Pages

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Decision Day

To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow


If the citizens of Los Osos vote for the recall and vote for the sewer initiative, we will have witnessed something absolutely astonishing: A community waking up and changing the status quo in the face of very powerful, entrenched opposition. It will be a community that saw through all the hokum, spin, fear tactics, finally understood that nobody would save them except themselves, that they understood that the right lie said at the right time cannot be undone by any government agency. Not even the law can correct that original lie. That is a job for the people alone, if they’re smart enough and fearless enough to change course to avert disaster for themselves and their community.

That the recall and initiative ever reached a ballot is, in itself, a remarkable feat. People HATE recalls. They hate making waves, they hate having to think their elected officials are heading in the wrong direction, they hate having to do anything about anything. Too often, they don’t know, don’t care and don’t care to know. And, more often than not, they’ll work overtime NOT to know. Denial is a powerful human instinct.

So, instead of doing the hard work of changing a bad situation, they will endure the worst policy decisions, decisions that can end up costing them their fortune and their life, and instead just hunker down and wait it all out or shrug cynically and say, “Oh, well, what can you do? Guess we’ll just have to go along with it.”

Even more telling is simple human nature itself. People tend to divide into two camps: The larger majority consists of people who obey; they do what they’re told, they do not question authority, but instead assume authority is truthful and has their best interest at heart. The other, slightly smaller camp consists of people who challenge everything, they do not obey without sound reason, they won’t do as they're told until and unless they have proof that whatever it is they’re suppose to be obeying will be of benefit to them and, above all, they know from hard experience, governments lie.

What will be of interest here in Los Osos will be to see three numbers: How many people did NOT vote (don’t know, don’t care, don’t care to know) and how many voted for the status quo and how many voted for change. In short, is Los Osos filled with sheep or growly bears?

The status-quo “Save The Dream” campaign has certainly offered a clear insight into a mind frame that views the members of this community, not as serious, adult citizens needing accurate, truthful information on a complex and town-changing civic project, but as marks to be manipulated with slick Madison Avenue advertising ploys and totally misleading and flatly untruthful ads. In short, the Save The Dreamers view me, for example, as nothing but a mark waiting to be fleeced; a sucker with “hot-buttons” to be pushed, prey to fear and easily stampeded into a panic with ginned up “threats” and phony scare tactics. I am not a citizen, just a customer to be sold overpriced soap.

I always find such information nice to know, because it also allows a glimpse into the ethical standards at work by the group putting out such phony baloney. It also shows what lengths they’ll go to maintain the status quo. Which always begs the question: If the status quo is so wonderful, why lie about it? Why all the ginned up hokum? Why would threats be necessary to keep everyone in line if the status quo is so grand? And why should I believe people who have demonstrated they have no ethical standards and who keep repeatedly lying to me?

Well, it’s now in the hands of the citizens of this fair burg – my Beloved Bangladesh By The Bay. And for now, Edward R. Morrow's closing tag line -- “Good night, and good luck” -- is most suitable.

Good Luck? Los Osos will need it.

18 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

I appreciate your point of view ... that the CSD majority is chock-full-of-liars and should be recalled and that the little citizens of Los Osos are to be applauded for their efforts to fight big development and the evil warlord Stan.

I would like to suggest an alernative interpretation (of course you will disagree with me, but what's new). The recall campaign is because there are four groups of people who want a change.

These groups are those who are anti-sewer, those who are anti-location, those who are anti-cost and those who are anti-CSD. Let's discuss each group and their motivation and perhaps we can learn something.

Anti-sewer. Some are not convinced that we need a sewer. For these people, the very fact that the CSD didn't fight with the CCC and the RWQCB and the SWRB shows that they should be voted out of office. Perhaps we don't need a sewer to lower nitrates and to recharge the aquifer, but that ship has sailed. That battle has been lost. People who are anti-sewer now are living in a dreamworld.

Anti-location. Some think the sewer should be out-of-town instead of in town. Fair enough. However, at what cost? It appears that a realistic design and accounting of the costs suggests that an out-of-town sewer won't save us any money and the delay in construction (by 2 years minimum) as well as the likelihood that a new low-interest loan won't be given for a fancy ponding system that hasn't been proven to meet our needs. People who are anti-location appear to not mind gambling with our monthly bills and appear to not mind that all signs point to increases due to moving the site.

Anit-cost. Sure the current plan is expensive. Why? Preivous delays caused by a variety of reasons have raised the costs. The fact that the recall was initiated shortly before bids for the plant were due made it clear to bidding contractors that there will likely be many more issues with the Los Osos job than with a typical job ... so bid higher. The CSD foes who threatened contractors didn't help either. People who are anti-cost seem to not know that the recall candidates plan on moving the sewer no matter how expensive.

Anti-CSD. Based on years of feeling frustrated with the CSD, some are opposed to anything the CSD stands for. These folks are so entrenched they don't have the ability to think through the logic of the issues.

I am sympathetic to all these issues. While I think that a plant is a good idea and will likely solve the nitrate and saltwater intrusion problems, I am not convinced that the state mandate to lower nitrates was based on sound science. While I think the location is a poor choice for several reasons, to move the plant now seems prohibitively expensive. While I think it is too expensive, it seems clear that additional delay for any reason will raise the cost. I also think the CSD has made some mistakes and that they now appear very unwilling to hear the voices of those who are screaming mad. Even so, a recall won't solve the problems. Even the problems with angry citizens ... they will still be angry about the state mandate and the costs ... there will still be lawsuits.

The recall is poorly timed and a bad idea. The recall candidates have offered us nothing other than hope and naivitae. Each of the reasons people have for voting for the recall, once examined, appear to be less than compelling.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

You start off with a quote from Ed Murrow: "To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful."

Does this mean that you have changed your mind and now oppose the recall?

After all, the recall supporters have not offered us a credible plan for what they will do if elected. Sure they want to move the sewer no matter the cost ... but that doesn't sound like a credible plan to me.

As far as truthfulness goes, they've claimed to have a cost savings from moving the plant out of town. Where do the savings come from? From selling the Tri-W and Broderson sites (to the extent possible) to those who would develop the sites and from using a cheaper ponding treatment plant than the current "industrial" plant.

How is it truthful to say that you'll both save millions by selling off Tri-W but that you'll also preserve it in it's original state forever? How truthful is it to say that you'll get a new low-interest loan (at a higher rate, but still lower than market) when the state board that approves such loans has already indicated they won't give that sort of loan for a ponding system? How truthful is it to say that you'll do an ag-exchange to solve the nitrate and saltwater intrusion problems but not count the costs of buying and not delivering the water.

You've been very good about finding flaws in the current CSD plan and trying to point out that it may very well be more expensive than we are being told. Have you put the same amount of effort into looking for problems in the recall candidates plans?

If it was up to Murrow he would wash his hands of the lot of us because it appears that some on each side are more interested in winning than in the truth.

Anonymous said...

Trust the truth??:

Lood at these recall statements:

"We will build a plant outside of town so that everyone can hook up"

Wrongo - talk about a very gross misleading promise. That would require assessments of those outside the prohibition zone. That equals delays of an indeterminite amount of time. Why haven't those outside been working on creating their own assesment to contribute, if 1) they are so concerned about being able to hook up & 2) they don't like the burden solely on the prohibition zone.

The answer - because they are not mandated to. Why in the world would people in the prohibition zone pay one dime to have the capacity designed in for the convenience of Cabrillo someday?? In Ann's dreamworld, she'll probably blame the CSD for that as well.

Yes, the amenity issue has been convoluted, and not handled well during the permitting process. It got started part and parcel as part of the CSD formation, and has been an albatross ever since.

Wake up, the CSD has limited authority, and it is to administer - not to mandate, not to draw lines for water quality, not to fight battles at the taxpayer's expense that have no legal or statuatory basis.

The problem is this: the process involved very few people because of the simple fact that very few people chose to participate. the delays against the plan involved very few people filing lawsuits. Anyone can argue that either of those two camps are two blame - and both arguments have merit.

They don't change the facts.

"We will stop the current project."

Stopping the project, NO MATTER WHAT, without proper legal and financial review, is itself irresponsible - the exact irresponsible position that recall supporters claim towards the CSD and board.

"The initiative will terminate the contracts"

Wrongo - based on what legal decision or theory?? Talk about unsubstantiated statements. Look at Court Documents.

"the initiative will prevent the district from being fined" Again, another unsubstantiated statement. Based on what? Oh, because a single lawyer, who has been proven legally on the wrong side in three cases, says so. Earth to Ann: look at your own words - be careful of the leaders and those you choose to follow.

The recall has boiled down basically to the argument of recall supporters of what happened in 1998. Well, it's 2005, and the predictament of Los Osos is, has been, and will be this.

30% of the populace has extreme difficultly accepting the reality of an unfunded mandate. That means you basically need 80% approval from the rest to proceed with anything. The statuatory/regulatory prohibition zone creates another division. Three water purveyors create another division. Overpermitting by the County created the problem.
But without overpermitting, we wouldn't have the homes we have. So what do we do. WE DEAL WITH IT, and the CSD has, in a manner that people can debate in hindsight as to its imperfections. But it doesn't change the fact that moving forward is not a 'dream', it is feasible, viable decision in an otherwise imperfect world. Who are the dreamers? I think the recall supporters fit the bill more aptly.

Ann, you believe you are right in voting for the recall. But NOWHERE have you ackowledged the inconsistencies, lack of representations, misinformation by recall supporters. Shark acknowledges the inconsistancies and makes a choice. And it is an expensive choice, but is has a benefit of infrastructure investment and it assures control of a water resource.

In 10 years, as California grows, the demands for state water will increase. But in Los Osos, we have the unique ability to manage our aquifer, of which this project allows us to do, and it will still be possible for to minimize any state imports with water conservation, and yes, with some deferred cost.

But that is the nature of public works. In 20 years, our capital costs will have been paid, and our infrastructure will in general be 30-50 years 'newer' than almost any entity in the country.

Supporting the project is not blind, it is moving forward while keeping an eye open, as opposed to driving in to uncertainty with both eyes in the rearview mirror.

Credibility is a valid consideration. And so is denial.

Anonymous said...

Trust the truth??:

Lood at these recall statements:

"We will build a plant outside of town so that everyone can hook up"

Wrongo - talk about a very gross misleading promise. That would require assessments of those outside the prohibition zone. That equals delays of an indeterminite amount of time. Why haven't those outside been working on creating their own assesment to contribute, if 1) they are so concerned about being able to hook up & 2) they don't like the burden solely on the prohibition zone.

The answer - because they are not mandated to. Why in the world would people in the prohibition zone pay one dime to have the capacity designed in for the convenience of Cabrillo someday?? In Ann's dreamworld, she'll probably blame the CSD for that as well.

Yes, the amenity issue has been convoluted, and not handled well during the permitting process. It got started part and parcel as part of the CSD formation, and has been an albatross ever since.

Wake up, the CSD has limited authority, and it is to administer - not to mandate, not to draw lines for water quality, not to fight battles at the taxpayer's expense that have no legal or statuatory basis.

The problem is this: the process involved very few people because of the simple fact that very few people chose to participate. the delays against the plan involved very few people filing lawsuits. Anyone can argue that either of those two camps are two blame - and both arguments have merit.

They don't change the facts.

"We will stop the current project."

Stopping the project, NO MATTER WHAT, without proper legal and financial review, is itself irresponsible - the exact irresponsible position that recall supporters claim towards the CSD and board.

"The initiative will terminate the contracts"

Wrongo - based on what legal decision or theory?? Talk about unsubstantiated statements. Look at Court Documents.

"the initiative will prevent the district from being fined" Again, another unsubstantiated statement. Based on what? Oh, because a single lawyer, who has been proven legally on the wrong side in three cases, says so. Earth to Ann: look at your own words - be careful of the leaders and those you choose to follow.

The recall has boiled down basically to the argument of recall supporters of what happened in 1998. Well, it's 2005, and the predictament of Los Osos is, has been, and will be this.

30% of the populace has extreme difficultly accepting the reality of an unfunded mandate. That means you basically need 80% approval from the rest to proceed with anything. The statuatory/regulatory prohibition zone creates another division. Three water purveyors create another division. Overpermitting by the County created the problem.
But without overpermitting, we wouldn't have the homes we have. So what do we do. WE DEAL WITH IT, and the CSD has, in a manner that people can debate in hindsight as to its imperfections. But it doesn't change the fact that moving forward is not a 'dream', it is feasible, viable decision in an otherwise imperfect world. Who are the dreamers? I think the recall supporters fit the bill more aptly.

Ann, you believe you are right in voting for the recall. But NOWHERE have you ackowledged the inconsistencies, lack of representations, misinformation by recall supporters. Shark acknowledges the inconsistancies and makes a choice. And it is an expensive choice, but is has a benefit of infrastructure investment and it assures control of a water resource.

In 10 years, as California grows, the demands for state water will increase. But in Los Osos, we have the unique ability to manage our aquifer, of which this project allows us to do, and it will still be possible for to minimize any state imports with water conservation, and yes, with some deferred cost.

But that is the nature of public works. In 20 years, our capital costs will have been paid, and our infrastructure will in general be 30-50 years 'newer' than almost any entity in the country.

Supporting the project is not blind, it is moving forward while keeping an eye open, as opposed to driving in to uncertainty with both eyes in the rearview mirror.

Credibility is a valid consideration. And so is denial.

Churadogs said...

Wonderful last minute speechifying and politicking, both of you! But you're barking up the wrong tree. You should have spent that eloquence urging your CSD candidates for recall to hold a public formum and/or debate with the recall candidates. Then ask your questions and make your comments and hope the candidates could clarify all these interesting . . . uh. . discrepancies of "fact."

As for Madeadecision, if you have already madeadecision, why are you here wasting your time commenting on this blog? Unless you're not sure you made the right decision?

Happily, come Tomorrow or Wednesday, this will all be moot and we can all pay the piper -- for years to come.

But a lie will remain a lie and I'm one of those people who simply doesn't trust people when I find them with their hands in the silverware drawer. This causes me to snort through my nose when I then hear them making statements they claim is "the truth."

Shark Inlet said...

I would suggest that discussing the matter here is not barking up the wrong tree. I post my thoughts here for much the same reason you do ... because some reasonable people may read them.

As to the election ... I am not surprised at the results. I was hoping the results would be decisive (say a 70-30 split) one way or the other so that we could more easily move on. As it is, if the new guys decide to take actions which (ultimately) raise our bills there will be a sizable group of citizens (about half) which will be able to say "I told you so".

Like I suggested earlier, I certainly hope that you are right that the costs will be lower with this new group. I can see a few ways that this might happen but I truly believe we'll have to get really really lucky and have all the stars line up just right to achieve a cost savings.

Perhaps as you quote Murrow ... good night and good luck.

Churadogs said...

Dear Inlet: Reasonable people read this blog? I always feel like I'm hollering down a well.

I agree that I wish the election results were more decisive. On the TV news this morning they said that %40 of the registered voters didn't vote. That's the same percentage that didn't vote in the original assessment vote. It's a number that really, really puzzles me.

As for whatever plan that may be proposed (I hope like heck you'll volunteer on any technical task force that's forming and/or wastewater committes & etc. so you input will be there early on) being "more expensive." More expensive than what? What's gone missing in the battle (besides "truth" which got killed off immediately, as it always does) is the "deferred" costs that are waiting in the wings with the "old" project. THAT is the marker against which any "new" plan must be measured.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

It's good to know your are going to get right on the job with your column and start hammering the new board candidates for their inconsistancies, or dare I say, lies?? Good luck. As a well noted journalist once said, 'if they lie about the little stuff (or big stuff)...'

Shark Inlet said...

I know several who did not vote for one reason. They said that while they didn't support the current board and that board's decisions they couldn't support the pipedreams of the recall candidates.

Sounds quite reasonable to me. If you are asked to choose between the current group and plan or one particular alternative group and plan you might have no preference.

Yes, both plans have onetime and continuing costs. If you pay for electricity to pump wastewater out to Clark Valley Road you have to do it forever but the cost of building the plant is onetime. (Actually, for Los Osos, we have seem to have the design cost and some of the construction costs twice.)

We'll probably never know exactly what the longterm continuing costs of the CSDthree's plant. To suggest it would necessarily have been higher some numbers should be provided ... once we see the plans of the new guys.

At a minimum we can compare the onetime costs according to both plans. If the new guys ultimately offer us a plant that is more expensive than the last group they had better be very convincing when they argue that they are saving money on yearly items like electricity.

As to madeadecision's point ... I don't expect you to hammer the new guys, Ann, but I do expect that you will continue to ask questions of them ... questions like "when you know full well that the RWQCB won't approve a low-interest loan for a ponding system and that they likely won't approve a STEP-STEG system why did you tell us that this was the method you'll use yet still say that it would be cheaper?"

Anonymous said...

The more important question is this.

Why did the recall candidates say & imply to the community that the low-interest loan would be available, when there was evidence in the form of documents, funding data, and state board member statements to the contrary??

No project of any kind, private or public, can ever exist without funding. Recall opponents provided zilch about concrete funding mechanisms and financial risks. I wonder when the new board will. They're gonna need $100++ millions, and that money will not come free nor will it come easy. If Los Osos stops the project, Los Osos will have the reputation and credit risk rating of a public deadbeat, if it doesn't already.

Certainly Ann of all people is not the one to ask or answer any of these questions. I was being facetious. Those questions will have to asked by more qualified people and put to the CSD board and CSD staff, God help them.

Churadogs said...

Inlet: Regarding the RWQCB not approving a low-interest loan for a ponding system and not likely they'd approve a STEP-STEG system: When the Ponds of Avalon were still in play, I recall Gary Karner at,I think, a Wastewater Committee meeting. The RWQCB had said they wouldn't approve the low cost loan, so Gary did some snooping and found out the town itself could sell bonds on the open market (using property as collateral) and, if memory serves, the cost difference between the loan and self-bonding was something like $5-6 a month. The state revolving fund isn't the only game in town. Re the STEP-Steg system, retrofitting the tanks that need it is more than doable. If any citizens refused to "hook up" the RWQCB is free to deal with them as they see fit, just as they can now. So much of the "threats" you've heard about are just that -- threats. There are plenty of options out there. The one constant is the nitrate number. If you are NOT polluting the ground water, and meet the RWQCB set numbers, the RWQCB has no legal reason to quarrel with you.

As for Madeadecision's comment on funding. The low-interest loan from the state water board is called a REVOLVING fund. REVOLVING, not ONE SHOT ONLY When you have a project that's ready, you apply for the loan. Our community is at the top of the priority list as in need of immediate implementation.

And as for "credit risk." Take a look at the property values in this community. If the voters chose to, they could Self Bond and use as collateral the value of their homes. Property values & Equity alone in this town is simply off the charts. I have no doubt any bonding company would be thrilled to write such a bond up for a vote. The only thing to let people know is the price difference between that form and the SRF costs. That's someting that would simply be factored into a final price. (You do the same thing when looking at buying a home or car: compare loan fees versus total price, versus the repayment terms you want. For example, let's say you wanted to look into self-bonding in order to finance a total STEP/STEG, etc. You would have to factor the lower cost of the piping, less sludge, low O&M, etc. with retrofitting and higher interest rates for a self-bonding and compare that to a traditional sewer collection system (with a SRF loan) and it's sludge production, O&M costs, etc. and then make a decision. We make those same kinds of determinations every time we evaluate going with cable vs. satellite tv. Not a big deal, just number crunching providing you have HONEST numbers.)

Shark Inlet said...

I don't know all the details, but the annual principal+interest on a $65M loan fixed at 5% interest for 30 years is about $1.2M higher than had the same money been borrowed at 2.5%. This would translate to about $20/month extra per household. Gary's numbers were probably based on a collection system that was for less than half the community and lower total costs than we currently face.

Like I asked you earlier, are you willing to spend $20/month for the next 30 years (about $7000) just to have the plant outside town? It would seem that at least half of Los Osos citizens are ... or are so unaware about the issues that they shouldn't be voting at all.

As to your idea of asking citizens to stomach borrowing additional money (whether we have it in the equity of our homes) to study a new design and new location ... I imagine that the typical voter out there won't want to pay an additional $8/month to the CSD just so that way they can borrow the $8M necessary to do the work to put the plant out of town. When you include the costs of paying off the current contractors (yet another $8/month) it just seems like the new guys are spending money left and right ... money they don't have unless we, as voters, authorize them to spend.

If they get their act together quickly we could have a bond measure on the March or June ballot to allow them to charge us each an additional $15/month. How do you think voters will vote? Without the money they are dead in the water and might need to simply continue the current project (at least the collection system portion). If they do get the money, they would need to come up with a plant and collection system which is at least $30M cheaper (than the assumed $65M system) to make up for the difference in interest rates, contractor payoff and new design costs.

My numbers are probably off considerably, but an example of the sort of math the new guys need to be doing to satisfy people. I don't think they'll be able to pull it off.

I hope they can, but really doubt it.

Churadogs said...

Please see my previous blog's comment on how much per month an additonal $5-6 mil would be. If $65 million went to $20 more a month, $5 or 6 mil truly would be chump change.

Holey Moley. Why wasn't the community given the opportunity to make that decision (see my previous comment on the previous blog entry.) Yikes!

As for the need to raise extra money to proceed, you can thank the previous CSD board for that terrible loss. There was absolutely NO NEED for them to waste all that money before the election. So, when you complain about extra costs, please keep that in mind. We're in debt BECAUSE of the decisions made by the recalled three. It didn't have to happen.

Shark Inlet said...

Perhaps I misunderstand you, Ann. Are you saying that to borrow $65M will cost each household $20 per month? If that is what you are saying, I believe you to be mistaken. Even if we were to borrow $65M (for 30 years) at 0% interest, the monthly cost would be approximately $35 for each of the approximately 5000 households. At a low interest rate like 2.5% the monthly household cost would be about $50 and at private interest rate like 6% the monthly household cost would be about $75.

Considering the majority of recall supporters argue that even $100/month is too high and considering that the minimum (i.e. "unrealistic") estimate for a plant plus collection system plus design and EIR and the like is about $65M ... Add to that the $8M payoff to the current contractors and construction cost inflation of 10%/year across 2 years (minimum time to site and design the system) and we're already over $100/month if we assume a 6% interest rate. Thats just for building the damn thing.

And that's if things go perfectly.

What if things don't go so well? It seems reasonable to believe that the recall candidates flawed plant and collection system plans need to be revised upwards by about 20% to accomodate RWQCB requirements. Perhaps fines on the order of $10M. Maybe it will take 5 years to site and design the new plant. Maybe the bids come in 20% over estimated, and the interest rate may well be 7%. None of these things sound too unrealistic in the slightest way (considering the past). Yet if we were to borrow the money to do this the total bill would be approximately $225 per month.
That's before we add any monthly costs to run the plant.

What of the worst case scenario? I don't even want to think about it.

Face it, there is the very realistic possibility that this new board promised us to move the sewer, no matter what the cost. If they deliver on their promise they are clearly people who either don't care how much it costs to move the plant out of town or they are people who are so unaware of the realities of this situation that they should not have run for the office.

Again, I wish the best of luck but I believe they were elected by people like you who were so angry about the current situation that they were unable to consider the likely cost of the recall.

Churadogs said...

Dear Inlet, that $20 a month figure was based on YOUR figures (see above an entry or two. My point was that IF your figures (YOUR) figures were $20 for $65 million, then five or six million more would really be chump change.

Shark Inlet said...

Okay, I get it. You are saying that to add $5M to the total bill really won't be a big deal because to borrow $65M at 5% interest instead of 2.5% interest would only add $20/month to our bills.

Apples and oranges, my dear.

Even so, why did you complain so loudly, then, about the park as part of the treatment plant of the past CSD? That only added less than $5M to the total bill.

If you want to nitpick over a million here or there with the past board but you aren't interested in saving several million now it seems a bit odd to me. However, as you've pointed out, people are free to make up their own minds to do whatever they want to do. Myself, I at least strive for consistency.

Churadogs said...

You're missing the point -- again. We were told that moving the plant out of town would be too costly, with the implication being, really, really costly, which is why our CSD board said they wouldn't consider it. I was therefore astonished to read that brief sentence in the Coastal Commission Staff Report, pegging the out-of-town plan as a million less or 5-6 million more. As I wrote at the time, $5-6 million on a $160 million plan is chump change. Now, had that been %20 - 30% more, well. . . . that would be another kettle of fish. But $5 mil???? c'mon. The community had a right to have that bit of information brought before them. They weren't. Yet another case of the slight of hand the previous board constantly engaged in.

Shark Inlet said...

I understand and agree.

The previous board should have at least mentioned the possibilty of other sites and solicited our opinions way back then. They should have asked us whether we would want to spend $110/month for an out-of-town system or $85/mont for an in-town system with a park. (These calculations assume a 2.5% interest rate on a low-interest loan borrowing $65M for the TriW site and a 5% interest rate on a conventional loan borrowing $70M for an out-of-town site and $35/month for costs of sewage treatment.) They didn't. They screwed up.

Now that we understand each other and agree, back to the issue that started us on this little side-track discussion.

I wrote that losing the low-interst rate was a big deal. You wrote that it wasn't because we can always obtain conventional funding. Now we are talking about larger borrowing levels so the effect of changes in the interest rate is greater. As an example, borrowing $150M at 2.5% for 30 years gives $120/month but borrowing $122M ($70M with four years of construction inflation and 20% overages for other things like bids over contract and state mandated design changes) at 6% would be $150/month for each of 5000 households.

In any case, you seem to believe the promises of the new guys ... that they can do it cheaper. This reminds me of 1998 when most of Los Osos believed that the new guys (then named Pandora, Rose and Stan instead of Julie, Chuck and John) could do-do it right: "better, faster, chaper". I don't agree. Even with the rosiest of scenarios, the new guys will be lucky if they can get the costs down to the levels the previous board was able to fix in place.