Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Sewer Phreaks might want to check out a new posting of Ron's Really Cool Questions for the Coastal Commission over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com. But I wouldn't reccommend holding your breath before an answer arrives or action is taken. Might turn blue in the face and fall over a whole lot. And why would I say that? Because to answer Ron's questions would require that the Coastal Commission do their job and in this case, doing their job would require that they go back and correct a decision that came about because they DIDN'T do their job. And that's always embarrassing, which is why such correctives rarely get done.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
I already commented on Ron's sewerwatch thing ...
Summary: Ron is still obsessed with history and doesn't really have much of anything to say that would be relevant to what our best options are today. No surprise.
Now, a point to note is that today's announcement as to the closed session agenda for Thursday's meeting includes a discussion with Blesky about the potential sale of TriW and Broderson.
I don't actually know that there is any requirement that a vote to sell actually take place in an open session even though Ann has told us that this is the case. The fact that a week ago JulieB told us that she disagrees with the County as to whether the County gets first dibs on the site for a park makes me nervous.
I don't trust this board. In my mind they've done quite a few things that suggest they only have one goal ... stopping any possible TriW construction and that they don't care how much it will cost us "regular Janes". I hope I am wrong, but I believe that my worries are justified.
Re "history." History disregarded is always history repeated. That's why it's always necessary to understand just how we got where we are. If we don't, we'll end up going off the rails again.
Regarding the issue of whether the CSD must legally put the sale of property on an agenda for public comment and a public vote before deciding to sell something, Why don't you go to the CSD meeting this Thursday and ask that question during public comment? Ms. Biggs should be there and she could answer it directly.
Yes, if we forget the history of this project ... that any delay in putting in a sewer means the cost goes up ... we will make a huge mistake.
So, Ann, how do you think that costs will go down by moving the site?
I'm going to see what the Project Report says when it's finished. I'm going to wait to see what the Affordability Study says when it's finished. I'm going to wait to see if, having actually finally done an Official Affordability Study, just how much in federal funds can be applied for -- based on that official study -- to help offset the sewer cost to help the poor folk who can't afford whatever's being planned in the project Report.
Ann writes "I'm going to wait until a considerable amount of time goes by before I'll believe that waiting is a mistake."
Be careful, Inlet: When you use quotation marks around a statement that you directly attribute to somebody, i.e. "Ann writes, "I'm . . .etc.'" the reader is suppose to believe that you're using a direct quote. In this case, you're not. You're making up stuff out of whole cloth. You've put words in my mouth. Made up words. And you wonder why some of your statments result in confusion.
Apologies for using quotation marks incorrectly.
Re-phrase:
Essentially Ann is writing that she wants to wait until a considerable amount of time goes by before she'll believe that waiting is a mistake.
Now are you happy?
I thought that in the context, the "quotation" was a shorhand way of saying the same thing. Oh well, I guess that a creative quotation something that Ann would never do nor think is ever acceptable.
Sharkey, You are a better writer than that, Ann is right, I have started to use the preposition "to paraphrase"
Just a suggestion.
Here's the issue I was hinting at, Mike. Ann is essentially (but not actually) saying "do as I say, not as I do." In some past blog entries, Ann has played the "I'll put quote marks around my own creative statement" game herself. For example, see her Sep 13 blog entry.
No big deal. If Ann and you think that quotation marks should only be used when providing an exact quote rather than something that provides my understanding of "the essence of what was being said" I will avoid using them except in an officially approved fashion.b
What a bummer if Tri-W is sold and it turned out to be the cheapest after all....
Directly pasted from Inlet above:
No big deal. If Ann and you think that quotation marks should only be used when providing an exact quote rather than something that provides my understanding of "the essence of what was being said" I will avoid using them except in an officially approved fashion.b
8:44 PM, March 02, 2006
Inlet, "officially approved fashion" simply has to do with the issue of clarity. When you say, "Ann said, 'blah,blah,thusand so.'" you are telling the reader that that's a direct, accurate quote using my exact words. If you're writing about something somebody wrote or stated orally and you put it in quotes, you're again telling the reader that those are the exact words used.
If you don't use quotes, then the reader is given to understand that you're paraphrasing or interpreting or making up your own version & etc.
In this case, your paraphrase is your own and STILL remains innacurate as to what I said and meant. But at least the reader can understand that that's your take on matters, not mine.
Okay, I understand.
Now, would you please be so polite as to tell us who (other than you) said or wrote:
"Put the phone down, Ms. Tacker, and step away from the door and nobody will get hurt. It was a mere oversight. ESHA, SMESHA, who can keep all this stuff straight and why would a bonding company need to know that kinda crap anyway? Geeeze!"
"Huh? What are you talking about? What ESHA?"
and
"Nuh, huh, we changed our mind we're outta here buh-bye no tickee no washee no deal no dice hava nice life hasta la vista see ya later we just remembered we gotta go to France!"
or at least explain how you're not violating the same rule that you are complaining I've violated.
I don't really care too much at all and will follow whatever rule provides the most clarity but it really irks me that you're asking me not to use quotation marks in a way that it appears that you feel comfortable using them yourself. Maybe I just don't understand the differences between my misuse of the quotation mark your your proper use.
Note: this is not really about the sewer or Los Osos anymore ... but whether I've misunderstood some rule for clarity and why I may have misunderstood the rule.
Hoping for some "clarity" here.
On the sewer issue Ann writes "your paraphrase is your own and STILL remains innacurate as to what I said and meant."
When I asked "Ann, how do you think that costs will go down by moving the site?" Ann answered:
"I'm going to see what the Project Report says when it's finished. I'm going to wait to see what the Affordability Study says when it's finished. I'm going to wait to see if, having actually finally done an Official Affordability Study, just how much in federal funds can be applied for -- based on that official study -- to help offset the sewer cost to help the poor folk who can't afford whatever's being planned in the project Report."
Which really didn't answer my question at all. However the idea of waiting a considerable amount of time (until Summer 2006) to find out that the "out of town" solution will cost us more would seem to be pretty similar to my paraphrase.
I guess the issue here might be that Ann doesn't believe that higher costs will be a mistake or she is presuming that the report won't indicate higher costs at all.
In comments here I've shown over and over again that there is pretty much no way that moving the WWTF out of town can be accomplished without higher costs. Ann has not provided any suggestions to the contrary other than to say that something to the effect of we don't know yet. Well, I argue that we do. Anyone who was really carefully considering the question would have verified my accounting and pointed out any errors I had made. Just because Ann doesn't trust my numbers doesn't mean that she can't provide her own that show even a possibility of lower costs out of town.
I must conclude that costs will go up. My own analyses have shown this. History has shown this. No one has argued with any specifics that have led to my conclusions.
So Ann, which is it ...
Do you believe that the costs will likely be higher if we were to move from TriW to "out of town" or do you believe they will be about the same or lower?
Furthermore, if the costs will be higher ... say an additional $50/month or $100/month on top of whatever it would have been, won't it have been a mistake to have taken steps that brought us to this point?
Sure you can say that it is good to study every option fully to make sure we've made the best choice ... but if the cost of studying all the options in sufficient detail to everyone that TriW is the cheapest possibility is so high it might be better to simply take action.
This very board felt the need to take action quickly before careful consideration ... to stop the TriW construction. If it was so very wrong of the previous board to take decisive action by starting the construction before the election, why is this board so willing to sell off TriW before we know whether the CSD is going to be dissolved or not?
Sometimes you've got to stop studying and make a decision. Sometimes you should study things more before making a decision. This board's choices about when to rush and when to slow down seem to me to be odd ... unless they were motivated primarily by only one issue ... to make sure that the TriW project doesn't happen.
From Inlet's previous post:
So Ann, which is it ...
Do you believe that the costs will likely be higher if we were to move from TriW to "out of town" or do you believe they will be about the same or lower?
From my original reply, also posted above.
"I'm going to see what the Project Report says when it's finished. I'm going to wait to see what the Affordability Study says when it's finished. I'm going to wait to see if, having actually finally done an Official Affordability Study, just how much in federal funds can be applied for -- based on that official study -- to help offset the sewer cost to help the poor folk who can't afford whatever's being planned in the project Report."
Let me further add, in case the point keeps getting missed, what I BELIEVE is of no relevance here, except as a medieval parlor game guessing how many angels I BELIEVE can dance on the head of a pin. What I BELIEVE or don't BELIEVE doesn't make it so or not so. Which is why I'm going to wait to see what the project report update actually says.Which is what I told you I was going to do.
Ann,
It seems that you are saying that you have no reason for doubting my claims that the "out of town" WWTF idea will end up costing us more and that you're willing to wait until Summer to find out that I'm write. Certainly you've offered no reasons for doubting my analyses even when asked.
So ... let me ask you a variant of my earlier question. What if we find out in Summer 2006 that the decision to stop construction at TriW and to pursue an out of town WWTf will end up costing us $300/month ... will you then admit that it will cost us more?
Post a Comment