Sunday, April 02, 2006
More Q's but few A's over at Ron Crawford's site, www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com as Ron asks more snarky questions, this time about the Los Osos wastewater project update's team of experts. (while reading the link, please keep in mind that in their March 28th huge-headlined story, the Tribune apparently mistook the attached "plan" for an actual "plan" and forgot to note the date on the "plan," which was 2003. Hence the misleading headlines that surely sent everyone in Los Osos into a tizzy -- Plan? WHAT PLAN? WHAAAAA? What the Tribune burbled on about was a 2003 step/steg proposal, included in the RFP response because it's similar to the a step/steg system Ripley Pacific Co. is now working on for a similar-sized city in No. CA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Wow... it's awfully quiet in here... do-do-do... good time to take a little look around... do-do-do... oh, look up there. It says, "Close this window." That's weird, because if I just click on the little box on the upper left corner, it does the same thing... hmmmm.
Boy, at times, I find it hard to read those little letters that you have to type in to post.
do-do-do...
Oh! Did you hear County Administrator, David Edge's quote this morning (4/4/06) on the Supes meeting about the Trib, and it's coverage of Los Osos?
"It is very inappropriate for a newspaper reporter to essentially make-up a quote."
He was referring to Abraham Hyatt and Bob Cuddy, and he said he was going to contact the editor of the Trib and tell them as much.
What is going on at the Trib? At New Times, Hyatt was good. Now, county administrators are saying, on air, that he "essentially" makes-up quotes?
Must be something in the water at the Trib.
do-do-do...
Where do we hear County Administrator, David Edge's quote this morning?
I heard it on KCBX. If you have cable TV, I think they rebroadcast Supes meetings. Edge said it just after the public comment section.
I believe, although I'm not 100-percent sure, that he was referring to this:
Assistant County Administrator Gail Wilcox said she feared money from the county’s General Fund — which is used to pay for programs, services and almost every other government-related expense — would be used to resolve Los Osos’ unknown financial liabilities, multiple lawsuits and its unfinished sewer project.
The full Trib story is here.
The Saga Continues!
Local paper headline!
"The Los Osos sewer flu may be spreading"
County officials warn that the Los Osos sewer flu may spread to outlying communitys.
No reasonable vacine has been developed to date. Symptoms include:
Gulability,
An inability to admit wrong
A complete disregard of authority
A exagerated sense of worth
Extreme frustration and an inordanent desire to wear an eyepatch and speak like a pirate
The County officials have sent a petition to the "Arbiter of local control"
asking that a quarantine be enacted to the infected area (Los Osos)
News at eleven
Damn straight, Mike.
The county does, indeed, have reason to be nervous about a dissolution. While they created the mess originally, we got impatient or unhappy with the way they were planning of cleaning up their mess back in 1998 and now that we've made the mess two or three times as big, they don't want it back.
On the other hand, just because the County doesn't want it back doesn't mean that us giving it back to them would be wrong or a mistake.
I am not going to say that the County owes us anything but ... they are the group who could have chosen to pave the roads but have not ... they could have provided us about the same park services that they provide to other communities but they have not. In any case, while the County does not owe us anything, if there is a dissolution because the community doesn't want a CSD anymore and because the CSD system for our community has shown itself to be a failure at accomplishing the main thing it was created to do and because all signs point to continued failure and increased costs unless the County takes over ... dissolution might just be a good thing.
Before Dogpatch or Anonymous or my evil twin goes off on me and calling me a Dreamer and a Dissolver, let me make it clear that I would prefer keeping the CSD ... but this current board is hosing things up so much that even if they are voted out of office in November, it will likely be far more expensive for the CSD to finish a project than it would be for the County to finish a project. (Something about interest rates and the trust contractors would have in each entity comes to mind.)
In any case, the County's expressed hesitation in the newspaper is simply not relevant. Whether the LOCSD continues or is dissolved is a decision for LAFCO and the residents of Los Osos.
Sharkey! please talk like a pirate! you know you want too!
instead of this-(Sharkey says) "On the other hand, just because the County doesn't want it back doesn't mean that us giving it back to them would be wrong or a mistake"
Say, "Lets ramrod the bugger down their throats! the dirty buggers deserve it anywhoo, cause they caused it in the first place, ARGH!"
let loose!
Mike, I've told you before, Talk Like a Pirate Day is September 19.
Me, I got them all but one, but I could be wrong
Sept 19th should be the only day we don't talk like pirates!
Give that shark 40 lashes and make em walk the plank!
Did you know that Piracy limits global warming?
Shark Inlet said: "
In any case, while the County does not owe us anything, if there is a dissolution because the community doesn't want a CSD anymore and because the CSD system for our community has shown itself to be a failure at accomplishing the main thing it was created to do and because all signs point to continued failure and increased costs unless the County takes over ... dissolution might just be a good thing."
In the Trib story, there's a quote from Gail Wilcox saying, "Wilcox told the Local Agency Formation Commission that county staff believes the district was adequately serving Los osos residents and that there would be no advantage to the county taking over its repsponsibilities." Unless that's a made up quote, it seems like LAFCO feels the CSD is doing a fine job, except the sewer is the one bone of contention, yet the story makes no mention that, to date, the CSD is moving ahead with THAT project as well -- scope of the project update due April 6 for a vote, work to begin, final report due in summer for a community selection vote & etc. So, it remains to be seen, whether, as Inlet feels, the "one thing" the CSD was formed to do, is, indeed, a "failure." Judgement on that will have to wait until summer, near as I can tell.
What's also puzzling in this story as well is some of the Supervisors saying, Aw, gee, we'd like to help out BUT we're prevented from doing so, etc. Nothing is preventing the county from signing on as a Designated party for the April 28th CDO hearing, since they own the library and park restrooms and are going to get a CDO sooner or later. NOTHING is preventing them from asking for and getting DP status. They never even asked. It's the old crocodile tears and phony hand-wringing. Pardon me while I snort through my nose. My Hypocrisy O Meter has gone off the scale. Or, in keeping with National Pirate Day, has gone off the plank! Arrrrgggghhh.
Shark Inlet said: "
In any case, while the County does not owe us anything, if there is a dissolution because the community doesn't want a CSD anymore and because the CSD system for our community has shown itself to be a failure at accomplishing the main thing it was created to do and because all signs point to continued failure and increased costs unless the County takes over ... dissolution might just be a good thing."
In the Trib story, there's a quote from Gail Wilcox saying, "Wilcox told the Local Agency Formation Commission that county staff believes the district was adequately serving Los osos residents and that there would be no advantage to the county taking over its repsponsibilities." Unless that's a made up quote, it seems like LAFCO feels the CSD is doing a fine job, except the sewer is the one bone of contention, yet the story makes no mention that, to date, the CSD is moving ahead with THAT project as well -- scope of the project update due April 6 for a vote, work to begin, final report due in summer for a community selection vote & etc. So, it remains to be seen, whether, as Inlet feels, the "one thing" the CSD was formed to do, is, indeed, a "failure." Judgement on that will have to wait until summer, near as I can tell.
What's also puzzling in this story as well is some of the Supervisors saying, Aw, gee, we'd like to help out BUT we're prevented from doing so, etc. Nothing is preventing the county from signing on as a Designated party for the April 28th CDO hearing, since they own the library and park restrooms and are going to get a CDO sooner or later. NOTHING is preventing them from asking for and getting DP status. They never even asked. It's the old crocodile tears and phony hand-wringing. Pardon me while I snort through my nose. My Hypocrisy O Meter has gone off the scale. Or, in keeping with National Pirate Day, has gone off the plank! Arrrrgggghhh.
Ann, see today's tribune correction! It invalidates your argument!
Ann,
To say that the CSD is "moving ahead" on building a WWTF is to favor a two-month timeframe over a six-month timeframe or even a five-year timeframe.
Relative to six months ago or even five years ago, the CSD is much much further from a WWTF than we were then.
If the Supervisors asked to be designated parties because they will face CDOs themselves, their requests would be denied. If they asked to be designated parties because they admitted to creating the mess and they would be the group holding the bag if the CSD were to go bankrupt, I am sure that they would be granted designated party status.
Mike Green said:
"Symptoms include:
Gulability, An inability to admit wrong, A complete disregard of authority, A exagerated sense of worth..."
Mike, those are great, especially your "exaggerated sense of worth" take.
I've got an excellent little story on that point, Mike.
I recently acquired a copy of the informal community survey conducted by the Los Osos Community Advisory Council way back in 1993-94.
On the letterhead, it reads:
Los Osos Community Advisory Council
Gary E. Karner, Chairperson, 350 Mitchell Drive, Los Osos, CA 93402
If I'm not mistaken, that is the home address of the (Nash) Karners.
So, let me see if I have this straight: The headquarters of LOCAC in 1993-94 was the Karners' house?
The reason I ask, is because that informal survey conducted by LOCAC way back in 1993 was the basis of the Vision Statement, according to the Vision Statement. And, according to the 2001 Final Project Report, the 1995 Vision Statement is the source of the "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a centrally located "recreational asset." The Vision Statement was drafted by the "Vision Team." Two of the eight people on that "Team" were Gary Karner and Pandora Nash-Karner.
In 1997, Gary Karner and Pandora Nash-Karner formed the Solution Group, and promised a "better, cheaper, faster," "drop dead gorgeous" "sewer-park" with a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75."
Pandora Nash-Karner, on the coattails of that promise, was the number one vote-getter in the initial Los Osos CSD Board election in 1998.
After serving one term, Nash-Karner, in 2002, attempted to handle the CSD's marketing through a $700,000 bid, according to Gary Karner. She did not get the contract.
Nash-Karner handled the marketing for Save The Dream in 2005.
Nash-Karner sent e-mails to Roger Briggs on election night in 2005, when she realized her 13-year-old "dream" was going down the drain, asking Briggs to fine the CSD into bankruptcy in a desperate attempt to hold onto that dream.
"Exaggerated sense of worth?" Ya think?
By the way, that 1993 survey, of course, doesn't show that "community value" anywhere, and I recently notified the California Coastal Commission of that little fact.
Ann said:
"Unless that's a made up quote..."
That's hilarious.
Ron, you'd be amazed who you see going in and out of 350 Mitchell St., over the years. Still their residence of record. Mitchell St. is the political heart of the Boondoggle. half dozen or so different long term entrenched and invested players there, doorsteps away from each other. Neighbors for years. Quite astonishing really.
Ann callled them "Dauphins"(Sp?).
Perfect. Wannabe aristocrats.
Ron, I hope you don't catch it like me! I'd hate to see you become gullible.
shark Inlet said: "If the Supervisors asked to be designated parties because they will face CDOs themselves, their requests would be denied. If they asked to be designated parties because they admitted to creating the mess and they would be the group holding the bag if the CSD were to go bankrupt, I am sure that they would be granted designated party status."
My point was, The County never asked. So you don't know whether they'd be refused or not.
The CSD asked for and was granted Designated Status even though they weren't going to get CDOs (unless you figure they are "renters" at the office space?) since their "toilets" are being handled by the ACLs.
Anonymous said: "Ann, see today's tribune correction! It invalidates your argument! "
Please see my 4/6/06 posting. Doesn't invalidate the argument at all, the "correction" only sharpens the Question and it's an interesting one, to be sure.
Ann,
Perhaps the County considered the option and decided they did not want to be a designated party. There was nothing that stopped "Dr. Pirhanna" from submitting an application to be a designated party and there was nothing stopping the County from doing so either.
The supervisors and County as a whole really seem to want nothing to do with this aspect of Los Osos now. I would suggest that if they really think that Los Osos is capable of handling the sewer issue by ourselves, they should pitch in and help out in whatever way possible. If they really think that Los Osos is not capable of handling the sewer issue, they should push for dissolution ASAP because it will limit their ultimate financial exposure. The funny thing here is that the letter from Gail Wilcox to LAFCO tries to make both points ... that we are both capable and so horribly bad off that we are incapable. Gail, which is it?
More important than what you or I think about it, what do you suppose LAFCO will make of it?
How much pull will the county have in those hearings?
Considering that Bianchi & I think Katcho are members of The LAFCO board, there might be a bit of torque potential there. Other members include CSD members from other local CSDs, it could get interesting...
Sounds like a let's mug Los Osos day to me.
Interesting? very!
Post a Comment