Calhouns Can(n)ons

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Tag Day In SLO Town

Love Your Pet? Tag Them!
April 4 Starts ID Tag Campaign

Contact: Ellen Perryess (805) 550-7577

SAN LUIS OBISPO – You think Fluffy the Feline or Marcus the Maltese is safe without an ID tag “because they never leave the yard.” Then comes the day where a robin’s chirp or a squirrel’s dash lures your beloved pet away from home. Without a tag, your pet may never find his way home.
The National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy reports that about 1 million dogs and half a million cats are taken into U.S. animal shelters each year – and only 15 percent of those dogs and 2 percent of those cats are reunited with their owners. If those pets had been wearing id tags, they all could have been returned home.

And locally, less than 50% of the dogs and 5% of the cats brought into County Animal Services are returned to their owners, due to the low number of animals without any identification.

“This represents unnecessary heartache, a lot of cost to owners and tax payers, and most importantly, a tragic loss of life due to overcrowding of shelters,” says Terry Parry, president of Animal Shelter Adoption Partners, and sponsor of Join the Pack (JTP), a new countywide campaign devoted to getting ID’s on all dogs and cats.

The American Humane Association has named April 4, 2009 the start of “Everyday is Tag Day” and Join the Pack urges all SLO County pet owners to provide their pets with identification. Local retailers Lemos and Tails are Join the Pack supporters and offer discounts on personalized tags.

Tag ‘Em If You Love ‘Em!
A simple ID tag is the best insurance policy to make sure pets never wind up at a shelter, unclaimed, and in jeopardy of losing their lives.

No one expects his pet to get out, but it happens all the time. If pets are not wearing an ID they can be taken to County Animal Services. If the shelter is full then another animal is euthanized to make room for the incoming animal. If that animal is not redeemed within five days, that pet can be euthanized.

However, if that same pet is wearing a tag, the Animal Control Officer can return it directly to the owner, bypassing the shelter altogether.

The whole community is needed to Join the Pack, and make Everyday Tag Day! For more information about this grassroots effort, to volunteer, or to obtain ID tags, please contact 489-0689 or email INFO@JTP-NOW.org --- end ---

And Just What Was That, Exactly?

Ed Ochs had a Viewpoint in Friday’s Tribune, “Osos sewer tax is too costly for homeowners,” (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/letters-to-the-editor/story/657221.html) wherein he noted that, “The sewer tax is a terribly unfair tax, and homeowners don’t need a big tax bill for a big sewer when a more cost-effective project can do the same job. If you run government like a business, it doesn’t make sense to see it any other way, unless the county insists on working only with builders Montgomery Watson Harza.”

Which prompted this question: Since the county hasn’t selected the final system . . . yet . . . (yes, lots of speculation and rumor) exactly what project is on the table that is “more cost effective?” All the guestimates I’ve seen are within a few millions worth of hailing distance of one another, (especially when you put the higher number from the low end next to the lower number of the high end thereby making them look really close –heh-heh --, when in reality if you looked at the low end of the lower number and the high end of the higher number there is quite a gap).

So, Mr. Ochs. could you please let us know, What more cost effective project did you have in mind in your Viewpoint? And has the County ruled out . . . yet . . . whatever that project is? Or have the community survey’s ruled it out? (After all, that survey may make the difference in what is picked and if the community picked the more expensive project, then they’ll pay for it . . . dearly. But that will have been their choice.) Or is it some new project idea not yet reviewed? Or perhaps some components that have not yet been reviewed that could greatly reduce costs?

As for “unfair” taxation, so far as I know, a judge somewhere along the line made it clear that sewer costs are capped at a percentage of aggregate assessed property values. Los Osos is part of the Gold Coast. High property values, even with this slump and a population that’s often land rich and cash poor. Which means, the county’s project could be made from gold-plated pipes and silver pumps and marble lined oxi-ditches and cost $1,000 a month and a judge would rule that it STILL wouldn’t come close to the legally allowed cap. Which means lots of foreclosures, forced sales and an economic “cleansing” of this community, as cash poor people are replaced by cash rich people.

Which will enable Los Osos to become the perfect illustration of the old Viet Nam war mantra: We must destroy the village in order to save it.

132 comments:

Ron said...: Ann wrote:

"... exactly what project is on the table that is “more cost effective?” All the guestimates I’ve seen are within a few millions worth of hailing distance of one another"

That's true for every sewer component but one -- the treatment facility.

As I first reported, according to the TAC's Pro/Con report, the Tri-W sewer plant is estimated at $55 million, and the next highest (out of town) treatment facility is estimated at $19 million.

According to Ogren, the reason for the HUGE cost difference, is due to the amount of extra "mitigation" it takes to build a sewer plant in the middle of town.

Which has been my exact point, like, forever: Whatever the cost difference is between an out of town site, and the mid-town Tri-W site, THAT's the cost of the park in the Tri-W site, because, as I also first reported, the ONLY reason to build the sewer plant at the Tri-W site was so residents could easily get to the park... in the sewer plant... and that cost difference is estimated at $36 million.

THAT was the cost of the park.

Yeah... I was the first, of course, to report on all of that, using excellent, primary sources, IN 2000-freaking-5, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/06/multi-million-dollar-park-csd-letter.html

"... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”

Yep, I was the first (and still, ONLY) reporter that dug that awesome, amazing, great quote out of Tri-W's Coastal Development Permit in 2005.

Boo-yeah!

A $36 million "project objective" that ripped Los Osos to tiny little shreds, delayed a sewer in the town for nine-years-and-counting, and cost California taxpayers a friggin' fortune.

Uhg.

Great story, though.; 9:27 AM, March 21, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Ed is waaaaay wrong in one way ... it is the minority of Los Osos homeowners who will have to pay an unexpected and unforeseen tax (which, actually, is not a tax at all, but a charge for providing a required service) ... the rest of us ... those who have moved here since 1983 have known all about the cost. Homes inside the PZ have been cheaper than homes outside simply because of this cost ... even though the cost was not specified exactly ... both the buyer and seller knew about.

The problem is that as a community we've made some poor choices and we've delayed things to the point where it is now too expensive for an even higher fraction of our town. The question is this ... would it be a good idea fight, complain, whine and sue until we have yet another increase in the cost?

I think not!

Word Verification (I kid you not): pindome; 9:30 AM, March 21, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

Here's a quick quiz for you about the TAC report and Paavo's comments ...

If out of town plant is some $36 million less expensive, why would the County project be a $250/month project which is $50/month more than TriW which was clocking in at $200/month? That math doesn't add up. Especially when you remember that the TriW project kept our water in our aquifer but the County project takes water out of our aquifer?

To me, $50/month more doesn't add up to $36 million less.

So then Ron ... splain that. If you can't it shows you're not paying attention ... or thinking ... at all but instead just on your "TriW is bad ... Pandora is manipulative ... Gordon is evil ..." jag.; 9:39 AM, March 21, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Shark,

It appears you're waaaaaay wrong in one aspect. The Prohibition Zone is not the minority of Los Osos homeowners. You have a good chunk of the working class who aren't as savvy as the sewer politicos -- and to assume that everyone is going to expect the $400/month cost is a bit ignorant.

There's a difference between being assessed and knowing the total cost. The assessments did not ever disclose the total cost.

Not everyone has been around since 1983 and not everyone knew about the cost or the history behind the cost. Making the assumption that the buyer and seller "knew" about the cost is a bit naive. Given the median annual income of PZ residents, if the buyer knew that the monthly sewer cost would be $400/month, they wouldn't buy homes in the PZ. Obviously not everything is disclosed to the seller.

Given the history of how the project came to be, the monthly charge is understandable but unprecedented.; 12:52 PM, March 21, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Aaron,

Are you saying that people who buy homes and sign documents which discuss the need for a sewer and who are warned by their real estate agents about the sewer should not be responsible because they were unaware?

Um .... that would be like saying that people who agree today to buy a car five years down the road and to pay market price then shouldn't have to pay because they didn't know how much it would cost.

Nope, we did not expect that the cost would be $400/month (and if that is the case, how the heck does Ron justify telling us that we've saved money by the recall ... I really want the Rock to do some investigative reporting on whether Ron has been selling us something substantial or fluff and spin) but we also passed up the opportunity to go with the County's plan at under $100/month and TriW at about $200/month.

Adjustable rate mortgages have the same problem. People gamble on them, hoping that the rate doesn't go up ... but if it does, or if their salary doesn't increase as quickly as they hope, they might need to walk away from their home.

People who have bought property in Los Osos since 1983 have gambled on the cost of the sewer. Even so, had they put aside $25/month then (and adjusted it upwards for inflation ... assumed 3%) and each month since then, they would now have about $18k (assuming a 4% rate of return on their CDs) now towards the total cost.

Face it, we gambled that our friends and neighbors wouldn't do something stupid by continually fighting the County, the RWQCB, the LOCSD, the County again. We lost because we let Pandora and Al and Lisa bully our us and our neighbors into thinking there was a better way.

Don't believe Ron when he lies about saving money by dumping TriW. Don't believe Lisa when she says that she has a plan. Don't believe Pandora when she says that the LOCSD can do it for half the cost of the County.

And for the love of Los Osos, please don't argue that we should fight the County just because it is too expensive ... doing so in the past hasn't resulted in anything getting cheaper at all.

We gambled ... and if you cannot afford to lose, you shouldn't gamble at all.; 1:36 PM, March 21, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Ann,

I have to disagree with you on Ed Ochs' viewpoint.

I hear that Paavo did state at the last "After Hours" meeting that it would be gravity. Jim Patterson told Elaine Watson weeks ago that it would be gravity. Paavo told Piper it would be gravity weeks ago also.

What more do you need to know to realize that it WILL BE GRAVITY -- AND ALWAYS WAS GOING TO BE GRAVITY?!?

The survey was just a part of the dog 'n pony show. Can't you tell by the way it was written?

Paavo wrote to Gail McPherson, after the County took the project, that it would be gravity and that he wanted to keep M/W/H "out of the spotlight". Did she share that memo with you? If so, why didn't you publish it so everyone would know that this has all been a show??? That could have saved the PZ quite a bit of money...don't ya think?!

Didn't you notice that the TAC was formed of all "Gravity" people while the experts were turned away because Noel King said he wanted people on TAC that he "felt comfortable" with?

Do you really believe this was a fair process? Do you really believe the County ever intended anything but M/W/H? Do you think sole sourcing is right? Carrollo comes to mind.

How could ponds with a Vacuum system not be half the cost of a 640+ acre traditional treatment plant with deep trenching for gravity pipes?

Big difference Ann!

How about clusters? That's what the EPA likes. Why not here?

Just about any system would cost less than M/W/H's gravity system!

Shark,

How can you say it's not a tax? Why would the County do a 218 then? The 218 is the right to vote on taxes act. You say it's for a "required service" -- well, that "required service" still needs a 218.

I've said before, our ONLY benefit was not being fined or threatened by the RWQCB. We have our wastewater system. Our CCRWQCB is made up of attorneys. They use no science. They allow Morro Bay to pollute like crazy and say nothing. They knew our wells were polluted from surface runoff, they knew our nitrates were from other sources not the septic tanks. They knew the PZ line was drawn with no science and later the guy who draws that line moves to Cabrillo. They don't follow their own rules, ie punishing 45 homes with CDO's knowing that's not fair, firm or consistent. They let major polluters off the hook or go easy on them. They've covered up the real sources of nitrate pollution - knowing full well where the nitrates were coming from (animals, birds and natural vegetation). They are quacks with no oversight and work with M/W/H.
Someone there is getting kickbacks from M/W/H or why would they behave as they have?!?

They are evil, Shark, ... are you evil too? Why would you defend "evil" Shark?

Aaron,

Great post. You are so right! Shark is waaay off base especially regarding the disclosure issues. And there are many expensive homes in the PZ. Sure, Cabrillo homes are more expensive, but they are larger homes, up in the hills with the views, and in a very nice, clean neighborhood with space.; 1:41 PM, March 21, 2009
Unknown said...: Ann's question to Ed Ochs about what he thinks is the most cost effective solution has been addressed in The Rock.

There was the article on Dr. Wickham, inventor of the Piranha, where an industrial strength blender whirls granules of enzymes around in the septic tank. There was a feature story on Dr. Alexander who has confounded mainstream science with his plan for purifying water by scrambling electrons.

And the story of the fabled Reclamator that looks like a septic tank but isn’t. Its technology isn’t cheap but, says inventor Tom Murphy, federal law compels the government to pay most of the unit cost and the just compensation clause in the Constitution obligates the CSD to purchase the “reclaimate”.

The founders of the Ochs Nation might consider an alternate proposition to the one that the community’s, working class residents lack the savy to evaluate to understand wastewater issues. It may be that they’ve figured out everything they wish to know about community-leader wannabes, amazing technologies, and solutions that are “faster, better, and cheaper”.; 6:26 PM, March 21, 2009
Ed said...: Hi Ann,

It was not my intention to weigh systems in my Viewpoint, only recommend that the County pick one that's less expensive, not the most expensive, which is their plan ... in this jobless, cashless, downward-spiraling economy. There ARE other systems, you know.

The County (Carollo) did not adequately evaluate some viable, appropriate alternatives on a co-equal, level-playing-field basis with existing systems, as promised, (either screening them out early or never honestly considering them in the first place); because the County acknowledges already having preselected gravity even before AB2701 had passed -- and because they didn't want any real competition for their sole-source MWH project.

I'm a little surprised this is breaking news to some folks here.

Gravity for Los Osos has long been a foregone conclusion. The County has never really considered less- and inexpensive systems as an acceptable compromise between gravity and STEP, saving millions and preserving a community along the way.

Debating the predetermined, most-expensive technology that has already been decided on in advance is a Weapon of Mass Distraction and a flagrant waste of community time, effort and money, and those who think they can change the Board of Supervisors' minds are missing the fact that the train has already left the station on the choice of technology, and the name of that train is "The Gravity Express.”

Whatever!,

It just means there's little time left, nanoseconds in the process, to build a sewer Los Osos can afford that fits in Los Osos' lean budget. No sense in going into deep debt right now by building the most expensive project only few can afford ... with Los Osos' money ... in this historic local, statewide economic depression that has touched almost all of us.

So here's $50-$80 million. Now go build Los Osos the best sewer for that much money because THAT is ALL the community can afford -- because that's all there is, there ain't no more. Adapted from "Field of Dreams": "Build it wisely and they will can stay."

You KNOW it can be done, don't you?

My Viewpoint expresses the impact -- no, the disaster -- of a $400+ a month sewer tax on Los Osos homeowners in these new Hard Times -- when they can barely afford to buy food and jobs are vaporizing.

I can only hope my Viewpoint is seen far and wide outside Los Osos, throughout the County, to raise awareness of the this grossly out of whack sewer tax and the government's assault on a selected group of homeowners in Los Osos, and apply pressure on the Board of Developers to become the Board of Supervisors working for the people over developers, so the County to do the Right Thing.

Moral of the story: It's later than it’s ever been for many in Los Osos. Before long there will be nowhere for Los Osos residents to go but out. So ... "BUILD IT WISELY AND THEY CAN STAY."

That's "it"!; 9:38 PM, March 21, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Uhhhoooooooo. Go away for a day and now so much to refute!

I'll start with the $400 thing.
I went on the tour the County conducted for the Planning Commissioners. I did ask Paavo about the $400 and he said NO, NOT $400. John Waddell joined the conversation and they both said look at the Project status report (that we got 5 weeks ago, or so) and Brochure 5 Project Selection and Monthly Costs. Please look at it. Included in the $250 is the monthly secured assessment, the monthly O & M rates, the monthly capital rates and charges and the monthly "equivalent" on lot costs. Tr-W appears to be more, but what the County always removed in comparing costs to "level the playing field" was the DESIGN and LAND ---$20 million --- ALREADY PAID FOR.

$400/month is bogus and to throw that around simply incites mistrust of the County and fear of the costs.

Real estate.
I truly am sorry if your realtor did not disclose the sewer problem going on here when you bought. We bought in 2005. Our realtor did inform us. But if you looked anywhere else in the area, a buyer would have to notice (we sure did) - gee, this tiny home in Morro Bay on the dinky lot not even near the ocean is just as much money as the nicer, larger home in Los Osos on the bigger lot. Why is that?

"…the TAC was formed of all 'Gravity' people"
Really? Karen Venditti, Rob Shipe, John Fouche were for gravity? They would be wounded to hear you say that. And those are just the ones off the top of my head that ARE for step! Some bloggers here also add Rob Miller, but I don't know about that. But you probably saw the posts.

"How about clusters?"
Gee, even Pio Lombardo said they were more expensive, they came in around $28,000 per household - where do you get your info GRO?

"They allow Morro Bay to pollute like crazy and say nothing."
Well, for starters, Morro Bay has a sewer and has had it a long time - think of all the added pollution they DID NOT add while the thing worked perfectly. They are now upgrading - to TERTIARY - voluntarily. Why don't you read the facts here - "THEY" say quite a lot:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_decisions/tentative_orders/2006/2006_0019_morro_bay_cayucos_npdes_permit.pdf

To quote Shark, "sheesh!"; 9:49 PM, March 21, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Oh Ed, what will we get for $50 - $80 million - some rubber tubing snaking out of town filling up some plastic tubs? Just which County proposed project fit your suggested retail? Please tell us a system that comes in with that price range.; 10:07 PM, March 21, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,

When you read DEIR comments byAIRVAC, The World’s Leader in Vacuum Sewer Technology you will see that sealed vacuum collection can be accomplished for well under $50, 000,000.00.
Of course you know about ECOfluid’s Tertiary Membrane design that can be accomplished for $8,800,000.00 for a 1.2MGD facility.

When a sealed system is used 300,000gpd will be cut from the treatment amount because I/I are reduced from using sealed pipe which would bring the capital
cost of the treatment down to under $7,000,000.00 for a 900,000 gpd tertiary membrane that will use less energy than facultative ponds.

The county responses to the DEIR comments regarding Vacuum and USBF™ will be on the record and will assist everyone in learning more. I am very interested in carefully looking over the Carollo Engineers billings, which have still not arrived and I have yet to get a response concerning my FOIA request for Sam Sperry’s firm.

Plenty of work still ahead and I am interested just how much time was spent looking at “alternatives” because that’s what the whole county study process was supposed to be about, wasn’t it?

Los Osos Wastewater Project Mission Statement: To evaluate and develop a wastewater treatment system for Los Osos, in cooperation with the community water purveyors, to solve the Level III water resource shortage and groundwater pollution, in an environmentally sustainable and cost effective manner, while respecting community preferences and promoting participatory government, and addressing individual affordability challenges to the greatest extent possible.

A leaky bell and spigot does not solve- “groundwater pollution, in an environmentally sustainable and cost effective manner”; 11:26 PM, March 21, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Oh Lynette, Did you hear from r1 about Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) yet?; 11:27 PM, March 21, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: AB 2701, Blakeslee. San Luis Obispo County.
(1) Existing law authorizes the establishment of community services
districts for the provision of various services to the geographic area within
a district, including the collection, treatment, or disposal of sewage,
wastewater, recycled water, and stormwater.
This bill would authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to undertake
any efforts necessary to construct and operate a wastewater collection and
treatment system to meet the needs of the Los Osos Community Services
District, as specified, and to impose and collect user fees and other charges
to cover the reasonable costs of any wastewater collection or treatment
services provided pursuant to these provisions.
The bill would also require the Board of Supervisors of San Luis Obispo
County to prepare and submit a proposed assessment to pay for the
facilities, and, if certain requirements are met, to decide whether to
proceed with construction of the project. The district would retain the
powers to provide all other services to a designated zone. After a minimum
of 3 years and when the district and the county mutually apply for, and are
granted, a modification to the waste discharge permit issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, responsibilities would be
transferred back to the district.; 11:32 PM, March 21, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11:44 PM, March 21, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: One more item to keep in mind and it is another good reason to be conservative when selecting and implementing collection and treatment technology is that a storm water collection system is up next for the citizens of LO/BP.

Mark Hutchinson was citing Title 33 Chapter 26 when I first saw him speak at a LOCAC meeting about Storm Water.

The county will be assesing for this work as well so now is the time to be smart and get the most bang for the buck.
Think about it.; 11:45 PM, March 21, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Shark, I can name about 10-12 people on the top of my head who bought homes in the Prohibition Zone and their realtors did not disclose the total costs of the LOWWP. Discussing the need for the sewer and the disclosure of costs are two completely different entities. Discussing the need for a sewer does not necessarily make the homeowner aware of the financial burden.

The logic of my argument stands. If people really knew the financial ramifications for the construction of this project, then they wouldn't have invested in real estate within the Prohibition Zone, period, because there is no service/utility bill, in this country, that costs $400/month. This is an unprecedented cost.

Yes, when people argued about the cost of the sewer (such as the CASE lawsuit in 2002), those were delay tactics. Unfortunately, because of the delays, because of the mistakes and wrongful decision-making by the pre-recall and post-recall boards, cost has now become an issue, which is why we must be even more vigilant and aggressive for pushing for affordability regardless of the project.

I think your argument, Shark, is self-centered because you feel a sewer has to be built based on the demand from exasperated homeowners who were aware of the situation since 1983 (ironically, you were here since the late 90s). Those people were aware of the gamble. They've spent 26 years rolling the dice, but that exasperation is exclusive to them. The people coming into town are not initially aware of that. You see a lot of these people "whining" because they feel they've been swindled -- and here you are condemning that and their right to find the truth for themselves.

#

Lynette,

I don't know how effective you can be in refuting when your refutation is based on nothing more than fiction.

During office hours, when I asked Paavo Ogren, "When did you know that gravity was the only viable solution for Los Osos?" he gave a very comprehensive answer by talking about the history behind the County's involvement. After he mentioned Noel King "testing the waters" by mentioning gravity as the predetermined solution a few years ago, Ogren said shortly after, "Yes, sure, [gravity] is going to be costly -- from $250 to $400 monthly, but it's the most appropriate. I wouldn't bet on STEP/STEG, really."

You attended the same office hours. I'm a little disappointed in you because I don't know if you're lying or if Paavo is telling you something different. It's one of the two.

Upon the question of the monthly cost at $400, Richard LeGros said, "Of course, it's going to be that," and according to him, it would have been cheaper if the County went with the preferred project. "If we went back to that project at Tri-W, I'd say that the cost -- right now -- would be around $250 or so," but Richard doubted that the project would go back to Tri-W. I believe in Richard's assessment more than yours.

In short, you're being deceitful. I can see through all the yarn that you've been spinning.; 12:20 AM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Aaron said...
Shark, I can name about 10-12 people on the top of my head who bought homes in the Prohibition Zone and their realtors did not disclose the total costs of the LOWWP.

The county has been studying the project since before 2007 and they still haven't disclosed "the total costs of the LOWWP."

Lynette, has lived in LO for less time than Steve, I think Lou said 4 years. Lynette what does Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) say?; 8:06 AM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Don't forget the storm sewer system up next...

The $25,000.00 assessment would cover a smart sewer and storm sewer.
Why isn't anyone interested in this approach?; 8:08 AM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Oh yea, The Naciamento Pipe to LO/BP will cost a bunch too...
The people must demand better from their public servants and if they do not provide it, fire them.

It is your money and water folks!; 8:10 AM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8:17 AM, March 22, 2009
Churadogs said...: Ed sez:" It was not my intention to weigh systems in my Viewpoint, only recommend that the County pick one that's less expensive"

I asked the question because so far there's been all sort of vague guestimates, so thought you had in mind a particular system that was clearly cheaper.

Also, the question still remains: Do the people of the PZ want gravity (as the survey indicated) because they truly do want gravity? Or do they want gravity because it's familiar, they're scared about having their yard dug up & etc, plus they don't really know it may cost waaaaay more (according to Mark's figures) than, say, STEP/Vacuum etc.because those figures weren't on the survey.

In other words, if somebody asks me what kind of car I'd "prefer' but they don't give me any real prices, I'd say, "Well, sure, I'd prefer a Mercedes." Then, after it's delivered and I get the bill, I'd likely say, "Woa! Hold on there. Think I'd better take a look at that Chevy over there."

In this case, it appears that the citizens won't get another chance to be surveyed with a real question: "STEP/VACUUM/WHATEVER will cost X$ and Gravity/whatever will cost Y$. Which do you want?"

How likely, in that case, would it be that the I Like Gravity folks wouldn't say, "Woa, think I'd better take a look at that Chevy?"

So, in this case, when the superviors get some final hard design/build numbers and, lets say, for the sake of arugment, "Well, seems that STEP system Y IS cheaper than gravity system X but the clear majority on our survey said they WANTED gravity and while gravity IS more expensive, that's what they said they WANTED, so we'd better give it to them." Then, when everyone gets the bill and hollers, the Sups can say, "But that's what you ASKED for." And, of course, by then it'll be too late.

As for costs, if memory serves, didn't the Ripley report's cost INCLUDE installation onsite, (bult purchase of tanks, one contrac to install, etc) with a small "repair lawn" amount factored in, all as part of the overall guestimate? If my memory is correct, then the Ripley plan included installation, but near as I can tell, the county's plan doesn't? If that's true, why doesn't the county's plan include installation?; 8:19 AM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Ed is correct when he wrote:
The County (Carollo) did not adequately evaluate some viable, appropriate alternatives on a co-equal, level-playing-field basis with existing systems, as promised, (either screening them out early or never honestly considering them in the first place); because the County acknowledges already having preselected gravity even before AB2701 had passed -- and because they didn't want any real competition for their sole-source MWH project."

[Paavo "If there is a significantly less expensive technology exists then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away"] Ogren said shortly after, "Yes, sure, [gravity] is going to be costly -- from $250 to $400 monthly, but it's the most appropriate. I wouldn't bet on STEP/STEG, really."

The responses to the DEIR and detailed billings from engineering should provide further proof that what is being represented is not what occurred.; 8:24 AM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Ann,
The figures I have provided to construct a USBF(tm) Membrane Title 22 reclaimed water facility are very solid.
A decent engineer could "flush or flesh" it out in a month. That's why I keep asking: Why won't the county do it?

AIRVAC knows what a collection system should cost and a competent engineer could "flush or flesh" that technology in short order as well.

Why didn't/won't the county do it?; 8:32 AM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Ann wrote and it bears repeating:
As for costs... why doesn't the county's plan include installation?

Direct HIT! You sunk the battle ship...

The same is true for vacuum and grinder pump which do not include the "distateful red herring" septic tank.

Grinder pumps have on lot power bills.

Vacuum is all in the street.
So people flush and forget.
It is also "significantly less expensive", Mr. Ogren...; 8:39 AM, March 22, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Lynette,

You say, "Well, for starters, Morro Bay has a sewer and has had it a long time - think of all the added pollution they DID NOT add while the thing worked perfectly. They are now upgrading - to TERTIARY - voluntarily. Why don't you read the facts here - "THEY" say quite a lot.."

No, Lynette, you should get your facts straight. Their pipes leak and are cracked -- there is video of this. The RWQCB knows about it. Some homes don't even have laterals. It's a mess. Cracked and leaking pipes -- and you think/say they don't pollute?!? ...

You better think for yourself, rather than relying on Paavo and the County.; 9:02 AM, March 22, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Lynette,

Also, as far as clusters, maybe someone besides Pio could do it for less. He gave his "Malibu" prices. I'm sure the "Waterguy" could do for less, as could others.

As far as the TAC filled with "gravity" people that Noel King felt "comfortable" with -- John would go for anything. Karen was for Step, but would go for anything. Rob Shipe didn't make a difference one way or another. The main people who mattered were clearly fighting for gravity all the way. Rob Miller (personally) prefers Step and thinks ponds were fine.

But you keep up your good work pimping for the County and Cal Poly biscuits.; 9:26 AM, March 22, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Aaron,

I actually cannot name a single person who bought their home and had their realtor disclose the total cost. Because no one actually knows the total cost exactly at this point in time. Heck, even the estimates (whether $250 or $400) are based on assumptions.

To expect that someone today could predict with any degree of accuracy the ultimate sewer bill is unreasonable. You know that and I know that any anyone who bought a home should not have bought unless they were willing to take that risk.

If a particular realtor was negligent in discussing these facts, perhaps they could be sued, but certainly ceteris parabus applies to the purchase of real estate just like everywhere else. People typically get their homes inspected before buying just like they get used cars looked over before buying. Why? Because they know that there is the possibility of some huge and "unforeseen" costs. Again, please remember that homes in the PZ were priced tens of thousands of dollars lower because of the uncertainty about the sewer. If a purchaser had paid attention to this fact, they could have taken the $30k "windfall" they got by buying a cheaper home and putting that in a CD. That would cover approximately $200/month for 20 years.

People who didn't bother doing the research appropriate for buying a home and essentially gambled have lost. When those same people fuss and complain and take actions that ultimately make costs even higher (say, by supporting the recall) are making my costs higher as well. It is almost as if they are so angry that they lost their (stupid) bet that they want to make sure others feel the pain as well.

No one was swindled by the County, by me or by the LOCSD here. Perhaps they feel anger because they didn't carefully investigate the situation or perhaps they feel (reasonable) anger at their realtor ... but my point was that only those who have lived in Los Osos since before 1983 have the right to complain about the costs in the way you have been complaining. Everyone else has known about the uncertainty and everyone else has made the choice to buy into that uncertainty.

And to Ann ... if you remember the Ripley report, they compared overbids for TriW to estimates for their collection system. They also conveniently forgot to include inflation costs. They also forgot to subtract out the costs of design of TriW (which were already paid). Ann,
you know as well as I do that I pointed this out at the time and that the Ripley design wasn't gonna save us any money because of these factors, even with optimistic assumptions about timelines and construction costs.

There is no way that the County or Ripley or anyone now could tell us actual costs for a particular system. That being said, we have guesstimates that are based on assumptions which may or may not be realistic. Unfortunately, the cost of making those estimates more precise is, itself, overwhelming.

Perhaps your Chinese menu could say gravity will run you $75 +/- $35 for the construction costs and $5 +/- $1 for the O&M and about $5000 +/- $2000 to connect but STEP will run you as little as $60 +/- $30/month for the construction and $20 +/- $10/month for the O&M and about $10000 +/- $5000 (depending) for the connect charge.; 9:41 AM, March 22, 2009
M said...: I will ask once again. No one ever answers this question for me.
If we can collect raw sewage and turn it into drinking water, why can't we take water from our upper auqifier and turn it into drinking water?
Sincerely, M; 12:15 PM, March 22, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: M,

I don't remember you asking that question before, but I do remember reading the answer to your question here.

Richard let us know a while back that there is a law preventing wellhead denitrification unless the source of the nitrate pollution is eliminated. Thus, we can denitrify and have more flexibility when blending water harvested from the two aquifers only after there is a sewer and WWTF.

I don't have the date of the reply or the details, but I suspect Richard would be able to provide the details.; 1:44 PM, March 22, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Shark,

The problem is that a lot of people were told by realtors that the sewer would go by the first assessment at $4,000, not $25,000. A lot of people moved to Los Osos before the County assumed responsibility for the LOWWP -- before they were assessed for more.

Your argument is very similar to CNBC Rick Santelli's when he said that taxpayers shouldn't bail out the "losers" who took out subprime mortgages as he assumed that they knew of the risks involved. Like how the banks didn't disclose the terms and conditions to these homeowners, many realtors in Los Osos did not disclose the risks and the costs of the sewer -- so how could they do research when they were unaware of the ramifications?

I seriously doubt that potential buyers coming in know the average price of a home inside the Prohibition Zone. How would these buyers know that these houses were priced tens of thousands of dollars lower than the average? People are not going to ask why a house is cheap if the house fits their needs. They're going to take whatever seems to be a good bargain.

I do not see where these new buyers are gambling. You make it sound like these buyers automatically discovered that their house's septic is a suspected pollutant of groundwater and that they're fully aware of the costs and risks up front.

I don't think you really know that "everyone else" made the choice to "buy into uncertainty." That's a very, very wide generalization.; 1:44 PM, March 22, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: M,

I have provided the answer to that question many times before on this blog.

To repeat; before Los Osos can take the upper aquifer water and filter it into drinking water, the SOURCE (septic systems) of the pollution to the aquifer MUST BE REMOVED FIRST. The law is very clear on this issue.

-R; 1:44 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2:02 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Hopefully "r" will provide the California Statute, like I asked him previously.
Heck maybe Lynette can have Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) weigh in.

M,
If a leaky bell and spigot conventional gravity gets installed the source(human waste) will not be removed.; 2:03 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve wrote: Perhaps your Chinese menu could say gravity will run you $75 +/- $35 for the construction costs and $5 +/- $1 for the O&M and about $5000 +/- $2000 to connect but STEP will run you as little as $60 +/- $30/month for the construction and $20 +/- $10/month for the O&M and about $10000 +/- $5000 (depending) for the connect charge.

Steve, I really appreciate your revealing your ever loving bias for gravity again and so exceptionally well this time.

For a guy who never read any reports you sure do have the "line" down pat: "nothing is better or less expensive than gravity."

I Love LO!; 2:07 PM, March 22, 2009
Ed said...: Lynette,

Which Paavo told you $400 is bogus? If that's true, then will Paavo sign a Contract with the People of Los Osos that the amount of the sewer bill will not exceed $400 a month -- or he pays the balance?

Or was it the Paavo who told me THE COSTS COULD DOUBLE, he couldn't say they wouldn't? Paavo constantly contradicts himself. He's so desperate at this point he'll say absolutely anything to anybody to get them to think the County is responsive.

But anyone who has ever had to endure one of Paavo's long-winded explanations avoiding the question knows what "shovel-ready" really means: Get out the shovel, Paavo's talking ... and talking ... and talking ... avoiding.

Why do you also contradict TW co-founder Richard LeGros who says "at least $400 a month?" He did his own math (Lord help us!) Yet, why are Richard and I actually agreeing on this "bogus" number? Who speaks for TW anyway? Joyce? You knuckleheads don't even seem to agree amongst yourselves.

And why, after I've spoken publicly about the $400 a month at BOS meetings and appeared in other forums -- when Gibson and Paavo were present and SAID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN RESPONSE when they had ample opportunities -- does Paavo now tell you and only you in private that $400 a month is bogus?
In other words, Paavo has been consistent. Your job is to spread the cheese.

Hey, if you think $400 a month is bad ... If you add in all sewer costs known and projected (but unknown), and all associated costs incurred as a direct result of the megasewer being built in Los Osos -- from loan interest, future 218s, possible imported water, repairs, and fines on the project, not IF but WHEN -- then Los Osos may be looking at the first $1,000 a month sewer in history.

Gee, I hope THAT nice, big, round number doesn't scare homeowners too badly and engender too much fear and mistrust of the County "process" at this critical moment in sewer mythology (wink-wink)! People have a right to know the truth about the "process" -- it "processes" people out of their homes and on to the street.

Lynette, I'm afraid your role as Under Secretary of State in Charge of Note-Taking for oily Gibson and bean counter Paavo has gone straight to your crazy little head.

After all, Gibson is a former "oil-company environmentalist" and current pal of Taxpayers Watch ... Paavo is a lapsed CPA ... and you are a secretary/wannabe politico. NOT A LICENSED ENGINEER AMONG YOU.

Hutchinson, Woodall and Diodoti are owned and operated by the County, and as charter members of the Cal Poly Boy's Choir, will sing any song and do anything they are told by their masters that pay their salary that pays their bills.

Now, I'm glad you're having a grand old time playing at politics in your spare time ... taking Gibson's meeting minutes ... polishing the apple ... and blogging stuff you actually know very little about, but it's no game to thousands of us whose lives you and the County are taking much too lightly.

If truth matters to you at all, better for you to admit you've been had than play the game another day.; 2:33 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,
What does Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name)think?; 3:26 PM, March 22, 2009
Ed said...: Lynette,

I meant in my first paragraph above, would Paavo sign a contract to say the sewer bill wouldn't exceed $250 per month? Is that the amount Paavo says the monthly bill is going to be?

Ed; 4:12 PM, March 22, 2009
Ed said...: Apparently I'm not the only one who feels strongly about the affordability issue currently being swept under the rug.

Interesting quote from letter Stan & Gordon sent to the Gov. about affordability of previous County project.

Stan and Gordon stated to then Gov. Wilson that the County ACKNOWLEDGED:

1) The PZ would be completely responsible for ALL costs of construction, repair, replacement of the sewer and any legal claims arising from failure of the system or its components...

2) Nitrate levels may not change for 45 years if at all (they referred to the "alleged problem" of nitrates)...

3) That the sewer would devastate the community and that 50% if not more may be forced to sell their homes and move because of high costs and that older residents would be at risk of having inadequate resources for daily living; and went further to say it was the state's policy for water quality to be consistent with the state goal of providing a decent home and suitable living ... environment for every Californian (CA Water Code, section 13142).

Comments Pam: "What has changed since then? More people will have to move ... More expensive ... Worse economy."; 5:09 PM, March 22, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Okay ... in order:

Aaron, I understand your point but Santelli was speaking to a different issue entirely. The health of the entire nation's economy, let alone the economy of the entire central coast does not rest on whether people in Los Osos who made dumb decisions based on (at least in part) their lack of research on relevant issues. How can those folks do appropriate research if they are unaware? I don't know, how about reading the newspapers or reading their loan documents or asking around. Seriously, your argument, when boiled down to it's essence is that people who choose not to do research on what they buy should not have to pay. That sounds just plain wrong. If there was someone who was deceiving these buyers it could only have been a realtor and that person could be sued for the problem you describe. Someone being unaware of a very real cost doesn't make this an unfair tax by any stretch.

As for buying into uncertainty or not ... if the cost of a sewer wasn't 100% known, the buyer bought into uncertainty. Fair 'nuff?

As for Mark's quest for information about which laws permit the RWQCB to take their various actions, I am sure that if he were just willing to do some research on the internet he would find what he wants.

And if Mark wants to fuss at me for a hypothetical example which he mis-read ... fine. The point that the costs are not known exactly is still valid. If Mark wants to say something worthwhile it will be a welcome change.; 5:34 PM, March 22, 2009
Mike Green said...: Aron, Here is my experience buying a home in Los Osos in 1991.
We were told that the county would build a sewer and that if we bought that there would be an assessment of aprx. 10K or a 90/month bill, since we were shopping for a home within a circle of SLO of 30 miles because that's where we worked, L.O. compared very favorably with all the other areas.
Our realtor Sal Ruiz was extremely up front about it.
As luck would have it the timing for us was good, had we bought after the formation of the CSD the disclosure may have been based on the "cheaper better faster" pile of unadulterated hogwash, 38.50 month.
Why do I consider the timing fortuitous?
Because when we did buy a home we put the 10k in the bank ( included it in the sale price of the home )
Lots of water under that bridge since then, but you get the idea.
My suggestion is that when you get ready to purchase real estate, cover your bases as well as you can.
Affordability in the case of the LO wastewater project has always been a moving target, some folks wont be able to afford any sewer, without some kind of government support they will no doubt experience a lien on their property with possible foreclosure.
IMHO the only way to get government action on this is for it to become a disaster, the bills will have to come and (a whole lot of) folks will have to plead for relief.
That said, it is feasible that the higher the bill is the more likely relief will come, a 1000/month bill might be better than a 400/month bill, as the higher bill is more ridiculous than the lower one and both are beyond reasonable.
Sounds stupid doesn't it?
Well explain New Orleans and the dikes.
Orange county and the lack of forestry control.
The Sacramento dikes STILL need bracing, when is that going to happen?
AIG anyone?
We have a reactionary government, planning is just a joke.; 5:56 PM, March 22, 2009
Ron said...: So, it's a chilly Sunday afternoon, I'm a little bored, and I thought I'd build a nice, warm fire, drop by Ann Calhoun's great blog, and that's when I stumbled upon this crap, posted by a piece of human garbage, blog parasite, that cowardly hides behind a ridiculous anonymous handle:

"Don't believe Ron when he lies about saving money by dumping TriW."

Not only do I find that highly offensive, but it's that exact kind of behavior-based-marketing bullshit -- that's been going on in Los Osos for over ten years now -- that has the town in the huge, freaking me$$ that it's in.

Follow me on this:

When I broke the story in 1998, MONTHS BEFORE the election that formed the LOCSD for no reason whatsoever on Pandora's dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, project," that the Questa Study (that she and her husband, Gary, begged the County to pay for... and we did), showed that the County's project was superior to her project in EVERY regard, I was called a liar for reporting that excellent story.

I was 100-percent right.

In 2000, two years after Pandora's dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, project" formed the LOCSD for no reason whatsoever, when I broke the story that her "better, cheaper, faster" project wasn't going to work after all -- and, one month after I broke that story, that project failed -- I was called a liar for reporting that excellent story.

I was 100-percent right.

In 2004, when I broke the story that the ONLY reason why she selected the Tri-W site for her SECOND project, was because of a made-up "strongly held community value" that ANY sewer plant for the town must also double as a "centrally located recreational asset," I was called a liar for reporting that excellent story.

I was 100-percent right.

If, in just ONE of those instances, had the over-the-top creepy people that are completely obsessed (for reasons unknown) with building a "sewer-park" in the middle of Los Osos at their beloved Tri-W site, had just stopped, for one f-ing second, and actually read what I was tightly, tightly reporting (using nothing but excellent, primary sources), the Los Osos train wreck would have never happened.

Now, in 2000-and-freaking-9, I break the story that, according to County documents, the Tri-W treatment facility is estimated at $55 million, and that the next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million, and I'm called a f-ing "liar."

I'm 100-percent right.

So, if Ann wants to leave this kind of bullshit:

""Don't believe Ron when he lies about saving money by dumping TriW."

...on her blog nowadays? Hey, it's her blog.

Mike Green wrote:

"... had we bought after the formation of the CSD the disclosure may have been based on the "cheaper better faster" pile of unadulterated hogwash, 38.50 month."

Welcome to Los Osos, where the truth-tellers are called liars, by the liars.; 6:46 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve: When I challenged "r" to put up the link to the law regarding ending the source of pollution, I did so to make a point.

It is important to keep the record clear just like that Tri-W...; 7:29 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "r",(not Steve) Care to comment on these exciting bits?
Did you really write this stuff??

Stan and Gordon stated to then Gov. Wilson that the County ACKNOWLEDGED:

1) The PZ would be completely responsible for ALL costs of construction, repair, replacement of the sewer and any legal claims arising from failure of the system or its components...

2) Nitrate levels may not change for 45 years if at all (they referred to the "alleged problem" of nitrates)...

3) That the sewer would devastate the community and that 50% if not more may be forced to sell their homes and move because of high costs and that older residents would be at risk of having inadequate resources for daily living; and went further to say it was the state's policy for water quality to be consistent with the state goal of providing a decent home and suitable living ... environment for every Californian (CA Water Code, section 13142).

I Love LO!; 7:35 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "r", You can quote the law when it counts...

§ 13142. State policy for water quality control
State policy for water quality control shall consist of all or
any of the following:
(a) Water quality principles and guidelines for long-range
resource planning, including ground water and surface
water management programs and control and use of
recycled water.
(b) Water quality objectives at key locations for planning
and operation of water resource development projects and
for water quality control activities.
(c) Other principles and guidelines deemed essential by
the state board for water quality control.
The principles, guidelines, and objectives shall be
consistent with the state goal of providing a decent home
and suitable living environment for every Californian.; 7:38 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: § 13301. Cease and desist order
When a regional board finds that a discharge of waste is
taking place, or threatening to take place, in violation of
requirements or discharge prohibitions prescribed by the
regional board or the state board, the board may issue an
order to cease and desist and direct that those persons not
complying with the requirements or discharge
prohibitions (a) comply forthwith, (b) comply in
accordance with a time schedule set by the board, or (c) in
the event of a threatened violation, take appropriate
remedial or preventive action. In the event of an existing
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT (CAL. WATER CODE, DIVISION 7) EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2008
Rev. 12-18-2007 - 38 -
or threatened violation of waste discharge requirements in
the operation of a community sewer system, cease and
desist orders may restrict or prohibit the volume, type, or
concentration of waste that might be added to that system
by dischargers who did not discharge into the system
prior to the issuance of the cease and desist order. Cease
and desist orders may be issued directly by a board, after
notice and hearing.
§ 13301.1. Assistance with order
The regional board shall render to persons against whom
a cease and desist order is issued pursuant to Section
13301 all possible assistance in making available current
information on successful and economical water quality
control programs, as such information is developed by the
state board pursuant to Section 13167, and information
and assistance in applying for federal and state funds
necessary to comply with the cease and desist order.

ARTICLE 6. GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING
TO ENFORCEMENT AND REVIEW
§ 13360. Manner of compliance
(a) No waste discharge requirement or other order of a
regional board or the state board or decree of a court
issued under this division shall specify the design,
location, type of construction, or particular manner in
which compliance may be had with that requirement,
order, or decree, and the person so ordered shall be
permitted to comply with the order in any lawful manner.
However, the restrictions of this section shall not apply to
waste discharge requirements or orders or decrees with
respect to any of the following:
(1) Discharge of solid waste to disposal sites other than
evaporation ponds from which there is no drainage or
seepage which requires the installation of riprap, the
construction of walls and dikes, the installation of surface
and underground drainage facilities to prevent runoff
from entering the disposal area or leakage to underground
or surface waters, or other reasonable requirements to
achieve the above or similar purposes.
(2) Discharges of waste or fluid to an injection well,
except any well which is regulated by the Division of Oil
and Gas in the Department of Conservation pursuant to
Division 3 (commencing with Section 3000) of the Public
Resources Code and Subpart F of Part 147 of Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations and is in compliance
with that division and Subpart A (commencing with
Section 146.1) of Subchapter D of Chapter 1 of Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) If the court, in an action for an injunction brought
under this division, finds that the enforcement of an
injunction restraining the discharger from discharging
waste would be impracticable, the court may issue any
order reasonable under the circumstances requiring
specific measures to be undertaken by the discharger to
comply with the discharge requirements, order, or decree; 7:44 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Sorry "r",
The words: the SOURCE (septic systems) of the pollution to the aquifer MUST BE REMOVED FIRST

Don't appear in California Water Law.; 7:47 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: No waste discharge requirement or other order of a regional board or the state board or decree of a court issued under this division shall specify the design, location, type of construction, or particular manner in which compliance may be had with that requirement, order, or decree, and the person so ordered shall be permitted to comply with the order in any lawful manner.

"r"., the above is the law, word for word.; 7:50 PM, March 22, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Nice try Ron ... but you didn't actually explain how the County's $250/month plan ends up being cheaper than the pre-recall LOCSD's $200/month plan. Math don't lie and you are telling us that $250 is less than $200. Hence, you are somehow misunderstanding something HUGE ($50 per month times 12 months times 20 years times 5000 homes is $60 million huge). Avoiding the issue by some candy-assed "well, the County says so, so it must be true" statement is just plain weak. If Paavo told you fact to face that black was white would you confuse Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney? (Admittedly I should have chosen a different example.)

So then, if you would kindly address the actual issue instead of talking around it but avoiding it directly it would be far easier for us to see that you are not trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

The ball's in your court ... do you wanna play or do you wanna run away again like a coward who has no answers but only chimes in every so often when he has something nasty to say about Gordon or Pandora.

Talk about a piece of human garbage and a blog parasite who is trying to spin Los Osos ... I give you Ron with his you'll be saving money (even though it costs you $50 more every month) because you've got an out of town plant bull.; 9:11 PM, March 22, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve wants to play Ron?; 9:47 PM, March 22, 2009
alabamasue said...: And I'm betting on Steve to win. Ron only knows ancient history, which he cites over and over, ad nauseum. Welcome to 2009!; 10:01 PM, March 22, 2009
Mike Green said...: Is there anybody... out there

That can explain to me why a 50% overbid fully permitted and engineered public works project, with dedicated funding, hasn't attracted a competing bid from a qualified contractor?

I mean, this IS the open season on this, right?

If I owned, lets say Haliburton or something like that, I'd be all over it like flies on excrement.

This is an interesting question, no?

If not, why?; 11:17 PM, March 22, 2009
Churadogs said...: My question was:If my memory is correct, then the Ripley plan included installation, but near as I can tell, the county's plan doesn't? If that's true, why doesn't the county's plan include installation?"
Inlet's response was: "And to Ann ... if you remember the Ripley report, they compared overbids for TriW to estimates for their collection system. They also conveniently forgot to include inflation costs. They also forgot to subtract out the costs of design of TriW (which were already paid). Ann,
you know as well as I do that I pointed this out at the time and that the Ripley design wasn't gonna save us any money because of these factors, even with optimistic assumptions about timelines and construction costs"

Uh, that wasn't my question (see above) Did the Ripley report include cost of tanks and installation as part of the overall price? If they did that, then why hasn't the county?

Inlet also sez:"Perhaps your Chinese menu could say gravity will run you $75 +/- $35 for the construction costs and $5 +/- $1 for the O&M and about $5000 +/- $2000 to connect but STEP will run you as little as $60 +/- $30/month for the construction and $20 +/- $10/month for the O&M and about $10000 +/- $5000 (depending) for the connect charge."

So, will the county return to ask that question? Which do you prefer? so far as I can tell, they have no plans to do so.

Watershed mark sez:"If a leaky bell and spigot conventional gravity gets installed the source(human waste) will not be removed."

Unless you're living on Animal Farm where all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others. Morro Bay's "leaky" pipes have been ignored by the RWQCB for years while they lost no time prosecuting 45 targeted PZ citizens and spending Lord knows how much money on that ridiculous kangaroo court, an expenditure that didn't clean up one drop of water. If the county installs "leaky" sewer pipes, the RWQCB can ignore those too. While spending gazillions "prosecuting" people outside the PZ for "leaky" septics under the new Stealth Onsite Update Plan. After all, it's not about the water, and who needs "science, anyway." Not the RWQCB.

Ron sez:"So, if Ann wants to leave this kind of bullshit:

""Don't believe Ron when he lies about saving money by dumping TriW."

...on her blog nowadays? Hey, it's her blog."

And remove an opportunity for you to log on and add some interesting history (for those who apparently keep forgetting) and interesting facts to a discussion that too often degenerates into "anonymous" juvenile "you're a piece of human garbage and a blog parasite" name calling? Not I. Wouldn't dream of it!

Mike green sez:"That can explain to me why a 50% overbid fully permitted and engineered public works project, with dedicated funding, hasn't attracted a competing bid from a qualified contractor?"

Ah, yes, interesting question. Lotta hungry out of work contractors out there. Cement is likely cheaper than it was. Which is why the "price" keeps turning into a moving target at this point?; 8:17 AM, March 23, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: "But Annnnnnnnn," he whines, "if you don't remove Shark's comments, people will know that I can't do math, don't understand finances, can't read or that I am a lying sack of weasel dung! That's not fair! My name is Ron and I am awesome!"

Face it, Ron has yet another chance to look at the County documents for their project and compare them to the LOCSD TriW plan. If Ron is not full-o-shit on the out of town is cheaper issue, he should be able to find the reason why the "cheaper" plan costs more.

You see, if "cheaper" actually costs more, it isn't cheaper at all. If, however, the aspects which make out of town "cheaper" come with off-budget items which make it more expensive once it hits our pocketbooks, Ron should stop telling us that Michael Jackson and Smokey Robinson are both black (er ... again, I should probably choose a different example).

So then, Ronnie, are you really as informed and smart as you say? Are you gonna step up and explain why you claim that out of town is cheaper when according to the County it will run us about $50/month more. That's not cheaper and we all know it. So then ... explain your behavior-based-marketing.; 8:45 AM, March 23, 2009
Ron said...: Ann wrote:

"... a discussion that too often degenerates into "anonymous" juvenile "you're a piece of human garbage and a blog parasite" name calling? "

Fair enough.

O.K., let me give this a try:

--> Thank you Mr./Mrs. nice anonymous person for publicly calling me a liar, when all I do is report facts.

Hmmmm... funny -- that doesn't make me feel more mature.

Well, let's just do this then -- I'll keep reporting the truth, the tiny, tiny handful of over-the-top creepy Tri-W honks will continue to publicly call my super-tight reporting "lies," and we can all just keep doing this for another ten years.

Works for me. That way, I might be able to squeeze two books out of this great story.

And, since the passage of AB 2701, the next ten years will be on Los Osos's dime, for a change.

[That's my favorite part of AB 2701 (that BOTH of Gordon Hensley's one-man "organizations" supported) -- the county just spent six million of LOS OSOS's money, and not COUNTY taxpayer money, for a change, proving my reporting right.

Sweeeeeetness. Thanks, Gordo!

I'm tellin' ya, I'm such a HUGE fan of the county's process. Best process in the history of processi!]; 9:41 AM, March 23, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Ron writes "all I do is report facts."

Sure ... facts like $250 per month is less than $200 per month.

Thanks for that fact.

The quality of your reporting has been called into question by your willingness to pass on as "fact" the unthinking claptrap like telling us that $250 is less than $200.

Ron ... have there been any comments in your blog since ... um ... the first of this year? Any at all? Let us know if there is something new there and we'll flock right over to read more of your "facts."

My gosh, to stand behind $250 is less than $200 ... that's almost as dumb as misquoting someone's comments to a public agency and then standing behind that misquote just because the meeting summary has an error in it even though there is videotaped evidence to the contrary. Oh yeah, Ron pulled that stunt too.

Talk about dumber than dirt reporting moves ... Is Ron next gonna tell us that a vote on a pool proposition would reflect the opinion of Los Osos on a park? Oh yeah, he did that too.

Ron, I'm still hoping that you'll man up and look thru the available documents to discover how the "cheaper" out of town plant will end up costing more per month than TriW. A real journalist would be able to do that if she had actual reading and logic skills.; 10:00 AM, March 23, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Shark,

A $4,000 assessment is very different than a $25,000 "blank check" assessment.

People who bought real estate in the PZ during the $4,000 assessment period could easily and reasonably deduce that the project would be, you know, cheaper than what we're seeing now.

People could rationalize ballpark figures and it would still come out as fair.

I wouldn't call the buyers' (pre-AB2701) investment a gamble necessarily because it appeared on the surface that the assessment was reasonable and thus, research into it wasn't a priority, but then the terms and conditions changed radically over the course of several years. To assume that buyers would be somewhat aware of these changes (that yielded greater risks) upon buying in the PZ is foolish.

I like what Mike Green said. All the bases must be covered. Unfortunately, there's only one Sal Ruiz and there are only a few realtors who are going to be completely honest and disclose these issues to their clients. Theoretically, the real estate market here would be dead if realtors truly disclosed the financial burdens of this project to potential buyers.

To say that I said that people shouldn't pay because they were unaware shows me that you're trying to place motive for my argument. I'm saying that many, many people were thrown under the bus -- and yes, they will have to pay unless the County puts affordability on the agenda.; 11:32 AM, March 23, 2009
Unknown said...: Aaron... how many homes have you bought in your life time...???; 12:43 PM, March 23, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: TOP TEN QUESTIONS FOR STEVE REIN:

1) How much were you assessed for under the County's 218?

2) Would (or will) you let your kids drink and bath in Mercury water (imported water)?

3) The RWQCB is evil, (and you support them along with Lynette) are you evil too?

4) Do you think that horses from the horse stables near Highland (that are not in the PZ) are not polluting?

5) Do you believe that shit doesn't run down hill (Cabrillo)? (or that water runs up hill as in a Cleath report)

6) Do you agree with Stan, Gordon, and Ed Ochs that people will be forced out of town by the super sized gravity sewer?

7) Do you really believe that your kids and family were threatened here on this blog?

8) Do you actually teach at Cal Poly or just blog?

9) Do you really believe it is the PZ's responsibility to pay for so-called pollution, water, and salt water intrusion issues under the Prop 218 law?

10) Do you really believe that they were and are no kick-backs from Montgomery/Watson/Harza to the water board(s) and that they won't be picked for collection and treatment?; 12:46 PM, March 23, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Quid-quo-pro, Get Real ...

I'll answer your questions as soon as Ron gives an reasonable explanation for why the "cheaper" County solution will cost us more than the "more expensive" TriW.

After all, if Ron, who is the self-proclaimed arbiter of all that is truth can avoid questions, the rest of us can do so as well. And just like Ron is 100% right all the time, I am too!; 1:01 PM, March 23, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Mike, the answer is six. Too many? Not enough?; 1:08 PM, March 23, 2009
Unknown said...: I get called out by Ann...

"Let's see. Mike is an "anonymous" poster with zip credibility. Anonymous posters should be viewed as "quacks" and everyone take them with a huge dose of salt. Mike often makes up "facts." And Mike is very very often an angry, juvenile, name-caller. Hmm,makes me wonder if "Mike" wrote that while looking into a mirror?"

...and yet we are treated to GetRealOsos latest posting:

"TOP TEN QUESTIONS FOR STEVE REIN:

1) How much were you assessed for under the County's 218?

2) Would (or will) you let your kids drink and bath in Mercury water (imported water)?

3) The RWQCB is evil, (and you support them along with Lynette) are you evil too?

4) Do you think that horses from the horse stables near Highland (that are not in the PZ) are not polluting?

5) Do you believe that shit doesn't run down hill (Cabrillo)? (or that water runs up hill as in a Cleath report)

6) Do you agree with Stan, Gordon, and Ed Ochs that people will be forced out of town by the super sized gravity sewer?

7) Do you really believe that your kids and family were threatened here on this blog?

8) Do you actually teach at Cal Poly or just blog?

9) Do you really believe it is the PZ's responsibility to pay for so-called pollution, water, and salt water intrusion issues under the Prop 218 law?

10) Do you really believe that they were and are no kick-backs from Montgomery/Watson/Harza to the water board(s) and that they won't be picked for collection and treatment?"

....WOW am I impressed with that "Adult"...!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess GRO is allowed that perfectly marvelous adult way to express one's displeasure....as long as it's aimed at Shark, 'toons or myself...

It's as if GRO's own stuff doesn't stink and he certainly doesn't have to back up any of his "not lies"... I may be angry, but GetRealOsos is way over the top of being mad and working hard for a massive stroke... Q&F GRO, Q&F....!!!!; 1:11 PM, March 23, 2009
Unknown said...: ..and how old are you Aaron...??? 6 homes seems like quite a few...; 1:13 PM, March 23, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: I'm 24 years old. Buying and selling made me very rich.; 1:19 PM, March 23, 2009
Unknown said...: Good for you... I've only bought and sold 8 homes I've lived in and 8 other rental/investment flips... and that has been over 35 years...

BTW, I bought my first 2 right here on 7th St some 33/34 years ago... and I do know the Realtors both good and bad...; 1:24 PM, March 23, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: TOP 10 QUESTIONS FOR GETREALOSOS:

1)Did NASA fake the Apollo 11 moon landing?
2)Does Kentucky Fried Chicken cause impotence in black men?
3) Does Microsoft put satanic messages in their wingdings font?
4)Are LaToya and Michael really the same person?
5)Did the Royal family kill Princess Di?
6) Are Lizard People running the world?
7)Did the US government orchestrate 911?
8) Did LBJ kill JFK?
9) Is Elvis alive?
10) Is Paul McCartney dead? (or only on the Abbey Road album?); 1:56 PM, March 23, 2009
Ron said...: An anonaloser wrote:

"Ron ... have there been any comments in your blog since ... um ... the first of this year? Any at all?"

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Ever since you ones of over-the-top creepy, anonymous, Tri-W honks came up with another one of your silly "strategies," and stopped posting on my blog (finally), it's now the best of both worlds at SewerWatch.

I continue to get massive traffic, without the three or four, over-the-top creepy, anonymous, Tri-W honks posting incessantly. (By the way, Ann, you have my deepest sympathies.)

And, Rat Inlet, if you want to see how my blog will remain with "zero comments," go post something over there.

GRO wrote:

"8) Do you actually teach at Cal Poly or just blog?"

I have no way of verifying that (and I'm glad I don't, because I'm like a hyper-courteous person, and there's no way I'd be able to call a REAL person "a piece of human garbage," but with an anonaloser, strangely, I don't seem to have no problem with it), nor do I care, but IF that's true...

Could you imagine being the parent of a Poly student, and you find out that your tuition money is being used to have Rat Inlet "teach" your kid?

Ouch!

IF that's true, the Poly Statistics Dept. must just be a-beamin' with pride.; 2:37 PM, March 23, 2009
Ron said...: "I don't seem to have no problem with it..."

"I don't seem to have a problem with it..."

Oh, so close.; 2:41 PM, March 23, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Ron, yet again, avoids the question and tries to deflect the discussion toward irrelevant issues.

I ask yet again to our good friend Ron ... how is the County $250/month plan cheaper than TriW at $200/month? You've told us that it is ... how can that be?

Heck, there are probably hundreds of good answers out there, all of which would deserve a passing grade. Probably the only answer which would receive an "F" is a non-answer. Heck, even a reasonable attempt at an answer would earn a "D" ... so Ron, are you gonna stand pat on your "F" grade and insist that you are smart even if your words tell us otherwise ... or are you gonna do the work necessary to figure out the answer to the question.

Please remember that I am only raising an obvious question in response to you telling us that we're saving money. A reasonable person would wonder and if you can't provide even an attempt at an answer, we'll know how serious you take our lives. At $60 million dollars (the difference between $200 and $250 per month over 20 years over the whole PZ) this is serious business and we have no need for someone who is just dabbling for their personal amusement.

That being said ... are you able to answer the question or not?; 3:46 PM, March 23, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Mike,

How come every time I mention "kick-backs" from Montgomery/Watson/Harza, you get soooo upset?

I'm not upset at all, so why should I get a stroke? What am I lying about? Your 10 questions are just cartoons, mine are real.

So why don't YOU get real?; 4:28 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Wow, Ed.

The vitriol with which you have replied to people's comments at the Tribune Viewpoint page is disappointing. You should take a lesson from your grandson, Aaron, who has adopted a civil tone when responding to posts he disagrees with.

I don't post to "hear myself talk". I post to air my point of view - just like you do. I disagree with you. That's my right. I've lived in Los Osos for more than 15 years, my family more than thirty. I'm informed.

Just because I view things differently than you does not make me naive, or ignorant, nor is it an indication I lack "vision".

I'm a realist. The County and the State will build whatever system they see fit, and we will pay what they charge. Should they do their best to minimize the cost? Of course! But when all is said and done, the fact that it may be unaffordable does not appear to be legally relevant according to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.; 4:35 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
Both figures are ”Figments.”
Like Lynette's Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name).; 4:39 PM, March 23, 2009
Unknown said...: I don't really believe anything you drivle... Your BS concerning MWH has no facts, just opinion... You can't prove anythng, so why would you think I care... I'd be more concerned about your threats to family and employment because I do believe you are so mentally imbalanced that you would approach my family or employer... You probably wouldn't want to do that with me, but you have done that to Steve...

I didn't write the reply 10 questions, guess you've had too many shots of courage this afternnon to understand... but GRO, Q&F....Q&F...!!!!; 4:44 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Hey "r1" was it you or abs who was running down video looking for Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name)?

BTW, I disagree with your opinion of why you blog. The 9th. is the most overturned court in the land.; 4:47 PM, March 23, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark ...

Nice try, but that's as good as a non-answer. If you provide an explanation, you might get a grade better than an "F". Also, this is Ron's question. No fair trying to toss him a life preserver. He can sink or swim on his own. If he has the ability to answer the question he passes. If he cannot or chooses not to answer, he fails. By the way, at West Point, helping another person cheat is an offense which will get one expelled. You don't want to get expelled, do you?

Lastly, for Ron's sake, please don't give the right answer here before he is able to do so himself. It would be really embarrassing for someone like Ron, who prides himself on being a know-it-all to have someone else jump in and give a reasonable explanation before he is able to figure it out.; 4:47 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE,
Why so angry? Seems you have been touched in some peculiar way by GRO's statements.
BTW Ms. Wright is sending me the 422 pages of Carollo’s billing along with the Sam Sperry billings (which are not figments) tomorrow.; 4:52 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
I guess you didn't click on the pics I posted...Think theme from Jaws.; 4:54 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5:11 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: WSM:

It was not me running down anything about "Mr. Dean" - I don't know who he is, or is alleged to be, or what "he" is related to with regard to this discussion.

The only court that can overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the US Supreme Court. To my knowledge, no one has filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Maybe Shaunna Sullivan is up to the task...perhaps she can get the CSD to pay for it. She's good at that.

Your agreement or disagreement with my stated reason for blogging is of no concern to me.; 5:12 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: After clicking on over to Ron "--- ---" Crawford's Blog I read these still very relevant thoughts:

I commend Paavo and the county from, at this point, not making any firm decisions regarding Tri-W, or anything else, BUT everybody in Los Osos had better pay close attention to how the game gets framed early on. Consider the recent wierd Trib story on the planning commission hearing wherein a two-year delay in getting permits for Tri-W was framed as something troubling and difficult, Woooo. In reality, getting anything done in the Coastal Zone in two years is fast-tracking, but the implication of the story is to plant in the public mind that Tri W is "damaged goods," can't possibly be sold or used for anything BUT a sewer plant, that changing zoning is somehow not possible, toss in the word "condemnation" -- oooooooo! thence the segue easily goes into, We Have No Choice, and other false reasons. (Another phony SOC anyone?) It's how the game is framed, with the Tribune's help, a little spin, few weasle words, and ka-Zamn! Done deal while the community's still rubbing their eyes and blinking. As for the choices put before the voters, folks better make sure that the evaluation of options are, indeed, truthful so that the two ? three? options that withstand the winnowing process are, ineed, honestly arrived at. No fudging the numbers, no hide-the-salami switching of O,M & R costs away from capitol costs thereby pretending to end up with a cheaper project & etc. No bait and switchy, no phony SOC's & etc. Honest projects, honest prices, honest vote. Then we can all go home and pay the bill. Please God.

By Churadogs, at 7:26 AM, November 21, 2006

Sewerwatch has game, anonymous bloggers that rail against real people do not.

A 25% turnout is nothing to crow about...; 5:13 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "r1",
Thanks for not getting involved in trying to defend Lynette's "lack of ethics."
Still doesn't change the fact about the 9th.
Right back "atcha".; 5:17 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Like you, Ron does not live, nor own property, in Los Osos.

In my book, that makes both of your opinions irrelevant.; 5:18 PM, March 23, 2009
Mike Green said...: Sharkey, you may be missing something REALY important in your argument with Ron over which WWTF is cheaper.
Ron lives in Santa Margarita, from HIS perspective, being a county taxpayer not in Los Osos,
with the help of Sam's Law, the county system may be cheaper (for him) because by state law now the project costs MUST be born by the PZ.
A fine difference for sure.

Word verification icrocosay; 5:18 PM, March 23, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mikey,

Thanks for pointing out that Ron has no reason to care at all about our costs.

I also want to point out that I don't necessarily believe that TriW is cheaper ... but at face value it seems to be and it is Ron's job to explain why he says we're saving money when $250/month doesn't sound like we're saving money at all.; 5:28 PM, March 23, 2009
Ed said...: Oh Realistic!

"Vitriol"? Sorry my sense of style and humor are lost on you -- I was a wee bit hard on ya.

Thank you for acknowledging Aaron's civil tone. I can only hope one day to become more like him, but time is running out on Ol' Ed.

I have absolutely no problem with people disagreeing with me, I'm used to it, although I can't vouch for how informed you are about anything, yet. But I'm waiting, yes, patiently. On the other hand I seriously question your "vision," since you couldn't see around the next corner before...
and that corner was right in front of you.

I can't speak to the relevancy of affordability to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but you use the words "does not appear to be relevant." You've learned to hedge your bets, a beginner's step toward wisdom.

Now let's bury this "vitriol" thing! I'm a writer, for Pete's Sake! I get along fine with Hank and the gang. Now come on and give me a big hug!

Ed

P.S. The ONLY person in Los Osos who has ever called me Aaron's grandfather is Richard LeGros. Love you too!; 5:28 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Ed,

Smooches to you. I was a bit surprised at the "fervor" of your response over at the Trib. I've met you in person a few times, and you've always been amiable and respectful, though you know (by my presence at particular functions) that we disagree. If I missed the humor in your response - my apologies.

As for Aaron...am I confused? I thought he was related to you...if he is your son, rather than your grandson, boy am I embarrassed...Whatever his relationship to you, congrats. He is a bright and critical thinker. We could use more of those in Los Osos. If he's not related, at least we agree he is a civil breath of fresh air on this blog.

As for me, I had a vision of a completed sewer system 25 years ago...my vision now is to get one completed ASAP. As for which technology, I'll leave that decision to smarter people than me. I read, pay attention and offer input when it's called for. We will probably never agree on collection technology, but that's okay. We get to have different opinions - that's the beauty of this country.

No hatchet burying necessary...I don't hold a grudge. :); 6:11 PM, March 23, 2009
Mike Green said...: Sharkey, I didn't point it out, he wrote it in plain ol english:
"And, since the passage of AB 2701, the next ten years will be on Los Osos's dime, for a change.

[That's my favorite part of AB 2701 (that BOTH of Gordon Hensley's one-man "organizations" supported) -- the county just spent six million of LOS OSOS's money, and not COUNTY taxpayer money, for a change, proving my reporting right.

Sweeeeeetness. Thanks, Gordo!"

Did you miss that part?; 6:12 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: None of the Supervisors nor Paavo "If there is a significantly less expensive technology then that technology becomes thenew standard and all others fall away" Ogren live in the PZ.

Does that make their opinions irrelevant?; 6:15 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6:22 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Actually AB2701 gave them the option to decide whether to accept the problem or not to accept the problem.

But hey don't let the facts get in the way of a good one liner...

It's your money and water that will forever be polluted should a bell and spigot conventional gravity sewer get laid to leak in Los Osos.; 6:27 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Their opinions are totally relevant because they are the legal authority charged, by the State of California, with making decisions regarding the sewer project.

You and Ron don't fall into that category.; 6:28 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: If the County chooses not to accept the problem, I'll deal with it at that time. Right now, they're in charge.; 6:30 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Their opinions don't count unless and until they officially decide to accept the most studied and now most closely watched wastewater project in the history of the United States.

Somebody has to go for it...; 6:31 PM, March 23, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Mark,

You're splitting hairs now, solely for the purpose of being annoying. The County is the legal authority and their opinions are relevent, whether you like it or not, until such time as they reject responsibility for the project.

Don't bother replying. I'm done with this conversation - it's a waste of time for both of us.

Have a pleasant evening.; 6:46 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: I believe installation of a leaky bell and spigot conventional gravity sewer that will leak human wastewater into a prohibition zone littered with CDO's should be the "hair" that needs to get trimmed.

I wonder if the consulting engineer or Draft Environmental Impact Report author Micheal Brandman gave that any thought and or charged for it...; 8:09 PM, March 23, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Aaron says to me:
"In short, you're being deceitful. I can see through all the yarn that you've been spinning" (This refers to his March 22, 12:20am posting.)

Aaron, that is a little harsh.

Yes, I WAS at the same meeting, but I did not hear the $250-$400 part - I see in my notes the Noel King reference about "testing the waters" - maybe I just didn't hear it? Why don't we both show up at Bruce's meeting on Thursday - Paavo is likely to be there - let us - together - ask the question and settle this. I reported exactly what Paavo said on the tour for the County Planning staff, he said $400 was not correct. Let's have him explain it.

Ed, why don't you join us? Sounds like you are mad at me too.; 11:30 PM, March 23, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Hello Lynette,
Has abs sent you the video evidence that supports your contention there is a Mr, Dean (I forgot his last name) who is a resident o Los Osos who claims to represent ECOfluid, yet?

If you are "dishonest" about something that you think no one can verify, why should you be believed when you try to spin statements which can be verified by other witnesses?

Remember you are making a record that can outlast you.; 8:27 AM, March 24, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,

Perhaps you can get Paavo "If there is a significantly less expensive technology then that technology becomes thenew standard and all others fall away" Ogren on the record about where he standson "significantly less expensive technology" and the leaky bell and spigot pipe that is cheaper than welded conventional gravity but not less expensive than small diameter directional bore drilled "vacuum???"

I think it is important that our government employees live up to their word, don't you?

The citizens should be concerned about conserving money timeand energy.
They will need it when it istime for the storm drain project.; 8:34 AM, March 24, 2009
Churadogs said...: Ron sez:"I continue to get massive traffic, without the three or four, over-the-top creepy, anonymous, Tri-W honks posting incessantly. (By the way, Ann, you have my deepest sympathies.)"

Yes, sometimes I do have to roll my eyes. And sometimes I have to spank. But I think it's really important to let over-the-top creepy, anonymous, Tri-W honks (and other over-the-top creepy anonymous posters in general) speak in their own voices. Those "voices" really speak lounder than words ever can and any readers can make their judgements for themselves, with no filtering from me. Plus, some of the ugliness exhibited here is an excellent example of the injury and pain and fury and nastiness that has been done to and by this community. For "outsiders" reading the comment section, it's good for them to get a glimpse into at least some anonymous creepy posters. They're part of this community, likely had a hand in creating some real problems where there should have been none. It's also interesting to compare some of the over-the-top creepy, often uncivil "voices" with (newcomer) Aaron's "voice," for example. Huge difference in tone, doncha think?

Realistic 1 sez:(apropos Aaron)"If he's not related, at least we agree he is a civil breath of fresh air on this blog."

a point of fact. This comment section is NOT this blog. This blog is the stuff on the main page, posted by me, and while I've been snarkey on occasions, I don't think anyone could fairly claim that my blog is "uncivil." The comment section, however, is where the really uncivilness lies, primarily on account of "anonymous" posters thinking they can say anything they wish under the cloak of being anonymous, or people acting like children getting all neener-neener and often downright silly. All that stuff isn't the "blog." It's merely the comment section of my blog, which can be shut off any time I get fed up with some of you-all's silliness. May seem like nitpicking but it's a critical point.

Mark sez:"I believe installation of a leaky bell and spigot conventional gravity sewer that will leak human wastewater into a prohibition zone littered with CDO's should be the "hair" that needs to get trimmed."

Near as I can tell, the RWQCB is like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, when THEY use a word, it means exactly what they say it shall mean, neither mor nor less. Septic tank leach fields in the PZ "pollute" and "discharge wastewater" and will get you a CDO and up to $5,000 a day fines and even jail time. County installed pipes in the same pZ, pipes that are designed to "leak" raw sewage are NOT polluting and do NOT discharge wastewater and so are O.K. to use in the PZ. See?; 8:34 AM, March 24, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Lynette,

Reality is very harsh.

For the past couple of days, I sat here amazed at the way you presented your information: first by saying we [my family] are "banking on Wrecklamators," when that assertion was refuted repeatedly by Ed and I. Then you say that the $400/month is "totally bogus" when Paavo reaffirmed that figure in the same office hours that I attended. Given that you're an avid note-taker, you should have said, "Yes, he did say that," or you would have asked Paavo when you spoke to him again, "Didn't you say that $400 could be the monthly cost in the last office hours meeting?" and have him clarify -- but you didn't do that. Instead, you were bent on bending the facts to turn what was a reasonable disagreement into outright deception.

I don't mind if you disagree with me. That's politics. That's just how discourse takes shape, but when you come on here and create "facts" out of thin air when issuing your "rebuttals," that tells me you (a) think of me as a fool or (b) think this whole thing is a joke. I'm not laughing, Lynette.; 8:40 AM, March 24, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Aaron,

What do you think of Ron's discourse style?; 8:47 AM, March 24, 2009
Ron said...: Ann wrote:

" It's also interesting to compare some of the over-the-top creepy, often uncivil "voices" with (newcomer) Aaron's "voice," for example. Huge difference in tone, doncha think? "

I do think.

Ann also wrote:

"This comment section is NOT this blog. This blog is the stuff on the main page..."

I also think that is an excellent point.

Posting a creepy, anonymous comment in the comments section of a blog isn't "blogging."

Bloggers actually have talent.

For example...

If anyone's interested in "The Strange Case of Dr. SLO Coastkeeper Hensley and Mr. Recalled LOCSD Director Hensley," you can read all about it at your friendly, neighborhood SewerWatch.; 10:11 AM, March 24, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

First off, you should be honest ... some bloggers have talent. Ann, for example, is a gracious host and writes well.

But, before we bother going over to your contentless and commentless void of a blog, would you at least explain whether there is something there besides speculation and a vendetta against Gordon? If not, why would anyone bother reading the same old content over and over.

Oh ... and if you've had the time to write up some snappy comments on Gordon, you've certainly had enough time to figure out why $250 is less than $200. So ... go ahead and explain how the we actually save money by going with a $250/month plan instead of a $200/month plan. After all, you're the one who trumpets loudly how you've saved us money ... how can that be the case when the County project is gonna cost more than TriW would have?

Heck, I bet that even Ann is wondering how you could be right about that one ... it is probably only Mark who thinks that you are right on your saving money for Los Osos claim.; 10:36 AM, March 24, 2009
Ed said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12:59 PM, March 24, 2009
Ed said...: Realistic,

The County is winning the war through sheer power, certainly not through common sense or strength of argument. Anyway, they are winning or have won. I'm very aware of the odds against affordability -- no Vegas casino would carry such a longshot.

That doesn't make it any less wrong for half the town to be booted out by a ridiculously unaffordable project in a County that's been suffering its own economic depression even before the global economic collapse. The Board of Supervisors act like "it's all good."

Since you're mourning the passing of Tri-W and I the passing of affordability, we probably have some heartache in common. Yet, even as shadows fall on some of our biggest hopes and dreams for Los Osos, I see you continue to fight for what you believe in. So do I. (If the project attempts to swing back to Tri-W, I will fight it, hair on fire.)

Still, in these days and months of huge things “passing” and changing, we must continually reevaluate the kind of people we want to be tomorrow, and in moments of crystalline clarity it’s obvious we can’t live by our differences alone – there’s simply no future in it.

I’ve spent a lifetime in the public persuasion business. I speak my mind to the fullest extent of my ability, using all the techniques and tools in my toolbox. Obviously I haven’t been very persuasive since the County is winning and few stand with me. Nevertheless, since I write and speak my mind in public I don’t feel I’ve been denied the opportunity to be heard. By the same token, I can’t make people listen if they don’t want to: "You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it think."

I like to say, we are all salesmen and saleswomen for our “products,” i.e. our causes and beliefs, etc. I believe in free speech, the value of dissent, and in the unregulated free marketplace of ideas – may the best idea win! This view, for me, removes much of the anger and emotion that usually come with arguments, whether family or political. If one can’t “sell” his or her ideas, maybe it’s simply because the idea, the pitch or the product wasn't good enough -- or nobody’s buying today. I can live with the results when the truly free market has spoken. Unfortunately for me and many others, the County dominates the landscape by abusing its power, which should be a call to arms to free speech advocates in Los Osos, the County, and around the Country who see what's going on here.

It's not the words I use -- or you use -- in the heat of passion that we should fear; it's when we feel we have run out of words, are oppressed or silenced entirely that frustration builds and violence is more likely to rear its ugly head. So write with whatever words you know and speak out loud without fear. Go ahead. I dare you to free yourself.

Again, thanks for acknowledging Aaron. Yes, he’s my son, however, like the rest of my family, he’s got a mind of his own and thinks for himself. He debates me (in the most civil tone) no differently than you or Lynette, and too often I find myself bowing to his superior reasoning, if not his seasoned command of a complex subject. So don't underestimate him because of age ... or you'll just be sorry later when he makes you (and me) look less than grown up.

Ed; 1:04 PM, March 24, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Ann rhetorically wrote: County installed pipes in the same pZ, pipes that are designed to "leak" raw sewage are NOT polluting and do NOT discharge wastewater and so are O.K. to use in the PZ. See?

Answer: No. I do not see that as a sustainable position and neither should anyone with half a brain.

If a precedent exists it should be challenged, vigorously.
If LO/BP is being proposed to set the precedent, that too should be vigorously challenged.

Logic dictates that the "bell and spigot is less expensive argument" can be used when other never reviewed technology like vacuum are in plain view in the DEIR comments page.

I'd like to think that thoughtful people everywhere would demand that a sealed collection system be used in a Prohibition Zone littered with CDO's, not leaky polluting gravity, especially for use in a drinking water aquifer.

Why/How was a bell and spigot large diameter pipe collection “co-equally” compared with small diameter welded collection?; 1:13 PM, March 24, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Correction:

Logic dictates that the "bell and spigot is less expensive argument" "CANNOT" be used when other never reviewed technology like vacuum are in plain view in the DEIR comments page.; 1:48 PM, March 24, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Hi Ed,

First, regarding Aaron, I am in awe of young people who think and speak with such clarity. It's such a refreshing change from the vacuous youth that are the product of the late baby boomer/me generation. I have a brilliant 27 year-old nephew (a PhD candidate this May) who thinks outside of boxes I can't even see. He will either save the world or destroy it. I will never underestimate him, or Aaron.

Secondly, you assume a lot when you say I "mourn" the passing of Tri-W. It has never been about the location for me. It is, and has always been, about clean water and minimizing the cost to everyone. You will never convince me that all of the railing against any project over the past 25 years has resulted in anything positive (either financial or emotional) in this community. At some point it just has to get done. You and I can debate whether septic tanks pollute or not, whether we need a sewer or not. The State has made that decision, and from everything I've seen, they will not back down from it.

I agree that many people will not be able to afford any project - STEP, gravity, snake-oil or anything else. The only thing we can do now is minimize that number. Do I have the answer as to how to do that? No, not yet. Once we know the true cost, maybe you, me, Aaron and my nephew can sit down and figure it out. Until such time as we come up with a solution to the lack of affordability, I believe the fewer roadblocks to completion, the better.

You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir. The next time we are in the same room, I will reveal my identity to you and we can have a good chuckle over the "vitriol" between us this week.; 2:19 PM, March 24, 2009
Realistic1 said...: P.S.

My apologies for assuming you were old enough to be Aaron's grandfather!; 2:21 PM, March 24, 2009
Ed said...: Realistic,

Hey, don't know if you noticed, but we're in the same "room" now!

Looking forward,

Ed

P.S. No apology needed. I was an older dad. Had I known I was going to live this long I would have taken better care of myself.; 8:34 PM, March 24, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Aaron, let's back up a little. My March 20, 2009 quote On OCH'S NATION that was to Ed was, "OK Ed, what sewer system do you want? That is not stated in the Viewpoint.   Or are you still banking on Wrecklamators for all?

Ed replies to me on March 21, 2009 with,
"Regarding the Reclamator, I support cutting-edge on-site technology…" and "But I never supported Murphy and never would. I never took one dime from him, even as he took ad after ad in the Bay News. I wrote an article in The Rock about the installation of Reclamator because, as a writer, I know a good story when I see one and I'm in the business of selling newspapers."

On March 24, 2009, Ann's blog, you reply with:

"For the past couple of days, I sat here amazed at the way you presented your information: first by saying we [my family] are "banking on Wrecklamators," when that assertion was refuted repeatedly by Ed and I."

First, I did not say your family was - I was asking Ed, and second, I was asking. As to banking on Wrecklamators, I read Ed on Ann's blog, Wednesday, April 30, 2008, "The Rock Is Loose! Run For Your Lives!" as an endorsement. It wasn't?

I quote Ed, "The second cover story, "March of 'The Reclamator'," documents 31 days in March in which Tom Murphy's Reclamator went from producing "snake oil" to clean water. On March 1 he installed a Reclamator in the front yard of the home he purchased in Bayridge Estates (which has its own community system, no septics), eliminating pollutants at the source--and the need for a County connection along with it. By March 31 the RWQCB and County were about to issue the Reclamator a permit to operate. The story features color photos of the installation from Day One to the celebratory raising of the first bottle of clear water."

Where have you refuted this assertion? Ed has just recently begun posting on the blogs, maybe I missed a blog posting somewhere?

You are correct, I did not say to Paavo, "Didn't you say that $400 could be the monthly cost in the last office hours meeting?" because I did not hear him say that (I'm not saying he didn't, I just didn't hear that) and I have seen that figure on more postings that just yours, so wanted to be more general. I don't see how that should affect the answer to "Is the sewer going to cost $400?."

I don't see how I, as you say, "…you were bent on bending the facts to turn what was a reasonable disagreement into outright deception."

I'm NOT thinking you are a fool - I have supported your viewpoints and given you fair questions on this blog - so that is a leap on your part - I might just not have heard, the person next to me might have asked me a question, I might have said something to the person next to me - I just don't remember! It is not in my notes, that's all. I certainly don't think this is a joke. What left field is that coming from?

Why don't we just take a deep breath and go to Bruce Gibson's office hours - where Paavo is likely to be - and ASK THE QUESTION! It is the easiest way to clear this up.; 2:13 PM, March 25, 2009
Ed said...: Hi Lynette,

Thank you for researching your question in The Rock regarding my April '08 article on the installation of the Reclamator.

I can certainly see how any story written about the Reclamator Man without calling him a scoundrel might be construed by some as an endorsement!

But that, in fact, was never the case.

I wrote a feature, as opposed to a hard news story, trying to show another side of Murphy not seen in the Trib, or New Times (which treated him well considering he advertised in NT for weeks, but never in The Rock).

Besides knowing a good story when I see one, I had an unusual perch: I owned the Las Encinas house right up to the day Murphy took it over and the Reclamator was installed. I shot pictures. The Trib showed up and shot pictures.
Obviously, like me, the Trib thought it was NEWS, and we both covered it in our own roundabout way.

I was literally on top of the story. What I wrote in The Rock was just a teaser. There's a lot more I could say, but I think you can appreciate this is neither the time nor the medium.

Obviously, doing the story required compromises. I had a decision to make -- to write or not to write. I decided it was more important to chronicle the story as it unfolded that March, rather than pass judgment on him then and there, face a possible nuisance suit -- or not do the story at all. Needless to say, I don't have the Trib's attorneys.

I am a writer, I chose to write.

Would you like me to declare exactly what I think of Murphy right here and now? You know I can't do that. I have to leave "holes" for legal reasons -- there's much more to it. Even here, as I respond to you, I have to be careful. In print you have to be extra careful because it's carved in stone and you can't hide in the digital wilderness of the blogs and claim your hand slipped on the keyboard.

For a writer, the story of Los Osos and the sewer, the story of California water, and the story of the Reclamator, is all connected, a yarn within a yarn within a tale, one you'll probably want to read to find out the rest of the story, when I'm finished with the book ...

P.S. I'd be lying if I didn't admit I also got a vicarious kick at the time watching Murphy attack the poor Water Board.; 4:59 PM, March 25, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Lynette,

In the past, at BOS meetings, if someone made an assertion about the LOWWP, Gibson or listening members of the board would say, "Hey, wait a minute. Let me clarify one thing that someone said," but when we brought up the $400/month, that cost was never addressed. Ed and I weren't just throwing that figure up there for the purpose of "shock and awe." When you break down the additional homeowner costs, the costs for the sewer (unfortunately) go beyond the $250/month projected in the most recent brochure that was sent with the community survey.

Prior to responding to you, I read, "March of the Reclamator," and I can tell you that there is nothing in that article that shows us endorsing -- or "banking" rather -- on the Reclamator. That's like saying that everything we've presented in The ROCK is something we endorse. We've presented other possible alternatives, but never said, "Hey, this is the best one! Let's go with that!" Then you come along, read Ed's viewpoint, and assume that the most cost-effective project, in his eyes, is the Reclamator. That's a big assumption to make and making that assumption is highly irrelevant in the issues we're talking about now.

Lynette, I was a bit harsh and perhaps I was a bit aggressive in what I said before, but you have to learn to give the benefit of the doubt before you leap to conclusions. It's a bit pompous when you come in here with a chip on your shoulder and expect that you are completely right about everything. You need to understand another thing, which is the fact that Paavo has said conflicting things ("If there is a significantly less expensive technology [that] exists then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away...") so you need additional sources, second opinions -- something you can fall back on instead of simply relying on hearsay.

Looking at the future, you have to think many moves ahead. You're going to have a lot of homeowners discovering this unprecedented monthly bill and they're going to stall the process by questioning this cost. "This is too expensive! I wasn't assessed to pay that much!" LeGros said that people are going to ultimately fight this tooth and nail when they realize the extent of this financial burden -- and I agree. To prevent that blockage in the future, we must address this issue first even if you disagree by how Ed and I approach it. It has to be done. If you want a sewer built as quickly as possible, make sure affordability is a top priority so that those who are not "in-the-know" will not be surprised when the bill first arrives in their mailbox.; 5:37 PM, March 25, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,

Please clear up a few things for us, won't you?

Is Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name)a real person.
Who told you he said he represented ECOfluid.

Did you lie?
Why?

If you did lie how do you expect to be believed be believed when you don't?; 6:29 PM, March 25, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: If you did lie how do you expect to be believed when you don't?

Did you actually get what you wanted when you wrote about Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name)?

If so, please tell us what that was.; 6:32 PM, March 25, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette wrote: "because I did not hear him say that (I'm not saying he didn't, I just didn't hear that)"

Lynette are you certain?
What good does your note taking accomplish if you missed such important information?

What else have you "missed?"
Was it intentional?; 6:35 PM, March 25, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: In order to build an affordable community collection and treatment system you have to look beyond STEP/STEG and leaky/polluting Bell and Spigot made up of 22 lift stations conventional gravity while calling that "review" a "co-equal", "study" of "alternatives", but that's just my opinion.; 6:47 PM, March 25, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Thanks Ed for your response - it explains perfectly - I am sorry that I jumped to that conclusion now. I am really honestly waiting to hear what you have to say - when you can say it. I know it will be really, really good. Personally, that guy gives me the creeps.

Hi Aaron, No problem! Maybe we are all leaping to conclusions. No one knows what the cost will be yet - the short list of contractors (still the long list on the site) has not yet appeared on the County site. No bids until contractors have been chosen. Maybe we should all give the cost thing a rest - as really - what control do we really have? It is in the County's hands - THEY have to find the best cost. Don't forget , there is a faction that will scream about the cost even if it is under $25.

As to the "significantly less" statement of Paavo's - that technology will need to perform up to the standards expected by the Water Board or it is of no use. They can't tell us what kind of system - just what it needs to do. No point in having a project ready to go and then the WB says NO. The County really needs to meet with WB staff to be sure we can qualify a technology's claims. Beyond that, if no contractor wants to bid on such a system - we are stuck there too, aren't we?

I'm not sure how people would be able to stall the process - we voted for a lien on our property - legally. Do you mean as in "lawsuit?" The only possible lawsuit I have heard about is from the people out on Clark Valley Road.; 8:51 PM, March 25, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette wrote: I am really honestly waiting to hear what you have to say - when you can say it.

Lynette: I too am honestly waiting for you to splain' your Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) "statement."; 10:08 PM, March 25, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Leaky polluting bell and spigot conventional gravity must be prohibited in a Prohibition Zone.

Human waste by any other name is still human waste.

Welded pipes should be co-equally reviewed and priced out before any decision "that counts" is made.; 10:14 PM, March 25, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette wrote: "As to the "significantly less" statement of Paavo's -"

Finally you noticed!

Lynette wrote: "that technology will need to perform up to the standards expected by the Water Board"

Lynette,
It matters where the technology would be employed, inside or outside the PZ.
Of course there is one which conserves more money, time, energy having a much smaller carbon footprint that produces Title 22 that any other studied and brought forward in the DEIR.

You alledged that Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) represented it.; 10:21 PM, March 25, 2009
Churadogs said...: Aaron sez:"Lynette, I was a bit harsh and perhaps I was a bit aggressive in what I said before, but you have to learn to give the benefit of the doubt before you leap to conclusions. It's a bit pompous when you come in here with a chip on your shoulder and expect that you are completely right about everything."

Heck, Aaron, that's what these folks have been doing to me since day one. Welcome to the club. Make stuff up! Leap to wrong conclusions! Presume nefarious reasons for innocuous actions! Wheeee!

Aaron also sez:"If you want a sewer built as quickly as possible, make sure affordability is a top priority so that those who are not "in-the-know" will not be surprised when the bill first arrives in their mailbox."

Now, there's an interesting observation. If nobody (legally or politically or regulatoryily) cares about cost, what mechanism is left to "protest," or slow this project down? Unless the Feds recognize that the EPA recommendations are soooooo out of what they need to step in with some nice "free" money?; 8:41 AM, March 26, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Did Ann really say "slow this project down?"

What --30 years wasn't slow enough? Did that lower the cost? Has money fallen out of the sky - (well, since 1983 I mean)? Is today "Alternate Universe Day?"

I'm sure the Feds are looking at Los Osos with a microscope right this minute.

No, the blame lies with ourselves and our "alternate thinking."; 10:22 AM, March 26, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7:06 PM, March 26, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Lynette,

No, the blame lies with the County.

Stop letting them off the hook.

The County has refused to look at alternatives and "out-of-the-box" thinking from experts around the state and country.

I'll bet M/W/H ends up doing the whole thing. We all know that their projects have not held up well (Morro Bay) and in the future sewer rates and charges can increase so high and no 218 will be needed after the plant is done.

One very wise man (who I highly respect) said this sewer would end up costing each homeowner $100,000.

It never had to be that way. Nope, alternative thinking would have brought the cost down.

I still say that the County picks M/W/H for the most expensive project so there's enough money there for kickbacks and so Jeff & Julie can profit and the PZ's expense.

7:06 PM, March 26, 2009; 7:09 PM, March 26, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: GRO, too bad you were not at the Bruce Gibson office hours today. You could have learned a lot ON THIS TOPIC.

But then, what is the use, you have your own belief set and no amount of talking from any of us will change your mind.

I'm not sure how you figure Jeff and Julie can profit.; 8:38 PM, March 26, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Sewer:

Jeff needs the big gravity sewer to build. He's stated that. Jeff is the middle man for at least three major housing projects here in Los Osos. He and Julie will make millions probably.

As far as Gibson's meeting today, what happened? Did he say anything different than before?! He too has his agenda and anyone who thinks that he doesn't is nuts. Los Osos could have had an award winning project -- ponds out of town -- Johanson perhaps -- wind energy -- federal dollars -- etc. but the County REJECTED that -- they knew about it and in fact the County in the 90's were turning the real talent away. Why???

I still will make you a bet that the project will be M/W/H -- and probably the collection and treatment.; 9:10 PM, March 26, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,
Was Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) there?

Why would a citizen have to attend an office hours meeting, when most people (who will be paying for it) are at their jobs, to learn about the wastewater project?
Why not put on a “stop by for coffee” on Saturday morning at the community center, for a little Q&A for the 75% of those who didn’t respond to the survey?
Why isn’t such an important "topic" being discussed on the record in an official meeting that can be viewed at will by anyone who interested?

I heard 10 contractors are being invited to discuss the project and that there should be a mix of STEP/STEG, Vacuum and bell and spigot.
Unfortunately, they won’t be offering to design a state of the art vacuum or grinder pump collection system because it wasn’t presented by the county in the DEIR or RFQ.

Implying that there would be an opportunity for a contractor, who is auditioning for a job, to do what the county won’t is _______.; 10:25 PM, March 26, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Why isn’t such an important "topic" being discussed on the record in an official meeting that can be viewed at will by anyone who is interested and who will be paying for it?; 7:56 AM, March 27, 2009
Churadogs said...: Mark sez:"I heard 10 contractors are being invited to discuss the project and that there should be a mix of STEP/STEG, Vacuum and bell and spigot.
Unfortunately, they won’t be offering to design a state of the art vacuum or grinder pump collection system because it wasn’t presented by the county in the DEIR or RFQ."

Ah, well, that's how you set up done deals, all t's crossed, all i's dotted and when asked say, "Why what do you mean? Look at how neatly those t's are crossed!"; 8:16 AM, March 27, 2009
Unknown said...: Let's not worry so much about what the County may or may not be doing...

Lets' stay right here in Los Osos and explain why PZLDF has NOT paid any legal fees in their failed lawsuit... Please tell us Ann, how much the PZLDF (that's YOU and Gail...!!!) has actually paid of that 24/75% agreement...!!!!

Has the PZLDF paid ANY of their legal fees....???; 8:06 PM, March 27, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

Out of curiosity, would you be willing to tell us about these three major housing projects in Los Osos? Where are they (what sites) and how big are they (number of units) would be good to know. I didn't think there was much going on at all. Have any of these even reached the stage where they would come before LOCAC or County folks?; 9:10 AM, March 28, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

I heard 90 plus west of the Tri-W site. Another big project at Sea Pines putting range, and another big project behind the cemetery. I believe those last two projects are over 50 homes each.

Don't know if he's involved with the Pine St./LOVR 17 luxury home project....

I also heard that Jeff is involved with the adjacent property to Broderson -- injection wells perhaps.

...and I just heard that Jeff & Julie foreclosed on the property they were camping on.

Hmmmmmm.....

P.S. I also heard that Jeff was doing another deal out on Chorro Creek and Morro Bay was piping in their sewer pipes (even though it's outside of Morro Bay city limits).

Hmmmmmm....

More to come......I hear lots of goodies.; 8:54 PM, March 28, 2009

Pages

Saturday, March 21, 2009

132 comments: