Uh, oh. Ron
Crawford's up to more mischief. Keeps asking Zen koan-ish annoying questions
that are unaswerable:
"Los Osos Makes Property Tax History: "More than
4,000" LO Property Owners Set to be Fleeced (Again), Starting Today, Nov
1, 20013"
Well, I can report that his posted story has a small update.
Seems Los Osos residents (and CDO
recipients) Beverly and Bill Moylan received a copy of Ron's 9/10/13
email to Supervisor Gibson, asking his persistent and (I'm sure) annoying
questions, and wrote a little note of their own to Gibson in response. I did too. Thought it would be interesting to
see if anybody knew just how much of
the original assessment dollars went to pay for the fake Ponds of Avalon and
how much was left that could be transferred to pay for a real sewer. (emails stacked in order, below) Supervisor Gibson was kind enough to write
back. His answer was simple: The LOCSD
did it.
Since I doubt anybody really knows or, cares, except as a
matter of mere historical curiosity, (or amusement), or is willing to find out,
here's what I believe to be the most truthful thing anybody can say about this
particular issue: Los Osos homeowners voted to assess themselves to pay X$$ for
something that they believed was "sewerish." Then they voted to assess themselves to
pay more $$$ for a real sewer, the one that is being built
now.
Case closed.
Unless Ron starts sending
emails of inquiry to the LOCSD as part of a document research project . . .
. Letters . . . we get letters . . . .
Ron's 9/10/13 Letter to Supervisor Gibson
Hello Supervisor Gibson,
Sorry to bother you again, but I never received a reply to
my email below (sent on 5/13/13), and now it's getting down to crunch time,
because, starting on Nov. 1, when the next round of property taxes becomes due,
"more than 4,000" Los Osos property owners are about to be fleeced
AGAIN, when they are forced to pay the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT"
assessment fraud... again.
Apparently, Los Osos has made tax assessment history. I have
now spoken with three county officials, and searched the heck out of Google,
and no one seems to have ever heard of this happening before: Where property
owners pass an assessment for a public works project, however, years later, it
turns out that the so-called "project" was based on nothing but
fraud, and, therefore, it was never built (because it was based on
nothing but fraud), yet, the property owners are still paying
for it... for another 20 years.
And because of that unprecedented-ness, no one seems to know
what to do in this situation.
Today, I spoke with Jim Hamilton at the County Auditor's
office, and he told me that now it is too late to remove the "LOCSD WASTE
TREATMT" line from the "more than 4,000" Los Osos PZ property
tax bills that are set to be mailed out next month.
So, here's what I recommend:
The County needs to conduct some sort of audit (or whatever)
that shows exactly which parts of the LOCSD's $25 million worth of their sewer
"project" design that the County was able to salvage for its project
-- collection system plans, environmental documents, etc. -- and what the
County didn't use, like the LOCSD's "infeasible" mid-town sewer
plant/"picnic area" -- a VERY expensive-to-design (and begin
construction on) treatment facility, that turned out to be based on nothing but
fraud (as my reporting has repeatedly shown over the past decade), and,
therefore, will never exist.
In other words, how much of the $25 million that the 2000 -
2005 LOCSD spent (read: wasted) on the Tri-W "sewer-park" fraud was
the county able to salvage for its project?
$1 million? $10 million? Zero?
Once that audit is complete, it will show how much of the
"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment money actually went to a real sewer
project, and how much went to the LOCSD's fraud.
Only then will we know if the PZ property owners, that have
been paying that fraud-based assessment since 2003/04, are TODAY actually
funding real sewer project related stuff, or they are now only funding the
fraud, and will continue to fund that fraud until the year 2034.
This is also very important: If that audit is not complete
by November 1, and considering that it is now too late to remove the
"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" line from the next property tax bill, I also
recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct the tax collector's office to go
ahead and collect the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment (starting on
Nov. 1), however, instead of using that money to pay off the bond holders
(whose names are heretofore unknown, despite my numerous attempts to acquire
that information), the County establish some sort of special account, where the
"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" funds are held until the audit determines
whether or not more than 4,000 Los Osos property owners are actually paying for
REAL sewer project related design
information with the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment, or whether
they are now simply being fleeced twice a year, by funding the fraud, and, if
it's the latter, then that entire assessment now needs to disappear completely,
ASAP, and the funds held in that special account returned to the
property owners.
So, again, is that something you can help with?
The clock is ticking: Only 51 days until November 1, when
"more than 4,000" Los Osos property owners are set to be fleeced...
again.
Thank you for your time,
Ron
Moylan's Letter To Supervisor Gibson
Dear Supervisor Gibson,
We are in receipt of Mr. Ron Crawford's insightful message
to you of 9/10/2013
regarding the annual LOCSD WASTE TREATMT assessment of
approximately $225 that has appeared on the tax bills of Los Osos
Prohibition Zone households since the 2003/2004 tax year and will continue to
appear on our tax bills until the 2033/2034 tax year. We have copied his
message below for your reference, especially since he has indicated having
received no response from you on this disturbing matter after more than a
month.
Mr. Crawford has demonstrated on his blog, and in previous
correspondence with you, Mr. Gibson, how the original Tri-W ponding project,
the prime reason for the formation of the LOCSD, had already failed before the
election that formed the LOCSD. According to Mr. Crawford, this outcome means that
the original vote to form the LOCSD occurred for no reason, since the point of
the LOCSD was to bring that specific Tri-W ponding plan to fruition on that
specific site.
We supported the formation of the LOCSD to carry out the Tri
W ponding project, because all the meetings that we attended and all the
promotional literature we read at that time showed the ponding system of
wastewater treatment to be clearly superior to the County's conventional WWP in
Los Osos. What we did not know at the time, and what Mr. Crawford's blog has
pointed out, was that the CCRWQCB had already rejected the ponding project at
the Tri W site before the election to form the CSD, rendering our vote
pointless and the election itself essentially a "fraud." Following
the election the project quickly morphed, was no longer the project we had
voted for and expected, and became a completely different project. We were
promised a "drop-dead gorgeous" ponding park - and we got a
conventional sewer plant - in the center of town.
It is my understanding that the annual LOCSD WASTE
TREATMT assessment pays for that failed Tri-W project, which the County
itself rejected as "infeasible." It seems shocking now to discover
how the agencies involved in overseeing the LOWWP failed to find the
revised project to be "infeasible" years before its being turned over
to the County for completion, especially given Mr. Crawford's documented
evidence that agencies essentially trusted the LOCSD, but did not verify. That
agency failure before the fact burdens us and our neighbors with the
annual LOCSD WASTE TREATMT assessment of approximately $225
per Prohibition Zone household for which we receive in return absolutely
nothing.
For seemingly complicated but actually quite simple reasons
the people of Los Osos are paying for a WWP that was never going to work, and
that a powerful state agency told the project's developers was never going to
be approved because it was not going to work, before it left the drawing board.
Duped into voting for a CSD and an already-failed WWP by misleading statements
by community leaders, as Mr. Crawford's blog reports with nothing but primary
sources, Los Osos appears to be caught in a scam that has defrauded our
community out of millions of dollars to date and will continue to defraud us
for the next 20 years.
Given that Prohibition Zone residents have apparently
enjoyed little or no benefit from this assessment, and given that the County is
the agency of record in collecting this assessment, we echo Mr. Crawford's
request that the County order an audit of the annual LOCSD WASTE
TREATMT assessment as it appears on our annual tax
bills. Mr. Crawford's final request below is ours, too.
"This is also very important: If that audit is not
complete by November 1, and considering that it is now too late to remove the
"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" line from the next property tax bill, I also
recommend that the Board of Supervisors direct the tax collector's office to go
ahead and collect the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment (starting on
Nov. 1), however, instead of using that money to pay off the bond holders
(whose names are heretofore unknown, despite my numerous attempts to acquire
that information), the County establish some sort of special account, where the
"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" funds are held until the audit determines
whether or not more than 4,000 Los Osos property owners are actually paying for
REAL sewer project related
design information with the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" assessment, or
whether they are now simply being fleeced twice a year, by funding the fraud,
and, if it's the latter, then that entire assessment now needs to disappear
completely, ASAP, and the funds held in that special account returned
to the property owners."
It is our hope hope that other Prohibition Zone property owners
will come forward, as well, to support you in requesting this audit.
Thank you for your time,
Beverley De Witt-Moylan
William Moylan
My Missive
Well, since this was such fun, I had to drop Supervisor
Gibson a note as well:
Dear Board of Supervisors,
Like Ms. Moylan (below) I too
would like to know exactly how much assessment money is still being collected
on what was essentially a fraudulent election and fraudulent assessment. An
audit should be able to show what portion of that assessment money was actually
utilized (by the present County's project) and what was wasted by the
deceptively linked CSD/ Ponding project.
It's clear to me that elected
officials, regulatory oversight and/or law enforcement agencies don't care
about the "fraud" that happened here. But $225 per year per
household is a very tidy sum and at the very least, the citizens of Los Osos
deserve to know how much of the assessment for that particular, original
"fraud" is costing them, (and will continue to cost them for the next
20 years while delivering no benefits. ) and how much of that amount
actually is a received benefit.
Sincerely,
Ann Calhoun
And herewith:
Gibson's Reply.
In response to your emails regarding the assessment levied
by the LOCSD for
their wastewater project, let me review again the situation;
1. That assessment was proposed solely by the LOCSD and voted on (per Prop
218 ) by residents within the PZ. The county has and had no authority over
the expenditure of those funds.
2. Whether or not anyone believes there was "fraud" involved, the county
has no mechanism or authority to do anything more than an examination of
the books and records of the LOCSD. This type of audit would not provide
anything more than information that is already publically available.
Concerns regarding the expenditure of the earlier bond proceeds should be
raised with the current LOCSD Board.
3. We do know that at least some funds from that assessment were used to
purchase the Mid Town and Broderson sites. Through the provisions of AB
2701, those sites were transferred to the County and are now part of the
project.
If you have any further questions please feel free to call my office
781-4338.
their wastewater project, let me review again the situation;
1. That assessment was proposed solely by the LOCSD and voted on (per Prop
218 ) by residents within the PZ. The county has and had no authority over
the expenditure of those funds.
2. Whether or not anyone believes there was "fraud" involved, the county
has no mechanism or authority to do anything more than an examination of
the books and records of the LOCSD. This type of audit would not provide
anything more than information that is already publically available.
Concerns regarding the expenditure of the earlier bond proceeds should be
raised with the current LOCSD Board.
3. We do know that at least some funds from that assessment were used to
purchase the Mid Town and Broderson sites. Through the provisions of AB
2701, those sites were transferred to the County and are now part of the
project.
If you have any further questions please feel free to call my office
781-4338.
Posts
74 comments:
Ann writes:
"Supervisor Gibson was kind enough to write back."
Huh... so, the County's email server DOES work? Who knew? (Now, if they could just figure out how to add a spell check app to their email software.)
Well, at least I (finally) have an answer to my question: Is there anything that Bruce Gibson, in his position as 2nd District Supervisor, can do to help the more than 4,000 property owners in Los Osos that are stuck funding a tax assessment fraud... for the next 20 years.
His answer, obviously, is, "No."
I wonder if his opponent(s) in the upcoming election will have that same take?
I'll be sure to ask them that question.
Fascinating story.
Thanks (again) for the link, Ann : -)
It's up to the LOCSD, NOT the County, to handle the $225/year assessment.
Once again, Ann and Ron demonstrate to all three of their readers that they're polluting the gene pool.
It was the LOCSD that halted the first project and then filed bankruptcy. Let's never forget that horrendous Lisa and Julie led CSD and all the financial damage they have caused this community!
Just how much did they "save" the taxpayer property owners of Los Osos?
I'm almost tempted to not go through this ONE MORE TIME, it's just so whack-a-mole all over again. But Ron has reading comprehension problems and trouble with recognizing and retaining facts, poor thing, so I'll do this one more time. Next time, and knowing Ron's penchant for selective ancient history, there will be a next time, I will copy and paste.
To begin, I prefer to write on Ann's blog, she gets more traffic and has a higher visibility. So all the assertions will be answered here.
1. The sewer project changed from the pond to the MWH design BEFORE the bond was viable to be sold, June 2001. If Ron or anyone else wasn't paying attention, well, too bad.
2. If people were unhappy with the pond going away, they probably could have asked the Board to buy the old County plans, cheap.
3. Despite the pond problems, a design like it could have been done, but just without cheap state money plus it needed a lot more research—all this under a climate of very intense pressure by the Water Board with their Time Schedule Orders.
4. People did not show up to protest the new direction of the plan in 2000, the board had little community input.
5. It was clearly stated on the assessment material that it was to be a gravity sewer with pump stations. People agreed to assess themselves.
6. The bond money paid for land at Tri-W ($3 million approximately), gravity piping design, the treatment plant design and the permits to build the plant. (Broderson was mostly paid for by a grant).
7. The parts salvaged by the County from that assessment was the property and the gravity collection design. The parts lost were the design for the treatment plant and the permits.
8. All the bonds did not sell, only about $19 million sold, it is not $25 million.
9. The voters CHOSE limbo-land for that investment of their assessment monies by the recall and Measure B (by 20 votes). So too bad, so sad.
Happy tweeting Ron, maybe you will find somebody out there to believe you.
As I said: "Sewerish."
Toonces, thanks for the cut and paste.
Anon. 1:55pm. Correct. The CSD did it!
Anon: 6:16pm. Aren't you forgetting the infamous Roger Briggs letter sent to the Karners that Ron references stating that the Ponds of Avalon (the whole point of the CSD formation) would NOT be permitted. That started the whole interesting slide into kerflooey.
I'm so glad Lynette took some time away from her busy schedule of stalking Julie Tacker on CalCoastNews for one week straight to address Ron.
Oxycontin is one hell of a drug.
Ann writes:
"Anon: 6:16pm. Aren't you forgetting the infamous Roger Briggs letter sent to the Karners that Ron references stating that the Ponds of Avalon (the whole point of the CSD formation) would NOT be permitted. That started the whole interesting slide into kerflooey."
That is actually a KEY piece of evidence in the entire fraud, and my favorite part about it, is how I caught the Karners actually confessing, in 2005, that they KNEW their fake "project" was "blown out of the water" in January 1998, yet they spent that entire year -- 1998 -- lying to the people of Los Osos about their known-to-them-to-be-DOA "better, cheaper, faster" scam, and how it would have a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," and the entire time they NOW confess to knowing it was never going to work.
Of course, as we all know now (thank you very much) the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" scam eventually got the CSD formed and Pandora elected, where she immediately hired her husband's firm, the SWA Group, to produce a bunch of pretty architectural drawings for their non-project, that they both knew, from day one, was never going to work.
I expose their confession at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/exposed-karner-confession.html
And I show how they cashed in on their personal cash machine -- the LOCSD -- at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html
The fraud is so obvious, and so over-the-top catastrophic (I mean, if a state official were to tell me that, since 1998, the Karners' fraud, all tolled, has cost the State of California a quarter of a billion dollars, I wouldn't even blink), that when I read about the "$10 million" fraud case going on right now involving Al Moriarty and a tiny handful of rich investors, I laugh.
See, where Moriarty f-d up, is that he never became a SLO County Parks Commissioner. If he HAD, the SLO County DA's office would have never touched his case... either, because the exact conflict that exists with Pandora -- how she's a client of County Counsel, the same Counsel as the Sheriff's office and the DA's office -- would have existed with Al, and he'd be a free man right now... just ask Pandora.
(By the way, that exact scenario ALSO exists with Kelly Gearhart. Had Gearhart become a SLO County Parks Commissioner, nothing would have ever happened to him, either.)
Correction: $17,990,000 of the bonds were sold.
Ron fails to acknowledge how deeply loved the original Solution Group plan was by the community. Failing to do that design didn't kill it it all. It was resurrected by the Lisa board and members of the community both the ponds part out of town where there was room to do it and the Step part.
So, whats the bottom line here?
Is Ron or Ann going to sue the BOS? Pandora, Gibson, anyone?
Isn't this blog just more wishful thinking about times and events past?
It is such a warm fuzzy feeling knowing that the Lisa CSD totally screwed this commumity and got away with no financial liability.
Ron can't get past this addictive love/hate he has for Pandora, is paralyzed beyond the year 2005, so will continue to misinform and skew on the past. He would have conned someone to sue by now if he had support from money in Los Osos.
Ann I believe anyway, has moved on.
I think if some of the players of old would stop talking about this, nothing would appear on any blogs. But Cal Coast has a vendetta against Gibson and just loves those "Opinion" pieces by Julie, and the parade before the BOS (missed Margetson today) keeps the topic alive, it is hard just to let it go and blow off correcting the inaccuracies.
"Ron can't get past this addictive love/hate he has for Pandora, is paralyzed beyond the year 2005, so will continue to misinform and skew on the past."
And how many times did you mention the 2005 events on CalCoastNews last week? You also got a lot wrong, but since you cite your "friends" as sources, well, who can argue with that?
"But Cal Coast has a vendetta against Gibson and just loves those "Opinion" pieces by Julie, and the parade before the BOS (missed Margetson today) keeps the topic alive, it is hard just to let it go and blow off correcting the inaccuracies."
Seriously, who cares but you and Lou?
The only reason I am still engaged is to be reactive to the mis-information others put out there and I often cite documents refuting that mis-information. Julie seems to have re-written events as have others. I guess you didn't notice or you discount facts that are inconvenient for you.
Please be specific about what I got wrong, otherwise your statement about that has no point.
Lou is not part of this as the project is moving along at good pace and the inconveniences are too minor for him to mention.
If you don't know that others read this stuff and hold the same opinions as I do, then it is time to take your head out of the sand.
Sometimes, you just have to let it go, Lynette. People will spread misinformation, whether or not you correct them.
You can't be the sewer police and historian, especially when you often present misinformation yourself.
Have you given this same advice to Julie, Linde, Ben and Richard M., to let it go? If not, why not?
BTW, who says I can't be? Are you the occupation police or something?
Still waiting on that misinformation list....
It's best not to care about what those folks think. Most of Los Osos doesn't.
Keep waiting.
The bottom line is we're getting a real sewer and it doesn't matter what Ann, Ron, Julie or any of the other obstructionist wished for. It's a done deal!
I agree. They don't matter for this project, it is a done deal. Ann is different though. She has dropped out in my opinion (wisely), as she gets that this fight is over. But I still don't like misinformation hanging out there, which lives a long, long time on the Internet.
Besides, setting the record straight is actually fun!
I agree with Anon 6:56. It's done, so why do you care, Lynette? Why beat a dead horse?
Did you not read above why I do it? I thought I explained it in rather plain language.
Why won't Julie, Linde, Ben and Richard M. let it go? Do you say the same thing to them? How about answering that?
Toonces sez:"Besides, setting the record straight is actually fun!"
Which makes what Ron's doing very interesting, historically speaking. He's tracked down sooooo many actual, original-source documents. Not opinion, actual original documents. And put them all in one place, all linked and cached so anyone can go read them. If they're interested in ancient history.
And you must admit, as Ron says, this has always been one hell of a story.
And for me the most interesting part has been how a narrative can be deliberately falsified so as to help destroy a whole town. And how impossible, once that false narrative is in place, for it to be corrected.
Anonymouse 5:56 gives an example of how such a false narrative persists and becomes "real." He uses the term,r "obstrucitonist," as in "sewer obstructionist." Remember that one? I'm sure it was cooked up by someone very clever, somebody schooled in marketing, ad-speak, political-speak wordsmithing. It became a talking-point mantra for the Tri-W supporters, even Toonces made it her recurring mantra. It was brilliant because it promoted the false narrative that anyone who so much as criticized any of the projects that wasn't TriW (no matter how valid or vital the criticism was) into one of the (false) "bad guys," one of those guys who didn't want a sewer. (Thereby ignoring the vast majority of the town that were pro-sewer,not anti-sewerists,
they just didn't want this particular one or wanted another one. That distinction was too nuanced and had to be erased, lest anyone believe that the town was actually filled with pro-sewer folk, not filled with urine swilling MoomBeam McSwine "obstructionists." who needed to be ignored and/or punished.)
And that false narrative helped polarize the community and remove all nuance to any discussion that was not talking-point party line. And paint a false picture of a community that blinded outsiders to the reality and complexity and nuance of what was going on. Which caused real damage to real people.
It was pure Frank Luntzian Big Lie wordsmithing. Very effective and it continues to this day. (You see it's destructive work in Washington and on right-wing talk radio and Republican talking points. One of the reasons I consider Frank Luntz one of the most dangerous people in America.)
Which is also makes this one hell of a story.
Obstructionism is a moot term since there's nothing to obstruct. The sewer is coming.
So why beat a dead horse?
'toonsy asks:
"Please be specific about what I got wrong..."
'toons, do me a favor. Ask your friend, Pandora, this question (and then I'll think you'll finally get the answer to your question):
If Pandora now admits, that, in January 1998, she KNEW that her fake "better, cheaper, faster" "project" was already "blown out of the water," and was never going to work, then why, in July 2000, when she was vice-president of the LOCSD, did she "produce" a "news"letter -- using LO taxpayer money, of course -- that over-the-top hyped how "on schedule" her "better, cheaper, faster" 70-acre ponding fake-project was, when she ALREADY knew, nearly three years earlier, that it was never going to work?
I mean, if she NOW admits, in writing, to knowing that her ponding project was DOA in January 1998, then why the F did she pop out a "news"letter that lied to "every property owner in Los Osos" (using their money, of course) about how "on schedule" her never-going-to-work fake "project" was?
It's too bad that the SLO County DA's office is SOOOOO conflicted on this amazing case, because look how easy it would be to prosecute: Pandora has ALREADY confessed to the fraud... in writing. THEN, there's her official LOCSD "Summer 2000" "news"letter, that one of the top government attorneys in the State as ALREADY told me, "Yes, that is fraud."
Even the dumbest prosecutor would have this case won by the end of his/her opening statements:
"Uh, members of the jury, in the first 10 seconds of testimony, you are going to see a document, produced by the defendants themselves, where they actually confess, in writing, to this massive, massive fraud. So, WTF are we even doing here?"
THAT's how easy the prosecution would be.
An anon asks:
"So, what's the bottom line here?"
That is a GREAT question.
My answer is this: If you are one of the more than 4,000 property owners in the PZ that is currently being forced by your local government(s) to fund the "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT" fraud -- until the year 2034 -- then f-ing DO something about it!
Here, Bruce says, "If you have any further questions please feel free to call my office 781-4338."
Well, take him up on that offer. Give him a call and say something like, "Really? There's REALLY nothing you can do to help me NOT fund a tax assessment fraud for the next 20 years?"
Or, how 'about this: Coordinate with a few of your fellow fleecees (boy, don't want to miss the "l" on that one), and YOU file some sort of class-action lawsuit, that basically says something like, "We don't want to finance a fraud anymore."
As I show, you will win, easily!
[Ann, brilliant comment, above.]
Ignorance craves attention. This is the Los Osos story. There can be no other explanation for why Ron, Ann and Lynette delight in posting their stupidity for the whole world to see.
Read it and weep, brothers and sisters of Los Osos. In their own words pecked here with relish, each illustrates their role in spreading misinformation throughout the community -- years of it, year after year after year -- paving the way for the big sewer that killed Los Osos as we knew it and never will be again.
You all couldn't stop your race to the bottom even if you wanted to. It's too late. You're almost there.
One consultation with a real attorney and this bogus post goes... POOF!!!!
But that would be too easy. Then your hunger games would be over and you'd all have to go home, find something else to do, and that ain't ever gonna happen as long as there are more lies to be told by a few.
"There can be no other explanation for why Ron, Ann and Lynette delight in posting their stupidity for the whole world to see.
Amazing! Lumping the three of us together! Two opposite viewpoints represented, yet we are ALL condemned with the same black brush!
(You have to chuckle at the language here, "In their own words pecked here with relish..." Made me think of Deviled Eggs for some reason!)
"--spreading misinformation throughout the community -- years of it, year after year after year -- paving the way for the big sewer that killed Los Osos..."
Wow. Now Mr./Ms. Chicken-behind-the-anonymous must weigh in on the very thing he/she/it condemns Ron, Ann and I of doing!
The BIG sewer.
Well, since I'm writing here, I'll just put in that I arrived in 2005 and they were unzipping my street, so the gravity sewer was a done deal. In fact, the County's plan was a gravity sewer too, so the "big sewer" idea was done years prior. It looks like Ann's blog started in 2005, so I don't know what platform she used prior to that. Ron's blog started in 2005, but Ron started writing about this in 1996 according to the front page of his blog.
Yet, prior to ALL of this CAWS was protesting the need for a sewer and Step and AIWPS ponding systems were touted as the way to go if we had to have one.
One consultation with a real attorney..."
Now what does that mean? Over what? Real attorneys have been all over this for years!
Quoting the moderator of CalCoastNews: "Enough circular sewer."
Ann is the moderator here. If you don't like this, don't look.
If this Ron really believes there was fraud, then he should be spending his money to prove that in a court of law. Ann was not successful in her legal pursuits and has had to withdraw from making such outrageous claims.
Since Ron has been unable to prove any of his inflammatory claims in a legal court, the only conclusion is that he is only making false assumptions.
BTW, does Ron even live in Los Osos?
So were you!
Hmmmmm. Personal attacks are for when you've just got nothin'.
No, Ron does not live in Los Osos!
I fail to understand the purpose of having this discussion, and having to continue this discussion when the sewer is underway.
The LOCSD says that Ron never e-mailed and phoned to ask about the assessment, and they said they're willing to speak to him and Ann. So they're complaining when they haven't done anything about it except harass our supervisor. Sad.
I can't believe I'm about to write this, but 'toons is, for once, right.
For the 10 millionth time, I do NOT live in Los Osos.
I (at least) TRY to make that very, very clear by keeping the words, "I do not live in Los Osos," permanently posted on the front page of SewerWatch, but some people, I guess, just can't read.
My first day of reporting in Los Osos, at the mighty Bay News (at the old gas station building, across the street from the Merrimaker) was in the Fall of 1990... I said 1990, and 23 years of reporting later (including two kick-ass New Times cover stories on this amazing subject, that BOTH turned out to 100-percent right [of course] and are STILL 100-percent relevant today), here I am, with one hell of a story.
Cool, eh? (In fact, I like to think that MY story in this overall story, is VERY interesting. Think about it.)
I just need to wrap up my story so I can (re)submit my Pulitzer Prize application. You see, I made Pulitzer Prize history a few years back when I was one of (if not THE) first journalist to have my application accepted by the Pulitzer Board (which is a VERY difficult thing to do), without having one word actually printed on paper.
Yep, that's right Trib, and New Times. A local blogger made Pulitzer Prize history by being the first non-print journalist to be accepted for Pulitzer Prize consideration. So, any time you want to interview me about that excellent local story, well, you have my email address. (I'm sure they'll get right on that.]
[Uh, anon 10:59? Your post makes no sense whatsoever. It's an incoherent mess. I mean?:
"There can be no other explanation for why Ron, Ann and Lynette delight in posting their stupidity for the whole world to see."
Oh, the irony. Hilarious.
By the way, IF you could read, you would have noticed that I DID consult with an attorney, and he told me the obvious: "Yes, that is fraud."]
Anon 9:18, quick question: If I "never contacted the LOCSD" for this story, then why do I have quotes from LOCSD Accountant, Amparo Haber, in my story?
(Wow. If I was as stupid as these anons, I'd stay anonymous, too.)
Incidentally, "Ampy" is very friendly, and helpful. Thanks, Ampy!
Uh huh.
Haber says she never spoke to you. Or, rather, you never identified yourself on the phone to her.
Also, the Pulitzer Prize board doesn't have you on record. Anyone can submit their work for consideration, but just because you submit your own work doesn't mean you're actually "considered."
Notice how you didn't disclose the attorney's name? Yeah. You probably made that up too. It's easy to put words in an attorney's mouth, especially when you post only one convenient soundbite.
You were also kicked out of the New Times for exaggerating details about Pandora Nash-Karner, Gary Karner and the Solutions Group.
You're the fraud, Ron. Stop being so self-righteous when you have so many skeletons in the closet.
To add to that telling post above that got down to the sad reality of things "Ron," maybe Ron can now ponder the election results in 2002 to start the road back to journalism and redeem himself from biased, personal opinion. (One could hope anyway, but I am certainly not holding my breath as Ron has a deep, deep obsession with anything Pandora.)
The community was aware that the project had changed from the ponds to a traditional sewer system in the middle of town in 2002 when they voted (and the assessment had already PASSED in March 2001 where people KNEW what they were assessing themselves for).
The election held November 5, 2002 had a 66% voter turnout. There were 10 candidates with the percentage of votes following their names: Gustafson 20.3%, Hensley 19.3%, LeGros 18.4%, Tacker 11.8%, Owen 8.8%, Sylvia 8.2%, Salmon 5.3%, Peterson 3.8%, Sanford 2.3%, Barrow 1.7% and there were 21 write-in votes which would not have changed the election results.
Now, the top three candidates taking 58% of the votes were pro center-of-town traditional sewer, and the others ranged from out-of-town/Step to no-sewer at all, AND there was quite a gap in the number of votes returned from Candidate 3 who then became a Director to Candidate 4 who did not.
Ron, clearly anyone can see how the community, BY VOTING, DID support the in-town sewer at Tri-W knowing BOTH the location and the type that it was going to be. It didn't matter that the original project changed, they would support the new one AT THE SAME LOCATION by voting IN these candidates.
The voters in 2005 then decided by 20 votes to do something else (throw away their investment), but that does not relieve them of their responsibility for what they agreed to assess themselves for in 2001. It doesn't matter if NOTHING of what that money bought was used or not, it was legally obtained by the Board for a project the voters agreed to, not only by assessing themselves, but voting to continue the project the way it was! It doesn't matter that the project changed from ponds/Step to traditional in 1999-2000! Sometimes projects change; what the CSD was formed for was LOCAL CONTROL of A sewer project.
Ron, please respond to this apparently "new" information (new to you anyway, despite its having been around since 2001-2002). You might try running this information by your "lawyer" to see if he/she still agrees that this was still fraud. Oh, and provide us a name so we can call to verity your report back to us.
Let me get this straight; Ron Crawford doesn't live in Los Osos and his only viable connection was as a hack for a defunct half sheet neighborhood newsletter and has maintained some sick fixation on an ex-marine, yet the author of this blog finds him to be the source of all that is wrong with the sewer project.
Yep, that's it in a nutshell.
There's a lot to be said about Ann, who promotes Ron's "letters" as evidence. For someone to go that far to support someone who really has nothing to show for himself, you either have to assume she has a relationship with him that goes beyond writer-to-writer.
Judy Salamacha said that Ann and Ron were considered a couple back when she worked at the Sun Bulletin. I think Ann is being very dishonest here with her non-disclosures.
Awwww, Anon 8:09. Now, you're just making stuff up so your "assumptions" are dead wrong. Plus, I can't imagine Judy being that stupid or clueless or so wrong as well. Really, now, you shouldn't make up such lies about her. Makes her look bad.
And, Toonces: As I said waaayyy up top of this posting: Sewerish. Case closed.
If the sewerish case is closed, then why do you persist in sending letters to BOS?
Maybe it's time you should retire from anything beyond posting poetry.
People, people, people.
Again, with the hate. It makes no sense (well, UNLESS the people posting the hate are 1) involved in the fraud, 2) investors in the fraud-bonds, or 3) both. Then the hate makes PERFECT sense).
As much as I'd like to continue to discuss my favorite subject (me), y'all need to refocus on what makes this such a GREAT story.
Just as I made Pulitzer Prize history (which is a terrific story in itself, as you can read about in my upcoming book), Los Osos has made property tax assessment history!
How f-ing cool is that!
More than 4,000 property owners in Los Osos are stuck paying for a fraud-based, public works disaster, that will never exist, and will continue to fund that failed disaster until the year 2034.
I have spoken with numerous official sources, and searched the heck out of Google, and no one has ever heard of that situation before, anywhere.
Trust me, journalistically speaking, that... is... awesome!
Bottom line?: If you are one of the "more than 4,000" PZ property owners that can go to this link:
http://services.slocountytax.org/
... type in your name in the search, then click around a bit until you can view your tax bill, and see this line:
"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT 225.38"
... you should be REEEEELLY pissed.
Personally, I LOVE the whole "unprecedented-ness" of this amazing story, and, trust me, so will my friends at the Pulitzers.
(Oh, and by the way, y'all are set to be fleeced again on "2/01/2014.")
Ann writes:
"Plus, I can't imagine Judy being that stupid or clueless or so wrong as well. Really, now, you shouldn't make up such lies about her. Makes her look bad."
Add Ampy to that.
It's disgusting what these anonalosers do.
I mean, here's Ampy, who couldn't have been more friendly, couldn't have been more helpful, a friggin' MODEL of a civil servant (in fact, if Ampy was the head of SLO County Public Works, instead of Paavo, this entire post/story would be completely different, because I guarantee I would have received a prompt answer from Ampy to my simple question: How much money was salvaged off of the LOCSD WASTE TREATMT fraud? And we wouldn't have to be begging Bruce to pry that answer out of his buddy, Paavo, which Bruce won't even TRY to do), yet, in comes a disgusting anonaloser, putting lies in HER mouth.
Amparo Haber for 2nd District Supervisor!
FINALLY, some honesty in that seat.
If Ann has no prior relationship with doofus Ron then why oh why would she enable him by encouraging him to print junk that any half-awake journalist would see as unsubstantiated conspiracy theory????
I agree with the blogger who said this is why Los Osos is getting the sewer it deserves.
Ann, it's time you cut the cord with the cuckoobird you have no prior relationship with -- but coddle like your baby that never grew up.
Here are the things Ann and Ron haven't mentioned:
1. The name of the attorney that Ron allegedly spoke to.
2. The reason Ann still writes about the sewer when she has supposedly "moved on. "Case closed," despite e-mailing Gibson about the assessment and remaining heavily involved in correspondence between Ben DiFatta, Linde Owen, Julie Tacker, Jeri Walsh, and Richard Margetson.
3. The nature of her relationship with Ron (SPOILER ALERT: There was one)
4. The growing inaccuracies of Ron's article and past articles.
5. Ron's troubled history with the Bay News and New Times.
The list keeps growing. She'll probably "dump" this comment like the others that reveal information about her and Ron. Spineless twerp.
Dear Ron,
The Pulitzer Prize is for writing. You are not a writer. You are a ranter. You don't deserve to call yourself a writer -- that is fraud. Writers write, you have not written anything that anyone's published anywhere since 2005, which apparently is the year you stopped living.
The marketplace has determined your status as a writer, not you, and the marketplace place clearly says you don't exist. You are a cypher except in your head which is full of holes caused by years of unchecked delusional behavior.
Everyone knows you dwell alone in a fantasy world of your own creation. Your pompous proclamations to the contrary, it would be far more factual (look up "journalism")to call yourself a former writer or failed writer.
Do they give a Pulitzer for that? If so, you're a winner.
Maybe he should run for POTUS?
Pinhead of the United States?
heh heh Maybe that would be too big a stretch, but surely he could be as effective at not answering direct questions as Kathleen Sebelius.
Anyone up for doing an investigation on Ron?
so ron is the guy talking about having beers with a friend at 11 a.m. And we should believe anything he says??
The investigation of Ron is just in: "Certified Wackadoddle".
Anon 10:48 sez:"The list keeps growing. She'll probably "dump" this comment like the others that reveal information about her and Ron. Spineless twerp."
WHAT?? Dump your made up crap? Awww, Mousie, that would spoil the fun of letting your lies sit there for all to see. Plus it would break your heart since you're my number one FanBoy, lurking around this blog compulsively, like a little mousie hooked on your little food pellet who keeps pushing the little bar in your cage, endlessly logging on again and again to make up crap(the more outlandish and outrageous, the better) and ankle-chew on how AWFUL the blog is and how AWFUL I am. Awww, Mousie, I'm touched.
Anon 8:53 sez:"If the sewerish case is closed, then why do you persist in sending letters to BOS?
Letter, Mousie, letter. Singular, not plural. Why? Idle Curiosity. As Ron said (above): "How much money was salvaged off of the LOCSD WASTE TREATMT fraud?" Answer? Still unknown. Possibility of being known? About zip. For now, I'll have to go back to the top of my posting and repeat my conclusions: X$ for "Sewerish" stuff and Y$ for the present project, with Z the still unknown portion.
Fanboy? I'm a woman if you must know.
Ann is SOOOOO tolerant of differing opinions, especially if they aren't her personal opinions and misconceptions.
Be careful, she might sue you if she disagrees with you. Well maybe she'll only sue if she has the LOCSD paying the legal fees?
An anonaloser writes:
"4. The growing inaccuracies of Ron's article and past articles."
Of all the attempts at destroying the messenger here, through completely fabricated character assassination, that one just might be my favorite.
anonaloser, do me a favor: Run down to the middle of Los Osos, and lemme know if you see anyone picnicking in a sewer plant?
(FYI: That view you will see from that vantage point means my kick-ass reporting was 100-percent, nails-tight accurate... of course. Oh, and, you're welcome!)
Another (I'm assuming) anonaloser writes:
"so ron is the guy talking about having beers with a friend at 11 a.m. And we should believe anything he says??"
First, I don't even get that reference, but, 11 a.m.? Why wait so late? (You city folk are funny.)
Uh, anonaloser, do you know how to use a link (or, are you THAT stupid)?
If so, good news! You REALLY don't have to believe a word I say. All you have to do is believe what Roger Briggs said... in his January 1998 letter, addressed directly to the Karners, and that I obtained through a Public Records request, and then made available for public download.
If you know how to use a mouse, click on this link, and read the f up.
THAT's the letter that, when they received it, the Karners confess to knowing that their "better, cheaper, faster" scam was already "blown out of the water"... in January 1998, so, again, if Pandora knew that her DOA non-project was never going to work in January 1998, then why did she, as LOCSD vice-president, pop out a "news"letter (on taxpayers' dime, of course) to "every property owner in Los Osos," in late July 2000, lying to them about how "on schedule" her already failed (nearly three years earlier) non-project was?
['toons, did you ever ask your friend that question? I'm curious to hear her answer.]
THEN, also in her fraud-filled "news"letter, she lays out the assessment vote schedule, says "Yes," you have to pass the assessment vote to fund her already failed non-project, and, of course, if you don't, Roger is going to fine you "$10,000 a day," a scare tactic that she would use repeatedly over the next five years, even though it was never even close to being true.
And, presto -- there's your fraudulent assessment, obviously. I mean, she confesses to it. It doesn't get much more obvious than that.
(By the way, it's things like that -- how I not only obtain primary source documents, but also put them in context, and even make them available for public download -- is exactly why the Pulitzer Prize folks refer to my reporting as "adheres to the highest journalistic principles." Damn straight, and, thank god for blog technology!)
Ann writes:
"WHAT?? Dump your made up crap? Awww, Mousie, that would spoil the fun of letting your lies sit there for all to see."
Thank you for doing that. I also get a kick out of reading their made-up, nonsensical hate (uh, anonalosers... if you own property in the PZ, my reporting is on the verge of saving you money. So, you're welcome, again!).
Although, I must admit, I'm a little hurt. Last time, they had me having an intimate relationship with Julie, now, I'm having one with Ann.
Which one is it, anonalosers? I need to know which one I'm cheating on.
The only intimate relationship you have, Ron, is with yourself. How's that working out for you?
P.S. You win the P.U.litzer Award for rotten failed journalism by a eunuch. Congratulations!!!!
P.P.S. We all know you are Ann's love child by immaculate conception with McFearson from FizzleDip fame. Fess up to this coupling, Ron, while we read your pathetic fact-bare rants and chuckle at your empty self-promotion.
Thankfully we have the record:
Ron is insane and not believable.
Ann is a fabricator and not credible.
With jackasses like these two leading the idiot parade, why would anyone anywhere in the county want to lift a finger to help untangle Los Osos?
THE END
Is Ann guessing who the anon is again??? KEEP guessing. I'd LOVE to know who she thinks I am.
Oh, I'll take a guess, Ed Ochs in drag. But there is no point to it really, the denial will just pop out and lay an egg.
LOL. That's a mental image I need to get out of my head.
Please do not conflate me with other bloggers here simply because you are not in the conversation!
Anonymous 2:13 PM, Nov 09, sez:
Is Ann guessing who the anon is again??? KEEP guessing. I'd LOVE to know who she thinks I am."
Mousie (male or female) I hate to disappoint you but I don't waste my time "guessing" who you are. I don't care. FanBoy/FanGirl. Doesn't matter. Except for how well you serve as one of those "useful idiots" in this amazing story. For which I do thank you.
At least those idiots are useful, Ann. You on the other hand...
As usual, Ann has only one view point, all else are idiots. She is one of the real reasons this community is still divided over the sewer she just won't let go of.
WOW, Lynette. WHAT makes you think I am Ed???
Anon 10:26: The "community" isn't "still divided over the sewer." It got undivided the moment it completed the "community survey," and then voted for the assessment. All the rest (my occasional sewer-related postings, Ron's latest bit of documentation, all of the AnnonyMice's endless fence-fighting here in the comment section)is mere post hoc amusement, discussion, debate, ankle-chewing, fence-fighting, historical notation and/or commentary by a tiny handful of people who find this story to be quite fascinating. Consider: I ring the bell and you dedicated FanBoys/FanGirls all come running, again and again and again. I mean, look at this one long boring post and now sixty-plus comments?? Really? Now, that's funny!) "The Community" isn't here. It's not divided. It's off watching "Dancing with the Stars." :-)
Ann writes:
"'The Community' isn't here. It's not divided. It's off watching 'Dancing with the Stars.'"
And that's exactly why I'm so hard on the worse-than-nothing, local, so-called (air quotes) "media."
As I've written many-a-time, I don't blame Pandora for the 15 years of Los Osos disaster, I blame the Trib for their worse-than-nothing (air quotes) "reporting."
If New Times, for example, were to do just ONE small story on how over 4,000 property owners in Los Osos are currently being fleeced every time they cut a check for their property taxes (for the next 20 years) by continuing to finance a fraud-based public works disaster that will never exist, I'm positive that the community would not be divided at all, because they'd ALL be on the SAME side: pissed.
I mean, let's face it, as much as I love blog technology, Ann and I are still "just" bloggers. It's not like we're printing out 40,000 copies of our blog posts and jamming them all over the county.
The problem these days for both the Trib and New Times, is if they were to actually DO a story on this spectacular "latest bit of documentation," it would show that they BOTH completely failed Los Osos over the past decade.
So, they're stuck. They CAN'T do this story. They HAVE to stick with the false narrative: That the Tri-W disaster was THE BEST project for Los Osos, and it was the evil Julie and Lisa that killed it.
Of course, my favorite part of the carefully manufactured false narrative that Pandora was able to mold over the years, and that the Trib and New Times are now forced to adhere to, is how clearly ridiculous it is, on the face of it.
For Pandora's false narrative to be true, it means that the County NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED building the Tri-W disaster, when there's a gigantic stack of documents that shows they did, obviously.
The TRUE narrative is that Paavo and Bruce COULD have gone forward with the Tri-W disaster, but after spending three years analyzing that mess, they saw that it was the exact same "bait and switchy" disaster that I first exposed it to be in my 2004 New Times cover story, and they never even came close to building it, of course.
So, it wasn't Julie and Lisa that killed the "mid-town" non-project in 2005, it was Paavo and Bruce, in 2009, and for that, I friggin' LOVE those guys, because they spent three years and gobs of money showing that my reporting is 100-percent accurate.
(GREAT job, Paavo and Bruce!)
Of course, as I now show, the moment Paavo and Bruce made the decision to NOT build the "infeasible" never-going-to-work, fraud-based Tri-W non-project/disaster, that meant that over 4,000 PZers are now stuck funding that fraud for the next 20 years.
What a story! And, frankly, I'm kinda stoked, on a journalism level, that the Trib and New Times are now forced to leave it all to me.
Thanks guys!
Ron and Ann never addressed any of the key issues I posted earlier.
Ron, your ego is out of control. Take a pill of humility before something comes out about you that forces you to take it.
Ron,
It would be really, really nice if you would just engage us who put questions to you instead of blowing us off by talking AT us.
The County's materials ALWAYS said the project was SOCIALLY infeasible, not technically infeasible. That was from the point that THEY picked up the project after the recall and Measure B (and AB2701). So it is pretty clear that everyone would agree with that. Twenty-one votes the OTHER way and we'd be flushing and forgetting right now. So clearly, the town was divided, hence, using the Tr-W project was SOCIALLY infeasible for the County to do with that many people against it.
The County did NOT spend three years on analyzing Tri-W. They were guiding the community step-by-step over every conceivable option on sewer parts, to head off the Tri-W opponents who claimed they never got any choice, so there would be NO dispute over what the community was going to get. Not one minute was spent on Tri-W as it was socially inconceivable out of the gate. They did not want another project stopped, especially not their second one when the first one blew $6 million of the County's money!
Tri-W was rolling along until the time Gail and Julie and Lisa got the opposition fired up and organized and amazingly, with the NO-plan they had up their sleeves. Why don't you ever comment on that sleight-of-hand? How about something new like that Ron, we are pretty bored with the old stuff.
How about doing the RESEARCH for a change and tell us the dollar amounts on what was saved from the old project and used on the new project? We know Tri-W is being used for mitigation, we know the design for the collection system was used.
And why do you not see that the recall/Measure B vote meant a gamble with the assessment? The community, by 20 votes, decided to GAMBLE with that money. How about addressing that? Seems like that could make a good story.
So, how about it Ron, are you up to the task? Can you answer a freaking' question or comment on what we write without going off on a Pandora rant, or is that just too tough for you?
You talk about wanting "something new" from Crawford 2005! So who cares about your "DUMMIES GUIDE TO WRONG SEWER HISTORY"? I just want to know where I can get my "FANGIRL" button!
Ron does not live in Los Osos, pays no property taxes, so just what the hell is he trying to do? He's not about to hire an attorney to fight his delusional case of fraud. Ron himself is a fraud!
I KNEW we could get this bad boy above 70.
Now, let's go for 80!
You know what I love, personally, about the "destroy the messenger through made-up character assassination" part of a robust "behavior based marketing strategy," is that it makes me out to be MUCH more interesting than I actually am.
Trust me, being the emotional-flat-line, cold, boring, journobot that I actually am, I get a thrill out of reading about how cool y'all make me out to be.
I mean, according to the anonaloser(s) [I added the "(s)" just in case it's more than one] I run around with all of these women, I've got all of this mysterious stuff in my past, and influential people talk about me behind my back.
COOL!
I feel like James Bond.
"Watch. SewerWatch."
An anonaloser writes:
"... so just what the hell is he trying to do?"
Uh, asked and answered, anonaloser.
[Which reminds me... like I show above, more than 4,000 PZ property owners are set to be fleeced again on "2/01/14" (and Bruce Gibson doesn't care) so, we get to do this all again in just a few months. Too fun, huh?]
['toons, are you sure you don't know someone named Tom Fulks?]
Agreed. Ron is delusional. Clearly.
I don't think it's so much what the hell Ron is trying to do -- we have established his sickness -- it's what the hell is Ann trying to do.
Ann has to know Ron is sick and yet she promotes him like he actually knows something. Then, when Ron gets exposed again and again as a sick fraud, she swoops in on her broomstick and puts everyone down for stating the obvious and telling it like it is...
Tell me, why do you think Ann continues to indulge in this sad charade at Ron's expense? If she really cared about the poor boy (in his 40s?), why would she promote him knowing his condition?
What's your take on this messy business ANON 4:24?
Well, as expected, Ron comes back with trivia. Instead of addressing or even acknowledging the questions that I have put to him, he blathers on about strokes to his ego. Sad. Guess answering questions was just too tough a request for him to manage.
Post a Comment