Calhouns Can(n)ons

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Re the NOV Letter from the RWQCB

The following was a press release from Citizens for Clean Water - PZLDF, regarding the recent mass mailing "Notice of Violation" sent from the RWQCB to the homeowners in the PZ in Los Osos. Further information is also available at the CCW-PZLDF table at the Monday farmer's market.

Citizens for Clean Water
What can I do to protect my rights?
1. In response to the Notice of violation----- THE WATER BOARD IS NOT REQUIRING A RESPONSE. Nothing is required. And it may even be legally problematic to inform them that you received it.
2. DO NOT SEND OFFERS TO SIGN AGREEMENTS OR SETTLEMENTS! (CAO’s) since that could adversely affect your ability to defend yourself, and ultimately risk loss of your home..
3. Keep abreast of the county’s progress toward an acceptable project. (see FAQ-reports & schedules) http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm
4. Participate in the process and let your wishes be known concerning an acceptable project, based on costs, type, and location but do not feel compelled to vote Yes in a 218 election if you do not agree with it……
5. Learn your compliance options if the County fails.
6. Protect the process from the county’s actions being influenced by water board enforcement- coercion and intimidation tactics. Notify the county you want a clean process-protected from Water Board interference.
7. Contact your representatives about your concerns.
District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson:
Room D-430, County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, California 93408
(805) 781-1350 Fax
(805) 781-5450
Email: b.gibson@co.slo.ca.us

Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone (805)-549-3381-1104
Email: assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov

Congresswoman Lois Capps
San Luis Obispo 1411 Marsh Street, Suite 205 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 546-8348 Fax: (805) 546-8368

Peter J. Visclosky (IN), Chair: (WRDA Grants-Funding Asst.)
Dixon Butler, Subcommittee ClerkRoom 2362-B Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3421

8. Learn more about your rights, the regulations and legal help available.
Sullivan & AssociatesA Law Corporation2238 Bayview Heights Drive, Suite CLos Osos, CA 93402(805) 528-3355(805) 528-3364 fax

Pacific Legal Foundation 3900 Lennane Drive, Suite200Sacramento, CA 95834Phone: (916) 419- 7111Fax: (916) 419-7747plf@pacificlegal.org

9. Attend PZLDF informational meetings on Monday evenings at 7:00 pm at Washington Mutual Bank Community Room, and join Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF.
10. Protect your property rights by being proactive, and by donating your time, money and resources. DONATE TO FUND THE LEGAL ACTIONS EITHER TO PZLDF OR DIRECTLY TO SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES.

COME TO MEETINGS, HELP WITH FUNDRAISING, STAY INVOLVED!

31 comments:

Anonymous said...: Take a look at the Pacific Legal website and peruse their Board of Trustees and their cases.
Enjoy!

Make your own decisions and remember "caveat emptor". Is this what Los Osos is being used for? To promote the conservative agenda of property rights bar none for the environment?

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't.; 9:40 AM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: To anon 9:40 AM:

The Pacific Legal organization was founded to insure constitutional rights and protect individuals from excesses of government.

Of course, it would be totally on opposite sides from pure communistic/socialistic/progressive views that no one should own property and property should rightfully belong to the state for the benefit of all.

It is a conservative organization.
It supports the constitution of our country.

Conservatives support the environment. They just feel that the property that they own through their labor should not be taken from them by the government without full compensation for it's value and potential value.

If you do not own property and are of the secular/progressive/liberal/
communistic viewpoint, you would look at this legal group as a threat to your political idealism.

If you can't find anything to agree with that this group is fighting for, you now know the nature of your beliefs. Feel free to write more about this.; 2:21 PM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: OK. What does the Pacific Legal Foundation have to do with Los Osos?; 4:44 PM, April 18, 2007
Mike Green said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4:58 PM, April 18, 2007
Mike Green said...: I was at the last PZLDF meeting because I wanted to ask Bruce about the NOV. Specifically, I asked him what the county recommends property owners do about the situation. His reply was that he (and I'm assuming that means the county, and I asked a follow up question for clarification on that point) recommends the property owners do nothing at this point. I pointed out that the people need direction in this as he is after all,our elected leader. His response was that the water board is acting in a way that the county dose not feel is helpful. (gee, has he been reading my blogs?) His main point, as far as I could parse, is that the best and quickest way forward is with the TAC and the county process with a successful 218 vote. I'm going to agree.  Some will try to call this a "pig in a poke" And I can see the resemblance, it's an easy analogy. But that analogy fails here, For one thing It's more than one pig For another, none of those pigs are ready for market. All the farmer at this time can say is what the usual price is. What we are really buying is pig futures. So you still wont buy? fine, it's your money. Starve, pig is the only thing on the menu.  Oh, I just wanted to say how nice it was to see you Ann, and a big shout out to Pam Ochs and the Moylands and even Al  And I especially thank Bruce Gibson.; 5:39 PM, April 18, 2007
Mike Green said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6:13 PM, April 18, 2007
Mike Green said...: Anon sez:
OK. What does the Pacific Legal Foundation have to do with Los Osos?

Dunno, What does the bill of rights or the constitution mean to Los Osos too?; 6:19 PM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: Duh...Mike Green, have you asked Lisa that question? She seems to still believe in the Independent Monarchy of Lost Egos. She didn't like the rules of this Republic so she chose to make up her own.; 6:30 PM, April 18, 2007
Mike Green said...: I will no longer comment on any doings of the LOCSD.
I'm more interested in things that matter.
Nuff said.; 6:56 PM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: Mike, I think you've boiled this down quite well. Pig is the only thing on the menu. Buy it or starve. No kidding. The game is up. County is in charge. We'll get a piglet in a poke-um... it won't be "perfect" but will be better than TRIW. That's my unscientific prediction.; 8:35 PM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: To anon 8:35 PM:

We will get to vote on the flavor of snapping turtle. The last pig was eaten by dogs.

Snapping turtle tastes like: A little pork, some fish, some beef, some chicken. However, very hard to clean and cook. If it is not cooked carefully and with skill, dogs will not eat it. They will bury it, then dig it up, then eat it.

Pig is much better to eat than snapping turtle. Snapping turtle, like coon, possum, and squirrel is food of last resort. Frogs are a different story!; 9:18 PM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: Anon > Pig is much better to eat than snapping turtle. Snapping turtle, like coon, possum, and squirrel is food of last resort. Frogs are a different story!

Oh my. Piglets in a poke-um, snapping turtles and things that dogs won't eat without burying them first. I knew things were bad but ..... now you're really getting me worried.

> Snapping turtle tastes like: A little pork, some fish, some beef, some chicken. However, very hard to clean and cook.

So, uh, got any recipes?

And I truly like Mike's response:
> I will no longer comment on any doings of the LOCSD.
> I'm more interested in things that matter.
> Nuff said.

Geesh, why didn't the rest of us think of that a long long time ago?; 9:52 PM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: Is the LOCSD doing anything...?; 10:20 PM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: DO NOT DONATE TO FUND THE ILLEGAL ACTIONS EITHER TO PZLDF OR DIRECTLY TO PERSONAL POCKETS OF SULLIVAN & ASSOCIATES!; 10:23 PM, April 18, 2007
Anonymous said...: 4crapkiller said amongst many assertions:

"If you do not own property and are of the secular/progressive/liberal/
communistic viewpoint, you would look at this legal group as a threat to your political idealism."

I own property, lean progressive, and am not a communist. Does this make me a threat to your viewpoints?

If I oppose the war in Iraq, does this make me unpatriotic in your view?

If I chose to not support the Pacific Legal Foundation, does this mean that I do not support the US constitution?

Silly me, I thought that individuals in the US were suppose to be independent thinkers and decide for themselves.

I guess I missed the memo that made you the official view police!; 7:40 AM, April 19, 2007
Anonymous said...: The answer to all your questions is yes!

"I guess I missed the memo that made you the official view police!"

Snide comment from a secular progressive who is entitled to his/her views. I would never take away your right to show your foolishness.

Can't have a discussion, but can make snide comments attacking an individual. Sort of like shooting the messenger. Typical!; 9:35 AM, April 19, 2007
Anonymous said...: To pg13:

Tried many recipies. None worked. I came to the conclusion that delicious snapping turtle is a myth.; 9:40 AM, April 19, 2007
Anonymous said...: When Bruce Gibson was asked Monday night when the county has their advisory vote and the community selects a project and site, would the BOS go along with what the people select -- and his answer was NO. It's up to the BOS. So everyone who thinks that their voice matters, think again.; 7:24 PM, April 19, 2007
Mike Green said...: Sorry, I was there and I don't recall that at all.
My take was the BOS makes the last decision based on all the input, TAC and advisory vote together.

Remember the BOS is five people only one for us. Four out of five don't really care what project or how much money, as long as their constituents are not on the hook.; 8:08 PM, April 19, 2007
Anonymous said...: 4crapkiller answers yes to the following questions:

"If I oppose the war in Iraq, does this make me unpatriotic in your view?

If I chose to not support the Pacific Legal Foundation, does this mean that I do not support the US constitution?

Silly me, I thought that individuals in the US were suppose to be independent thinkers and decide for themselves."

You offer no explanation of why I am unpatriotic, don't support the constitution, and can't think for myself.

And for this you call me foolish? Have you looked into a mirror lately?; 8:25 PM, April 19, 2007
Anonymous said...: To Anon 8:25:

The "foolishness" was for your personal snide comment about "view police" when all I did was offer information on The Pacific Legal Foundation who you took to task simply because of the people on it.
You never took the time to read the "thought".

Otherwise all you did was ask me for an answer, and I gave it to you. It is clear that I oppose secular/progressive/socialistic thought. (liberal/leftist).

I am a "traditionalist". I am sorry that you did not like my "yes" answer. You were the one using question marks.; 10:22 AM, April 20, 2007
Anonymous said...: Mike Green,

Bruce Gibson DID say that if a particluar system and site was preferred on the advisory vote, "would the BOS go with that?!" and Bruce's answer was "NO!" ... it's up to the BOS. It's been said in other conversations too. I am sure it was recorded also. So WHY HAVE AN ADVISORY VOTE AT ALL? The BOS gets to decide when they don't have to pay, WE DO.

Glad you can afford the $200 million plus (interest) sewer assessment and layers and layers of assessments after that. Most people don't have a clue yet. Glad you approve of only the PZ homes to pay for this huge sewer while others (sometimes just a few feet away) don't pay. Glad you think that this mega sewer is right for just a few thousand homes. Lastly, I'm so glad that you're so much smarter than all the top experts in California and the entire country.

How rich are you? What do you do for a living? Must be nice!; 12:07 PM, April 20, 2007
Anonymous said...: To Mike Green who states:

"Remember the BOS is five people only one for us. Four out of five don't really care what project or how much money, as long as their constituents are not on the hook."

You are a very smart guy! This is the essence of the problem. It is also the essence of representative government. Gibson also represents other areas than Los Osos. I doubt he gives us other than lip service: Los Osos alone does not elect him.

This is why LAFCO would not allow a vote on the dissolution of the LOCSD.

Well Blakeslee produced a law with the help of the county to save the people of Los Osos from themselves.
It was clear that self distruction was going on.

At the same time he produced a bill to save the county taxpayers from having to take on the responsibility of the actions of the LOCSD. They certainly have compounded the problem. Actually, the LOCSD continues to do so.

However, the way the law is structured, it is the people that receive the benefit that get to pay for it.

I do not agree with this law for many reasons, and none have to do with my personal pocket book. I am no liberal, but understand that public works projects should be paid by all, because eventually all benefit.

However, it is clear to me that the county and the water board is persueing a punishment agenda, and I cannot blame them. Obstruction of law has a price.

I just wish they would punish the individual members of the LOCSD board, and not punish the property owners. The property owners did not stop the sewer, and did not push us into this impossible situation.

It was the decision of the LOCSD board. They stopped the sewer without any regard to consequences.

Unless the law is changed, we are in for a very bad time.

Los Osos property owners in the PZ should pay for 1/4, the county 1/4, the state 1/4, and the nation 1/4 for any sewer system.

The users of the sewer should pay for the maintenance and operation costs with their water bills: they get the primary benefit.

As to the anon 12:07 4/20 replying to Mike Green who brings up the concept of "rich" and "living" and "nice":

Get to work, make more money: you have a computer and can do many things. Start an "on line" business! Do something! No mun, no fun! Otherwise you are truly lost in this situation or can find better dole or living conditions elsewhere. Sorry!

But you are right to bring this up to Mike Green: he has the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!

You live in a country where 15% pay 90% of the bills, and mostly glad to do it.

What do you pay? There is no free lunch.; 8:13 PM, April 20, 2007
Mike Green said...: Crappy excreted:
This is why LAFCO would not allow a vote on the dissolution of the LOCSD. "

Thank you, thats why I called them (T)ime (W)asters

Also:
"
I do not agree with this law for many reasons, and none have to do with my personal pocket book. I am no liberal, but understand that public works projects should be paid by all, because eventually all benefit.

Amen Crappy, but my observation of government working is that reaction is more certain than prevention .

Katrina anyone, or how about the Sacramento levies, a disaster just waiting
to happen, any bets on what happens first?

I'm convinced that the best way forward for us is into the breech, so to say.
We have no support outside the inevitable, If this burg wants to fight the entire state it will take way more that the paltry 20-30 votes that caused the recall.

Like I said "pig is the only thing on the menu, I am gonna buy a pig"

(and squeel like a stuck one later); 10:21 PM, April 20, 2007
Anonymous said...: 1. If the actions of the LOCSD Board can be found illegal in stopping the sewer, the property owners should not be punished for an illegal activity.

2. Sewer will come. Sewer will cost.
Question is who will pay and how much.

3. Given that the longer this takes, the more expensive this project gets:

Does it make sense to fight the system on constitutional grounds, which will delay the project, or accept the inevitable regardless of site or system? Legal fights cost money and where that will come from is another concern. How much money and effort will the Howard Jarvis foundation in conjunction with the Pacific Legal Foundation come up with to fund a constitutional case if they see it as valid?

Or should we pass the 218 Vote for the pig, have a barbeque, and fight for funds later?

I think Mike Green is correct. We are out gunned with no money.; 7:36 AM, April 21, 2007
Anonymous said...: If the county had shown ANY good faith, I could support the "process", but they have not.

I would still like to know where all the property tax money goes that Los Osos has paid over the last 20 or so years that doesn't come back.

There are no grants until the SRF money is paid back to the state. With the war in Iraq and Katrina, grant money probably won't come, if any does, it will be a drop in the bucket.

I especially liked what Pat Renshaw said at the last CSD meeting when she spoke of all the new technology (ponds with water falls etc.) and these new ideas don't cost as much and would work better for Los Osos. Gravity will create more problems with the hills and sand here.

Why won't the county look at these new better wastewater systems?

Does anyone know?; 7:26 PM, April 21, 2007
Anonymous said...: Can Anon 7:26 or Pat Renshaw post data on this pond with waterfalls on this site? (Flows, Nitrogen levels of the effluent).

I wonder if some of these people have even read the draft screening report. It shows inclusion of ponds, STEP, etc.; 8:35 AM, April 22, 2007
Anonymous said...: 7:26
The Water Boards are still controlling behind the scene. Investigate to determine if former boardmembers and staff now work as lobbyists for the big sewer interests. Look at current and former employees personal investments. Follow the money. The WBs have repeatedly pushed us back toward traditional systems when our projects begin to stray toward solutions more appropriate for our situation.; 8:42 AM, April 22, 2007
Anonymous said...: Dear Anon 8:42 AM, April 22, 2007

Re: "The Water Boards are still controlling behind the scene. Investigate to determine if former boardmembers and staff now work as lobbyists for the big sewer interests. Look at current and former employees personal investments. Follow the money."

Please send any info you may have to be investigated to: The Rock c/o rockofthecoast@yahoo.com.; 11:23 AM, April 22, 2007
Anonymous said...: To: rockofthecoast@yahoo.com

Of course the water boards are controling and putting their two cents into the process. They want a sewer! If any former water board members or staff are lobbying for the big sewer interests, they should be exposed. There is nothing like sunshine and light!

I love ponds and waterfalls, hopefully the county will consider same as part of a system. With state water coming, we can even afford to lose some water to evaporation. And the cost would not be much to keep the sewer water clear and without smell. Koi ponds! Love them! Egrets and raccoons too!

At the same time we should investigate if there have been any personal kickbacks from the lawyers or Wil-DAN to the "fabulous five".

Did Ripley contribute to any LOCSD board member? What did Al Barrow really get? He says he got nothing, but this needs to be investigated.

We have yet to have the audit of our finances by the legislature, and no plan to resolve the bankruptcy has been submitted to the public.

Has any of the septic pumpers been investigated for large contributions to the sewer obstructionists? At the same time, where did the money for the lawyers fighting the legality of the 218 vote prior to the recall come from?

You could certainly shed light on that.

I hope you have fun investigating. There is nothing like sunshine.; 5:18 PM, April 22, 2007
Anonymous said...: The sewer pumpers were paid by the ousted board and guareteed contracts for decommissing. No funds have been recieved from them to PZLDF or to the elections of the new board.
PS.
Discharging from legal septic tanks is not "aganst the law" Stopping the project is not "against the law" there is regulations that have the force of law, but require due process. That is constitutionally protected, and citizens must protect that right.
Note, the PLF is not affiliated with PZLDF but since we didn't hear from the ACLU we listed it for a contact and help.
Do donate to the appeal since it covers the community and those who currently face enforcement and a forceed vote.
Citizens For Clean Water-PZLDF; 11:28 AM, April 25, 2007

Pages

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

31 comments: