Back to The Sewer Wars: CSD's Measure B Ruling Press Release .FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 13, 2006
************************************************************************
RE: Judge Declares Los Osos Ballot Initiative (Measure B) Invalid –
Public Vote on the New Sewer Project Site Not Required In a long, and as yet unfinished battle over where a treatment plant ought to be located, Measure B was a voter initiative that was simply meant to keep the treatment plant from being located next to the churches, schools and community center in the heart of Los Osos. Now the voter initiative enacting this siting ordinance appears to be dead.In early December, Taxpayers Watch, a group formed and headed by recalled x-directors Stan Gustafson and Gordon Hensley, filed a new legal challenge to Measure B. The new suit was virtually a duplicate of the failed action filed by the old CSD Board in a pre-election challenge. A local ruling on that action that would have kept Measure B off the ballot was summarily overturned by the Court of Appeal last summer. Measure B was placed on the ballot and approved by the electorate on September 27, 2005. On Nov. 28, the old case was dismissed and Measure B remained in effect. On April 13th, SLO Superior Court Judge Tangeman ruled in the new case, that the Measure B initiative was an administrative rather than a legislative action, and that it interferes with essential government functions. Under the law, initiatives proposed by the people must be strictly legislative in nature. That is, they must establish policies and procedures.This ruling does not end the present case, however. A second trial is set for May 30, 2006, to determine whether the plaintiffs in the action were prohibited from bringing the action in the first place. Because the plaintiffs failed to join in the old CSD action that was dismissed, they may be barred from challenging the initiative now.Called the “Poison Pill” by the State Water Resources Control Board, Measure B made it impossible for the Los Osos CSD Board to move forward with the controversial wastewater treatment facility at the Tri-W site. That in turn required moving the controversial plant, with attendant delays in construction. Funding of the low interest state loan was then pulled by the State, based on the districts refusal to violate what was then a valid measure. “It was a violation of the law, the public trust and our oath of office to disregard the voice of the people and the legally enacted ordinance,” said President Lisa Schicker.Key to the ordinance was the public knowing the project price tag. The former project grew from a promise of less than $65 million to nearly $200 million, without the public’s approval.The District can choose to appeal the findings of the lower court, assuming the trial in May upholds the ruling. The District says it is vital in any event to continue its progress in choosing a new wastewater facility and site. “Either way, as I see it, the old site is off the table , ” said Dan Bleskey, Interim General Manager , " It is far too costly to resurrect that project, and far too controversial. " On Thursday, April 20th, at 7pm at South Bay Community Center, the District will hear public comment on the adoption of a wastewater plant siting ordinance. Unlike the public, the District Board can require environmental and economic siting requirements for a wastewater treatment facility and make other determinations, whether they are legislative or administrative in nature. District attorneys are preparing options for consideration by the District Board that will prohibit construction of a facility in close proximity to the library, schools, the community center and public gathering places._______________________________________________________________________
For further information:Julie Biggs LOCSD Legal Counsel JBiggs@bwslaw.com 951-788-0100Lisa Schicker, LOCSD President lisaschicker@charter.net 805-528-3268 cell: 305-9166Dan Bleskey, Interim General Manager, Los Osos Community Services District at dbleskey@losososcsd.org or www.losososcsd.org <http://www.losososcsd.org/> 805-528-9370
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
For all of the legal words bandied about, what it really comes down to is that this board is just going to do what it wants to do, no matter what the people in the community want to say about it.
Measure B did not win by any huge margin. Measure B was gunned down (FINALLY). Now the board is going to go for a wastewater plant siting ordinance. Instead, how about asking the community about Tri-W? It's permits have not run out yet and you already OWN the property. It could be built in time to avoid fines. To at least be fair, how about comparing Tri-W to whatever it is that you are attempting to cook up? Put it to rest finally - or are you afraid the COMPARISON won't go in your favor?
Mr. Bleskey, maybe NOT having a PLAN, or being able to get anything built in time to avoid FINES, and BANKRUPTING the community's funds is what's CONTROVERSIAL here, not Tri-W ---except of course to your 20 remaining supporters.
WOW. Did I say how much I love it when you post in here Sewertoons? Your comments really are cartoonish.
First you say, "For all of the legal words bandied about, what it really comes down to is that this board is just going to do what it wants to do, no matter what the people in the community want to say about it."
Oh my God. You're kidding me. Right?
I watched most of the last CSD meeting. Other than Joe Sparks, there wasn't one single person who had one single complaint about what the CSD is doing. Even Joe's criticism was administrative in nature. The time and place to voice and say what you want is at a committee meeting or during public comment at a CSD meeting. If you're not going to bother taking part in the process then you have absolutely nothing to cry about. When was the last time ou actually had a conversation with a board member. If you're not going to engage them then you have absolutely no right to complain about what is going on. Perhaps you know you're wrong and you know how silly your spin and lies would look when presented before the Community.
Second you say; "Measure B did not win by any huge margin. Measure B was gunned down (FINALLY)!!
WOW, UNBELIVABLE!!!!
First, since when does losing by a close margin mean you win? So, if the SF 49ers beat the NY Jets in the Superbowl 35-34, we should give the trophy to the Jets because they lost but it was close, right? And let's not forget these little tidbits. This one is my favorite........the "dreamers" had about 5 times more money than the recall group. They out advertised us about 10-1. I remember getting 3-4 mailers everyday in my mailbox the weeks before the election. And, let's not forget those ads every morning on the "Today Show", CNN, CNBC...ETC. Those couldn't of been cheap. Not to mention the 100-300 votes they got from out-of-state construction workers. All of this going for you and guess what? YOU STILL LOST. OH MY GOD. ADVERTISING ON NATIONAL AND CABLE TV NETWORKS AND YOU STILL LOST!!!!!!!!!!!! If that's not getting your ass kicked, oh my God, I don't know what is.
Secondly, you say "Measure B was gunned down (FINALLY)." HHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMM......Seems to me it's not even close from being final. There is a hearing on May 30, to see if the suit brought by the assholes acting out against the will of their community is even valid. And both of these cases can be appealed if necessary. It's not final by a longshot baby.
Next you say " Instead, how about asking the community about Tri-W?"
Sorry, been there, done that. We asked the community on September 27, 2005. THE COMMUNITY SAID NO!!!!
I'm sure once you realized your impending doom, you immediatly stuck your head in the sand. And, that's understandable.
I mean let's face it. You guys really did get your ass kicked in that election.
Next you say; "Mr. Bleskey, maybe NOT having a PLAN".......
Is your head still stuck in that sand? You need a shovel? I'll come dig you out.
After less than a year in office, this board will have plans on the table in late August.
It took your asshole friends 8 years to develop a plan that the community REJECTED!!!!!
Next idiotic statement......
"and BANKRUPTING the community's funds"
It was the former RECALLED board that BANKRUPTED our community by starting the project 20 days before the election........I see dozens of people in our community every week on my evening and weekend walks and you wouldn't believe how many people complain about this one.
I think it probably cost you the election. Sucks to be such an arrogant asshole, doesn't it.
And, to top it off, the coup de grace, your words toons ".....except of course to your 20 remaining supporters".........
I love this one. You know why toons? I remember "Dreamers" making this statement all last year at CSD meetings. Over and over..That the recall movement was just a handful of minority obstructionist that liked showing up to CSD meetings to blow their air....
Just a small handful of outraged people not at all representative of our community. You out spent and advertised us 10-1 and our small little group of just 20 people still managed to get more votes than you. I have to admit, your side had the bigtime asshole factor that worked in our favor. But, it looks like you had it backwards, doesn't it? Looks like our CSD is working to build us a project that the community supports. Looks like the small group of minority sewer obstructionist are the assholes in taxpayers watch that are trying to destroy our sewer and our local democracy in the process. Oh well toons, Sucks to be you:)
p.s. I know you're really not this stupid Sewertoons. Could please post something that I can't rip apart from top to bottom? You might be able to sell your bullshit spin and misleading lies to somebody that has no fucking clue what's going on but do you really think we're going to let you get away with your bullshit in here? Sorry.
Anon.,
Phew, you sound pretty upset, I must have hit a big nerve this time!
The complaints are being written to the people that matter, like the RWQCB, and the Board Of Supervisors and LAFCO. The process is broken, this board will not address the issues we are tired of bringing up.
Why do you think there were over 3,500 people who signed to dissolve the CSD? Are you calling that many people in our community stupid? Shame on you!
This isn't a football game. What half of the community wants - well more now - should not be tossed aside by the CSD if they care about the community like they say they do.
I am not here to defend the old board. I am here to say that the idea of having a CSD in this community which is so widely divergent obviously just does not work.
Late August will mean more of us will have CDO's and we will be pumping away our life savings which are tied up in the equity of our houses. What happened to the promise that Measure B will protect us from fines? How about the fact that the present CSD got voted into office because they already HAD a plan. How do you justify those statements? Especially since it won your side those extra votes.
Do you own a house in Los Osos?
Let's just see how much support a more expensive project will garner. But maybe we will never see what that will be, as the CSD is almost bankrupt.
Sewertoons
PS - I watched ALL of the last CSD meeting. And please note, I respect your right to an opinion enough to answer you despite your personal attacks.
Just wondering aloud (as it were) how long it will take Ann to complain yet again about Abraham Hyatt's Trib article today, telling us that it is chock-full-o-errors and that really the LOCSD press release is where we can find 99.99% pure truth.
Pardon me for feeling snarky, but Ann's unwillingness to tackle any issue in her columns that would make the new board look bad and her inability to admit that the previous board had done anything right has jaded me a bit.
Shart Inlet Said,"Just wondering aloud (as it were) how long it will take Ann to complain yet again about Abraham Hyatt's Trib article today, telling us that it is chock-full-o-errors and that really the LOCSD press release is where we can find 99.99% pure truth."
Actually, I was amazed by Hyatt's April 18th story about Measure B biting the dust. He actually got the narrative right. Good job, Mr. Hyatt!
Excellent ... Ann likes Abraham's work (at least once).
Now that we know that the Trib article is undisputable fact, we should ask ourselves the question ... where does this leave us.
Presumably the judge must now determine whether Taxpayer's Watch challenged Measure B soon enough (two weeks after the district chose not to fight the flawed measure).
Might I remind you all that back in October I said that the board should determine the validity of Measure B ASAP because whether it is valid or not would determine the best next step for the board. They chose to ignore my advice (I guess they should read blogs more often). Had they told the SWRCB that they were putting construction on hold until the validity of Measure B could be determined, the SWRCB would likely have waited for the lawsuit to finish. The RWQCB would also have realized that the LOCSD board was just being prudent rather than confrontational.
In any case, let's suppose that the judge rules that Taxpayer's Watch does have the right to sue the district over the legality of B. The arguemnt the LOCSD board has used with the SWRCB, with the RWQCB, with the contractors and with any detractors has been that Measure B prevents them from building at TriW. Gail and others have told us that "TriW is dead". Well it seems now that TriW is not dead. Yes, the board can choose to put the plant there. They can also choose not to. The problem now would seem to be that they have no excuse (ala B) not to.
Presumably this means that in the new Ripley project they will want to compare all potential projects to TriW and to refuse to sell the TriW and Broderson properties until the Ripley study makes a determination about whether those properties ought to be part of whatever project we end up building. (If this board doesn't ask for a formal cost comparrison or sells off either property it is clear that their only goal is to "move the sewer no matter what it costs" rather than to do what is best for Los Osos.)
The lack of protection that Measure B affords (whether it afforded any to begin with is debatable, but certainly it affords zero now) puts our district at even greater financial risk in battles with contractors and the SWRCB over money.
Will passing an ordinance that limits possible WWTF sites help this board?
I rather doubt it. But then again, this is the board with the president who says that an affordability study will give us an affordability cap that will limit the total project cost as if it were true.
I think that our community is only getting deeper into trouble ... and pretty much only because of the misguided actions of this board who has refused to listen to advice.
Wow sewertooons has been in town a whole year. Has all the answers too...
Inlet said:"The lack of protection that Measure B affords (whether it afforded any to begin with is debatable, but certainly it affords zero now) puts our district at even greater financial risk in battles with contractors and the SWRCB over money."
I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but there's an upcoming hearing to determine whether the Taxpayer Watch lawsuit was filed in a timely manner. If it wasn't, then the Judge's ruling, what? gets tossed out and wer'e back to square one, Measure B still on the books? Any official lawyers out there care to weigh in on what will happen if the lawsuit was filed "too late?"
I am now a laywer and don't even play one on TV. I do know a judge who used to reecently be in private practice, though, if that counts for anything.
In any case, if Measure B is not legal for the reasons in the Judge's decision, the timing of the Taxpayers Watch lawsuit won't have any longterm implications. Even if the decision is set aside because TW would have had to file their case earlier (what a silly argument the CSD has!), the state AG is not bound by such timetables and Measure B will be overturned in another month or two when the issue comes up again.
Ann,
What a joke. You think the lawsuit wasn't filed in a timely manner?, were they supposed to file it the day after the settlement?? Two weeks after the settlement it was filed? A settlement that was another couple of weeks after the other case was deferred for a Disneyland vacation?
Boy, no wonder it was settled. Yep the CSD sure would have lost, right Ann?? Boy, sure was great they 'saved' us all that money.
Shark has it spot on.
I'm not a lawyer, but I would wager the timing issue will be moot and the CSD will lose that in about 2 seconds.
Why? There are clues for you in the ruling of the judge if you look at what he ruled on and what he didn't rule on. There is also a clue based on what has happened in the contractor lawsuits.
Hey, Ann, go ask the CSDs attornies, maybe they'll clue you in. You seem to believe everything they tell you over the last year.
Hey, Ann, the judge ruled on issues irrelevant to timing - go ahead, re-read the ruling - you don't need to be a lawyer.
Post a Comment