tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post3136869718093132746..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-54339684813993786202008-11-03T20:14:00.000-08:002008-11-03T20:14:00.000-08:00mike,Everytime you post your trash you prove what ...mike,<BR/>Everytime you post your trash you prove what a moron you really are.franc4https://www.blogger.com/profile/02852956020533558529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-39370277444044681092008-10-30T05:17:00.000-07:002008-10-30T05:17:00.000-07:00Good Morning 'toons... Your through research conti...Good Morning 'toons... <BR/><BR/>Your through research continues to expose this CSD as the most vicious group of financial managers in anywhere...!!!!! They do not consider themselves accountable to the public who elected them and apparently will not change unless legal action against them is pressed...<BR/><BR/>This "little" deal is pure theft of public funds and those responsible should be tried to full extent of the law....!!!!! <BR/><BR/>There must be some agency in authority overseeing this destruction of public faith in a responsible government... LAFCo, the Bd of Supervisiors, the State AG...??? Is there any control of what a CSD can and can not do with our tax dollars...??? Lisa, Chuck, Julie... that's you we're going to hold accountable....!!!!!!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-34191297687426439222008-10-30T03:54:00.000-07:002008-10-30T03:54:00.000-07:00I've been reviewing old meetings.On 2/15/07, Dave ...I've been reviewing old meetings.<BR/><BR/>On 2/15/07, Dave Duggan opposed the process to hire Shaunna Sullivan, as the hiring was not bought before the public.<BR/><BR/>On 2/15/07, Richard Margitson questions if a cap was put on the expenditures for Shaunna Sullivan. He noticed that there was no line item to fund this.<BR/><BR/>Lisa defends not putting a cap on it, as you don't know how high the bill is going to go.<BR/><BR/>On 3/1/07 Keith Swanson, "Finally, since Sullivan isn't on the agenda, the contract is retroactive to January. How is this possible?How was the CSD dictating what she was doing in January and why would we have to pay for that?"<BR/><BR/>I'll get to the NEXT meeting soon. (This was where Item 6, Shaunna Sullivan, on the 3/1/07 meeting was bumped.) I think this might be where the cap was discussed.<BR/><BR/>I might note that a Board member stated that the District has always had high legal bills. Since the District's inception in 1998, up until the recall in September 2005, (7 years) the total amount for legal bills was around $800,000. From October 2005 to September 2008, (three years) the legal bills are over $2 million. There appears to be to be a shift in the definition of "high" between those two periods.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-13209896020374745242008-10-30T00:13:00.000-07:002008-10-30T00:13:00.000-07:00...apparently getrealosos IS God and can change bl......apparently getrealosos IS God and can change blog threads at his/her/it's pleasure, it doesn't seem to matter what the subject is, getrealosos will loose his anger toward Shark and continue to lob unsubstanciated claims at everything he's currently mad at...sure sounds a lot like a guy named Kieth...<BR/><BR/>The subject of this thread was regarding the PZLDF lawsuit... not some mythical claim that Cal Poly was somehow going to get rich on the findings of the long past cumash culture... <BR/><BR/>Maybe Ann would care to open up that discussion, but for now...<BR/><BR/>...could we simply obtain an understanding of the PZLDF lawsuit and just what is the agreement of payment....??? <BR/><BR/>It seems to appear that the PZLDF has contributed nothing toward the payment of the legal services and that the LOCSD has paid more than twice the cap amount of $30,000...<BR/><BR/>Just what is the truth...???? We should all be concerned that the bankrupt CSD is continueing to spend money it does not have any account for... Chuck seems to think he has the right to spend all tax dollars in any fashion he wishes and that there is only a single general account of all tax monies... As long as he has checks, then he must have money...??? <BR/><BR/>The question remains; How much has the PZLDF actually contributed to this legal crusade....??? We have heard that the CSD has apparently given the PZLDF some $80,000 after having had some verbal, non board approved agreement to cover some 25% of those legal costs up to a cap of $30,000.... So just what is the truth....??? Since there is no CSD account made public, it appears the community has been lied to yet again and has been giving PZLDF a monthly allowance to keep that little social club alive... has any found it's way into Gail McPherson's pocket...???? Where is there any believable accounting...????Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-56274961101985028222008-10-29T22:45:00.000-07:002008-10-29T22:45:00.000-07:00getreal says:"If we stayed with good on site techn...getreal says:<BR/>"If we stayed with good on site technology…"<BR/><BR/>Go complain to the Water Board. I sure don't want to have testing done on my property every day to make sure I am within allowed limits. I sure don't want to pay for THAT inconvenience, or a fine if something goes wrong.<BR/><BR/>All you do is whine, whine, whine, getreal. Get over it and move on - you're vadose zone is NOT cleaning these boring, repetitive thoughts out of your cranium. I doubt that the one under your septic tank is working any better if you are on less than a 1 acre lot.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-4486862590847075532008-10-29T22:37:00.000-07:002008-10-29T22:37:00.000-07:00getreal says:"P.S. I'm moving this to the top thre...getreal says:<BR/>"P.S. I'm moving this to the top thread."<BR/><BR/>Well, I answered you below. Make up your mind.<BR/><BR/>"but the county will profit from the project and so will Cal Poly."<BR/><BR/>How? What was done in the past if artifacts were retrieved? How does this affect YOUR life? Are you Chumash? Tell us who you talked to at Cal Poly.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-70749905120398973662008-10-29T22:14:00.000-07:002008-10-29T22:14:00.000-07:00Shark,As far as your last post, you are full of sh...Shark,<BR/><BR/>As far as your last post, you are full of shit.<BR/><BR/>The 218 is California law, forget about kids throwing rocks at windows.<BR/><BR/>The County did not follow the law. The RWQCB broke the law. The State broke federal law, etc. etc. It's all fraud.<BR/><BR/>You act like sewerage is going right into your drinking water. Give us a break. Why don't you ask your water company why they are selling you piss water then?!?<BR/><BR/>Enough with your bullshit. <BR/><BR/>Prove that I am polluting Shark. Prove that Ann is polluting Shark.<BR/>Prove that people up on Highland and Woodland are polluting Shark (not a density problem there) -- show me the proof Shark!<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying people shouldn't have to pay. Another twist from the Shark. I said that governmental agencies are not exempt from having to pay for benefit. Golden State will benefit but not pay. Not only are the PZ paying for everything, but the county will profit from the project and so will Cal Poly.GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-79684778203082098402008-10-29T22:04:00.000-07:002008-10-29T22:04:00.000-07:00Shark,Ripley himself stated that we wouldn't show ...Shark,<BR/><BR/>Ripley himself stated that we wouldn't show nitrates at all if we eliminated just the horses!! <BR/><BR/>You say, "The fact that the nitrate levels are higher under the PZ and lower elsewhere pretty much proof that the septics are the cause of the nitrates..."<BR/><BR/>PRETTY MUCH PROOF SHARK? <BR/><BR/>Where's the proof of pollution Shark? Where are the independent studies and reports? <BR/><BR/>Where's the recent testing of the wells inside and outside the PZ before we put in an unnecessary public works project?<BR/><BR/>What do YOU have to say about Golden State Water removing nitrates and charging customers for it? Why the big sewer that will tax everyone out of their homes? Care to answer Shark?!<BR/><BR/>It's all bullshit and you know it.<BR/><BR/>The County won't pick Step and never was gonna. It doesn't matter as far as Cal Poly is concerned. It will be gravity, Cal Poly will profit. <BR/><BR/>If we stayed with good on site technology, Cal Poly wouldn't benefit at all. That's my point.GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-79352060904226564582008-10-29T22:03:00.000-07:002008-10-29T22:03:00.000-07:00On the question of who should pay ...The kid who t...On the question of who should pay ...<BR/><BR/>The kid who throws a rock thru the window should pay to fix the window. If the lady who owns the window benefits from the window being fixed it doesn't mean that she has a moral or legal obligation to fix it. If you're pissing in my drinking water, why do you expect that others should help pay the cost of fixing the problem associated with your actions?<BR/><BR/>You suggest in your comments that shouldn't have to put in a plant that is so expensive that people will suffer financially. <BR/><BR/>Hmmm.... If the plant is now gonna cost us more because of the recall, I don't think that people who voted against the recall should have to pay the increased costs but those who supported the recall should. After all, we were willing to take our $205/month lumps ... why should we have to pay for your mistake?<BR/><BR/>You ask about the financial well being of families who can't handle an extra $2-3k per year ... I would suggest that those very same families bought homes that were reduced in price relative to homes in communities with sewers and that they should have been saving some $50/month since moving in to afford the increased costs they knew were coming.<BR/><BR/>Your suggestion that people shouldn't have to pay for the damage they're doing to the environment and that people who've benefited from the system thus far owe nothing in return seems pretty self-centered and shallow to me.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-32150270747779286822008-10-29T21:50:00.000-07:002008-10-29T21:50:00.000-07:00GetReal ...I am saying that Poly doesn't care abou...GetReal ...<BR/><BR/>I am saying that Poly doesn't care about gravity versus STEP and that you suggesting otherwise has been amusing and little else.<BR/><BR/>You seem to misunderstand how Universities work ... just like you misunderstood what "working with" someone meant in a University context.<BR/><BR/>Even if there would be profit to Poly for one collection system over another, the profit would be minimal relative to the total cost of the project ... and no one but you would think it matters. Would you rather spend $100M instead of $90M for the collection system just to avoid $50k worth of benefit to Poly?<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for proof of pollution ... just look at the nitrate maps of the aquifer presented by the Ripley team. The fact that the nitrate levels are higher under the PZ and lower elsewhere pretty much proof that the septics are the cause of the nitrates.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-46824343743163292482008-10-29T21:38:00.000-07:002008-10-29T21:38:00.000-07:00Sewertoons: Even if gravity were to be selected...Sewertoons:<BR/><BR/> Even if gravity were to be selected (and it was in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 -- Step was just a "show" from the County) -- MY POINT STILL IS:<BR/><BR/> Why not abide by the law and have everyone who benefits pay. Why stick the whole bill on just 4,500 (and only a handful are actually polluting)?<BR/><BR/> I think the water board would have an affordable method to see who is polluting. It's their job after all. Why do they exist if they can't do that?<BR/><BR/> Why put in an over kill plant when it's not needed?<BR/><BR/> Why can't you answer? Why can't you answer the question if Golden State gets the nitrates out of the water, what do we need a system for that will force thousands to suffer?<BR/><BR/> How can the average family in these times be able to afford two or three EXTRA thousands of dollars on top of their regular property tax bill? And for nothing!!?? There is no guarantee this sewer will do anything better on the pollution issue than what we have now, except for terrible health issues with immune pathogens with your gravity plant. You don't seem to care about that either!<BR/><BR/> P.S. I'm moving this to the top thread.GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-35888274264329223752008-10-29T21:22:00.000-07:002008-10-29T21:22:00.000-07:00Sewertoons & Shark,How much will Cal Poly make...Sewertoons & Shark,<BR/><BR/>How much will Cal Poly make on the sewer project with the "digs"?<BR/><BR/>Are you saying they won't profit?<BR/><BR/>Lynette, I'm still waiting for you to answer this.<BR/><BR/>Where's the proof of pollution anyway? Why the mega cost project, if we don't need that? What's your excuse? Why if Golden State removes nitrates, and that was the excuse for the big sewer, what gives? Especially when we're in a deep recession. Why not cluster areas and homes that ARE polluting? Why not have everyone who benefits pay? Why stick the entire bill on the PZ homeowners if they're not polluting?<BR/><BR/>You simply don't address any of this. I didn't expect you would or could. Clearly, this has never been about pollution. You wanted the town cleaned out, you wanted your home(s) to increase in value (good luck with that now), etc.<BR/><BR/>If you can't answer the pollution issues, then I'm assuming there is no proof or evidence of pollution other than a very, very small percentage in the bay.GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-56344630448810521302008-10-29T19:58:00.000-07:002008-10-29T19:58:00.000-07:00Give me a chance to eat dinner - I had no idea I w...Give me a chance to eat dinner - I had no idea I was so important to you.<BR/><BR/>I answered below where you originally posted.<BR/><BR/>Oh, I forgot to answer this:<BR/>"Why don't you answer how much grant money Cal Poly will get for the digs?"<BR/><BR/>I know nothing about this. Since you know so much, why don't you tell us? Or is this just another "getrealnuendo" attempting to put a negative spin on building a WWTF?Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-62467207180993078222008-10-29T19:56:00.000-07:002008-10-29T19:56:00.000-07:00GetReal,You keep asking about how much cash Poly w...GetReal,<BR/><BR/>You keep asking about how much cash Poly will get from gravity over STEP.<BR/><BR/>I'll bet ... zero.<BR/><BR/>Do you have any reason to believe otherwise?<BR/><BR/>Unless you do and can 'splain it to us, you might want to stop asking the question because it makes you look ... um ... like a tin-foil-hat guy.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-76036460504368373452008-10-29T19:24:00.000-07:002008-10-29T19:24:00.000-07:00Sorry to post this twice folks, but Sewertoons won...Sorry to post this twice folks, but Sewertoons won't answer some very basic questions:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Blogger GetRealOsos said...<BR/><BR/> Sewertoons,<BR/><BR/> You say, "Gee getreal, do you think when the project was practically FREE it was rather short sighted of the community of Los Osos to "look the other way?"..."<BR/><BR/> Lynette, we're not talking about the 80's or 90's here. I'm talking about right now! (Besides, I thought you guys don't want to talk about the past.)<BR/><BR/> So, a project is coming. That you don't answer why is alarming.<BR/><BR/> Where's the proof of pollution anyway? Why the mega cost project, if we don't need that? What's your excuse? Why if Golden State removes nitrates, and that was the excuse for the big sewer, what gives? Especially when we're in a deep recession. Why not cluster areas and homes that ARE polluting? Why not have everyone who benefits pay? Why stick the entire bill on the PZ homeowners if they're not polluting?<BR/><BR/> You simply don't address any of this. I didn't expect you would or could. Clearly, this has never been about pollution. You wanted the town cleaned out, you wanted your home(s) to increase in value (good luck with that now), etc.<BR/><BR/> But you can look the other way, just like the County and Pandora while the total rip-off and scam take place.<BR/><BR/> Then you say, "Gee, we haven't had any bids yet, nor do we know what the project is - you sound rather ignorant making these claims...."<BR/><BR/> Well, we had bids before, we know what this thing will cost and placed on JUST 4,500 HOMEOWNERS. It's not legal, it's not moral, and it's fraud and corruption -- plain and simple. I don't understand how you people can live with yourselves...really.<BR/><BR/> P.S. Why don't you answer how much grant money Cal Poly will get for the digs?<BR/><BR/> Love those County biscuits.<BR/> Love those Cal Poly biscuits...!GetRealOsoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11936638912249439168noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-59048064786546183772008-10-29T19:14:00.000-07:002008-10-29T19:14:00.000-07:00Maybe Joe can get a verbal "agreement" to pay TaxP...Maybe Joe can get a verbal "agreement" to pay TaxPayers Watch... after all, they were acting in the public's interest to ask LAFFco to dissolve the CSD...even Julie now supports dissolution...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-74392618397430552422008-10-29T15:14:00.000-07:002008-10-29T15:14:00.000-07:00I am reviewing old meetings at present to see if I...I am reviewing old meetings at present to see if I can find if it was just a verbal agreement or a resolution for $30,000. <BR/><BR/>The GM can't cut a check above $5,000, I believe, but if there are 16 checks, each for $5,000…<BR/><BR/> I don't think Mr. Schempf was the GM when this occurred.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-66238421723751412872008-10-29T14:59:00.000-07:002008-10-29T14:59:00.000-07:00Toons,Was that $30k cap listed in the resolution t...Toons,<BR/><BR/>Was that $30k cap listed in the resolution the LOCSD board adopted?<BR/><BR/>If it was, another "public waste" lawsuit might recover the difference. The GM cannot cut checks above a certain dollar value without board action and if no board action justifies the checks so far, it is a violation of the rules of the game.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-48512612185741670402008-10-29T14:51:00.000-07:002008-10-29T14:51:00.000-07:00As I recall and spoke about at the last CSD meetin...As I recall and spoke about at the last CSD meeting a $30,000 cap was placed on this case. Guess that was overlooked.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-86687587778354801312008-10-29T12:37:00.000-07:002008-10-29T12:37:00.000-07:00Mike,Ron seems to have as much interest in whether...Mike,<BR/><BR/>Ron seems to have as much interest in whether PZLDF has paid Sullivan as he had in whether CCLO paid Parker and Hawley ... that is to say ... none. Presumably he could say that Sullivan was willing to enter a contract for payment with PZLDF and if PZLDF doesn't actually pay, it is only Sullivan who gets hurt and she was a big girl when she made the deal and so it is none of his business.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, when you think about it as a possible scheme for PZLDF to get free legal work done because they never intended to pay and because Sullivan knew all along that PZLDF was never gonna pay their share ... it does become an issue that anyone concerned with Los Osos should care about. The LOCSD footing the lion's share of the legal bills they were supposed to only pay 25% of is just plain theft. Even if the PZLDF case was a guaranteed win, the district should not be asked to pay more than 25% of the total amount paid which is what we were told was going to happen when the vote was taken.<BR/><BR/>I would hope that anyone running for office would make a commitment to sound finances at the district level. Anyone running for office should be very willing to commit to stopping payments to Sullivan until evidence is presented that PZLDF has paid their fair share.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-48383511146308837742008-10-29T12:21:00.000-07:002008-10-29T12:21:00.000-07:00Where is Ron's missing investigation of the PZLDF ...Where is Ron's missing investigation of the PZLDF non payment for the lawsuit...???Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06093426896476666691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-25852968245012388482008-10-29T11:07:00.000-07:002008-10-29T11:07:00.000-07:00Hi Anon,There are not any legal grounds to file a ...Hi Anon,<BR/><BR/>There are not any legal grounds to file a winable civil rights lawsuit re: the CDO recepients....but if PZLDF wants to waste more money on loser lawsuits, fine by me as long as the LOCSD is not involved.<BR/><BR/>-R<BR/><BR/>PS: Ann, have you changed your policy regarding Anons posting on your site?Richard LeGroshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15209499066835732066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-44376930465136752432008-10-29T09:37:00.000-07:002008-10-29T09:37:00.000-07:00I don't want to Monday morning quarterback it too ...I don't want to Monday morning quarterback it too much, but I think the Writ of Mandamus process is pretty much always a Sisyphian battle. <BR/><BR/>I hope PZLDF amends changes strategy to a civil rights case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-56768642258357431392008-10-29T09:34:00.000-07:002008-10-29T09:34:00.000-07:00The LOCSD has had two CDO's in (somehow the fireho...The LOCSD has had two CDO's in (somehow the firehouse slipped of the plate, I think...)place against it since November 1998.<BR/><BR/>Don't cha think that nmay have something to do with it hasving an interest in this suit?<BR/><BR/>How these two CDO's against the LOCSD get ignored is troubling.<BR/><BR/>More tea?Watershed Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06717188673263291686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-88431236183633416952008-10-29T09:19:00.000-07:002008-10-29T09:19:00.000-07:00Richard,I believe you had a typo ... the word is "...Richard,<BR/><BR/>I believe you had a typo ... the word is "boonboggle", not "doondoggle".<BR/><BR/>Once new boardmembers are sworn in, I would expect them to vote to stop paying Sullivan until evidence of PZLDF payment is presented. In other words, for each $3 PZLDF kicks in, the LOCSD ... once verifying the payment ... will cut a check for the rest.<BR/><BR/>The silence from many involved in this situation makes me worried that the LOCSD is the only party making payments to Sullivan.<BR/><BR/>Shoot, if PZLDF had at least had a bake sale or a wine-n-cheese fundraiser at Gail's place, I would be convinced that they had some ability to pay. As it is, I have doubts.<BR/><BR/>That being said, one way the new board could start to build a bridge across the divide in our community is to actually conduct business in an open fashion, unlike the last few years. In particular, let's be open about the budget and let's be open about the financial implication of board decisions. If we vote to commit the LOCSD to support PZLDF (which might be a good cause), we should identify a maximum amount of support that will be provided without an additional vote and we should identify where the money will come from as part of the vote to approve.<BR/><BR/>Let's be real ... is the PZLDF case so important that it should bump other financial obligations? If not, it should go bye-bye. If so, those other financial obligations should go bye-bye. I don't see the board as having taken this approach in the last few years. Even if the board entered a huge financial mess (by the way, I don't count $6M in the bank as a huge mess, but that's another matter), they should make sure that they have a dollar on the books before voting to spend it.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.com