tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post116464344261450679..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1165094898757717772006-12-02T13:28:00.000-08:002006-12-02T13:28:00.000-08:00First of all, anyone who paid up front for a sewer...First of all, anyone who paid up front for a sewer in Los Osos is very stupid. Secondly, why can't those who paid up front have that amount deducted from their share when the payments start coming due?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164957416558131132006-11-30T23:16:00.000-08:002006-11-30T23:16:00.000-08:00So ... inform me why these folks who paid the LOCS...So ... inform me why these folks who paid the LOCSD upfront for a sewer shouldn't get their money back even though the LOCSD promised to pay them back if the LOCSD doesn't actually put in a sewer.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164936542012353732006-11-30T17:29:00.000-08:002006-11-30T17:29:00.000-08:00Shark you are soooo lame!! I can not even begin to...Shark you are soooo lame!! I can not even begin to explain. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Quit blogging and get informedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164749355766627442006-11-28T13:29:00.000-08:002006-11-28T13:29:00.000-08:00Okay Ann ... lemmie ask you my question another wa...Okay Ann ... lemmie ask you my question another way.<BR/><BR/>If the CSD doesn't actually get a sewer built, why are they entitled to money they took for the building of a sewer?Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164740166867950152006-11-28T10:56:00.000-08:002006-11-28T10:56:00.000-08:00Ann says:"I'm missing something here: If a portion...Ann says:<BR/>"I'm missing something here: If a portion of the bond money went to buy easements, land for a plant, etc. for a sewer project, and it's sold to buy different easements and different land for a plant, isn't that a straight across the board transfer? Why should homeowners be entitled to "future revnue" from whoever buys Tri W? "<BR/><BR/>The point is that the land Ms. Tacker wants to sell will be sold for some other purpose than a WWTF, as the CSD no longer owns that project, but is merely trying to cling tooth and nail to preventing Tri-W from being a project. It is all going to the County in a month. This would not be a transfer, it would be a sale to get some capital to work with. This money would not be used to pay back the people who paid their assessment in advance.<BR/><BR/>If you have looked at the CSD's present budget, and the amount of money needed to continue the lawsuits (yes, yet another attorney will be needed if the bankruptcy is approved), you will see there is not enough to finish out the year. That is where the money from the sale of Tri-W would go.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164730561637761022006-11-28T08:16:00.000-08:002006-11-28T08:16:00.000-08:00Inlet sez:"Note: I am not saying that the money wa...Inlet sez:"Note: I am not saying that the money was specific to TriW ... but I am saying that the LOCSD did stop the project and due to AB2701 no longer plays any role. Essentially the ethical thing to do would be to pay back those who paid the LOCSD to get a sewer online because we all know the LOCSD cannot do what they promised to do in exchange for the money."<BR/><BR/>If the money wasn't specific for Tri W, then what was it for? What portion went to buy easements and land, what portion went to pay for design, etc? What portion will be utilized in whatever "updated" system the county devises? <BR/><BR/>Inlet also sez:"Ann, it seems as if you are attempting to divert attention here by saying that moving out of town counts as moving forward ... the issue isn't the location but instead whether the LOCSD is entitled to that money if they don't live up to their end of the bargain."<BR/><BR/>Nope, asking a question: What constitutes NOT moving forward: The county announcing it will NOT build a wastewater system, period end of sentence? Is the county "moving ahead?" What does that mean? <BR/><BR/>Sewertoons sez:"""What they got was prime real estate including pump stations, easements… that could be used toward any project in the future," Tacker said. "By all means they got something for it."<BR/><BR/>But not for long if Ms. Tacker has her way. She is trying every which way to sell that land to prevent a WWTF from being built there. Her idea of a "project in the future" would be housing or retail. Do you think those who paid their assessment would get a slice of the income from the sale of the property (bargain basement priced due to its encumbrances) or the future revenue from any of that? Let's ask Ms. Tacker!" <BR/><BR/>I'm missing something here: If a portion of the bond money went to buy easements, land for a plant, etc. for a sewer project, and it's sold to buy different easements and different land for a plant, isn't that a straight across the board transfer? Why should homeowners be entitled to "future revnue" from whoever buys Tri W? <BR/><BR/>Jon sez:"However, you are no better, but to your tremendous credit, you put your spin and opinion out, and some respond with foot in mouth to your sock with foot in mouth. "<BR/><BR/>Once again, to repeat myself: My column is an opinion column, it runs on the opinion page of the Bay News. My blog is my blog and like most blogs consists of my opinion and whatever else I choose to write about. People posting on this blog are expressing their opinions as well. Why I take the Tribune to task so much is because on the front page they're supposed to be doing reportage and journalism 101, which means get the facts straight and, please god, set those facts into CONTEXT so the reader can make sense of it. What goes on the Opinion page, is . . . opinion.<BR/><BR/>It's a puzzle tome why anyone has a problem understanding that.<BR/><BR/>Mike sez:"I do believe that the folks that paid up front should get the balance of their deposit minus what someone has payed by assesement schedule.<BR/>With this warning: "Dont ever pay the government more that you absolutly have to"."<BR/><BR/>There may be a misunderstanding here. People who paid yearly (vs lump sum) will be paying yearly for a long time to come. Neither the pre-payers or yearly payers should get their money back because they bought land and preliminary designs and easements & etc. And the land and easements will be transfered and incorporated intot he price of a new plant so they've "bought" that part already with the same money, so to speak. Is it possible that many people who pre-paid think that those of us who are paying on time suddenly won't have to keep paying that amount? No, we'll be paying for the original assessment PLUS whatever the new assessment is, while those who pre-paid will only be billed for the new assessment. <BR/><BR/>as for getting the money back, back from whom? Watson Montgomery Harza for design work they've already done? If it's returned to everyone when the Tri W site is sold, if it is, then it'd just have to be added right back onto the new assessment to purchase new land & etc. So, it seems moot to me. <BR/><BR/>but then, what do I know. I'm glibly holding the torch to light the runway for de plane! de plane!Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164721692646273142006-11-28T05:48:00.000-08:002006-11-28T05:48:00.000-08:00I find the cargo cult analogy not only amusing but...I find the cargo cult analogy not only amusing but somewhat credible. Anyone who understands the incredible power of group values and beliefs over controlling human behavior should see the analogy as, um, brilliant in a way. We wait, we wait, we wait for something to fall from the sky that will save us. We haven't been able to save ourselves, no matter how much we "care" or what we "believe."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164685204781240232006-11-27T19:40:00.000-08:002006-11-27T19:40:00.000-08:00What's with this "cargo cult" crap? Comparing it t...What's with this "cargo cult" crap? Comparing it to the LOSO situation is about the stupidest thing ever put forth here.<BR/>Jon should find another "manual" to put forth his stange doctrine....like, Mein Kampf or 1976 or How To Win Friends And Influence People or Barny Does Disneyland.<BR/>Come off that CargoCrap, Jon, you are smarter than that.....I hope!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164681263627788222006-11-27T18:34:00.000-08:002006-11-27T18:34:00.000-08:00So they want their money back, big whoop. I'd like...So they want their money back, big whoop.<BR/> I'd like some of my money back for what I concider bad government too!<BR/> Believe me, it would be way more than 3500 bucks.<BR/> How about a refund for all the taxes paid to the county. <BR/> There is very good argument that the County is respomsible for some, if not all of this mess.<BR/> Also I'd like a refund for whatever taxes were used to pay for the "Water Gods" ( that may be $0 because they probably live on the fines they impose)<BR/> <BR/> So go ahead, get in line.<BR/> It will surley be as much of a waste of time as the dissolution movement.<BR/><BR/> I do believe that the folks that paid up front should get the balance of their deposit minus what someone has payed by assesement schedule.<BR/> With this warning: "Dont ever pay the government more that you absolutly have to".<BR/> <BR/> To me the BIG issue is the 2010 drop dead decree.<BR/><BR/> I have very little faith that a sewer will be on line by then, if even started.<BR/><BR/> Unlike, Jon I don't believe in the cargo cult. (much)Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164663325579018812006-11-27T13:35:00.000-08:002006-11-27T13:35:00.000-08:00While on the subject of "weasel words," how would ...While on the subject of "weasel words," how would you categorize Julie Tacker's statement in that article Ann regarding what the assessment payers got for their money?<BR/><BR/>""What they got was prime real estate including pump stations, easements… that could be used toward any project in the future," Tacker said. "By all means they got something for it."<BR/><BR/>But not for long if Ms. Tacker has her way. She is trying every which way to sell that land to prevent a WWTF from being built there. Her idea of a "project in the future" would be housing or retail. Do you think those who paid their assessment would get a slice of the income from the sale of the property (bargain basement priced due to its encumbrances) or the future revenue from any of that? Let's ask Ms. Tacker!Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164655054962492632006-11-27T11:17:00.000-08:002006-11-27T11:17:00.000-08:00Ann,As you gave already taken a "wait and see" sta...Ann,<BR/><BR/>As you gave already taken a "wait and see" stand on sewer project costs, why not wait and see what the Bankruptcy judge rules on this issue too? Or do you only "wait and see" when you have nothing glib to say on an issue?<BR/><BR/>Regarding your blog, it is a weak attempt to avoid the issue by trying to divert attention to irrelevant issues by spinning your take on the behavior of others.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGrosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164652998620681612006-11-27T10:43:00.000-08:002006-11-27T10:43:00.000-08:00On the issue sewertoons raises, I do think it very...On the issue sewertoons raises, I do think it very troubling that, as stated in the <A HREF="http://forums.prospero.com/n/mb/at.asp?webtag=kr-SLOgeneral&guid=576EEB77-88A1-4B71-BCDD-FF67310D6D35&frames=no" REL="nofollow">Viewpoint</A> of past board members that the board would borrow from one account to pay another without public comment and that they would borrow money from the outside without any notice to us.<BR/><BR/>They are to represent us but the board's power to represent us has limitations. They are required by law to have meetings and to conduct all business in the open other than items which are allowed in closed session. The discussion of balancing the books is not and cannot be a closed session item. Presumably the board could have come to us and asked for more money saying "the lawyers and consultants and other costs of moving the sewer are really high and we need some additional money to keep afloat ... how about an additional $10/month for 20 years so that way we can make it through the next two years?". It wouldn't have been hard to do. It also would have been a good way to see if the community was behind them. Maybe they should have even done this <B>before</B> stopping construction.<BR/><BR/>The problem seems to me to be one of the ends justifying the means. It appears that this board has no qualms about bending (or perhaps even breaking) the rules if it helps them achieve their goal of moving the sewer "no matter what it costs". Sadly their choices will cost our community a whole lot of money and more ... our spirit.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ann, what would you have to say about borrowing money without public comment? How do you feel about it?Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164652234979992102006-11-27T10:30:00.000-08:002006-11-27T10:30:00.000-08:00Maybe I am confused.Can you explain to us again wh...Maybe I am confused.<BR/><BR/>Can you explain to us again why it is ethical to borrow money for one purpose then not use it for another?<BR/><BR/>The LOCSD made a deal with us and promised to pay us back if the project doesn't move forward. Guess what ... the project the money was to pay for isn't moving forward. The LOCSD had the power to move the project forward but chose to stop it. (Perhaps if the County picks the project up again it would make sense to pay for the design, permitting and other things associated with TriW, but if the County doesn't choose TriW, I see no reason the LOCSD should't pay us back and stop collecting the assessments from those who pay monthly.)<BR/><BR/>Note: I am not saying that the money was specific to TriW ... but I am saying that the LOCSD did stop the project and due to AB2701 no longer plays any role. Essentially the ethical thing to do would be to pay back those who paid the LOCSD to get a sewer online because we all know the LOCSD cannot do what they promised to do in exchange for the money.<BR/><BR/>Ann, it seems as if you are attempting to divert attention here by saying that moving out of town counts as moving forward ... the issue isn't the location but instead whether the LOCSD is entitled to that money if they don't live up to their end of the bargain.<BR/><BR/><BR/>All in all it seems like yet another cost that the recall board didn't consider before embarking on their perilous journey and dragging the rest of us. Let me suggest something to those who would plan expeditions ... if you don't have enough food and water before you leave and if you don't know as a fact that you can obtain that food and water ... you shouldn't go!Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-1164645936814255692006-11-27T08:45:00.000-08:002006-11-27T08:45:00.000-08:00uThe present CSD is perfectly capable of bleeding ...uThe present CSD is perfectly capable of bleeding itself dry with lawsuits, thank you. They appear to have the same objective as TW once had, which is dissolution.<BR/><BR/>Is getting nothing the correct result of having made a prepayment? Do you not think that many people came to the conclusion of the unfairness of it with no help at all from Taxpayers' Watch? Duh!<BR/><BR/>How about investigating and writing that the County might consider these monies as a credit towards the project that they would build. But I guess it is much more fun to harp on old stuff and slam TW and the old board than to investigate a possible positive result.<BR/><BR/>Do you consider it "ethical" that the present board "borrowed" $760,000 to make the bond payment that should have been paid out of our collected tax money? There was no public noticing of this action. How are we going to pay that money back? So far, total silence from the board. Too busy generating lawsuits against the County I guess.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.com