Update from an email of 9/17 from Ron Crawford regarding my previous post: "The Questa Study was actually completed in June of 1998" . . . "The October 1998 study was the CCC's [California Coastal Commission] own comparison that corroborated the Questa Study. Also, something called "The Working Group," that included members of the CCC, the county, the RWQCB, and, of course, The Solutions Group, met several times throughout 1998. All those people, with the exception of the Solution Group, were extremely critical of the Community Plan.
". . . the Community Plan fell apart for the exact same reasons that all of those credible, professional people said it would. But not before the solution Group sold it to Los Osos in the run-up to the election, then the initial CSD Board, that included 3 Solution Group members, wasted two years chasing it."
Now, a question. Did the ad campaings that linked the $35 million "affordable" Faster! Better! Cheaper! system to the formation of the CSD leave a whole lot of important, vital information OUT of the campaign -- i.e. the critical studies and $78 million (not $35) costs mentioned in the report? Who ran that original campaign? Would it be fair to say that the campaign DID NOT give the community fair, honest full disclosure vis a vis their proposed plan? Are any of the players in that original CSD formation/Solutions Group campaign now involved with the present Save the Dream campaign?
Misleading once? Misleading twice?
Maybe the people in Los Osos should start wondering about the "Truth" they're being told to "Trust." Then start counting their silverware.
9/20: Update of my "What's in a Date?" post: I received word today that the Bay News will publish Ron Crawford's "rebuttal" to Mr. Karner's Viepoint after all in their Wednesday, Sept 21st edition. The mix up involved publication deadlines, not a refusal to consider the piece.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
So the argument from Ron and Ann is that we should vote Stan and Gordon out because they were part of the group that "knew" back in 1997 and 1998 that the ponding plan would not be acceptable to the state. They supposedly knew this because the CCC and the RWCQB staffers they met with told them this. They should have been totally upfront with the citizens of Los Osos and told us during the LOCSD formation campaign that we would end up with a plan much like the plan the county proposed.
Fair enuf. I don't grant these points that they did know these things, but this is a reasonable argument if, indeed, the Solutions Group was told by state officials that there is no way the ponding system would be acceptable.
What do the current recall candidates know now? Certainly they have access to state documents that state clearly that fines will be imposed immediately if the construction is stopped, that the STEP/STEG system will require replacing nearly all the septic tanks in the community at considerable cost, that the ponding system is not acceptable and that the low interest loan will be lost if the project is moved.
Perhaps they are just hopeful dreamers the way that our current CSD board majority was back when they faced the same group of people saying the ponding system would not work.
It doesn't seem a wise idea to elect people who promise to do something they know won't be allowed to do. It seems unwise to elect people who promise to move the sewer no matter the cost. Perhaps Ron's next series in sewerwatch will be all about why the Chuck, John and Steve should have known better.
The best arguemnt Ann and Ron have for a recall is that the current majority should have known better back in 1997 and 1998 and that they were either too hopeful, too confused or just plain liars. This argument seems to apply to today's candidates as well. No amount of rhetorical wiggling will get them out of this bind. They are no different than the current group in this regard. They are only different in one way ... they want a sewage treatment plant outiside town and are willing to lie and raise your sewer bills to get their way.
Lower bills in town. Higher bills out of town ... perhaps ... if we are lucky ... otherwise w will get higher bills and the plant in town.
You decide.
Mr. (or Ms) Shark Inlet,
"The current (LOCSD) majority...were...just plain liars."
Thank you for finally saying it.
What do the recall candidates know now? For one thing, how to tell the truth.
I remain unconvinced that the recall candidates are telling the truth.
By the same logic that we accuse the current majority of being liars (or at least confused) we can say that the recall candidates are promising us to move the sewer and that the low-interest loan will stay in place and that there will be no fines because "those are just threats" are liars or at least confused.
If, for the moment, I grant the point that the current majority intentionally pulled the wool over our eyes, we are being given the choice of continuing with a group of liars who have a viable project that meets state and federal requirements and a group of hopeful newbies who are promising us something they should already know won't work. Looking at that I would conclude the current plan and current group is far cheaper than voting for a recall which will only raise our monthly bills.
Let's get this straight. The old Solutions Group were told they had problems with their system, and the fact they didn't disclose they were aware of problems makes them liars. And you're happy you got Shark to admit it. Congratulations! Maybe they just wanted to make sure the flawed County didn't go thru? Who truly knows.
Now, the new 'Solutions Group' has been told BY A JUDGE that the initiative they support is illegal. It doesn't get any clearer than that. And they still go around trumpeting it as a viable law, something they 'need'. Therefore, THE NEW GROUP MUST BE LIARS by your reasoning. The fact is, their all politicians, Spectator has it right. Their support of the silly initiative should tell people all they need to know.
Let's clarifiy one point. I did not admit that anyone was a liar.
I summarized Ann and Ron's point of view by saying they believe that Pandora and Stand and Gordon and the rest were confused, hopeful or liars.
timetovote has it right. If the one group "should have known better" way back then, this new group should know better now. Their plan doesn't appear to be a way of saving money. Furthermore, it would seem that the likely outcome of attempting to stop the current project will be to bankrupt the CSD and have the county take over and continue it.
The choice seems to be to bite the bullit and pay a load now or to toss a handful of sand into the wind and hope and pray that it doesn't blow back into our faces in the form of even higher costs.
Dear Inlet & Timevote, Let me clarify my point. I don't know if the Solutions Group were confused, hopeful or liars. That's why that date is important and I'm hopeful that Gary can clarify matters. What happend has profound implications for what's happening now.
As for the county taking over & etc, there's been a whole lot of "spin" and flat out misleading info regarding the county taking over the project, etc. Apparently letters and radio ads make it sound like this is some done deal, we won't miss a beat, no problema so don't bother voting for the recall because it's a done deal no matter what. According to Dave Edge, however, having the county "step in" is anything BUT a simple solution and would involve a vote of the people to disolve the CSD, for example. Or if the CSD wanted to divest itself of the sewer project, LAFCO would have to weigh in, probably take about a year for that and county engineering would have to sign off on the project as designed. (Has anybody even heard a whisper that County Engineering is ready to sign off on this project?? I haven't) In short, the "County Take Over" scare ads are totally misleading. Even Shirley Bianchi knows better but doesn't care. Her excuse for misleading is the word limitations on Letters to the Editor. Sad. Trust the truth, Oh, right.
As for biting the bullet and paying now, Yep, you'll pay pots now and because of the deferred costs and deferred problems and rising O&M costs, you'll pay pots more later and for years to come. Please keep in mind, also, there are absolutely no caps on this project. Never were. It will cost whatever it wants to.
So, what happens then if the RWQCB decides to fine the CSD beyond the means of the CSD to pay?
The recall supporters pretend this wouldn't happen, couldn't happen becuase the RWQCB will immediately say "well, they've screwed up for 10 years but now there is some real progress".
I have a hard time believing that avoiding fines is a sure thing and that losing a low-interest loan is no big deal because we'll get another (at the same rate?) anyway and that there will be no real increase in construction costs even though there have been every year for the last seven years.
To me, the recall plan is full of exactly the same sort of hopeful optimism that caused the original board to put us in this position.
Again, even if there have been massive screwups by the CSD it doesn't mean that a new group will necessarily be less expensive for us in the long run.
I've only heard hopes, not convincing facts.
Please note that I am ready to vote for a recall if the recall candidates could simply convince me that they would cause my bills to be lower than if we were to continue with the current majority. So far they've offered noting that makes much sense other that a list of hopes.
You need to wander down to the recall office and talk to the candidates, not spend hours typing in your questions and quibbles on this blog site. Go read the documents (tons of the actual documents are available to be downloaded from Ron Crawford's blogsite. Original documents, not opinions.)Go track down members of the Technical Task Force and read their report, which references actual, original documents. Ask them questions. Connect some dots, call Dave Edge and ask him what the process is for the county "taking over the sewer project," and whether ANY county engineer has signed off on both the plant site and the Broderson disposal fields. Ask yourself, does the RWQCB have the resources or even the wish to take each and every home in the prohibition zone to court to prove they're polluting (beware, if they even tried that they'd be in for some really nasty surpises when they discovered people being hanged for goats when they were innocent sheep, i.e. they're NOT anywhere near groundwater and are as innocent as lambs but were encircled not on evidence or science but by some guy drawing lines on a map.)
In short, instead of quibbling with me, go do you homework. Then vote however you wish.
A whole lot of people have worked very, very hard to give you the chance, on Tuesday, to have your voice heard. Not simply drifting along because you're scared or confused or apathetic. Nope, you've been given a rare opportunity to take a close look at this project's history, the present "bait & switch" plans,the spin and hype and flat out lies, and then decide: Is that "truth" you're being asked to "trust?" Or something else entirely?
The choice is yours.
I've read the docs on sewerwatch. I've watched CSD meetings. I've talked with Steve Senet. I've received campaign lit from both sides.
I asked for someone who supports the recall to provide some evidence that my bills will go down should a recall occur. Before reading the info from both sides it seemed pretty clear to me that to delay the project any more is to raise the costs yet again.
Ann, just becuase you are frustrated with my questions doesn't mean that I've not done my homework. Just because you can't provide me evidence that the recall candidates are anything other than hopeful dreamers doesn't mean that I'm quibbling.
If you don't want to address the real issues from the point of view of many in the prohibiton zone that is your right but please don't belittle my questions.
Just because I don't agree with you on all issues doesn't mean that I am silly.
Again, if anyone (perhaps not Ann) has a solid reason for thinking bills will be lower under a CalTrans leadership than under the current board, please explain your thoughts!
Ann, you write that a lot of people have worked very hard to give me the chance to have my voice be heard. I would suggest that these same people have been working for years and through various stalling tactics to impose their wishes on me and to raise my bills. I will vote "no" four times unless someone can offer me a reason. I would suggest that these people that you say have been working hard have been working hard to keep my voice from being heard.
By the way, Ann, blogging and comments on blogs are a pretty effective way of discussing issues. I don't that discourse is quibbling. If you would rather shut down such discussion you can always turn off the ability for others to comment, just like Ron has done.
Dear Inlet, I have not called your comments "silly," those are your words. I do feel, however, that you're asking the wrong person. For example, why would you want me to demonstrate to you that your costs won't go up if the out of town plan (whatever it turns out to be) is selected? Nobody can demonstrate to you that your costs won't go up with the present plan. So, what's the problem? Nobody knows all the add ons that are coming down the pipeline with this present plan -- O & M costs, sludge problems, imported water, habitat mitigation, Broderson leach field failures necessitating purchasing increased discharge sites & etc.etc. Apparently none of these "unknown" things bother you in the least but you're deeply concerned that some out of town site will cost you more? Clearly, I missing something here.
I was asking you because you are someone who runs a blog that promotes the recall and the recall candidates as better than the current majority. I figure that asking reasonable questions of you is better than asking the campaign lit. Certainly when I've talked with recall supporters in person they've not had convincing answers to the question of "why will costs go down?". You appear to be more willing to discuss the matter than most.
As to the unknowns bothering me ... they do. However there are unknowns with the alternative project as well and they are even more unknown. There may be far fewer as you suggest. I suspect so. However, it seems to me that delays are the primary source of cost increases, so I believe that a Cal Trans sewage treatment plant will be more expensive, even if today it appears cheaper on paper according to the hopes of those promoting it.
You might be right about two plans. However, you might be wrong. If the recall goes through, I certainly hope that you are right. If the recall fails, I hope that you are wrong.
Dear inlet: It remains a puzzle to me why opponents of the recall often focused on the unknown costs of a yet-to-be-designed out of town plan, but totally ignored the fact that they no clue what the unknon costs were going to be on the plan they fiercely defended.
Seems to me what everyone should have been asking before the recall was a glimmer in somebody's eye is this: Give us a complete rundown of best guestimates of ALL "hidden and deferred" costs, including O&M costs on this proposed system.
But that didn't happen, instead focus was shifted to "those guys' unknown plan" rather than focusing on the actual plan that was on the table.
Here's why recall opponents may have given more attention to the unknown costs of some future project than the current (or should I write "past"?) project ... there are so many bleeding more of them. Anything but the best luck on issues like construction costs, interest rates, EIR, approval of state boards, etc. could quickly cause the 100% unknown project costs to balloon far beyond the most hopeful estimates of recall supporters.
Perhaps you are a gambler, however. Even if you are, I would not suggest playing a game with these odds.
If you are going to complain that the CSD supporters were being somewhat evasive about future costs you certainly should have complained about the lack of details in the recall plan. I hope that you continue to ask such questions as you've asked in the past of the future board. I hope that you continue to rail against anyone (even the new "good" board) if they don't fully discuss financial issues.
Post a Comment