Calhouns Can(n)ons

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Planks ‘n Logs

Here’s a L.A. Times story: Thousands of “Christians” all over the state are holding fasts and prayer vigils, day and night, fasting and praying. And here’s their prayer: “Dear God, please, pluuueeezzze, remove equal civil rights from some of my fellow Californians by passing Pro. 8, and so keep those people second class citizens forever and ever, world without end, we ask this in Baby Jeeeeeesus name, amen.”

I’m sorry, but what these good folks should be praying is something like this: “Dear God, please, pluueeezzze make me worthy of your love by removing the plank from mine own eye before I spend endless time looking for the mote in my neighbor’s eye, world without end, amen.”

I’m sorry, but I think the world would be a better place if certain religious folks spent more time looking to the state of their own souls and less time trying to deny equal protection and equal rights to their fellow (civil, secular) citizens.

Oh, Dear, Maybe

KVEC radio talk-show host, David Congalton, used to say that the endorsement from the Tribune was automatically the kiss of death to any candidates. I guess he was referring to post election results that seemed to indicate such an observation, more times than not. (Not a statistically accurate observation, but more of a Daveian droll comment.) Now I see that the Tribune has endorsed Maria Kelly and Marshall Ochylski for the Los Osos CSD. I got a flyer in the mail recently that made it look that they were running as a slate. Given the history of Los Osos and “slates” of candidates, I could only think that maybe voters would (should?) be leery of slates . . . given the history of same in Sewerville. Well, if Dave’s observation holds, my sympathies to the candidates. Actually, no matter who wins, my sympathies to them.

Block the Vote

Oh, those scamps. According to a new article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Greg Palast, those merry GOP pranksters are busy distracting the public with ACORN, while again working full bore to cage and or purge newly registered democratic voters and deter new voters, especially if they're likely to vote democratic. And lord knows what’s still up with the various electronic, paperless voting machines, ripe for hacking.

Yes, it’s a rerun of the Ohio vote wars. At www.rollingstone.com/issue1064 American politics at its finest and what happens when a nation remains closely divided, locked in and reluctant to get off their butts and actually go vote in full numbers, thereby leaving the voting results close enough to steal, and/or not caring for the past few years to see to it that our looney voting procedures, rules and methods were standardized, secured and fixed. I mean the problems started showing up 8 years ago. Enough time, you’d think?

So, remember, on election day, vote early, vote often and get your dead Uncle Harry to the polls as many times as possible. Apparently, that IS the American way.

62 comments:

Richard LeGros said...: Hi Ann,

Gee, I guess you missed my last three posts responding to your October 10, 7:10AM post. Don't worry...I have reposted them for Ya...good reading!

Any thoughts?
-R
PS: the posts are sans recopying of the Open Letter and Schicker's response (which you can read in your topic posting below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Richard LeGros said...
Ann,

I have been out of town on business…much has occurred on this blog since then.

Getting back to one of your posts dated October 10 @ 7:10 AM

To respond clearly to your post of October 10 I will have dissected your post into ‘parts’, of which this is part 1. Please forgive the length of this post.

YOU POSTED:
“Does that include a letter written by Richard to the CSD5 board using the word "reserve" in it? At letter that sure sounded like Richard was putting the Board on notice that something had happened without their knowledge or authorization and he was bringing it to their attention. I found that interesting. Plus, I'm still curious: If Dan Blesky made the payment without the Board's authorization or knowledge (and Richard's letter seems to indicate he's bringing this to their attention, i.e. it's not something they're already aware of?) then why didn't TPW sue Wildan? Was this an administrative error -- not a Board authorized action -- and so does Blesky needs to be sued? Maybe somebody knows why Wildan wasn't in court.”

RESPONSE:
Mr. Swartz is referring to the “Open Letter to the CSD Board” (posted at the end of this post) that I wrote to the recall board on June 28, 2006. The Open Letter is a non-threatening ‘heads up’ to the Recall Board encouraging the Board to investigate the activities of then CSD Interim Manager, Dan Blesky (of Wildan). The Open Letter highlighted that Blesky had spent the majority of the April, 2006 Property Tax proceeds on district expenses OTHER than what the tax proceeds were collected, and legally obligated, to pay for.

The official response to the Open Letter was a Tribune Viewpoint written by CSD board president Lisa Schicker, published July 12, 2006 (also posted below). Schicker’s response did not address any of the serious issues raised in the Open Letter; and instead focusing entirely on accusatory rhetoric dismissing a private citizen’s attempt to help the Board with information regarding the irregular performance of the CSD General Manager along with analysis of the CSD’s financial position.

The CSD5 stood by Schicker’s position for the next 28 MONTHS; during which it became the centerpiece of the CSD5’s court pleadings against the TW lawsuit (i.e. the ‘Blame Hensley Defense’); that is until the Motion for Summary Judgment hearing of Wednesday, October 8, 2008. Last Wednesday Swartz, in his opening statements to Judge LaBarbera, used the Open Letter to declare that it is Blesky who is entirely to blame for the illegal expenditure of the property tax proceeds without the knowledge or directive of the CSD; and that TW concurs with the CSD5 on this point. This is an amazing declaration as the CSD5 now acknowledge that the Open Letter’s analysis is correct.
Overall, what is now certain is that the CSD5’s defense to the TW lawsuit has shifted from the ‘Blame Hensley Defense’ to the ‘Blame Blesky Defense’.

At this point in time the CSD5 has admitted that:
1. The Tax Revenues were not spent as legally mandated.
2. That the improper expenditure of the Tax Revenues is the result of the mismanagement of then GM, Blesky.
3. That as a board they were unaware, and had no knowledge of, of the mismanagement of Blesky.

The CSD5 hope that #3 is the defense against being personally held responsible for per the TW lawsuit. TW has evidence showing that #3 is not true; and that the CSD5 were aware of the behavior of Blesky.

However, a larger question (not to be confused with the ‘core’ question) is at the point in time that Blesky’s mismanagement became obvious, why did the CSD5 NOT PURSUE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AGAINST SAID MISMANAGEMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE TAXPAYER’S INTERESTS?

-R
11:30 AM, October 20, 2008
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Richard LeGros said...
Hi Ann

Regarding your post of October 10 @ 7:10 AM post: PART 2

YOU WROTE:
“As for being unprepared for trial, if I'm not mistaken, part of why they couldn't go forward is that TPW's attorney has not given them the info they've repeatedly requested. Judge LaBarbara made it clear TPW's Attorney couldn't just dump a big pile of papers in their lap and say, THERE! So they were ordered to meet and confer and whatever documents TPW is refusing to turn over, must be individually "splained" (defended) to the judge. That'll take time. I also found it interesting that apparently written documents, including Richard's letter and the audit reports and other documents pointed one way regarding the LIAFF account, while so far (apparently) only testimony made by Bruce Buel points another way,(despite months available to TPW to make public records requests to turn up any documents supporting Buel's testimony) so it'll be interesting to see at trial which testimony carries more weight or which evidence has more credibility. I'm also going to be intrested, at trial, to see where "due care" "due dilligence" "prudence," etc. falls.”

RESPONSE:
TW HAS provided the relevant documents that the CSD5 have requested. The fact that the CSD5 are not ready for trial is that they have been dragging their feet to get ready for trial. They have not yet performed any depositions; and have been filing nonsensical court documents such as the attempted and denied Cross Complaint and objection papers to the TW Motion to Quash (which was upheld in favor of TW).

As for the contents of the LAIF account, the declarations of Bruce Buel and two declarations of Pat McClenahan, along with the 2005-2006 audit of Mr. Crosby, supports the TW contention that the LAIF in June of 2006 held only 2002 bond assessment proceeds….not the fire and water reserves which I mistakenly assigned to the LAIF in the Open Letter. To spend bond assessment proceeds that were collected to build the WWTF on fire fees is an illegal use of said funds.

-R
9:47 AM, October 21, 2008
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Richard LeGros said...
Hi Ann

Regarding your post of October 10 @ 7:10 AM post: PART 3

YOU WROTE:
“Also, La Barbera did note that it doesn't matter how unclean the previous CSD's hands were,(his words) it doesn't matter what the pre-recall board did to set up the destruction of the post recall CSD (La Barbara clearly gets it, at least), none of that matters at this point (summary judgement). That can be argued at trial and hope it clarifies the mitigating circumstances. I also found it funny that TPW's attorney stated that he objected to the judge granting a summary dismissal at this point "because this case goes far, far beyond facts."

RESPONSE:
Judge LaBarbera was referring to the GENERAL LEGAL DOCTRINE of “UNCLEAN HANDS”; which was the basis of the CSD5’s attorneys (Mr. Swartz) argument in the CSD5’s opposition papers to the TW Motion to Quash. In the opposition papers Swartz was arguing the ‘Blame Hensley Defense’ that prior boards had “UNCLEAN HANDS” that forced the CSD5’s illegal actions.

Judge LaBarbera didn’t agree with Swartz’s “UNCLEAN HANDS” argument and denied the “UNCLEAN HANDS” argument as being relevant to the TW lawsuit or court proceedings. Further, Judge LaBarbera will not allow any use of the “Blame Hensley Defense” or the “UNCLEAN HANDS” arguments by the CSD5 in future court papers or court proceedings (i.e. the trial). So Ann, you are very mistaken when you wrote “That can be argued at trial and hope it clarifies the mitigating circumstances” is simply incorrect. Those issues are officially moot to the court. ‘Mitigating circumstances’ do not exist that will legally forgive the CSD5’s violating the law.

Additionally, Judge LaBarbera never said or indicated that the ‘pre-recall board’ had “UNCLEAN HANDS”; hence your comment that “La Barbara clearly gets it, at least” is a gross reporting error on your part. If you are going to report on the court proceedings, at least attempt to understand what the Judge was saying; and understand the definition of the doctrine of “UNCLEAN HANDS”.

DEFINITION OF UNCLEAN HANDS
unclean hands n. a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants, which must be proved by the defendant. Example: Hank Hardnose sues Grace Goodenough for breach of contract for failure to pay the full amount for construction of an addition to her house which she admits. The court denies any relief to Hardnose when Goodenough proves that Hardnose had shown her faked estimates from subcontractors to justify his original bid to Goodenough. (See: affirmative defense)

-R
10:24 AM, October 21, 2008; 7:53 AM, October 22, 2008
Ron said...: Richard, you know what would give your silly lawsuit against the people that beat you in an election a shred of credibility? If the lawsuit was coming from regular citizens, instead of from the two, extremely bitter people -- you and Gordon Hensley -- that lost an election to the people that you are suing.

Dude, quick reality check:

You lost an election. Then, you immediately tried to dissolve the very government agency you were recalled from, and when that failed, you turned around and sued, personally, the people that democratically beat you in an election.

Dontcha think that smells a little vindictive? Cantcha see that, Richard? It's kinda -- no, not kinda -- it's very embarrassing.

The fact that your little lawsuit is coming from you and Gordon makes the whole thing laughable... however, probably not so much for the people that beat you and Gordon in an election.

Ann wrote:

"I see that the Tribune has endorsed Maria Kelly and Marshall Ochylski for the Los Osos CSD."

Speaking of laughable, in their endorsement, the Trib writes, "Maria Kelly ran for office two years ago, finishing fourth in a crowded field of 10 candidates. We endorsed her then, and we believe she is an even stronger candidate today."

Really? Stronger today, huh?

That's funny, because just a few months ago, Maria Kelly wrote, "Whatever the county will be able to offer us, in my opinion, isn't comparable to the old mid town site project..."

What makes that, and the Trib's endorsement so funny, is that, not only did the Coastal Commission call the "old mid town site (Tri-W) project," "bait and switchy," but Kelly's own TAC documents show the "old mid town site project" to be a complete embarrassment.

Unlike the Trib, I actually covered that at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/ss-tac-taking-on-water-time-to.html

Where I wrote:

Here's the Pro/Con Analysis' take on the Tri-W project. This is great:

- - -

- "(Tri-W's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

- "It has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns (sic) require most expensive treatment"

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

- "Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

- "All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

- "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site."

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

All of that is found in the TAC's OWN report, and TAC member, Maria Kelly, just recently wrote, "Whatever the county will be able to offer us, in my opinion, isn't comparable to the old mid town site project..."

The TAC's own document states, "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site," and Kelly writes, "Whatever the county will be able to offer us, in my opinion, isn't comparable to the old mid town site project..."

- - -

Uhg. "Stronger" today?

Of course, just before the recall in 2005, the Trib wrote a series of editorials in support of that embarrassment, so, considering they are THAT uninformed, the Kelly endorsement actually makes sense.

Yep, the Trib, still worse than nothing.; 9:41 AM, October 22, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

At least we can say about your comment that you've stopped misrepresenting Maria's position on dissolution. Even though you've not apologized yet for your error, I am happy that you've stopped ... that error.

On the TAC report and Maria's comments on TriW ... you seem to have misread the TAC report or you seem to have misunderstood the nature and scope of the TriW project. Whatever the County is intending on doing, it only has a wastewater focus ... it ignores recharge and saltwater intrusion issues. In that way, TriW cannot be fairly compared to whatever the County will be doing.

Ron, when comparing cars (for example), do you only pay attention to the "can get you from A to B" and the price questions? Many of us want to know the MPG and whether the car has AC and cruise control. Whether you view TriW as a gashogging SUV with expensive chrome bumpers or more like a Camry, to compare it to a light utility truck with no extras is not a fair comparison ... even if both can get you from A to B.

Lastly, about your comment on Richard's lawsuit ... unless you have evidence that the judge is bought-n-paid for, the facts presented by both sides in the lawsuit are what matters and not the motivation for filing the suit. If Lisa, Chuck and the rest screwed up by trusting Dan and Julie and Gail and if they mis-spent public funds, they have done something wrong.

Ron, if a neighbor of yours who just happens to cheat on his income taxes calls the police to report a break in ... should the police say "well, Bob cheats on his taxes so we won't bother investigating?" Should the police let one criminal go free just because the person complaining happens to also have a history?

Ron, "justice" is about letting the facts and process determine the result. Perhaps you missed civics class in Jr. High.; 10:22 AM, October 22, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Gee Ron,

I see you back to playing the tired old 'shame and blame game.'....maybe some day you'll actually address the issues raised in the TW lawsuit.

As for the Tribune's endorsement,you may vote as you see fit...oh!, I forgot, you can't vote in matters Los Osos because you do not live here. My mistake.

-R; 10:23 AM, October 22, 2008
Howie said...: Overheard at Starbucks yesterday ...

Q. What's the difference between Maria Kelley and Helen Keller?

A. Helen Keller wasn't dumb.; 2:56 PM, October 22, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Q: What's the difference between Gail McPherson and a leach?

A: One's a blood-sucking parasite and the other one's just a leach.

Q: How can you tell when Keith Swanson has been using your computer?

A: It's easy ... he uses white-out to correct his typos.

Anyone else want to tell an old joke but put in names of local folks?

Come on, join in ... it's so easy even Howie can participate!; 3:55 PM, October 22, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: More seriously ... if Ann warns us that slates are something we ought to be leery of ... is she essentially telling us that voting in the recall slate was a mistake? If so, why not come out and say it?

I would think that Karen and Alon could be viewed as a slate ... the slate of folks who have supported the current board in every one of their actions. I would think that Alon and Dave could be viewed as a slate ... the slate of folks who are opposed to TriW but who are not tied at the hip to Lisa and Gail.

I believe that if Maria and Marshall view themselves as a slate it is because the have the common goal of focusing the LOCSD on solving the financial problems the district has. They are the only two candidates who talk about stopping the bloodletting via legal fees for unnecessary lawsuits which are likely going to lose.

If someone can either explain why all these legal costs are really necessary, I'll change my mind, but until someone can explain why the LOCSD has paid nearly all the legal fees paid to Sullivan for the PZLDF lawsuit, it looks to me as if the whole "25%" scheme was cooked up and voted in without any scrutiny and it looks like those payments should be immediately stopped.; 4:06 PM, October 22, 2008
Osos Change said...: What's the difference between Steve Rein and a fired Cal Poly professor?

A: Steve has one week to go.; 4:38 PM, October 22, 2008
Unknown said...: Shark

You stated, “I believe that if Maria and Marshall view themselves as a slate it is because the have the common goal of focusing the LOCSD on solving the financial problems the district has. They are the only two candidates who talk about stopping the bloodletting via legal fees for unnecessary lawsuits which are likely going to lose.”

In reality, their main point of agreement is the desire to restart the Tri-W project. This was their goal when they joined the TAC, and they somehow hope to have more influence as CSD board members. Any other reason they give is superfluous. They are TW candidates.

You also stated, “Whatever the County is intending on doing, it only has a wastewater focus ... it ignores recharge and saltwater intrusion issues. In that way, TriW cannot be fairly compared to whatever the County will be doing.

You are absolutely correct that we need to also focus on recharge and saltwater intrusion, but implying that Tri-W would solve these problems is false rhetoric. TriW would not work as designed. The Broderson recharge was greatly overestimated. How much more would it cost the people of LO to make TriW work as planned? TriW used more energy for the degree of treatment than any other plan. Does this not worry you? Do you also believe that global warming is a fallacy?; 5:48 AM, October 23, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Jane,

With all due respect, you are neither Maria nor Marshall and neither am I and neither of us knows if their goal is to restart TriW. All we have to go on is the facts and what they've said and done.

That being the case it seems pretty obvious that ... because they've said nothing about trying to restart TriW ... it would be odd to brand them as two individuals who have this goal. The only "evidence" that would back up your silly charge is that Maria met Gordon and Marshall met Richard once and that their supporters also tended to support TriW. The question is why there was TriW support. I'll claim that the majority of those supporting TriW were doing so because they thought that delaying the project to put something out of town would yet again increase the cost. Thus, if anything it would seem that the people supporting Maria and Marshall are those oriented towards fixing the financial mess we've got.

But, if you wanna play the "I know what you think even though you've never said it" game, please allow me to play the "I know what you think because you've actually said it" game. That being said, we all know that Alon and Dave and Karen are running to continue the policies of the current board majority ... you know, the policies that put us some $50M in a hole (about $3000 for each and every resident).

Perhaps if each candidate were to tell us whether they would vote to continue to pay the lions share of the PZLDF lawsuit fees even though there is no way that PZLDF has paid their obligated 75% (what are the odds that PZLDF has had enough bake sales to raise $600k ... I haven't seen them fundraising even once). I wanna see Karen say that she is in favor of fiscal responsibility. Unless she does that, we should assume that she supports the continuation of the mess.

As to the efficacy of TriW for dealing with recharge and saltwater intrusion ... It probably wouldn't work as well as we would hope but it probably would work better than what you are telling us. But lemmie ask you this ... are we better now ... with a project that will cost us at least as much as TriW was gonna but no attention to these two very real problems? Are we better now that we've got some $50M in debt. If you're gonna pull out the "how much more would it cost the people of LO" line ... how much more are we now gonna pay because we unwisely dumped TriW?; 7:37 AM, October 23, 2008
Churadogs said...: Uh, Richard, my question was, Why didn't you guys (
TPW)sue Dan Blesky or WilDan or the CSD as an entity. I still don't see that answered here and that's a puzzle to me.I also don't get, if the CSD (as an entity) hired Dan Blesky and he screwed up on his own with no direction from the Board, (and presumably WilDan had errors and omissions insurance) and the Board had an oversight responsibility (and also errors and omission insurance & etc.) , then why not sue the CSD (as an entity?)and they could counter sue WilDan (as an entity) to pay for the screw up? Was there a legal impediment for doing that?; 8:12 AM, October 23, 2008
Churadogs said...: Oops, forgot to add:

Richard sez:". That as a board they were unaware, and had no knowledge of, of the mismanagement of Blesky."
AND
"is at the point in time that Blesky’s mismanagement became obvious, why did the CSD5 NOT PURSUE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS AGAINST SAID MISMANAGEMENT IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE TAXPAYER’S INTERESTS?"

Here's why I'm still puzzled: "as a board. . ." The CSD5 is a Board that has to act as a BOARD. Individuals have no power to do anything, i.e. a single board member could view with alarm, point with dismay, speak in public at a meeting, write a Viewpoint, stand on the street corner and holler, BUT they cannot individually give direction to a GM, they can only do that as a Board. So why weren't they sued as a BOARD?; 8:29 AM, October 23, 2008
Unknown said...: Could it be that the corruption actually began "prior" to being a "Board"...??? and that Willdan and BW&S were hired, sole source, as "cronies" and then paid for pre-recall work and work on LOST LAWSUIT filed by the 5 individuals (and their political organizations; CASE, ect..) AFTER the 5 "individuals" met as a "Board"...???

These 5 individuals were and continue to be less than truthful, never were open and transparent, and worked most of their financial deals in Closed Door Sessions and in private meetings... They are not about to sue the companies that they conspired with to halt the WWTF and system.... They, as 5 individuals, have cost this community millions of dollars, thousands of lost hours and all credibility within the regulatory agencies that could have helped Los Osos develop the much needed WWTF and collection systems... Think magic sand, holistic on-site treatment, whatever the latest gimic being sold is, but these 5 did more to cause the dissention in this community through their inability to produce the PLAN that they should have had, that they touted prior to the re-call... Sorry Ann, but these 5 need to be held up for their individual actions both prior to being a "Board" and after being seated...

Ann, you have never really defended or prosecuted the post-recall Board... You have walked the fence and not truly publicly recognized the damage those 5 have done... You have taken part in the PZLDF lawsuit and have blasted TW, but you never writen about the corruption that you know darn well has taken place by those 5 individuals...; 9:06 AM, October 23, 2008
Ron said...: Jane wrote:

"In reality, their main point of agreement is the desire to restart the Tri-W project."

Knowing what I know, I'd LOVE to see them try.

Hey, there's a very good reason why Steve Monowitz, former Coastal Commission staffer, that discovered, from me, he was tricked into recommending approval of the Tri-W development permit, told me, "You deserve a hearing (to revoke the Tri-W CDP)."

Of course, county officials, last year, just let the Tri-W CDP die on the vine, by allowing it to simply expire, after county officials consulted with, you guessed it, Steve Monowitz.; 9:27 AM, October 23, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

The CSD5 have ADMITTED in their court documents that IT IS A FACT that $1.4 MILLION of YOUR Tax Dollars were improperly spent by Blesky / Wildan.

Admitted ,Ann! No grey area here.

Your question should b:

'WHY HAS THE CSD BOARD NOT SUED WILDAN TO RECOVER THE $1.4 MILLION ILLEGALLY SPENT?'

The CSD5 have a responsibility to protect YOU, the TAXPAYER from financial harm caused by illegal acts of any LOCSD consultant. The fact that the CSD5 acknowledge the theft by Wildan, and did nothing to correct it, makes the CSD5 an accomplice to the illegal act AND directly liable to reimburse the LOCSD for the stolden tax money.
+++++++

Regarding why TW, PLZDF, CCLO,CASE,LOTA, or YOU have not sued Wildan .......

NO PRIVATE CITIZEN OR CITIZENS GROUPS HAVE THE LEGAL BASIS OR STANDING TO SUE WILDAN FOR THE DAMAGES WILDAN HAVE CAUSED
TO THE LOCSD.

PERIOD!

SUCH A LAWSUIT CAN ONLY BE LITIGATED BY THE LOCSD; AS WILDAN HAS CONTRACTURAL OBLIGATIONS TO PROTECT AND HOLD HARMLESS THE LOCSD FOR ACTIONS THAT HARMED THE LOCSD.
++++++++

As for liability insurance, the spending of YOUR property taxes was not an 'error or ommission'. Wildan / Blesky KNOWINGLY violated the law; later the CSD5 found out about his illegal actions YET MADE THE DECISION TO DO NOTHING!

In short, liability insurance does not cover, defend or indemnify illegal acts.
+++++++++

As for why TW did not sue the CSD instead if the CSD5, the answer is obviouos....THE CSD ITSELF IS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME.

How can you sue the VICTIM to reimburse the VICTIM the money robbed from the VICTIM by others (Wildan / Blesky)?

-R; 10:30 AM, October 23, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Richard,

Just to let you know, GetReal doesn't like it when you make the same comment in two places ... and he or she wants me to take you to task for that because he or she feels as if I chastised him or her over this issue before.

Oh yeah, you were just answering Ann's question ... which she posted two times ... each time she posted it.

Even so, a pet peeve of mine is when people carpet bomb a discussion and put the exact same thought in each and every thread with some sort of poorly-thought-out cross-pollination scheme.

Maybe it would be best to keep the responses to one spot and in the other, a reference could be made to the location to the answer.; 10:44 AM, October 23, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Sharkinlet,

Oops! I will not 'double dip' again. Please excuse my blogging faux pas.

Did you happen to catch the Board of Sup's meeting on Tuesday? The Supervisors were lambasted by a number of folks from Los Osos; all of whom are unhappy with the Tribune's endorsements of certain Los Ososian LOCSD Board canidates. I did not know that the Tribune's endorsements are considered County business...did you?

-R; 11:46 AM, October 23, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: jane, where do you believe that recharge can be best accomplished?; 12:10 PM, October 23, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Richard,

I suppose we could demand that the Supervisors pass a law which says that the San Luis Obispo Tribune only endorse candidates that are approved of by citizens advisory councils. That way, LOCAC could dictate to the Trib and then no one would complain at all ... after all, LOCAC is the best group of people to tell others what to think.; 12:13 PM, October 23, 2008
Churadogs said...: Richard sez:"As for why TW did not sue the CSD instead if the CSD5, the answer is obviouos....THE CSD ITSELF IS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME"

Can you please define CSD in this case? What IS it? Is it a legal [single] entity? If so, and individual Board members cannot act individually but must vote as a Board, then why can't TPW sue the BOARD as a Board for failure to vote as a board to stop this crime, for malfeasance as a Board, or dereliction of duty or failure to fire Blesky or failure to sue him or whatever?

Inlet sez:"Oh yeah, you were just answering Ann's question ... which she posted two times ... each time she posted it."

Both of my postings were replies to Richard's previous double posting of his big long involved posting. As for your comment, "Even so, a pet peeve of mine is when people carpet bomb a discussion "

Hahahahah. Funny.; 2:05 PM, October 23, 2008
Churadogs said...: Richard sez:"As for why TW did not sue the CSD instead if the CSD5, the answer is obviouos....THE CSD ITSELF IS THE VICTIM OF A CRIME"

Can you please define CSD in this case? What IS it? Is it a legal [single] entity? If so, and individual Board members cannot act individually but must vote as a Board, then why can't TPW sue the BOARD as a Board for failure to vote as a board to stop this crime, for malfeasance as a Board, or dereliction of duty or failure to fire Blesky or failure to sue him or whatever?

Inlet sez:"Oh yeah, you were just answering Ann's question ... which she posted two times ... each time she posted it."

Both of my postings were replies to Richard's previous double posting of his big long involved posting. As for your comment, "Even so, a pet peeve of mine is when people carpet bomb a discussion "

Hahahahah. Funny.; 2:05 PM, October 23, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

Your question answers itself....think about it.

-R; 2:15 PM, October 23, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

You wrote Richard saying, "GetReal doesn't like it when you make the same comment in two places ... and he or she wants me to take you to task for that because he or she feels as if I chastised him or her over this issue before...."

Shark, another twist from you?!?

My point was that YOU said NOTHING when Richard does it, but say something if others do it SHOWING YOUR BIAS.

What you said to Richard wasn't true, in fact, you offered to say something to him, I didn't ask you to.

Just an example of the way you turn things around. You are quite the expert on that.; 3:46 PM, October 23, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Sharkinlet,

Great idea! LOCAC, as an apolitical advisory council, does everything Los Osos citizens want and demand...so having the Tribune follow the advice of LOCAC would obviously not ruffle any political feathers. This could really work for the benefit of everybody, so we should all twink about it.

-R; 4:15 PM, October 23, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

I didn't think this was a big deal. Apologies if I didn't represent your viewpoint properly to Richard and others.

I am not trying to twist anything or turn anything around.

Richard typically doesn't post the same comments twice ... very few people do that.

I don't feel that I was trying to scold you earlier (but you thought I was).

What's the key? Probably it isn't best to cut-n-paste identical comments into two separate places.

Are you willing to forgive me for our miscommunication on this topic?; 4:19 PM, October 23, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Sharkinlet,

I promise not to double post again. I also promise to discuss the derisory issues posted by Getrealosos, Ososchange, Ann and others honestly and with all due consideration.

-R; 5:06 PM, October 23, 2008
Mark said...: Where is the Gravity Tech Memo?; 5:06 PM, October 24, 2008
Mark said...: Where is the Gravity Tech Memo?; 5:07 PM, October 24, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Reminds me of New York, New York ... the city so nice they named it twice.

Mark,

Perhaps if you address your question to a particular individual, it is more likely to be answered.

And don't ask me because I don't know the answer.

Enjoy your evening...; 5:47 PM, October 24, 2008
Unknown said...: Mark... The "official" answer to your 75 identical question is:

The Gravity Tech Memo has been filed with the Reclamator Engineering Study Memo."; 6:09 PM, October 24, 2008
Unknown said...: ...and Mark, it was last seen in the boxes of documents Karen took to Gail's house... It must still be in the front room as none of the documents were ever returned to the CSD...; 6:41 PM, October 24, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Mark,

You've asked the question, Piper has asked, and I have asked -- and more than a few times. Hey, Shark likes to research but won't touch this one. He sure has the answers for everything else! Hmmmm.

Isn't it odd that neither Maria or Marshall will take a crack at this one:
"Where is the Gravity Tech Memo?"

P.S.
and where's Maria's post that she removed regarding the 218?

...we sure know that Maria is reading this and could answer at any time...

Agendas, lies, fraud and scandal!!; 6:54 PM, October 24, 2008
Unknown said...: ....still swilling fermented septic cocktails while louthing in his septic tank spa and spewing lies and rumors is the self anointed community investigator, getrealosos... or should we call you Keith....??? Haven't seen you kicking any little dogs this week, not even slapping an old man in a wheelchair, you must be slipping...; 7:13 PM, October 24, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Sewertoons,

Where are you?

I made the point that all systems may pollute to some extent, including what you had in LA/gravity. We don't know what was happening underground there or any other places that have gravity.

you didn't want to discuss that? ... or are you out-of-town for the weekend?

Mike,

Yep, can't wait until Obama is President and the Justice Dept. is right again. Agendas, lies, fraud and scandal!!; 7:28 PM, October 24, 2008
Mark said...: Maria,
Where are you?
Maria M. Kelly said...
This post has been removed by the author.
10:38 AM, OCTOBER 11, 2008
GetRealOsos said...
Oh Maria,

Since you're online this morning, maybe I can ask for your thoughts for the THIRD time:

My concerns regarding the County process. You chose not to discuss that. We, by now, don't need to wonder why!!!
When the CSD was on it's way after the recall, Pandora told the County to take the project away. Sam Blakeslee did that for her and her people. Shirley and Noel said the project would be gravity. Mark said we'd go the fastest way with the project and plans that we already had (Tri-W/gravity). He said the BOS would use over-riding considerations. Then you have Gordon protecting the Tri-W site - fences and snails. Then you have Paavo saying the Tri-W area would act as a sponge. Then you have inflated Step figures presented at TAC. How does this look?

You have Don Beardon opposing Step at every opportunity, and you are with him at BOS and CSD meetings looking like "kissing cousins". You meet and hang with Gordon and Richard. How does this look?
10:51 AM, OCTOBER 11, 2008
Maria,

I'm starting to think you are totally "wacked" -- you say:

"(we) passed a 218 to ensure the out of town option"

What?

What in the heck are you talking about?

The 218 vote was that we assessed ourselves and have a lien on our property (by the way, it didn't account for extra fees and charges AND the lateral hook up) it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH OPTION OR LOCATION REGARDING THE SEWER like you say as fact!

How can you be on the CSD when your brain doesn't work and your emotions run totally wild????!!!!
11:00 AM, OCTOBER 11, 2008
Mark said...
Hi Maria,

"The community passed a 218 to ensure the out of town option."
How can you claim this to be a fact?
5:21 PM, OCTOBER 11, 2008
Mark said...
Toons,

Why don't you try to cover for Maria and give us your take on Maria's statement?
"The community passed a 218 to ensure the out of town option."
Snark, MIKE?
5:26 PM, OCTOBER 11, 2008; 11:49 PM, October 24, 2008
Mark said...: MIKE,
The county's consulting engineer actually did mention the reclamator in the on-site tech memo, yet has not authored a yech memo about gravity.

Traditionally, the whiteface clown uses "clown white" makeup to cover his or her entire face and neck with none of the underlying flesh color showing. In the European whiteface makeup, the ears are painted red. Features, in red and black, are delicate. He or she is traditionally costumed far more extravagantly than the other two clown types, sometimes wearing the ruffled collar and pointed hat which typify the stereotypical "clown suit".

If the suit fits...; 11:56 PM, October 24, 2008
Mark said...: That's "Tech Memo" YIKE.

Gags, bits and business
"Business" is the individual motions the clown uses, often used to express the clown's character. A "gag" is a very short piece of clown comedy which when repeated within a bit or routine may become a "running gag". Gags may be loosely defined as "the jokes clowns play on each other". Bits are the clown's sketches or routines made up of one or more gags either worked out and timed before going on stage or impromptu bits composed of familiar improvisational material. A gag may have a beginning, a middle and an end to them, or they may not. Gags can also refer to the prop stunts/tricks or the stunts that clowns use, such as a squirting flower.

Where is the Gravity Tech Memo?
Retest the test wells.; 12:00 AM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Toons, MIKE:
Why is there no Gravity Tech Memo?

Maria,
This is a great question for a "real" community activist aspiring to become a leader.; 8:43 AM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Lynette,
Would you be so kind as to point out which tech memo discusses the removal of personal care products and pharmaceuticals?
Please support your contention that the leaky sewer and treatment plant the county’s consulting engineer removes the pcp’s and pharms.

This would be supported by a gravity tech memo.; 9:10 AM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Please support your contention that the leaky sewer and treatment plant the county’s consulting engineer "is studying" removes the pcp’s and pharms.

Ann, what happened to the trash can?
Did you remove it because of Maria?; 9:12 AM, October 25, 2008
Unknown said...: Hey mark... YOU are the one asking the stupid questions...yet you would never answer the questions we all had about the Reclamator...!!!

So chum, get it through your head, we aren't playing your silly games... The sewer is out of our hands, we let this CSD screw it up so badly, that the State had to come spank the CSD and take the project away... You won't find answers here on this blog...and quite frankly, if we did have answers, I'm not sure any would share with you because of your poor past performance... you are already in the company of the failed CSD...!!!

If you want to dig into why the CSD is paying for the failed PZLDF lawsuit and why Ann is not paying her share, then maybe we would listen to you... until then... adios amigo...; 10:38 AM, October 25, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

I am wondering about all these tech memos you keep referring to.

Are you saying that they exist but that they've not been made available .... or are you saying that they should exist but don't?

I do have to agree with Mike about the folks who promoted the Reclamator as the solution to our problems. They never provided any proof that their device would work for our needs. That being said, if you are that same Mark, it would seem that you're asking others to do what you were unwilling to do yourself.

Even so, my understanding of the TAC process is that they were doing analyses of all the options that weren't already thoroughly studied. In other words, if gravity and TriW were already fully studied by the LOCSD, it would seem that the County wouldn't need (at this point in time) to do yet another study. Later, during the EIR process, all sites and technologies would need to be compared before any could be selected.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong, Mark, but if my understanding is correct, there isn't any Tech Memo just yet on the topics you ask about .... perhaps you ought to wait. Maybe a phone call to the County will let you know whether my understanding of the process is spot on or mistaken.

On the whole issue of whether the 218 vote allowed for the County to pursue an out of town option ... we've already discussed that issue to death and I think that you simply don't agree with what many of us have been written. I see no need to re-discuss that question if you're going to disagree without explaining why my opinion isn't right. After all, there is a very plausible explanation for Maria's statement even though you may not agree with it.; 1:13 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Where is the "GRAVITY" tech memo?

If one has been done, why hasn't it been submitted and stamped?

If there is no "GRAVITY" tech memo, why not?; 2:02 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Maria M. Kelly said...
This post has been removed by the author.
10:38 AM, OCTOBER 11, 2008; 2:02 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: MIKE,

Your stupidity is troubling.

Traditionally, the whiteface clown uses "clown white" makeup to cover his or her entire face and neck with none of the underlying flesh color showing. In the European whiteface makeup, the ears are painted red. Features, in red and black, are delicate. He or she is traditionally costumed far more extravagantly than the other two clown types, sometimes wearing the ruffled collar and pointed hat which typify the stereotypical "clown suit".

If the suit fits...; 2:07 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: For MIKE: "Deficiency in judgment is properly that which is called stupidity; and for such a failing we know no remedy.

Stupidity (also called fatuity) is the property a person, action or belief instantiates by virtue of having or being indicative of low intelligence or poor learning abilities. Stupidity is distinct from irrationality because stupidity denotes an incapability or unwillingness to properly consider the relevant information.

In psychology, group stupidity is known as deindividuation in crowds, and can lead to behaviors usually not displayed outside the specific social situation. The behaviors are attributed to a variety of causes, including loss of self-identity, incentives to conform to group behavior, and other dynamics.

"The lack of the power of judgment is that which is properly called stupidity, and such a failing is not to be helped.; 4:23 PM, October 25, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Um ... Mark ...

Did you read my comment before asking (for about the 83rd time) about some gravity tech memo.

If you call the County, you can perhaps learn something more than if you just toss out the same question over and over and don't bother reading the answer provided.; 6:26 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Neener, Neener..Steve Rein.

It appears you are as obtuse as MIKE.

The point is: If there is a GRAVITY tech memo, why hasn't it been included by the county's consulting engineer as part and parcel of there study???

Conversely, If there isn't one, why not.; 6:50 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Gags, bits and business
"Business" is the individual motions the clown uses, often used to express the clown's character. A "gag" is a very short piece of clown comedy which when repeated within a bit or routine may become a "running gag". Gags may be loosely defined as "the jokes clowns play on each other". Bits are the clown's sketches or routines made up of one or more gags either worked out and timed before going on stage or impromptu bits composed of familiar improvisational material. A gag may have a beginning, a middle and an end to them, or they may not. Gags can also refer to the prop stunts/tricks or the stunts that clowns use, such as a squirting flower.

Where is the Gravity Tech Memo?
Retest the test wells.; 6:50 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Maria M. Kelly said...
This post has been removed by the author.
10:38 AM, OCTOBER 11, 2008; 6:52 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: The point is: If there is a GRAVITY tech memo, why hasn't it been included by the county's consulting engineer as part and parcel of there study???

Conversely, If there isn't one, why not?

I miss the trash can...; 6:55 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: The point is: If there is a GRAVITY tech memo, why hasn't it been included by the county's consulting engineer as part and parcel of thier(sic/sp) study???

Conversely, If there isn't one, why not?; 6:58 PM, October 25, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

I can see why you miss the trash can ... you seem to keep writing things which are removal fodder.

Presumably when I answered your question earlier you didn't like my answer. What, about my earlier answer, didn't meet your needs?

Rather than tossing out insults and repeating the same thing over and over, perhaps it would be beneficial if you tried to engage in conversation.; 6:58 PM, October 25, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: MARK,

Thanx for re-posting my request to Maria for some answers. Talk about coward. She didn't dare to answer. Hmmm.

MARIA, CAN'T YOU ANSWER THIS:

10:38 AM, OCTOBER 11, 2008
GetRealOsos said...
Oh Maria,

Since you're online this morning, maybe I can ask for your thoughts for the THIRD time:

My concerns regarding the County process. You chose not to discuss that. We, by now, don't need to wonder why!!!
When the CSD was on it's way after the recall, Pandora told the County to take the project away. Sam Blakeslee did that for her and her people. Shirley and Noel said the project would be gravity. Mark said we'd go the fastest way with the project and plans that we already had (Tri-W/gravity). He said the BOS would use over-riding considerations. Then you have Gordon protecting the Tri-W site - fences and snails. Then you have Paavo saying the Tri-W area would act as a sponge. Then you have inflated Step figures presented at TAC. How does this look?

You have Don Beardon opposing Step at every opportunity, and you are with him at BOS and CSD meetings looking like "kissing cousins". You meet and hang with Gordon and Richard. How does this look?

IF YOU CAN'T ADDRESS ANY OF THIS MARIA, MAYBE SHARK MIGHT GIVE IT A SHOT!!! He'll spin it for you -- if he can.

Again, Maria wants members of the community to ask her questions, etc. but refuses to respond to my questions (on a blog that many read).

If she WAS SINCERE she would have replied!!!; 7:14 PM, October 25, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

Along those lines, I suppose that Karen Venditti wants people to believe that she helped Lisa and Gail illegally remove files from the LOCSD office after hours.

After all, I've asked here for her to offer any clarification or comment she would like and she's not yet replied.

Should we presume that she's a Lisa clone (but perhaps better behaved in public) who also looks to Gail to tell her what to say an do?

If you're a gonna whine that Maria isn't answering your questions (even though others have answered them), you should expect others will expect your own favorite candidate to be held to the same standard.

That being said ... should we view Karen as someone who willingly participates in illegal actions ... or are you gonna back off a bit in your whiny insistence that Maria respond to your replies here even though she is likely busy doing something far more meaningful than responding to people who will vote against her no matter what?; 8:06 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Steve,
The point is: If there is a GRAVITY tech memo, why hasn't it been included by the county's consulting engineer as part and parcel of there study???

Conversely, If there isn't one, why not?

Too bad you aren't happy about my making this very strong point.; 8:53 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Steve,
The point is: If there is a GRAVITY tech memo, why hasn't it been included by the county's consulting engineer as part and parcel of their(sic/sp)study???

A very sharp point which seems to have burst MIKE's and Lynette's bubble.; 9:11 PM, October 25, 2008
Mark said...: Maria M. Kelly said...
This post has been removed by the author.
10:38 AM, OCTOBER 11, 2008

Pop!; 9:12 PM, October 25, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: TO: Shark, the biggest twister in the West!

One difference here Shark!!... Maria blogs and Karen does not. This has nothing to do with Karen. You're twisting yet again Shark!!

I'd bet Karen has never seen the blog!

Maria on the other hand, has read and posted many times on this site.

Maria has had every opportunity in these three weeks to respond to my request.

As I said, many people read this blog (not just me Shark!) so Maria could and should have answered the issues I raised -- others may want to know too and this is a "forum" and not just "my vote".

Joe Sparks said at a recent CSD meeting that Maria talks to everyone!! That makes him a liar.

Note that Joe also praised Maria for her running her H20 etc. (it sounded as if he was supporting and talking about Gail). Yeah, Maria's real "open" and "honest". Funny.

Besides all that, Maria has been saying that she fully supports the County and its process. I asked her questions about this process, and she has refused to discuss it.

You're telling me that "others" have answered these points I've raised. Who are the others? And why not Maria? She's the candidate, not you and Sewertoons (if that's what you meant by "others"). But I did vote for Lynette last time. At least Lynette is honest about everything. Maria is not.

Maria shouldn't say she'll talk to anyone, and Joe Sparks shouldn't say she will either! If she's gonna defend the County to the end, she should answer the key points that I've raised, otherwise, it shows she is 100% biased and the voting public has the right to know that.

Shark, you bring up Karen and this has absolutely nothing to do with Karen! It's you turning things around AGAIN and twisting AGAIN, AND SPINNING AGAIN to protect Maria with your bias. (Obviously!!)

You both have a very bad agenda and it has to be stopped.

On top of that, you don't know if Karen is my "favorite" candidate. I know she has the experience in the financial area and seems to be professional, but if she is influenced by the same people that this CSD board has been influenced by, then I think that it is proof that we shouldn't have a CSD at all, and never should have had one until after a sewer was built!!

But we needed someone to pay for the darn thing. The County didn't want to pay. The people outside the PZ didn't want to pay, etc. etc.

If Maria doesn't know that the division in this town doesn't have a lot to do with the illegal PZ zone and she thinks it's right and fair, then I have a problem with that. I have a problem about her support of the County when the County has not done anything right yet.

It certainly looks to me like they've been paving the way right back to the same project. (Anyone who can't see that must be blind).

I'm not whining, but would like Maria to defend Paavo, Noel, Mark Hutchison, Shirley, and Bruce's comments and actions that lead right back to Tri-W.; 9:54 PM, October 25, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: getreal, you live in town, I wish you had stopped by Maria and Marshall's booth today - you could have asked and gotten answered, all of your questions. Granted, it was so busy, you might have had a hard time getting those questions out.

How do we know Karen doesn't blog? I don't know who some of the bloggers on here are, although I do know you, she might actually be on here blogging. Plus some people only read, but don't post. Did she tell you what she does or doesn't do?

I agree with you on some points. I did not live in LO when the CSD was formed, but I can surely see in hindsight it was a bad idea. However, as we have a CSD - let's try to preserve it, even though we will now pay for the bankruptcy. We need to control our water.

The PZ - unfortunately this separation has really been bad for LO. But it is clear, we needed to have a stick at our backs or there would never be a sewer here. But creating the PZ, no matter how based in logic it was, has divided the town.

Unfortunately we are faced with reality. California is broke, they will not give us a sewer for free. With no Water Board pressure, Los Osos turned down the almost free sewer anyway (see what I mean about the stick?). We are lucky to have been pushed to the head of the SRF list even though we owe the State money, and we will get better terms - 0% for some of it and some of the money can be 30-year, not 20 year. The PZ will not be busted, as PZLDF has proven. We knew that before anyway. Hey, why would we want to have to pay for Cabrillo, which would be horribly expensive to add to the project? The County weenied out in 1998, but that is ancient history. We can't go back. WE ARE POLLUTING. So now we are going to do something about it finally. And we are going to pay. That is reality.

Paavo said twice at the Bruce Gibson meeting there was really no likelihood of the project being in town. So now we will get to clean up the water to a higher degree than the wastewater project will, and pump it back into town --- if we intend to re-use it. And that job will fall to the three water purveyors. And we will pay for that. I believe keeping the water in town and cleaning it to tertiary is the cheapest way to go, but I know I will be outvoted.

Maybe you can list what in life is free? And why we don't need to clean up our own mess?; 5:24 PM, October 26, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Sewertoons:

I didn't stop by the booth, I walked by the booth, but it's hardly the place to ask Maria about her not questioning the County process or why her sidekick is the key opponent of Step.

She won't answer, and neither will Shark. That itself speaks volumes.

As far as us being accused of polluting, where are the tests? I mean, real tests with independent studies. Not Cleath. This just hasn't been done.

I'm quite sure that outside of the PZ is polluting if inside the PZ is! What about that? Don't you care if they are polluting?!

As I said before, when you were in LA, I'm sure you didn't know how much the gravity pipes there were leaking and broken (polluting). You can't see underground, can you? But, we have seen what happened to the pipes in Morro Bay. We have seen the beaches at Pismo closing because of their sewer system. We have seen what happened at Men's Colony. When the Kitts study showed only one tenth of one percent in the bay was pollution from us, then we aren't doing much harm to the bay. Many "Dreamers" over the years have told me that it was from the pets and animals down there too. There are many sources of pollution.

Hey, I've got a question for you. I heard that Golden State raised their rates about a year ago to pay for them to take nitrates out of the water!

So, they're charging to do that, and they didn't have to pay on the 218 (when they should have) so what's the problem? Wouldn't that mean problem solved?!!

.. Or is the need for the big sewer because we're polluting the groundwater?! It's the state's groundwater, not ours. Something is very wrong with all of this and there needs to be an independent investigation. (A scam wouldn't be able to go down in a place like LA.) Can you tell me your thoughts on this Golden State issue?

Lynette, if there is indeed a mess (pollution) I haven't seen the real evidence and proof...I haven't! I believe IF there is a problem with certain areas (homes by the bay or the density issue) then these homes could be "clustered". Problem solved. It's a no-brainer.

After all, we are almost in a Depression - this is no time for over kill. Fix the areas that need to be fixed. We have a unique water basin and should keep it.

These big unnecessary projects only make companies like Golden State and MWH profit greatly. It is ridiculous, a scam, and a rip off. All you have to do is follow the money!

As to Karen and the blog, I've never seen her blog. Perhaps she does read, there is no way to know. But I do know that Maria does blog and in three weeks couldn't answer (yet she and Sparks claim she talks to everyone). Nope, not true at all!; 8:34 PM, October 26, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: getreal says:
"I didn't stop by the booth, I walked by the booth, but it's hardly the place to ask Maria about her not questioning the County process or why her sidekick is the key opponent of Step."

That has to be about the lamest excuse I have ever heard. That would have been the perfect place. You simply don't want to have to wrestle with changing your mind, so if you don't ask, you won't find out anything new. No wonder you are so stuck in your thinking about all of this.

Let's see - LA's gravity pipes are HOW OLD? Los Osos would of course be installing 80 year-old clay pipes that have been dug up from an old part of LA. Right? We wouldn't use the new type, oh no.

How much pollution goes into the ground with a leach field on an acre, or even half an acre. Now how much pollution goes into the ground when 8 to 10 houses all with leach fields are on an acre? Do you see the difference?

Call Golden State and find out what they are doing. Last I heard, Golden State had customers in the PZ - but hey, you are calling Golden State, so ask them.

How would you like to pay to put a lysimeter under every hose and test for a few years? Think that is a practical approach? What will the Water Board be doing while you are busy testing monthly?

At the rate we are going, our "unique" basin will be "unique" only because we ruined it because we couldn't get along with each other. Pathetic. Like a bunch of 5-year olds.

I have followed the money. It is going out of town. The nice expandable plant that will be built out of town will be ready for developers to add their projects in around it. Our secondary treated water spraying those fields will be claimed and cleaned up by the money from new growth and we will be sucking up Lake Nacimiento water because we were too stupid to keep the plant (at Tri-W un-expandible and small), and return our tertiary treated water to the lower aquifer. Try out that theory for a while.

I can't believe you turned down the opportunity to speak to Maria, yet harp on her for not blogging! Think she might be a little busy these days?; 1:05 AM, October 27, 2008

Pages

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

62 comments: