tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post115997538687963343..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160935134358512572006-10-15T10:58:00.000-07:002006-10-15T10:58:00.000-07:00Anonymous said... I've wondered the same thing. Do...Anonymous said... <BR/>I've wondered the same thing. Does anyone know if Pismo might be a possibility? I asked Julie Tacker once and she said "No. Pismo is out of the question" or some such. This was right before the recall. I think it's a good idea. I was thinking...did she not want it brought up because, in fact, it might be a possibility? As in, NO SEWER. <BR/><BR/>6:55 PM, October 10, 2006 <BR/><BR/>The Pismo site has been sold to public lands, it is ESHA, it is off the table due to greenbelt protection. Marla Morrisey can tell you more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160619509625401552006-10-11T19:18:00.000-07:002006-10-11T19:18:00.000-07:00If we can all just sing KUMBAYA then Sharkey would...If we can all just sing KUMBAYA then Sharkey would bubble:<BR/>"If you can come up with a good way of keeping that group in check, I can come up with a great way of keeping the Dreamers from attempting to sway this debate.<BR/> The match made in HADES!!!<BR/>The water gods would tremble in FEAR<BR/> The Churadogshark will devour them!<BR/> WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160588175637985472006-10-11T10:36:00.000-07:002006-10-11T10:36:00.000-07:00Ann,You tell us one side of the story involving th...Ann,<BR/><BR/>You tell us one side of the story involving the site selection - that the least environmentally damaging site be chosen ... but neglect to tell the other side - that AG land is supposed to be preserved and that the TriW site was already zoned for development and that the TriW site would be changed whether used for a WWTF or park or something else. The marginal ESHA status of TriW wouldn't save it. The CCC did get their comparison. They were aparently satisfied with the comparison and the statement of overriding concerns and approved the TriW plan. Just becuase you and Ron claim that they shouldn't have been satisfied with these answers doesn't mean that there wasn't a comparison and that there wasn't a valid reason for choosing TriW. Even if you want to take Ron's baliwick, the "community values" issue, it was really clear whent the CSD was formed and when the bond was approved, that both consitituancies, the citizens and the property owners both liked the idea of a WWTF at TriW. (As a side note, if you're a gonna tell us that there were "lies" told to win those votes, you're going to have to at least step forward and tackle the issue of the comparable ... or worse ... "lies" of the current boardmembers.)<BR/><BR/>When I suggested we ask how much more one would be willing to pay to move the thing, I find it interesting that you agree with me. The reason for my surprise? That when I asked this question in the past (quite often just about a year ago) you refused to answer then and you even went so far as to suggest that out of town would be less expensive but that we really shouldn't speculate. Well, cost estimates are essentially all about speculation based on engineering and assumptions about politics and interest rates and the like. The Ripley team engaged in speculation when they said $150/month.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I am glad you agree with me. Interestingly enough, our community could have been asked this question many times, not just before the TriW site was selected. In fact, we should have been asked this and a cost estimate of "out of town" should have been drawn up before the work stopped on the TriW site back in October 2005.<BR/><BR/>Essentially I agree with you that the community should have had more involvement at key stages in the process of the morphing of the Ponds of Avalon into the MBR plant (I actually think that the community doesn't give a rip about STEP versus gravity other than which will result in lower bills) ... but I remind you that in our representative government with open meetings, the community did have those opportunities to guide the process. What happened here in this political nightmare is that a few members of the community didn't like the site and they decided they wanted to raise a stink over the siting issue and that they used any and every issue to achieve their goal of moving the site. A case in point is the claim that out of town could be done for $100/month. Total fabrication based on no real engineering but it caused some to vote for the recall. Without that false claim, the recall would have failed.<BR/><BR/>About the Ripley refusal to consider Pismo ... yes, they had a justification that would have served to exclude TriW as well ... but had they been open to other WWTF systems other sites (and even TriW) would have been at least as good as Giacomazzi.<BR/><BR/>I do like the sustainability aspects of the Ripley idea, but fear that there is no way the RWQCB will sign off on their assumption that our community will cut our water usage by over half and there is no way that they'll be able to get in-lieu credits for AG land outside our aquifer, so essentially the Ripley plant will have to be exapanded and at least some of the water will have to be denitrified before recharged directly into our aquifer (or used for freshwater dams or some such). The sustainable Ripley plan will cost far more than advertised and when one includes inflation as well, this sustainablity will end up costing us maybe $70/month ... hardly a good investment. That same $70/month could be used toward other, more viable sustainability issues, like freshwater dams or piping treated wastewater to parks and homes for irrigation, things that the previous board had been intending to do *after* the plant was online.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yes, politics should be kept out of the decision ... but even the question of evaluation criteria can be essentially a political question. If I suggest that lifecycle costing of various possibile WWTF sites be the primary criterion, it will be immediately be opposed by some who percieve that criterion to be giving unfair advantage to TriW. So, how do you propose to keep folks like CCLO and LOTTF and Al from trying to tip the scales? If you can come up with a good way of keeping that group in check, I can come up with a great way of keeping the Dreamers from attempting to sway this debate which (IMHO) should be essentially an engineering and financial discussion.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160576703898536192006-10-11T07:25:00.000-07:002006-10-11T07:25:00.000-07:00Anonymous sez:"so Ron's contention that the CCC wa...Anonymous sez:"so Ron's contention that the CCC was somehow deceived by the CSD's claim that there was a "deeply held community value" with regard to the site is, in my mind, bogus."<BR/><BR/>Hardly bogus. The EIR identified the out of town site as the environmentally superior site. ESHA requires that the enviro.beter site be chosen unless there are serious and valid overriding concerns. A park in the middle of town -- based on no evidence that Ron can find -- and he's been looking for years -- is NOT a valid overriding concern. The CC bought it because it was the easy way out. Furthermore, you need to ask yourelf: The CC asked for a side-by-side comparison of in-town, out of town. They never got it and they never asked why they never got it. I've been asking that same question for years. Another easy way out? <BR/><BR/>Inlet sez:"As I asked before the recall election, how much more would one be willing to pay to get the plant moved out of town?"<BR/><BR/>EXACTLY! THAT's EXACTLY what THE COMMUNITY -- not me, not you, not a handful of people -- should have been and COULD HAVE been asked early on.<BR/><BR/>If memory serves, when the CSD went up to the SWB and asked for the $40 million more, didn't I hear tell that one of the board members asked if the community needed to vote on this or somehow indicate they were supportive of that $40 million addition (even while a 218 lawsuit was in the pipeline) The CSD could have held even an "advisory" vote, if nothing else not only on that additioinal $40 mil but --by then -- the known total costs of the plant. They didn't do that.<BR/><BR/>Inlet also sez:"I think that essentially we've got a political problem here. Some in Los Osos don't want the WWTF in town and feel strongly that a STEP system is far better for our community and that ponding is cool. Others want the quickest and cheapest possible solution. When these two groups with different goals argue and neither is willing to give up, we'll get delay and lawyers and pain. You say the problem is the dishonesty involved in the TriW site selection way back when and I say the problem is Julie and Lisa and their unwillingness to let us move forward with the cheapest solution."<BR/><BR/>Go back with me in a time machine. The community finds out that the Ponds of Avalon (solution's group solution) won't work. The CSD goes back to square one, does a side by side comparison with the County Gravity Plan (an honest one) and, perhaps a community wide STEP plan with a ponding treatment plant outside of town (cheaper non-esha land) and the comparisons are vetted by independent experts and priced out honestly (The Chinese Menu Method) and then the results are put on a $218 ballot for the full assessment, not the phony quasi/partial assessment with the HUGE final amount arriving as a "Service Fee, heh-heh." <BR/><BR/>What then? No train wrecks.<BR/><BR/>Inlet sez:"Shark Inlet said... <BR/>Yes, it was odd that the Ripley team didn't evaluate Pismo as a site when it was pretty clearly a reasonable choice according to other, earlier, analyses.<BR/><BR/>What was the justification they (or the LOCSD) used to not bother re-evaluating that site? "<BR/><BR/>If you've read the Ripley Report, you'll see that the entire focus on their plan is WATER. The Pismo site does not allow for a winter water basin for ag exchange, water exchange & etc. Ripley percieves (rightly in my opinion) that the real issue facing this community is basin-wide WATER MANAGEMENT, not simply treating and dumping wastewater. <BR/><BR/>It will remain to be seen if that concern is also the County's concern. <BR/><BR/>If you plunk a traditional sewer plant down at Pismo, you're still stuck with energy costs and sludge disposal problems. <BR/><BR/>Those are things that I'm hoping The Process now starting with the county, a Process that should have been honored by the CSD, will result in several key choices the community can make. <BR/><BR/>The comment that this can be figured out if "the politics" is kept out of it is partially right. The right scientific/engineering questions will result in the right answers and then those answers will have to be decided by a political process. Skew one and you skew all the others. Result: Civic train wrecks.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160535067725530192006-10-10T19:51:00.000-07:002006-10-10T19:51:00.000-07:00Yes, it was odd that the Ripley team didn't evalua...Yes, it was odd that the Ripley team didn't evaluate Pismo as a site when it was pretty clearly a reasonable choice according to other, earlier, analyses.<BR/><BR/>What was the justification they (or the LOCSD) used to not bother re-evaluating that site?Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160531755346012932006-10-10T18:55:00.000-07:002006-10-10T18:55:00.000-07:00I've wondered the same thing. Does anyone know if...I've wondered the same thing. Does anyone know if Pismo might be a possibility? I asked Julie Tacker once and she said "No. Pismo is out of the question" or some such. This was right before the recall. I think it's a good idea. I was thinking...did she not want it brought up because, in fact, it might be a possibility? As in, NO SEWER.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160531041657091532006-10-10T18:44:00.000-07:002006-10-10T18:44:00.000-07:00I had a thought. Is anyone opposed to the Pismo si...I had a thought. Is anyone opposed to the Pismo site. Is it still a option? Take Tri-W out of the equation, and this all goes away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160529815278208032006-10-10T18:23:00.000-07:002006-10-10T18:23:00.000-07:00Not being one to agree with Shark, I must say he's...Not being one to agree with Shark, I must say he's right about one thing. This is not about cost, location, technology, or any other thing that could be objectively evaluated. It's political. That's why we need to support the county as long as they keep the politics out (thank god Shirley-Be-Yucky is gone)of it and come up with a GD sewer plan! Everyone stop accusing everyone!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160506997864638802006-10-10T12:03:00.000-07:002006-10-10T12:03:00.000-07:00About the 5-6 million more to move the plant out t...About the 5-6 million more to move the plant out to the Andre site ... please remember that this cost estimate did not include any design changes or any inflation associated with the additional delay to re-design the plant and collection system for the new location. I would guess that the design costs would add another $2M and and additional two year delay which gives us an extra $25M (8% inflation on $150M) as well.<BR/><BR/>You say chump change (well, to quote you, "CHUMP CHANGE"), but please remember that by the time the CCC asked for this site comparison with an out-of-town site (which wasn't a viable candidate in any case), enough of the design work had been done that changing the site wouldn't be as simple as you suggest.<BR/><BR/>You are dead on right about when you write about the tragedy "missteps, wrong steps, missing steps, regulator/oversight failure, behind the scenes monkeywrenching. The list is soooo long." What amuses me about your take on things, Ann, is that your list of the missteps and failures doesn't seem to include things that are quite prominent on my own list. As an example, you celebrated the recall election and the passing of Measure B. To me, those things just made a bad situation worse. As I asked before the recall election, how much more would one be willing to pay to get the plant moved out of town? While you are reluctant to put a pricetag on TriW and reluctant to speculate on the final cost of whatever final project we'll end up getting, the fact that time has been passing has caused the cost of all potential systems to go up. Furthermore, debts and bankruptcy costs will now be somehow added into our bills. Essentially we'll all be paying more for our sewer now than we were going to be paying before ... and if we go for "out of town", it might be a whole lot more becuase of the additional delay and design costs.<BR/><BR/>If you're a gonna complain about people lying to us about saving money ($35/month which is half the cost of the County plan) shouldn't you include complaints about John, Chuck and Steve's promise of a $100/month bill as opposed to the $200/month of TriW (or the current guy who is promising us $154/month instead of $326 if we vote for Chuck and Steve). It seems that all of these promises are based in an idealized version of the RWQCB who immediately caves to LOCSD whims. All three were wrong ... and all three should be criticized ... and if the recall was a good idea because it would get rid of Stan and Gordon who fibbed about costs to get elected, shouldn't one oppose Chuck and Steve for the exact same reason?<BR/><BR/><BR/>About the "negotiations", please remember that Darin testified that they didn't consider inflation and re-design costs when penciling things out. Don't pretend that the "solution" offered up there was going to be any cheaper.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I think that essentially we've got a political problem here. Some in Los Osos don't want the WWTF in town and feel strongly that a STEP system is far better for our community and that ponding is cool. Others want the quickest and cheapest possible solution. When these two groups with different goals argue and neither is willing to give up, we'll get delay and lawyers and pain. You say the problem is the dishonesty involved in the TriW site selection way back when and I say the problem is Julie and Lisa and their unwillingness to let us move forward with the cheapest solution.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160506462659245222006-10-10T11:54:00.000-07:002006-10-10T11:54:00.000-07:00"How on earth can Ron Crawford "circumvent the wil..."How on earth can Ron Crawford "circumvent the will of the property owners?"<BR/><BR/>By demanding a CCC revocation hearing for the CDP - just as he promised on his blog that he would - all because of the "smoking gun" he believes he has uncovered.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Actually, the whole thing was hinged on a $35 a month innovativ STEP ponding system vs the $65-75 + county's traditional gravit plan. That's what got that high turn out. As Ron has pointed out, when the election was help, the Solution Group already had been told that the system wouldn't work, wouldn't be funded by SRF etc. The community wasn't aware of that at the time."<BR/><BR/>My point is, regardless of whether or not we were to get what we were promised by the Solution Group, the plan was to put it on the Tri-W site. Whether or not the Solution Group was playing "bait and switch" with the technology, the intention was to use the Tri-W site - and the community knew it and voted for it, so Ron's contention that the CCC was somehow deceived by the CSD's claim that there was a "deeply held community value" with regard to the site is, in my mind, bogus.<BR/><BR/>For the record: I WAS paying attention. I was paying attention the night the CSD shifted direction with regard to technology, I was paying attention when the community overwhelmingly trounced Julie Tacker in the 2002 election, I was paying attention at the CCC hearing when they granted the CDP, and again when they rejected the revocation of the CDP. I was paying attention when the Regional Board said "time's up". I was paying attention when the State said "site specific" loan. I was also paying attention when the current board got elected by an eyelash because they too, made promises they couldn't keep. Had last year's recall been solely up to the property owners, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.<BR/><BR/>I have also been paying attention, waiting for the day when you shift some of the responsibility firmly where it belongs - onto the shoulders of the current board. I doubt that day will ever come.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160491933738471162006-10-10T07:52:00.000-07:002006-10-10T07:52:00.000-07:00Inlet sez:"Ann, If you think I have a comprehensio...Inlet sez:"Ann, <BR/><BR/>If you think I have a comprehension problem or an honesty problem, let me assure you that I know many who think you have one of the above yourself."<BR/><BR/>The problem is one of misquoting, I think. Or misunderstainding. When I say X, you turn it around and say I said or mean Y. I didn't and don't. I said X. That type of thing causes mass confusion because the next person reads what you said I said, but didn't, and concludes that I now said or meant Y when I didn't. That was YOUR take on it, not what I actually said. That has nothing to do with bias, it has to do with accurate quoting or an accurate understanding of what I actually said and meant. That's where you too often slide off. and it happens enough times and I had to suspect some kind of weird comprehension problem. <BR/><BR/>Inlet also sez:"I get the feeling that you (Ann) tend to be more focused on wanting to get the best possible solution for our community but you aren't as focused on the costs and you wouldn't mind going back to square one so much, as long as we could do it right next time.<BR/><BR/>Where I would suggest we could most easily agree is that we both think that a lifecycle costing approach may be a good way of evaluating the potential projects."<BR/><BR/>We're not back at square one. We are (and should be) back where the Coastal Commission FAILED us -- a request for a side-by-side comparison of in-town, out of town, with a fair guestimate of a cost breakdown, THEN A 218 vote on which system the community wanted to buy. It's a missing step that never happened and it's was a costly misstep. Had that happened (actually before the de novo hearing) it would have saved the town this train wreck. As I noted at the time, the guestimate (rough) by Buel for just running a pipe out of town was a guestimate of 5-6 mil more; the guestimate by the CC staff for having an out of town plant was a million less or 5-6 million more. The point I made at the time was, on a $150 +++ project, 1-5 mil on a 30 year loan on a project of that size is CHUMP CHANGE and should have gone to the voters to decide. But we were told that moving the plant out of town would be WAAAAAAAAYYYYY too expensive and couldn't be done that Tri-W was the ONLY way, etc.etc. <BR/><BR/>That dishonesty is what derailed and delayed this project. Ditto for the monkey-wrenching that went on behind the scenes during the November "negotiations that weren't negotiations, heh-heh" and the compromise. IF all the players were as on board with that compromise as the community seemed to be, that would have happened and we'd be a year further down the road. But the monkeywrenchers were at work (remember Bianchi's secred little letter to Baggett?) All those wonderful emails asking for fire and brimstone to rain down and "fine the CSD out of existence?) & etc. Think of what would have happened if all those same players said, Stay Cool, This Is Doable, Let's roll. <BR/><BR/>There's the tragedy -- missteps, wrong steps, missing steps, regulator/oversight failure, behind the scenes monkeywrenching. The list is soooo long. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous sez:"The entire election hinged on the Solution Group's plan to put a BIG-FAT ponding system on the entirety of the Tri-W site."<BR/><BR/>Actually, the whole thing was hinged on a $35 a month innovativ STEP ponding system vs the $65-75 + county's traditional gravit plan. That's what got that high turn out. As Ron has pointed out, when the election was help, the Solution Group already had been told that the system wouldn't work, wouldn't be funded by SRF etc. The community wasn't aware of that at the time. <BR/><BR/>Also, remember the famous words of the Coastal Commissioner: Bait & Switchy. Seated Commissioners speaking from the dais during official business do not use the terms "bait and switchy" lightly. When they do, all ears should fly up. Serious business, the words "bait and switchy." The bait and switchy concerned the Original Plan presented to the Coastal Commissioners for the permit and what was now appearing before them during the de novo hearing. Ding, ding, ding. Red flags should have gone down on that play. <BR/><BR/>Anonymous also sez:"Should Ron "I-have-nothing-at-stake-in-Los-Osos" Crawford be allowed to circumvent the will of the property owners? "<BR/><BR/>How on earth can Ron Crawford "circumvent the will of the property owners?"<BR/><BR/>Anonymous also sez:" Should you? Should Julie Tacker? <BR/><BR/>How on earth can I circumvent the will of the property owners? I have not threatened any lawsuits. What I have cautioned agains is this: Unless the county gets this right this time there will be lawsuits by somebody. That'sbeen the history of this project. <BR/><BR/>And sez:" With the mere suggestion of another Tri-W lawsuit, I find your criticism of Lynn Tornatzky for suggesting the District may have a malpractice case against BWS and Willdan a bit hypocritical."<BR/><BR/>Where on earth did you get that from? I sugggested that the state audit may turn up things that need looking at, including WMH, contractors lawsuits, when things were signed and by whom, etc. Nothing hypocritical at all, merely a note that geese AND ganders may need saucing. <BR/><BR/>And, finally, Anonymous finally sez:"Seriously, between Ron's conspiracy delusions and your obsession over being misquoted - this discussion could not be more ridiculous. The both of you really need to get over yourselves and let the PROPERTY OWNERS decide."<BR/><BR/>That's exactly what I called for several years ago. That's exactly what should have happened when the CC met for the de novo hearing. It's something that needed to happen BEFORE the increased SRF loan and the contracts were signed, what was needed before the old board started pounding your tax dollars into the ground weeks before the recall election. <BR/><BR/>Were you not paying attention??Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160419376090573232006-10-09T11:42:00.000-07:002006-10-09T11:42:00.000-07:00Ann,This "smoking gun" that Ron seems to think is ...Ann,<BR/><BR/>This "smoking gun" that Ron seems to think is so important couldn't be less relevant. One only has to look at the November 1998 election results to see that an overwhelming majority of residents voted to put a sewer on the Tri-W site when they voted to establish the CSD. The entire election hinged on the Solution Group's plan to put a BIG-FAT ponding system on the entirety of the Tri-W site. What was it? 44 acres? Ron's claim that the CSD somehow manufactured "a strongly held community value" is just plain bunk. If that's true, then why did Los Osos set records for voter turnout and why did the election turn out the way it did? And I've heard all the "the technology was different, blah, blah, blah" arguments. The fact is - it was a sewer in the middle of town any way you look at it.<BR/><BR/>As for your suggestion that more lawsuits are coming if the County tries to use the CDP to build at Tri-W: what if the property owners decide it's what they want? Should Ron "I-have-nothing-at-stake-in-Los-Osos" Crawford be allowed to circumvent the will of the property owners? Should you? Should Julie Tacker? With the mere suggestion of another Tri-W lawsuit, I find your criticism of Lynn Tornatzky for suggesting the District may have a malpractice case against BWS and Willdan a bit hypocritical.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, between Ron's conspiracy delusions and your obsession over being misquoted - this discussion could not be more ridiculous. The both of you really need to get over yourselves and let the PROPERTY OWNERS decide.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160416376451824482006-10-09T10:52:00.000-07:002006-10-09T10:52:00.000-07:00Ann, If you think I have a comprehension problem o...Ann, <BR/><BR/>If you think I have a comprehension problem or an honesty problem, let me assure you that I know many who think you have one of the above yourself.<BR/><BR/>I prefer to think of these things as situations where we all have our own biases and we all have our own tendency to give evidence that seems to support our own position far too much credence yet we all tend to downplay evidence which seems to argue against our biases.<BR/><BR/>Once you've got two folks who have different viewpoints on these issues trying to discuss them, there are bound to be misunderstandings and it is probably best to assume that both sides are doing their best to be fully honest with their point of view.<BR/><BR/>Along those lines, I can really see that you feel strongly about your point of view and I appreciate your willingness to state it and even to be very gracious with those who would disagree with you ... some even quite rudely. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I am getting the feeling that it might just be that our perspectives are influnced greatly by our criteria for what is "best."<BR/><BR/>I've been been pretty focused on the question of "what is the wisest thing to do next, not being able to change the past?" and I've tended to focus more on the money issues than others.<BR/><BR/>I get the feeling that you (Ann) tend to be more focused on wanting to get the best possible solution for our community but you aren't as focused on the costs and you wouldn't mind going back to square one so much, as long as we could do it right next time.<BR/><BR/>Where I would suggest we could most easily agree is that we both think that a lifecycle costing approach may be a good way of evaluating the potential projects.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160403212626006152006-10-09T07:13:00.000-07:002006-10-09T07:13:00.000-07:00Anonymous sez:"Anonymous said... Ann,Will you endo...Anonymous sez:"Anonymous said... <BR/>Ann,<BR/>Will you endorse candidates? <BR/><BR/>7:30 AM, October 08, 2006"<BR/><BR/>Publicly, Officially, Ex Cathedra, so to speak? No. Never have. Never will. <BR/><BR/>Inlet sez:"I apologize. I thought you were saying that TriW already having permits wasn't fair. In what way did I misunderstand?<BR/><BR/>Do you think the sale of TriW will level the playing field?<BR/><BR/>If so, it sounds as if I may have understood you correctly. <BR/><BR/>7:16 PM, October 08, 2006"<BR/><BR/>The sale of Tri W at this point is unnecessary as far as I can see. Using the existence of the Coastal Permit as an excuse to shoe-horn the Tri W plant back into existence would be a mistake since that Permit was -- as Ron can amply attest -- obtained by, uh, questionable means (and it's not clear whether the CC would be forced to re-consider their dicision if folks brought suit to prove intentional falsification & etc. (Remember the old Strongly Held Community Values ploy?) I think that action would backfire badly. <BR/><BR/>What I have called for FOR YEARS -- but nobody was listening -- is an honest evaluation of the options, let the science and engineering and common sense work in a process that will result in several top options. Then present the community with what I called the Chinese Menu -- i.e. X plan at Y at Z$ or E plan at T for W$ -- vote for one then shut up and start paying. <BR/><BR/>As for misunderstanding me, Yep. it's what you do so often. Take what I actually said then twist it slightly into some other "reality," then claim that's what I said, which I didn't. We've been down this path before and is the reason I asked, in all seriousness, whether you had some sort of reading comprehension disorder or ADD or something like that. What you do is either inadvertent -- a comprehension problem -- or (I hate to think it) deliberate.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160360172616748712006-10-08T19:16:00.000-07:002006-10-08T19:16:00.000-07:00Ann,I apologize. I thought you were saying that T...Ann,<BR/><BR/>I apologize. I thought you were saying that TriW already having permits wasn't fair. In what way did I misunderstand?<BR/><BR/>Do you think the sale of TriW will level the playing field?<BR/><BR/>If so, it sounds as if I may have understood you correctly.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160317853333983562006-10-08T07:30:00.000-07:002006-10-08T07:30:00.000-07:00Ann,Will you endorse candidates?Ann,<BR/>Will you endorse candidates?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160315209029047332006-10-08T06:46:00.000-07:002006-10-08T06:46:00.000-07:00Inlet sez:"Are you saying, Ann, that the reason th...Inlet sez:"Are you saying, Ann, that the reason the CSD would sell the site is to make things fair? Hmmm .... I hardly think that your definition of fairness would be universally applied."<BR/><BR/>What I actually said:<BR/><BR/>"If I understand the thinking it's this: IF the county has promised a fair Process of fairly considering all option fairly, then Tri W should be considered MINUS ITS PERMIT, since that permit is a "thumb on the scale." Remove the permit and all sites would be competing on a level field."<BR/><BR/>Interesting how you twisted what I actually said. You do that often. I find it fascinating. My definition . . . ? MY? ???? Amazing.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160252419836856572006-10-07T13:20:00.000-07:002006-10-07T13:20:00.000-07:00Shark said,"Oh yeah ... some extra 15 years of pol...Shark said,<BR/>"Oh yeah ... some extra 15 years of pollution of our aquifer and saltwater intrusion as well. Now we'll have to add extra to our bills to stem the saltwater intrusion with freshwater dams and/or we'll have to take state water ... and if we take state water we'll get extra growth."<BR/><BR/>Sharky, We'll be paying for seawater intrusion mitigation in more than just our sewer bills. If the effort to get that Resource Capacity Study succeeds, we'll be pushed to the front of the line for State Water. A water moratorium will be implimentd, halting ALL growth and without growth there will be no means to have development pay for infrustructure improvements that are dire. With development, the poor sole that struggles today will struggle further. Look at the whole picture people, we need to grow some more(build out is about 25% more people), the roads will be paved/repaired, drainage facilities improved, a park added to our landscape, library expansion, etc. Our community is blighted by being the step child of the County. Be careful for what you wish for...RCS level III = State Water, State Water = full buildout quicker. We must tip-toe around this issue, bring in development slowly, let them pay their fees, improving the community a little at a time, including toilet retrofit, because we aren't doing it ourselves. Without it we'll pay for improvements ourselves...pay attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160193243848608342006-10-06T20:54:00.000-07:002006-10-06T20:54:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160192387588683722006-10-06T20:39:00.000-07:002006-10-06T20:39:00.000-07:00You know, everybody can engage in conjecture all t...You know, everybody can engage in conjecture all they want, but in the final analysis, Los Osos has relinquished control of what the final decision will be for placement of the waste water facility.<BR/><BR/>And, I will laugh my butt off, if the final decision is to put it at Tri-W. What poetic justice that would be.<BR/><BR/>Or, if this were one of those wonderful stories by the brothers Grimm, and this was to come about, all the No Sewer and Move the Sewer folks would quickly evaporate in a poof of smoke, leaving only the slightest smell of sulphur in their wake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160184615935252962006-10-06T18:30:00.000-07:002006-10-06T18:30:00.000-07:00Yes, I forgot the Doomed 45. You are right.Yes, I forgot the Doomed 45. You are right.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160181268879228872006-10-06T17:34:00.000-07:002006-10-06T17:34:00.000-07:00"Truth is, nobody's been hurt, yet." True, 'cept f..."Truth is, nobody's been hurt, yet." <BR/>True, 'cept for the CDO recipients...<BR/>BTW, fanatics often don't get sarcasm...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160143117763081532006-10-06T06:58:00.000-07:002006-10-06T06:58:00.000-07:00Sharkey bubbled:"I would argue that while you don'...Sharkey bubbled:<BR/>"I would argue that while you don't mind, more of us are really hurt by the extra costs."<BR/> <BR/> Sarcasm seems to be lost on you sometimes.<BR/> <BR/> Truth is, nobody's been hurt, yet.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160142427618593972006-10-06T06:47:00.000-07:002006-10-06T06:47:00.000-07:00Mike Green says:"Due to the excellent efforts of a...Mike Green says:<BR/><BR/>"Due to the excellent efforts of all the Wizards of Glacial Review, my sewer bill since 1990 (when I bought my house)<BR/>Is Zero.<BR/><BR/>Thank you Wizards! (you know who you are)"<BR/><BR/>This clearly supports the notion that the "MOVE THE SEWER" is a fraud. Thanks, Mike for your honesty!<BR/><BR/>P.S. Good luck dealing with the fall out from Ann, Liza, et al for going off 'taking points'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1160109722119080272006-10-05T21:42:00.000-07:002006-10-05T21:42:00.000-07:00Mike ... wouldn't it have been better to have the ...Mike ... wouldn't it have been better to have the County plan which would have cost us about $100/month for 20 years and $40/month afterwards than our current situation which seems about $300/month for 20 years and then $40/month afterwards? Sure, you've had no sewer bill for the last 15 years but the extra $48k you'll have to pay once the thing does go in sort of hurts. (Well, some folks may end up selling their homes before the end of that 20 years, but the essentially they'll take a corresponding loss.)<BR/><BR/>Oh yeah ... some extra 15 years of pollution of our aquifer and saltwater intrusion as well. Now we'll have to add extra to our bills to stem the saltwater intrusion with freshwater dams and/or we'll have to take state water ... and if we take state water we'll get extra growth.<BR/><BR/>Has this been good for more people than it has hurt?<BR/><BR/>I would argue that while you don't mind, more of us are really hurt by the extra costs.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.com