not the point, Mike. The decision to BLOCK a vote was the bad decision and brought down enormous potential penalties. THAT, not a week or bad measure, was the disaster the previous CSD created. Bad, bad decision.

And mike sez:" Why aren't you pushing for the CSD to file a claim against BW&S and WilDan...???? Their "legal advice" helped propel this disaster..."

If the CSD feels they have a good case they need to do exactly that. I also want them to proceed with the breach of contract suit agains the SRF. As the bankruptcy judge noted, the contractors suing the CSD have targeted the wrong group -- their quarrel is with the State."

and mike sez:" and while you're at it, check out Jon Sietz liablity in his "legal advice"..."

If there were liability, Seitz has some 'splainin' to do both for the block-the-vote advice (if indeed he gave that advice and didn't (prudently) tell the CSD NOT to do it) , and for dumping the Los Osos 45 in the drink. Tsk, tsk.

Ron, As for the made up phony SOC dam, I say let's roll. We need a strongly held community value recreational area nearby since waterskiing is such fun!

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Ron, As for the made up phony SOC dam, I say let's roll. We need a strongly held community value recreational area nearby since waterskiing is such fun!"

Dude, I'm so down!

Here's what else we'll do:

We'll convince the Coastal Commission to allow us to dam Los Osos creek by showing them professional-looking plans that include an elaborate water-skiing facility (that the community "strongly desires") at our new lake -- Lake Can(n)onWatch.

Then, AFTER the Commission gets lazy, and says, "Well, if you say there's a 'strongly held community value,' then we're just going to trust you, and allow you to proceed," we'll immediately rip that elaborate water-skiing facility out of the plan, so when we go back to the Coastal Commission to get the permit to build our project, they'll say, "Hey, what happened to the elaborate water-skiing facility. I thought there was a "strongly held community value" for it. In fact, that "community value" was the ONLY reason we allowed you to dam Los Osos creek in the first place. So, you guys can't go forward with Lake Can(n)onWatch unless you put that elaborate water-skiing facility BACK in the project."

Then, of course, you and I, Ann, will be able to say, "Hey, the Coastal Commission 'required' us to include an elaborate water-skiing facility in our project. Looks like State taxpayers have to fund it now. Where's our $6 million check, State officials?"

And, before anyone realizes that they just got hit with a ton of behavior-based-marketing, we'll be cashin' fat checks.

I'm SO DOWN!

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

Saaaayyyyy, I like this plan. It's sooooooo Los Osos! I'm not only gonna go buy a ski boat, I'm gonna buy a skidoo, too. Now, where's mah Coppertone!

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

Ann,

Thank you!

Thank you for advocating (unwittingly) my point that community actions involved in the community's 'changing course' have added to the cost of the waste water project.

You are beginning to understand what I posted is truth.

That truth is that the Los Osos will be paying far more for a waste water project as a direct result of their decision to 'change course'.


As for your question about the SOC, the answer is NO.

The purpose of the SOC in the CEQA process is to establish community goals that the community wants instituted into, and to customize, their project. Those goals, if they conflict with the LCP, may override the LCP if the project also mitigates the discrepancy created between the SOC and the LCP; and even if the SOC-driven project is not the ‘environmentally preferred’ one. The CEQA process does NOT REQUIRE that only the ‘environmentally preferred’ project be selected. CEQA allows other alternatives, as determined by the politically-driven SOC, to be selected.

You (and Ron) ask for ‘proof' behind the SOC determinations.
I agree that ‘proof’ is needed.
I also agree that the 'proof' be upheld by ‘substantial evidence in the record’.

In the case of Los Osos, the ‘substantial evidence in the record’ backing up the SOC determinations is the LOCAC Vision Statement. PERIOD

The Vision Statement serves as valid documented ‘proof’ supporting the SOC as it was historically compiled by THE officially established community advisory council (LOCAC), as ordained by the County, to specifically address community issues. LOCAC, composed of dozens of community leaders, over a period of 12 years held hundreds of public meetings with the intent of composing a Vision Statement of what the community desired of itself. They did so; and did so with full public participation. LOCAC publically adopted the Vision Statement; later to be adopted by the LOCSD in order to implement the goals of the Vision Statement. All these facts are part of the ‘record’.

Now I know you and Ron do not see the VS as ‘proof’. But your point of view does not persuade as the law did, and still does, see otherwise.

Consider this.
I ask you as the Vision Statement was compiled in the full light of public meetings; meetings held over, and resulting in, years of give-and-take argument; argument that involved HUNDREDS of citizens points-of-view being considered; with these arguments resulting in LOCAC agreeing upon key community goals; and with those important decisions manifesting itself into the public record in the form of the adopted Vision Statement; that that result NOT be considered as valid, substantial evidence (i.e. ‘proof’) of community desires?

Additionally, to call the Vision Statement ‘phony’ is not only insensitive, but very insulting to the hundreds of citizens who took the time to hammer out their differences in order to establish goals for their community; and to call such citizen efforts ‘phony’ is an insult demeaning the democratic process as well.

Sewertoons said...

Ann,

Please explain at which post-recall CSD meeting there was EVER a Chinese menu given by the Lisa board? There was NO VOTE by the public as to what we wanted! Where were your protests at "no Chinese menu" then?

The possible "awarded" damage rewards - as you put it "avoided by an equally damaging settlement to avoid the worse damages awards," is pure SPECULATION.

(Measure B is dead, dead, dead and was ILLEGAL to begin with. Shame on a "prestigious" law firm for writing such a piece of $h*t and costing us all such a bundle.)

It remains to be seen if the County project out of town is going to be cheaper with lawsuits already thrown in front of it - by at least one person who did terrible damage with the last go-around. If the good bidding climate has passed and the grant and low-interest money no longer available, we just don't know do we?

Just when HASN'T Los Osos been whining about its lack of parks? Don't you recall the furor over the possible charging an entrance fee to Montaña de Oro? Los Osos rose up and whined, "You can't charge us because it's all we have! We must have a special pass so we don't have to pay!" I learned at a recent meeting that for our size, we actually don't have as much park acreage proportionally as other communities do, so the outcry isn't unfounded. In fact, what do the people want to be put on Tri-W right now after the County sliced off the 1/4 acre it needs - a park!

GetRealOsos said...

Lynette,

You really just don't want to get the fact that the real experts, the ones who write the books, don't think gravity is right for LO. With the hills and sand and earthquakes, it just doesn't make sense. The only reason for gravity would have to be that MWH already paid off some folks around here. Isn't it true that Blakeslee was taking MWH's calls during the writing of AB2701?

Rob Miller prefers Step and ponds, and he's the quality engineer for Wallace.

You, and your Dreamer crew are the only ones who think gravity is okay for Los Osos, but in reality you will ruin Los Osos forever, and after it's ruined, you can't have it back the way it was.

You are a cold one to not care about your neighbor and only about your pocketbook.

The sewer scam that you promote for a living is mind blowing to say the least.

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

YOU are the one who got Los Osos the most expensive sewer, so please quit blaming everyone else.

You are a criminal.

STAN RAN!!!

HENSLEY HID!!!

...AND YOU, YOU SIT AND BLOG TO RE-WRITE HISTORY...

...sad...

Sewertoons said...

Sad to see someone so convinced by salesmen on a technology that makes the project SOUND cheaper by dumping the heavy costs into the individual homeowner, but it's clear you are unable to address that issue or even care about it. It hardly matters, we're getting gravity, STEP is dead.

Churadogs said...

Lynette sez:"technology that makes the project SOUND cheaper by dumping the heavy costs into the individual homeowner, but it's clear you are unable to address that issue or even care about it. It hardly matters, we're getting gravity, STEP is dead."

If memory serves, didn't the original Ripley plan include the cost of the tanks plus a portion for re-fixing the landscaping, as well as in-rights-of-way installations where applicable, all as part of the overall cost of the project and even with that it still came in a bit cheaper than Tri-W. That notion apparently didn't fly because nobody had any interest in making it fly by dealing with the same kinds of rights-of-way laws covering phone lines, gas lines and etc. All doable IF the community wished it so. (Oddly, even at this late date, at the planning commission, Paavo was asked about such rights of way easements & etc and he was clearly clueless. Mr. Prepared On All Things was unable to give the Commissioners any real information; clearly he had never looked into the matter. And why should he have boned up on the issue?

Because from day one (remember Noel King?) of The Process,(you remember, that old promised, We'll look at all systems fairly Heh-heh "Process?") wherein Noel said, the project will be gravity. Period. End of sentence? Even before anything had gotten started . . . So, naturally, anything to do with STEP was only pro-forma and for show.

So we never did get nor will we ever get real numbers on the two systems. And since there clearly was never a plan to go with the promised genuine, open design/bid/build proceedures, we'll NEVER know the real costs of any system. We'll get the project that was pre-selected and parceled out from day one at the price the parties involved wish to select.

And "salesmen" have nothing to do with it. The promised Process was corrupted day one out of the box and all the rest simply follows. Since that's clearly O.K. with the community, then that's what they'll get, but please don't pretend that the numbers given us for STEP/Gravity are "real."

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"In the case of Los Osos, the ‘substantial evidence in the record’ backing up the SOC determinations is the LOCAC Vision Statement. PERIOD"

Did the community get a scientifically done "survey" that formed the basis of the vision statement? Did the community vote on that vision statement? Did they vote in any way to implement anything in that vision statement, like voting in a Park & Rec tax/assessment to support anything proposed in that vision statement vis a vis public amenities? When clear discontent with the in-town sewer emerged, did the community get to vote on whether they wanted to keep the sewer plant in town to match the Vision Statement created by community leaders with input from the few people who attend LOCAC meetings? At any time was the community asked a simple question: Is this Vision Statement about centrally located public amenities (i.e. parks)of sufficient importance to you to that you want the sewer attached to it? And of sufficient importance to you (the community, not a handful of Public Leaders) that you will pay the extra ESHA price for mitigation, versus locating the plant out of town on less expensive non-ESHA land? And (at the time) is it substantial enough a reason that you are willing to pay more for a sewer project just so you can keep it in the middle of town and attach a park next to it?

Proof of that would be in the form of a vote, or a professionally done community survey (sort of like the one the County did for the sewer project, minus the admitted "spin.") or other actual documents that showed that there actually was NO alternative for siting & etc.

From what you've said, none of those "substantial" supports were there. Just the Vision Statement.

Amazing.

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

The Vision Statement IS the DEFINATIVE COMMUNITY SURVEY!!!!!

I repeat:

The Vision Statement IS the DEFINATIVE COMMUNITY SURVEY!!!!!

Why?

Because the Vision Statement was the result of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF PUBLIC TESTAMONY AS TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED!
The Vision Statement is the result of the county conducting, through LOCAC, YEARS surveying of community opinion in order to establish this landmark planning document!

ADDITIONALLY:

The Vision Statement unto itself IS THE SUBSTANTIAL PROOF IN THE RECORD to support the SOC!

Why?

Because the Vision Statement has been officially adopted into the record by THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO when the county incorporated the Vision Statement into COUNTY LAND PLANNING POLICIES for the future development of Los Osos.

These facts unto themselves resolve the issue of ‘substantial evidence in the record’.

Ron said...

A "Richard" wrote:

"You (and Ron) ask for ‘proof' behind the SOC determinations."

Actually, it's CEQA that demands "proof."

Here's the quote:

"A statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in 'the final EIR and/or other information in the record."

We're just quoting CEQA.

A "Richard" also wrote:

"The Vision Statement unto itself IS THE SUBSTANTIAL PROOF IN THE RECORD to support the SOC!"

Well, "Richard," if you could read, what you would have seen is that I'm giving you the beyond-flimsy Vision Statement... that it actually IS something (although, it really, REALLY isn't... obviously), so, like I wrote above, where is the "substantial evidence" in the 1994 (1994!) Vision Statement that supports the SOC?

You can't just say, "Vision Statement," you STILL have to point to something IN the Vision Statement to support the SOC.

So, point.

Point to the part of the Vision Statement that provides "substantial evidence" that building a sewer plant in the middle of town will save money overall on the project.

All you have to do is point to that "substantial evidence" in the Vision Statement, and 1 of the (only) 2 reasons why an "in-town" site was selected by the 2000-01 LOCSD Board, will be backed up.

So point.

No pointy = illegal projecty... according to CEQA law.

But, the thing is... I don't know what you're so worried about. All of those government agencies screwed up and didn't do their homework, so they're NEVER going to revisit this, and admit to that. So, you won... sure, it's at the expense of the completely innocent CDOers, but, hey, you won.

Now, gotta go and draft up some plans for Lake Can(n)onWatch... ooooo, I can smell the fat checks now. This is going to be sweeeeet!

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

Doesn't the Bankruptcy protect the LOCSD from having to pay the Creditors...??? Isn't that how all bankruptcy's work...??? You don't have to pay your debts...???

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike,

To purpose of Bankruptcy is to allow/protect the LOCSD to continue its normal day-to-day opertions by keeping the creditors temporarily at bay.
MEANWHILE the LOCSD agrees to protect the creditors by figuring out a way to pay the creditors in a timely manner.

If the LOCSD does not come up with a payment plan that is acceptable (approrved) to the creditors (in a timely fashion), the bankruptcy will fail.

As the DEBTORS in this case are the Los Osos RATEPAYERS living within the LOCSD district, they have no way of escaping their debts. The $15,000,000 debt of listed in the bankruptcy must be repaid (plus the $6,500,000 RWQCB fine outside the bankruptcy too).

Let me put it this way...it was the RATEPAYER majority that directed the recall majority to stop the old project. The LOCSD and RATEPAYER thereby rashly defaulted on mutiple legally binding contracts that the CREDITORS had entered into in good faith; and with full expectation to be paid for work done.

The LOCSD and Ratepayer cannot just thumb their nose and say 'we are not going to pay you, so there; and go away!' as the money to pay the creditors does exist BUT being willing withheld by the ratepayer.

In short, the LOCSD / ratepayer is refusing to uphold their binding obligations under the contracts they entered into even though they have the money to pay said obligations.

Alon Perlman said...

Darnit Mr.Legros, Whydja have to answer so fast.
I wrote the following earlier; so I won't rewrite the part you covered answering Mike. But- is it the "ratepayers" (in the sense of everybody) or the potential Infrastructure owners (Original 218rs, and how about subsequent county 218rs?) But in the end the economics trickles down to both sets.
And forgive me in advance for not owning a septic tank (I would if I could)

----------What I was going to post after Mike’s Query to Richard ------

"The point I take is that the Los Osos Community will have to pay the piper, more likely sooner, possibly more expensively, Less likely less? Moneys delayed are of lesser value then a smaller amount of current cash.
The rest of the county will not be patient, or granting of general funds.
Not when it is recognized, again, that Los Osos is Polluting the National Estuary. As stated many times in many places.
But most recently, in the CCC’s Staff report.
So what happened at the Meeting to dispel that notion? Not much.
Had the commissioners read the mounds of material submitted, they would had found a reference to the National Estuary program’s 2007 Morro Bay to Osos town’s rainwater runoff comparison. Which holds the two towns equivalent for nitrates pulled off in rains. And that value is of no negative significance on Bay Biology, and the runoff in Morro Bay (Town). And the Kitts Moline Study Interpretation by Kitts was that removing septic tank runoff would at best be influential in removing a tenth of a percent of bacterial (coliform) contribution to the Bay. (The discussion did not go into collection technologies as there was only 1 available, at that time). CSD Data from several years ago (’06) proves the contaminants including pharmaceuticals are present in the Groundwater (Just so we do not confuse WHERE the contaminants are going).

We should be proud of (water quality in) Morro Bay.
“SLOSEA, presentation at Marine Interest Group”, Currently on TV.
(but Los Osos was not singled out for praise)

The current CSD is not going to Spook the Creditors. In fact it is being directed as best it can under limiting circumstances. I’m not a bankruptcy expert, (and these are unprecedented configurations that would fool some experts) but the economy is not in debt-forgiveness mode.
Either way Los Osos pay."
How much is that fence worth? (Retorical)

Sewertoons said...

Ann says:
"If memory serves, didn't the original Ripley plan include the cost of the tanks plus a portion for re-fixing the landscaping, as well as in-rights-of-way installations where applicable, all as part of the overall cost of the project and even with that it still came in a bit cheaper than Tri-W"

What kind of financing was that with? Not SRF money, that's for sure, as paying for anything on private property is called "a gift of public funds." (Of course, the Lisa board didn't understand that concept which is why they are being sued.)

We are not getting expensive private financing, but cheap USDA and SRF money - well, we hope anyway. That "gifting" is not allowed.

Ripley said $800 per property if you kept your old tank, and $1,000 of you didn't. Now how much is it do put in a new driveway? And to replace that 50-year old tree that happened to be in the way of the bulldozer?

(He also estimated $500 for septic tank removal and disposal. Heck it's $400 just to pump a tank! How can that be right especially at 2006 prices?)

The County explained how it couldn't go into public right-of-ways because of tank maintenance and clean-outs. You can't block a street to traffic to do this - safety concerns for ambulances, fire, etc.. Even if it was feasible, "parking strength" double tanks (concrete non-water-tight encasing fiberglass leak-proof) would need to be used anyway. Ripley didn't figured that in. Cha-ching!

Paavo wasn't clueless! He merely and rightly asked the question HOW the contractors were going to get those easements on private property - legal costs were involved, plus time and of course it wouldn't be Los Osos without a lawsuit or two! (Even Ripley said, "Dedication of a public utility easement (PUE) on each lot. This solution would require widescale development of agreements and legal descriptions to encumber each lot.") How easy do you think that would be?

Mike said...

...and don't forget the SIZE of the tank and you can double that for the excavation... Anyone remember the tank Don Beardon brought around...??? Ann, do you have room in your yard for that size excavation and tank...??? It works in a brand new subdivision BEFORE the house goes in...!!! ...but those are just "minor" inconveniences now for Los Osos... I'll bet GRO has already dug the hole for his tank...

...and we still get to pay for the bankruptcy...!!!

GetRealOsos said...

Lynette,

You lie.

You have to lie, otherwise you would agree with "M" on his analysis of Richard. For it was under his watch that we got the most expensive sewer per capita in the US.

Measure B was to move the same gravity sewer out of town -- the people -- and rightly so -- didn't want a sewer in the middle of town.

The Lisa board filed for Bankruptcy protection. Los Angeles may do the same. Protection Lynette.

And it was Dr. T who questioned the County right up front in the very beginning about gravity in the sand, hills and earthquakes.

Dr. T is no salesman, Lynette. He writes the books.

And if you don't know that it's about MWH more than what kind of system, you are really stupid. This whole scam is ONLY about MWH!!!!! Believe me, if MWH did Step, that's what we'd have!!!

It was Robyn Hayhurst who told people that Blakeslee was taking many calls from MWH during the writing of AB2701. You don't find that disturbing????

...I guess not.

And you think Rob Miller is wrong too about ponds and Step?

...I guess so.

In fact, it was Rob who said there were MANY systems to choose from!!

The County pitted only Step against gravity for a reason, because they had people like you to spread false info on Step (you couldn't do that with other systems) -- nope, you're a rat, just like Richard!

BTW, it was the bankruptcy judge who said the SRF loan was not a secured loan (no matter what Richard says...)

Yes, Lynette, you promote MWH. The LeGros board got paid off, I'm quite sure. That's the way MWH does business. Kickbacks! Can you imagine what kind of a house Stan could buy in Ohio with his million? Look what Richard bought -- and rumor has it he married his wife for her money.

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

Why do you keep forgetting that there was no Prop 218 vote. The State Water Board wasn't going to ever loan you one more dime without that vote Richard whether the recall was successful or not!!! Stop blaming the Lisa board for stopping the sewer!!! You started an illegal project and it wasn't going to happen because it was illegal!!!

The contractors knew that, but chose to start work anyway. They took their chances, knowing that you broke the law.

And the RWQCB's fine? 6.5 million. Give us a break. How's that fair firm and consistent? They give major corporate polluters small fines. They would only get pennies on the dollar.

Mike said...

Rumor this, rumor that... GRO is so full of.... lies!,enuendo! and rumor!

GRO, you are as sick as they come... You obviously have no life outside the crap you make up...

It is precisely the few like you who have cost Los Osos the millions of unnecessary dollars in your quest to promote STEP... it's DEAD...!!! Gravity is the only system that will be built in Los Osos...!!!!

GetRealOsos said...

Mike,

I know too much, and it scares you, obviously...

P.S. I know it's gravity stupid, as I said before, this whole fiasco has been to hire MWH -- nothing more -- and if MWH was willing to hand over hundreds of thousands of dollars to Pandora and hubby, it only goes to show how much they'd be willing to hand out to Richard, Stan and Gordon.

This is how MWH works and that has been documented. It certainly didn't hurt when the Stan board allowed the project to almost double in cost first time round. That's why you and Lynette (and Richard) have to blame Lisa. Wow, who's the sick puppy here?!????

Sewertoons said...

You are GRO.

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Do you not think GRO's Tourette’s syndrome of late is a wee bit out of control? A motherly ‘tsk tsk GRO’ accompanied with a stern finger wag would be nice.

Geesh! I make a few reflective comments and GRO busts his colostomy bag and spews foul smelling, scandalous and nonsensical filth all over him and your sparkling clean blog site. Thank God I have a computer screen to shield me! LOL

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"Outside of bankruptcy, the creditors will start the legal process to have the Superior Court force the LOCSD to sell its assets to pay for the debt; AND upon the likely dissolution of the LOCSD legally force the County to pay the debt as the by-then-deceased LOCSD's assets and liabilities transfer to the County.

The chances of the LOCSD surviving are decreasing rapidly. The days of 'cooling ones heels' are over."

Oh, Boy, will that make Gordon Hensley and Taxpayers Watch happy or what? Ah, rejoicing in Mudville. Break out the champagne, Gordo!

Richard sez:"Do you not think GRO's Tourette’s syndrome of late is a wee bit out of control? A motherly ‘tsk tsk GRO’ accompanied with a stern finger wag would be nice."

You got it. SETTLE DOWN, CHILDREN. YOU WERE PLAYING NICELY UNTIL SOME OF YOU STARTED LOSING YOUR MARBLES. KNOCK IT OFF. Or I'll start dumping you.

Mike said...

..not SOME... only GetRealOsos...!!!

You've singled out a few of us for gnawing on ankles, so WHY haven't you specifially called out GRO...??? His inflamitory remarks border on slander... he can't back up any of what he spews, yet YOU give him a free pass... It is your blog, but it makes you the less for seeming to encourage the GRO's while slapping your censorship on those you disagree with... Isn't that the attitude within the community that got us in this sewer war in the first place...??? What if the old CSD had cut off only public input that they agreed with...??? You want your right to freedom of speech, yet you cut off at least a couple others you didn't agree with... The Lisa led CSD with the gang in the back effectively cut off those of us opposed to the financial irresponsibility of that CSD... Yup, it's a perfek wurld until someone disagrees with YOUR opinion and YOU are unwilling to understand compromise...

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Thanks for the 'warning'.
However, I protest along with Mike that the warning was rather weak and non-specific.


TW led the Dissolution movement of the LOCSD in 2006 as TW opined that due to the LOCSD's bankruptcy (and the bankruptcy’s eventual failure) that the LOCSD would fail the ratepayers as it would be unable to effectively conduct business or provide services. Time is proving that position to be correct.

LAFCO, unfortunately, avoided addressing TW's basic complaint at all; instead LAFCO catered to the needs of the County.

The LAFCO ruling was not rendered with the intent of protecting the Los Osos ratepayers.
Instead the LAFCO ruling opted to protect the County by leaving a dysfunctional LOCSD standing solely to serve as a 'straw man' organization to keep LOCSD debts from being transferred to the County. As an FYI, the Creditors legal brief before the US bankruptcy court makes this very same point.

Now that the LOCSD’s bankruptcy is coming to a close, neither TW nor Gordon Hensley is celebrating anything.

In fact, sadness reigns (as it did during the dissolution) as a once stable and productive governmental organization has been reduced to penury and helplessness.

The sole purpose driving TW today is to press and prevail in the TW lawsuit against the CSD5; with the intent of recovering as much money as possible to pay down / reduce the ratepayers’ debts.

Richard LeGros said...

Phil,

Why not say what you really mean, or not mean, or mean, or ?......oh your post is so discursive that my brain hurts! LOL

Alon Perlman said...

Waa haa, so and so spit a spit ball at me while your back was turned! Mother Calhoun!
Mother Calhoun! go rap him on his knuckles, with your virtual iron ruler.
Look, he’s making faces right now!
What? Off with MY head? What did I do?
It was he who star……
Wapitty…Wap……wap………..wap.
(wet slap each time the severed head rolls over the neck)

Oy. Tomorrow the empty cyberspace may be back-filled.

This is virtual reality world.
No nitrates here, only Ones and Zero's. So why give attention to an attention-deprived anonymous poster, who's sex and affiliation, you don't necessarily know? (and, whose evil secret agenda is carved in reverse on their invisible two–faced foreheads).
Why let your real world, blood pressure rise?
Why let a Named poster do it?

Chessire cat?

^
“’0 + 0’”
>, (U),<



Oh there it is again, word verification; crings

Alon Perlman said...

Darnit another good word verificaytion-hotomeds.

Weyl, lahk the Carnyman at the County fair say before he done ran off with my teennaige dauwhtir;
"Youze payz yar nickel and you tayks yir chances, Keyp ye hanz-zin at orl tymz, Anenjoy Darayde".

Mike said...

Does Phil sound a bit like a chippy off an old Rock, with just another nom de plume...???

BTW... TW is NOT sueing the CSD...but IS sueing 5 INDIVIDUALS... How does a couple million bucks being returned to the District sound...???

Sewertoons said...

TW owes no money.

The suit is about the illegal spending of public funds. Guess you supported that Phil?

Alon Perlman said...

Mike, you figured it out.
now since both names don't exist.
and since imaginary people don't exist either, please change subject matter, for all we are is electronic dust in the wind, swirling through cyberpipes.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Phil,

I really your enjoyed prior 'upside-down truth' post. Very cleaver in a topsy-turvy way. It made me laugh.

That said, rest assured that the money to be returned to the CSD via the TW lawsuit will be quite a tidy sum. Do not fret...Lisa and crew will remain right side up and unshaken.

I am sad that you think the TW lawsuit is all about vengeance.
It is not.
I have stated many times the facts, documentation, history and law showing why the case is just; and why it will prevail. It is just a matter of time.

But let me put it this way; if I HAD performed illegal acts while in office, would you consider it vengeful of the hypothetical plaintiff(s) in demanding that I rightly be held up to the law?
Be honest...
No?...
I didn't think so.

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

Richard sez:"I am sad that you think the TW lawsuit is all about vengeance.
It is not."

I think many, many people would agree that "vengeance" among other rather ugly human emotions, played a large part in stopping the Measure B election BEFORE the election, thereby guaranteeing a huge, crippling financial hit on the post-recall CSD, the infamous "fine them out of existence" email, the let's set the election as late as possible and refuse at all times to even hold a Chinese Menu "vote" or scientific survey before tearing up Tri-W, , start construction before the election, thereby guaranteeing a massive financial hit on the CSD and the community, demand LOCAC dissolve/destroy the CSD,which guaranteed even more financial outlay to defend against, & etc. Personally, I tend to see lake of care and prudent due dilligence at best and, at worst, real malice towards the people of this community behind all those actions. The Medea Effect, as it were. After all, at the ACL hearing, CSD attorney Jon Seitz said the CSD IS "the community." Never in a million years would I have emailed the RWQCB and demanded that "my community" be fined out of existence. Clearly, to some other people, the community needed to be punished for daring to chose another path from what had been laid out for them by a handful of community leaders via an unsupported SOC.

Mike said...

Guess thats were we differ Ann...

I didn't and don't see the great 'vengence' theory you run around preaching... unless you are talking about the post-recall gang who were never open or transparent about either their legal advice, their total lack of any Plan, their waste of tax dollars... If you don't think Lisa and Julie were vendictive, then you were blind to the witch hunts and insults to and about the past Directors and the government agencies who had funding and permit authority over the sewer...

Sorry Ann, YOU are continueing to stir the pot of vengence... You apparently didn't get your way and you continue to nit-pik and disagree with all you don't agree with...

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

I agree that Pandora's saying 'fine them out of existence' was unthinking and spiteful.

However, do you not think it equally mean spirited and insulting of you to casually dismiss the hard work performed selflessly by other folks with a different point of view?

Whatever you think of what happened before the recall; just remember the entire community made it happen. Some blame the old board. Some blame the recall board. In the end it does not matter as the damage now exists for all of us; and we now all get to pay for it.
No amount of 'what if' speculation or 'blame gaming' will make it go away.

I will not spend my time to argue about those issues anymore. To do so is pointless. The past cannot be undone.

However, I would gladly discuss issues that are now before us that need to be resolved.

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

What happened to PHILS 11 PM (or so)post; which I answerd later that morning?

Alon Perlman said...

Richard, Why so stuck on the past?
11AM , 2/2/01? That’s sooo yesterday.
I’ve been sufficiently respectful to you, but you are tempting me to point out that; You seem to be remembering things that didn’t happen.
Short and middle term memory loss?
I play by the rules of the blog I post to. If I deviate significantly from those rules I expect to be redacted.
It is always the prerogative of a private Blog to delete comments. Irrespective if the blog owner does so according to rules clearly delineated or communicated through posts, or as has happened elsewhere, due to SnitFit.
As for what I said at the CCC….
I pointed out clearly that my written materials, had a more complete message. I will gladly discuss this content with you.
You are incorrect in stating “Mr. Perlman very clearly said "sheyf kjduy blahablah kinda" to the CCC; or did I not understand?”

Here is a link to a short clip of what I said, I think the part you want starts 2.0 minutes in-Clearly.
I’ll gladly transcribe it tomorrow. I’ve already done so, It’s on another computer.

“sheyf kjduy…”? Really, Richard. And “kinda” almost sounds like a real word.

Mike said...

...I hear James Cameron is looking for a couple new dialog writers for the Avatar sequel...

Richard LeGros said...

Alon,

I was making a jest to Phil regarding his (now redacted) post.
My jest is puzzling without Phil’s original post.

The jest is that I am laughing at myself regarding how I cannot decipher what you are thinking. There is no doubt you have something of value to say; and I know that you understand what you are saying; but the way you present your thoughts takes a lot of mental work on my part; and occasionally leaves me clueless about what you said.

To the point: I apologize if you took offense as none was intended. I obviously made a bad jest.
That being said, let’s relax and enjoy the day.

I will remove my prior post.

Alon Perlman said...

So, Intelligent Adults, Why Are We Still Doing This?
There was no need to remove the post, Richard.
You have been mostly gentlemanly in conduct on this Blog (To me, in recent memory).
So, I hope I came across more amused, than you give me credit.

But thank you for the thought.
I had my “Take offense Bone” surgically removed, a couple of years ago, knowing where Los Osos was heading. In other words; I knew I would be character assassinated, sooner or later. I had expected certain other players and not necessarily expected the need to waste my time with puny wanna-be upstarts, than the current crop, but I did NOT expect a different game. Nor did I expect attacks ONLY from “the other side”.

There was an emailed secret Character attack by One infamous “Environmental Advocate-A” on another, infamous Environmental Advocate -J. (Note the second is not in parenthesis). What amazed me then is how easily the emailed recipients “bought” the attack. (It was coached with words of concern for the victims of “J”). Not one considered that they were in an environment where one Environmentalist would Sabotage another for Territorial reasons.
Black P. R., It’s still around because it works.
But one thing I do have control over is the amount of time that I would dedicate to a previously flushed Intestinal Parasite who keeps twittering from somewhere in the septic tank.
It bothered me slightly to see you fall pray to divisiveness for divisiveness’ sake though.
We have some intelligent dialogue ahead of us, if you wish to avoid distractions.

Mike, You may want to visit this; http://twitter.com/razorblog
According to the Stamp it was broadcast, at about 1:30 PM That was well after your post, and well after any Intestinal parasites may have had their fill, here.
So lets ask this- Are you concerned with plagiarism? You are not credited.
Flattered by repetition? And who is plagiarizing who? Is it your post plagiarized? Is it some other ephermal stream of repetition from which it was culled. A virtual imaginary post at say 1:30 PM
“Great minds think alike”, guess what- “Small minds think alike, too”
So, Mike, want to play with people your own age? Is someone Fully opposed to just about everything you believe in able to get your attention because you LIKE their nasty tone?
I hope your post doesn’t get deleted, don’t see why it should, but This is not my Blog. I keep my Blog Secret because I don’t need the aggravation.
Now imagine You had a Sewer-Blog Mike, would you prefer to have it filled with “You’re a do-do haid”, “I know you are , but what am I” etc..?
Or would you rather it be an adults who differ space?
Wisdom or Cleverness Mike?
And if you don’t get, that I don’t need to debate this; call me a doo-doo haid and watch me not need to respond.
Coastal Commission, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly?

Richard LeGros said...

Alon,

Yes, I read the 'twinkle in your eyes' shining through your 11:41 AM, Feb 3 post. Never-the-less, my apology was the proper thing to do.

Mike said...

Sorry Alon... It will be interesting to see if Ann can keep up the Aaron-Free-Zone... It would appear everything said about that immature person is pretty much spot on... Oh well, way more than enough has been spent on the subject... The gravity sewer will be constructed and all the jaw-boneing (or key pounding) isn't going to change that... The twits and tweeters will just have to amuse themselves while watching their parents pay and pay... too bad they will never become contributors in this society... merely leeches...

Alon Perlman said...

Hi Richard,
Thanks, I got that about you too.
What is the time and location for the Bancruptcy hearing?
I suppose it could wait till tomorrow, when we can hear it from CSD Council. Any other thoughts?

alabamasue said...

Oh dear, Mike, the parents are already paying. The family home (on Binscarth) was put on the auction block January 25. I guess letting a snake-oil salesman live in your rental, free, for a year isn't such a good idea. Perhaps if ONE of them had bothered to get a job, this could have been avoided...

alabamasue said...

Yuck. I think I've just figured out that Phil is Ed. Disgusting.

Alon Perlman said...

Let's leave it up to our gracious host who is the lead regulatory agency on this blog.
Lessons learned, lessons not learned.

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

Richard sez:"Thoughts?
I fear that unpleasant events are about to unfold. Time has run out."

I fear you're correct, unpleasant events are about to unfold. Some will cheer. Others will weep.


One scenario you outline is the CSD disappears, which means the County gets it all? But does the county want it? And if they get it all, could THEY persue the breach of contract lawsuit, only this time on their own behalf??(Though that might be a problem since the lawsuit involves MWH and they're involved with MWH so there's be a conflict there --more behind closed doors "deals" to be cut?? Ah, the plot continues to thicken.) (Personally, I really would like to see that suit completed. Not to do so, I think, would be a grave disservice to this community.but I won't hold my breath that that will happen, not here in Chinatown.)

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Cheer? Weep? This is not a 'game' with fans. What sort of 'game' results with everyone losing?

The best result here is a 'best worst solution'.

Pick your potion; one will make you very big, the other very small; but you will never be just the right size again with either.