Calhouns Can(n)ons

Monday, November 10, 2008

Is That A $6 million Illegal Loan, or are you just glad to see me?

Yep, It's Ron Crawford over at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ with a new posting -- Tri-W's Dead -- Now, Behold, as I, the Amazing SewerWatchini, Magically Make Governor S's "Signing Statement" disappear.

One of the newly elected LOCSD board members is a lawyer. Think he should take a look at Ron's paperwork and start asking some "legal" questions both of CSD attorney Seitz and the good attorneys up in the State Water Board. Maybe even call Sam Blakeslee and get some answers? Or, better yet, get an official ruling IN WRITING, instead of dead silence? After all, isn't that what LOCSD board members should be doing if they're elected to protect the interests of the taxpaying citizens of Sewerville?

As they say, does somebody lawyerly need to check this out? Paavo from the county? County council? Mr. Seitz? Marshall & Maria? Joe Sparks?Aaahhhnold? Should we get a ruling on "mitigation" versus illegal SRF $ playgrounds in a sewer plant before we chug ahead? Wallll, that'll be fun.

28 comments:

Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

The County decided, based upon their own reasons (read 'criteria' or 'overriding concerns') NOT to build within the CSD boundries. The county could have just as easily chosen otherwise.

To date, you just do not seem to understand that the governmental agency that controls the project has the legal right to chose whatever overriding concern they wish; and use those concerns to shape the project. There is nothing illegal in this. This is done all the time.

In short, your theory about the past project is just a dog bite man story.

-R; 7:55 AM, November 10, 2008
Unknown said...: ...and again we see a pathetic attempt to interfer with the creation of a sewer within Los Osos... Maybe someone will finally realize that the LOCSD has NO responsibility or authority for anything sewerish...

The LOCSD does have responsiblity for it's very own Bankruptcy... Let's let them get their financial affairs in order... Lisa and Julie were instrumental in creating this debachle and now they are merely lame ducks until Marshall and Maria join Joe to halt the illegal payouts to the lawyers... Thanks to the TaxPayers Watch, the CSD are coming to trial for their corrupt actions...!!!!

If Ron wanted to be some sort of investigative reporter, then Ron should have been belly aching about the illegal dealings of the CSD5 and their legal "advisors", but instead chose to foul his own straw filled toilet in a feeble attempt to discredit the State Water Board... Ron Crawford doesn't live in Los Osos, has no ties to Los Osos... so why is he so obsessed with Los Osos....???

Tell you what Ron, why haven't YOU put your money where your mouth is and file your very own lawsuit against the State of California fo reven having a Water Board...???? What, you say you don't have a dog in this fight, you're only a spectator sitting on the sidelines yelling encouragement to see the fight continue... c'mon Ron, get off your toilet and go to Sacramento to show them just how much power you have... You have all the answers, you keep telling us how you published something 3 or 5 years ago that exposes all the sins of the Water Board... So go ahead Ron, go do something positive.... Guess we all know Ron won't take any action, he'll just hide behind his perversion of what actually happened and why... Don't forget to wipr Ron, you already stink enough.....; 8:41 AM, November 10, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: This may seem like an obvious question - but why didn't the PRESENT Board (sans Joe) go after the State/Water Board for this money????

Oh yeah - they did - with that non-starter, loser lawsuit, backed by Gail's PZLDF! Well, we can see how far that went. It has dug a big hole into the District's few remaining resources.

Gee maybe WHEN THE NEW Directors are SEATED, they might look into the BANKRUPTCY which actually IS A CSD job, and one that if not solved will fling the citizens into the liability ring of having to pay that $3,000+/EACH back out of our own PERSONAL pockets!; 11:50 AM, November 10, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

We all appreciate your attempt to return money to Los Osos...really. However, you're using a legal theory that will not prevail. I do not mean to be a downer.

Why will your legal theory not work? Simple.

The 'Statement of Overriding Concerns' was incorporated into the Final EIR back in 2001. The FEIR was legally reviewed, commented upon, approved and codified. Once the FEIR was approved, it and the SOC cannot be voided or canceled.

Later, the State granted the SRF loan based upon a LEGAL & BINDING FEIR. The State loaned the money, work was performed (i.e. money spent), the project was stopped by the CSD...hence the State is entitled to, and will get, its money lent back on the SRF loan.

To base a lawsuit to deny the State money on a SRF loan that was legal and bonding on the legal FEIR will not prevail.

At this time there are much better legal means to ensure that money is returned to Los Osos for the damages it has suffered. I hope you will back those efforts as they begin to realize.

-R; 11:59 AM, November 10, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Maybe ron just brings up these lame ideas so he has a slightly different platform to continue his rant against the old project. I'm expecting his next post will find a reason to include Pandora.

Sheesh, I wish he'd get some new material! This old stuff is so threadbare from reworking!; 1:04 PM, November 10, 2008
Churadogs said...: Ron's question still remains. Are SRF monies supposed to be used for recreational amenities and such like? Are tot lots and dog parks and ball fields considered "mitigation" for ESHA land? (i.e. or is ESHA mitigation supposed to preserve more ESHA open space rather than building jungle gyms and such like?)

So, I'd say, let's get Joe, Maria and Marshall to write a letter to Jerry Brown and/or the bankruptcy judge and ask that SHE contact Jerry Brown and get this in writing. Communities all over the state would like to get such "amenities" for their various projects, so this should be cleared up in writing asap!; 8:25 AM, November 11, 2008
Unknown said...: The REAL question should be:

Did the pre-recall Board obtain ALL the legal permits required to start construction...???

The answer is and has always been, YES...!!!!

Ron is still stuck with his version of what happened and when... Ron is not an attorney or an engineer... Ron does not live in Los Osos but is obsessed with a person he has taken a personal dis-like for and apparently still can't figure out why the State Water Boards will not talk with him... Ron continues to harp on a sewer park of which he has no interest or knowledge, but he thinks it will somehow invalidate all the legal permits and SRF loan that the pre-recall Boards worked so long and hard to obtain...

Who cares any longer Ron...??? The Post Re-Call Board threw everything out the window and left the property owners of Los Osos holding the bills for such incompetence....!!!! If that re-call had not happened, Los Osos would have a sewer in the ground today and there would not be any COD's to worry about...

I'm sure not worried about whether a park was or was not included in the SFR... I am concerned that i won't be able to make monthly payments because Lisa, Julie, Chuck, John and Steve shutdown the project and then went on a spending spree to bankrupt the district... That's what we should be talking about, not whether some compromised addition of a park or dog run was or was not included 5 years ago...!!!! We should be outraged by the theft of our taxdollars to NOT build a sewer, and not be wringing our hands whether making a small compromise inorder to satisfy most of the community invalidated someones "feelings" of what was decided... People like Ron and Ann would like the community to believe they had all the answers, but as we know, neither of them ever sat on the Board or had the responsibility to make the tough decisions... Lisa and cohorts did make a decision, but had they been honest, they would have understood the compromises it took to prepare and obtain all the legal permits... but instead, they took a selfish road and bankrupted the District.... Instead of a Park, we should be discussing a jail sentence....!!!!; 8:58 AM, November 11, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

I have posted the answer to your question in your new thread above.

To recap that answer....

The answer is YES, the SRF funds can be used for park features as the features were a requirement of the Coastal Development Permit.

Said park features normally are not paid with SRF funds UNLESS such features are a requirement imposed by the permitting agency (i.e. the Coastal Commission.)

This was explained by Jon Seitz way in public meetings way back in 2004. Jon will give the same answer today.

-R; 8:58 AM, November 11, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ron's question on the use of SRF money for amenities is, indeed, a good one ... but please remember that at the time he was raising these issues, each month of delay was costing us about $500,000. Essentially, the whole amenities issue where CCLO argued against amenities for several months and then argued for amenities delayed the project by at least half a year and the total increase in the project cost was larger than the amount budgeted for amenities.

This doesn't make the inclusion of amenities in the project right, but if the SWRCB signed off on the loan, they clearly felt that the inclusion of amenities of the sort the TriW plan had in it was just fine according to their legal staff. Of course, Ron is a lawyer who specializes in this area so we should take his word on it.

You bring up another question ... the low-grade ESHA status of the TriW site. The mitigation wasn't the park at TriW but the purchase and set aside of other, more ESHA land. The other sites considered also had limiting factors such as the Ag usage or the cost or the lack of willing seller.

If you and Ron wanna argue over history and the appropriateness of the TriW design, go ahead, but at least be accurate and precise with the facts!; 9:04 AM, November 11, 2008
Ron said...: Ann wrote:

"Ron's question still remains. Are SRF monies supposed to be used for recreational amenities and such like?"

According to the SRF's own policy, no. Clearly: "Ineligible (for SRF money), "decorative items."

Richard wrote:

"The answer is YES, the SRF funds can be used for park features as the features were a requirement of the Coastal Development Permit.

Said park features normally are not paid with SRF funds UNLESS such features are a requirement imposed by the permitting agency (i.e. the Coastal Commission.)

This was explained by Jon Seitz way in public meetings way back in 2004. Jon will give the same answer today."

That means, like you, Richard, Jon Seitz doesn't understand "bait and switchy," either.

Trust me, Richard, I'm right. My challenge will save your community over $6 million.

Richard, do you know what "prima facie" evidence is?

All you have to do is look at my argument on a prima facie level:

My argument is: The "picnic area" in the Tri-W sewer plant was a "decorative item," therefore, ineligible for SRF money.

The State's argument is: The "picnic area" in the Tri-W sewer plant was "mitigation," therefore, eligible for SRF money.

Keep in mind, we're talking about a picnic area in a sewer plant. Now, on the face of those two arguments, Richard, who do you think is right?

Furthermore, and for the thousandth time, according to SRF policy, for something to be considered "mitigation," it has to be "mandated" by a permitting agency (in this case, the Coastal Commission), but, he where it just blows me away... in the Tri-W development permit, it says that the 2004 LOCSD Board (Richard, that was YOU), "agreed to REINCORPORATE the amenities."

So, of course, here's my brilliant question:

How could the Coastal Commission have "mandated" the amenities, if the 2004 LOCSD "agreed to REINCORPORATE the amenities?"

If you, Richard, "agreed to reincorporate the amenities," then, of course, you could have agreed to NOT "reincorporate the amenities."

The millions of dollars on nonsensical park amenities in the Tri-W sewer plant were NOT mandated by the CCC!

NOT mitigation!

Decorative Items!

I'm right. They're wrong.

I'm about to save your community more than $6 million, and you don't seem to be on board with that idea, Richard. However, I, as someone that is crystal clear on "bait and switchy," can understand why.

What an odd position you guys now find yourself in -- it is of critical importance to you that I NOT be shown right on this, even though my tight argument will clearly save your community over $6 million.

Richard, you, and Pandora, and Gordon, and etc., need to ask yourselves a question: Do you want to save Los Osos a fortune, or do you want to continue propping up your "bait and switchy" house of cards, at a great expense to Los Osos?; 9:49 AM, November 11, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

No one is stopping you from pressing your issue legally.

It is doubtful that the CSD’s legal council, Mr. Seitz, will recommend to the Board to pursue such a lawsuit. Why? Because the proposed legal theory behind such a lawsuit is not supported by law or fact; that such a lawsuit would not prevail; and that such a lawsuit will not improve the long-term position of the district.

Again, thanks for your thoughts to bring money back to Los Osos.

-R; 10:16 AM, November 11, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Mike,

You say, "If that re-call had not happened, Los Osos would have a sewer in the ground today and there would not be any COD's to worry about..."

Mike, DON'T YOU KNOW THAT THE CDO'S AND NOV'S WERE ONLY USED AS BLACKMAIL ON THE PROP 218 VOTE?

BLAKESLEE HIMSELF SAID THE RWQCB WOULD DROP WHEN SEWER STARTED. (THEIR PREFERRED GRAVITY PROJECT, OF COURSE!)

HOWARD JARVIS GROUP STATED THE SAME THING. THEY WERE ALSO ASSURED THAT THE CDO'S WERE ONLY USED AS AN ENTICEMENT FOR A POSITIVE 218 VOTE FOR THE COUNTY!!!!

GIVE US A BREAK MIKE!

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT AND STOP THE BULL!; 10:25 AM, November 11, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Mike,

P.S. That was a "Felony" that the RWQCB did with the blackmail vote too! .... A FELONY!!!!!

So, now, who exactly are the criminals here??!!; 10:27 AM, November 11, 2008
Ron said...: -R wrote:

"It is doubtful that the CSD’s legal council, Mr. Seitz, will recommend to the Board to pursue such a lawsuit. Why?"

I'll tell you why: Because Seitz was the CSD attorney while "bait and switchy" was happening.

How motivated do you think Seitz is to make "bait and switchy" clear today?

I'll answer that question: Seitz is as motivated as you, Richard (and Pandora, Gordon, Buel, MWH, Rob Miller, etc.), that "bait and switchy" become clear today, in order to save Los Osos over $6 million, which is, none at all.

No. I don't expect much help from those folks, or the LOCSD Directors that many of those same people support, with my effort.

However, county officials and bankruptcy officials?

Now, that's a completely different story. Those people had nothing to do with "bait and switchy," so, they should be very interested in saving LO more than $6 mil.

So, yes, of course I'll continue to pursue this... this could be the ending to my book that I've been looking for, which means, I'm highly motivated to save Los Osos over $6 million and make the Governor's "signing statement" disappear.

Think about it.; 10:35 AM, November 11, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

I rather doubt that any "bankruptcy officials" (who would that be, by the way?) would argue for spending a whole bunch of money on suing the state government unless the chance of recovering a substantial amount is very high.

We'll know whether you are right or not based on whether the County or these "bankruptcy officials" (again, who are these folks?) force the issue. Of course, you have yet to identify the exact mechanism the County or these "bankruptcy officials" would use to force the LOCSD into action on this matter, so perhaps the lack of results will only indicate your lack of understanding.; 10:49 AM, November 11, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: ron, put YOUR money where your mouth is and then give us a progress report. (Of course, that will be dead air as ron does apologize for his failures or report on them either.)

ron, have you ever thought of expending all of this energy on IMPROVING YOUR OWN town?; 10:53 AM, November 11, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

Again, thanks for your thoughts on returning money to Los Osos.

I have stated my thoughts without rancor. Of course, you may do as you please on whatever you wish; and no one is stopping you.

However, trying to gather support by insultling folks is not productive.

-R; 11:29 AM, November 11, 2008
Ron said...: -R wrote:

"However, trying to gather support by insultling folks is not productive."

Uhhhh... you do realize that my argument in 2008 is now this:

Los Osos shouldn't have to pay back that $6 million, because it was the State's mistake.

... right?

I have to "gather support" for that?

Los Osos... You guys are funny.; 11:46 AM, November 11, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: ron, Richard has clearly shown why this won't fly.

Don't you think this town has had enough useless lawsuits - Measure B, PZLDF, the innumerable battles with CASE, CCLO, etc.?

I know that you want to win this - to save the town some money - (or perhaps to make you the White Knight and to try to prove once and for all Tri-W was bad) but I think other than with the "no sewer" group, you'll gain little traction.; 12:03 PM, November 11, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

It is not simply a matter of 'gathering support'.

You have to prove the State acted illegally. Opinion is not enough to succeed. You need actual law and case law to succeed; of which you have neither.

If you can think of or support another legal avenue, your input would be appreciated.

-R; 12:44 PM, November 11, 2008
Osos Change said...: Don't you think this town has had enough useless lawsuits...?

Yes, like the TW lawsuit. Drop the case or settle in order to stop the district from bleeding.; 1:00 PM, November 11, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Gee, I don't know - how about dropping PZLDF? Boy did we get conned on that one.; 3:11 PM, November 11, 2008
Unknown said...: I'm having fun trying to find anything the RWQCB or the pre-recall Boards did that could be called a FELONY...but there are still those think that the CSD5 and followers were somehow allowed to redefine laws... If Lisa had been able to make her own laws, Los Osos would be an independant nation, a Monarchy...and she would be the self-proclaimed queen... fortuanately the community woke up and passed the 218 vote by at least a 70 to 30 margin... The project went to the County and Lisa threw yet another fit and stormed off the stage.... She still has to face a judge before Christmas and may find she was only a fool and never a queen...!!!! She may actually learn the definition of FELON...!!!; 4:02 PM, November 11, 2008
Osos Change said...: Yeah, PZLDF should be dropped along with the TW lawsuit. What an idea!; 5:51 PM, November 11, 2008
GetRealOsos said...: Mike,

Yes, the RWQCB did commit a felony by the blackmail vote. I've been told by an attorney who is much better than Jon Seitz.

Yes, a felony. You would never admit it though.

How about Shark? Will he say it's not a felony? Hmmmm.; 9:41 PM, November 11, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Maybe you can point us to some legal findings to back this up?; 1:06 AM, November 12, 2008
Unknown said...: Aren't you so wonderful... You pay $40 per name to find out all there is to know about every individual you disagree with... and now you have found, after much Google Research and a "few" more dollars, an attorney who will give you the answers you seek to support your own convoluted thinking... Hey, what more do you need to know...??? It may be too late to get any more payout from the post-recall CSD though... You'll have to find a new source to finance your campaign and lawyers get expensive...until they find out that your bank account is low... Yup, you are Wonderful... Keep up the battle... and the meds...; 8:10 AM, November 12, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

I don't understand the question you ask. If you would be willing to concisely restate it, I could answer you.; 9:09 AM, November 12, 2008

Pages

Monday, November 10, 2008

28 comments: