Calhouns Can(n)ons

Saturday, September 10, 2005

So, what's it gonna be? Money for our Sewer Tot Lot? Or relief for victims of Katrina? Hmmm, let me think. . . .

Oh, dear, as if it couldn't get sillier, do wander over to www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com for Ron Crawford's pointed observation that the Tribune's editorial board has gotten muddled up again.
The Tribune apparently thinks that money in Washington grows on trees and our representatives will place at the top of their pork-gathering priorities the task of finding millions to fund our Sewer Tot Lot over, say, cutting that porkish money for more pressing needs, like helping hurricaine victims. And if the money isn't forthcoming for our multi-million dollar Sewer Tot Lot, guess who'll have to pay for it themselves?

Hmmm, . . . Wait, no hints now . . .

11 comments:

Anonymous said...: Another 'emotional dig' to try to sway opinion against the project.

There are huge public works projects nationwide, some probably more deserving than others, a lot of which are less deserving than ours. Some end up overrunning like crazy that WE are helping to pay.

Hurricane help will come from FEMA funds, and yes they affect the entire budget. But you are politicizing suffering to forward an agenda.

One could also argue that maybe the state of Louisiana should ultimately reimburse for recovery. I mean, it doesn't make sense to build a city below sea level. And your tax dollars will probably end up helping to re-build a massive football stadium, which only true legitimate public purpose will serve to house people the next time a massive hurricane arrives.

Tell you what, you support having the project go forward, and I'll support deleting park amenities. Of course to be fair the entire district should foot the amenities, - in fact it would be more equitable if the entire district payed for the disposal portion of the project.

California sends out more in federal tax dollars than it gets back.

What is your point, exactly? That Los Osos should be the beacon of taxation self-sacrifice in an otherwise imperfect political world? If life were fair, San Luis Obispo would be sending mega tax dollars over to Los Osos for all the retail sales dollars we contribute to the tax base there.; 7:20 AM, September 10, 2005
Shark Inlet said...: I would like to humbly suggest that if sewer opponents had gotten their act together years ago and voiced their concerns when it was time to do so we would currently have a sewer and the whole issue of trying to get congress to help out would be far easier. Lower total cost to boot.; 4:20 PM, September 10, 2005
Churadogs said...: Dear Mr./Ms Public Works: If I'm not mistaken, if you delete the park amenities from the sewer plant, under law regarding ESHA, the plant would NOT have been allowed to be built on that site. Only by pretending (Bwa-hahaha) that our community desperately needed a centrally located Tot Lot next to an industrial sized sewer treatment plant, (in a town overrun with tots) did the CCC issue the permit. So much for hilarious pretending on both parties.

And as for Mr. Inlet's comment that if only the sewer opponents had voiced their concerns years ago?? Huh, are you kidding? They did, REPEATEDLY, LOUDLY, RUDELY! CONSTANTLY! ALL THE YELLING, THE HOURS LONG PUBLIC COMMENT STRETCHING INTO THE WEE HOURS OF THE MORNING, TURNING CSD MEETINGS INTO BATAAN DEATH MARCHES! The CSD REFUSED to listen, refused to seriously consider alternatives (remember when the CCC asked for a side-by-side comparison between the in-town and so-called Andre site and all they got was about 2 sentences in the de novo report and never asked another question, neither did the CSD supply the comparison, zip, nada, and the public was never given the chance to ask and answer whether they'd be willing to move this puppy out of town if it would end up costing them a million less or 5-6 million more?) and refused to consider allowing the community to vote on any project, refused to even come up with realistic options and let the community vote on which one they wanted to "buy," and etc., all of which probably accounts for why a whole lot of people resorted to the recall and initiative processes. They felt they simply weren't being heard. So much for "voicing concerns." Surely, you jest?; 6:34 AM, September 11, 2005
Anonymous said...: OK,then,

here's a couple questions, did or did not the CCC require the amenities? Yes, it was a consideration when the CSD put them in there. OK, it's 2005, take 'em out if you can in 2005. There are statements from both sides of the issue, including references from opponents that the CCC did not require them. Maybe you are mistaken.

Why wasn't there a public uproar when stinky, smelling ponds were going to be put in the 'center of town'. If stinky, smelly ponds were not objected vociferously, why would you have expected the CSD to think that a treatment plant with high levels of odor control would be objected to? It's OK to smell a sewer, so long as you see a pond?

Again, the community is not buying anything. The CSD is the administrative body to implement a treatment system, for which the PROPERTY OWNERS are paying for, they voted in 2001 to invest in infrastructure that over time will result in higher property values, and property tax income for services for the entire community.

Again, specifically where are you going to put a plant, or ponds, or whatever that is not in close proximitry to residences, churches, or a public gathering places. Does this mean you don't support Measure B? Are you going to put a plant or ponds outside of the district boundaries to avoid the restrictions of Measure B, and thus introduce opposition outside of the district.

It must be very nice to only ask questions, but when specific questions are asked and you or candidates cannot provide the specific (not promises of funding, ideas, not general ideas or statements), you are choosing to sweep under the rug the reality that the district is facing. And if you don't like the questions or cannot answer sufficiently, then you bristle about a false double-standard because many people that support moving ahead may actually share some of the sentiment that the board has been stubborn, etc.

The fact is, the 2002 election resulted in a decision to move forward with this specific project - why didn't the litigants 'listen' to the community in 2002.

Well, there's also no way to recall litigants, and the litigants in the the community haven't listened as well to the concerns that litigation has caused delays and cost increases.

All the blame against either party will do no good at this point.

IT's a simple proposition, take door #1 for an expensive viable system, or take door #2 for a completely uncertain future with lots of promises and possible loss of local control of water issues, with the potential benefit that a better expensive system can be designed. I choose the former, you choose the latter. You would make it easier to choose the latter if you could answer questions sufficiently. You're arguement continue circles back to the throw out the bums logic, rather than the merits/cost of starting again - you love to romaniticize the merits, and you poo-poo the costs/risks.

If you really want a wastewater system, then how do you explain supporting a new law that:
1) a judge has ruled to be illegal
2) is in direct contradiction to CEQA, even though its supporters claim to be CEQA experts and have misleading CEQA references in the law ??; 9:14 AM, September 11, 2005
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

First ... why do you refer to me as "Mr. Inlet" but to publicworks as "Mr./Ms Public Works"? I don't recall gender playing any role here, but your choice to refer to us differently is curious.

Perhaps more importantly if there was so much input from the public that was ignored way back when the system was being sited and designed, why did the community vote about 85% in favor of taking on the loan that was tied to the site (2001) and why did the community vote about 85% in favor of the three men who are now so villified (2002)? Back then they were proposing to do something largely the same as what is being constructed today ... the only real difference seems to be the mechanism by which the plant works.

The dramatic increase in costs seems to be mostly due to delay in construction. 10-20% inflation per year on construction has absolutely killed us. This we can blame on the various sewer foes.

By the way, don't you think that the loud and rude comments have something to do with why many people are still afraid to reveal their support of the CSD?; 8:35 PM, September 11, 2005
Churadogs said...: Dear Mr. Ms/Whatever Publicworks: it's my understanding that putting something on ESHA land can ONLY be done if there is no other site available that will do. In the case of the sewer, there was an environmentally prefered site, the so-called Andre/sout of town site. However, the CSD maintained that a "strongly held community value " was the need for park space in the center of town. Park emenities outside of town wouldn't be park amenities in the middle of town (i.e. the Tot Lot) The interesting thing is that to my knowledge, the community had one vote in the past 20 years regarding their support for "parks" and they turned it down flat even though it was a for a miniscule amount. So, have you ever seen any evidence of this strong held value by the community except in the LOCAC report, which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered a "scientific" document. (People interested responded, people not interested didn't. Guess who wrote the report?) Yet there was the CSD maintianing that we couldn't move the sewer out of town because we'd lose the Tot Lots & etc. (One you stripped those park amenities away from the pure functioning of the sewer plant, then there would be no need to keep it in the middle of town.) So the questions remains, why is the CSD fighting so ferociously to keep that site? It makes no sense. The CCC requested information and could have persued that question but didn't bother (ran out of time, gosh.) It remains an interesting, interesting puzzle. (Bob Semon's statement that the center of down was deliberately chosen in order to limit population growth has never been challenged.The CCC apparently never asked about that, either, since that's not, to my knowledge, a legitimate reason to keep a plant in ESHA land.)

The community is buying this project. THey'll be paying for this system for years and years. And only those inside the prohibition zone will be paying for it so do I think they should have a real choice in what they're buying? You betcha.

As for asking questions? That's my job. As an opinion columnist on the opinion page of a local paper, I'm there to ask questions, raise issues, point out that the Emperor has no clothes, challenge the reader to also ask questions and get information so they can make their own decisions. I'm not there to make their decisions for them or tell them how to vote or what to think. If I wanted to answer questions, I would have run for the CSD.

When the community voted for Tacker and Shicker, two who specifically ran in opposition to the present sewer plant site, and they were elected, what did that say about the mood of the community? Is it possible that the questions both of these women (and the technical task force) raised caused people to start asking questions? Maybe figure out that the information they'd been getting via the smiley-faced Bear Pride newsletter was, uh, spin? Or incomplete? (keep in mind too, while the sewer plant site was being developed by WMH, there was no there there to raise questions about. It wasn't until the plans were put before the people for review, that questions started coming thick and fast. Ditto, for the waaaaaay late water report. I sat at that meeting and couldn't beleive what I was hearing. I had assumed THAT research had already been done before even moving ahead with this project. It wasn't. That in itself sent alarm bells ringing in my mind. And so I ended up asking even more questons. All of which, is to point out that this is the normal process on these projects: plan, public comment, revisions, public comment, etc.

As for your statement that you choose a expensive viable system over a completely uncertain future, so be it. That's what this election is all about. As for your proposal that I should make your choice "easier" if only I could answer your questions sufficiently, that's not my job. It's your job. And if you don't get the answers you like or need, then you need to ask why not.

In the long run, my general feeling on projects of this sort is that if you don't plan for the future, you'll end up paying for it big time, both now and years into that future you failed to plan for. For example, right now, few in this town outside the prohibiiton zone are paying much attention to what's going on in Sacramento vis a vis spetic tanks coming under the control of the RWQCB. That's a BIG, important issue that should be addressed by any planned sewer system. Ditto for upcoming water contaminents regulations from both the state and feds. Ditto for fuel costs in the future, etc. Whatever system we put in place now should be flexible and have enough running room to deal with the future. The stated plan, for example,to put the sewer plant in the middle of town in order to lock in it's size and thus control growth is simply a bad, bad idea. The future is not ours to "lock in," but ours to open up to by being flexible today.

And to Mr, Mrs.Ms.Whatever Inlet. Since you don't give me your first name, can you please tell me how I'm supposed to be a gender reader?

Regarding the loan, are you refering to the original assessment vote? The community was TOLD (not asked, not offered options, TOLD) that there was nothing to be done but this, that the RWQCB would fine us, that we had no choice in the matter but take this option, vote for the assessment and trust the CSD, that they were working hard to get all this nice federal money, etc. I remember the "campaign" literature via the Smiley Faced Bear Pride Newsletter well. Plus, the people were voting on a smoke & mirrors project. The design work wasn't even started. The devil came years later in the details. Which didn't surprise me since trying to fund a huge project like this on the basis of: Trust Me, we'll figure out things as we go and then send you the bill later, when we figure out what it will be, is simply asking for trouble. When people find out the devilish details, they're likely to pitch a fit. Which is exactly what happened.

Even then, 40% of those assessment ballots were never returned to the CSD office. Something I'm amazed at even today.

As for "revealing support of the CSD" plenty of people do so both at meetings and in letters to the editor and on blogsites. And they use their real names to do it.; 11:42 AM, September 12, 2005
Shark Inlet said...: I don't mind being called Shark...

So if you believed the original info to have been in error way back when, why didn't you and sewer foes make hay of it back then? If the CSD lied back then, the press and sewer foes (which you claim were many) should have dug that info up and made it known.

What blogsites?; 6:09 PM, September 12, 2005
Churadogs said...: Dear Let, "sewer foes" DID point out the "errors" in the county's figures, repeatedly, loudly, don't you remember CAWS efforts to let people know that ol' George Gibson was uh, "forgetting" to factor in mitigation costs and hook up costs for the county's proposed sewer when he (and the press) kept repeating the same wrong smiley-faced figure of, if memory serves, $55 a month?

When the Ponds of Avalon bit the dust we were told repeatedly by the CSD Board that the morphed WMH plan was the ONLY plan that would work (not true), we were told that the Boad had thoroughly investigated every alternative (also not true). The sewer foes DID point out these misstatrements, repeatedly, loudly, at meetings. I remember writing columns back then asking how it was possible that this thing had "morphed" from what the voters had voted in (ponds of avalon) to this gazillion dollar sewer plant, pointing out that the original "contract" with this community was for the $35 mil Ponds, NOT a $150 sewer plant. Don't remember anyone paying much attention to what I had written. did you? Did you then go ask questions? No, I thought not.

You ask why the "press" didn't dig into the wrong figures, the missing info, the spun hype, etc.etc. etc. What planet are you living on? The press? You mean, the Tribune? Bwa=hahahahah.

When Ron Crawford wrote his sewer piece for New Times, he raised serious questions about what the hell happened to this project. did you raise questions then? No, I thought not.

No, there were lots of questions being raised, but most of the town was literally asleep at the switch. And when your elected officials tell the public spin as if it were fact, or just flat out wrong info, ((remember when the CSD poo-poohed ag exchange as some unworkable pie-in-the-sky looney idea that they looked into and rejected? Turns out they never looked into it, never did a cost out evaluation. Then there it shows up in the Cleath & Associates as a "CSD sanctioned" future possibility. Feh.) or stonewall, what can the public do?

A lapdog press, a confused and lied to and spun public, hidden agendas that only a few are in on, is it any wonder the public remained in the dark? That was the whole idea. And where were you in all this? Asking questions? And when you got answers that later turned out not to be true, did that send up signals to you that something was wrong here. Or did you just say, Oh, they know best so there's no need for me to bother to look into any of this.

I'm sorry Mr. Let, but we get the government we deserve and when that government starts fudging and manipulating and stonewalling it's the responsibility of each citizen to sit up and take notice. If they don't, . . .; 6:58 AM, September 13, 2005
Shark Inlet said...: Again the "Mr."... "Shark" is just fine...

It seems your key argument here is:

1. We were lied to.

2. No one caught it in time (and, ultimately it is the job of the citizens, not the job of the press to watch for such lies).

3. We need to stop the liars.

4. Therefore we need to vote them out.

5. Now.

I am right with you up thru step 4.

Step 5 seems like a mistake. You've said earlier that you are a hopeful person and think that a good project is better than a bad one. I am not convinced the current project is actually a bad one, just an expensive one. I am also now convinced that a good project that costs more than a bad project is better.

What I want to know is why the plan of the new guys on the scene is any less ... um ... unrealistic than the "ponds of Avalon" (nice name, that). What I want to know is why the new plan will save money. What I want to know is ... if you are so upset that we've been screwed over, why are you in favor of a new group who don't aparently have a plan that will save any money at all and will likely cost us considerably more ... only to have the same project taken over by the county once the CSD runs aground.

As some have said here, if the recall candidates would simply say "we'll look into the costs of moving the sewer" rather than "we'll move the sewer no matter the costs" they would have my ear. Right now they are only promising actions that seem to me to only bring additional pain.

Maybe you would be in favor of starting the current project (because it is the cheapest option) then voting in a new group of CSD directors. Sounds like a reasonable comprimise. Waddya think?; 11:59 AM, September 13, 2005
Churadogs said...: Dear Let, I don't think people can make sound decision if they don't have truthful information. I don't think building a bad project based on bad information is a good idea. The community will pay no matter what decision they make on the 27th -- the question is: Will they end up with a better project that will end up costing less in the long run becasue it's flexible enough to, for example, bring Cabrillo Estates and all the folks east of South Bay Blvd on line without have to build ANOTHER sewer plant somewhere elese because this one's locked in an can't expand? That simply one question the voters need to ask themselves.

It also puzzles me, if someone's not telling you the truth and they're doing so in order to manipulate you into doing what THEY want, not necessarily what you want or what may be in your best interest, why is that acceptable? I mean, that's your choice, but personally, I don't find that acceptable. If people lie to me about little stuff for no really good reason, why on earth should I trust them to tell me the truth on the really big tough stuff? As a case in point, have you read my latest post-scipt on the "Special" meeting and the required Bond? Now there's a perfect example of "How in hell did THAT happen and, more importantly, WHY?" I find this little incident is simply symtomatic of a far larger problem that goes back to the heart of credibility and transparency and honesty and trustworthiness. If lack of those things doesn't bother you, fine. That's your choice. But please don't ask me to strain at gnats and then swallow camels. Nuh-huh.; 8:16 AM, September 14, 2005
Churadogs said...: Spectator, you need to ask the people running for the recall. In my various writings I've always tried to refer to the site out of town (the one the CSD and WMH looked at) as the "so-called Andre site," or put the word "Andre" in quotes. If you want to know what exact property WMH looked at, you'll have to ask them.; 2:03 PM, September 15, 2005

Pages

Saturday, September 10, 2005

11 comments: