Yes, Your Honor, I did murder my parents, come to think of it. And, yes, I did kill them so I could spend their money like a drunken sailor. Nevertheless, I’m here in court to plead with you to let me keep on spending all that nice money because, after all, I’m now a poor orphan, Boo-Hoo.
Chutzpah I: The man who kills his parents and then flings himself on the mercy of the court because he’s now a poor orphan lad.
Chutzpah II, Los Osos Style: Recalled Los Osos CSD Director Gordon Hensley, a new group apparently morphed out of the “Save the Dream Coalition,”[Pandora Nash-Karner, Chair of the Dreamers], and Stuart Denker trotted into court this morning to ask Judge Hilton to stop the stand-down order recently voted on by the newly elected CSD Board and put all the contractors back to work pounding even more tax payers’ money into the ground because Gordon & et al were worried that all the previous money that had been pounded into the ground might go to waste.
Forgetting, of course, that it was his decision as a CSD Director to vote with the board majority to set the recall election as late as possible, to absolutely refuse to hold off on starting work on the streets and the Tri-W site before the recall election. In short, to totally ignore the pleas of the community to do nothing irrevocable before the election. Nope, Nope, Nope, said Gordon, let the petal-to-the-metal pounding-of-the-money-in-the-ground begin!
Simply, he was gambling with the taxpayers’ money that the recall would fail. He lost that bet and with it he wasted millions in tax money. Yet there he was in court with his attorney asking for the judge to order the money pounding begin again because the Taxpayers Watch was concerned that tax money was being wasted while the construction crews stood idle, so, what the hell, they should at least keep busy digging useless holes and trenches in the ground for a project that is, for now, dead in the water. So, as near as I could make out, this group feels that the best thing to do in the case of wasted money is to waste even more of it.
After the Taxpayers Watch attorney got through wringing her hands and pulling amazing numbers out of who-knows-where, Mr. Seitz, acting as second chair for the newly appointed temporary CSD’s attorney (who had no chance to get into court since this suit was jammed through so quickly), pointed out that the contractors’ contract contained Section 15, (which Seitz noted he helped write), and that section allowed a 90-day stand-down, no harm, no foul.
The Taxpayers Watch attorney looked startled at the mention of Section 15 and had to sheepishly fess up to the judge that, uh, well, er, um, no, she hadn’t actually read the contract and was unaware of Section 15, but nonethless we were all going to die in the streets like dawgs unless the judge ordered the contractors to stop leaning on their shovels and start digging something in the ground somewhere, Damnit!
Judge Hilton muttered a few words about wanting to proceed carefully since he was ever mindful of the separation of powers (i.e. a judge overturning a decision made by a duly-elected legislative board) and so set Friday, October 7th at 11 a.m. at the Veteran’s Hall in SLOTown for round two.
Meantime, we’re left with the spectacle of Gordon Hensley pretending that this is a legal case with no “dirty hands” involved.
No “dirty hands?” Oh, Gordon, Gordon, what are all those chocolate crumbs doing tumbling down your chin? How did that cookie jar get on the floor? And where in hell are the Oreos, anyway?
As I said, Chutzpah, Los Osos style.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Sounds like the CSD should keep Seitz ... he's representing the current board well. Oh yeah, they decided they want to clean house no matter what.
While granting the point that the contract does allow for a 90-day temporary halt to construction ... your argument is still pretty weak. We all know that the current board agrees with Measure B and that they've vowed to move the sewer no matter how much it costs. Let's fast forward 90 days and suppose the board votes to cancel the contracts entirely. Why do you say that one group should not be allowed to sue to achieve their goals when you've applauded others for taking the same actions?
If a lawsuit is inherently wrong, wasn't it wrong for Julie to have filed one against the CSD a few years back?
If you argue that the suit is wrong because it clearly violates the "will of the people", please remember that when Julie filed her suit she was suing a board which was elected by 85% of the community. Wasn't that just as wrong because it stood against the will of the people in much the same way?
Goose. Gander. Good.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I would also suggest that there is a very reasonable case here ... that it would be total waste of taxpayer funds to stop construction, give up $35M in federal dollars, take on additional debt to pay for the design of a new plant which, in all likelihood, won't be cheaper.
What I'd like to see is Seitz arguing that Measure B is legal. Now that's entertainment.
Hooray for Seitz! he did us a favor, the 90 day delay will probably be crucial, If the new CSD can come up with a better solution in that time then GREAT! Why can't we start on the infrastucture first, to satisfy the RCWB, you know, tear up streets and lay pipe? A huge amount of work can be completed before the end plant is built. There is a way to make this work.
I find it wonderfully hilarious that the same people who railed furiously about all those AWFUL OPPOSITION people WASTING the taxpayer's funds by USELESS, FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS are now trooping into court with lawsuits of there own, or cheerfully supporting those who do file cases. I love it! Let's sauce the goose and gander, I say. But, please, hold the hypocrisy, everybody.
As for continuing to lay pipe, that assumes that the best and cheapest option is the gravity flow system with the plant only moved out of town. What if the community wants to cost out and take a look at a step-steg system and when they run the numbers conclude that even with retrofitting all the septics the total overall costs (including long term O & M and sludge costs) come in way cheaper and decide to chose that option, then continuing to lay gravity flow pipe in the ground would be wasteful.
If that's in the wind, then it's premature to keep laying pipe.
Ann, when you write "hold the hypocrisy, everybody" do you really mean that you want Julie Tacker and the current majority to admit that because they started in the lawsuit game early it should be just fine for TriW supporters to play the same game?
Or do you want Gordon and the rest to drop their suit because they complained about lawsuits earlier?
I figure that neither or both is fine, but I am wondering what you would prefer.
It is so ironic to see recall people complaining about the new lawsuits.
What a bunch of hyppocrisy. After 2002, if they had dropped all legal actions, the sewer could have cost 20% less, and could have started a year ago.
Now, it'll be a miracle if they can come up with a plan that's even the same cost, when you factor in everything.
Dear Gary, Thanks. Posting often does, indeed, take time, which is why maybe many other bloggers aren't up to speed -- like they have a life or something?? Plus, hopefully one should have something interesting to write about and for now, the Hideous Sewer Mess is certainly providing fodder.
When he set up this blogsite, Greg, the Web/Blog master also hoped that readers would comment not only on what's posted by me, but on what other readers have to say, which is what's been happening occasionally with several of my "birddogs" -- they actually started "speaking" to each other, which is a good thing, as Martha would say.
So, as long as commenters remain civil, I'll keep the comment section turned on because tht's what this whole central coast newsmission was about -- dialogue, exchange of ideas and a chance to have a little fun while Los Osos sinks into the sea.
Ann,
It's not that bad. We're just treading water.
Treading water while waiting for the tsunami? Well, bears are very good swimmers, so we can hope our poor little town will come through this storm.
Dear Maladecision, If we had not voted IN those people (the ones that just lost) We would have had a sewer years ago, for 35million.
Faster Better, Cheaper" Became Slower, Worse, WAY more expensive. This last election was the first time we had ANY say about where the sewer plant should be located. What we need is a bare bones sewer plant located out of town. No Park, No todler area and no dog park,
no scenic mitigation, no park maintenance, a big fence around it so less security costs,If the dreamers want a park so bad, Then put in a park and All the people that use it will get to pay for it (the County of SLO). There are County parks all over, why not here too?
Dear Anon, Alas, when it comes to parkland, Los Osos has always been the Red Haired Step Child. On the short end of the stick. And, alas, also, the county parks dept. has also been the Red Haired Step Child-- underfunded for acquisition and improvement/maintainence. When Los Osos had one opportunity to cough up a modest amount of yearly money for a pool and a recreation program (memory says it was about $40 A YEAR, if that's right) they refused! Which makes this "strongly held community value" of keeping a sewer plant in the middle of town so we can have a Tot Lot and a Community Vegetable Garden & etc. logically and factually unsupportable. I mean, if Los Ososians absolutely refused to pay $40 A YEAR for a pool, how on earth can anyone assume they wanted to pay millions for a Tot Lot and additional millions in sewer plant costs required to make it possible to keep the plant in town? Makes no sense.
Ann,
I think it is pretty clear that many in Los Osos don't want to pay for anything.
I've asked a few people why they voted for the recall. Nine of ten told me (as their primary reason) that $200/month was too expensive.
None of those, by the way, told me that they minded a park being included, but that the total bill was what bothered them.
What does this mean? Mostly that the new board needs to take actions to bring in the project at a total monthly bill that is considerably lower. Presumably this means that in their hubris they were pretty much hosed even before the previous board started construction. We've discussed the financial realities here already. Perhaps had this new board been more involved (even as board members) back in 2001 they could have done a better job, but now it seems like their desire to "do it right" they are going to make sure it costs us more.
Perhaps they're not that bad. Maybe once the studies of alternatives show the alternatives are more expensive they will choose to continue with the plan the put on hold a few weeks ago.
Dear Inlet,
Surely you jest? Have you forgotten the Technical Task Force? HUGE amounts of volunteer time put in to help "fix" a gazillion things left undone in the original project, all of which were met not with a thank-you but a grudging snarl.
Have you forgotten the continuous 3 -2 votes whenever Tacker/Shicker brought up critical issues regarding this project, like hold off on signing the contracts, and don't cut down trees until the election, etc.etc.etc.
Have you forgotten the endless public comment from a community slowly becoming aware of just what this board majority was up to, meeting after meeting begging for a vote, begging for a side-by-side study of in-town, out-of-town costs, even when the SWB told the CSD to go back to the community to gage their feeling on piling on even MORE debt, the answer was always NO NO NO NO NO.
Now, here you are telling us you think the new board members should have become more involved ???? And done . . . what? in the face of 3 -2 NO NO NO NO NO? Oh, please.
It's one thing to re-write history to suit your opinion, but it's another to forget history altogether.
Ann,
I can't figure out what part of my posting you are replying to.
Is it the suggestion that people who are now complaining loudly should have been involved four years ago when they could have made a difference?
The previous board was pretty darn clear dating back to 1998 that they thought a plant in town was best. They were clear that they thought that a park would be part of the project. They were clear that they considered the out of town option to not be a viable option. It seems that you and a whole horde of people disagree ... but I didn't see anywhere near that many complaints back in 2001 and 2002 when we voted to take on the state low-interest bond and build that project at that site and when we voted returned 2/3 of the "CSD3" to office and voted the other one in by some 80%.
You are saying perhaps that we were lied to by the previous board. Fine. I disagree, but let's assume you are right. When, then, should citizens have gotten involved? Perhaps when the plans were formulated and approved. I am sure that you will point out that if there were lies and we only recently discovered those lies, we would expect opposition to those plans only in the last year or two. The question remains, however, once the previous plans were approved by us, the CCC, the SWRCB and everyone else necessary, would it be wise to start over.
You seem to believe the answer is "yes" and I believe "no".
I did want to point out, however, that if those who are so opposed to the current plan were more active earlier, the situation may have been resolved earlier and perhaps less damage done to our community.
Just think ... what if Steve Sawyer had started the recall movement a year earlier? Had it won, no construction would have started. Had it lost, we would not have to repay the state for the loan they gave us. Don't just blame the "dreamers", take some responsibility for your own inaction. (Note: I am not writing this to just you, Ann, but to those on your side who would blame only the CSD3 for all evils in this community.)
To Inlet, I think you're forgetting the years of Public Comment at the meetings, ALL asking for a vote, all asking for a serious look at alternatives, ALL IGNORED. (Or lied about, as in We've look at all alternatives and they won't work or will be way more expensive, heh-heh) So, what, besides a recall, is there to get a Board to change direction? And recalls can only happen when the political tipping point reaches a certain place.(People HATE recalls, things have to be really desperate for them to succeed, something the old board either didn't know or chose to forget) No, there was lots of community involvement in attempting to get a choice or another look at a possibly better project. I think you're chosing to overlook all the vocal, unhappy campers there were for years. And I think you're chosing to forget the balance of power is always with the incumbents. Always. Very hard to change things because of that.
The years of public comment asking for a new site was after the SRF loan tipped the playing field in favor of TriW. Any other sites would have been far more expensive due to the change in financing costs.
I chalk this recall up to the fact that the costs are so high ... most people I talked with who mildly supported the recall voted for it (they said) because they figured that there is no way it could get even more expensive. They were hoping that a recall would lower their bills.
I would thus claim it is the delays by sewer foes which caused the increased costs (we can argue about the fine points in that claim another time) which caused the people to vote out the board that was making progress. Perhaps this is Al Barrow's attempt to bankrupt the community that he says he cares about.
Post a Comment