tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post1192568772524228323..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-37687951170545277752008-01-08T08:36:00.000-08:002008-01-08T08:36:00.000-08:00No reason to be sorry on my account, Mike.I will "...No reason to be sorry on my account, Mike.<BR/><BR/>I will "hope" that you and newspapers will hold all community leaders to an equal standard. <BR/><BR/>"There ought to be a law"-Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-72908554655558150062008-01-08T05:49:00.000-08:002008-01-08T05:49:00.000-08:00Sorry Mark..."SHe who commits injustice is ever ma...Sorry Mark...<BR/><BR/>"SHe who commits injustice is ever made more wretched than She who suffers it." now used when speaking of Julie Tacker, never to be Edwards...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-49279053098118449282008-01-07T22:49:00.000-08:002008-01-07T22:49:00.000-08:00Ladies and Gentlemen: Members at today's TAC meeti...Ladies and Gentlemen: <BR/><BR/>Members at today's TAC meeting never discussed the issues raised by me below.<BR/><BR/>I wonder if or when the Tribune will give similar front page attention to the real costs staring the citizens in the face. <BR/><BR/>Oh well, we have AC to thank for this venue! Thank you Ann!<BR/><BR/><BR/>----- Original Message ----- <BR/>From: Mark Low <BR/>To: Patel, Sona - SLO <BR/>Cc: tom@nowastewater.com <BR/>Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 2:13 PM<BR/>Subject: improper use <BR/><BR/><BR/>“With the challenges that our board is facing, I really don’t want to pick on each other over things that are not top priority,” Cesena said.<BR/>http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/238850.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Sona,<BR/><BR/>I think "Fraudulent Use of 218" would be considered a top priority story worthy of coverage if this one is...<BR/><BR/>Happy New Year,<BR/><BR/>Mark<BR/><BR/>Here is another worth tens of millions of dollars and it is "ongoing":<BR/>I think that today is your day off from the office, but I know that given your crack reporting skills and good relationship with the County you should be able to develop the basis for a decent piece on exfiltration, gas, carbon foot print and Native American burial sites in the long (40+ miles) road through the process to a "project".<BR/><BR/>By the way the Tuesday's BOS should be interesting as staff has recommended the Supervisors vote to hope.<BR/>See Below<BR/><BR/><BR/>----- Original Message ----- <BR/>From: Mark Low <BR/>To: LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us <BR/>Cc: Mark Low ; Harvey Packard ; rbriggs@swrcb.ca.gov ; pogren@co.slo.ca.us ; Mark Hutchinson ; tom@nowastewater.com <BR/>Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 9:02 PM<BR/>Subject: TAC Agenda for 1/7/08 SEWERAGE<BR/><BR/><BR/>Please address these components of the county's proposed 40+ miles sewerage and treatment: <BR/>EXFILTRATION & Hydrogen Sulfide Gas. <BR/><BR/>Carbon footprint of construction and operation(including electricity).<BR/><BR/>Native American Burial Sites<BR/><BR/>Mark Low<BR/><BR/>He who commits injustice is ever made more wretched than he who suffers it. <BR/>PlatoMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-27411561045786223182008-01-07T21:36:00.000-08:002008-01-07T21:36:00.000-08:00pg-13,To answer you question are - "CSD legal liab...pg-13,<BR/><BR/>To answer you question are - "CSD legal liabilities shared by the larger CSD membership (?)"<BR/><BR/>No, the money that comes into the CSD from the County (through state tax returns filtering back to us) is earmarked for very specific things. It comes in through taxes and assessments. Bond money paid by us through our taxes now circumvents the CSD altogether (thereby stopping the revenue from interest the CSD once enjoyed) and goes directly to pay the bond (as the present CSD (sans Joe) "spent" the bond money they held somehow on other things (lawyers) and the privledge of handling the money was taken away! <BR/><BR/>The fire tax money pays for fire and emergency services. There are a bunch of tiny assessments for things like lighting in Cabrillo and Bayridge. (This small money right now is pooled and doled out where needed.)<BR/><BR/>There is really no money to fund administrative costs, except from the CSD's Water Department. The water department services area covers a little less than half of Los Osos, but much of the PZ. (The other almost half of water coverage is by Golden State Water Company and the third water company is teeny - S & T Mutual - neither of these has any obligation to pay anything to the CSD - one is a public utility, the other is a privately held company by the residents in their little area). <BR/><BR/>The payments to lawyers then, comes out of the water rates of the LOCSD Water Company.<BR/><BR/>I might add that the CSD - from 1999 to the 2005 recall spent $800,000 on lawyers. The amount since fall of 2005 to the present is a minimum of $2 million that I know of, but probably more. <BR/><BR/>Hope I haven't been too depressing here. <BR/><BR/>Oh, the PZ is about 85% of Los Osos. So 15% are getting a free ride. I live in the PZ, and I don't like paying for these lawsuits. I'd rather the money go to build back up the reserves, which are way, way below what they once were, due to spending on - guess what - lawyers.<BR/><BR/>Special Counsel, General Counsel, Bond Counsel, Bankruptcy Counsel, PZLDF Counsel, and now defend the 5 directors counsel. I think I may have forgotten one.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-78691407001210786532008-01-07T18:21:00.000-08:002008-01-07T18:21:00.000-08:00Tell me WHY Juile Tacker is still on the LOCSD...?...Tell me WHY Juile Tacker is still on the LOCSD...??? <BR/><BR/>I thought the CSD was for the goood of the entire community, not as a landscape company for her "boy friend".... I see see is still an unwed mother who walked away from her husband and 3 daughters... <BR/><BR/>What a lovely moral leader for our community...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-35887957701359844882008-01-07T15:48:00.000-08:002008-01-07T15:48:00.000-08:00The CSD board avoided it until they could get unde...The CSD board avoided it until they could get under the cover of the bankruptcy filing in August of 2006.-Nice work Board??<BR/><BR/>Is every agency/political subdivision reading the same manual?<BR/><BR/>Where were taxpayer's watch dogs when they were really needed? <BR/><BR/>Where are they now as the county is "processing" with red ink?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-68475259754982834152008-01-07T15:26:00.000-08:002008-01-07T15:26:00.000-08:00Ron,I always get a giggle-jag going when I see you...Ron,<BR/><BR/>I always get a giggle-jag going when I see you post your e-mails to public servants that question their analyses and conclusions. Sort of funny when you so resent others questioning your analyses and conclusions.<BR/><BR/>As usual you will probably not see the humor in the double-standard just like you've never seen a double standard that in 1998 promising a cheaper solution which doesn't end up passing RWQCB muster is bad bad bad but that in 2005 promising a cheaper solution that won't end up passing RWQCB muster is good politics.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-56879316024669800862008-01-07T13:30:00.000-08:002008-01-07T13:30:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-87366623975885834232008-01-07T13:29:00.000-08:002008-01-07T13:29:00.000-08:00While I have a moment...Damn, I hate it when I do ...While I have a moment...<BR/><BR/>Damn, I hate it when I do this...<BR/><BR/>This morning, I wrote this e-mail to Paavo Ogren:<BR/><BR/>- - -<BR/><BR/>Hello Paavo,<BR/><BR/>In the Resolution concerning the RWQCB enforcement actions for tomorrow's meeting, it reads:<BR/><BR/>"the failures of the LOCSD in 2005"<BR/><BR/>Which "failures" is the Resolution referring to?<BR/><BR/>This one?<BR/><BR/>The failure to construct a mid-town sewer plant that was called "bait and switchy" by Dave Potter of the Coastal Commission in 2004, and that also relied on an unsupported, and therefore illegal, Statement of Overriding Considerations to retain the sewer plant at its unpopular mid-town location, and also included, for absolutely no logical reason whatsoever, a multi-million dollar public park that not only dictated the expensive and unpopular sewer plant location, but also included an amphitheater, picnic area, and tot lot that was all being funded by the State Revolving Fund (while dozens of other California communities couldn't get a dime of SRF funding for their badly needed, amphitheater-less water quality projects), despite the fact that the SRF Policy so brilliantly states: "Ineligible for (SRF) funding -- Decorative Items?"<BR/><BR/>Is that the "failure" that tomorrow's Resolution is referring to... the "failure" to build that project?<BR/><BR/>If that's not accurate, please clarify which "failures" the Resolution is referring to.<BR/><BR/>As always, much thanks,<BR/><BR/>Ron<BR/><BR/>- - -<BR/><BR/>and I wish I would have wrote:<BR/><BR/>"... and that also relied on an unsupported, and therefore illegal, Statement of Overriding Considerations to retain the sewer plant at its unpopular, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE mid-town location."<BR/><BR/>Damn, I hate it when I do that.<BR/><BR/>If someone reading this is going to speak at the BOS meeting tomorrow, you might want to get county staff to clarify the meaning of "failures of the LOCSD in 2005."<BR/><BR/>Are they talking about the failure of the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD to develop a legal project that actually makes sense, or are they talking about the post-recall LOCSD's failure to construct an illegal project that doesn't make a lick of sense? Because, if it's the latter, that's not a "failure" at all. Just the opposite, in fact. That was an over-the-top, spectacular success.<BR/><BR/>Ol' *pg-13 (good to have ya back) wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>"Is it all just a ploy to recover some funds so TW can pay previous legal debt"</I><BR/><BR/>What do you think? They don't make a move unless there's some type of creepy, hidden agenda behind it.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14156410299483542733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-53120397527249427552008-01-07T13:23:00.000-08:002008-01-07T13:23:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-70056386128823493302008-01-07T13:05:00.000-08:002008-01-07T13:05:00.000-08:00> And the seasons they go round and round> And the...> <I>And the seasons they go round and round<BR/>> And the painted ponies go up and down<BR/>> We're captive on the carousel of time<BR/>> We cant return we can only look behind<BR/>> From where we came<BR/>> And go round and round and round<BR/>> In the circle game</I><BR/><BR/>Just can't get that tune out of my head every time I read about yet another new development, accusation, RWQRB determination, legal judgment or law suit regarding anything to do with a Los Osos sewer. Circle game indeed. More a Sisyphean challenge. Are we forever to be cursed with still more of the same? (sigh) What planet did these people come from? And why won't they just go home? They can't possibly think they are improving the neighborhood can they? Their seemingly endless <A HREF="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/internecine" REL="nofollow">internecine</A> fighting, legal wrangling and CYA activity is only costing all of us money. Really big and serious money. All to what purpose? Mutually assured destruction. I'm all for public debate, challenging discourse and lawful legal challenge as tools for forging communal decision. But when it gets to this point I can't help but think we've become too, uh, civil for our own good. By a half. I'm thinking tar and feathering and a run out of town on a rail might be a fair and well earned reward. And this from a forever forgiving always hopeful democrat. Just goes to show everything has a limit.<BR/><BR/>I guess I'm just too simple. Or maybe I need to go back and re-read the last few blog entries more closely. I gotta admit, at some point my eyes just glaze over and I lose interest in trying to make sense of it anymore. That seems to be happening more and more with me. Still, what does TW gain from this? How does it help? How does it help anybody? Them, the community, who? Why are they doing it? Especially now? Is it all just a ploy to recover some funds so TW can pay previous legal debt? Surely there's more than that. Richard, you seem willing to discuss this and give perspective which I often have difficulty seeing. Can you help me out here?<BR/><BR/>Also. I recall asking something similar to this over a year ago. But a lot has changed since then and I'm curious about an updated answer. How are these on-going PZ sewer-related CSD legal liabilities shared by the larger CSD membership? The various CSD responsibilities and their associated accounts seem to be so mucked up, covered up and/or bankrupted is there any distinction or separation any more? Is all of Los Osos in for a common shared debt for PZ-sewer related legal expenses? Is the entire community paying the costs or incurring debt for these on-going legal battles? If so, why? What percentage of the community does the PZ represent and, inversely, what percentage of the community falls outside of the PZ? And how are these percentages reflected in the tax base? The county doesn't want the CSD to go bankrupt but if it did would the county at-large inherit these debts? And their legal liabilities? Or would these be levied back upon the properties which created the liabilities in the first place? Specifically, which properties? And how can the CSD <B>NOT</B> be bankrupt now? Current litigation not-with-standing.<BR/><BR/>And how can anybody or any agency rationalize any new development in and around Los Osos until a good piece - if not all - of this is resolved? Faustian Dude! That doesn't mean the PZ is holding the rest of the valley hostage. It means the rest of the valley HAS TO OWN UP TO REALITY. Until there is a comprehensive water plan playing games like this is akin to playing Russian roulette with no empty chambers. A new line for being tarred, feathered and run out of town starts right here.*PG-13https://www.blogger.com/profile/14900054935763648975noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-928225784416395012008-01-07T11:39:00.000-08:002008-01-07T11:39:00.000-08:00tcg: I think that the "cost sheet" on page 5 and t...tcg:<BR/> <BR/>I think that the "cost sheet" on page 5 and the "motion" itself are the interesting parts- "That it is the "hope" of the County that CCRWQCB will rescind those individual enforcement actions initiated after failures of the LOCSD in 2005 and that the PZLDF will concurrently agree to dismiss all litigation associated with those individual enforcement actions."..They are kidding, right?<BR/> <BR/>I know I am relatively new to the proceedings between the WB & LO,so could someone explain the status of the 700 CDO's detailed on page 7?<BR/> <BR/>http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=31&meta_id=80763<BR/> <BR/>I hope that the SLO BOS and CCRWQCB personnel perform their fiduciary duties in a timely manner. No kidding..Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-89184017001976911132008-01-07T09:16:00.000-08:002008-01-07T09:16:00.000-08:00I just read the proposed resolution for the Board ...I just read the proposed resolution for the Board of Supervisors on tomorrow's agenda regarding the possible dismissal of the CDO's. <BR/><BR/>I like the way that the staff recited the history of the issue and recommend that your other bloggers review it.TCGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311070108486162937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-87237878606058073242008-01-07T09:00:00.000-08:002008-01-07T09:00:00.000-08:00Hi Ann,YOU WROTE: "....what we also need here is s...Hi Ann,<BR/><BR/>YOU WROTE: "....what we also need here is some kind of Truth & Reconciliation Hearings"<BR/><BR/>RESPONSE. I agree....the hearings are to occure in the SLO Superior Court. The Judge will rule and the truth be revealed.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGros<BR/><BR/>PS: TW WON the lawsuit against the LOCSD over the validity of Measure B. The LOCSD could have ended that lawsuit by settling the TW lawsuit costs ($15,000)as awarded by the courts....but chose to spend $50,000 to appeal the case (unintentinally allowing TW a seat on the bankrupptcy creditors committee). To date, the LOCSD refuses to proceed with that case. Only a matter of time before the Appeals Court rejects the Appeal due to failure of the LOCSD to prosecute their case.Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-33482874727865417272008-01-07T07:51:00.000-08:002008-01-07T07:51:00.000-08:00Grasshoppe sez:"How much is it going to cost to se...Grasshoppe sez:"How much is it going to cost to settle the actual validity of measure B?"<BR/><BR/>Actually, there's so many lawsuits, each of which will cost pots of money but many of which are all linked together. One of the most interesting to me, is the SWB/SRF Loan/contractor's "Breach of Contract" lawsuit. If you read Ron's entry above, the question still remains: Who pulled the plug on the SRF loan, who actually "breached" that contract. If I understand what's at stake, it's a critical question since it's the linchpin for so much of what follows. <BR/><BR/>In addition, what we also need here is some kind of Truth & Reconciliation Hearings. Amnesty all round, but can we please have the truth from everyone just who did what, when and why. Everyone wants Los Osos to "heal." Well, a T&R Hearing would go a long way towards "splainin'" a whole lot.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-51076377861226256762008-01-05T22:13:00.000-08:002008-01-05T22:13:00.000-08:00"Any settlement you can make without a lawyer or i..."Any settlement you can make without a lawyer or in court is better than any settlement you can make with a lawyer or in court"Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-73057247684375905522008-01-05T11:32:00.000-08:002008-01-05T11:32:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-58388387119829457002008-01-05T11:30:00.000-08:002008-01-05T11:30:00.000-08:00How much is it going to cost to settle the actual ...How much is it going to cost to settle the actual validity of measure B? <BR/><BR/>If it costs $600,000 for filing a appeal brief that can be handled by a law clerk, how much is a bargain settlement for the completion of the appeal against the validity of measure B itself???<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, Mr McClendon can weigh in on this? Mucho millions I would imagine to appeal the decision that measure B is invalid!<BR/><BR/>Ohh Lucy there is a lot of 'plainin to do!grasshopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13783144889749989659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-53490883554294684842008-01-05T11:20:00.000-08:002008-01-05T11:20:00.000-08:00Great report, Ann.Ann wrote that McClendon wrote:"...Great report, Ann.<BR/><BR/>Ann wrote that McClendon wrote:<BR/><BR/><B><I>"Second, thanks to a Public Records Act request presented by the San Luis Obispo Tribune to the SWRCB, it was revealed that the SWRCB had undertaken the Blakeslee negotiations in bad faith and had presented their “final offer” to the District knowing full well that the SWRCB never intended to approve it even if the District accepted it."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I reported on all of that, in December 2005, at this link:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/12/step-back-and-blur-your-eyes-memos.html " REL="nofollow">http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/12/step-back-and-blur-your-eyes-memos.html</A><BR/><BR/>and, in that story, I supply a link to the official memos found in that Public Records Act request, and those memos -- two years removed -- are freaking excellent!<BR/><BR/>(You know, if you ever wonder why you should support independent journalism, this is a good example. I just went and re-read my piece above (excellent piece, by the way) and the link to the memos that I originally created in that story (to the <I>Trib's</I> web site) was no longer valid, so I just went and fished out my own personal copy of that important file on my hard drive, and then uploaded all 1.6 megs to my own web space, and then redid the link in my story so everyone can now download and read those amazing documents... easily, and for free. And, as far as I know, <I>SewerWatch</I> is the only place you'll find that document. Gotta love independent journalism, huh?)<BR/><BR/>Wow... two years later, those memos so great. Talk about a "who's who" of public officials that f-d up and trusted Nash-Karner for six years. Roger Briggs, Celeste Cantu, Barbara Evoy, Darrin Polhemus, Richard Katz, William Rukeyser, Gerald Secundy, Gordon Hensley... oh, lord, it just goes on and on and on.<BR/><BR/>Wanna have some fun with those memos from 2005, shortly after the recall election? Notice how embarrassing all those water officials that were so gun-ho (gung-ho?) for the Tri-W project look these days, in light of recent county analysis of that embarrassing, illegal, park-project-that-also-included-a-sewer-plant.Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14156410299483542733noreply@blogger.com