Calhouns Can(n)ons

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Oh, and while sticking an ice pick in my eyes for 12 hours, did I forget to mention . . .

So, when Dr. Wickham, B.S, M.S., PhD, was testifying about all things onsite and septic during the April 28th CDO hearing, (see blog posting below) Lori Okun, the RWQCB’s attorney, piped up to ask Dr. Wickham if there were any onsite systems that could be used for the same kind of mitigation that was supposed to be the result of this mad pumping scheme and Dr. Wickham said, Yes, many systems being used all over the country, so Lori asked, are they less expensive, and Dr. Wickham said, yes, and went on to mention several, some ranging from $2,000 to $4,000 and said most systems will pay for themselves in two years, so then I got dizzy and creeped out when I had to ask myself, Why in hell is Lori asking that question now?

And then it dawned on me, Is it possible the RWQCB staff had to ask that question now, because they never asked it BEFORE terrorizing a town, before wasting gazillions of hours of taxpayer’s time and money, before wasting their Board’s time (twelve hours so far, seventeen years to go), never asked, Is there a similar-or-less costly interim onsite equivalent to this mad pumping scheme that will give the same benefit without ruining the air quality and removing the dumping millions of gallons of water out of an already impaired watershed?

Instead, did they just run with the stupidest, most destructive, most ill-considered, wasteful cockamamie scheme they could think of, and only afterwards, when it was far too late, after all the damage was done, did they even bring the question up?

Not our responsibility to do research before offering options or proposals. Nope, not our job. Talk to the hand.

Are you afraid now? You’d better be. Really afraid.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...: But then they'll have to issue 4300 WDPs.

Now why would they want to issue permits when the CDO process is so much more fun for everyone.

Ann forgets that a new tank may be required with these systems, plus the construction costs. Some of these may end up costing well over $10,000 for the interim.

Ah, yes, get a whole new permit process going while the sewer turns.

$3,000-$10,000 in addition to the cost of a new sewer.

Be careful what you wish for.; 6:01 PM, April 29, 2006
Mike Green said...: Can I put a theater and a wine bar on top of my own WWTF?
Make my wishes come true!; 7:06 PM, April 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: "Ann forgets that a new tank may be required with these systems, plus the construction costs. Some of these may end up costing well over $10,000 for the interim."
Speculation without evidence.
Man oh man do The numbers get thrown around here. How about 165,000,000?? What if Ripley comes back a project that combined costs, BECAUSE OF DESIGN SUPERIORITY, are far less than the downtown sludge factory?
"Why in hell is Lori asking that question now?"
I hope that it is because she has seen the error of her ways and is looking for a way out.
Damn Briggs sure looks the Part. I've seen codfish with more compassion iin their face.
A sick scared woman on dyalasis helped from the podium in tears.
Shamefull.
I hope Bianchi, Capps, The SLO court judges, Pandora, Hemsley, Monowitz, all of them see her face in the night. I fear lies with those that won't be haunted by hers and the other faces of the CDOs at all. I hope Okun sees them. I hope at least some of the Water Gods are moved by mortal pain.
What I afraid of thouggh,is that we face, not Gods, but a machine made of human belts & pullies, that has no compunction other than to consume resources. I hope I'm wrong in my fear. Osos, All Love. You did good yesterday. Knocked down 7 times, stand up 8...; 9:17 PM, April 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: I don't have a dog in this fight but is it just me or is Jeffrey Young a complete asshole.; 9:35 PM, April 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: Just curious, can water be treated by itself to drinkable standards? If it can be then why not pump water out of the upper aquafier, thus allowing the septic tanks to perform, treat the water, and return it to wherever. Seems like a lot cheaper solution to me. I mean do septic tanks work or not? They were certainly permitted here for a long time. Even after an order to stop using them.
Does anyone know of any situation similiar to ours that has ever occured anywhere else? For 30 yrs.?
Seems to me there is something inherently wrong with the solution being imposed on us.; 8:38 AM, April 30, 2006
Anonymous said...: Which is worse, an asshole or an asshole's apologist??; 9:22 AM, April 30, 2006
Churadogs said...: Spectator wrote:"Ann: This is just part of the effects of your positions through the years. You and the NEW LOCSD never considered how what you wrote, and the support you gave to false promises would affect the community. Time has come to support dissolution of the LOCSD. By November, I suspect you will see 1000 homes for sale in Los Osos if dissolution is not achieved."

You need to go back to read all the columns I wrote on Sewerville. I was asking questions years ago that the community paid NO attention to -- had they and the CSD had done so, maybe none of this would be occurring now.

As for dissolution, you need to explain just HOW, exactly, dissolution will get a sewer built that's "sustainable" (now required by the SRF folks,) and secured by a 218 type vote, now required by the SRF folks,) that will be as costly as whatever the Ripley report comes up with.

as for the comment above that tanks would have to be replace for the Prana system, for example, to be used, the "new" proposal aby the RWQCB is to require inspection and repair of all tanks (a good idea in my judgement, something that people in this community have been calling for for years in the form of a Septic Maintenance District, something the RWQCB had the power to create YEARS ago but didn't, and then IF (note I said IF) the Prana system, for example, is used and the RWQCB waives the $900 a year "discharge permit fee" it would be about $4,000 plus $150 a year maintenance and IF< IF IF it resulted in a 20% reduction in pollution (what the pumping scheme claims it will do) then it would be cost effective as an interim solution and wouldn't involve air pollution or removing millions of gallons of water. What I found disturbing by Okun's question is I have to wonder if anybody bothered to even look at that as an option before bring the mad pumping scheme to the Board as a proposal.; 9:24 AM, April 30, 2006
Ron said...: Spectator said:

""You and the NEW LOCSD never considered how what you wrote, and the support you gave to false promises would affect the community."

That is the worst take I have ever read in these comments.

What Ann wrote? Please tell me that's a joke. What Ann wrote?

Last I checked, Ann didn't lie to the community that their "maximum" monthly sewer bill would be "$38.75."

Last I checked, Ann didn't waste two years chasing a plan that every water quality professional knew wasn't going to work.

Last I checked, Ann wasn't a CSD Board member when they made up a "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a centrally located recreational asset, so they could cover up the fact that the plan that got them elected and the CSD formed, had failed.

False promises? You have seen this, right?

Last I checked, Ann's name wasn't listed under the part of that newsletter that says, "The Solution Group members are..."

Mike said:

"Can I put a theater and a wine bar on top of my own WWTF?"

That made me laugh out loud.; 9:34 AM, April 30, 2006
Anonymous said...: It was my impression that Dr. Wickham never said that the septics do or do not cause the high nitrate levels. He said that he didn't see any CAUSE and EFFECT studies. That to make a CAUSE and EFFECT conclusion based on a CORRELATION is not good science. Matt Thompson kept stating there is a clear CORRELATION. Dr. Wickham's point, I think, was that without studies to rule out the other possible causes you might be looking at a SPURIOUS CORRELATION. One of errors that scientists have to be very careful of is to claim a correlation as a cause. That mistake is bad science. And as we saw yesterday, the staff of the CCRWQB is good at bad science!; 10:12 AM, April 30, 2006
Anonymous said...: I should have been more clear in my characterization of Jeffrey Young as an asshole. From watching the sewer hearings on television I'd describe him as arrogant, condescending, demeaning, insulting, impatient,surly,inflamatory,with narcissistic tendencies. Basically an asshole.; 11:29 AM, April 30, 2006
Anonymous said...: The discussion of CORRELATION & CAUSE was an interesting sparring match.

Dr. Wickham addressed only data he had seen. A scientist (or expert witness) can also avoid making CORRELATIONs if they never have complete data supplied to them or they choose to only look at select data.

It was surprising to see Dr. Press not further dialog with Dr. Wickham about Dr. Wickham's comment about discontinuity in Nitrate readings due to depth. No board members or anybody further inquired into the data behind his comment, or the quantity of data behind the comment.

Also, performing more tests as was suggested would not necessarily get anyone closer to the point of making a decision.

One test often leads to yet another - that is the dilemma. And how scientists make a living. I'm just laughing how all these people are assuming that tracking isotopes will necessarily provide a conclusion that will enable a better decision to be made in 2008 than in 2006. Because the fact is they simply don't know if it will.

There are three outcomes from another science project on Nitrates.

1) The nitrates are not coming from septics. Any wagers???

This is the town 'I told you so' result, because then we don't have to de-nitrify as much, but we will still need to spend a lot of money for clean water. Why - the water user will pay, and there's no one to blame to pick up the bill.

2) Nitrates are coming from septics. OK, now you're back to square one, and you're gonna spend bucks to pay for clean water, and there is NO DOUBT the town is to blame.

3) The results are inconclusive as to sources/causes! Don't dismiss this possibility where science is concerned. This puts the town basically in the same place as conclusion 2)

Before performing a science project, there should always first be a discussion on the 'Design of Experiments' which looks at decision/cost outcomes to determine if the science project is even worthwhile.

Dr. Wickham did not dispute that putting in a treatment plant would result in cleaner water being disposed into the surface.

The waterboard though was presented with an option. Issue CDOs, with a conditional discharge permit - the question is how do they make that condition feasible, trackable, and avoid language that would be specific to a vendor (i.e., cover the waterboard's ass which is probably the most important thing to this waterboard). The devil is in the details, but this gets my vote.

One Anon has the greatest post, just re-start pumping that dirty water and treat (or blend) it. In other words, screw the science, and live with what ya got. Neil Young would be proud. Probably the best thing that's ever been posted here.

Then there's this post:

"Last I checked, Ann didn't lie to the community that their "maximum" monthly sewer bill would be "$38.75."

Last I checked, Ann didn't waste two years chasing a plan that every water quality professional knew wasn't going to work."

Well, if that poster is accurate, then it's just as true the community was also told that a new undefined plan would save money. So that is also a lie, because how anyone can say they will save money when they haven't even defined the plan is equally dishonest.

The poster can come to only one conclusion: both sides of Los Osos combine to form one big bunch of idiots or liars. Take your pick.

As to speculation on the cost for interim septics, I would suggest contacting professionals for ALL TOTAL COSTS. Dr. Wickham provided one estimate that was very narrowly defined in it's scope.

Prediction: Briggs will not be involved with enforcement action on Los Osos by 1/1/2008. Poor Thompson, he got fed to the wolves. Doesn't it appear that no one on the prosecution team is enjoying their job??? Except for maybe Okun - you know you're in trouble when the lawyers are the only ones that appear to be having fun.; 12:35 PM, April 30, 2006
Anonymous said...: It looked to me like Lori Okun was about to fall asleep.; 1:54 PM, April 30, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ahhh...

Association and causation.

I do think it would be fair for Wickam to say something like "based on the information I have, we cannot conclude that septics are the cause" because, indeed, the association we see can't be shown to be from one causal source based on only the association.

It is disappointing that he had only looked at one year's worth of data. One would presume that if he were working with the LOCSD he would want to have all the available information before testifying as an expert. If I were being asked to testify as an expert in such a meeting as this one I would most certainly ask for all relevant material and I would at least read it before the testimony. That did not happen.

What is interesting about the discussion is this ... when we find high nitrate levels in aquifers, we typically know why. There are a variety of possible sources ... septic overload, leaky septics, sewage pipe leakage, lots and lots and lots of plant matter having been burried some time earlier, atmospheric deposition and Agricultural runoff. There a limited number of understood causes. Those causes explain pretty much every other high nitrate in the aquifer situation ... as Ron says, this is not rocket science.

So, along those lines, we know that the reason the nitrates are high is because of one of a few causes ... or there is some special Los Osos magic that doesn't appear anywhere else in the world that causes our nitrates to be high for reasons different than anywhere else.

Of the possible causes of high nitrate levels, only one ... human urine ... matches up with the trend we see in Los Osos ... the nitrates are high below the septics (and not East of town where there might be an AG impact) and they are going up.

Why is this interesting? Because when Wickam was asked about what the cause could be if he knew that the nitrate levels were going up he waffled and refused to admit what anyone with knowledge of the situation would know to be a fact. Read the Cleath report.

Essentially Wickam lost credibility in my mind. Sure Ann and others want to point to the staffers of the RWQCB as scientifically naive, but their own "expert" seemed less scientific than calculated ... calculated not to annoy those in charge of the LOCSD board for the moment.

I do have to say that it may have been a wise move if he hopes to sell a ton of units in our town. Unfortunately however, his denial of the obvious probably lost him credibility with the RWQCB who will be the group who gets to decide (later) whether to allow onsite systems as a temporary fix until our WWTF comes online.; 4:08 PM, April 30, 2006
Anonymous said...: By the thrust of many questions related to the wisdom of pumping to clean up the groundwater, it seams reasonable to assume the LOCSD and all these CDO recepients are very concerned about cleaning the groundwater.

Example: 'how does pumping clean the groundwater?'

To that end, I would assume they will also be very pleased when the waterboard requests that the community and these residents PAY for some other way to clean (not necessarily lower discharging). In fact, one could get the impression that the LOCSD and residents would prefer Clean and Abatement Orders ASAP.

Perhaps the waterboard will take steps to move up the 2010 date a couple of years since all these parties are so concerned about clean groundwater. If I were a waterboard member, and after hearing the 'concerns' of all the people, I would set the compliance date to mid 2008. That way, the steps to disconnect the leachfields or alternates can happen sooner, not later.

Be careful what you wish for.; 4:26 PM, April 30, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ann posts:

"As for dissolution, you need to explain just HOW, exactly, dissolution will get a sewer built that's "sustainable" (now required by the SRF folks,) and secured by a 218 type vote, now required by the SRF folks,) that will be as costly as whatever the Ripley report comes up with. "

What does dissolution have to do with any 218 vote? A 218 vote is not required for a sewer. Thanks to the CSD, the state would now require Los Osos property owners to conduct a 218 vote to secure the loan. I wonder if Ann knows if all the SRF loans statewide now have a requirement imposed for a 218 vote for SRF loans?

Why couldn't the County implement a viable, sustainable wastewater system at a lower cost than Los Osos? One less agency to implement a project would certainly seem to hasten completion. Would the County be able to attract more competition to bids for design and construction? If so, wouldn't that be a good thing? If the County could secure more grants and lower cost funding, wouldn't that be a good thing? Would property owners be more willing to approve a 218 vote if the County administered the project rather than a junk credit CSD? Just questions.; 8:08 PM, April 30, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: To address the SRF/sustainability issue that Ann raises and Publicworks also commented on ...

It has been claimed several times that the TriW project was not "sustainable". I have yet to hear a solid reason for thinking an alternative was dramatically better. If the best Lisa could get on the reduce O&M costs was a total of $10/month per family (when penciling things out with Rob and Darrin), it is pretty clear that TriW would run about 15-25% more per month to run than some fictional out of town ponding system. Also on the sustainability issue and also discussed during the November "let's bash the SWRCB" meeting, Lisa told us that STEP was not sustainable because of the electricity costs to run the thing.

In any case, if a requirement for getting a SRF is a sustainable design:

1. Why would TriW not qualify? (It has been suggested, but not shown.)
2. Why do you think we would get a SRF anyway?
3. Would the higher interest rate the CSD would have to pay on the non SRF
money (and the SWRCB has indicated they don't intend to give out as
large a SRF loan as they had to the CSD previously ... it ties too much
of the money up in one community) so much higher that it more than
makes up for the lower SRF money. [Note: the LOCSD now has a rather
low bond rating ... any interest rates we'll get to borrow will be
far higher than what the county would get.]

So, if we stick with TriW and can borrow far less money (building soon will keep inflation away) at a (likely) lower interest rate than we would get even if we aimed for another SRF.

Good question, Ann, but it still seems that TriW will cost us less. Of course, I presume the County would want to go with the least expensive option available, but maybe the CCLO/LOTTF/LOTA/CASE/etc. crowd could perhaps talk the supervisors into additional delay to study the project yet again so that we know that we were really really stupid to have passed up the opportunity to build TriW when it would have only cost us $200/month.; 10:18 PM, April 30, 2006
Ron said...: Spectator said:

"Well, ponds work in Arcata, St. Helena, and many other areas.."

Fair enough. I just forgot to add, "a plan that every water quality professional knew wasn't going to work in Los Osos."

"I looked at the poll you posted on your site as to the park. It seems to me that most residents were in favor of it."

There's a subtle, yet very important distinction that needs to be made there. There may indeed be a "strongly held community value" for parks in Los Osos. However, and this is very important, that is not what the old Board told the Coastal Commission to unnecessarily lock in Tri-Dub. They told them there was a "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a centrally located "recreational asset." Big difference!

"From your site, you have made a selection of the Andre site without considering the prohibitions on the title. You have never posted the letter from PG&E saying the site was not suitable. This is a NON site."

There are two Andre sites. The larger one has deed restrictions. The smaller one does not, according to the PGE spokesperson I talked to.

"Where were you and ANN to forsee the criticisms of the staff of the CCRWQCB."

In 1998 -- before the election that formed the CSD -- when the Questa study showed that the county's plan was much, much better for Los Osos than the Solution Group's silly Community Plan, I published the results of that study on the front page of The Bay Breeze, above the fold, with a headline in the largest font size I ever used when I was editing that paper.; 9:27 AM, May 01, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

Get off your high horse already. You're picking at nits and have for years.

The board is voted in and has been given the right and responsibility for making decisions ... including decisions like siting the WWTF. They set the criteria for the siting decision and they made a choice. There is no perfect site with no drawbacks. They chose what they believe was the best available site.

I have to bring this up one more time ... if your arguments are so compelling, how were the missed by the legal eagles representing CCLO/LOTTF/whatever when they filed their request for permit revocation?

I figure that it must be because your argument were not deemed as meritorious as the dozens they did include that were all denied as baseless ... or the great minds of CCLO and LOTTF and their lawyers are not as well trained in the law as your run of the mill journalist with no special training in legal matters. If that's the case, we're probably completely screwed as a community, because it is that same group who is now running the show.; 10:22 AM, May 01, 2006
Mike Green said...: Shark sez:

"we're probably completely screwed as a community, because it is that same group who is now running the show."

And that, my friends is what is realy scary.; 7:37 PM, May 01, 2006
Anonymous said...: Infidels! You have no understanding of the hatred that rests behind the acts of ecoterrorisem! The people of los Osos are mere pawns in the Endgame that will result in the destruction of the Morro Bay estuary. ASK THIS -Will anyone sell them Warrenty on a new Septic tank if they admit to plan to pump it out every two monthes? Comandante Briggs knows that as the vibrations from the frequent pumping will crack out the tanks, a flood of toxic wastes will ensure the elimination of all the potable water sources. Bi monthly pumping will not only Kill the septic ecology , It will kill the tanks. Once Tri W town is Three mile Island all properties will be condemned.
(Excerpted from a tape attributed to rebel leader Ohmisumppump-isbroken)
-Sorry Ann, I should get my own Blog.
-SewerMouth; 7:58 PM, May 01, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Well Mike there is the other possibility ... that Ron's insight is ... um ... skewed and that he has a higher opinion of his opinion than he ought.

Is that less scary?; 8:02 PM, May 01, 2006
Anonymous said...: spec asked.....
"How many of those calls were made while she was supposed to be working on Cal Trans time? Were they Cal Trans related."

Answer to question 1. none
Answer to question 2 no

Got any other stupid question?; 8:15 AM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hey, here's some other stupid questions:
Better, cheaper faster, we're ready to go" How's that working out?
"We won't get fined." How's that working out?
"We won't lose the SRF loan." What's the deal there?

Stupid is as stupid does I suppose.; 9:12 AM, May 02, 2006
Ron said...: Shark said:

"Ron, Get off your high horse already. You're picking at nits and have for years."

More like picking at nitwits for years... they made it so easy (they did want to put a tot lot in your sewer plant, after all), that's why I miss them so much.

"Hey honey, what should we do with the kids this weekend? "Oh, I know, let's take them to the park in our sewer plant. And, boy, I'll tell ya, it's a good thing the initial CSD Board had the wisdom to let that park dictate the expensive, downtown location of our sewer-park, that way we won't have to use a bunch of expensive gas to drive two miles downwind to get to the tot lot in our sewer plant. PACK UP THE KIDS, HON!"

Just a thought, but... am I the only one that finds it a little peculiar that Los Osos is the only community, in the history of people on earth (and, I'm sure, every other life form in the known universe), that had a "strongly held community value" to build their sewer plant in the middle of town so it could accommodate an expensive park?

There's a very good chance I would have never written a single word on this subject after I left as editor of The Bay Breeze in 1999, if that "value" had read: "strongly held initial CSD Board value." The fact that they told the Coastal Commission that it was a "community" value, is the rub.

"Opinion," Shark? More like, "reasoned analysis."

Ann said:

"Instead, did they just run with the stupidest, most destructive, most ill-considered, wasteful cockamamie scheme they could think of... "

Close your eyes and imagine how that meeting went... "O.K. guys, here's what we'll do...".

Uhhg.

Like I said before, who's policing the police?

Now THAT'S scary.; 10:21 AM, May 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Some wise individual once wrote, "Ron, Get off your high horse already. You're picking at nits and have for years." So, immediately Ron gets back on the horse.

Fine, prove your irelevancy. See if I care.; 12:44 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Chairman Young is infatuated with himself and as previously reported is an asshole. He is more concerned with how he looks on TV than on the matter at hand. He can't even get bifocals on his glasses for fear they might make him look too old. Watch when he has to read something, the glasses move up the head or off the nose. Make you wonder what he does read.

And when he announced that the CDOs run with the property only - someone should clue him in to Briggs' epistle which is "the CDOs are with the property and the people". Why else do they want tenants' names.

No one in charge except Herr Briggs and I was so happy to hear that he was sick. He makes me sick.

And Mr. "unbiased" Chairman YOung is forever supporting and taking the side of the prosecution and telling the CDO recipients what they can and cannot say. There is no unbiased anything on that panel. Mr. Hayashi is probably the only good guy there.

When Briggs is cross-examined, Chairman "Mao Tse Tsung" Young chimes in with his Briggs-supportive statement.

Gimme a break! Unbiased my butt.; 1:34 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: PS - Lori Okun reminds me of a beady-eyed, cross-eyed lizard. Never understood how she can help the Taxpayers Watch group of thugs. Just makes you wonder if the water quality is at issue or what is really, really going on here.; 1:43 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Really? Nothing like the constant cast of buffoons who are the only ones to show up at all the CSD meetings and got to take their show on the road last Friday. Yep. The salt of the earth I tell you. Real fine honorable people. Not a mean soul among them. Thank goodness the county channel is airing these hearings so now everyone can see the thugish brutes and vindictive apologists who are the face of the LOCSD. These are the clowns who make ME sick and are robbing me, a property owner, blind every day.; 2:01 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Chairman Mao Tse Young! That's a keeper! Did you notice that when the going gets tough and we have to actually stand up and speak to the waterboard itself that there were about seven or eight Dreamers there? Where are all their supporters? Don't they want their side to be heard? Or do they just prefer emails with the "prosecution team"? When the going get's tough, the tough go to Taxpayers Watch! They must be afraid of all the brutes and buffoons...mailmen, teachers, professors, scientists, ya know, those kind of people.; 2:14 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: How do those people on the the CCRWQCB sleep at night? I know I don't since getting my CDO.; 2:16 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ouch! Ron hit a nerve with Mr. Inlet.; 2:18 PM, May 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: To our anonymous friend ...

It seems pretty clear to me that even if Brigg is biased ... that is fine because he is on the prosecution team and just following the orders of the board from January.

In January the CSD lawyer suggested the CDOs to the RWQCB. The RWQCB is well within the law on this matter and we've been counting on their continued forgiveness for our continued pollution for some number of years. Well, considering we (well, our LOCSD board anyways) decided to stop making progress toward the one thing ... the only thing ... the first thing ... we could have done to clean up our own groundwater and the bay, it seems pretty logical that they would decide to hold us accountable for our choices.

Suppose you get pulled over for speeding but the cop lets you off with a warning. Suppose that a mile down the road the same cop pulls you over ... again for speeding. Repeat that another three or four times. Is the cop named Briggs being an asshole if he were to finally write you a ticket? Would the judge be an asshole if he were to, bifocaled or not, refuse to let you spend more than 15 minutes with irrelevant rambling stories of your past history and why you were forced to speed that day and how you plan on stopping your speeding ... a mere two years from now?

Nope, your assessment of Young reeks of your own bias. Your willingess to be so spitful toward Briggs and Young is what is sickening.

I would hope that those in Los Osos, even those who disagree with the RWQCB, would be at least polite on these matters.

Oh, and to the other anonymous friend ... I am learning (finally, after a year or so) that it is not worth talking with Ron. I used to respect him and his insights. Now I see that he simply refuses to learn. Pity.; 2:52 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Suppose the cop is buddy-buddy with another cop (or cops)who have been pressuring the cop to pull you over and STICK IT TO YOU? Because cop number one has HAD IT WITH YOU? Because even though the speed limit is unreasonable and your activity is what makes sense, you're not gonna get any slack because they've got a buddy-buddy agreement goin' on? (Although many others have been given slack in the past somehow you're different)
Why do you keep talkin' with Ron when you obviously can't stand it because he "refuses to learn?"
Pity on you. Enjoy your perfect unbiased life.; 3:26 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: I think this discussion about cops has remarkably hit upon a reasonable solution to the problem!

All enforcement proceedings should be stopped immediately.

There are two roads leading in/out of Los Osos.

The cops (or RWQCB) can set up toll stations at Turri Road on both LOVR & South Bay Blvd.

Anyone entering Los Osos must pay $5. So all the job commuters (people with jobs in or out of Los Osos) will basically pay $100/month. Tourists (who must go poop in Los Osos) also pay!

Low income people can get a reduced rate 'value' pass.

The lucky ones that live and work in Los Osos don't have to pay! Hey, they spend tax dollars locally anyway. Retirees won't pay much (except the rich one's that go shopping in SLO), so it's got it's own affordibility index built in. Or a low income person can get a pass.

It has sustainability, since it will make people take fewer trips.

People outside the PZ have to pay. The few ones who live outside the CSD but who have to pass the booth get a pass or a reduced rate.

No one from SLO wants to come to Los Osos anymore, so by stopping the bickering they may come back (and pay $5!)

At the pay station gate, everyone can say hi to Briggs (or whoever is on duty, maybe they can even hire Racano!) - or flip 'em off, depending on their disposition.

The toll booths will have portapottys until the sewer is built - keep the guards on guard.

Anyone caught cheating will get a fine (or a CDO)!

After enough is collected for the sewer, the toll booths can be kept, and we can start collecting money for a park.

Everyone wins!

PS, the best part is it will keep the riff-raff out of Los Osos (I mean any new riff-raff). The old riff-raff will never be able to leave.

One problem, getting the permit for the toll booth will probably take about 5 years.; 4:01 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Frankly, i'd prefer the cop to write the ticket the first time. Allowing me to speed for 20+ yrs. is probably not someone I want enforcing our laws.; 4:17 PM, May 02, 2006
Anonymous said...: Public Works for LOCSD president! Please run!

P.S. What does "spitful" mean? (? for Shark)

P.S.S. Briggs is a definite A-hole. To suggest a 6.6 million dollar fine on our small community (industrial polluters get lower fines!) and then a few months later argue for CDOs againat individuals that will cost $2000 a year is just plain cold-blooded. He is cold-blooded dude.

Chairman Mao Tse Young thinks he is posing for GQ but in reality he will be lucky to make Wastewater News.

Yeah yeah yeah there's pollution, which is a serious matter. Ethical behavior is serious as well.; 4:38 PM, May 02, 2006
Mike Green said...: Sharkey bubbled:

"Well Mike there is the other possibility ... that Ron's insight is ... um ... skewed and that he has a higher opinion of his opinion than he ought.

Is that less scary?"

I was simply doing what BOTH you and Ron do, taking a comment out of context to make a humerous or interesting point.
Both of you are very interesting writers.
Ron, on one hand, by living somewhere else (poor soul) has no real stake in this mess other than his ego.
If you take his writing as a sort of commentary of our history, it's prety hard to completly brush off, in fact I am convinced on many points he is right on.

When is history irrelevant?

your quote:
Fine, prove your irelevancy. See if I care.

Seems to me, nearly all history is irrelevant, we can't seem to learn a damn thing, keep doing the same dumb tricks over and over.
Thats why I took that comment somewhat out of context,
It realy IS the most scary thing that we seem to be caught in a loop of ridiculous.
Imagine:
What if the SRB had found a way to preserve the loan?
What if the Water Gods had Not decided to fine the CSD?
What if the Dreamers had joined forces with the new CSD?

I know, stupid right?

Me, I'm going to open a theater and wine bar on top of my onsite system in order to counter my traveling costs at publickworks toll booth (Ha Ha); 7:02 PM, May 02, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Mike,

I always appreciate your comments. I agree that Ron is dead on accurate about some of the history of this mess. On the other hand, he has spent so little time studying or thinking about the current situation that all he can do is slide back to it's all Pandora's fault which, from the point of view of what we ought to do now, is completely irrelevant.; 7:35 PM, May 02, 2006
Mike Green said...: Yes, I have to agree, Pandora is irrelevant.
Do you drink wine?
trying to drum up buisness here.; 7:45 PM, May 02, 2006
Mike Green said...: Penny stupid, pound foolish.
I always wondered what my grandmother ment; 9:25 PM, May 02, 2006
Mike Green said...: Spectator! you get the VIP seating!
Yours truly.
Big Mikey, Pimp Daddy of the sewer Bar And Grill!; 9:29 PM, May 02, 2006
Mike Green said...: Don't know what the first movie will be, maybe True Stories by Byrne.
Suggestions?; 9:44 PM, May 02, 2006

Pages

Saturday, April 29, 2006

42 comments: