Pages

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

The following is a press release sent from the newly formed, Prohibition Zone legal Defense Fund, to help Los Osos residents targeted by the RWQCB with CDOs. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 28, 2006 Contact: Rob Shipe: 528-7242 LosOsosCDO@Gmail.com or
Bill Moylan: 528-2324
bmoylan@charter.net

LEGAL DEFENSE FUND STARTED FOR TARGETED LOS OSOS RESIDENTS
The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) has been established at Coast National Bank in Los Osos. The fund was created to accept donations and help raise money for an attorney to represent Los Osos residents that have been targeted with Cease & Desist Orders (CDOs) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). While the Community Services District has requested and received status as a "Designated Party" and will be an active participant in the April 28th hearing, the CSD is legally not allowed to offer legal help to individual citizens. For many of the targeted residents, paying an attorney to protect their individual rights is simply not an affordable option. For this reason, the PZLDF was formed to raise money from the whole community in order to help our friends, neighbors and ultimately ourselves by engaging the services of one law firm which will represent, not only the originally targeted 45 people, but ultimately everyone in the prohibition zone, since all of them are also targeted to receive CDO's as well.
Every resident and business within the prohibition zone will be prosecuted. It's critical that residents and businesses contribute whatever time and money they can before they become a target for prosecution. The RWQCB Prosecution Staff views the first wave of defendants as a test case. If they are successful, they intend to streamline the process for the remaining residents and businesses. PZLDF President Bill Moylan said, "The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund will be used, if needed, to defend the homeowners as a group if we need to go to court to have the RWQCB back off from issuing CDO's. Cease and Desist Orders are extremely serious and injurious to anyone who gets one. If the RWQCB does what it has promised, every property owner in the Prohibition Zone will get one. This is why we need every one in Los Osos to contribute to this fund. If we do not have to use it, all moneys will be donated to the Low Income Assistance Fund or other charity that benefits Los Osos."Defendants and community volunteers have been assisting with research and document preparation for the April RWQCB administrative hearing and any later legal proceedings. Those that can not donate funds are requested to donate time in an effort to generate a considerable savings in research time needed by whatever law firm is ultimately hired.Defense research has unearthed serious "unintended consequences" of imposing CDOs on businesses and property owners. While these consequences were apparently not anticipated or intended by the Regional Board's Prosecution Staff, they nonetheless involve serious legal risks for targeted homeowners and businesses who are and will be prosecuted. This fund is intended to help those who may not be able to afford the legal help now, and to protect those who will be subject to prosecution later.
Residents and businesses within the prohibition zone that support The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund now will be protecting their own interests before their time comes. Donations can be made to the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund at Coast National Bank or by mail to:PZLDFPO Box 6095Los Osos, CA 93412
Unfortunately, donations are not tax deductible but they are greatly appreciated. For more information or to volunteer, you can contact PZLDF Vice President Rob Shipe at 528-6772 or send an e-mail to LosOsosCDO@gmail.com. Mr. Shipe added, "We are literally trying to protect the community. This isn't about law suits, it isn't about fighting. We are trying to negotiate with the Water Board to clean up the water in Los Osos and move us towards compliance with measures the Water Board passed in 1983. This prosecution will accomplish neither goal. We would rather work with them, than fight against them."
Posted by Churadogs at 6:17 AM

10 comments:

Churadogs said...

Spectator said:

"To Ann: A twit (noun) is a rediculously annoying person. It has nothing to do with sawdust in the head or beeswax in the ears. You are very good at ridicule, and are annoying to those who differ from your opinions. And you persist relentlessly. This does not mean that you do not have high intelligence, or are wrong or right. You twit (verb) very small historical parts of a very complex and serious problem for the property owners in the prohibition zone. In many cases you use speculation for the sake of speculation to encourage thought, or many times to further an agenda. And you are a lady, even though scum grasp upon your every word."

Twit? or Tweak? (minus the meth meaning) And, isn't what you've described above the JOB of a snarky OPINION columnist? As for "scum" uh, do you have in mind a definition of what that means? At the end of your posting, you appear to be suggesting that violence and blood in the street are viable options. Could someone who appears to be advocating for blood in the streets also be labeled a candidate for "scum-hood?"


Spectator Said: " . . .Please consider this: 50% of any group is above average intelligence of the group and 50% below. Which sector have you influenced most by "twitting"? A poll would be required, and the question may have no value."

I found out after YEARS of covering and "tweaking" and "tail-pulling" and writing about the Hideous SLO Coastal School Board that my "influence" on getting even involved parents and taxpaayers to pay attention to and help stop a financial bloodletting, was ZERO. It was an interesting phenomenon: People knew what I was telling them about the waste of Measure A money was true, but they DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW, because NOT knowing allowed them to do nothing. I see the same thing here. Influence? Hardly.In the marketplace of ideas and questions and comments, my column is right up there with Letters to the Editor or Viewpoints.

Spectator also said:"
Los Osos, in REAL time, is confronted with a rigid CCRWQCB intent upon inforcing a now unfunded mandate while not open to accept advances in technology, an insufficient tax base of property owners, a LOCSD that is subject to bankruptcy if they do not prevail in court, individual members of the LOCSD board being sued, property values sinking in the PZ, better than 3000 property owners wishing to dissolve home rule, and the individual property owners abandoned by the LOCSD (by law) from community legal protection against pumping and fines having to raise their own money to fight a situation that was promissed would never happen. We have no money to build any kind of system. Your "twitting" goes on.

There is another side: The LOCSD has paid no fines, paid no contractors, individuals have not pumped a single septic tank or paid any fines, water and fire services go on, we are to have a cleanup day as usual, we are not bankrupt, and can drink the water. The bay is not dying from pollution, but from siltation. Fish, oysters, and gooeyduck clams exist, eel grass grows, and birds live. Sure, we have lost a loan.
This is real time reality, and it is RIGHT NOW.

Otherwise is metaphysical speculation: "How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?"

We are in the hands of the courts, and can go to the Supreme.

As one wiser than me has stated: relax, drink beer, eat good food, love your partner, and enjoy life and the sunset, and take a walk on the beach. We are in the hands of the courts, and the courts work very slowly. I am absolutely serious about this. As to loss of paper value on your homes: paper value? Consider what you paid.

Let the courts decide. If they do not decide with justice, there are other options to bring attention to our problem, all of which require the spilling of our blood, and the blood of those sworn to inforce the law."

Except for the last phrase, I can only say AMEN. That's about it in a nutshell. With the recent court's "freezing" of the sewer account, it will remain to be seen if the CSD has enough money to access the courts.

As for a comment in your original posting above, about the CSD defending the citizens, according to the Request for Designated Status letter written by the CSD and granted by the RWQCB, the CSD states that it WILL be defending the citizens. A copy of that letter should be in the CSD office and it would behoove all of us to go peruse it carefully. As the Designated government agency, they have committed to defending the citizens. If I understand correctly, The PZDLF group has arisen as a contingency or adjunct to the CSD's citizen-defense, in case The Los Osos 45 who wish to access additional counsel & etc. And, the Los Osos 45 are, really, point-persons in this whole deal. A test case, so to speak, for the whole community. Whether they will be sacrificial lambs or a benchmark template remains to be seen. And, once again, they, like all of us, will be in the hands of the court.

And to Spectator's advice to relax, drink beer, eat good food, I would add: Be VERY, VERY, careful what you read in the papers. The Trib's March 28th wierdo "Plan calls for new tanks in Los Osos" headline ranks right up there with those hilarious phony headlines in the infamous spoof publication, The Onion. Caveat lector!

6:21 AM, March 30, 2006
Shark Inlet said...

About the Trib ... didn't Ron Crawford praise Abraham Hyatt, his integrity and insight?

Now you are telling us that Ron's good friend, the only one who agreed with him back in the last centruy, is not untrustworthy.

7:18 AM, March 30, 2006
Churadogs said...

Spectator said: "I give you the benefit of the doubt for missing this. How about a retraction? "

No need, the whole thrust of the story was to (wrongly) imply that The Plan was what was being proposed for Los Osos. The heading over the Front page "tickler" was "Los Osos Sewer Project." The first paragraph in that "tickler" states, "A redesign of the Los Osos sewer project could require about 5,000 homeowner and businesses to replace their septic tanks, according to the engineering firm chosen to revive the town's defunct project."

Then, in the main story, it says, "The location and type of plant, the cost of the new system and the type of tank owners would have to buy have yet to be decided." Then further down, "According to Ripley, state water officials have tentatively approved his company's pressurized septic tank project -- SIMILAR TO THE PLAN HE IS PROPOSING FOR LOS OSOS -- [emphasis mine] for the 18,000-resident community of Stevinson in Merced County."

Similar to the plan he is proposing for Los Osos???

Not only is the type of tank not decided, NOTHING WAS DECIDED at that point. The CSD selected Ripley's firm on the 23rd and began negotiations to establish the scope of what he was to do, the final terms would be brought back to the Board on April 6, and THEN he'd start looking at systems, etc. In other words, there was no plan [{similar to the plan he is proposing for Los Osos ]calling for anything, no decisions about which type of tanks, etc. when this story ran on the 28th.

Now, after the Board votes on April 6, then Ripley can propose the step/steg plan and whatever else he's directed to do, that'll be brought before the wastewater committees, finance committees, etc, then the Board then the voters.

What Hyatt did was to conflate other step/steg systems Ripley's designed, and/or a projected step/steg plan he'd already done for Los Osos, that may or may not be part of what he WILL present along with other evaluations IF that's included in the scope of work that they were still negotiating when the story was written.

The clear implication of the story is this: This story is about the Sewage Treatment Project (there is only one) and the CSD will hire an engineering firm next week and here's the "Plan [that] Calls For new Tanks In Los Osos"

Is there any wonder a whole lot of jaws dropped all over town, with people reading the story and saying, "Huh, Whaaaaa? Hey, I thought the Voters were going to vote on which plan we wanted. What do you mean I've got to replace my tanks? Ripley's already decided on The Plan???"

Misleading in the extreme? You betcha. The headline should have read, "CSD Picks Firm For Wastewater Project Update -- Scope of work to be determined."

6:35 AM, March 31, 2006
Anonymous said...

And Ann is Wrong yet again.

So what if the story gives the impression that a plan to consider replacing 5000 tanks would be considered.

Isn't that the thrust of what the recall crowd and even Ripley's own report and proposal offered? For someone that complains about context, Ann sure lacks it, or becomes apologistic about the direction this town has taken.

Hey Ann, have you ever seen a BayNews, Trib, or other journalist report correctly on complex business or technical issues?

Why is that? Because in general, journalists don't understand how business or engineering works - that's why their journalists.

Considering the Los Osos electorate gets a steady drumbeat of 'suggestive' information from columnists and the rest, it's no wonder they vote like a patient on medication.

8:49 AM, March 31, 2006
Anonymous said...

Did I just basically support Ann's arguement by stating that most, if not all newspapers including the Tribune, are totally full of shit when it comes to reporting on complex business or technical issues?
I did, didn't I?
Yes, I did.
I said; "Ann is Wrong yet again".
Then, I went onto make a statement totally supporting exactly what Ann said.
I'm sorry Ann. You were right.
I'm on this new medication that I got from Dr. Spectator. He says they're "smart pills".
But, they taste an aweful lot like rabbit shit. I think they are clouding my judgement.
I apologise.
Have a nice day.

9:08 PM, April 01, 2006
Anonymous said...

Did I just basically support Ann's arguement by stating that most, if not all newspapers including the Tribune, are totally full of shit when it comes to reporting on complex business or technical issues?
I did, didn't I?
Yes, I did.
I said; "Ann is Wrong yet again".
Then, I went onto make a statement totally supporting exactly what Ann said.
I'm sorry Ann. You were right.
I'm on this new medication that I got from Dr. Spectator. He says they're "smart pills".
But, they taste an aweful lot like rabbit shit. I think they are clouding my judgement.
I apologise.
Have a nice day.

9:08 PM, April 01, 2006
Anonymous said...

Did I just basically support Ann's arguement by stating that most, if not all newspapers including the Tribune, are totally full of shit when it comes to reporting on complex business or technical issues?
I did, didn't I?
Yes, I did.
I said; "Ann is Wrong yet again".
Then, I went onto make a statement totally supporting exactly what Ann said.
I'm sorry Ann. You were right.
I'm on this new medication that I got from Dr. Spectator. He says they're "smart pills".
But, they taste an aweful lot like rabbit shit. I think they are clouding my judgement.
I apologise.
Have a nice day.

9:08 PM, April 01, 2006
Anonymous said...

There is a difference between a "journalist" and a "columnist".
A journalist reports on the events and facts of the day. A columnist writes opinion on said events, facts, and reports.
When the journalist "fucks-up" on reporting the facts and events of the day, it's the job of the columnist to point out the "fuck-up".
You are so right Public. The Tribune was wrong and Ann's is so right.
God bless America our great country. We have Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Speech and the Right to Vote.
I'm sorry these rights seem to bother you so, Public.
I'm sorry you're trying to usurp these rights in your very sad and pathetic attempt at "voter nullification" via your sick and twisted dissolution movement.
Sucks to be you..........

9:29 PM, April 01, 2006
Churadogs said...

Publicworks said: "So what if the story gives the impression that a plan to consider replacing 5000 tanks would be considered."

The headline was misleading and the story should have indentified the "plan" as a 2003 document instead of implying that it was some "new" plan, since that's what the community's waiting on like the second coming.

The replies to the RFF are in the CSD office, I suggest you take a look, there on the page are the dates for this "plan," clear as a bell. For some reason, Hyatt missed it or forgot to tell the reader that's where he was getting this information from. Clearly, since this 2003 plan is similar to the step/steg plan Ripley's working on for the No. CA town, the relevance to Los Osos as a "possibility" is there. It's just that the way it was presented was misleading. Even the "correction" the next day didn't set the record straight. That 2003 date was still missing.

7:37 AM, April 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Are you telling us that a STEP collection system wouldn't need to have nearly all the septic tanks replaced?

Ripley and others who have done engineering work on this topic all agree that nearly all of Los Osos septic tanks would need to be replaced with a tank capable of pressurization without leaking.

If the cost of the tank is only a thousand dollars or so, how much do you think it would cost to dig up the old tank and put in the new one? I would guess that the costs could easily be an additional $5-6k on average.

In any case, there was nothing clearly in error in Hyatt's article. Even if the "plan" was from 2003, if STEP is what the LOCSD ends up going with (and this board has pushed for STEP it is hard to believe they'll go with gravity ... this board seems pretty unwilling to change their minds) the plan is pretty darn accurate with regard to the article.

Again, if you're a gonna complain, complain about the big things, not the nits. Complain that this board seems willing to sell off TriW even though it might be the best location, whatever the WWTF technology. The proximity to the best disposal site (with regard to saltwater intrusion) makes TriW a great option.

As to Steve Paige's suggestion that pumping water uphill to Broderson from TriW is expensive ... yes it is. However, the cost of freshwater dams (a commonly used method for fighting saltwater intrusion) is also quite expensive ... maybe the TriW plan is pretty well thought out after all. Hmmm....

9:24 PM, April 03, 2006

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)