Calhouns Can(n)ons

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Planning commission Thursday, April 30

If you have any public comment on the Sewer Project and upcoming PC meeting, you can make it at addresses below. Comment now or forever hold your peace. Also listed are some notes sent to me in an email of some of the comments and concerns expressed by the Commissioners at the close of their April 23 meeting that they might be considering or addressing at Thursday’s meeting. The notes aren’t complete, just a general idea. If you have any other issues, you can email them to the PC.

pc email address:planningcommission@co.slo.ca.us the hearing and the online comments are here: http://slocounty.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=3&event_id=47the eir link http://www.lowwp-eir.net/lowwpeir/These are the topics the PC said they would discuss in order, this Thursday:
1. secondary vs. tertiary
2. gravity or step or vacuum or a combo
3. technology of pipes
4. plant location and type
5. disposal, spray fields, leach fields, etc
6. storage options, size, type, design
7. conservation of water
8. mitigation for bio and ag
9. fed legislation, los osos grants
10. catch all category
These are the topics individual commissioners brought up - - these are rough notes that I took, name first, topics to be discussed next week listed second - add to it if you think i missed something......

white: spray fields - are there other alts
white: possible alts not mentioned - threshold not met
white: re the coastal commission letter - re a combo of 4 alts and that this current option is not acceptable to them
wyatt - further analysis of tertiary treatment and how if changes the project in many ways
wyatt - ag nitrates reuse option
christianson - wants more info and evaluation of ponds and tertiary treatment
christianson - liquefaction - at tonini and broderson
christianson - recreation
christianson - ag -urban reuse of water - options and more info
christianson - wind conditions and their influence on spray field days of use
christianson - more info on direct injection wells - major issues, what about orange cnty
christianson - effluent, influent, pipe installation and type -wants more info on this
christianson - sludge - septage issue -more analysis required
christianson - dumping station at treatment plant = wants more info
christianson - broderson as mitigation - previous and present history, usfws letter recvd today
christianson - broderson, max soil infiltration rate why 180g/d/sqft - to 3.1 g/d/sq ft why such reduction?
christianson - water conservation measures re lawson's letter p33-4 re states 20% reduction
christianson - archaeological resources not mentioned and why - which impact trumps which - is it bio, ag, archaeo, what?
christianson - methane gas questions what about sealed system - she is confused wants more info
christianson - trucks to landfill? sludge disposal
christianson wyatt - piping, hybrid system, pressure vacuum,?? wants more info
wyatt - sea rise, pump stations pumping by the bay?? wants more info
wyatt - midtown site, vs out of town?
wyatt - biolac vs ponds - what choices do we have now that we are going tertiary pros cons
mehlschem - ag land impacts are ceqa class 1 - at tonini but not other sites, why have class 1 impact when you don't have to?
mehlschem - his overriding concern and what he hear today was, why spray fields - we want the water back in los osos - why spray
mehlschem - what about gorby - want to see a plan and study of gorby and creek compartment for disposal into lower aquifer
Christie - short list but no step steg, why its in the fed
Christie - what is role of pc - is the cart leading the horse, did the bos just preempt our role?
Christie - procedurally question to staff -is step on or off?
Christie - on field trip of sites, she asked for a refresher on deep wells at broderson
Christie - vertical leach fields at broderson or other sites been considered?
Christie - gordon hensley called her up and asked why did bos approve the last cdp if mid town is not viable
Christie - can we consider leach fields in the right of way?
Christie - what is the rcd interest for partnering - want more details from staff
Christie - Q for rwqcb - county can treat whole community per 2710
Christie - Q for rwqcb - more info on green growers agreement
Christie - Q for rwqcb - is there any economic value to using tertiary reclaimed water, do these resources have an economic benefit as well as an ecological benefit that might offset cost to citizens
Christie - Q for rwqcb - ask darla inglis of your staff to tell us more about low impact development stuff
Christie - Q for dept env health - new condition for sanitary seals on the wells - more info please
Christie - Q on sea water intrusion - can it be reversed or not, she has read both, what is the reality of this?

56 comments:

Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

Nice recap.

No doubt that the current project is DOA.

Now that the project is going tertiary, many options open up that make the current EIR inadequate; hence doubtful that the PC will approve it. Such is the process; so County Planning will be sent back to the drawing board.

With tertiary, the option opens up that both treatment and disposal can be achieved without using ANY AG land at all. The County will have a hard time convincing the CCC that using AG land is unavoidable; hence expect the gradual movement of the project completely within the boundaries of the LOCSD.

The last, not-yet-discussed issue that will tip the scales back to Tri-W is that any County project other than Tri-W will mean the PZ will have to pay DOUBLE PROJECT MITIGATION COSTS.

The CCC and the USF&W have made it very clear that they expect the mitigation for Tri-W to be built and paid for by the new County Project. Any County project different than Tri-W will mean that that new project will require its own, expensive mitigation PLUS mitigating Tri-W too. However, by going back to Tri-W as designed and permitted, those additional expensive new mitigation costs will be completely avoided; hence lower the cost of the County project dramatically.

-R; 8:09 AM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: All those trees, needlessly destroyed.
What a shame...; 8:54 AM, April 28, 2009
Unknown said...: ...but Richard, that would not be in the best interest of the community... the plus side would be that all the cue cards and scripts from 4 years ago could be reused...

Do you think we'll ever see a sewer in Los Osos...???; 8:57 AM, April 28, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Richard

Nice spin, however you are spinning in the wrong direction.

TriW is already dead & buried.

I was walking my dog at the location the other day and saw the headstone. No crap.

It read "Here Lieth TriW - where his soul has gone nobody knows and nobody cares".; 9:00 AM, April 28, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Mike

Why would a sewer plant spewing out rotten egg smells over our business community be good for the community?

Do you own a business downwind of TriW?; 9:05 AM, April 28, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9:26 AM, April 28, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Richard

In business, doing something right is always more expensive.

We've already proven that "expensive" is no longer an issue when we dropped alternatives.; 9:32 AM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Like "cost"/saving money, energy conservation or reduction of environmental impact has anything to do with this County's sewer study...
Bwahahahahaha!!!!!

Most "homeowners" are asleep or haven't gone to bed yet.
How can you expect "them" to wake up?; 9:35 AM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Richard,
Government isn't in "business".

Technology makes "stuff" better faster and less expensive.
Competition brings technology forward.
Just ask Paavo "if there is a technology that is significantly less expensive, then that technoogy becomes the new standard and all others fall away" Ogren.; 9:38 AM, April 28, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: If you want to pay more for anything alternative other than Tri-W, then that your choice.

However that attitude kind of flies in the face of those homeowners that want to pay as little as possible; and is contrary to those that said that stopping Tri-W was neccessary in order to save homeowners a lot of money. Could it be that those that said so were, ahem, wrong?

-R; 9:43 AM, April 28, 2009
Ron said...: Richard wrote:

"However, by going back to Tri-W as designed and permitted..."

Oh, for the sake of my story, if there's a god in journalism heaven, please let that happen.

From the notes sent to Ann:

"Christie - gordon hensley called her up and asked why did bos approve the last cdp if mid town is not viable"

So, if you're keeping score at home -- one recalled LOCSD Director/Tri-W embarrassment developer is pimpin' Tri-W HARD on Ann's blog, and another recalled LOCSD Director/Tri-W embarrassment developer is sneaking around behind the scenes lobbying Planning Commissioners to build their 6-year/$25 million embarrassment.

Hey Richard, who do you have sneaking around behind the scenes lobbying the Coastal Commission? Is that Gordo, too?

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
-- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

Good luck with your little strategy.; 9:49 AM, April 28, 2009
Unknown said...: I agree fully with Richard... The site and technology for the system design... The best arguement that the extremists put forth was that they didn't like the location... and so far, there has been no better location found that would meet all the permit requirements of the various government agencies...

All that has taken place over the past 4 years has been the incredibly expensive and deliberate delay of a legally required waste water treatment system for Los Osos... No breakthru real knowledge has been uncovered through the circus of "public" input. The Tri-W site and technology remain the least expensive and the most appropriate solution for Los Osos...; 9:53 AM, April 28, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

So you are not interested in the Los Osos Property owner saving money. What a guy! LOL

-R

PS: There is no need for me to promote anything to the BOS, the CCC, or any other agency involved; and I am not bothering to do so either. As far as I know, neither is Mr. Hensly.

I am not bothering to do so as those agencies will reach a similar decision through their own analysis in due time through the process.; 9:57 AM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE wrote: “…legally required waste water treatment system for Los Osos…”
Show us the law MIKEY…Hint-there isn’t any. The Septic Tanks are “legally permitted”.

MLIKE wrote: “The Tri-W site and technology remain the least expensive and the most appropriate solution for Los Osos...”
Sorry MIKEY…(So long as we are pimpin’) Only if a USBF™ design is used would it be least expensive. That GE MBR is so very energy intensive and those membranes “bio foul” and need replacement while an Upflow Sludge Blanket (Filtration USBF™) is a self healing planktonic membrane which is constantly being supplied by the users of the system free of charge.

Facts are stubborn things.; 10:23 AM, April 28, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Mike,

What WM forgets to tell you is that with USBF you need to install large and expensive clarifiers from which to draw sludge. The need for clarifiers is entirely eliminated with MBR's.

In fact, the CSD long ago was looking at USBF, but rejected them as the CSD was able to avoid the need to install two 60 foot diameter x 30 foot tall clarifiers entirely when going to MBR's. Additionally, the MBR footprint was so small (10'x15'x8') that the CSD was able to place and cover them out of public view within the atmosphere-controlled treatment building. Best of all was that the treated wastewater from the MBR removed N down to less than 3 mg/l on average; which was a much higher level of treatment that we would have achieved from USBF.

-R; 10:45 AM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Richard wrote:"the need to install two 60 foot diameter x 30 foot tall clarifiers"...

Did Mr. Dean (Sorry, lost his last name) offer this design?

Are you suggsting that 1.2MGD can be treated in a 10'X15'X8' footprint and that there is no "bio-failure" of the enery intensive Zee-Weed Membrane?

I will happy to send you an authentic USBF(tm) design so you have some facts to work with, let me know. I Love LO.; 11:05 AM, April 28, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Mike,

No need to response to WM's last missive as MW reads 'stuff and suggestions' into what I blogged.

MW inentinally avoids what I blogged....

....which is the need for two huge open-air multi-million dollar clarifiers were rendered unnessessary when the CSD went to MBR's

....and achieved a level of effluent treatment with MBR that was magnitudes better (much lower N) than with USBF

....and did so with MBR's out of public view

....in a covered and enclosed building

....with complete control over the building atmoshere (odor control.)

LOL
-R; 11:23 AM, April 28, 2009
Unknown said...: ...and Richard, there was even a nice community park...

Only the 10 or 12 PZLDF supporters are still blind to how well the Tri-W WWTF would benefit the community...

BTW...just when will Ron publish his investigative piece showing how the TaxPayers Watch paid off the LAFCo Bill and compare that with the PZLDF not paying any of their own legal fees...???? Does Ron even know that LAFCo was paid off...???? Just another screwing of the community by Chuck, Lisa and Julie...??? Maybe they were just "pre-paying" their next legal bills for the up-coming court appearance...???; 12:17 PM, April 28, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Mike,

Yup!

TW paid its $32,000 bill to LAFCO in full last month! TW pays it bills.

Meanwhile, those that have opposed a WWTP for Los Osos never pay their bills.

For Example:

PZLDF: Have not paid their 75% portion/split of the PZLDF lawsuit.

CCLO: Reneged in paying their attorneys, Parker and Holly, $17,500 in legal fees in 2007.

CASE: Reneged in paying their attorney, Mat Nasuiti, over $40,000in legal fees for the Keller et al v. LOCSD (environmental justice lawsuit) in 2003.

The ONLY attorneys that these folks have paid (Julia Biggs of BW&S) were not paid by those folks at all...but by the LOCSD when they (the CSD5) 'settled' those lawsuits back in 2005! What a crew!

-R; 12:31 PM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Richard, you must be relying on information from the missing Mr.Dean "I lost his last name".
Don't let the facts get in the way of your dream.

A 1 MGD USBF(tm) bio-reactor design footprint is 83' X 123'..Too bad about all those trees.; 12:43 PM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: I like that you brought "MW" ito the discussion.
That will help later...; 12:44 PM, April 28, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: At the Planning Commission, the County made it clear that Tri-W was an unlikely option when they spoke about the project history and all of its incarnations.

The Tonini has its shares of problems, Edwards says the Giacomezzi site is out of the picture because it's situated close to Warden Lake and Cemetery? Then there's Cemetery and Tri-W, right?

I think the County is presenting a trojan horse. Planning Commission and/or the CCC shuts down Tonini, Paavo then tells the people, "Well we tried having a sewer located out of town, but it didn't work," so you may be getting Tri-W after all; after the County presents a flawed plan for out of town.

We'll see. Let's see what Mr. Ogren "I lost his last name" says.; 12:51 PM, April 28, 2009
Unknown said...: Aaron...you may beginning to see what the pre-recall Directors had to learn before they could even purchase the sites...

The pre-recall folks were not a bad planning group, they did clear every hurdle to begin construction... It took a group of extremists to throw up so many smoke screens and character assignations that they literally stole the CSD from some very dedicated community workers...

You may not like the Tri-W site from some personal feeling, but you have to appreciate what it took to get the Tri-W site and design to pass all the legal hurdles... Paavo has been there, he knows far more than he is letting on... He only has to take the legal steps. He does not have to bow to the same continuing parade of the same public speakers... He just has to be legal and then he can in clear concience tell Ann, we adhered to the "Process", now we have no choise left, but to get on with building a sewer...

At this point, I wouldn't bet against the original design on the original Tri-W location... There never was anything wrong with that design and location, just a few who never wanted any sewer in the first place....; 1:18 PM, April 28, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Mike!

You have seen what many have missed (or maybe refuse to acknowledge).... that those folks that crafted the CSD WWTP (after the Solution Group Plan disintegrated) understood the CCC and the adopted LCP's preference to avoid the use of AG land; especially if said selected AG land was out of town and not continuous to the CSD boundary (hence perceived as growth-inducing).

If you read the LOCAC Vision Statement you will see that those community leaders that crafted it stressed that Los Osos be purposely contained and bound by a green belt; with development not occurring on AG lands outside the co9mmunity boundaries; further stressing that community projects stay in the community with the goal of resolving many community issues concurrently in those projects. The Vision Statement is a very good planning manifesto; hence that is why it became the basis of the SOC that shaped the WWTP at Tri-W.

In short, the community leaders of that time understood the nature of the LCP and the intent of the CCC to uphold the Coastal Act.

-R; 3:00 PM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: But if those folks that crated the CSD WWTP are the same ones who think that USBF(tm) clarifiers are 30 feet tall they demonstrate they do not understand WWTP design.

What else didn't they understand in the rush to destroy those trees?

The LOWWP it just keeps on giving.; 3:36 PM, April 28, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Sweeping Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Land-Use</a; 6:28 PM, April 28, 2009
Alon Perlman said...: Yeh Ann good work and good comments mostly y'all.
A little housekeeping
Commissioner District 4 - Gene Mehlschau

you have him currently as "mehlschem"

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/planning/Planning_Commission.htm\

word verification today is "boonch" as in; "What a lovely boonch of planning commissioners we have"; 7:18 PM, April 28, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

Get out of the deep end and back into the kiddie pool before you drown!

"Without data you are just another person with an opinion."

Word Verification: marksnuts; 11:09 PM, April 28, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Shark Inlet

Latitude: 35.315

Longitude: 120.864444444

Attitude: Confrontational; 7:28 AM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve wrote: "Without data you are just another person with an opinion."

Steve: Show us the data that proves that the septic tanks are the source of nitrogen loading in the LO/BP aquifer.
ANY test or data that was done before or since the Governor sentenced LO/BP that proves there is a problem, will be fine.

Thank you for playing and staying on topic.

(Remember Phoenix is not in over
draft); 7:44 AM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
Whydon't you shoot Richard a copy of the PowerPoint and 1MGD Generic Proposal I sent you so he hassome facts about USBF(tm).
His statements about clarifier size demonstrate clearly hedoes not understand what USBF(tm) is.

Remindes meof the extra 20 miles of sewerage he thought it would take to get that sewage out of town.

Information- It's a good thing...really.; 7:49 AM, April 29, 2009
Ron said...: "Richard," I have a question for you: Do you lend out your login info?

The reason I ask, is because you seem to have more than one writing voice.

For example, at this comment section, you write:

"Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."

Yet, in this comments section, you write:

"If you read the LOCAC Vision Statement you will see that those community leaders that crafted it..."

and;

"The Vision Statement is a very good planning manifesto; hence that is why it became the basis of the SOC that shaped the WWTP at Tri-W. "

And, as you know, "Richard," (if you actually HAVE read that joke of a document, like I have, in fact, I first joked about The Vision Statement in Three Blocks, in 2004), Pandora was one of only eight people that signed HER Vision Statement (another, was her husband, and fellow Solution Group founder, Gary Karner).

So, you can see how that's kind of weird, right?

In one voice, you can't back-pedal fast enough from Nash-Karner, and, in another voice, you can't seem to praise her "leadership" enough.

You're all over the map in your comments, man.

And, for the exact reason, I now nickname you, "Richdora Nash-LeGarner."; 9:22 AM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Like shooting "fish in a barrel"...; 10:00 AM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Information- It's a good thing...really.; 10:01 AM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Frog Leap Test; 11:44 AM, April 29, 2009
Unknown said...: Hey Ronnie.... TaxPayers Watch paid off that LAFCo bill last month...!!!!!

Now how about getting off your butt and writing about how the wonderful PZLDF is ducking any payment of their legal fees...????

You don't have to go far for answers, just ask Ann, she signed the lawsuit and hasn't paid her portion of the $320,000 bill owed by PZLDF...

The stupid Chuck/Lisa/Julie led CSD screwed the community once again with the fabrication of that bullshit "agreement" (75%PZLDF/25%CSD) between CSD and PZLDF...

So...???? When will we see your article....????; 12:18 PM, April 29, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: The US Fish and Wildlife Service has sent a second letter to the County / SLO Planning Commission (dated April 22, 2009) with their comments regarding the County WWTP.

Simply put, the letter outlines the many flaws and/or ommissions in the DEIR and the need for double mitigation measures required as to the new and old projects. With this letter (also sent to the other permitting agencies) there is no choice for the Planning Commission other than to not adopt the DEIR.

I will send Sharkinlet a PDF of the letter so he may (if he would be so kind) as to post it here for you all to read.

-R; 12:23 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: More obsession here:
MIKEY wrote: "Now how about getting off your butt and writing about how the wonderful PZLDF is ducking any payment of their legal fees...????"

It's interesting that MIKE thinks what Ron writes is insignificant but then asks for Ron "___ ___" Crawford to write something.

Does anyone else see the irony in MIKEY'S words?

Like shooting fish in a barrel...

When Did the Microphone Go Dead?; 12:26 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Remember the Planning Commission is only an advisory board and 3 out of 5 County Superviors can over rule any "advice" that Planning presents.

And that's the way it is...; 12:33 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Richard,
Why not use Steve Rein's real name?
His caver was blown a long time ago.; 12:35 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: His "cover" was blown a long time ago...

Did Steve send you the the info I spoke of yesterday?; 12:36 PM, April 29, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: The file Richard refers to is available at: http://sharkinlet.fileave.com/09.04.22%20FWS%20Comment.FEIR.pdf for all to read. Enjoy.; 3:24 PM, April 29, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

I don't think you can tell the difference between irony and sarcasm. Mike was pointing out Ron's huge bias with his comment. Presumably if Ron actually wrote about all aspects of this mess and not just about the history of Los Osos before 2004 with special attention to Gordon and Pandora his commentary would be more worthwhile.; 3:26 PM, April 29, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: And ... Mark,

On my choice of moniker, it is my choice and I prefer Shark Inlet. Your choice to refer to me by my real name, as it were, is not something I can control but certainly I would prefer you do otherwise ... it makes the conversation easier to follow for those who are just joining up.

When you write of "cover" having been "blown" you make it sound like a clandestine attempt to spy or some such nonsense. Long before you waltzed into town on the back of a now-defunct product I was arguing for anonymity when people prefer it. Anonymity comes with a cost and a benefit. The cost is that sometimes people are rude and childish. The benefit is that people can be fully open about their opinions when their "real name" being known might preclude them from voicing their opinion other than in couched terms.

That being said ... I would prefer you use "shark inlet" to my real name. Choosing to refer to me by my preference of names here is much the same as calling someone in person what they say they prefer to be called. If someone prefers Kenny, you shouldn't call them Kenneth and if someone prefers JP you shouldn't call them Jesus Pilate.; 3:32 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Actually, I think that the "special attention" Ron provides is worthwhile.
I know your special government worker bias doesn't allow you to see it.

That is ironic...poolboy;-)

MIKE is stuck...; 3:36 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Sorry Steve,
You have earned the right to be called out by your real name.
Man up and get over it or not, it does not make any difference to me.; 3:42 PM, April 29, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

It apparently makes a big difference to you, otherwise you would probably choose to be polite.; 4:04 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Sorry Steve,
You are wrong, again.

Steve wrote: "Without data you are just another person with an opinion."

How about that data that proves that the septic tanks are the source of polluting?

Where is all the "hand wringing" over the hurry for "stimulus funds"?

"Sorry I lost his last name", where are you???; 5:59 PM, April 29, 2009
Unknown said...: Good Evening Shark...

OverDraftMark has sucked you into his childish game... If WM is indeed the Mark Low of Wrecklamator infamy... I can't believe a professional sales person would demean his self in the juvenile manner we've been watching the past several days...

It's best to not respond to ODM if one wants to discuss (or cuss) the sewer extremists activities... none of which pertain to the Over Draft in Phoenix... It's more worthwhile to yank the chain of the Santa Margarita wantabe "journalist who is afraid to discuss the bogus "agreement" twixt PZLDF and the CSD...

...but then I used to let ODM irritate me until I sat back and realized he had failed and the County bid him adeu... Much more fun to harass GRO... Ann is off in her little world of pee and crumpets with no clue as to what is really happening in the "Process"...

...Have a great evening Shark, you are a much bigger person than ODM...; 7:08 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE:
How is your Florida research going?
Did your friends and relatives in Arizona ever find out where they live?
How was your drinking date with "Sorry, I forgot his last name" go?
Were you able to find out about Mr. Dean "sorry, I forgot his last name"?

QUACK & FIB BWAhahahahahahahaha!!!; 7:19 PM, April 29, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Thanks to both Richard and Shark for scanning and posting the second F&W letter!

I'll see whoever shows up amongst us bloggers at the BOS chambers tomorrow for Round 2 with the Planning Commission!

Signed,
Sewertoons

PS - ODM (aka Mark Low) calling out Shark for not using his real name is a riot!!; 7:26 PM, April 29, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mike,

I understand, but I am responding to Doofus mostly because I don't want anyone to think that he has any veracity.

Perhaps you are right. Maybe it is clear to everyone by now that his "facts" are ex-rectum.; 7:27 PM, April 29, 2009
Unknown said...: ...completely Shark, completely

You are the Man on this blog... you have all our respect; 7:42 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Three Blind Mice...; 7:58 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "Sorry, I lost his last name" wrote: "PS - ODM (aka Mark Low) calling out Shark for not using his real name is a riot!!"

What is funny is that Steve wrote: "Long before you waltzed into town on the back of a now-defunct product I was arguing for anonymity when people prefer it."

Looks like that didn't work out for you "I forgot" and Steve...

Steve, Did you get those docs over to Richard yet?
I hate to see him remain clueless about USBF(tm).; 8:04 PM, April 29, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Looks like that didn't work out for you "I lost" and Steve...; 8:09 PM, April 29, 2009

Pages

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

56 comments: