What's in a Date? Or, Why IS 1998 more important than 1999 to the good folks of Los Osos?
If anybody in Los Osos, which is now engaged in the Hideous Sewer Wars, read Gary Karner's "Viewpoint" in the Sept 7, 2005 Bay News, they might want to click over to www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com and read Ron Crawford's rebuttal to that viewpoint. According to Ron, the Bay News declined to print his rebuttal in favor of another opinion piece by the Karners. Which is a shame -- and a puzzle -- because that date does need a rebuttal of its own.
The frontspiece of the Coastal Commission's report in question has printed right on it the date, October 23, 1998. One year before Mr. Karner says the proposed Ponds of Avalon were critiqued by Questa Engineering the the California Costal Commission.
Why is that important to understanding the history of this hideous sewer project? I suggest you click onto Ron's blog and find out. Makes for interesting reading and I sure hope Mr. Karner can explain the discrepancy and answer Ron's basic question: Did the (faster! better! cheaper! "Solutions Group" know, a year in advance, that their Ponds of Avalon wouldn't work? I sure don't remember hearing anything at the time about this report. Do you? So, what gives?
[UPDATE: From a 9/17 email clarification by Ron Crawford: "The Questa Study was actually completed in June of 1998" . . . [It can be downloaded from Ron's website, I believe] . . . " -- very interesting document). 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."
Again my question: Do you remember anyone talking about these reports BEFORE the CSD formation election? Any mention that the Solutions Group Plan was estimated to be $78 million (versus the County plan's $85 million cost. ? $78 million? I don't remember that figure. I do remember being repeatedly told $35 million. Ah, that magic number.
Which makes me wonder. If the ad campaign that linked the $35 million affordable system to the formation of the CSD left someting really, really important out -- i.e. the critical Studies and costs mentioned above -- who ran that campaign? Would it be fair to say they were less than honest with the community vis a vis full disclosure? Are any of the players involved with that original CSD formation election campaign also involved with the Save the Dream campaign?
Misleading once? Misleading twice?
Maybe people in Los Osos should start wondering about the "Truth" they're being told to "Trust." Then start counting the silverware.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
If the solutions group knew a year in advance that their fancy plan "would not work" according to some, why would we want to vote now for recall candidates who are proposing something that they've been told repeatedly "would not work"?
All issues of honesty in government aside, the choice on C, D and E is whether we want one group of fools who have gotten us through the process so far or a new group of fools who promise something that they should already know is impossible.
Measure B ... don't even ge me started on that one.
I'm hoping Gary can correct this. Was the 1999 date listed in his Bay News "viewpoint? a typo?
If not, then all of us will have to ask ourselves a question: If critical information was witheld from the community at the very formation of the CSD, if the community's vote was based on a lie, then it can be argued that the vote was obtained by fraudlent means and therefore it and the CSD is invalid. Worse, do you find that possibility acceptable? I don't.
I just read Gary Karner's "Rambling Manifesto". If Ron Crawford's chief complaint about it is that a date was listed incorrectly (and that Karner and his buddies should have known by 1998 that they would have to go with a more expensive system ... that "cheaper" wasn't a real possibility), it seems like there isn't yet a reason to vote for the people who will bankrupt the CSD and stick us with an even more expensive system.
Just becuase mistakes were made (and I am not granting Ron that point just yet) doesn't mean that going with the current recall group would be a good idea. I've looked over campaign literature and much on the web and I can't see anywhere near the cost savings in their *best case* plan that would balance out the increase in costs due to reasons listed here before.
The Solutions Group Plan was laid out to the Public before the election. There were ponds, and they stated they were going to sewer less than half the prohibition zone.
So there was no lie about what was proposed. Feasibility of any major project always becomes a point of contention at various points. Common sense should have told everyone that the plan was a problem, because of the sewering aspect. People believe what they want to believe.
Promises are again being made today, and are they feasible? It happens in every election.
You are right, publicworks. Back in 1998 we didn't have an organized opposition to the dreamers. Today we have higher bills because of it.
I only hope that not too many people are going to vote for a recall because they think things will be less expensive. I've heard many make this claim but this time I want to see evidence of a thoughtful plan before voting for a pipe dream.
I can certainly see why many are frustrated with the current CSD majority. First, they've been somewhat stonefaced and unresponsive to the opinions voiced during CSD meetings. Second, they are being blamed (perhaps unreasonably) for the fact that the RWQCB is requiring a more expensive plan and that lawsuits and delays are raising the costs considerably.
(By the way, for those in favor of the recall because the current plan is too expensive, ask yourselves why you would want to vote in a board just like Julie Tacker who has taken several actions to delay the plan and raise the total cost.)
Hell, I've been asking Ann for some time now along with all of the others I know who seem to be in favor of the recall why a recall will save any money. I've heard some interesting ideas and a lot of hope, but I suspect that because none of what has been presented appears to be well thought out, it will end up costing more.
Ann (here) and Ron (at sewerwatch) are making an excellent point ... those originally in charge of the CSD were so full of hope in their system that they were convinced it could be done on the cheap. Now that we know better it seems the height of foolishness to trust yet another group of hopeful people who are promising us a cheaper solution. As Gary Karner points out (see his POV), the proposed ideas of those running for the recall have alredy been studied and rejected by the RWQCB, that fines will result by our electing this group of newbies and that we will lose our low interest loan. Ron and Ann, while not meaning to, are giving us the best argument to vote against the recall ... that putting people in charge who don't know what they are doing ... is deadly.
Ann suggests that it would be be good to vote against the current majority because of their earlier incompetence and hubris (and perhaps their current hubris as well). A reasonable POV, but I wonder whether the likely outcome would make the vote worth it. I suspect the ultimate resolution of such a vote would be costs up to $30M higher, only to have the same project already being constructed. Good idea? I don't think so.
A question for both Shark Inlet & Publicworks: There are huge billboards scattered around Los Osos that say, "Trust the Truth."
After reading Gary Karner's "Rambling Manifesto," as Inletcalls it, after reading Ron's posting, I have to ask, Which "truth" are we to trust?
Inlet states, ". . . there was no lie about what was proposed . . ." (i.e. The Ponds of Avalon) but lies about that plan is exactly what Ron & the 1998 report DO suggest. So much for "truth." Are the same people behind the Solutions Group the same people behind The Save The Dream team? If we were lied to about the Ponds of Avalon, why should we think we haven't been lied to about this plan? Remember our being told constantly that the CSD has thoroughly examined all options and then, much later, we're told by Buel they didn't examine or cost out ag exchange, for example? How is that possible? What else have they not examined but told you they did?
Mr. Inlet states that the RWQCB "is requiring a more expensive plan." No, the RWQCB has no (legal) say in what system is put in place. The RWQCB did NOT prevent the CSD from preparing several plans with costs and presenting them to the community for a vote years ago. The RWQCB did NOT prevent the CSD from originally refusing the State Revolving Loan on the original Ponds of Avalon, for example, and going out on the open market to finance the project themselves. (Some claim that the RWQCB would not reccomend the State Revolving Funds for that project thereby "dooming it." Not true) The RWQCB did NOT require the CSD accept the higher bids on this present project. The RWQCB did NOT require the CSD set the election as late as possible, and so on ad naseum. Blaming the RWQCB for all manner of things is a great way to deflect focus on choice the CSD and the CSD alone have made. (Then blamed on the RWQCB)
Inlet notes that Gary Karner, in his POV states that "the proposed ideas of those running . . . have already been studied and rejected by the RWQCB . . ." No. To my knowledge, the RWQCB has reviewed NO plans by three of the candidates.
And finally, Inlet writes that we now know cheaper isn't possible, "it would be the height of fooliness to trust yet another group of hopeful people who are promising us a cheaper solution." My response to that is, Why on earth should I trust the same people who misled this community in the first place? Lie to me once and I'll have to seriously consider that you're lying everytime you open your mouth. Is THAT the sort of CSD I want running my community? I don't, but that's a decision each citizen will have to make for him or herself Sept 27th.
As for this election, I think the subtext is twofold: The initiative asks people if they want to be a vital part of the loop, yes? no? In other words, a good part of the community clearly feels that they have been totally left out of the loop. If a government is to be legitimate it must have the consent of the governed. Putting Los Osos into the loop is something the CSD could have done years ago. They chose not to. We'll see if the people will care enough to correct that oversight.
Second, the recall asks, Does our CSD represent us any longer? Is it trustworthy? Regarding the plan that they are adamant about forcing through, come hell or high water: Can we do better? Maybe not cheaper (or not much cheaper) but better? Do we really, truly want a sewer plant in the middle of our town? Or should we just settle for that -- all the lies included -- because, yes we were lied to, Oh, well, but who cares, we can't be bothered anymore, we're fearful and will cling to a bad plan rather than work for a better plan, we're tired or bored and, oh, like, whatever.
That's what we'll find out in about a week.
Yes, I was imprecise. The RWQCB cannot impose a solution, just fines for failing to achieve a goal.
To my knowledge, the the candidates for recall have no plans that they've presented to us that are anything other than what has already been rejected as unacceptable to the RWQCB.
I could do a point-by-point but it wouldn't be worth it now.
I do want to affirm something you write ... we do have a choice. We can choose to go along with the current CSD boardmembers who Ann claims have lied to us repeatedly or we can choose to go with three candidates who have told us they will "move the sewer no matter how much it cost." Considering all signs point to fines and a loss of a loan it would seem far wiser to vote against this recall so we can save money.
Ann would suggest it is better to pay more for a better sewer. Penny-wise, pound-foolish. She argues that we ought to design the sewage treatment plant to be able to accomodate all those outside the prohibition area as well. She argues that a more-expensive sewer outside town is better than a cheaper one inside town.
I am confused here about something. They promise to move the sewer no matter how much it cost and Ann is saying she wants something more expensive. Why do all the other recall supporters say it will save us money? Doesn't is seem odd that one of their key motivations is to save money but they can't explain how their plan will save money?
Yes, we do have a choice. To go along with the current plans that are sited, permitted and progressing ... but to have to continue with the current boardmembers who have perhaps lied to us in the past. The other choice is, in my mind, not a realistic option.
I'll stay wtih my observations about what the subtext of this recall and election are all about: Does the community trust and support the CSD board majortity? Do they have confidence that they're being told the truth -- the same "truth" they're supposed to "trust." Do they also want a direct say in where this sewer plant is located or do they want to go ahead with what the CSD has planned? Those qustions will be decided in a few more days. Then the piper will be paid.
I have a problem with the attitude that change at any cost is needed if the current CSD majority has made at least one mistake (in hindsight).
Any action has costs (or financial gains) and benefits (or drawbacks).
To suggest that the costs don't matter because the CSD majority has made decisions in the past that appear now to have been unwise is simply silly.
The real question is not about whether we think that the current majority is are likeable guys or whether they've made every decision right. The vote is about whether we are so angry with the current majority that we are willing to raise our own bills just to possibly move the sewage treatment plant out of town.
So, Ann, how much more would you be willing to pay just to have Stan and crew kicked out and replaced with "Julie and the Cal Trans 4"? $10/month? $50/month? $200/month? Surely there is an amount that would cause you to prefer the current group and plan. What is that amount?
If someone now would give me insurance that my monthly bill would not be higher after a recall than the current estimated costs, I would be far more willing to vote for the recall. (I still might now, just because the new guys would likely bring with them the lack of experience exhibited by two of the current board members and perhaps earlier boards as well.) However, no one is offering this insurance. It also seems very likely that the costs would be considerably higher.
I know you are going to argue that the state is about to mandate that Cabrillo Estates and others outside the prohibition zone be sewered. Fine. If they need to be included as well for some reason, they can pay the costs. The RWQCB has told us that those of us inside the prohibiton zone need to make progress on the current plan or fines will occur.
Let's not oversimplify and say "they lied so they must be voted out" when the issues are far more complex. To oversimplify to that level is insulting to those of us following this debate.
Dear Inlet, your monthly rate on the present plan WILL rise and will go up and up. Since there is no cap on this project, it will cost whatever it will cost. At this point, we have no idea what the final figure will be. Furthermore, all the deferred items (imported water, sludge removal, clean up of the upper quifer -- still haven't examined the water in there to see if it's even usable) the electricity/natural gas for operations costs, &etc. all will continue to go up.
so, how much are we all "willing" to pay a month? Nobody knows. We're going to pay whatever under this present plan.
Me? I want to be presented with at least two completed plans, plans which include O&M costs, and all the required add-ons, then I'll kick the tires and vote on which one I want to buy.
So, under the plan the recall candidates have proposed, how much will my monthly costs be, assuming everything goes as they hope? If we need to pay for electricity and to clean up the upper aquifer and for the trucking of solid waste to Santa Maria, won't those same costs apply to the plant and location preferred by Julie and the CalTrans 4?
If the "out of town" sewer plant is a low-tech (i.e. low power user, even one that can install solar panels because it has the space to do that) ponding type system, yes, power needs will drop. Ditto, if it's a ponding system that digests sludge better. Or, if there's enough room (i.e. not in the middle of town) the site can contain an on-site composting area, as Morro Bay has.) (In a typical "bait & switch" operation, the CSD board voted to cut about 4 - 6 ? million off of the capital costs by not installing super presser/dryers for the sludge, which resulted in now having to plan to truck wetter sludge out of town. They ballyhooed this as "cost savings," and when I emailed Gordon and asked, "Uh, won't those "savings" be eaten up since it costs more to haul heavier wet sludge than drier sludge," and he replied, Yes. So in a short time of operation, this "savings" will be gone and in its place, higher O & M costs. And as natural gas prices go up, the cost of electricity will go up.
Interestingly, you demand final cost from a proposed plan when you don't even have final costs from this present plan. If you're really concerned with O & M costs on this present plan (and you really should be) you'd better do some homework. This in-town puppy is gonna cost a bundle to run.
Post a Comment