Pages

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Uh, Oh. Ron's Writing Letters Again

"County Supervisors Get Letters, Lots and lots of letters. . . letterrrrrs! (including one from me)"wherein Ron Crawford over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com writes a letter to his supervisor. Well, inquiriing minds want to know and Ron's still bird-dogging those Tri W Park amenities.
Posted by Churadogs at 7:09 AM

22 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Does it seem to you that Ron cares far more about the park portion of the previous TriW project than about affordability?

7:19 AM, March 13, 2007
Shark Inlet said...

And furthermore ... do you agree with Ron, that the park aspect of the sewer is an endless source of amusement?

Some of us are far less ticked than he is that our costs keep going up and up because of the lack of wisdom of our LOCSD board and of our voters as well.

Ron, however, seems to get a good fit of giggles going every time he can point out ... again and again ... that the "i"s were not dotted nor the "t"s crossed in some obscure document which may have crossed Pandora's desk back in 1973.

And now we all get to pay more just so that he can have a good laugh and just so that he can prove himself right about the park.

9:57 AM, March 13, 2007
Anonymous said...

Sorry, SHARKY, but I agree with Ron. That Pandoraland Park was the most assinine thing for Los Osos. It added a HUGE cost to the project. I have to ask, why do YOU think 5,000 mostley low to moderate income people should "PAY FOR A PARK THAT EVERYONE IN THE COUNTY COULD USE"? Everyone NEEDS to pay THEIR fair share for this project. Or maybe YOU don't think it's ABOUT CLEANING UP THE WATER...

11:08 AM, March 13, 2007
Shark Inlet said...

Admittedly the park wasn't a necessity in my mind ... but to continue to dwell on the park (which cost about $2M) and to delay the project because of the park is unwise. With 8% inflation in construction costs, a 2 year delay in a $100M project will cost us about $17M.

So ... would you rather pay an extra $17M (in fact it's actually considerably more) just for the right to quibble over $2M and how unfair it is that we have to pay for a park in the first place ... or would you rather pay the extra $2M up front so that our total bills are lower.

I know that many who oppose TriW don't see it this way, but honestly if there no other arguments against TriW there would still be some (Ron included) who would have us all spend more money just so that we don't get a park.


So ... if the issue is really all about cleaning up our groundwater ... why are spending time quibbling about the way the park would be paid for? Why not just admit that the $2M divided by 5000 households in Los Osos is only about $400 each. Do you really want $250 or $300 monthly payments instead of just $200 per month ... just to avoid paying your share of the park costs?

If you really want to spread the park costs across the whole of Los Osos, your share of that $2M would now be only $335. To save $65 once would you be willing to pay more than $65 extra each and every month for the next 20 years? I wouldn't be.

11:25 AM, March 13, 2007
Anonymous said...

Not everyone has a hatred of the park component. I'm not trying to ram my opinion down your throat Ron, and I'm getting very bored listening to your continual rant on this. Get a life or get a new topic.

11:40 AM, March 13, 2007
Anonymous said...

Who was the genius who wanted a sewer in the middle of town with a park. Pandora? She's got to be out of her mind.

Why was she named Pandora?

5:27 PM, March 13, 2007
Anonymous said...

Since when does Los Osos rank as a "town"? It's nothing more than a bedroom community of SLO. Tri-W is not even the "middle". That argument is all hype to stir the emotions. Los Osos or Baywood Park or Cuesta-by-the-Sea couldn't even agree on a single Chamber of Commerce. Los Osos is just a poorly planned meshing of subdivisions and shacks. Most of Los Osos doesn't even have a real Pacific Ocean view, just a backwater mudflat with increasing levels of nitrate.

6:42 PM, March 13, 2007
Anonymous said...

When Los Osos is finally "done", the middle of town will be LO Valley Rd., with shops and restaurants, and a sewer?!

9:47 PM, March 13, 2007
Churadogs said...

Inlet Sez:"

Ann,

Does it seem to you that Ron cares far more about the park portion of the previous TriW project than about affordability?"

I'm sure Ron will speak for himself. I suspect that the Park element is simply, for him, emblematic of a SYSTEM, a PROCESS gone awry.

For me the problem is this: If the original EIR said that the out of town site was the environmentally prefered site, (and the law requires you pick non-ESHA land unless there's a major, major reason not to) yet that site was dismissed because it wasn't centrally located so as to fulfill a (non=existent) "strongly held community value" of having a centrally located park as part of the "Dream," then that means this process was derailed from day one. Furthermore, I still don't understand why, when the CSD knew even before the CSD election formation that the Ponds of Avalon wouldn't fly, why the CSD still ferociously clung to that very expensive, middle of town ESHA property. Why not go back to the community and say, Dang! We tried, but this ain't gonna fly. Shall we give this back to the County? Or go back to square one, tax ourselves so as to get the $ needed to do a REAL evaluation of options, or what? (Then put the REAL side by side comparisons up for what I've long called for: A Chinese Menue Vote; Pick one, there's the price, vote for it, pay the bill) I'm also puzzled that the Coastal Commission, according to Ron's documents, apparently bought the "strongly held community value" and so didn't insist the non-ESHA site be used instead of issuing the permit to keep the sewer plant moored at TriW. becasue of the "overwhelming community value." And I'm still pondering Paavo's words at a recent PZLDF public meeting that he acknowledged that the CSD didn't really look at a Step/gravity comparison (they didn't have the resources to do a good job, so just sort of guestimated it, Paavo's point being that, unlike the resource-poor CSD, the County does have the resources to do a indepth look, which they're supposedly doing now.) If he's correct, then, once again, the community really wasn't given good information, nor were they allowed to make those choices, which means the process derailed from day one and headed straight for the cliff. I can only hope the process is clean now. . . but that's something the whole community needs to pay attention to and make sure of.

Meanwhile, I'll look forward to Ron answering your question.

7:27 AM, March 14, 2007
Shark Inlet said...

I am less convinced than you that Ron will speak for himself. In the past he has sometimes neglected to respond to pointed questions when inconvenient.

Even without the park, the central location of TriW would more than justify it over the more expensive out of town location.

To continue to harp on the ESHA status of TriW without mentioning that it was low-quality ESHA does your readers a disservice much the same way that neglecting to mention other limitations on the studied out of town sites (like Ag use, easements, proximity to creeks, etc.).

To suggest that any non-ESHA beats any ESHA site is simply incorrect.

Furthermore the argument that because mistakes were made earlier we ought to go back to square one is wrong ... rather than forcing us to start over, the wise person would advocate making the best choice based on where we are today.

7:21 PM, March 14, 2007
Churadogs said...

Inlet: I'll wait 'till Ron checks in with his reply since he has repeatedly cited chapter and verse of statues to back up his contention that there was a great lack of oversignt going on here.

As for your comment that " . . . because mistakes were made earlier we ought to go back to square one is wrong . . ." OUGHT? Who said "ought?" This community DID make that choice, which is what happens when a series of uh, "mistakes" add up to something the community decides they don't want. Ought has nothing to do with it.

6:46 AM, March 15, 2007
Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

While Ron may cite chapter and verse on a few issues, it is those he ignores that tend to create a huge bias. Would you want the white house press corps to report only one side of the story? Probably not. Even if they had massive numbers of quotes, if those citations were only from administration documents and largely ignored documents that could be taken as supportive of a Democratic position ... there would be a huge problem. Ron is not so much a reporter here as a cheerleader for Julie Tacker. Even so, we'll see if Ron has something to say. I note that a few blog entries back I offered Ron a chance to help heal the rift in Los Osos and he seems to have missed his opportunity to work with me to achieve that goal.


As for last comments ... you and Ron are two of the people who repeatedly tell us that we ought to go back to square one and re-think things from the start. No, I cannot find a quote from you with those words, but your message is clear. You want the site-selection issue re-studied (again) and you want the collection issue re-studied (again) and you want the treatment method studied (yet again). If you don't think you've been arguing for this since 2005 you should perhaps go back and re-read what you've written. The message is loud and clear.

Furthermore, our community most certainly did not say that we wanted to start over. The vote on the recall and the vote on Measure B was largely a vote on the costs of the system. Nearly everyone I talked to about the issue (save Senet) who supported the recall and Measure B emphasized the costs and promised that the costs would be lower if the recall were to happen and if Measure B were to be passed. Hell, there are still some here who feel that way even though the "middle of the road" folks here (like Mike and PG) have seen pretty clearly that the ultimate impact of the recall is to raise our costs.

So, if a significant part of the campaign message is "$100/month" and "we have a plan, ready to go" and "STEP will save us money", how can you argue that people wanted to start over (which is more costly) when they were voting for the promise of lower costs?

Any campaign has a collection of issues and different people cast their votes for different reasons.

Yes, we did have a recall, but no, it wasn't because people wanted to start over, it was because people wanted to save money. Unfortunately, your team lied during the campaign and unfortunately, enough people believed the lie and now we're paying the costs ... much like many people believed the Solutions Group would be "Better, Cheaper, Faster".

Back to my point. Starting over is not a wise choice if the costs associated with starting over are too high. If fixing the Solutions Group mistakes will raise our bills so high that even more people will have to move out of town, we should live with the mess instead.


Finally, on the question of your selective emphasis of TriW being ESHA and your failure to mention limitations of other sites ... should we take your silence on the question as an admission that you're trying to influence us or did you just happen to forget?

9:28 AM, March 15, 2007
Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"As for last comments ... you and Ron are two of the people who repeatedly tell us that we ought to go back to square one and re-think things from the start. No, I cannot find a quote from you with those words, but your message is clear."

Oh, Inlet. You are the LAST person to tell me "your message is clear." We've been over this again and again. You have a very bad track record of claiming what you think I've said and it turns out to be wrong, again and again.

Inlet also sez;"So, if a significant part of the campaign message is "$100/month" and "we have a plan, ready to go" and "STEP will save us money", how can you argue that people wanted to start over (which is more costly) when they were voting for the promise of lower costs?

Any campaign has a collection of issues and different people cast their votes for different reasons."

I have not argued that people wanted to "start over." People voted for Measure B for a variety of reasons, the most compelling of which apparently had to do with allowing them to have the choice of SITE, not "starting over," and giving them a 218 vote on whatever they were "buying, not "starting over." They also voted for the recall for a variety of reasons as well. If you recall, the "negotiated compromise" (that wasn't a negotiation, heh-heh) was about "moving the sewer plant out of town." Indeed, had the state not put in the poison pill, the CSD would have voted for the "compromise" and so continued laying pipe while the various off the shelf, modified plant plans, for out of town sites were undertaken, a 218 vote done & other stuff in the "compromise" deal. The compromise was doable. The question to this day is this: Who wanted it to fail and why?

7:49 AM, March 16, 2007
Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

You now seem to be telling us that you didn't want TriW stopped and that you didn't want to go back and re-visit the site selection question. If that is the case, what has been the key point of what you've been writing for the last two years.

It seems that you just don't understand how people are reading what you write. You can attempt to put the blame on me by saying I'm not reading carefully but to me it seems that the author should make an effort do be clear.

Maybe if you answer a True/False question it will provide some clarity to your readers. Would you classify the statement as True or False (and perhaps give an explanation of your answer)?

Ann believes that the site-selection decision was biased and should be redone.

You see, Ann, answering "True" to this question means that you are in favor of starting over. Answering "False" to this question means that you should be supporting TriW.


On the question of whether you meant to say that the vote for the Recall and Measure B meant that the community wanted to start over, I direct you to your posting of 6:46am of March 15 where you (started by quoting me and then) wrote: "As for your comment that ' . . . because mistakes were made earlier we ought to go back to square one is wrong . . .' OUGHT? Who said 'ought?. This community DID make that choice" I ask you what you meant about our community making this choice if not by the vote in Sep 2005? You see, I cannot figure out how our community could make a choice on starting over if we've never had a vote on that topic. The recall and Measure B were, as you've argued, muddied with lots of issues so we cannot reasonably make the claim that our community did want to start over.

So, considering (from your quote above) that you've just told us both that our community made the choice (in the above quote) and that our community didn't necessarily want to start over (in your most recent posting) .... which is it? Which statement do you believe and which do you want to recant?


On a more technical note, whether Measure B would allow us a choice or forbid TriW or both hasn't really been settled. If you argue that it would just allow a choice but wouldn't forbid TriW you seem to be taking a different point of view than the post-Recall board who claimed that Measure B would not allow TriW to be developed. Let me ask you this ... if you're such a big believer in the sanctity of process, why didn't you at the time write a scathing article about Lisa's comments that TriW was off the table. After all, if Measure B only required a vote and didn't forbid TriW, TriW should have been an option for us.


On the "poison pill" the state inserted into the compromise ... your reading of the state's request is inaccurate. They simply asked for us to take a 218 vote to promise we would pay them back. After they saw that the LOCSD board would likely take actions that would cause the unsecured loan to be lost, they wanted a promise that they would be repaid. Not a poison pill at all. Heck, even Lisa and Dan told us that the state request was reasonable ... just that the LOCSD was not in a financial state to float a bridge loan necessary to cover the interim timeframe until a 218 vote could be taken. If you're a gonna blame the SWRCB for an unsecured loan which you believe to have been a mistake, you can't call their later insistence on a 218 vote a "poison pill" just because it killed a compromise. The compromise was killed because the LOCSD made the choice to not pursue an expensive bridge loan.


Gosh there's lots of stuff in this posting. I apologize for too many threads. Hopefully we can all keep up and answer all the points raised.

9:48 AM, March 16, 2007
*PG-13 said...

Shark Inlet > The vote on the recall and the vote on Measure B was largely a vote on the costs of the system. .... there are still some here who feel that way even though the "middle of the road" folks here (like Mike and PG) have seen pretty clearly that the ultimate impact of the recall is to raise our costs.

Because I am referenced here I suppose I should respond. And clarify. I did not support the recall because I thought it would result in a lower cost sewer or that it would me save money. I wasn't sure one way or the other but I kinda expected that the ultimate cost of the sewer might increase. I supported the recall because I thought the process was wrong. And I wanted to know that other options were fairly analyzed and rejected for good cause. The pre-recall board never convinced me of that. Indeed, they pretty much convinced me that other options were NOT fairly analyzed and rejected for valid cause.

I have since admitted that the post-recall CSD was almost as disappointing as the pre-recall board. That they disappointed and failed more quickly doesn't mean that they are worse than the prior board. They both suck. I say that while still honoring their commitment to serve the community. Shark and I are tending to find more common ground than we used to but I gotta say I tend to agree with Ann's basic premise that this has a been a train wreck of poor process above all else.

Shark (continuing) > Starting over is not a wise choice if the costs associated with starting over are too high.

Ann > I have not argued that people wanted to "start over." People voted for Measure B for a variety of reasons, the most compelling of which apparently had to do with allowing them to have the choice of SITE, not "starting over," and giving them a 218 vote on whatever they were "buying, not "starting over."

I don't know that 'Starting Over' is a good way to characterize any of the options before us now. I don't think we ever did a good start. Call it a false start. Just because bad process was allowed to run amok doesn't mean that wherever it finally ended up should be the finishing line. And that any further movement implies starting over. The racer who leaps ahead in a false start isn't declared the winner. Nor does continuing with a false start declare a legitimate winner. Will any of this result in costing me/us more money? Probably. But that still isn't conclusive. Will running a fair race result in a winner? I think that is - by definition - a fact.

Look, we made an absolute mess of this whole sewer thing. On that we can ALL AGREE. I'm not sure these kinds of conversations/arguments about who said what when and what they meant by it and what the fall-out might have been because of it have any meaning anymore. The county is gonna do their thing. Whatever it is. We can only hope they do the right thing. Whatever thing they propose we should have a chance to vote on it. (And a blind vote isn't a legitimate vote.) At which point we once again create the world we live in. I hope the county proposes something the majority of us can live with. If not we're screwed again. The RWQCB CDO's have been similarly bad process. And yes, to answer a previous question, I believe they will fail of their own mis-substantiation. But that doesn't mean we're off the hook and can just keep on flushing. There will be penalty to pay. As well as an ever increasingly expensive waste water solution that will eventually be built and that we will pay for.

12:37 PM, March 16, 2007
*PG-13 said...

One more thing, hollering into the void (again):
Let me rephrase one of my previous comments in an earlier blog. We live in a very special and unique place. Los Osos casts a huge shadow in the local ecosystem. We've not been the best citizens in this ecosystem for some time. Proof or no proof about the state of our septic systems we need a better waste water and clean water solution. Only a fool believes we can continue using the existing septics forever without long-term negative effects. Its way past time for this community to honor its role in the extremely fragile and wonderfully beautiful locale we live in. Just because we bought in on the cheap doesn't mean there aren't going to be high costs to live here. I don't think a PZ-only sewer is the best solution. Its a half-baked partial solution that only satisfies the RWQCB which we know performs to the very lowest of levels. It only puts off the inevitable - a full basin solution - and wastes a lot of money. Still, it is a half-baked and partial solution. As such I suppose it is better than nothing. I sure wish we could do better. My greater fear is that we build a WWTF for the PZ and then believe that solves the problem. Allowing Los Osos to continue what it seems to do best - bury its head in the sand and pretend that we can live our lives in this bucolic setting without paying for the privilege. When this sewer war is over and the smoke has cleared and the carnage measured who will ever propose the better more complete solution we need if we are going to continue to live here with clean aquafers and without polluting our sensitive environment?

1:09 PM, March 16, 2007
Shark Inlet said...

The key question, PG, is if we insist on having a fair race will the resulting environmental damage and will the damage to our pocketbooks be greater than we would gain from a fair evaluation of options. I trust the County will do a fair evaluation and if costs enter into the evaluation process, TriW and gravity will float to the top because it is less expensive and quicker to implement than the alternatives.

The problem with all previous site selection evaluations is that they are open to charges of bias. Bias is all in how one sees it. Some would say that Ripley was fair and I would argue his report totally ignored many things which should have been included. Some have said comparable things about MWH. The County will fare no better and there will be many who complain about the outcome and many who will complain about the process.

2:40 PM, March 16, 2007
*PG-13 said...

Shark Inlet > The key question, PG, is if we insist on having a fair race will the resulting environmental damage and will the damage to our pocketbooks be greater than we would gain from a fair evaluation of options.

A good and fair question. Let's break it down:

> ... if we insist on having a fair race ....

Why shouldn't we insist on having a fair race? That's what some of us have been asking for all along. Look where running an 'unfair' race has gotten us. (Read: No where. All the while bleeding time, money, political capital and pollution.) Interesting point, when is it too late to do the right thing? Some of us would say its never too late to do the right thing as long as that option is still open. Others would say - quite fairly - we can study this to death, always trying to do the right thing and never do anything. Or, when and if we finally do the right thing, it will be too expensive. Or too late. And thus is no longer the right thing. These kind of quandaries is what good process is supposed to resolve. Hopefully.

> ... if we insist on having a fair race will the resulting environmental damage ... be greater than we would gain from a fair evaluation of options

Yes, in matters of polluting an unpolluted ecosystem, what is tantamount? Stopping the immediate pollution? Or stopping the long term pollution more effectively? I agree with you, as a life-long Sierra Cluber (Heavens!) I'd much prefer immediate cessation of pollution. Solve the most immediate problem first then work for a better long term solution. I wish that was an option here. I don't think it is. Sadly, I feel we have to make a Devil's Choice. Our on-going pollution is a serious problem but I don't know that it has reached crisis proportions. It may have. It may already be too late. I don't know. If it is already too late then there is no good solution. Might as well go with the cheapest solution, live here as long as we can and sell out and move away when we no longer feel its worth it. Some would say that is today and are doing exactly that. If it isn't an immediate crisis. If there is still time to make wise decisions for the long-term and for the broader ecosystem then I think we should work for that. Again, that's what good process is supposed to do.

> ... if we insist on having a fair race will the resulting damage to our pocketbooks be greater than we would gain from a fair evaluation of options.

I think you already know how I feel about this. See my previous comment (above). I don't want people to be priced out of Los Osos. But there is a cost for living here. And its higher than most other places. Or it should be given the beautiful, sensitive and pristine nature of our locale. And, given the realities of tomorrow (assuming not polluting and living in balance with awareness of our environment is important), its gonna get more and more expensive. At some point everybody has to decide what matters most to them. And please, please, please forgive me if that sounds cruel hearted. I just moved both my parents to an assisted living facility. They didn't want to go. I didn't want them to have to go there. But its the best place for them. Its a nice place. But its not as nice as their old house and their old lifestyle. It is what it is. Yeah, we've already made this sewer more expensive than it needs to be. That's the case for whatever we end up with. And the county's gonna tell us what they are willing to build here. And how much its gonna cost. And then we get to decide whether we can afford to live here anymore.

Me? I still have great, albeit largely unfounded, hope a wise (dare I say Solomonesque?) decision will be made by the county. I am ever hopeful.

3:41 PM, March 16, 2007
Shark Inlet said...

PG

Your comments are well taken.

Let me just suggest that in Los Osos, across the 5000 homes, there are probably at least 30-40 well thought out criteria for what would be a "fair race". I have my criteria and you have yours and Ann has yet a third belief about what constitutes "fair."

Suppose that I believed the previous board to have had an unfair race. Because of the outcome of their decision to spend a ton of money on a TriW design and a ton of money getting the thing permitted and because any other design will need a lot of money and time to get to the place where TriW is now ... it pretty much argues that TriW is the best option we have currently. My definition of fair would have heavy weights on the cost and speed issues.

Someone who doesn't care as much about the costs and timeframe might feel strongly otherwise ... but shouldn't pretend (as many have done) that they'll save money by dragging the process out even more.

I am not troubled by your opinions or what you write. All very reasonable. What troubles me greatly are the folks who tell us (perhaps just to win an election) that we'll save money by when they should know better.

4:30 PM, March 16, 2007
Ron said...

Shark asked:

"Does it seem to you that Ron cares far more about the park portion of the previous TriW project than about affordability?""

The reason I focus on the park portion of the project is because, because of that portion, Tri-W will NEVER work. It's a mess, a tangled mess, and has been since day one, for all the reasons Ann points out above.

Tri-W's development permit requires the park. Why? Bait-and-switchy. That's why special condition 17 is in the development permit to begin with. No special condition 17, no Tri-W.

Shark, affordability? Here's a question for you: How can something that will never work somehow be considered more affordable?

Shark wrote:

"Even without the park..."

Then you're in violation of the development permit. How many times have I said this, Shark? No park, no Tri-W. And right now, that park is NOT funded, and no one can tell me where the funds are going to come from... ergo... Tri-Dubya's gonzo.

"Ron is not so much a reporter here as a cheerleader for Julie Tacker."

Give me a "J", give me a "U', give me a....

The chick's a stud, what can I say. Los Osos is lucky to have her. In a town famous for its sideline-sitters, Julie went from soccer mom to a CSD Director that knows the associated documents better than anyone I've EVER interviewed for this story. Very admirable. Very cool. I admit, I'm a fan. Guilty as charged. Los Osos needs more Julie Tackers.

"I offered Ron a chance to help heal the rift in Los Osos and he seems to have missed his opportunity to work with me to achieve that goal."

Uhhhh... Shark, I have no idea who you are. You want to heal the rift in Los Osos? Get the Solution Group to apologize.

"you and Ron are two of the people who repeatedly tell us that we ought to go back to square one and re-think things from the start. No, I cannot find a quote from you with those words, but your message is clear."

Shark, since I'm a nice guy, I won't call you an idiot, but, Ann, do you remember "repeatedly" telling people that? Me neither. The reason you're not going to find a quote with those words, Shark, is because we have NEVER said that. Square one? There's so much information out there, soooo many studies, that the right project is sitting in front of everyone's face. That's why I think the TAC is silly. It's awfully redundant.

"You want the site-selection issue re-studied (again)..."

That's already done, Sherlock. Perhaps you missed Ripley's excellent Tech Memo #2 that had the Giacomazzi site at the top of the list. Out of town, downwind, willing seller, not near the middle school, and the Coastal Commission will prefer it waaaaaay over Tri-Dub. Site selected (past tense).

"Starting over is not a wise choice..."

What's with the future tense? If you want to call what they did "starting over," (which it wasn't) well then, they started over months and months ago. Now, there's a viable and vetted (past tense) site, collection system, and treatment method on the books. So, I guess the question is: Shark, do YOU want to start over?

Sharky, Sharky, Sharky:

"You see, Ann, answering "True" to this question means that you are in favor of starting over. Answering "False" to this question means that you should be supporting TriW."

Jeez, Shark. Where in hell did you go to school? That's flat-out terrible logic. Just terrible.

Thanks for the link, Ann.

9:29 AM, March 17, 2007
Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

You seem to keep pretending that if the County were to tell the CCC that they wanted the TriW site and had a SOC (that didn't include a park) it would be approved without a 2nd thought. Somehow you seem to think that the County application to use TriW would be identical to the CSD plan. Did you turn stupid overnight or has it been a slow progression?

On the question of trying to see if we can take some steps to allow Los Osos to heal, Ron ... um ... completely passes.

On the other issues it is rather clear Ron that you've either not bothered to read what I and others have written or that you don't want to bother with actually dealing with the issues raised.

When you want to treat Los Osos with respect, let us know. Until then we'll view you as just another interloper who wants to voice his opinion but who doesn't want to bother with actually doing any of the heavy lifting necessary.

All the best to you and I hope you soon make the choice to help our community rather than just take pot-shots from the sidelines...

1:48 PM, March 17, 2007
Anonymous said...

We agree with you Shark!

Your logic and ability to cut through the BS is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for saying things much clearer than most of us.

The group of us retired property owners reading these blogs really do watch for your responses. Thank You Mr.Sharkinlet!

3:17 PM, March 17, 2007

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)