Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, the Bay News, Los Osos, for January 18, 06
Sing-Along in Sewerville
Koooombyyaaaa, My Lord, Koooombyyaaaaaa…Oooohhhh Lord, Koooommbyaaaaaa
Regional Water Quality Control Board member Gary C. Shallcross was quoted in a Jan 6 Tribune story on the $6.6 million fine the board had just levied against Los Osos as saying “that seeing a community ‘go at each others throats in such an ugly way’ was one of the saddest things that has come before the regional board.”
I can only surmise that Mr. Shallcross remains curiously clueless about the role his own Board and Staff played in creating this mess – years of puzzling indifference and questionable “science” alternating with irrational bullying threats that resulted in an unholy collusion that helped create the train-wreck now before him. He is also apparently oblivious as to the complexity of this process and apparently believes that sewering an already built town in about 4 years is “reasonable.” It never was “reasonable.” But Mr. Shallcross apparently never bothered to understand that the Time Schedule Order (TSO) that was the loony engine that was driving this train off the cliff was always nuts. Indeed, four times former General Manager Bruce Buel testified that the TSO was unreasonable, unreasonable, unreasonable, and . . . unreasonable.
With what most likely were crocodile tears, Mr. Shallcross went on, “It makes me sick to my stomach . . . Hopefully someday you’ll all get together and hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But I don’t think that’s going to happen,” once again proving that Mr. Shallcross hasn’t been paying attention to what was supposed to be his area of concern here: Los Osos.
On October, 30th, had Mr. Shallcross been paying attention, he would have heard strains of Kumbaya wafting from the community center as die-hard Tri-Ws and die-hard anti-Tri-Ws, one by one, went to the podium for public comment and said of the “Negotiated Deal That Wasn’t Negotiated,” things like, “Well, it’s not what I wanted but I can live with it.” or “Actually, I was never really married to the in-town site and if we can get a better plant out of town, I’ll vote for that,” and such like. Kumbaya doesn’t sound sweeter than that.
But Mr. Shallcross wasn’t paying attention. He had old tapes playing in his head and was not able to see what was going on in front of his nose despite three grueling days of hearings. Oblivious, was Mr. Shallcross and oblivious was the entire Regional Board, except for one thing and one thing only: Their single-minded search for assets in Los Osos that could be converted to cash in the form of fines and paid to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
For me, that was one of the “saddest things that has come before the regional board.” It made me sick to my stomach – a water board that spent no time discussing how to move ahead to fix a water and wastewater problem. Not once did a single Board member say, “We’re all about water quality and you folks have hit a rock in the road to fixing your water quality so tell us how we can help you get this water quality project going in a direction the community will accept so we can solve these water quality issues.” Nope, not a bit of it. Not a whisper about water. It was all about money.
Even sadder was a question repeatedly asked and left unanswered: How does bankrupting a community fix a wastewater problem?
The answer to that question would have been obvious had Mr. Shallcross and his fellow Board members been interested in water and water quality. Indeed, had Mr. Shallcross and his colleagues been interested in such things, I have absolutely no doubt at all that the “Negotiated Deal That Wasn’t Negotiated” would have gone through and we’d be on our way to finishing this project. But pre- and post-election emails among certain community members, the RWQCB staff and the State Water Board, emails later posted on the Tribune’s website, show a far different agenda was at work.
So, now everyone will wander into court. Too bad Mr. Shallcross is not able to see just how sad that is and just what role he and his fellow Board members had in creating the situation in the first place. But his head is just too full of old tapes, looping endlessly, bearing out-of-date information and corny old camp songs. Kumbaya, indeed.
For sheer bloviating fatuity, that comment is hard to beat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Hey everybody! Ron's pulling the trigger over at sewerwatch! the PDF file is a hoot
Seemed pretty clear to me that the fines were related to water quality.
Were you there?
The fines were because the LOCSD had promised to work on stopping their pollution yet had chosen to stop their efforts to solve the problem in the most timely way possible.
Why do you think the LOCSD should be able to break the law and then not pay the penalty? Should someone who violates a 50-foot "no protesting" rule around an abortion clinic get to avoid jail simply because they were doing what they believed was "the right thing"?
No, the RWQCB decided that fining the LOCSD was the best way to protect the water quality for the community and the State. For the community because fines and the threat of additional fines would give some incentive to move quickly to the speediest solution and for the state because other communities will now know that it's not okay to pollute even if you have "a better plan".
Nope, this decision simply asks Los Osos "do you really want to procede with an out of town project which will delay the water quality solution by some 5+ years?" They are asking us to pay for our choice to continue polluting.
Dear Shark Inlet - Did you attend the meeting last night? Yup, the new board is moving as quickly as they can towards addressing water quality AND other water issues that our community faces. However it is difficult to move quickly without the support of the community. Get on the bandwagon already. Check out the plan, the funding options, sustainability, affordability! Join a committee! We've got a board that wants to move our community into the 21st century. We can live in history or make history - it's our choice!
Based on campaign statements and common sense, I would expect that the CSD board would have announced their "plan" (what they presented Thursday night) in November at the latest and they would have started studying five or six sites already.
Perhaps I am being unrealistic, but I do want to point out that they ran on a campaign of having a plan already. The typical person would view such a statement as having a site and technology already in mind, not announcing a process after three months in office.
In a typical situation three months to announce a process would be okay. Considering we're being fined and that individuals will be forced to pump monthly (or more often) or face fines even larger than the pumping costs, it would seem that the CSD board would want to take quick action to build a sewer and plant. Without quick action it would seem that many residents will be forced to sell their homes at a loss, either to pay fines or to avoid paying fines.
Face it, this community was lied to by the current board during the campaigning period. They are making choices that will force many to move out of our community. They don't care about the "common man". The costs they are incurring are far greater than whatever the costs of the TriW plan would have been.
If you are a rich person and want to "move the plant out of town, no matter what the cost" you are happy with this board. All others should be outraged because we are going to have to pay considerably more just to move the plant.
If you care about pollution, you should also remember that this board is delaying solutions to the nitrate and saltwater intrusion problems and making expensive State Water far more likely.
I presume that your choice is to raise my costs because you don't care if I'll need to move out of Los Osos. Personally, I resent your "I've got mine, so screw you" attitude.
I'm sorry if you got a "screw you" impression. I was trying to keep the situation positive, upbeat, and hopeful. I own two small fixer uppers in Los Osos with some pretty hefty mortgages on them...and am not a wealthy person as my profession is a public schoolteacher. I've got mine...barely. I do feel strongly about planning for the future and taking care of our water supply. I think the new board will be better at doing this than the old board. And I don't know if it will cost more in the long run. If it does cost alot more I will be sorely disappointed.
For Inlet, The "plans" presented at the last CSD meeting, WERE available BEFORE the recall election. They've ALWAYS been available. In one form or another, the old CSD Board had them available for a look see. There'yre nothing new. They're in operation all over the place, ponds and oxidation ditches, and have been for years.
As for the "process," that proceeds from Measure B and is spelled out in the initiative. And, if Gail McPherson's perviously posted statement is right, the process must be legally adhered to -- you can't go out and buy land without a Prop 218 vote to get he assessment money to buy the land and etc, and you can't get the vote without first voting on a type of system and you don't know how much land to guy until you determine what type of plant you want & etc.
As for "affordibility," that study will be underway as soon as the RFP's put out. And, once again -- like a stuck record -- we do not know, even now, the "real" cost of Tri W. So it's hard to say, "more" when we don't know "more than WHAT?"
As for caring about the "common man," the previous Board made it clear by their failure to do an affordaibility study and refusal to put a spending cap on the project and basing the assessment district on the public project laws that basically say you can build any project for whatever cost so long as it's X% of the aggregate property value of the community, which, effectively meant, with the enormous property value of coastal proerty, that "Whe Sky's the Limit!" on price,that nobody -- NOBODY -- not the CC, not the RWQCB, not the SWB,not the CSD -- cared about the "common man." The Tri-W project was going to cost what it was going to cost and whatever that turned out to be, if you couldn't afford it. . . tough.
To make the blanket statement, nobody (especially CSD) cared what it was going to cost' is really about the most ignorant thing you've ever said, Ann. Keep to your questions. It shows an unbelievable amount of 'hubris' on your part.
Perhaps they cared enough about the cost to try to get it done as quick as possible to avoid inflationary and penal effects. Maybe it was a wrong decision, but it does not make it an uncaring decision. You take the cake.
Conducting an affordibility study DOES NOT mean that an affordable sewer can be had, whether it's conducted on income or property values.
As to the process stemming from Measure B, that's bunk. There's a process, and then there's Measure B, which has to be added to the process, that is if it's even legal.
There still is no plan, nor was there a plan. A plan is a specific list that will include every step taken to get a project constructed. There is none. There have only been bunch of 'ideas' presented.
Got news for you, there will never be a legal spending limit on this project. So long as the whole project is predicated on a legally enforceable discharge prohibition, the cost will be whatever it takes to meet that - hopefully it can be made as cheap as possible. And it doesn't mean it can't be done 'potentially' cheaper. Right now the cost is probably about $40/month, FOR NOTHING. I usually would not respond with some anger, but get off the high horse about whether this new board is more 'caring' than the old. Saying you care, doesn't necessarily mean your actions result in a better care.
Now I see why you usually only ask questions.
anonymous,
I apologize for using such harsh language. Perhaps you aren't wealthy. I just can't understand how those who are not wealthy can support the current board. The facts suggest that they have no hope of bringing in a project less expensive than the TriW project. Even if Ann herself insists we don't know the actual longterm costs of TriW, we do know the costs already announced. With inflation and the increase in interest rates due to losing the SRF (more on that in a bit), this new board will have to somehow find a plant that costs some $30-60M less than the TriW plan.
Considering the possibility of fines (past and future), lawsuits from contractors, owing the state some millions, it seems that we'll need to cut another $20-30M in costs from the TriW plan to break even cost-wise.
Considering the collection system was about half the total costs and that Lisa has already told us that step-steg likely won't save money, there is no way that this board will save us money. Not possible.
As to getting another SRF loan, I would suggest that defaulting on one loan and suing the SWRCB is not a good way to help us get another low interest loan in the future.
Do you really think that delaying a plant will lower nitrates far better than putting one in ASAP? As a community we currently have some 1-1.5M gallons of effluent draining into our leach fields every day. Five additional years of such will be more than 2 billion gallons of partially treated sewage. It's a gonna take many many years of a "perfect" plant to make up for the damage done to our water supply during the next five years. Saltwater is yet another issue. Quick action is environmentally sound. Delay to obtain a "better solution" is environmentally unsound.
I suspect that you will be disappointed with this board in the future once the new costs are announced. My question is if it does end up costing an arm and a leg (as opposed to the TriW plant which would just cost an arm) will you feel sad for those additional people who are forced out of Los Osos? Will you offer to pay my increased bills because you believed those campaigning on false promises in Sep05?
I've said it before and I'll say it again ... partly because Ann sometimes confuses me with people who like the previous board's plan. TriW has problems. All potential sited so. TriW, even with all its problems is still probably a far better location and solution than whatever "plan" the new guys are going to come up with. Not because it is a better plant, but because it can be done sooner and likely a whole lot cheaper than whatever the new guys come up with.
Dear Inlet, if you're really concerned about nitrate levels,at a CSD meeting (think it was after the recall, during a second report on the Cleath & Associates water report,the report showing that the overall average yearly nitrate levels for the entire community were 10.4, with the state allowable set at 10) I think I asked Mr. Miller, If we started a septic maintenence district, installed low-flow everything and de-watered some low lying areas to allow the spetics to work better in certain areas by increasing the distance to ground-wter, coupled with the moritorium, would that lower the overall nitrates to below the State level? And his answer was, Very Likely.
If you are searching for a relatively inexpensive way to lower nitrates right now, then I'd suggest the whole community consider what Mr. Miller said. The 10 nitrate level is still too high, but at least it would buy this community TIME to work on a better project.
The Irony is that IF such plans had been instituted back in 1998,(Which groups like CAWS were begging the county to do WHILE everyone fuddled around with sewer solutions) would the overall levels of nitrates have remained under that state limit? I'd have to say, very likely.
As for Publicworks denying my claim that the old CSD didn't care about cost, I will offer at least one example: The CSD voted to "save" about 5-6 million on sludge pressers and announced this happy "savings." I emailed Gordon and asked, "Uh, won't transporting wetter sludge eat up that "savings" in no time," and his reply was a cheerful, "Yes it will."
I'm sorry, but I think it's a fair claim to state that anybody who cheerfully moves 5 mil off a capital expense column and onto an ongoing O&M column, where it will simply increase with inflation and gas prices and etc. then publicly claims a "savings" gives a foodle about cost to the "common man." Sillier still, Gordon publicly said he couldn't in good conscience vote to move the plant out of town if it were to cost more (CC's guestimate 1 mil less to 5-6 million more) yet he had no trouble voting for a system that would, indeed eat up that 5-6 mil without a thought? (Consider, a 5-6 mil one-time capital cost to build out of town with (even Polhemus agreed) lower long term O&M costs, verus an ongoing 5-6 mil being eated up and passed forever and ever. Sorry, but that kind of thinking is feckless, vis a vis caring a foodle about the common man.)
Based on your perception about the sludge decision, I guess you're in agreement now with Shark and I that anyone who would otherwise delay a project and incur millions in inflation, new design, fines, and other costs is uncaring.
We've come full circle, in Ann's world both the old and new boards are uncaring! And she still has no project and no way discharging legally!
Okay,
Now you are saying that the previous board should have taken additional actions to lower the nitrates immediately. Fine. Where were they going to get the money to pay for low-flow toilets for everyone (about half a million dollars for each household to get exactly one at $100/each).
Pumping down the groundwater? How much would that cost? Who would pay for the regular septic work? How much would it cost?
Your temporary solutions are good ideas and in retrospect (now that we know that the current board would stop a project that would solve some of these issues) it would probably have been good to spend the money on such plans.
But you've neglected the key question here. If it will likely be more expensive for an out of town plant and if it will now take even longer to solve the problem (whoever caused it), how can you justify additional costs and delays?
I have yet to hear any compelling argument that increased costs and additional pollution is a good thing in this case. If you can show that the "best of all possible worlds" plant is so much cheaper and more efficient at eliminating nitrates I would be willing to trade some saltwater intrusion for the delay to get the better plant, but to me it seems that the idealized "out of town" plant has no ability to promise any benefit to our community other than it wouldn't be at TriW.
Suppose that the TriW plant could eliminate only 90% of the nitrates but that an out of town plant could eliminate a full 99%. In such a case it would take about 50 years of cleaning the sewage more efficiently to make up for a five year delay in building a plant. Isn't it pretty clear that a good plant today is far better than a slightly better one even five years from now? How Lisa can keep a straight face while telling us that she believes an out of town plant would be environmentally superior is beyond me.
How much is it worth to you to put it out of town? $10/month? $30? $50? $100? How much additional pollution are you willing to trade off for the ideal solution? Is 500 million gallons of partially treated sewage okay with you? A billion?
I don't ask these questions rhetorically. I want to know what you think on these issues, Ann.
Myself, I would be willing to pay some $10-20 more per month to have an out of town plant but only if it could be done with only a 2-3 year delay.
If someone else wants to pay more and to pollute the water just to have their favorite location, I say that they and not I should have to pay the associated costs ... for fines, for state water, for the higher cost of the plant, for everything.
An interesting observation I'd like to make concerns what Ann said:
"As for caring about the "common man," the previous Board made it clear by their failure to do an affordaibility study and refusal to put a spending cap on the project and basing the assessment district on the public project laws that basically say you can build any project for whatever cost so long as it's X% of the aggregate property value of the community, which, effectively meant, with the enormous property value of coastal proerty,
Helooo, It is a well known fact that only about 7% of the residents in this county could afford to buy a home here.
Dose it not strike you as odd that property values should have anything to do with affordaibility?
I can see it being used where property values change little, but I fail to see any logical connection between our housing costs (one of the highest in the USA) and our aggregate incomes, Not one of the highest in the state,
just wondering
Here's my question ... if we are mandated to build the damn thing and cost is not part of the mandate, what would an affordabiltiy study tell us? That some people would have to move out of town if they would have to pay bills of $200/month? Any dang fool could figure that out.
Here's an interesting question ... if new new group takes an extra five years to put in a sewer and plant over what it would have been with TriW it would seem that the costs will be higher. If the costs are higher but we have an affordability study to tell us that "for sure" are we any better off?
I would argue that one can most effectively care for the "common man" by making sure that the common man's bills are as low as possible.
Does running up bills on the CSD's tab help us? Are we any closer to having a sewer than we were on Oct 3?
I can't figure out how this current board can claim to stand for us little guys when they take actions which will raise our bills higher and higher, all the while saying it will cost us less.
Ann continually makes the point that the solutions group obscured the actual costs to get into office. How is this group any different? They knew full well that we could not keep the SRF and that we would be fined and that the "alternative technologies" they're promoting (like step-steg) are not acceptable solutions.
When you further consider that each year of delay just adds further pollution (perhaps 5 Billion gallons) into our environment it just makes no sense.
Hell, if they even had presented a nascent plan rather than "first we'll get a list of sites then we'll do a feasibility study then we'll ..." it would have been nice.
Give us the list of sites. Tell us who you've contracted to do the feasibility study. Take some action, don't just sit around and sue the state government because they gave you money you asked for before the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed.
Inlet mentions that he'd be willing to pay 10 - 20$ more per month if an out of town site could be built in 2 -3 years. Wasn't that the "compromise" plan that Darrin Polhemus & the Negotiation Team That Wasn't Negotiating came up with, the plan the new CSD Board voted to agree to but the State inserted what was basically a poison pill and so killed the deal? If that plan was something Inlet could support, he sure must have been disappointed by the State Water Board saying, Pfffftttt and dumping it. (I still maintain that if the SWB & RWQCB had wanted that compromise, it would have been done. Call me cynical, but that's what I believe.)
As for Mike's comment about attaching infrastructure costs to real estate property, that's one of the terrible problems with coastal property. AT one time, when real estate value actually meant something, and had a real-world connection to income, for example, such a system made sense. Now it's totally out of whack with reality. I mean, if you took the aggregate realestate value for the entire prohibition zone for example, then any sewer built could be piped with gold pipe and diamond spigots and STILL not top the allowed percentage -- $500 a month? $1,000 a month? No problem. (Mutiply the median home price of about, what? $600,000 x the # of homes in the prohibition zone x 15%, I think, and that should give you the allowed cost for this project. Yikes!)
Yes the "negotiations" could have resulted in moving the plant out of town if it could be done quickly enough. (Whether two years was a realistic thing for the CSD to agree to is another matter, I would suggest that if it took seven years to get to construction at TriW it would take no less than half that to get to construction out of town ... thus we would lose the SRF if we insisted on something other than Tri ... according to the deal the CSD was willing to sign on to.)
As to whether the state dumped the deal or not, I prefer to think it this way. The CSD offered something, the state said "no thanks but we've got a counter offer that will allow you to keep the SRF" and the CSD said "well, that doesn't work for us." The CSD offer put the SWRCB at financial risk should default have occured. The solution was to include a temporary bond in their counter offer so that their position is covered. The fact that the CSD couldn't find the money to pay for the bond isn't the state's problem. Perhaps had the board not acted so quickly they wouldn't have messed this one up.
The other issue is the site. The LOCSD applied for SRF funds to build at TriW. If they want to significantly change that plan they need to get the state to sign off on their changes first (it's in the contract, read it). We didn't do that. We simply asserted that we have a right to move the plant some two miles and perhaps even change the entire nature of the plant and collection system. The state replied by telling us that they wouldn't approve of such changes now. If we would like to redesign and reapply they would consider funding the new project.
The problem is that the LOCSD was counting on using the SRF money (given to us to build at TriW) to design an another plant so that they didn't have to come to us with a 218 vote asking for an additional $20M (or $20/month for 20 years) to design a new site.
The ousted boardmembers were, in my opinion, unwise to start construction before the vote. For one reason, we're now deeper in debt than we would have been had a recall occured but construction not started. (Shoot, I even believe that the recall would not have passed had they not started construction.)
In any case, even if the previous board messed up on some things, the current board has messed up pretty much everything. Again, in the long run we'll see what the damage is and perhaps we can even assess blame in a way where we all agree. Until then, we've each got to do what we think is wisest to help Los Osos solve the pollution problem.
Can they do it out of town for only $20 more per month? I doubt it, but if they can pull it off, I'll be pleased.
So Ann, what level of additional cost would you feel is acceptable to achieve the benefit of a plant you prefer? What level of additional pollution is worth having just to have an "environmentally preferable" plant? Certainly if it costs no more and we wouldn't have any pollution until the better plant is put in, the choice is a no-brainer. If it would run $500/month and it would take the better plant 100 years to eliminate the additional pollution (relative to the TriW plant) it is also a no brainer.
Where do you stand?
Ann said;
As for Mike's comment about attaching infrastructure costs to real estate property, that's one of the terrible problems with coastal property.
What if it could be an asset?
I know this may sound stupid, but , what if-
every property owner "sells" to the CSD, a 5% cut of the sale of their home if and when they sell?
I hope someone can help me with the calculations, Sharkey?
In effect. Giving the CSD 5% of their property value, real equity.
Would this result in a better loan rate since its now fully secure?
just wondering
To Inlet, asking ME what I'd be willing to pay over and above the supposed cost of Tri W is a waste of time. First, as I've said until I'm blue in the face, I don't know the real cost of Tri-W so I can't say what "more" actually would be. It's possible that the "real" cost of Tri W (if we knew it) would already bump it out of almost everybody's range so the question remains moot. However, the community should have been given a real choice in the matter years ago and is something I've been whining about for years: Let's have what the CC asked for but didn't have the guts to actually get: A chinese menu of REAL costs between Plan X and Plan Y.
As for infrastructure improvements being a liability versus a benefit. They've always been looked at as a beneit. In most communties, for example, houses on sewers cost more than those still on septics, so, long term, the property value goes up.
The problem here is that the real connection between property value and "real" money (i.e. income, for example) is out of whack. In a "Normal" world, house prices were related to income and general cost of living. The banker could afford to live in a nicer, pricier house than the grocery clerk. Nowadays, the banker may not be able to afford to live anywhere while the grocery clerk, who bought years ago, may be financially fragile (cash-flow-wise) but is sitting on a HUGE pile of capital. Of course, to access that capital, you'd have to sell and move out of town . . . something facing a good number of our fellow Los Ososians because of the monthly cost of the sewer.
Okay Ann,
Let's try this a different way. Suppose that we know as a fact that the real monthly cost for TriW is $230. Even if this number is incorrect, we can still tackle the hypothetical.
Would you be willing to pay $250 for the benefit of out of town? $300? More? The question in my mind isn't as much about how much you are willing to pay total as to how much extra it would be worth to you to have the location you prefer. Hell, if I had my way, the LOCSD plant would be in SLO but I'm not willing to pay an extra $50/month to get it that far away.
As to the amount of partially treated sewage, there is no argument that delay is good. To those who care about the environment (some guy named Joey, perhaps) they cannot concieve of an additional delay of 3 or more years as being acceptable.
The point here is that all of life is a trade off. With your chinese menu idea we would get just that ... The problem is that this menu doesn't show the prices, just a guess as to how much one might pay for the food. In some cases the price ranges are pretty wide.
Reagarding the chinese menue not offering prices. What we got with Tri-W was a menu with hidden charges and a guestimate on price and told -- that's it, you can't leave it so youl'll take it and we'll let you know LATER what it'll cost and continue to cost and if you can't pay, tough.
And that's acceptable to you? Not me.
Ann,
On the one hand you are complaining that we were asked to make a choice for TriW without knowing the costs but on the other you were advocating moving to another site without knowing the costs of either.
We'll never know the full costs of all possible projects. We can, however, get a pretty good guesstimate of some costs and a vague idea of others. Perhaps basing our decision on the avilable information is the best we'll be able to do.
Along those lines, we have a pretty good idea of how much TriW will cost (at least in comparrison to the costs of the out of town project that hasn't even made it onto the drawing board yet). There may be some future costs that are "hidden".
Any reasonable analysis I've seen shows pretty quickly that the costs of the out of town "solution" will be higher. As I've said before, it is only if there is some sort of unlikely cosmic allignment of the heavens that the out of town plant costs would be lower.
We don't know exactly how much, but we are 99% sure it will be more and it seems like there is a 50% liklihood that the costs will be at least $50/month more.
In this situation where we need to make decisions in a place of imperfect knowledge you make choices that seem most likely to be best (least polluting, cheapest, whatever). In this case, TriW was better than Andre and still is. The additional pollution and likely out of town costs are huge.
Once the favored "out of town" site is chosen and priced out allong with two other options, would you be in favor of including comparable cost estimates of TriW in the comparrison chart given out to each voter? Of course this should be done in a fair way (dollars per month, not total project cost before inflation). I would and I would argue that we should be given the choice of TriW along with other options.
We'll see how open to the public will this CSD is when they release their comparrison of sites (which they've not even really started yet). We'll see if they'll let us choose TriW in a vote.
Having side by side comparisons of, say, step/steg, gravity, Tri W & out of town will only happen if the Measure B is modified to allow for an in-town site vote and that won't happen anytime soon in court but could happen if the TaxpayerWatch group would get out with an initiative to change or modify Measure B and get it on the ballot. Instead, they're out there trying to disolve the CSD, as if that'll speed things up? I dont' get that, either.
Wrong again Ann. "only happen if the Measure B is modified ..."? C'mon, think a little more than that. Are you sure you are being accurate in your assesment? Does Measure B preclude an in-town site? Where do you get this stuff?
My understanding is the group is totally opposed to it, why would they even want to modify it? The board can put it on the ballot to modify it, you can start an initiative to modify it, shark can , I can.
You know, I can see why you like to use the questioning mode when you scribe. It's easier and never puts you in a position of being challenged.
If for no other reason, the current board would want to include TriW in any comparrison just so that we can clearly see what our choice (on Measure B) and their choice (to stop construction) has meant.
Furthermore, if Measure B really does prevent a TriW plant, the citizens need to know if a ballot proposition to ammend Measure B would be a good idea.
To not provide us information about the costs of TriW versus other possibilities is to limit our choices, somthing this board has said they oppose. If they stand behind their words they'll allow us to see what TriW would "really" cost. If they don't they're no better than the previous group who presumably was opposed to public input.
I almost agree with you about Taxpayer's Watch and the choice to ammend Measure B versus dissolving the CSD but they may already be convinced that any CSD will be unable to get the job done because of the division within our community.
Once again, I'm missing something here. The costs of TRI W are a given, a known quanity, nothing hidden there except for guestimated O&M&R and deferred costs & etc. When the other systems are costed out, TriW will be sitting there as a known for comparison.
As for repealing Measure B or re-writing a new initiative that would remove a specific in-town ban component but require a Prop 218 vote, etc. instead of going to court, wouldn't a quicker way be to get people to sign a new petition, put it on the ballot and off you go?
But Ann,
The TriW costs will change as time goes by. The project (may) need a slight redesign to accomplish new project goals, the job would need to be re-bid, etc.
It would seem that the courts are the most efficient method of changing things. Hell, there still is confusion about what Measure B actually means.
If I actually got an "anti B" measure on the ballot (6 months minimum) and it passed, don't you think that CASE and the current board would fight it in the courts?
Nope, ballot propositions are a last resort.
If you got a ballot measure, uh, on the ballot and CASE tried to block it before the election, as the old CSD did, they'd lose big time and get pots of settlement money.
Depending on how it was written, why would you think it would be opposed? What Measure B was all about was 1) not wanting a sewer plant in the middle of town if there were any reasonable alternative, and 2) wanting the ability to vote on what and where and how much. If those choices had been presented to the community waaaaaaay back in 2002, when it was clear the Ponds of Avalon were doomed, when the CSD could STILL have done a serious, honest in-town, out of town comparison (without the phony "strongly held community value" and other hidden agenda phony-ing up the comparisons) then presented the results of both studies to the community for a vote, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. That's the tragedy of this whole thing. None of it was necessary.
Some say that the CSD did a serious study comparing all in-town and out-of-town options and that is why they ended up with TriW.
Some say that they did not.
I guess it may be a matter of perspective of what is meant by the word "serious" in this context and whether the park played a central role in the decision for TriW.
There certainly is no convincing some people. If there was a serious look at all possibilities, I would not expect someone from CCLO to believe that there was because they are so biased that they could not admit that anything the previous board had done was right. Similarly, some of the dreamers are so biased that they cannot admit that the in-town site is anything less than dreamy.
I live in the real world. I pay real bills. I would suggest that when the CCC says (in 2002, 2004 and 2005) that TriW is the best choice of location, that it actually is. Moving forward to the solution with the lowest possible bill is the best idea.
Ron claims that the LOCSD lied to the CCC about the potential out of town sites. The CCC documents state both that TriW is better than "Andre" because the best solution is largely the quickest solution and because we don't even know that "Andre" would even be feasible. They furthermore say that they don't believe that charges that the LOCSD lied to the CCC are reasonible.
The CCC documents show that TriW is better.
If you can produce a single document showing otherwise I would love to read it.
To me it seems that there was thorough study of all the possibilities and now that the new group is in charge they want to start that whole process all over ... but only after first excluding TriW.
This new group is more interested in getting their way than in doing what is best for the people of our community or even what the people want. Take a poll. See whether people in this community want to have to pay pumping charges for the next four years just to study a solution that will cost us more than TriW will.
Instead of a poll, why not start an initiative to repeal Measure B?
A poll would be far quicker and less expensive than a repeal Measure.
Furthermore, with the results of such a poll, perhaps this board could follow the will of the people.
If this board is ready to spend a hundred thousand dollars (at least that's in the right price range) for a study of all possible alternatives and their claim that the cheapest site should not be allowed because of that is "what the people want" they should take this opportunity to check.
To refuse to spend $10-20k on a poll is simply silly. If spending $20k on a poll allows the CSD to save $10M or more on the total costs it would seem a worthwhile expenditure.
How is it again that a poll of the people would be a bad thing? How is it again that finding out what people really feel will be bad for our community? I don't get it.
Let me even suggest the poll questions.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement "the TriW site near the park and center of town is unacceptable as a location for the LOCSD WWTF?" (I.e. TriW should be "off the table.")
and
If using the TriW site for a WWTF could save money versus other alternative WWTF alternatives, would you support building the WWTF at TriW?
with a follow up question of How much lower (per month) would your sewer bill need to be before you think that TriW would be a better choice, when compared to your ideal alternative?.
If these three questions were answered by our citizens the CSD would have some guidance from the people who could re-elect them or can them this coming Fall.
I would hazard a guess that some 30% would say that TriW should be off the table, some 80% would say that TriW should be pursued if cheaper and that a $10/month savings would justify pursuing TriW. (Yeah, I know the numbers don't add up ... it's still mu guess.)
Post a Comment