Pages

Friday, May 15, 2009

Show Me Da Money!

As folks here in Los Osos know, there’s a Sewer Bill coming down the pike that may force an unknown number of residents to sell their homes and move out of town. Especially hard hit will be people on fixed incomes. I checked a few months ago with Chrys Barnes of Pacific Capitol Mortgage, here in Los Osos, since I had plans on writing a column on the issue and she gave me a great deal of information. In addition, homeowners here in Sewerville were recently mailed an invitation by True Compass Lending Corporation in Paso Robles to attend a seminar on Reverse Mortgages (and, thank you, a tasty free lunch) at the Madonna Inn on May 5th. Katie Bateman gave the seminar, about 20 people and I showed up and, as promised, here’s some of my notes:

First and foremost, there’s an enormous amount of information out there on reverse mortgages. Here’s some email address for further investigation:
Fannie Mae (FHA/HUD is the approved lender): www.fanniemae.com
Hud: www.hud.gov/buying/rvrsmort.cfm
NRMLA – National Reverse Mortgage Lender’s Association: www.reversemortgage.org
AARP: www.aarp.org/money/revmort
NCHEC- National Cneter for Home Equity Conversion: www.reverse.org
The National Council on Ageing: www.ncoa.org
Katie Bateman (who gave the seminar): www.kbateman.com (423-3112) or here in Los Osos, Chrys Barnes, Chrysb52@hotmail.com from Pacific Capitol Mortgage (528-5353). And there are many other companies offering these mortgages .

And, at the county, John Diodoti, at the Public Works Department, is working on money/finance/help issues and you can call him at 788-2832. He’s working not only on various grants, but also grants that will help low-income folks on hook-up costs & etc.

Now the caveats: Reverse Mortgages are something that each person needs to look into carefully. They certainly aren’t for everyone, they need to be weighted carefully in light of each person’s individual personal and financial situation. However, the rules and safeguards and variety of options now in place can make this method of staying in your home a viable option for many people.

When I spoke to people about RMs, the most frequent response I heard was the fear that the RM would eat up their home leaving nothing for the kids. Or the bank would take away their home and they’d be shoved out on the street. In the bad old days of no independent oversight, unscrupulous loan-writers, and for people who lived in areas where homes not only didn’t appreciate but actually depreciated as the years went by, that could certainly be the case.(Except for the “thrown out of house” part. That doesn’t happen, unless you’re actually dead and/or you haven’t been in the home for a year (i.e. in nursing home, for example) and won’t be returning.)

But here on the Gold Coast, where for the last 20 years, bubble excluded, the average house appreciation rate was pegged at about 5% by the county realtors association, and with the variety of types of loans available (from lump sum fixed rate to to lines of credit type loans or other combos) and the required counseling and review session provided by a neutral HUD-sponsored counselor before any loan papers can be signed, and prudent evaluation by the individual, the chance of that happening is slim. (Yes, I suppose somebody could max out their equity, blow it all in Vegas, then when trouble hit, be left bereft, but if someone’s that imprudent, that scenario would happen in any case.)

So, with that in mind, some info from the Seminar:

Misconceptions
Lender owns your home; You’ll have no estate left; Bank shares in the appreciation of your home; Can’t qualify due to poor credit (this one carries a footnote – if you’re over leveraged, you wouldn’t have any equity left and since the loan amount is based on equity, you’d be out of luck); You have to be debt free; You’ll end up owing more than what the house is worth; It will impact your Social Security & Medicare (again a footnote; if you’ve got disability payments and/or on Medicaid/state aid programs, would have to check regarding assets allowed under those programs); Only desperate people get reverse mortgages (O.k. here in Sewerville, I’d have to agree; there’s going to be a lot of desperate people when the bill arrives.)

What is a Reverse Mortgage?

Allows homeowners 62 and older to convert home equity into cash (or line of credit, etc.)
Is not paid back until the last borrower in the home no longer lives there (i.e. if you die, your spouse can continue to live in the home until they leave permanently or die)
No monthly repayments
Money is tax free
No income or credit requirements to qualify
Non-recourse loan

The amount of money you can get is based on:
Age of the youngest borrower (the older you are the more money you can get since the bank knows you’ll die sooner and so their loan will be paid back quicker, unless you’re 92 and your wife is 37, maybe)
The amount is base on the appraised value of the home or the National lending (maximum) limit which is currently pegged at $625, 500 (until Dec 31, unless it’s extended; if not the cap will return to $425,000 which was the cap before the recent “Recovery Act” legislation)
There are no credit or income qualifications.

Payout Options
Lump sum
Monthly Income or Tenure payment
Line of Credit
Any combination of the 3 above
The loans can be either HECM Monthly ARM: Index based on 1 month Libor or 1 Year T-bill, or HECM Annual ARM: Index based on the 1 year T-Bill or HECM Fixed Rate: live pricing
There’s even a new type of RM loan specifically set up so that it can be set up to enable you to use an RM to buy a new home (like a down payment, the amount repaid when the old home sells & etc.) if you’re planning on relocating anyway.

Costs
Interest rates: 1 year CMT (treasury bill) index or 1 month Libor
Fees are capped
Mortgage Insurance (2% of appraised value or lending limit or appraised value, whichever is less)
Origination fee
Closing costs (similar to any mortgage application)
The loan costs can be added to the RM or can be paid out of pocket, whichever

How is RM Repaid
An RM is, in many ways, just like a regular mortgage. When the last borrower no longer lives in the home, the loan is due in one lump sum. The estate or Heirs can: Sell the house, pay off the RM (just as they would if the home had a regular mortgage) and keep the difference or refinance the amount owed and keep the house. The bank does not take the house. Also, you can always re-pay the RM, supposing you win the lottery or your dear old uncle Herbert dies and leaves you a nice chunk of money. And you can refinance an RM, (i.e increase the amount borrowed, say if further down the line you ran into medical expenses, for example) since as your equity grows, so does the available line of credit, if you need it.

For folks over 62 who are house rich but cash poor and who cannot pay the sewer fees, an RM is certainly one option (Another option is if they financially qualify to have their annual tax bill held in abeyance until they die or sell the house, could allow them to put a hold one bill thereby leaving some money available for the other bill, a sort of owe Peter, pay Paul deal. Of course, the property tax abeyance program is also a kind of RM run by the state, by which they hold the property tax and charge compounded interest on it, and after 20 years, like a RM, a large chunk of amortized change will be owed by the heirs when the house is sold. ) Or they can move, which carries with it high costs, not to mention social dislocation. And, selling in today’s bubble-depressed market, rather than waiting, say, 10 years, could really cost an even bigger bundle.

A Simple Example

My thanks to Ms. Bateman who prepared the following scenario: Mr. Sewer Guy, 65 years old, owns free and clear home valued at $400,000, (according to a local Los Osos realtor, the “average” post-bubble Los Osos home is now $300,000, but these numbers were run on a $400,000 sample), HECM Libor 3.250, rate is monthly adjustable, margin is 3.25% and the rate can never exceed 13.66%m calculation assumes an annual growth rate of 4% for value of home.

Guestimate “Sewer Bill” payoff: $25,000, Insurance Fees $8,000, Financing Fees, $8,074. (8+8,074=$16,074 these are like “closing” fees) so a total of $41,074 is financed for 20 years, with a remaining line of credit of $186,292 (which will grow as the house appreciates and Mr. Sewer Guy ages). Total, guestimate of amortized amount owed at the end of 20 years using these parameters :$181,431.

Meanwhile: Home value: $400,000 x 4% appreciation a year = $16,000 x 20 years = $320,000. $400,000 = $320,000 = $720,000. Is it reasonable to assume that in twenty years a house worth $400,000 today would sell for $720,000? Especially here on the Gold Coast? If so, Mr. Sewer Guy would live there for twenty years, sell his house, pay off the $181,431 Reverse Mortgage, and still leave his heirs $538,569. 00. Or, get very conservative and figure house appreciation at 3% (the low end for this county as a whole). Either way, Mr. Sewer Guy leaves his heirs a nice chunk of money and still gets to stay in his home 20 years. (Ironically enough, using these figures and looking at the bubble-crashed real estate market right now or by August 10, 2010 (when the assessment officially is locked in on the tax bills), Mr. Sewer Guy might well come out worse if he is forced to sell his house in today’s market rather than taking out an expensive RM and waiting 20 years. Or even 10 years. And, yes, we could have another housing bubble crash in 20 years, since we seem to have them as regularly as swallows return to Capistrano. But perhaps Mr. Sewer Guy would recognize the signs and sell and move at the next Bubble High End, and so still come out ahead.)

According to John Diodati, the most likely deadline before the sewer bill shows up on your tax bill will be shortly on or about or prior to August, 2010. Furthermore, the county plans on offering homeowners a chance to pay the cost up-front, if they wish. Prior to Aug 10, 2010, they’ll also have a “final” “real” price tag. (Right now, people can mail the County a flat $25,000 which will be held in an escrow account, the actual amount removed on Aug 20, 2010, when it’s known, and the rest refunded. If the County refuses to take the project, the entire amount will be returned, and we'll ALL be out on the street.)

So, to any Los Osos homeowner 62 or older, who’s house rich and cash poor and facing being booted out of town with the rest of the riff-raff when the sewer bills start arriving, I would suggest now’s the time to do some serious investigation and number crunching. Folks offering RM’s are happy to sit down with you and run your individual numbers and look at your personal situation and discuss the different options available, all with no obligation.

Do RM’s cost a lot of money in order to get money? Yep. Does selling a house and moving cost money? Yep. Does the sewer cost money? Yep. Is forcing old folks to take out a Reverse Mortgage just to pay a sewer bill right? Nope. But it is what it is. And it is filled with terrible irony.

Years ago, before the so-called “Reagan Revolution,” Americans considered these large infrastructure projects as part of the “National Commons,” and taxpayers all over the country paid taxes to the Feds who then made those monies available to communities all over the nation to help offset some of their more onerous infrastructure projects. But Americans changed that process. They didn’t like taxes. President Reagan said the government was the problem. So they wanted everyone to “bootstrap” it all by themselves. Privatize or what President Obama called “the ownership society – you’re on your own.” So a lot of federal help disappeared. And now that Los Osos taxpayers, many of whom, paid taxes over the years to help a county in Missouri build their water system, and now expects those nice Missourian taxpayers to help pay for our sewer project, well, Los Ososians, you’re out of luck. Tough. Unless, we get lucky and some new Federal help actually can be located. If not, then the wind that dismantled The Commons that voters sowed for the past 20-some years has now returned to Los Osos in the form of a destructive privatized whirlwind.

Time to get serious about battening down the hatches and start now to look into various survival mode options. The clock is ticking.

68 comments:

Richard LeGros said...

Thanks for the information.

I am sure many folks will appreciate knowing there are options out there.

-R

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Excellent RM info Ann! Thank you for taking the time and effort in reporting to us what you learned. This is really useful and helpful information for the community!

M said...

Sad. So sad. Myself and many like me im sure have lived here our entire adult lives and now we have to ponder selling our homes to pay for a sewer. The top of the line highest priced sewer to boot. A State mandated project with no regards for the people that live in this community. And no grant money.
No proof either I might add to justify what is being asked of us.
Sincerely, M

M said...

No proof either i might add to justify what is being forced on us.
Sincerely, M

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

M, I am sorry if you do not have enough equity or age to do a reverse mortgage. Or am I just making that assumption as you are not addressing the help that Ann has thoughtfully provided?

M said...

Sorry sewertoons, but from my perspective, you are just simply happy that there is a way to alleve the pain of the most expensive sewer possible
I am of age and I do have equity in my house. That was not my point.
My sadness is in the fact that one would even have to consider altering his comfort in his equity to pay for a sewer.
Sincerely, M

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I agree M, life sucks sometimes. There is a time for mourning the loss of money in all of our futures and then a time to deal with the facts and just get practical. When it is right for you I hope you will look to solutions as they are provided and find the right one for you. It's too bad the sewer wasn't built when it should have been, but it wasn't.

We had our doubts about buying here because there was no sewer but we did anyway. Property was more expensive in Morro Bay and it wasn't nearly as beautiful as it is here. So now we will pay more than we thought we were going to pay. There is no cheap sewer despite the varying propaganda. Do I like how this turned out? No. The alternative is moving and that seems worse to me.

Churadogs said...

M sez:"I am of age and I do have equity in my house. That was not my point.
My sadness is in the fact that one would even have to consider altering his comfort in his equity to pay for a sewer.
Sincerely, M"

All of us, throughout our lives, have to "alter" our "equity" comfort for a variety of reasons. If I'm young, I may have my financial comfort blown to hell by the unexpected birth or illness of a child, or an unexpected layoff or an illness that strikes, sending my life plans to hell. Or, if I'm "of age" and equity rich and fixed income-cash poor, I will have to "alter my equity comfort" to pay for a new roof, or pay for an unexpected medical bill or when the plumbing goes ker-blooey. Comfort altering is another word for "life."

That this sewer project is the most expensive per capita on earth is the result of voters for 20 years dismantling the Commons. Wind=Whirlwind. Is that sad? Yes it is, and full of terrible irony, but it's a natural consequence. Were there less expensive, perhaps more scientifically valid and sensible ways to skin this cat? Yes, there were, but at critical junctures, public apathy, indifference, bad mistakes, bad science, lazy regulators, hidden agendas, CYA cover ups and human failing kept coming together to ultimately create a "perfect storm." Will this particular project be more expensive than Tri-W? We don't know yet. Will it solve our water problems? No. That's the great unspoken elephant in the room -- one that will surprise hell out of all those people thinking they'll be able to build their dream homes on their generations-empty lots once the sewer is built. The word HCPs and "water availability" and "retrofit" should loom large in their box of Questions Nobody Wants To Ask And Answer.

But here's where M and I may depart company. I am grateful beyond belief that I am of an age and do have equity and can use that equity to pay for the sewer and/or fix the roof and/or pay for medical care as I totter into my dotage, and, since the houses here will likely be the ONLY houses here for a good long while (HCP, remember?) the appreciation rate of each home will just get more valuable as "baby boomers" retire, cash out and move to one of the most beautiful places on the Coast, into what, by comparison with L.A. or S.F. house prices, are "cheap" homes. This means that I can have my cake and carefully eat a part of it and, God willing, still bequeath what's left to whoever I wish to bequeath it to. And if circumstances decree ("equity discomfort") that costs needed to see me to my end of days results in having no estate left, then at least I will have paid my way with the assets I've been able to conserve and use wisely, rather than just flinging myself on the taxpayer after blowing through my assets via a trip to Vegas, or, sillier still, living years on catfood and cutting my medications in 1/2 to save money and so remain sick and suffering while the rain leaks into the holey roof and I have to pee in a can because I can't afford to fix the plumbing, all so I can leave mo' money to my lazy, ungrateful offspring, who actually should be looking out for their OWN damned equity comfort. Either way, bequeathable or broke-at-my death-bank-gets-the-house, my-heirs-get-zip, that still makes me AMAZINGLY lucky and I am ENORMOUSLY grateful, every single moment of every day, Thank you Jeeeeezus!

My sadness is not for having my equity comfort altered but for so many other working folks who have no equity to be discomforted. Some people consider those people riff-raff and have stated that they'll be happy to see them go. Not me. Those folks ARE Los Osos and are the very reason I chose to move to this amazingly ecclectic community, my dirt-roaded, pot-holed, architectural and econcomic jumble-bumbled, much beloved Bangladesh By the Bay.

End of sermon.

Billy Dunne said...

Ann, you bristle at weasel words like "obstructionist" but have seemed to cling to your new "riff raff" mantra. Just curious, how many people do you think are obstructionists, and more to this point, how many people do you think want a sewer so they can "get rid of the riff raff?"

I'm guessing you have heard people make the "riff raff" comment, or have heard people say they have heard people who have said it, just like I've heard people say there would be a sewer in Los Osos "over my dead body" or brag they can stop any sewer any time with lawsuits. But what is your point? Do you think the majority of people who support the building of a WWP in Los Osos do so to "get rid of the riff raff?" Isn't that the same as saying anyone who disagrees with the county process is an "obstructionist?"

What's the story with your new "riff raff" rag? It couldn't be a new weasel phrase, could it?

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Will this particular project be more expensive than Tri-W? We don't know yet."

That's correct, however, someone needs to tell that to Wikipedia, because, apparently, the Tri-W nut jobs have done what they do best, and confused the message over there.

According to Wiki: "Due to the action of the new CSD board, the costs of the sewer project have greatly increased."

Completely inaccurate, but there it is, in Wikipedia, for all to read.

Tri-W nut jobs.

Of course, the Tri-W embarrassment was never going to work anyway (just ask Steve Monowitz), so, the "Will it be more expensive than Tri-W?" argument, really isn't an argument at all.

Ann wrote:

"I can have my cake and carefully eat a part of it and, God willing, still bequeath what's left to whoever I wish to bequeath it to."

Ann, have I told you how nice you look today?

Great "sermon."

Shark Inlet said...

Finally Ron finds out a way to address the cost question ... by quoting Ann who says that we don't know the cost yet.

Hardly a good defense for being called out for telling us that we're definitely saving money by going with an out of town plant when cost estimates of doing so are about $250 per month (as opposed to $200/month for TriW) but then we cannot forget the extra costs we're gonna have to pay to deal with the bankruptcy and fines and the like.

In any case, heregoes Ron .... and pay attention this time or get Excel and you can do this sort of thing yourself.

5000 homes (or the equivalent) at $25k each is $125M. This is a bit cheaper than TriW even with the extra pipe to take the thing out of town. The over-bids in LOCSD TriW would likely make pretty much any County plant less expensive. How are they then now saying about $250/month. It is based on an assumed project cost and assumed interest rate for those who would need to borrow the entire assumed $25k assessment.

$25k at 8% over 20 years plus a $40/month O&M cost equals about $250/month total. If SRF money can be obtained at, say 2.3% over 20 years, a $25k assessment plus $40 O&M would end up running only about $170/month.

Ann is right and Ron was right when they criticized Ron for claiming that moving the plant out of town would save us money. It could but it likely won't ... especially if you remember the additional costs associated with stopping TriW (the bankruptcy, etc.).

Watershed Mark said...

Steve again demonstrates he has no facts just rhetoric to feel his way through the process.
When his children grow up and realize what a fool he has been they will be disappointed, if they aren’t wards of the state.

Bhaaaaa, Bhaaaaa, Bhaaaaa...

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann, thank you for your beautiful, thoughtful, insightful, and forward thinking writing above. You understand the situation and find ways to cope with it even if you don't like it - and you have moved ahead with helpful information to give the community. Thank you for an uplifting Sunday "sermon!"

There is work out there for all of us to help others with this situation. As time reveals more about what we can do, let's be watchful to see where we can step in to bring some help to someone in need.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote: There is work out there for all of us to help others with this situation.

Lynette, Ask a few hard questions...Bhaaaa.

Watershed Mark said...

Oh, Please tell us about "sorry, I forgot his last name", if you still aren't trying to cover up anything.

Churadogs said...

Billy sez:"What's the story with your new "riff raff" rag? It couldn't be a new weasel phrase, could it?"

I guess you missed reading a previous post about the last planning commission ("Now It Can Be Told") and missed reading some of the comments and missed the "moral" or the encounter Mr. Hunter had with his neighbor.

A couple of things to keep in mind. The EPA guidelines set a cap on public projects as a certain % of income. To my knowledge no such survey has been done here to see what that % should be. And why has the county never done an affordibility survey? Mr. Riff-Raff clearly associated worthiness of living here with money. It's an American disease -- if you're not rich, you're worthless and so don't let the sun go down on you in this town. If 99% of this community actually cared about their poorer neighbors being tossed out, they would have been out in the streets with pitchforks. They never budged. It was hard to get people to even give a damn about the Los Osos 45, people wrongly and unfairly singled out, tried, convicted and hanged with CDOs on their homes. That was met with a hug shrug. Do I think Mr. Riff-Raff is a powerful metaphor (even though he actually exists, for real)? Yes, indeed I do. And his message is telling, not only here, but throughout the country. As I said, the American Disease.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Billy's point was that there are maybe a handful, at best, of folks who truly are wanting to drive the "riff raff" out of town, just like there are at least a handful of people who really are obstructionists and either say that Los Osos doesn't need a sewer or who will threaten lawsuits to get their way, to obstruct the County's process.

In that regard, when you cry "foul" over use of the one term, you shouldn't use the other so quickly.

I am fully aware that, yes, the term obstructionist is being bandied about far too often and those who use it typically mean it to apply to any opposed to the County plan. In the same regard, those who use the term "riff raff" typically use it to mean that all those who are in favor of the County plan have the goal of gentrification. I've been accused of that by some here myself.

I suspect that the issue that really galls Billy is that you have lectured people about how simplistic and wrong the one practice is but you haven't decried a similarly simplistic and wrong practice used by others ... and it seems that you may have adopted it yourself, now with justification that a person you trust heard the phrase used by one of his acquaintances.

That would be about as bad as complaining that the solutions group ran on a promise of a $38.75/month sewer that they should have known was unrealistic but not complaining about the recall group who ran on a promise of a $100/month sewer that they should have known was not realistic ... but that's another topic.

Shark Inlet said...

One more thing ... Ann writes "If 99% of this community actually cared about their poorer neighbors being tossed out, they would have been out in the streets with pitchforks."I don't see you, Ann, out in the stet with a pitchfork.

I know you wrote this metaphorically, but please remember that many "Dreamers" who opposed the recall did so exactly because they were opposed to the likelihood of rising costs associated with a recall.

You also write about supporting the Los Osos 45 as corresponding to support for PZLDF or attending RWQCB meetings to fuss at them. Others supported these unfortunate unlucky few by pushing for the County plan and by trying to keep it from being derailed by those who care more about getting their desired collection system or desired location more than they care about the Los Osos 45.

franc4 said...

Billy Droan sez:
"have seemed to "cling to your new "riff raff" mantra.

For someone who claims to be a literay "giant", you seem to be lacking reading skills. "riff raff" is not Anns "mantra" at all. She is merely quoting what some folks say (probably you).

franc4 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
GetRealOsos said...

Ann,

It is my understanding that any SRF loan requires a "Financial Capability Study".

Just like they require a "Sustainable" project.

...um...what happened with that?!

We heard about 1% or 2% etc. regarding percentage of income for affordability -- people on SS that get $1,000. or so a month, well, this project will take 20-35% of their income...

...um...what's with that?!

The County acts like there's no problem, and bitch about people (and make them look bad) when those who come to the BOS to speak are only there to beg for their lives.

My gosh! What is wrong with these people?

Why would the County not want a cost effective system (ie ponds and vacuum) after all, that is the law anyway.

Apparently the County believes they are above the law.

franc4 said...

Shark sez:

"I don't see you, Ann, out in the stet with a pitchfork."

I think Anns (and Ron,too) "pitch fork" is the computer and the reporting of "FACTS", which you and other found (find) it more fun to criticize, rather than understanding. Tell me, sir, when did you ever report "facts" worthy of meaning anything other than your opinion. Sorry if I seem to be singling you out. You are just one of many. And yes, I understand, this is a vehicle for expressing opinion, but I don't think damning others for their researched, FACTS is the way to go. Old adage, "if you can't say something nice....."...that is unless you KNOW they are wrong. ;-)

Shark Inlet said...

Franc,

During the recall campaign I was arguing against the recall because it was financially an unsound choice. I made available at that time spreadsheets which demonstrated the lack of wisdom of a recall .... even if the recall advocates were telling us the truth ...

In short I provide facts (in the form of mathematical equations) that demonstrated the recall would be a mistake.

Are you telling us now that the recall was a good idea? Are we in Los Osos better off now than we would have been had TriW been finished? If so, explain why.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

You answer Franc, you bug the shit out of Mark about Phoenix, you talk a lot about cars and fruit, come on take a whack at my post above at 11:47AM to talk about real issues.

Shark Inlet said...

Sorry GRO, but I didn't know that you asked me any questions or made any comments directed at me.

In your comments of 11:47am, I don't see any issues you raise where I need to respond.

Maybe you should write more clearly if you need me to respond.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Why don't you try to read it again?

Of course you don't NEED to respond, but it would be nice to see how you defend these couple of issues. But you can't and won't. I didn't expect you would, nor Lynette. It's a joke that you can't address the percentages on the affordability issue since you're supposed to be a numbers guy...

What a bullshit answer anyway, how can one be more clear?

Nice try though, we can all see that you can't answer any real questions. You nit pick Ron and Mark and cheerlead for Tri-W year after year. That's why you blog, period. You and Lynette have your job to do.

Watershed Mark said...

Here's one for you Steve: Why wasn't Vacuum Collection studied by the County's consulting engineer?
Interesting that "sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette" won't touch this very important and revealing question...

Technology that is superior to what made it to the RFP like a 1.2 MGD ECOfluid Tertiary Design would cost $8.8MM not the $25MM the county.

BTW that "bid" was no charge, "sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette"…

I think that Vacuum Collection system could be installed for about half what the “gasketed sewerage” RFP system the county is currently using as the basis for its project.
When seal pipe gets tossed in vacuum (which is sealed) will be even better looking.

No matter what eventually gets selected for Los Osos by those responsible for "selecting" a system that selection will provide years of opportunity, for those interested in doing the correct thing, to use as an example.

I look forward to every step of the way.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve has demonstrated his state employee neutered and “don’t rock the boat” bias, over and over again.
He should stay on the porch with thirty foot tall clarifier/20+ miles of out of town sewerage LeGros.

No wonder the CSD is in such a mess.

Alon Perlman said...

What Piper is saying, shark, is that cheap SRF funding may be unavailable
Without "sustainability" and "an affordability study"

(ag) “Sustainability” means balancing economic, environmental, and social factors
in an equitable manner to maintain and protect the water resources needs of
the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own water resources needs."

The Project Report must contain, as appropriate, the following:
1. A statement of Project needs and benefits....
2. Proposed Project Service Area and composition.
a. Median Household Income (MHI) and population for the proposed Project
service area using census data or the most recent income survey if the
census data does not accurately reflect the community’s MHI. This
information is used to analyze various factors, including affordability.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/srf_policy_rev091608.shtml

I havn't seen you take a position that would "require" you to answer either. But, take it as a compliment, your opinion was challanged. I just checked the postings and there is some activity from W-Mark Who has managed to rise from hs own ashes, too bad that you have to immolate yourself so frequently Mark.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Bloggers, who do you think knows SRF loans and what they require better -- Piper or -- Paavo, Mark Hutchinson, John Waddell, and Warren Jensen?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Hi Alon - great postings of late - thanks!

Shark Inlet said...

GetReal ...

Okay, I get it ... you don't think that what I comment on is important but you believe that if I were to address your comments it would be better. Nice!

Okay ... that being said ... the reason I argued against the recall is that the delay associated with the recall would raise the costs and force even more people out of town. That being said, did you vote for the recall or did you vocally oppose it? If you did not oppose the recall, do you now regret that choice?

As for whether ponding and vacuum would be sufficient and considerably cheaper ... your rhetoric suggest you feel this way but how about some facts?



Mark ... as I remember, you and your company didn't submit qualifications to bid on the contract and no firm who did submit qualifications believes in your technology as a solution for Los Osos. [Note: a free market has essentially proved that your product is not appropriate for our town because if it was, some company who is qualified to build a sewer would have incorporated your technology into their design.]

As for your "state employee bias", you are full-o-crap and you know it. You're just throwing stuff at the wall trying to see what sticks. If you had actual data to demonstrate your claims it would be different ... but lacking facts you seem to be resorting to ... um ... rhetorical fallacies.



Alon,

If GetReal (Piper? Who is that?) Is saying that a SRF would require an affordability study and a sustainable design ... perhaps he forgot that there was a SRF for the TriW plan which was branded as unaffordable and unsustainable by it's opponents. Presumably an out-of-town plant would fare no worse than TriW on that front.

As for cheerleading for TriW ... I believe that GetReal is mistaken ... I've advocated not for TriW but for what seems to be the most realistic and cheapest option available. Those advocating for the recall did not present a viable plan which demonstrated any savings so they didn't get my support. Now many of those same folks are advocating for something else without evidence that it will save us money so I'll yet again say "where's the beef?". If somehow the folks whining about the County process were to have a specific and credible set of complaints about the County plan and were able to show that there would be savings by adopting an alternative vision, I would be more amenable to their point of view.

Cheerleading for TriW? Nope ... how about opposing the pipe-dreamers who tell us without proof that they have a better way?

Don't you wish that in 1997 and 1998 there were more folks like me who were openly doubting the wisdom of "better, faster, cheaper"?

Face it GetReal ... you can advocate for what you want as long as you want and as loud as you want, but just believing that there is a better plan than what the County advocates is about as good as believing that clapping will keep Tinker Bell alive.

Yes, the situation is not a good one, but whining about gravity at this point in time is about as wise as whining that TriW wasn't selected ...

Like with the State budget (really ugly by the way), if you can show how to cut costs easily, go for it .... show us how much cheaper STEP or vacuum would be ... show us how much Ponding would save us ... show how putting the plant outside of town with your favorite collection system and your favorite technology would save us money over what the County is proposing to do.

That they haven't gotten up in front of the mics at the BOS meeting and said "and this will cause an estimated 30% of Los Osos to have to move" doesn't make any difference unless there is a cheaper option.

Watershed Mark said...

Bhaaaa, "sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette" why wasn't vacuum collection studied?

Steve,
You are so neutered and you know it. Hell anyone with an open mind knows it.
If you are man enough to leave your statements up for your children to read they will know how "weak" you acted during this very important time.

Your statement about the RFP demonstrates, again, that you have no clue about "the process."

Again, for the record, Parkson/"Bio-Lac™" never submitted anything under the RFP and you do not understand that ECOfluid/USBF™ and Parkson are companies that "sell" patented designs.
These technology companies do not build facilities but supply the patented designs, support and perhaps some equipment to the contractors who would submit to the RFP process and somehow that very important distinction eludes your grasp, still.

Your obtuse nature has you bleating so badly; you deserve to be labeled a sheople.

Sheople Outlet, what do you think?

Alon Perlman said...

Yep Shark , I knew you would "get it",
You were "used" as a mechanism to illicit support,to continue to argue as to the SRF part. What I said about "A compliment" is probably still true.
There are many things wrong with the current project. Heck
"Optimizing" the project to get Monies is probably possible by enhancing "Green" features, whatever that means. I'm sure there are many "EXPERTS" and a few experts to opine. I think Paavo mentined cost-effectiveness.
I think the county has proceeded with the affordability to the extent possible at this time, although the opportunity may not had been available earlier. A formal affordability study would had, at the very minimum been an economical political move. Some of our astute citizens, brought the "study" subject up early in the TAC meetings. No research here, I'll stand corrected if anyone substantiates differently.

Faced with the largest per capita expenditure Etc...
of course there would be resistance even if Tri-W was the best possible solution (And I'm on record saying that the current project is worse)
Before my time, but; the withdrawal of ponds was one initial trigger to people feeling cheated, no buy-in.

Your comments re Tri-W in previous posts defied a "Tri-W or bust" branding. It's a simple straw-man argument. You make a bigger target as a Tri_W Groupie, than by your own self labeling as a " what seems to be the most realistic and cheapest option available." (I almost labeled you "We delay we pay" then remembered a previous exchange in which you rightly corrected me for that).
End of communication to Shark Inlet


There really are two sides to the story, but I am going to insist that here and now, leadership does not consist of putting words in other people's mouths.

Yes people
Stuff happened
Lots of stuff happened
More bad stuff happened
pick up the level of play
Los Osos needs you focused

Word verification: f rant
(space provided by management)

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Others supported these unfortunate unlucky few by pushing for the County plan and by trying to keep it from being derailed by those who care more about getting their desired collection system or desired location more than they care about the Los Osos 45."

Oh, you mean like emailing Briggs to urge him to "fine the CSD (the citizens being the CSD in this case) out of existence?"

And regarding "affordibility" and "sustainibility" those terms are really stretchy and can encompan a very wi-iii-iiide stretch.

Watershed Mark said...

Technology that was not studied by Paavo's consulting engineer is both sustainable and affordable.
No stretch, no kiddding.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

You sure like to avoid valid questions. Again, you bring up the recall. My questions to you had nothing to do with the recall.

You talk Phoenix, cars, fruit, and recall.

And, yes, I am saying that the State Water Board requires a "sustainable" project. They passed a resolution a couple years ago on that.

Also, they require a FCA, and that's all over the SRF loan documents.

So Lynette feels the County knows more than the State Water Board knows regarding the SRF loan program. What a stupid woman!

And, Mark, don't even use honest and Lynette in the same sentence.

And, Shark, you want facts on vacuum and ponds? Ask Don Beardon, he's got the facts. You aren't good with numbers or have any common sense for that matter, of course Vacuum and ponds would cost much less -- but you don't want that because you're still pimping with Lynette for Tri-W -- Gibson's and Paavo's little secret!!

Again, you obviously don't have cable and don't watch CSD and/or BOS meetings.

P.S. I'm not Piper.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Yeah, like 80 acres of AG LAND taken out of production permanently for ponds is likely to pass the Planning Commission!! Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

Watershed Mark said...

GetRealOsos wrote: And, Mark, don't even use honest and Lynette in the same sentence.

Point well taken...
She appears to have no shame. No wonder MIKE likes to drink with her.

Shark Inlet said...

GetReal,

First off, Alon referred to you as Piper but I figure you would tell us who you are if you wanted to do so.

Second, you're telling us that the County project isn't sustainable and so won't get SRF support but the County says otherwise. Presumably you're telling us that you are right and the County is wrong ... fine. You want us to believe you and not Paavo ... fine. What I find funny here is that you've not provided any evidence that the SWRCB will not approve of the County plan nor that really vacuum and ponds will save a ton.

How about trotting that evidence out and convince me. I'm open to being convinced but I've seen zero reason to adopt your viewpoint yet.

Watershed Mark said...

State employee Steve wrote: I'm open to being convinced but I've seen zero reason to adopt your viewpoint yet.

Spoken like a sheep: Bhaaaa.

Shark Inlet said...

Now Mark is asking people to simply change what they believe with no evidence. Now that's good science!

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

As I have written, you are in no condition to "judge" a wastewater process or wastewater collection and treatment "selection process."
Hooking up with "sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette" and her drinking partner MIKE is proof you are licking the "dumb stick" and drinking the County Kool Aid.

If you cannot see Paavo's and hence the County's et al conflict of interest you are a very blind mouse indeed.
Why can’t/won’t/don’t any you tell and show us why “Vacuum Collection” was never considered?

You and your children are paying for “it”.
Bhaaaa…

Watershed Mark said...

Why can’t/won’t/don’t any of you tell and show us why “Vacuum Collection” was never considered?

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Now you would deprive me of my rights to an opinion because I disagree with you. Very Nazi of you.

My gosh you've been even less charitable in the last few days than normal. Did someone piss in your cheerios?

Furthermore, if I am unqualified to judge anything wastewater (and you are asserting that based on your qualifications in the area ... what are they?), you are not qualified to judge what constitutes data and proof. Leave that to the professionals, son ... you know, you'll be better off.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

When you selectively ignore facts like "why wasn't vacuum collection studied" you give up your rights, I didn't take them away.
Please exercise your rights, that is how you protect them.

While you are at it why not point out the professionals "working" this project won't you?
That should make some great fodder.
Bhaaaaa.

If you can’t/don’t/won’t you will have again proven that you have been gelded.

If you can, why don't you tell us why Vacuum Collection was not studied?
If you can’t/don’t/won’t you will have again proven that you have been gelded.

Have I really "moved your cheese" so you can't find it, with these question?

Smart people would actually be considering "alternatives" to costly conventional leaky energy intensive same ol, same ol technology.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

Don't stay stuck on stupid.
Bhaaaa...Bhaaaa

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Just because I choose to ignore your constant baiting over vacuum doesn't mean that I give up any rights. After all, this is the US. You may choose to believe that if I don't adopt your position I am not exercising my rights, but unlike what you wrote earlier, I am under no obligation to adopt your viewpoint without evidence.

Unless vacuum is a viable alternative at this time that the County might be forced to consider, I'm with Fogswamp who suggests we focus on the major issues. The why the County did or didn't consider vacuum (which you tell us they didn't but is far from obvious ... perhaps it, along with many other technologies ... like your favorite ... didn't even make the 1st cut to make it into the TAC process) is not all that relevant anymore.

So, unless you're gonna sue to get vacuum and unless you have rock-solid evidence that it would be superior, I think your braying is more of the Ron Crawford "something went horribly wrong" variety.

However, I do the same myself when I continually bring up the stupidity of the recall and stopping TriW without having a well thought out plan first.

That is all to say, I'll answer your vacuum question after you tell us why stopping TriW was financially a wise move. It's about as relevant and probably far more interesting.

So then ... what are your qualifications to render your opinion on matters sewerish? Are you an engineer who has studied sewers? Are you a hydrologist? How about a guy who picks-n-chooses experts based on what they say?

Watershed Mark said...

You are stuck on stupid Steve.
Questions just too tough, huh?

No professionals to speak of???
Bhaaaa.

Ignore the questions at your own risk Steve...
My water supply is secure for at least 100 years while you fiddle away with yours...

FOGSWAMP has great thoughts and you do not.
You are more of a "Deceitful, Disputable, Unbelievable, Unhelpful and Shameful,"= "sorry, I forgot his last name"...whiner.

You really don’t have any information, do you?
Saaaaaad, Bhaaaaaa.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

It seems that trying to have a discussion with you is a complete waste of time because you lecture and mock but you refuse to actually engage.

If, when I ask you for information or qualifications your response is along the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong and you don't have any facts to prove otherwise" you're deliberately not answering. That is not a conversation and I'm tired of it.

I'll grant you've warned me. No problem. Thanks for the warning.

Billy Dunne said...

"You are more of a "Deceitful, Disputable, Unbelievable, Unhelpful and Shameful,"= "sorry, I forgot his last name"...whiner."


--“The AES DES PPP LOCSD BK Re-org plan due out shortly, will be a once in a lifetime story Sona. It is going to make HISTORY whether the Tribune covers it or not. Let's stay in touch.”
-- Markus Low January, 2008

"The RECLAMATOR is a device used by AES to provide a service to eliminate the discharge of pollutants of its customers. The data which confirms its performance has already been submitted to the RWQCB starting back in 1993 and further verified by the RWQCB in 1995 when the RWQCB conducted their own testing on the systems biological process which removes the nitrates. Furhter data was provided as the result of a Technology Verification which was done at the National Sanitation Foundation in Michigan (NSF/ANSI or NSF International) in 1994 which demonstrated the average nitrates to be only 1.6 mg/l and the highest through out the entire 6 month test program was only 4 mg/l.
--Markus Low February, 2008

“The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.”
--Markus Low October 2007 - March 2008

"Low started sending a string of e-mails to environmental bureaucrats, politicians, and reporters that poke holes in the Reclamator’s effectiveness...Low says the system HAS NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY TESTED (caps added), with only a handful of controlled samples used as evidence that it works.”
New Times, May, 2008

When asked "Would you tell us now whether you believe the Reclamator to have been adequately tested?" sales wizard Markus Low refuses to answer.

"Deceitful, Disputable, Unbelievable, Unhelpful and Shameful" you bet your ass.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
You want a rhetorical "engagement".
I am discussing facts. This isn't a joke. Your children’s drinking water and quality of life is at stake.

I know you can’t handle Sewer Watch. (Bhaaaaa)
So read: The ROCK Headlines (past, present and future) for starters as Ann’s efforts are wasted on you, Tri-W.

An arbitrary PZ with leaky sewerage for a solution...Now, that is a professional scientific solution that I shall continue to challenge every step of the way.
Your "qualifications" question can be asked of anyone, especially those who are trying to permanently pollute your drinking water supply.

Capable men like Dr. Rheur, Dr. Alexander, Dana Ripley and many others have at one time or another "weighed in" and have been ignored by "men" that seek to shove a leaky sewer pipe into your drinking water supply, without any scientific proof that the septic tank discharges are the source.

Why are my questions being ignored?
Now that is a question worth answering. Bhaaaa

My qualifications for the LOSTDEP are spelled out at on my blogspot.
Where are yours?

Watershed Mark said...

Willy:

You really don't have any information, go you?

Watershed Mark said...

Capable men like Dr. Rheur, Dr. Alexander, Dana Ripley and many others have at one time or another "weighed in" and have been ignored by "men" that seek to shove a leaky sewer pipe into your drinking water supply, without any scientific proof that the septic tank discharges are the source of the pollutio which i claimed to be the basis of the PZ.

Why has there been no recent testing at the well sites that were used as the basis for the information/data which spawned the PZ. Willy

Have I moved your cheese?
Why not come out of the closet, you might have a better shot at what you are trying to do.

Watershed Mark said...

Why has there been no recent testing at the well sites that were used as the basis for the information/data which spawned the PZ, Willy?

alabamasue said...

shark and Billy-
I think it is useful to remember that wsm is NOT a wastewater professional. He is merely a salesman looking to get a finder's fee/commission by pimping ECOfluid. He has been involved in many other dubious sales schemes, including selling meat products and gold mines online. Just a guy sitting at his computer in Mesa,Arizona trying to avoid getting a real job. Sad.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

While you say you are discussing facts you are not. You are lecturing others and you refuse to answer questions posed to you and you refuse to consider facts that others bring to the table. That is not a discussion.

Perhaps if you would render a non-professional opinion on the NWRI analysis the County is saying shows gravity and STEP are functionally equivalent, it would be something other than Mark cherry-picking "facts" to prove his point. You are about as bad as Ron who is now saying that 90% of Los Osos thinks that stopping TriW was wise. If that was the case, why were measures B, C, D and E so darn close?

If you do want a discussion you can prove it by answering questions about whether the recall was financially a wise decision or not.

Watershed Mark said...

Capable men like Dr. Rheur, Dr. Alexander, Dana Ripley and many others have at one time or another "weighed in" and have been ignored by "men" that seek to shove a leaky sewer pipe into your drinking water supply, without any scientific proof that the septic tank discharges are the source of the pollution which is claimed to be the basis of the PZ.

Watershed Mark said...

Show me your facts Steve.
Why so stupid Sue?

Why wasn't vacuum collection stidied?
It works better and costs less.

Unknown said...

AlabamaSue has said all that needs to be said regarding Mark... There is absolutely no reason to ever reply to him as he has nothing for this community...

Perfectly stated AlabamaSue:

"I think it is useful to remember that wsm is NOT a wastewater professional. He is merely a salesman looking to get a finder's fee/commission by pimping ECOfluid. He has been involved in many other dubious sales schemes, including selling meat products and gold mines online. Just a guy sitting at his computer in Mesa,Arizona trying to avoid getting a real job."

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE: Why so stupid?

Watershed Mark said...

Why can’t anyone answer my question about “Vacuum Collection never being studied?”
When you all get caught up trying to shoot the messenger, it does nothing to change the message:

Why wasn’t Vacuum Collection studied?
Let’s stay on point sheople.

Who needs to be “licensed” to ask questions?

Steve,
How about “naming” those professionals you are looking up to? You don’t answer the tough questions, why not?
You know, those trying to bury a leaky sewer pipe in your drinking water aquifer.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

The reason no one is interested in answering your question is that you're acting like an ass and no one wants to interact with you. If you would perhaps interact with others respectfully you would get greater respect and more responses.

As for staying on point, it is funny that you think that you get to define what is on point. A conversation is about give-n-take and if you want to be lord-n-master of all comments in Ann's blog you should probably run that by her first.

The only reason for asking your qualifications is that you are acting as if you are in the know and you've told others that they are not qualified to have opinions on these matters which makes me wonder what qualifications you have which make you an expert.

Why not answer your tough questions? Well, when you don't bother answering my questions and when you don't give me the sort of respect any participant in this conversation deserves it is hard for me to think that spending time answering your questions would be worth it.


Mark ... in all honestly I hope you take this comment in the spirit it is intended ... I don't expect that we'll ever agree on certain things but your style isn't all that helpful. Those who truly want to help our community will go out of their way to try to understand where others are coming from. I've seen that from Aaron, Alon, Fogswamp, Richard, Ann, Sewertoons and lots of others. Sure, there are still disagreements and sure sometimes people still hold too fast to the "I'm right, damnit!" attitude, but showing some willingness to work with others goes a long ways.

Give it a try! It might help you achieve your goals.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

Who died and left you King?
Bhaaaa...

Why wasn't Vacuum Collectio studied by Paavo's cosulting engineer?

That is "a" $64,000,000.00 question, at the very least.

Don't answer it.
It is your right.

You'll pay either way...
Bhaaaa, Bhaaaa.

Watershed Mark said...

Why wasn't Vacuum Collection studied by Paavo's cosulting engineer?

Watershed Mark said...

Why wasn't Vacuum Collection studied by Paavo's consulting engineer?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Shark, your patience amazes me. Mine ran out long ago. Thank you for continuing to be a good example of kindness, it is a lesson I continue to try to learn. I am sorry that your efforts to reach out were rebuffed, but I know you are centered enough and smart enough to not take it personally.

I think back to school bullies and to professional bullies I have known, and feel sad that they don't seem to "get" why they are ignored.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

I tried to make some beneficial suggestions to you. You chose to blow me off.

No offense intended, but there seems to be no reason for me to bother trying to interact with you.

Proverbs 26:1-12 explains my point of view pretty well.


Word Verification: doglema