Calhouns Can(n)ons

Sunday, August 13, 2006

My, My, So Many Mice For Such a Dead Cat

O.K., What gives? The Saturday Tribune lists the local election races open until Wednesday and lists folks who have, I presume, taken out papers to run for the Los Osos Community Services District Board and it said: “Vote for three” and lists the following:

Joyce Albright, Al Barrow, Chuck Cesena, David Duggan, Jeff Edwards, Maria Kelly, Ed Ochs, Steve Senet, Rob Shipe, Joe Sparks and Lynette Tornatsky.

Joyce Albright? Is this some kind of sick joke? Did somebody take out papers and forge her name on them? Joyce Albright is one of the driving forces behind Taxpayer’s Watch which appeared immediately after the recall election with the sole purpose of DISOLVING the CSD, as in, The CSD must Die!Die!Die!. They even went so far as to petition LAFCO to kill the CSD to death. No CSD. Booo! Hisss! Bad CSD, We Don’t Want No Stinkin’ CSD.

Yet there she is listed as a candidate for . . . the CSD?

Even more interesting, as spokesperson for Taxpayers Watch, Joyce has made it clear that self rule has been a disaster, that the county needs to take over this whole pathetic town, since folks can’t be trusted to elect competent people, we need to get rid of the whole mess entirely, and this board and all its heirs and assigns totally suck, yet here are, count ‘em, eleven people running to serve on the board of this dead cat – a CSD facing bankruptcy, dissolution, lawsuits, more lawsuits, including those brought by Taxpayers Watch. (If Joyce wins the seat will she continue to sue herself?). Eleven people? So far as I know, that’s more people running than when the CSD was golden, happy, fully functioning, fiscally in the black, and problem-free.

So, what gives? Organized Farce has finally come to Los Osos?

Well, the election should be interesting. First Question to be asked of each candidate: Did you support or oppose the recall? Next Question: Are you Pro Tri W or anti Tri W? That’ll divide the sheep from the goats real quick. Baaaaahhhhh.

82 comments:

Anonymous said...: Hi Ann,

Your outrage that a candidate for the CSD Board (Joyce Albright) is also involved in a lawsuit against that very CSD that she is running for is a bit late. If you remember, Julie Tacker and Lisa Schicker both were deeply involved in numerous CCLO lawsuits against the CSD when they ran for office in 2004.

Where was your outrage then?

Where was your outrage when Julie and Lisa continued with their legal maneuvering against the CSD when ON the CSD board?

Instead of attacking people and candidates, why not try looking at the serious issues that are relevant today...such as the looming CSD backruptcy, CDO’s, fines, and deteriorating CSD services

Regards, Richard LeGros; 10:47 AM, August 13, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ann and other friends,

As an outsider, I came into your County, town and issue with an excellent opportunity for an unbiased look at it all.

As you know, my Ocean Outfall Group along with Surfrider Foundation and Sierra Club, has the best clean-water track record in the history of California environmentalism and politics.

This is no idle talk. We stopped the worlds largest 301(h) sewage waiver at the Orange County Sanitation District on July 17th, 2002, the biggest Desalination plant in the western hemisphere shortly thereafter, stopped the Morro Bay 301(h) waiver just recently (and that stoppage now threatens Morro Bay with Cease and Desist Orders of their own!), and our list of clean-water accomplishments goes on and on.

We came into the fray knowing full well Los Osos was the only town of the tri-city area (Morro Bay, Los Osos, and Cayucos) that did NOT have a pipe running DIRECTLY INTO THE BAY dumping sewer water (with a waiver allowing for extra fecal solids).

It is imprortant to note that ne'er do-well COASTKEEPER Gordon Hensley is a former LOCSD Boardmember who was recalled in disgrace just 27 days after going ahead with the bulldozers and forcing Los Osos into a spending frenzy from which it may never recover.

Also one of those criminals was Rich Legros, who writes another of his dispicable lying comments just above.

I always enjoy quoting former LOCSD Director Legros, when he said to the citizens on TV from the dais, "...I have fucking balls!" as the reason he would not resign.

Back to the present:

Todays paper says that the EPA has sided with the State about stopping the State Revolving Fund 135 Million Dollar Loan to Los Osos.

But this is just another flim-flam, like watching the thermal discharge of a power plant instead of the incredibly destructive INTAKE pipe where the real damage is done!

Stopping that loan is of far less consequence than was State Revolving Fund Chief Financial Officer Barbara Evoys decision to ALLOW that $135,000,000.00 loan to the three LOCSD Boardmembers (Rich Legros, Gordon Hensley and Stan Gustafson) a mere 27 days before the election that would see them all swept from office in disgrace and disgust by a severely traumatized populace who continue to be attacked even now.

Arrested as a media-savvy tree-sitter who understood it would make the papers giving the Los Osos community some much-needed attention, I was amazed when the new Los Osos CSD was denied by the SLO District Attorney when they asked the charges against me be dropped.

The D.A. said he was going to allow the case to be tried 'on its own merits' - of which there were none, as an official County map later showed and the charges were dismissed.

However, this is the same San Luis Obispo District Attorney who still refuses to bring charges against former LOCSD General Manager Bruce Buehl for hiring contractor Montgomery Watson Harza 3 months before he was even hired himself!

This is selective enforcement at its most perverse and it is an abomination to have LOCSD candidates running who clearcut State Parks (Jeff Edwards), and who are actively trying to dissolve the same LOCSD for which they are now running (Joyce Allbright).

Fortunately, the issues facing this community will now get the public airing they deserve as the Central Coast hosts Ripley Pacific, National Estuary Programs Dan Berman, Haydee Dabritz (UC Davis), California Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas, and members of the California Ocean Protection Council at the:

T.A.B. (Talk About the Bay) Meeting to be held at the Morro Bay Vets Hall, MB 12:00 Noon to 5:00 PM on Sept. 2, 2006, next month; the beginning of a complete self-inspection of the State and overhaul of the Central Coast.

As Co-Founder and now Associate Director of the Ocean Outfall Group (see our PDF on the State Waterboard official website under EVENT CALENDER/SEPT), it is my great pleasure to announce our official endorsement of candidates Rob Shipe, Chuck Cesena and Steve Senet for Los Osos Community Services District Board of Directors.

Thank you,

Joey Racano
Ocean Outfall Group
Associate Director
talkaboutthebay@yahoo.com
(805) 772-2610; 2:05 PM, August 13, 2006
Anonymous said...: Churadog,

One of your comments in your previous blog finally sunk in for me. You really only want to incite, the more biting your commentary, the more responses you get. Sort of like the carnival schill, "Step right up and knock the bottles down to win the giant teddy"

Joyce Albright represents the evil empire and is the perfect foil for your followers.

This realization that you are really only appealing to your camp without real malice, takes the visceral reaction out of it for me.

It would be really really refreshing
to read your stinging commentary about some unexpectant target.

For example, I bet you could describe the spring fragrance, in such glowing terms of say Ramona and Broderson, after a good rain, that buyers would be flocking to buy.

Give it a go!; 2:56 PM, August 13, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Maybe Joyce will use CSD money to pay her own lawyers in a "settlement" that is "necessary" because if the LOCSD loses, the damage award "could be" larger. Maybe Joyce learned something from the current board.

Now to be more serious ... Ann, in your previous blog entry you wrote (about Maria Kelly) "bless her and everyone else who decides to run" for the LOCSD board. I guess you meant to write "bless her and everyone else who decides to run unless it is Joyce Albright, Robert Crizer, Richard LeGros or anyone else I disagree with." It would have been more honest.

Honestly Ann, I don't get you. In one column you call for people to step up and when one does, you criticize them.

I do apprciate that Joyce is now trying to dissolve the CSD and it is sort of funny that she would run, but her campaign promise might be that she's going to ask the LOCSD board to vote for dissolution. Quite a reasonable campaign promise. (Note: I actually wouldn't support such a dissolution, but some would.) Furthermore, if the CSD is to survive, someone will have to make decisions about whether fire services will be cut or whether the fire taxes will increase, etc. Someone who has shown the wisdom to criticize the current board from day 1 becuase the current board's state goals and strategy were just so clearly going to lead to destruction might be a good choice.

But then again, what do I know? Maybe going with someone who has the ability to predict the future with accuracy (fines, loss of SRF loan, etc.) because they can actually read and understand contracts and government documents might be a huge mistake. On the other hand, based on this last year, I think it is worth trying.; 3:26 PM, August 13, 2006
Anonymous said...: Shark said... "Furthermore, if the CSD is to survive, someone will have to make decisions about whether fire services will be cut or whether the fire taxes will increase, etc."

Fire service is just fine. The fire department is entirely self sufficient with the existing contracts and fire tax.

The CSD cannot use fire tax money for anything other that fire service.

And thanks to the change to CDF, if the CSD runs out of money, there will still be fire tax revenue that can be paid directly to CDF.; 4:10 PM, August 13, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi All,

Below are the side-by-side comparisions of cost between the Ripley Plan and Tri-W restart. Enlarge your web page to full size, otherewise the document will be hard to read.

Regards, Richard LeGros

ANALYSIS OF COSTS OF RIPLEY-PACIFIC PROJECT
ASSUME AB 2701 IS ENACTED SEPTEMBER, 2006 ASSUME NEW STATE SRF LOAN @ 2.7%

HARD COSTS
Beginning with the August, 2006 construction price estimate of $100,000,000 by Ripley-Pacific, and assuming start of construction by October, 2011 by County of San Luis Obispo, add:

1. The costs (debt) to the property owners for abandoning the Tri-W project………………………………………… ……………………… $53,900,000
These costs include the 90 day suspension costs of the contractors ($3M), pay contractor work costs ($5M),
RWQCB fines ($6.5M), repay SRF ($6.5M), Mob-Demob costs ($4M), MWH fee ($1M), Money spent by
CSD since 10-05 on lawsuits, repaving, alternate plan ($3M), payment of Contractor’s claims ($20M),
refund to assessment bond pre-payees (2.9M), county costs to review project options (2M)
.
1a. COUNTY portion of debt = ($ 2,000,000)
1b. LOCSD portion of debt = ($51,900,000)

2. The costs of new project to acquire land and easements, project design and engineering, permit acquisition, lawsuits.……………. $ 20,000,000

3. 5 years of construction cost inflation @ 8% /year (of $100M) until construction commencement………..………………………………$ 40,000,000
4. Existing assessment bond costs to property owners….............................................................……………………………………….… $ 17,900,000
4a. Pre-paid assessment bond money collected = ($ 2,900,000) refunded in #1 above
4b. Bond Assessment on remainder = ($17,900,000)

5. Property owner costs to connect to sewer …..………………………………………………………………………................................... $ 20,000,000
5a. 2000 property owners pay out-of-pocket = ($ 8,000,000)
5b 3000 property owners pay via a loan= ($12,000,000)

TOTAL HARD COSTS are:
• TO THE COUNTY: ($100,000,000) + ($ 2,000,000) + ($20,000,000) + ($40,000,000) = $162,000,000
• TO THE LOCSD: ($ 53,900,000) + ($17,900,000) = $ 71,800,000
• TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS: $ 20,000,000

SUBTOTAL $253,800,000

SOFT COSTS
Project soft costs consist of “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” costs as listed below;

“A” costs of #1a or 1b, and #2, which may not be funded through an SRF loan FINANCED BY COUNTY $ 22,000,000
FINANCED BY LOCSD $ 51,900,000
AND
“B” costs of estimated construction cost ($100M) + #3, which may be funded by an SRF loan FINANCED BY COUNTY $140,000,000
AND
“C” costs of existing assessment bond (4b) FINANCED BY LOCSD $ 17,900,000
AND
“D” costs of #5b FINANCED BY OWNERS $ 12,000,000

“A” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY COUNTY: $ 22,000,000 @ 06% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 25,484,000
• FINANCED BY LOCSD: $ 51,900,000 @ I2% over 30 years results in interest paid of $140,286,000

“B” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY COUNTY: WITH STATE SRF LOAN:
$140,000,000 @ 02.7% over 20 years results in interest paid of $ 41,339,000
“C” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY LOCSD: $ 17,900,000 @ 06.2% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 21,675,000

“D” SOFT COSTS (only applies to 3000 property owners that borrowed money to connect to sewer)
• FINANCED BY OWNERS $ 12,000,000 @ 06% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 13,900,000

TOTAL SOFT COSTS are:
• TO THE COUNTY: $ 66,832,000
• TO THE LOCSD: $161,961,000
• TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS: $ 13,900,000

SUBTOTAL $242,693,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = [(HARD COSTS)] + [(SOFT COSTS)]

[ (253,800,000) + (242,693,000)] = SUM TOTAL $496,493,000

TOTAL COST OF BONDS
• Bond “A” COUNTY: ($ 22,000,000) + ($ 25,484,000) = $ 47,484,000
• Bond “A” LOCSD: ($ 51,900,000) + ($140,286,000) = $192,186,000
• Bond “B” COUNY: ($140,000,000) + ($ 41,339,000) = $181,339,000
• Bond “C” LOCSD: ($ 17,900,000) + ($ 21,675,000) = $ 39,575,000
• Bond “D” OWNERS ($ 12,000,000) + ($ 13,900,000) = $ 25,900,000

MONTHLY COSTS PER PROPERTY OWNER

COST PER MONTH Notes:
OM&R: Annual OM&R of $600,000 [($600,000 / year) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 10.00 /month

Bond “A” COUNTY [($ 47,484,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 26.38 /month

Bond “A” LOCSD [($192,186,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $106.77 /month

Bond “B” (with SRF Loan) [($181,339,000 / 20 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $151.11 /month

Bond “C” (existing assessment bond) [($ 39,575,000) / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 21.98 /month

Bond “D” [($ 25,900,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (3000 prop. owners) = $ 23.98 /month

FOR THOSE 2000 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT PAY CONNECTION COSTS TO SEWER OUT-OF-POCKET

TRI-W PROJECT WITH SRF LOAN:
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 01 to year 20 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “B” + Bond “C”
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 20 to year 30 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “C”

THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment year 1 to year 20 = ($10.00) + ($26.38) + ($106.77) + ($151.11) + ($21.98) = $316.24 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment year 21 to year 30 = ($10.00) + ($26.38) + ($106.77) + (21.98) = $165.13 / month per property owner
• After year 30, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjusted for inflation) = $ 10.00 / month per property owner

NOTE: Property owners that pre-paid assessment bond “C” may deduct $21.98 per month from above monthly costs.

FOR THOSE 3000 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT BORROW CONNECTION COSTS TO SEWER

TRI-W PROJECT WITH SRF LOAN:
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 01 to year 20 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “B” + Bond “C” + Bond “D”
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 20 to year 30 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “C” + Bond “D”

THEREFORE:
• Monthly paymt. year1 to year 20 = ($10.00) + ($26.38) + ($106.77) + ($151.11) + ($21.98) + ($23.98) = $340.22 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment year 21 to year 30 = ($10.00) + ($26.38) + ($106.77) + (21.98) + (23.98) = $189.11 / month per property owner
• After year 30, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjusted for inflation) = $ 10.00 / month per property owner

NOTE: Property owners that pre-paid assessment bond “C” may deduct $21.98 per month from above monthly costs.

ANALYSIS OF COSTS TO RESTART TRI-W PROJECT
ASSUME AB 2701 IS ENACTED SEPTEMBER, 2006 ASSUME NEW STATE SRF LOAN @ 2.7%

HARD COSTS
Beginning with the September, 2005 construction price of $134,000,000, and assuming restart of construction by October, 2007 by County of San Luis Obispo, add:

1. The costs (debt) to the property owners for suspending the Tri-W project………………………………………… ……………………… $32,000,000
These costs include the 90 day suspension costs of the contractors ($3M), pay contractor work costs ($5M),
costs to re-negotiate contractors contracts ($1M), RWQCB fines ($6.5M), repay SRF ($6.5M), SLO County
costs ($2M), Mob-Demob costs ($4M), MWH fee ($1M), Money spent by CSD since 10-05 on lawsuits,
repaving, alternate plan ($3M)
Assumes prior contractors put back to work; lawsuits and claims settled.
1a. COUNTY portion of debt = ($ 3,000,000)
1b. LOCSD portion of debt = ($29,000,000)

2. The costs for reactivating permits, and lawsuits………………………………………………………………………………………………. $ 1,000,000

3. 2 years of construction cost inflation @ 8% /year (of $134M) until construction commencement………..……………………………… $22,000,000
4. Existing assessment bond costs to property owners….............................................................……………………………………….… $ 20,800,000
4a. Pre-paid assessment bond money collected = ($ 2,900,000)
4b. Bond Assessment on remainder = ($17,900,000)

5. Property owner costs to connect to sewer……………………………………………………………………………................................... $ 20,000,000
5a. 2000 property owners pay out-of-pocket = ($ 8,000,000)
5b 3000 property owners pay via a loan= ($12,000,000)

TOTAL HARD COSTS are:
• TO THE COUNTY: ($134,000,000) + ($ 3,000,000) + ($1,000,000) + ($22,000,000) = $160,000,000
• TO THE LOCSD: ($ 29,000,000) + ($20,800,000) = $ 49,800,000
• TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS: $ 20,000,000

SUBTOTAL $229,800,000

SOFT COSTS
Project soft costs consist of “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D” costs as listed below;

“A” costs of #1a or 1b, and #2, which may not be funded through an SRF loan FINANCED BY COUNTY $ 4,000,000
FINANCED BY LOCSD $ 29,000,000
AND
“B” costs of original construction cost ($134M) + #3, which may be funded by an SRF loan FINANCED BY COUNTY $154,000,000
AND
“C” costs of existing assessment bond (4b) FINANCED BY LOCSD $ 17,900,000
AND
“D” costs of #5b FINANCED BY OWNERS $ 12,000,000

“A” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY COUNTY: $ 4,000,000 @ 06% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 4,634,000
• FINANCED BY LOCSD: $ 29,000,000 @ I2% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 78,387,000

“B” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY COUNTY: WITH STATE SRF LOAN:
$156,000,000 @ 02.7% over 20 years results in interest paid of $ 46,063,000
“C” SOFT COSTS
• FINANCED BY LOCSD: $ 17,900,000 @ 06.2% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 21,675,000

“D” SOFT COSTS (only applies to 3000 property owners that borrowed money to connect to sewer)
• FINANCED BY OWNERS $ 12,000,000 @ 06% over 30 years results in interest paid of $ 13,900,000

TOTAL SOFT COSTS are:
• TO THE COUNTY: $ 50,697,000
• TO THE LOCSD: $100,062,000
• TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS: $ 13,900,000

SUBTOTAL $164,659,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS = [(HARD COSTS)] + [(SOFT COSTS)]

[($229,800,000) + ($164,659,000)] = SUM TOTAL $394,459,000

TOTAL COST OF BONDS
• Bond “A” COUNTY: ($ 4,000,000) + ($ 4,634,000) = $ 8,634,000
• Bond “A” LOCSD: ($ 29,000,000) + ($78,387,000) = $107,387,000
• Bond “B” COUNY: ($156,000,000) + ($46,063,000) = $202,063,000
• Bond “C” LOCSD: ($ 17,900,000) + ($21,675,000) = $ 39,575,000
• Bond “D” OWNERS ($ 12,000,000) + ($13,900,000) = $ 25,900,000

MONTHLY COSTS PER PROPERTY OWNER

COST PER MONTH Notes:
OM&R: Annual OM&R of $2,000,000 [($2,000,000 / year) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 33.33 /month

Bond “A” COUNTY [($ 8,634,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 4.79 /month

Bond “A” LOCSD [($107,387,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 59.66 /month

Bond “B” (with SRF Loan) [($202,063,000 / 20 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $168.38 /month

Bond “C” (existing assessment bond) [($ 39,575,000) / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (5000 prop. owners) = $ 21.98 /month

Bond “D” [($ 25,900,000 / 30 years) / (12 months/year)] / (3000 prop. owners) = $ 23.98 /month

FOR THOSE 2000 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT PAY CONNECTION COSTS TO SEWER OUT-OF-POCKET

TRI-W PROJECT WITH SRF LOAN:
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 01 to year 20 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “B” + Bond “C”
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 20 to year 30 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “C”

THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment year 1 to year 20 = ($33.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + ($168.38) + ($21.98) = $287.84 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment year 21 to year 30 = ($33.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + (21.98) = $119.46 / month per property owner
• After year 30, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjusted for inflation) = $ 33.33 / month per property owner

NOTE: Property owners that pre-paid assessment bond “C” may deduct $21.98 per month from above monthly costs.

FOR THOSE 3000 PROPERTY OWNERS THAT BORROW CONNECTION COSTS TO SEWER

TRI-W PROJECT WITH SRF LOAN:
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 01 to year 20 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “B” + Bond “C” + Bond “D”
GIVEN the monthly payment for year 20 to year 30 would be: OM&R + Bond “A” COUNTY + Bond “A” LOCSD + Bond “C” + Bond “D”

THEREFORE:
• Monthly payment year 1 to year 20 = ($33.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + ($168.38) + ($21.98) + ($23.98) = $311.82 / month per property owner
• Monthly payment year 21 to year 30 = ($33.33) + ($4.79) + ($59.66) + (21.98) + (23.98) = $143.44 / month per property owner
• After year 30, property owners pay OM&R costs only (adjusted for inflation) = $ 33.33 / month per property owner

NOTE: Property owners that pre-paid assessment bond “C” may deduct $21.98 per month from above monthly costs.; 10:40 PM, August 13, 2006
Churadogs said...: Anonymous formerly known as Richard LeGros sez:"Your outrage that a candidate for the CSD Board (Joyce Albright) is also involved in a lawsuit against that very CSD that she is running for is a bit late."

It's fascinating that you think I'm "outraged." I'm not "outraged." I think it's funny. And weird. of course, as I pointed out, perhaps its a hoax? Somebody falsely took out papers using Joyce's name?

Another anonymouse sez:"the more biting your commentary, the more responses you get."

Very interesting, and telling. When I've posted Can(n)ons on topics other than the sewer, I get almost zero responses. I do not control what people post here, the posters do. They also often misread or misunderstand what I've written or what other people have written and go off on wild toots of their own projections. They often start out attacking me, then start attacking each other, sometimes going over the top. All too often, their rhetoric has little to do with what I've written and more to do with whatever they're going through at the time. It's an interesting process to watch. And the nastiness often is fueld by the "anonymous-ness" of it all. Like your posting for example. Nobody knows who you are so your comments can't be really taken seriously since nobody knows the veracity of what you say. You're also shielded from consequences since your name isn't on the posting.

Inlet sez:"Honestly Ann, I don't get you. In one column you call for people to step up and when one does, you criticize them."

You really don't get it do you? To my knowledge, several of the candidates running for the CSD Board are not on the public record as working hard to DESTROY the very system of self governance that they're now running for. Joyce is. However, I still say hooray for them all, but I find Joyce's filing (if she did) curious.

If you go on record and form a group to actively shut down, say, the Board of Supervisors as a form of governing this county, and then suddenly, there you are running for the Board . . . .

The interesting thing to me in all of this was that before the ink dried on the recall election, besides the lawsuits, the very first thing out of the box was the Dissolve the CSD movement -- not an initiative to rescind Measure B nor a re-recall the recallers initiative, nor a public promise to serve on various committees to work to influence and guide the board nor even a promise to run in November to give the voters a referendum or anything that even smacked of playing within the rules of the game. Nope. Not a bit of it. As I noted in a column at the time, it was Medean to the teeth. And instead of the above, it was simply: Shut Down The Whole System and give the ball back to the County, lock, stock and barrel.

So, WHY would these folks who were totally committed to shutting the game down now suddenly show up and want to play? I find that both funny and weird.; 7:27 AM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: As Churadog has previously written we are all "anonymous" including Public Works, Shark, Joey, Ron, and even Ann. Nobody knows who is actually writing.

So the assertion that 'anynomous' writers should not be taken seriously applies to all posters, including the one labeled 'Churadog'.

Silly me, one would have thought what was said was more important than which 'ANYONOMOUS' wrote it.

It can't be both ways! Either, what is written stands on its own merits or it doesn't!

So anynomous 'Churadog', how about an ode to the spring fragrances at Ramona and Broderson?; 7:59 AM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Ann,

Stop being a silly donkey by refraining from attacking people and focus on ISSUES.

For example, I just posted a cost-point by cost-point analysis comparing the Ripley-Pacific plan against restarting Tri-W. Not only is the R-P plan $100 million MORE expensive than restarting Tri-W to build, it will cost property owners over $316 per month to own and operate. Look at the analysis; the numbers are true and reasonable.

How can anyone continue to support the CSD when this board has done nothing but drive up the costs by over 55% above the pre-recall project? Do they not comprehend the magnitude of the financial damage that has been caused by stopping the Tri-W Project?

Regards, Richard LeGros; 9:23 AM, August 14, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Several quick comments.

Glad to hear that the fire tax money is protected. But ... is it really? Didn't the IGM need to take money out of the reserve fund to pay CDF just recently? Richard Margetson pointed this out at a meeting sometime in the last month.

Jon, you are being too hard on Joey. Many folks with honorable discharge papers might very well lose track of them somehow. Maybe you could public records search could resolve this issue for Joey.

Richard, thanks for doing a revise on your comparrison of our two "best" options at the moment. Maybe my anonymous bird-dog friend who has posted recently here (although as a comment to Ann's last entry) will read your numbers and learn something.

Ann, you can rest assured that Joyce did file. At least according to Julie Rodewald. In any case, as I pointed out, Joyce's campaign platform could very well be that she'll vote to dissolve the CSD. Still a reasonable move and you have no right to criticize her for running if this is her intention. It would be a means for her to achieve her goals which she believes in pretty strongly. (Well, you do have the right, but your criticism is based on your assumption that she won't run on that platform and considering you aren't even sure whether she is running, I hardly think it fair for you to claim to know her platform.)

To our anonymous friend, yes we are all anonymous. However I do think it nice to have an identifier of sorts to keep track of who is saying what (assuming no one spoofs posts, something that does happen). Along those lines, could you pick a name like "bucko4president" or "theCSDcanGoPoundSand" or some such?; 9:27 AM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Everyone !

If any of you would like a clean and properly formatted copy of the cost comparisons of the Ripley-Pacific Plan to Tri-W, just email me at

kpgrbl@aol.com

The formatted copy is much easier to read.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 9:39 AM, August 14, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Richard,

I trust your analysis (having read it over and having done a few such analyses myself although with much less detail and much less understanding of all the issues). I do want to quibble over your wording. You state that the numbers are "true and reasonable". I would strike "true" because many of them are estimates. One nice thing here is that if Ann or Ron (or someone who wants to argue money ... we all know that those two are unwilling to deal with financial issues that are waaaaaaay too complicated) they could take your estimated numbers like the $20M you have for Ripley hard cost number 2 and they could plug in their own numbers.

As to your last comment ... there are many folks, even educated people who, because they haven't looked into the issues, believe that "it just can't cost that much" or "maybe the state will have to step in because it is just too darn expensive for regular folks". It is these folks, along with those who want to "move the sewer no matter how much it costs" who have caused our problems in the last two years.

I do believe that part of the goal of this whole exercise by the current board has been to raise our costs for TriW until they are comparable to the costs of starting over at another site. The problem with this strategy (besides the obvious one that our costs will be going up which is bad) by the board is that it ignored the possibility of RWQCB fines and CDOs.

One last question. Did you do those cost analyses with excel? I know you posted them in the form of Word documents on the tribune discussion. If you have them in excel (in any form) I would appreciate having a copy because it would allow for a quicker way of answering "what ifs" like "what if the County puts TriW out to rebid and the bids come in lower?" and "what if the the Ripley work could start by 2009 instead of 2011?".; 9:45 AM, August 14, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Another interesting point, Richard is that due to the lower O&M costs of the Ripley design, eventually it will be cheaper than TriW.

If repair costs are comparable and if we ignore inflation entirely, in 2080 the savings from having chosen TriW over Ripley will be entirely wiped out.

On the other hand, if we include inflation would push the "break even" time further into the future.

Lifecycle costing would clearly show that even with the O&M savings, Ripley will cost us a whole lot more.; 9:57 AM, August 14, 2006
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: It is pretty clear that the state will get the WWTF project one way or another - either AB2701 or by the inability of a bankrupted CSD to do anything. My question is, with managing a bankruptcy, the regular water, fire, solid waste, etc. business being WHAT'S LEFT for a CSD to do - your question,

"First Question to be asked of each candidate: Did you support or oppose the recall? Next Question: Are you Pro Tri W or anti Tri W?" --

How is this relevant?; 10:01 AM, August 14, 2006
Ron said...: The poster known as Richard LeGros said:

""1. The costs (debt) to the property owners for abandoning the Tri-W project: $53,900,000"

Richard, how many times do I have to re-write number one for you?

As I corrected you on before, it is much more accurate when #1 reads:

"1. The costs (debt) to the property owners for my board playing "bait-and-switchy" with the California Coastal Commission on the Tri-W project: $53,900,000""

And would it be asking too much that you actually mix in the words "according to" when referring to your numbers? You know, maybe point to an actual source. Because, as that numerical mess reads now, all the numbers are "according to Richard LeGros." And, let's just say, there's a bit of history of previous boards gravely low-balling numbers when low-balled numbers supported their positions, and gravely high-balling numbers when high-balled numbers supported their positions. And if you want specific examples on that, let me know, because I've got a ton of them, and they make your side look terrible.

Although, here's one quick one:

When you posted that numerical mess last time, about a week ago, #1 was $47 million. Now it's $54 million. $7 million in about week? What are your numbers going to be next week, Rich?

Why not just say:

"1. The costs (debt) to the property owners for abandoning the Tri-W project: $1 billion"

You know, Dr. Evil-ish.

Since your not pointing to any real sources, it makes about as much sense. What's the difference?

Spectator said:

"... consider your hero Al Barrow..."

That is grossly unfair.; 10:24 AM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Ron,

If you study the costs between last week's analysis and today's analysis, you will see that with each attempt I have been able to hone the costs as new information becomes available. The analysis becomes more reliable with time.

You response seems to indicate that to you the problem is not the "problem" (ie the comparitive costs of the projects), but that the problem to you is that I am talking about the problem (and thereby resort to belittleing me).

Reality is that the CSD has not produced a comparative cost analysis. They should. They are making policy decisions without the information they need to make rational decisions. To date, the only analysis that are based in reality are mine. If you have noticed, so far they have been right on target.

So stop belaboring your take on the past events and focus on today.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS. If you want a clean and more readable copy of the analysis, email me at kpgrbl@aol.com; 10:58 AM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Ron,

I forgot to mention that my sources for the costs are the LOCSD itself, the Ripley-Pacific project report, the SWRCB, and the RWQCB.

The assumptions that I have made pertain to project start-up dates, interest rates, rounding off the number of property owners to the nearest 100, the number of property owners that pay connection costs out-of-pocket, and the behavior of the regulators about the abatement of fines, CDO's.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 11:09 AM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: Why did Joyce file to run? Because someone has to be around to make the tough decisions facing the LOCSD in the future.

If Blakeslee's bill passes, the CSD won't be dissolved. What would be the point? The District's major responsibility will be in the hands of the County, but the District will still be responsible for the fire, water, drainage and garbage services. Board members will have to vote to increase fees for these services - both to maintain the current level of service and to replenish the reserves wasted by the current board.

Board members will have to vote to sue Willdan for mismanagement, in order to recover the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to keep Blesky in cigarettes and Rogaine. Board members will be needed to vote to sue BWS for malpractice, and to negate the settlement offers made to them for private "pro bono" work done for CCLO & CASE prior to the recall.

In short, dissolution will only happen if the Blakeslee bill fails, so we need to have rational people running who will make choices based on reality and common sense, not fantasy and emotion.

Realistic1; 12:57 PM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: As Realistic1 said, responsible leadership will be absolutely necessary even to wind down the workings of the CSD. Do you think this present BOD will take any steps to follow up on lawsuits against their own hand-picked bumbling fools? Of course not. The narcissism runs deep on this Board.

The community owes it to itself to at least admit their terrible mistake of 9/27/05, and place people on the Board that can do the job right, whether that job is to disolve the CSD or to try to salvage whatever is left.; 5:10 PM, August 14, 2006
Mike Green said...: Sharkey, Mr Legros,
As I read the costs estimates made by Mr Legros above I read that the difference in cost boils down to less than $30/ month. Am I right about this?
(I don't entirely trust myself to read these things right, I always ask for clarification, thanks.); 5:57 PM, August 14, 2006
Mike Green said...: As for the comming election, I predict the turnout will break records for non voting.
It'll all come down to who has the most friends.
Oh, and a fancy slogan would be helpful too!

Well I can certainly see Joeys call to arms! "I'll go out on a limb for you!"

Come on everybody! Lets help them out!

Best slogans gets a dozen Carlocks Doughnuts!! (I'll Buy!) Winners will be decided by popular vote (Bwa Ha Ha Ha); 6:16 PM, August 14, 2006
Mike Green said...: Sewertoons projected:
"being WHAT'S LEFT for a CSD to do - your question,"
How about persuing bankruptcy if that could be shown to lower the monthly cost of local government?
A hard road to be sure, it would involve hurting a few egos.
I wonder if Sharkey has a cost spread sheet on bankruptcy?; 6:27 PM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ann,

I agree with Shark's comment about the hypocrisy of "blessing" everyone willing to run for a seat on the LOCSD board and then jumping up and down on Joyce Albright for doing just that. If you can't figure out why she's running, and why many will be supporting her, then you aren't as smart as we all thought.

You seem to be forgetting that 49.9% of voters voted against the recall, and I'm guessing far more people are against the current board now than were in favor of them in September.

Realistic 1; 7:41 PM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: Sure, we'll see.; 8:07 PM, August 14, 2006
Mike Green said...: Realistic 1
I'm sorry if you don't see the irony, maybe your memory is too short, or you are new.
It's the irony of the game of "King of the hill", when the king gets tired, he is toppled. not realy a king, right?
Our particular form of local government has proven to be, shall we say, of questionable worth on this one problem.
Look back to the beginning, on second thought don't
(I made a lot of embarassing posts back then)
But let me tell you history reveals that elections cause Los Osos Trouble!

I rue the day I voted for "Cheaper, Better, Faster"!!!!!; 8:11 PM, August 14, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Mike,

No, the difference is $116 per month, not $30 / month you suggest.

The new board stopped a project in October 2005 that would have cost $200 a month. Building the Ripley plan would result in a monthly cost of $316 + per month. The new CSD has effectively increased the cost to the property owners by 55%.
I might add that the difference is really $200 / month, for if the CSD was able to build the projct back in 2003 (but prevented by lawsuits al la Julie and Lisa), the costs would have been around $117, month.

The point here is that TIME is what is driving up the cost of this project, not the type of sewer technology you use.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Also, do not rely on a PRELIMINARY COST estimate of $100 for the Ripley-Pacific Plan ....history has shown that construction cost estimates go UP significantly over time. My experience tells me that the Ripley-Pacific Plan, after peer review and the regulators get a hold of it, will have a construction cost of $200M in 2006 dollars.; 8:49 PM, August 14, 2006
Mike Green said...: Mr. Legros, you replied:
"No, the difference is $116 per month, not $30 / month you suggest.

The new board stopped a project in October 2005 that would have cost $200 a month. Building the Ripley plan would result in a monthly cost of $316 + per month."
Mr Legros,
Can the 200/ month cost be reasonably compared to the 316/mo cost at this time? (The here and now is kind of important) Thanks for the reply, Mike Green; 9:00 PM, August 14, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Mike,

Yes the difference is about $30/month ... if the Ripley plan would pass muster with the RWQCB.

I doubt it would pass muster for a few reasons.

The design assumes 50g per person per day when typical water usage is considerably higher (150g or so). If we are closer to 100g per person per day the cost of the treatment plant will be much higher. Furthermore, there is not enough agricultural need for that much water for in-leiu recharge. Simply put, the farms tend to be further to the East.

The RWQCB might require nitrate removal which should double the cost of the plant according to Sheikh.

Depending on the crops, tertiary treatment might be necessary. Tertiary instead of just secondary treatment will again increase the cost of the WWTF.

So, unlike what Ripley was saying, he was not presenting an apples to apples comparison. If, for any reason, the idealized assumptions of Ripley aren't correct, the cost differences go way up.

As Richard points out, the actual costs if the County were to go with Ripley could be far higher.; 9:29 PM, August 14, 2006
Churadogs said...: Anonymoose said:"As Churadog has previously written we are all "anonymous" including Public Works, Shark, Joey, Ron, and even Ann. Nobody knows who is actually writing.

So the assertion that 'anynomous' writers should not be taken seriously applies to all posters, including the one labeled 'Churadog'."

Actually, wrong. This blogsite was set up by Greg and took all sorts of codewords and long-os for me to be the only one to access posting. The comment section can be accessed by anyone. So, unless someone hacks into the blogsite itself, I'm the only one posting who actually is who I say I am.

Anonymoose who also signs himeslf as Richard LeGros sez:"Hi Ann,

Stop being a silly donkey by refraining from attacking people and focus on ISSUES."

And calling someone a "silly donkey" is refraining from attacking people how? And focuses on, perhaps the ISSUE of donkeys, perhaps?

Inlet sez:"I do want to quibble over your wording. You state that the numbers are "true and reasonable". I would strike "true" because many of them are estimates. One nice thing here is that if Ann or Ron (or someone who wants to argue money ... we all know that those two are unwilling to deal with financial issues that are waaaaaaay too complicated) they could take your estimated numbers like the $20M you have for Ripley hard cost number 2 and they could plug in their own numbers."

I can't believe my eyes. Inlet noting that someone could just plug in "estimates" of their own choosing and so make quite a hash of the final count of angels on the heads of pins? Yikes!

Sewertoons sez:"
"First Question to be asked of each candidate: Did you support or oppose the recall? Next Question: Are you Pro Tri W or anti Tri W?" --

How is this relevant? "

If the Blakeslee plan passes, the county will take the sewer project. They have promised to evaluate all options. But the history of this project from day one has been one of often hidden "thumbs on the scale." A previous CSD Board Majority, for example, went before the Coastal Commission and told them that overriding community values dictated that the out of town site be ignored and the permit issued to put the plant in the middle of town. As Ron Crawford has noted, there was no "overriding community value," and the CC now knows they were bamboozled. (Not to mention the old "bait and switchy" routine) But since an official, elected CSD Board was officially telling the CC that, it carried a lot of weight. What will elected Board Members who favor turn-keying Tri W be saying to the County Board of Supervisors and/or Engineering. That's why I think it's important that the voters should find out their candidates' stand on the matter early on.; 7:15 AM, August 15, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

You've clearly not been reading what I've written in the past. I've consistenly pointed out that as long as one uses mathematics correctly, two people with identical assumtions will hit idenetical conclusions and that reasonable people who agree on similar assumptions to make should hit similar conclusions.

If you are going to argue that Richard's numbers (from Ripley and the LOCSD by the way) are unreasonable, plug in your own which you consider to be more reasonable and see what conclusions you hit.

I do think it also funny that you seem to give a lot of credit to the Ripley numbers even when there are clearly a lot of deficiencies. In fact, I even predicted back in the Spring that the Ripley report would gloss over a few of the cost issues to make their system look "cheaper" even though it is, in fact, more expensive than TriW.

Don't believe me? Prove it! Work within the framework Richard gave us and show where I'm wrong.

Lastly, I am amused that you refer to my speculation (which has been bourne out by the Ripley numbers) as counting angels on the heads of pins but you are quite quick to trust Ron's claim that the CCC staffers are angry that they feel tricked. I've seen nothing that shows any evidence that these claims. And when you consider Ron's ability to deal with the complexity of these issues, you've got to wonder. He is a darn good sleuth but he appears unable to read government documents very carefully and he most certainly has overlooked that many many of the documents he cites point out that TriW is preferable to other sites becuase of the cost differences.

The reason "pro TriW" or "anti TriW" matters is that it is a good proxy for whether a person is clear thinking or easily confused.; 7:34 AM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Ann,

I have given you the framework to plug in any number to compare project costs. Try it...it really is an excellent tool for ferreting out the truth. That is the beauty of mathematics....you know, 2+2=4 ALWAYS.

The numbers used are from the LOCSD, Ripley, The RWQCB, the SWRCB, and the actual bids of the Tri-W project. Do you have another source of costs that you feel I should use in the calculations? I will gladly plug those costs in for you if asked.

In terms of the validity of the numbers, the probability that the Tri-W costs are valid is VERY HIGH, for the costs are based upon actual bids from contractors for a project that is completely engineered and of a known scope.

The propbability that the Ripley-Pacific costs are valid is VERY LOW, for the costs given by him are ESTIMATES of the costs to build a project that is unknown as to its final scope. Rememeber what happen to the MWH estimate at the time of bidding?...it will happen again.

Regards, Richard LeGros

PS: Ann, you missed the perfect oportunity to talk to me about the costs yesterday while at the CSD office. I am sad that you did not want to talk.

PPS: It is more polite to write a "silly donkey" rather than a
"silly a*s".; 9:02 AM, August 15, 2006
Ron said...: Richard said:

"I have been able to hone the costs..."

Hone? Is that what you call it? Well, then hone away. However, I would highly suggest that in your future honings you leave #1 out. Because as long as you continue to leave it in, I will continue to point out that it is much more accurate to say that comes from your board's decision to play "bait-and-switchy" with the CC.

And, according to your honing, that's adding about $1 million a day to the project. Wow, that was one expensive "bait and switch" job.

"So stop belaboring your take on the past events and focus on today."

What you call "belaboring," I call "focus." And, as I've said before, as long as Tri-W is even remotely on the table, "bait and switchy," "strongly held community values," and "project objectives for centrally located community amenities" are as current as today's headlines. In short, I am "focused on today."

Anon said:

"... their terrible mistake of 9/27/05..."

You mean, getting democratically elected? That mistake?

MG said:

"... a fancy slogan would be helpful too!"

That's funny. I'll put my thinkin' cap on.

Shark said:

"He is a darn good sleuth but he appears unable to read government documents very carefully..."

That doesn't make any sense. How could I be a good sleuth if I can't read government documents?

"... and he most certainly has overlooked that many many of the documents he cites point out that TriW is preferable to other sites becuase of the cost differences."

Cite one. One. And be specific.

"... you are quite quick to trust Ron's claim that the CCC staffers are angry that they feel tricked."

Shark, you should have heard the tone in Monowitz's voice when we finished our last phone conversation about a month ago. I've interviewed him a number of times, and I never heard him sound like that.

Ann sees it, and you don't. We should all be pissed, including you, Shark, and you, Richard. Richard, unless I miss my guess, it sure sounds like you f-d up and trusted Nash-Karner, too.

I have a question for you, Richard. Were you aware of the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" while you were in office?; 10:45 AM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: good lord just once, for the sake of Ron's credibility, and Ann's as well, when they rant on and on about the lies told by everyone (except the current BDO of course) that screwed Los Osos, just ONCE I'd like them to address this:
1. We can build a sewer for under $100.00.
2. We will not get fined.
3. We will not lose the SRF loan.
This continued into the days leading up to the recall election AFTER the project started, so the excuse that "everything changed once the project started" just doesn' hold up. They had plenty of time to be honest about things. They chose not to. Naivetee? Dishonesty? Out and out lies just to get elected and stop Tri-W. Which is it Ron? And since you ride the high road, where's your moral outrage at this?? "We won't get fined" "We won't lose the SRF loan."
And Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

"You mean, getting democratically elected? That mistake?" Gee Ron, I'm disappointed in you. I would have thought, after reading all your stuff, your standards were so much higher for those getting "democratcially elected."; 11:11 AM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Ron,

If you want to blame me and the past CSD boards for the #1 cost, be my guest. What you believe doesn't matter. Rant away.

As to document "proof" of your allegations, it is only your opinion of what the documents say. I have read the documents your refer to....I have to question your ability to comprehend those documents.

Anyway, at the end of the day the CSD is STILL bankrupt and the waste water project costs have INCREASED by $100,000,000 since September 27, 2005. So tell us Ron, how exactly is Los Osos to deal with these issues (other than calling everything bait -n- switchy). Ron, cut bait or switch off.

As you bloggged "I never heard him sound like that." referring to your telephone conversation with Steve Monowitz, I suspect his tome was not one of agreeing with you; it is more likely that his "tone" was because he is sick and tired of hearing your delusional ranting.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 11:24 AM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: PS Ron,

Yes, I know that in 2001 the CSD Board adopted the Letter of Overriding Cosiderations. as elected officials, that was their duty to codify what they believed the community had enpowered them to do.

As for Pandora, you know damn well that I was never part of the Solution Group; never supported them; always believed their solution was flawed and more expensive (just like I know the Ripley-Pacific Plan is flawed and more expensive), and never supported their drive to form the LOCSD.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 11:34 AM, August 15, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ron, you raise a good question when you ask "How could I be a good sleuth if I can't read government documents?". I don't know for sure but suspect it is because you are are so ... um ... focused on trying to hang the whole mess on the Solutions Group and those who served on the LOCSD board before 2004 that you keep missing the elephant in the room ... that the CCC and RWQCB and everyone wanted to approve the TriW project because it makes more sense and is cheaper than the alternatives. Everytime I read a CCC document they keep saying that other sites have been looked at and aren't necessarily better but are likely more expensive and would cause more delay and because delay and expense are to be avoided as much as possible, we think TriW is the best choice.

Ron, you keep claiming again and again that you are right and the everyone at the CCC knows you are right. Here's a couple of questions. Why can't you show it? Why have they never agreed with you in the past? If you're all that brilliant and know every angle of this situation, why can't you read a simple financial calculation that shows you're full of shit and point out where it is in error? Honestly, this is a big issue because you told us that Ripley would save us money and now that Richard has shown their claim to be a lie your own credibility is on the line. I would think you would want to take some time to show where he is wrong.

Face it Ron ... you are wrong and you don't have the balls to admit it.

Is it wise to spend so much time and effort fixing your window the right way that the rest of your life crumbles away?; 11:59 AM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Shark inlet,

Gee, why don't you tell Ron what you really think? LOL !

You are correct about Ron. His immediate response to the cost analysis was to attacked me personally; blaming me for the #1 costs (debt to the CSD for stopping Tri-W). Seems that in doing so he is acknowledging that the costs exist AND the cost's credibility. As I wrote eariler, after all Ron's blaming, the CSD is still bankrupt and has driven up the cost of the waste water project by $100,000,000.

A rational response would have been to review the costs and point out which ones were faulty, provide the source of a new cost, and why the new cost is more realistic. Ron did not do any of this. Neither did Ann. To them, it is all about "shame N blame"

Regards, Richard LeGros; 12:13 PM, August 15, 2006
*PG-13 said...: Spectator > And you castigate Joyce Albright again?

Shark Inlet jokingly said > Maybe Joyce will use CSD money to pay her own lawyers in a "settlement" that is "necessary" because if the LOCSD loses, the damage award "could be" larger.

Followed by a giant pile on.

It seems to me that anybody and everybody regardless of your lean must appreciate the salient point Ann raises. At face value Albright's apparent desire to rejoin a body and participate in a process she had previously belonged to, then tried to descredit and destroy, and now wants to belong again seems passably odd. That doesn't imply she doesn't have the right to campaign for relection to the board. She has that right. I'm only now learning there are no rules in politics. Anything is fair game. To the victor - and only to the victor - go the spoils. And whatever it takes to win is, by definition, the fair game. I don't agree with that but that seem's to be the way the game is played.

Shark Inlet later added "Joyce's campaign platform could very well be that she'll vote to dissolve the CSD. ( ... ) It would be a means for her to achieve her goals which she believes in pretty strongly...."

Yes, that makes sense. Indeed that's about the only way to make any sense of it. If this is so one expects she will make this clear in her platform. However until she does her interest in playing fairly in a game she's worked so diligently to destroy has to be noted as odd. Re-reading Ann's initial blog I don't see the hard undue criticism or denial of rights which spawned so much caustic response. Those flames were fanned in the following reader posts. All very much ado about nothing.

Scrolling down the page,

Richard LeGros > I just posted a cost-point by cost-point analysis comparing the Ripley-Pacific plan against restarting Tri-W.

Thank you Richard. This is all very helpful. Your numbers are a good place to start. You posted first so its up to others to take em down. Your comparative analysis is as complete as any compartive analysis I have seen to date. Ever. Therein lies a rub. I don't see anything in this analysis that suggests this very same analysis couldn't have been done last year. Or 3 years ago. Reviewing it line by line I don't see any estimate or projection that is derived from new data in the Ripley report. The question begs to be asked. Why are we seeing this only now? About this time last year (egads, has it been a year already?) a number of the regulars here were scuttling about trying to generate numbers for simple spreadsheet anaylsis of various sewer options. I don't recall any of the efforts being quite as sophisticated as this 'quickie' analysis. So where were these numbers and this willingness to compare Tri-W to ..... anything else back when they might have made a huge difference. As so much of the commentary (yours and all the others) indicates, these numbers are so ugly now because decisions were made (or not made) and time was wasted. I daresay some of the numbers which are so intractable now weren't so set in stone even as late as just prior to the recall election. Same analysis using numbers from a different time would produce some intriguing results. Wow! We can't go back, we can't re-write the past, but I'm sitting here rueing missed opportunity. Take away the myriad lost costs incurred since the recall and now being weighed against a non-TriW solution and the numbers look a whole lot sweeter than they do now.

Mike Green > Oh, and a fancy slogan would be helpful too! Come on everybody! Lets help them out! Best slogans gets a dozen Carlocks Doughnuts!!

Dang, easy donuts! I think we may already have the winner in Joey's call to arms: "I'll go out on a limb for you!" That's a winner for sure. Herewith a few more. I've tried to offer something for everybody. If the shoe fits ......:

"Cost-effective, Slightly Improved and Better-than-Never!!"
"Tri-XYZ!!"
"Move the Park!"
"Anywhere but Here!"
"Los Osos: Land of Schlemials, Oppressive Sludge and Outrageous Schmaltz"
"Who Cares? I'm goin to Panama!"
"Sewerwars! Anybody can play."
"Sewertoons: It really isn't funny"
"I'm Anonymous, what's your problem?"
"CDO's for Everyone!"
"Who Voted for these Jerks?"
"BLOG: Best Los Osos Goo"
"Vote Yes, Dissolve/Destroy/Bankrupt, Vote Yes, Stay Tuned ..."; 2:08 PM, August 15, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Yes, Richard, I do have a low tolerance level for folks who are going to be both insulting yet unwilling to put in the time to understand the topics on which they proclaim themselves to be expert.

You know, when I started learning about this whole debate, I developed an impression from listening to Julie that she was reactionary ... that she wasn't so much thinking through the issues as just opposing TriW and those she perceived as supporting TriW.

However before voting last September I did a lot of research (and I've done a lot since). I've read what Ron writes, I've read what those behind TW wrote and I've read everything in between.

In any case, as I've learned more facts (including some engineering, soil science, geology, law and accounting) I've come to the conclusion that not only was I right before in my assessment of Julie and CCLO, the situation was even worse than I had imagined.

I won't claim that Ron will agree with me if he simply puts in the time to learn a bit more, but it would be at least refreshing if he could discuss one of the items that keeps coming up in CCC documents, the costs of various projects. One key reason they all state that they support TriW is that the cost of alternative sites is simply too high.

Ron ... you ask above for me to provide a link to a single document that states TriW is better or cheaper than alternative sites ... you yourself provided the name of that document yesterday. Something like LCP 03-1 (I apologize for not necessarily giving the exact name, I am using a computer where I don't have all my bookmarks).

In any case ... Richard, I certainly don't have the patience you do.; 2:18 PM, August 15, 2006
Mike Green said...: Sharkey thank you for that clarification.
Am I right to assume that Richards numbers for the (now) TriW project acuratly reflect energy costs now, like the Ripley report dose, not the estimated costs that were given us by the CSD engeneering firm that did the initial estimating for TriW? (The 40% boondoggle oopsie)
If not, what would using the Ripley cost per acre/ft estimate and applying that to TriW yield?
Also, dose the TriW project in Richards cost estimate reflect the current and future costs of the sludge removal in today dollars like the Ripley plan dose?
Thirty dollars a month. thats what it says up there folks, right from the Sharks Jaws.
Ya, we have been hosed for the delay, but we need to focus on the here and now.; 3:40 PM, August 15, 2006
Mike Green said...: Oh PG, each slogan has to be for a specific person, and you need to do one for each candidate.
So Joey could be "I'll go out on a limb for you"
Al could be "My poop don't polute!"
Kapish?
I figure the contest will go right up to election time then I'll talley the popular vote e-mailed to me (Click on my name)
I'll buy the winners choice of treats (12) at Carlocks and leave a will call tag with a secret code if they want to be anony.
Good Luck!; 3:53 PM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Mike,

Yes......
the OM&R costs in the analysis reflect current energy costs and costs for sludge handing. If you notice, I assigned $2,000,000 / year for OM&R to Tri-W, and $600,000 / year for Ripley-Pacific.

The conceptual costs in the Ripley report cannot be compared to the real-world and known construction costs of the Tri-W Plan. The costs are very reliable for Tr-W; not so with very prelininary and not-to-clear scope of the Ripley Pacific project. Expect the costs assigned to the Ripley-Pacific plan to rise over time due to more clarity in the plan.

OM&R costs / month are in 2006 dollars; note the disclaimer that OM&R (in the analysis) must be adjusted for inflation over time (on both projects).

Lastly, regarding your question an evaluation of past projects.

I have explained many times before on this blog that stopping the Tri-W project at any time within the last two years would have added huge costs to any eventual project, exposed the community to fines, CDO'S and ongoing pollution of our water suply. In fact, the current situation here in Los Osos validates my point. The time for such cost comparisions was back in 2000, 2001. The comparisions were performed. After the finalization of the FEIR and the sale of assessment bonds (2002), this community was obligated to the Tri-W project. To change course after these dates would have huge financial consequences.

As for the 40% "oopsie", it was no worse than the 60% oopsie experenced by CalTrans for their projects bid at the same time; nor out of line in comparision to other public works projects that went out to bid. In retrospect, the building community was adjusting to the hyper-inflation rate of late 2003-early 20004.
I do not doubt that if we had openned bids in April of 2004 as originally planned, the costs of the project would have been much lower. But that was not to be.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 4:43 PM, August 15, 2006
Mike Green said...: Mr Legros, Thank you for the reply,
I wonder what kind of "oopsie" is most common?
Perhaps project estimates?

Perhaps we should all take up Spectators slogan "I'm outta here!"
"Unconfirmed and reluctannt write in candidate"; 6:55 PM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: Dear Mr. LeGros

I understand that you were on the LOCSD board for many years. Why did you support the in-town site for so long, when many were against it? If you (and others on the board)had joined with the community wouldn't things have gone alot smoother?

Thank you for your response.; 7:44 PM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: Yes, I voted for you Mr. LeGros. Why did you support such a horrible project? I understand you were under pressure from the agencies but what about the pressure from your constituents?; 7:59 PM, August 15, 2006
*PG-13 said...: Thanks Richard, your forthright discussions of these issues and your under-the-hood analysis is valued and appreciated. With that said, ....

> Lastly, regarding your question an evaluation of past projects.
I have explained many times before on this blog that stopping the Tri-W project at any time within the last two years would have added huge costs to any eventual project, exposed the community to fines, CDO'S and ongoing pollution of our water suply. In fact, the current situation here in Los Osos validates my point. The time for such cost comparisions was back in 2000, 2001. The comparisions were performed. After the finalization of the FEIR and the sale of assessment bonds (2002), this community was obligated to the Tri-W project. To change course after these dates would have huge financial consequences.

Let's be precise. There has already been far too much imprecision in the language used to sell this sewer. Yes, I'm sure at many points along this development process saying that stopping Tri-W would add huge costs to any eventual project is perfectly true. I don't think that is at question. Whether the added costs, at any of those points, could be rationalized against alternative solutions, cheaper solutions, better solutions or more comprehensive solutions was never quantitatively described. And yes, stopping Tri-w at certain junctures recognizably exposed the community to fines and CDO's. I don't mean to minimize the dollar value of exposure. But exposure is one thing and the levying, counting & paying of such fines and CDO's against the cost-benefit of a better solution is something else entirely. Again, language was used to describe something that should have been described quantitatively. No, I don't think I'm one of those previously referenced as being in total denial. I believed there would be consequences to our decisions but those consequences needed to be weighed against the end result. I believe there should have been dollar and cents, line item comparisons between Tri-W and at least one other alternative (preferably more than one) which would should have proved your claims. To my mind their lack is what has brought us to this ugly situation. Oh, there were lots of other agendas for sure. Lots of people waving their hands and jumping up and down and screaming their case. But I think I and others might have made different decisions and voted differently if somebody had put up the kind of numbers you put up here today. I wouldn't have accepted them unquestioningly but they could have been used to lend some credence to the other language being used to sell Tri-W. But nobody presented such numeric analysis. And the lack of such numeric analysis suggested other things. It suggested that there was no comparative analysis. And now your analysis seems terribly too late. You say the comparisons were performed. If they were I suggest they were never appropriately or adequately presented and explained. No, our current situation doesn't validate your point. It shows you're providing good information way to late to count.

With respect to the ongoing pollution of our water supply. Oh come on. That is an example of just what I am describing. To state that as fact and reason for accepting Tri-W over any other alternative is just more of the same.

There is little doubt that we have dug the hole ever deeper and then jumped in to it to dig still deeper. But I propose many of us were digging to get more and truthful information and not be sold a bill of goods by somebody with a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda. I value your numbers but your words sound too much like other words I have learned to devalue.; 8:01 PM, August 15, 2006
Anonymous said...: i know that Mr. LeGros doesn't want to "dwell in the past" but let's face it...the past is connected to the present. We are where we are because NO ONE ADEQUATELY PRESENTED THE ALTERNATIVES. Duh. Please explain that Mr. LGros. Thank you.; 8:16 PM, August 15, 2006
*PG-13 said...: On a more lighthearted note ....

Mike Green > Oh PG, each slogan has to be for a specific person, and you need to do one for each candidate.

Oh, I get it. Gee, this is much tougher. I guess there really are no free donuts!

Consider all of this just a warm up as these fall outside the rules. (see my previous comments about rules.) I thought everybody could pick the shoes they wanted to wear. They know themselves better than anybody else. Least I'm flamed and toasted for saying something about a candidate before they publicly state their platform I'll not put words into their mouth. Thus this caveat: These slogans reflect past history and publicly documented words and performance. They are not meant to impinge or reflect negatively on anybody's character or their fancy new stripes. So I'm gonna keep some generalized group categories and let the candidates choose which group they represent. Since its early in the campaign and candidates are still registering I am also offering some slogans for familiar bloggers.

Solution Groupies > "Cost-effective, Slightly Improved and Better-than-Never!!"
IN-Town Sewer Advocates > "Tri-XYZ!!"
OUT of Town Advocates > "Move the Park!"
OUT of Town Advocates > "Anywhere but Here!"
IN-Town Advocates > "Anywhere but There!"
Joyce Albright > "LOCSD: Vote Yes, Dissolve/Destroy/Bankrupt, Vote Yes, Stay Tuned ..."
Those special citizens who asked the board to fine Los Osos for the recall results > "CDO's for Everyone!"
Everybody can use this one > "LOCSD: Who Voted for those Jerks?"
Spectator (jon) > "Los Osos: Land of SMchlemials, Outsourcing Sludge and Outrageous Schmaltz"
Jon (spectator) > "Who Cares? I'm goin to Panama!"
Sewertoons > "Sewertoons: It really isn't funny"
Ron > "Sewerwars! Anybody can play!"
All the Anon's > "I'm Anonymous, what's your problem?"
Only the Triv, Ann's and Ron's bloggers can use this one > "BLOG: Best Los Osos Goo"; 8:20 PM, August 15, 2006
Churadogs said...: Anonymous known as Richard LeGros sez:"PS: Ann, you missed the perfect oportunity to talk to me about the costs yesterday while at the CSD office. I am sad that you did not want to talk."

I'll have to get you a kleenex for your sorrow. I pointed at my watch as I headed out of the office for the car, said I was late, tapped the watch -- the universal signal of -- am late, gotta go, can't stop and chat now.

Unless stopping everything to chat with you is now considered a requirement of silly donkeys?; 8:34 AM, August 16, 2006
Anonymous said...: PG says:"With respect to the ongoing pollution of our water supply. Oh come on. That is an example of just what I am describing. To state that as fact and reason for accepting Tri-W over any other alternative is just more of the same."

Continued mantra PG?

This seems to be the crux of our situation over the last 30 years. Your entire argument above comes down to a belief that we are not really polluting and therefore, if we keep looking for newer and better technologies, some near free solution will present itself!

How is this state of denial of our polluting to be resolved? What would it take for you and ron and churadog to openly express to the community that we are indeed polluting?

Until there is "acceptance" by the community of our mutual fouling of our water source and the estuary, the regulatory agencies will have to continue to use the tools at their disposal and concurrently drive the final costs up.

PG, if your or others could unequivently demonstrate
that there is no tainting of our water and therefore no need for a WWTF you would get more community traction!

Show us the beef!; 9:05 AM, August 16, 2006
Anonymous said...: this is a test!; 9:06 AM, August 16, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Ann (churadogs),

Baloney.

You trotted off like a silly donkey because you couldn't think of a cleaver retort to counter or discredit the various analysis I have posted on your blog. You didn't want to talk because you are embarrased. Your embarrassed because you know that the CSD that you support is financially and morally bankrupt, powerless, and has left you and the Los Osos $15,000,000 to $60,000,000 in debt. Your embarrassed because all your claims that a new project will be 'waaaaay cheaper' was a sham; a sham that was exposed by my analysis. Your embarrassed because you cannot think of a single, constructive thought to overcome today's issues.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 9:21 AM, August 16, 2006
Ron said...: Shark said:

"Why have they (the Coastal Commission staff) never agreed with you in the past?"

"You deserve a hearing."
-- Steve Monowitz, June, 2006

"... why can't you read a simple financial calculation..."

I proved I can read one when I showed that a couple weeks ago Richard's figure for #1 was $47 mil, and then a week later it was $54 mil... see? I'm good at that stuff.

"... now that Richard has shown their claim to be a lie your own credibility is on the line. I would think you would want to take some time to show where he is wrong."

I did. Take out his #1 figure that resulted from his boards' (I'm now making that word plural possessive because when I say "his boards'," I'm including the board he was actually on, and the boards he aligns with that preceded his term) "bait and switchy"-ness, and it's a completely different financial ball game.

"Face it Ron ... you are wrong and you don't have the balls to admit it."

"You deserve a hearing."
-- Steve Monowitz, June, 2006

Oh, I've got f-ing ba... ahhhh, never mind.

Richard said:

"... referring to your telephone conversation with Steve Monowitz, I suspect his tome was not one of agreeing with you; it is more likely that his "tone" was because he is sick and tired of hearing your delusional ranting. "

"You deserve a hearing."
-- Steve Monowitz, June, 2006

"Is it wise to spend so much time and effort fixing your window the right way that the rest of your life crumbles away?"

Some people spend a half hour a day solving the daily crossword puzzle, I spend a half hour a day posting on Ann's great blog. I enjoy it. It's fun. Aren't blogs great?

By the way, Shark, you bringing up "so much time and effort" sure does bring to mind something about a pot, a kettle and black.

Richard:

"blaming me for the #1 costs"

I don't blame you, I blame your boards. In fact, of all the people that sat on those boards, you're probably the least to blame for "bait-and-switchy" (save Julie and Lisa, of course). I do blame you, however, for skewing your cost estimates by including that figure.

Shark said:

"Ron ... you ask above for me to provide a link to a single document that states TriW is better or cheaper than alternative sites ... you yourself provided the name of that document yesterday. Something like LCP 03-1..."

Not exactly the specific-ness I was looking for. Would it be asking too much that you actually mix in a little copying-and-pasting?

MG said:

"each slogan has to be for a specific person..."

For the Tri-Dubbers: "Baitier-Switchier-Fastier"

An Anon said:

"... the past is connected to the present."

Perfectly put.

Churadogs said:

"Anonymous known as Richard LeGros"

If he says he saw Ann, and Ann says he saw him, I think it's safe to say that the person posting those comments is indeed, Richard.

Rich, again:

"You trotted off like a silly donkey because you couldn't think of a cleaver retort to counter or discredit the various analysis I have posted on your blog. You didn't want to talk because you are embarrased. Your embarrassed because you know that the CSD that you support is financially and morally bankrupt..."

Eeeeeeeeasy, Richard.

Thanks for answering my "Statement of Overriding Considerations" question.; 10:43 AM, August 16, 2006
Anonymous said...: Well, I see that inflation can be taken out of the equation.

Richy says the O&M in his cost projections in 2006 dollars is the same as it was in 2004 dollars. Huummmm?; 10:54 AM, August 16, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: To our most recent anonymous friend, 5% inflation across 2 years on somethat was originally $30/month means that the cost will be $33/month.

I am sure that Richard is glad you've spotted an oversight. However your tone overall suggests you think that this small flaw shows his calculations to be hopelessly flawed. Change that one figure and the conclusion is still the same. Please remember that Richard's input for these numbers are documents from Ripley and the LOCSD. If the Ripley design needs to be changed to allow for higher capacity, denitrification or tertiary treatment, the cost differential is even more extreme.; 2:31 PM, August 16, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

Your reply still shows you simply aren't interested in even a discussion of financial issues. When you show that you understand Richard's calculations instead of simply repeating your earlier charge (which he's already addressed ... perhaps you missed his earlier reply) you should let us know.

Until then I don't see any reason to waste my time discussing this with you. I would far rather spend my time talking with folks who will at least make an effort to understand.

As to your claim that you'll get a permit revocation hearing (or some other opportunity to bring up your points ... I believe the development permit may have just expired), we'll see. Just because you claim that Monowitz says you should get a hearing doesn't mean that it is true and even if it were, your inability to read and understand CCC documents doesn't convince me that Monowitz meant that you're point is correct. Hell, he might have been saying that just to get you off the phone. If CCLO can get a hearing on this issue based on their silly arguments (which were pretty quickly dismissed by the board) it just goes to show that having a hearing on the issue doesn't mean much.

As to LCPA 3-01, read the full paragraph that starts just past halfway down page 15.

Now ... as to the poem. I refered to his favorite poem about fixing a window and spending so much time doing it the right way. He then suggests that I spend far more time on this issue than he does. Maybe I was unclear. I was trying to suggest that Julie and Lisa and Ron and Ann are troubled that the TriW plan wasn't perfect. The problem here is that if they re-design it to be up to their standards they'll essentially drive folks out of our community because of the increased costs.; 2:49 PM, August 16, 2006
Mike Green said...: To Anon "the beef"
There are unaswered questions about the pollution, for instance the wells under the houses on the south side of LOVR between aprx. the community center and where Pecho road turns toward Montana de Oro has three test wells in it, all show unacceptable concentrates of nitrates in that water all have nearly the same readings, The water flow or direction is naturaly toward the bay here (downhill).
The uppermost well is nearly identical to the lower well, since common sense dictates that pollution would follow water flow and the levels would increase as the septics add their loading, the question needs to be asked, "why is this so?" In fact I did ask that. There was no answer. Part of my question was could the livestock (horse stables) be causing this aparent anomaly? again no answer.
No, if someone wants to question the reason for this monsterous project, they surley have some good (but politicaly useless) points.
A sewer we shall get, come hell or high water, The Water Gods have decreed
They will gladly cause the emmision of TONS of KNOWN CARCINOGENIC compounds (diesel exhaust) into our air in order to remove the nitrates in a water source that is USED BY NOBODY and has caused harm TO NOBODY.
Maybe you think thats sane?
I know this rant sounds like I'm a no sewer nut, I'm not, I would like the Ripley plan but I would just as soon settle for the TriW if it would put this crap to rest. and if the cost is thirty dollars a month more for Ripley, I say it's worth it.; 6:16 PM, August 16, 2006
Mike Green said...: Ron, nice slogan.
"Baitier-Switchier-Fastier"

You forgot "Cheapier Worstier Stinkier"

anywho, you got a vote. Congrats!; 7:15 PM, August 16, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Mike,

I would agree with you that if it were just an extra $30/month to get the plant out of town it would be worth it.

However, as we've discussed, the costs will be much more than even that. If the RWQCB requires denitrification, the costs go waaaaaaay up. If the crops need tertiary treated water (veggies eaten raw do) the costs go up.

And ... the biggie ... if we use more than 50g/person per day the plant will not be sufficiently large enough to handle our needs. There is no way the RWQCB will sign off on a plant which has the capacity of processing less than half of the current wastewater produced by our community.

And if we produce more wastewater than 50g/person per day, there is not enough AG acerage above our aquifer to count for the in-leiu recharge necessary for the RWQCB ... even according to Ripley.

In other words, we'll need a disposal site (can you say Broderson?). All of a sudden, the benefits of being out of town (close to the AG use of the treated water) decrease because we'll now need to pump the water back to town.

Nope, the Ripley plan is based on some waaaaaaay faulty assumptions and there is no way the RWQCB will sign off on it without a massive re-design. (And if they don't sign off on the plant we'll never get a SRF and without a SRF the costs go waaaaaay waaaaaay up.) And if we end up doing a re-design to make it closer to the RWQCB requirements the costs go waaaaaaay up.

As I've been saying for about a year now, the pursuit to put the plant out of town is reasonable ... if you're willing to pay an lot more every month than what TriW would have cost. Right now we're talking (according to Richard ... if the RWQCB signs off on the Ripley plan as it is today) at least 50% more than TriW a year ago. If there are changes based on faulty assumptions on the part of the board and Ripley or if the RWQCB requires substantial modification I would not be surprised if we end up paying closer to $400/month.

Wouldn't you rather have the TriW project at $200/month or even $275/month than out of town at $400/month? I would.; 7:20 PM, August 16, 2006
Mike Green said...: Sharkey, of course I would go for TriW if it were 200/Mo.
According to your own posts, that aint gonna happen.
The rest of your comments have the words "what if" in front of them, therefore speculation.
Also, I recall being at the Ripley meeting and their plan treated water to the quality required for raw vegetables, maybe I heard wrong?
As for Ripley being completly out to lunch with the cost estimates,
You may be right AND you may be wrong.
There has been no bid yet, and THAT is where the "rubber meets the road"
Since the county will be in control of this I expect the bidding may be a little more realistic than last time. (I hope)
Anyway us locals will be preety much out of it from here on. enjoy the ride!; 7:38 PM, August 16, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Mike,

I am amazed at how "hope" will make folks do and say the darnest things.

One one hand we have a fully designed wastewater project with full governmental approval, of a known scope using technologies which will bring us into compliance with the law, and with actual bids at a known cost.......... On the other hand we have a vague outline of a project that has years of review and developement before it will be approved and receive funding (if ever), with an unknown scope and very dubious cost estimates (read guess).......and you are STILL willing to place yourself and Los Osos in harms way of the RWQCB (CDO's, Fines and a deadline to disconnesct by January 2010), continued polluting our water supply, and most likely pay FAR more per month for a sewer....all because you "hope" Shark inlet and I are wrong about the price?

Amazing.

However, you are right that Los Osos has lost control of this issue. Los Osos is broke, thereby unable to move forward with any wastewater project.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 8:25 PM, August 16, 2006
Mike Green said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 8:50 PM, August 16, 2006
Anonymous said...: FYI to All:

Joyce has withdrawn her candidacy. She is no longer on the list of candidates found on the Clerk-Recorder's website.

Realistic 1; 8:51 PM, August 16, 2006
Mike Green said...: Mr Legros, I find your comment somewhat insulting, to insinuate that I would (personaly) put my community in harms way is a power that I have never had ( you did)
Hope? As far as I can tell by your posts you are devoid of such asperations.

I'm glad we agree that both of us are out of the equasion.
On my half especialy about your half.; 9:20 PM, August 16, 2006
Mike Green said...: Oh, Mr Legros,
I don't want you wasting your time here but before you attack me, I would reccomend looking through the archives.

Just a suggestion.
Regards, Mike Green; 9:44 PM, August 16, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Um ... Mike ... take a pill or something.

While Richard's words were perhaps a bit over the top, we all do that from time to time. Hell, when recently writing to Ron I said some stuff that was far harsher.

Your response to Richard was, in my opinion, at least as harsh as what he wrote to you.

I am sure that Richard didn't intend to imply that you were trying to harm people. However, if the cost of any plant (whether TriW or some other site) is not about $300/month but TriW would have only cost us $200/month had we not stopped the project, one can quite reasonably argue that the current board and their supporters (and you were one at one point in time if I recall correctly if you don't count yourself as one now) should step up and admit that they played a role in the harm that is falling on our community.

It is sort of like a dance with many participants ... the RWQCB, SWRCB, CCC, County and LOCSD and each move by one of the participants affects what the others will do. The LOCSD doesn't get to be the dictator of what happens in Los Osos. Lisa cannot say that she wasn't warned that the RWQCB would fine us or that the LOCSD lawyer didn't suggest CDOs during the ACL hearing. She cannot say that she wasn't told that the loan was site specific. Heck, even if she wasn't told these things, it is her job to research these issues before making decisions that would put us in harms way. She's failed our community as have the rest of this board. Do I blame you? Not really. However, I do think that those who voted for Lisa and Julie and the recall and Measure B should admit at least they were warned about the consequences we're now experiencing and that they thought that voting for the recall was worth the risk.

Yes, Mike, if you voted for the recall, you played a role in putting our community in harms way. Maybe not as much as Julie or our good friend Ann, but if you voted for the folks who made the choices that have increased our bills, you played a role.

Right now I hate to admit it but I've voted for some real losers myself and I now regret a lot of those votes. I played a role in getting us into the war in Iraq by voting for W and for Dianne Feinstein and Capps.; 11:22 PM, August 16, 2006
Mike Green said...: Maybe your right sharkey, thanks for he heads up.; 6:35 AM, August 17, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Mike,

Attacking you was the not the intent of my last blog, nor implying that you are out to harm Los Osos.

Opining on the power of hope was.

I know your words saying that I put Los Osos in harms way were written out of anger; so no offence taken.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 8:30 AM, August 17, 2006
Anonymous said...: To Joseph John Racano born Nov. 1955, AKA Joey Racano:
Since you take the DA to task for your tree sitting affair. Perhaps you could give him some slack because of your previous criminal records, a matter of public record.

Three cases in Contra Costa County: 03-572686, 10/25/90; A 01-339886, 11/13/90; A 03-576118, 11/14/90.

Five cases in Orange County: 06020RB, 05/10/2002; 2769389, 08/01/2002; 2779116, 12/05/2002; SH114563, 02/11/2003; and 39878UL, 11/10/2004.

We have no idea what these were about, and have no wish to investigate them, or even know if the information is accurate. However they do appear on a criminal search. Any one can do this to verify the information, and can go to the county court house where the offence occured to pick up records for a small fee.

Be very careful when you accuse others of being a criminal. You have a sizable criminal record.

Please explain if these were previous tree climbing experiences.; 1:29 PM, August 17, 2006
Mike Green said...: Mr Legros, this is what I took offence at:
"and you are STILL willing to place yourself and Los Osos in harms way of the RWQCB (CDO's, Fines and a deadline to disconnesct by January 2010)"
I accept your explanation and offer apologies if I offended you, yes I was angry. If there is one thing I've learned,it is to read carefully, you usualy are very precise in your wording, I take it this was an error.
Best Wishes, Mike Green; 6:23 PM, August 17, 2006
Churadogs said...: Richard leGros sez"Baloney.

You trotted off like a silly donkey because you couldn't think of a cleaver retort to counter or discredit the various analysis I have posted on your blog. You didn't want to talk because you are embarrased. Your embarrassed because you know that the CSD that you support is financially and morally bankrupt, powerless, and has left you and the Los Osos $15,000,000 to $60,000,000 in debt. Your embarrassed because all your claims that a new project will be 'waaaaay cheaper' was a sham; a sham that was exposed by my analysis. Your embarrassed because you cannot think of a single, constructive thought to overcome today's issues.

Regards, Richard LeGros"

You clearly missed seeing my right hand pointing at the watch on my left hand, the universal signal -- I'm late, gotta go, as in, watch here that I'm pointing at, sez, I'm late, gotta go.

But I love your mind reading. Quick, I'm thinking of a number between 10 and 100. What is it? What am I planning on having for dinner tonight? Also, I'm planning on seeing a movie this Sunday. Which one will I be seeing?; 6:38 AM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Ann,

Baloney…… again.

You have avoided talking to me many times. Trot away.....can't talk to Richard because I am embarrassed that I cannot counter his analysis. Make universal hand signals !

Yes, I can read your mind.....your going to write another silly donkey blog / cannon in the near future in which you spout opinion as fact; and that going to CSD meetings and presentations entitles your opinion to supersede others professional credentials backed with true knowledge gained by decades of focused education and hands-on real-world work experience.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 10:40 AM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: Richard LeGros,
You say Lisa and I were "deeply involved" in lawsuits before and after we were on the Board? Perhaps if you hadn't violated every environmental law and basic human law , better known as "Common Sense", by siting a sewer plant downtown, there would have been no need for a single lawsuit.
BTW my involvement with citizens was limited to public record documents, which I took the time to read, I remained true to my oath with Closed Session information.
I did encourage Keith Swanson to puruse litigation, and would again today, it was the only way to make you listen, and even then, as you are now, you were/are deaf to the concerns of the people you pretended to "represent".

Julie Tacker; 1:48 PM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Julie,Re: yu bog above.

Baloney.

Regards, RichardLleGros; 2:59 PM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: Let's ty that again:

Hi Julie,

Re: Your Blog above.

BALONEY

Regards, Richard LeGros; 3:01 PM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hi Julie,

Regarding the LAFCO board members:

They characterized your closing comments as delusional; to paraphrase 'out of touch with the reality of how government works.' Just thought you needed to know so you can sharpen your presentation skills.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 3:27 PM, August 19, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Julie ... you are essentially saying that because you didn't like the location and because you didn't believe the TriW project to be in compliance with the law that you encouraged lawsuits that delayed the project.

Fair enough ... but let me ask you a question. If those lawsuits didn't result in a "victory" for your side, aren't you essentially saying that you delayed the TriW project (and raised our costs) because you didn't like the site?

Let me ask you another question ... why should I have to pay larger bills to get my sewage treated just because you didn't like the site? To me it sounds like you simply don't care about my cost of living.; 7:29 PM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: Richard LeGros said...Baloney…… again. You have avoided talking to me many times. Trot away.....can't talk to Richard because I am embarrassed that I cannot counter his analysis. Make universal hand signals !

Richard, I can't imagine anyone fearful of discussing or debating anything with you... if anyone should be embarrassed I think it would be you. How simple it would be to go back through these blogs and find statements you have made that were just plain wrong... and predictions you have made that didnt turn out to be true... just on these blogs... let alone your past public record.

Yes sir, I would debate you anytime, anyplace... as long as you promise to keep your balls out of it...

But what I do fear is the inbalance of the argument... you see Richard, any battle of the wits with you would be unfair... since you are woefully disarmed.; 10:45 PM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: Snarky said..."Julie ... you are essentially saying that because you didn't like the location and because you didn't believe the TriW project to be in compliance with the law that you encouraged lawsuits that delayed the project."

No Snark, I think what Julie said was the use of the Tri-W site IS illegal, goes against common sense, and goes against what a majority of this town wanted... reread her statement again...

Julie said... "Perhaps if you hadn't violated every environmental law and basic human law , better known as "Common Sense", by siting a sewer plant downtown, there would have been no need for a single lawsuit."

That is far different than what you said, "because you didn't like" and "because you didn't believe"

I have no doubt that Julie's quote above is indeed fact... and there are many instances that support her statement.

And as far as I'm concerned Julie's intention wasn't to "delay" the project... it was to STOP the Tri-W project and get a proper project built out of town.

Due in part to Richard's actions, delaying the project was a necessary evil to accomplishing the above goal... but I am sure Julie, as well as the rest of us, would have much rather worked WITH the old board to get the project built properly out of town without delay... instead of the disasterous fight that is now history... and that is in fact a FACT!!!

Brings this scenario to mind...

An armed man is holed up in his house with a nice lady that he invited over who is now his hostage... police and negotiators arrive and cordon off the house.

The man claims the woman came over voluntarily and they should go away and leave him alone.

The police just want him to listen to their instructions and release the woman immediately.

The man refuses and claims that she is there voluntarily and does not want to go with them. The only proof he offers of this is that she voluntarily entered the home in the first place.

What do the police do?

1. Leave immediately, allowing the man to remain in the house with this woman he claims is there voluntarily... if what he says is true, he has yet to commit a crime. So by leaving the police will have immediately ended the standoff and saved the taxpayers money by getting all the police negotiators off the clock.

Or do they

2. Try and stall, delay and negotiate for her safe release?

If they delay and negotiate, who do we blame for the expense of the police response... the police for delaying??

Or the armed assailant for refusing to listen to the police?

The police is Julie... Richard is the armed assailant and the lady in the house is the community of Los Osos...

The delay was unavoidable... as a direct result of the armed assailant (Richard) refusing to immediatley release the woman (the community if Los Osos)...

The police (Julie) were correct in requesting her (los Osos) release because they knew she was being held against her will and if they would have taken the armed assailants (Richard) word for it, it was obvious that irreperable harm would have befallen the woman (Los Osos).

The police are sorry the delay resulted in added expense to the taxpayers and wished the suspect would have released the woman immediately, thereby shortening the length of the stand-off.

But regardless of the added expense, the actions of the suspect (Richard) were of such an egregious nature that it was a necessary evil to resolve the situation properly.; 11:24 PM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: I say we throw Richard in jail and send his family the bill!!!; 11:24 PM, August 19, 2006
Anonymous said...: Good Morning Anon 11:24,

If you want to believe the unsubstantiated baloney you blogged, that is fine with me. That is your right. However, the Courts and the State of California do not concur with your position.

I read that you realize that the delay has added cost to the wastewater project that you, as a property owner (I assume) will have to pay for. When you voted for the recall, it was delay, added cost and loss of local control that you voted for. Again, that is your right. You appear to realize that your actions as a voter do have consequences. I hope you can afford those consequences. Sadly, many cannot.

Your desire to vilify me is wasted energy. Life is so much better without hate.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 11:19 AM, August 20, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: The TriW site and plan are not illegal in any way. If you can get a judge to agree with your belief that TriW is illegal you've got something to stand on, but in many many tries, TriW foes have not succeded in demonstrating any illegality.

So, if that is the case, the only thing that Julie has to stand on (to defend her actions which have caused all of us a LOT of money) is that she doesn't like the site.

Just because Julie may be pretty good at convincing people that TriW is a dumb location doesn't make it illegal or a dumb location. Passion for a position doesn't make one right.

So ... trot out some concrete evidence or fess up that you simply don't like the spot and you are willing to pay an extra $100/month to move the WWTF and you are willing to make your neighbors do the same even if they are just happy with TriW. At least admit that your position is costing people a ton of cash.; 3:06 PM, August 20, 2006

Pages

Sunday, August 13, 2006

82 comments: