Monday, January 06, 2014
News From Iowa?
Guess former LOCSD Board member Stan Gustafson is running for office. And I have to guess his opponent is doing an Oppo search and turned up this piece of Ancient History? Hmmm, guess nobody can escape the ripple effects of The Hideous Sewer Wars? Well, good luck to him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
70 comments:
Stan won 70% to 30%.
Excellent!
It amazes me he would want to get back into the political arena. Well, good luck to him!
Can't blame Stan for omitting his Los Osos recall from his resume. After all, Stan, Gordon and Richard looted the community treasury in their mad dash to build a sewer that was to be voted down by the community, leaving the community bankrupt.
So, as soon as he was recalled, fearing arrest, Stan divorced his wife, shifted his assets under a friend's name, and fled in the middle of the night like the coward he was and always will be.
Stan's famous line about leaving the community broke as a gift to the new board: "We left the cupboard empty."
He lied about his military record. He lied to Los Osos residents. He lied in Iowa. Which makes him perfectly qualified to serve the crazy Tea Party in the middle of nowhere.
Good luck to the poor voters he represents!
Anon 9:58.
The contracts were signed a long time before any dirt was moved, that's when the obligation to pay the contractors was sealed.
As to the rest, if you are going to fling dirt, put some facts behind it. You just look like a nut with a grudge.
"Stan divorced his wife"
WOW, and what about fare princess Julie?
Care now Anon 1:40, this is a highly select blog.
Thou shalt not be allowed to bring up certain stenches should the mistress of censorship become aware of comments judged to be unkind toward her protected angel.
Stan is not divorced; and has been happily married for many, many years. His wife is a marvelous lady too.
Stan did not 'loot' the community;
nor did he 'shift his assets';
nor did he 'fear arrest' ;
nor did he flee Los Osos in the 'middle of the night'
......and as there are zero facts to back up your absurd claims then you get an A+ for creative writing.
Just so you understand, the Gustafson's moved as Stan and his wife wished to be near their children and grandchildren in Iowa. They missed their loving family.
As for leaving the 'community broke', absolutely untrue.
When Stan left office, the CSD had balanced books, had a secured $139 million dollar loan to build a wwtf., and about $900,000 in the bank.
What Stan was referring to was the simple truth that little remained of the 2002 bond proceeds (approved by +80% of the property owners); as the bond money had been spent to pursue the old project. Stan made that statement so the post recall board would best realize that only so much money remained to redesign the sewer project.
That the post recall board later squandered Los Osos money (over $2,000,000 in 8 months) like 'drunken sailors on the town' paints a more accurate picture of why the community went bankrupt.
Now how about Ms.Tacker?
How "pure" has been her marriage?
Care to comment on how she served Los Osos?
Surely Anon 9:58 would not be telling lies? It must be true, you said it here and have made those remarks to your friends.
Anon 5:58, what is your answer? Could you be mistaken, or simply a liar?
What other "truths" has Anon 5:58 been telling?
Please do enlighten the unwashed!
Come come, Anon 9:58 You are on stage. Enjoy your time! You just tried to ruin a man's reputation! Stand up and be known! We all are very interested in where you came up with this damning revelation!
Are you too much a coward to put your name on this "truth"?
"Are you too much a coward to put your name on this "truth"?
What did you say your name was again? Oh, Anonymous? Then I take it that's your real name? Or is it "Hypocrite"?
So then it's perfectly ok to try to ruin a man's reputation with outright lies?
Why can't Anon 9:58 answer to where they came up with the apparent false information?
Looks like Anon 9:58 can't handle being exposed as a liar.
Won't it be fun to bring up in CSD meetings and around the grocery stores.
Sleep well knowing your neighbors are now talking about you and most unkindly!
Good God, Anon. Shut the fuck up.
Nice! Now why don't YOU answer the question or are you too ashamed?
You really are a nasty person as well as a liar!
Enjoy the coming events!
Ah yes, the cornerstone of Ron's ancient history, founded on the "honesty" of Anon 9:58 and friends. Sorry Ron your witness's credibility took yet another hit, but fiction might sell.
Are you done yapping yet, you old dog?
For the most part, you guys are doing pretty good here. A few of you started reeling off into the weeds a bit, but I'd ask you to please re-read Anon 9:58 and Anon 3:06. Both are Anonnymice. Anonnymice have NO credibility. (How many times have I told you that?) They can log on and post all kinds of made up nonsense. Only an idiot would believe anything they say. However, you see here an excellent example of how this goes: Poster A sez A, Poster B replies with coherent, calm assertions in rebuttal to A, and the reader can judge for themselves which comment is more likely to be real and which is more likely to be made up crap. No need to name call, or drag other issues and people in, no need to rage and blither and go roaring off into the Crazy Ditch. See? Simple. Comment, rebuttal, followup request for proof followed by . . . silence. Simple. Sure makes for a much more interesting "conversation," don't you think?
I also think both these postings are a great illustration of just how hard it is (and will ever be) to get to a "real" history of the Great Sewer Wars. At many key points there were critical choices made and that's when it gets difficult and murky. There is "What Actually Happened,(chronology) " and then there's the far more important, "What Was The Perception of What Happened, and Why Did It Happen That Particular Way, and Who Made That Happen, and Why, and What Did That Ultimately Mean?" That's much harder to get at and some of the "Why" may never be known.
Oh, a PS.
Anon 9:58 sez: "Can't blame Stan for omitting his Los Osos recall from his resume"
This made me chuckle. Can you imagine 'splaining The Los Osos Sewer Wars to anyone in Iowa? It would take years and nobody in Iowa would believe a word of it. So, no, can't blame Stan for keeping mum. They'd think he was delusional.
The "silence" is so much more interesting and telling!
Ann writes:
"It amazes me he would want to get back into the political arena."
Boy, I'll say, ESPECIALLY considering that his name comes up in two VERY bad places when it comes to his new political career.
And those two places are on one page: Page 7, of the "Summer 2000" Bear Pride newsletter, that, just last year, I dug up, scanned in, converted to a pdf, and made available for public download at this link.
That's that GREAT document I first exposed, just last year, in my story at this link:
http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2013/05/junk-bonds-twice-year-fleecing-of-los.html
... where the 2000 LOCSD is STILL advertising their "better, cheaper, faster" 70-acre ponding system -- the sole reason for establishing the CSD in the first place -- as "on schedule," when their own Wastewater Subcommittee documents show that, at the time that newsletter was published, the ponding system that they are still hyping had already failed, and the 2000 CSD Board was now simply lying to "every property owner in Los Osos" by telling them in that fraudulent newsletter, that it was "on schedule," and that, "Yes," you need to pass the assessment to get that already-failed project built.
And it's THAT assessment that "more than 4,000" PZ property owners are now stuck paying for, until the year 2034... for a non-project, that will NEVER exist.
(Wow. You "more than 4,000" property owners should be really, REALLY mad right now... oh, and you're about to be fleeced again, starting on February 1, and Bruce Gibson knows it, yet refuses to lift a finger to help you.)
That's ALSO the document that an attorney has already told me, "Yes. That is fraud," and obviously, it is. (I mean, you don't need to be an attorney to see how obvious that fraud is.)
And Stan's name shows up TWICE on that fraud-filled document, as both "LOCSD Wastewater Standing Committee Member", AND "LOCSD Director."
So, right now, my HUGE question for Stan would be this:
1) Why did you lie to every property owner in Los Osos with your Summer 2000 newsletter, when you told them that the ponding system (that got the CSD formed in the first place, AND Stan elected) was still "on schedule," and, "yes," an assessment would need to be passed to build it, when your own wastewater subcommittee documents clearly show that the ponding system was long-failed at the time of that Summer 2000 newsletter?
Uh, Stan? Answer?
Of course, another excellent question I have for Stan is:
Did you know that fellow "LOCSD Wastewater Standing Committee Member", AND "LOCSD Director," Pandora Nash-Karner was "producing," and then popping out, that fraud-filled Summer 2000 newsletter, OR did she just never tell you she was doing that, and when you saw it, your jaw hit the table?
Now, I wonder if Stan is even aware that "more than 4,000" PZers are STILL stuck funding his fraud/disasters... for the next 20 years?
Gotta admit, considering that I exposed that fraud-filled newsletter just last year -- a fraud-filled newsletter that has the name "Stan Gustafson" in it in two REALLY bad places -- I also wonder how long Stan will be holding his new office before someone from... oh... I don't know, maybe some sort of "Federal"... oh, say, some type of "Bureau," that does some sort of "Investigations," knocks on his office door... in Des Moines. [At least they know where to find him now.]
ZZZzzz
Can't wait for the FBI to question Anon 9:58 and Crawfraud.
Ron, I am still waiting (since October 2012, where I requested it 4 times) for you to provide the scan of the Bear Pride Newsletter with the title, "People are asking questions about the wastewater project. Why has it changed? Where will it be, and why? How can we pay for it?" It looks to be July 2000. Perhaps you have not provided it because it pokes a huge hole in your theory?
How about that scan, I have been waiting now for over a year.
Oh and Ron, while you are scanning, can you provide or point us to, any proof that the Wastewater Sub-Committee wrote what you assert?
Thanks in advance.
Stan Gustafson was someone who would never answer your questions, your e-mails. Stan would never look at you in the eye when you spoke at public comment unless you insulted him.
Stan Gustafson obstructed LOCSD meetings and dragged out agenda items until two in the morning. Stan often prohibited people from speaking on public comment until the rest of the agenda was discussed and voted on, so people had to wait until one in the morning sometimes to speak to a board that didn't listen.
Stan locked board directors out of the LOCSD office. He ordered people like Jan Harper to hand him the keys and keep people like Lisa Schicker and Julie Tacker from having any access to CSD documents.
FUN FACT: Stan Gustafson used to sell reverse mortgages to seniors in Los Osos back in '04-05 under the guise that he was a practicing attorney when, in fact, his State BAR license was inactive for nearly a decade.
Stan is not a good man.
Let's see, 2014 minus 2000, hmmm, 14 years ago. Seems a few things could have changed since then.
But why in 14 years that or any "fraud" has never been vetted in a court of law? Only in the court of Crawfraud? And still stuck in the blackwater mind of Crawfraud?
Lots of questions have gone unanswered, lots of untruths still being surfaced, just ask Anon 9:58. 14 years for Crawfraud to have challenged any wrongs in a true court of law, but not once has he done so. Calhoun has joined a lawsuit and lost, but never Crawfraud. It's easy for him to write lies and distorted half truths in a blog, but it's not so easy to prove any of those allegations. Especially with no facts, Just ask Anon 9:58!
So standup and prove it in court Ron, or as someone recently said, shut the fuck up! This community is tired of your innuendo and Ann cheering you on.
And Julie Tacker used to have a marriage and family before she had the affair with Jeff Edwards.
So what?
Stan is a very good family man, Julie is a tramp!
Anon 9:58/3:21 is an Idiot!
Anon 3:21, I guess after Stan left, with no gatekeeper, we now know how those boxes full of CSD original documents went missing.
As to the rest, the character assassinations, pure unsubstantiated spin and drivel from an anon.
But I have to laugh, "someone who would never answer your questions," why that's Ron!
Senator Fred Thompson sells reverse mortgages. Is that proof that he is a shifty-eyed crooked politician?
http://www.aag.com/reverse-mortgage3.php?gclid=CInjub-k8rsCFRGCfgodf3AAkg&pid=74
So, Stan AND Betty fled town in the middle of the night, having first bled the town dry. I stand corrected. Still married, those two, are they? Good family man, you say anon 3:38? His dog loves him? That doesn't make him less of a thug.
Ron,
From the formation of the LOCSD until early September of 2000, the LOCSD Board and the Waste Water Committee supported and pursued the Solution Group Plan; and concurrently worked very hard to overcome the concerns of the regulator.
After that date the LOCSD abandoned the ponding system as the engineering company that designed the pond system (Green and Green) were unable to provide the required data points (of the ponds nitrate-removal history) to the RWQCB. That was THE fatal flaw that ended that project.
FYI: That flaw forced the LOCSD to sue Green and Green; which resulted in Green and Green returning their fees of $350,000 to the LOCSD.
These facts are easily verified by the LOCSD's own records; and as such these facts do not support your assertion that the Bear Pride news letter lied to Los Osos (do the math....the newsletter was published in early June of 2000; which was a full 3 months BEFORE the LOCSD decided to pursue an alternative project.)
Anon 3:55
No sir, no sir, No one fled or bled
Stan and Betty do remain wed
That you suggest bestiality
Just tells us you are an infant, see?
So much for my doggerel!
Ciao
Anon 3:55
You are a wonderful human being, the perfect LO representative.
Hey Lynette, just because you say something is a "lie" or "unsubstantiated spin" doesn't make it so.
Seriously, you're the perfect example for why retarded people shouldn't have access to the Internet. It's a shame Lou coddles you so much, despite his expertise in Psychology.
Hey Anon 6:02
Try writing BEFORE having that daily bottle of cheap wine. Maybe we'd understand what you're whining about.
An anon writes:
"From the formation of the LOCSD until early September of 2000, the LOCSD Board and the Waste Water Committee supported and pursued the Solution Group Plan;"
Well, thanks for that unattributed piece of nothing, uh, anonymous blog commenter.
But, if you could read, you would have notice in my story at this link:
http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2013/05/junk-bonds-twice-year-fleecing-of-los.html
... that I link directly to Stan and Pandora's own wastewater subcommittee documents that reads:
""On June 20, 2000 the first workshop was held with the (LOCSD) Wastewater Subcommittee... The clearest result of the first workshop was that Resource Park (the 11-acre Tri-W site) was found to be the best site (for the LOCSD's [SECOND] mid-town wastewater treatment plant)."
"June 20, 2000."
Bang, beeotches!
Sounds like you you bought their lies, anon, with that fake "early September of 2000" lie.
I recommend critical thinking classes for you (in fact, a lot of you... especially 'toons.]
Another anonaloser writes:
"But why in 14 years that or any "fraud" has never been vetted in a court of law? "
Jeeze, anonaloser, I just exposed the fraud last year. How fast do you think investigations happen? Patience, Grasshopper. Patience.
'toons writes:
"Ron, I am still waiting (since October 2012, where I requested it 4 times) for you to provide the scan of the Bear Pride Newsletter with the title, "People are asking questions about the wastewater project. Why has it changed? Where will it be, and why? How can we pay for it?""
'toons, your question doesn't even make sense, of course.
You seem to be saying that because Pandora popped out another shaky "news"letter, AFTER she lied to every property owner in Los Osos in her first fraud-filled "news"letter, that, somehow, that cancels the fact that she lied to everyone in her "Summer 2000" "news"letter.
If you think about, your logic contortion there is funny.
To me, everything thing after that "Summer 2000" "news"letter is irrelevant, because, that "news"letter is clear-cut fraud, obviously. (All you have to do, is what I did -- ask an attorney: "Yes. That is fraud.")
You guys are funding a fraud for the next 20 years... obviously.
Uh, you DO realize that my reporting is on the verge of saving you a lot of money, right?
You're welcome... I guess?
Ron.......
you paint an interesting picture, however you may suffer from Pareidolia.
Pareidolia (noun)
1. (Psychiatry) the imagined perception of a pattern or meaning where it does not actually exist, as in considering the moon to have human features.
Not every dot you see and connect means you see 'the picture', but only what you want to see.
Consider that time and time again when folks bring up a verifiable fact disproving your dot-driven perception, you do not accept it by disregarding that 'dot.' as meaningless.
Do not worry! Pareidolia is curable.
Like the verifiable fact that Richard LeGros is gay? Holy cow, Richard. The amount of diva pretentiousness in your comments above is second to none.
Now we know how sewer crazy YOU are.
This is California where gays are legally accepted, whereas you preference for beastiality is still not legal, even in California.
BTW Anon 12:42
You should ask Julie what she thinks, they were more than friends.
Always so fascinating to see how quickly some of you mice head for the weeds. Ron's talking about a specific newsletter and in response you start talking about Richard and Julie and gays and bestiality which has absolutely no relevance to anything. Such childish behavior is one reason I repeat, like a stuck clock, that no anonnymouse has any credibility whatsoever and, by gosh, you keep illustrating my point so perfectly.
This whole Los Osos sewer thing is a mess. You look at what's happening in the comments section and you think that the issue is still in contention in Los Osos when it's really not.
I look at Ron's article and I scratch my head, wondering about current relevance. I look at what Lynette posts and think: Why argue the same points over and over again? You have a few people who inflate their self-worth, butting heads over what may or may not have happened a decade ago. I mean, how will that discussion help the average Los Osos homeowner with their sewer costs?
I see these attacks here and shake my head. Then again, it's only a few people creating the illusion that there's more people who are outraged and obsessed. Most people in Los Osos are looking forward to when the contractors wrap up installation for the collection system, and that's about it.
The Anonymous don't have much credibility. They never have. It's so easy to manipulate anonymity to advance a certain agenda or narrative. I can create a comment, say the most heinous things, and deny up and down that I ever said anything. There's no accountability.
I'm fairly confident that the people you see on here are playing a game on here that will never spill over to public discourse. The nasties will never have the courage to come out of the woodwork and stand behind their words.
When Ron stops writing nonsense, I will gladly stop responding. I was witness to people that went to the trouble of wasting their time AND the time of the LOCSD's staff to take one of Ron's hairbrained ideas to small claims court. The judge threw it out. So for some, being half way through the sewer project doesn't seem to stop the desire for vindication that THEY indeed were on the "correct" side.
You Anon 10:09 apparently don't keep you finger on the pulse of public comment regarding the Los Osos sewer. But I agree, most are looking forward to flushing and forgetting and not dwelling in the past.
You "apparently" make a lot of assertions, Lynette. You always have. God bless you.
I don't understand your logic. If you don't like what Ron has to say, why write to him or about him? I'm comfortable enough with the truth to shrug my shoulders and move on with this project. Why can't you? Again, I don't understand.
The repetitious, tedious nature of sewer-related public comment does not merit your hysteria.
I have certainly moved on. But when I see misinformation, I respond. Why are you so concerned Anon 1:30? Why is understanding a lone blogger who posts under her own name so important to you? Most everyone else could care less! There are probably five others who read here. I'm happy though that you have shrugged and moved on, good for you. But your questioning me makes me wonder. Do you write Ron to ask him why he writes about 2005, or am I just special?
If you read your posts out loud to yourself, Lynette, you'd realize why people don't take you seriously.
Hmmmmm. You are certainly entitled to your opinion Anon 2:21. You might do likewise and ask yourself why telling me this is so important to you!
Some of you guys seem to keep forgetting that Ron is assembling what he calls a Great Story. He patiently sussses out original documents, fits them into this enormous puzzle, all part of this Amazing Story, I post a link to what he's doing, nothing more, just a link so anyone who's interested in the Amazing Story can go check it out, and BLAM! a handful of Crazies show up here to start chewing on each others' ankles. It's ridiculous. And often hilarious.
Anon 10:09 (my God! a sane voice! Praise Allah.)is correct. Los Osos is moving on. What Ron's talking about here is Ancient History, but I find it interesting since I've you never know what Ron will turn up. And it surely is one hell of a story. Like War and Peace written by Monty Python.
A (rare reasonable) Anon writes,
"I look at Ron's article and I scratch my head, wondering about current relevance."
I've tried to make that clear, but, apparently I'm not doing such a good job. So, again, the current relevance is, if you're a PZ property owner, look at your property tax bill, you should see this, "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225."
You, and more than 4,000 of your neighbors, are stuck be paying that, as I first exposed in my research, for the next 20 years, for a non-project that will never exist, and the reason it will never exist is BECAUSE it was based on nothing but fraud, obviously.
As I exposed, Los Osos has made property tax history, as you continue to fund a non-project that will never exist.
Fascinating! BEST story in the history of SLO County.
THAT's the "current relevance," and "current" until the year 2034.
Frankly, I'd be surprised if there were more than ten PZ property owners that are even aware they are funding a fraud for the next 20 years, and if the worse-than-nothing local media would get off of their worse-than-nothing asses, and actually report on this amazing story, there would be many, many more really pissed off PZ property owners.
A SPECTACULAR story, that I have all to myself. Awesome.
'toons writes,
"I was witness to people that went to the trouble of wasting their time AND the time of the LOCSD's staff to take one of Ron's hairbrained ideas to small claims court. The judge threw it out."
Well, 'toons, good news! If Bruce and Jim Erb continue to NOT do their jobs, and just continue to allow the fleecing of Los Osos, we're going BACK to Small Claims court, because the judge didn't "throw it out," he said we, "failed to show the fraud," which was a complete cop-out, considering how embarrassing that proceeding got for the LOCSD, when their representative offered "no defense" to our oral narrative.
So, next time, I'm going to make DAMN SURE we "show the fraud," documented.
And, of course, it'll be Bruce's and Jim Erb's fault for why we had to go back to court (before the June election, of course) because they are both horrible at their jobs.
We'll c-ya there, 'toons. It'll be fun, again, and so much easier this time around. Heck, we're seasoned Small Claims pros, now. : - )
Ya know, I DO wonder...
I wonder if the reason the "more than 4,000" PZ property owners that are stuck funding (for the next 20 years) the Tri-W assessment fraud, are not REEEELLY pissed-off these days, is because, well, look at their tax bill:
If a LO PZer were to look out her/his window, and see a wastewater project being constructed, and then look at their tax bill and see this, "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225," doesn't it make sense that it would be THAT line that is paying for what they are seeing out of their window, as opposed to this line on their tax bill:
"SLO AD-LO SWR (USDA) 712.58"
... which is ACTUALLY paying for what they are seeing out of their window.
And this, "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225," is going to absolutely nothing... for the next 20 years.
So, which one of these makes more sense that it is funding a wastewater system?:
This:
"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225"
or this:
"SLO AD-LO SWR (USDA) 712.58"?
I have a hunch that's why more PZers aren't furious.
They think this:
"LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225"
... is actually paying for something.
I'm aware of "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT $225" on the property tax bill, but none of your articles indicate evidence of fraud pursuant to Cal. Civil Code §3294.
Honestly, your braggadocio makes your articles extremely hard to understand and read. I agree with Ann that you have a fascinating story to tell, but frankly it's a story of the absurd.
And please, please don't mention journalism ethics. You make CalCoastNews look like the New York Times.
Ron, you are saying those paying the bond on their tax bill are either blind or stupid. Or maybe they realize they voted to assess themselves for a plant at Tri-W, then voted to recall 3 directors, thereby forfeiting that money, and now feel rather upset with themselves and would just rather not talk about it?
Anon 12:11 is correct on all he or she says. Especially the NO FRAUD part.
And hey, where is that scan I requested?
Hey Ron,
Wasn't the assessment used to buy the Tri-W property and wasn't that property turned over to the county as part of the sewer project? If that's true, where's the fraud? Isn't whether they build a sewer on the property or not irrelevant since it is now an asset owned by the county and part of the current sewer project?
The property was purchased, the community had to pay for it, and the property has moved on. The fact that no sewer was built on the site doesn't seem to require (to me) that the assessment should be refunded to the community.
Anon 10:26 am, Your comment only makes Bruce Gibson's refusal to reply to Ron's request so utterly weird. I mean, the answer to Ron's Question would be, ballpark, "X$ went to pay for Tri-W mitigation/ property, Y$ went to pay for design elements that could be reused, and Z$ were lost to the recall and county take over." There. Done and Done! Instead, we get silence and a weasely runaround. Why?
[Part I]
Anon 12:11, you ROCK!
Thank you!
And now, because my journalism ethics are SO incredibly high, I'm-a-gonna link straight to the language of CAL. CIV. CODE § 3294, 'cuz, as you know, that's how I roll:
"... where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of... fraud..."
and;
"3)'Fraud' means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury."
Well, perfect! Textbook fraud.
According to Anon's great reference, Pandora (aka: Bruce Gibson's appointed Parks Commissioner) is clearly guilty of fraud, considering, as I first exposed at this link:
http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2013/05/junk-bonds-twice-year-fleecing-of-los.html
... and then again at this link:
http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2013/11/los-osos-makes-property-tax-history.html
... for the millionth time, in her "Summer 2000" official LOCSD "news"letter, she "intentional misrepresented" the "material fact known to the defendant" that the 70-acre ponding system that she's lying to "every property owner in Los Osos" is still "on schedule," when her own wastewater subcommittee documents "clearly" show that the non-project that she's lying to everyone about, had already failed.
She "clearly" was aware that her disaster had already failed, yet here she is using your money to lie to you about that extremely important "material fact."
And, then she writes that, "Yes," you have to pass the assessment to pay for her already failed non-project, and, today, in 2014, "more than 4,000" fraud victims are now stuck paying for Pandora's fraud... for the next 20 years.
Just like I write in my piece, "1... 2... 3. Boom. Done. Clear fraud."
Clear fraud.
The "evidence" doesn't get much more "clear and convincing" than that.
Dude(ette?), you just made our next trip to Small Claims court even easier than it was already going to be.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
(Oh, and you DO realize that my reporting is on the verge of saving you a lot of money, right? Uh, you're welcome?)
[Part II]
Anon 10:26 writes:
"Hey Ron,
Wasn't the assessment used to buy the Tri-W property..."
Uh, Dude(tte)?, why are you asking ME that question? Send your question to your county Supervisor.
As Ann points out, that's (at least part of) the question I, and several PZ property owners have been begging Bruce and Paavo to answer for over a year now, yet they absolutely refuse to answer it (and a ballpark figure is fine). Again, as Ann points out, why?
That's a great question, Anon. And, if it WAS used to buy the Tri-W property, then, how much?
What $3 million for a 1-acre plot for a friggin' pump station?
Sounds like you guys got ripped off... BIG TIME.
And, keep in mind, as I've reported many, many times, y'all have been paying that fraud since 2003/04, so that means you're already $11 million into it.
Soooooooooo... was Paavo able to salvage $11 million from "LOCSD WASTE TREATMT?"
If not (and it REALLY doesn't sound like it, not even close) then you, and Ann, and over 4,000 of your neighbors are now simply stuck funding a fraud for the next 20 years.
Anon also writes:
"... doesn't seem to require (to me) that the assessment should be refunded to the community."
Who said anything about "refunds?"
All I'm saying is that the SLO County Tax Collector simply do the right thing, and stop collecting it, and we'll just call it even.
Boom. Done. THAT's how cool I am.
I wonder if Ron is guilty of the same thing he accuses Gibson (and so many others) of: not answering questions! I seem to recall that when I met him that time at small claims court, he said he would put up the other Bear Pride newsletter I was asking to see, "People are asking questions about the wastewater project. Why has it changed? Where will it be, and why? How can we pay for it?."The date on that would be SO useful to our discussion here - and look, we are Still Waiting.
And a response to my assertion that the voters decided to forfeit the value of the bond payment by voting to not put the plant at Tri-W and to go STEP (by 20 votes), the bond paying in part to draw the gravity collection plans, that would be nice. But................silence.
(He could just say he doesn't have it if that is the case.)
No "we" are still waiting, Lynette.Only you.Your comments are so confused and inaccurate that no one can answer them or should even try. That would be a total waste of time and energy. I believe most agree on that much.
The reading-comprehension-challenged 'toons writes:
"I wonder if Ron is guilty of the same thing he accuses Gibson (and so many others) of: not answering questions!"
Well, 'toons, if you could read, you would have noticed that I did answer your question,... in this comment section... above.
Here, I'll copy-and-paste it. It went a little like this (not that I expect you to comprehend it this time around, either, and, I am absolutely positive, you won't):
- - -
"'toons, your question doesn't even make sense, of course.
You seem to be saying that because Pandora popped out another shaky "news"letter, AFTER she lied to every property owner in Los Osos in her first fraud-filled "news"letter, that, somehow, that cancels the fact that she lied to everyone in her "Summer 2000" "news"letter.
If you think about (it), your logic contortion there is funny.
To me, everything thing after that "Summer 2000" "news"letter is irrelevant, because, that "news"letter is clear-cut fraud, obviously. (All you have to do, is what I did -- ask an attorney: "Yes. That is fraud.")
- - -
I'll tell ya what, 'toons, when the District is embarrassed again at Small Claims court (I guess it's going to be Kathy this time? Poor girl. I already feel sorry for her), have Kathy present that irrelevant document, and I'll explain to the judge exactly WHY it's irrelevant.
Trust me, the answer to that question is genuinely funny, as I show above. We'll all have a good laugh.
Oh, and while I'm here, the ONLY reason we're forced to go back to Small Claims court, is because SLO County Tax Collector, Jim Erb, refuses to do the right thing, and simply STOP collecting on fraud, and he now knows he's collecting on a fraud. I made sure of that. : -)
That's why I find his new report-a-fraud web site so ironic, and funny. (I also find the timing of that web site interesting, as well. I mean, I show him how he's collecting on a fraud, and about two months later, he sets up his report-a-fraud web site.)
[Uh, Jim? Can I report you on your new site?]
An Anon, above, writes:
"I mean, how will that discussion help the average Los Osos homeowner with their sewer costs?"
That's a good question.
Well, as I show above, the Tri-W assessment fraud is costing each single-family homeowner about $225/year, and the REAL sewer assessment -- that is actually going to pay for a sewer -- is costing about $712/year. So, combined, you're looking at about $1,000/year.
That means, when the fraud is finally no longer collected (you're welcome), it's going to save a PZer about 25% on your OVERALL sewer assessment (which, for whatever strange reason, the Tornatzkys REALLY hate.)
So, you know, that's pretty cool.
Ann and Ron, why are you bugging Bruce about this? Do your own homework, did through the files and see if you can account what % of money went where. Go to the CSD office, it's pretty well in the books or at least should be. Here's the rub you two, once you assess yourselves for something, such as necessary public infrastructure, you don't get to just turn it off. You want to know how much the mitigation land cost? You want to know how much of the design element they were able to salvage? Just add the assessment money to the litigation money to funding the bankruptcy and you will see what the recall cost you. Oh and the design changes because the recall board didn't pay for the final drawings and therefor the county was forced to go off of the old ones because the district defaulted on making that payment too, add those costs which are being paid for in the current project.
I just think you are asking irrelevant questions and there is really no reason to answer them because most people, have moved into the current day and recognize how ridiculous your questions are and will probably continue to be. In reality, you have already been told the answer but you are not fond if it and doesn't fit your reality and your alternate reality is a much safe place for you.
Jeez, Ron - you do know all this propery tax sewer stuff is deductible, if you itemize. Right?? Big whoop.
Well Ron, at least you did not disappear, but again, STILL WAITING. For the Bear Pride date AND YOUR answer to people throwing away their assessment investment in 2005 of their own free will. They changed their minds by 20 votes to not have the plant in town. But in May of 2001 they voted to assess themselves for a gravity sewer in town.
You seem to keep IGNORING that the sewer project had changed BEFORE the assessment even came to a vote in May of 2001! NO FRAUD!!!!
Anon 4:05 sez:"I just think you are asking irrelevant questions and there is really no reason to answer them because most people, have moved into the current day and recognize how ridiculous your questions are and will probably continue to be."
Hey, leave me out of this. I asked Bruce Gibson, and got an answer. The amusing puzzle for me is why Gibson was getting so coy. Paavo, too. I know Paavo has a pretty good ball-park number in his head, so it would have been asked and answered in 30 seconds flat. The rest of you guys, however, are still at it. I mean, this posting was about Stan Gufstafson running for (and winning) office in Iowa, not sewers. But look how much fun all you guys are having discussing all this. 65 comments??? Woa. And, I just say, most all of you are actually having a "discussion/debate." A SANE one at that. Congratulations, I knew you Anonymice could do it. (Or maybe this civility is just because some of the more pathological wandered off?)
An Anon writes:
"Jeez, Ron - you do know all this propery tax sewer stuff is deductible, if you itemize. Right??"
Oh, SWEET! So, it's the Federal government that's getting ripped off from the Tri-W assessment fraud?
Awesome!
And right when I thought this amazing story just couldn't get any better.
Thanks, Anon.
(Boy, Stan sure did pick a really bad time to get elected. What was he thinking?)
Ann writes:
"(Or maybe this civility is just because some of the more pathological wandered off?)"
You're funny.
O.K. one more quick note...
Ann writes:
"I asked Bruce Gibson, and got an answer."
Yes, you did get an answer, but his answer was downright insulting.
Let's recap:
You, and other PZ property owners, asked Bruce a version of this question:
How much money was the county able to salvage off of the $20 million wasted on the Tri-W disaster, for use in their current project?
A perfectly reasonable, and fair question, that, as you point out, would take Paavo about 30 seconds to answer. (And, again, even before I went to Bruce, I started with Paavo, and HE never answered. That's WHY we were forced to "bug Bruce about this.")
And Bruce's "answer" to your excellent question was:
"This type of audit would not provide anything more than information that is already publically (sic) available."
Allow me to translate:
"You property owners want to know where your sewer assessments money is going? Go dig that answer out of a gigantic stack of confusing documents yourselves, losers."
Ann, just curious, are you satisfied with this:
"This type of audit would not provide anything more than information that is already publically (sic) available."
... as an answer to your excellent question (a question that remains unanswered, I will point out)?
Ron, please tell me that you are not basing your next small claims fiasco on a newsletter with news that gets refuted by the next newsletter, and even that becomes REALLY VERY STALE news by the time almost year later when the assessment is voted and approved!
What fraud? A newsletter with info later refuted? THAT IS HOW YOU WILL PROVE FRAUD? Hilarious!!!!!
If the ASSESSMENT had stated "Pond treatment at Tri-W with STEP collection," THEN and ONLY then, would you have a fraud case and it would be about what was LEGALLY promised! THAT is a LEGAL document, one newsletter is NOT, particularly when another one followed it talking about the change in the project!
The community may have backed out on Tri-W, but that doesn't mean it is off the hook for paying!!! The bond holders are NOT just going to say, "Oh, you want something else, well, never mind, you're off the hook for paying for the bond on this project!"
Anon 4:05 PM zeroed right in on the main point, "...once you assess yourselves for something, such as necessary public infrastructure, you don't get to just turn it off."
(Same as those contracts the CSD signed with the contractors to build at Tri-W. LEGAL and BINDING. That was in 2001 wasn't it?)
BTW, the District was not embarrassed in court, it was you and your victims.
Thought everyone might enjoy a look back to yesteryear that I found in the L.A. Times:
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/apr/06/local/me-sewer6
Post a Comment