[The devil, they say, is always in the details. While the RWQCB Prosecution Team hammering The Los Osos 45 wished to portray the "settlement agreement" some signed under duress- that-nobody-wanted-t-admit-was-duress, heh-heh, as "almost the same as those in the cease and desist order" -- DING! DING!DING! Warning! Weasel Wording-- the agreement actually contained some very dangerous poison pills that every homeowner needs to take a very careful look at. So I would advise everyone to be very, very cautious about any New! Improved! Heh-heh, Settlement Agreement that might arrive over the transom pretending to be "almost the same" as whatever. The words Caveat Emptor were never so true. Especially since you're dealing with a Water Board that sent out a notice of violation that violated their own written procedures, i.e. was not sent certified mail and was not signed by the Executive Officer, thereby rendering this "notice" legally questionable in the first place, except as an electioneering ploy. ]
Press ReleaseResidents in Los Osos have homes with legally permitted and properly functioning septic systems. Property owners in the prohibition zone are already paying a sewer assessment. The government is in control of the wastewater project for Los Osos. Individuals do not build sewer systems. It is wrong for the water board to coerce a 218 vote with threats of enforcement, and undermine the credibility of the County process. If you support clean water, regulatory compliance, and protection of property rights, you are in alignment with Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF.
Please print, then post or hand out this message from Citizens for Clean Water. Neighborhood meetings to educate the community on the enforcement issues, and the NOV are being scheduled. Alan Martyn is handling the schedule. If you would like to host a coffee in your home call him at 528-0229 and set up the date and time.
A link to the RWQCB NOV http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/documents/LosOsosNoticeofViolationInteractiveVersion.pdf
Water Board FAQ http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/documents/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsreNOV.pdf
Make sure the community knows they are not required to do anything in response to the NOV. . The FAQ's says property owners will be hearing from the water board in the next months. The Board is seeking "prosecutorial efficiency" and will likely attempt to put clean up and abatement orders within a settlement agreement to avoid the hearings and appeals of 4400 individual cases. The enforcement in Los Osos is also precedent setting for future action in AB885.
NO PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD SIGN A CLEAN UP AND ABATEMENT ORDER. CAO's go beyond the Cease and Desist Orders and place property and legal rights at risk.
Feel free to write if you have questions-or come to a Monday meeting for more information. [Mondays, 7 pm. at the Washington Mutual meeting room]
Most Sincerely,
Gail McPherson
Citizens For Clean Water
Posts
161 comments:
Ann Calhoun,
Are you an attorney?
Is Gail McPherson an attorney?
Does either of you have a felony conviction?
I'm not an attorney.
And I got a traffic ticket last week.
Does that mean I can't participate on this blog?
Just check'n.
I presume you're going to consult with your own appropriately vetted legal counsel regarding all of this so please let us know what s/he says. TIA.
Property owners should seek out information that they need to make an informed decision that works for them.
For certain individuals, a CAO may be the choice that they make and should trust their decision.
All decisions have the opportunity to be discussed with the water board and our neighbors.
Do not be coerced by one group's OPINION. Trust your instincts and good journey!
REVOLUTION!
I would not trust anything that Gail McPrerson was behind. I would also be adamant about careful accounting of any funds. You remember that she wrote the defense to the CDOs originally, however, I feel that this defense was shot down by a previous court rulling.
The problem with this situation is finding an attorney who really knows what they are doing based upon case law. Most have no knowledge of how to proceed, but will be glad to research for a large fee. It comes down to "you pays your money and you takes your choice". Sorry, but true.
It seems that McPherson is on the same legal road, however with a slightly different slant.
Any fool who signs the settlement agreement better have an attorney look at it first.
Ann,
Just wanted you to know that I've e-mailed three e-mail addresses you've put into your blog as being associated with PZLDF folks. One has told me that he is not longer associated with PZLDF. No reply from the others.
I am still quite discouraged that you've told us to go and read some mysterious PZLDF legal brief but that you've not given us the information that would allow us to get a copy.
When I e-mailed the PZLDF folks I volunteered to put a copy of their brief on the web so that everyone could read a copy (just like you want). However, no answer just yet.
Perhaps you should tell us how we can write Gail who encourages us to write.
Some of us are unable to make the WAMU monday meetings but shouldn't be deprived of info just because of that.
Or ... are you going to criticize me for being lazy again? Do I get another slap on the wrist for asking for you to help me get hold of the document you want us all to read but no one here other than you seems to have been able to find?
Shark - Gail is at almost every meeting associated with the WWTP. She's not that hard to track down. She has a very public presence. Why don't you just confront her when you see her and find out what you want to know? Skip Ann as a go-between.
FYI
As of Friday morning, over 630 PZ property owners have signed settlements papers with the RWQCB.
More to sign this coming week.
Obviously, theses propeerty owners do not believe one word that Gail, the Citizens for Clean Water or PXLDF say or do.
I'm curious about Ms. McPherson. How could she spearhead the move the sewer recall propaganda machine (I'll never forget her "get over it" comment when citizens came before the Schicker board to ask them not to stop the project and lose the SRF loan), yet now head up an organization she calls "sewer-neutral." Very...what's the word? Suspicious?
You're "curious" about Ms. McPherson? You're either trying to be funny or just moved here.
I'm not signing ANYTHING. If you do then you may be setting your own trap. But go for it if you feel comfortable with it. I've read it and am uncomfortable with the terms.
The only benefit of the settlement is that the Water Board has said that they MAY reduce the fine below $500/day. You give away all rights to appeal. Read the documents. Talk to a lawyer. The only people who are promoting the settlement are a few fools who settled without consulting an attorney (because they thought they were smarter) and the WB. Please look before you leap.
So Gail is the person who I should contact ... fair 'nuff. I somehow figured that the people who Ann had earlier told me were those who headed up PZLDF were those I should contact.
With that in mind, maybe PZLDF should put a website together with that famous legal brief that 'splains everything that no one but Ann has read. I would still be willing to put that brief on the web should someone send me an electronic version of the file.
Not wanting to give up any anonymity (at least in part because of what I've been called here and elsewhere), I wish to remain anonymous (because I don't want people to harass me at Miners and Vons). Even so, Gail or anyone with a copy of that file can e-mail me at sharkinlet@gmail.com and I'll get it online.
Gail McPherson giving advice about the Water Board is like Al Capone giving advice about the IRS. Give me a freakin' break here.
Is She a "jail house lawyer"?
Maybe She should know the laws because she was caught violating a few!
Paid a nice little $40,000 fine. How much is a speeding ticket on LOVR? It takes quite a bit to be hit with a $40,000 fine!
Moral of the story, watch who's grinding her axe with the State Water Board at the expense of those few still listening.
Anon > How much is a speeding ticket on LOVR? It takes quite a bit to be hit with a $40,000 fine!
Dang, how did you kow? Well, I was mov'in pretty fast. But I had a good tail-wind. And I was heading downhill. Still, hardly seems fair. And you're right, the judge reduced my fine to well under $40K if I take Traffic School. Which is where I spent the earlier part of this evening. Is this a great country or what?
And yeah, I wouldn't trust Gail Mc with my milk money. Much less with my home. I do share concerns about her skills and her motives. Might I also add character? Which is why I hate to see the PZLDF so cheek-to-cheek with her. Of all the lawyers in all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, why her? Is this really the best counsel they can get? But at some point ya gotta separate the words of hired counsel from your 'Final Decision'. The CDO's are ugly. The CAO's even worse.
Anon > As of Friday morning, over 630 PZ property owners have signed settlements papers with the RWQCB. .... More to sign this coming week.
There will always be those who will cast their fates to .... fate. And I am sure there are many who just don't know. Whatever. That is their decision. I'm curioius. Where is this quantified data available for review?
Can 4Crapkiller please explain any benefit of signing a settlement?
Anonymous sez:"Shark - Gail is at almost every meeting associated with the WWTP. She's not that hard to track down. She has a very public presence. Why don't you just confront her when you see her and find out what you want to know? Skip Ann as a go-between."
And deprive Shark the pleasure of logging on to repeatedly complain that I'm not spoon feeding him the information he demands? Perish the thought.
PG-13 sez"Which is why I hate to see the PZLDF so cheek-to-cheek with her. Of all the lawyers in all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, why her? Is this really the best counsel they can get?"
McPherson is not an attorney. Which is why I and other suggest that people better get an attorney's advice before signing anything. The devil is in the details and in this case go to tiny print water code, signing away rights (which is what settlements are all about -- you give up X in return for Y and if you're not careful you find out too late that you've given up Y as well--) a dangerous drop dead date that even the Peer Review said was "somewhat arbitrary," and other problems. I have no idea who the Anonymous poster was that said 630 people have signed up for something. My bet is the unverified 630 were NOT sitting with an attorney going over the actual CAO/settlement line by line, since each one is supposed to be crafted for each individual.
So far as I know, no "blanket" CAO's were issued to the community. When the negotiations were going on with the 45, and I asked for a copy of same, I was told this was all client/attorney priviledge and the agreement would be made public at the hearing the day it was signed, not before, since settlments are only the business of the folks directly involved.
There was no "community wide" settlement agreement. The one that was offered, was only offered to the Los Osos 45 and even then, if memory serves, there were changes in the various versions before negotiations were broken off. So, just WHAT do these 630 people think they're agreeing to sign? What's the point of signing up people to agree to sign something they haven't even seen yet? That hasn't been offered to the public to even read yet? Sso far as I know, hasn't even been written yet?
PZLDF's attorney, SUllivan, has offered to sit down with the RWQCB's Grand Inquisitor, Reed Sato, to re-start the agreement negotiations to remove some of the critical language and dates that are of deep concern to many who have read the settlement document and have refused to sign it. I believe a better agreement can be reached, and if a better settlment agreement can be reached, why not do that? A settlement agreement signed under duress is no settlement at all. A settlement agreement signed without even reading it is no settlement at all. A better settlement agreement, one that works for both parties, will take the willingness of the RWQCB to sit down with PZLDF, or Sullivan or the community or the CSD or the County or Whoever. So far as I know, this has not happened.
As for getting people to sign up to agree to sign something that hasn't been written yet, the term Judas Goat comes to mind. I sure hate to see another Garden Path down which unsuspecting people are being led with promises of . . . what, exactly?
It's a fine discussion to have and debate the CDO, CAO,CSD....
The "drop dead" date has been open to discussion when progress is being made on a project. It would appear that those that offer to "sign" are saying - we believe that this time a project started will be a project completed. Personally, I believe that the Jan 1, 2011 could change if the community has committed to following through on a project. Do I "like" the tie in to the 218 - well, it's uncomfortable but gives the process a milestone.
Community members who are willing to sign are then willing parties and make any discussion between the property owners and the water board become more collaborative in nature.
Anyone doing any research on where this has happened before and how the outcome was handled? I know that in the mid-West there has been many a documented sewer war - came across a few myself but have been really busy. I know water boards all over the country handle enforcement actions, we should take a look.
My suspicions don't lead me to villifying the water boards or the people. The laws are the laws. If we don't like them, we go to Sacramento or Washington DC and we change them.
If PZLDF brings security to some, so be it. Unfortunatly, for many in this community they are tired of any and all litigation and potential litigation and have communicated that very clearly. I agree - there are other ways. What is unfortunate is that there isn't a sense of overall security or even hope in PZLDF's message - too much fear woven in.
Water board doesn't want my house, they want my committment to be towards resolving the big picture issues. We are all traveling the spokes to the middle of the wheel. The spokes are different and that's o.k, and the discussions are great to have. Everyone holds a piece of the truth.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly
TO Anon 11:31 PM:
4Crapkiller is standing with caution and waiting before signing.
It is always wise to err on the side of caution, which I wish the foolish LOCSD board did before stopping the sewer and putting us in this position.
Before I sign any legal document, I will read it very carefully, and ask hard questions of parts not understood. I will also contemplate unforseen consequences.
At that time if questions are necessary, or if I see unforseen consequences, I will write directly to the water board for intent and clarification, leaving an extensive paper trail.
This paper trail will be a body of evidence if needed later, should they alter the intent of the document by action.
We shall see. I have received only a non legal document at this time.
At this point I see a vilified water board, personal insults to members have been expressed, and they surely are fed up with Los Osos nut cases. Their scope is narrow: they are charged with inforcing water and anti polution law. They are not charged to consider history, validity of law and timing, or many other factors. They are charged to stop polution. Their efforts have been obstructed for many years with extreme vitriol and personal attack.
It is natural to fight back. They are resolved, and should be. There is nothing good about poluting an aquifer. However, their stupid pumping scheme in the past shows a lack of practical reasoning.
My position is that it is very counter productive to call the CCRWQCB people idiots, fools, etc. It is equivilent to calling a judge in court a bad name when his verdict is read. It just makes things worse and can land one in jail for contempt.
Reasonable people can reason together.
I will wait and see how things work out, but I would avoid association with any group empowered with "hot heads" and nut cases. In fact, I would oppose them. Given time and action by the county, normal turnover in members and staff of the water board, and the "cooling off" that reflection produces, may produce a reasonable outcome. But to continue to fight the board with speculation and vitriol, and the complaint that we are not poluting, or it is the county's fault (which it may be), just puts us in the position of showing "bad faith" and "obstruction".
Ann,
The only reason I am harping on the whole PZLDF thing isn't because I want you to spoon feed me anything ... but because you made an issue of it.
You are the one who wants us all to read this document. Presumably without it you think we'll be less informed. Fair enough. However, if I were telling people that they must go and read something, I would go out of my way to tell them how to get hold of the document.
If this document is so darn helpful and so darn important, one would presume that both you and PZLDF would want to go out of your way to help us read it.
What's funny is that I've offered to help you and PZLDF achieve that goal ... I'll put it on the web for you. You posted Gail's missive, presumably you've got her e-mail address ... pass on mine to her ... or would that be too much trouble?
What should we conclude about all of this. To me it seems that we've got evidence that you don't so much want people to read the document as you want to complain that people don't all go directly to Gail to ask her for copies of this oh so important document. We might also be tempted to conclude that PZLDF doesn't want the document widely read ... because after all, they don't seem to have it on a website somewhere and they've not taken up the offer to put it on the web for them.
You complain about being asked to do the homework of others but please realize that ... when you as a commentator who knows Gail and who has already read this wonderful document that explains why the RWQCB is wrong and why PZLDF is worth supporting ... when you refuse to provide the information to those who ask ... it makes it look like you don't really want people to have it.
annon 11:14pm sez...."Might I also add character" when speaking of Gail. How long and how much more do you exect her to pay for he mistake? Isn't the fine she paid, lose of job and public ridicule from un-forgiving people like you, enough? What more do you need to satify your lust for revenge? The only person she caused any pain was HERSELF. How have you suffered for her mistake? How much cash has she taken from your pocket. Maybe if she bled a little, that would satify you. By what authority do you judge someones character when you have none. You say she is "running" the CSD. Can you prove that she is or, is it just what you THINK?
Oh jeeez it's that franc guy. His sanctimony makes him hard to miss. Somebody!! Help!!!!
Shark,
I think the document you want is here:
RT Study
Crappy excreted:
"4Crapkiller is standing with caution and waiting before signing."
Amen brother, me too.
Thanks Balls ... but the link you provide seems to ask me for a password. Even when I sing up for membership at esnips.com, I am still not getting the file you suggest.
Thoughts?
Shark,
Try this and download the RT Study.pdf:
RT Study Location
Balls, that link gets me to Steve's page.
Balls,
I think that Mike is Right. Ann referred us to Sullivan's document that tells us why the RWQCB process is hosed up.
Even so, good reading and thanks for the information.
One of the best things about the magic internets is that information can be provided to those who want to read it ... well, if those with the information are willing to share it, of course.
In any case, Ann's posting suggests that if someone just walks up to Gail tonite and asks her for a copy of Sullivan's document a copy will be provided. I will be unable to make it. However, anyone who does should please pass on my e-mail address to Gail (sharkinlet@gmail.com) so that she can contact me about getting a proper version online.
Ann seems unwilling to help out with this process so we need to do it ourselves.
Ok, Balls or anybody, you don't need to use a hyperlink or a download button, in fact it might be better if you don't, simply cut copy paste the address into the text.
anyone savvy can take it from there
Hey folks, I saw this RT thing before, and someone even commented that it needed to be litigated. I could have even made the comment.
It was posted on Ron's site! It was also highlighted with Ron's comments in yellow. It was good work on the part of Ron. However, it required a legal interpretation of the law concerning 218 Votes on a sewer if I remember correctly. Sewers were exempted, but the language in the law required a ruling on the exact intent of the law as to NEW construction.
Mike: this is difficult.
Buy the way, as one gets older, one seems to excrete more and more. Pretty soon this old lady will be wearing pampers.
Does anyone know where we can find the minutes of the TAC meetings? I would think they would start being available by now.
McPherson comments[Is She a "jail house lawyer"?Maybe She should know the laws because she was caught violating a few! ]
Like the bankruptcy experts that were actually gulity fraud in land deal-Legros & Stan Gustefson-1.9 million default-both escaped their debts to run a CSD stiffing trusting people just as they did with thier shady with business deals...or lets talk Hensley and his past...I don't think so?...In McPherson's case the DA dropped ALL charges! Get it? DROPPED THEM COLD.
The State extorted $40k...the record says it was not a fine, but payment for the investigation by the SWRCB. She wasn't fired, according to her employer. You may want to dig deeper than some press or rumors. The SWRCB unfair and malicious acts against those who stand against them is not news to anyone in Los Osos.
Moral of the story, better guard your property rights, and be damn glad Mcpherson is willing to go out on a limb for other with your ax still swinging.
As an adult that was a child that was molested and a friend to Gordon H. This isn't even funny. My radars to not even come close to going off when I have had discussions with him.
This kind of comment- I never blog only read - is dangerous, cruel and makes me hate what this community is going through even more. To discredit based on liable is grotesque.
I got the letter from Gail via a kind lady's e-mail - the same one that Ann posted here. I sent back this response which I will post here. We need to stop the fear.
"It is unfortunate that the Water Board has been so
unsure of how to approach the problem of our dischargethat they have flip-flopped and ham-handedly dealt with this issue; but the County must not be stained by that taint.
As Paavo has said many times, the County cannot make the RWQCB "do" anything. And the County can't control HOW the Water Board's actions may affect its 218 vote, either. We then, should make it clear to all, that the 218 belongs to the COUNTY and we should be solely influenced by what the COUNTY says about the 218.
I'm going to keep these two things as separate
discussions and NOT further the fear that the 218 will be ruined by the Water Board's actions. Not everyone has concluded that and I don't want to give them that idea.
Only positive energy is sustainable.
Lynette Tornatzky
It is very curious that the eighty page document by, I presume Mz Sullivan, that purportedly lives and works in Los Osos does not file all these litigations on her own behalf. Is not most of the cost of litigation, attorney fees? Is she not an attorney? Something smells fishy here!
The title of the "Shaunna" report is "Regulatory Takings Analysis, LOPZ Vs. RWQCB3" and its "author" is listed as "Independent Report for Shaunna Sullivan, In preparation to review actions related to Regulatory Takings From the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund Subcommittee on Reguary Takings.
In the report Shaunna's name is misspelled, so I will hope that she had nothing to do with writing this!
It is 80 pages long. PZLDF's subcommittee has been busy, busy, busy.
Good for PZLDF!
Gail (Anonymous 12:48 P.M. April 03,2007)
I believe the question was, is Mz Sullivan not an attorney, and does she not live and work in Los Osos, and WHY DOESN'T SHE FILE HER OWN LAWSUIT ON HER DIME IF SHE IS SUCH A BELIEVER IN THIS CRUSADE?
Anon sez:"Anonymous said...
Gail (Anonymous 12:48 P.M. April 03,2007)
I believe the question was, is Mz Sullivan not an attorney, and does she not live and work in Los Osos, and WHY DOESN'T SHE FILE HER OWN LAWSUIT ON HER DIME IF SHE IS SUCH A BELIEVER IN THIS CRUSADE?
6:36 AM, April 04, 2007 "
When she gets a CDO, I presume she will go through the process and file an appeal on her own dime. but since she hasn't YET gotten a CDO, she has no standing to appeal anything, only work on appeals from those Los Osos 45 who have CDOs against them and who signed up to get her help.
Anon sez:"As an adult that was a child that was molested and a friend to Gordon H. This isn't even funny. My radars to not even come close to going off when I have had discussions with him.
This kind of comment- I never blog only read - is dangerous, cruel and makes me hate what this community is going through even more. To discredit based on liable is grotesque.
7:35 PM, April 02, 2007 "
The other anonymous posting that this anonymous person is alluding to was dumped into the trash can.
A warning to all readers. There's certain anonymous commentors on this blogsite who DELIBERATELY lie and DELIBERATELY post lies in order to either be provocative or toss in red herrings or just slander people for no reason except some sick joy that "anonymous" people get out of doing such things.
Interestingly, I think most of you who regularly post here have gotten to know that particular "voice," so keep your pound of salt handy.
Ann,
I've got a question: Why did the State Water Board lobby so hard for the AB2701 legislation? The SWB has and always wanted Tri-W so they could recoup their 6.5 million (and wanted that project all along). They personally went to meetings during the legislative process to lobby for Blakeslee's bill. It proves to me that Sam wants Tri-W and did no favors to Los Osos. He did do a favor for Pandora & CO.
Speaking of Pandora & CO., Ms. Sullivan is on the Bay Foundation and works with Pandora's husband, and dreamers on the Bay Foundation (very interesting). Ms. Sullivan also worked with the CSA9 from the beginning. Ms. Sullivan is supportive of a sewer, but not step/steg.
Ann, you accuse L.O. residents of not paying attention over the years, but are you??
"I've got a question: Why did the State Water Board lobby so hard for the AB2701 legislation?"
Well, duh. Is this question for real? Could it be....maybe....they want to see a sewer in Los Osos? Could it be they realize it's never going to happen with this local government (CSD)? Holy cow. Just how paranoid can the fringe possibly get? And lord it's still so funny to me to see some of these people frightened like little school girls of Pandora. That little woman sure packs a wallop, doesn't she?
I honestly believe that Blakeslee was trying to help and had good reason to think that the RWQCB would stand down. I don't think he had any comprehension as to what extent the RWQCB was ready to go in the process of the intimidation and persecution of the 45. Blakeslee does not have the power alone to stop the WB. He needs the backing of his fellow Congressmen & women to stop this abuse of power.
On another note, now that the Supreme Court has ordered the EPA to respond to global warming, will our arguments against an energy hog sewer have any more weight?
I believe that as long as the property owners approve a Prop 218 assessment this fall, providing certainty that there will eventually be a project, there will be no serious enforcement by the RWQCB. If there was, that would be the time for the Assemblyman to raise some hell with the State.
Of course that's true. All of McPherson's posturing, and the posturing of those who are so offended by the actions of the water board (actions which they clearly warned were coming if the previous project was stopped...thanks Schicker and Tacker and the stooges)is just pure political theater. Especially for McPherson, who has some big-time scores to settle with the water board (see her travails in Riverside). It's all just theater, which is the Los Osos way.
I the WB wanted to prosecute individuals, they should have allowed a fair hearing. The BS they shoveled out at the hearing; guilty unless you could prove your innocence in 15 minutes, with all evidence dismissed, and all subpoenas quashed, was the wrong. If the hearing had followed the basic principles of our democracy, and a fair settlement had been offered, I doubt that anyone would be appealing the ruling to the State and the courts. We don't need a lax and negligent agency (as evidenced by the lack of a basic septic management district for over 20 years) now all of a sudden employing Nazi tactics to intimidate individuals.
4:05, how can you say that there will be no serious enforcement. People (45) have already lost their health and any sense of control over their lives. The consequences to these people have already been at a serious level for over a year. The WB may continue to sacrifice these people to send a message to the community, or maybe it will be your turn next. Let’s see how you handle it.
Okay, I'm getting really tired of loaded language such as "an energy hog sewer".
Presumably the author of this comment felt that TriW was not as wise (with regard to energy usage) as some out-of-town ponding system and STEP-STEG ... but we really can't be sure.
A few points to note. First, STEP-STEG requires more energy than a gravity system. Is this sustainable? Only if there are other savings that offset the higher energy costs of STEP-STEG. Presumably the breakdown of some solids in septic tanks would offset some of the costs of trucking sludge to other locations, most likely Santa Maria. On the other hand, the Ripley plan would require septic tanks to be pumped out every few years ... and when you consider the total volume of septage we're talking about, the number of truck trips to Santa Maria won't necessarily be lowered at all.
So ... is there really an "energy hog" here? Sounds to me as if both systems have benefits and drawbacks but that neither is a clear winner from the point of view of energy usage.
On the issue of whether the CDOs are reasonable or not ... the question isn't so much about whether you should get more than 15 minutes to prove your innocence.
Earlier rulings (which have already been challenged and supported by the courts) say that we're already guilty as charged and that our only option is to make progress toward a solution and that if we choose not to do so, we're liable. It may seem like a kangaroo court but that's only to those who haven't been following the legal issues since the 1980s. Even if you bought property and don't feel you were fairly warned about the sewer situation, your argument isn't with the RWQCB but instead with the County, your real estate agent your own lawyer who you hired to look over the legal documents you were required to sign to buy your home.
If I ever get to read the legal brief by Sullivan (presumably Ann doesn't give a flying fig whether your or I can access this information and PZLDF doesn't care either), I can weigh in on what Ann describes as a defense of the process. Until I can see what she wrote, I'll have to go with a face value reading of earlier legal decisions by the RWQCB and appellate courts. The essence of those earlier decisions is this ... we're hosed unless the County/LOCSD/County can manage to get a sewer online right quick.
Again, some would argue "how does the RWQCB know that my home is part of the nitrate problem?" but that isn't the point. The point is that if your home is in the PZ you're already guilty. No amount of wanting to re-argue the validity of the PZ will change this ... unless there is some magic argument PZLDF has come up with but won't share with us.
Sharkey rebubbled:
"On the issue of whether the CDOs are reasonable or not ... the question isn't so much about whether you should get more than 15 minutes to prove your innocence..."
You missed the point, anon said it was "wrong"
I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how the Water Boards actions would qualify as "Right"
Explain to me how this process is useful at this point without resorting to electioneering.
According to Ann, that's a no-no.
I say it's pretty blatant that it is happening.
To Anon:
You believe in Blakeslee? Do YOU think it's right that he tried to have just the PZ homeowners pay exclusively for the CSD's $41 million debt? It is against the law to do that, so he had to change the wording in the legislation.
He's told the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that the CDO's would disappear after the sewer starts. He's working with the RWQCB, don't think otherwise.
Most of you sewer experts have no idea how politics work outside Los Osos. Los Osos has been trying to tear down years of beauracracy and cannot win. The game is much larger than this pimple on the butt of the needs of the State of California. The activists have been heard and are only being tolerated. The activists delayed a long needed sewer, but will not halt the project. Los Osos will never be another Monterey or Carmel, just a lower income patch of sand with very little tax base. Why should California or the County continue this silly sewer war? There isn't enough political influence (money) in all the community to gain more than a passing pat on the head from the State. We're going to have a sewer and we're going to pay for all the delays.
I've attempted to explain my understanding of the RWQCB actions earlier. I don't 100% believe what I'm about to write but ...
The RWQCB wants the property owners to know the implications of a "no" 218 vote. It is clear that during the recall/Measure B election there was a lot of misinformation about the implications of a vote. They simply decided to be more upfront and more clear.
On the issue of whether they have the legal authority or not and whether their earlier decisions (about the formation of the PZ, for example) are right or not, it would seem that it is entirely irrelevant unless an appellate court were to decide they had been in error ... and several of these legal issues have already been raised and it would appear that the RWQCB is batting one thousand.
I think that Ann is calling it electioneering just because she doesn't want the RWQCB statement of facts to cause people to vote against her beliefs. I think she wants people to vote against the 218 vote out of fears that the County will end up choosing TriW so she will oppose anything that would cause people to vote for it.
Maybe I am wrong, but my opinion is that she has downplayed every fact that could be construed as favorable toward TriW and she had pumped up everything that could be viewed as negative about TriW or positive about any other possible site.
She's biased against TriW but writes as if she's just concerned about the process and as if she just wants us to pay attention. However, she's only concerned about the process being followed when folks supporting a sewer aren't doing things the way she wants but she writes nary a peep about issues like when the Lisa board borrowed money from the fire reserves to pay legal bills without any public comment first. When others write about problems asking us to pay attention, Ann blows off the warnings, saying that we shouldn't really be concerned about issues like losing the SRF or getting fined by the RWQCB.
Nope, Ann is as biased as they come. What is saddest is that either she doesn't realize her huge bias or that she's intentionally trying to mislead. I can't figure out which.
Like I said, I won't stand behind those words 100% ... I wanted to vent a bit.
To Maria:
You are too fair regarding the RWQCB. If they wanted to correct any "SUSPECTED" pollution problem, shouldn't they have done something back in 1983?
You are too fair regarding the county. Shouldn't they have stopped permitting septics and done a septic survey to find pollution problems back in 1983?
Now it's so urgent, by 2011, or stop discharging? Wow! Neither the county nor the RWQCB did anything for the last 24 YEARS, AND NOW WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE LEAVE THEIR HOMES PRETTY MUCH BY 2011.
You try to sound so fair, but it's not a fair process by any stretch of the imagination.
And no, the RWQCB doesn't want your homes, they are just helping the county who DO WANT OUR HOMES. The real estate brokers and agents want your homes. The speculators want our homes. The developers want our homes. The elite want the riff-raff out and this has been said over and over by many who support the recalled board.
Is this who you really are?
You are smart enough to know all this, but prefer to work with corrupted officals (elected and NON-elected) who have too much power and abuse it.
It's wrong, Maria, and you know it.
To Anon at 4:05:
A yes 218 vote is clearly a yes for the Tri-W. To think it will be affordable is not very smart at all.
Why else would Noel King pick only people he SAID he was "comfortable" with, only people who supported Tri-W? Remember Noel King promised us Tri-W and he hasn't changed his mind.
Wake up Los Osos.
You all who dis Tri-W might want to do a little reading on the reports that come out from the County. Step isn't being nixed, but you can believe the missing parts that Ripley left off ARE being discussed. So far, those who are touting "step only" will only look at the parts they like about it and ignore the parts they don't like. There are good and bad things to both step and gravity. It is time to be open-minded and look again. We really DON'T have all the answers from the public propaganda of Lisa and Company - and our pal, Al.
Dear anon 10:12 -
If I believed what you believe I would agree with you 110%.
I don't believe that Tri-W is the only option. I do believe we need to do what we as property owners can do to support improving and maintaining water quality.
I hold us, the community, as having partial responsibility in the delay of the development of a WWTF infrastructure. Personally, I am not looking backwards for the solution to this situation. I was in high school and not able to participate in the solution. The path is in front of us and yes, this is who I am.
We all chose to view our world in certain ways. I don't believe that everyone that is working towards an outcome is corrupt.
You accusing me of hanging out with corrupted officials is going to have about the same effect on me as when my parents asked me not to be friends with "that gay boy" in high school. I have some friends who are real estate agents and they've never said a word to me about wanting any sort of social cleansing.
We are all a part of this community and this is where we all need to be.
Sinsewerly,
Maria M. Kelly
Anon 10:12 is an individual who no doubt will find fault with any process whose outcome is the building of a WWF in Los Osos. People like Anon 10:12, whether talking about sewers in Los Osos, politics, the weather, or whatever, will answer any opinion different their own with a simple "they are corrupt." It's fast, it's short, and completely lazy. But hey, you never lose an argument! This type of "purposeful paranoia" is practiced by many in Los Osos who simply do not want to pay for any WWF. It's been going on for quite some time now.
There are people on the TAC who are not "pro TRI-W." For example, what platform did former CSD director John Fouche run on? It's no use picking apart the committee. It is what it is.
Sinsewerly (good one, Maria!)
Another Anon
S.I. wrote:
"If I ever get to read the legal brief by Sullivan (presumably Ann doesn't give a flying fig whether your or I can access this information and PZLDF doesn't care either)"
For the love of God, if it will stop your incessant whining... here: Sullivan Brief
Two quick takes from that document that I found interesting:
"Petitioners contend that the entire enforcement process conducted by the RWQCB is
improper and illegal, and as such, the CDOs and CAOs which resulted from such illegal
enforcement actions should be dismissed."
Yep, pretty much.
and;
"On October 4, 2006, Roger Briggs was personally served with a formal request for
deposition testimony and documents. Prosecution Staff requested ex parte that the RWQCB quash the subpoenas and deposition notice, which resulted in the issuance of the RWQCB Notice of Chairman’s Ruling Regarding Subpoena Documents Submitted on October 4, 2006, quashing all subpoena documents and denying Petitioners the right to depose Mr. Briggs."
Yea, but any talk of "conspiracy" is pure paranoia, right?
And, just an aside, I think Bill O'Rielly is an idiot, but he does have a couple of good takes, and one of them is, "Don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior," but that's something I see all the time around here. So, with that in mind, Sharky wrote:
"... the Lisa board borrowed money from the fire reserves to pay legal bills without any public comment first."
And then this from Coast and Ocean, Spring 2000:
"To pay for the work now in progress, the CSD has been using transfers from its fire and water fund."
And that was for the ponds at Tri-W (that needed 50 - 70 acres) that were never going to work.
Man, it sure sounds like those fire and water funds have taken a beating since the LOCSD was formed in 1998 for no reason whatsoever.
Ron,
Thanks for the link. Now I can finally read this document. Sort of sad that if it is really all its been pumped up to be that the authors and owners and friends haven't been willing to distribute it. Now we can all make up our own minds.
As to the question of the borrowing from other funds is okay or not ... I think you may have missed the point. The issue is that Blesky moved money without prior board approval and when the board retroactively decided to allow this action, it wasn't agendized properly and no public comment was taken. Two gross violations of the proper process.
Thanks for the link, Ron.
Ron,
You said:
"And, just an aside, I think Bill O'Rielly is an idiot, but he does have a couple of good takes, and one of them is, "Don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior," but that's something I see all the time around here. So, with that in mind, Sharky wrote:
"... the Lisa board borrowed money from the fire reserves to pay legal bills without any public comment first."
And then this from Coast and Ocean, Spring 2000:
"To pay for the work now in progress, the CSD has been using transfers from its fire and water fund.""
Hmmm - something we agree on - Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. Our agreement ends there, however.
Yes, the "old board" borrowed money from the fire and water funds to start the WWP. The big difference between them and the post-recall boards is that the "old board" agendized it, took public comment AND HAD A PLAN TO REPAY IT and DID.
The post-recall boards just borrowed money from wherever they found it, spent it with no plan to repay it, and then tried to cover their tracks with a post-dated "approval", again with no public comment.
They still owe $750k to the bond reserve account (due in September) per the agreement with the Bank of New York. You know - the agreement they made to prevent a default on the bond interest payment last fall after THEY SPENT ALL OF THE ASSESSMENT MONEY INTENDED FOR THAT PAYMENT TO PAY THEIR INCOMPETENT LAWYERS AND INTERIM GM.
They blew millions on bad advice and illegal settlements. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
Amen to the above. The fact that they still try to cover up their tracks by whining about the county, the state, the RWQCB, the prior board, Pandora, Briggs, etc. etc. etc. is really getting to me. So it ain't perfect...what can we do to at least make it better? Let the county build the freakin' thing so we can get a life beyond this backwater, feudin', pot hole filled strip mall with a skate park in our park nightmare!
Amen to the Amen. Ron is part of a contingent in Los Osos who will stop at nothing to impede any progress toward the building of a WWF. They all, and Ron especially, think anything associated with a WWF is tainted or corrupt. Well, anything EXCEPT the SchAcker CSD that is. And I think the proof is in the pudding that they have been the most destructive force ever to the Los Osos property owner. Go figure.
One consolation:
Not all the crotchity old farts are in Los Osos!
Cambria has a group who are suing the County because they do not want streetlights on the main drag.
No, they would rather have crime, injuries due to insufficient lighting at night, but GOOD GOD!
NO streetlights! Seems they do not want the "village" look spoiled.
We know what they have an overabundance of: Village Idiots.
I have noticed a change in the writing prose of SharkInlet. I realized that he was gone from this blog for awhile, and then one day he was back.
But I don't believe it is the same SharkInlet.
What, is SharkInlet a consortium or something? Isn't that a little deceptive to write in the first person, but really only taking the name?
Is this the same SharkInlet that can spout about inflation costs, energy costs, financial graphs and projections, but couldn't find the link to the Sullivan Brief?
Sincerely, M
M,
I'm still the same old Inlet. No difference at all. I was just pretty busy for a few months.
Perhaps the problem about me not finding the Sullivan Brief is that I was not around when it was first put online and Ann and others who knew simply couldn't be bothered to help out. Or maybe Ron just put it online at his site very recently and it hasn't been available even though Ann has been telling us all that we ought to read it and that we're lazy if we don't hunt Gail down and pester her until she gives us a copy.
If there has been a change in my writing style it must be awfully damn subtle because I've not noticed it. Maybe you should consult the work of Mosteller and Wallace on the Federalist Papers or Efron and Thisted on Shakespeare's new poem. Such analyses as these would allow you to confirm that I am me.
Originally when Ron suggested that I was a committee I was sort of amused because ... well ... Ron is ... um ... Ron. I never expected anyone would take his joking suggestion seriously.
Now that you have done so it sort of makes me mad at him.
In any case, I am singular and am only one person. Admittedly a few months back someone "stole my name" just to make a joke, but they wrote stuff I would never write so it was easy(ish) to tell the difference.
In any casae ... I am grateful to Ron for posting Sullivan's brief on his website ... I do wonder, however, how he got a copy when I've been begging Ann and PZLDF folks for a few weeks.
Ouchie! that sure has been a lot of reading lately! First the TAC rough draft.
The overriding sense I have is that it sure would have been nice to have had that a LONG time ago, other than that it appears that A good process, at least way better than what we are used to, is ongoing.
Thank you Maria and Lynette for joining us on this blog.
Next was the Sullivan Brief.
Interesting to note that a majority of points in the brief have been discussed on this blog at one time or another, it also dose not raise my esteem of the waterboard (already pretty low).
Shark Inlet:
When I purchased my home, I was notified as per agreement between the County and the RWQCB, that I was buying in a "BUILDING PROHIBITION ZONE" and would not be allowed to add bedrooms or bathrooms until hooked up to a sewer. I had no reason to add bedrooms or bathrooms in the near future so this didn't concern me.
The CDOs state that we are "discharging illeagally". Would you have purchased a home in Los Osos if you were notified that you were "discharging illegally"?
No official "notice of violation" was received before the proposed CDOs. No one outside of the CDOs has received an official notification of violation since that last mailer was not delivered by certified mail.
Individuals can not be expected to spend such a huge part of their lives obsessed with this sewer saga. The press is not a reliable source of information, as even Chairman Young admitted.
The RWQCB has spent too much time in backroom deals and been negligent when it came to informing the public. When you start handing out individual inforcement, you had better make sure that you followed laws procedures with each and every CDO.
Um ... the prohibition zone has always mean that discharging wastewater has been prohibited. Period.
Even if a realtor told you that it was a building prohibition zone, the PZ has always been about discharges.
Perhaps if you could give us evidence that prohibition has been only against building you have a good point that should be carefully considered.
Let us know.
Maria,
I don't understand your statements from your earlier post.
How can you say that the community has some responsibility for a wastewater system not going in, or any delay.
The local governments failed, not the homeowners.
The county permitted illegal septic tanks and never did a septic management plan as required in 1983.
The county has acted in bad faith since the recall election, working in the background to purposely ruin and bankrupt our local government (CSD)- that was the county's plan all along and that's what Pandora asked for days after the recall election. Then you have LAFCO come in to scare the CSD into voting for AB2701 or dissolve. (Why would LAFCO stick their nose in our sewer situation anyway?) Scare tactics, just like the RWQCB is doing -- and obviously you're fine with all of this. OK.....
Maria, this is abuse of power and I don't understand how you can compare to a parent telling their kid not to hang with "the gay boy."
That's a stretch.
Real estate agents & brokers have stated for years that they want the riff-raff out. It doesn't matter that your real estate agents friends haven't said this -- IT'S BEEN SAID! I've heard this myself, as well as many of my friends.
It's clear what the intentions of the county are and always have been -- big pipes/Tri-W. The most expensive sewer for "possible" pollution and "hopefully" the plant will help. That's an expensive experiment for "possible" and "hopefull."
Who doesn't want clean water? Maybe the county and RWQCB don't!! OR THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING TO SEE IF THE SEPTICS WERE POLLUTING OVER THE LAST 24 YEARS!!
Anon 9:51,
John Fouche signed on for the big pipes a month after he came into office. He sold out the community. He's a "state" employee and has almost a conflict of interest. After he sold us out to Blakeslee he was a no show at CSD meetings after that! His job was done.
The county knows all this, and picked him to make it look like the had both sides on TAC.
Just how stupid do you think we all are in Los Osos????
"The local governments failed, not the homeowners."
Just how did the local officials get elected? Oh, they were elected by the homeowners.
You all are stupid for electing your local governing officials!
And you are still polluting our Bay with your septic tanks and leach fields!
Shark Inlet:
If you are a homeowner in th PZ, read the disclosure form from the close of escrow. It refers to the PZ as a "building" prohibition zone. No mention is made of a discharge violation. Another one of the backroom deals. After all, 83-13 did allow over 1000 homes in the PZ. Couldn't really make itpublic that discharges were illegal if you were allowing the building of homes in areas prone to flooding, citizens get upset. Makes you wonder if all the claims that shody data was used to justify the PZ may have some validity. Was this an attempt to qualify for grants that dried up shortly thereafter? Was nothing done because the data was falsified in an effort to quickly put the county in the running? Is this why the RWQCB keep telling the defendants that this was not the appropriate time to challenge the PZ, but could not tell them when the appropriate time would be. RWQCB never did allow the CDO defendants to ask some of these tough questions.
I want a WWTF. But also want to make sure that the WB follows a very high standard of conduct if they are to be prosecuting individuals for a community problem. This is setting a precident for the state of California.
I'm confused by your argument.
You seem to be saying that it must have been a building prohibition because if it was a discharge prohibition, no homes could have been built. My question is this. Wouldn't a building prohibition also prevent ... um ... the building of homes?
I don't have those documents handy, so I can't check the wording. What I remember is that the prohibition was described as a discharge prohibition. Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly here but maybe it is you who is confusing the prohibition itself and the freeze on building, a result of the prohibition.
I am glad you want a WWTF.
What do I want? I would like folks around here to make it clear that we all want a WWTF and as quickly as possible. If people quit trying to fight the County every step of the way, I think the RWQCB will back way off.
You are fooling yourself if you think this is really about clean water. The RWQCB doesn't care if LO pollutes our own ground water, and in fact, is disappionted that the result of years of negligence on their part has not had greater consequences. What they really want is the money back from loans granted in shady backroom deals.
Have you wondered why the RWQCB has never gone beyond 45 proposed CDOs. Have you wondered why they have dragged those 45 prosecutions out over a year, some defendants still waiting on a ruling. Have you wondered why they changed the prosecution team in the middle of the hearings and sent Roger out of country for a year. Have you wondered why the State WB after giving the CDO recipients only 30 days including Christmas and New Years Day to file an appeal, has not responded. Their tactic at this point is to delay all legal actions and resort intimidation to influence the 218.
Where ever the RWQCB tells you not to go, start digging. Who ever the WB tries to portray as an anti sewer obstructionist, try to see through the behavioral flaws and obsessions to discover the past events that tipped them over the edge. That is where the county and the WB don't want us to go.
If anyone wants to prosecute me as as individual for this community problem, their record better be sqeaky clean. We must hold them accountable for their actions, past and present. It is our responsibility to uphold the values that have made our country a place that we can proudly pass on to the next generation. (along with a responsible WWTF)
Inlet Sez:"Like I said, I won't stand behind those words 100% ... I wanted to vent a bit. "
Uh, Inlet, you're making stuff up again and then . . . uh . . . refusing to stand behind your made up stuff 100% ???? That's rich.
Inlet also sez:"If I ever get to read the legal brief by Sullivan (presumably Ann doesn't give a flying fig whether your or I can access this information and PZLDF doesn't care either),"
You're whining again Inlet. Here's a suggestion, call the Shauna's office and ask her for an e-file of the appeal. Or email the SWB and ask them if they've posted it yet.
Inlet also said:"I'm still the same old Inlet. No difference at all. I was just pretty busy for a few months."
and then said:"Perhaps the problem about me not finding the Sullivan Brief is that I was not around when it was first put online and Ann and others who knew simply couldn't be bothered to help out. Or maybe Ron just put it online at his site very recently and it hasn't been available even though Ann has been telling us all that we ought to read it and that we're lazy if we don't hunt Gail down and pester her until she gives us a copy."
So, Inlet gets to be busy, but other people, equally busy, get slammed because they won't stop everything and go chew Inlet's food for him to present him with a legally filed document he could easily have found himself. . . except, unlike everyone else who has nothing else to do, Inlet was . . . busy.
Anon sez:"When I purchased my home, I was notified as per agreement between the County and the RWQCB, that I was buying in a "BUILDING PROHIBITION ZONE" and would not be allowed to add bedrooms or bathrooms until hooked up to a sewer. I had no reason to add bedrooms or bathrooms in the near future so this didn't concern me.
The CDOs state that we are "discharging illeagally". Would you have purchased a home in Los Osos if you were notified that you were "discharging illegally"?
No official "notice of violation" was received before the proposed CDOs. No one outside of the CDOs has received an official notification of violation since that last mailer was not delivered by certified mail.
Individuals can not be expected to spend such a huge part of their lives obsessed with this sewer saga. The press is not a reliable source of information, as even Chairman Young admitted.
The RWQCB has spent too much time in backroom deals and been negligent when it came to informing the public. When you start handing out individual inforcement, you had better make sure that you followed laws procedures with each and every CDO.
6:07 PM, April 05, 2007"
some of these exact issues will be decided in Sullivan's brief. IF proper proceedures weren't followed -- and things have been sooooo murky for sooooo long -- then they need to be set right. A lot is riding on how competently the various regulators do their jobs. Right now, having seen the RWQCB in action, I'm NOT confident at all.
Anon 8:06
Pretty darn stupid!
An Anon wrote:
"If anyone wants to prosecute me as as individual for this community problem, their record better be sqeaky clean. We must hold them accountable for their actions, past and present."
Excellent point. And, as I've written many times, the RWQCB's record is far from squeaky clean. Personally, and this is just speculation, but it is well-reasoned speculation, I think the reason the WB quashed Briggs' deposition and sent him on a loooooong vacation is because of the stuff I bring up in posts like this.
Briggs KNEW that the ponding system wasn't going to work from day one, yet he let the Solution Group/Initial CSD Board/Save the Dream/Taxpayers Watch contingent futz around with it for almost two years.
That was a HUGE mistake by Briggs, and it's a mistake that the WB and Briggs have absolutely no answer to. The staff of the RWQCB, and perhaps even the board itself these days, knows the moment Briggs gets deposed, the first question asked of him will be, "Why did you allow the LOCSD to waste two years chasing the ponding project when you had a mountain of excellent evidence that showed it wasn't going to work from day one? Why didn't you do what you are doing today back in 1999 - 2000?"
Excellent questions. No answers. (And, "I was trying to be nice," is NOT an answer.)
And since they have no answer to those excellent questions, then a very solid argument can be made that the delays are the RWQCB's fault... entirely.
To the Shark:
The RWQCB has already said that they would back off when the sewer is started. Of course, that's the Tri-W sewer. That's what they want, that's what they've said, even though they are not to dictate what and where our sewer is.
Abuse of power.
It's not about pollution.
You are biased Mr. Shark.
Ron says "the delays are the RWQCB's fault... entirely."
Bbwwaaaaaaaaaahahahawaahaha
An extremely paranoid anon above says shark is biased. You want to see blindly biased Anon? Santa Margarita Ron says nobody has caused the delay but the RWQCB....
bwwwwwwwwwahahahahahaha
Ann says:
"The press is not a reliable source of information"
Here's a newsflash for you and Ron:
NEITHER ARE YOU
Boy it seems that Ann was somehow really bothered by my rant.
Ann, I apologize if I offended your sensibilities. I somehow figured that if I just vented a bit I would feel better and that if I told you all I was just venting you would all cut me some slack ... but NOOOO000! (said in a Steve Martin "wild-n-crazy" voice).
In any case ... and because this has been building for some time now ... Ann, why don't you actually do something to help your community rather than try to impose your standards on the rest of us?
What the hell? You tell us to read something. I ask where it is and you complain that I'm asking for information. If it is so darn easy to find this file, shouldn't it be really really easy for you to tell us how to get it? But no, you have to get all high-n-mighty and tell us that we have to do the hard work ourselves. It is almost as if you think that information comes with a price and if someone is not willing to pay the price they don't deserve the info. Myself, I think that information should be as free as possible. If I had knowledge of an important document and knew it was easy to access, I would tell people how to get hold of it. (Please remember that over the last year and a half, I've done that a few times here ... I've told people how to access files that were being referred to in the discussion.)
Nope, Ann doesn't think that everyone deserves access to information, only people on her side and only people who "earn" it by having the specialized skills to find it.
I find that attitude symptomatic of a problem we have in our society ... a lack of generosity. Does Ann really care about getting people informed or would she rather just criticize me and those of us too dumb to find stuff on the web.
As for calling Sullivan's office ... sure that sounds fine and dandy. Is her office open when I am free to use the phone? What if I work. Oh yeah ... even if I'm free during the office hours her office is open ... if I'm deaf and can't use the phone I guess I don't deserve the information. To me it also seems pretty clear that Sullivan has a contractual relationship with those who hired her and it is those people who have the right to determine whether the information can be made public.
No matter, if points can be scored by criticizing Shark Inlet, it's worth it even if it means that some who would want to read the file can be kept from reading it.
As to my business ... who the hell are you, Ann, to compare me (who you don't know) and others (most of whom you don't know either) and judge who is busier. Frankly it seems really uncharitable to withhold information you could easily provide. It is just so far from what I feel would be appropriate that I am just plain appalled.
I am happy now that you've finally told me what you could have easily done several weeks back. Was it really that hard to write "Here's a suggestion, call the Shauna's office and ask her for an e-file of the appeal. Or email the SWB and ask them if they've posted it yet."?
As to the key issues in Sullivan's brief, it will be interesting to see if a judge backs PZLDF (which I hope) or the RWQCB (which I suspect).
On the question of whether it is a building prohibition or a discharge prohibition, Ann, why don't you call the RWQCB and get the original documents? Who cares if some random person would have bought a home or not ... the question is the nature of the prohibition.
Finally, the most ironic part of Ann's posting ... she complains about the RWQCB not giving out information but also complains about the RWQCB sending out an informational letter.
Ron ...
Where is your proof that Briggs knew in advance that the solutions group ponding plan would now work? That's a pretty strong accusation and I don't remember you presenting proof.
Certainly if what you say is correct it would seem that property owners would have a good case against the RWQCB for negligence and we could sue the state and likely win.
To our friend who accuses me of bias.
Hell yes, I am biased. I am biased to believe that the RWQCB will do what they say, the SWRCB will do what they say, the County will do what they say and that stopping pollution as soon as possible is a good thing.
If you or someone else can present convincing information to suggest that another site and plan can be done more cheaply and quicker, I'll quickly convert to your point of view. Heck, if you have any of better, faster or cheaper on your side and explain why it is the case, your point of view is worth re-considering.
That being said ... what do you advocate as an alternative to TriW and could you please explain why it will save us money or stop pollution sooner or more effectively?
To Shark Inlet, regarding your 12:54pm post about Ann:
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Shark - Why is it that, because I want an affordable, less invasive, lower energy consumption WW system located somewhere other than our only public park-type area, we must be able to argue it in terms of finances and WW engineering expertise? These are the things our "higher ups" are PAID to do (the water boards and staff, for starters). I do not make my living that way. I have another profession, pay my property taxes, etc. and participate in my local democracy. Why do you insist that I give you all these figures and calculations when you know that I can't do it? Is this your ammo or what? It doesn't go anywhere.
Like the Rolling Stone profoundly say..."You can't always get what you whaaant...no you can't always get what you whaaant, You can try sometimes but you just might find, you get what you neeeed...."
REVOLUTION
REVOLT AGAINST THE TYRANNY OF THE PROCESS POLICE
REVOLT AGAINST THE HI-JACKERS OF ALL THE OTHER FINE CITIZENS OF LOS OSOS WHO DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE BEING INVADED BY THE SOCIAL CLEASING POLICE
REVOLT AGAINST THE LACK OF A SENSE OF HUMOR THAT THESE PEOPLE SEEM TO SUCK OUT OF EVERYONE ELSE
Have a nice day....
To our most recent friend ...
If you're asking me to believe there is something better (read: cheaper and/or quicker) than TriW out there you should at least be able to explain why you believe something better exists. If you can't give us a reason for your hope, presumably your hope is based on a wish rather than something that I and others would want to put our faith in.
If you don't ask me to believe as you do you don't need to put your data on the table. However, when people make wild claims about "better, faster, cheaper" or even one of those three it makes me wonder whether those claims are based in reality or not.
If you want to tell me that we should support another project site, you should give me a reason to do so ... otherwise you are just wasting your own time and convincing others that those who oppose TriW don't really have any better ideas.
It's not really about you or me ... it's about whether there is a better plan out there.
As you point out, there are professionals and the TAC who are investigating alternate locations and alternate sites. I await their conclusion eagerly.
Shark - Thank you for your response. I too look forward to seeing the work of the County and the TAC. I do not ask you to believe as I do. Granted, it may be wishful thinking on my part, but I believe (hope?) an alternative "program" will rise to the top. I'm HOPING the County will give us at least one viable alternative that the property owners will support. I'd just like, for once, to see the alternatives fully and impartially vetted so we can make our choice as a community. If it ends up being TRIW then so be it. Just don't ask me to explain the technical/financial details. I don't have many. Perhaps living in Arcata has given me grandiose dreams of living in a small town with an award-winning WW facility! What a concept. Well, faith is a powerful force and it can get us into trouble sometimes :)
Hi 6:46 (Linde)
I support the County's process...we all should as it is our last chance to have a WWTF in Los Osos. There is no other choice but to make sure that the Prop 218 passes.
Mr. Sharkey wasn't too busy today. He posted a lot.
Mr. Sharkey, the RWQCB didn't send out an informational letter, they sent out a "scare" letter to electioneer for a 218 vote!
By the way, a yes 218 vote is a vote for Tri-W. The county wants Tri-W and they don't care what the homeowners want even though they pay for it!!!!!!
The county's "process" is not a good one.
First Paavo said he was doing the 218 in a certain way (NOT the normal process) because he only had $2 million. Now the county got $3 million more (with no trouble from the BOS) Paavo always had the power to get money to hold a proper 218, but it's lies and more lies.
How can anyone say to trust the county process? Only supporters of the Tri-W project would ever make such a statement.
No blank check ------ only the "Dreamers" can afford that.
As I've said for some time, I would like an out of town WWTF ... but only if it doesn't cost more and only if it can be done quickly. I'm getting really tired of the continued pollution of our aquifer just because we want to be more environmentally friendly. To me it seems that an environmentally minded person would prefer TriW, even with it's defects, to an additional five years of delay.
One can think the RWQCB letter was meant to scare people into voting one way. But let me ask a question ... would it be better for the RWQCB to not inform people of what they intend to do if a 218 vote doesn't pass? To me it seems pretty clear that even if heavy handed, the letter is pretty clear ... the RWQCB is pissed off with Los Osos not making progress and they'll drop the hammer if we refuse to go along with the County, the only legal body who can help us make progress at this stage.
To 9:01:
You are absolutely WRONG, and I am fed up with people like you putting out incorrect information about the County to suit your particular agenda. The County did not appropriate another $3 Million for the preliminary work on the project.
The Board of Supervisors did pass a standard resolution that agencies who MAY be issuing bonds in the future normally pass, and must pass withing 60 days of starting to incur expenses, so that, if they choose at a later date, they can recover those preliminary expenses through the bonded indebtedness. These agencies ESTIMATE a conservatively high number for all anticipated preliminary expenses just to have the final amount covered.That conservative estimate was $5 Million.
The B/S has only put $2 Million of general County money at risk, and that is all that they will risk on this project. No other General Fund money will be made available unless the Prop 218 vote passes. The other County taxpayers will not allow that, and the Supervisors understand this.
Please don't put out specific project information unless you understand the documented facts. Doing so is a great dis-service to those of us who are trying to understand the real facts in order to help us make a good decision.
I guess it comes down to a few things:
1. Do you want to live in your house without a CDO and the fine that goes with it? (unknown).
2. Do you want to continue to polute the bay and upper aquifer?
3. Do you want the real estate value of your house increase so you can sell it if you can't afford a sewer and there are no grants? (for some, NO sewer will be affordable)
4. Prices always increase. Labor especially. The longer this goes on, the more you are at risk.
Best to just wait and see what the county comes up with. Best to find out what the LOCSD is going to propose as a solution to the bankruptcy.
to 9:01
More misinformation to delay and obstruct. If the 218 doesn't pass, there is no plan and there will be no plan. History repeating itself again with obstruction, delay, and claims about some mythical plan that does not exist. 218 or Cargo Cult - that's the choice.
You don't want to vote for a 218 from the County? fine, then be prepared to vote for a different 218 to fund whatever mythical plan you might try to fool people into believing is actually out there. Otherwise you are just no sewer and blowing smoke as usual.
After again suffering through the viewing of yet another CSD meeting Thursday night, I have a question. If the 12 of so lunatics who get up and speak every week in unison complained to the board that the county was influencing the people of Los Osos by shooting an invisible electronic ray into their brains, and they had, you know, proof and all that good stuff, would Lisa Schicker call for a resolution to write the county about the concerns of these "citizens?" Would the board adopt the resolution? Would the next 4 hours then be spent debating the fine points of the resolution, and how evil the county was for shooting invisible electronic rays into the brains of the people of Los Osos, and how the county only gives them 3 minutes to complain about invisible electonic rays? Would these 12 or so people, led by Chuck Cessena, then make their pilgirmmage to the BOS on Tuesday and complain about the invisible electronic rays, then throw a fit because the county shorted them 13 seconds on their 3 minutes? Does anyone think this couldn't happen? And how long are we homeowners going to allow ourselves to be held hostage by these people? Just wondering. And Happy Easter everyone!
Hi 8:18 - I'm not Linde but I did give her some money once.
Everyone seems to be lumping the issues together.
It is possible to fight the RWQCB and be pro-sewer. It is possible to be very concerned with 2701 and still be pro-sewer. There are many steps that have been taken over the years by various government agencies including CSD, the county, and the WBs that were not in the best interest of the community. It is our responsibility to make sure that those mistakes, and the continued attempts to coverup those mistakes, do not dictate the project.
10:54 huh?? exactly what cover-up? realize that the average Tom or Sally in LO doesn't give a hoot about conspiracy theories that obstruct solving a problem. the mistakes are all known about this wreck, and nothing you can point gets around that we are here because of insufficient or non-plans approved by the los osos community?
so what?? what is the point?? that elected officials gave the community incomplete information and promises that they had no ability to fulfill to get elected over and over?? is that the cover up??? should it be a crime to promise 30 feet to groundwater is ok to clean nitrates when it's not??? should it be a crime to promise $100/month for no plan??
it's simple - there will either be a passage of a 218 and a project or there won't be. if it fails, there will be absolutely nothing - - just a bankrupt CSD and no project. if a 218 fails, you will get nothing but a bankrupt District that is over 4 years out of compliance with a time schedule order, run by a housewife, three CalTrans employees who don't even manage projects in their day jobs, and a Director who doesn't even want to run the project - and that's a formula for solving a pollution problem ??
The many of the recent mistakes may be known, but the earlier laziness, incompetence, and corruption that set this path a long, long time ago has never been fully disclosed. Appealing individual CDOs is the way to expose the truth and increase the likelihood of a fair process for the WWTF. Anyone who believes that the RWQCB is a good and fair agency is either naïve or on their payroll.
I am neither naive nor employed by the RWQCD or any State agency.
However, I believe all the problems have been brought on by the vocal activists in and around Los Osos who have created the lenghty delay.
We can complain, sue the County and the State, write volumns in these blogs, protest in every meeting from the CSD to the Supreme Court and in the end, it will all come out the same; there will be a sewer! The real problem is time equals money and the longer the delay, the more any sewer will cost!
The CSD came on and halted a project, and then proceeded on a legal crusade which did not produce any alternative plans. With the money they wasted on lawsuits, they could have had a fully designed system and some optional land sites.
Why didn't they produce something besides a bankruptcy? Were they only planning on creating delays to drive the cost of any sewer up so high that most of us couldn't afford to live here?
I do not blame the RWQCB for their attemps at enforcing the discharge ban. I am concerned that our drinking water is falling below clean water standards and all this delay has done is vented a lot of hot air and cost a lot more money.
If the District had a better plan, don't you think they would have actually put it on the table and shouted from the podium for us all to look at what could have been done? They would have been heros and I would have gladly supported their battles with the State.
Alas, nothing was accomplished, just a huge waste of time and money.
February 6th, 2006 Mental Health Digest.
"Researchers have found stronger evidence for a link between a parasite in cat feces and undercooked meat and an increased risk of schizophrenia."
How many of the current board of directors and the 12 or so continual obstructionists have been tested.
Ann has dogs, maybe cats. Dave Conglington has a pile of both.
This is serious business and is not in jest.
It has been studied and confirmed that Los Osos has the highest cat population of any coastal city.
Are members of the community suffering from mental illness because of close proximity to cats and dogs, especially those who have
unlimited access to the outside?
Did people whose parents had "outside/inside" cats when they were born contract congenital toxoplasmosis, and are suffering the effects now of mental problems?
You are naive, on the payroll, or dillusional. We never would have been in this mess if the RWQCB had created the PZ with data that allowed could withstand legal challenge instead of resorting to backroom deals. We never would have been in this position if the RWQCB had developed a septic management district as 83-13 required. We never would have been in this position if "discharging illegaly" had been disclosed prior to closing of escrow since 83-13.
When investigating a pile-up on the freeway, an inspector does not start looking for the cause at the end of the mess unless they are an insurance agent for the vehicle at the front of the mess. The RWQCB does not want us looking at the front end of this wreck.
Of course they do not want us to look at the front end of the mess. I was caused by the liberal legislature: do-gooder environmentalists. Never considered the cost to stupid people who might not agree with them. Never considered the consequences of their laws and decrees.
Arabs have been crapping in their own wells for centuries. Their average lifespan is 42 years of age.
I like the analogy of the highway pile-up ... while the driver (or drivers) near the front some considerable blame, those at the end should not have plowed into the pile.
If they had been wise drivers they would have been going slower and braked sooner. There is no good reason for hitting another car if you could have avoided it.
To argue that the current CSD board couldn't have avoided fines, CDOs and the loss of the project is clearly silly ... they could have just not stopped the TriW.
People warned the board against stopping the project. Folks warned that stopping the project would me a huge mistake but those warnings were ignored ... much like the inattentive driver sometimes ignores the passenger in the car asking "please slow down" and "would you watch out for the folks braking ahead of us".
Sure the RWQCB could have made different choices in the past about enforcement and warnings and the like ... but ask yourself whether Los Osos (as a whole) has given the RWQCB reason for thinking we're going to take the steps necessary to correct our water problems. If anything, I suspect the RWQCB feels that there is a history of Los Osos not doing the right thing and there is ample evidence that some in town are intending to stop any solution the County comes up with. Can you really blame the RWQCB for thinking they need to make clear that they'll take action if we screw it up yet again.
Inlet sez:"Boy it seems that Ann was somehow really bothered by my rant."
The rant you refer to and the one that follows the above sentence are silly beyond belief. You're beginning to sound like a two year old, "uh, well suppose I'm deaf, and the dog ate my homework and it was snowing and the closet monster leapeded out and I had to run away then I had to swerve to miss the trike and fell down and it's all your fault, bwaaaaaaa. " Jeesh!
Could you interpret that last post?
Are you agreeing with Shark or making his point?
Anon 10:12 - I'm curious about your claim that the average lifespan of Arabs is 42 years old. Where did you get that information?
TO Anon 10:12:
www.cia.gov
Go to world facts. These statistics are not made up like many on this blog. Check under country called "Arab". You will find the info there!
You have been exercised!
No need to get excited. I'm a teacher and wanted to know where you got the information, that's all.
Sharkey bubbled:
" Can you really blame the RWQCB for thinking they need to make clear that they'll take action if we screw it up yet again."
No, can't blame them a bit for trying to do their job, but I can blame them for screwing that job up so badly.
Please tell me how the waterboards actions are helping LO solve the pollution problem, I'm missing something here.
Threats of loosing homes and fines of insurmountable amounts won't cause people to band together, you would think that someone would have figured that out by now.
Here is a suggestion, Instead of wasting all that money and time with the (stupid) CDO/CAOs, why not hold in abeyance all action except efforts of support for the TAC and County?
And don't give me that argument that they are "pissed" That is an emotion not an argument and should have no place in a regulative body.
An Anon wrote:
"The CSD came on and halted a project, and then proceeded on a legal crusade which did not produce any alternative plans."
Jeeze... don't you people read?
I'm always getting slammed in the comments section because I don't live in Los Osos, but yet here I am, the out-of-towner, directing another un-informed Los Ososan to pertinent, and important documents. Amazing.
"With the money they wasted on lawsuits, they could have had a fully designed system and some optional land sites."
See? You should have downloaded Tech Memo #2 off that link I supplied above before you posted that. Because, if you had, you would know all about the Giacomazzi site -- downwind, out of town, willing seller, in an "environmentally preferable" location, and at a fraction of the price of Tri-W.
"I do not blame the RWQCB for their attemps at enforcing the discharge ban."
Fair enough, but my question is, why didn't they enforce the discharge ban in 1999, when the initial CSD Board was wasting two years chasing a plan that everyone knew wasn't going to work, including Briggs? He could have launched into enforcement mode back then and no one would have blinked. His rationale for doing so would have been justifiable to the extreme. But he didn't. Why? Why enforce now, but not then? If you ask me, what the initial CSD Board did to the RWQCB was much more egregious than anything the current board is doing. It doesn't make any sense. It's totally unfair. It sure does sound like he selects who he prosecutes. Apparently, if you're a good behavior-based marketer, then you don't get prosecuted by Briggs, but if you're not, well, here come the enforcement orders.
So, I guess what I'm saying to the current LOCSD Board is this: Become much, much better behavior-based marketers. That should stave off Briggs's fury. It has before.
Inlet:
... they could have just not stopped the TriW."
And incurred the wrath of the majority of Los Osos voters over the past three elections that put them in office.
Plus, you seem to keep forgetting, Tri-W was never going to work for a bunch of excellent reasons -- reasons that the new, whinier, Shark Inlet Inc. needs to catch up on, 'cause I ain't gonna re-educate the new group.
But I will leave you with this tasty, little tid-bit: CZLUO Section 23.08.288
Yummmm.
To Anon 9:26:
As a teacher, I am sure you have found www.cia.gov a wealth of information if you went there. If you looked up a country called Arab, you have found that it does not exist.
As for Arabs crapping in their own wells, it was done on retreat from invading tribes to make the wells unusable and sicken the invaders.
As far as Arabs having a life span of 42 years, the statistic belongs in the first decade of the 20th century. As you have found by looking at Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc. they live well into the sixties.
Please do not ever take what you are told seriously and pass it on to your kids. Just because it is written, does not make it true.
WWW.CIA.GOV is a fabulous site. Some fools think the CIA is composed of spooks (spies). Not hardly. You can rely on the info from this site.
www.earth.google.com is another fine teaching tool. You can get satelite pictures, some in high resolution and some low, of just about any place in the world.
Zillow.com has satelite pictures and comparisons of real estate values in high resolution of our area.
By the way, Mike Green is not a real person but a leprechaun.
Ron:
"And incurred the wrath of the majority of Los Osos voters over the past three elections that put them in office."
Renters! How about the property owners. A very small majority of like sixty?
Your education has been biased to say the least. We certainly do not need more. I guess you are in this fight for ego: nobody listened to you. Why should they, you do not even own property in the PZ?
I think at this point the property owners would have been glad to be pissed off because they did NOT stop the sewer.
Ron, once again you foul your own nest: "...Giacomazzi site -- downwind, out of town, willing seller, in an "environmentally preferable" location, and at a fraction of the price of Tri-W."
Please explain just WHY this CSD DID NOT close the deal on this wonderous location!
You could further go on to explain WHY the CSD could not close the deal on useing Orenco/Ripley?
You can not without trying to explain how the poor fiscal management of the LOCSD Board of Directors criminally pissed away the District's funding!
You sir, are a fraud, merely a cheerleader with no dog in this fight! Stay under your porch and watch the big dogs coming into town to skin these local yokels who have bankrupted our (not your) community!
The thing is very clear.
The county will put three projects on the 218 (which isn't normal for a 218.)
The most expensive is the Tri-W for $200 million.
There will be two other alternatives. People will be confused thinking if they vote yes they may get step/steg.
When people vote yes, thinking they have a choice, the county will have a clear, free ride (once people vote yes) for their $200 million sewer. That's all the county needs. Yep, a clear ride for the county to do their promised Tri-W.
Besides that, having Tri-W with two alternatives will split the vote between the two alternatives (on any advisory vote, if we have one) and Tri-W will be the winner.
It's like picking the "best player" and if two of the players are on the same team, the other guy wins.
It's that simple.
A yes vote on the 218 is a yes for the Tri-W. A very bad wastewater project that nobody can afford.
If it's $200 million, plus interest, plus all the additional fees and charges that won't be on the 218, and the hook-up (thouands too) that won't be included on the 218 -- we are looking at a price that could force almost everyone out.
What kind of bill are we looking at? Who is the world can afford that kind of bill $350 up to $500? Maybe more when the county's done with us.
Remember that the Tri-W is the most expensive to run, has the highest energy costs and requires a couple of 24/7 operators. Spills, odor fines, and it goes on and on.
If the county would have picked a good project and given a price on it for the 218 vote (as it's supposed to be done,) there would be no problem. But the fix is in, and anyone who can't see it is blind.
"By the way, Mike Green is not a real person but a leprechaun."
Nope, real live person, Just not scared to make my opinion known.
Thanks anyway, being a leprechaun sounds like fun.
To Paranoid Anon 11:47.
The 'fix' is in. The County is secretly going to jack up the 218 price as much as possible, because as everyone knows, the higher the price, it is more likely to pass. Another nutcase scenario. Of course if there is a $200 million project and a $100 million project, you honestly believe the property owners will sit still while a $200 million project goes forward and the BOS will select the higher price project. What a dunce, no wonder Los Osos is the laugingstock of the County. Got news for you, if the cost difference is that much, the higher cost project won't even make it to a 218.
Why do we have three alternatives on the advisory vote? Was that a county decision? Can it be changed to two alternatives? Shouldn't there actually be two separate issues on the advisory vote;
1) Treatment and collection: gravity/traditional or pressure/STEP/STEG,
2) Location of WWTF: in town or out of town.
Cost could be broken down for these four elements and possible combinations. This would allow comparision of the two main factors independently and combined
There is another large variable in the project options--the amount of water recharge that the project will have. The project can go a long way toward stopping the seawater intrusion, but that option will cost a lot more than one that does not.
It will be up to us to decide if those of us in the prohibition zone wish to take care of a problem, at our expense, that the whole community benefits from. Or, in the alternative, pay for a less expensive, more basic, project and leave it to the agencies that should be dealing with the problem, the CSD and Golden State, to initiate their own project that all of their water customers pay for.
I believe that this is the kind of thing that we will be asked our opinion about in the survey. It's not just a Tri-W or not issue.
So add another issue to advisory ballot:
3) saltwater intrusion mitigation or import state water
Costs for those outside the PZ are suppose to be based on benefit. We will have to watch this closely cos we would not want those poor folks in Cabrillo forced out of their homes due to the exorbitant costs
Hi Anon 9:26 - I would never take something to be "true" just because it's written down and then pass it on to the kids. I asked for the reference was because I was curious to pursue the information further for myself. And I would never pass on something as "true" if I saw it on this blog!!! And yes, google earth is a gem...
Are you people attending the TAC meetings? These are very good points that should be made by people who know all this information (unlike some TAC committee members).
TO: Anon 2:53PM
Why would those in Cabrillo EVEN BE allowed to vote on an advisory.
And I cannot feel that it would be correct for renters to vote on an advisory.
The problem is specific to the PZ.
Let the property owners in the district decide. They will be paying the bills.
From your comment one would think that you have a problem with sucessful people enjoying fine homes as the result of their labor.
You must be some sort of communist.
You should have worked three jobs and had the guts to tighten your belt, accumulate wealth, and invest it, instead of drinking beer all day or puffing pot.
If you were not able because of retardation, I can understand your post.
Everyone is going to pay more for water! You might think about getting rid of the illegal alien infestation in LOS Osos, they drink water, and usually rent where water is provided. PZ property owners: it is time to make your renters pay for water!
Sewer charges fill be linked to water usage, and rightly so.
4.) Leave PZ Boundary as is or eliminate PZ and consider all of Los Osos/Cabrillo as contributing to the discharge problem.
Crappy flushed out this opinion:
"Did people whose parents had "outside/inside" cats when they were born contract congenital toxoplasmosis, and are suffering the effects now of mental problems?"
I too am horribly worried my mental state.
But after trying Dr. Spectator's smart pills, I'm right as rain!
Ask anybody!!!!
5.) 218 Vote only by property owners or 218 vote by all living in Los Osos.
6.) Allow undocumented Los Osos aliens to vote on the 218 ballot or FedEx them all back to Mexico.
7. Invite Angela Davis to speak at the CSD on the subject of communism and the RWQCB.
Speculation about fixes:
I wonder how long that LAFCO will allow an insolvent LOCSD to survive to avoid complications with the Blakeslee Bill and avoidence of liability? It seems to me that nothing is being done with the bankruptcy except paying very expensive lawyers, and we are not getting any information about possible solutions.
I wonder how much the LOCSD will have to pay a GM, and what the contract will look like, when the time may be very limited.
Who would apply for the job?
Hopefully a communist! ;)
I have e mailed the county and am still waiting for a reply concerning the advisory vote. I am under the impression there will be 2 votes: 1 for property owners in the PZ and 1 for the community as a whole. I would hope the vote by property owners would hold much, much more weight. This notion of letting non-PZ homeowners dictate how MY money is spent is never gonna fly for me again. Still waiting for an answer concerning this process from the county. Anyone else happen to know?
My understanding of the vote is the same as yours.
To anon 4:16:
I have written before that projects such this Los Osos WTF should be looked at through socialistic eyes.
Projects of this expense should be shared by taxpayers nationally. The government makes the laws, we are the government, all of us should pay.
Everyone benefits from the good health of the population as far as polution is concerned. The Feds understand this with their clean up sites that ALL taxpaying citizens pay for.
The government should not pass a law requiring a small population to pay for years of something that they could not fiscally control. AND IN HINDSIGHT!
We pay for schools to benefit children and all of us. We pay for government for the same reasons.
Nationally, we spend billions to help our own hurt by hurricanes, etc. We even spend billions to help foreigners.
The problem in Los Osos is a failure in government and of law.
The problem in Los Osos is a failure in government and of law.
Crappy for new GM!!!! kudos! well put!
Crappy - Awesome diatribe, I mean it. You express my feelings exactly. When is Los Osos going to stand up and point this out? I think our problem is we have too many factions going every which way. Others have outlined these groups and we all know who they are. We need a new leader, no kidding. We need someone with a vision that most people will get behind. It ain't Gail and it ain't Chuck and it for sure isn't Joe Smirky I'll Get The New CSD Sparks. Crapkiller for Mayor!
New name application: Hoseville
Hosedburg
Hose-us-maximus
We need a mayor who can lead us in song if we expect to appease the RWQCB.
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
The county has allowed homes in Cabrillo and all others outside the PZ off the hook. Off the hook for everything. They can pay voluntarily!
There should be no PZ or the PZ should be widened to include everyone including Cabrillo.
Even the salt water intrusion issue (if addressed at all) will be paid for by the PZ only.
Chuck can expand the PZ. Paavo was interested in doing that at one time. But now it's a dead issue. Why? It's political. If Cabrillo doesn't need to be sewered, and houses with an acre or more don't need to be sewered -- only Cuesta/Baywood Park -- then why build a sewer at all? By their own logic, a mega sewer is not required to "clean up" what amounts to a small area.
But the scam goes on. How fair is that?
Don't you mean Herdsburg?
To Anon at 4:31,
It doesn't matter a hoot about the advisory vote, if the 218 passes, the BOS is going to do what it's going to do. They decide, not us.
We pay, they decide. And how do you think they will vote?
Hell, let's expand the PZ to include Moron Bay and Cayucos and make the Joey Regional Mega Sewer a true reality!!!!!!!!!!! Joey for Regional Director!!!!!!!!!
To Anon 5:57,
The property owners decide by approving a 218 to let the BOS complete a project. As it should be. The BOS will vote to make sure the property owners have a wastewater plant to hook up to.
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya
To anon 5:51:
Your buddy Chuck can do nothing! He brought us into our problem. He belongs in jail for elder abuse. He contributed to the rape of Los Osos.
In my opinion he is criminal scum. Obstructionist of clean water, and lier to the electorate.
To 5:27 anon:
We could have started the sewer and then sued for relief on the same basis that the fools listening to McPherson are thinking of.
We would have had funds!!!!!!!!
Now we have nothing: no resources, no brains on the board, except Joe, and a bunch of really bad lawyers. The money still goes out.
What has happened to Senet? Has he split like Fouche? Advice of lawyers?
Kumbaya? Absolutely not! Cargo cult!
And Mike Green actually thinks that taking smart pills will save the situation. We know what smart pills are: Toxoplasmosis!
Angela Davis has the answer! Power to the people! She would be great to come here and speak! Take from the rich and give to the dope addicts!
Wow this blog has some fun mixed in with the good debate! The RWQCB wants us to sing Kumbaya...so be it!
Or are we just losing it from stress?
Naw, we lost it when we let the recall happen. Been no stress at all watching the bloated queen and virgin goddess act out the death of a local government. Too bad big Al didn't get elected, at least the Bored meetings would have been fun to watch. Would have had the same result though, bankruptcy and not even pretending to want to resolve that.
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya and good night.
Just a note: To put Cabrillo into the 218 mix so that they can vote, they need to get hooked up to the sewer. To do that, with that terrain, would increase the cost of the sewer overall.
anon, 5:51pm, you said, "If Cabrillo doesn't need to be sewered, and houses with an acre or more don't need to be sewered -- only Cuesta/Baywood Park -- then why build a sewer at all? By their own logic, a mega sewer is not required to "clean up" what amounts to a small area."
It isn't that the area is small, it is the concentration of pee and poop that is large. No shortage of that all concentrated in the little PZ!
Out of 14,600 people, is it about 750 houses that won't be included. I'd say the bulk of Los Osians ARE being included.
How on earth could Chuck expand the PZ? Is isn't up to him. Did he write 83-13? I don't think so.
4Crapkiller,
Eight posts in a row from you? Busy gal you are!
A Tri-w fool, you are!
4CrapKiller is no fool.
I appreciate her speaking with facts instead of the emotional wishing some seem to use to justify the desire to perpetuate the CSD farce to move the sewer to some mythical place.
Keep telling them like it really is 4CK! Maybe some day, some of them may understand the tremendous cost they have burdened us with. I doubt they will ever care, but suspect they will apply for their CalTrans transfers to some other community and steal away in the night.
Well, leave the room for a minute and look what happens!
If I don't make some comment, Ann will criticize me for being asleep while the train heads over the cliff or that I'm not doing my homework or that I'm asking people to chew my food for me.
Speaking of that, I do have to register my offense at Ann's insensitivity to individuals with mastication deficit disorder.
In any case, so that I can avoid Ann's complaints that I'm not paying attention ... a few comments.
First ... to Ann. I wonder as does 8:14am whether you agree with me or whether you're proving my point. Are you really more interested in showing me up than in making information available to the public? Furthermore, are you telling us that the post-Recall board had no choice ... that they were obliged to do something that half the town told them would be stupid beyond belief?
Second ... to Ron. Even if the board had made a choice that pissed off about half the voters it would have been okay. Often voters are wrong. In Arkansas they voted to continue segregation yet ... they were wrong. The board is under an obligation to make wise choices based on the facts and a solid cost-benefit analysis and not based on whim. The oath of office says that they will serve the people. They cannot do this without careful consideration of all aspects of situation.
As to the idea of getting Cabrillo to help out ... the most expensive part of the solution is the collection system. We could get Cabrillo to help out with the WWTF, but their portion of the collection system would be no cheaper. Overall it would seem that adding those folks into the system would lower our bills by maybe 5%. On the other hand it would pretty much guarantee 10% of the 218 votes would be "no". Is it worth it?
Good Morning bloggers! Our collective Kumbaya -ing of last eve seems to have found its' way to Washington! (see the TT) Glory glory Hallelujah!
4crapkiller does not care where a WTP goes. 4crapkiller does not care what kind of system is put in place.
4crapkiller wants a WTP that is the least expensive, helps our water problem, and wants it before the CDO hammer comes down and makes her PZ property even more non saleable. She is concerned with our diminishing water supply, and the quality and cost of that water.
4crapkiller has come to the conclusion that any sewer will not be "affordable". She has come to the conclusion that the longer this takes, any WTP will become even more "unaffordable".
As the cost of any sewer goes up, and monthly fees go up because of the cost of water and sewerage, property owners will not have the money to properly maintain their property. Neighorhood value will decrease, and parts of the PZ will continue to look more and more like a slum. Look to the rental units as they exist now: cars being fixed in front yards, garbage in front and back yards, unkept yards, cars that belong in a junk yard stored on property, homes that need to be painted badly. No civic pride.
We need a sewer now, we needed it 30 years ago.
We had it and lost it. Stupidity! And the obstruction goes on. There is an ugly hole at the TRI-W site.
We must do something. There are terrible consequences of this obstruction.
And now we have a democratic congressman coming out to view our area. Surely he will look at the hole and drive past some of our slum dwellings. I hope he has the American decency to help the fools who brought this on to themselves, and believed the lies and campaign promises of obstructionists who have brought on bankruptcy and insolvency. Since there were Federal funds involved, I would hope he makes a phone call to the Federal Department of Justice. I am sure he will get one hell of a story about our "sewer wars" and those who stopped the construction and are responsible for this mess.
Preach it sister and another kumbaya for the road!!!
REVOLUTION
$crapkiller sez:"Since there were Federal funds involved, I would hope he makes a phone call to the Federal Department of Justice. I am sure he will get one hell of a story about our "sewer wars" and those who stopped the construction and are responsible for this mess."
Oh, Gosh, I hope he DOES call the Feds and asks them to take a look at those SRF loan papers, and the additional $40 mil requested by a board majority under threat of recall weeks before the recall election, with NO 218 securing vote in the works. I really, really hope he has the power to get the Feds to look into all of that. It's a question I'm very curious about and one that does need answering. How was that loan written and even possible?
Post a Comment