Ah-Ha! Mystery solved. For the longest time I couldn’t figure out why the Tribune was so utterly clueless when it came to anything regarding the Hideous Los Osos Sewer. They have never really examined the issues here, except to simply report on a He Said, She Said basis all sorts of nonsense then simply toe the party line.
At first I just put it down to sheer laziness or lack of experienced reporters with an institutional memory long enough to know what the issues were. Of course, Editorial Page Editor, Bill Morem, lives out here and should have known better and should have been able to convey some of the complexities to the full editorial board, but apparently either he didn’t do that, or they just didn’t get it.
Now, with the October 23 editorial, I understand what the real problem has been: The Tribune is Rip Van Winkle and has been sleeping since 1984.
In an editorial that reeks with absolutely phony credulity and utterly transparent faux, naïf-like surprise they observe (gasp!) that Los Osos wants a sewer (WHAT????) but people out here just didn’t want that particular sewer plant in the middle of their town, (Holy Cow! when did that happen?), and wanted a sewer that possibly cost less (Gee, ya think?) and hopefully solved sludge problems, had lower operation and maintenance costs (Imagine that?) and could be sited where it had more flexibility for adding treatment as more of the community has to come on line (Looking at the future, how novel!), was better able to deal with critical water issues (Water? Los Osos is out of water? Huh?), and that that’s what the recall, Proposition B and a good part of these years-long sewer wars have always been about (My God, we’re the county’s newspaper of record! Why didn’t somebody tell us?)
Able was I ere I saw Elba
The next day, the paper did give a Bouquet to State Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee for stepping in to help mediate between the new CSD Board and the State Water Board concerning the bazillion dollar loan, and lob a brickbat at Abel Maldonado, our State Senator, for being elsewhere when asked to help. Able’s spokesman said Able would “...let the process play itself out” before he’d show up.
And, let me guess, when the process is successful and a cameraman appears on the scene for a photo-opportunity, THEN you’ll see Able doing his Zelig-like schmoozing photo-op best to zip into the picture in time for the smiling hand-shake and to garner congratulations all ‘round for a job well done, yes, yes.
Well, why not? There are two types of politicians: Those who go into public service to, well, actually serve the public. And those who go into public service to serve themselves by cultivating the powerful, connecting themselves only to the “right” issues that can advance their careers, garnering the feathers in the caps while avoiding the black eyes, punching the required tickets, stroking the required backs, and making sure they appear Zelig-like and Forrest Gump-like everywhere there’s a Important Personage & a Camera for some photo-opping. It’s a unique skill and requires a constant finger to the wind ability to ferret out The Main Chance in order to Move On Up.
Of course, the public can be forgiven for feeling like a plain woman who’s been asked out on a date with the handsome man of her dreams only to find that he then spends the entire evening looking over her shoulder until he spots a cuter, richer blond bombshell across the room, then it’s Hasta La Vista Baby, and she has to take a cab home without dinner.
Well, Sam’s a money-guy, so let’s hope he can bring some financial sanity to the train-wreck the previous recalled-3 CSD Board members deliberately created. And, with luck, the New Board can present to the voters, a sewer system(s) that they can live with and vote on, one that may not cost a heck of a lot less than the old system, but will save them long term O&M costs and solve some other critical problems. That’ll be something.
Then, if that comes to pass, the community will have to ask some very, very tough questions of the previous CSD Boards, starting with, “Why wasn’t this ‘alternative’ plan presented to us years ago. You told us there were no alternatives, that all other options were way more expensive, that your plan was the only way. Were you lying to us? If so, why?”
The Tribune should be the one leading the way on asking and answering those questions, but I won’t hold my breath. I figure they’ve already fallen back asleep again.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
Dead on about Abel. The tribune, however, deserves better treatment. You presume they are just not researching the issue or that they are just the mouthpiece of the former CSD board. I would suggest that reasonable people (such as publicworks here) could easily arive at the conclusion the tribune has ... repeatedly ...
Another issue...
Suppose I were to grant the point that earlier boards should have studied an "out of town" location more seriously after they were told "ponds won't work" but before they settled on TriW ... would you grant me the point that the current board should have investigated the likely impact of stopping construction (even temporarily) and reported it to us and asked for our input before taking that action?
I would suggest that if one decision was a decision for the the board to investigate and report back to the people so the people can decide, both are. If one is just an administrative action and not worth a vote of the people (or even a discussion during the CSD meeting), the other is.
In such serious business as this, we should at least strive for logical consistency.
A followup to the previous comment...
I am not saying that I agree that the previous board lied about the lack of alternatives, just that what you've presented, Ann, and what Ron has presented don't convince. The events can be well explained without saying "lied", "liar" or "lies."
Perhaps the previous board was somehow hopeful that they could convince the RWQCB/SWRCB that a ponding system or that partial collection or step-steg would work. I see this as similar to today when the current board is somehow hopeful that they can convince these same groups that the should not pay any penalty for wanting to start all over (whether an outright fine or the loss of the SRF loan).
Why paint the previous group as evil and unwise but not the current group? Certainly both have had warning that their intentions are unrealistic from the point of view of the state.
Maybe Ron will chime in here to correct me, but as I recall, the previous CSD wanted ponds at TriW. As a community we voted for them and that plan. We voted to take on a bond to design a plant and do the EIR, etc. We applied for and got the SRF money that was site-specific. When the RWQCB required a plant change, we were already tied into that site because of the loan and the CCC. (Ron's bait-n-switch comments notwithstanding, the CCC approved a TriW site for some reason then complained when the park was taken out of the plan because it would save money ... thank Julie for asking the CCC to put the park back into the plan.) To change sites was technically feasible, but not at a great financial cost. Considering the already high cost, the previous board chose to stick with TriW. After continued lawsuits and delays by many of the same group that is now running the show, the costs increased and increased and increased. [If you are going to tell me Al Barrow wouldn't have fought an out-of-town sewer that would cost $100/month, you are folling yourself.]
Once the SRF loan was obtained, we were locked in to TriW unless we were going to be willing to pay through the nose to have it elsewhere. In other words, an out-of-town solution was not a solution ... it would only delay things and increase our costs.
Why, then, should we trust these new guys who don't appear to have a plan but ran on the platform of "better, faster, cheaper II". While you would say "at least they haven't lied to us yet" I would suggest the "lies" of the previous board were, at the worst, bad luck and poor timing. On the other hand, I can't see how any supporter of the current board could keep a straight face when telling us that these new five would save us money. Seems pretty clearly at least as much a lie as what the previous board was accused of.
I believe that Ann was too light on the Trivial (Tribune) The articles I have read are spin doctor 101, anyone who has been here and payed attention would easily see the shortcomings of their articles and the decided slant of what they report, and more importantly, what they leave out! I would imagine they are pretty browned out after the diss. the voters gave them this last election. Remember their advice to "Stay the course even if its somewhat not, well, good, and even if the elected leaders acted badly. What I realy think is the Trivial just dose not like us. They are tired of us making news that isn't sexy, and they are beholden too much to their advertisers. In a way I kind of feel sorry for them too. I see them going the way of the postal service after e-mail, The best and most accurate information is right here on the web. Thanks to Ron, Ann and you too Sharkey. I know there are a lot more people that read this than get involved, keep up the good work. Mike Green
To Inlet, I suggest you go back and re-read Ron Crawford's History of the World timeline. Maybe he'll chime in and correct some of your statements.
You've got a lot of facts wrong. And that's been the problem all along -- incomplete information,incorrect timeline, conflation, speculation as "fact," assumptions as "truth," and flat out lies.
As for the word "lie." I can't soften it any. If you tell me you've done something and it turns out you didn't do it and you knew you didn't do it and had no intention of doing it, then you lied to me. Simple.
And to Mike, I'm embarrassed by the Trib. The mere fact they would -- now -- even suggest in their editorial that an out of town plant could even exist, let along might solve sludge problems better, etc. is embrarrassing. I mean, it's not like the topic just popped up on the radar, it's been sitting in the middle of the road for years! Yet they refused to even ask questions. Sad.
I've read Ron's timeline three times in the last three weeks.
I would suggest that his timeline is chock-full-o-interpretation and may very well leave out facts that make his case that the Solutions Group CSD (SGCSD) was blinded by Pandora's Park (PP). He definitely leaves out various lawsuits filed by individuals who are now members of or friends of the Out Of Town CSD (OOTCSD) as well as various lobbying actions (for example, Julie going to the CCC to complain that the SGCSD took the park out of the TriW plan, effectively requiring the expensive park to be put back in). [Note: on this last point, I am sure that you and Julie and Ron would disagree and say that they wanted the TriW project stopped, but I would suggest that if your strategy to get the plan halted is to tack costs on to the plan, you've adopted a scorched earth policy.]
Along those lines, you claim I have a lot of facts wrong. I don't believe so (but am open to gentle correction). I've read Ron's timeline and don't see compelling evidence that my interpretation (given above) would necessarily be incorrect. If you would be willing to point me to evidence that shows my interpretation wrong, I am interested.
As to my first comment ... would you be willing to admit that the current board acted too quickly when they stopped construction before explaining to the citizens that this would likely mean the loss of the low interest SRF loan and asking the citizens for comment?
To me it seems very very clear that when the felt the need to "act now!" they neglected to do what every elected representative is obliged to do ... to think through the issues thoroughly. Perhaps it wasn't their fault, however, perhaps the new GM and counsel neglected to tell them the details of the contract.
No. It must be their fault. They were elected to make wise decisions. "The buck stops here" and all that. If, for any reason we lose the SRF loan and the costs go up because of that, it is the fault of this board. Even if Blesky should have brought the issue up, if they refused to study the contract themselves, it is their fault.
Dear Inlet, in saying that the Solutions Group was "blinded" by Pandora's Park, you're forgetting, the Solutions Group WAS Pandora's Park, they were joined at the hip and ran as a slate on a platform against the county plan and for Pandora's Plan. And you still have yet to explain the pre-election 1998 CC & RWQCB's reports that indicated the price tag would be $78 mil (not $35) and likely wouldn't work. The Solutions Group HAD to have seen a copy of that report before the election.
As for Julie going to the CC regarding the park. If I understand the original complaint it's this: Without the park, the law would not allow the sewer plant at the Tri W site since there was an environmentally better one available (and on ESHA land you MUST go with the environmentally better site) The Park attachment, what Ron called, satirically, the strongly held community value scam, was at the heart of the bait and switchy, now- you- see- it- now- you- don't reason for forcing that sewer plant into the middle of town.
And it was the CC, not Julie, not the CSD, not the Out of Towners, that had the choice of saying, "Hey, you're right, this park thing is being used as a phony "hook," we're taking it out and denying the permit since you have an environmentally prefered site which you must use," but they didn't. Instead, they laughably, pretended to buy into the "strongly held community value" scheme and mitigated a mitigation with more onsite mitigation -- another "hoot" Ron has fun with.
And, it's clear you still think the new Board has "stopped" the project. Legally, the project isn't stopped. That would take an officially agendized, public vote by the whole board. What the Board invoked is the contract's Section 15 "stand down." And now, we'll see what happens in negotiations. It's possible the Board will schedule a meeting within the 90 day period and officially vote to "stop" the project. But that hasn't happened yet. As for their haste in standing down -- that was an effort to stop the financial bleed-out set in motion -- deliberately -- by the previous recalled 3.
As for losing the SRF, I keep telling you it's a REVOLVING fund and Los Osos has been tagged as High Priority. Also, since your one main mantra is costs (wierdly swallowing the camel of the previous plan's unknown hidden and defered costs only to strain constantly at the gnat of the possible costs of any future plan)I can only say, Let's wait and see. If you sustain a worst case scenario of $11 million in fines and millions more in redesign and resiting, BUT end up saving $11 million and millions more in site and future O&M and sludge costs and etc. then what's the problem? The end result may be a wash or may be a slight savings, so where's the beef with that? You claim the new CSD doesn't yet have a plan? Neither did the "old" CSD, and apparently you took them on faith that they'd fulfill their promise to build a better, faster, cheaper sewer. You also took them on faith that they had considered all alternatives (not true) and didn't have a problem that clearly they didn't. In short, what I'm seeing in your comments is the old camels & gnats problem. Geese & ganders, too. And at this point, none of us knows what solutions will lie ahead. Which is why I suggested everyone take a deep breath.
Point by point:
If the Solutions group and original CSD are the same as the downtown park, aren't you forgetting that this plan was overwhelmingly elected by the people some three or four times (depending on how one counts)? If you are going to adopt "the people are always right" attitude about this recent election, shouldn't you do the same with previous elections? If you are going to complain that the previous group lied during the election becuase they had an estimate on the table that said the solutions plan would run $80M, didn't the current group lie in exactly the same way during the most recent election because they had seen documents from the state government that say we would be fined and lose the SRF loan? The original reason I started this thread is to suggest to you that you have been far too quick to castigate the previous group or that you are being far too lenient on the current group. Please be consistent!
The CCC staff itself didn't indicate Andre would be preferable to TriW. They said that, on the balance, TriW was preferable because of the desiree to preserve Ag land. I know why Julie did what she did, but she must have realized that her actions were risky and it seems she was willing to raise our costs just so that she could take a chance of getting the site moved.
The CCC would have approved of the TriW site without Park (after all, their own staff had suggested removing the park as a way to lower costs) except for the fact that Julie-n-gang went to the CCC meeting and asked them to reconsider. The CCC went against staff recommendation because of the comments made during that meeting.
As to stopping versus halting versus what the SWRCB believes and what the SRF means, later would appear to be a better time to address these issues ... I've gotta run.
Why would I think the new board has stopped the project?
First off, this may be an overstatement. I believe they put it on hold in a contractual sense, not exactly the same thing as cancelling.
Now to your question ... the reason I think they've stopped the project? Because they ran on a platform of doing so. Because they've told us from day one that they intend to move the sewer. Because they continue to make this clear at every meeting.
Do you see why the SRWCB might think the "temporary" halting of work as a bit problematic?
As to whether we'll get another SRF loan if this one is lost, I don't know. I don't think it is quite as easy as Ann seems to think. She writes as if a simple application dashed of during an afternoon will net the millions we need.
As to whether I am straining at gnats ... if $50/month (see previous analysis) is a gnat to you, you are quite clearly in a different income category than most of us in Los Osos. Maybe that's why you support the people who promise to "move the sewer no matter what the cost."
As to your fairy tale of being able to save more from reduced O&M than the increase in the cost of borrowing the money to build the plant plus fines plus the costs of a new design plus EIR plus inflation plus all the rest ... I would simply ask again that you take out a financial calculator and figure out how much on a monthly basis would need to be saved in reduced O&M before we would even get close. I would submit it is ONLY if no fines plus keeping the SRF loan that would allow us to even possibly come close to bills that are similar.
Your optimism that things will work out for the new board no matter what seems to not match up with a purely financial argument. Give it a whirl with any numbers you choose and get back to us on how much P&I we'll save by moving the plant.
I just can't stand it! I'm going to chip in,even though I'm a lousy writer.
First off, I voted for the recall, and I knew full well that they would halt (if Possible) Pandoraland and the Stinker Factory
The design and placement suck.
The way the former CSD conducted themselves was, In my opinion, Below acceptable. I believe my opinions are supported by the facts I have read.(No thanks to the Trivial) . If the sewer plant can be moved out of town at nearly the same ( outrageous ) price then GOOD! My wish is that some elected officials will finaly start doing their jobs! Some sort of Kudos have to go to Sam Blakesley! unlike certain former CSD'ers, He may realy have b$#%s! Abel Maldonato is going to get a mechanics hex from me if he keeps ducking! (I used to work on his car ) Come on Abel, we are finaly on the right track! Mike Green
Dear Inlet, The CSD was hooked at the hip with the Solutions Group Slate and a THIRTY FIVE MILLION DOLLAR sewer. It was overwhelmingly elected because it was the ONLY way to avoid having an $85 million county sewer forced on it. The Coastal Commission acted as sword and shield to protect the community from fines to they could form the CSD and implement the THIRTY FIVE MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT. During that election, I NEVER heard the words, SEVENTY EIGHT MILLION mentioned in connection with either a CC or RWQCB staff report, did you? If the community had known at the time that the Solutions Group Plan was costed out at $78 mil, (versus the county's $85) with the CC & RWQCB nixing the ponds up front, do you really think the community would have voted for the CSD? I don't think so. Previous attempts had failed and I believe this one was successful ONLY because of the $35 mil, which, it turns out, to have been a lie.
I have NEVER said that one simply "dashes" off a request and shortly money will rain down from the SRF. I have repeatedly had to remind you it's a REVOLVING FUND and we're on a top priority since you keep repeating that the SRF is "lost," as in boo-hoo-gone forever.
There is a huge difference between "reality" and "Legality." The various agencies have to act on "legality," which means that the SWB jumped the bun on pulling the loan -- legally, the CSD was NOT in breach of contract. What comes of the negotiations, we'll have to wait and see.
As for costs, we don't know what difference an in-town vs out of town project will be because we don't know the real costs of the in-town project and we sure don't know the costs of an out-of-town project, so running numbers is futile at this point.
Ann,
Dialog
It seems to me like you aren't really interested in a dialog. You keep repeating the various things that I feel that I've sufficiently addressed and you haven't really done the things that would help us move forward to see if we can develop a common understanding of the situation.
Lies
Yes, we know you think the previous group lied. We get that. The question I posed to you is why you are not being similarly critical of the new board for the exact same lie. They were also told, in advance, that they would be fined and they would lose the current low interest SRF loan. Why did they tell us these things would not happen? Or, if they do end up keeping the plant at TriW because financial realities compell them to do so, why did they tell us they would move the plant, no matter how much it cost? I would submit that it is both groups that are simply being hopeful ... hopeful that their wishes were realistic even though in both cases, they are not.
Finances
I have never said that we won't get another SRF loan. On the other hand, it would be harder to get than the first one because of our breaking of the first contract with the SWRCB. Second, if we could get one, it would likely take a few years to get a new loan which, because the SRF "low-interest" loan follows the market so the interest rate will likely climb. Third, what if we can't? You keep telling us that we can because we are a "top priority" but it is far from the sure thing you continue to imply. It very hard to get grants and loans and the like. The current board doesn't realize how much they've given up but likely will soon.
And where is that money coming from that would allow us to design a new plant? The current board seemed to hope that they could simply change the TriW project into an out of town project and use the current loan to pay to design the new plant. Talk about hubris!
I'm not one to cound chickens before they've hatched, but the fact that Capps got some $35M into the budget for the past project would (likely) have saved us some $35/month per household by have effectively reduced the amount needed for borrowing to only $100M.
If we can somehow keep the $35M from the feds and get another SRF loan and avoid fines, then the moving of the plant may cost about the same if we can avoid lawsuits, additional delays and sell off the TriW site to developers.
Breach of Contract
Okay, let's repeat what happened.
The CSD breaks the rules of the contract in some umpteen ways. The state says "hey, you can't do that" and "no more money for you", exactly as the contract says they will do.
How is it the state has been the party which is in breach of contract?
Is it your argument that the state would typically give a 30 day warning if they suspect misuse of funds or if they suspect that their project has been changed? (Note: legally the SWRCB is now the only group that can change the project, the CSD is just the contractor required to carry out the SWRCB's orders.)
The contract does not specifiy any such terms. The contract is very clear. I pointed out several places in the contract where the LOCSD had violated terms of the contract. Where do you think I was wrong?
Are you going to tell us that the new LOCSD, all along, intended to continue the TriW plant?
Finances, again
As to the question of whether a simple financial calculation would be helpful or futile ... Ann, you claimed that it was likely that we could achieve some $11M or more in O&M cost savings. I was trying to suggest that you show this was the case. Start with any set of numbers you want on the cost of an out of town plant, inflation rate, time to complete the project, interest rate and the like. Work toward a monthly cost for P&I and see if we can, indeed, save money by moving the plant. If you can somehow come up with a less expensive plant, I would love to see your numbers. Unless you are willing to do your homework here, it would be nice if you stopped making claims that my numbers are nonsense and pessimistic and stop making claims that it will not cost us anything to move the plant out of town. It will cost and it is likely to cost a lot ... a lot more than even the savings on O&M.
My Theory
Perhaps this is why there is such a deep divide in the community and between the LOCSD and the state. One group may be unwilling to simply do the homework necessary to make progress while the other is unwilling to simply cave to what "the people want" because they view the people's wishes as unrealistic, unhelpful and unreasonable.
Just a theory.
My Hope
I wonder how the CSD board and state are doing at negotiations. Well, I hope.
Did any of you look at the letters in today's New Times?
Two interesting letters which are probably worth discussing here. Maybe Ann will give these two ideas a whirl in her next column.
The first letter describes how Gail McPherson pled no contest to charges of lying to the SWRCB in her former job down South. I assume, Ann, that you will investigate and get back to us on whether this story is true or not. If it isn't true it would be great if this writer would be taken to task. If it is true it would be good to know why we, as a community, should take guidance on SWRCB issues from someone who has already gotten in trouble with the SWRCB.
The second letter was even more interesting. The author claims that the proposed site for the "out of town" plant would be environmentally sensitive due to its proximity to wetlands. Good call, boardmembers.
Dear Inlet, here's the problem: You keep making assumptions and then acting on those assumptions as if they were TRUE, or you say people said things they didn't say them leap from there into imagined and assumed dire consequences,(Case in point, if I'm not mistaken, the $35 million Capps "has" is merely a place marker, not real money, not a real thing, hasn't even been voted on, there is no money, yet you mention how it could reduce costs by $35 a month. WHAT MONEY? It doesn't exist yet. It may never exist, yet you seem to factor it in on your budget and on your various cost analysis, like it's actually in hand. That's like saying, "Heck, This here Reader's Digest card says I may have already won a million dollars, so I guess I can plan next months budget and include buing a Porche." Or you ask a rhetorical question and then proceed as if it were fact, answer your rhetorical question and then proceed to "conclusions" based on your question and answer, none of which may be true. Which means you too often end up chasing your own self-created shadows.
But you're right about one thing, that's not "dialog".
Speculating about something doesn't make it so. And letters to the editor aren't necessarily true or factual.(If you want a fuller explanation of the lawsuit matter against McPherson, (mentioned in a letter in New Times,) I suggest you get the videotape of the CSD meeting when a Save the Dream-wearing woman wierdly and inappropriately brought up the matter during non-agenda public comment (I presumed in an effort to blindside her) and Gail was given a few minutes to publicly discussed the matter more fully. I mentioned the weird encounter in my February 2 column, so the CSD meeting would have been shortly prior to that. They have the tapes in the CSD office. You can check them out and review them.)
As for the other letter in New Times you mention, the one about the property outside of town. I notice the letter writer doesn't include any indentifying numbers that would allow anyone to even know what he's refering to? Saying "out of town site" or "Andre Site" is now like saying, "Out West." That covers a whole lot of ground.And, again, are you assuming the writer is correct?
I don't feel I am making assumptions at all.
You are right, though, that I sometimes ask rhetorical questions because I think they help clarify the situation.
About the $35M ... I never said that it was a sure thing, just that if the actions of the CSD board would keep us from getting that money it would be a shame. Speaking of assumptions, why is it that people on your side keep assuming that the $35M would not have made it to Los Osos?
Perhaps we are both being a bit too strident simply due to the nature of the debate.
It was probably a mistake for me to ask about Gail's past in this public forum ... I just figured that you, as a journalist and as someone who is clearly a cheering section for the current board would probably know in what ways the letter was fictional or at least unfair.
I resent that you continue to say that I am assuming stuff. I am not. If the writer is correct about the site, then the current board has some splainin to do. If it is another site that the board has already claimed to have lined up ... I wonder where the site is. Certainly anything near a wetland or creek will cause great problems during the EIR phase. Again, it was probably a mistake for me to ask about something in a letter to the editor of the New Times. I was just wondering ... but wondering here seems to get you branded as an someone who assumes too much.
Now to my rhetorical question ... why haven't you taken out your financial calculator and plugged in your favorite numbers and shown us how the out of town plant will save money?
Dear Inlet, I'll try one last time: You ask a rhetorical question then answer it as if it were true, then demand I challenge your various "If" conclusions. That's a fool's game. If, If, If, If, is a fun game but hardly productive given the number of speculative ifs, all of which may be false. You're certainly free to use this comment section to play that game if you want, but you'll play alone.
As for the letter regarding McPherson, (or the supposed "out of town" site ) using the letters page to character assisinate or float trial balloons or start phony rumors etc. is a long tradition. Readers are advidsd to approach letters with about 50 pounds of salt.
Sharks rhetorical questions are right on the mark, and this is why.
Ann, you are so hypocritical. You want rhetorical questions answered on deferred cost for the present project - but yet you devalue the rhetorical questions on a new project. A new project is in essence totally deferred cost.
In the absence of any plan or project specific cost estimates put forth by the board or candidates prior to the election - it is responsible of Shark to make those evaluations. And he is accurate in his assesment.
Most of the 'new plan' proponents try to compare costs as if it's 1998 or 2001. Well, I'd like to inform you it's late 2005. That means the factoring of inflation, contract termination, UNSTUDIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ANDRE or other out-of-town sites, County jurisdiction issues, funding constraints, fines, are very relevant issues.
No one with half a brain would argue that it might have been able to have been done cheaper.
Perhaps if Andre was selection, that would have been true, but it's really unknown. Perhaps if there hadn't of been a gazillion lawsuits the current site would have been cheaper.
There is such a gross naivety on the part of 'new project' proponents, as demonstrated by a lack of specifics. They could have produced a reasonable spreadsheet of all the costs - with a range of best case scenarios to worst case scenarios -
in the financial world, it's called a risk assessment. That's what Shark has done - it's real, practical, and not rhetorical.
The risk assessment shows that the potential for perhaps only $10-$20 million being shaved off the project costs (including O&M) by re-designing. But the worst-case scenarios show potential DOUBLING OR MORE in project costs, due to fines, loan rates, inflation, contract costs, litigation.
The best-case scenario involves the following occuring to the benefit of the district:
1) Contractors not suing for damages
2) No fines
3) No inflation
4) Demonstration of technologies to remove nitrates
5) Negotiated agreements for ag exchange
6) Wet weather storage additional land purchases
7) Lack of litigation for new sites, and dropping of existing litigation
8) Salvaging of the low-interest loan
9) Approval of new funding mechanisms by taxpayers who have been burnt once over already
10) Comprehensive environmental studies of new sites, THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DONE
11) Added Coastal Commission requirements for new sites
12) Default of bonds
Those 12 items, my friend, are know as risk, and are the reasons managers chose to not attempt to try to save a few bucks, because they know the risks are catastrophic to an organization.
The risk of the new project are:
1) Deferred sludge processing cost.
2) Added Ag exchange infrastructure (wow, that would be part of the 'new project' as well)
The question is, are you willing to trade 12 or more unknown risks for 2 known risks?
Dear Public, the problem I have with Shark isn't his rhetorical questions, it's his answers -- based on assumptions -- that he apparently then thinks are real. You can make up and run any amount of numbers, but until you have "real" numbers, it remains a What If game.
And as for your saying, nobody with half a brain would argue that this project could have been done cheaper? WHAAAAATTT? Haven't you been listening to the former CSD for years? There were no alternatives, all alternatives had been looked into, this was the only project, other alternatives would be more expensive, & etc.
Unless you want to now say they were lying? And that, before they were recalled, they made sure to deliberately lock this community into the former project all based on lies?
Dear Public, the problem I have with Shark isn't his rhetorical questions, it's his answers -- based on assumptions -- that he apparently then thinks are real. You can make up and run any amount of numbers, but until you have "real" numbers, it remains a What If game.
And as for your saying, nobody with half a brain would argue that this project could have been done cheaper? WHAAAAATTT? Haven't you been listening to the former CSD for years? There were no alternatives, all alternatives had been looked into, this was the only project, other alternatives would be more expensive, & etc.
Unless you want to now say they were lying? And that, before they were recalled, they made sure to deliberately lock this community into the former project all based on lies?
Yes, Ann, you can make up any numbers you want. However you haven't done it even once.
You are the one that keeps telling us we'll save money. You were the one who asked to justify that statement.
I can only conclude that you won't do the work becuase you are afraid of the outcome, you can't do the work (in which case, why are you claiming things will be cheaper?) or that you've already done it and found out that any reasonable set of numbers implies the costs will be going up and you are afraid of admitting that because you want to save face.
As Publicworks points out, there are a lot of unknowns. To embark on a new project without even considering the possible cost of those unknowns as you are asking us to do is simply foolishness.
I would suggest again that you open up a copy of excel or some such and try out a set of possible interest rates, inflation rates, O&M costs, etc. and see which set of numbers and conditions will end up costing more and which will end up costing less. It isn't hard, but it is sobering.
Post a Comment