tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post115729272060564358..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1158075207629659102006-09-12T08:33:00.000-07:002006-09-12T08:33:00.000-07:00PG-13 sez:"Another commenter, Ann Calhoun, said th...PG-13 sez:"Another commenter, Ann Calhoun, said that Dr. John Alexander has an effective onsite-nitrogen removal system that has been proven to this "RB staff's satisfaction." Staff met with Dr. Alexander a few years ago and he indicated that his system would not be applicable to residential use. Staff understands that the system is not commercially available. ........ Contrary to Ms Calhoun's claim the system has not been proven to staff satisfaction.<BR/><BR/>Curiously, it appears Ann's name is the only citizen's name explicitly stated in the entire report. I propose that this most definitely makes her wave wall memorial brass plaque material. Slam dunk!"<BR/><BR/>If you had read a later update to that reference, you would see that I wrote a formal letter to the Staff & Board to object to their taking my statements OUT OF CONTEXT AND SO LEAVING THE RECORD FALSE AND MISLEADING.<BR/><BR/>That they would do that should give you a clear indication of what they're willing to do to distort the record. and that makes everything else in their official record suspect.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1158039458861990552006-09-11T22:37:00.000-07:002006-09-11T22:37:00.000-07:00Hold on a minute ...I said that I'm not part of TW...Hold on a minute ...<BR/><BR/>I said that I'm not part of TW and that I think that forming the CSD to begin with was a mistake.<BR/><BR/>You (or some other anonymous) say that I am a part of TW.<BR/><BR/>I say I'm not.<BR/><BR/>You say that my claim to not be part of TW is disrespecting the intelligence of some folks.<BR/><BR/>I don't get it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>It would appear that you are unwilling to take me at my word on this issue. Yes, "better, cheaper, faster" was a mistake. Presumably some (like Richard for example) thought it to be a mistake to form the CSD because "better, cheaper, faster" wouldn't be any of the above.<BR/><BR/>[Parenthetical remark: Here's a novel thought ... how about checking into the legitimacy of various positions before voting? Did you vote against the formation of the CSD because you believed then that the Solutions Group was full of it? Richard did. If you weren't wise enough to vote against the CSD then you shouldn't now treat Richard as if he is part of the enemy team because frankly he showed in 1998 that he was smarter than you.]<BR/><BR/>Nope, I'll tell you the truth about my life and beliefs and thoughts. If you are unwilling to take me at my word, our conversation will be over.<BR/><BR/>Life is too short to spend time discussing things with folks who are unwilling to participate in a reasoned discussion or take me at my word. <BR/><BR/>Let me know if you want to play nice.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1158038602382761602006-09-11T22:23:00.000-07:002006-09-11T22:23:00.000-07:00Shark and the last anon are not a members of Taxpa...Shark and the last anon are not a members of Taxpayers Watch.<BR/><B/>RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT!!!!!</B><BR/>Please guys. I was born at night. But, not last night. Do you really think anybody in here believes you when you say that? Do you disrespect the intelligence of those who post in here that much? Do you realize how full of shit you sound when you say that? I too, wish the foul mouth would stop using obscene language but everything he says is true. If Pandora and the Solutions group(aka Taxpayers Watch) had not told the big <B>LIE</B> of CHEAPER, BETTER, FASTER, we would indeed, right now, be hooked up to an out of town County project for about $50-70/ month.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1158036898803461972006-09-11T21:54:00.000-07:002006-09-11T21:54:00.000-07:00Shark: why do you even waste your time with that p...Shark: why do you even waste your time with that puke? The loser is absolutely out of his mind from the fact his beloved CSD has completely srewed the homeowners of this town. And as most uneducated and angry losers do when backed into the corner while having to face reality, he just lashes out. It's all he has left. And I'll tell you. I know very little about Taxpayers Watch, but if that extreme lowbreed has so much filth to say about them, they MUST be doing something right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1158016268537475382006-09-11T16:11:00.000-07:002006-09-11T16:11:00.000-07:00To our Foul-Language Friend (FLF?)Again...You seem...To our Foul-Language Friend (FLF?)<BR/><BR/>Again...<BR/><BR/>You seem to have problems reading or remembering or you just plain think I am a liar.<BR/><BR/>I am not associated with Taxpayers Watch in any way and I have had nothing to do with the Solutions Group.<BR/><BR/>If you feel that Pandora should pay for the entire bill ... fine with me. I sort or think a few things ...<BR/><BR/>Folks who voted against the formation of the CSD and against the recall should pay $100/month.<BR/><BR/>Folks who voted in favor of the CSD but against the recall should pay $200/month.<BR/><BR/>Folks who voted in favor of the recall should pay their share of the difference between the total project costs and whatever the above two groups pay. (Note: whatever this is, whether more or less than $200.)<BR/><BR/>People buying a home in town after today should have to pay $400/month. That way they'll know in advance what their charges will be and they can't complain. Furthermore, if that $400/month figure allows the the above amounts to be lowered as more and more people move into town, the above amounts should be lowered proportionally.<BR/><BR/>Sounds fair to me...<BR/><BR/>I would even think that you would want to agree with my plan. After all, if you voted against the CSD you would pay what the county plan was estimated to cost. If you liked the Solutions Group plan you get to pay what their plan would have cost (minus a bit because of Julie's actions) and if you really believe that you can save money with an out of town plant, you get to take that risk and benefit from a lower bill if, indeed, it is cheaper out of town. Heck, even future buyers might benefit from this plan because they're not going to buy into an uncertain situation.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1158004369943160792006-09-11T12:52:00.000-07:002006-09-11T12:52:00.000-07:00shark says"If it hadn't been for her actions and A...shark says"If it hadn't been for her actions and Al's actions, the TriW plant and sewer would already be online and our monthly bills would be well below $150."<BR/><BR/>yes shark and if it wern't for your asshole friends at TAXPAYERS WASTE, who in 1998 promised us all CHEAPER, BETTER, FASTER and 8 years later presented our community with a SLUDGE FACTORY NEXT TO THE LIBRARY FOR $250/month(which means $300/month)....NOT BETTER, NOT CHEAPER, NOT FASTER, if it weren't for these lies that have divided our community and cost us all MILLIONS, if it weren't for these JACKASSES THAT YOU SUPPORT, we would all be hooked up to an OUT-OF TOWN COUNTY PROJECT AND BE PAYING WAYYYYYY LESD THAT $100/MONTH.<BR/><BR/>IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THIS GAME DIPSHIT, I WILL PAY IT WITH YOU ALL DAY LONG AND YOU WILL LOSE EVERYTIME.<BR/><BR/>I think Pandora & Co. should have to foot the bill for the entire project whatever it is.<BR/><BR/>GO FUCK YOURSELF AND ALL YOUR TAXPAYERS WASTE FRIENDS THAT HAVE COMPLETELY FUCKED THIS COMMUNITY OVER. <BR/><BR/>have a nice day:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157995934584478652006-09-11T10:32:00.000-07:002006-09-11T10:32:00.000-07:00Julie has "got a brain and a heart and a trademark...Julie has <I>"got a brain and a heart and a trademark smile for every situation"</I> <B>and</B> a willingness to do pretty much anything to stop the TriW sewer even if it means that we all will pay more ... a whole lot more.<BR/><BR/>If it hadn't been for her actions and Al's actions, the TriW plant and sewer would already be online and our monthly bills would be well below $150.<BR/><BR/>Hell, even Ripley (with his biased estimates that ignored inflation and the actual water usage patters of our community) says we'll pay at least $150/month.<BR/><BR/>Somehow Julie's winning smile doesn't do much for my friend who will have to move out of town because she can't afford the new "improved with a smile" pricetag.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157923354124512832006-09-10T14:22:00.000-07:002006-09-10T14:22:00.000-07:00Right On!Right On!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157916317906210192006-09-10T12:25:00.000-07:002006-09-10T12:25:00.000-07:00FYI,It was Julie who learned the EIR and Project R...FYI,<BR/>It was Julie who learned the EIR and Project Reports frontwards and backwards along with the Coastal Act to find as many things as she could to throw at the Board of Supervisors and then the Coastal Commission, without lawyers no less, to make them all wake up to the broken promises to the environment the project was making. Bigger than any stupid park, the fact that there was no HCP and no water management plan for buildout is what halted the project through De Novo. The revocation revealed the Tri-W sewer is indeed large enough to bring in Cabrillo Estates and other areas outside the PZ, meaning the PZ pays to build the damned thing and those areas buy a little pipe and get plugged in for a song. Then of course, there was the revelation that the "harvest water" had no home, once the CCC said no harvest water in the Bay (the sewer was going to dump in the Bay people!), the scheme to pump it back to the plant to burn electricity was on...and ag exchange was added to the deferred list for buildout to pay for.<BR/>Julie did a helluva job (read the appeals to BOS and CCC) showing the many flaws of the project. The County had 79 conditions of approal, the CCC added a few more for a total of 83 but, no water and HCP were the doozies, and the project wasn't going to deliver developability to vacant properties, that was a tough revelation for realtors and developers. It became a harsh reality to all in the sewer's revenue plan, adding $50+ per month to those online in at the start. Julie isn't "anti sewer", she was anti-THAT-sewer. The wrong sewer, wrong price, wrong place. On the contrary, Julie wants development on vacant lots and outside the PZ so as to spread out the cost of the sewer. Talk to her yourself. She's not afraid of the RWQCB, she's afraid of the Department of Water Resources, they are the ones who can hammer basin managment, pollution is easy to fix, basin managment is difficult, litigous and expensive.<BR/>Don't claim to know Julie's motives without talking to her yourself, I know her well, she's got a brain and a heart and a trademark smile for every situation...give her a break, she didn't propose the most obsurd idea ever -- a sewer plant disguised as a park in downtown Los Osos...come on, how did that happen? How did it get so far? We should have helped Julie stop it long before it got started.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157847099717138562006-09-09T17:11:00.000-07:002006-09-09T17:11:00.000-07:00Ann,At the time the initial check from the SRF loa...Ann,<BR/><BR/>At the time the initial check from the SRF loan was received, the LOCSD operating account was reimbursed for all monies expended on behalf of the project.<BR/><BR/>Forget what that asshole Bleskey says, by his sworn declaration, he has no education in Accounting and he refused to listen to anybody that did. <BR/><BR/>This guy should go back in the Navy and be keelhauled.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157840069908293782006-09-09T15:14:00.000-07:002006-09-09T15:14:00.000-07:00Silly Anon 11:31 and 2:27 above,ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...Silly Anon 11:31 and 2:27 above,<BR/><BR/>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ<BR/><BR/>Yourrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr<BR/>Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo<BR/>Damnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn<BR/>BoringgggggggggggggggggggggggggggAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157837246306202022006-09-09T14:27:00.000-07:002006-09-09T14:27:00.000-07:00Keith? Whose Keith? Guess he must be one of Gordon...Keith? Whose Keith? Guess he must be one of Gordon & Richards new boy toys. We all do know this though, Gordon and Richard are not insecure about their sexuality. They know they're queer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157833265169609342006-09-09T13:21:00.000-07:002006-09-09T13:21:00.000-07:00Anon 11:31am said:"I also read the most recent pro...Anon 11:31am said:<BR/><BR/>"I also read the most recent pronouncements of the CCRWQCB. It seems like the staff has softened their position..."<BR/><BR/>I agree. It actually seems like they are recommending a septic management system whereby septic tanks will have to be pumped once every 3 years and the required pumping will be verified. Right now this does not sound too intrusive (and it is similar to what the current CSD has been trying to negotiate with the RWQCB). I also believe that they should go the route of CAOs instead of CDOs (or just leave us alone entirely until the sewer gets built - out of town!). The current recommendation lets them save face since everyone knows that the CCRWQB cannot mass evacuate 10,000 Los Osos residents (or force them into bankruptcy) in 2010 no matter what happens.FBLeGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05473400064765828961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157833209211566902006-09-09T13:20:00.000-07:002006-09-09T13:20:00.000-07:00To anon: 11:31 AM, September 09, 2006Keith, why ar...To anon: 11:31 AM, September 09, 2006<BR/><BR/>Keith, why are you so fascinated with LeGros's genitals? You've repeated this approach about a half dozen times now. Do you feel insecure about your sexuality?<BR/><BR/>Have a nice day ;-}Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157826704358568602006-09-09T11:31:00.001-07:002006-09-09T11:31:00.001-07:00I also read the most recent pronouncements of the ...I also read the most recent pronouncements of the CCRWQCB. It seems like the staff has softened their position with a hard look at reality, and leaving options open.<BR/><BR/>However, everything said about the problem has been previously said by them in the past. Why have fools been fighting them to no avail? Or have the fools prevailed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157826667754231212006-09-09T11:31:00.000-07:002006-09-09T11:31:00.000-07:00I guess after losing the great Tourette's Syndrome...I guess after losing the great Tourette's Syndrome debate(anon 11:05&11:52 9/4), this is all Richard(Dick) has to say. Also interesting that Dick doesn't seem to have a problem with someone else having a fixation on his balls. Well the kids are back in school so maybe you should give Gordon a call Dick. I'm sure Gordon needs something to play with and I'm sure you're tired of playing with your own balls. If this were the Middle Ages both of you would be locked in the center of town stockade with rotten produce hanging off your face. Dick also seems to think that his Tourette's <B>"I HAVE FUCKING BALLS"</B> outburst at a public meeting for all the Community to see and hear <I>"adds character to his public image"</I>. Well Dick, it might add character to your pubic image although I'm still betting you're a neuter that has a serious case of penis envy. When I think of you screaming <B>"I HAVE FUCKING BALLS"</B> at a televised CSD meeting, "character" isn't the first word that comes to mind. The words that come to mind are.....infamy, dishonor, and shame. Who is it that you're supporting for election to the CSD? Oh, that's right, you're supporting Maria Kelly, Lyn Tornatzky, and Joe Sparks. Thanks for letting us all know who <B>NOT</B> to vote for.<BR/><BR/>Have a nice day:)<BR/><BR/>p.s. anon11:17...........I believe they are testing this system at the Fire Station and there is already lysimeter data that shows it's working. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157825863521386142006-09-09T11:17:00.000-07:002006-09-09T11:17:00.000-07:00Previously on this blog, mention has been repetedl...Previously on this blog, mention has been repetedly made of the pirana system, which is no more than and air powered agitation system using proprietary bacteria inside a septic tank.<BR/><BR/>Nowhere, ANYWHERE, have I seen any scientific data that it removes nitrates, or the nitrite that eventually produces nitrate. through bacterial action. Can some expert help me with this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157817384785826562006-09-09T08:56:00.000-07:002006-09-09T08:56:00.000-07:00Hi f**king-balls-legross,LOL...your obviously have...Hi f**king-balls-legross,<BR/><BR/>LOL...your obviously have a fixation about my balls. Your a sick little donkey. But I do not have a problem with your blog name. It just adds character to my public image.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGrosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157789573865309782006-09-09T01:12:00.000-07:002006-09-09T01:12:00.000-07:00To be clear, I am not Richard LeGros.Just testing ...To be clear, I am not Richard LeGros.<BR/><BR/>Just testing Blogspot registration. Doesn't seem like there is any reason for people who regularly post to continue to be an anon. It's an easy process to register and post under any name you'd like apparently.FBLeGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05473400064765828961noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157765226598956092006-09-08T18:27:00.000-07:002006-09-08T18:27:00.000-07:00Thanks for the correction Ron, I get the two repor...Thanks for the correction Ron, I get the two reports mixed up sometimes.<BR/> It realy dosnt matter at all in the telling of the tale.<BR/> Both reports said the same thing.<BR/> <BR/> Lots of reasons for the "train wreck" though, <BR/> Some would say that incompetance and egos were the root of the evil, maybe they have a point. <BR/> I think that Los Osos was almost gauranteed to be in this mess. <BR/> The state method of large project infrastucture has a severe break down when confronted by such a small community attempting such an expensive undertaking to solve a problem that is not causing any observable problems.<BR/> The other problem is that people are allowed to make campaign statements without fear of any real consequences.<BR/> Most people vote on what is published in the official voter pamplet. <BR/> This needs closer study.<BR/> Also, the way we mandate then enact enviromental laws needs work. <BR/> The county should have never been allowed to give up responsibility of a problem that they (The county board of supervisors)had created, plain and simple.<BR/> There is something karmic and comic that they are now back in control.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157735499957525752006-09-08T10:11:00.000-07:002006-09-08T10:11:00.000-07:00Shark > ... The point here is that we made mistake...Shark > <I>... The point here is that we made mistakes in the 1998-2002 time period (the biggest was voting in the CSD to begin with), </I><BR/><BR/>Amen. Now there's something I think darn near alllllll of us can agree on!<BR/><BR/>Anon 1:08 > <I> .... the SWB just launched their next salvo (and they mention Ann by name): </I><BR/><BR/>The specific report noted by Anon 1:08 is <A HREF="http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los%20osos/documents/StaffReportSept06.pdf" REL="nofollow"> here </A>. Reference to Ann is on page 18 as follows: <BR/><BR/>><I> In summary, only 14 of the 37 technologies for which performance data were available are rated to treat domestic wastewater to less than 10 mg/L total nitrogen–the minimum performance necessary to eventually restore Los Osos’ groundwater to drinking water standards. And of those 14 technologies (e.g., sequencing batch reactors, membrane bioreactors, and wetlands), all are complex treatment systems that require significant operation and maintenance. None are commonly applied to individual properties for these reasons. ....<BR/>><BR/>> Another commenter, Ann Calhoun, said that Dr. John Alexander has an effective onsite-nitrogen removal system that has been proven to this "RB staff's satisfaction." Staff met with Dr. Alexander a few years ago and he indicated that his system would not be applicable to residential use. Staff understands that the system is not commercially available. ........ Contrary to Ms Calhoun's claim the system has not been proven to staff satisfaction.</I><BR/><BR/>Curiously, it appears Ann's name is the only citizen's name explicitly stated in the entire report. I propose that this most definitely makes her wave wall memorial brass plaque material. Slam dunk!<BR/><BR/>While this amended staff report makes for an interesting read I would have expected more at this stage of such a complex and controversial project. If I was a university professor (which I'm not) and this report was submitted to me as a semester project in County Planning 1A I would give it a B-. It is well written and easily readable. And it is fairly comprehensive in scope. An A grade so far. But its coverage of the technical and engineering issues seems a tad shallow. And big sweeping conclusions are drawn from seemingly limited, sometimes dated and often conflicting engineering reports. For example, in this snippet alone there appear to be a couple of inconsistencies which would seem to confuse and contradict the conclusions made about the efficacy and availability of on-site nitrogen removal systems. The report cites a 15 year old study, a study of noted questionable validity, as proof that such systems are not effective. They also a cite a very dated (1986) report which claims such systems "appear to violate all laws of chemistry". It mentions nothing about the Pirana system and the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) standard #IGC 180-2003 which can be used to measure and qualify the performance of on-site systems such as the Pirana. Which <I>IS</I> commercially available. And, according to more than one net citation, has received some positive response from the RWQCB. Apparently that doesn't translate to "<I>staff's satisfaction</I>" but if they're going to quote and deny Ann's assertion so strongly and directly they should probably also explain how she might have been mislead to believe otherwise. Staff certainly may still have issues with on-site treatment but the conclusions derived from their documented analysis is murky at best. B-<BR/><BR/>Now back to your original programming ...... He said/ She said, No I didn't ever say that, Are you always this stupid?*PG-13https://www.blogger.com/profile/14900054935763648975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157733224430740342006-09-08T09:33:00.000-07:002006-09-08T09:33:00.000-07:00Mike: 6:17 PM, September 07, 2006 -- excellent po...Mike: 6:17 PM, September 07, 2006 -- excellent post.<BR/><BR/>An Anon said:<BR/><BR/><I>"Ironically, by removing the park amenities and having the CCC mandate their inclusion, he was able to use SRF funds to pay for them."</I><BR/><BR/>All while other cash-challenged California communities couldn't get a penny of SRF money for their non-amphitheater projects. "Bait and switchy" paid off... well, almost. I wrote about all that <A HREF="http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/09/bait-and-switchy-pays-off-for-los-osos.html" REL="nofollow">here.</A><BR/><BR/>Sharkster said:<BR/><BR/><I>"Considering the quality of his analysis of late I have to wonder whether he is as right as he sounds when he discusses the ancient history of 1997-2004."</I><BR/><BR/>Yea, that ancient history of 2004.<BR/><BR/>Also, don't forget the ancient history of 2006 when I reported that Nash-Karner developed a "strategy" to have the RWQCB fine Los Osos in late 2005, and when <A HREF="http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/loopiest-of-loopholes-recently.html" REL="nofollow">I also reported</A> that the only way the initial board could keep their second project at Tri-W is if they overrode their environmental review process, which they promptly did... with a document that doesn't hold a drop of water. How was the quality of that analysis, Shark?<BR/><BR/>I wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"If we've learned anything over the years, it's that a key element of an effective "behavior based marketing" strategy is to discredit opponents. And almost always, the discrediting is baseless, and usually manufactured."</I><BR/><BR/>And then Sharky wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"Some of what our anonymous friend of 6:49 writes sounds so much like Ron that I've got to ask ... Ron ... is it you? (And, if it is you, I find it amusing that Ron applauded another anonymous poster with many of the same posting conventions as our current anonymous friend and Ron ... could it be that Ron is posting as himself and as an anonymous and even giving himself "attaboys"?)"</I><BR/><BR/>Uhhhggg...<BR/><BR/>Mike said:<BR/><BR/><I>"All you realy need to believe is that Bud Laurent gave the Cuesta study to the Nash- Karners when he did."</I><BR/><BR/>Quick clarification: According to one of my sources at the county, Laurent "hand delivered" to the Karners a long list of problems in the Solution Group's plan that <I>county staff</I> identified. Problems that "any developer would have to deal with," the source said. And when I asked him, "What did they do with that list?" He said, "They just sat on it."<BR/><BR/>The Questa Study was a separate, huge piece of evidence that showed that the SG's Plan was dead on arrival -- along with the Coastal Commission's own comparison, and the RWQCB telling them that partial sewering of the PZ simply was not going to fly.<BR/><BR/>And the Solution Group was aware of all of that <I>before</I> the election that formed the CSD on the back of their non-plan.<BR/><BR/>And then, after almost two years of chasing that dead-on-arrival plan, <I>all of them</I> -- the county, the Questa Study, the CC's own comparison and the RWQCB -- would prove to be exactly right.<BR/><BR/>Niiiiiice. How's that taste, Los Osos?<BR/><BR/>And what makes all of that much less "ancient history"-ish is that those same people that did all of that are still, <I>still</I> pulling on all kinds of strings in LO.<BR/><BR/>Any questions on why you have a civics train wreck?Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14156410299483542733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157702882762956662006-09-08T01:08:00.000-07:002006-09-08T01:08:00.000-07:00Take a look, the bastards at the SWB just launched...Take a look, the bastards at the SWB just launched their next salvo (and they mention Ann by name):<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/los%20osos/Index.htm" REL="nofollow">RWQCB website</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157692479067766602006-09-07T22:14:00.000-07:002006-09-07T22:14:00.000-07:00To our 7:58pm anonymous friend.Yes, for some peopl...To our 7:58pm anonymous friend.<BR/><BR/>Yes, for some people it is "better" to have no (or low) payments now but much higher payments later. I would suggest, however, that because the total bill goes up, most of us would be far better with the lower total. If you are going to argue that we all should pay much more down the road because a few of us would find it financially more convient to make our payments later you are being selfish and not recognizing that there are other consequences of not building a sewer ASAP. Additional pollution and CDOs and saltwater intrusion into our aquifer are other problems with your approach of delay. Convince me that we'll all be better or that at least the average person in Los Osos would be better with the delay and you'll have made your point.<BR/><BR/><BR/>To Mike ... sorry. In my desire to clarify my point I inadvertently implied that you had disagreed with me.<BR/><BR/><BR/>To our anonymous friend of 8:10 ... you seem to be telling us that the CCLO complaint listing was to emphasize the way in which the project had changed. You seem to forget that the CCC approved of the TriW project. They listened politely to the CCLO arguments and after careful consideration said the changes (which were essentially required by the RWQCB) were just fine. The problem I have here is that when folks complain about the amount of money spend on the park portion of the project, they need to realize that the CCC and LOCSD had agreed to spend less on the park but that the CCLO complaint about the park shrinking in cost caused the CCC and LOCSD to put those more expensive things back in. <BR/><BR/>There is no perfect site for a WWTF in Los Osos. TriW, like each possible site, has benefits and drawbacks. The review process by the RWQCB and CCC is designed to verify that the site isn't stupid. Had the site been as bad as you suggest neither board would have approved the site. The benefits include proximity to the households, proximity to the broderson recharge location, and at least by 2002, a WWTF at TriW could be done sooner and cheaper than any other site. Maybe had another, out of town site been chosen in 1997-2001 we wouldn't be having any argument at all, but you do have to admit that in 2001 the community was pretty much squarly behind the TriW plan. When regulatory agencies or engineering or geological concerns required changes they were made. There is no way in advance of choosing the site that we would know all of the problems that would be associated with the site just like we cannot now know all the problems with the Giacomazzi site that the new board likes better. In situations like this (like in life in general) sometimes you've got to pick a strategy and go with it. Perhaps the CSD in 2001 should have two projects in parallel just to see which was best after all the design work was done. Somehow I suspect that had they asked for $25M in bond money instead of just $18M there would have been complaints.<BR/><BR/>Another strategy in 2002-2003 would have been to walk away from all the planning and work on TriW when we found out that the type of plant would have to be different than we had originally intended. Now, in retrospect, it seems like that would have been wise when you consider the various lawsuits and other cost increases associated with those who felt strongly that TriW was a bad location ... because those cost increases caused general unrest which caused the recall to be successful which had caused our costs to go up yet again. However back at the time you are essentially asking that the CSD have forseen all the problems and walked away from an investment of millions of dollars for an uncertain alternative that had already been studied and determined to be even worse.<BR/><BR/>Who knows ... maybe you just have better forsight than the rest of us. Actually, now that I think about it, probably not. If you voted for the recall, knowing in advance that it would ultimately mean and extra $40M in debts, the County taking the project over and building at TriW anyways, increased pollution and the likely dissolution of the CSD you probably would have voted against the recall. The point here is that we made mistakes in the 1998-2002 timeperiod (the biggest was voting in the CSD to begin with), but the best solution to these mistakes isn't going back to square one. Sometimes the best solution is to work around the problems that are too expensive to fix.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1157689818336928642006-09-07T21:30:00.000-07:002006-09-07T21:30:00.000-07:00PG pontificated:"An interesting paradox noted thro...PG pontificated:<BR/>"An interesting paradox noted throughout history: During exceptionally hard times there are two growth industries - churches and bars. While the churches may produce higher spiritual returns the bars tend to produce better capital returns. How many bars do you think this town can support?<BR/> <BR/> Well, I'm glad you asked.<BR/> My guess is 5000.<BR/> 4999 to go!<BR/> <BR/> Septic Syrah, anyone?Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.com