EEEE, I Can't Pay The Rent! But You MUST Pay The Rent! But I Can't Pay The Rent! I Have To Pay My Attorney To File MORE Lawsuits!
Over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com Ron Crawford's posted some interesting info titled, "Taxpayers Watch? We Want Our $9,247.50, And We Want It Now!"
Seems TPW wants LAFCO to give them an extension on the moola they owe the county when they attempted (and failed) to dissolve the Los Osos CSD right after the recall election. That attempt cost the taxpayers in Los Osos and throughout the county a pile of money. And LAFCO wants at least part of the costs back.
But I guess TPW is poor. Broke. No Moola.
If that's the case, where did they get the money to hire attorneys to sue -- personally and individually, not as a government entity -- members of the CSD? Taking depositions, filing motions, and all that good stuff, requires COIN OF THE REALM.
If PTW's so broke they need more time to re-pay the county, where's the dough coming from to finance this latest lawsuit? If you're broke, you don't hire MORE attorneys to file MORE lawsuits while claiming you can't pay for the LAFCO suit you previously lost.
Something's amiss here.
Click on over to Ron's blog entry, read it and weep and then maybe contact Paul Hood at the link Ron supplied, and ask him yourself.
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
-
▼
2008
(205)
-
▼
July
(16)
- Seventy Six Trombones Led The Big Parade . . .Over...
- EEEE, I Can't Pay The Rent! But You MUST Pay The ...
- Yes, It’s Still The Mad Hatter’s Tea PartyAw, and ...
- Stick ‘Em Up and Say AhhhhThe recent New Times sto...
- Uh, Ya Wanna Run That By Me One More Time? When I ...
- How Much Is That Deja Vu Doggie In The Window? Exc...
- Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, San...
- We're Queer but We're Not Heeeeeeerrreee.....Story...
- And Now, As You Bid Farewell To Your Money In The ...
- Ooooo, Noooo, it’s Deja VooooooLife is like a B mo...
- Smile! You’re On Arial Camera (Oooo, nooo, a typo!...
- CC's in Town Uh-oh, over at www.sewerwatch.blogspo...
- Mis-History 101Ah, yes, it’s a perfect example of ...
- Take Two Aspirins . . .If you want a perfect examp...
- Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News,Tolosa Press, SLO,...
- Adios, Mike! On the next to the last posting comme...
-
▼
July
(16)
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.
110 comments:
Ann,
TW has every intent to pay the LAFCO bill. As you know, TW has been paying monthly payments to LAFCO on the debt. Rest assured that TW meets its financial commitments. LAFCO knows that TW will meet its financial obligations too.
Unlike TW, the organization knows as the CCLO refuses to meet its financial obligations. The CCLO, specifically Keith Swanson as President of the CCLO, was sued by their law firm, Parker and Holley, for +/-$18,000 in unpaid legal fees. The case went to binding arbitration. The arbiter found (and the CCLO acknowledges) that the CCLO does indeed owe Parker and Holley +/-$18,000. However, as the CCLO is a corporation, Parker and Holley could not collect the debt from CCLO officers (Keith). To this day, the CCLO has not paid, and refuses to pay, the money the arbiter awarded to Parker and Holley.
So Ann, your criticism of TW for wanting an EXTENSION to pay-down the remaining money owed LAFCO (+/-$8,000) is hypocritical when compared to CCLO's REFUSAL to pay their $18,000 debt.
As a side note, the arbiter also ruled that Parker and Holley and the CCLO members clearly understood that those individuals who signed the contracts were CCLO board members. As you know, Lisa Schicker signed the first of three contracts. There is no doubt that Lisa was a board member of the CCLO; contrary to the court declaration she signed under penalty of perjury that she was not. Additionally, Keith, Julie and Gail McPherson also offered perjured testimony as to this matter. The perjury is undeniable.
Regards, Richard LeGros
I guess the "kumbaya" moment's over, eh?
Why, just a few posts ago, all the Taxpayer Watch-types couldn't get in here fast enough to "agree" with Ann for her take on the Reclamator.
But now that she points out that Taxpayer Watch doesn't have the money to pay LAFCO for that silly, solely-agenda-driven dissolution attempt (that took "4 hearings over a 9 month period"), but somehow DOES have enough cash to run around Los Osos suing everything simply because the town voted them out of office... kumbaya moments? Not so much.
Richard wrote:
"CCLO"
Richard, what does CCLO have to do with us (read: county residents) getting our $9,247.50 on July 31?
Great, you "meet" your "financial commitments."
You committed to a time schedule (so LAFCO wouldn't sue you). Meet it! $9,247.50 on July 31!
I have some questions:
Who the hell is Taxpayers Watch?
Do they have a web site?
Do they hold meetings for their "members?"
Who are their "members?"
Do they have any? If so, how many?
How do they get their funding? (I mean, that $30k I discuss in my story is just the LAFCO portion of the dissolution bill. How much did they pay their attorneys for the "effort." Good god, that dissolution could have cost them well over $50,000! Where are they getting that kind of jack?)
Why did they REALLY want to dissolve the LOCSD?
In my piece, I call them "shady." I like the word choice.
Thanks for the link, Ann.
Ron and Ann ... I do gotta question both of your motives here. Why make hay over one group paying down their debts (although a bit more slowly than you would like) when you have not yet criticized another group for something comparable (or worse).
Perhaps you were unaware. Well, once you've verified the information Richard has provided, I expect an article castigating Keith and Lisa.
And Ann ... when you wrote "But I guess TPW is poor. Broke. No Moola. If that's the case, where did they get the money to hire attorneys to sue ... members of the CSD? Taking depositions, filing motions, and all that good stuff, requires COIN OF THE REALM." did you not realize that with a few simple word changes one could arrive the question I've been asking for years about the post-recall board's actions of hiring BWS and Ripley?
franc4 said...
Richy,
How, if and when others pay or don't pay their debt is not a legitimate excuse for not paying your debts. Others are responsible for their debts, you are responsible for yours....period!
Once again you and TW jumped into something without thinking of the consequences should you fail, just as you exhibited the same fault as a trusted official and representative of the people of Los Osos when a member of the CSD. Instead, you and Gordy started something nurtured by hate and revenge, not sound judgement. So now it's pay-up time for just one part of your "mis-deeds". As for the rest of your "repayments", you will have to answer to Him.
So franc, what is your comment then on the recent discussions to dissolve the CSD - BY the CSD? Since this will cost money, should they figure out how to repay the missing $700,000+ bond payment first before taking on more debt? Not to mention the possible outcome of the bankruptcy court rulings.
Do you think the Recall Board should have thought about the debt they were plunging the entire town into before they acted as they did? Did they not think that there would be consequences to their actions? Guess they didn't! Guess we - especially we who live in the PZ and are customers of the CSD water company, will get to repay that debt for the Recall Board - including that $700,000+.
So since you firmly defend the Recall Board, how is this measly $8,000 debt by TW so different that you feel the need to hammer Richard and Gordon, yet don't mention the Recall Board as faulting on debt to the point of bankruptcy? Is this YOUR "sound judgement" at work? Won't you have to answer to Him for your finger-pointing meanness and unfairness here??
After watching the LOCSD fumble and fail to produce either budget or audit, having had to file for bankruptcy protection and now are being sued by an Insurance Company, one should be questioning the reason to continue this failed form of local government...
From the latest LOCSD Agenda:
A. PENDING LITIGATION (Government Code, §54956.9(b).)
Conference with Counsel for Existing Litigation (Formally initiated):
LOCSD et al. v. American Alternative Insurance Corp. (Federal Court)
LOCSD v. Regional Water Quality Control Board, as designated party to individual CDO’s
In re Los Osos Community Services District (ND-06-10548) United States Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Northern Division
LOCSD v. Golden State et. al. in SLO Superior Court
....I don't see any mention of a TaxPayers Watch lawsuit... OMG, maybe they backed off...??? There is a private lawsuit involving 5 individuals, but nothing directed at the wonderful LOCSD....
...and BTW, when will the LOCSD ever apply for a permit to fix the fence around their creation of an attractive nuisance and eyesore...??? The community doesn't really need another lawsuit over someone tripping and falling due to the negligence of maintaining the property...
So, Ann and Ron, how about focusing on some of the very real problems with this failing LOCSD and not some perceived wishes to see the MIGHTY TW fade away...????
Richard sent me the following e-mail (italics) and I am just putting the docs online (see the links). I will read them later.
Hi Shark,
Attached are the following;
1. The original declarations of Lisa, Julie, Chuck, Steve, John Fouche, Keith Swanson and Gail McPherson given during May, 2007 in support of their defense against the TW lawsuit.
2. The CCLO/Parker Holley contracts exposing the perjury...note that Lisa signed the first contract; a fact contrary to the statements of Keith and Gail.
3. The new declarations of Keith and Lisa as a result of the contracts exposing their perjury. The arbiters report on the Parker and Holley / CCLO fee dispute is attached to Keith's second declaration.
...
Regards, Richard LeGros
The attachments are:
08.06.16 Keith.Declaration.MSJ request for summay judgement.pdf
ef010 (Response to Request for Admission - Chuck Cesena).pdf
ef010a (Response to Request for Admission - Fouche).pdf
ef010b (Response to Request for Admission - Senet).pdf
ef010c (Response to Request for Admission - Schicker).pdf
ef010d (Response to Request for Admission - Tacker).pdf
ef012 mcpherson.pdf
ef012 swanson dec.pdf
04.02.16 CCLO.PHLLP.Agreement.pdf
Mike ... are you telling us that the LOCSD has yet to produce the mandated audit and they haven't yet provided us budget data?
Oh my. Whether you like Bruce Buel or not it must be said that he at least had all the current budget info at his fingertips if not in his head and would answer all questions about such matters. Whether you like him or not, you've got to admit he was far better than anyone we've had since.
Until, or IF, Schicker ever learns that she can not "edit" an Audit, there never will be one accepted by this CSD...!!!
...and the Budget is a real small and getting smaller, bag of worms that this Board can not seem to understand...they seem to think they can continue to raise fees and raid what's left of the Reserves... Lisa should not be allowed to even read a Budget, she has no idea of what she is looking for....!!!!!
Maybe they will understand when this community, like Nipomo, says a resounding NO to any further increases in Water or Trash fees...!!!! We DO have a right to question the poor management of this Board...!!!!
Joe gets it and is rightly concerned - but he is just one voice against the inept majority.
Ron's hyperbole at it's utter best...
"but somehow DOES have enough cash to run around Los Osos suing everything"
Everything?
Let's review:
1) TPW sued the individual directors (as a group) for paying off their private CCLO legal bills with dedicated tax revenues (soon to be in a courtroom near you)
and
2) LOCSD to legally invalidate Measure B. (TPW won that one - twice)
Hmmm. "everything"???? A bit of an over statement, don't you think, Ron?
And how about that perjury stuff....and how about CCLO's refusal to pay their debts....
Ron and Ann whine about an extension for TPW to actually pay off their remaining debt to LAFCO?
And yet no rebuke of CCLO or the post-recall CSD Directors. Some things never change.
I just couldn't resist laughing at the drivel being spewed by Ron and Ann... Honestly folks, you need to take a course or two in investigative reporting and certainly take a course in deductive reasoning...
Which genius wrote: "....where did they get the money to hire attorneys to sue -- personally and individually, not as a government entity -- members of the CSD? Taking depositions, filing motions, and all that good stuff, requires COIN OF THE REALM.
If PTW's so broke they need more time to re-pay the county, where's the dough coming from to finance this latest lawsuit? If you're broke, you don't hire MORE attorneys to file MORE lawsuits while claiming you can't pay for the LAFCO suit you previously lost."
First, what OTHER or "latest" lawsuit are you alluding to...???
So far, TW has only filed two (or for you Ron, that's "2") lawsuits... Can you name them and and tell us the status...???
Are there some more out there that we haven't heard of yet...???
I find it hilarious that TW can generate such fear and trembling... that is UNLESS they have actually found solid grounds to shake the few anti-government, anti-sewer, anti-just about everything folks inside their shrinking sphere of incompetence... Maybe someone should be concerned about how the up-coming court will find in it's deliberatiions...???
Now the really funny part... just how many lawsuits has this LOCSD filed...??? Just who is paying all those lawyers...??? How about a status up-date on the Bankruptcy...??? Who is paying thse lawyers...??? Will the CSD "negotiate" a "TSO" for paying back the Creditors, or will they pay them off in one lump sum....??? Maybe LAFCo could help negotiate the settlements and time-to-pay terms...???
Anyway, it's been a great day full of laughter... I never realized how powerful TW was until reading today's article... Much fun...!!!
BTW Ann, go Google up Rita Skeeter... you could be twins... certainly the same logic...
Richard sez". The CCLO/Parker Holley contracts exposing the perjury...note that Lisa signed the first contract; a fact contrary to the statements of Keith and Gail."
Perjury, you mean like when Stan, Gordon, and wasn't it you, Richard, who swore, under oath, that you feared for your life from Richard Margetson when you took out a restraining order to keep him away from you and CSD meetings & etc. and that was also sworn under penalty of perjury and as soon as the election was held, kapoof that restraining order case disappeared, no fear, no worry, suddenly you were no longer "afraid for your life and limb" of Richard, who started coming back to meetings & etc, all huggy and kissey, despite what you guys swore to under oath and under penalty of perjury. You mean, that kind of perjury?
Just asking.
As for this TPW extention, think you're missing the point. CCLO is a private entity that owes a private entity money. TPW is a private entity that owes a Public Entity money and wants an extension while also spending money to sue another private entity (individual -- personal, private -- CSD members) I happen to think that's a bit funny.
As for the "audits" of the pre-recall CSD and post-recall CSD. Wasn't that mandated by the Blakeslee amendment while that was being shaped up and voted on, and wasn't that supposed to be done long ago? Why doesn't the State come in and get 'er done and stick the bill on the county project since it was all related with the sewer. That Audit must include pre-recall and post recall, so we'd have a much clearer picture as to what happened with that SRF loan & etc. Really needs to be done.
Ann,
Nice try Ann.
Describing how Stan and I FELT and RESPONDED to Mr. M's threat on an application for a restrainting order is NOT perjury. You and others may not agree with what was done; however, you cannot phantom how scary and vile Mr. M's threat was.
As for the TW time extention request to LAFCO, if you do not like it, go and bitch to LAFCO. If you and others want to look mean, vindictive and downright silly to LAFCO over this request, be my guest. Whatever LAFCO decides, TW will pay the remaining debt.
As for Blakeslys requested audit of the CSD, I too insist that the audit cover all activites from the formation of the CSD. Heck, WE AGREE on this one.
However Ann, be careful of what you wish for. I will send to Sharkinlet (please post it) the Blakesly letter requesting that the State perform the audit.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Richard wrote:
"If you and others want to look mean, vindictive and downright silly to LAFCO..."
Ricardo? Why do you think LAFCO charged you $30k to begin with?
Sooooo, Richard, after all that tap-tappity typing (translated: misdirection), and e-mailing your BFF, Guppy Inlet back-and-fourth (boy, you guys are in full damage-control mode on this one, aren'tcha), are you going to have the $9,247.50 by tomorrow, or what?
Remember, according to Hood, if you don't get your extension, and you DON'T have the $9-large by tomorrow, "enforcement will be through the courts."
Just lettin' ya know.
Gotta go now and send my "please deny the request" e-mail to the LAFCO Board.
"Have a nice day!"
Don’t write off TPW’s actions like they are just these little innocent coupla lawsuits. What you little weasels are doing is disgusting. You have absolutely no case whatsoever against the individual members of the current LOCSD, just like you always were clear to let everyone know that you weren’t personally liable for your criminal acts while you were all in office.
What you are hoping is that after the disastrous actions you took just before the recall, and perpetuated with the dissolution attempt, that there will be no money left in the CSD coffers to defend the current directors… and as wrong as you are in your allegations, we all know that if you have no money to defend yourself, you lose.
So you are forcing them to maybe have to dip into their own money… hoping that just the cost of the defense will harm them. Winning isn’t necessary to put the hurt on someone… just costing them money in the interim works.
The good news is they just have to hold on long enough for the process to work and the ultimate hurt will be on TPW.
Maybe you will again ask for a payment plan in order to reimburse the CSD and directors for the legal fees incurred defending this frivolous lawsuit.
Or maybe Richard can use his bankruptcy expertise and file once again to get out of this debt. Maybe you all can incorporate so you can’t be held personally liable for debts you incurred while trying to hold others personally liable for debts you incurred… how ironic would that be.
And as for all this perjury stuff, and documents that you think are a smoking gun… these documents have nothing to do with your case… they are just part of your vindictive smear campaign. What does a 2004 contract with Parker and Hawley have to do with the CSD’s settlements with BW&S?
Richard, et al... you are all again comparing apples and oranges in another feeble attempt to alter reality.
TPW's debt is nothing like CCLO's debt, and to compare them is disingenuous.
CCLO is an inactive organization with a private debt to an individual company. Further it is incorporated with one of the benefits of that being that the individual members cannot be help personally liable for its debts. Parker and Hawley knew this, as was determined by the arbitrator (see your own links), and therefore assumed this risk. They knew when dealing with an incorporated non-profit with a sole cause (stopping a sewer project) that there was a risk of the cause ending.
TPW is an active organization that MUST pay their debts in order to continue in their sole cause... their vindictive attack on those who removed them from office.
Therein lie the differences...
TPW has money and an active source of continued funding. CCLO does not.
TPW chooses to spend its money on further vindictive attacks instead of paying its debts. CCLO does not.
TPW could have paid their debts off with LAFCO, but chose to defer those payments in order to spend their cash in hand on their vindictive attacks.
As a result, the funding of their vindictive attacks has caused them to default on their agreement with LAFCO.
Instead of redirecting their funds from their continued vindictive attacks toward their LAFCO debt, they want LAFCO and the county taxpayer to allow them to spend OUR money now on their vindictive attacks with a promise that maybe we'll get our money later.
...hmmm, you certainly sound both vindictive and terrified of the TaxPayers Watch...
You obviously are unaware of how TPW does it's business... You also don't seem to know how LAFCo or the County does bisiness...certainly not on the emotional stage you like to play on...
They must be pretty powerful to bring down the CSD, LAFCo and the County...
Keep sending those contributions to TaxPayers Watch...!!!!
toons,
All good questions, however you missed my point.
It matters not the amount of ones obligations or who doesn't pay theirs. My point was and is,just because someone else doesn't "pay up" is not an legitimate reason (excuse-cop-out)for TW (Gordy and Richy)not to pay what they owe.
"If others jump off a bridge, does that mean that TW must"?
When Richy makes excuses it's perfectly OK. When the CSD does, they are "whining" and "being picked one." Why is that?
It should be readily apparent to the most casual observer that TW, (Richy and Gordys)actions are hate and revenge motivated toward the citizens of Los Osos (who voted them out) and the folks who un-seated them. Hate and revenge know no boundries.
Rich,
"There is no doubt that Lisa was a board member of the CCLO;"
What am I missing? Kieth says she never was an officer and Gail said she never belonged to CCLO.
Is everyone (except you) lying ?
Does signing as a concerned citizen qualify one as a "officer"? Who says?
HI Shark....long time no sea ;-)
You said,"Oh my. Whether you like Bruce Buel or not it must be said that he at least had all the current budget info at his fingertips if not in his head "
If you would ask Ms. Schicker, his head was the ONLY place he kept budjet matters. That's why he was let go, I'll bet. We will never know, will we, since he wiped his hard drive and who knows what Pat did with the CSD records she kept on her home PC.
mike said,
"I just couldn't resist laughing at the drivel being spewed by Ron and Ann... "
Well, laughing boy, I would say most of the rest of the stuff said here is pretty much a laughing matter, also.
Oct 6 fran4, Oct 6....
Richard wanted me to post a link to http://sharkinlet.fileave.com/06.09.29blakesleeauditcomm.pdf
which I have just done.
Franc,
Perhaps you didn't read carefully. The key issue here is the comparison of how Ron and Ann have been treating the CCLO debt and how they have been treating the TPW debt. If one of these sorts of debt is considered bad, the other should be as well. That neither Ron nor Ann have written a word about CCLO's debt until Richard raised the issue reveals their bias.
No one is saying that one sort of debt excuses the other nor that it is okay for TPW to avoid payment because CCLO has done so.
As to the suggestions (not Franc's suggestions, but those of others) that TPW debt is different because they have money on hand while CCLO doesn't or that they are not a corporation while CCLO is or that they've got a political agenda while the goals of CCLO are largely in the past ... those arguments entirely miss the point. If a corporation causes an accidental death as opposed to a private citizen, isn't it still a death? Isn't it still wrong? Presumably the corporation cannot go to prison while a manslaughter trial could put an individual in prison, but the wrong has still been done.
To argue that CCLO is a corporation and so shouldn't have to pay their debts or that somehow the goals of CCLO are good but the goals of TPW are bad as a way of justifying one debt is to use a technicality to justify a wrong action. Such arguments are why we tend to view laywers with distrust and disdain.
Lastly, to counter Ron's lame suggestion that Richard and I work together ... I would be quite willing to put online any documents related to the Los Osos mess, not just those "on my side" like he seems to. No one but Richard has asked, but I am very open to making any such documents available to the interested public. The only limitations are my time, the total megabytes the server allows me to store for free and the total number of megabytes of downloads allowed per month.
Hell, I haven't read a single one of the recently e-mailed and posted docs ... to hear from Ron that I am now part of a conspiracy makes me giggle.
Keep up the good investigative reporting Ron!
Just food for thought... The community of Blacklake in Nipomo voted to reject a proposed water rate increase and it looks like Cambria may have taken that step also... so would it make sense to do the same in Los Osos...??? Since the LOCSD feels they can raise rates to pay lawyers, maybe the community ought to look into our Rights and block any water and trash increases...??? Maybe Ann could write a real investigative piece on community Rights when local government raises service fees to pay for lawsuits and their lawyers... Do we really need lawyers in the Los Osos CSD...???
More of the same from mike... he wants to take away their lawyers so he can sue them for any made up thing and they can't defend themselves.
I bet you're a bully. You probably used to steal the weak kids lunch money in school... I bet you cheat at monopoly.
Scoundral.
Richard sez:"Nice try Ann.
Describing how Stan and I FELT and RESPONDED to Mr. M's threat on an application for a restrainting order is NOT perjury. You and others may not agree with what was done; however, you cannot phantom how scary and vile Mr. M's threat was."
Oh, Plllluuueeeze. Nobody I know bought that ploy at the time and your and Stan's (big, strong Marine, for goodness sake) and Gordon's actions as soon as the election was over and that phony suit was dropped speak volumes.
No. This was Tom Wolf's "Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flack Catcher's" "negro by the piano," that awful spectre of Margetson appearing at the podium to keep asking his endless annoying questions and keep pointing out (before the cameras and all the folks at home watching) all these problems, Pllluueeeeezzee Mummy MAKE THE SCARY BAD MAN GO AWAY. Naw, it was using the law (a serious one meant for real people in real danger)to shut up the Negro By The Piano.
Richard also sez:" As for Blakesleys requested audit of the CSD, I too insist that the audit cover all activites from the formation of the CSD. Heck, WE AGREE on this one."
Good Lord. Stop the presses! We agree. And, let's make it a forensic audit.
Steven sez:"What you are hoping is that after the disastrous actions you took just before the recall, and perpetuated with the dissolution attempt, that there will be no money left in the CSD coffers to defend the current directors… and as wrong as you are in your allegations, we all know that if you have no money to defend yourself, you lose."
Ah, yes, we're in the Realm of Medea. That's what makes this whole things so fascinating. Calling Dr. Freud! Is that a little reaction/formation I see before me?
Inlet sez:"
That neither Ron nor Ann have written a word about CCLO's debt until Richard raised the issue reveals their bias."
Can't speak for Ron, but CCLO is a private entity that owes money to another private entity. If I started writing about that sort of stuff, the blog would be endless. Since it's a private matter, Parker & Hawley are prefectly capable of suing whoever they feel signed whatever contract with them. But instead, we get a third party suing another third party that happens to be elected officials. Now the question, Why? has to come up.
Actually, Ron raised a few points earlier. What constitutes "membership" under the law? Do you have to be signed on in articles of incorportion in Sacramento as officially registered "officers" of the board? And don't you have to renew those papers yearly? & etc? So if Lisa was an official officer of the Board of CCLO and the certificcation papers were still in force when and/or if she stiffed Parker&Hawley, why don't THEY sue her? Why TPW? Is TPW acting as a cat's paw for Parker & Hawley?
Well, stay tuned, as they say.
Steven,
You've got to admit that the LOCSD is raising water, garbage and fire rates and their motivation is to use these areas to cover their other bills.
If a person were to disagree with the LOCSD's political agenda and to disagree with funding that agenda surreptitiously via higher water rates, why not take action to oppose such increases?
Speaking of bullies, surely you realize that one chief bullying method is to falsely characterize the motives of others.
Ann,
You're big on letting a real court and a real judge decide issues. Don't you think that any judge considering a restraining order would evaluate the situation carefully before issuing one? I agree that sometimes actions are part of political theater but in this case I think that your reference to Wolfe is trumped by the judge's own evaluation.
About the audit, if everyone agrees that it is a good thing, the question really is ... why hasn't it been done yet? A follow up question is why a recent firm contracted to do the audit resigned. I would imagine that had such occurred during the previous LOCSD administration, such an action would be considered by some as evidence of all sorts of wrong doing by Stan and Gordon. Why are the same folks who saw a snake under every rock now not looking for snakes at all?
Ann ... your explanation of your silence on Parker and Hawley versus CCLO suggests you knew that CCLO was refusing to pay their bill. While it is, indeed, a matter between these two parties and while Parker and Hawley knew they were taking a risk when choosing to work for a corporation, certainly their refusal to stand behind their promise is newsworthy and relevant to the level of credibility that Keith and Linde and all associated with CCLO.
Anyone who views Richard's bankruptcy as fair to bring up in this discussion will certainly agree.
Ann,
I have no expectations or need to alter your 'opinion' regarding any of my or the past CSD Board's actions. You dislike of me is not relevant to the larger issues.
The only 'opinion' that matters is that of Judge LaBarbara's at the upcoming TW Trial in Superior Court on October 6, 2008. His ‘opinion’ will be based upon the law and not political ‘mau-mauing.’
Let us face the facts. The Recall Board consists largely of perjurers who have misused their positions of authority to pay off financial debts incurred by a political organization (the CCLO) that they were active members of before and through the time they took office on the LOCSD board of directors. Additionally, the Recall Board’s admitted (and illegal) misappropriation of the April 2006 Property tax revenues is clear and undeniable. Your comical response to the facts is to present the Recall Board as victims of political intrigue, as if the Recall Board's current defense (consisting only of hypocritical self-pity, finger-pointing and conjecture) is a legitimate or winning defense to their many illegal acts.
-R
By the way, Wolfe’s title of his great 1970 book is Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers (not flack)….if you’re going to refer to literary work, at least get the title right. LOL.
Shark says:
No one is saying that one sort of debt excuses the other nor that it is okay for TPW to avoid payment because CCLO has done so.
Then I DID read wrong because that is EXACTLY what Richard is saying....and I charge you with the same as to your feelings on compairing the two debts.
It's not clear how you stand on Richards charge of the purgury thing. I think you know what I think on that charge.
You say Ron and Ann are not reporting (or whatever) both debts fairly. Where were you on the old sewer blog when everyone was blasting the CSD, if you are such a proponent of fairness. I guess your scruples depend on who you agree with.
"to hear from Ron that I am now part of a conspiracy makes me giggle"
Not that it matters, I don't, for one, think you are part of anything other than seeking a solution to the mess.
mike said,
"Oct 6 fran4, Oct 6...."
Sept 3 Mike Sept 3.....
It only makes sense that LAFCO agreed to the extension. TPW has continued to pay down their debt regularly. Filing a lawsuit against them to collect the remaining balance would only have cost them more than the remaining debt in legal fees and staff time.
Common sense prevails. Hallelujah!
Mike (aka REApraisor) sez;
" Maybe Ann could write a real investigative piece on community Rights when local government raises service fees to pay for lawsuits and their lawyers... Do we really need lawyers in the Los Osos CSD...???"
Maybe if you donated to the CSD rather than TW (lost cause)it would be money more well spent.
As for your last question.....of course you do......doesn't evryone...especially in Los Osos. You never know where the next lawsuit will strike. Be careful...once this is settled, lawyers will be in demand. ;-)
Shark,
"The key issue here is the comparison of how Ron and Ann have been treating the CCLO debt and how they have been treating the TPW debt. "
IMHO, I don't see why that should be an "issue" at all.
As posters of their respective blogs, they can treat issues as they please. They are expressing THIER perspective of an issue and are open minded enough to allow comments (not insults as some seem the need to do.) Those that don't like their opinions should start their own blog rather than point out the faults of anothers opinions.....or better still, don't read them.
Inlet sez:"You're big on letting a real court and a real judge decide issues. Don't you think that any judge considering a restraining order would evaluate the situation carefully before issuing one? I agree that sometimes actions are part of political theater but in this case I think that your reference to Wolfe is trumped by the judge's own evaluation."
Calling Mr. Margetson here. Wasn't that case dismissed? disappeared? the restraining order removed? I remember Mr. Margetson tromping into court with his attorney and poof! it suddenly all turned into one of those, Waaalll, "never minds," after the election was over and its purpose accomplished, and now I wonder, did Margetson sue Stan, Richard, Hensley to have his attorney's fees re-paid??
Inlet: "Speaking of bullies, surely you realize that one chief bullying method is to falsely characterize the motives of others."
You mean sort of like wrongfully accusing the new CSD members of misappropriating funds?
I agree, that is definitely a bully tactic.
Inlet, CCLO and Parker and Hawley do not concern me... I don't give a damn.
The reason I care about the TPW, LAFCO thing is because as a taxpayer I am directly affected by that issue... not the case with CCLO and P&H.
That reason alone explains why Ann would blog on one and not the other.
And the reason Richard's bankruptcy has always been fair game is because he was an elected official, put in charge of a finance committee, making financial decisions for me and my neighbors that have had disasterous results.
And that history makes it absolutely laughable that he now sits on his high horse's ass and accuses his predecessors of anything... and everyone needs to remember who they are dealing with before listening to him.
Richard said, "By the way, Wolfe’s title of his great 1970 book is Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers (not flack)….if you’re going to refer to literary work, at least get the title right."
So petty, Richard... Ann accidentally mispelled a word in a title to a book that she probably read and studued years ago.
She probably didn't just get done Googling it to find out what it was.
LOL
Ann said, "Wasn't that case dismissed? disappeared? the restraining order removed?"
If I remember correctly, I don't think the restraining order was ever issued... Stan and Richard never met the threshold for an emergency order and by the time the judge heard from both parties, Richard and Stan had been discredited.
I don't think Richard ever missed a meeting, or a chance to speak in public.
I could be wrong, but that's how I think it played out.
Steven,
You seem to be in really snippy mood this morning. I am surprised you didn't criticize me for spelling Wolfe correctly in my first response to Ann.
Okay ... if you don't view the CCLO/P&H issue as important because it doesn't affect your pocketbook ... don't you view it as at least reflecting on the amount of merit given to the public comment of the public comment given by those who promised to pay their lawyers but who have refused to do so?
On the matter of whether the waste of public funds lawsuit is bullying ... it would essentially boil down to whether the LOCSD board members had actually been wasteful.
What is funny here is that your two consecutive comments would seem to be at odds in a way. If public waste doesn't concern you why would the LAFCO budget? If you are concerned about whether LAFCO gets repaid, why aren't you concerned about whether the LOCSD board actions were the waste of public funds?
Franc,
The issue is that Ann and Ron are biased and that they appear to only see problems when someone named Stan, Richard or Pandora can be blamed but they don't see those same problems when people named Julie, Lisa and Chuck are the cause.
Logical inconsistency irritates me and shows exactly the merit of such comments.
If there is an apparent inconsistency in this case or not (like whether CCLO, being a corporation but TPW is not ... does it matter?) would allow for a thoughtful discussion that might provide some real insight.
In this case, some are saying that because P&H are private and CCLO is a corporation, it shouldn't matter that Keith is not paying his bills. I think that this attitude shows a real lack of respect for truth and promises, two things that I hold dearly.
As a believer, you know full well that we all have sinned ... but one sign of a repentant sinner is that they try to pay off their debts. Who is doing that in this case? That P&H are private and CCLO is a corporation doesn't matter all that much to me ... what does matter is that they've deliberately chosen not to do the right thing.
I would personally be troubled if I were you, Franc, because the very folks you support so strongly here are those who are defending Keith's right to tell his lawyer "I don't intend to pay even if an impartial party agrees that I should be doing so."
Shark,
Thank you for still another post being clear and to the point as to your position.
This sentence bothers me;
"because the very folks you support so strongly here are those who are defending Keith's right to tell his lawyer "I don't intend to pay even if an impartial party agrees that I should be doing so."
This is new to me (no surprise) and I wonder how you know this is true and why would the CSD care or defend such an issue?
Your are right, I have always tried to defend them for the un-fairness and the attacks on them which. It seems to appear that I condone what they do and have done while trying to instill a bit of understanding and compassion for their plight. Yes, Yes, I know, y'all say they brought it on themselves. I never believed this because I think alot of the trouble falls on the previous BOD majority, but that is just MY OPINION!
I realize you seek fairness (Richards financial woes) but, with all due respect, while I defend the present BOD, you tend to do likewise for the disposed 3a little.....which is OK, but please don't limit it to just them.
Richy says:
"It is nice that sanity prevailed despite the eleven or so folks (including Cesena and Schicker) that brayed only political hyperbole at the hearing."
"brayed?" And just what do you call what you have been doing these past few days?...whining?
Braying sounds better because they were speaking your language...HEE! HAW!
"political hyperboyle"?
See "brayed" above.
Richard wrote:
"LAFCO voted unanimously to approve extending the TW payment time schedule. TW will continue to pay LAFCO $1000 per month until debt retirement."
My favorite part of their decision was the rationale behind it: Essentially, "If we have to take Taxpayers Watch to court to get our cash, the court costs will be more than the amount of money that they are late on paying us."
Absolutely beautiful.
You know what you, Richard, and Gordon should have done the moment I hit the "publish" button on my story? You should have just paid the $9 grand and made that hearing go away. You f-d up.
What a colossal, official embarrassment that was for you guys.
Look what came out:
- It exposed your embarrassing financial situation.
- It reminded everyone that you and Gordon, right after you were democratically recalled from office, formed this shady group called "Taxpayers Watch" and then used it to "dissolve" the very agency that you were just recalled from, an attempt that failed miserably, after 4 hearings and nine months. (Frankly, that's pathetic.)
- It also allowed me to point out to county taxpayers that you guys were so bitter about being recalled from office, that you wanted to dissolve the very agency you were recalled from, even if it meant transferring multi-millions of dollars of debt that you and Gordon racked-up with your sewer bungling TO county taxpayers, and you and Gordon "didn't give a flip." (That was awesome. Thanks for the opportunity to do that.)
- It allowed Ann to show that, although you can't keep up with your agreed-to-so-you-won't-get-sued LAFCO payments, you seem to have plenty of cash round for your beloved lawsuits.
- It exposed that LAFCO saw your attempt as so pathetic that they charged you $30,000 just to HELP pay for the folly.
- It exposed that you guys had to sign a "Stipulation for Entry of Judgment" just so LAFCO wouldn't sue you to get their cash. (That was cool.)
- It exposed that you fell behind on your agreed-to-payments-so-you-won't-get-sued.
- It exposed that you guys had to go sniveling back to LAFCO and beg for an "extension."
- And it also set you up to be drug through the mud for everything you guys have done in Los Osos over the past seven years.
- And, in the end, LAFCO grants the extension, not because they want to show... whatever you guys are... compassion. No. They grant the extension because if they sue you to get their cash, it'll be more expensive than just HOPING that you'll pay it all back, on time (for a change).
Friggin' beautiful. I hope that was worth nine grand for ya... nine grand that you are eventually going to have to pay anyway.
Personally, I can't wait until you guys have to beg LAFCO for ANOTHER extension. Then we can do this all over again. It was a lot of fun.
For what it's worth, here's my "please deny request" e-mail that I submitted to LAFCO:
Dear Honorable LAFCO Board,
Regarding, Item A-3 Ratification of Time Extension for Taxpayers Watch to Pay LAFCO Charges Associated with Processing the Proposal to Dissolve the Los Osos Community Services District, on the July 31 2008, LAFCO agenda:
I'm asking that your board NOT ratify the time extension for "Taxpayers Watch" to pay, because too much time, both government and citizen, has already been wasted on this issue.
According to your executive officer, Paul Hood, Taxpayers Watch's failed dissolution attempt spanned "4 hearings and over 9 months" in 2006.
It is now July 31, 2008, and we, both government and citizen, are still wasting our time dealing with their failed dissolution attempt.
As I'm sure your Board is aware, Taxpayers Watch is led by two of the three former Los Osos CSD Directors that were recalled in late 2005.
Shortly after they were recalled from office, they formed Taxpayers Watch, and immediately attempted to dissolve the very agency that they were recently recalled from, even though that dissolution attempt, if successful, would have transferred millions of dollars in debts -- debts that the leaders of Taxpayers Watch accrued during their time in office (in fact, those debts were WHY they were recalled) -- to taxpayers countywide, and Taxpayers Watch didn't care.
Apparently, the only motive behind their dissolution attempt was to terminate the very government agency that they were recently, and democratically, recalled from, even if it meant saddling county taxpayers with tens of millions of dollars of their debt.
If their request for an "extension to pay" is granted by your board, LAFCO will be rewarding that behavior.
Enough time is enough time.
Please deny Taxpayers Watch's request for an extension to pay.
Finally, I also ask that your board add the cost of these proceedings to the "Charges Associated with Processing the Proposal to Dissolve the Los Osos Community Services District."
Thank you,
Ron Crawford
- - -
By the way, that "adding the cost" thing... I'm still trying to get that done.
Looks like Ron has started on Crystal Meth. Now he is criticizing LAFCO for making a decision to save money ... even though he was bitching and whining just a few days ago that they hadn't gotten paid and he wanted them to get as much as possible from TPW.
It really looks like Ron cares far more about getting his pound of flesh than he does about justice, what is best for Los Osos or what is best for the County.
What else is new?
Inlet, you are contradicitng yourself... if TPW has every intention of paying their debt, then LAFCO didn't actually save any money.
What LAFCO should've told them was, "Pay your debt according to the terms you agreed to or we will sue you and you will then have to also pay for court costs and attorney fees. And once we have a judgement the Sheriff will collect it and they aren't so forgiving when you fall behind in you payments."
That last part is something Stan can relate to.
Just a sec, gotta put down my pipe...
Guppy wrote:
"Now he is criticizing LAFCO for making a decision to save money..."
You guys never stop saying things that just set you up, do you?
You know what's interesting about their decision? It's that the only way that decision saves them money is if your boys, Taxpayers Watch (although you could be the same people), didn't have the $9000 on them yesterday.
See what I mean there?
If the extension had NOT been granted, all Taxpayers Watch would have had to have done was walk over to the county cashier's office and scratch a check for $9k, and everything would have been settled. No court costs for LAFCO at all.
The only way the "LAFCO saves money" argument makes any sense is if Taxpayers Watch DIDN'T have the cash yesterday, which would have forced LAFCO to sue, if they did not grant the extension
Very interesting. The logic in that ruling doesn't entirely add up.
So, what in the hell happened there?
Did LAFCO know in advance that Taxpayers Watch didn't have the $9,000?
That's the only way that decision makes sense.
The could have just said, "Request denied. That way to the county cashier's office. Next."
..well that item of business is out of the way...
...next up... Let's hear what the LOCSD is doing to resolve their Bankruptcy...
...on deck... Water and Trash fee increases if the LOCSD hasn't closed the doors and crawled away by then...
Mike wrote:
"..well that item of business is out of the way..."
Not for me. I still have several questions involving what happened there. It doesn't add up.
Hopefully I can get them answered by early next week, and I'll post the answers over at SewerWatch... you know, the blog I started years before Pandora helped Gordo and Richard form Taxpayers Watch... nice originality, guys. (Truth be known, I've always found that kind of flattering.)
...you do live in the past...
Taxpayers Watch has been exposed.
If you click here, I've addressed this fraudulent group.
You can't hide the truth forever.
osos,
You really opened yourself up for untold excuses,whining and lying. This should be interesting.
PS I read that exchange on the blog a couple days ago, but there are only two hangers-on from the old sewer blog and they are clueless.(gsan, however, thinks the world of me. ;-))
realistic1 sez:
"Filing a lawsuit against them to collect the remaining balance would only have cost them more than the remaining debt in legal fees and staff time."
Maybe you should point this out to TW the next time they contemplate filing another lawsuit against the CSD.
It's YOUR tax dollars the CSD uses to defend harassing lawsuits.
It wil be TW dollars that will pay these fees when they LOSE on Oct.6 Wonder if the court will take time payments or will Gordon and Richy just have to DO time?
What about the 11 lawsuits filed against the pre-recall Board...??? All LOST...!!!
..but then we saw the post-recall gang immediately pay the lawyers who had LOST all 11 lawsuits...
Tell us franc, just how many lawsuits has Taxpayers Watch filed...??? You do not know what you are talking about franc4...!!! WE have to pay for those poor decisions by this post recall CSD, but not you franc4, you don't even live in SLO County...!!!
Hey, there's some interesting info in that link that "Osos Change" supplied.
For example, "Lynette_Tornatzky" wrote:
"Michael Drake and I worked on the TW website"
That answers one of my questions from above.
So, Taxpayers Watch DOES have a web site. Great. Where is it? (I'm not finding it in Google.)
Truth of the matter is that they used to have one:
http://www.dissolvelocsd.com/
As you can see, the site no longer exists.
In an attempt to preempt Taxpayers Watch from creating a more solid identity, the LOCSD registered the domains taxpayerswatch.com, taxpayerswatch.net, taxpayerswatch.org and every time you typed in those URLs, you were redirected to losososcsd.org.
The reason Taxpayers Watch took down dissolvelocsd.com was due to the fact that they actually fabricated some of the content of articles written by Abraham Hyatt of The Tribune and many of their "facts" were horrifyingly inaccurate. Not only that, the web site design consisted of several pictures of randomly placed "honey huts" around town, which really spoiled their overall credibility.
Hope that explains things, Ron.
I seem to remember that the TW website had a pic of TriW with the big ditch full of rainwater.
Now if that wasn't ironic I don't know what is.
Travel blog update, just click on my name.
Best wishes to all back in L.O.
Osos Change wrote:
"Truth of the matter is that they used to have one"
So, they DON'T have a web site?
My mom's garden club has a great web site, and last I checked, my mom's garden club wasn't spending $50,000 tying up government agencies for "four hearings over 9 months," or officially supporting legislation (scroll to the bottom).
I guess Taxpayers Watch is the only "organization" on the face of the planet these days to NOT have a web site.
Too bad. Because, web sites are excellent sources of information.
Why, if Taxpayers Watch HAD a web site (like everyone else), we could find out things like how they get all of that money to waste 9 months (and counting) of everyone's time. Or, if they're a registered non-profit group. Or, when they have their meetings, IF they have meetings. Or how many "member(s)" they have (I added the "(s)" just in case there is more than one).
Shaaaaadyyyyy... ... ....
In my story, I show how LeGros and Hensley "didn't give a flip" that dissolving the LOCSD would have transferred "between 48 and 82 million dollars in liabilities incurred by the LOCSD" to COUNTY taxpayers.
Here are some others that didn't give a flip:
Stuart Denker "was for dissolving the LOCSD."
Dick Sargent "supported dissolution of the LOCSD."
Sharon Frederick "supported dissolving the LOCSD."
Rodger Anderson "supported dissolving the LOCSD." (Thanks, Rodg. County taxpayers 'preciate it.)
Jon Arcuni "supported dissolving the LOCSD."
Maria Kelly "supported dissolving the LOCSD."
This interesting: Joe Sparks "supported PRESERVING the LOCSD."
"Chairwoman Mann added that it was not right for the citizens of the County to pay for Los Osos’ problems."
Unlike those above, I agree with Chairwoman Mann.
"A second Motion was made by Commissioner Bianchi that the Commission write a letter to the Bankruptcy Judge in the LOCSD Bankruptcy proceeding asking that the Tri-W site not be sold prior to evaluation of the County on alternative sewer sites."
Uhhh... "evaluation" complete, and it showed Tri-W to be the absolute embarrassment for a sewer plant site that I've reported it to be for four years.
According to LAFCO (Bianchi's motion) sounds like the CSD can go ahead with the sale of Tri-W now.
Cool travel site, Mike. (See? Mike can start a web site simply for his travels, but Taxpayers Watch to inform the public on what they do? Not so much.)
Out.
Ron,
I believe I was one of the last speakers at the dissolution hearing and what I commented on was that the community was asking for help in their local governance. If you ask me my personal opinion on dissolution, I would tell you that I did not think it was a good idea but that I did believe the community had a right to be heard - this being a Democracy and all. From my observations and conversations, the hearings were drawn out so that AB2701 could be drafted and then LAFCO billed TW for the hearings and additional expense. Ask Paul Hood.
Since you don't bother really seeking actual opinions of the individual you chose to "quote" you lose credibility. I'm not intimidated by the conflict you are attempting to incite and feed through misstatements and if I take heat to shield others so that they can be a part of the community without having to be a part of a group, so be it.
You have a made up story about who you think I am Ron. You are a bully and a minion. Ironic that because I support a focus on what we have to do to move towards a healthy, vibrant community that can work through conflict vs. getting stuck in the crossfire, it's a reason for suspicion.
Why don't you come to LO and do an interview with me Ron. How about a face to face so you can look me in the eye while you invent your next story and I will happily discuss issues and possible solutions. Until you can do that, you have nothing but a cut and paste of what you can cull from wherever.
I guess everyone needs a hobby.
Maria wrote:
"How about a face to face so you can look me in the eye while you invent your next story..."
Eeeeeasy, Maria.
I'm not "inventing" anything.
Look for yourself. Here's the link.
Just click on that and read.
Here are some quotes from that link:
"Chairwoman Mann added that it was not right for the citizens of the County to pay for Los Osos’ problems."
I didn't "invent that."
and;
"Maria Kelly [address omitted], Los Osos, CA 93402, supported dissolving the LOCSD."
And I certainly didn't "invent" that.
Meet you face to face? What a waste of trip to beautiful Los Osos.
I mean, how would that play out? I drive all the way to LO, and say, "Hello Maria, did you support the dissolution of the LOCSD?
What are you going to say? "No?"
And when I ask you, "You do realize that if that attempt had been successful, "between 48 and 82 million dollars in liabilities" would have been transferred to county taxpayers (by the way, Rodger, that included Morro Bay taxpayers.)?
Again, What are you going to say? "No?"
What a waste of a drive.
Maria wrote:
"I support a focus on what we have to do to move towards a healthy, vibrant community..."
Even if it means saddling county taxpayers with "between 48 and 82 million dollars in liabilities?"
That's nice for Los Osos (I guess). Sucks for county taxpayers (for sure).
Thanks for that.
"I guess everyone needs a hobby."
Fortunately, I get paid for mine.
Here are a couple more quotes I invented, from an imaginary staff report:
"The Los Osos situation is certainly unique; however sending the message that LAFCO encourages such proposals without paying processing fees might encourage others to submit such complex and adversarial proposals. In general, local governments should be encouraged to work out issues through the democratic process..."
Ya think?
and;
"Dissolving the district is not in the public interest if you are a resident of another community in the County."
Damn, I can invent some good quotes, huh?
Ron, thanks for the kind words.
You can put me in the same column with Maria and Jon Arcuni except that I know that dissolving the CSD is about as likely as winning the lottery without buying a ticket.
That's why I never supported TW.
I knew their efforts were a huge waste of time (see archives)
That said, I also believe that the cost of this whole sewer war should be shared by all the principals responsible and the county BOD is right up there with the rest of them.
Specifically Our SLO supe at the time Bud Laurent
Anyone remember that slogan?
"Take a stand, make a difference"
Almost as catchy as "Cheaper Better Faster"
Or "We have a plan"
Government by slogan has been a dismal failure for L.O.
IMHO
Ron still doesn't get that the liabilities could have gone away if the CSD had been dissolved. The project could have been restarted by the County - and the contractors could have gone back to work. One debt down. The Water Board fines might have been forgiven with the project back on track - that fee being the small potatoes fee anyway in the total bill. Two debts down. The money lost to BWS out of the SRF monies? Not a huge amount either. That we would have been stuck with and still are.
However, unbeknownst to all of the above mentioned players, AB2701 was in the works and every month that passed took the cheaper solution further away. Ron doesn't get that the people were lied to by people that had no plan and even if they did it would NOT have been $100 - $154 per month - so Measure B passed- (now declared illegal by two different judges), and the old Board was voted out.
Unfortunately, the CSD has run amok so badly that the debts are now very real. Bigger than before with the reserves being gone and all. No project is held by the CSD, but huge debts are and the current Board has discussed dissolution. (Like LAFCo will be MORE sympathetic the second time around!)
So where are we? Limping along with a lame Board (except for Joe) that has given us nothing but debt and grief. We will pay another 17 years or so on our tax bills for the original project, we will pay for the new project, and we will pay all of the debt this Board has brought us. THIS is what TW was trying to prevent.
You guys are making my day...!!!
I sure would like to know that Ron is going to be helping pay to climb out of the financial hole this CSD has dug...!!!!
Thanks Ron, your tax contributions are going to be cheerfully accepted... Hope it's a fully dollar for every word you have ever written... Have a nice day...
Ron,
Of all the residents of the County who are outside the CSD boundaries, you are one of those who should not complain about the debts of the LOCSD you supported and who adopted positions you advocated.
For you to now complain that you might have to pay some of the costs of the programs you advocated just shows how silly you have become. You are acting like a hawk complaining about the cost of the Iraq war.
Do you stand behind the actions of the post-recall board or not? If yes, you shouldn't mind paying your share. If no, you shouldn't have been meddling in internal Los Osos politics over the last several years advocating for positions you are unwilling to fully stand behind.
Sheesh!
Mike Green wrote:
" Specifically Our SLO supe at the time Bud Laurent. Anyone remember that slogan? "Take a stand, make a difference." Almost as catchy as "Cheaper Better Faster"
Take one guess what those slogans have in common?
Yep? Pandora Nash-Karner came up with both of them.
A couple of years back, I asked Laurent if Nash-Karner was involved in his 1990 campaign when he was trying to unseat then-Supervisor Bill Coy.
He told me that she was his "campaign materials manager."
In 1990, I was fresh out of Cal Poly journalism schoo, and working as a reporter for The Bay News, so I covered that election extensively.
And, as I have written many times, Coy was a "yes" vote to continue with the county's project in 1990. Laurent was a "no" vote.
Nash-Karner cranked up her behavior-based marketing machine (for the first time that I am aware of in Los Osos) and saturated (of course) Los Osos (and The Bay News [and Sun Bulletin] office) with Laurent's "take a stand make a difference" "campaign materials" and Laurent won.
Laurent was a "no" vote for eight years... just long enough for Nash-Karner to form the Solution Group in 1997 and saturate Los Osos with "better, cheaper, faster." (18 years of obstructionism, and counting.)
I wrote all about that at this link.
Now, I have to go and "Move forward" "Save the dream" and "do-do it right," "one project at a time" and see if Paul Hood answered my e-mail from yesterday:
- - -
Hello Paul,
I read in a LAFCO staff report:
"LAFCO staff time is carefully tracked using an activity log whereby the hours and activities associated with the project of each staff person is inputted."
According to said "activity log," how much money was spent processing Item A-3 for last week's meeting?
Thanks again,
Ron
- - -
Peace.
Ahhhh yes, it's all Pandora's fault. No one has a mind of their own when Pandora's involved. No one is capable of independent thought.
What a tired song and dance.
Kinda like you, Ron. Cutting and pasting the same story over and over again to make new stories.
I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Get a life.
Ron,
Just yesterday you told us that Maria supported dissolution at the Sep 21, 2006 LAFCO hearing you were wrong. Whether you can cite a LAFCO staff summary of the meeting or not, she did not support dissolution (watch the slo-span video ... it's about 2:22 into the hearing). You f*ck*d up. What makes it worse is that when Maria tells you that you were incorrect ... you argued with her ... about what she said ... and you didn't bother checking an obvious source first.
I have no problem trusting meeting minutes, but when further review suggests they were in error, a wise person corrects himself.
You seem to have your sights unfairly set on Maria. It is almost as if her middle name is Pandora or something.
Man up and apologize for your error. Take Maria up on her offer to chat so that you'll actually know her position on various things. Both would be best. If you do neither you should be ashamed to call yourself a journalist.
You know Shark, my middle name is Martha but if you cross our eyes and squint it could look like Pandora! Today at the BOS, I was told that I should be careful who I might be seen with and that if someone took a picture and then used that....we actually shared a nice little laugh about that so here is my solution:
I'm going to either A) Contact each and every ex-Director and take a picture with them myself and post on a website or B) Get all the ex-Directors together for a group photo to save everyone the time and trouble of having to continue to follow me around and watch who I speak with and when.
On one hand it's a bit creepy that people care so much but then on the other hand, I'm oddly flattered that people think I'm capable of such intense and amazing subterfuge.
I'm impressed you went back and watched - I contemplated it but figured if Ron was really interested in the actual story, he'd figure it out. Fiction is so much more exciting than facts.
Bravo, Maria.
Way to keep a sense of humor about it all.
It's amusing that Ron and others are so convinced that women like you and Pandora are so powerful as to be able to hypnotize the masses.
It's obvious they don't have much respect for an individual's ability to think for themselves...apparently Pandora has had Rasputin-like control over every District 2 Supervisor for the last 30 years.
It's all so silly. Thanks for keeping it all in perspective - and be sure and contact me to join the group photo of pre-recall board supporters....
Cheers,
Real 1
Guppy wrote:
"Just yesterday you told us that Maria supported dissolution at the Sep 21, 2006 LAFCO hearing you were wrong."
So, LAFCO f-d up when they wrote this????:
"Maria Kelly... supported dissolving the LOCSD."
I'm going to copy and paste that again, because I want to re-read it, just to see if I actually DID f-up:
"Maria Kelly... supported dissolving the LOCSD."
O.K., 1 mo' time:
"Maria Kelly... supported dissolving the LOCSD."
Hmmmm.
Gup, do you work for the U.S. Census?
2+2=5
"Maria Kelly... supported dissolving the LOCSD."
R1 wrote:
"It's amusing that Ron and others are so convinced that women like you and Pandora are so powerful as to be able to hypnotize the masses."
What about Lisa and Julie? ; - )
and;
"... apparently Pandora has had Rasputin-like control over every District 2 Supervisor for the last 30 years."
[insert buzzer sound here.]
No. Only the past 18 years.
(You know what bugs me about her behavior-based-marketing Bill Coy out of office -- well, other than Los Osos would of had an operating sewer in about the mid-90s for about $50/month had she not "taken a stand and made a difference" -- it's that, I've interviewed Bill several times, and he's a REALLY nice, capable, dedicated guy. He made an excellent Supervisor.)
Peace. Out.
franc4 said...
Realistic1 said...
Ahhhh yes, it's all Pandora's fault. No one has a mind of their own when Pandora's involved. No one is capable of independent thought.
"No one is capable of independent thought."
If folks were "capable", why did the CSD concept pass with such a majority? Marketing, maybe?...or false promises?....or what?
So many now say that the CSD was a bad idea to start with. Is that also "independent thought"?
Face it....you "independnt thinkers" were sold a bill of goods with the alluring word "cheaper", period! Why did the second voicing of that word "hook" y'all again? Ya' think y'all would have learned.srcq
Ron,
Yes, LAFCO did make an error when they said Maria supported dissolution. You made the error yourself when you (correctly) quoted their error. You made the statement yourself rather than writing that Maria "didn't give a flip." You didn't check the veracity of the LAFCO minutes which you could have easily done.
When Maria told you that you were wrong, you argued with her. That is childish.
Now that I have explained where you could have gotten evidence (in advance of your misstatement or after Maria called you out on your error) you are still arguing that the LAFCO minutes were right even though Maria claims they were wrong and even though the (let's see if using bold helps you understand) videotaped hearing proves they are wrong.
Sure, a sloppy thinker might think that she supported dissolution based on one sentence in her remarks (you're not a sloppy thinker, are you Ron?), but here are a few quotes from her remarks.
"I question the dissolution at this time."
"I do support measure 2701."
"I think that we don't necessarily have to answer the dissolution question right now."
She followed with statements that tell us she is in favor of the district remaining in tact after the County takes over the wastewater project so that once the divisive nature of the project is removed, the folks in the community could work together toward achieving common goals.
Face it Ron, you f*ck*d up and rather than doing the right thing by apologizing and making the choice to actually ask Maria herself about what she believes and advocates, you're not being defensive.
Again, you have the opportunity to man up and apologize for your error. If you choose to do so, you will earn back some respect you've lost among those who value truth and careful thinking.
If you choose not to apologize but are going to stick behind your assessment that Maria was in favor of dissolution, it would be good for you to explain how here statement "I question the dissolution at this time" can be spun as support for dissolution.
If you do neither we'll realize that you are a grade A+ *ssh*l* who is willing to misrepresent the opinion of others and unwilling to correct errors of import.
Can't believe I'm doing this - don't usually give Franc the time of day, but....
I never supported the formation of the CSD. I was totally on board with the County Plan.
Once the CSD was formed, I supported the post-ponds program...I was never in favor of the "Ponds of Avalon" idea. Don't support it now either - no matter where they want to put it.
Here are a few other facts about my position:
1) I don't give a rat's ass where they put the damn thing. Never have. All I have ever supported was GETTING IT DONE.
2) I don't support STEP for the simple reason that I don't want a mini-sub sunk on my sliver-sized lot. It would render 90% of the remaining footprint of my lot unusable. Don't want to build a mansion - just want to be able to turn around in my kitchen and have an actual driveway.
Behavior based marketing is for sheep. I know a snow job when I see one, whether it's coming from Pandora, Julie, Lisa or Gail - or (perhaps especially) from Ron.
Have a pleasant day.
Perhaps ron's mental state is so fragile that to admit to a mistake would send him into psychic oblivion, therefore he avoids doing so?
You ought to try personal growth ron, you may be surprised by your own resiliency. I'd support you trying.
Let's get this sucka up to 100, whadaya say? (Some interesting info is coming out if it.)
Franc 4 wrote:
"So many now say that the CSD was a bad idea to start with."
That is an excellent and intensely interesting take. Here's why:
Taxpayers Watch now uses to their advantage, the fact that everyone NOW realizes what a ginormous mistake it was to form the CSD on the back of "better, cheaper, faster" in the first place.
Think about that... it's so awesome.
For six years, Hensley, LeGros, Nash-Karner, etc. do such an embarrassing job as LOCSD Directors in their handling of the sewer project, that the town is forced to recall them, and then Hensley, LeGros, Nash-Karner, etc. turn right around and ask those same people to support Taxpayers Watch's ridiculous disillusion... errrrr... dissolution attempt.
Of course Los Osos residents are going to support dissolving the LOCSD, because they hate what Taxpayer-Watch-types have done to them with it... for six years.
Here's where it gets even more disgusting. According to sources, Taxpayers Watch officially points to the over 3,000 signatures on the dissolution petition as their "members."
I have a question.
Do the people that signed that silly petition know they are "members" of Taxpayers Watch, when it was the people behind Taxpayers Watch that, understandably, led the vast majority of those people to sign that f-ing petition in the first place?
It's my guess that they don't, and, if they did, they'd probably be pretty pissed off.
And that petition -- THAT petition -- led to "four hearings over nine months?"
What a joke.
(Gup, you call those quotes "support?" So, I was "correctly" "wrong?" You guys are too much. You'd be funny... if the way you went about your busy-ness wasn't so sickening.)
Ron,
I challenge you to find the slo-span website, listen to that LAFCO hearing and spin us a convincing argument that Maria spoke in favor of dissolution.
At face value, her words (not just those I quoted, but the whole of her comment) say that she opposes dissolution. For you to argue that the LAFCO staff were correct when they say she was in favor ... even when she has already told you she was not in favor of dissolution would seem to require some clarification and clever word smithing. Give it a try, why don't you?
If you choose not to do so and choose not to apologize to Maria, we will understand you to be a "journalist" who doesn't bother doing appropriate research before writing and who can't be bothered to retract false statements when called on them. In short, you will have proven yourself to be anything but a journalist.
The challenge is on the table. Are you man enough to do the right thing or not?
ron, ask yourself this - why did LAFCo fail to just say NO to dissolution right at the beginning? Because they wanted to see how AB2701 was playing out behind the scenes. Since it succeeded, dissolution was not necessary from their POV. Had AB2701 crashed - well - I guess that is why they dragged the dissolution hearings on for so long, just in case they HAD to dissolve.
Don't you find it ironic that the sitting board is discussing dissolution?.
I don't think Ron finds it ironic at all that the voices most strongly opposed to dissolution just two years ago are now considering the question.
That Lisa now thinks dissolution should be considered but castigated Richard just two years back for advocating the same thing just shows how prescient Richard was and how much Lisa was not thinking thru the issue but instead reacting to a perceived attack. Richard saw the writing on the wall and figured that dissolution was a good idea (note: I am not sure I agree with him ...) from the point of view of the citizens of the district. Lisa claimed that their house was in order and that dissolution was by no means necessary.
What has changed in the last two years that has changed Lisa's mind? Is it only that she is now more fully aware of the dire straits Richard pointed out back then?
Nope, Ron won't find it ironic. He seems to only see irony when folks named Pandora, Richard or Stan appear to have a double standard. A double standard by people named Julie or Chuck is boring to Ron and thus not worth writing about.
I would think that anyone who really cares about Los Osos and her citizens would care about double standards no matter their origin.
Shark sez;
"Is it only that she is now more fully aware of the dire straits Richard pointed out back then?"
Shouldn't that read......."the dire straits Richard LEFT the CSD back then?"
I know he is your champion, but shouldn't you be just as critical of him as you are of Ron? You folks just nit-pick every word he says and never point out the stuff he is right on the mark about.
real sez;
"Can't believe I'm doing this - don't usually give Franc the time of day, but...."
I know it must have put a great strain on you, so thanks for clearing up your stand on stuff. Guess I had you all wrong. I thought you were one of the "bad guys" from the old sewer blog.
....you have a nice, God filled day yourself.
The weak never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.
Mahatma Gandhi
Franc:
I am the "Real 1" from the Tribune Blog. If you had me "all wrong", then you must not have read my posts carefully. The only thing I have ever advocated was getting it done. My issues with the post-recall board were about nothing but their lack of common sense.
Real 1
Franc,
The last day Richard was in office, the CSD was solvent and had a wastewater project underway.
It was only after Richard left that the recall board stopped the project because they believed they had a better idea. The recall board thought that the RWQCB and SWRCB were lying when they told the LOCSD that no, they could not move the sewer and keep the SRF loan and that the LOCSD would be fined for a lack of progress should they abandon the only project on the table. The post recall board presumably thought they could stiff the contractors without them suing, thought that Measure B gave them some protection (hahahaha) and thought that they could use the SRF money on hand to buy some consulting work to get some initial design work.
The outcome of these actions, we all know. You may want to blame Richard and Gordon for pursuing the only option they had (sandwiched between the SRF requirements, the RWQCB and the CCC there wasn't much wiggle room) but such blame would not be reasonable. It would presume that Julie and Steve and their actions had ho impact on where we are today.
If you look at the long term history of this issue, the die was cast about 2001. Any complaints about the location of the treatment plant, treatment method and collection system should have been raised before then. To raise them afterwards and to insist on moving the sewer "no matter how much it costs" is extremely disrespectful of those in our community who are on the margin. Maybe the wealthiest inside the PZ don't mind paying more for a sewer, but to insist that the rest of us do as well ... just because they didn't raise objections to the location at the right time just strikes me as selfish to the core.
Nope, Richard left the LOCSD in good shape. Those who have been running things since then are the ones who have screwed up. Have you read the conclusions of the LOCSD audit. The document spins a picture of an organization who has no idea of how much money they really have yet continues to spend money in an unwise fashion. This all started during the tenure of Dan Blesky and Lisa.
Gup wrote:
"At face value, her words (not just those I quoted, but the whole of her comment) say that she opposes dissolution."
So, Maria opposed Taxpayers Watch during their failed dissolution attempt, and was in favor of PRESERVING the CSD like Linde, Julie, Keith, Lisa and the rest?
Huh...
I guess that means that she will be contacting LAFCO immediately and demanding that they correct their Minutes to read:
""Maria Kelly... supported PRESERVING the LOCSD."
Let me know when she does that.
I'm very curious to hear how LAFCO responds to that request. IF they make that change, I'll be sure to copy-and-paste that flip-flop... errrrrrr... "correction" come election time.
Or, is she o.k. with factually incorrect information about her remaining on the official record?
Me? Not so much.
If LAFCO had written...
""Ron Crawford... supported dissolving the LOCSD."
... and I didn't say that, I would have been on the phone the day those Minutes were released demanding it be changed.
I guess Maria is less like that.
(Reached the "100" mark... sweet.)
Ron,
You're being a dick about it.
Why not just apologize?
Presumably Maria already has contacted LAFCO with their mistake or she will be doing so sometime soon. Perhaps you don't realize how minutes are created and approved. Maria was not contacted by LAFCO staff asking her whether their summary of here comments was correct or not. I would even hazard a guess that she, like you, assumed the LAFCO staff had correctly summarized her opinion correctly. (I presume you are not criticizing Maria for doing exactly what you did ... trust LAFCO ... because that would be hypocritical.)
Even if Maria has a compelling case for changing the minutes, that cannot be done without a formal action of LAFCO. Because LAFCO itself approved the minutes, the staff cannot make changes in those minutes until the board themselves directs that change.
So ... even if Maria insists on making a change that it seems that only you care deeply about ... and even if the staff agrees with her, it is likely at the next LAFCO meeting that such a change would occur.
And that is if LAFCO is willing to amend the minutes. I can just imagine that argument during the open comment period now:
Maria: I have been informed that my comments were incorrectly summarized in the September 2006 minutes so I would like them corrected.
board member: Paul, do you agree?
Hood: I agree, her comments were not correctly summarized.
board member: Mrs. Kelly, why is this so important to you to you that you hired a babysitter to watch your four kids?
Maria: Some guy named Ron who doesn't even live in Los Osos needs my comments to be correctly summarized because he relies on LAFCO minutes as if they were gospel and he is unwilling to actually watch the videotaped hearing online at slo-span.org and he is unwilling to contact me personally to get my opinion clarified.
board member: hahahaha. I vote to amend the minutes as requested.
Yes, Maria. Let us know when you make that request so that we can all go to the hearing and laugh along with the board members at how silly Ron is being.
If nothing else, we can all watch or listen later on slo-span.org ... after all, it's pretty easy to do.
Now Ron, that'll really be priceless, won't it?
While we're all getting so concerned with publishing absolute accuracy for future CSD campaigns, could Ron forecast the Tacker explaination of THE PLAN that she had back during the Recall?
It would be very helpful to assure all us voters that we were receiving the true picture of where our candidates stand on our local issues. Then real journalists would be able to publish truth and understanding in the American Way!
If Julie runs, just think, she can spin how bankruptcy is really a GOOD thing for the community and how she REALLY meant, "just not THAT sewer," when she claimed for years, "There will be a sewer in Los Osos over my dead body."
Shark says:
"…the die was cast about 2001. Any complaints about the location of the treatment plant, treatment method and collection system should have been raised before then."
Thank you for bringing that up. Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John all lived here then. Why were they silent during the process? Why did they only surface in 2004 when the lawsuits were just about done on stopping the project and the project was almost ready to roll? That has been the question that I have asked over and over and have not found any answer for. AlI can think up - isn't that about when Gail showed up?
Toons:
Your recollection is correct...no one showed up to challenge the Final EIR...no one said squat until a certain "wastewater operator" showed up.
Thanks, realistic 1!
I'm watching the Slo-Span LAFCo hearing - and laughing at Lisa saying the discussion of selling Tri-W was a typo on the closed session agenda!! A TYPO! Now Bleskey is trying to defend "borrowing money" from the Water Fund to complete the "current project" (Ripley) as well as borrowing MTBE funds. Repayment would be made when a wastewater project comes on line. Like HOW many years is that in the future!?
Bleskey is touting the benefits of the Pirana at the Fire Station!!
This is just nauseating - now he's talking about raiding the bond reserves.
Shark,
Thank you for still another review of your version of the history of this whole 10 year saga.
With all due respect, you or anyone ever "covers" what was going on twixt 1998 and 2001 when your pals were busy spending the 20M the voters gave them to play with. Furthermore, I guess y'all forgot that when Richard left the LOCSD "in good shape", Lisa as the new president, had no idea what "good shape" the LOCSD was left in due to the superb record keeping (in his head only) of your other pal....Phi Beta Crapa.
She had to physically go the the bank and was shocked at what such "good shape" Richard left the LOCSD in....roughly 2M, if I remember correctly. If I am wrong I'm sure you will give me the exact amount left in the coffers.
Also, before you remind me that Julie and Lisa were members of the same BOD, I'll remind you the the majority, whom you champion to this day, held several meetings, sans the two ladies...just a moot point, I suppose.
But, as someone said, that's "living in the past", so continue challenging Ron. That seems to be the general theme here anyhow, so I'll butt out.
Thanks .
real real 1 sez;
"then you must not have read my posts carefully."
Right! guess I missed that with all the name calling, insults and telling what an a$$ I was/am. Funny, no one ever told me why. I guess I was a Ron clone on that blog.....you know posting the truthabout stuff that doesn't set well with folks that don't like to hear truth.
Oh well, gone are the good old days. Like I told Shark, I'll butt out and let y'all TRY TO humiliate Ron.
Peace,love and right on brother!
Franc,
The $20M was voted on in 2001.
The LOCSD was in "good shape" financially in September 2005 compared to today by any imaginable standard. To suggest there were problems in 2005 but not today is ludicrous.
As an example ... just ask yourself two questions ... how soon will a sewer be online and how much are we going to have to pay for it? The recall essentially delayed the solution and increased our costs. (Any figures that suggest the new County plan will cost about the same or less than TriW are not incorporating LOCSD debts into the calculations.)
If some board members are unable or unwilling to make a meeting for any reason but there is a quorum of the voting members, a meeting can be held anyway. Presumably if Lisa or Julie wanted to vote on the issues being decided at such meetings, they could have made themselves available in some fashion (like, for example, via phone). If meetings were intentionally scheduled for times when one member is "unable" to make it, that member would need to consider the question of whether their pre-scheduled conflicting event is more important than representing their constituency.
No offense to Julie and Lisa, but if there was a meeting that was noticed and scheduled via normal procedures ... it is they, and not the other board members who is to blame for their absence.
If you wanna run with the big dogs ...
Lastly, you suggest I am defending the pre-recall board. I am not. I am, however, continually struck with how unwise the votes of the post-recall board. They simply refused to listen to people with solid information and they made decisions based on their (incorrect) perceptions.
Post a Comment