tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post6920164290142716209..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-27193317038258651312007-06-03T12:37:00.000-07:002007-06-03T12:37:00.000-07:00Anonymous 4:43 PM, June 02, 2007 said... "if they ...Anonymous 4:43 PM, June 02, 2007 said... "if they would have followed the LAW we wouldn't have had to file for bankruptcy"<BR/><BR/>What a bunch of spin! The Recall CSD had every opportunity to propose a system, but they didn't, because there never was a waste water treatment plan. This CSD spent all the money they could to fight against any sewer and they did it deliberately in order to bankrupt the District! That was their "Plan", create a financial hole that would prevent any sewer, any where! Lisa, Julie, Chuck, Steve and John belong in jail!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-63984517828986523952007-06-03T09:54:00.000-07:002007-06-03T09:54:00.000-07:00To: 11:14 PM, June 02, 2007Well, I guess if the r...To: 11:14 PM, June 02, 2007<BR/><BR/>Well, I guess if the recalled board was spending the SRF money, the CSD had no money except for the SRF money so the CSD had been "broke" for a long time and we were bound to file for bankruptcy. The county never distributed the proper amount of money to the CSD, the money went to other communities in the county. Right? It's now obvious that the county is only keeping the CSD running on a small amount of money, just enough to keep it alive so they don't have to pick up any costs of Los Osos. The board should have been dissolved, we would have been better off.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-41944664539860317522007-06-02T23:14:00.000-07:002007-06-02T23:14:00.000-07:00no they didn't have to have secured funding. fili...no they didn't have to have secured funding. filing for bankruptcy has nothing to do with secured funding - it has to do with being brokeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-62785317183292200982007-06-02T22:36:00.000-07:002007-06-02T22:36:00.000-07:00To above,The state had to have secured funding and...To above,<BR/><BR/>The state had to have secured funding and it did not have it, they were busted and you know it, the recalled board avoided our 218 vote and that law is the Calfornia Constitution. Talk about delay, if they would have followed the LAW we wouldn't have had to file for bankruptcy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-56983003064427943152007-06-02T16:43:00.000-07:002007-06-02T16:43:00.000-07:00of course the state insisted on a 218 vote, the ne...of course the state insisted on a 218 vote, the new board stated their intention not to complete the project the loan was given for, so the state wanted security.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-31103943679257830782007-06-02T16:28:00.000-07:002007-06-02T16:28:00.000-07:00to 4:13, please post the section of the Constituti...to 4:13, please post the section of the Constitution regarding wastewater fees and exceptionsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-27678706291754540132007-06-02T16:25:00.000-07:002007-06-02T16:25:00.000-07:00Ann,The CSD needed a 218 vote for the project. The...Ann,<BR/><BR/>The CSD needed a 218 vote for the project. The bond money assessment was just that, and for that amount of money, something like $24 million, I'm not sure but around that amount. The recalled CSD was trying to get away with "service fees" but you can't have service fees if there's no sewer. They tried to avoid a 218. The state insisted on a 218 to proceed with the loan (the second installment) and that's when the Blakeslee compromise came into play. The state wanted to have a 218 right away and wanted us to strike down Measure B and only then would they continue with the SRF loan. That's according to the State Water Board during the compromise.<BR/><BR/>The bond assessment was only for that $20 some million, period. That was the cap on that particular vote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-280405921747468552007-06-02T16:13:00.000-07:002007-06-02T16:13:00.000-07:00to the idiot at 11:10.the 218 is our Constitutiona...to the idiot at 11:10.<BR/><BR/>the 218 is our Constitutional right to vote..stupid!! The recalled board denied our right to vote...stupid!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-15379222292353790872007-06-02T04:52:00.000-07:002007-06-02T04:52:00.000-07:00Crap Sez:"Yes Ann, the constitution is law. It was...Crap Sez:"Yes Ann, the constitution is law. It was mostly formulated by non-lawyers. However it is constantly under attack by lawyers who wish to change the original intent and their judge buddies who wish to go along with them."<BR/><BR/>The constitution is under constant attack by all sorts of "special interests," conservative and liberal, and very often the constitution is defended by an outfit I'm sure you profess to despise -- the ACLU -- an irony I don't think is lost on you.<BR/><BR/>Anon sez:"You said, "Meantime, everyone, get a grip. The Process is plodding along. The Process will give homeowners a vote."<BR/><BR/>PLEASE ANN, GET IT RIGHT. OUR VOTE WAS TAKEN AWAY. IT'S NOW A SURVEY OF EVERYONE "<BR/><BR/>No, I got it right. Homeowners in the PZ will get an assessment vote on the maximum $$ to be assessed for an unspecified, undescribed, "wastewater treatment something or other somewhere or other." That's the law. The advisory vote will only be for type and style & placement etc. and<BR/>at this point will be allowed for everyone in the general boundries of L.O., sort of. That "advisory" will be "advisory," since the BOS will be making the actual decision. They can abide by the advisory or "bait & switch" and pick some different project.<BR/><BR/>Anon sez:"I don't recall ever getting a 218 on the Tri-W, only an assessment (218) for bonds for the purchase of land and design of project in 2001."<BR/><BR/>That was a problem, clearly. If I understand correctly, that assessment vote was for land and design. The other HUGE costs that came along later as final costs were all considered non-assessable "service fees," and so it was claimed they didn't require another 218 vote. That claim resulted in a law suit being filed before the election, but that's never been settled so I don't know how a court would rule -- i.e. whether the huge additional sums requested by the old CSD from the SWB constituted a loan big enough to qualify as needing a 218 vote? Or whether the small land and building assessment loan was open ended enough to cover whatever elephant wandered in on its tail so as to never need another re-assessment assessment vote. That's still up in the air, so far as I know.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-65119153954401140392007-06-01T23:10:00.000-07:002007-06-01T23:10:00.000-07:00"Constitutional right"What a dope."Constitutional right"<BR/><BR/>What a dope.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-90247963528260823072007-06-01T19:18:00.000-07:002007-06-01T19:18:00.000-07:00Yes, we will get a 218 vote Ann.A open-ended 218 w...Yes, we will get a 218 vote Ann.<BR/><BR/>A open-ended 218 with three projects and three prices. We'll get to vote, but will not know what we're voting for! Do you endorse that???<BR/><BR/>I don't recall ever getting a 218 on the Tri-W, only an assessment (218) for bonds for the purchase of land and design of project in 2001. That was our Constitutional right which was ignored by the recalled CSD board.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-11429879039410229902007-06-01T19:12:00.000-07:002007-06-01T19:12:00.000-07:00Ann,You said, "Meantime, everyone, get a grip. The...Ann,<BR/><BR/>You said, "Meantime, everyone, get a grip. The Process is plodding along. The Process will give homeowners a vote."<BR/><BR/>PLEASE ANN, GET IT RIGHT. OUR VOTE WAS TAKEN AWAY. IT'S NOW A SURVEY OF EVERYONE (INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO WON'T HAVE TO PAY -- RENTERS, PEOPLE OUT OF TOWN, PEOPLE IN CABRILLO ESTATES, PEOPLE WITH ONE ACRE, ETC.) SO IT'S NOT JUST HOMEOWNERS AND IT'S NOT A 'VOTE' AS ORIGINALLY PROMISED!!!!!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-15305086941521598182007-06-01T18:28:00.000-07:002007-06-01T18:28:00.000-07:00Yes Ann, the constitution is law. It was mostly fo...Yes Ann, the constitution is law. It was mostly formulated by non-lawyers. However it is constantly under attack by lawyers who wish to change the original intent and their judge buddies who wish to go along with them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-63752577720167136872007-06-01T07:23:00.000-07:002007-06-01T07:23:00.000-07:00Anonymous sez:"Brilliant Ann,Your comment above no...Anonymous sez:"Brilliant Ann,<BR/><BR/>Your comment above now establishes the 'fact' that there is no pollution going on in the PZ!"<BR/><BR/>Pluueeeze tell me you wrote that as some kind of joke? My comment establishes no such thing. Let me say again, if you define the wrong problem, you will keep coming up with wrong solutions. <BR/><BR/>Crap sez:"However, that said, my frustration lies with "The tyrany of democracy". This tyrany is perpetuated by the legal profession for their own personal benefit. Law and confrontation is a religion for them."<BR/><BR/>Oddly, I find that the tyrany of democracy can only be contained by . . . LAW. The constitutioin is a set of "laws," rules we all agree to abide by. It prevents the tyrany of democracy, i.e. the tyrany of the majority. For example, I have no doubt that the majority of Americans today would vote FOR having prayers (traditionally and historically they used to be all christian prayers) back in our schools. Who and what prevents that tyrany of the majority over the rights of a minority of non-christian, non-religious kids? Why, it's Lawyers and the Law. GAAAAGGGHHHHH!<BR/><BR/>Anony sez:"Although we as humans recognize this fact, we disregard it by polluting our rivers, lakes, and oceans. Subsequently, we are slowly but surely harming our planet to the point where organisms<BR/>are dying at a very alarming rate. In addition to innocent organisms dying off, our drinking water has become greatly affected as is our ability to use water for recreational purposes. In order to combat water pollution, we must understand the problems and become part of the solution."<BR/><BR/>Amen, brother or sister, amen. With global weather change, WATER will be the next "black gold." Indeed, it's already starting. That is one reason I hope whatever systems end up on the County's table, have a very, very strong water reuse components and/or capability. Otherwise, it'll all be for naught.<BR/><BR/>anonymous sez:"What needs to be done is marginalize them and muffle their screams of protest. Psycholgists out there (and I don't mean a certain protester who is infected with the "me,me,me" disease) - listen up! Help us out here - what can we do? We have to get a sewer this time!"<BR/><BR/>Ah, I see, another lover of democracy checks in -- SILENCE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH YME, SHUT THEM UP, SHUT THEM OUT, SHUT THEM DOWN. Yep, The American Way. <BR/><BR/>Meantime, everyone, get a grip. The Process is plodding along. The Process will give homeowners a vote. People in the community will campaign. Lies will be told. Truth's will be told. Balloons will appear. Posters will appear. People holding signs will show up. People speaking at podiums during their Sacred Three/Two Minutes will appear. Tons of Ink will be spilled. Then on the appointed day, homeowners will vote however they want. Or, if history is any guide, 40% of the homeowners won't bother to return their ballots, so 60% of the homeowners will vote. The Process will then go on to Phase II. Followed by more yelling & so on. It's the System at work. Chugga-chugga.Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-37187745339016397642007-05-31T23:23:00.000-07:002007-05-31T23:23:00.000-07:00It really doesn't matter how carefully the County ...It really doesn't matter how carefully the County does its work on the project alternatives. The obstructionists will find fault no matter how clean and clear the process is. They do not want a sewer. Period. You are NOT going to change the minds of TRUE BELIEVERS. <BR/><BR/>What needs to be done is marginalize them and muffle their screams of protest. Psycholgists out there (and I don't mean a certain protester who is infected with the "me,me,me" disease) - listen up! Help us out here - what can we do? We have to get a sewer this time!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-30410744182157550132007-05-31T22:07:00.000-07:002007-05-31T22:07:00.000-07:00"Long ago if the county or RWQCB had put taggants ..."Long ago if the county or RWQCB had put taggants in various toilets they'd have a "fact," not an assertion." <BR/><BR/>no, they would have more data, not not more facts. They might be able to make more assertions as well. <BR/><BR/> More confusion. Nice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-19662321183379812812007-05-31T20:56:00.000-07:002007-05-31T20:56:00.000-07:00I second that, 8:50pm!I second that, 8:50pm!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-87867790417388720532007-05-31T20:50:00.000-07:002007-05-31T20:50:00.000-07:00What is wrong with this picture?The Los Osos CSD i...What is wrong with this picture?<BR/><BR/>The Los Osos CSD is bankrupt. <BR/><BR/>Yet, the Los Osos CSD continues to sue governmental agencies. HOW does the LOCSD plan to pay for all these lawsuits? And, why can't the LOCSD realize that all their petty bucking against the State of California is stupid?<BR/><BR/>How naive can you get?<BR/><BR/>First of all, the BOD of the LOCSD should realize that the only people that will benefit from all the lawsuits are the attorneys.<BR/><BR/>Second, the Office of the Attorney General of the State of California needs to investigate the BOD of the LOCSD for giving public funds to hiring Shaunna Sullivan to defend the homeowners in the PZ. After all, several of the BOD members LIVE within the PZ.<BR/><BR/>And finally, doesn't anyone on this website see that all the sabre-rattling and expensive attorneys in the world will not help Los Osos residents avoid paying for a waste water project?<BR/><BR/>Delay HAS already driven up the costs, from the original 2001 estimate, to an astronomical sum.<BR/><BR/>Delay will only further drive up the costs.<BR/><BR/>Stupidity, no matter if it is cloaked in naivete', is still stupidity. The two women on this Board have proven again and again that they have learned nothing from being on this Board, except how to wield power. I can hardly wait until they are in the orange jump suits, along with the three original Lisa Board guys. They need to feel the true results of their selfish, vindictive, power-hungry actions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-11320925145719660122007-05-31T19:41:00.000-07:002007-05-31T19:41:00.000-07:00Although some kinds of water pollution can occur t...Although some kinds of water pollution can occur through natural processes, it is mostly a result of human activities. We use water daily in our homes and industries, about 150 gallons per day per person in the United States. The water we use is taken from lakes and rivers, and from underground (groundwater); and after we have used it-- and contaminated it-- most of it returns to these locations.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/5161/water1.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-41278593928176376842007-05-31T19:39:00.000-07:002007-05-31T19:39:00.000-07:00Comprising over 70% of the Earth�s surface, water ...Comprising over 70% of the Earth�s surface, water is undoubtedly the most precious natural resource that exists on our planet. Without the seemingly invaluable compound comprised of hydrogen and oxygen, life on Earth would be non-existent: it is essential for everything on our planet to grow and prosper. Although we as humans recognize this fact, we disregard it by polluting our rivers, lakes, and oceans. Subsequently, we are slowly but surely harming our planet to the point where organisms<BR/>are dying at a very alarming rate. In addition to innocent organisms dying off, our drinking water has become greatly affected as is our ability to use water for recreational purposes. In order to combat water pollution, we must understand the problems and become part of the solution.<BR/><BR/>http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/waterpollution.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-78548797853950685742007-05-31T19:38:00.000-07:002007-05-31T19:38:00.000-07:00Another reason to be proactive when talking about ...Another reason to be proactive when talking about water:<BR/>http://www.charter.net/news/read.php?id=13737673&ps=1012&cat=&cps=0&lang=enAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-6439747049653443952007-05-31T18:23:00.000-07:002007-05-31T18:23:00.000-07:00Too bad the Water Gods couldn't take a hint from t...Too bad the Water Gods couldn't take a hint from the AEther Gods, and let us install pollution devices on our rigs and have them certified once every two years.<BR/> It worked too! a remarkable achievement for a government bureaucracy!<BR/> Unfortunately, The Water Gods, as Ann said,<BR/>Make their "requirements of sufficient homage" up according to their pleasure!<BR/> They are not asleep, they are still plotting to punish us!<BR/> Pray to the county gods! beseech them to deliver us at any costs !<BR/><BR/> I do believe in Water Gods! I do I do I do!Mike Greenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14883036796650379771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-71588179929718404152007-05-31T10:05:00.000-07:002007-05-31T10:05:00.000-07:00Ann, in a previous post on your last thread, I sta...Ann, in a previous post on your last thread, I stated: "However, I see regulation everywhere, and no "murderous Darwinian economics" lately. Perhaps "unfettered market forces" were in the past, but lately it seems they are chained."<BR/><BR/>It was unique that you would use the conceptual phrase "murderous Darwinian economics" which I lightly brushed off as far as "economics". But it got me into some serious thinking.<BR/><BR/>I was WRONG! If this concept is applied to the legal profession and our justice system, YOU are totally correct. My total "rant" is based upon this, and is proof of the validity of your concept relating to our sewer problems. AHH, had you only penned "murderous Darwinian Law and Justice". <BR/><BR/>You replied to my "rant" with: <BR/>"In reading Crap's "rant," I was reminded of a quote from Voiltaire: "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.""<BR/><BR/>Yes, this quote has great value, and is certainly true. It has been proven throughout history. This old gal watches the actions of government closely. I live by this quote. I am a political animal.<BR/>However, that said, my frustration lies with "The tyrany of democracy". This tyrany is perpetuated by the legal profession for their own personal benefit. Law and confrontation is a religion for them. <BR/><BR/>It is easy to fight a tyrant. The enemy is known. But in our case "I have seen the enemy, and the enemy is us". (Pogo) <BR/><BR/>How does one fight the "tyrany of democracy"? I guess the only way would be to NEVER vote for a lawyer, for any office, regardless of political leaning. Vote for people with common sense who understand right, wrong, practicality, and consequences of action. Let them direct their staff lawyers and staff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-33642796702300683462007-05-31T08:44:00.000-07:002007-05-31T08:44:00.000-07:00Brilliant Ann,Your comment above now establishes t...Brilliant Ann,<BR/><BR/>Your comment above now establishes the 'fact' that there is no pollution going on in the PZ!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-38980909473946815572007-05-31T07:28:00.000-07:002007-05-31T07:28:00.000-07:00Anonymous sez:"And, a police officer commented tha...Anonymous sez:"And, a police officer commented that "this is not the idyllic little backbay community" that it used to be." In any case, just a heads up. Thieves have been walking into our unlocked, friendly, open doors. Frankly, it pisses me off. I'm sorry but I just can't say anything positive right now."<BR/><BR/>I am so sorry to hear it. Unfortunately, we've got a failed drug "war," a failed drug policy, next to zero treatment centers, and a whole lot of extremely sick addicts who need money for their fix. Lock your doors is right. <BR/><BR/>In reading Crap's "rant," I was reminded of a quote from Voiltaire: "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men." <BR/><BR/>Did anyone but me notice that the Tribune, which constantly gets the story wrong and thereby contributes to this ongoing mess, is now often using the word "assert" when speaking of the RWQCB's assertion that nitrates are coming from septic tanks & etc. What's interesting is that before the ACL & CDO hearings, that claim was stated as fact. Now, it's claimed or asserted or in the opinion of .. . Can we suspect that this word change is the result of hearing sworn testimony over and over again from RWQCB staff that they have no imperical evidence of any pollution from Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith &or Ms. Brown & etc? Suddenly "fact" isn't "fact" and so must remain an assertion, or, as it was put in a RWQCB official document, "common knowledge tells us . . ." (Common knowledge once told us that witches floated and the moon was made of green cheese) Which, alas, is why in many ways we've ended up in this mess. Long ago if the county or RWQCB had put taggants in various toilets they'd have a "fact," not an assertion. They did find de-nitrification going on in the vados zone, depending on the depth, which surprised them no end since "common knowledge" up to that point had it that no denitrification took place at all. (Matt Thompson, RWQCB staff members, asserted this false "common knowledge" during one of the hearings, apparently unaware of the county's tests) Adding that together, if the county had amended the basin plan and the RWQCB re-did the PZ and focused on nitrate loading and water reuse, & etc. they could have had a more flexible and a more sensible leg to stand on, vis a vis encorcement and/or options. What we ended up with is the worst of all possible worlds: the nit-pickyness of the LAW and the nit-pickyness of Science trying to arm wrestle with both common sense, common knowledge and politics. Tough match. Often wastes a lot of time and money. <BR/><BR/>Inlet sez:"Presumably he would need to come up with a convincing argument that onsite is sufficient ... not just for him but for all those who might prefer onsite options who've already been told that onsite is not allowed. Along these lines, the process of monitoring the discharge and verifying that it is good enough each and every month is probably the sticking point."<BR/><BR/>Inlet, if you go through and read the various official CDO paperwork, from the original one issued to the last one, you'll see the RWQCB has carefully, over the months, removed ALL references to "pollution," "nitrates" "groundwater" "nuissance" "waters of the state of California," etc. in other words all the LEGAL definitions that would make one a lawbreaker. All gone. Goal posts moved. All that remains is the word "discharge." (It's undefined. Shauna tried to get Matt Thompson to define it and he kept going circular.) This is very interesting because if you do not define what it is you're discharging, there WILL BE NO "alternative" systems allowed so even though the policy/law states that the RWQCB cannot dictate systems, only set discharge standards, in reality you've selected for only one type of system -- full collection. It's a pure Hobson's Choice game and has been for years. and has little or nothing to do with control or managing "pollution." <BR/><BR/>Once again, keep changing the story and you'll keep ending up with wrong questions, wrong answers, wrong "solutions."Churadogshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05362538114791652208noreply@blogger.com