Going, Going, Gone
Board of Supervisor’s Tuesday April 7 Los Osos Wastewater update, 1:30 pm. Last time to speak now or forever hold your peace. The following from a Sierra Club e-mail alert.
Hello, Sierra Club e-alert subscriber & Los Osos resident:Every month, the County Board of Supervisors gets an update on the progress of the Los Osos Wastewater Project. Most of these meetings are informational, with occasional minor actions taken by the Supervisors. But when the Board gets the April update this Tuesday, it is essential for every resident of Los Osos to turn out and speak up in order to keep the Supervisors from making a terrible mistake.
The Department of Public Works is recommending that the County Supervisors not even accept a bid on a STEP/STEG collection system from a qualified design team.IF THE SUPERVISORS TAKE THAT ADVICE, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHICH SEWER WOULD COST LESS.
Public Works has gone through the steps of a legally required alternative analysis of technologies potentially less costly and less environmentally destructive than a gravity sewer.
The Coastal Commission has told the County that its "preferred project" is unlikely to get a Coastal Development Permit, writing "It is our firm opinion that an approvable project differs from all these projects as currently envisioned, and in fact is more likely to be a permutation of the best components of these alternatives and other concepts identified to date."
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has told the county "Shallower trenching may result in lesser environmental impacts. The County should...discuss potential environmental impacts associated with dewatering activities as a result of deeper versus shallower trenching."
If the regulatory agencies decide that the environmental impacts of a deep-trench gravity sewer are unacceptable, or that one of the components the County needs to include in an approvable project is a STEP collection system and corresponding treatment facility, the County is going to have a problem on its hands if it never even invited the submission of a STEP project proposal.
THE BOARD IS ABOUT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL EVER BE ALLOWED TO KNOW THE RELATIVE COSTS OF THE TWO MAIN ALTERNATIVE SEWER SYSTEM DESIGNS.
The last time you shopped for a car and wanted to compare two models, did the salesman let you check the price and manufacturer's specs on one and test drive it, but refuse to tell you the price of the other one, or let you look at it?Unless you show up and speak out on Tuesday, that's exactly what the County is going to do.
Tell the Board:YOU WANT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.YOU WANT THE OPTIONS ON THE TABLE.YOU DON'T WANT COMPETITION CANCELLED AND A WINNER DECLARED IN ADVANCE.
1:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 7
County Government CenterMonterey & Santa Rosa Streets, SLO-
Fill out your speaker's slip for Agenda Item F1
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(204)
-
▼
April
(21)
- Here Come Da Judge, Now Shut Up & Sit Down & Go Aw...
- WORLD ENDS!Well, we all knew it would come to this...
- Planning commission Thursday, April 30If you have ...
- Your Sunday PoemFrom Ted Kooser's collected poems,...
- KapBLUMP, UMP, UMP. . . .Uh-oh, methinks it’s the ...
- Once Again, The Department of DUHFew months ago, t...
- Uh-Oh, The Rock Is Loose!The following e-mail noti...
- Your Sunday PoemOn a Monday because Sunday slipped...
- Calhoun’s Ca(n)onsfor April 17, 09.Shooting DazeLe...
- Show Me The Money!Have you gotten yours, yet? I g...
- Uh, Oh, Ron Crawford's Connecting The Dots, Again ...
- Awwww, Gawwwwd, It’s, Like, Sooooo EmbarrassingIow...
- Chugga-Chugga, Toot-Toot, Some MoreAaron Ochs has ...
- Your Easter Morning Poemby Ted Kooser, from “Delig...
- Awwww, Gawwwwd, It’s, Like, Sooooo EmbarrassingSo,...
- Bye-Bye Sun BulletinBrief snippet in Wednesday's A...
- Chugga-Chugga, Toot-TootElvis has left the buildin...
- Going, Going, GoneBoard of Supervisor’s Tuesday Ap...
- WRAC and RollThe Water Resources Advisory Committe...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, for April 3, 09(Note: The Can...
- Ah, These Clever ChineseThere’s been a lot of gloo...
-
▼
April
(21)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
86 comments:
Ann,
Gee....if you want 'all the options on the table', you have to include in that list the Tri-W Project too......after all, if you believe what you just posted, then Tri-W MUST BE CONSIDERED BY LAW.
Or are you just kidding about full and honest comparisions? You know, you want anything except Tri-W? LOL
-R
Richard has a good point ... before anyone says they wanna spend some $10M to design a STEP system for our town, I want to see a re-costing of TriW by the County to see if they agree with Ron who tells us that TriW is more expensive. Because, after all, the rest of us know that $200/month is less than $250/month ... it would be nice to get that confirmed before any decision is made for one system or another.
Heck,
I would even guess that the time and cost of getting TriW re-approved (especially in light of the CCC letter) would be considerably less than the time and cost of getting another another project designed and another site approved.
Perhaps the Community survey was biased on one way ... maybe they should have asked if people would want TriW over out of town if it would save $50/month.
Arizona grey water law
This is the model to emulate, especially our slightly improved version: Greywater Laws and Improvements (pdf, 250k). Their three tiered system makes so much sense it is hard to justify regulating grey water any other way.
California is currently rewriting its greywater law.
Utah Blows it on New Greywater Reg
Despite having excellent examples to follow in its neighbors Arizona and New Mexico, Utah has instead followed in California's footsteps to enact a law which is worse than useless. It actually outdoes California in making virtually no practical greywater installation legal, with this section:
Can anyone point out any town in Arizona currently using the ECOfluid system...????
I'd love to have a level playing field....so when will PZLDF own up to what they OWE... So far the only "level" field is the $80,000 give away to Sullivan by the Chuck led CSD... Ann Calhoun apparently will not own up to what the PZLDF actually paid Sullivan... Did Calhoun ever pay a dime toward that lawsuit....??????
Level playing field, ha! The field will never be level enough for Ann....!!!!!!!
Ann, the only true way costs can be compared is by each homeowner having contractors come out and assess the restoration of their yards - you know, driveways, fences, retaining walls, and to have an electrical contractor come out and assess your costs on hooking up a dedicated step circuit. He will probably need to assess if your system is up to code as well, (heh-heh). We all know how much we paid to have our septics pumped last time, right? OK, now add that to the County's costs for designing, building, operating and maintaining a step system, and you have the true costs for your property on a step system.
You might want to throw in the delay costs and litigation costs as well, because some people will NOT grant an easement and that right will have to be taken by eminent domain. But then delay is what this game has been all about, right? As it sure isn't PC to say NO SEWER anymore and delay is the next best thing.
Mike says:
"Can anyone point out any town in Arizona currently using the ECOfluid system...????"
Interesting that there ISN'T one, isn't it?
Keep hammering on the PZLDF thing - we sure got taken on that one!!!
MIKE,
Blanket of Protection
What happened to your investigation with the 1MGD Lake Alfred, Florida USBF™ equipped WWTP?
Oh, and I forgot to add - this bidding thing isn't free - it will cost $200,000, for step not be selected and we'll miss out on a more competitive gravity bidding environment.
Lynette,
Tell us more about Vacuum.
Is there a reason it wasn't compared with Gravity or STEP?
No offense Mark, but your comments on the groundwater laws in Arizona and other places aren't really relevant as comments in this discussion.
But, what the heck ... why not go hog-wild and post comments about healthcare and Iraq and whether the President is black or white and whether the aquifers in the Tucson area are polluted or not?
Seriously ... I would suggest that you actually address the question about why every human on the planet who uses the word "Phoenix" must mean the city and not the greater metro area. A secondary question is whether the water table in the Phoenix area is at historic levels (you know, like before the overdraft ... or are you now gonna tell us that there never was an overdraft?).
If you cannot somehow justify your bizarre approach to the English language and document that the aquifers are now fully charged, you ought to stop fussing at 'Toons about an apology and start thinking about whether you owe an apology yourself. To insist that others correct their mistakes when you are unwilling to correct your own is really small, Mark. I pray that you teach your children to do the right thing even if you don't do it yourself.
Come on Ann.... tell us your sad tale of how the PZLDF was honest with the CSD... Tell us about the honorable Gail leading the crusade for the whole community.... Tell us how much you have paid to the honor of the PZLDF....
You can't...because you and the PZLDF NEVER paid in that bogus "agreement".... That's theft isn't it...??? You stole District Funds to support another failed lawsuit...!!!!!!!!!!
Becareful stirring the mass's to rail against the BOS.... You might not like the outcome... You might find some BOS and Grand Jury looking into the PZLDF... Maybe the IRS looking into the "donations" of the supporters... Maybe the community might find out that Sullivan isn't so clean in her billing to the PZLDF/CSD... Maybe Ann...just maybe Ron will finally have a modern piece to write...
Yep, it looks like the STEPcrazies will be out in force tomorrow afternoon. Seems like none of them has a regular job, just a lot of time to rant against anything they don't like. I hope that normal, sensible people will also show up, but I kind of doubt it. These are the people who chose gravity as their preference on the survey, and rightly so. I am highly amused by the folks who complain that gravity pipe is "old" technology. It is old, but that's because it has worked- for thousands of years !
Hw many times has Ann and Gail called for the sewer obstructionsts to flood the BOS or Water Board or some other meeting to further thrie personal agenda of delay, delay, delay...??????
Yes, the same extreme crazies will be there parading to the microphone for another 3 minuts of disruption...and by now we all know those same trolls and clowns with their scripts so neatly written by Gail... They will wring their hands and cry that some part of the "process" is not fair and that even more time and money should be spend to delay, delay, delay any forward motion toward a sewer... They will even insult and threaten the very govenment agents who have to sit there and listen... They have in every meeting they have been rallied to attend.... and Ann the cheerleader will try her best to stir them to greater deeds... and in the meantime, she won't pay for her part in unsuccessfully sueing the Water Board...
None of the parade of fools will take responsibility for their delaying actions, they will never accept any sewer, anywhere and certainly without regard to any cost they have created... They are proud of the delays and costs they have added, and of course, all claiming they have that right to disrupt and shout out their right to delay...
Well folks, I hope the BOS have seen through the smoke and while they have to listen once again to the "public", I do hope they ignore the fools and make the final decision to move forward over all the objections, insults, and scripted delaying tactics of bothe Ann Calhoun and Gail McPherson... Let reason rule at the end of the day... The delays have cost us all too much because of the actions of the few extremists....!!!!!!!
Alabama Sue sez:"Yep, it looks like the STEPcrazies will be out in force tomorrow afternoon. Seems like none of them has a regular job, just a lot of time to rant against anything they don't like. I hope that normal, sensible people will also show up, but I kind of doubt it."
Yep. The Sierra Club email notice that I posted asks "their" folks show up. Got an emailing from Bill Garfinkle asking for "his" folks to show up. Looks like both "crazies" will be there for public comment. Then the Supervisors will or won't make a decision. As usual, exactly as the "process" is intended to run.
Mike sez:"and Ann the cheerleader will try her best to stir them to greater deeds."
When's the last time you heard me speak at a BOS meeting? If memory serves, I don't recall speaking at any of the BOS meetings since the County took the project. So it's hard to see how I manage to "cheerlead" and "stir," while sitting silently in the audience (or often am not even there). But since Mike likes to make stuff up, there you are.
Ann,
One need not step up to the microphone to cheerlead.
Your unwavering support of Gail McPherson's activities (including being a co-plaintiff in the laughable PZLDF lawsuit - how much of the legal bill have YOU paid btw?) and your working the audience in the meeting room like a little honey bee...that is form of cheerleading as well, is it not?
I think I'd prefer it if you did step up to the microphone...at least it would be more honest.
RICHARD - The downtown TriW location has already been "tried" and failed miserably. It was not very business friendly.
But, of course if one believed crap doesn't stink or don't own a business downwind of the rotten egg stench, one could understand your thinking.
Also, haven't you heard that TriW is the proposed location for our long awaited park, pond and dog walk. Now how could anything be more important than that?
Ann wrote:
"Got an emailing from Bill Garfinkle asking for "his" folks to show up."
Does that mean Pandora will be there? After all, she DID sign Garfinkel's Viewpoint.
FOGSWAMP wrote:
"RICHARD - The downtown TriW location has already been "tried" and failed miserably. It was not very business friendly. "
And 90-percent of the community recently, and officially, said they don't want it.
That reminds me... Richard, as long as I'm here, I'm curious to hear what your reaction is to SLO Coastkeeper Hensley telling me that NOW he has, "No preference for the location."
I first reported on that at this link:
http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/
Comments, Richard?
Steve,
Vacuum collection was never studied as part of the county’s process to research “alternatives”…Turn to page Nine Hundred Thirty Four.
The new AIRVAC vacuum sewer system in Holden Beach supports the town’s goal of environmental stewardship by providing a closed system that prevents sewer overflows and eliminates infiltration and inflow.
The word “Vacuum” appears only once in the Low Pressure Tech Memo and it was in relation to STEP.
Can you offer any reasons why? Wasn’t the study process that cost millions supposed to study “alternatives”? Why eliminate something that was never studied?
Mark,
Perhaps once you show yourself to be a credible source of facts it would be worth discussing things with you. No offense, but you've called me a liar based on nothing more than your misunderstanding of what I wrote and you've not been able to trot out any facts which would make such an action seem justified at all.
"And 90-percent of the community recently, and officially, said they don't want it."
Overstating as ususal, Ron. Didn't you see that only 3300 of 8800 surveys were returned? That's hardly 90% of the community. Not even close.
Ron,
1. I agree with Gordon. He and I neither care where the project treatment plant is located as all we care about is clean water. Any site that results in a project that cleans the water is OK.
2. You need to ask yourself the nature of the survey question asked... what if the question had been 'do you prefer a site out of town that would be X dollars more per month than in town, are you will to pay the difference'..that survey results would have been different.
The only 'survey' that matters is the 2002 Bond Assessent vote by the property owners paying for a project...at Tri-W....which passes by over 80% majority.
I would not consider the underwhelming 0.2% majority vote in the 2005 recall/Measure B vote as signifying anything.
++++++++
Quid pro quo, Clareece.........how do you respond to the recent CC letter to the County? That letter basically said the Turri Road project is DOA; and clearly stated that the CC expects the County project to incorporate ALL the CDP conditions of the Tri-W project (including recreational opportunities / park). Seems to me that the CC does not have any problems with the Tri-W project at all; which is not exactly what you have been telling use for the last few years. What gives?
-R
Steve,
Better stay focused on your own aquifer while it lasts...for your kid's sake.
MIKE,
Have you found that submittal from Parkson/Bio-Lac(tm) yet?
Did you get in contact with your "friends and relatives" in Phoenix yet, to tell them to "look in" on the discussion, after Steve and you have been debunked?
R1-Did your friend ever figure out what city she lives in yet? Does she have an undetected leak?
Lynette, how is your research into finding Mr. Dean “I forgot his last name” going?
Steve,
Why don't you answer Mark when he has asked over and over, "Tell us more about Vacuum. Is there a reason it wasn't compared with Gravity or STEP?..."
You dismiss, you avoid, you spin, you simply won't answer. We'd all like to know! Why would the County only offer gravity vs Step? We'd all like to know!
Richard,
Maybe the CC "doesn't have a problem" with Tri-W and is okay with them because they don't live here.
Could that be it?
Besides, doesn't Gordon have a close tie to someone on the CC?
Lynette,
Still waiting for you to provide documentation on all the other studies (beside Kitts) that show all the pollution (that you claim exist).
Sewertoons said...
Go Shark!!!!!! I'm hoping this is a trend! Maybe f-o-c will vanish too!! 8:21 PM, April 04, 2009
On Ochs Nation April 4, 2009 4:02 PM Lynette wrote:
The costs on vacuum were only kept down by the number of houses - two, three or four on a single vacuum pit. This would not go in the right of way, but on private property. I suspect most property owners would object, as the property value would be lessened on the "chosen" property. So without these cost savings - as described by the manufacturer - it does not save money.
The problems as "solved" by Ripley did not give him the confidence to do an RFQ for step apparently. He was in attendance at the WRAC meeting today. Disheartened no doubt by the WRAC's not giving step a thumbs up. I guess all the big mouths who claimed that they could save money with their technology couldn't put their money where their mouths were.
I have heard that we are at the very top of the list for SRF money.
Lynette,
I will stop asking questions when they are answered.
-Can you please point us to the County Low Pressure Collection Tech Memo that contains detailed the Vacuum collection information you are quoting from?
-Why wasn’t Vacuum Collection reviewed, studied or reported on in the County’s process?
-Why are you trying to spin on it now all by yourself with no county documentation to back you up?
-Why are you trying so hard to bury Los Osos?
-When are we going to hear more about Mr. Dean "I forgot his last name”? This question is of particular importance as it speaks directly to your lack of integrity. If you “made it up” or lied, why not admit it, so you can be forgiven?
8:50 AM, April 06, 2009
Come on Lynette, at least answer for your own "crap"(Mr. "I forgot his last name)...
GetReal,
Mark I will ignore because he doesn't live here, is trying to sell us something that the County will not buy and because he's a distraction who feels he has the right to throw around all sorts of crap without actually backing up his statements.
You, on the other hand, deserve respect simply for living in Los Osos. Hardly a nicer place could be found anywhere.
On the question of vacuum ... I dunno why the County didn't study it in detail. My best guess as to the reason would be the same as my best guess as to the reason we've only recently heard about vacuum from those who have been promoting all the "alternative" plans ... that it isn't as popular nationwide as the other options, doesn't have an obvious advantage over gravity and STEP.
Who knows, really. I do wonder this ... had folks been promoting vacuum for as many months or years as much as they've been promoting STEP ... would the county have looked more closely?
For me to not know why the county made their choices is not dismissing, spinning or avoiding anything ... unlike when Mark refuses to provide data he claims to have and unlike when Ron refuses to explain how he saved us money even though he takes credit for killing TriW and now our expected bills are higher because of it.
Mark,
...I can't wait for Lynette to answer. She, like Steve Rein, will avoid, twist, etc.
...I think her motto should be 'PIMPING FOR PAAVO'
Richard wrote:"I would not consider the underwhelming 0.2% majority vote in the 2005 recall/Measure B vote as signifying anything."
But you were recalled and that "is" something.
One more time for those over at Cal Poly:
The word “Vacuum” appears only once in the Low Pressure Tech Memo and it was in relation to STEP.
Can you offer any reasons why? Wasn’t the study process that cost millions supposed to study “alternatives”? Why eliminate something that was never studied?
I'm am asking a very important question that apears to have stumped those who prefer to overpay for and maintain the leaky, stinking gravity a 22 lift stations...
I'm am asking a very important question that apears to have stumped those who prefer to overpay for and maintain the leaky, stinking gravity and 22 lift stations...
...Turn to page Nine Hundred Thirty Four.
I'm going to do some live coverage of the BOS meeting with updates and all on my blog if anyone is interested.
Thank's Aaron, I'll tune into Och's Nation while I watch the BOS Meeting from my vantage point as I work the 256 pages(down from the original quote of 422 pages)of billings from the County's consulting engineer.
Upon first look, it seems like there is about 166 pages of detail that would prove useful to my understanding what was done and when.
Upon first look, it seems like there is about 166 pages of detail that would prove useful to my understanding "about" what was done and when.
Lets all have a moment of silence: STEP is officially dead. Thank goodness the BOS had the sanity to vote to not delay our sewer project ! My faith in government is restored.
AMEN...
It was indeed, the same parade of those who only want to derail, delay and just plain obstruct any sewer for Los Osos... The BOS deserves a huge thank you for putting up with the insults and foolish scripts....
Maybe Al can get a hair cut now...
It was tense all day, but the outcome was perfect!
A lotta grumbling from the back when the Supes began their discussion, but no one got unruly - of course at 7:56 when the meeting ended, there weren't too many left!
Bagpipes
I was asked by a funeral director to play the bagpipes at a graveside service
for a homeless man. The funeral was to be held at a cemetery in the remote
countryside, and this man would be the first to be laid to rest there. Not being
familiar with the area, I became lost and arrived an hour late.
The crew, eating their lunch, were there with the backhoe, but the hearse was
nowhere in sight. I apologized to the workers for my tardiness and stepped to
the side of the open grave where I saw the vault lid already in place.
I assured the workers I would not hold them up for long and told them this was
the proper thing to do. They gathered around me as they ate their lunch. I
played my heart out, and the workers began to weep. I played like I'd never
played before, from Going Home and The Lord is My Shepherd to Flowers of the
Forest. I closed the lengthy session with Amazing Grace and walked to my car.
As I was opening the door and taking off my coat, I overheard one of the
workers saying to another, "Sweet Jeezus, Mary'n Joseph, I never seen
nothin' like that before, and I've been putting in septic tanks for
twenty years."
REalistic 1 sez:"and your working the audience in the meeting room like a little honey bee...that is form of cheerleading as well, is it not?"
Jeeze, now one can't talk to people at meetings? Like asking them about their dog, family? Or even discussing the agenda items? Now allowed? Woa. Your problem goes to definition: If someone agrees with you and expresses an opinion on this blogsite, do you accuse them of being a "cheerleader," by using that term in a negative way? I haven't seen you denigrating Richard as a "cheerleader." Or are eeeeuuuwwww, "cheerleaders," people who happen to disagree with you about whatever?
Another example? Here's Alabamasue: "Lets all have a moment of silence: STEP is officially dead. Thank goodness the BOS had the sanity to vote to not delay our sewer project ! My faith in government is restored."
Is it fair to say of sue that she's "eeeeuuuuuuwww, 'cheerleading?" I don't think so. She, like you, is expressing a point of view, in this case agreement. Some other commentor (anonymous, of course) could just as likely express sorry or unhappiness with the decision. Would they be "cheerleading?" No.
Ralistic 1 also sez:"I think I'd prefer it if you did step up to the microphone...at least it would be more honest"
No you wouldn't. Too many of you commenting here either misread what I've written, or read into what I've written things that aren't there, or simply make stuff up and claim I've said it or believe it, then work yourselves into a huge lather decrying stuff I've never said. You do the same to one another, chewing on each other's ankles for DARING to express an opinon on a blogsite that you disagree with. You somehow think that this is a bad thing -- to disagree. It isn't, it's all part of the process.
Your comment about 'working the audience. . ." is indicative of the kind of weird assumption-jumping you're engaging in. If you were at a public meeting and talked to people you know there about the issue or even about the weather, would it be a fair assessment to claim you're "working the audience?" No. That would be absurd.
Mike sez:"How many times has Ann and Gail called for the sewer obstructionsts to flood the BOS or Water Board or some other meeting to further thrie personal agenda of delay, delay, delay...??????"
Oh, you mean like Bill Garfinkle's mass emailing urging people to show up at yesterday's meeting and telling them that they don't have to speak, but will they please stand up en mass when asked to by either him or someone else representing them. You mean like that? Would it be fair to call Bill an "extreme crazy?" No, Mike. Like Realistic 1, you've fallen into the definition trap. People who agree with you are o.k. People who disagree with you are defined as "crazies" or "cheerleaders" and should be denigrated or shut up. That's not how the system works or even is designed to work. You keep mistaking a properly running system for some kind of threat. That's not what democracy is about.
Realistic 1 sez:"Overstating as ususal, Ron. Didn't you see that only 3300 of 8800 surveys were returned? That's hardly 90% of the community. Not even close"
This is a perennial problem. The short-hand version is to say X wants Y, when, in actual count, only, say, 40% even bothered to vote. Our national elections do the same thing. After an election wherein only, say, 25% even voted, we say, The people want. . . or the voters want . . & etc. In fact, it's "overstated," but in reality since this always happens, it is certainly more accurate to say, "the majority of the voters want . . ." In this case, about 90% of the 34% who voted wanted "out of town" site. Nobody knows what the other 60+% wanted. Until we can dragoon every single person to the polls or force them to fill out a survey, that's the best we can do. What's interesting is when the polls disagree with whatever a particular person believes, then the parsing begins. When the polls agree with the person, then it becomes "The community," or "the people," & etc. This constantly happens.
Richard sez:"2. You need to ask yourself the nature of the survey question asked... what if the question had been 'do you prefer a site out of town that would be X dollars more per month than in town, are you will to pay the difference'..that survey results would have been different."
That's exactly the kind of Chinese menu I asked for years ago. The response then was NO, not gonna ask that question, not gonna happen. That queston was asked right up to the recall -- please, please give us an advisotry vote. NO!
Too bad, could have saved a whole lot of time and money.
Richard also sez:"The only 'survey' that matters is the 2002 Bond Assessent vote by the property owners paying for a project...at Tri-W....which passes by over 80% majority."
Wasn't that the vote wherein the community was told in no uncertain terms that there were NO other options, that out of town would cost waaaaayyyyy more, that intown was the ONLY place left? That's certainly what Stan told me right tomy face. You mean that assessment vote?
Richard sezz;"and clearly stated that the CC expects the County project to incorporate ALL the CDP conditions of the Tri-W project (including recreational opportunities / park)."
Paavo said that the wording was "all APPLICABLE" conditions. The SOC with the "overwhelming community requriement to have a park next to the sewer plant in the middle of town) was rescinded and the permit as it was written was allowed to lapse. I would have to presume that the word "applicable" would come under scrutiny, including the rescinded SOC. But that will remain for the CC to sort out. I'm sure Ron will inquire as to that old SOC, if the topic comes up.
Ann,
You commented that you hadn't spoken at a meeting in a long while. I commented that you didn't need to use a microphone to "speak".
I've been at scores of meetings over the years and watched you (with your notepad) and Gail (with her portfolio) coach speakers moments before THEY stepped up to the microphone. I'm not "making stuff up". I saw it with my own eyes, heard it with my own ears.
And just curious, WHY, when you have such strong feelings about the "process" don't you speak for yourself at those meetings? Is it safer to coach others or to snipe at the process from your blog? Did you express your concerns about the process to the BOS yesterday?
Richard wrote:
"1. I agree with Gordon. He and I neither care where the project treatment plant is located as all we care about is clean water. Any site that results in a project that cleans the water is OK."
So, just to be clear...
You and Gordon, as elected officials, threw over $20 million and six years at a mid-town sewer plant that, it turns out, 90-percent (at least!) of the town did not want, even though the ONLY reason you guys officially gave to build it in the middle of town was a made-up "strongly held community value" to build it there, and THEN, after you two are recalled from office FOR throwing all of that time and money at a wildly unpopular embarrassment, and AFTER $6 million worth of careful county analysis showed the Tri-W project to be the exact, wildly unpopular, technological embarrassment that I've reported it to be for five years, NOW you and Gordon go to the, "No preference for the location" card?
Wow. That's awesome. That book chapter works for me.
Although, I do have to ask, where was that attitude in 2004? If just you OR Gordon had had that attitude in 2004, you could have saved SOOOOO much time, and money, and pollution, and HEADACHE.
Anyhoot, thanks for your answer.
Richard also wrote:
"how do you (me) respond to the recent CC letter to the County? That letter basically said the Turri Road project is DOA; and clearly stated that the CC expects the County project to incorporate ALL the CDP conditions of the Tri-W project (including recreational opportunities / park)"
Like I'm not SO all over that story? I'll letcha know my answer when I post it over on SewerWatch.
For me, at least, one of the MANY things that makes the Los Osos story so very, very interesting, is that there never seems to be a shortage of State agencies doing something really stupid.
God love 'em.
Ann wrote:
"Richard also sez:"The only 'survey' that matters is the 2002 Bond Assessent vote by the property owners paying for a project...at Tri-W....which passes by over 80% majority.""
and;
"Wasn't that the vote wherein the community was told in no uncertain terms that there were NO other options..."
No. That's not accurate. That fake excuse arrived on the scene AFTER that assessment vote.
That assessment vote is when the community was deliberately misled (using the community's own money, of course) to believe that "better, cheaper, faster" at " a maximum monthly payment of $38.75" (you know, the ONLY reason to form the LOCSD in the first place) was STILL on the table. It wasn't. That project had failed a year earlier (just like I reported it was about to, in 2000), but, unfortunately for Los Osos, the elected officials responsible for "better, cheaper, faster," as part of their "strategy," never told anyone that their project failed, and that way, they were able to trick the community, obviously, into paying for the SECOND, "bait and switchy" Tri-W "project," that the community never wanted, again, obviously.
So, when that 80-percent voted for the assessment, they THOUGHT they were STILL voting for "Better, cheaper, faster" at a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75." They weren't.
Amazing story.
Finally, R1 wrote:
"And just curious, WHY, when you have such strong feelings about the "process" don't you speak for yourself at those meetings?"
And the moment she did, you ones of Tri-W honks would instantly label her as a "crazy," for speaking at a BOS meeting.
Man, tough crowd.
Ron,
Ann is one of several people who don't sound like "crazies". She leaves emotion and rancor at the door. She doesn't engage in personal attacks on officials. She doesn't accuse them of being corrupt. She's as articulate a speaker as she is a writer. I disagree with 90% of what she says about the project and the process, but the BOS might have listened better if more people like Ann stepped up to the microphone.
Ann
YOU WROTE;
"Paavo said that the wording was "all APPLICABLE" conditions. The SOC with the "overwhelming community requriement to have a park next to the sewer plant in the middle of town) was rescinded and the permit as it was written was allowed to lapse. I would have to presume that the word "applicable" would come under scrutiny, including the rescinded SOC.
RESPONSE:
First, as to the SOC.
The SOC of the old project is CODIFIED in the FEIR for that project; hence it cannot be rescinded unless the FEIR is rescinded (which it has not). The attempt by the Recall board to rescind the SOC by a resolution is only a silly political gesture as the SOC cannot be legally rescinded once the FEIR was adopted and codified.
In short, the SOC for the old project is still in force wheather you like it or not! To say the the SOC was rescinded is not true; and we all know you do not want to spread false information.
Second, on page 3, 1st full paragraph it reads 'The project must be sited and designed in a manner that respects sigificant public visual resources and public recreational opportunities. It must also incorporate or take into consideratin all applicable terms and conditions associated with the previous wastewater project permitted by the Commission in 2004(per CDP A-3-SLO-03-113, since expired)......Thus, we recommned that the terms and conditions of CDP A-3-SLO-03-113 be used as a starting point for consideration of development terms for the current project.'
As the old CDP shall be used as the 'starting point' to develope a new CDP, it is resonable to conclude that all the major prior conditions (including Tertiary treatment, 'recreational opportunities' / a park, balancig of water tables to maintain wetlands, etc) plus new conditions that the current project brings forth (such as sprayfield conditions and mitigation, additional new project siting mitigation with the finalization of the mitigation for the old project)will result in a new CDP that will force the county to include features not yet in the incorported into their project. These new features will drive up the cost dramatically.
YOU WROTE:
"Wasn't that the vote wherein the community was told in no uncertain terms that there were NO other options, that out of town would cost waaaaayyyyy more, that intown was the ONLY place left? That's certainly what Stan told me right tomy face. You mean that assessment vote?"
RESPONSE:
First, the points you make were well vented by you and yours back at the time of the Assessment vote; and it still achieved on impressive +80% majority of the property owners! They understoood what was at stake. They understood the nature of the project. The fact that you do not like the results of that vote is plain silly; and to continue to mouth your your losing complaints even sillier.
As to Out of town being waaaaaay more expensive, Stan was correct...any other options would be have been (and are) more expensive. The County's project IS dramatically more expensive than Tri-W. Even back then the cost estimates for pumping out of town exceeded the cost of an in town project; let alone the additonal cost (and condtions/mitigation) to span the creek with sewage and treated wastwater.
+++++++
The County BOD is takinng the meaning of the CCC letter very seriously. They now know the a CDP will never be issued on the Turri Road treatment site by the CCC; and that the current project has to incorporate all major conditions of the old project.
In the near future expect movement back to consider smaller ag land sites around the cemetery. However, those sites are as problematic as the Turri Road site for the very same reasons that Turri Road is off the table.
In the CCC letter, pages 3 and 4reads ' In addition, with a tertiary treatment project, it may be that the co-location benefits that accrue to a project outside of town on agricutural land are no longer applicable. In other words, a tertiary project may make better sense to be sited closer to or in town at the Tri-W site (and potentially off agricultural lands altogether) to the extent it is re-envisined as a hub for distributing reclaimed wastewater where such distribution if closer and/or in town (eg through injectin wells, irrigation connectins).'
Translation; using agricutural land for a treatment site is a major NO NO to the CCC as ag land protection is very important to the CCC. Best look to get a treatment site as near or in town as possible.
The big question now will be how the County can justify that their out of town project on ag land is environmentally, financially and socially less impactfull than just returning to the old project at Tri-W.
-R
Ann,
While I don't agree with Real1 that you're someone trying to manipulate others into saying things the way you want them to be said at public meetings ... you do seem to have rather strong feelings that Paavo and others are using language somewhat deceptively. Are there any "codewords" that you see either of the two political groups in town seem to use deceptively or in a "special language" sort of way?
In other words, Richard is saying "I told you so." about the recall.
Ann,
If he ends up being right about the out of town being considerably more expensive than $250/month (which Ron told us saved money versus the $205/month TriW) or about the CCC forcing the County to move back to TriW will you, as part of your "truth and reconciliation" plan, be one of the first to say that you played a role in unnecessarily raising our costs much like Pandora and Lisa did?
Ann, did we get an advisory vote AFTER the recall?
"Like I'm not SO all over that story? I'll letcha know my answer when I post it over on SewerWatch."
Ron,
So all over what?
So all over the fact that Steve Monowitz was never speaking for the Coastal Commission when he ALLEGEDLY agreed with you about the SOC though he never, ever, said so on the record and we have only your word that the conversation actually took place?
So all over the fact that the CC voted unanimously to uphold the CDP for Tri-W at the DeNovo hearing in August of 2004?
So all over the fact that the CC NEVER called the Tri-W project "bait and switchy" - only one of the commissioners, who subsequently voted to uphold the CDP?
So all over the fact that three elections ('98, '00 & '02) seated three sets of directors who ran on a platform of putting a sewer on Tri-W?
Is that what you're SO all over?
'Toons,
To answer your question ... no. Within a week of the recall, the gang who couldn't shoot straight had violated the terms of the SRF loan contract without first announcing their plan (or any plan) and asking for public input on the matter.
But then again, a process violation sort of depends on whether one likes the outcome of the procedure. At least that's how it seems when I watch my kids play games and argue over the rules.
Richard wrote:
" ... the current project has to incorporate all major conditions of the old project. "
TO: Jonathan Bishop, Coastal Commission Analyst
FROM: SewerWatch
DATE: April 8, 2009
Hello Mr. Bishop,
I'm an independent journalist researching a story involving Los Osos, and I'm trying to get a question answered by SLO County officials, but, apparently, they've been busy with the Los Osos wastewater project, and haven't been able to get around to answering my question, so, if you don't mind, I was hoping you could, perhaps, answer it for me.
Here's what I recently sent to County staff:
- - -
In their letter dated March 25, 2009, Coastal Commission staff writes:
"(The County's wastewater project) must also incorporate all applicable terms and conditions associated with the previous wastewater project?"
And, one of those "Special Conditions" in the Tri-W CDP, #17, calls for, among other things, a tot lot, amphitheater, and a picnic area to be (re)incorporated in the Tri-W sewer plant.
Is the Coastal Commission going to force the County of SLO to build, among other park amenities, a tot lot, amphitheater, and a picnic area in the County's proposed sewer plant?
Am I reading that correctly?
Is Special Condition #17 "applicable?"
Please clarify.
- - -
Do you know the answer to that question, Mr. Bishop?
Is Special Condition #17 from the Tri-W CDP "applicable?"
Thank you for your time
TO: SewerWatch
FROM: Jonathan Bishop, Coastal Commission Analyst
DATE: April 8, 2009
Hi -
I dont believe it is the intent of the CCC to enforce previous conditions that are no longer relevant or applicable to the current proposal.
Jonathan
Damn, I'm good.
The Tri-W project -- "irrelevant," and "intolerable."
It's been a brutal couple of days for you guys, huh, Richard?
FRAUD ALERT....
To be a considered a "an independant journalist working on a story" might be a stretch...possibly a total fabrication...
Unless Ron left out some details on this blog and if his "letter" to Jonathan Bishop of Coastal Commission is to be believed, he should have identified the PUBLICATION he was actually employed by... otherwise, he is merely a fre-lance hack trying to create his own "story" with made up facts and conclusions...
Ron is actually not employed and hasn't been for more than 4 years... He's simply trying to justify is own bullcrap and made up blogging.... Ron is not to believed....!!!!
We'll all have to wait and see... Tri-W is in the mix and a park just might be part of the Plan....
Ron,
Read the letter again....
On page 3, 1st full paragraph it reads 'The project must be sited and designed in a manner that respects significant public visual resources and PUBLIC RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES (caps mine). It must also incorporate or take into consideration all applicable (read relevant...rbl) terms and conditions associated with the previous wastewater project permitted by the Commission in 2004(per CDP A-3-SLO-03-113, since expired)......Thus, we recommend that the terms and conditions of CDP A-3-SLO-03-113 be used as a starting point for consideration of development terms for the current project.'
The CCC letter reads 'recreational opportunities'...not 'tot lot'. Nor should a 'tot lot' be conditioned as it is a minor condition associated with the prior project’s treatment facility location. Hence a 'tot lot' is not relevant today.
However, 'recreational opportunities' will present themselves with the County's new project; and the project will be conditioned to provide them.
What are the 'recreational opportunities'? Hell if I know. Maybe a 'sot lot' for inebriated 'journalists' (wink-wink) like you to play in, Ron.
-R
For MIKE:
Publication To publish is to make content publicly known. The term is most frequently applied to the distribution of text or images on paper, or to the placing of content on a webite.
MIKE:
Have you come across that Submittal from Parkson/Bio-Lac(tm) yet???
I guess there isn't one...Hmmmmm.
The county’s actions can be explained by considering that they
A. Took into consideration the Tri-W stigma and
B. Took the shortest path between two points.
They are (were) unlikely to reverse at this point due to “lack of a strong preference for STEP”
As stated more or less by P.O. (Public Information Officer?)
On a different note; Low Water Mark- I told you before- people may pay more attention if you comment less.
You actually had a funny joke on Aaron’s site.
All others- You can open the string and right next to the person’s name (in Blue)
There is a bold “said …” if you click on the bold “said…” the content (or lack thereof) disappears. If you repeat this action, the “comments” will then look like this EXAMPLE
___________________________________
Watershed Mark said…
___________________________________
Watershed Mark said…
___________________________________
Watershed Mark said…
___________________________________
Watershed Mark said…
___________________________________
Watershed Mark said…
___________________________________
Alon Perlman (click here) said…
This is what I submitted as DEIR comments
Since this is an example, clicking on my name above will get you to the response to comments section starting page 633 of 1202. There is a good correlation with the agencies comments esp. the CCC.
“DEIR FINAL DISCUSSION AND SUMMATION
The Fatal Flaw
Though it is appropriate to use questions, this reviewer is not able to avoid stating that
(and as presented to the SLO counties supervisors) applying secondary treated wastes
(liquid or solid) to agricultural lands or, to replenish a reliable thousands of year old aquifer and a still mostly intact sand filter that created the aquifer, will not work.
The county needs to obtain guidance from it’s own EIR Document. This need is hampered, by this disparity between what the EIR is stating (secondary treatment), and what will more than likely happen, after more delays (Tertiary treatment).”
___________________________________
The word verification was “throway”
Realistic 1 sez:"I've been at scores of meetings over the years and watched you (with your notepad) and Gail (with her portfolio) coach speakers moments before THEY stepped up to the microphone. "
You have heard me "coach" people who plan on speaking". Coach them? Exactly when and who? I've had people come up to me to grumble and have told them if they have something to say, get up and say it. But "coach them?" You'll have to refresh my memory on that one. (I presume you have notes or tape recordings of my "coaching?") As for my taking notes, I take notes in case I want to write a blog entry or column later.
Realistic 1 sez:"Did you express your concerns about the process to the BOS yesterday?"
Didn't need to. The Process was set up a few years ago. I urged people to keep a sharp eye out. I tried to post hearing notices so people can attend. I offered my opinons on the blog, as do you. Sure, there were some interesting County thumbs on the scale but they were manifest (Noel King's bean spilling was hardly secret) IF this community chose not to know or care, that's up to them. If you had bothered to read my sewer columns over the years, one repeated theme appears: Pay attention, Los Osos, ask (O Looooocy . . .Joooo ...") and answer questions, VOTE, then we can all shut up and go home. I wrote a column on the Ripley Report expressing the fact that I liked their approach to the water issue,i.e. focus on water, not waste. And way back when, I asked for a Chinese Method to have the community vote on in-town, out of town, best guestimates on costs, then everyone could VOTE then shut up and get on with it. In short, I have not advocated for one thing or the other but have repeatedly called on this community to wake up and get involved and be given the chance to "vote" for what they wanted to buy. If the recalled Board had done that early on, when they knew the Ponds of Avalon wouldn't fly, it's likely this train wreck could have been averted.
But once the County took over, that Process was put in place. And now the results are in: This community wants to buy a sewer plant out of town that uses gravity as the collection system and they're willing to pay $49.99 MORE a month (over STEP) to do it.
Now, please explain to me what is there for me to go to the microphone to comment on? The Process was running smoothly,the thumbs on the scale were in plain sight, the community was given all the opportunity they needed to get involved, ask and answer questions, and were given a chance to "vote." If I went to the microphone to support one thing or the other, I would be accused of being an "anti-sewer obstructionist crazy" or "cheerleading" or "coaching" or "working the audience," & so forth.
Richard sez:"Even back then the cost estimates for pumping out of town exceeded the cost of an in town project; let alone the additonal cost (and condtions/mitigation) to span the creek with sewage and treated wastwater."
Ron can certainly clarify, but in one of the CC reports, Monowitz guestimated that siting the plant out of town was 5-6 mil, Bruce Buel guestimated the pipe at 5-6 mil (to which would be added land costs, etc.) but here's what's interesting. This community "voted" that they'd be willing to pay $49.99 MORE for gravity, i.e. they've got $49.99 to play with. If that question had been asked back then, back before the ESHA destruction, millions wasted on work done before the recall vote, fines,& etc. what do you suppose the answer would have been? And, isn't it a shame that the community was NOT allowed to answer it?
Richard sez:"The big question now will be how the County can justify that their out of town project on ag land is environmentally, financially and socially less impactfull than just returning to the old project at Tri-W."
The preliminary CC response is pushing tertiary hard and at the WRAC meeting it was clear that the County project is seriously considering tertiary, title 22, "unrestricted reuse" "leafy vegetable" water and, interestingly, pointed out that huge swaths of unused Turri land with all that nice unrestructed water could be leased and turned from grazing land into highly productive cropland, thereby INCREASING ag use. Joy Fitzhugh (Farm Bureau rep)did not raise any objections to that trial balloon, indeed seemed pleased about the "leafy veggie" reference. So, we'll see. The county is maintaining that having the plant there with all that nice unrestricted use water "positions" itself for future full water reuse, from ag exchange, inlieu and the return pipe will the the "spine" of future urban reuse & etc. So, they may be looking at an over all long term, basin water use. Also, at that same WRAC meeting, Paavo made it clear that Tri-W had not and did not solve the water reuse problem. The proposed leach lines would likely have flooding/clogging/high groundwater issues, loss via the clay lenses with water going into the bay & etc. so even Tri-W was "water reuse" deficient. (Don't sqawk at me, Paavo noted all that.)
Mike sez:"Ron is not to believed....!!!!"
This from ANONYMOUS "make stuff up Mike" who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is an anti-sewer obstructionist crazy, who weirdly thinks that public comment (from people he disagrees with) somehow creates "delay delay delay" so these public commentors who comment during public comment time should be shut up. This guy thinks Ron is not to be believed??? Oy!
Alon Pearlman 17 views (I just accidently added 2 today) to his blogger proflie says "On a different note; Low Water Mark- I told you before- people may pay more attention if you comment less."
Alon,
Thanks for the tip.
You may use the First Amendment in any way you want, but then, so can I.
Do you really think that word verification has anything to do with the poster's comment or content of their comment?
Oy vey!
Best regards,
Watershed Mark
Angry Mike Cronkite wrote:
"FRAUD ALERT.... Ron is not to believed....!!!!"
That's rich.
Because I really liked it, I going to dig up my recent response to when another anonaloser called me a "liar" in these comment sections. Just a sec... I'll be right back.
Ah, here it is:
"Follow me on this:
When I broke the story in 1998 (with a front page story in the Bay Breeze/News), 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 (with my first New Times cover 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 (with ANOTHER New Times cover 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 (instead of calling me a liar), 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 (on my kick-ass blog, with through-the-roof high Google rankings)) 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.
Welcome to Los Osos, where the truth-tellers are called liars, by the liars."
Fortunately, these days, 90-percent (at least!) of Los Osos FINALLY gets it.
Thank god for blog technology.
MIKE wrote: "...a fre-lance hack trying to create his own "story" with made up facts and conclusions..."
MIKE,
You must be looking into a mirror.
Make that change… Show me the Parkson/Bio-Lac(tm) submittal...
Ann says:
"This community "voted" that they'd be willing to pay $49.99 MORE for gravity…"
Well, when you figure it will be $2,500 - $10,000 to fix up your yard after the step bulldozers and electrician leaves your property, you get two lovely manhole covers to decorate your front yard, and mandatory pumping fees forever, that $49 looks to be a bargain.
Lynette,
You write much you don't back up.
When are you going to "clear the air" about Mr. "I forgot his last name"???
Toonces sez:"Well, when you figure it will be $2,500 - $10,000 to fix up your yard after the step bulldozers and electrician leaves your property, you get two lovely manhole covers to decorate your front yard, and mandatory pumping fees forever, that $49 looks to be a bargain."
At the BOS meeting, Wallo noted that they used an "average" of $2,400 hook up costs for guestimating STEP, also noted that 75% of the tank were located in front yards with very few really impossible sites, so the interesting choice would be, if the vast majority of hook ups turned out to be $2,400 or less, then that would need to be run against $600 a year for 30 years & etc. What I found most interesting is that in a community that, on that survey, put "cost" as their first concern, STILL had $49.99 they were willing to play with to get what they wanted.People focused totally on cost above all, don't offer to cough up $49.99more for a system of their choice. They they say, gimme the cheapest, period. So that I found interesting.
Ann,
If the LOCSD had estimated $4000 for hook up costs (maybe Ripley, dunno where I really got the figure), it seems that $2400 is low.
Here's the question ... what does that $2400 estimate include and what does it not include? Does this include only homeowner cost for electrical work and the septic tank to be retrofit for STEP? What if the tank needs to be replaced? Does the $2400 include those costs?
The tank will be replaced at the cost of the project. All tanks will need to be replaced. The yard restoration and electrical work is a cost to the homeowners. That cost will vary by homeowner. Ongoing pumping costs will be the homeowners. The yard decoration - your reward for going step!
Lynette,
You continue to ignore the homeowner's on lot costs with gravity.
Why?
Mark,
You continue to ask questions that someone who had done even a tiny amount of research would know the answer to.
Why?
Steve wrote: "You continue to ask questions that someone who had done even a tiny amount of research would know the answer to."
I know this is going to be tough for you Steve, "prove it"...
Some unresolved questions:
When are you going to "clear the air" about Mr. "I forgot his last name"???
One more time for those over at Cal Poly:
The word “Vacuum” appears only once in the Low Pressure Tech Memo and it was in relation to STEP.
Can you offer any reasons why? Wasn’t the study process that cost millions supposed to study “alternatives”? Why eliminate something that was never studied?
I'm am asking a very important question that apears to have stumped those who prefer to overpay for and maintain the leaky, stinking gravity a 22 lift stations...
I will stop asking questions when they are answered.
-Can you please point us to the County Low Pressure Collection Tech Memo that contains detailed the Vacuum collection information you are quoting from?
-Why wasn’t Vacuum Collection reviewed, studied or reported on in the County’s process?
-Why are you trying to spin on it now all by yourself with no county documentation to back you up?
-Why are you trying so hard to bury Los Osos?
-When are we going to hear more about Mr. Dean "I forgot his last name”? This question is of particular importance as it speaks directly to your lack of integrity. If you “made it up” or lied, why not admit it, so you can be forgiven?
Good Lord I hate having to come in here and do this again, but here goes:
Mesa Mark speaks of integrity. Mesa Mark asks questions and demands answers. So maybe Mesa Mark will himself answer a pretty simple question. You know what it is Mesa Mark, right? Please don't make me dig up 6 months worth of Reclamator quotes again. And please don't make me dig up the New Times quotes whereby it seems you dissed the very system you spent 6 months on here ramming down everyone's throats. Please. Anyway, what's the story there Mesa Mark? Why haven't you ever shared why the incredibly fast turn-around? This question is of particular importance as it speaks directly to your lack of integrity. If you “made it up” or lied, or had a falling out, or had an epiphany one morning that the Reclamator wasn't for you after all those months of ramming it down everyone's throats, or whatever, why not admit it, so you can be forgiven? Until then, don't you think it wise to stop casting stones at everyone else...you know, glass houses and all.......
How about your lack of integrity, Billy Dunne? You hammer on Mark so much in every post you make, I can't help but to wonder about your own character.
Hey Aaron. Maybe you should take a closer look at who does the hammering here. Constantly. Obsessively. Incessently. Twice now. For two different companies.
Using words like "stupid;" and "liar;" and "uninformed;" and "ignorant" doesn't sit well with me. Especially from someone who has no stake other than financial in my community.
Maybe too you should read some tips Alon Perlman left here for Mesa Mark. It seems I'm not the only one who finds his condenscending mega posts insulting. Ciao.
To me, this seems to be a recurring theme. From the outside looking in, it would make more sense if you simply said nothing back to him. If you're confident in your positions, there is no need to chide the positions of others. If you have the higher ground, show that you have the higher ground.
Hope this constructive input helps.
Willy,
Unfortunately you have not read my postings closely enough, if you had, you would know that I put ECOfluid on the county's table in late 2006 and met with Carollo on May, 5th. 2007.
I have tried and shall continue to work to obtain the billing detail for that meeting.
I stepped onto the field in Los Osos on August 28th, 2007 to assist Murphy with his on-site system.
As I have stated before: “he has contributed mightily to marginalizing that technology.” I have also stated that at some more appropriate time I will make a more full statement. So be patient.
My situation is in no way comparable to Lynette’s: Mr. Dean “I forgot his last name” lie. She alone (unless directed by someone she is working with) is responsible for those words. She alone must account.
It’s funny to see you at this late date attempting to defend/deflect for Lynette’s poor character. Why now?
Inlet sez:"If the LOCSD had estimated $4000 for hook up costs (maybe Ripley, dunno where I really got the figure), it seems that $2400 is low.
Here's the question ... what does that $2400 estimate include and what does it not include? Does this include only homeowner cost for electrical work and the septic tank to be retrofit for STEP? What if the tank needs to be replaced? Does the $2400 include those costs?"
You'd have to ask Mr. Wallo that.
Vacuum Technology eliminates the issues with step.
Why wasn't it studied, reviewed and reported by the county?
Mark,
You seem to have repeatedly said that Vacuum wasn't studied. How do you know this? How do you know it didn't even make the first cut like some other technologies which were deemed clearly insufficient or which didn't demonstrate their sufficiency?
Vacuum wasn't studied as much as STEP/STEG and gravity. There's more analysis about those two collection systems than vacuum in the Low Pressure tech memo.
Aaron,
There was "zero" analysis of vacuum.
The word “Vacuum” appears only once in the Low Pressure Tech Memo and it was in relation to STEP.
I asked Lynette on you blog: Can you offer any reasons why? Wasn’t the study process that cost millions supposed to study “alternatives”? Why eliminate something that was never studied?
Steve,
Be careful, you are beginning to make stuff up.
Show us the "first cut" list.
Aaron:
I asked Lynette on "your" blog: Can you offer any reasons why? Wasn’t the study process that cost millions supposed to study “alternatives”? Why eliminate something that was never studied?
Willy wrote: "Using words like "stupid;" and "liar;" and "uninformed;" and "ignorant" doesn't sit well with me."
Willy,
Do you, lie? Are you studid, uniformed and ignorant?
Are these words touching a nerve?
Mark, it's interesting because there hasn't been any research, that you can point to, that really looks at vacuum. As you said, the Low Pressure tech memo really don't address vacuum at all. I heard from someone here (it could have been Sewertoons) that vacuum as an alternative was discarded after the Rough Screening Report.
I truly believe that the County did not look at alternatives like an independent engineering firm or team normally would outside of San Luis Obispo County.
Aaron,
Lynette would say or do anything in an attempt to dis/mis inform anyone who will listen. Just ask Mr. Dean “I forgot his last name” who she said is the Local rep for ECOfluid in a letter to ECOfluid.
Talk about dishonesty…I’m still waiting for MIKE to provide me a copy of the Bio-Lac™ submittal.
Here is some info on vacuum.
I suppose the real question was and is: Did the County pre-select 2 technologies (gravity and STEP) to evaluate while telling the community they'd evaluate all viable technologies, then gave everything but STEP & gravity a cursory once-0ver, dismissing them for this or that problem, then wrote a more thorough report on STEP (they already had the Ripley report, could simply cut and past most of that information) & gravity, with a strong bias to gravity (Noel King,even before the TAC was formed, the spun survey that some of the Sups questioned, a survey with no price tags, the refusal to up-front consider easements, rights of way(automatically adds more $ to STEP), & etc. & etc) and, ta-dah! gravity -- the pre-chosen technology-- comes up the winner. Surprise!
Next question, is what the county is now doing really design-build? Or some other process they're just calling "design build?" I mean, in a real design-build process, wouldn't the basic legal requirements (nitrates, water reuse, community preferences, affordibility info, Eir requirements, CEQA etc & etc.) data be available, and a list of true design build companies would be cleared for qualifications, then it would be up to them to come back with the best project, using whatever technology was available, with hard numbers, whatever technology met the criteria, then the community and/or BOS could pick the project they wanted? Instead, are any of the firms now on the short list really design-build firms and do they really have a design build project? Or some hybrid?
Ann,
I heard that the County says MWH is the #1 on the list of three even though it didn't appear number one -- they are!
The big fix started with the TAC not evaluating other alternatives such as vacuum and decentralized.
(I believe the County paid Pio $100,000. or so to up the prices on decentralized so it would look like gravity was cheaper -- Waterguy or others could have done for much less).
The scam started with the TAC and picking mostly all Tri-W supporters, and picking people who did not belong on that committee -- turning away Dr. Alexander and Dr. Reuhr. Maria is a better expert?!?
It is also my understanding that there was no engineer's stamp on the Fine Screening.
Then the fix of the survey with no price tags and/or estimates of cost. Who in the whole could make an informed decision without numbers? How can Paavo and Bruce hold that survey up and act like it means anything?!? (BTW, the County's 218 didn't provide the true numbers required by law either...)
It's pretty clear that the County only wanted to pit Step against gravity and come up with all those excuses not to go with Step ie "oh, Step will tear up our yard" (like laterals won't) or "replace all tanks" etc. etc. -- THEY COULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT WITH VACUUM OR DECENTRALIZED -- and that's why other systems were not evaluated by the TAC committee!
Make sense? Doesn't the whole thing make sense now?
P.S. Can you imagine how stupid people can be (TAC) to select a traditional treatment plant over beautiful ponds that would not impact visuals? Heck, those ponds would receive grant money too! But, MWH doesn't do that kind of work. So, no ponds.
It's all about MWH and always has been!
HAPPY EASTER to all you bloggers!!
I just couldn't stay away any longer....aren't you glad?
I've been reading y'all for so some time now, "biting my tongue", so to speak, and see that Richard is still defending the big mess he and his pals Stash and Gordie created with good ole' Mike hangin' in there with his "made up facts" that no one cares about (still carrying the torch for you know who.)....shark is still hangin' on for dear life to TRI-W and diagreeing with anyone who makes sense or doesn't share his point of view. ...an when did Bille Dune, or whatever, crawl out from under his rock? Well, keep up the struggle to nowhere....you're almost there.
PS. Mike, get a life....please!!!!
Post a Comment