Dissed! Dissed! Can I Have Fries With That?

Ah, well, I guess the days of Board of Sups comity are over.  Years ago, you used to hear things like Supervisor A saying, "Well, I disagree with Supervisor B, but it IS his district and he knows his district's needs best, so I'll defer to his opinion and vote to support his motion." 

Not any more. At least not when it comes to Big Macs. (Or 2-1 vs 1-1 water trade-offs in Paso Robles, hmmmm?) 

I had to work Tuesday so missed the BOS hearing on whether or not Los Osos would get a McDonald's drive-thru, open 24 hours a day!  From talking with friends who were there, it seems it was a lively hearing, with over 100 people showing up, many of whom were adamantly opposed to a drive-thru of any kind and/or to a McDonald's of any shape or size. Also there, as the Tribune reports, were McDonald's employees from other sites who think the place is just swell, so Los Osos should have one, too.

And, from the Tribune story by Nick Wilson, I'm sure Supervisor Gibson argued vigorously against the eatery, claiming that a drive-thru violated the town's efforts to create a more pedestrian-friendly downtown and was a "step back" from doing "innovative things." 

That "discussion" would have been something to hear.  You know Gibson.  Once he cranks up into his stem-winder, Let-Me-Explain-It-All-To-You-So-You'll-Know-How-To-Vote mode, out pours a torrent of words, an endless overwhelming stream of relentless argle-bargle verbiage that floods out in such ever-increasingly vast quantities that it sucks all the air out of the room and  causes heads to explode until everyone's writhing on the floor with their hands over their ears, screaming,  "Stop! Stop! I'll vote any way you want me to, just please stop talking! Gaaaggghhhhh!" 

But this time, I guess the other Sups were wearing earplugs because they were unmoved and they were not into deference on this matter.  After all, if their districts had a McDonalds, then Los Osos, by God, would get one too because, as Supervisor Hill put it, being able to eat there or not was all "part of a freedom of choice."  Supervisor Ray, who doesn't live in the district either, said she didn't have a "problem with the project." 

So much for comity and deference.  Moribund. (Likely from eating too many big Macs.)   

And so it came to be, 4-1, that Los Osos will get a retro drive-thru fast-food eatery because of "seniors who can't easily get in and out of cars."  The only change is that the place won't be open round-the-clock, which will be a huge disappointment to the thousands of Los Ososians who wander the streets, bellies rumbling, at three o'clock in the morning crying, "Freedom Fries!  We want Freedom Fries!" 

Well, clearly, the community will have to do something to remedy that alarming situation.  

Food Fight! Can I have fries with that?

Tomorrow, the Board of Supervisors will be hearing an appeal on whether or not to stand by the Planning Commission's decision that disallows the drive through portion of the proposed McDonald's.  McDonald's says that's a deal breaker -- no drive through, no deal.  There's a whole lot of people weighing in on this, a petition has been passing around, there's a webpage with instructions of who and where to write,  http://www.nomcdonaldslososos.org  That page includes a link to a No Mc Los Osos Facebook page where you can leave comments.   Check it out and tomorrow we'll find out if we'll get fries with that.  Or not. 

Dog Park Party

Saturday, it was fund-raising, garage-sale day for El Chorro Dog Park.  This has been an annual fund-raiser for the park for several years now and is part of the city-wide Garage Sale Day.  El Chorro (located across from Cuesta College on Hwy 1) is maintained by volunteers so every penny of the sale went to the park. The town was packed and there were lots of treasures to be found.  Weather perfect, people out having a good time.

If you've got a dog and are a regular El Chorro visitor and want to get involved in supporting the park by volunteering, there's contact information posted on the kiosk at the park.  

Don't Let The Dogs Out

     The BOS met yesterday to work on amending the ordinance concerning "menacing" dogs. (See the March 1 posting.)  To date, the county only has a leash law (when off your own property, dog must be constrained by a leash or under direct voice control at all times, except for being in a designated dog park, etc.) or State Law that allows potentially dangerous dogs to be processed through the courts and if they repeatedly attacks, have them seriously contained and/or destroyed.  There is no inbetween.
     Under present state law, a dog has to kill or injure something twice before the authorities can begin do anything. And under present law, potentially dangerous animals, like a giant python that kept escaping from its owner and roaming the neighborhood, are free to roam the neighborhood until they have something for dinner once.  Not a happy situation if you happen to live in that neighborhood.

     Which is why the Supervisors were at work.  After some testimony and some discussion, it was resolved and voted 5 - 0 to have county counsel review the language to see if they can clarify the language a bit in order to make sure the public has clear definition, up the fines imposed and return it all on April 10th for final review.  At that time, if improved, the ordinance would:
     1.  Be complaint driven.  If your neighbor's dog escapes and chases you up on your porch, or runs at passersby and threatens them or harasses their dogs while they're walking by, terrorizes a neighbor who's just trying to enjoy her backyard, and so forth.
     2.  A DAS officer will go out to assess the situation, issue a citation if needed, that would require the owner to properly secure the dog/animal in question and issue a "ticket."  He'll return later to see that the problem is solved.  If it repeats, if there are other complaints, another ticket, at a much higher price, will be issued.  If the harassment involves any kind of injury/bite to man or beast, depending on the seriousness of the bite, even on a first strike, certainly on a second strike, the dog can be removed to a secure, licensed boarding kennel (paid for by the owner) and the matter taken immediately to processing via the state laws and the court.
          3.  First citation will cost up to $250, the second up to $500, the third up to $1,000 and or removal.
         4.  It was urged that perhaps the ordinance also include language that would allow property owners be notified of the citation as well (in the case where the dog's owners is a renter) since a lot of incidences seem to involve (implied, Cal Poly?) renters, who may  have little or no liability, but the landlord certainly does.  Which might be one way to put them on alert that they might be left holding any lawsuit bags if their tenant is keeping a dangerous dog on their property.
     So, if you own a dog named "Trouble," or an escaping python or irascible wombat, come April 10th, you're on notice.  And if you are "Trouble's" neighbor, come April 10th, you now have a glimmer of  hope that you can get some help to get your life back from a clueless owner and a menacing mutt with sharp pointy teeth who's terrorizing the neighborhood.

Uhhnnn, Awwww, Noooo, Dear God, NOT Another Six Weeks  
      Yes, I'm afraid so.  The Hideous Republican Primary Traveling Circus will grind on for another month or six weeks like a horrible groundhog that has seen his shadow.  There's nothing for it, I'm afraid.  The Menacing Dog ordinance doesn't cover politicians, even though they are life threatening, so that's no help. I know.  It's awful.  I suggest moving to France for a while.  That might help. 

Rush Gets a PAC!

     It's not just for politicians any more!  As Rush Limbaugh faces a bunch of advertisers heading out the door pretending they are shocked! shocked! by his latest over the top outrage, an unidentified big money donor from a PhonyName PAC stepped up to give Rush some nice money to make up for the loss.  Rush, of course, blamed "the liberals" for his troubles (Classic abuser tactic.  Classic!), and whined that the advertisers who were fleeing were ingrates who were now deserting his ship.  A point the advertisers probably didn't appreciate.  I mean, reminding their customers that they made lots of nice money off of Rush for years, all the while knowing what kind of man he is and what kind of things he says, and now that they are being held to account, they're running for the hills pretending to be all high-minded?
     Well, I suppose that reminder is better than nothing.  Not known at this point is whether Rush's support/fans/sponsors will continue to erode until, like Glen Beck before him, "management" decides that Rush is a liability and suggest he "retire."
     This whole kerfluffle has been interesting on a lot of levels. First, of course, Rush breaking into the mainstream consciousness allowed a lot of people who don't normally listen to the guy to get a giant YouTube, full-color, audio/visual gander.  It's all sorta like your creepy Uncle Herman.  You know the guy makes you shudder, but you ignore him because, well, he's harmless, isn't he?  Until you're forced to take a close look and, uh-oh, there he is, that guy, naked under a dirty raincoat, standing out on the sidewalk drooling over sweet young things walking by and yelling at them incoherently about "too much sex." And you think, Holy S--t!  I'm going to change my name and move to France and pretend that I don't know that guy.  No, no, he's not related to me.
     On a deeper level, Rush speaks to, feeds  and feeds on the ugly deep well of American Know-Nothings -- a primarily older, white, male cohort that is unconsciously reacting to our Brave New World -- a world that's browning/blacking, it's youth-ing, it's female-ing, it's gay-ing, it's unchurching, it's high-tech-ing, it's equal-rights-ing.  All of which spells the death knell of the primacy of the angry, gun loving, fearful, blue collar, white Christian patriarchal male.
     Which creates a ripe brew for Rush to paddle about in, stoke, and stir up -- an historical blend of  anger, resentment, bullying fear, seething paranoia, misogyny, racism, xenophobic jingo, anti-anything non-Christian, suspicion, gun-toting anti-government paranoia. And when times get tough, that dark pool ripples out to infect even "decent folk" who usually don't want to be (publicly) associated with such ugly stuff.  (Unless they pretend that Rush is "just an entertainer, a comedian," which allows them to publicly venture safely into a little nostalgie de la boue.)
     Eventually, the toxins people like Rush feed upon and dish out to their followers can grow so toxic
it poisons the organism itself.  And when the light is turned on or the zeitgist changes, when people suddenly wake up and peer into their cups and find that anger and meanness has becomes a liability, not a badge, or they find themselves exposed as objects of ridicule or worse -- irrelevant -- then suddenly to be seen drinking that dark brew in public becomes a liability.  When that happens, the brew-master demagogue becomes an embarrassing has-been. I mean, who knows who Father Coughlin is today?  And, say, where is Glen Beck anyway?
     Meantime, Rush has his anonymous PAC, advertisers get to pretend their hems are now clean and they always never did like that guy anyway (even though advertising on his show was incredibly lucrative), and Rush gets to play the victim.  A total win-win for everyone.
     Except for so many of his true believers who truly are forgotten.  Their displaced suffering is real.  While trashing women, blacks, gays, muslims and all the other "others" that haunt their dreams, won't fix their problems, we know from history that reaching out to women, blacks, gays, muslims and all the "other" others in shared solidarity actually can improve their lives.  After all, each one of us is an "other," and isolated and targeted and alone we are weak and helpless. Fair game for demagogues and corporate-owned lawmakers.  But together, we are the US of the USA.
     That's the one fact that Rush and his ilk do not want his listeners to understand.  It would cut into the bottom line of his corporate/political masters.

Final Workshop

The déjà vu was eerie.  Winter.  Cold.  Night.  Los Osos Junior High School.  About a couple of hundred people out of a community of about 5,000 homes gathered to hear about a sewer project.  One event in 1984, this one in 2010. Same people, same issue.  Makes me tired even thinking about it.

Well, this workshop was the final piece in the Hideous Los Osos Sewer Project; the ordinance setting rates and charges.  If the “protest” vote is not successful (with 50% plus one required, damned near impossible to accomplish), developed property owners will be paying to cover the capital costs of their neighbor’s undeveloped property, plus an additional fee based on their own (indoor) water usage. If and when water issues are resolved, and undeveloped property owners are allowed to develop, they will then pay the entire original assessment and R&C fees, and the total R&C will drop slightly on developed property (at least the fixed capital cost portion will.)  If there is no water and undeveloped property can’t develop, the developed property owners will pay the full freight for the whole deal.

It was anticipated that a critical water report and other info coming in the spring may give a better picture as to water availability and if it looks like a sure thing, the County will hold an assessment vote for the undeveloped land-owners and if successful, the fixed portion of the R&C will drop accordingly.

The water portion of the R&C will be based on your Jan/Feb water bills.  The presumption will be that that’s “indoor” water use. It will be figured on your Jan/Feb numbers, annualized, times $7.54 per unit. Check your water bill last year to see how many units you used in Jan/Feb to get a guestimate on what your individual cost will be. (The formula from the CSD hand-out is “usage found on your water bill x 745 gallons divided by 60 will give you average daily use”) A unit is 748 gallons) In addition, the CSD office has all kinds of great water info available to help you figure this out and how to conserve water as well. And the county website will also have info needed to calculate estimates.

It’s important to do this early-on because right now people may have the county’s glossy brochure figure of $194 total for their sewer bill floating around in their head, which is misleading.  Onto that you’ll have to tack your own water usage from the R&Cs, which may come as a huge sticker shock to many people.  And, of course, you still have your regular water bill on top of all that. I suspect that a $300-a-month water/sewer bill will not be at all uncommon. Oh, I almost forgot, a $300-a-month plus costs for hook up, if you financed that. So, will a $350++ a month water/sewer/hook up bill become the new norm?     

It’s not known yet whether the R&C will come as a monthly bill or be added to the tax rolls. Landlords will be getting the bill so they’ll have to figure out a fair charge for their tenants.

The original $25,000 per home assessment will appear on the 2010/11 tax bills.  The R&C won’t appear until the 2014 hook-up.

On lot costs will involve decommissioned septic tanks, pipe run to lateral and is the sole responsibility of the homeowner.  Guestimated costs run between $2,000 to $5,000.  The county is looking for grants to help with low-income folks to help pay for hook-up costs and the county is also looking into the possibility of waiving or reducing the various permits needed to decommission tanks (inspection fees & etc.), and I presume the County will have a list of recommended companies certified to do that kind of work so people can avoid shoddy fly-by-nighters who could leave them with an expensive mess.

The county is also working on making information available for homeowners who want to use their abandoned septics as a rain-water cistern system or as a cachement system to keep rainwater on their property for percolation into the ground.  And for people who are using extensive greywater, they’ll have to consult with the county if they want to get a more accurate rate on their indoor water use, since that fee is based on the amount of used water that’s actually going down into the sewer pipes, which greywater isn’t.

And the county’s looking into financial help for poor folks who have no way of paying those high on-lot costs. It’s not known at this time if or how much help is or will be available, but some of the grants are only available to counties while others individual homeowners must apply for themselves. With the state broke, even more of this community fallen into PoorVille, this community needs to brace for more people losing their homes on account of this project.  And brace for a shrug of indifference from various government agencies.  Not their problem.

A few Questions from the audience:

Will cost overruns on the project be added to the R&C?  No, legally can’t be added to either the base assessment or the R&C.  The county’s not anticipating cost over runs, the bids that have been coming in on other projects are running 30% under the usual costs due to the lack of work and very hungry contractors and the cost guestimates were pegged in the mid-range so there’s some wiggle room before going over.  And if costs end up going under the guestimates, the amount collected will also go down. 

Supervisor Gibson said he intended to ask the RWQCB to remove the CDOs from The Los Osos 45.  Yeah, well, good luck with that one.

Several people asked about holding a special tax for residents in the Los Osos Basin, a tax that would ensure that people living outside the PZ would be taxed and said tax would broaden the tax base for the sewer and would go to help pay for the sewer since folks living outside the PZ are benefiting from the clean water created by the treatment plant, but aren’t paying to clean it.  That’s something Paavo Ogren said they were looking into and when the water reports are in, the county may take a look at doing that.  If a majority (50%) of homeowners inside the PZ voted for such a “use” tax on their neighbors outside the PZ, it would pass.

Another question involved using old census data to determine median household income, for example.  That data is certainly out of date and would have an impact on whether grants are available.  If the old data showed us to be a wealthy community and that’s no longer the case, then that data must be updated.  In addition, the grant monies and lower interest loans available via the SRF program depend on those numbers, as do Federal guidelines as to affordability.  And, clearly, if this project wasn’t “affordable” under 2000 census data, it sure isn’t “affordable” now. Sometime in the spring, that data may be available, as will information from the SRF funds.  So, that may result in better terms and hence lower costs. Or maybe not. One thing is sure, the really interesting numbers may start showing up with the new census data.  Way back in 2000, the original CSD members were using numbers that guestimated that 33% of the community would be forced out of town by the (then)  proposed sewer costs.  Is that percentage still right or will it be higher or lower? The 2010 numbers may tell a tale.  

The workshop was taped by AGP Video and so will be shown on local cable.

The Board of Supervisors meets Dec 14^th to certify the “protest vote.”