A Mouse Tail
The following little tale is from PZLDF. You know, The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, the group that’s helping to support The Los Osos 45. You remember them? Oh, that’s right. You’ve forgotten those people. They were your friends and neighbors, but you thought the RWQCB “stood down.” Which means you think these people (and YOU) are “safe” from CDOs and CAO prosecution. You think that because of the 218 vote, the County” has” this project so you’re in the clear.
Errrrnnnkkk, not even close. The RWQCB didn’t “stand down.” The County doesn’t have this project (and won’t have it until the BOS votes to accept it, somewhere waaaayyy down the line) Which means, dear and gentle Homeowners of the PZ, YOU and your home have never left the RWQCB’s cross hairs.
Which becomes especially troubling when you stop to think what will happen to YOU if there are “delays” due to lawsuits or other serious issues, over which you have no control. True, the Board used the CDO's as a coercive method to get a favorable 218 vote, but it's also true that YOU, dear PZ homeowner, are the only ones in this game that they can get their hands on to "punish" if anything goes wrong. Yes, the recent vote made it clear that even though you voted overwhelmingly to support a project, you're still in the RWQCB’s abusive gunsights. The county isn’t. They don’t have this project, so they’re off the hook and to date the county has done nothing to help get YOU, dear homeowner, off the hook either. You're it.
Which means that YOU who voted to support a project but YOU who personally cannot possibly build a sewer plant yourself, YOU, who are forbidden by the RWQCB in one of their more specious Hobson’s Choice moves, to do anything BUT hook up to a sewer plant, (no onsites allowed, remember?) YOU stand to lose YOUR home –not the county – so long as this abusive Mad Hatter case stands.
And if you missed the Nov 6 Tribune story, PZLDF with attorney Shauna Sullivan was in Judge Barry LaBarbera’s courtroom recently. Sullivan represents both the folks filing the suit and the CSD in attempting to secure due process rights in this whole Mad Hatter Tea Party/Torquemada Auto de Fe ACL/CDO process started by the RWQCB nearly two years ago. The ISSUES at hand are ones that affect everyone in the PZ. Everyone.
To get an idea of the weirdness of this case, consider just one small point: Sullivan wants to amend her original case but to do so she needs the Official Record of the original ACL/CDO hearings. Problem? The RWQCB claims that she doesn’t need that record because it’s all online (not true) or can be looked at by going down to the office, Monday – Friday and plowing through boxes and boxes of documents.
Problem with that? As anyone who has sat through those Mad Hatter hearings can tell you, nobody in hell knows what was put into the Official Record or taken out or put in then taken out, or taken out then put back in, or partially taken out with only certain segments put back in or . . . . And since the goal posts kept morphing and moving as the original case bit the dust, then was changed and restarted, with the board’s attorney’s absolutely spooked at the possibility of something getting into that record they didn’t want to get in there, hence the parsing and snipping and in-out-in? No-out insanity, only God himself knows what was carried over, what got dumped. And things posted on the website kept disappearing, leaving everyone asking, WHAT “official record?”
So what’s the problem? Only stuff in the Official Record can ever come into a “real” court of law.
That’s the problem. Control the record, control the case. Deny the record, control the case. And that old standby, Morph the record, Delay the record, Muddle the record, Deny the record, run out the clock, and “win.”
But, wait, it gets better: In the courtroom, Sullivan was told that PZLDF could “buy” the record (they did and if you’d like to help pay for that cost, see the PZLDF address below) and it would be delivered within 90 days (this after over a year of requests to get the record, all foot-dragged and foot-dragged, forcing her to go to court to get the judge to ORDER the RWQCB to prepare the record).
Problem with that? Sullivan has only 20 days to amend her pleadings on a record that won’t exist for another 90 days. Without knowing what is or isn’t in the Official Record, how, do you suppose, that is possible? Hire a psychic?
When they say Justice is blind, they’re not kidding. In this case, blind, deaf, dumb and truly mad. Yet that’s the “justice” YOU, dear and gentle PZ homeowner, are now under. You, me and The Los Osos 45, you remember? Those people you forgot because you thought they had no relation to YOU since – Ha-ha – they got the CDOs and you didn’t, so you think you’re in the clear? And “safe?” Well, think again.
A little tale:
A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and hiswife open a package. What food might this contain? The mouse wondered -he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap. Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: There isa mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house! The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, ' Mr.Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of noconsequence to me. 'I cannot be bothered by it.' The mouse turned to the pig and told him, 'There is a mousetrap in thehouse! There is a mousetrap in the house!' The pig sympathized, but said, I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but thereis nothing I can do about it but pray. 'Be assured you are in myprayers.' The mouse turned to the cow and said 'There is a mousetrap in thehouse! There is a mousetrap in the house!' The cow said, 'Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin offmy nose.' So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to facethe farmer's mousetrap alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house – like thesound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to seewhat was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomoussnake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife.The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with afever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer
took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. Buthis wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit withher around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. Thefarmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for herfuneral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat forall of them. The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with greatsadness. So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think itdoesn't concern you, remember -- when one of us is threatened, we areall at risk. We are all involved in this journey called life. We mustkeep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to encourageone another. Please help Los Osos stop the enforcement against individuals and to deliver a sustainable project.
Give now:
Citizens for Clean Water
www.pzldf.org
PO Box 6095 L.O. 03412
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(186)
-
▼
November
(11)
- QUICK NOTE. Regarding my previous posting, a press...
- Lights! Camera! Action! I’m ready for my close up,...
- Ooops, the Behinder I Get . . The following press ...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, S...
- RWQCB to All of Los Osos and The Los Osos 45Here’s...
- There Ought To Be A Law.Did you get the little pos...
- And The Sewer Project Goes To . . .In my Nov 8 blo...
- A Mouse TailThe following little tale is from PZLD...
- Look, Up In The Sky, That Guy In A Red Suit In A S...
- Ooooooo, Noooooooo!Uh-oh, Sunday morning heart-att...
- The Tribune, Years Late and Millions Short, AgainO...
-
▼
November
(11)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
118 comments:
Please help Los Osos stop the enforcement against individuals and to deliver a sustainable project.
I have always supported the defense of the doomed 45 from the insane antics of the Water Gods, but as you noted in the first part of your article the "we no longer have any ability to build a sewer", In fact by law (Sam's law) we are as a CSD prevented from building a sewer.
So how can we "deliver a sustainable project"?
It's this morphing of the PZLDF into a PAC that troubles me. It looses the focus of the original intent. If they drop the "citizens for clean water" and refocus on only the legal defense of all of us I feel they will garner far more support.
Ann,
It seems unfair to say that the County hasn't done anything to help with the RWQCB. They've both asked the RWQCB to drop the CDOs entirely and they've taken steps, as required by AB2701 to move the project forward in a way which would be most likely to get the RWQCB to stand down.
That being said, I find it interesting that the same folks who are telling us to file lawsuits are also complaining that those same lawsuits might cause a delay in the project and thus the RWQCB will have the doomed 45 in their gunsights. Presumably one could oppose needless and senseless lawsuits as a way of helping the doomed 45.
I am also sick and tired of hearing complaints from PZLDF about having to pay for an administrative record. In situations like this, having to pay for copies of documents is not unusual. Would they complain if the LOCSD charged them for making copies? Had they their act together earlier in the year and not spent their time whining, they would already have that record. Heck, if nothing else, they could ask for a delay in the case until they can get the record that they now seem willing to pay for.
Ann -
Fear mongering again?
The County DOES have the project - you're just splitting hairs. It's time for you and the LOCSD to accept the fact that the CSD is no longer in the driver's seat. The CSD is a passenger along for the ride. Get over it.
Congress just overrode Bush's veto, so the Water Bill has passed, and there may be funding in the offing for development and design. I'll believe it when I see it, but at least there is hope. Yet another reason for the County to proceed.
Your contention that the landslide 218 vote was the result of coercion is pure speculation. My landlords voted yes because they wanted the COUNTY in control, not the LOCSD, who have demonstrated that they have no ability to complete a project.
Whether you like it or not, the County has the solid backing of the PROPERTY OWNERS and has no reason to ditch the project.
The County will move forward, and the RWQCB will back down. It's unfortunate they haven't officially done so yet - but I have no doubt they will.
Realistic,
I suspect the only reason the RWQCB hasn't backed down is the continued threat of lawsuits and other tactics to delay clean water. As Ann rightly points out, if our community, by it's actions as a whole, stalls things unnecessarily, the RWQCB wants to make sure that they can issue CDOs for all of us. The 45 just happen to be first on the list.
Shark -
I'm sure you are correct. The RWQCB has been burned by Los Osos so many times, the County project will have to be well under way before they are comfortable with letting go of enforcement.
I do, however, choose to believe that their goal is clean water and not revenge - and I choose to believe that common sense will prevail in Los Osos, and further support of legal challenges to the vote and the project will dwindle over time.
The "sustainable project" was the ploy to stop the sewer the last time. It worked only because a puny CSD had the project. The County is not going to back out now after all the work and money they have put into it. There isn't enough money and clout from the "sustainables" to derail what the will of most of the people want and what the County will put forth as viable projects. The County has a lot more tools in their toolkit to counter this chicken-little nonsense.
PZLDF and Ann are simply bringing up the scare tactics to get more cash to pay Shaunna. They won't see one thin dime from me - except of course the money from my water bills which fuel the CDS's coffers for THEIR payment to Shaunna. The CSD's involvement happened under mighty peculiar circumstances, too which neither Ron nor Ann cares to investigate.
Real. wrote:"Your contention that the landslide 218 vote was the result of coercion is pure speculation"
Well I have to agree! I speculated a three foot fire under my ass stoked by an evil Water God!
Weren't no coercion at all! nope.
The converse question is, how many would have assessed themselves 25K if there were no RWQCB actions?
Everyone has their own "the people I talked to..." "proof" of why the vast majority voted as they did (which kinda flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that says people in Los Osos NEVER talk about the sewer in public)
So I'll offer mine....most of the people I talked to simply said it was time to get this done, it was the right thing to do, and obviously the CSD was incapable of doing a project, any project, themselves"
Nothing about fear, nothing about coercion, just "it's time to get 'er done."
That's my "the people I talked to" story. (Which is no less valid than Gail McPherson's or Ann Calhoun's or the CSD 16's or anyone else's conjecture of why the vote turned out as it did.)
A51, But why "get R done?"
Stop pollution?
Stop the actions of the LOCSD board?
Stop the possibility of RWQCB actions?
Just to do something instead of nothing?
There is always more involved with a decision of this magnitude, I'm not complaining, just curious.
Mike,
I believe the primary reason for the GitRDone attitude is because a sewer is needed and the longer we wait, the higher the cost gets. Homeowners would rather pay $200/month starting two years from now than $300/month starting five years from now.
Admittedly there is also the possibility of fines and the fear that the LOCSD will take over again and screw it up even worse...
Congrats Mike G., you hit the nail on the head with the first three reasons, plus a few more.
Stop the blogging.
Stop the bleeding.
Stop the hallucinating.
Stop the reclaimatoring.
Stop the pilfering.
Stop the speculating.
& the number 1 reason.......
Start planning & getting on with our lives.
Mike Green,
I would say "all of the above" to the reasons you listed, and then some. But to imply, as some have done, that fear is the ONLY reason for the overwhelming yes majority is insulting. And manipulative. McPherson's manipulation has always been obvious. Ann too has an agenda so her harping on "fear" of the RWQCB and nary a whisper about people wanting to do the right thing for environmental and financial reasons is not surprising. (Here's where Ann says "You have a comprehension problem, read what I wrote about the Big Lie yada yada yada." Sorry Ann, it's all written backhanded and with an agenda to promote, so I don't buy it).
And I'm sure many did in fact vote because of fear of CDO's. But how many of those people viewed the RWQCB as villains, but instead their fear was based on obvious, non-devious facts: we are polluting, we have been told to stop, and if we don't here are the consequences?
To paint with such borad strokes concerning the vote is preposterous. And in my opinion, to use that broad stroke of fear to solicit money for more attorney fees is disgusting.
A51, why is fear insulting?
I'm not afraid to admit fear of the water gods.
Can you give me an example of why I should NOT fear them?
what if,
I voted yes, but they still continue prosecution.
Sharkey is right, they (the doomed 45) were the test case. WHY should they have to bear the burden of the failure of our collective government?
mike...2 things...
1)fear of CDO's is certainly not insulting. It's the implication that that's the only reason I voted to assess myself, and with that fear removed I wouldn't have done so, that is insulting to me....and
2) My fear isn't based on a malevolent Water board hell-bent on revenge against me. It is based simply on receiving CDO's because I am a polluter, and have been warned that CDO's could be the consequence of my further polluting. And the only way I am convinced I will ward off the water board is not through litigation and further obstruction, but through consistent movement forward toward the building of a sewer.
There is a difference here.
mike...2 things...
1)fear of CDO's is certainly not insulting. It's the implication that that's the only reason I voted to assess myself, and with that fear removed I wouldn't have done so, that is insulting to me....and
(toung in cheek)
I would have gladly assessed myself 25K for a sewer even though I have never been proved to be a polluter
and I can prove that the pine tree in my back yard takes in more water than I discharge and I can prove that my double holding tanks can eliminate nitrate contamination ect.
you see, individual excuses, no matter how valid fail in the light of collective blindness
I applaud L.O. a hard choice taken.
I'm going to push for the best system we can get.
Do we hang together or do we continue to fight each other? We all all part of the collective quilt of Los Osos. I wasn't here "back when" but it is where I would like to be in the future. People used to have good will and support for each other I am told. Is that Urban (or in this case - RURAL) Legend or how it actually was? I don't care if it never was, but it is the life I aspire to now and I will do whatever I can to make it so.
I don't care if I am the biggest polluter or if I am not polluting at all. I don't need individual proof to know that there are nitrates in the upper aquifer along with body care products and drug residues that come from what remains un-metabolized by the body in urine. We ALL need to come together to fix this problem if we want to continue to drink this water - or if we don't, we will get State water a lot sooner than expected.
Let's see - who benefits the most if we get State water? Could it be developers? What happens to our modest housing on 25 foot lots if we are paying double for the water we drink?
This is the realization property owners came to in part. We have to respect and husband the resources we have, or someone bigger will come and take advantage of our weakness. A CSD, well meaning as it was in its creation, was NOT the best vehicle to get a job like this done.
Should we have had a sewer long ago. Absolutely. But we cannot rewrite history, we can only deal with NOW. Los Osos dealt with the NOW by voting YES in -yes, I can say it - landslide numbers. We are the majority and we want this problem fixed. I too am for the best project. What that will be remains to be seen - but at least it rests with the most capable entity we have in our County to get the job done. We have a different County now --one that never would have let this problem grow to these proportions. Maybe we have all taken a giant step toward growing up.
Toons! amen! the cargo is comming!
mike..2 things...
1) Fear entered into my vote, I fear that if I got a CDO that this fringe, yes fringe (includes Ann since she does shilling for this fringe) segment of our town only knows how to criticize and de-rail but does not how to get something built. Nothing against them, they and their pied piper can do as they please, but they do not and I do not want them to represent me, even though they scream that they do. We screamed with our vote that they do not, 80% says it all. The 45 bear what they bear, but there was only a small number of the 45 who made a different choice than the rest, …very interesting. Already there is another fringe that wants to spend our money litigating our assessment against ourselves. The WRDA bill that has been poo-poo'd by naysayers for the last 3 years passed today and I can barely watch as groups could create another year or two of legal delays that result in us missing the boat yet again on available grants and we end up with the highest possible public finance rates because we cannot rate any better assistance because there are other communities more stable whcih seeking those same funds.
2)It was not a hard choice. It was actually a very, very easy. Just made two columns of reasons to vote for on one side and reasons to vote aganst on the other. Really only needed one column.
...which will bring on the usual mantra of responses from those that can’t get over it
lopz, you are exactly right about our ability to compete with other communities for funds.
I wonder how that happened?
I know the party line in advance. "It is okay to file many lawsuits to delay things because we were never guaranteed any of that WRDA funding ... so we really didn't lose anything." While technically correct on the guarantee, it certainly seems that if you take actions which will prevent federal funding you must feel that those lawsuits are soooooo important that they are worth not only the inflation we'll face during the delay but they must also be worth sacrificing any federal dollars that we'll miss out on.
Realistic sez:"Ann -
Fear mongering again?
The County DOES have the project - you're just splitting hairs. It's time for you and the LOCSD to accept the fact that the CSD is no longer in the driver's seat. The CSD is a passenger along for the ride. Get over it."
Nope. The county does NOT have the project, neither does the CSD. Right now, nobody does. Except the homeowners. Which is why you're in the RWQCB's gunsights and will remain there until a project is completed.
"Congress just overrode Bush's veto, so the Water Bill has passed, and there may be funding in the offing for development and design. I'll believe it when I see it, but at least there is hope. Yet another reason for the County to proceed."
The issue isn't about the county not proceeding. It's about the abuse of process for a handful of your friends and neighbors, abuse of process that can, in an eyeblink, turn on YOU. What's so fascinating to me is the utter lack of care for those 45. Some of you posters drop crocodile tears -- Ah, yes, boo-hoo, it IS soooo unfair, oh well -- while others have been downright Ugly On A Stick with the old, Bleep Them, they deserve what they got. While amazingly, few have figured out that we all ARE the 45.
"Your contention that the landslide 218 vote was the result of coercion is pure speculation. My landlords voted yes because they wanted the COUNTY in control, not the LOCSD, who have demonstrated that they have no ability to complete a project."
That wasn't my contention. The point of the CDO's -- as stated during one of the CDOs hearings by a member of the RWQCBOARD, on the record, -- was to make sure the community voted right. There's a word for that: "coercion."
"Whether you like it or not, the County has the solid backing of the PROPERTY OWNERS and has no reason to ditch the project."
Again, you completely miss the point. This isn't about ditching a project. It's about an abuse of process and an abuse of citizen's rights for the purpose of getting them to vote right when the RWQCB knows full well the citizens don't have any ability to do what's being demanded of them -- personally go build a sewer plant. The RWQCB is using the wrong tools to get a job done and by doing so have put your friends and neighbors and YOU under a wrongly applied gun.Whatpuzzles me is why this is O.K. with so many people. Do they somehow think, Oh, Whew! it's o.k. so long as it isn't ME? Look again. It IS you. Always has been.
"The County will move forward, and the RWQCB will back down. It's unfortunate they haven't officially done so yet - but I have no doubt they will."
Really? And what if this threatened 218 lawsuit is filed? Do you think for a moment the RWQCB will get their talons out of the Los Osos 45? Or will they instead, say, O.K. all bets are off. There's no "progress" so we're gonna issue CAO's (not CDO's, those are sooooo yesterday, they involve "trials," CAO's don't -- they're issued, appeals automatically denied (SWB wolves and RWQCB foxes and LO chicken coops) and kaboom! fines on everyone starting now. Unlike you, I no longer have any confidence in the RWQCB doing the "right thing." They haven't in the past and if behavior in the future is predicted by past behavior, good luck to you.
Inlet sez:"As Ann rightly points out, if our community, by it's actions as a whole, stalls things unnecessarily, the RWQCB wants to make sure that they can issue CDOs for all of us. The 45 just happen to be first on the list."
Even if the "community" doesn't stall things, it no longer matters. And CDO's are sooo yesterday. The experiment on the Los Osos 45 was successful. There is now no longer any need to use CDO's since the way has been cleared for community-wide issuances of CAO's. No need for hearings with those puppies. Boom! Guilty! Fines! Fines! Fines! that is why the PZLDF case is so critical to all of the homeowners in the PZ. Which was the point of the posting.
Area 51 sez:"That's my "the people I talked to" story. (Which is no less valid than Gail McPherson's or Ann Calhoun's or the CSD 16's or anyone else's conjecture of why the vote turned out as it did.)"
You obviously didn't read my Can(n)on posting below, Bye-Bye Big Lie.
area 51 also sez:"Ann too has an agenda so her harping on "fear" of the RWQCB and nary a whisper about people wanting to do the right thing for environmental and financial reasons is not surprising. (Here's where Ann says "You have a comprehension problem, read what I wrote about the Big Lie yada yada yada." Sorry Ann, it's all written backhanded and with an agenda to promote, so I don't buy it)"
Horsefeathers, In addition to not reading Big Lie, Did you also miss the RWQCB comment about "voting right?" too? I agree with Inlet's big picture -- there were many reasons for voting Yes. Coercion? Sure. Get r' done? Yep. The Right Thing? Yes. They're all in the mix.
Mike Green sez:" Sharkey is right, they (the doomed 45) were the test case. WHY should they have to bear the burden of the failure of our collective government?"
And there, in a nutshell, is the point of the Mouse's Tale.Thank you, Mr. Green.
LOPZ sez:"The 45 bear what they bear, but there was only a small number of the 45 who made a different choice than the rest, …very interesting. Already there is another fringe that wants to spend our money litigating our assessment against ourselves."
Do you know any of the 45? Have you spoken to many of them? do you know why they made the choices they did?
As for this "another fringe." Different horse entirely. One has nothing to do with the other. When you confuse one with the other you do a disservice to The Los Osos 45, which was the point of this Mouse's Tale.
LOPZ also sez:"1) Fear entered into my vote, I fear that if I got a CDO that this fringe, yes fringe (includes Ann since she does shilling for this fringe)"
Horse feathers again. If you bothered to read my comments before the Mouse's Tale, you would have clearly understood that YOU, dear LOPZ, are now in the RWQCB's gunsights and held hostage to all kinds of "fringe" lawsuits just like the Los Osos 45. Welcome to the club.
I vowed that I wouldn't respond on this blog anymore but in support of previous points made and an email I received this morning, I want to.
The WRDA funding was lined up before and people argue: where's the money, why isn't it in the bank.
Short Answer: Any money that has been lined up to support a community project get depleted by funding litigation.
No smart funding agency would ever supply money until the project was moving forward and maybe even under construction. It depends on what the money is for.
Even an SRF loan can't be used to develop a project. The commitment to follow through must be more visible. That is why I am extremely disturbed by the messages that are being given by any group that could delay progress. These suggestions of fighting only say to the funding source - Too big a risk, we are not going to take the chance.
Every time one group or CSD board member threatens or implies that they will stand in the way of anything they don't agree with actually jeopardizes all of us. If the issue is affordability then focus on that, if the issue is technology then stay a part of the process but at some point, it would be really great if everyone would just stop, and accept that it is the collective expertise that will bring us a solution. It won't come 100% from within the community.
We are too far beyond that. Even though we are not organizing a new community co-housing or commune or eco village, I suggest that people read: Creating a Life Together
It talks about community dynamics and communication and how to not enable each other but find our strengths and combine efforts through agreements even when we disagree. The focus on the outcome is essential. It has become apparent to me that there are people in this community with that sort of vision yet are restricting the ability of others to maintain their comfort and ability to feel safe and accepted.
When director Tacker got up at BOS the other day and talked about the assessment and implied that the consulting vultures would swoop in and take all the money, I sat there wondering, where is the concern about the expense of delay and loss of grants due to a lack of commitment? It would seem to me that Sacramento and WA DC would get nervous when an elected, seated "official" actually stand and threatens/scolds another elected, seated government official about "you better or else in the next election...."
How does that help us? It doesn't help anyone on my street or around the corner. We need collaboration period and if anyone, elected or not stands in the way, those homeowners who assessed themselves $25,000 out of coercion or a sense of duty need to SPEAK UP!
We cannot afford to be left with an assessment and nothing going in the ground within the next 3 years. The litigation and threats from within the community need to stop and I am confident we'll see a much more supportive response from the agencies that have the ability to bring this cost down. Our homes are on the line.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly
I certainly support much of what Maria Kelly wrote this morning.
I also believe that if a legal action is brought that challanges the Prop 218 election, and threatens the success of the project, the 45 CDO receipients (who are facing personal harm by such an action) should consider taking their own legal action against any individuals involved with such a delaying tactic.
I would also like to see the County do more than just "defend" such lawsuits. They should also file actions against the individuals who would take steps to delay or terminate project efforts. I believe that the 45 would have the greatest case to make for personal harm, however.
Ann,
I've been thinking about your plea to support PZLDF. You say it is about helping our neighbors. I get that.
What I don't get is this ... will PZLDF only use that money for a lawsuit against the RWQCB about the issues in the CDOs ... or will they possibly use the money for some other lawsuit (like Morgan's) which could end up causing delay and a possible loss of Federal funds?
Until I hear from PZLDF that they will only fight the abuses of the RWQCB and not take on any other issues, I cannot donate to them in good faith?
Why not? Because if the money is used to stall the project even six months, the extra cost on the sewer project will be about $12M or about $2400 per home. The cost of delay is huge. Fighting delay is very important. If we aren't fighting needless and baseless lawsuits, we aren't really helping our neighbors.
That being said, I would suggest that the total cost of the "move the sewer no matter what it costs" fiasco has been huge. Let's see ... about $40M in debt and now the "best case" scenario (without Government help) is we'll pay about what TriW was going to cost ... but our water bills will be considerably higher.
Nope, the "move the sewer no matter what it costs" krewe aren't actually concerned with helping their neighbors ... they're concerned with getting their own way "no matter what it costs" or they naively believe, even with evidence to the contrary, that delay doesn't cost money.
Ann, do you want a perfectly clean process with all the lawsuits over minutiae and the associated costs or do you want to help your neighbors. It would seem that one can't have it both ways.
Ann,
You write as if the County proceeding with the project isn't a foregone conclusion. If there is some formal action they need to take to "officially" take over, I'm guessing it is, or will be soon, on their agenda. Their original acceptance was conditioned on the passing of the 218 vote, which - with it's 80% approval - was the first REAL mandate on the project since the 2002 CSD election.
If "no one" has the project now, has the County ceased all work until they officially accept it?
The BOS has certified the 218 vote, and have already spent $2 million of the County's money - so under what circumstances, specifically, would they not accept the project?
Ann,
One other question. If, as I contend, the County accepting the project is nothing more than a formality, what is the point of you telling people the County doesn't "have" the project?
I happened upon an e-mail today that was sent by Gail McPherson. I guess I find this odd as Joe had ALREADY brought this up some weeks ago - at a CSD meeting and a certain out of town mobile home park realtor gave Joe a very bad time dissing this "Santa Barbara Think Tank."
The e-mail read:
http://www.ucsb-efp.com/about.htm
The Economic Forecast Project is the premier economic and business consulting organization in the Tri-Counties. Our existing models give us the ability to examine the economic impact of changes in demographics, employment, income, real estate, prices, interest rates,county government activities, retail sales and tourism might impact the local economy.
The Economic Forecast Project has the capability to build economic models customized to our clients needs. For specialized studies in the Tri-Counties area (or any sub-area) we can quickly
augment our existing modeling structure to incorporate linkages of interest, or we can build special models from scratch. A special model
can focus on a certain area of activity in more depth than the standard model (like special attention to commercial lease rates). A special
model can focus on generating forecasts of higher frequency than the standard, for example monthly frequency forecasts.
The Staff at the Economic Forecast Project can work with members of the community in developing special analytical tools for other areas
of interest, like financial analysis, statistical analysis, traffic analysis, and environmental analysis (e.g. The Community Indicators
Project). Please contact us with your needs.
(It then listed a contact person and number which I won't copy here.)
Why is GAIL sending this out? It IS ALREADY out there thanks to JOE! The least she could do would be to give him credit for coming up with this idea. Draw you own conclusions as to why she didn't.
'toons wrote:
"I wasn't here "back when" but it is where I would like to be in the future. People used to have good will and support for each other I am told. Is that Urban (or in this case - RURAL) Legend or how it actually was? "
That's how it actually was. I witnessed it firsthand when I was editing The Bay Breeze from 1996 - 1999.
Before the CSD was formed, Los Osos was tight. There was a kind of "Los Osos vs. the County" mentality, and nearly everyone in Los Osos was on the same team, as evident by the 87-percent "Yes" vote to form the LOCSD in 1998.
If you ask me, the millions upon millions of dollars that the LOCSD has cost California taxpayers over the past nine years isn't even close to being the worst part of the November 1998 election. Nope. By far, the worst part of the 1998 election is that it completely shredded the community fabric of Los Osos into iddy biddy pieces, and continues to do so today... along with costing California taxpayers a fortune.
Realistic wrote:
"The BOS has certified the 218 vote, and have already spent $2 million of the County's money"
You mean ANOTHER $2 million, right? Remember, nearly $6 million of the county's money was wasted when the 1999 LOCSD dumped the county's project in March of 1999 to pursue the Solution Group's ponding system... that failed two years later.
As of March, 1999, the county had spent nearly $6 million developing their project.
Sewertoons:
You say, "YES in -yes, I can say it - landslide numbers. We are the majority and we want this problem fixed...."
Well, there you go again Sewertoons, spinning and spinning.
30% of the homeowners didn't vote and many, many were afraid to vote. Some would have voted no but were afraid of the fines and that the RWQCB would look at their ballots.
13-15% were from the School Board, CSD properties, and County properties.
20% voted no.
It was no landslide. Keep spinning like Bruce Gibons. It only shows your bad intent and misinformation again.
P.S. The County could have done the 218 legally, but CHOSE not to.
...sorry CB, the ballot was legal and the only statistic that counts is the final vote count...
...80% said enough of the delay, enough of the wasted dollars now, enough of the obstruction...
If you want to continue hiring lawyers, go right ahead, but
please do it out of your own pocket... The community has had enough, now grow up and face reality... 80% IS a LANDSLIDE...!!!!
cb, I suppose your idea of "legally" would have identified a collection technology, a plant and a location. Well, what do you think the vote would have been then?
The homeowners had 79% of the voting power. Also, the school board was around 1% of the vote at around $1.5 million for its three schools, the CSD had a $61,000 assessment or .4% of the vote - could you please ID the dollar amount on the COUNTY properties - the library, the skateboard park, red barn, old schoolhouse and whatever else? FYI - Commercial holdings of apartment buildings and other rentals were around 14% of the vote.
So --
please explain how you got to your 13-15% of the vote with School Board, CSD and County properties?
Were you one of the people who called the 51%-49% Measure B and recall a landslide?
I'd call "spin" your assertion that 30% didn't vote because they were afraid. You really have NO idea what that percentage is - no one does, it hasn't been polled.
Ron,
No offense, but you're full of crap.
You cannot say that the 1998 election shredded the community fabric of Los Osos. The choice to shred the community fabric of Los Osos was made by CCLO and LOTTF back when they chose to pursue the recall strategy without any plan for what they would do after they won. Sure, they had a great strategy of dividing our community to get a win, but there was no effort put into coming up with any realistic plan for what to do after a win.
Or was Lisa's lack of thinking also Pandora's fault?
Nope, yet again, Ron is dead wrong. Why are we not surprised?
CB ...
If 70% voted and 80% was the size in any other election it would be called a landslide. Perhaps you simply don't realize this.
Furthermore, if "the voters have spoken" and "you lost, TriW is dead, get over it" were reasonable statements after the recall, saying that the homeowners want the County in charge is quite reasonable.
CB pulls facts out of the old rear, surprise surprise.
Ann has a major reading comprehension problem. She states we are in the RWQCB "cross-hairs". We know what they are doing, lady, maybe you are the one who should listen. We are also in PZLDF crosshairs, understood?? They do not represent us. Four or five or six out of 45 doesn't cut it.
80% speaks volumes. The property owners have spoken clearly, once again, and they represent the community very well, unlike other fringes. Time to listen to them.
I enountered a member of the BOS today, and asked:
"Do you "have" the Los Osos CSD project legally?"
The reply was: "Yes, the County of San Luis Obispo is the LEGAL LEAD AGENCY. The project is our reponsibility now."
So Ann, from the mouth of a supervisor, the County HAS the project.
Thanks, Realistic.
I was thinking that Ann had made a mistake when she wrote that. Yes, the BOS needs to vote "yes" to move forward with a project and they can make the choice not to do so, but they had already agreed to move forward if the 218 vote passed.
Shark -
The sup I talked to this morning confirmed that the passage of the 218 sealed the deal. I'm not sure where Ann got the idea that "no one" had the project, but we now know that is not the case.
Conspiracy Fraud says:
"13-15% were from the School Board, CSD properties, and County properties."
Obviously CB you didn't watch the BOS meeting last Tuesday. (Even though I saw you speaking with all your crazed, wild-eyed wonder!!). Bruce Gibson called on John Diodati to answer this misinformed complaint from George and Gwen Taylor. If you care to see it again, it's at approx. 6:06:01 of the meeting. Diodati states 1 benefit unit was allocated to a single family home, which would give a very accurate picture of how the "residents" voted. The results were identical to the total results: 70% voting, 80% yes.
Check out the tape CB. And try thinking every once in a while before you make a fool of yourself. Even you have to grow weary of constantly fighting the truth.
Ann just wanted to pump fear out into the community with her statement about no one having the project.
Ann - we are SO DONE with that.
Real 1:
Why can't you share which BOS you talked to today? Bruce Gibson? Come on, you can certainly share more...
It was Julie Tacker, I believe who said the CSD, County and school properties counted as 13-15%. She's usually right with the numbers. Afterall, she's with Jeff Edwards.
BTW, I don't trust the vote because again, the County didn't follow the law to let the public oversee the counting. The public was denied access for 40 minutes while the staff worked on the ballots and the public didn't oversee a thing. They were placed far away in an audience setting and nobody could see anything.
You guys are about as corrupt as I've ever seen in my life. Now that goes for the BOS too. They're in on it now -- big time!
But really now, it's all for us in the PZ to pay for the developers to be able to build. Absolutely nothing to do with water. The BOS goes with the developers. Isn't Lenthall a contractor too?
The county's 218 was not legal. The oversight of the counting was not legal. Why not?
Realistic,
What gives with Ann? Normally she's far more on the ball with facts.
She tells us that no one has the project and that "the county has done nothing" to help the homeowners get off the hook.
The County has asked the RWQCB to stop vacate the CDOs against the unlucky first 45. The County has put together a viable project process. The County has put time and money into studies of the available sites and technology options. They've put in grant requests and gotten Lois Capps to put in for WRDA money.
How is this "nothing" to help the homeowner get off the hook with the RWQCB? It would seem that the County actions are exactly what would appease the RWQCB and get a good project rolling as soon as possible.
Perhaps the last paragraph in Ann's comment gives insight. She asks for us to help PZLDF fight the RWQCB targeting of individuals and to help get a sustainable project. I have no opposition to fighting the RWQCB's CDOs of those 45 because it shouldn't be just those 45. However, I am disappointed that Ann couldn't yet inform us that PZLDF will use donated money only for the defense of the 45.
This leaves us with the word sustainable. Nothing wrong with the word. I just wonder how it is defined. If, by sustainable, we mean the cheapest long-run costs across the life-cycle of the WWTF, including construction, O&M and the like, I would prefer sustainable. If, however, sustainable means "no gravity" or "not TriW" or "it must be a ponding system" or "we'll fight anything that doesn't include Ag exchange" or "Broderson is a bad place for effluent discharge", I think the term has been misunderstood or is being poorly used by those who throw it around like it means something.
That being said, I've seen nothing to indicate that these other possible projects are more or less sustainable than TriW.
The main problem I have with the way this word has been used here in the past is that, as an environmentalist, I reject the notion that continued pollution for three years (at a million gallons of septage per day) so that we can get a "sustainable" plant is necessarily a good thing.
Perhaps Ann would care to comment.
One more thing ...
Ron promised us a killer article a week ago. Where is it?
It would seem that either he really doesn't have anything or that he doesn't care that much about getting us killer information all that quickly.
I agree with shark regarding the word "sustainable."
I guess I am sick of this sustainable word always being used by people who stopped the old project, yet were months in office before anything was done to put forth a project. What about the word "pollution?"
(December 2005 - Lisa admitted at the Water Board hearing that they had no project; an RFP finally put out in Feb. of 2006; Ripley awarded contract in April of 2006; bankruptcy in August 2006.)
I think these people should be disallowed from using the word "sustainable" until they have come to realize the meaning of the word "pollution."
Maria et al,
Morgan's letter raises some good points that need to be addressed, not by lobbyists like you and Sharky, but by other open-minded citizens who value the law above all.
It seems to me that the County's stated position of not responding to the issues raised in Morgan's letter until a lawsuit is filed is costing us taxpayers money by failing to engage the protesters before the protest unnecessarily turns into a suit. This non-approach only invites a suit when I must assume no one wants a suit. This is very Bush vs. Iran policy of no dialog. This is how situations escalate that should never get to the point of confrontation.
Commitment begins with a legal vote. If the vote is challenged successfully you would have to concede that the handful of protesters were right in questioning the County's unilateral process and you were wrong to promote an illegal vote without knowing the law -- or apparently caring about it.
If the protesters are wrong, the claim will be tossed out of court and the sewer won't miss a beat. The money from Capps won't be in the pipeline for a year or more, so no grant money is threatened by any short-lived suit. Spreading fear and panic in the streets is best left to the uninformed and immature. Please try to extricate yourself from these categories and elevate your arguments.
Your words are reminiscent of pained comments made by recalled board members and Taxpayers Watch after the Tri-W project was stopped -- stopped because the old board tried to skip a few legal steps. We don't need another project dogged by assertions of illegalities. We don't need more taint. Better the protesters file now than later. Let's get to the bottom of it.
By the way, where were you when Taxpayers Watch and Hensley/Albricht nuisance suits rained down on the new CSD? Silent. Because they furthered your agenda. So "agenda suits" are fine with you, but one that seeks to uphold Constitutional law is not fine with you. It shouldn't be so obvious who you work for.
You use the law when it shields you, you eschew the law when it inconveniences you. This is not a philosophy of principle.
Why didn't the old board secure the loan with a 218 (even Shark said it was unsecured), the way they were supposed to, but dilligently avoided?
Why didn't the County just give us a normal 218 with choices and prices, rather than coerce a vote with threats and fear -- and dare to call that a "mandate"?
The answer to both question is, unfortunately, the same.
There is just too much money on the line to trust the people to vote "yes".
The law? Oh, that's just for us poor folk because we can't afford your brand of justice, and somebody has to pay for your unaffordable sewer, somebody who doesn't know or question the difference between what is legal and what isn't.
Well, I won't be your steppingstone.
Howie
Howie,
to answer a couple of your questions ....
The pre-recall LOCSD board didn't bother with a 218 vote for the SRF because it was not legally required. They intended to charge a monthly service fee which was going to repay the loan. The SWRCB and LOCSD attorneys both agree that this was a reasonable way to repay the loan. Sure, the state had a bit more exposure than than (in retrospect) was advisable, but it was legal. To say that a 218 vote was required, as you did, is incorrect.
On the question of whether the County's 218 vote was a "normal 218 with choices and prices", the County's 218 vote was normal. Typically a 218 vote doesn't have lots of options as you suggest, but a "yes" or "no" as in, "would you be willing to pay $25,000 over time via property tax assessments for a sewer project?". The County can't give final prices at this stage. Again, to suggest that typically this is done, is to mislead the reader.
Howie, it just seems as if you're disappointed about how things have been going in the last 9 months or so.
I understand that it is an expensive sewer ... just as all sewers are these days ... but delaying the process as some are trying to do only raises all our costs.
Howie, if you were truly in favor of keeping costs down I wonder whether you voted against the recall?
"Spreading fear and panic in the streets is best left to the uninformed and immature."
From Howie - to Ann.
What is the County supposed to do - say they did an illegal 218? How would engaging the suit instigators NOT turn this into a suit? Seems to me they are saving us money by not responding.
This has the potential to be a lot more costly than you claim. Don't be too sure of not impinging on WRDA money. The message this suit sends to possible lenders AND grant givers is NOT a good one, and it surely does not represent the will of anyone who voted YES. My hope that if it goes forward, it will be viewed as a minority sour grapes, and therefor inconsequential.
Howie, are your initials NR?
Howie and his ilk (and I'll throw the TW public waste lawsuit in here as well at this point anymore) is just another example of the litigation continuum in Los Osos. The Los Osos way of making legal pasta as it were. If you don't like the way something turns out, throw a lawsuit (or the threat of one) against the wall and see if it sticks.
Case in point is Conspiracy Lad. He'll just keep chuggin' away and chuggin' away at all that is illegal in his conspriatorial little mind. For example, this new little gem:
"BTW, I don't trust the vote because again, the County didn't follow the law to let the public oversee the counting. The public was denied access for 40 minutes while the staff worked on the ballots and the public didn't oversee a thing. They were placed far away in an audience setting and nobody could see anything."
I laughed so hard I cried at this one.
As always, time is money Los Osos. To hell with those who have no conscience in wasting both in this community.
While the TW lawsuit is viewed as purposeless by some, it leads one down a valid path. One could hope at the very least it might spur a going after of BWS - who in many people's opinion have done more to harm this community and take millions of our dollars on shady premises and give us more bad advice than even the Directors themselves. (Look at BWS's track record in other communities. They were sued by the governing body and LOST!) This case is based on what the Directors did to retain BWS.
Hey - throw Blesky into that mix, too. We could get back millions. We could use it. I don't think we as the public have any idea where we stand in this Bankruptcy thing. I doubt all the debt will just be "forgiven" without some long term payment plan in place for some of it. That repayment money will come from income to our water department that serves only a portion of the community. I wonder what we will have to give up to pay our debt? Or what will happen to our rates? Better BWS foot that bill for the damage they have done to Los Osos than we the rate-payers.
To Area:
I said, "BTW, I don't trust the vote because again, the County didn't follow the law to let the public oversee the counting. The public was denied access for 40 minutes while the staff worked on the ballots and the public didn't oversee a thing. They were placed far away in an audience setting and nobody could see anything."
You said: "I laughed so hard I cried at this one."
Please explain what was so funny. And what was so funny about the County moving up the 218 vote a few times stating it was because Judy would be so busy with other elections. And then Judy takes a vacation all the sudden, and puts clerk to the BOS in charge of the ballot counting and has Public Works entering all the ballot information into the computer. Wow.
I'm sure you think it will be funny when thousands of people are suddenly homeless. That's funny too, right CrapKiller?
How much does Paavo pay you? Or are you Paavo?
Inlet sez:"Until I hear from PZLDF that they will only fight the abuses of the RWQCB and not take on any other issues, I cannot donate to them in good faith?"
I suggest you call Shauna Sullivan and ask her yourself: Is the PZLDF case connected in any way with Mr. Morgan, for example. The issues involved in defending the 45's due process rights are all interconnected with the PZ, 83-13 and HOW the RWQCB has proceeded against these 45, so I suggest a phone call's in order for you.
Inlet also sez:"How is this "nothing" to help the homeowner get off the hook with the RWQCB? It would seem that the County actions are exactly what would appease the RWQCB and get a good project rolling as soon as possible."
Didn't work, did it? The 45 either have CDOs on their homes or CAO's. If indeed, the County now officially "has" this project, I'll wait to see what they and the RWQCB will do regarding the 45.
Sewertoons sez:"What is the County supposed to do - say they did an illegal 218? How would engaging the suit instigators NOT turn this into a suit? Seems to me they are saving us money by not responding."
Then
Howie sez:"It seems to me that the County's stated position of not responding to the issues raised in Morgan's letter until a lawsuit is filed is costing us taxpayers money by failing to engage the protesters before the protest unnecessarily turns into a suit. This non-approach only invites a suit when I must assume no one wants a suit. . . . " and . . . "Commitment begins with a legal vote. If the vote is challenged successfully you would have to concede that the handful of protesters were right in questioning the County's unilateral process and you were wrong to promote an illegal vote without knowing the law -- or apparently caring about it.
If the protesters are wrong, the claim will be tossed out of court and the sewer won't miss a beat."
And
Maria sez:"We cannot afford to be left with an assessment and nothing going in the ground within the next 3 years. The litigation and threats from within the community need to stop and I am confident we'll see a much more supportive response from the agencies that have the ability to bring this cost down. Our homes are on the line."
Which is why I hoped that Mr. Morgan and whoever can sit down and see if there is any merit to his complaint and if so resolve it WHILE they are moving forward. (any hope of a judge/mediator here? some 218 expert to weigh in on probabilities of winning/losing such a suit, head everything off at the pass?) There's a lot of double-tracking going on, according to Paavo's flow-chart he handed out some months ago. It's critical that rocks in the road get taken care of before they become mountians. Lawsuits are part of the process, hence double tracking, but the quicker they're dealt with the better.
On the other hand, IF Mr. Morgan does file a suit and does prevail and/or it's decided that the 218 has to be re-written and done over, I have no doubt the vote would be pretty much the same.
Realistic sez;"
One other question. If, as I contend, the County accepting the project is nothing more than a formality, what is the point of you telling people the County doesn't "have" the project?"
Realistic also sez:"The sup I talked to this morning confirmed that the passage of the 218 sealed the deal. I'm not sure where Ann got the idea that "no one" had the project, but we now know that is not the case.
12:42 PM, November 10, 2007"
First, my Mouse tale was posted on the 8th. to my knowledge, the County didn't have the project then. (I'll email Paavo to get confirmation that they did indeed "formally" take the project at, maybe, the certification hearing?)
Next, "Formalities" are the ONLY game in town, the only game that counts. There is no such thing as "foregone conclusions," not in Sewerville. If it isn't "formal," "official," agendized, voted on, stamped, banged, sealed, time-dated & etc, it doesn't exist. Yet another reason for double tracking: Foregone conclusions can chug ahead while the paperowrk catches up, BUT it's always risky that there could be a slip between cup and lip. In this case, that would be sooooo not good.
Ron sez:"Before the CSD was formed, Los Osos was tight. There was a kind of "Los Osos vs. the County" mentality, and nearly everyone in Los Osos was on the same team, as evident by the 87-percent "Yes" vote to form the LOCSD in 1998."
Actually, the 87% Yes was directly tied to the $35 a month Ponds of Avalon proposed sewer project. CSD's had been tried and failed before. Community saw no need to add "another added layer of government," and voted them down, even while, as you say, united against& grumbling about the county. However, pit a $100 a month County Sewer Plan against a Vote For A CSD And We'll Give You a $35 a Month Sewer, and it was a landslide 78%. As you pointed out in a much later Bay News Viewpoint, (and later blog items)the documents show the original CSD knew before the election their $35 a Month Ponds of Avalon were in deep doo-doo. The community didn't know that, but . . .
Sewertoons sez:"I'd call "spin" your assertion that 30% didn't vote because they were afraid. You really have NO idea what that percentage is - no one does, it hasn't been polled."
Actually, 30% not voting at all is an improvement. During the recall, about 40% didn't vote. In the original start-up-design assessment, about 40% didn't vote. So, community involvement vis a vis voting is . . . improving, methinks. But you're right: nobody knows WHY this 30% or the other 40% didn't bother to vote.
Sewertoons sez:""Spreading fear and panic in the streets is best left to the uninformed and immature." Then sez, "The message this suit sends to possible lenders AND grant givers is NOT a good one, and it surely does not represent the will of anyone who voted YES. My hope that if it goes forward, it will be viewed as a minority sour grapes, and therefor inconsequential."
If you're refering to Mr. Morgan's protest letter, it isn't a suit. It was a protest letter. Whether or not it becomes a suit remains to be seen, so no need to sow fear and panic in the streets.
Ron wrote "Before the CSD was formed, Los Osos was tight. There was a kind of 'Los Osos vs. the County' mentality, and nearly everyone in Los Osos was on the same team, as evident by the 87-percent 'Yes' vote to form the LOCSD in 1998."
Then Ann replied "
Actually, the 87% Yes was directly tied to the $35 a month Ponds of Avalon proposed sewer project. CSD's had been tried and failed before. Community saw no need to add 'another added layer of government,' and voted them down, even while, as you say, united against& grumbling about the county. However, pit a $100 a month County Sewer Plan against a Vote For A CSD And We'll Give You a $35 a Month Sewer, and it was a landslide 78%. As you pointed out in a much later Bay News Viewpoint, (and later blog items)the documents show the original CSD knew before the election their $35 a Month Ponds of Avalon were in deep doo-doo. The community didn't know that, but . . ."
But ... Ann stopped short. The topic was the disintegration of our community fabric and Ann neglected to mention that the only reason the recall passed was the promise to get a sewer online for only $100/month. If you offer people the choice of $200/month or $100/month for the next 20 years (about $16k present value), what do you think they will choose. Of course, the recall candidates and their supporters should have known their plan had no chance of working. Every single cost analysis done with reasonable inputs showed that even with the most optimistic outcome, they could not follow through on that promise.
So, how is it that lying to the public just to win an election rip a town apart, but only if the year is 1998 and not 2005? I'm still waiting for either Ron or Ann to address this central issue for our town. Until either does, it would seem that both have shown themselves to be essentially as relevant as the Whigs or the Bull Moose or the Know Nothings. If we continually deny our mistakes as such, we are living a community lie. I believe that the bulk of our community is reacting pretty strongly to Julie's statements because they see her as pushing for continued strife.
Ann:
I think you are wrong about the 30% that didn't vote (saying that is low compared to other elections) -- in recall elections, etc. people may not vote. But when it has to do with their pocketbook and their homes, they vote.
People I've talked to and that my friends have talked to, did not vote because they were scared of the fines and the RWQCB looking at their votes for punishment. "Vote yes or we'll shoot you in the head.." that will do it. That's what the RWQCB wanted. Oh, and don't they want Tri-W too?
Didn't Marshall say at the last BOS they want to change Tri-W's name? Won't that be something if the Advisory "survey" shows a different name than Tri-W. That might fool the 50% of the town that is asleep.
Now, let's see. We've got almost $300 a month and then add on the cost of the hook-up -- that's another $100-$200 -- now were up to $400 or more -- now add on the decommissioning of the septic tanks -- are we up to $500 a month?
Gee, Los Osos, 80% voted for that? How stupid is that? And more layers of assessments. More fees and charges? Blank check?
There will be nobody left in Los Osos (only people outside the PZ who don't pay a dime for their "clean water" and "clean bay".)
P.S. Ann, you should google Timothy Morgan and see how his firm works with Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and recently won a half billion dollar case on Measure K in Santa Clara. I would think that the county would talk to them. But apparently the County's counsel thinks they know more than Morgan & Howard Jarvis' people. OR just plain rely on the people not being able to take them to court. Stay tuned! Could be another wild ride.
CB has to be the epitome of paranoia...
If the big debate/stall/obstruction/delay led by the less than 20% No Voters or the MTS or the NO Sewers or the it must be Illegal 218 or the any other fringe kooks were to continue, he would soon arrive at a monthly sewer cost of $1,000,000+ for each person living in Los Osos....
but the bottom line is a sewer will be put into Los Osos this time, no matter what the cost...!!!!
Mike, I mean CrapKiller,
you say, "No matter what the cost" and address nothing of what I wrote.
Yes, we could very well look up upwards of $1,000. -- it's possible with you people in charge.
The vote was a fix and Pandora comes out of the woodwork the day of the opening of the ballots.
Yup... now we're approaching $1,000 per month...
Neither I nor any of my "people" are "in charge"... and Thank GOD that you or your "people" are in charge... wasn't it something like 80% of the community recently voted to turn the project over to the County...???
If you really believe the vote was a "fix", and that's a mighty serious allocation, you might hire, with money out of your pocket, some lawyer, maybe a Tom Morgan.... hmmmmm, maybe with legal fees, we will exceed the $1,000 figure... maybe you and your people can run it up to somewhere around the cost of the National Defense Budget...
...but while you're playing with the citizens of Los Osos budgets, you might want to consider some other alternatives to your own... If you can't see youself making $1,000/month sewer bills, you might consider another local or lifestyle..... At least 80% of the property ownership of Los Osos has soundly said NO to continueing local control with no funding, no plan, no authority, only ineffectual, uncontrolled spending on lawyers instead of a realistic waste water treatment project....
The sewer WILL be build.....!!!!!
Okay,
I've got the logic now.
We should oppose the project (whether the County or the LOCSD or the County is in charge) because it costs too much. While opposing the project, I'll stall things a bit ... maybe 6 months. If, during that time frame, the project cost goes up, I'll use that as proof that I'm right even though it would be me who should be blamed for the increased costs.
Anyone foolish enough to fall for this argument three or four times should be forced to pay the costs for the rest of us when the project goes up yet again.
This is all to say, if the Morgan lawsuit (which, I believe, he hasn't signed onto just yet) delays the County, I would hope that those who signed onto Morgan's lawsuit would be willing to pay the entire cost of the increase if the suit is found to be without merit.
I know that sounds harsh ... but if it wasn't for the actions of those who will oppose to the death anything that they don't think is the best solution .... or if their favorite solution costs more than $100/month ... we would have a sewer online already and our costs would be fixed. It is time for those who have perpetuated the delay to pay for the costs of their silly choices.
CrapKiller,
Only YOU spell like you! How about the Grand Jury -- will that break everyone too?
And to SharkInlet:
Why don't you get a life and stop promoting Tri-W on a daily basis?
Stop blaming everyone but Pandora.
It was Pandora who caused the sewer bill to skyrocket when she lead the community away from the county with lies.
Silly choices? No, you're silly Shark to build to most expensive wastewater project, have a select group pay for everything, and the darn thing won't clean up a thing.
You're silly for wanting to force thousands of people out of their homes for a hoax!
Get real, why don't ya?
Conspiracy Boy ...
Perhaps you ought to change your moniker to "Confused Boy" because if you think I'm promoting TriW you are mistaken. I am promoting whatever solution happens to be the quickest and cheapest. (Now, if you believe that TriW really is the quickest and cheapest, I guess you can reasonably view me as promoting TriW.) I will argue against any poorly thought out attempt at blocking any possible project which is possibly cost-effective.
I'm not blaming everyone but Pandora. Ron seems to have the blame only Pandora market locked down so I'm following up with the mistakes made by CCLO and LOTTF since 2004. Essentially, even if Pandora should be blamed for everything that went wrong before 2004, your attempt to say that Julie, Lisa and the recall board made no mistakes at all is laughable. Nope, if someone is going to be fair when evaluating Los Osos self-governance history, the Solutions Group can be blamed for quite a bit, but the massive mistakes are all at the feet of those who supported the recall.
As for your contention that I want to build the most expensive project ... I challenge you to show how the actions of the recall board have lowered our costs. The only reason I supported TriW before the recall is because any change at that late stage would be so costly that even a "cheaper" out of town plant would end up costing more. It would seem that history has shown me to be correct on that matter.
Your second contention that I would have a select group pay for everything, again, you are mistaken. I think that those inside the PZ ... and I am one ... are the folks who ought to pay the costs of stopping their pollution. What I am wondering here, CB, is this ... because those inside the PZ have the legal responsibility to pay for the construction of a sewer, why do you feel the need to ask others to pay. When they've not been determined to be responsible for past pollution it would seem that your quest to make the rich folks pay seems entirely unjustified. Secondly, as I've pointed out here in the past, including the areas outside the PZ in a Community system won't lower the costs for those of us inside the PZ at all. Your hope that we can soak the rich and save some cash is unfounded.
That being said ... what the hell is your point? It seems that you're all argument but no substance. Lots of volume but no rhyme or reason.
As I've said in the past, if you can show me that I'll likely save money with one system or technology or location, I'll support it. CB, show me how I can save money in the long run and I'll support your position.
SharkInlet:
Shut up! This CSD Board was set up by Pandora and Roger Briggs since the day of the recall and you know it. Roger promised Pandora a $25 million debt before they got seated. You want me to scan and paste some of these email exchanges between the two??
I don't believe you are in the PZ to begin with, SharkInlet, or you would have read the paperwork that came with the ballot and wouldn't have said some of the stupid things you've said. AND you wouldn't promote the PZ as opposed to general benefits for everyone -- and not from the water companies for God's sake.
If you aren't promoting Tri-W -- which you are. Then why is it only you and CrapKiller blogging every single day? It's you -- it's Crapkiller and Lynette (I guess you three have enough dough that you don't have to work for a living!)
You've destroyed Ann's site so nobody else will write anymore.
P.S. I make a whole lot more sense than you do. The 218 says nothing about pollution, it's about who benefits. Show me where in the 218 law it says anything about pollution. Besides, below Cabrillo tested the highest for nitrates, remember you all wanted that Wallace report? Oh, guess you forgot about that. And the other reports? And Gordon's and Stan's statements? Forgot all that too?
When the book is written, Pandora will be the evil one. She will have to hide when people are forced out of their homes. She may think she's so smart now, but she'll have to live with what she's done to SO MANY people (nice people, old people, disabled people) -- wouldn't wanna be her...
Grand Jury -- too expensive for you SharkInlet?
...maybe CrapKiller is Richard LeGos, he does spell like Crap.
Conspiracy Boy,
It seems as if your recent reply is entirely off topic from the issues I raised earlier.
As such, and because we've discussed most all of these issues before, I'll just duck out of this conversation by noting that you're avoiding one key topic entirely in your desire to blame Pandora and the Solutions Group ... nearly everything that has gone bad in the last two years has done so on the watch of the current LOCSD board. No matter how much you tell us that it is Pandora's fault and that she controls the RWQCB, SWRCB and County with her amazing Vulcan mind-control, those on the LOCSD board and given the authority to make decisions have made some really stupid ones that haven't resulted in a cheaper system as they promised.
Or are you going to tell us now that we're saving money as a result of the post-recall LOCSD board decisions?
CB is well on his way to self destruction... certainly has no rational logic toward a realistic solution to the waste water/clean water needs of the community... apparently cost is of concern to CB...
Shark and Richard have always been on top of the financial picture and have left the emotional dumping to the CB's....
BTW CB, you have been told before that I am not CrapKiller... you seem to set in stone every thought that you somehow dream up... guess that makes you a "Dreamer"..... but keep on ranting, it might postpone that stroke you seem to be working on having....
Mike:
You're a fraud. The water issue is fraud. It's all about having the PZ to pay for the infrastructure so the developers can build. The BOS is PRO-developement.
If you say that I'm wrong or off base -- I say, "Stupid is, as stupid does."
Have a happy life...
Shark,
Repeating the myth about the failed 218 will not turn fiction (science fiction, in your case) into fact.
You write: "The pre-recall LOCSD board didn't bother with a 218 vote for the SRF because it was not legally required. They intended to charge a monthly service fee which was going to repay the loan. The SWRCB and LOCSD attorneys both agree that this was a reasonable way to repay the loan. Sure, the state had a bit more exposure than than (in retrospect) was advisable, but it was legal. To say that a 218 vote was required, as you did, is incorrect."
You are more than incorrect. Richard also takes this defensive position. Fact: You cannot charge a monthly service fee for a sewer that doesn't yet exist. You cannot base, say, a $93 million SRF loan on "fee and charges" before a sewer is built that actually performs the service for which customers then can be billed.
They are doing a 218 for fees and charges in Morro Bay.
Nope, the 218 vote was clearly legally required. The old board tripped the 218 wire. So did the SWRCB attorneys. They all THOUGHT they would get away with it -- and they almost did. Moral of the sad saga: Do it right or run the risk. There are no shortcuts. Greed costs. Everyone pays. The law is not your public leaning post, it is all that keeps us from becoming the animals that we sometime behave like.
Regarding the question of the "normal 218" vs. the County's, your rephrasing of ballot measure is as confusing and inaccurate as the original ballot measure. It illustrates why 25%-30% of voters were too frozen to vote at all and many "no's" voted "yes" -- out of some shade of fear of destruction from one state agency or another, but hardly out of hope or trust for the county! Those who see this vote as a mandate to march into Tri-W choose to blind themselves to the dynamics that drove the vote.
You summarized the ballot measure for the homeowner: "Would you be willing to pay $25,000 over time via property tax assessments for a sewer project?"
It NEVER was "$25,000 over time" per homeowner. It is actually almost $60,000 with interest over time. Some say more. I personally believe it will be more. The numbers have been purposefully played down to make nice PR -- but next time please get your numbers straight before you continue to spread misinformation about the real costs that are going to hit us. That's what's wrong with lobbyists. They spin out of control sometimes and need constant correction to keep them in any useful orbit.
Not all sewer are expensive, just the one you promote because of your conflicts of interest with certain developers.
Sewer don't have to be expense. I don't see "must be expensive" stated anywhere in any law, state or federal. Show me who requires "expensive" except you, your partners for development, the County? You talk like there's only one way to sewer Los Osos, when more open and objective minds know otherwise.
Again, you can't use "delays raise costs" as your mantra when your belief system is one geared toward large public works projects vulnerable to rising costs. This is self-fulling prophecy in action, more the same narrow, limited thinking that led the community down the path to Tri-W in the first place, into the bad loan, and all the delays as a result, including the bankruptcy -- to the point we are now.
Spin it your way. Have fun.
Those who voted "yes" for the county to handle the project but want a better, saner project than the one the County is pushing must seize this opportunity to rally behind a green and affordable project, not the most expensive project the County can build with Los Osos' limited cash.
P.S. I voted for the recall because the old board was a sick joke and I wanted to stop Tri-W. I did not know the new board would turn into the old board. That was a bit of a surprise indeed.
Howie
Howie,
Perhaps you should re-read the SRF loan contract. It clearly says that the LOCSD was to repay the SWRCB after the sewer came online and they were going to use monthly sewer charges as a revenue stream.
I appreciate that you don't think this was legal, but unless you are going to explain why you think this arrangement illegal, most of us would trust the LOCSD, their attorney, the SWRCB and their attorneys over some guy named "Howie" who posts anonymously here. This doesn't mean you aren't right, just that you've really given us any reason for thinking you are right. (I believe that one of the LOTA lawsuits was over exactly this issue, but that the case hasn't yet been heard in a court, so we can't look there for insight.)
On the question of the amount of the loan, it is $25k. Yes, with interest, over time, the payments add up to a bit more. This is like if you borrow $20k for a new car. The monthly payments, over the life of the loan, will be more than $20k. In this case, $960 twice a year for 20 years is $38k. $60k would be $250/month for 20 years. Perhaps those who have said $60k were adding in an assumed $90/month for sewer charges over and above the $160/month assessment. Sloppy and misleading ... unless there is some reason for thinking the County cost estimates for the various sewer possibilities are far too low to be realistic.
As for your suggesting that I have some sort of association with developers ... that you have no idea who I am yet are willing to say such a thing (incorrectly, I might add) ... sort of proves that you're willing to make stuff up just to win an argument. Sad, really.
I can't show you any law that proves sewers are expensive, but I would challenge you to provide evidence from these "more open and objective minds" who "know otherwise." Show us what the costs will be according to those who know best.
You have a really good point when you say that delays don't have to end up costing us more because, after all, if we get a cheaper system as the result of the delay, we might save. As an example, let's compare two possibly systems, one which costs $150M and we can start construction today and the other of which costs "only $100M" but it will take five years before construction starts and it will cost us an extra $15M in design costs. Those two systems have the same monthly payment once all the costs are factored in. Is one really "cheaper" than the other? Not really. But the "cheaper" one would allow for an additional four years of septage to escape our septic systems at about a million gallons per day.
There was a time ... way back in 2000 or so ... when the LOCSD could have chosen a site other than TriW and we could have saved money. However, at that time, it is unclear that there was a compelling argument that another site would have been less expensive.
I would love to have a green and affordable plan. The problem really seems to be that there will never be an affordable plan, only unafforable, horribly unaffordable and gawd awfully unaffordable. I would prefer the least expensive in the long run. To the extent that such a plant could be energy efficient and a great use of newer technologies, wonderful ... I just don't want the desire to do something "new" and "green" to drive costs up. I suspect that most of Los Osos would agree.
Conspiracy Boy sez:"You've destroyed Ann's site so nobody else will write anymore."
Anybody's free to log on and write about lots of stuff, other than the sewer. I've posted non-sewer stuff. Even posted an entry about the wonderful Red Barn series. That got ZERO responses. ZIP! Tremendous community asset, tremendous program, and ZIP response.
Here's what's so fascinating to me. Certain folks spend ENDLESS time on this blogsite chewing on my ankle, chewing on Ron's ankle, chewing on each other's ankles, all the while declaring that Ron and I and each other are a bunch stupid lying, doo-doos and wastes of time, then next day, they're baaaaaack spending ENDLESS time chewing on more ankles.
And then, like I said, when I post an entry about something really great, like the Red Barn Series, the responses are . . . ZIP. ZERO.
Does somebody need to get a life here? There really are lots of other things going on. Maybe certain folks, like the County, need to "double track?" You're all free to ignore Sewerish stuff and start another comment thread about something you're interested in. Might be a nice change.
Hi Ann,
Hmmmm...If your tired of folks'chewing on your ankles', maybe you should only blog about issues you understand and not the sewer. Might be a nice change.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Ann,
I gather that you are writing about me when say that I spend too much time mulling over these issues here.
I dare say that the amount of time I spend reading and commenting here is about the same amount of time you spend in total, across the multiple BOS/RWQCB/PZLDF/etc. meetings that you seem to go to and tell us that we all need to go to or we cannot be truly informed.
Even so, Richard has a good point. Perhaps if you took the opportunity to put thought the questions the ankle-biters raise you would find that the criticism dies down in frequency and volume. Ignoring a well-posed question doesn't make people think that you are all that open to the point of view of another.
Perhaps you dislike the approach I've taken here, but let me share my MO. I like to treat folks with respect unless they prove they don't deserve it. I like to try to respond to all questions if possible because I am assuming they all come from real people with real points of view. If I can't respond to all questions in one way or another, I apologize, but it is not because I don't value the questioner. I also expect that those who are interested in making public comments (like you and Ron and Richard and some of the nameless folks here) are willing to have a discussion about the merits of those comments ... the sources, the logic and the implications. I am not saying that those who don't take as much time aren't doing their job, but I categorically reject the implication that spending time discussing this extremely important issue is pointless. In fact, aren't you the one who continually tells to pay attention and to watch out? How can we watch out if we're not actively engaged in the discussion?
As I used to hear a lot ... "question authority!" Around here Ron and Ann act like authorities and I would expect them to be open to folks questioning them.
I am saddened, however, that Ron in particular just ignores any questions that don't allow him to point to one of his earlier articles that prove (in his mind) that he is the smartest kid on the block.
I would hope that Conspiracy Boy and Howie get back to us with an explanation of the logic and facts behind their earlier claims (like that the assessment is for $60k and that the monthly payments will be about $500).
Similarly, I would hope that Ann would finally address the question of why she's taken a hard line on criticizing the pre-recall LOCSD directors for their past campaign promises and but she's not criticized the post-recall LOCSD directors in the same way.
If it was wrong in 1998 to do a bait-n-switch by promising a "better, faster, cheaper" system that would cut our costs by about half when those campaigning on that promise should have known it wouldn't fly, why wasn't it wrong in 2005 to do exactly the same thing?
I have a question of either Richard or someone in the know:
What mechanism with the old SRF loan allowed for paying the cost of TriW in a lump sum?
For instance, with an assessment I have the ability, if I so choose, of paying up front and avoiding the interest.
With the old SRF loan being payed for with fees,was this option available?
and were the fees tax deductible?
I asked Paavo if the assessment was going to be deductible and he indicated that although he couldn't give tax advice ( like who the heck can, even the IRS wont stand behind their own advice) He assumed that everyone would file for that deduction.
Thanks in advance.
Hi Mike,
The SRF loan allowed the property owner to pay their 'share' of the loan either in a lump sum (at any time during the 20 year life of the loan) in a series of large payments, or monthly for 20 years.
The property owner would not have begun paying down the SRF loan until 1 year after the completed project was operational...which means that if Tri-W had been built, the scheduled official "completion" date would have been January 1, 2008.....meaning that folks would not have been paying down the SRF loan until January 1, 2009.
Many folks planned to pay the SRF loan in a lump sum using a home equity loan (which is tax deductible), as the SRF loan was not tax deductable.
I, like Paavo, do not know if the current County assessment is tax deductible.
Regards, Richard LeGros
SharkInlet:
Since you asked: "I would hope that Conspiracy Boy and Howie get back to us with an explanation of the logic and facts behind their earlier claims (like that the assessment is for $60k and that the monthly payments will be about $500)."
Don't know about Howie, but I would say that the $25,000. with the interest over 30 years would add up to over $60,000.
As far as the $500 per month:
You've got the sewer at about $275.
You've got the hook-up $100-$200.
Decommission of septic $50-$75.
These figures are based on getting a loan for the hook-up and the decommissioning of the tanks.
I would say that the $40 service fee would be included in the $275.
So:
$275.
$150.
$ 75.
--------
$500. Total
The total is based on getting a loan to pay for hook-up and decommissioning septic.
And that's very likely just the beginning.
What do ya say Richard?
CB,
Glad you're back in fine form!
I'm still hopeful that we'll get a SRF low interest loan. At 7% over 30 years the total is about $60k but at 3% over 20 years it's about $33k. Paavo has indicated they expect they'll get some SRF money, but we cannot count on it, so we could view the $60k as a "what if everything went wrong" and the $33k as a "what if everything went right" number financing-wise.
Working off your costs for hook-up and decommissioning and assuming 7% over 30 years, you are asking us to believe that the decommissioning will run $7-10k and that the hook-up costs will be an additional $13-27k ... essentially an extra $20-37k per home. Where do you get these figures ... they certainly seem a hell of a lot higher than anything Ripley told us.
On the $275/month ... once you net out the $40 service fee, that leaves you with $235/month left. What is this for? The $160/month assessment and what else?
Even so ... let's accept your figures at face value for the moment. Was stopping TriW which was to only run $205/month a good idea?
For Richard from the IRS website, (for what it's worth)
Deductible real estate taxes are generally any state, local, or foreign taxes on real property. They must be charged uniformly against all property in the jurisdiction and must be based on the assessed value. Many states and counties also impose local benefit taxes for improvements to property, such as assessments for streets, sidewalks, and sewer lines. These taxes cannot be deducted. However, you can increase the cost basis of your property by the amount of the assessment. Refer to Publication 551, Basis of Assets, for more information. Local benefits taxes are deductible if they are for maintenance or repair, or interest charges related to those benefits.
There appears to be some benefit tax-wise with an assessment in the cost basis, ie. if you sell.
(at least thats how I parse it)
CB,
The $275/month payment(including OM&R, 2001 bond payment, County 218 bond payment) is accurate.
Estimated costs to decomission the septic tanks and connect to the sewer would run about $20,000,000 for all 5000 property owners. If all property owners borrowed money to pay for these costs at 6% on a 30 year loan, the monthly cost would be $25/month/property owner.
Assuming a bankruptcy debt of $40,000,000, and assuming that the creditors will allow the 5000 property owner to pay off this debt @ 6% on a 5 year loan, the monthly cost would be $210/month.
So monthly costs for the first 5 years (2010 to 2015)would be $275 + $25 + $210 = $510/month.
After year five (2015 to 2040), the monthly payment would be $300/month.
After 30 years (2040 to ?) the monthly cost would be OM&R costs of $45/month (in 2010 dollars.)
Regards, Richard LeGros
CB,
Shark inlet asks an excelent question. Compared to the monthly costs I just outlined, was stopping Tri-W with a cost to the property owner of $205/month a good idea?
Regards, Richard LeGros
Richard wrote (and it's becoming very clear to me that Richard will never understand what he did... or refuses to acknowledge it):
"Compared to the monthly costs I just outlined, was stopping Tri-W with a cost to the property owner of $205/month a good idea?"
Yes, because it was never going to work.
I'm going to try and make this as clear as possible -- the early CSD's second project -- the reactor project -- at Tri-W was forced in at that location to cover up the fact that their first project -- you remember, the "better, cheaper, faster" ponding project that got all those Solution Groupers elected and the CSD formed in the first place in 1998 -- had failed by late 2000.
I repeat -- They forced their second project in at Tri-W to cover up the fact that their first project failed. And, in the great halls of SewerWatch, that's fraud... very, very, very expensive fraud.
You have seen this, right? (I'll give a you a hint of what that is -- it's the "cons" of the Tri-W site as found in the county's Pro/Con Report.)
Richard, I don't know if you've ever read the Pro/Con Report, or the Fine Screening Report, or the Ripley Peer Review, or the Ripley Report, or SewerWatch, but I've got a little nugget of information for you.. the Tri-W project was a colossal embarrassment, as that graphic I linked to above clearly shows, and THAT is the #1, numero uno reason why the county will never pursue it... BECAUSE it's a colossal embarrassment... that was never, in a million years, going to work, and smart county officials, like Noel King and Paavo Ogren aren't about to put THEIR professional reputations on the line for an embarrassing public works project that people like you, Richard, and Nash-Karner developed... can't say I blame 'em.
And stopping that fraudulent embarrassment was not only the best thing that EVER happened to Los Osos, but as a Californian, I say, "Thank you!," to all five CSD members that had the amazing wisdom to pull the plug on Tri-W, and stop the hemorrhaging of state funds due to that illegal embarrassment.
Ann wrote:
"Here's what's so fascinating to me. Certain folks spend ENDLESS time on this blogsite chewing on my ankle, chewing on Ron's ankle..."
You know what's is so fascinating to me, Ann? It's that they chew on our ankles at all.
I like to think that we were pretty darn instrumental in stopping that over-the-top unnecessarily expensive embarrassment that was never going to work, which, in turn, means, we were also pretty darn instrumental in saving those same people that chew on our ankles a heck of a lot of money AND they will have a MUCH better treatment facility downwind and out of town, AND Los Osos won't be the laughing stock of the entire civil engineering world, yet they still chew on our ankles. Why? I swear to god, it doesn't make a bit of sense, unless of course, the anonymous people doing the chewing are former Solution Groupers, and then the only way the chewing makes any sense at all is because they are simply bitter... even though we helped save them -- people like Nash-Karner and Hensley -- a bundle.
I've said this before, the people doing the chewing, should be buying us beer, instead.
Richard,
This is the first time I have written into this blog but I am amazed at your blase attitude of $500 month. You blame the stopping of the Tri-W site for this cost. What I remember most about the time period in the months before the recall was the amazingly quick construction.
I have never seen so much work done so quickly in an effort to create a "We can't turn back now" situation. All the while fully knowing that you were going to be recalled.
How much money did that early contruction cost Los Osos? I don't blame the sewer issues on you but I do blame that crazy rush to clear the land, did up the streets (in my hood they did) and start something that a prudent public servant would have held off on. Not you. You crammed it down LO's throats. How much Richard, how much did that cost?
fotogogo (great handle!)
You almost got it right, the start of construction date was already set.
What wasn't set was the date of the recall election, that date was set by the LOCSD board, purposefully after the start of construction date.
(IMHO) a terrible law, needs changing.
Now do you see the power of political decisions?
An interesting ankle bite is the thought that in retrospect Ron should be buying Richard the beer,
If Richard and the LOCSD board had held the recall vote at the earliest date rather than the latest (after construction started) It is quite possible that they would not have been recalled, thereby insuring the completion of the TriW project.
20-20 hindsight anklebiting ... what fun!
Ron,
So?
The CSD had the right to select any site they deemed prudent. Not only were no laws broken, the process was entirely legal, publicly vented in many venues and within the responsibilites of the elected CSD board members. occured.
As for a cover-up, nothing of the sort happened. The rejection of the Oswald engineering / ponding plan on the land around the Library was throughly vented at many public meetings in early 2000. It was over two years before the site location became an issue.
What you do not understand that for years you have focused on CSD events that are / were entirely legal. You continue to press that past CSD board members be held for some type of legal prosecution despite the fact that no illegalites happened.
In esssence, your story is boring as it is a tome to 'dog bites man' sensibilities.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Richard,
How do you break down that $275/month payment for the County 218 bond, O&M and the rest? Also, while including the cost of the bankruptcy may be a very real cost we all have to face, it shouldn't be included in the same column as the other costs. After all, the decision to support the County project or not has nothing to do with whether we'll still owe that $40M or not.
Second ... and this is a question for anyone ... wouldn't it be fair to say that the bulk of these costs won't change dramatically whether we go with the "expensive" TriW or the "cheap" Giacomazzi site? The real key here to a cheaper project is the interest rate on a bond or loan, federal dollars and the timeframe before construction starts.
Here's the part I don't get - almost everyone voted to have a CSD - to counter the County's sewer project by the middle school. The initial idea was to have ponds in the middle of town. Everyone was fine with that. Now ponds - if properly maintained wouldn't stink - but IF NOT properly maintained, well ---- you KNOW what COULD happen. So due to nitrate removal issues, the project is changed to one STILL in the middle of town, but built in such a way that odors are trapped inside. Why is this so horrible???
If you want to argue cost - OK, fine - then stick to cost. But until one of you has stood next to a pond that was drained for sludge removal - if you want to talk STINK - well, let me assure you - for some DAYS they REALLY STINK horribly until the remaining liquids dry out.
I think there were issues - REAL ESTATE issues that made stuff up to put the kabosh on Tri-W. I'd much rather see a hidden sewer plant with a park than retail, housing, motel and lots of parking places on that spot. But I'm sure that there are developers that feel otherwise.
The "cheapness" of the Giacomazzi site will be determined by litigation and time, too.
Hi fotogogo,
Welcome to the blog.
As to your question I have answered it many times before. But I'll do so again.
Just for the record, I did not expect to be recalled.
I expected to win and retain my seat on the CSD board.
Any thoughts (such as Mike Green's listed above) that if I had done 'this or that' would have changed the outcome of the recall is speculation. Mike may be correct, but we will never know. Reality is what it is.
The Tri-W project offically began in 2001 with the approval of the FEIR; consumated with passage of the 2002 assessment bond (85% weighted vote majority); and over $20,000,000 of public money spent between 2002 and 2005 in project engineering and development, publicly venting the project, litigating 15 lawsuits, and eventually permited by the CCC. Additionally, the SWRCB conditioned their SRF loan that construction commence by September 20, 2005 (with no realistic possibility that the SWRCB would grant a 90 extention). The SWRCB was very clear on this issue; and directly told board members Schicker and Tacker the above SWRCB policy in a letter to the CSD dated early September, 2005.
There was no 'rush' to construction. The CSD was at the end of a 4 year-long $20,000,000 process. Multi-million dollar contracts with the State and Contractors were signed by June, 2005. Postponement of these contractual obligations would have needlessly added millions of dollars to the cost of the project.
With the above information, added with the need to bring the community into compliance with clean water laws, the serious possibility of enforcement actions and fines by the RWQCB against the CSD if the process failed, legal contracts to fulfill, and the threatened loss of $139,500,000 in State funding if the project was postponed or stopped; it was very clear to me that the prudent decison was that the WWTP commence when it did.
When the new CSD took office after the recall, the financial condition of the district was good; and the district had a A credit rating. The new board inherited an excellent CSD staff, had over $6,000,000 in the bank; with a WWTP under construction funded with a State SRF loan; and the expectation that the WWTP (upon completion) would provide a steady revenue stream to the CSD to pay it's obligations. In short, the CSD was in fine shape upon my leaving office. As to the current state of the CSD, all the CSD's decisions since the recall have been entirely out of my hands. If you have questions or criticisms about the current CSD board's policy-making and fiscal track record you need talk to them.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Ron continues to claim that TriW was "never going to work".
However, his contention is that there is some law which would prevent the CCC from approving a CDP. The problem is that the CCC did approve that permit.
Is he now telling us that had TriW moved forward, the CCC would have yanked the CDP even though the project had been approve, no one raised an complaints about the issue Ron contends is central and construction had already started? If so, he should trot out an example of the CCC or some similar organization pulling such a permit long after the approval ... else he seems like he's just inventing stuff when he says that TriW was "never going to work".
The total cost now has approximately doubled because TriW was stopped. The way I figure it is this ... Ron didn't save anyone any money ... but he and those who advocated for stopping TriW should buy a beer or two every month for those of us who voted against the recall, just as a way to apologize for the doubling of our costs.
You would think that an investigative journalist would want to tackle all sides of an issue before writing ... too bad that Ron never covered the cost of stopping TriW. Had he done so, he might not have advocated so strongly for the destruction of the social fabric of Los Osos.
An extra $5/month from Ron won't noticeably reduce my sewer bills that are super high ... in large part because of his actions ... but the regular apology for misleading our town would be greatly appreciated.
Richard,
I believe the issue that Mike Green is referring to isn't so much the date the LOCSD set for the start of construction, but rather the date of the recall election. If I remember, the LOCSD board could have set that date sooner.
Sewertoons, you are right on target about the ponds smelling... even the wonderful San Luis Treatment Plant stinks... it's the nature of ponds... so all you "out of town" folks wanting an inexpensive pond system, just take a drive over to the Harris Beef feed lot along Highway 5 and enjoy what a Los Osos/Giacomazzi Pond system will smell like... and hey, it's "out of town"... not in Fresno or Stockton, but it is "out of town".....
I'm just glad the County has the project and not this crazy CSD...
Hi Sharkinlet,
I consider the actual monthly cost to the property owner with realizing a WWTP for Los Osos consists of
(CURRENT COUNTY COSTS) +
(PAST CSD PROJECT EXPENDITURES) + (COST TO PZ PROPERTY OWNERS TO PAY
THEIR SHARE OF THE DEBT).
But I do concur that the County's costs are distinct from the LOCSDcosts/debt. That being said,
CURRENT COUNTY COSTS:
County PROJECT: = $200/month +
PZ PROP OWNER COSTS = $ 25/month
OM&R: = $ 50/month
=($275/month)
LOCSD PROJECT DEBT:
2002 Bond debt: =($ 20/month)
LOCSD COST OF BANKRUPTCY:
Estimate paydown @ 6% over 5 years (collected through project administratin fees
=($210/month)
Hope this helps.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Hi All,
The recall election date set was agreed upon by the full CSD board. The last possible date was NOT selected. As I wrote before, speculating 'what ifs' does not change the reality of what occured; and we will never know if setting earlier recall election date would have changed anything. The same holds true as to the timing of the WWTP site grading, tree removal or street work.
I am not saying that these 'what ifs' are wrong.....just that we will never know.
For example, here are a few 'what ifs' that can be argued (but so what):
'The recall would not have occured if Gray Davis had not been recalled.', or
'The recall would not have occured if Julie Tacker had not been elected', etc.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Richard,
A few additional questions about your $275/month ...
The County has indicated that they intend to assess us $160/month to pay off the bond, not $200. Are you assuming inflation because of additional delay?
If the County does finance the outstanding SWRCB debt ... it may allow us to get another SRF loan. Presumably this would lower our interest rate on our bond. How much can be financed and what interest rate and term we'll get, we don't know, but the best case scenario would be to finance the entire thing at 2.5% over 20 years, by about $35 and also shortening the term by 10 years.
I believe you may have also neglected to include increased water rates to make up for the cost the water companies will bear.
However you slice things (my optimistic take on things or Richard's more pessimistic version), the only real way of saving money here is on the County's $125M project. If the County is delayed any more (by a lawsuit, for example) we'll be in a bad place. As we've discussed before, spending another 2 years and $15M extra designing a "cheaper" system is a great way of making sure that the system isn't any cheaper at all and that pollution continues.
In keeping with the "what if" game ...
A "what if" that we most certainly know is this ... the CSD would never have been formed nor the recall occurred had the citizens of Los Osos not opposed the development of a sewer back in the 1970s and 1980s.
Richard speculated:
" and we will never know if setting earlier recall election date would have changed anything"
Sorry, there would have been huge differences no matter what the outcome of that election.
Recall fails-- TriW built BIG DIFFERENCE
Recall succeeds-- TriW stopped before construction starts MUCH LESS LIABILITY for bankruptcy
No, that decision had real repercussions in this real world that we will pay for with real money.
And that is not speculation.
Richard.... "The recall election date set was agreed upon by the full CSD board. The last possible date was NOT selected."
That means BOTH Lisa and Julie agreed to the recall election date...???
This is not quite what we have been told...and told...and told....
Mike,
Setting of the Septmber 27, 2005 recall date ws approved by the entire CSD board.
Regards, RBL
Hi Shark inlet,
All our discussions of probable WWTP costs per month are speculative. This cost, that cost.....let us just agree that the monthly cost for a WWTP will be great.
My take is that the County's project will be atleast $275/month before adding the costs of the 2002 bond, prop. owner hookup costs, and resolution of the CSD backruptcy. As for including water operations costs, I consider that a cost divorced from the WWTP monthly costs. But hey, add up all the CSD service fees and the WWTP fees, and the property owners have one duzzie of a monthly payment.
Regards, RBL
The people on this blog continue to argue the recent history of LO forgetting the true beginning of this tangled mess………
Back in the 70s, some homes near the bay had septic systems that sometimes flooded due to high ground water. Rather than build a small wastewater treatment system to solve the problem, the County of San Luis Obispo decided that it would be to their advantage to identify a larger area of pollution that could qualify for federal grants. They got together with the RWQCB set out to find the needed “proof” of pollution. They drilled holes looking for the evidence in horse pastures and unsecured wells. Old-timers swear that when the needed proof did not appear, a few extra ingredients were dumped down the wells. The county and the RWQCB set the new boundaries for the Prohibition Zone, eliminating Cabrillo Estates, so it would not directly affect any of decision makers of that era.
With the “Prohibition Zone” now established, the county and the RWQCB worked out a deal whereby the county would be allowed to increase the number of homes in the PZ by over 30% before any building restrictions were put in place. The county approved these new homes, many with septic systems that made direct contact with the upper aquifer during the rainy seasons. The citizens, meanwhile, were told that they could not challenge the PZ unless it was acted upon with CDOs or CAOs. When the maximum number of houses was reached, building was halted. Since it would cause quite an uproar if the RWQCB started notifying folks that they were “discharging illegally” immediately after allowing the PZ to increase by 25%, they agreed with the county through a “Memorandum of Understanding” to call it a “building moratorium” for real estate transactions. No need to trouble the Los Ososans by proclaiming that those new homes were “discharging illegally”.
The trouble came when the county waited so long to apply for state grants. (They needed all those new homes to increase the pollution to verifiable levels.) The federal grant programs had run their course and no new funding would be available in the foreseeable future. Now the people of Los Osos would have to pay for the waste water treatment system. At this point you would think that the county would have been banking those tax dollars collected from those 1150 homes to help pay for their mess. They dragged their heels instead, avoiding even starting the required septic management district. And when the town voted for a CSD to take over the project based on lies – a project that would never fly- the county quietly watched and washed their hands of their mess.
Meanwhile, the increased building that the county and the RWQCB had allowed increased nitrates, forcing water purveyors to tap into the lower aquifer. Over pumping of the lower aquifer resulted in saltwater intrusion. And still the tests used to prove pollution to the federal officials in 2007 were taken from the homes that should have been placed a small cluster system back in the 1980s. The real problem is not nitrates, but all the man-made chemicals facing future regulation.
Now the county has been collecting taxes on those 1150 homes for 20+ years, ($50 mil?). Has any of the money come back into the community? Has any been socked away for the eventual infrastructure LO would require due to negative impact of this growth? Including interest, we should have a significant sewer account.
The county now is set to take over the Los Osos waster water project. I can only hope that they are determined to right the wrongs of the past, instead of continuing to cover them up. They have the power to stand up to the RWQCB and do what is right for LO, but will they? Or will they again sell us out? There are some remnants of the fleecing of Los Osos still in office. Noel King is leaving, possibly a trip to international waters with Roger Briggs? Is the county cleaning house to enable them to honestly remediate their mistakes? Or are they removing the perpetrators and witnesses in a continued cover-up?
The county must solve the water problems of our basin prior to allowing any building in any part of the basin. They must put the environment before financial gain. A partial solution, sewering the town without solving the water issues, is not acceptable. We need a sustainable solution to our problems now, not a band-aid. Water is the new gold in California. Will we fight to protect what we have, or will we pay the price to get it from elsewhere?
Honesty and SLO County Supervisor are not mutually exclusive terms. We will be heard if we can speak as one voice, demanding the best solution to protect our water and our future. We will get an honest process if we watch with open minds, but stay wary of deceit. But if we forget how this whole mess got started, and we let power and greed overrule science, history is bound to repeat itself.
Hi Mike Green,
You wrote "Recall fails-- TriW built BIG DIFFERENCE
Recall succeeds-- TriW stopped before construction starts MUCH LESS LIABILITY for bankruptcy
No, that decision had real repercussions in this real world that we will pay for with real money."
I do not deny that starting the project resulted in costs to the CSD/property owner. The project started in 2001; with over $20M spent by the recall election.
As for starting construction before the recall, CSD obligations for contractor mobilization and the first few weeks of the project were about $4M; money that was spent as normal part of the contracts. So in your scenerio, the 'savings' to the CSD by postponing construction are about $4M, not the "MUCH LESS LIABILITY" for bankruptcy you state.
Additionally, as elected officials of the CSD board wwe were acting within the legally ordained duties of office to realize a WWTP and incur debt in building said project.
The bulk of the CSD's bankruptcy is in fines for stopping the process ($6.5M), defaulting and refusing to pay back the $6.4M SRF loan, about $3M in unpaid contractor invoices for work done, $1M to MWH as the CSD defaulted on their contract, $1.5M for contractor mobilization, $5M for contractor binding costs to order materials and equipment for the project, and contractor lost profits. In total, the bankruptcy is about $42M (including the $4M).
I write this because you are incorrectly implying that if construction had not commenced prior to the recall (and I was recalled non-the-less) that the new board's actions would have resulted in a MUCH SMALLER bankrutcy liability. Well, if you want to believe that, fine. However, the commencement of construction did not trigger the bankruptcy. The decision to stop the project, along with extremely bad financial and legal advice and behavior from the new CSD board's consultants, did cause the bankruptcy.
Regards, RBL
Richard wrote:
I write this because you are incorrectly implying that if construction had not commenced prior to the recall (and I was recalled non-the-less) that the new board's actions would have resulted in a MUCH SMALLER bankrutcy liability. Well, if you want to believe that, fine."
I guess that would rest on the definition of "small"
I can understand your defensiveness.
I am more interested in the process of coming to that kind of decision more than what that decision was, why?, because I want people to know how powerful and critical some political decisions can be.
We need to hold elected folks to the higher standard, to make decisions that would have the best outcome for the electorate regardless of the political aspirations of the individual.
Now, you can apply that to nearly ALL the CSD boards,fine with me.
I've made my peace.
Richard,
Your points are well taken and this is not really the place for an argument, but most people quite reasonably believe that had we not stolen money from the SWRCB we wouldn't have mis-spent those funds on BWS and Wildan. While you may be very right about the big-ticket items ... the contracts with the contractors and the RWQCB fines, some of that good money thrown after bad advice would have been saved.
Heck, had the CSD not some $6M for Wildan and BWS to fleece us out of, perhaps they wouldn't have had the motivation to swoop in and give us self-serving advice.
Jane also has a great point. We do seem to be stuck between a rock (the County who created the mess and has shown little sympathy for our plight) and a hard place (the RWQCB who has grown tired of showing patience to our community when we've thrown up so many obstacles to accomplishing the goal of cleaning up our wastewater mess. Even so, sticking with the County provides a lot more hope than refusing their current expensive offer of help ... there is every reason to believe that the alternative choices (the CSD ... hah!, Ripley/Orenco/AES ... ha!) seem as if they are even less likely to be able to provide a workable solution, get some grants to cover some costs and deal with the waterboards.
Simply put ... we were perhaps stupid to vote in the CSD, we were definitely stupid to vote for the recall and we were smart to vote for the 218 assessment.
Sharkey!!! YES! Simply put ... we were perhaps stupid to vote in the CSD, we were definitely stupid to vote for the recall and we were smart to vote for the 218 assessment.
I'll bet there was a good portion that voted to get it away from local control, no matter what.
Mike asked,
"Richard.... "The recall election date set was agreed upon by the full CSD board. The last possible date was NOT selected."
That means BOTH Lisa and Julie agreed to the recall election date...???
This is not quite what we have been told...and told...and told...."
Forked Tongue LeGros responded,
"Mike,
Setting of the Septmber 27, 2005 recall date ws approved by the entire CSD board.
Regards, RBL"
While this response is technically correct, it does not reflect the entirety of the CSD meeting that set the recall date.
What actually happened was that Lisa made a motion to set the date earliest possible. That motion was defeated by a majority 3/2 vote with Schicker/Tacker supporting. Lisa then went through the calendar requesting the recall vote for each available Tuesday in chronological order. Each such motion was defeated until the next to last possible date was brought as a motion. At this point Forked Tongue LeGros said something like, "In the spirit of compromise..." and voted for the motion which passed 5/0.
By the way, can someone explain to me why the costs bankruptcy of the LOCSD is going to be the burden of the PZ residents alone? This seems to be implied by F-T LeG in his postings. Doesn't the LOCSD represent the whole district? The way I see it, the $40 million in debt is going to amount to about $4 million since most of the claimed debt is based on contractor inflated losses (not real losses) related to the cancellation of contracts.
Unless the bankruptcy agreement is such that the court finds a way to send a bill to each resident in Los Osos, the CSD itself will have to foot the bill. The only non-dedicated income it has to repay the debt is off the backs of the water customers - who happen to reside in the PZ.
Hi Sewertoons,
Additionally, the CSD will eventually take over operations of the County-built WWTP; thereby establishing a new source of revenue for the district. I see no choice other than the CSD will have to attach a 'bankruptcy debt paydown fee' on top of the other monthly sewer fees in order to resolve the bankruptcy. This way, 85% of the districts property owners will be enloined to pay down the debt (at a cost of $8,000) per property owner. I do not see a way to legally enjoin the remaining 15% of the property owners (all of whom are not serviced by the CSD water department). Even if the 15% could be enjoined, the debt load to each property owner would still be over $7,000 apiece. Ouch!
I think it is time for the Community to begin figuring out a way to pay down the bankruptcy debt using a source of money other than the property owners. Any thoughts?
Regards, Richard LeGros
That Chumash casino is sounding better and better.
Let's wait until we see what the court decides.
Perhaps we should utilize the famous Los Osos delay tactics, It'll be 30 years before any action will be taken.
Hi Richard -
$7,000 - big ouch! I think the best plan is to go after BWS and Wildan, (if that contract isn't too iron-clad), and pay off the debt with money won back. BWS has been sued before more than once and they LOST! There are plenty of grounds for a lawsuit against BWS.
Now, how do we convince Lisa, Julie, Chuck and Steve that they need to support the community - especially the PZ - and go after those dispensers of REALLY BAD advice?
Of course there is the election next fall - but given the time it takes to push cases through court, I'd like to see a change of heart by the above mentioned Directors NOW. They could potentially redeem their community standing by such a move (their first step for me anyway was Chuck and Steve voting YES on 218 for the CSD properties). Maybe Lisa and Julie are hopeless on that score - but we all know Joe is firmly in the corner of doing what is right.
Couldn't Chuck and Steve at least simply admit that they NOW see the course they took was faulty and go after the enablers of their continued wrong direction?
(I have to laugh every time I think of that BWS MS Word memo with the comments left on where dissolution was one course of action for the Board!)
Chuck and Steve have angered their 12 supporters that show up to the CSD meetings, but gained new respect by the hundreds of their supporters that don't go to meetings and from some people that don't support them also. They could continue that respect by going after BWS. The goal they had at the time - was met - Tri-W was stopped - but at such an insane cost - I'm sure they never felt THAT was going to happen. Getting money back into Los Osos would be a real coup, and would raise Los Osos reputation to the outer world as coming back to being a responsible member of the County when Los Osos does find a way to take care of its citizens.
Otherwise, unless the bankruptcy judge feels sorry for Los Osos and cancels the debt, I see no way for Los Osos to repay it FAIRLY. It will fall on those of us - I'm one - in the PZ.
Shark
My favorite selection is Pio Lombardo's decentralized. A 50% reduction in water pumped from our wells due to the return of treated water for irrigation (purple pipe). Water can also be used for washing car, etc. Lombardo has an excellent track record, and the system could easily solve all of our water issues.
The county is the only one who could deliver this system, cutting through the RWQCB red tape. In the long run, this system has got to be the cheapest.
-No piped in water
-No ag exchange
-Meets upcoming EPA standards.
-Excess water used to recharge basin.
There are plenty of lots to choose from for cluster systems. Treatment is mainly underground and above land actually can be used for a park (or a parking lot).
We need some citizens to visit some of his facilities.
I elect you and mike green
"WE" don't need any one to visit any sewer designers... "WE" need to let the County of San Luis Obispo do their job...!!!!
"WE", the 80% are tired of the many directions to 20% want to go explore... but if "YOU" want to go on another boob-doggle (please don't attempt to legitimize such trips as fact-finding excursions), just do it on your dime, there is NO funding by this community for any further diversions which equate directly into costly delays...!!!!
Shark Inlet sez:"Your points are well taken and this is not really the place for an argument, . . . "
Is there any comment in the world that could top THAT comment? this is not really the place for an argument . . . . . ????
Bwa-hahahahahah. Thanks for a coffee through the nose great start of a beautiful new day, Inlet.
Ann,
Glad you can laugh about things.
Once you've finished, would you be willing to address the questions many have raised here about why it was sooooooooo evil of the Solutions Group to get elected on a promise of a cheaper solution but just seven years later it was A-okay for the recall candidates to do exactly the same thing?
Mike
the BOS has said that they plan to build the system that the community wants. Is your goal to shut everyone up who may thinks differently than you, so only your voice is heard? LO at its finest
Jane,
I like the Pio idea. I suspect that the County has looked it over and determined it is not cost efficient. The purple pipe ... which is great ... increases the costs horribly.
I would be willing to pay the extra cost (as long as it was less than $50/month) to go with a pio-type system, but I rather doubt others would. There's also the NIMBY folks who torpedoed TriW because it was too close to homes. What do you think would happen about 15 plants scattered in every neighborhood in town? I suspect a sh*t storm of sorts would happen.
Shark
I did listen to Pio explain his ideas. It did not seem to exceed costs of the other alternatives, even when reaching Level 4. We can address the water issues and pay now, or we can delay and pay later. I pesonally would rather address it now.
Pio seemed like a problem solver type that could think outside the box. He has won national awards for his innovative ideas. Could it work for us? I honestly don't know, but it would be a travesty to not explore the option.
Public perception in LO has been based upon lies and manipulation. For this reason many segments of our population must be involved in evaluating all choices, not just the chosen ones. (TAC) If Pio's decentralized systems stink, I don't want them, but if our neighbors come back from visitations excited about the possibilities, the word will quickly spread.
jane,
Where did you get your information? Last I heard it was $42,000 per house!
The little plants may be underground, but one or more parking spaces and a building accompanies each of the 15 sites. Where is there land for that in this densely housed PZ with only scattered vacant lots?
As to stink - Tri-W wouldn't stink, but you can see where that fact went - in the toilet, so to speak. I don't think visitations are going to do the trick on that score.
Sewertoons
I don’t know the real cost of a Lombardo system, and neither do you. I would just like it to be on the table for side by side comparison with the other options. And all comparisons must be for equal gain; total costs to stabilize at Level 4, projected monthly sewer bills and water bills, projected maintenance and operation costs for at least twenty years, vulnerability to spills and costs associated with resulting fines and clean-up.
Rather than rely imported sources with the inevitable cost increases, I want to protect the water that we have. Instead of a band-aide fix, I want the most cost effective solution for the long term. Cost analysis of any Level 2 system needs to include the additional costs that will be incurred through the water purveyor actions that are necessary to reach Level 4.
jane, I will quote something shark inlet said on July 13, 2007 here in one of Ann's columns:
"If Pio is right (that the current cost is $31k per household) ...
If there is a 2 year delay to get the design and approval, the total project would be about $180M. If financed for 30 years at 7%, that puts the P&I at about 241 per month and with $50 monthly O&M we get a total of $290/month. Not bad if you compare it to current guesstimates and remember that we would get irrigation water included with that figure.
[Note: if it would qualify for a SRF for the entire amount at 2.5% over 20 years, the montly total including O&M would be about $50 less per month ...] If Pio isn't blowing smoke about the treatment technology's denitrification and cost, the County will look at this quite seriously.
The drawbacks will likely be the sh*tst*rm over the issue of having a small treatment plant in every neighborhood. The possibility of odors or accidents/spills seems to cause great fear.
Certainly when you consider the County's criteria which seems to allow for a considerably weighting for aquifer recharge, this conceptual idea plays very well."
Perhaps the County will look at it, but it is not a system that would get my vote, and it is over the amount that we have assessed ourselves for according to shark. (He seems to be quoting Pio Lombardo.) Also, if the denitrification proof is not above reproach, the Water Board will not go for it.
Post a Comment