Where's Waldo, Part Duh?
According to the unofficial Tuesday night results on the Hideous Los Osos Sewer election, 40% of the registered voters out here in Bear Land, didn't vote. (see UPDATE below) Oddly, 40% of the prohibition zone homeowners also didn't return their "ballots" during the assessment vote on this project a few years ago.
Is 40% of Los Osos permanently out to lunch? Have they moved to France? Do 40% of the registered voters need assisstance in picking up that little 2-B pencil stub to fill in the little bubbles on the ballot? Whaaat?
Well, as a snarky columnist commenting on the local scene, I'll miss them boys. And if our new PIO Mike "No Spin" Drake is heading out the door, I'll miss him most of all. My favorite Drakeism was his comment when the great eucalyptus were being ripped down before the recall vote could be taken, "We've waited 22 years. How much longer do we wait? . . . " (Wail, weep, rend clothes, toss ashes on head, fall to ground with palms upraised, tear hair, groan, smack forehead, gnash teeth & etc.)
WE? WE? Jeeeeze, Mike, get a grip. You just moved to town a few weeks ago.
Well, Chapter . . . What? -- This project's had more lives than a cat -- is about to begin. This time I hope the whole community will be paying attention. Close attention.
UPDATE: Election results posted on 9/28 show that 66% of the registered voters voted which means that only 34% of Los Osos is out to lunch. Whew! But still . . . what's up with that?
Further UPDATE: There still may be provisional and mail-in ballots to be counted and since the initiative numbers are so close, that issue and possibly other vote tallies could change. So, there may be another life left in the old cat yet.
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(90)
-
▼
September
(17)
- Where's Waldo, Part Duh? According to the unoffici...
- At the Sewer’s EdgeCalhoun’s Can(n)ons has to be “...
- Decision DayTo be persuasive, we must be believabl...
- Where's Waldo?Ok, all you Los Osos Kiddies. While ...
- OH MY GOD, IT'S THE HIDEOUS 35 FOOT TALL STRIP MAL...
- "Step Away From The Televison Set, Los Osos. CSD G...
- “Put the Spin Machine down, Mr. Drake, and step aw...
- Once Again, What's in a Date?
- What's in a Date? Or, Why IS 1998 more important t...
- Bleep You AND The Horse You Rode In OnDid you watc...
- "Put the phone down, Ms. Tacker, and step away fro...
- Is it Spin or just Bad Information?The Los Osos CS...
- Camelot Comes to Los Osos“What do the simple folk ...
- So, what's it gonna be? Money for our Sewer Tot Lo...
- Eeek! They’re “misappropriating my public funds!” ...
- NO! NO! Mummy, pleeeeze don't let that mean judge ...
- Duck & Cover: Incoming!
-
▼
September
(17)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
7 comments:
By and large, I agree with you here.
I do want to suggest, however, that there is a reasonable reason for not voting on the recall. Just because one didn't want to support the current ... um ... past CSD because they view the CSDthree as having made unwise decisions doesn't mean that one would necessarily want the three recall candidates. And, when you consider that Measure B most likely will be ruled illegal when the rubber meets the road (or won't matter simply because of the makeup of the board or the treatment plant locations being discussed), there may be no compelling reason to vote.
To spin this another way, those who would have wanted the TriW project to continue should have run a slate of candidates who could have said "even if you don't like Stan, Gordon and Richard you should vote for Alice, Bob and Carver because they won't do something foolish like move the sewer out of town unless it will save us money."
Shark,
the statement about an alternate slate misses the political reality. To have run alternate candidates would have itself further blurred the single issue of the decision to stop or go forward with the plant. Many voters, as Ann well knows, don't like researching and making discriminating decisions, and don't often even vote.
If in doubt, go ask Cruz Bustamante.
Gee sharky, that might have taken a wee to much humbleness for the Ol'CSD3, hmmm., "Don't vote for me because I've bungled my job, vote for my lackey who won't change anything!" yep, that's a winner, might have had a three way split instead of a two wayer. anyway my guess about the nonvoters is that they are so used to getting screwed by bad government that they won't participate at all. Can't say I blame them too much, they are probably too busy reinvesting their equity into other things and hope they can escape before the poo hits the scrubber. In hindsight imagine if we had never voted in a CSD in the first place. We would already have a sewer, lot owners would already have built out, there would have been no BS about firemen, I don't particularly like the way SLO county government works, but can we say we've done better? Alright it time to put up or shut up! I'm going to the meetings. ( I dont like meetings in the least)
Who is with me? Mike Green.
I think the question forme was so simple: Do you want a sewer plant in the middle of town, Yes? No? NOT voting was the equivalent of saying, I don't care if there is a sewer plant in the middle of town, out of town, on top of Morro Rock, whatEVER . . .
I suppose the secret is to trot down to Rodewald's office and check the precincts: Do the 34% live outside the prohibition zone and so think (wrongly, as they will find out when the "septic tank bill" come trotting out of Sacramento) that they don't have a dog in this fight?
Ann,
While you think the question was simply "do you want the plant in town or not" much of your and Ron's blogs were devoted to the issue of poor decisions by the past board and the integrity of past boardmembers.
If your side chose to muddy the main issue (which you said is the location of the plant) with other issues just to gain votes, please don't interpret those votes as evidence that people want the plant moved. Shoot, just compare Measure's B and C. Measure B, which more clearly relates to the plant location was a far closer vote.
As we discussed earlier, a sizable number of people would likely have supported the CSDthree but for the fact that the CSDthree started construction before the vote. I can easily see someone feeling that such a move was very unwise (considering the cost implications) and so the CSDthree should be voted out ... even if they approved of the TriW location. I would have voted that way myself if the recall candidates didn't seem so clueless.
By the way, what was the deal with last night's meeting? Do you still think the new board will listen to the people before taking any actions (such as stopping the current construction)?
Dear mister/ mrs. /ms. shark inlet, B lost despite an overwhelming expendeture. Fear ads and a plea by our Co supervisor, I would hazard a guess that the message here is "move it". If the new board can finagle a way to do it, I say get on board!
Oh by the way, for me it was a lot more than the scorched earth try, I still remember "faster,better,cheaper" If the new board can't do better I say disolve the CSD. what would we lose? Mike Green
I am not so sure that Measure B was a vote to move the plant. The measure was said that people should have a chance to vote on the location. Quite a few people I know said they were happy with the location but thought that the citizens should have a right to choose the location.
If Al had simply submitted two measures, one to say that people should have a right to vote and the other asking to move the plant, it would have been far easier to see what people want.
Post a Comment