tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post2999835487358546213..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-46171037190125183882007-09-15T19:14:00.000-07:002007-09-15T19:14:00.000-07:00Revealed....Oh...it's you again. You have bloggrd ...Revealed....<BR/><BR/>Oh...it's you again. <BR/>You have bloggrd us all in the past under different blog names. <BR/><BR/>My response to you is as before.....you're full of baloney. Your blogs are all babble with no facts or conection to reality. <BR/><BR/>und2gtalf,Bruce<BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGrosRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-20219219488393880562007-09-15T16:48:00.000-07:002007-09-15T16:48:00.000-07:00Revealed,Interesting. You think it okay to walk d...Revealed,<BR/><BR/>Interesting. You think it okay to walk door to door to spread one's beliefs but you somehow think it wrong to do the same thing but via the internet. Whether the intent is education (my motive) or propaganda (what you believe my motive to be) seems irrelevant. Could you explain yourself a bit more.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-51175711449411560222007-09-15T11:56:00.000-07:002007-09-15T11:56:00.000-07:00Shark,At least Linde Owen and Michael Jones walk f...Shark,<BR/><BR/>At least Linde Owen and Michael Jones walk from door to door and physically commit themselves to their beliefs. You? You and 4crapkiller post so frequently and argue the same points over and over again, it leaves me to wonder--as well as any reasonable person--about your intent. Are you educating or propagating? It sounds a lot like propagating to me.<BR/><BR/>Richard,<BR/><BR/>What would you rather have me talk about? You being a homosexual or you--along with the other recalled members--filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and thus, mooting any sort of criticism you have of a financially inept LOCSD and both claims can be proven in court.<BR/><BR/>I'll explain a little more about these comments. This will put them into perspective and maybe someday, they'll mean a whole lot more than "babble" to you.<BR/><BR/>I personally believe that you have yet to show any sort of community service--but then you may be asking, "Then what do you call being a board member of the LOCSD?" <BR/><BR/>I would sit in the front row and watch you pull a Rip Van Winkle and literally sleep while the community spoke up against your elitist conduct, your comments, your opinions, your conclusions, your mistakes.<BR/><BR/>You were recalled for good reasons and you were disgraced by a majority vote, you go on SanLuisObispo.com boards and leak classified information from the LOCSD offices and the RWQCB onto the site before the press release date. You took, "For immediate release" literally.<BR/><BR/>And furthermore, you have a lot of skeletons in your closet and you know what? You're the only non-skeleton in that closet at the moment. Might as well come out of the closet if you have the [bleep] balls.Revealedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10466626782373430102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-47395115433976090492007-09-14T14:25:00.000-07:002007-09-14T14:25:00.000-07:00The density here in the zone is absurd with no inf...The density here in the zone is absurd with no infrastructure. Blame all you like revealed, and it won't fix a thing. I prefer to fix this. I already voted yes on the 218 to get a sewer and I don't care where or what kind.<BR/><BR/>I bought a home here knowing I'd have to pay for this eventually. The houses in MB and other coastal areas were more expensive - they already had their infrastructure.<BR/><BR/>What would be the sense in finding out that I on a hill don't pollute, but my neighbor down the hill does? He should pay for the project and not me? And there are good financial reasons to not include Cabrillo in this project as they would make my share much more expensive than it already is. Their density is far different than in my neighborhood and their pollution goes off in another direction altogether.<BR/><BR/>We are not going to change one thing about this at this stage of the game. Let's just vote yes on the 218 and get it over with. I don't want to die still fighting on and on, with ever higher penalties and costs. Life is too short and that tact is just too useless.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-29390857767122239252007-09-14T09:39:00.000-07:002007-09-14T09:39:00.000-07:00Revealed,It seems that you are curious about the a...Revealed,<BR/><BR/>It seems that you are curious about the amount of time I spend reading and commenting. Far less, I assure you, than the amount of time spent by, say, Linde Owen or Mike Jones. Why would any of us spend this much time? Probably three things ... we care about the truth (as we individually see it), we care about our community and spending the extra awake hour on TV or a book would be nowhere near as entertaining.<BR/><BR/>As for your comments about Richard ... I find them offensive both to Richard and to the gay community.<BR/><BR/>If you're a gonna discuss the issues before our community, at least do so without the distracting comments that detract from the value of your other opinions.<BR/><BR/><BR/>On the issue of Cal water code and whether the RWQCB could pass out CDOs to all in the PZ without proof of individual homes polluting, my opinion is based, in part, on the fact that if the definition of the PZ hasn't already been challenged successfully (literally, a prohibition on any discharges without a permit) ... and it hasn't been ... the individual versus group issue you are complaining about has already been settled.<BR/><BR/>If you have a good counter argument based on your involvement in the paralegal field (does this mean that you are a paralegal or that you aren't?) I would be very interested.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-6083529875322185232007-09-14T09:38:00.000-07:002007-09-14T09:38:00.000-07:00Revealed,Babble on you fool. You need to see a psy...Revealed,<BR/><BR/>Babble on you fool. <BR/><BR/>You need to see a psychoanalyst about your obsessive desire and longing that I be homosexual (which I am not). You obviously have a perverted crush on me. <BR/><BR/>RBLRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-11854639007425809892007-09-13T18:21:00.000-07:002007-09-13T18:21:00.000-07:00Shark,I don't care who you are. The question I ask...Shark,<BR/><BR/>I don't care who you are. The question I ask you, sir, is what are you? For someone to invest hours and hours of time by posting recycled spin-riddles, your devotion to these issues raise a few eyebrows. I'm not fond of conspiracies, but I can only rely on instinct. That's all I have to say about that.<BR/><BR/>I will tell you what I am, though, in all fairless. I am involved in the paralegal field so if I spout some legal jargon and cite statutes, you can see that at least my words are backed by experience and research in this area.<BR/><BR/>Again, I stress that voting yes on Proposition 218 is not a wise decision because you don't know what kind of sewer you're going to be paying for and how much. Costs, as determined by LOTAC, start at an average of $275/month, which will be an unarguable burden on the middle to lower-income residents of the PZ. Since there are no alternative financial plans at this time, the one that stands will force economically burdened residents to move.<BR/><BR/><I>You say, "I'll reject outright your contention that the RWQCB is acting more like an advocacy group than a regulatory group. I've not seen it ..."</I><BR/><BR/>... then let me elaborate. Pandora Nash-Karner, Jerry Gregory and a few other like-minded individuals urged the RWQCB, through private, active correspondence to fine the community "out of existence" and the RWQCB did not decide to proceed with the TSO and enforcement hearings until immediately after that correspondence.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, no other RWQCB has acted in this matter and I'd challenge anyone to find a case that has a similar legal proceeding to that of TSO 00-131. If you find one, then great, we'll sit down and analyze it together.<BR/><BR/>Respondin' to your second post: I've never heard of such a thing. You either prosecute a group or an individual. The CDO recipients are literally individuals within a group but you can't have the prosecution rely on collective evidence when they have individual hearings. <BR/><BR/>Here's another analogy: you have a police line-up and you have a row of possible suspects standing in front of a one-way mirror. You sit behind the mirror and you pan your pointing finger from left and right. You say to the police, "They all committed the crime." The police have evidence of the crime. They have a gun but there's no fingerprints nor is there any DNA to be extracted from the scene of the crime. You know a murder happened but you don't know <I>who</I> committed the murder.<BR/><BR/>Doesn't this sound a whole lot like the game, "Clue"? If I played that game, I'd put my money down on the man who wore women's sweaters and a occasional scarf at CSD meetings.<BR/><BR/>Richard,<BR/><BR/>Psycho-babble? <I>"Sufferin’ succotash!"</I> Just like you, Sylvester is also a cartoon character except at least he doesn't cross-dress.Revealedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10466626782373430102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-35838037186255754582007-09-13T15:12:00.000-07:002007-09-13T15:12:00.000-07:00Revealed and Ann,The point about the distinction b...Revealed and Ann,<BR/><BR/>The point about the distinction between individuals and groups with regard to pollution <B>isn't</B> that individuals need to be determined to be polluters before they can be prosecuted, but that individuals within a group ... by their membership in the group ... can be prosecuted for the pollution of the group.<BR/><BR/>In other words, if one is de-facto guilty of pollution by living in the PZ, it doesn't matter if one's septic system is individually part of the problem or not. The argument "no one has proven I am to blame" presumes that individual pollution must be proven.<BR/><BR/>I'll suggest this is not the case.<BR/><BR/>Certainly if it was, there should have been a successful lawsuit some years back challenging the legality of the PZ.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-15964624662231703192007-09-13T07:39:00.000-07:002007-09-13T07:39:00.000-07:00Revealed sez:"Cleath Report tested illegal, unkemp...Revealed sez:"Cleath Report tested illegal, unkempt wells. This, by no means, provides individual pollution. It shows collective pollution, but California water code does not have any sort of statute that requires a blanket CDO to be issued:<BR/><BR/>1831. (a) When the board determines that any person, is violating, or threatening to violate, any requirement described in subdivision (d), the board may issue an order to that person to cease and desist from that violation.<BR/><BR/>It's true that the RWQCB had hearings per individual but it is required by law to do so when a CDO is issued under 1834(a), however their essential case is that PZ is collectively polluting and thus, CDOs must be administered in order to prevent any further pollution. That's like having a few kids misbehaving in a classroom and the teacher decides to punish everyone for it."<BR/><BR/>What was so fascinating to me during the "Trials" of The Los Osos 45, was the way the CDO language kept getting changed and then the repeated Question of the RWQCB staff (i.e. Matt Thompson/ Harvey Packard)regarding individual CDO recipients: "Do you have any imperical evidence that Mr. So & So is polluting the waters of the state of California?" Answer, repeatedly, "No, no evidence." & etc. Nonetheless, Mr. So & So was found GUILTY and promptly hanged. Fascinating. <BR/><BR/>Revealed also sez:"However, the RWQCB's case is fundamentally flawed because they have individual hearings for individual recipients when, as you said, there's no case precedent that has determined individual pollution."<BR/><BR/>If that is indeed true, then what was the RWQCB doing EXCEPT attempting to intimidate and threaten and bully and coerce people to build Tri-W (by law what they're specifically forbidden from doing, specifying any particular system or plant) and they did so using the law (or misusing the law) to do it? Who's to stop them? State AG Jerry Brown? Naw, he sent his minions to court to hammer the few 45 who struggled to get their abuse even heard in court. Is this all abuse of power? Who ya gonna call to stop them? Jerry Brown, again?Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-17011110622202869692007-09-12T21:30:00.000-07:002007-09-12T21:30:00.000-07:00Hey conspiracy boy - are you and revealed related?...Hey conspiracy boy - are you and revealed related?Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-9596376653837623182007-09-12T17:00:00.000-07:002007-09-12T17:00:00.000-07:00Revealed,WOW!!!....I am impressed!Your last post w...Revealed,<BR/><BR/>WOW!!!....I am impressed!<BR/><BR/>Your last post was pure pyscho-babble lacking any sense of reality. <BR/><BR/>-Everybody works for the County?...I want to be PAID for my work performed! You should demand payment too!<BR/><BR/>-The RWQCB is an advocacy group controlled by past CSD board members and real estate developers?...Actually, I and past board members (along with developers) also control the world and beyond too! <BR/><BR/>I have never met anyone who actually lives in the Twilight Zone. How's the view?<BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGrosRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-91051458888277639082007-09-12T16:51:00.000-07:002007-09-12T16:51:00.000-07:00To our new friend, Revealed ....I have am not a Co...To our new friend, Revealed ....<BR/><BR/>I have am not a County employee. If you want to redefine the meaning of the word employee to suit your purposes, it would be nice if you would put that upfront rather than doing a post-hoc song-n-dance to make it look like your earlier nonstandard usage of the word "employee" was reasonable.<BR/><BR/>I would rather not tell you who I am and what positions and degrees I hold. In my mind, that should be irrelevant. What I think should matter is the content of my comments. If you disagree, I apologize, but I don't intend on telling the general blog audience here my identity. While you won't likely give me any credit because I am not going to present any credentials, I would say that they are enough for my opinion to be given some weight even if my own area of expertise is not directly in things sewerish. Hell, it doesn't take much to have a good "take" on the situation ... just a calculator and the ability to add and then figure out monthly payments from a total, term and interest rate. Too bad that Ron and Ann have never availed themselves of the spreadsheets I have provided in the past ... perhaps they would have changed their tune some time back.<BR/><BR/>I won't discuss with you the case the RWQCB may have until you tell me whether there is any other part of CA water code which applies (besides the part you've already cited) and whether there have been any court cases where judges have rendered opinions on the matter. You say the RWQCB case is debatable, I view their case as already settled. Unless you're going to tell me you're a lawyer with a specialty in CA water code, I'll just say for now that without more solid information, we should just agree to disagree.<BR/><BR/>I would want to toss out there, however, the idea that if I am wrong (and that the RWQCB doesn't really have a solid case), it still might be wise to pass the 218 vote and go with the County plan. However, if I am right (and the RWQCB CDO case is pretty solid), then voting no on the 218 could have very serious and very negative financial implications.<BR/><BR/>I'll reject outright your contention that the RWQCB is acting more like an advocacy group than a regulatory group. I've not seen it ... I've only seen claims of electioneering from the folks who want to downplay the possibility of possible RWQCB action.<BR/><BR/>During the recall campaign season, the RWQCB was pretty clear that they intended to take action if a new board took action to stop a permitted project. I saw it in the paper. Even so, many who campaigned for the recall (and even Julie and Lisa) whined when the RWQCB did take action, saying "we didn't know" and "you didn't tell us". Perhaps the RWQCB isn't electioneering, but making clear ... more clear than they did in 2005 ... their intention to take action should the 218 vote fail.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, when you write <I>"The 218 vote that the county has isn't a real 218 vote to begin with. It was made for the wrong reasons"</I> it is not clear at all what you mean. Could you please tell us what you do mean and perhaps add an explanation of what a "real 218 vote" is, being sure to point out how the current 218 vote doesn't fit the definition. I am curious.<BR/><BR/>All the best ...Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-81597671534673936922007-09-12T15:15:00.000-07:002007-09-12T15:15:00.000-07:00I am correct when I say you are a county employee....I am correct when I say you are a county employee. Everyone here is a county employee to a degree. While you may not have a paid county position, you still work for them.<BR/><BR/>Stop telling me what you are not and tell me what you are.<BR/><BR/>Collectively, there may be pollution, sure, it's rather unarguable when you have a high-density area but is the case valid? Not at all. Naturally the nitrate levels are going to be higher in a dense area than in areas with lesser density. However, the RWQCB's case is fundamentally flawed because they have individual hearings for individual recipients when, as you said, there's no case precedent that has determined individual pollution.<BR/><BR/>Pollution is a big deal. Nobody wants to be drinking their own urine. While pollution is an issue, the legality and the fear behind it is debatable. The RWQCB is acting more as an advocacy group than a regulatory branch of government since their enforcement proceedings are directly founded and inspired by former CSD board members and real estate developers. <BR/><BR/>The 218 vote that the county has isn't a real 218 vote to begin with. It was made for the wrong reasons.Revealedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10466626782373430102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-37327834192761268102007-09-12T12:50:00.000-07:002007-09-12T12:50:00.000-07:00To our new friend, Revealed ...You are incorrect w...To our new friend, Revealed ...<BR/><BR/>You are incorrect when you suggest I am a County employee. Your suggestion probably detracts from the quality of your comments.<BR/><BR/>Please also note that my earlier comments about the PZ weren't related to the CDO issue at all, just the definition of the PZ. The very same issues that govern whether Counties will (typically) approve of the use of septic systems ... the density of homes and distance to groundwater are the way the PZ was defined. <BR/><BR/>I note that you also did not suggest a theory for how the nitrate levels are highest under the PZ and rising over time. I'll presume that this means you essentially are in agreement that the collective pollution is caused by homes in the PZ (and perhaps elsewhere, but mostly in the PZ).<BR/><BR/><BR/>I am unaware about how the minutiae of water law would allow or disallow the actions of the RWQCB for I am not a lawyer. I do know, however, that I've been hearing for many years about how no individual homes can be shown to be individually polluting. I've also been hearing for many years about how the RWQCB doesn't care about that issue. If this is the only relevant section of state water law and if there haven't been any court cases to clarify the question of groups of individuals (like the whole of the PZ), you have a good point that the RWQCB decisions would be open to a legal challenge. The question for you, then, is this ... is this the only section of water law which applies and have there been any court cases where the decision would speak to the issue?<BR/><BR/>The Cleath report and all the other reports which look at nitrates over time show a rather clear picture. The nitrate levels are higher than allowable under the the PZ and that the nitrate levels have been increasing under the PZ.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here's my question for you, Revealed ... do you believe that the pollution isn't a big deal and that the teeth of the RWQCB are not as sharp as many fear and that the community doesn't need a sewer and treatment plant? Someone with that opinion should certainly vote "no" on the 218. However, it would seem that folks who do think that there is pollution, that we should have a sewer or even that the RWQCB will be able to make our lives painful if we don't have one should be voting "yes".<BR/><BR/>Maybe your issue isn't the 218 vote, but that's the main question I see before us this month and next in Los Osos.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-60027692162418855102007-09-12T11:56:00.000-07:002007-09-12T11:56:00.000-07:00Hi Mike Green,I completely understand your angst.I...Hi Mike Green,<BR/><BR/>I completely understand your angst.<BR/>I too want the 218 to pass. <BR/><BR/>But please remember that the costs of a project are not a secret. <BR/><BR/>The County has made it very clear that their estimates are for the CAPITAL costs only; and that the money needed to build any project will cost property owners around $200 per month for 20 to 30 years. <BR/><BR/>The County has made it very clear that their estimates do not include OM&R, nor any costs associated with the abandoning the old project (which the County rightly contends is a LOCSD issue that the County does not have the responsibility to resolve). <BR/><BR/>Los Osos voters understand that County costs are seperate from LOCSD costs.....and that these costs added together represent the probable total monthly cost to the property owner. Los Osos voters also understand that voting no will result in even higher costs, continued environmental damage and likely enforcement action(s) by the State. <BR/><BR/>Sorry you do not like my comments about the cost...or what you consider bad timing. As I blogged earlier, I understand your angst.<BR/><BR/>However, I have made statements clarifying probable home owner monthly costs for a WWTF for over a year now. Remember the Ripley Project vs Tri-W project cost calculations (with monthly cost payment estimates) I posted in August of 2006? It is better for folks to know what is happening and vote YES on the 218 rather than not understanding the issue now and later hearing howls of protest as reality sets in.<BR/><BR/>Mike, thanks for your concern. I know that you are being honest.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGrosRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-70385516133024943522007-09-12T11:35:00.000-07:002007-09-12T11:35:00.000-07:00To County Employee, Shark Inlet:You're not playing...To County Employee, Shark Inlet:<BR/><BR/>You're not playing with a full deck.<BR/><BR/>Cleath Report tested illegal, unkempt wells. This, by no means, provides individual pollution. It shows collective pollution, but California water code does not have any sort of statute that requires a blanket CDO to be issued:<BR/><BR/><I>1831. (a) When the board determines that any <B>person,</B> is violating, or threatening to violate, any requirement described in subdivision (d), the board may issue an order to that person to cease and desist from that violation.</I><BR/><BR/>It's true that the RWQCB had hearings per individual but it is required by law to do so when a CDO is issued under 1834(a), however their essential case is that PZ is collectively polluting and thus, CDOs must be administered in order to prevent any further pollution. That's like having a few kids misbehaving in a classroom and the teacher decides to punish everyone for it. <BR/><BR/>There are also reports that conflict with the Cleath Report so it's not exactly the word of the gospel especially when it's brought up in court.<BR/><BR/>Once again, you show nothing. It's just more spin from a county employee.Revealedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10466626782373430102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-39882595003593406812007-09-12T11:13:00.000-07:002007-09-12T11:13:00.000-07:00Hi Shark inlet,Yes, the ONLY issue at hand is the ...Hi Shark inlet,<BR/><BR/>Yes, the ONLY issue at hand is the 218 vote. Until Los Osos commits to pay for ANY project and have the County move forward on a project, NO progress will be made. <BR/><BR/>A no vote means no solution and higher project costs. In short, a ‘no’ vote will be a financial and environmental disaster for all home owners in the PZ.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, Ann needs to answer my question (which you have asked too in past blogs).......was the recall worth it?<BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGrosRichard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-14799622598892811592007-09-12T11:12:00.000-07:002007-09-12T11:12:00.000-07:00Richard, Richard, Richard. I respect you but you ...Richard, Richard, Richard.<BR/> <BR/> I respect you but you have the political timing and sense of a baboon.<BR/> <BR/> Why speculate on maximum possible monthly costs now? how is that going to help secure a positive 218 outcome?<BR/> Or dose your ego and disdain for Ann preclude clear thinking?<BR/> <BR/> I can see the Triv. headlines now!<BR/> Recalled CSD member reveals cost estimates as published in the Tribune are incorrect!<BR/><BR/> Thanks Richard, now please go sit down.Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-68830718384642891662007-09-12T10:45:00.000-07:002007-09-12T10:45:00.000-07:00Ann,Glad you commented on the cost issue. Since t...Ann,<BR/><BR/>Glad you commented on the cost issue. Since the cost estimates went above $100/month, I've said that it is unaffordable ... but that to delay to study the issue again would result in even greater costs and even more homeowners being forced to move, sell at a (most likely virtual) loss or take out reverse mortgages. Our community should not stand for continued inflation when we have the chance to cap it in some way now. That is the best reason to vote "yes" on the 218. The second best reason is that the LOCSD has a snowball's chance of hell of doing anything positive for us, sewerwise and the State will likely need special legislation to take the project over. The third reason is that the RWQCB will be forced to act and our lives will become more painful because of our poor choices to continue polluting.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the estimated TriW cost was $205/month and then costs would have gone up and/or down based on grants, the building of homes and inflation and the like.<BR/><BR/>The upshot on costs is this ... you cannot criticize Richard on the cost issue. He is right. Even though in 2001 there were other sites which, in retrospect, might have been cheaper, by the time we hit 2004, the die had been cast and delay has only raised costs. Bummer for us.<BR/><BR/>Even so, the two of you are not focusing on the issue at hand, which is whether it is wiser to vote yes on the 218 vote and to assess ourselves some $25k each (over 20 years with a 2.5% SRF it would be be about $130/mont and over 30 years at 8% it would be $180/month) or not. If we do vote for that assessment, we'll also get to make monthly O&M payments (called a sewer bill), the costs that will be borne by the water companies and passed on to us and possibly additional payments if the actual costs exceed $25k/home. The contractor debt of the LOCSD, the lawyer, Wildan and Ripley debts and the RWQCB fines don't really play a role in this discussion because they will be paid (or not) the same whether we go with the County or not.<BR/><BR/>What is the alternative to voting "yes"? A no vote means that we get additional delay and the associated inflation. As was demonstrated before the recall and since in several calculations presented here, a "cheaper" solution isn't cheaper if it is a later solution. Inflation seems to swamp any savings from "doing it right" or being "sustainable".<BR/><BR/>Simply put, any folks who promise a $150/month plan are trying to sell you something that is not grounded in reality. Their motivation (whether ill or good) is irrelevant because they're presenting a false picture of the implications of a "no" vote.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-57204032155409383242007-09-12T09:16:00.000-07:002007-09-12T09:16:00.000-07:00Ann,When Tri-W was halted, the projected cost per ...Ann,<BR/><BR/>When Tri-W was halted, the projected cost per month to property owners (SRF loan, OM&R 2002 Bond Payment, and property owner connection costs) was between $185 (if vacant lot owners were allowed to build at a rate of 25 homes per year) to $225 (With no new homes built). These costs were without Federal or State Grants; which if awarded would have lowered monthly costs to $140 to $185 per month. <BR/><BR/>Looking at the County's ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS for WW projects (other than Tri-W); and adding in OM&R, property owner expenses, paydown of the 2002 assessment debt, and paydown of the LOCSD $42M debt, the monthly costs to property owners will be between $320 to $400 per month.<BR/><BR/>So let's recap (assuming no grants)....<BR/><BR/>We could have had Tri-W built (and be operational today) at a high-end cost of $185 to $225 per month today......<BR/><BR/>BUT can now expect a WWTF (maybe operational by 2012 if lucky) at a month cost of $320 to $400.<BR/><BR/>ANN, WAS THE RECALL YOU SUPPORTED WORTH THE COST? I look forward to your answer to this question.<BR/><BR/>Regards, Richard LeGros<BR/><BR/>PS: Please note that the alternative project capital costs projected by the County have a monthly payback cost (not including OM&R, payback of the 2002 bond and paydown of LOCSD debt) which are MORE EXPENSIVE PER MONTH than if Tri-W had just been built.Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-36891913431548122972007-09-12T08:23:00.000-07:002007-09-12T08:23:00.000-07:00To Ann Baloooooooon:Count your blessings! You are ...To Ann Baloooooooon:<BR/><BR/>Count your blessings! You are a great court jester! Everyone laughs at your outlandish opinions.<BR/><BR/>I just make everyone laugh all the harder at your Punch and Judy show!4crapkillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18106205459391355518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-66178405263225648922007-09-12T06:53:00.000-07:002007-09-12T06:53:00.000-07:00Inlet sez:"If you would like to define $200/month ...Inlet sez:"If you would like to define $200/month as affordable and don't want to include LOCSD bankruptcy costs as sewer costs, you might view that as affordable, but I don't."<BR/><BR/>Please refresh my memory. What was Tri W pegged at when they started construction? I thought a guestimate was $205 month? <BR/><BR/>Fraudulent Crap sez:" Sorry Ann, your opinions just do not hold water. There is no reality to them. You are a balooooon filled with hot air and with no substance"<BR/><BR/>So do you want to tell us again why you spend so much time on this blogsite and in the comment section responding to my comments since you find them hot air with no substance? Seems to me only a fool would spend endless hours batting at empty air. Seems like an awful waste of time and silly to boot. But then that's just my, uh, biased opinion.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-79010647105151983192007-09-11T19:59:00.000-07:002007-09-11T19:59:00.000-07:00To Ann:Sorry Ann, your opinions just do not hold w...To Ann:<BR/><BR/>Sorry Ann, your opinions just do not hold water. There is no reality to them. You are a balooooon filled with hot air and with no substance. Take your arguments to the nut cases who support your arguments out of ignorance. What do YOU think about the salesmen peddling the contracts for people to sign?4crapkillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18106205459391355518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-3433114918169382742007-09-11T16:20:00.000-07:002007-09-11T16:20:00.000-07:00I just read the red "Vote No" flyer put out by the...I just read the red "Vote No" flyer put out by the www.Nowastewater.com group that was being handed out at farmers market by the Reclamator guys discussed in today's Tribune. <BR/><BR/>Almost every sentence in it is incorrect, but my favorite is: "Voting 'NO' will encourage the Regional Water Control Board to suspend cease and desist (CDOs)(sic)against 4,500 homeowners in the 'Prohibition Zone,' since passing the 218 might define 'sufficient progress'for them toward building a sewer by a reasonable date."<BR/><BR/>This is about as rediculous as it gets, and I am thououghly disgusted with these carpetbaggers for trying to use fear tactics to take advantage of our property owners. <BR/><BR/>The negative campaigning is getting really bad, even for Los Osos.TCGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03150320339569740612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-8083955889018639502007-09-11T08:43:00.000-07:002007-09-11T08:43:00.000-07:00To our most recent and yet somewhat confused frien...To our most recent and yet somewhat confused friend revealed,<BR/><BR/>When discussing the pollution of the PZ issue as having been settled, I was referring to the fact that the PZ was set up by the RWQCB based on sound principals and scientific data and that the definition of the PZ has already been challenged in court and it was determined that the RWQCB didn't act inappropriately when setting up the zone.<BR/><BR/>However, if you want the data, there are hints of these data on the LOCSD website. Look for the Cleath report they put online ... you know, the one that showed medical waste in the aquifer under the PZ. That report shows (yet again) that the nitrate levels are highest under the PZ and lower outside the PZ.<BR/><BR/>As for using Rhodium to verify that the nitrates are from septics, it is sad that neither the County nor the LOCSD have chosen to fund such a study. Maybe it would quite down those who say that the pollution under the PZ has no relationship with the homes in the PZ.<BR/><BR/>Let's discuss the scientific method for a moment because you seem to have it backwards. There is an accepted theory out there (the excess nitrates are from homes in the PZ) and for one to argue that this is not so, one has to present an alternative theory that both makes sense and is shown by data to be superior to the accepted theory. That being said, how could you explain the excess nitrates under only the PZ, that the nitrates have risen over time in the PZ and only in the PZ? <BR/><BR/>As for the issue of no affordable sewer out there ... if someone provides a definition of affordable, we could discuss. Until then I'll just say that I was trying to key off those who said that $75/month is the maximum appropriate. I would also refer you to the County report where the cost estimates are all in the range of $130 (if we're really lucky) to $275 ... and that's before a $40 monthly fee. If you would like to define $200/month as affordable and don't want to include LOCSD bankruptcy costs as sewer costs, you might view that as affordable, but I don't.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.com