Saturday, April 08, 2006
Push Pull Polling, Anyone? For a gander at how THAT little game works, trot over to www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com for Ron Crawford's discussion of "surveys," political campaign laws," push-pull polling and the old Bait & Switcharoo as it pertains to the good old question, "Just how DID we end up in this Sewervilel Train Wreck, anyway?" The past is prologue, as they say.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
This is not a comment on Ron's blog (although I encourage people to read it!).
This is a comment about what our dear Lisa wrote as a viewpoint for the local paper on Monday, April 10.
She wrote that $205/month (or $50k per household) was too expensive for a sewer, WWTF and disposal system. Here's my silly question ... doesn't this imply that Lisa's group is promising to lower our bills?
Surely if our bills don't go down from the horribly expensive $200/month, it will be on her watch. Certainly she should be held accountable for any change in our costs which raise our bills from what the previous group would have delivered.
So far it looks like the current board is on a path to spend at least another $30M on our debts and on designing a new system before any construction could begin. If it takes another five years before construction starts, inflation will raise the costs. If we don't get another SRF, we'll be paying more because of the interest rates. Oh yeah, we also need to include any pumping charges as part of our costs because we'll have to pay the bills.
Essentially this means that the sewer/WWTF/disposal system will have to be less than about $60M in today's dollars for even a possibility of us saving money. Doesn't seem likely to me in this age of lawsuits.
Now I am sure that Ann will chime in about deferred costs and O&M&R soon, but let me remind you all that in the November meeting to complain about how the "negotiations" were not really negoitiations, Lisa told us all that with an out of town ponding system we could save a whopping $600k/year on O&M. Translated into real costs on our bills, that would be $10/month.
I am sure that Ann will also remind us that we haven't heard the results of Ripley's study yet. This would be correct. Even so, I am raising a "what if" question ... what if the results don't show that we can lower our bills but that things will now be more expensive?
Ann, will you let us complain about Lisa and her brood then or will you insist that because she tried hard or that because the whole world was being unfair to her and to us that we should still support her cause to move the sewer "no matter how much it costs."
repeat after me,
'the past is prologue', 'the past is prologue', 'the past is prologue'
to what??
To a failure to build a treatment plant. Which has brought CDOs. Which has brought even more lawsuits.
All one can say, Ann, you have gotten exactly what you voted for, a huge financial and legal mess, that almost any financial analysis (whether construction had started on not started) would have told you.
Yes, the past is prologue. Just don't get all bent out of shape or surprised when a treatment plant doesn't get completed until 2014 or so.
Apologists like Ann Calhoun absolutely need to look at the past as it supplies a ready-made excuse for all the failings of the current CSD. Something broke? Blame it on the prior board. Of course it isn't important that Schicker and Tacker were on that prior board and were well aware of the numerous consequences for stopping work at Tri W. That just doesn't seem to matter. What matters is focus on the prior board allows for the softening of the blows to come. I already heard a supporter of this board at the last meeting start a sentence with "Even if the new design costs more...." And the Measure B back pedaling is in full swing as it's demise seems inevitable. But we're all better off yep. The screwing we get from this board will be so much better than the screwing we got from the old board. Jeez.
Inlet said: "Ann, will you let us complain about Lisa and her brood then . . ."
Let you complain? LET you??? Bwa-hahahahah.That's rich. Playing the faux "victim" dosn't suit you, Inet.
Well Ann, your key point here is that we ought not to complain about the actions of this board because we don't have all the facts yet ... I was just asking whether you would stop complaining about our complaining when it becomes evident we were right.
There is only one certainty in politics. Right is always subjective, and most facts, statistics end up as lies (or damn lies).
End the end, it's all a matter of whose political arse gets gored!
Shark, a columnist can NEVER admit to being wrong - it's a pre-requesite (and a perk) of the job!
Public works said, "Shark, a columnist can NEVER admit to being wrong - it's a pre-requesite (and a perk) of the job!"
Wrong again, an opinion columnist owes the reader correct factual information cited upon which an opinion can be based. If the reader disagrees with the opinion, that's fine. The facts cited, however, can't be made up stuff or incorrect stuff.
In the 15 some years I've been wriiting the Can(n)on I've run one correction (indavertendly ran a 2x figure on a school bond issue, corrected the next week) and run one "clarification" needed because the length of the column (740 words doesn't allow for ginormous, thousand word complex explanations."
You clearly disagree with the opinons I've expressed. That's fine. Unlike most folks addressing this blog, my {real} name's on what I write. I stand behind behind my opinion. At this point, I have nothing to "apologize" for.
Unlike some, I'm not counting chickens before they hatch, and it is my firmly held opinion that there is sufficience )factual) evidence of a serious conflation of incompetence, hidden agendas and ethical breeches and plain old malfesance in so much of what's gone down with the entire "sewer" issue from day one, that I have said and will say again: I smell rats. Sooooo many rats. And it is my opinion that the public better wake up and start sniffing.
That's an opinion, based on the facts I've looked at. You disagree and hold another opinion. Do I expect you to apologize for holding another opinion? No. So why do you expect that from me, at this point?
Churadogs,
If directed at me, where did I say I expect an apology from you???
You are wrong about one thing. The public will never have all the facts. It's impossible to have 'all' the facts, and most of it gets twisted in its context anyway, even in the court system.
There is certainly a wealth of information, and people can pretty much figure out how things can get screwed up.
In a republic, it all comes back to people educating themselves BEFORE making choices, and in the case of Los Osos, that goes back to the 70s/80s/90s, including such things as purchasing a home.
One should always count their chickens before they hatch, for the simple reason of keeping track of your chickens and eggs; it pays to look out into the future.
Public works said: "In a republic, it all comes back to people educating themselves BEFORE making choices, and in the case of Los Osos, that goes back to the 70s/80s/90s, including such things as purchasing a home."
The problem comes when officials (regulators, commissions, elected officials either bury information or spin it or flat out lie about it. Then it's imposible to make an informed choice because your information is . . . wrong.
You have an excuse for everything Ann. When you bought your home, there was a discharge prohibiton. Now was it your responsibility to know, or not? Go ahead, blame somebody else.
When you voted in 1998, there was a CLEAR plan presented to you in forming a CSD that the plan would violate the prohibition. So were you stupid then or did you deliberately know you would be supporting violations and voted for the CSD anyway.
The regulators backed off, because the CSD was a new entity.
If I don't discipline a child, and then I later try to, the child always comes back and says 'that's not fair, you should've told me before' as children are prone to do when they want to get away with things.
Sometimes, children want to make their own rules. And the result is often that they get into trouble. Sooner or later, the parent puts the foot down and establishes the rules. Sometimes, the child strings out enforcement of rules or challenges rules indefinitely. But it is often too late anyway to have a meaningful result.
Did you happen to see the Judge's ruled yesterday applying the laws of the State of California? Now, a 3rd Judge ruled that that something two board members signed their names to was illegal. If you advocate laws that are illegal ( or don't know any better) what does that say about your credibity and knowledge of Facts. What does that say about people that supposedly put that law together? Are they credible, trustworthy, and is their judgement sound??
And yes Ann, sometimes the rules don't make perfect sense, even though they have a reason.
The Solutions Group plan was flawed, then. This time, there was no plan, and it was a clear as day that fines would occur and CDOs would follow. Why would you know that?, because that's what the regulators have been saying and more important, that is within their discretion. Of course, by saying this, I'll likely get labeled ll sorts of things, which I am not.
So go ahead Ann, keep blaming everybody but yourself. I see children doing it all the time. Regulators, like parents, are flawed, but not evil.
And keep watching for that egg to hatch, I think it's due about 2014 right now. God forbid that anyone tries to count how much things cost ahead of time like Shark.
Publicworks said:"When you voted in 1998, there was a CLEAR plan presented to you in forming a CSD that the plan would violate the prohibition. So were you stupid then or did you deliberately know you would be supporting violations and voted for the CSD anyway."
Do you have campaign material from the CSD formation election that discusses the RWQCB report on the Ponds of Avalon? Any Tribune or Sun Bulletin stories about that report, about how the RWQBoard had already reviewd the proposed system and wasn't going to approve The Ponds of Avalon? Did anyone from the Solutions Group, when running for office, stand up and say, "We've got a report in hand from the RWQCB that states they're not going to allow this plan . . ." and so forth? That was my point. It's impossible to make a half-way decent decision based on flawed or false or MISSING information.
You had all the information you needed, Ann.
One didn't need any RWQCB report.
What part of the discharge prohibition didn't you understand? The community KNEW about the discharge prohibition, and if they didn't, then the community is admitting they are the most ignorant people in the County.
What part of the Solutions Group plan that was to continue discharging didn't you understand?? That plan was available and that information was NOT missing. If the community is admitting they can't on their own put two and two together, then the community (and especially YOU) are the most ignorant people in the County.
Ignorance is not all bliss, is it Ann? Especially when one tries to make excuses for it.
Post a Comment