tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post115901565687635125..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159803077667564552006-10-02T08:31:00.000-07:002006-10-02T08:31:00.000-07:00I believe that there may be a way in which the CSD...I believe that there may be a way in which the CSD has some say over the County project, but it is based on my memory and I am unsure about the facts.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I recall that when the Governator signed AB2701, he also directed the SWRCB to not loan money for a wastewater project for Los Osos until the LOCSD pays back the money borrowed and not yet returned.<BR/><BR/>In other words, the CSD may need to get their house in order before the County can get a low interest loan.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159658401935019032006-09-30T16:20:00.000-07:002006-09-30T16:20:00.000-07:00Keep in mind regarding the WWTF loan; it is up to ...Keep in mind regarding the WWTF loan; it is up to the County, not the CSD to find loans. Then as to which loan is chosen is up to the County, not the CSD. If they so choose, they may give us a choice between them. Then each person will vote which is preferred for their situation.<BR/><BR/>I imagine any candidate can make statements to prefer one sort of this or that over another, but if it doesn't relate to running a bankruptcy, it shouldn't be an influence over anyone's vote, as running a bankruptcy is what the CSD will be doing for the next 4 years. I think that point is being ignored.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159553193533098582006-09-29T11:06:00.000-07:002006-09-29T11:06:00.000-07:00The SWRCB is in charge of determining who gets SRF...The SWRCB is in charge of determining who gets SRF Loans.<BR/><BR/>If the County makes the decision to go with a low interest loan we'll save HUGE on our monthly bills by comparrison to if the County chooses alternate methods of financing (assuming the same amount is to be borrowed). Could you summarize Rob's point of view here.<BR/><BR/>The CCC typically doesn't require community to make the best choice for the environment if it would cost far too much. A statement of overriding concern that says "we like TriW best ... today ... because even though another site <I>might</I> be a bit better from an environmental point of view, the alternative site would just plain cost too much" would do the trick. Trot out a cost estimate that shows out of town equals $400/month and in town equals $300/month and the vote is a lock.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159552332705257542006-09-29T10:52:00.000-07:002006-09-29T10:52:00.000-07:00To: PG13 12:57AMExcellent post! One would think i...To: PG13 12:57AM<BR/>Excellent post! One would think it would put the issue of Rons residence and reason for his reporting to rest. Saddly, it won't, because of a few "hard heads" who can't see the forrest for the trees.<BR/><BR/>To Shark: Excuse me for being so ignorant of financial stuff and all them numbers you and Richard like to throw around, why would the CCC care about any additional costs? Do they "hand out" the SRF loans?.....and if so, so what?......and it seems, if Rob Shipe gets elected, he would rather not go with the SRF loan, for reasons he explained over on the other blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159464463289354322006-09-28T10:27:00.000-07:002006-09-28T10:27:00.000-07:00Ron,First, you know darn well that your selective ...Ron,<BR/><BR/>First, you know darn well that your selective quoting of me (check out what follows the ellipsis) was misleading.<BR/><BR/>Second, your "response" here is just plain off-topic. You said Ripley would save us money over TriW. Richard demonstrated that this was not true, even if the Ripley numbers could be taken at face value. Even if Richard plays too loose with the numbers, you have not offered us any insight into where the problems are to be found.<BR/><BR/>The red-herring of the SOC, "bait-n-switchy" and the like is simply not relevant to your claim that Ripley will be less expensive than TriW. Strip out all the fines and debts of the CSD from Richard's analysis and you still see that the keys here are inflation and delay.<BR/><BR/>What I am trying to figure out now is whether you are trying to duck the question because you know the answer shows you to be wrong, whether you don't know how to answer the question because (as you've admitted) math frightens you or whether you are just plain denser than a lead statue of the Cheshire Cat. In any case, the fact that you cannot successfully back up your claim that Ripley will be cheaper is telling ... you aren't to be trusted.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I've e-mailed with your buddy Steve Monowitz. Based on what he wrote it seems to me that the CCC will be involved yet again in approving whatever the County intends to do. If the County selects another location, the CCC needs to sign off on the choice. If the County goes with TriW and keeps the park, the CCC will approve ... in large part because they've already approved that project and because the cost of moving the project elsewhere can be shown to increase the costs considerably ... i.e. a new SOC. If the County goes with TriW and removes the park, the CCC will need to reconsider the question because they are required to do so for any change in the project but again, unless someone can show a better alternative <B>today</B> (i.e. better for the environment and no more expensive or cheaper and no worse for the environment), a new SOC will be quick to write and will carry the day.<BR/><BR/>The key I got from that e-mail discussion is that the past is the past and the CCC and their staff will be looking at the issue from today's point of view. In other words, even if you are right, Ron, about Pandora being Satan incarnate, the CCC won't care. What they will care about is that the <B>County</B> project be the best one possible today.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159462747811865692006-09-28T09:59:00.000-07:002006-09-28T09:59:00.000-07:00An Anon said:"My question is why this Ron Crawford...An Anon said:<BR/><BR/><I>"My question is why this Ron Crawford is such a fanatic about a town in which he doesn't even live."</I><BR/><BR/>"Fanatic" might be a bit strong of a word, but I love Los Osos. Since 1991 (1991!), I've covered your town in one form or another, and got to know its people and places and issues, so I feel like I have a strong connection to your beautiful town, probably more than most that live there (remember my story about those Population/Elevation signs at the entrance to your town?).<BR/><BR/>Plus, I guarantee you, if the <I>Trib</I> had done the slightest bit of follow-up on either of my <I>New Times</I> stories, you would not know my name today. You see, unlike the <I>Trib</I>, my journalism ethics won't allow me to abandon a town in its time of need. But, I'm also very lazy, and investigative journalism is very hard, so I'm kind of mad that the <I>Trib</I> just went to sleep on this very important story for seven years, because that meant my journalism ethics had to kick in, and override my extreme laziness... and that pisses me off, because if there's one thing I hold near and dear, it's my laziness.<BR/><BR/>Mike said:<BR/><BR/><I>"Maybe he just reads and writes fast, so it's realy not much work..."</I><BR/><BR/>There's also that. It really isn't that much work, and I enjoy it. The story's great, and it keeps my chops up.<BR/><BR/><I>"I don't blame him a bit, In fact, I thank him for his work."</I><BR/><BR/>You're welcome, and I appreciate your humorous posts. We'll have to swap stories sometime over a nice bottle of Zin at your septic tank/wine bar.<BR/><BR/>To Pg-13 (12:57 AM, September 28, 2006):<BR/><BR/>Great... now I'm blushing. Thank you so much for the kind words.<BR/><BR/>Sharky said:<BR/><BR/><I>"Since Richard showed your claim to be full of crap you haven't responded to his claims..."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes I have, many times, and I'll do it again. Richard puts the cost of an invalid SOC and "bait-and-switchy" on the new board. That is f-d up. And not only does he blow that number up to something ridiculous like $200,000,000, but, according to his "honing," that number is increasing by one million dollars a day. [Joke alert... joke alert] Even MWH thinks Richard plays a little too loose with his numbers.<BR/><BR/>Plus, as I've said before, since the rationale behind the Tri-Dub project proved to be completely invalid, any discussion about cost comparisons is irrelevant. A waste of breath, or, in this case, a waste of keystrokes.<BR/><BR/>On a related note:<BR/><BR/>If I get around to it today, I'll call Pavo Ogren at county engineering and ask him if they plan on putting an amphitheater in their sewer plant.<BR/><BR/>Because, as we all know now, no amphitheater, no Tri-Dub.<BR/><BR/>Can't wait to hear his answer.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14156410299483542733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159453150803962862006-09-28T07:19:00.000-07:002006-09-28T07:19:00.000-07:00PG-13 Sez:"Process is not numbers specific. It is ...PG-13 Sez:"Process is not numbers specific. It is process specific. There are two different levels of discussion and argument here: financial projections of the cost of a sewer and proper procedural government. There are many areas of grey between the two. But they really are separate issues. <BR/><BR/>I daresay Ron has done a better job of documenting the in's and out's and the up's and down's and the many twists and turns of the Los Osos Sewer Saga (herein tagged: LOSS) than any other reporter or journalistic agent."<BR/><BR/>Amen! When the process is allowe to work fairly, honestly, no thumbs-on-the-scale, no ginned up, phony SOCs, no square pegs in round holes, no bait and switch, then you're waaaayyyyy more likely to end up with -- in this case -- one or two projects that float to the top on their own mertis and those are the ones that the community should be able to vote to "buy." i.e. pay for via assessment votes. When you distort the process you too often end up with civic train wrecks. Not good.<BR/><BR/>And the role of the Watch Dog "press" is to make sure the process IS fair and honest and if it isn't bark loudly to wake the public up to the fact that somebody's in the pantry stealing their cheese, call the Cheese Police!Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159430265989426722006-09-28T00:57:00.000-07:002006-09-28T00:57:00.000-07:00Anon > My question is why this Ron Crawford is su...Anon > <I> My question is why this Ron Crawford is such a fanatic about a town in which he doesn't even live.... I question the sanity of someone so immersed in another town's business that he has a blog about it and contributes to this blog incessantly.... Ron, get a life. </I><BR/><BR/>< sigh > I do get tired of having to defend Ron in this environment but I feel I must. <BR/><BR/>So, uh, what about blogging, independent journalism, and the amorphous non-delineated boundaries of the internet don't you understand? Hey, Ron smells a delightfully odiferous story in the Los Osos sewers wars. And he's an independent journalist. Kaching! Ya gotta admit, it has been an interesting, nee, compelling saga. Far more interesting than the reality TV shows being poured into my TV. As such he see's opportunity. An opportunity to dig, uncover, expose and then write about - often creatively and engagingly - on facts and perspectives about a very contentious and highly controversial civic matter. How many of you knew about and appreciated the impact of any number of things Ron has brought to light? I could list them but the list would be too long (and detract from my point). Who care's where he lives? What the f*** does that matter? Read what he writes. If it edifies you in any way about your local situation what does it matter where he lives? What is it about domicile location that bugs so many of you? Simply put, does what he writes have relative import to you? You may not agree with him but, uh, does he know and write about some things about your/our situation that you didn't know before? Who cares where he lives! I appreciate whatever new information and perspective anybody can bring to this ugly ugly scenario. It's a terribly trite phrase but: don't shoot the messenger. The messenger is not the message. If you've got a problem with what he reports then address his reportage - not his mailing address. Sewertoons and Shark Bait have regularly confronted him about him the dollars and cents issues of the various sewer options. Cool. Fair play. I can appreciate their frustration at not being able to argue dollar-based analysis. Some of us have the numbers and the time to run such analysis. And many of us don't. But what do such numbers have to do with questionable legal process? Process is not numbers specific. It is process specific. There are two different levels of discussion and argument here: financial projections of the cost of a sewer and proper procedural government. There are many areas of grey between the two. But they really are separate issues. <BR/><BR/>I daresay Ron has done a better job of documenting the in's and out's and the up's and down's and the many twists and turns of the Los Osos Sewer Saga (herein tagged: LOSS) than any other reporter or journalistic agent. If you disagree name some names and post them here. The Trivial? Or any of their many shuffled reporters? Get real. OK, go ahead and post them. It should be interesting. The Trivial's blogshpere? Lots of chat, precious little focus. A pretty poor example of blog effectivity. OK, I admit, I'm kinda partial to Ann's blog. Partly because I appreciate how she maintains focus, partly because I tend to agree with much of her commentary, but mostly because I appreciate the neighborhood. Why does Ann keep referencing Ron's blog? Cause she's a writer and he's a writer and they appreciate their craft. Ask yourself why do you keep logging in to this blog? And posting comments? Then ask yourself if their (Ann's and Ron's) style of journalism isn't largely why you keep coming back? If it bothers you that much then stop logging in and satisfy yourself with The Daily Rag. If you enjoy the unfettered dimensions of the internet then suck it up and enjoy and appreciate it. Granted, a little antagonistic and ritualistic localism is always appropriate. That's a spice of broadband communication. But don't make it a major issue. And don't try to make it a most significant issue. You're shouting into your own ear.*PG-13https://www.blogger.com/profile/14900054935763648975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159407814647512152006-09-27T18:43:00.000-07:002006-09-27T18:43:00.000-07:00Maybe he just reads and writes fast, so it's realy...Maybe he just reads and writes fast, so it's realy not much work, or, he see's that the Los Osos Sewer War is a microcosm of all the weaknesses of our government, which effects everybody.<BR/> Do you think that the current results of our government reflect an efficient and fair system?<BR/> Interesting.<BR/> I don't blame him a bit, In fact, I thank him for his work.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159405191263539702006-09-27T17:59:00.000-07:002006-09-27T17:59:00.000-07:00My question is why this Ron Crawford is such a fan...My question is why this Ron Crawford is such a fanatic about a town in which he doesn't even live.<BR/><BR/>It is my understanding that Ron lives in Santa Margarita, doesn't own property in Los Osos and seldom even comes here. I know he wrote some article several years ago, but he doesn't seem to be able to get off this kick.<BR/><BR/>I question the sanity of someone so immersed in another town's business that he has a blog about it and contributes to this blog incessently.<BR/><BR/>Ron, get a life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159324478088926742006-09-26T19:34:00.000-07:002006-09-26T19:34:00.000-07:00Here's my question for Ron ...You suggest that "MW...Here's my question for Ron ...<BR/><BR/>You suggest that <I>"MWH is missing numbers by a factor of over ten in official documents</I> ... where is that?<BR/><BR/>You see, if you're going to be picky about MWH cost estimates you've got to have a reason ... and you've got to be willing to let others criticize your guesstimates the same way you criticize MWH. Might I remind you that you told us that the Ripley team would produce a plan that would save us money versus TriW. Since Richard showed your claim to be full of crap you haven't responded to his claims other than some lame ad-hominem attack like "why would I trust an ousted boardmember over an engineering firm?" The funny thing here is that the engineering firm was comparing apples to oranges and we all know it. Comparing the costs of TriW in 2006 to the costs of some mythical out of town project that can magically begin construction in 2006 is simply a lie.<BR/><BR/>So, if you are going to play the "Ripley is better than MWH" or the "MWH is sloppy" game you've got to provide some evidence.<BR/><BR/>Not all of us are as quick to believe you as our anonymous friend above. Oddly enuf, when you often make claims that you don't back up people begin to question your veracity.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159318337760204302006-09-26T17:52:00.000-07:002006-09-26T17:52:00.000-07:00I agree that Sparks appears to be a good choice. ...I agree that Sparks appears to be a good choice. But what about Kelly and Tornosky? Who are they? How long have they lived here? What is their experience?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159316766396748662006-09-26T17:26:00.000-07:002006-09-26T17:26:00.000-07:00Anon's above:I am with you 100%!!! But do me a fav...Anon's above:<BR/>I am with you 100%!!! But do me a favor and ask Ann. Ask Ann "do you support any board that cooperates with the county?" When and if she answers, listen to her and see if you might think that Ann represents the "extreme." (And of course Ron, but he doesn't live here so his loyalties are insignificant.)<BR/>And IMHO Joe Sparks is THE right choice to be leading this CSD through bankruptcy. (which is what 70% of their efforts will be doing.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159315076328693232006-09-26T16:57:00.000-07:002006-09-26T16:57:00.000-07:00I have an idea. We should only support candidates...I have an idea. We should only support candidates whom we know are not at either extreme end. I think Joe Sparks is one of those people. Most of the others seem to be "extremeists" and we know where that gets us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159314805276326802006-09-26T16:53:00.000-07:002006-09-26T16:53:00.000-07:00I will support any board that cooperates with the ...I will support any board that cooperates with the County. See you at the polls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159313322009300242006-09-26T16:28:00.000-07:002006-09-26T16:28:00.000-07:00This board, in cooperation with the County, can br...This board, in cooperation with the County, can bring us a good project out of town IF THE SOUR GRAPES WOULD GIVE IT UP ALREADY. and "Let the County and our board get on with it." <BR/><BR/>I think you can pretty much count on the fact that come November, "this" board" and "our" (your) board isn't going to be "this" board. Will you sitll support them when they're not "this" board?<BR/><BR/>"I appealed to the LOCSD. Now look where we are." So did I. And you're right, look what their actions led us to: lost SRF loan; fines; CDO's; bankruptcy. Damn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159311549105373712006-09-26T15:59:00.000-07:002006-09-26T15:59:00.000-07:00Excellent post, Ron. Thanks for continueing to te...Excellent post, Ron. Thanks for continueing to tell the real story that has unfolded for lo these many years. Some of us really appreciate it. I continue to be apalled by the actions of the old board. That Statement of Overriding Considerations should be burned once and for all. The anti-recall people are forever screaming about obeying the boards and blah blah blah while their preferred board was overrriding the environmental concerns! They totally scammed the CC and everyone should know about it. Now people are going to say...where were you? Why didn't you bring it up back then? Well I did. I was at the meetings. I wrote letters to the CC. I made phone calls. I appealed to the LOCSD. Now look where we are. Ah the mouse that roared. Don't underestimate us. This board, in cooperation with the County, can bring us a good project out of town IF THE SOUR GRAPES WOULD GIVE IT UP ALREADY.<BR/><BR/>Let the County and our board get on with it. We're not dissolved and we have an election coming up. Do you want to continue the war or let this process take it's course? The more we fight the more it will cost...I know you've heard those words before but it's time to think about them again...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159306235888960862006-09-26T14:30:00.000-07:002006-09-26T14:30:00.000-07:00"Anonymoose sez:"Coastal Commission in Exibit 3-C ...<I>"Anonymoose sez:"Coastal Commission in Exibit 3-C of their response to Substaintial Issue. The one where they said it was $5 million "more or less" to move the sewer in 2004, and the old board didn't let the people vote, BIG mistake! Look at us now. "</I>"<BR/><BR/>Ahhhh... dated documents. My favorite.<BR/><BR/>As with most things pre-recall CSD, that important document -- <A HREF="http://www.slocreek.com/csdmemo.pdf " REL="nofollow">Exhibit 3C</A> -- is a mess... wildly inaccurate, and nothing can be concluded from it. It was nothing more than a piece of flak used in an effort to fend off the Coastal Commission's final inquiry in 2004, and it worked.<BR/><BR/>But Exhibit 3C was more than just another waste of time and money, it would prove to be highly misleading -- a bad combination for a document that was very influential in securing the final development permit for the Tri-Dub project.<BR/><BR/>Not only did it ignore the millions that had already been approved for the project's park amenities -- and if that figure <I>had</I> been included, it would have greatly impacted the document's conclusion -- the numbers used in Exhibit 3C would prove to be badly skewed to fit the CSD's cause.<BR/><BR/>Here's an excellent example: In Exhibit 3C, MWH lists the dog park in the project at $60,000. Less than a year later, that same engineering firm would list that same dog park in another official CSD document (no .pdf available) at over $600,000. <I>Missed it by a factor of over ten</I>. <BR/><BR/>Here's my question: If MWH is missing numbers by a factor of over ten in official documents, then <B>how much faith should we have in the numbers in MWH documents</B>?<BR/><BR/>Exhibit 3C was nothing more than a piece of flak to keep the Coastal Commission away, and it worked.<BR/><BR/>Here's how I would have answered the Commission's excellent question in 2004:<BR/><BR/><B>Commission</B>: Why wasn't an "environmentally preferred," out-of-town location selected in the first place?<BR/><BR/><B>Me as honest CSD spokesperson</B>: Because we adopted a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" that allowed us to override the entire environmental review process that pointed to those downwind, out-of-town, "environmentally preferred" sites, and instead, forced the project in at the "environmentally sensitive" Tri-W site because we wanted a park in it.<BR/><BR/><B>Commission</B>: Y... y... y... you did what?<BR/><BR/><B>Me as honest CSD spokesperson</B>: I said, we adopted a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" that allowed us to override the entire environmental review process that pointed to those downwind, out-of-town, "environmentally preferred" sites, and instead, forced the project in at the "environmentally sensitive" Tri-W site because we wanted a park in it.<BR/><BR/><B>Commission</B>: Oh... o.k. ... permit denied.<BR/><BR/>See? It should have been that simple. A one sentence answer. Yet the CSD launched into full-on engineering mode, and produced an expensive document that never answered the CC's excellent question, and a document with numbers, that today, are laughable.<BR/><BR/>In fact, looking back on some of those dated documents -- Exhibit 3C, the EIR, the Final Project Report, and more -- in the new daylight of the current board, is very interesting. And I'm starting to see more and more massive discrepancies between what Los Osos was told over the last seven years, and what was the actual situation.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14156410299483542733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159297134278754772006-09-26T11:58:00.000-07:002006-09-26T11:58:00.000-07:00Let's just see if the sale of Tri-W and the purcha...Let's just see if the sale of Tri-W and the purchase of Giacomazzi reappears on an agenda at any point prior to the bankrupcy judge acknowledging it, then with the open offer of it for sale to the to the County (sorry Julie, your little temper tantrum in front of LAFCo does not qualify as an "offer"), then we will know if it was a "typo" or not.<BR/><BR/>We might also ask who orders items to be put on that agenda.<BR/><BR/>I think the funny part was the word "typo," instead of just admitting that it was on there by mistake - an attempted minimizing of what this meant in the light of LAFCo's censure.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159295233754576922006-09-26T11:27:00.000-07:002006-09-26T11:27:00.000-07:00www.rockofthecoast.comwww.rockofthecoast.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159293673713943142006-09-26T11:01:00.000-07:002006-09-26T11:01:00.000-07:00All Lisa meant with the "typo" comment was that th...All Lisa meant with the "typo" comment was that the item had gotten onto the agenda by mistake. If you go to meetings regularly you would know there are lots of mistakes on those things! I agree it is paranoid to twist that "typo" comment into something other than the reality of the situation. But then again there are many different realities in Los Osos...that's our problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159288714503825692006-09-26T09:38:00.000-07:002006-09-26T09:38:00.000-07:00Ann and anonymous (one of you, I can't really tell...Ann and anonymous (one of you, I can't really tell any of you apart) ...<BR/><BR/>You both grossly misrepresent the study which says that the plant at the other location would likely cost about the same. They did not include any design costs in that comparrison. Furthermore, they did not include any costs associated with any delay (does anyone think that Clark Valley neighbors wouldn't sue to prevent a sewer plant in the middle of their community?). If the project was $150M at that point in time, adding another $5M for lawsuits and to retrofit the TriW design onto the new site plus three years of delay would make the project far closer to $185M (I backed out the $20M to site and design TriW before adding inflation at 8%). If you want to re-design the MBR plant for sustainability it would add another $5M in design costs at least as well as an extra year at least bringing the total up to $205M.<BR/><BR/>You say that we would be better off had we listened to you and had a vote on this matter? I say that we would have been better off had you checked out my cost estimates and put them into your columns. Maybe the Recall would have failed and maybe Measure B would have failed as well. Far cheaper.<BR/><BR/>Ann, I would suggest that representative government ... may be far more efficient that having a vote on every issue.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159281484104957822006-09-26T07:38:00.000-07:002006-09-26T07:38:00.000-07:00Anonymoose sez:"and please don't act like there is...Anonymoose sez:"and please don't act like there is not an anit-sewer faction in this community.)"<BR/><BR/>The true "anti-sewer," as in build absolutely NOTHING, no collection system, nothing, is so small a group as to be off the radar. What was interesting was to see how easily "move the sewer" morphed into "anti-sewer" in the minds of so many inside the outside the community. It's a case where a word went from meaning one thing to meaning something completely the opposite. Wierd. <BR/><BR/>Anonymoose sez:"Coastal Commission in Exibit 3-C of their response to Substaintial Issue. The one where they said it was $5 million "more or less" to move the sewer in 2004, and the old board didn't let the people vote, BIG mistake! Look at us now. "<BR/><BR/>Actually,if memory serves, the brief mention in the CC staff report said, one million LESS to $5-6 MORE. That staff "guesimate" (The Coastal Commissioners themselves asked for a fuller side-by-side analysis, never got it and never asked why they never got it. That alone should have raised a red flag.I recall saying at the time that 1mil less to 5=6 mil more on a (then) $150 million dollar 30=year project was chump change and should have gone to the voters. Too bad nobody listened to me. Alas.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159245699607582432006-09-25T21:41:00.000-07:002006-09-25T21:41:00.000-07:00I heard The Rock is online now... does anyone know...I heard The Rock is online now... does anyone know the web address??Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1159235724910117252006-09-25T18:55:00.000-07:002006-09-25T18:55:00.000-07:00Oh ya! I'm the one that fell off the turnip truck ...Oh ya! I'm the one that fell off the turnip truck and has addled cognition due to cookware accidents.<BR/> he he <BR/> I called this one spot on, a week after the petition was recived if I remember.<BR/> Go check the archives.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.com