Hell Just Froze Over
All during the Hideous Sewer Wars here in Los Osos, people kept asking me, “When is the Tribune gonna wake up, do its homework, ask the right questions and then and connect the dots?”
My reply always was, “Oh, probably when Hell freezes over.”
Well, grab your mukluks, there’s ice on all our potholes and sump pumps. In its February 19th editorial, the Tribune apparently realized that the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s mad scheme to first target 45 random homeowners, drag them through the trauma and confusion of a Cease & Desist Hearing in order to iron out all the bugs they’re now encountering because they don’t have their ducks in a row and are winging this mess, then go after all the property owners in the whole prohibition zone, is utter insanity.
Not to mention unfair to the original 45 since they’re being singled out to experiment on during the CDO hearings. Plus, it’s all so totally unnecessary. Which is why the Tribune is urging “. . . the Regional Water Quality Control Board to join forces with the Community Services District and work with Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee to expedite [septic] maintenance district legislation. It’s a move in the right direction – and it’s fair.”
Well, good for the Tribune. Now, maybe they can dig a little deeper into the history of the RWQCB’s track record vis a vis “fair” enforcement for Los Osos, starting with the birth of the CSD and the RWQCB’s own infamous 1998 Solutions Group report that the folks running the campaign for the formation of the CSD (Faster! Better! Cheaper!) knew about before the elections were held to form the CSD … but the community did not. And so forth. Maybe if the Tribune did a nice series on that and all the other weirdiosities involved with the sewer projects, people out here might have a better understanding as to why this sewer train went off the tracks.
In the meantime, Thanks Trib. Now, where did I put my muffler and mittens? I’m gonna write a letter to my State Senator Abel Maldonado at 1356 Marsh St, SLO 93401 and a letter to Celeste Cantu, head of the State Water Resources Control Board, PO Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812. I suggest, if you live in Los Osos, you do the same. Ask them to join State Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee in getting emergency legislation through that would enable the CSD to form a Septic Maintenance District which can then deal with nitrate reduction mitigation in a sane, coherent, effective, scientifically sound manner.
On a slightly different note, in an email from David Boardwater and the Center for Sludge Information, on February 28th, the SLO County Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing and vote on policy regarding the land application of sewage sludge. The Board’s decision will affect local farmers, the environment and the public’s health. The Public Health Dept has recommended that the Board extend the Interim Moratorium Ordinance on sewage sludge land application for four years. This would maintain the caps on land application, giving SLO County time to develop a more permanent and comprehensive ordinance governing sewage sludge land application. For more information contact CSI (csi@thegrid.net.)
Why is this meeting important? When our sewer plant is built, we’ll end up with sludge that has to go somewhere. More and more counties are limiting the amount of the stuff that can be spread on fields for ag use. This means that disposal throughout the state will be getting more and more limited, with disposal costs skyrocketing, which means the County(and Los Osos) needs time to develop alternate strategies for treating and dealing with stuff all of us are creating every day when we flush the toilet..
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(179)
-
▼
February
(14)
- Sewer Phreaks might want to check out a new postin...
- For SewerPhreaks, please go back to the main page ...
- Stood UpWell, dang! I’m sitting here perusing the ...
- Hell Just Froze OverAll during the Hideous Sewer W...
- Gone MissingA Los Ososian made a comment at the la...
- On A Wing And A Prayer . . . Oh, Wait, We Forgot T...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons The Bay News, Morro Bay, CAfor...
- Does Mother Calhoun Have To Explain It All To you,...
- Onsite Wastewater Treatment Info – a must read for...
- Secret Society.The Tribune, bless them, filed a Ca...
- Speaking of Strongly Held Community Values . . .So...
- TreeManIt’s déjà vu all over again. Cindy Sheehan ...
- Strongly Held Community Value? We don' know 'nutt...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay New, Los Osos, CA For...
-
▼
February
(14)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
83 comments:
What a wonderful way to start the week,
The Trivial becomes a real (sort of) newspaper.
And Satan is taking a bus to Florida!
Somebody pinch me, I'm still asleep.
The real question is, will the Water Gods listen?
Pay very close attention!
If it saves Face, and enhances their revenue stream, They might.
I'm not holding my breath too hard.
This proposal is entirely too logical & not nearly punitive enough for us defiers of Their Word.
I believe that the thrust of the trib's article was about AB885 which is focused on On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems which applies to 1/2 acres and up. I don't believe this would apply to the prohibition zone which are much smaller lots. I also think I read that even if all the 4800 septics were functioning normally, we would still be polluting the estuary. Does any one have more explicit knowledge on this?
The Trib's article had nothing to do with AB885.
It has to do with resurrecting the yearly failure to approve a Septic Management District
I also think I read that even if all the 4800 septics were functioning normally, we would still be polluting the estuary. Does any one have more explicit knowledge on this?
Please download the Morro Bay National Estuary programs report on the health of the bay...
What would one mean by a Los Osos septic system "functioning normally"? Think Mitchell Drive or Pasadena. Those septics are so close to the bay that any seepage pit or leach field they have will be mixed with bay water below the ground level. During rainy season when the soil is pretty much soaked, the pollutants will enter the bay. During the dry season the saltwater intrusion tends to cause the flow to be from the bay toward the center of town and the impact the leach field on the bay will be reduced.
Essentially there is no such thing as a septic system "functioning normally" in Los Osos because we have far too many of them to be able to count on them working correctly and becuase we don't have enough soil between the leach field and the groundwater for them to work correctly, even if there were the right number per acre.
That is why we needs a sewer and a disposal mechanism that will most effectively recharge the aquifer. TriW/Broderson would have been a good thing, on the balance. Pissing into the wind and hoping for no blowback is not wise.
We are deemed to be polluting regardless of whether the Septic is functioning 'normal' or not.
The discharges are in violation of the prohibition from the Basin Plan. It means all discharges, whether the tank is round, square, triangular, above ground, below ground, on the roof, has a filter, is only carrot juice, you name it.
Legal challenge to it has come and gone.
The only way around it is to have the RWQCB change the discharge prohibition or pray (a lot) for a different result with a different court challenge. The law hasn't changed as far as I know, so unless the facts substantially have, a court challenge would seem to go nowhere.
Does anyone know whether or not a septic maintenance program (or district or whatever its called) would in fact help with the nitrate problem? If so, that seems like the obvious answer to hold the RWQCB at bay (no pun intended - ha!) until we get going on the last best final project.
Of course, it should help some, since leaky tanks would be inspected and repaired.
But practically, it doesn't matter now whether there's a Septic District, the RWQCB is now officially requiring inspection/repairs of tanks as part of their enforcement.
It really is a little hilarious to see all the clamoring for a Septic District. Imagine how some people are going to feel once they've forked over a couple of thousand dollars for only a few years use until a plant comes on-line.
I was curious about getting some information. I wouldn't call it "clamoring." Oh well. I can tell by my attitude that I need to give this a rest. Bye.
I'm sorry new anon that you got the full front (or backside) from these two posters. Backing each others play post after post, constantly spinning and bullying, saying the stupidest stuff all of the time. Believe it or not you can get some good information from the LOCSD as well, they aren't demons with horns, much less incompetent than might be imagined from the rantings you see here. Inlet and verks will be all over this post directly, puffing and spewing, constant as taxes or a small part of an organised propaganda effort. They are tolerated here in the name of free speech, which is part of what Publikverks calls "founding father crud". Ann is a fine journalist, as is Ron Crawford. But with these signal jammers at full volunme you've gotta turn up the gain. Oh boy, better head for cover...here they come again! This time expect their tone to be contrite, self rightous, with a dash of the pugnacious. Add a little conflation & presto!
Dogpatch, I hear you Bro'.
Could you be a little more specific about what you disagreed with?
Tell me, specifically who did I just bully? Tell me, exactly which piece of information is incorrect? Really, is the prohibition zone not a reality? Does the Basin Plan not exist? Is it not the basis for actions the RWQCB is taking?
Hey, if the course of action that you want to pursue is just to sue the living daylights out of the WaterBoard and appeal until it gets to Clarence Thomas with the hope that something good will come out it - just come out and say it. That I could respect.
I'll tell you what Bro', if you can cite a legal precedant where the water board lost a prohibition discharge enforcement case which forced them to rescind it, I'll be yelling for the CSD to sue at full strength. The balls in your court.
Hey, it's Ann's blog - and she said she wanted debate - so do it for her. I'm with you, let's keep the CSD on the right track.
C'mon Bro, pony up. If I'm wrong, I'll say so. In fact, I like to know when I'm wrong. One can never stop trying to learn.
Excuse me, better go amp up the generators on the loudspeakers.
Yes I agree with Shark. Mitchell and Pasadena folks are the worst polluters and should be given their C & O first. Doesn't this make more sense than the random sample? Maybe the people with the big buckaleros who pollute the most should pay first before those of us without the resources are hit. Oh wait. I forgot. Now I'm a communist with Mao's little red book to guide me. I must go now and don my white robe for the next meeting...gosh all I wanted was an affordable sewer...must be some kind of counterculture hippie...
I'm a little confused by Dogpatch Refuge's last post. I read it several times (and I am not Shark or Public Works) but nothing refuted the premise that the prohibition zone septics are in violation of the Basin Plan (functioning or not) and have been legally adjudicated as such. If you want people to support your viewpoint give us something to challenge their premis.
I'm sure that Ron and Ann are fine perople and what little I've read are entertaining writers. But how will this help us pay the forthcoming costs?
anonymous,
If you had wanted an affordable sewer you should have voted against the formation of the CSD, against Julie and Lisa and against the recall and measure B. In each of these cases we had people telling us they would save us money but actually raising our costs.
Oh, by the way, Dogpatch is quite reasonable when he's not ranting. Ignore the most recent rant of his and you'll see.
By the way, blogwatchn seems to be pretty well aware. My question is whether she can explain again why Julie and Lisa voted against things they actually support. How, exactly, did AB2506's not inclusion of the PZ make it a bad bill and what, exactly, did Julie and Lisa not like about the disposal site?
Watch out anonymous,
If you dare voice an opinion over here that disagrees with that of Dogpatch, Ann and most of the other anonymous posters you are running the risk of being castigated for asking simple questions...
Dear Anon, I like the cut of your jib, Please take the time to get a name, I dissagree with publickworks and Sharkey lots of times! Yet we are cordial, dare I say, friends. I also very much enjoy reading Dogpatch, pure intensity and conviction and right on lots of the time.
Also please avail yourself of all the archives and especialy the comment sections- you will learn a lot, If you have already done that then please excuse my diatribe.
Welcome
Blogwatchn,
Is there a way for you to print the resolution passed by the CSD last year on the STMP? I'd like to see the resolution and see where it discusses the prohibition zone.
Dear blogwatchn,
I too, would like to hear from someone besides the TRIBUNE ( I didn't call them the Trivial this time as a reward for the last article) That the cost of a STMP would be born equaly between all residents of Los Osos and not just the folks in the PZ.
I think it could work.
I dont think that the money spent on such a program is totaly lost because it dose not build a sewer.
It builds confidence in our abilty to pay for sewage treatment for one thing.
It will help with pollution.
And it will certainly buy time.
Shark Inlet said...
anonymous,
If you had wanted an affordable sewer you should have voted against the formation of the CSD, against Julie and Lisa and against the recall and measure B.
Sharky there you go again...
I did vote against the formation of the CSD... but how do the rest of your suggestions deliver an affordable sewer.
The sewer became unaffordable in 1999. Voting against Lisa, Julie, Measure B and the recall would have never made it affordable, it was too late.
I know, I know your going to counter with the same old line, "its only getting more expensive"... I don't care!!! Once it reached unaffordability in 1999 it didnt matter how much MORE expensive it got.
Its like buying a house. You find a nice two bedroom unit on 10th street that you can just squeek by with making the payments... but then you spend years debating over whether you should get the $2 million house on Rodman, or the $3.4 million mansion on Pecho overlooking Estero Bay.
Do I care which one is more expensive. No, I can't afford either.
Voting against the recall GUARANTEED an unaffordable project... at least now we have a chance at something affordable... that Im willing to argue about.
Join us instead of fighting us and maybe we can save even more.
Shark Inlet said...
why Julie and Lisa voted against things they actually support. How, exactly, did AB2506's not inclusion of the PZ make it a bad bill and what, exactly, did Julie and Lisa not like about the disposal site?
Sharky, is playing dumb... s/he knows the answers to his/her questions.
As stated above the recalled three proposed an amendment to remove the Coastal Commission from the table. At the time they were witholding the CDP. Of course Lisa and Julie voted against that.
As for the disposal site, we all want a recharge site... and the design of Broderson does not do that efficiently... look at the harvest wells in the plans and see where that water comes from and where it goes.
to New anon: Exactly, it cost too much back in 99. It doesn't matter whether you are drowning in 8 feet of water or a hundred feet of water, particularly if all you needed to do in the first place is wash off your feet.
Publikverks: you ain't my bro.
Big MG: thanks for the kind words.
Think people think...At least 172 million dollars give or take. Show me the real damage being done right now ASAP must buid it NOW at TRI W damn the recall election, measure B, shady contracts, soft science, etc, that makes this worth that much money plus a town literally torn to pieces. Hundreds of millions of dollars!! So out of propotion that it is almost a self satire. If this is ranting, I'm going to keep at it.
Of course others hereabouts are always so ratonal and considerate.
Hypocrasy is the greatest luxury, Raise the double standard...
I have an idea, Lets call all anons by the last two words they write
Therfore the last two are
"Even more" and
"It goes"
anonymous (the one who was discussing affordability),
You have an interesting perspective. In essence you are saying that you voted for the recall because you feel that you could not afford the $200/month payments the previous board was saying you're going to have to pay for sure as a price to live in Los Osos. Here's a question ... if those recall candidates running on a "we can do it for less than $100/month" platform were only offering up campaign promises and hopes but actually can't manage to get the bill below $200/month, you are not any worse off than before. However, many of your neighbors will be. What about those who could afford $200 but cannot afford $300? If, by your optimistic vote, you caused the bill to go up to $300 it is you, along with the board you elected who has brought pain on others who cannot afford it.
I can respect your decision because it makes sense to me (do what is necessary to lower your total costs if at all possible) but please recognize that there are many who view this as a community-wide issue and want the bill to be the lowest possible because the lower it is, the more people will be able to afford it.
I would think that for me $100/month seems "unaffordable" but somehow I could probably manage to figure out how to pay $200/month by cutting my food budget a bit but more than $300/month will cause me to go into debt to pay my monthly bills.
One way I was considering this past election is if there was about a 5% chance that election would lower our bills, a 10% chance that it would not change our bills a 10% chance that the bills would go up by $50, a 50% chance that the bills would go up by $100 and a 25% chance that the bills would double ... while there is a small chance that we would end up saving money, it is highly likely that we'll end up paying more. With odds like that it is pretty clear that one should not bet.
Anonymous,
Now that's a great argument. You simply can't expect someone to vote for something they simply can't afford.
We're already in for about $40/month. So the question is, how do we make it $110/month (to keep the bill at $150/month), or $60/month (to keep the bill at $100/month). Wishing it so ain't gonna make it happen.
If the RWQCB refuses to allow anything more than 7mg/l Nitrates, how is that going to happen?? Is or can the RWQCB be foreced h to allow some modified discharge requirements, plain and simple. Now, why would they do that now, when they wouldn't 6 years ago?
Any answers?
Lisa and Julie were not on the board in 2004 so they could not have voted against it then.
Let me ask everyone, if you could remove the Coastal Commission from the table for this project, would you do it?? I just though we heard about unaffordibilty. Has the Coastal Commission in it's 30+ year history ever made anything cost less?? Go ask the people up in Cambria about whether the Coastal Commission increases or decreases the costs. Hell, go ask the people in Los Osos.
Um Sharkey, I ranted long ago about the possibility of always voting for delay as a possibly good idea.
Remember "The Wizards of Glacial Review?
"
But, it is a good point.
At what depth do you drown?
Dogpatch ... your drowning analogy is wrong.
It doesn't matter whether the science is shady, the damage is fake and the cost is already too high ... We are living in a prohibition zone. Simply put, you are not allowed to have any discharges from your septic system ... at all ... this has been true since the 1980s.
The time to argue about the science of the prohibition zone was back then.
The only reason that things are out of proportion is that we have been delaying a sewer for years. Had we chosen to go ahead with developing a sewer in the late 70s it the bill would have been less than $30/month. Is this the fault of the RWQCB? No. Is this the fault of the County? No. Anyone but the residents of Los Osos? No.
Should the RWQCB choose to overlook yet another Los Osos refusal to build a sewer (at least the third or fourth in the last 30 years)? It seems that they reviewed the Los Osos CSD situation during the ACL hearings and concluded that our CSD doesn't really have a plan that will achieve the goal of eliminating nitrates (and other nasties) within any reasonable timeframe. The Los Osos lawyer even argued that individual CnD orders was a reasonable way for the RWQCB to achieve their goals. Why the heck not?
Back to your analogy. We are already some 50 yards out to sea and we've been tthere treading water for about ... um 20 years. We want to be on dry land. Should we just tread water until we've studied the situation long enough to figure the best of all possible ways to head to land or should we trust what we've learned over the last 20 years and start swiming to shore now?
Uh Sharkey, was that last one for me? I must have lost the thread.
I couldn't find Doggie drowning anybody.
Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Thanks
anonymous (who is talking about AB2506),
I am not playing dumb. If you think I am just acting, you probably think you know who I am and if you do let me be the first to assure you that you don't.
Give us the details of AB2506 and explain slowly and carefully why it was a bad bill ...
I gather from what you write that you wanted CCC oversight of the LOCSD WWTF. Why would remvoing the CCC be such a bad thing. One of the reasons this is so long and expensive is that the County/CCC and state waterboards (two versions) are all involved. If any group could be eliminated it could go far quicker.
By the way, how the heck could the LOCSD dictate to the Assembly what the terms of the deal would be? Wouldn't Abel and the state legislature get to make that decision?
As for the disposal site, I have no idea of how that plays any role in AB2506. Please explain.
Furthermore, you claim that Broderson is not the best of all possible disposal systems. What could you suggest that would be only slightly more expensive but far better or cheaper but no worse? Doesn't the Cleath study even cite Broderson as the best possible site for aquifer recharge if we're going to pick one site? If you want many sites, we're talking considerable cash.
Certainly it doesn't sound like the three new guys will be able to live up to their campaign promise of sewer bills for less than $100/month. Probably it was just campaign rhetoric. (If it wasn't, we've elected people who are fools and have no idea of the difficulties they signed on to face. If it was just rhetoric, we've elected liars who knew in advance they could never deliver. And you're not allowed to take me to task for this paragraph unless you first take Ron and Ann to task for the exact same issue.) Maybe they were just being hopeful and optimistic. Unfortunately people voted for them because they claimed to have a plan that would cut our bills in half. I do have to admit that such rhetoric probably got them a whole lot of votes. At least one from our anonymous friend above. Had they said "well, we're going to move the sewer but it will end up costing you more ... maybe $100/month more" I don't think they would have been so successful.
The politics of the Prohibition Zone and the science of the Prohibition Zone certainly should be argued now. The Prohibition Zone as policy is a very pertinent subject. So the people of Los Osos, and not the County were responsible for following the edicts of the Water Board prior to the CSD's formation? Then from 1998(?)-2004 Solutions Group version of the LOCSD wasn't any kind of responsible, a little tiny bit maybe, for the situation during those years. However, now, the current new board, duly elected during a recall election in 9/05 and further charged with a majority vote of Measure B, commit to policy based on their campaign promises, and become the root of all failure in less than 6 months in office. Actually, the failure is again with the citizens of Los Osos themselves, all because they don't appreciate the importance of living in a Prohibition Zone. Wow.
Dogpatch,
I fully agree with your most recent comment. Very insightful. The previous CSD board, the current CSD board and especially the people of Los Osos are all to blame.
"The truth is no project ever was affordable... So had that sewer been proposed when a loaf of bread cost (for Ron...according to the CPI) $0.54 and the sewer bill been $107 per month, of course it would have been rejected. It was as absurd then as it is today. Downtown is dumb!". Yes.
Snarkie thinks I think like they do. They can do facetious funny. Wow. I wish I had an editorial staff...
Blogwatchn,
You seem to be saying that Julie and Lisa didn't support the version that would allow the LOCSD to determine that pumped septage would end up being trucked to Santa Maria or at the TriW plant. Confirm. Furthermore, why didn't you write that right up front? Even furthermore, what's wrong with the CSD getting to determine where the septage goes?
I just don't get it why you need to write about such an important matter in such a confusing way. Hell, if I don't understand what you mean it is likely that most others reading here don't have a clue either. Perhaps if you pull your head out of the shorthand details you sewer-flacks have you can explain it to the rest of us.
As to affordability ... back in the 80s we would have ended up paying some three times the amount other communities were paying. Actually makes sense because even with grants we would have to pay some of the costs of putting in the sewer and WWTF. Even so, three times the amount others are paying today would be abso-effin-lutely wonderful. Even so, we chose another path and are now faced with huge bills.
Simply hoping that we can lower the bill by some magic won't get it done. If we define $100/month as unaffordable, doesn't it seem that $200 would be even more unaffordable and $300 even moreso? If $200/month is too expensive for our residents, doesn't it seem that promising the costs will be lowered by moving the sewer will win some votes, even if the costs will actually go up? Did John, Steve and Chuck run on a lie? If this CSD's choices end up bringing us bills of $350, was it worth it?
What does it matter what the definition of affordable is? The cost will be what the cost will be. The cost is governed by regulations, site choices, technology choices and contractor bids. I guess that it would only matter whether the costs are high enough that we would be eligible for some sort of grant or loan.
The only benefit I can see of stopping the TriW project is that if, for example, the County were to take over, the bids may come in lower because the County won't feel as much pressure to start construction immediately and they are certainly a group with a better history with contractors at this point in time.
Why refer to Blogwatchn (you) as a she? Because I've been trained to mix up the genders when using pronouns in situations like this where you don't want to presume.
Why would you think that I am a "we"? That's pretty funny. I've been accused of being able to see both sides of some issues and of being "of two minds" on others, but never before of being two people.
Here's a good question for blogwatchn ...
Do you think that the RWQCB would have given out CnD orders if we allready had a septic management district?
If not, I am particularly dismayed by Lisa and Julie's "no" votes.
If you think they would have anyways, why the fuss recently over "we're trying ... don't you understand ... we're trying to get a septic managment district"?
Sure, you can vote for the $87M then against the $87M (see Kerry's blunder), but a careful explanation of why a septic management district is bad in Feb 2005 but needed in Feb 2006 would be worthwhile.
This whole thing gets more and more curious the more I ask questions. I am beginning to see why Ann is focused on this sewer thing.
Just read this morning's paper.
We get a park! Oops, spoke too soon. Julie Biggs hints that the CSD doesn't want to sell to the County for the County to develop the site into a park.
Huh?
Let's probe a bit deeper.
First off, lawyer Biggs is either willing to lie to the press or woefully ignorant of state law. TriW could be a definition of surplus property. The CSD doesn't intend to use it ... therefore it is surplus. Well, besides dumb and liar, there is another option ... she is unwilling to make a statement to the press until she runs the statement by the CSD boardmembers and was trying to wiggle out of a very pointed question from the Trib.
The CSD wants to sell the property to get some cash (perhaps to pay off debts, perhaps to pay lawyers, who knows). Why should they care who gets the property? Shouldn't they be happy that the County has expressed interest in the property to develop a park?
I claim that the CSD is uninterested in the County as a buyer because the County could hold onto the property to use for a WWTF in the future or the County could sell it back to the CSD if a November election were to result in a new board majority (something I think very likely if three reasonable candidates were to run).
The County may have intentions of keeping their options open for the future, but they say they want the site for a park. The CSD says they don't want the County to develop a park because they would rather a developer put in a mini-mart or housing ... even though they've said they want the land to be used for public good.
Huh?
Nope, not that tough to figure out. They simply want to do whatever possible to avoid a TriW WWTF.
Sort of ironic that they accused the previous board of trying to ram through a project without listening to the people when they themselves are refusing to listen to the people and trying to close down one of the options that we should get to vote on. After all, if Measure B gets us a vote ... why can't we choose what we think is the best site? Why would this board not let us pick TriW? Are they afraid of democracy? Are they afraid of letting people vote?
When did the CSD say they don't want the county to develop a park because they would rather have a developer put in a mini-mart or housing? Please supply when, where, and who said it. And also, don't you think it's jumping the gun a little bit to say that the CSD won't listen to the people on this new bit of news? It just came out this morning and you're
accusing the CSD of not listening to the people? Geez Shark would you let it digest for five minutes?
Who, specifically, in the CSD has said they don't want to sell it to
the county for a park? Signed, A Park
P.S. Biggs said the surplus law does not apply, therefore that makes parks first in line, get it? A Park
Perhaps you ought to read the article more carefully. The county says "we get first dibbs on surplus property for public parks" and Julie Biggs responded "it's not surplus." In other words, JulieB is saying that the County doesn't have to be given first option on buying.
Why else would she say this? Does the CSD want a park there? If they do, JulieB should have responded with "hell yes, we're glad that we can sell to the county."
The memo indicating the County's desire was dated Feb 14 and I am sure that the CSD board, Blesky and Biggs all new about it by the time of last Thursday's meeting. Why didn't they share this fact with us? The only reason I can imagine for the delay and JulieB's argumentative response is that they don't want to sell to the county.
If you would be able to explain JulieB's response and the timing of this news without a reluctance on the part of this CSD to sell, I would be interested.
Okay, I follow now. I still think it's too soon to say they don't want to sell it to the County. Maybe she was saying what she said so that they (the CSD) wouldn't be bound by saying they would give first dibbs to the County. Leaving options open and so on. And maybe I'm a moron. Could you tell us who on the CSD said they want to sell TRIW to mini-malls and housing? I can't believe they would say that even if it's true!
Conflate and extrapolate. One line from one article and shark runs straight for the mud. I am shocked, simply shocked.
A park minus the industrial sludge factory would be a very appropriate use for land 3 blocks upwind of downtown. However don't underestimate the lobbying efforts of a certain parks & Rec Comissioner. Maybe we will get some native oaks back. Maybe the deer & raptors will return. Frisbee golf anyone?? Kite flying?
All without sludge trucks moving a metric ton of hazmat down LOVR through the middle of our town every single damn day of the year...it'd be real nice.
Everyone needs to get behind this offer from the County. It's the first bit of hope we have had in years! I think we can all agree that a REAL park in our town would be totally awesome. Our tax money at work for once. In essence we would be buying the park for us. Come on let's do it!
As long as it locked down solid that it is NOT a TriW WWTP Trojan Horse. Measure B needs to be upheld once & for all AND the LOCSD need to stay intact to help make sure that this is the case.
oops D is me :)
This just sounds like such an off-the-wall-story?
It's so off the wall because of the timing. The site is so encumbered right now. Is the County going to pay for mitigation for the ESHA as well? With claims going on?
Does anyone really believe the Board of SLO is going to shell out $7-8 mil for Los Osos?
That's the rub, Dogpatch...
There is no way that a County purchase can be done in such a way that the "park" land could not be converted to a WWTF ... especially if the County gets the ball tossed back into their court.
This is what should worry you and make me hopeful.
Sounds like I extrapoloated the exact same way you did ... just that I took some flack for that same extrapolation.
As to the housing and mini-mall ... the property was most recently zoned for retail but housing would also make sense. If the County re-zones again it will almost certainly be for one of the two. Mini-mall and housing.
Is there another possible use for the place besides a park, housing or retail? Is there another possible buyer?
If the County doesn't buy it for a park, I guess that someone else might, but I rather doubt it if the County has indicated interest in the property for the same reason.
So then, if the CSD were to fight the County to avoid even the possibility of a TriW WWTF (my contention is that they just might), they will be essentially saying that they would prefer housing and retail.
Well, if this CSD board really believes that they can get the job they should not fear selling the site to the County for a park. If the LOCSD can pull off a WWTF like they say they can do ... soon and for less money than TriW, we'll get a park for free and a WWTF that saves us money.
Again, as always, the proof is in the pudding.
I'm anxiously awaiting the CSD's take on this offer from the County.
"There is no way that a County purchase can be done in such a way that the "park" land could not be converted to a WWTF ... especially if the County gets the ball tossed back into their court."
Except for
Measure B. Which as of today is the law of the land. No LOCSD, no Measure B for sure. BTW it is more your conflation than your extrapolation, Snark. Got another 400 words of spin for us? Glad your such an expert on land use law. No way it can be done, huh, well I guess we should just give up. Tri W WWTF forever!
Something in the back of my mind is tigeling, kind of like, if spiderman was getting a spider tingle.
Not that the last 20 years haven't tought me to be cautious.
I just don't know, The TRIBUNE gets nice, The county wants to give as a park.
our favorite shark wants to eat pudding
Has the whole world gone crazy?
Or is it someting wierd in the water?
Crap! maybe it's only MY water?
I better get that tested!
Any reccomendations?
Ann's gonna kill it tomorrow morning! Can't wait to see her article!
That's a good point, Dogpatch.
If Measure B is ironclad, this board will not be hesitant to sell to the County.
How Ann's going to spin this will be interesting.
Reading Inlet's leap out of the gate regarding the Trib story on the County floating the balloon of maybe looking at the Tri W site for a county park & etc,I'm beginning to believe in reincarnation.
In medieval times, scholars used to sit around earnestly discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. First, of course, they had to invent the angels, then the pin, and then could get down to the real hard work of figuring out (scientifically, logically) just how many could fit there, whether their wings would have to be folded or held up and out, should you calculate whether they were wearing shoes? sandals? robes or short tunics, and on and on and on. Whole tomes and treatises were written, endless, countless hours spend in earnest debate.
A brief story appears in the Trib, a trial balloon, really, and Inlet's off and running. Briggs is a liar, the CSD has voted to build strip malls, the county will buy the land and (hahahahah) turn around and start building the sewer plant, plots arise like miasma or the flutter of little angel wings.
Yikes. And Inlet wonders how I will "spin" the story? Jeese, why bother? Inlet's already doing a splendid job.
I guess that Ann just admitted that she "spins"!
"And Inlet wonders how I will "spin" the story? Jeese, why bother? Inlet's already doing a splendid job."
How is that an admission of spin, Anon? Ann is saying clearly, in written English that she doesn't HAVE to spin it, not that she DOES, OR COULD or even SHOULD.
The Shark Inlet propaganda project is always there waiting to to it for her.
Remember Ann, they are propagandists, they are into "behavior based marketing", and disinformaton. Signal jammers that would love to see you discouraged into silence.
BTW isn't it obvious, the only way so many angels could sit on a pin head is barefoot?
xxxooo
The best comment Biggs could have made would have been 'No Comment'.
That is the interesting thing about the story. Biggs is making comments for the CSD now. I wonder if she got to bill for 1 hour to talk to the Trib.
Here's a cost savings idea. Let's have the CSD meetings concurrant with court hearings. There are about 2-3 a month. The facility is paid for. Maybe the county would pick up the taping costs. Instead of public comment, everyone can just file a brief.
I guess that one is not allowed to wonder aloud here without it being taken as a deliberate attempt to distribute propaganda.
Go figure.
All along I've been pretty open and upfront with you all ... I think the project that is cheapest is best. A quicker resolution of the pollution problem is also important to me.
Those beliefs plus a few simple excel calculations (which I've shared with you) have pretty much convinced me that TriW, even today, is a far superior option to starting over.
It is okay to start fresh. The only problem is that it will cost far more than the new board or their supporters are willing to admit in public.
If you have a problem with my point of view, fine. Debate. Discuss. However calling me a propagandist is simply silly. In a rational debate we could come to terms with where our differences may lie. For exmple, Ann seems to care more about how the TriW site was chosen than I do. That is part of why she supports the board's attempt to move the plant.
I've even discussed why I made the mini-mall comment and why I believe the CSD should be reluctant to sell. Dogpatch and anonymous (which one? alas we'll never know) agreed with me but the Dogpatch turns around and mischaracterizes my motives.
And as for Ann's reading into my comments that wasn't there is more than a bit silly. From someone with a good command of English and from one who has complained about a lack of reading comprehension it is simply amazing.
Perhaps Ann would want me to put headers on my paragraphs. If I labeled them "fact", "opinion" and "musing", would that help?
My gosh, people, develop some reading skills. Learn the difference between hypotheticals and statements of fact. A clear understanding of what someone is saying and what they are not saying is necessary to have a proper discussion.
If you are going to react, fine ... but react to what I wrote and not what you think I may have intended to say.
(Ann, you are allowed to guffaw now because the shoe is, indeed, on the other foot.)
In todays Trivial letters, Joyce expounds on the desireability of dissolving.
I think she is fudging the truth just a wee bit.
I know lots of differing opinion has been laid out here concerning that issue,
But there are some things I would like answered.
How do we KNOW that the Co. Bo. 'o supes
would do what she is saying?
Where are the statements by said board?
Would LAFCO be inclined to hand over controll of LO even if the Co. states they want nothing to do with it?
Some surrounding citys have already gone on record that they want nothing to do with us (Groover Beach)
If, as Sharkey contends, TriW would be the cheapest and fastest, But not the best, dont you think the county would take a good hard look at that?
After all, it's no sweat off their nose if the "Water Gods" want to stomp all over us, especialy now that they are figuring out a way to go after us individualy.
They could take their sweet time about it too, whats to stop that?
Which brings me to my last question,
Dose it seem strange to anyone else about the timing of those articles?
Forgive me if it sounds like I just dont trust the Trivial.
I dont.
rant party at http://loviews.blogspot.com/
To Dogpatch refugee. The angels are barefoot? Ah-ha! THAT explains the number, then. Of course, how could I missed it. Thanks.
To Inlet, re your comment, "I guess one is not allowed to wonder aloud here . . ." NOT ALLOWED? When you muse, speculate, spin out of whole cloth, invent, ramble, mumble, invent, & engage in other such writerish/bloggish things, you have to expect that somebody is bound to accuse you of spinning and propagandizing and inventing and makeing stuff up out of whole cloth -- comes with the territory. No need for a pity party.
As for Inlet's statment: "A clear understanding of whas someone is saying and what they are not saying is necessary to have a proper discussion." Indeed, Inlet, indeed.
Is this an introspective analysis of your methodology, Ann? Just curious!
Now,
Back to the original posting by Ann. What is missing from the topic concerning SLO county sludge land application?
Anyone? Anyone? Buhler? Buhler?
Sludge PROCESSING. Why is SLO County not discussing a long-term project to have a SLO County sludge processing capability? Apart from Los Osos, shouldn't SLO County have the capability to process it's own sludge and not ship it elsewhere.
Here's a thought, maybe if Los Osos would agree to let the county assume responsibility for the project, maybe the County would then a reason to help pay the costs if sludge processing could be a component of the project.
Sludge/Septage is not going away in the future, regardless of Los Osos
Now,
Back to the original posting by Ann. What is missing from the topic concerning SLO county sludge land application?
Anyone? Anyone? Buhler? Buhler?
Sludge PROCESSING. Why is SLO County not discussing a long-term project to have a SLO County sludge processing capability? Apart from Los Osos, shouldn't SLO County have the capability to process it's own sludge and not ship it elsewhere.
Here's a thought, maybe if Los Osos would agree to let the county assume responsibility for the project, maybe the County would then a reason to help pay the costs if sludge processing could be a component of the project.
Sludge/Septage is not going away in the future, regardless of Los Osos
Ann,
I appreciate your comment about the territory. Presumably I should not expect Joe Random reader to read carefully.
On the other hand, I would expect you to not to say that I "spin out of whole cloth, invent" and such things. You know darn well that I don't do any such thing.
I try to state assumptions I am making that justify my conclusions. Perhaps those statements are in earlier postings, but they are there. As an example, I've said that any alternative to TriW will cost more. I know that you don't necessarily agree, buy you do have to say that I've been pretty careful and thorough when considering many of the cost issues and you also have to agree that I've never been challenged by someone who has shown a realistic alternative plant that would be less expensive.
I expect better from you, Ann.
Dear Inlet, regarding "whole cloth," I suggest you reread the Trib "park" story, then reread your posting on same.
My comment fell under the category of musing and speculating, not spinning.
could somebody please tell shark inlet and publicworks the TRI-W project is dead and gone, gone, gone........the county doesn't even want to put the sewer there.....HELLO? ANYBODY HOME? WAKE UP DREAMERS.....the RFP's are out.....TIME TO WAKE UP AND HELP US BUILD A PROJECT THAT YOUR COMMUNITY SUPPORTS....TIME TO GO TO SCHOOL.......YOUR WETDREAM OF A MIDDLE OF TOWN HEPATITIS PARK IS OVER.....TIME TO WAKE UP!!!!!!!!
maybe shark inlet and publicworks just want us all to pay 17% more for Fire, Water, and Wastewater services.........gee thanks dark inlet and screw the publicworks....thanks for your open display of exactly how dissolution would totally screw this community over and why we need to support our local Government. you guys are awesome. you're not paid spokespersons for the CSD are you?
About those fire services.
Maybe our anonymous friend wants our local firefighters to have several years without any raises at all. That is one upshot of the CSF takeover. Part of the way "we" are saving money is by paying "them" less.
You say that this is good.
I am noting that there are some negative impacts of every choice. Either someone gets a higher bill or someone else gets paid less.
I'll ask our other anonymous friend what he will do if the result of the site analysis study shows that the "out of town" sites are far more expensive than the TriW plant?
I've been claiming for some time (and no one has challenged me at all) that an "out of town" plant will just plain cost more than TriW in $/month for Los Osos residents. That's the drawback of moving the plant. If you don't mind higher bills (presumably our other anonymous friend doesn't), moving the plant will be something you think is worth doing.
Myself, I don't want to pay any more than is absolutely necessary. It's already far too expensive.
Oh, by the way, the only way that TriW is dead and gone is if this CSD makes some significant progress (some $10M worth of progress by designing a plant), lowering the current cost advantate of TriW. You claim that the County won't build there yet provide no evidence for your claim. I'll just say that for reasons state in the past (by me and others) the County is very likely to want to build at TriW than it is to "start over" yet again. If you can justify your off the wall claim, I'll listen.
Oh ... you forgot to call me a Nazi. You're losing touch with your inner child.
To revisit a previous suggestion: For the various Anonymooses, to make it easier, would any of you please pick another name or put a number after your Anon? That way, folks can refer to the correct commenter.
To Inlet, "musing, speculating," Exactly why you put me in mind of the medieval angel "scholars."
blogwatchn,
Glad you got back. I am glad that you've taken the time to explain things to us without the shorthand. I won't claim to be able to read between the lines like those who are sewer savvy can (perhaps publicworks can, but I cannot) and if I cannot, I am pretty sure that most of those in this discussion cannot either. Clarity equals time saved. Well thought out comments in shorthand invite questions and the need to go back over and re-explain what could have been written clearly the first time. If you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you write to us as if we are not all sewer savvy.
In your re-explanation you seem to be saying that the reason Lisa and Julie voted no for the SMD because Cabrillo and others would not be happy to pay more for the LOCSD to process the septage than had it been sent to Santa Maria. Is this really a reason to not have a SMD ... one that would limit pollution and may have helped our community avoid fines? Maybe I'm just dumb, but what is wrong with voting to limit pollution? Perhaps if you were to provide the text of the resolution from 2005 we can see why it was so bad.
On an unrelated issue ... which is worse, pissing off the CCC or pissing off the SWRCB? Just wondering what you think about that one. Both seem to have considerable say over aspects of our project and the two groups sometimes seem at odds.
I would argue that paying 3x the cost in the 80s would displace nowhere near as many as paying 3x or more today. Simply put, a $10/month sewer bill in 1980 would cost about $24/month today according to the CPI (while not strictly relevant, certainly it helps us adjust costs for general inflation) but a $40/month sewer bill in 1980 should cost about $95 today. In other words, had we adopted a "four times the typical cost" sewer back in 1980 our bills today should be less than half of what TriW was going to run us ... I don't even want to think about what we're going to actually end up paying.
Not selfishness at all on my part. A $40/month bill in 1980 would have displaced some people but thinking through these numbers in real terms makes it clear that it would have bene far fewer than today. (Or, I could just say that the inflation rate for such projects is considerably higher than the inflation rate in general.) Damn straight it would be better to have displaced maybe 10% of the community then than to displace some 30% or more today. Are you going to argue that greater displacement is good?
It is a Campaign Flyer that makes the $100/month claim. To counter that claim, let me refer you to Lisa's presentation summarizing her frustration at the results of the "negotiations". During her PowerPoint presentation she made the claim that we would save about $10/month per household on O&M to have the plant out of town. That would be good ... if the cost of moving the plant wasn't more than $10/month. Even if both projects requried borrowing at a common (6.5%) interest rate, the extra design costs of an out of town plant (assumed $10M) and the inflation rate in construction (assumed 8%) over four additional years before construction could start means that to balance out the ultimate cost to the user (even with a $20/month savings on O&M) the CSD would need to cut some $40M from the design (in today's dollars) before we're cheaper at all for the out of town plant. That's without any fines, pumping charges or any costs associated with connecting to the collection system.
Okay, compared to the TriW costs, where can the $40M be found?
A superior product, at any price, is a superior product, to be sure. However, why would you want everyone in Los Osos to be required to buy Accuras when we're happy with a good old used Volvo? Sure, the new Accura is much nicer, but if my costs will be lower with the Volvo, why shouldn't I be allowed to make that choice? Oh yeah, you don't want my old Volvo to blow nasty smoke in your face while you're sipping a Starbucks Latte in your convertable behind me at the stoplight.
I should have clarified my comment on the County's need to start immediately. Sure, they don't want to pay extra money to buy another plant design and to study the site, but they won't feel any pressure to take the first set of bids that come in unlike the LOCSD did. That whole fiasco is fodder for another day's discussion.
About the park. I would love a park at TriW. If we have to pay more money to have an out of town plant becuase the majority wants to pay more (hint: the LOCSD should take a poll and ask this question, not just say what their most strident supporters want them to say), I am glad the County has expressed interest. What sort of Park the County has in mind is unknown. As to whether the County would need to buy Broderson also is unclear. Perhaps, because the damage to the mild ESHA has already been done and a portion of the Broderson property was set aside for that damage, the County could pick up non-ESHA property and not need to set aside anything else at all.
Summary: you seem to be CCLOish in your take on these matters and I am more oriented toward what it's a goona cost the Regular Joe. If you could show me a plan that will ultimately end up saving me money, I'll support you. If this CSD board shows some progress and convinces property owners that they'll go with a plant that costs no more than TriW, the property owners will support a 218 vote to borrow more money. Without such a show of willingness to compromise, this board is DOA already and may have already killed the chances the next board (after November's election) can solve the problem as well.
Show me a plan, explain the costs, show how it will be cheaper than TriW and you win. If you can't pull off that simple campaign promise ... lower costs ... you will lose and our community will have lost as well.
The quick cost analysis I did that showed $100/month was silly before any construction started, before any lawsuits, fines and before losing the SRF. Simply impossible. For them to have claimed $100/month was irresponsible.
The key here is really to save money. As you indicate, once construction started, the cost differential of TriW versus "out of town" changed considerably.
I can't tell you what was reasonable or not for the 80s but I can tell you that in terms of fraction of a typical paycheck, the sewer bill will be higher now than it would have been then. You may think this good, I do not.
As for your suggestion that I spend some time working for this board ... why should I when they seem to continually do things that seem to only cost me more. Why shouldn't I work to elect a new board instead?
Shark, I thought you were against the dissolution of the CSD?. Didn't you say that in a previous post? You're really confusing me?. I've also checked into some of the lies that are being told in the propaganda that the "dissolutionist" are distributing at their tables. A few months ago, I signed the petition to dissolve, just because I'm sick of this whole thing. But I'm going to call Judy Rodewald and ask her how I go about unsigning. I know and have been told that I can do this. I really am tired of this but I will not let fear and lies and spin rule the day. I'm going to un-sign the petition and take back my freedom. The solutions group had 8 years to deliver this town a project that the community supported and they failed. It's was their idea to create the CSD and now they want to dissolve it just because they were "recalled". How really, really sad is that. They want to destroy our government because they lost an election. We need to give our newly elected Government a fair shot at solving our waste water problem.
I am pretty mixed on the dissolution idea.
I think that dissolution is a bad idea in general and should be viewed like a recall ... as a measure of last resort. The real issue in my mind is that dissolution takes away local control and this is bad. However, if our local control is pretty mucc what is causing us to never get the job done, perhaps dissolution is better. If this CSD board is going to take actions that pretty much hamstring the opportunity of a future board (and I believe there will be one in November) to get the job done as cheap as possible, I think that dissolution is best.
If the current board is going to propose a project that will actually run us $350/month but dissolution would allow the County to take over and get us something for $250/month (TriW), dissolution would be good, in my opinion. As publicworks suggested (perhaps in a different comments section), the campaign slogan of the current board should be "BETTER, more expensive and slower". I'll grant the CCLO board that their plans are oriented toward doing things that will limit O&M and will be more "sustainable" .... but the problem is that they've not taken a life-cycle costing approach and are fixated on reducing O&M just like they've fouced on an "environmentally friendly" WWTF at the cost of some 1M gallons of partially treated sewage entering our environment every day.
Just like the previous board focused on fixing the immediate problems and seemed to ignore the longterm issues of sustainability, this current board has ignored issues of fixing the immediate problems to focus on longterm issues. Both are a mistake, in my opinion.
I agree with Blogwatchin as far as "putting hard numbers out there." You will say we don't do it because we don't have numbers and I agree, we don't. You have all kinds of numbers for your arguement because they're based on a project that was already designed (and shot down, by the way). Those of us who support the new board are awaiting the RFPs so we do have some numbers to look at. And many of us are helping out in the meantime, not just debating about what it will cost. The sooner we get it going, the less expensive it be, right? Excuse me if I sound "CCLOish" but we do work very hard for this community and do continue to believe there are better ways to design and build a WWTF.
That's a key issue, the delay. There was no delay with TriW. There was with an "out of town" plant.
If there are huge problems with TriW, presumably you can count on the County to not build there should they take over. Furthermore, if there were huge problems with TriW (from the POV of drainage or anything else) the County and the CCC would not have approved of the location and design.
The point here is this ... we don't know where the County will build, for sure, but while you think it is pretty surely somewhere else, I think that it is pretty surely at TriW. In any case, hopefully the CSD will start to work with property owners toward getting a 218 assessment passed so that they have money to design a plant with. If they don't appear to be willing to compromise with the goals of the property owners (saving money) they'll be unable to accomplish their goal of getting a plant online before 2010. Perhaps something like the results of the "negotiations" would be something the property owners would agree with ... that this board would commit to build at TriW if they can't find something clearly better and not much more expensive by the time we hit Jan 2008.
As to your comment thata a $90M plant in 1983 would be absurd ... it would be. However, we don't get to simply roll back time to when costs were more reasonable. Things are more expensive now than ... in real terms, percent of one's paycheck required to pay for the sewer. (Technical note: from the POV of the CPI, a $90M system in 1983 would cost about $176M today, some $25M over the cost of the TriW plant.)
As to your claim that a collection system and plant out of town could cost as much as $25M less than TriW, I don't believe you were reading the paper very clearly ... Darrin P. told us that we wouldn't likely save any money by moving the plant out of town ... and that when we consider the time issues involved, we'll end up taking a bath.
However, for fun, let's take your $25M savings. Add $10M in design costs and two years at 8% inflation/year on construction costs. Your "less expensive" sewer will end up priced at about $5M over the TriW sewer. When we consider the change in interest rate from SRF to even 6.5% (which we'll be lucky to get on the bond market), your "cheaper" plant costs probably about $70 more/month even with the O&M savings that Lisa claimed we would get.
Okay, is it worth it to you to pay $70/month more just to move the plant? Some would say yes. I would say that it isn't worth it to me and I suspect the majority of people in Los Osos would agree ... that had they been told that it would cost more money if the plant were moved, they would have voted against Measure B and the recall.
But there you go ... you can't make a person be honest ... especially if they are campaigning for office.
I agree with anonymous that it will be nice when the RFP goes out and we get results back ... it would have been even better if TriW had been included in the analysis so that we would know all the ways it would have been better or worse than the "best" option this board will present to us.
Not gonna happen. This board ran on the platform of killing Tri-W and kill it they have, for better or for worse.
Well then ...
That just shows how unwise this board is.
They ran on a platform of killing TriW. The ran on a platform of lowering our costs. They ran on a platform of "we'll be open and transparent" unlike Stan and Gordon.
It would appear that their three platform issues don't all work well together thesedays.
If push comes to shove on the question of TriW versus money, they'll need to choose which half of their supporters they'll alienate. Do they want to alienate the poorest group of our community who wants the cheapest possible project or will they alienate the anti-TriW group. I would argue that if they are oriented toward political life, they will choose to alienate their base, the CCLO anti-TriW people. There is no way they'll survive in office if a study shows that all out of town options are more expensive than TriW. The property owners and the poorest in our town will join together to vote this board out of office or to dissolve the CSD.
I agree that this board has made pretty much chosen to do everything possible to stop a TriW project "no matter what the cost" and I know of fewer and fewer people everyday who think their actions have been wise.
There a many things going on that people are unaware of because they don't come to committee meetings and don't participate. Lots of progress is being made and it will become evident as time goes on. It is not right to dissolve the CSD for not "succeeding" when they have had every obstacle possible thrown in their way.
The only obstacles I know of are those of the CSD's own making or things that should have been things the board should have known to expect.
The 2nd issue first. If Julie, Lisa and the rest have been fighting the TriW site and those who've supported it in every way possible for years (even when they were not in the majority), why do they expect that Stan and Gordon and those who agree with TriW would simply cave and join up with the "out of town at any cost" plan? Silly.
As to the first issue. Measure B is an obtacle but this board campaigned for it. The obstacles of being fined and losing the SRF and the state asking for their money back would not have happened had construction not stopped. If anyone on this board argues that these outcomes of their choice to stop the construction were surprises, they were not paying much attention. It is almost as if the board made a choice to stop construction before trying to figure out the possible consequences first.
Perhaps you refer to other obstacles that we are all pretty much unaware of. Please share.
Sorry I don't share with those who consider our thoughts "silly." And don't play dumb you know exactly what obstacles I'm referring to. Are you forgetting that the old board started construction right before an election that everyone knew was going to change the landscape? A sweeping election, to be sure. Aren't those kinds of actions by the people supposed to say something to those in office?
I'm not playing dumb at all. Some would say I'm plain dumb, however.
Whether construction had started or not, the ACL hearing would have taken place and the board fined. There would be no SRF. We likely would have CnD orders. The only difference is that we wouldn't be on the hook for some $7M in work already done. This board could have simply cancelled the contracts in a way that would have cost us less than what we're currently owing the contractors. Furthermore, had they wanted to claim that Measure B prevented them from doing work at TriW they could have played their cards far differently ... essentially trying to work with the SWRCB to achieve their common goals rather than unilaterally stopping construction.
Perhaps you meant "roadblock" (singular) not "roadblocks" (plural).
Even with being $7M in the hole for work already done being the fault of the previous board, this board could easily have gotten their RFP out the door during the first two weeks. We could already have the results. Don't spend any time responding to Dreamers/Dissolvers, spend time showing they are wrong by getting a prject off the ground.
When people ask "what is the plan" or "where are the sites", tell us what you've got so far.
Sweeping election? 50% + 10 votes for Measure B? 50% + 200 votes for the maximum recall candidate? If you think that an essentially evenly split vote means that those voted in should make sweeping changes without thinking through the consequences of their actions? That is not what would come to my mind. I would strive for concensus before taking actions rather than taking actions one side wants and the other doesn't and then asking for concensus.
You are exactly right that the starting of construction was a bad idea. (I can see some reasons, but on the balance I believe it to have been a mistake) Should we compound big mistakes by making even bigger ones? Not in my mind.
Okay ... there are deferred costs associated with all plans. Is it worth paying $70/month extra for the next 20 years just to avoid those which would be associated with the TriW site but not the "out of town site" (which hasn't even been identified yet)? Probably only if the additional deferred costs total some $50/month or more ... this I doubt. If you have hard evidence that the deferred costs would be that much higher for TriW ... show it to us.
Face it ... the costs associated with moving the plant ... redesign and delay are VERY HIGH. If you want to pay those costs because you feel the ulitmate project will be that much better, you are quite welcome to support the current board's position. Myself, I am very reluctant to want to pay as much more as I think this board is aiming for.
My question is this ... what if ... after review of the site/technology comparrison ... the majority of citizens want to go back to TriW because the costs of the alternatives would be too high? Would you support that choice of the citizens ... or do you believe that siting is the perogative of the board only?
How do you know that TriW won't cut the muster?
If it is the cheapest in terms of $/month and quickest possible solution, why won't it be an option for our vote?
Here's the funny thing about blogwatchn.
She wants us to believe that Measure B would forbid development at TriW.
Why? If we don't even know whether the aspect of Measure B that would appear to forbid a WWTF at TriW will be held up in court.
What we do know is that this board chose not to pursue the issue in court and to find out exactly which aspects of the measure will govern the sewer selection process.
Suppose that down the road, the only part of Measure B that is struck down is the "not near churches" part. Won't Measure B require that we be given the option of TriW? After all, it will have been studied as a possibility and it will still likely be the least expensive option.
Post a Comment