Thursday, March 23, 2006
Survey Said! Over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com, Ron Crawford's cached the 2001 Los Osos CSD's $28,000 public opinion survey. If you wondered where the repeated "strongly held community value" was for putting a sewer plant in the middle of town, this was the survey that apparently was used to make that claim. Read the response numbers for people wanting, above all else, to have a park in the middle of town with a sewer plant attached, and decide for yourself if the price tag for this "strongly held community value" was known to YOU and if you were aware that this "strongly helde community value" was repeatedly used to shut down any careful look-see for a different type of sewer treatment plant "outside of town." & so forth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Snore. You and Ron are reaching....
Just a quick clarification --
Ann said: " If you wondered where the repeated "strongly held community value" was for putting a sewer plant in the middle of town, this was the survey that apparently was used to make that claim. "
That is not accurate. According to the Final Project Report, and Bruce Buel on Dave Congalton's show last year, the 1995 Vision Statement is the source of that "strongly held community value." The problem is, the Vision Statement doesn't show that value anywhere, and neither does the informal 1993 survey that was the basis of the Vision Statement.
What that 2001 survey shows is, of course, that "community value" never existed, but since it wouldn't have supported their only reason to site their second facility at Tri-W, the early CSD had to withhold it from the Coastal Commission, because had the Commission seen those results, they would have never signed off on the ESHA-filled Tri-W. They couldn't have, according to the Coastal Act... that gets to the heart of the revocation request.
Which begs the question -- does anyone know where that "strongly held community value" is? Was it in the last two elections? I didn't see it. Was it in Measures E-97 and D-97? I can't find it there. Is it in that 2001 survey? Well, almost half of those surveyed said the parks situation in Los Osos was "not a problem." So where is it?
It'd be nice to know where it is, because, as we all know now, according to the Coastal Commission, that "value" was the only reason to site the early CSD's second facility at Tri-W, so it'd be nice if someone, anyone, could point to something, anything, that shows Los Osos "strongly" wants a multi-million dollar park in their sewer plant, and then have that park dictate an expensive, environmentally sensitive, highly controversial mid-town location.
Anyone? Anyone?
Spectator said: "I was and am in favor of a park."
That is understandable, so am I. I love parks.
But the question is, are you in favor of a multi-million dollar park in your sewer plant, and then have that park dictate an expensive, environmentally sensitive, highly controversial mid-town location for that sewer plant, and then add tens of millions of dollars to the project because that park dictates a location that requires all kinds of expensive mitigation?
Are you in favor of THAT park?
Ron,
I just love your fanciful claims ... that if the community had seen the 2001 survey results they would have "never signed off on ESHA-filled TriW." (Note also that in the same way you claim the survey was biased in its wording, your own choice of words "ESHA-filled" is essentially biased ... TriW was marginal ESHA at best.)
The key here is that in 2001 the property owners voted to assess themselves so that the could borrow money to build a park and plant at TriW. If you are going to argue that the electorate was confused or that one side fudged a bit on the facts, I'll suggest that this would not be unusual for an election but it still is the way we're going to do things.
As to the controversy about the TriW plan ... I would suggest it is more about the cost than the location or the park. I cannot count the number of people (including board president Lisa) who essentially said that in town is fine if it is cheap enough.
You have a great point in saying that out of town has some advantages but you ignore the fact that TriW has even more.
Inlet said:"The key here is that in 2001 the property owners voted to assess themselves so that the could borrow money to build a park and plant at TriW. If you are going to argue that the electorate was confused or that one side fudged a bit on the facts, I'll suggest that this would not be unusual for an election but it still is the way we're going to do things."
I think the "key" things are: The original "park plan" involved a $35million step/steg AWIPS that was linked by the Solutions Group to the formation of the CSD. When that original plan morphed into the "drop dead, buried, gorgeous" (was it $65 million by then? $85? 90?) the community was told THEY HAD NO CHOICE, they were repeatedly tod that ALL ALTERNATIVES HAD BEEN THOROUGHLY EVALUATED (not true, as we found out later) AND IF THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR THIS THE RWQCB WOULD START FINING THEM.(typical tactic of threats to get a vote a certain way -- saw that repeated during the recall)
"Fudging" things for an election this serious to the community (and not being truthful about unbiased site selction etc.not tomention the original RWQCB's negative evaluation of the pond system that was not told to the voters in the first place etc.) is simply not acceptable to me, and one of the reasons we ended up in this train wreck in the first place.
Inlet said:"The key here is that in 2001 the property owners voted to assess themselves so that the could borrow money to build a park and plant at TriW. If you are going to argue that the electorate was confused or that one side fudged a bit on the facts, I'll suggest that this would not be unusual for an election but it still is the way we're going to do things."
I think the "key" things are: The original "park plan" involved a $35million step/steg AWIPS that was linked by the Solutions Group to the formation of the CSD. When that original plan morphed into the "drop dead, buried, gorgeous" (was it $65 million by then? $85? 90?) the community was told THEY HAD NO CHOICE, they were repeatedly tod that ALL ALTERNATIVES HAD BEEN THOROUGHLY EVALUATED (not true, as we found out later) AND IF THEY DIDN'T VOTE FOR THIS THE RWQCB WOULD START FINING THEM.(typical tactic of threats to get a vote a certain way -- saw that repeated during the recall)
"Fudging" things for an election this serious to the community (and not being truthful about unbiased site selction etc.not tomention the original RWQCB's negative evaluation of the pond system that was not told to the voters in the first place etc.) is simply not acceptable to me, and one of the reasons we ended up in this train wreck in the first place.
Ann,
If fudging things for an election is not acceptable to you, why have you not been hammering Steve, John and Chuck for promising us that they had a $100/month solution when it is now pretty clear that this was a fiction?
Why haven't you been hammering the people who said that Measure B protected the LOCSD from fines when it didn't?
If the previous board should have known the partial sewering ponding system would not work before they even ran, this current board should similarly have known that the SRF loan was site specific and that the LOCSD was subject to a time schedule order.
It seems as if you are using different standards for the one board than for the other.
To me, that is what is simply not acceptable.
In my opinion what should be unacceptable, is not comming together and solving this mess. Looks like we all struck out
Try again?
Well Mike,
Here's what's simply funny to me. We had come together to solve the mess ... pollution was going to stop ... we were going to avoid fines and the PZ was going to be sewered.
The problem isn't that we can't come together to solve the mess, the problem is that some people who didn't like the earlier solution decided the would rather have additional delay, pollution and increased costs than a TriW plant.
If we think that we're going get a WWTF that everyone likes and everyone thinks is best we're confused. What we ought to do is to go with the cheapest reasonable solution available at this point in time.
here's a poll.....
"How many people think Pandora's “solutions” group fucked over the community of Los Osos when they promised us "cheaper, better, faster" and 8 years later, presented to the community an energy guzzling sludge factory next to the library and across the street from the church for $205 a month(not cheaper, not better, not faster)when the County was all ready to build us a sewer back in 1998?
Well, if what the survey is asking is; “Was a mistake to buy the Solutions Group/Taxpayer Watch "LIE" of “cheaper, better, faster”? The answer to that question is; “HELL YES. IT WAS A MISTAKE”. We would all be hooked up by now, if we hadn’t listened to those assholes and, I’m guessing we’d be paying a lot less that $205 a month. Boy, did they ever fuck us over. WOW. After wasting 8 years of wasting everybody’s time and money developing an energy guzzling sludge factory next to the library, after telling the County to "eat shit" in 1998, the same people who told the County to “fuck off” are begging the County to build us a project that the community of Los Osos voted AGAINST!!! You’ve got to be kidding me? Right? Thanks for nothing Pandora. Seems to me the best thing for the State, the County, and everyone else that wants a wastewater project for Los Osos to do is ignore these obstructionist assholes that are once again campaigning "against a project" and for a "DIVIDED community" via their dissolution movement. Seems to me the best thing for ALL of us to do is support the cheapest most reasonable solution available at this point in time...... an Interim Septic Management/Water Conservation Program in prelude to, at last, a Wastewater Project that our Community can support. Could you imagine what would happen if Stan, Richard, Gordon, and Pandora went before the RWQCB and said “We support the CSD and their new Interim Septic Management/Water Conservation Project Plan that they are working towards. Oh my God, after falling off their collective chairs the first thing they would probably do is lift all the CDOs and work with the CSD on a septic management plan that makes sense and actually helps our pollution problem. The second thing they would do, is hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
Yeah, they'll just fall over their collective chairs --- laughing.
Because, as one can see by the last three posts, as usual people will say anything.
What exactly is the cheapest most affordable solution? Oh, that's right, the writer of the last three posts doesn't even know!! Hey, imitation is the grandest form of flattery, though!
Because if the imitator knew, they wouldn't need to bother with any report - they'd just do it!
Hey, imitator, did you vote for the Solutions Group? Thought so, so you screwed yourself, You obviously were too stupid then, so why would anyone listen to your drivel now.
Hey, but nice try!
Did I just say that anybody that supports the Solutions Group is stupid? I did, didn't I? Yes, I did. What does the Solutions Group want to do now? They want to tell a Governmet that is working towards a Wastewater Solution to "shove it" just like they did when they told the County to "shove it" back in 1998. Was the Solutions Group stupid for LYING to us in 1998? YES, they were. Was anybody, including MYSELF, stupid for supporting them? YES, we were.
I agree with myself that anybody that listens to the Solutions Group, that is campaigning to DIVIDE our community, is STUPID.
Have a nice day.
OK,
So you think everybody that wants to dissolve now is the exactly the same as the Solutions Group? How convenient for you to try to pigeon-hole everything - because it makes for a good sound bite for you.
Let's see, did the recall group lie? Pretty much the same as the Solutions Group. Was there a plan? No, it's been made up on a fly, because if there was a plan, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE THE ELECTION?
Why is dissolving dividing the community? Are you saying the community was divided before the CSD was formed? That the community cannot be united under the County>?
Keep looking through those tinted glasses ya' got!
And I'm glad that you admitted you were stupid - so that's a good reason for no one to listen to you now, 'cause it's doubtful you're smarter now.
Keep yelling, ya' make dissolving sound better all the time.
Yes, you're right, a government that is working towards yet another wastewater solution; it's also the same goverment (CSD) that rejected a solution (from the County), rejected a 2nd solution (the CSD), and is on the THIRD solution, and has wasted over $20 million and counting and doesn't know or won't say how it's going to pay for anything.
Go ahead, yell some more, shout - that'll make ya' feel better.
Ann,
This is your blog, and though I am not supportive of most of your views as expressed by you, I believe you must be embarassed by this recent imposter poster, no?
Which imposter? We appear to have so many. Maybe we should all require they take a number and stand in line?
Perhaps our anonymous friend means the imposter who uses foul language and insults the character of others.
By the way, it doesn't appear to me that we have more than one imposter. The sort of "trick" one would use to pose as me ist the same sort of trick one would use to pose as publicworks or even as you. I suspect that there is only one person spoofing others ... check out the writing style.
Even so, aren't you proud Ann, that at least our most foul mouthed imposter is on your side?
Are you trying the old Guilt by Areeement routine? As I posted above, nobody knows who's who in the comment section. Even YOU may not be you. So everybody needs about a pound of salt here.
I am not trying to suggest guilt by agreement ... I was just wondering whether you agreed the the content and style of our spoofing friend.
As of yet you've not indicated you disagree with the spoofer at all.
I'm not going to presume you agree with him, but I would think you would want to take the opportunity to distance yourself from his tactics at least, if not his language and character attacks.
Post a Comment