tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post3964580340374078900..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-54520777048152107822008-01-20T03:46:00.000-08:002008-01-20T03:46:00.000-08:00The Poeople of Los Osos/Baywood Park must demand i...The Poeople of Los Osos/Baywood Park must demand integrity and make certain that the LOCSD Board gives fiduciary and timely due diligence in the matter of the CDO's/NOV's and the AES DES PPP/BK Re-org "offering"-<BR/><BR/>If that oppourtunity is lost, it will be more than a shame, it would be a tradegy waterwise/moneywise/energywise and legally speaking which could have been "avoided".<BR/><BR/>I had to "re-post given the flawed posting above.<BR/><BR/>Forgive but don't forget the past.<BR/>Focus on the present to insure the future...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-27906768158543029542008-01-19T20:18:00.000-08:002008-01-19T20:18:00.000-08:00Toons wrote:But the County is now making up for th...Toons wrote:<BR/>But the County is now making up for that hindsight error in judgement by throwing its best and brightest resources at the project now.<BR/><BR/>Whom might that be? <BR/>The "county" squandered a golden oppourtunity to participate in a PPP that would have made them millions more than the non-compliant sewer project they are currently considering. <BR/><BR/>The LOCSD will have that bal, shortly. It will be intereesting to see how it is handled.The peopleof LOs Osos/Baywood Park should demand integrity and make certain the LOCSD Board gives the AES DES PPP in a timely andfiduciary manner. If the oppourtunity to participate is lost, it will be a shame...<BR/><BR/>The "hindsight" from the county's perspective should serve as a good "experience" for the LOCSD nowMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-42115253496130007872008-01-19T13:06:00.000-08:002008-01-19T13:06:00.000-08:00I agree, the communication between the CSD and the...I agree, the communication between the CSD and the community wasn't good when the ponds were shot down. <BR/><BR/>I don't know what their options were though, as the CSD was formed to take over the sewer project from the County. Maybe the BEST solution would have been the County never giving up the project, ofering the Community the Chinese menu. That direction would have been far too expensive for a fledgeling CSD.<BR/><BR/>But the County is now making up for that hindsight error in judgement by throwing its best and brightest resources at the project now.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-53231908767080296212008-01-19T07:13:00.000-08:002008-01-19T07:13:00.000-08:00Toons sez:"OK - was it then that people just didn'...Toons sez:"OK - was it then that people just didn't want to face reality? They tried to fix the sewer issue themselves, couldn't and decided to crucify those who had done the best they could for trying. Gee, what great compassion and fuzzy warm feelings!<BR/><BR/>The Water Board wanted proof of nitrate removal. The CSD couldn't get that from Oswald. Was their no sympathy for them at the onset of this news? Did the emotions suddenly ramp right up to blind rage?"<BR/><BR/>I suspect that one of the big problems came when the CSD didn't go back to the community early on and say, ooops, no go, now, what do you want us to do: return this to the county? proceed ahead? We don't have the resources to give you any more than a best guestimate of in-town, out of town, gravity vs step, but we'll let you vote on which you want (that didn't happen).Nor did the CSD say, "We're keeping this sewer plant in the middle of town no matter what because of a strongly held community value of wanting a sewer plant in the middle of town so we can attach a park to it and get the rate payers to repay the cost of the park & etc." Instead, things just kept morphing and 'splaining it all stopped, and slowly more and more people had serious questions about all this, with fewer and fewer answers. <BR/><BR/>Quick now, who knows exactly WHY the old CSD didn't, for example, structure this into a Chinese menu option, with an advistory vote, for example. That way, the folks could have chosen which type of system to "buy." That option would only have worked if the CSD genuinely looked at an out of town system, which they clearly didn't do because of that phony SOC. so we're back to an honesty issue. And hidden agendas. And so it goes. Hip bones connected to thigh bones & etc.<BR/><BR/>All of which is why I want a Truth & Reconciliation Hearing. Time to fess up, and bit by bit tell the story truthfully so it can become coherent. Right now, it doesn't hang together.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-84111026616012450152008-01-19T01:29:00.000-08:002008-01-19T01:29:00.000-08:00Ann answers my question - How did the feeling on t...Ann answers my question - How did the feeling on that location (Tri-W) go from really good to "bad?" <BR/><BR/>Ann says:<BR/>"Try this: $35-40 a month for ponds that were passive, "green," created a "green-belt" area,a promise it wouldn't smell, be energy smart, progressive, recycle water, hence no imported water,little or no sludge, etc. etc versus the County's traditional sewer plant realistically pegged at about $100 a month, with no clear water recycle component at the time. <BR/><BR/>Then try, $35-40 month original Ponds of Avalon With Swans, suddenly popping up as a traditional sewer plant at $200+ a month, with more added for buildout etc.and being told, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY, etc.. which turns out not to be true."<BR/><BR/>OK - was it then that people just didn't want to face reality? They tried to fix the sewer issue themselves, couldn't and decided to crucify those who had done the best they could for trying. Gee, what great compassion and fuzzy warm feelings!<BR/><BR/>The Water Board wanted proof of nitrate removal. The CSD couldn't get that from Oswald. Was their no sympathy for them at the onset of this news? Did the emotions suddenly ramp right up to blind rage?<BR/><BR/>Out of town was the County's plan. OK no water recycle. What was the knowledge about the condition of the aquifers then? It wasn't level three - what was it?<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, we all know delay is going to up the price. <BR/><BR/>I had heard that originally the CSD thought it was going to be able to do what the County had intended to do - partial sewering. This is where the cost was $35-40, partial coverage. The Water Board said no - hadn't the rules changed between the time the County had the project and the when the CSD got the project? Was there no understanding of that? The Feds toughened up the regulations, the Water Board is required to comply. (Like now.)<BR/><BR/>So how was the water going to be recycled in town? You have a pond - presumably with a liner. Where was that water going? I don't recall a purple pipe component, nor would the Water Board go for that with just pond water. If there was no liner - what happens to spills - what about liquefaction?<BR/><BR/>The sludge was going to be in the septic tanks - and it was going to be step. I head that - so the sludge component was in your front yard. No smells? Well, Tri-W wasn't going to smell either. Tri-W was going to have a park - isn't that "green" enough?<BR/><BR/>(Please tell me birds weren't going to poop in that water!)<BR/><BR/>Ann, there are always "other options." We still do not know what REAL cost options are just yet for anything.<BR/><BR/>I'll add this again - delay means it will cost more. So it went from partial collection at $35-40/mo. - lawsuit after lawsuit causes delay - and the collection of the ENTIRE PZ costs more money. Well - DUH! Hauling water out of town and back in again has its own energy issues.<BR/><BR/>The threads of this complex story need to be parsed out and re-examined. There is just too much anger around this issue. It seems like some people feel that their religion has been attacked, and really - it is just sanitation.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-72178640738649424332008-01-18T13:58:00.000-08:002008-01-18T13:58:00.000-08:00Jane,You completely misstate my point of view. I ...Jane,<BR/><BR/>You completely misstate my point of view. I don't care if it's TriW or something else. I do care about the total cost to us all. If the total cost I have to pay is lowest with an out of town site, I prefer that site.<BR/><BR/>I just don't believe out of town is any cheaper and I don't believe that TriW is as bad as some have made it out to be.<BR/><BR/>If you can convince us that out of town will save money, you'll have converted me to the "move the sewer" side.<BR/><BR/>You are definitely right about at least one thing for sure. Individuals should never be prosecuted for the failure of government. The Los Osos mess is unique and frustrating in so many ways. Presumably there is a problem in the way the water laws are written and the mistake should be rectified. However, please don't do anything in your attempt to fix the broken law that will end up hurting the pocketbook of most of us in town ... middle class folks who can barely afford our bills now.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-44049949726018968612008-01-18T11:03:00.000-08:002008-01-18T11:03:00.000-08:00So jane, if a community fails to clean itself up, ...So jane, if a community fails to clean itself up, how would you propose the Water Board resolve the issue? Be specific.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-40055211040241748472008-01-18T06:31:00.000-08:002008-01-18T06:31:00.000-08:00Shark,I think I am beginning to understand your po...Shark,<BR/>I think I am beginning to understand your point of view: as long as you get Tri-W, you could care less what the long term consequences are for others. <BR/><BR/>The RWQCB would love to have the CDOs drop the appeal. They would then issue CAOs to everyone. CAOs do not have the legal protections of a CDO, because they are for emergency clean-up situations (spills, etc.) that need to be solved immediately. Since no alternative compliance is allowed, there is no way for an individual to comply. This is only a reasonable solution for someone who is comfortable selling their soul to the RWQCB, such as the proposed CDO recipient who accepted a CAO in return for approval to add a bathroom in his remodel. Anyone who is financially or corruptly invested in Tri-W would probably want the town to risk CAOs. <BR/><BR/>The downside of dropping the appeal is far reaching. Individual enforcement for government failure should never again be tried in California. This appeal must proceed through the courts to dissuade RWQCBs throughout California from trying this in another small town. The RWQCB needs to be reformed. They need checks and balances. They need specific regulations so individuals receive constitutional protections and rights. They should not be allowed to randomly seek and destroy citizens of California. So which is more important, you or the democratic principles upon which our country was formed?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02803550387495614776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-34664791319162364462008-01-17T17:47:00.000-08:002008-01-17T17:47:00.000-08:00Jane,Our gracious host has repeatedly told us that...Jane,<BR/><BR/>Our gracious host has repeatedly told us that we are all in the exact same boat as the 45 CDO recipients. Based on reading and listening to the RWQCB I have to agree. The only way in which the CDO recipients are in a different position from the rest of us is trivial in the long run. If the WWTF isn't built, we're all in the same boat. If the WWTF is built, we're all in the same boat. <BR/><BR/>Focusing on the small details (that these 45 have already received CDOs that are essentially the same as those the rest of us will get) is a distraction from the real issue.<BR/><BR/>The big question is this ... what is best for our community. I am convinced that suing to overthrow the PZ definition is harmful to both the process of getting a WWTF and to the cost of the WWTF we need.<BR/><BR/>If you would care to show how this suit will lower our costs or help us achieve a WWTF, I remain open to changing my mind ... however until then, I'll just remind you that fighting a CDO is a choice (one that not all recipients have chosen) and that the devil is in the details of any lawsuit. In this suit, if successful, the details will derail yet another process and project. This would not be good.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-63414778373918480542008-01-17T17:37:00.000-08:002008-01-17T17:37:00.000-08:00Shark, You say that we are all in the same boat. ...Shark, <BR/>You say that we are all in the same boat. This is absolutely wrong. The people who received the proposed CDOs have been all alone in a small rowboat bailing out water as fast as they can, while the RWQCB has tried to sink them.<BR/>If <BR/>You did not have to stand alone in front of the RWQCB at the kangaroo court. You did not have to endure the attempts to keep your family together, and your boss content, while fighting the RWQCB for your home. Many of those who dropped out did so because they could not fight anymore. Their work and family were suffering too much. <BR/>Most of those remaining in the fight are retired with no children at home. Fighting a CDO became a full time job.<BR/><BR/>And you don't like some of the truths from the past that have been revealed, tough. If you had been there for your fellow citizens when they were first targeted by the RWQCB, (instead of the typical reaction in this town which was to shun them and pretend that they somehow deserved this action), you might have had some influence in how the process proceeded. But since others stepped up, they were allowed to contribute their ideas. <BR/><BR/>The RWQCB was wrong to randomly select and persecute individuals. If you did not stand up to help protect those individuals, you have absolutely no right to tell them how to defend their homes.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02803550387495614776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-47997454711129027092008-01-17T17:15:00.000-08:002008-01-17T17:15:00.000-08:00Shark:Sorry for the repeat cut and paste off of An...Shark:<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the repeat cut and paste off of Ann's Land, but I could not resist the comment given your post above.(Laws, suits and permits- prermitting)<BR/><BR/>If we can follow the law that calls for the proper technology use there won't be a sewer or centralized treatment plant to leak, spill, permit or pollute.<BR/><BR/>So sorry, I just couldn't resist this- When you talk "costs", don't forget to put this in the "~P~I~P~E~" before you smoke it-;-)<BR/><BR/>-----Original Message-----<BR/>From: Derrick [mailto:wheels@cvn.net] <BR/>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:02 PM<BR/>To: Onsite/decentralized wastewater management issues<BR/>Subject: [decentralized] Ruptured Pipe Spills Sewage Into Schuylkill River<BR/><BR/>Ruptured Pipe Spills Sewage Into Schuylkill River<BR/><BR/>HARRISBURG (Jan. 11) - The Department of Environmental Protection is helping<BR/>with efforts to repair a ruptured sewage line near Reading.<BR/><BR/>A 42-inch pipe ruptured Thursday evening between the city's 6th and Canal<BR/>streets pump station and its Fritz Island wastewater treatment plant. The<BR/>estimated 10 million gallons of sewage that normally travel through the pipe<BR/>to the treatment plant are, temporarily, being discharged into the<BR/>Schuylkill River until repairs to the line are completed.<BR/><BR/>Downstream public water suppliers have been notified and will protect the<BR/>public by monitoring the quality of raw water. A bar screen is being used at<BR/>the pump station to remove solids.<BR/><BR/>The City of Reading continues to experience problems in repairing the break.<BR/>The discharge is on-going and DEP staff will remain on-scene. Currently,<BR/>there is no time estimate for repairs to be complete.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, back at the California State Budget Deficit: Belshé said the budget cuts highlight the need for the governor’s health reform proposal, which would raise additional money outside of state spending to qualify for $4 billion more in federal health care grants each year. <BR/><BR/>The additional state money would come from a variety of sources, including increased taxes on tobacco and new taxes on hospitals and employers. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/248686.html Mark says- Why should be accountable for spending the taxpayers money, they just tax some more...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-66130733792455261832008-01-17T15:22:00.000-08:002008-01-17T15:22:00.000-08:00Ann,The cost of moving from TriW in 2005 to out of...Ann,<BR/><BR/>The cost of moving from TriW in 2005 to out of town is the sum of<BR/><BR/>the cost difference between the two facilities<BR/><BR/>the cost of inflation due to a time delay<BR/><BR/>the cost of dealing with the increased saltwater intrusion and pollution during the time lag between when TriW would have been finished and when the other one would be.<BR/><BR/>The TAC report (and you and Ron and many others) have only considered the first of these three costs and act as if inflation doesn't exist or as if once the County picks a site, the plant will be up overnight. I would bet on at least five more years before anything is online. Why? Lawsuits and permitting.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Just writing that TriW is "waaaaaay more expensive" than an out of town site is the sort of gross oversimplification that you rail against when others use terms like obstructionist.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-88204778865432407422008-01-17T11:50:00.000-08:002008-01-17T11:50:00.000-08:00Sewertoons said... jane, have you read the Sulliva...Sewertoons said... <BR/><BR/>jane, have you read the Sullivan suit? Do you not see the implication in some of the language regarding the PZ? <BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- Toons, you do not see or comprehend the implications of the PZ. Good for you others do. I understand you believe the government has your best interests at "heart", as you stated they "live here"... Government is not the solution to the LOSTDEP...<BR/><BR/>It is clear by the numbers of CDO people who did NOT sign onto that suit, that even among the 45, not everyone feels the same degree of ''threat." <BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- Toons, Would you please tell us what was in the hearts and minds of those who did not vote on the 218.<BR/><BR/>ALL our PZ homes will be"on the line" as much as the 45's if the WWTF is not built. I see this "fight" as putting the PZ in jeopardy for litigation, which is tantamount to the 45 shooting themselves in the foot. Do you really think that if a mess ensues over the PZ, that the Water Board will just say to Los Osos - "Oh, sort it out, take your time, and let us know what happens?"<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- You are getting warmer...Think elimination of the pollutants sans the unnecessary and overly expensive "big public works project" paradigm. It's the law.<BR/><BR/>People might be mad over what came down over the last 30 years, (and rightly so - plenty of blame to go around on this one) but this venue is just the wrong place for that fight.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- Time to fight back, technology and the law make winning a sure thing. Fight law with law...that is what is being done. The citizens of Los Osos/ Baywood Park will be the first to benefit. Be brave, stay strong, wait for sign...<BR/><BR/>If Ms. Sullivan wants to make headway with the Water Board toward dumping the CDO's, she might want to clean up some of that language she has written. If she did that she might win and the pressure will be on us all, equally with possible CAO's.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- Toons where did you study law? You sure do give out plenty of advice... I haven't seen anything regarding "requests for more info" from anyone yet. Would you please supply me a copy of the one you are reading? Mark@Nowastewater.com perhaps we could chat off blog??? 480.363.1154Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-91150402849461750292008-01-17T07:07:00.000-08:002008-01-17T07:07:00.000-08:00Inlet sez:"Surely you also must realize that you'r...Inlet sez:"Surely you also must realize that you're lying, both about the buildout increasing costs and being told there is no other choice."<BR/><BR/>Lying? Nope, there is no other choice, this is the only way, etc came directly from Stan's mouth, face to face, from his lips to my ears. Was HE lying? Ron's evidence is persusasive that he was, indeed. (Or had been lied to . . . by whom? ) In addition, the previous CSD repeatedly told the endless supply of people who came to beg for alternatives to be looked at, nope, this is the best solution, the out of town plan would be waaaayyyy more expensive & etc. All of which turns out not to have been true. There actually WERE alternatives that would have cost the same or been slightly cheaper. Even the TAC report now points to the fact that clearly something really went awry here. (Paavo, I think, had it right when he said that the CSD simply didn't have the resources the county has to do this (Process)right. To that I'd add the unsupported SOC regarding the non-existant "strongly held community values" vis a vis centrally located amenities, plus a misstep in NOT bringing the community on board via the Chinese Menu method vote/survey & etc. and you have the ingredients of a train wreck.) <BR/><BR/>"Nope, we've all been cheated by the County, the LOCSD and the RWQCB."<BR/><BR/>You said it, Inlet. Not I. <BR/><BR/>As for build-out, am I mistaken that there were to be additional components added on to the Tri=W later, costs vis a vis sludge, water reuse, etc.?Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-37450634940309023912008-01-16T22:13:00.000-08:002008-01-16T22:13:00.000-08:00Jane,I am not saying that individuals fighting CDO...Jane,<BR/><BR/>I am not saying that individuals fighting CDOs are obstructionists. I am saying that the folks threatening to derail a County project they don't like are obstructionists. I am also saying that any lawsuit that would open the door to other lawsuits which would likely delay a project are (perhaps unwittingly) obstructionists as well. If the PZLDF suit successfully challenges the PZ definition, the RWQCB would need to re-work their PZ definition and that won't save us money on our ultimate project. Additionally, if the County tried to move forward with a project voted on by the (what would be) defunct PZ, there would be additional lawsuits which would have little impact on my costs other than raising them through delay and inflation.<BR/><BR/>However, let's get directly to the point. You say that unless I am willing to have my home with a CDO I should not criticize the PZLDFers for suing. That is horrible reasoning. If the PZLDF lawsuit is good, it is good. If it is bad, it is bad. My CDO or lack of CDO status is not relevant.<BR/><BR/>Along those lines, if a friend of mine is hurt in a bar brawl and I jump into the brawl with a knife to protect him ... my motivation is not relevant if I injure someone with the knife. Similarly, if the PZLDF suit has the unintentional consequence of hurting people by raising their sewer bills, the folks behind the suit are those who should be blamed. It doesn't matter if they thought they were doing the right thing. If they cause harm, they've caused harm.<BR/><BR/>I think that the CDO group has a lot of reason to be very very angry ... at the County, the RWQCB, the LOCSD the RWQCB again and the LOCSD again and the RWQCB yet again. Even so, they shouldn't do something that will likely make things even worse ... for them and me as well. All those in the PZ are in the same boat as the 45.<BR/><BR/>You say these people were given no choice as to their course of action. You are wrong. They didn't have to sign on with PZLDF and their agenda. The very fact that not all CDO recipients are participants in the PZLDF suit makes this very clear.<BR/><BR/>Nope, we've all been cheated by the County, the LOCSD and the RWQCB. However, if those very same groups still have all the good cards in their hand, is it time to go all in? Fold when you have to so that you have a better chance of winning in the long run.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-54191326342348480062008-01-16T20:33:00.000-08:002008-01-16T20:33:00.000-08:00jane, have you read the Sullivan suit? Do you not ...jane, have you read the Sullivan suit? Do you not see the implication in some of the language regarding the PZ? <BR/><BR/>It is clear by the numbers of CDO people who did NOT sign onto that suit, that even among the 45, not everyone feels the same degree of ''threat." <BR/><BR/>ALL our PZ homes will be"on the line" as much as the 45's if the WWTF is not built. I see this "fight" as putting the PZ in jeopardy for litigation, which is tantamount to the 45 shooting themselves in the foot. Do you really think that if a mess ensues over the PZ, that the Water Board will just say to Los Osos - "Oh, sort it out, take your time, and let us know what happens?"<BR/><BR/>People might be mad over what came down over the last 30 years, (and rightly so - plenty of blame to go around on this one) but this venue is just the wrong place for that fight.<BR/><BR/>If Ms. Sullivan wants to make headway with the Water Board toward dumping the CDO's, she might want to clean up some of that language she has written. If she did that she might win and the pressure will be on us all, equally with possible CAO's.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-50678973175595672512008-01-16T18:53:00.000-08:002008-01-16T18:53:00.000-08:00Shark,Are you saying that the individuals fighting...Shark,<BR/>Are you saying that the individuals fighting CDOs are obstructionists? Should they just accept a lien placed on their home that could cost them up to $500 a day retroactive to 1988 for circumstances that are beyond their control? Based on past experience, should they just hope that the RWQCB changes their ways decides to treat the individuals fairly? Or do you just expect these people to sacrifice their home and security for you?<BR/><BR/>The fighting will continue in LO and with many different agendas, some more obvious than others, but 45 individuals are paying the ultimate price. Their homes are on the line. Unless you are willing to give your home up to a CDO/CAO recipient that loses theirs, don't criticize this group for fighting, for lashing out at everyone who has lied, cheated, and manipulated the people of LO over the past 30 years. These people were given no choice as to their course of action. The RWQCB randomly selected them as the "test case" in January of 2006 and the persecution continues.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02803550387495614776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-62587975928640950252008-01-16T12:12:00.000-08:002008-01-16T12:12:00.000-08:00Ann,One more thing about your most recent comment....Ann,<BR/><BR/>One more thing about your most recent comment. When you write <I>"$35-40 month original Ponds of Avalon With Swans, suddenly popping up as a traditional sewer plant at $200+ a month, with more added for buildout etc.and being told, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY, etc.. which turns out not to be true"</I> surely you realize that you're oversimplifying much like those who refer to obstructionists. Surely you also must realize that you're lying, both about the buildout increasing costs and being told there is no other choice. Buildout would reduce the costs (Julie Tacker herself made this point during a BOS meeting in the last year and Richard has forever been telling you that you are wrong ... please either explain your claim or stop making it ad nauseum) and the LOCSD, RWQCB and SWRCB have never said TriW is the only choice ... just that switching to something else would be even more costly and would delay the solution ... which we now know is exactly what happened because of the recall that promised us $100/month.<BR/><BR/>I also not with interest that Ron did not address the $100/month issue even though he's had ... um ... two and a half years to do so. It seems as if he would rather focus on the 1998 campaign which presented a completely analogous campaign promise. Why he focuses on one so much and has always ignored the other, we can only guess.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-74068529084378939262008-01-16T11:18:00.000-08:002008-01-16T11:18:00.000-08:00Sorry Ann,I apologize about using the word "fight"...Sorry Ann,<BR/><BR/>I apologize about using the word "fight". I just couldn't come up with a better word very quickly to describe the actions of those who have sued the RWQCB, have sued the LOCSD, have filed numerous CDP revocation requests with the CCC and have threatened to derail projects they don't like.<BR/><BR/>What word or phrase would you suggest I use instead? Even if you feel it was lazy, was it innaccurate? <BR/><BR/>And if you're gonna complain about folks being lazy in their analysis and descriptions ... why haven't you complained about some of the rhetoric from the other side? "Ginormeous mega sewer" and "$100 per month" come to mind as two things that you should have dealt with as examples of horrible sloppiness in the past.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-60597590047241743452008-01-16T09:07:00.000-08:002008-01-16T09:07:00.000-08:00I concur with what Shark Inlet said in the above J...I concur with what Shark Inlet said in the above January 15, 10:13 post.TCGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311070108486162937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-71280602678951430042008-01-16T07:47:00.000-08:002008-01-16T07:47:00.000-08:00Area 51 sez:"It always amazes me that people like ...Area 51 sez:"It always amazes me that people like you, and Santa Margerita Ron, and Ann et. al. are offended when called "obstructionists," but have no problem referring to all of us who support the county process as tools of Pandora. (By the way, I wouldn't know who Pandora is if she walked into my office with a sign saying "I am Pandora.")<BR/><BR/>It's just too lazy to do that, and besides, Los Osos' property owners are smarter than that.<BR/><BR/>Just amazing."<BR/><BR/>actually what's amazing is you've just gone and done the same thing you're accusing others of -- lumping "people like you," together. I object to the term "obstructionist" because it's simply incorrect and it blinds everyone to the reality on the ground. And lumping "people like you" i.e. Ron & Ann together is equally incorrect and blinding. It is amazing. and lazy. I agree. <BR/><BR/>Sewertoons sez:"Ron, you might be the perfect person to ask. Why is it that when it was ponds on Tri-W it was OK - no MORE than OK -- hugely embraced --and then when it wasn't ponds, it suddenly became "unpopular" for a location for treatment? How did the feeling on that location go from really good to "bad?" Think there was some marketing "spin" involved?"<BR/><BR/>Try this: $35-40 a month for ponds that were passive, "green," created a "green-belt" area,a promise it wouldn't smell, be energy smart, progressive, recycle water, hence no imported water,little or no sludge, etc. etc versus the County's traditional sewer plant realistically pegged at about $100 a month, with no clear water recycle component at the time. <BR/><BR/>Then try, $35-40 month original Ponds of Avalon With Swans, suddenly popping up as a traditional sewer plant at $200+ a month, with more added for buildout etc.and being told, THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY, etc.. which turns out not to be true.<BR/><BR/>Could that account for some unhappy campers asking some serious questions? <BR/><BR/>Inlet sez;"To those who still want to fight the County and RWQCB and everyone else at all costs,"<BR/><BR/>Fight the ____ (fill in the blanks) That's another one of those buzz phrases that blinds. "fight the . . . ." "Obstructionist." Those phrases need to be carefully clarified and made specific, otherwise they're just lazy sand in the eyes, with intention to confuse and blind.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-88996363680120906782008-01-15T22:13:00.000-08:002008-01-15T22:13:00.000-08:00Because I'm feeling as self-referential as Ron ......Because I'm feeling as self-referential as Ron ... let me just quote myself at length even though those who are interested probably could find the original content anyways ... after all, my insight is so freakin' brilliant that it bears repeating and repeating and repeating. And my insight is not <A HREF="http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/healing-my-friend-is-blowin-in-wind.html" REL="nofollow">mathematically chock-full-o-crap</A> and <A HREF="http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/01/sewerwatch-prediction-for-los-osos-in.html" REL="nofollow">proven wrong</A> like Ron's, so it's a bonus for the reader ... you!<BR/><BR/><I><BR/> Let's summarize the state of Los Osos today.<BR/><BR/> There are three kinds of people. One group are the folks who want to continue to fight the RWQCB, SWRCB, County, CCC, etc. until they get their ideal solution (a sustainable plant or collection of plants that costs so little to build and run that no one will be forced to move away because of the cost ... oh yeah ... it also can't be in located anywhere near any homes or churches unless it is the home or church of people who live outside the CSD boundaries). The second group are either folks who like the County running things, like TriW or have simply given up on fighting every regulatory body on every issue (perhaps because the cost of fighting is so darn high). The third group are folks who don't care so much either way ... probably because they live outside the PZ, are really wealthy or because they're renters who were thinking of moving anyways.<BR/><BR/> I would count myself in the second group. There is nothing inherently wrong with fighting for justice and for your way and the like ... but if the cost of the fight will bankrupt me, I would rather take my lumps and move on. Survival is smarter than winning thru a scorched earth campaign. Or, as Dr. Phil says, "would you rather be right or be happy?"<BR/><BR/> It is very clear to anyone who has seriously looked into the cost question at all that the cost of any solution keeps going up. Even the "cheaper" Ripley $154/month solution, once vetted by the County engineering staff, consultants and TAC ended up being more expensive than TriW's $205/month.<BR/><BR/> If the high cost of TriW was one of the key reasons for the recall passing, we're now facing higher costs ... because of the recall.<BR/><BR/> What is the best thing to do next? Stop going to County BOS meetings and complaining about everything. Start working with the TAC and County to make wise choices. Get with the program. To those who still want to fight the County and RWQCB and everyone else at all costs, I would offer a phrase from Gail: "you lost, get over it." I would also add that you've been gambling with my money for a long time now and you keep losing. I resent that you're unwilling to stop losing my money.<BR/><BR/></I>Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-83786354446075876922008-01-15T17:51:00.000-08:002008-01-15T17:51:00.000-08:00Today's SLO BOS: It's the law.It's the water. It's...Today's SLO BOS: <BR/><BR/>It's the law.<BR/>It's the water. <BR/>It's the economy.<BR/><BR/>It's beginning to get interesting...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-6948730379761133532008-01-15T17:16:00.000-08:002008-01-15T17:16:00.000-08:00sewertoons,I am sorry that you felt I was ignoring...sewertoons,<BR/>I am sorry that you felt I was ignoring you. I was in such a hurry wasn't able to read all the comments this morning.<BR/><BR/>I do believe that everyone has the right to speak, but right now some people are speaking so much that they are clogging the airwaves. As a result, no one is heard. I would like to see the supervisors actually listen to the ideas of everyone, but this will not occur unless someone is actively consolidating the information. <BR/><BR/>I don't like the TAC controlling this task and you don't like the CSD. I would honestly be happy with a combination, and throw in a reclamator proponent to balance it out. We just have to give up on the idea that bombarding the BOS with two hours of three minute sound bites every week is actually going to make a difference.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02803550387495614776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-36273376643737027282008-01-15T17:00:00.000-08:002008-01-15T17:00:00.000-08:00area51If you were paying any attention to the BOS ...area51<BR/>If you were paying any attention to the BOS meetings, you would know that Gibson has twice tried to introduce documents with a RWQCB/Pandora agenda. And he was shot down by the other supervisors both times. Thank God that they are starting to wise up to his manipulating game,Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02803550387495614776noreply@blogger.com