Pages

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

At the Sewer’s Edge

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons has to be “put to bed” before the Great Sewer Election results will be finally tallied, so as I write this I do not know what those results will be. But here are some things I still do not know, and some things I do:

--I know the present sewer plan is the wrong plan in the wrong place at the wrong price for all the wrong reasons. But I do not know the real reason why the CSD Board majority clings to the Tri-W site with such single-minded ferocity. Using a sewer plant in order to get park land while sticking only the ratepayers with the bill is simply unfair. And telling me an industrial-sized sewer plant must remain in the middle of town because the community desperately needs to have a Tot Lot next to it is like peeing on my shoes and telling me it’s raining.

-- I know the present plant will not allow build-out without (a) imported water, (b) will not cure salt water intrusion in the lower aquifer, and (c) will cost the community a bundle with constantly rising Operation & Maintenance costs, among other things. A project with such big “deferred” costs and unsolved problems waiting in the wings is a pig-in-a-poke project. We’ll see if the community will buy it.

--I still do not know why on earth the CSD repeatedly refused to prepare two or three sewer-plan options, with accurate prices, and then present them to the community for a choice and a vote. Hobson’s Choice is really no choice at all.

-- Not that this project ever really did go to the voters, until now. Which is why I know the way the CSD set up the original assessment was fundamentally misleading. You do not ask for a property tax vote on a massive public works project like this one by parsing out a tiny portion for the tax rolls while reserving the enormous, open-ended lion’s share (i.e. the real cost) for much later in the form of an ever-escalating “service/loan fee,” and then use that tiny assessment vote to declare that the community did vote on the plan and overwhelmingly supported it. “Disingenuous” is one word for that kind of scheme; “dishonest” is another.

--I know that when someone promises me “no spin” on a project that is nothing BUT spin, I’d better start counting the silverware.

-- I know that I no longer have confidence in our CSD Board majority. The entire process that has led up to the recall is nothing new to me. I closely followed the same dynamic at work in the SLO Coastal School District, a district whose board majority put petal to the metal despite repeated warnings, then drove the district into financial ruin before walking away from their self-made train wreck, leaving the students, teachers and taxpayers stuck with the bill. To me, the CSD is School Board déjà vu.

-- I know that once you lie about the simple stuff, you can’t possibly be trusted to tell the truth on the big stuff. Lie # 1 always begets Lie #2 to cover up Lie #1, and so forth, until you end up stuck tight to a Tar Baby tangle from which you cannot escape. I know that spin and hokum and half-truths always mean that I’m being manipulated for reasons that rarely have to do with my best interest.

-- I know that Los Osos has been failed repeatedly by the very governmental agencies that should have served as a safety net to keep well meaning but non-expert elected Boards out of inadvertent harm’s way. Instead, Los Osos has been like the drowning man who, instead of being helped and rescued by trained lifeguards, has seen rescuers row out one after another, not to save, but to bash the drowning man over the head with an oar.

-- And finally, I know that the mechanisms of democracy – initiatives, recalls, voting, petitioning our government for redress – are alive and well. And I know, as messy and often hideous as the process is, it is absolutely amazing to me that so many people in Los Osos still take their right to self-government so seriously. I can only hope that the rest of the community treats their precious right to vote in the same serious way.


Note: As of 10 pm. Tuesday night, the three CSD candidates had been recalled and the sewer initiative was ahead by a slim margin. Final tallies won't be known until tomorrow. In my previous posting, I wondered if my fellow Los Ososians were sheep or growly bears. I now have my answer.

13 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

What Now?

We all know that there a few remaining ballots and that the results on the recall is pretty certain. Measure B, however is not a clear victor.

If Measure B fails, we are in a better position. If Measure B passes (and I would bet on it but am not certain just yet) the new board must decide whether they want to continue to challenge the legality of Measure B. If they continue the challenge, they face the prospect of infuriating their supporters. If they give up the challenge, they are allowing citizens to vote on the location of any potential plant. Hopefully they can quickly find a location with a willing seller which is not environmentally sensitive where the effects of Measure B won't hamstring the community.

What about the "new plant" at the "out of town" site. Considering we've just forfeited a ton of state money, loaned to us at low interest for the purpose of construction ... how are we going to pay the contractors who've already done some work? Considering we're starting fresh with a deficit, how are we going to pay for plant design and EIRs and the expensive process of guiding the project thru the CCC and RWQCB? I sure as heck don't know. Even without fines from the RWQCB we are pretty much unable to do what the recall candidates have promised us they would do.

(Note: I actually think that the construction starting before the election was the deciding issue for many people. Even if the reasoning for choosing a late date for the recall election was so that there would be more time to discuss the issues and to campaign, it did force the start of construction a bit early, so was unavoidable. If we want to blame the CSDthree for this we should not forget that Steve Sawyer should have gotten his act together and turned in the recall petitions earlier ... perhaps Steve wanted to force the CSDthree into looking bad so that his side would be more likely to win ... who knows.)

So, Ann, you went down to the recall office and talked with the people there more than I did ... what do you think they'll do?

Anonymous said...

I just hope the new CSD will pull it together, and if they can't, do what the first CSD should have done. RESIGN- disolve the CSD, ADMIT DEFEAT. QUIT! Imagine if the original CSD had had the integrity to do that, The sewer would have gone back to the county (after all it was the county of SLO that CREATED this mess in the first place by alowing development to happen with no infrastructure)What we dont need is BIG EGOS, with overinflated sense of self worth (and bodily parts) (sorry LeGros, your comment about your testicles was revealing in the extreame) Will we finaly get some integrity in government? I hope so, we are long overdue! Mike Green, Los Osostuygumfs

Anonymous said...

Dissolving the CSD would be the worst thing in the world. It would leave our water resources back in the hands of the county, which cares nothing about LO.

The CSD nees to start aggressive water surcharges above lifeline usages to curtail usage, and finally use the bond money to start some conservation programs, of course that means lawsuits need to dissappear (somewhat unlikely).

They have no idea how truly precarious the postiion they are in. The vote pointed out the obvious - people had lost faith in the CSD and they can't stand a lot of the characters in the recall camp. The election was chalk full of bull and shenanigans by both sides. If Julie and Lisa had been on the recall ballot, the vote would have probably been pretty close to that of the 3 directors ousted.

I'm sure if there had been an option to clean all 5 out of there, it would have sailed through, and another 1000 people would have voted to make it happen.

Churadogs said...

Dear Inlet: Regarding all the money that has been wasted -- paying contractors, shutting down work, (let's hope that "restoration" bond won't be questioned and that $225,000 will be enough to clean up the Tri W mess a little bit -- it'll still be a total mess for years: a fitting monument to the tin-eared arrogance of the recalled three) all of that wasted money was deliberately wasted by the CSD you ardently supported. That was their call from day one. I think I might have to agree with you that starting construction before the election was a tipping point for many because it showed how reckless and unheeding they were. They could have delayed the actual starting time (we were NOT behind schedule), set the election a month earlier (Bruce & the Board claimed they wanted the election as late as possible to "educate" the voters, yet Bruce shut down all the "education" that was going on on Channel 20, saying that he thought Los Ososians had had enough education)and then the community would NOT have been driven into debt by these guys. Personally, that action alone was reason enough to vote them out of office. Absolute failure of prudent financial care. Absolute.

As for Timetovote's comment on water. Couldn't agree more. WATER is the REAL problem here. As I've said before, you can always get nitrates out of water but you can't get more water out of NO water. And water management (and conservation) is critical. Indeed, looking at the water basin first may dictate what and where any wastewater plant is located and designed.

If you recall that classic movie "The Graduate," and the famous line, "plastics," then I would suggest that should be the new word here in Los Osos: WATER.

As for Anonymous's question: Will we finally get some integrity in government? We will if everyone in the community pays attention. And stays involved and asks question and demands answers -- real, honest ones, not PR, smiley-faced Madison Avenue "spin." And demands a full accounting on any project proposed -- no hidden deferreds or, oh, we'll deal with that, uh, later, no Let's cut that out of the capital cost and stick it on the O & M costs and declare to the community we've just "saved" them a ton of money. Nuh-huh. Up front and honest this time. And that will only happen with a citizenry of wide awake and snarley bears.

As for what Inlet asks : what do I think the new CSD will do? They will do what the community tells them to do. This is not a dictatorship, it's a democracy. This recall indicated that enough people were unhappy with the direction their elected officials were headed in and decided to change course. The same thing can happen to the new board if they don't pay attention. That's why public input NOW is critical. It's your community, this is your sewer, you're gonna pay and pay and pay for it, so you'd better speak up for what you want or you'll get stuck with what you don't want.

Shark Inlet said...

So Ann,

If people go to the meetings and tell the new majority that we want them to continue the current construction and that the recall was about hubris on the part of the CSDthree not about the location ... do you think that the new board will listen and change their minds? Certainly if I were to say that at the meeting, I would be greeted with boos. You are telling us that the new board will follow the leading of the community. What if the community is too unaware of the issues to provide such leadership? Isn't the burden of providing information on the board?

Shouldn't the new board come into the 1st meeting saying "we could move the sewer but we don't know if it will cost us more or not but we will certainly face the possibility of fines and the difficulty of finding money to design a new plant and study a new location" followed up with "what do you want to do?"

If they do anything else ... if they pretend that their 50+tiny% victory is a mandate from the community to move the plant elsewhere ... if they refuse to listen to the reasoned opinions of all of the community they will have shown themselves to be nothing different than the people they have replaced.

In short, do you really think that the candidates who ran on the platform of "move the sewer no matter how much it cost" will listen to those of us who say that such an action should only be done if it doesn't cost us more? Somehow I doubt that they will listen one bit.

Anonymous said...

Shark is right,

+50% to them will be the justification, regardless of the fact that some recall supporters voted to oust the directors, but probably don't want to stop the project.

And according to Ann, if the community wants to break the law, then that is exactly what should do. It won't even be their fault if something goes wrong - it'll be the community's!! They were only doing what they were told!! Like, well, sheep.

But, it appears, they are already making the decisions ahead of time, absent formal public input to the district. Hmmm, sounds eerily similar to a CSD people complained about.

Shark Inlet said...

madeadecision,

the new guys have had much input from various people, all of whom have felt disenfranchised by the current ... um ... past board and so are naturally mistrustful of anything pro-sewer or pro-TriW.

There has been input ... just not input from the 75 to 80 percent of us who did not sign the recall petition.

you are right on one matter, though, it would be unfortunate of them to take actions (like changing staff or counsel or halting the current construction) without listening to the citizens.

What would be most ironic is that if the new board doesn't listen to the citizens before acting they most likely not understand the irony.

Churadogs said...

I think your quarrel is with the former CSD members. Back when the Ponds of Avalon were yanked off the table, the CSD had an opportunity to look at, cost out and present to the community, options (with price tags) and then ask for a vote. (With, heh-heh, 34% abstaining??) They didn't do that.

Interestingly, when the Coastal Commission specifically asked -- specifically asked! -- for a side by side comparison of the "environmentally prefered "out of town" site" with the Tri W site, that was not done because, as STeve Monowitz said, "we didn't have time." (Amazing, a years long project and they didn't have time to run some numbers?) Interestingly, there's a couple of sentences buried in the de novo report that stated, as a best "guestimate" the out of town site would cost either a million less or 5-6 million more.

One Million less or 5-6 more on a project that's $163 ++ million (with deferred costs still yet to be tallied,) IS CHUMP CHANGE. Figure 5 million over a 30 year payback period for the whole prohibition zone. How much would that mean to the average homeowner per month? If it were $6 more a month, how many Los Ososians would be willing to pay $6 more a month to get the sewer plant out of the center of their town? How's about $10 more a month?

We'll never know the answer to that question because the former CSD majority refused to answer that question and refused to see that the CC's request was completed (and the CC failed to follow up on their own request)and the CSD refused to put that question to the community.

So, there's a question for everyone: All things being equal, How much more per month are you willing to pay to NOT have a sewer plant in the middle of your town? What if the number crunching came out to be $5 a month? How's about $10? $15?

See how interesting that question becomes? It COULD have been asked and amswered several years and mucho millions of dollars ago.

Shark Inlet said...

You are right, Ann, I do have issues with the past board and their choices.

Please don't think, however, that this makes the position of the new board either right or even reasonable.

You claim the past CSD didn't answer the CCC's question as to why TriW versus "out of town". They did. The CSD's document and the CCC response (essentially "okay") are on Ron's website.

Considering people in Los Osos voted down funding for a community pool years ago and considering they voted down a small increase in taxes for fire services it seems like even $10 or $15 per month would be too high for many.

If the new board comes to us asking for an additional $10-$15 per month just to study the possibility of putting a plant out of town and designing that plant, how many people do you think would vote yes?

To close out, let me repeat my first thought (much like you repeated your original point). Considering the situation we are in now, what is the wisest choice we can make now?

Anonymous said...

I will not vote for any more assesments. I've voted for a treatment plant, and the town collectively has failed to deliver.

The new CSD didn't even discuss 1 detail about financing. If they want design money, and since they have all the answers, they can go get it somewhere else. Counting on the SRF loan a 2nd time is foolish - just because the word revolving is in it, doesn't mean the place or the money will be there.

A fully permitted, approved, and under construction plant is available and feasible.

If they cut it off, without providing the finance answers and putting the cost impacts in front of the community, they deserve to be fined out of existince.

Anonymous said...

The other problem for the new board is this. Half of their supporters really don't want to pay for a sewer plant, whether it's $100/month or $200/month.

The biggest supporters of any treatment plant, unfortunately, have been alienated by the election. But it's all rah-rah now, of course.

And when the subject of money comes up, we'll hear the old, 'those B*&^Lrds in Cabrillo should have to pay'. Well, the fact is they don't and you can't make 'em, and it'll take two years just to wade thru AB885 implications to even consider them into the equation. Ah, the devil is always in the details, isn't it Ann.

Churadogs said...

Madeadecision: You state that half of the recall supporters don't want to pay for a sewer planteven if it's $100 or $200, etc. What do you base that statement or those figures on?

Anonymous said...

Talking to recall supporters.

At least over 30. You might be surpised to know there's a distinct difference between one saying they want a sewer, and actually stating they are willing/support paying for a sewer!

If LO really want a sewer that bad or more people would have viewed it as an investment, the recall would have failed. But that's my opinion.