Presto Change-O!
Uh, oh, over at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/, Ron Crawford is asking some intereting questions involving "Making the Governor's AB2701 'Signing Statement' Disappear." Ah, so many interesting questions, and here comes "bait & switchy" again, and what DID happen with Ron's filed "complaint?" Was that just stuck in a (round) file somewhere? Well, let's hope County Counsel has some answers.
As for me, I just end up with more questions, especially since Mr. Jensen's supposed to have a report on the MWH formal complaints made to the BOS concerning MWH being short-listed for the County project. Some of my questions concerning MWH aren't formal complaints, just curious. Like, Has the CSD's attorney undertaken any negotiations of any sort with the SRF people and/or MWH in any way shape or form? Do the members of the [bankruptcy] creditors committee overseeing the CSD bankruptcy proceedings have a fiduciary duty to the CSD and if so, do any of those committe members know of or have had any dealings with MWH in any way, shape or form? Is anyone on the CSD Board and/or the CSD's attorney trying to settle the MHW lawsuit now stalled in Bankruptcy Court? Is settlment in the best interest of the CSD or in the best interest of MHW? Or is some settlement"deal" being looked at involving the [illegal?] SRF loan, (see Ron's blog entry linked above), the MWH/CSD breach of contract suit and the county's short-list? And, while I'm at it, didn't one of the MWH sub-contractors donate pots of money to the anti-recall fund, if memory serves, so now I'm wondering if MWH or one of it's subsidiaries ever donated money to any of Sam Blakeslee's campaigns? Not that there would be anything illegal or improper about such a donation, I'm just curious.
And most curious of all is this Question: Just who IS looking out for the best interests of the citizens of the PZ, anyway? Well, who knows?
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)
-
▼
June
(18)
- Your Sunday PoemThis is from BillyCollins’ new boo...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons for June 26, 09BummerEd McMaho...
- Dog Days At Waller Park in Santa Maria.If you have...
- Yes, Yes, Plluueeez MullThe Tribune reported on th...
- O.K. What’s The Tribune Up To This Time?Uh, so wha...
- Your Sunday PoemBy Jack Gilbert from his book “Ref...
- Oh, Dear Gawwwdd, Noooo! Noooo!If it’s one thing M...
- Here Kitty, KittyLos Osos POUNCE, a wonderful orga...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)on for June 17 2009Twittering in T...
- Latest Sewer Cost ProjectionsMy thanks to Ron Craw...
- In Lieu Of Your Sunday PoemThe following “anonymou...
- Field Trip! Field Trip! The Planning Commissioners...
- BOS Complaint Docs Parked?Former CSD Director, Lis...
- Presto Change-O!Uh, oh, over at http://www.sewerwa...
- Get A Kitty TodayPOUNCE, a wonderful Los Osos orga...
- War of the WordsI was sent the following email, wi...
- Stupid Is As Stupid DoesThe following email from S...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons for June 2, 09Killing Dr. Till...
-
▼
June
(18)
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.
118 comments:
Ann,
I've got to ask why you think that Ron's repetition of the same thing he's (inaccurately) been saying for years is interesting?
Ron's comments suffer from what Gertrude Stein wrote about Oakland ... "there is no there there."
Had he some substance, it would be tolerable. Had he a new twist, it would be acceptable.
Ron is offering non-expert speculation (and we all know how you feel about speculation) attached to the same specious arguments he's made for four years.
To fairly assess the value of his (hardly) new comments, we've got to ask how accurate he's been in the past. How much insight has he shown?
I would suggest that anyone who tells us we've saved money by going with a plan which costs more total and more per month is not to be trusted. I would think that anyone who uses 2009 survey results to characterize how people felt in 2001 or 2004 is not to be trusted. I would think that anyone who insists that Maria supported dissolution when her videotaped comments show otherwise should frankly be avoided as an unworthy source of information.
However, perhaps you feel, as do some, that because a broken clock is right two times each day, it is worth keeping around because ... after all ... if you happen to be lucky enough to look to it when it isn't horribly misleading ... it has value.
The bankruptcy court owes its first duty to the most senior debt holders, not the CSD.
Thanks for the link, Ann, and excellent questions.
How about that part in my post, where I brought my SRF challenge to the attention of Sam Blakeslee's office last year, and I showed them how, if argued, it would save Los Osos $6 million AND pave the way for another SRF loan, thus saving the community millions of more dollars, they called it "clearly an intriguing question," and then they said I would have to get a "legal ruling" on on my challenge, and then they didn't pursue the matter at all.
So, if you're keeping score at home on Assemblyman Blakeslee...
About two years ago, when he had that silly "What ought to be a law" contest, and I entered my outstanding idea about how it should be illegal for elected officials that are facing a recall election, to set their own recall election date, then Blakeslee's office selected my entry as one of the finalists, calling it, "an office favorite," and THEN they realized what it was based in -- the fact that the three recalled LOCSD directors deliberately set their own recall election date at one of the latest possible dates, and then that bought them the extra month they needed to cash that illegal SRF check, and needlessly begin ripping up all of that ESHA at the Tri-W site, along with the streets of Los Osos -- and, after they realized what my outstanding law idea was based in, AFTER they had already selected it as a finalist, they shoved it off the table.
THEN, I hand them, on a silver platter, a way to save the community of Los Osos $6 million AND pave the way for another SRF loan, thus saving the community millions of more dollars, they call it "clearly an intriguing question," and then they realize what my challenge was based in, and Blakeslee then shoves THAT off the table, too.
Ann wrote:
"... now I'm wondering if MWH or one of it's subsidiaries ever donated money to any of Sam Blakeslee's campaigns? Not that there would be anything illegal or improper about such a donation, I'm just curious."
Wanna see an interesting link?
Where it reads:
"On July 17, Republican Sam Blakeslee's campaign gifted $6,600 to the local arm of Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), a charitable organization providing legal services to protect abused children.
That's good.
However, the $6,600 came to the campaign by way of Tim and Mary Barnard of Bozeman, Mont., owners of a firm contracted to help build the Los Osos sewer project, the one derailed by the post-recall CSD. The pair of maximum allowable contributions ($3,300) arrived with Barnard's litigation against the CSD still on the table, during the spring funding freeze, and three months before Blakeslee presented state legislation shifting management of the project.
That's bad.
New Times caught wind of the contribution days before the donation was made to CASA. Blakeslee responded that they initially declined the contribution when the sewer debate stalled and, when Barnard offered again, the campaign accepted and subsequently forgot about it. When AB-2701 moved onto the assembly floor, the money remained in the coffers."
Excellent reporting by Patrick Klemz, and, yes, Patrick, your story, coupled with my story, IS very, very, verrrrry, bad for our local assemblyman.
Oh, and by the way Los Osos? You're welcome.
Meanwhile...
Why wasn't sealed vacuum collection/low pressure/small diameter pipe studied by Paavo's handpicked/no bid/sole source consulting engineer?
The dots are turning into spots thanks to those who ask and answer relevant questions.
The stupid, anonymous, silly ones like “r, gup, Sue, MIKE and sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette” like to prattle on about, not so much…
Now Ron thinks that the Republicans, in a Republican district, will vote out the current minority leader because he got a business to donate money to a charity.
Lemmie clue you in, Ron ... Republicans might vote him out for other reasons (highly doubtful), but not because he pulled of AB2701 or because of anything you've written about.
Steve,
We can agree!
"Ron thinks"...
Yes Mark.
Ron thinks ... but like you, his thinking his horribly confused.
REPOST:
Ann calls this "ankle-biting," but I think this is an important issue that's worth discussing. I think it's about time that I publicly put my foot down regarding Ron Crawford.
Ron,
You made some comments that accused The ROCK of plagiarizing from your blog. Instead of reiterating your stance and our thorough rebuttal to your implied accusation, you basically write, "I'm right and you're wrong," and that's not how a journalist should act after they're called out for making a faulty accusation.
When Billy Dunne asked you about what was posted on my blog, you wrote, "Never read it because I don't care." I find this to be a recurring theme with you. You don't read or thoroughly comprehend anything else that anyone writes. You're the expert of your own source material.
"As I've said on my blog..."
In a desperate attempt to rebrand yourself, you post "facts," which are simply links to comments made by people on Calhoun's blog. You posted statements.
As far as actual facts are concerned, you twist them and you stand by misquotes in an attempt to justify your psychopathic obsession over Pandora Nash-Karner and the Solutions Group, which remain completely irrelevant to what's happening now -- or in other words, the real world.
A shining example is Shark Inlet's criticism of your cost estimates. To this day, you have not addressed his criticism.
A few months ago, I sent an e-mail to members of the Cal Poly Journalism faculty your long-winded rant about journalism and how I'm not one. While I did not get a response to Mr. Havandjian directly, his colleagues and fellow students had one unanimous reaction to your words: "Idiotic."
One person wrote, "Ron Crawford focuses on sensationalism rather than critical issues that affect everyone in Los Osos [...] He does not represent nor respect our standards of journalism. He is unqualified."
Your articles are unfit to print. You, being (likely) mentally unfit, shouldn't bother pretending to be a journalist.
I applaude your stance Aaron... I don't always agree with you, nor even with Shark, but I whole heartedly agree with everything you have outlined and backed up concerning Mr Crawford.
He purports to being some investigative reporter doing one "story" or another, but is "unwilling" to provide any information of any legitimacy as to who may have hired him. He apparently just makes up his "facts" and "sources" in some obtuse logic in order to just stir the pot of dissention... Sounds like he may have learned his trade working for the Berkely Barb...
...or Fox News
More fear and loathing in LO.
Sorry Willy, I forgotb to add you to the list of those stupid, anonymous, silly ones...
Sorry Willy, I forgot to add you to the list of those stupid, anonymous, silly ones...
One REPOST deserves another:
This one is for Steve and sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette:
Watershed Mark said...
Oh, one more thing "sorry, I forgot his last name Lynette, just in case you missed this question from Gail:
“Why are you afraid of an independent third party oversight of the project procurement process? ---do you even know what that is?”
Questions like these lead to more questions, even when they are unanswered.
Why don't you talk it over with Lou, Sue and MIKE and see if you can come up with something better than "sorry..."
10:29 PM, June 07, 2009
Watershed Mark said...
Steve,
You wrote "Phoenix is in over draft"
The fact is Phoenix is not in over draft.
You are still stuck on stupid. Keep it up, it fits you perfectly.
I like how you played the "shame" card.
I wonder if Lou is ashamed of Lynette yet?
10:37 PM, June 07, 2009
Oh Willy,
Did you get yourself on step with those links I suppiled you?
Oh Willy,
Did you get yourself on step with those links I supplied you?
Sorry Markus, I'm done with you after you finally admitted here your opinion the Reclamator wasn't properly tested. The fact you continud to try to sell it to unsuspecting Los Ososans is all anybody needs to know about you. But they already knew it.
And you want to continue calling people stupid, but I haven't seen anyone but you here so stupid as to continuously post things twice.
You are my friend, a dope.
Ann asked:
"... didn't one of the MWH sub-contractors donate pots of money to the anti-recall fund..."
You know, I don't know what my favorite part of this document is:
The part where Montgomery, Watson, Harza AND Barnard Construction BOTH donated $10,000 to Pandora's shaky group, "Save The Dream Coalition," AFTER the recall election, or the fact that, in a smattering of $100/$250 donations, "Van Beurden Insurance Services" kicked down $2,000, OR that Pandora paid herself fat jack from her own shaky "coalition."
It's all SO good.
I mean, for god's sake, Save The Dream Coalition got nearly $30,000 in campaign contributions, from only four contributors (two being MWH, and Blakeslee's favorite, Barnard), immediately AFTER the recall election.
WTF?!
- - -
"Our Dream was to...
• Restore civility and unite our community
• Create a community coalition to seek grants to reduce the wastewater project’s cost and to help residents on fixed incomes...
Save the Dream cannot move forward with our goals..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, October 2, 2005
"Barnard Construction, $10,000, Date received: 10/3/05"
-- Monetary Contributions, Save The Dream Coalition, March 24, 2006
"SAVE THE DREAM COALITION
Pandora Nash-Karner, Chair
Karen Huntoon, Treasurer "
"Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Karen Huntoon"
-- SmartVoter.org, November 2002
- - -
So, again, if you're keeping score at home: After developing two colossal sewer project failures in Los Osos over a seven year span, both spearheaded by Pandora Nash-Karner, MWH donated $10,000 to Pandora's shaky "coalition" one day AFTER the recall election, and then, four years later, Paavo Ogren, who was hired in 1999 as the interim LOCSD general manager -- hired by then-LOCSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner -- selects MWH to BOTH of the short lists to build the county's sewer project.
And, oh yeah, Nash-Karner is currently Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner... if ya need it.
Nothin' fishy here, huh?
Where's that Jensen report? I can't wait to see how he gets around all of this. That should be an awesome read.
I have another question: Has MWH ever heard of the phrase "fiduciary duty?" They were the CSD's client when they made that $10,000 donation... after the recall election.
Mark wrote:
"The dots are turning into spots..."
Dot.. dot... dot...
Angry Mike wrote:
"He purports to being some investigative reporter doing one "story" or another, but is "unwilling" to provide any information of any legitimacy as to who may have hired him."
Sounds like you'll have to wait for my book (expected this Fall, just in time for Christmas [wink, wink]) for that info... and, I gotta admit, it flat-out kicks ass. Heck, I can't stop reading it... and if Jensen does his job, and gets that legal ruling to my SRF challenge, oh lord, will I have an AWESOME ending!
Aaron, like I wrote in a previous comment, since I have all of my tight, tight reporting on this story time-stamped dating back to 1990, I think the main difference between me and you guys on that... um... errrrr... issue(?)... is that, I don't care.
You guys don't like me. Welcome to the club.
However, ALL Los Ososans should contact Jensen, and tell him to pursue that legal ruling for my super-tight SRF challenge. It'll save Los Osos a fortune, and give me one helluva ending to my book.
Back to work (for a change ; - )
Ron....I'm sure you don't, but I wouldn't place too much credence in the opinion a bunch of folks "LEARNING" about journalism have to say...... and least of all, any comments about anything Mike says about anything.
I marvel at folks that accuse you of not supporting what you report....I guess they don't know how to read, much less waste valuable time away from this blog by doing any "fact finding" on their own. It is much easier (and fun) for them to slam someone who knows what they are talking about and takes the time to protest (to the source) when something looks and sounds "fishy".
Seems eight grade mentality is running amuck with these critics of your reporting.
Ron,
You cared enough to go through the "Corruption Eruption" story, extract quotations, refer to yourself as being the person who originally brought up that material. See Exhibit A.
Here's the thing. It's not about me liking you or not. The fact of the matter is that you basically accused The ROCK of plagiarism. Never once did you issue a retraction, an apology or an explanation. You simply wrote at the end of that e-mail, "Now, do a search for the word 'SewerWatch' in your story," and...
"After CCN broke the story, Bob Cuddy of the Tribune jumped on it as 'breaking news' on the Trib's Web site, www.sanluisobispo.com, http://www.sanluisobispo.com - quoting, but not crediting, CalCoastNews.com as the source - a cardinal sin of journalistic envy, sometimes referred to as plagiarism.
(Emphasis in bold)
"Funny, huh?"
It's not funny.
No journalist should ever go after another journalist by making a faulty accusation of plagiarism. You personally need to be held accountable for that.
For years, several members of this blog have asked you to make clarifications regarding your "facts," but you didn't. You are deliberately posting false information that is nothing more than Gestapo-grade propaganda material that has clearly misrepresented the views of the "Move the Sewer" group as well as the Solutions Group and its members.
Clearly you're in the wrong.
"I mean, for god's sake, Save The Dream Coalition got nearly $30,000 in campaign contributions, from only four contributors (two being MWH, and Blakeslee's favorite, Barnard), immediately AFTER the recall election."
What Ron fails to mention (of course) is that "Save the Dream" collected roughly $130,000 in total contributions - the majority of which came from property owners in the PZ. The contributions from MWH and Barnard amount to less than 25% of the total contributions - but he would never say that because it doesn't jive with his theory.
Willy,
It is clear you don't understand wastewater treatment process design.
Why wasn't vacuum collection studied by Paavo's consulting engineer?
Vacuum collection pipes are sealed/welded so they don't leak like the bell and spigot pipes currently under consideration by Paavo.
When welded/sealed big bore pipe rears its ugly/expensive head my question concerning vacuum collection will make sense, even to you.
A repost for all the stupid and silly, Willy…
When properly managed that on-site BNR design system will meet or beat the very arbitrary 7ml Nitrate monthly average/10ml Nitrate daily limits set by the WB in the PZ.
Now here is where it gets “complicated” so please pay close attention.
The ozone sanitation system that Murphy added to his basic “pre membrane/pre ozone add on” 1994 sub surface disposal design which in March of 2008 had not been adequately tested.
“Sorry” but that is only part of the story I will be telling at this time and it is the factual answer to your question(s).
Now we shall see if you or anyone else who loves and wants the big, overpriced, leaky pipe buried in and polluting their soon to be eliminated drinking water aquifer will answer these questions:
Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied by Paavo’s consulting engineer?
Why isn’t vacuum collection being studied by Paavo’s consulting engineer?
Why were 1,100 homes permitted after the 1983 PZ was indentified and established?
Why isn’t any testing being done to confirm the results that were the basis behind the PZ?
A few thousand dollars well spent now could save so much money, time and energy in the future.
Aaron sez: "Ann calls this "ankle-biting," but I think this is an important issue that's worth discussing. I think it's about time that I publicly put my foot down regarding Ron Crawford." and then sez:" . . .your psychopathic obsession over Pandora Nash-Karner. . ." And then he also sez:" "Your articles are unfit to print. You, being (likely) mentally unfit, shouldn't bother pretending to be a journalist." and so forth.
So, I say, "Yep, that's ankle biting. Awww, Aaron, and I thought you said you wanted everyone to raise the tenor of this comment section? Awwww. . .
Watershed Mark sez:"“Why are you afraid of an independent third party oversight of the project procurement process? ---do you even know what that is?”
Ah, es, good question, especially at this point when serious issues about MWH's role and being short listed have been raised. Apparently the Planning Commission is willing to spend $4,000 of Los Osos money to take a field trip to Monterey on Friday to check out ag-water reuse but nobody thinks it PRUDENT to spend a few more shekels NOW for an independent audit/review of the short-list process in order to put to rest any "conflict of interest" issues. That would seem to be to be a prudent move.
Ron sez:"The part where Montgomery, Watson, Harza AND Barnard Construction BOTH donated $10,000 to Pandora's shaky group, "Save The Dream Coalition," AFTER the recall election, or the fact that, in a smattering of $100/$250 donations, "Van Beurden Insurance Services" kicked down $2,000, OR that Pandora paid herself fat jack from her own shaky "coalition."
Which is why the county really, REALLY needs to have an independent audit/review of their short-list procedures. MWH had a fidiuciary duty to the CSD as a standing entity. It did NOT have a relationship or duty to a political group involved in a political Board fight. They had no business donating money to any group on either side of what was a "political" squabble since they were hired by the CSD and so were the "employee" of the community as a whole. Barnard was also an "employee" of the community as a whole and also had no business getting in the middle of a political fight. Yep, we need an independent audit/review of the county's short-list process, that's for sure.
Mark sez:"Why isn’t vacuum collection being studied by Paavo’s consulting engineer?"
What was the "poison pill" that kept vacuum off the table? Anybody know?
Mark also sez:"beat the very arbitrary 7ml Nitrate monthly average/10ml Nitrate daily limits set by the WB in the PZ."
And
"Why were 1,100 homes permitted after the 1983 PZ was indentified and established?"
Ah, yes, those questions are the start of the tar-baby, hipbone connected to the thighbone, first step on the sticky yellow brick road, from thence straitlined to the trainwreck.
Ann,
Gail wrote: “Why are you afraid of an independent third party oversight of the project procurement process? ---do you even know what that is?”
Which fits nicely with: “Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/single source consulting engineer?”
That brings it to your very appropriate statement: “Yep, we need an independent audit/review of the county's short-list process, that's for sure.”
Hey there "mice", does the cat have your tongue???
Cuts like a knife, huh?…Bhaaa, Bhaaa...Bwahahaha!!!
But of course adult responses would be appreciated.
BWAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
A leaky bell and spigot (bs) sewer pipe will not meet or "beat the very arbitrary 7ml Nitrate monthly average/10ml Nitrate daily limits set by the WB in the PZ."
So sealed pipe must be used that you all will pay Paavo for as he pretends to sell you a less expensive "bs"...
Bait & Switchy more "bs".
Ann,
You can't defend someone who has Asperger's Syndrome forever.
The best way to raise the tenor of the discussion is to not rely so heavily on a questionable source.
Try L-DOPA if that doesn’t help, try a little Dopamine…It couldn’t hurt.
You can't prosecute that person either Aaron.
I thought you were studying the law???
Mark,
Accusing someone of plagiarism is like accusing your loyal spouse of infidelity. It's an attack on one's integrity.
My tone toward Ron has definitely come across as accusatory and excessive but I am defending an allegation that hasn't been thoroughly analyzed by the accuser.
I study the law. If I see malicious prosecution, I'm going to act on it and put up a very thorough defense even if it makes me look like a hardass.
But Aaron,
Don't you think you should be more gracious with those who simply don't understand the difference between right and wrong, black and white and even up and down? Clearly such evident confusion should cause you to show graciousness.
Or are you arguing that we ought to hold people accountable for what they say and do and not their well-intentioned confusion?
Steve,
“Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/single source consulting engineer?”
Tough question even for a stupid liar, huh?
Say what you need to say.
Franc4 wrote:
"I marvel at folks that accuse you of not supporting what you report....I guess they don't know how to read..."
I guess they don't, because, you want to see something funny? I've actually linked directly to two EXCELLENT sources just in this comment thread alone -- that great STD political contributions document, and that excellent article by Patrick Klemz.
And the amount of links I provide at SewerWatch to all of those primary sources I've dug up over the years? It's like a friggin' research library over there.
I actually find their complete lack of reading comprehension skills funny. It makes me laugh.
Franc4 wrote:
"Ron....I'm sure you don't, but I wouldn't place too much credence in the opinion a bunch of folks "LEARNING" about journalism have to say."
You're right. I don't.
R1 wrote:
" The contributions from MWH and Barnard amount to less than 25% of the total contributions - but he would never say that because it doesn't jive with his theory."
You're missing my tight, excellent point (of course).
Not only did MWH and Barnard donate that $10-large to the opponents of their clients (the LOCSD) at the time -- the very definition of "breach of fiduciary duty" (What were they thinking?) -- but they did it AFTER the recall election.
I mean, check this out, it's awesome:
On Oct. 2 2005, STD "Chair," Pandora Nash-Karner, sent out an e-mail (third direct link to an excellent primary source in this thread alone ; - ) saying:
"Since Save the Dream cannot move forward with our goals, we’ve decided to leave the fight to others. Our website and phone number will no longer be available.
For those who may be interested in continuing to work toward saving the current project:
We have just learned of a new group forming, tentatively called “Tax Payer Watch”. "
That was on Oct. 2, 2005, and the very next day, Barnard (the CSD's client) donates $10,000 to Save The Dream.
Huh? I thought she was "leaving the fight to others."
Ron,
Are you saying that in terms of the total amount of training in journalism (say, classes and such) that you have more experience than those who have commented on your work?
Or are you saying that they might have more formal knowledge than you do but you don't care because there is more to life than book learnin' ... that street smarts and having a point of view (and clinging to it desperately) are what make a person a journalist?
Maybe Aaron could also let us know what sort of people commented ... were they faculty, senior print journalism students ... or was it a group of freshmen who hadn't yet passed their quantitative literacy requirement?
And, speaking of quantitative literacy, how are you doing on that front, Ron? How are we saving money by going with a $250/month plan instead of a $200/month plan? Please 'splain it to us!
Steve,
“Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/single source consulting engineer?”
Tough question huh?
Remember Steve when better less expensive tight technology is implemented it will cost MUCH less than $100,000,000.00 no matter where the treatment facility is planted.
I believe a project utilizing vacuum collection which to my understanding eliminates some the individual on lot connection costs (the septic tank could be pumped and used to catch rainwater) connected to a U.S.B.F. ™ tertiary treatment Title 22 water reclamation facility would cost less than $75,000,000,000.
But when you spend $7,000,000.00 and never study these money and energy saving tight technologies the people will suffer at the hands of those who would spend your money on whatever “alternative” solution they think best.
The questions remain- “Best for whom?” & Why?...$$$.
a bs leaky pipe in your drinking water...now that is just plain stupid...
So Steve, don't stay stuck on stupid.
Ron is right when today's technology is used money, BIG MONEY, is conserved. So is time and energy to operate it.
The point should be made that those who don't like the outcome will always complain that the process wasn't followed correctly and that if it were, their favorite technology would have come out on top.
Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. In this case, the key as some have pointed out, is to get something going quickly. It is not the particular technology which will cost us more or less that matters as much as the delay to study (yet again) another option that will cost us money.
So far the recall has cost Los Osos four years of delay. Even if we've had some falling construction costs during some of that time frame, we've had increases during other portions of that time. Along with the costs of studying something as an alternative to TriW (and some would say that we didn't study enough), we've essentially been wasting time and/or money.
Now, some would tell you that their favorite technology would save $x million dollars. Dating back to the "compromise" of 2005 I did some calculations using the rough numbers that Lisa gave us during one of her presentations and it appeared that out of town would cost us more even though she told us it would cost us less.
Same with Ripley.
Since then I've been reluctant to believe anyone who tells us it will save us money who doesn't actually present some calculations (complete with all the "hidden" costs like design costs and land costs and inflation).
As for Ron and his hooey ... I don't even believe his claims that Steve Monowitz agreed with him. First off, Ron got Maria's stance on dissolution wrong even though there was ample evidence to the contrary. Second, I suspect that Monowitz was just trying to get him off the phone and so was using noncommital language and Ron read into the words some sort of agreement which wasn't there.
Maybe if Ron had a letter from Monowitz showing his claims it would be convincing. But until I see that sort of proof, I'll stick by my theory that Ron heard what he wanted to hear just like he does on other issues (like Maria's support for dissolution).
Why is it that those people who complain so much about leaky pipes seem to always be those who say we don't need a sewer in the first place or those who say we should spend more time studying alternatives? Have they never done the calculations about the nitrate loadings on our aquifer under each situation?
If the current nitrate input into our aquifer is about 10 times what it would be even with a leaky system, those complaining about leaky pipes should probably have been arguing against the recall and against anything which would delay getting any kind of pipes in the ground.
But maybe Mark hasn't done the calculations or maybe he doesn't care about the environment ...
Still stuck on stupid Steve...You haven't answered the $100,000,000.00 question:
“Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/single source consulting engineer?”
There isn't any proof that the septic tanks are polluting the aquifer.
If there was you would show it, wouldn't you?
You will pay for sealed pipe, wait and see.
A little more perspective Steve:
--36.3 million people--including 13 million children--live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten 0households in the United States (11.2 percent). This is an increase of 1.4 million, from 34.9, million in 2002.
--3.5 percent of U.S. households experience hunger. Some people in these households frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. 9.6 million people, including 3 million children, live in these homes.
--7.7 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger. Members of these households have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 26.6 million people, including 10.3 million children, live in these homes
Wonder whatever happened to sewertoons.
Sincerely, M
Mark,
I remain amused that you think that you have the right to demand me answer your questions while you appear unwilling to answer questions addressed directly to you.
Smiles and hugs ...
Steve,
I have been asking questions and pointing out that you don't answer them, at your own peril.
I demand nothing, sweetie...
When Paavo buries that leaky pipe in your front yard you'll be stuck.
Your stupidity will cost you if and when you may decide to move and especially when you stay, you will pay either way.
Ann asks: And most curious of all is this Question: Just who IS looking out for the best interests of the citizens of the PZ, anyway? Well, who knows?
Mark,
If you are only asking questions of me that are for my own good, you are doing so in an unusually annoying way and persistent way. Sort of like the child who keeps asking every five minutes to have the leftover dessert "so you won't have to put it away" I suspect it isn't really just out of a desire to help me.
Let's rephrase. If you are really asking questions of me (over and over and over) I am gonna ask you to stop. If you don't, we'll know either that you are lying to us about your motivation or that you are choosing deliberately to be rude.
Your choice, Mark.
Why so snarky Steve?
"sorry" or any of the other mice are invited to answer these important questions.
It isn't all about you, son...sheesh.
Your children might benefit if you address the questions.
The answers are important to their well being, unless you think the state is going to be compensating your income in the future to help you defray the cost of the big leaky ppe Paavo is planning.
Your choice, Steve.
The answers are important to their well being, unless you think the state is going to be compensating your income in the future to help you defray the cost of the big leaky bs pipe Paavo is planning.
Where is Maria Kelly?
I thought she said she cared???
Steve,
“Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/single source consulting engineer?”
There isn't any proof that the septic tanks are polluting the aquifer.
If there was you would show it, wouldn't you?
Questions too tough, daddy?
Now you're just trying to be rude.
Sorry, not gonna play.
Toodles, Buckwheat.
Unfortunately the process is not s game.
If you think it is, you lose.
Unfortunately the process is not a game.
Buckwheat is a reference to a black Little Rascals character.
Steve,
You are not a racist are you?
That would be stupid.
Buckwheat, it's a good thing...
Aaron Sez:"You can't defend someone who has Asperger's Syndrome forever."
Hey, I didn't know you were an MD and/or Psychaitrist. Or that you've examined Ron and made your professional diagnosis.That's quite an accomplishment. How in heck did you get Ron to come into your office for an appointment?
Aaron also sez:"Accusing someone of plagiarism is like accusing your loyal spouse of infidelity. It's an attack on one's integrity.
My tone toward Ron has definitely come across as accusatory and excessive but I am defending an allegation that hasn't been thoroughly analyzed by the accuser.
I study the law. If I see malicious prosecution, I'm going to act on it and put up a very thorough defense even if it makes me look like a hardass."
Aaron, Ron, Somebody: You need to define how you're using the word "plagiarize" here. I read Ron's tail-pulling response to a story Ed had posted on his blogsite as tweaking you for failing to give a nod/shout-out to Ron for being the one who first published some of the (now) "facts" that are now part of the narrative of this quater-of-a-century-long Sewer Saga. I laughed at the time and noted that, frankly,it's IMPOSSIBLE to cite sources without ending up with endless footnotes on top of footnotes -- so much of the narrative has entered the "public domain" now, after all these years, that "citing" is now ridiculous, but failure to cite is NOT "plagiarism," it's simply being realistic about this ongoing narrative. (Unless, of course, you cite something as being YOURS when you clearly know it isn't? As in, "And then in 1949, I discovered penicillin, after which I invented the vacuum tube." ) So, I'm puzzled by your use of the word "plagiarism." I didn't read the word in Ron's tail-jerking tweak to you. Where did that word pop up? Near as I can tell, Ron wasn't accusing you of "plagiarizing" anything, just pulling your tail regarding some of the long-forgotten (by now) source material, which, as I said, is IMPRACTICAL and IMPOSSIBLE to constantly cite. Which is why I laughed and thought the whole thing silly, one of Ron's little jokes. But clearly, you saw something else in his tail tweak and reacted like he was accusing you of "plagiarism," which I don't see at all. So, I gotta wonder what you're seeing here? I wonder if that term needs to be analyzed and defined by the person who thinks he's been accused of it?? And what "malicious prosecution" are you talking about? Clearly, something's going on between you two that I'm certainly missing, that's for sure.
Ann,
If Ron was just asking for a linkback or a shout-out, he used unusually strong language to do so.
Maybe he's just a really unclear writer.
Why so snarky Steve?
Steve,
Are you a Bigot too?
Ann wrote:
"Which is why I laughed and thought the whole thing silly, one of Ron's little jokes. But clearly, you saw something else in his tail tweak and reacted like he was accusing you of "plagiarism," which I don't see at all."
The reason you don't see that at all, Ann, is because I didn't do that at all. However, I am getting a good laugh at the complete freak-out from someone misreading (again) my words. It's hilarious.
Gawd, I hope I'm done wasting keystrokes on this... ummm... errrrr... subject?
I've got REAL journalism to do... you know... like saving Los Osos millions upon millions of dollars.
Oh, and, Los Osos? You're welcome.
I have said my piece on the subject. Yes, I did take the implied accusations personally. As far as the Asperger's Syndrome remark, that was an attempt at a joke and I was hoping to end the conversation there.
Let's not talk about plagiarism.
Even if the original e-mail was not a demand for credit, all the chest-beating and the ego that oozes out of Ron does not make his case any better.
Look at the comments above mine.
"I've got REAL journalism to do... you know... like saving Los Osos millions upon millions of dollars," says Ron.
To my knowledge, there is no correlation between his articles and Los Osos saving "millions upon millions" of dollars. There is no correlation between his articles and "stopping" the LOWWP at Tri-W, which he has claimed in the past.
It's like writing an article speculating where Saddam Hussein was hiding and then saying that you're responsible for capturing him. You may have connected the dots and you may have been the first, the second or even the third person to do that, but you can't take credit for outcomes that go beyond the subjective articles that you write.
"Oh, and, Los Osos? You're welcome," says Ron.
That sort of mentality reflects the comedic stylings of the The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Last night, Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman did a segment regarding the California budget crisis as part of a recurring skit called, "You're Welcome," but Hodgman's ideas are so silly, we don't take him seriously. Maybe we should follow that example.
I think people have an idea on where Ron is coming from so there's no dire need to point out anything else. I rest my case.
Funny ... I thought it was an homage to Nick Burns, the company computer guy.
Word Verification: lobabl
Oh ... Ron's back to deleting my comments on his blog.
I noted that he's recently refered to an old sewerwatchh blog entry about the Andre II site saying that his research proves that there was a cheaper solution than TriW.
The problem is this ... in one of Ron's previous fits about comments on his blog, he deleted all the good discussion on that exact topic. In particular, many people at the time challenged Ron's assertion that the Andre II site was even a plausible location and others challenged his claims that it would save money. Calculations were even provided.
Everytime somoene starts to mix data from across years and forgets about very real costs (like design costs and inflation) you get funny conclusions. As an extreme example, I would claim that the County plan to put the WWTF at the Pismo location is best because in the mid 1990s they had a plan which said it would cost about $60 per month. Therefore it is clear that the County is screwing us now because their current out of town site is over 4 times as much! That logic is about as solid as Ron's reporting (well, to be fully honest, it would be gracious to even call it commentary) on costs.
Word Verifiction (presumably for Ron and Mark): dooff
Then there is this from another Ann.
Obama still doesn’t get that America has nothing to apologize for. Some of our proudest moments in history are moments when we exhibited unequalled strength and confidence in America and our American values and actions. Conversely, the list of moments we would like to sweep under the rug is full of moments where we showed weakness and insecurity. How is it that Obama feels so confident that he knows what is best for the American people to the point where he seeks to take away our liberty with his domestic agenda, and yet he does not show any backbone when dealing with world leaders?
I couldn’t agree more or have said it any better myself…
Aaron originally said:" My tone toward Ron has definitely come across as accusatory and excessive but I am defending an allegation that hasn't been thoroughly analyzed by the accuser."
I study the law. If I see malicious prosecution, I'm going to act on it and put up a very thorough defense even if it makes me look like a hardass.
Then later said:"Let's not talk about plagiarism.
Even if the original e-mail was not a demand for credit, all the chest-beating and the ego that oozes out of Ron does not make his case any better."
That makes me wonder if it was you who hadn't thoroughly analyzed Ron's email and/or didn't analyze the nonexistence of "plagiarize" in Ron's original email, or even thoroughly analyze the word plagiarism in the first place? And what's with malicious prosecution?? Where did that come from? This sounds like old Cool Hand Luke and a complete "failure to communicate" before hitting the roof.
Well, if it's now a case of Emmily Latella's, "Oh,. . . well. . . Nevermind. . ." that's fine with me.
Inlet sez:"Everytime somoene starts to mix data from across years and forgets about very real costs (like design costs and inflation) you get funny conclusions."
Unless you ask, "Had in-town/out of town plans been seriously considered AT THE TIME, (by seriously, I mean, actually seriously, -- no phony overwhelming community demand that we must have a Park In A Sewer Plant in the middle of town nonsense --) what would have been the solid price difference, at the time?
THE MINDFUL CITIZEN
Ann asks a good question about what the costs would have been had every possible option been studied at the same time.
I suppose that would depend on who was doing the studying, what assumptions they would make and whether those assumptions would be realistic.
Even in the best of all possible worlds, sewer-wise, there would still be some who would argue that one system is better than another or one cost is too high or too low or that some system was ignored entirely.
However, we only have what we have ... but it should be clear ... when trying to compare costs we cannot overlook important issues and arrive at a reasonable comparison.
Ann,
The process as designed doesn't allow for solid comparison then or now.
Sealed pipe will get planted, but as we see bs pipe is still being shown as okie dokie, umtil the project begins then there will be thoughtful reasoning why sealed is needed.
It also happens to be more costly when used in a gravity design verses low pressure small bore directional drill design.
Bait & switchy, you bet.
It is going on in the open and the mice are blind to it. Bhaaa, Bhaaa...
To quote from "The Mindful Citizen":Common good is founded in the responsibility of the individual.
Not much of that these days...Bhaaa, Bhaaa...
Technology that conserves money and energy was and is now being intentionally overlooked.
If you want to discuss more about the issue I had with Mr. Crawford, you can comment on my latest blog article.
Shark wrote, "Even in the best of all possible worlds, sewer-wise, there would still be some who would argue that one system is better than another or one cost is too high or too low or that some system was ignored entirely."
Having all the costs out there would ease up on the controversy over the design-build process. If some people argue that one system would be better than another, it wouldn't matter too much if everyone could see for themselves how much each system costs.
Aaron sez:"Having all the costs out there would ease up on the controversy over the design-build process. If some people argue that one system would be better than another, it wouldn't matter too much if everyone could see for themselves how much each system costs."
That's what went missing on the County's "survey." No real costs. That's also waht went missing years ago: Chinese menu, Plan A for X$ or Plan B for Y$.
At this point in the process, I contend that: Design-Build isn't what the county is doing.
When they specified technology instead of parameters they dictated the outcome.
Companies that provide solutions will bid their technologies free of charge.
Just ask the companies who use it to build projects.
Aaron and Ann,
The County did do some cost comparisons and some location comparisons and made their decisions in a way which seemed to many to lack transparency.
Even so, no matter how many options are studied and how much care is put into developing precise cost estimates for each option, there will still be complaints from those who say tht their favorite option wasn't studied and those complaints will come late in the process. Because they are late in the process, they might seem to some as if they are asking for more stalling and delaying ... even if that is not the intention of the person asking for additional study.
At some point in time a decision needs to be made, so rather than fuss over what has and hasn't been fully studied, we should ask ourselves whether the likely benefit of additional study is worth the cost and time to do the study. That being said, I would point out that since 1998 the increase in estimated monthly costs have gone up about 9% per year. If we wait another year to study another option, I would bet that the estimate bill will be $275/month instead of $250/month. Two years ... $300/month.
Finally, in terms of a wish for "real costs" ... it cannot be provided with the level of certainty people would want. To fully know the cost of location A versus location B, both would have to go through the approval process in parallel so we could learn what additional costs might be attached by the Army Corps or Coastal Commission to each site. The bidding process, as we also know, is with a large amount of variability and many times the economy as a whole, price of concrete, diesel and labor play a part which we would not fully expect.
This is all to say, a "real cost" estimate might read like: For site A, we would estimate the costs (on a monthly basis) to be $80 +/- $35 but for site B, we would estimate the monthly cost to be $90 +/- $25.
These realistic estimated cost comparisons would be confusing to most and even among those who understand them, it might be difficult to use such information.
Essentially site A (in my hypothetical example) would likely be $10 cheaper, but could be as much as $55 cheaper or as much as $35 more expensive.
And that's all presuming that everyone agrees that the estimated costs of the various options was done in an unbiased way ... which we all know will not happen.
In short, even though I don't believe that either of you would ask for more information just to stall and delay the process, someone with that motivation would find the tactic of saying we need more study and more options to be a good way of achieving that delay.
And, when we remember that delay is very costly (and especially now that construction costs are lower than they have been in the recent past) it becomes clear that we really need to move forward soon if we want to avoid making a bad situation even worse.
Now, some would say that I've given up or that I trust the County or that I am biased against the WonderSystem2010 for some reason. Fine. To get me to support your alternative to what the County is proposing, all you have to do is demonstrate it would certainly be much better or much cheaper.
Without demonstrated evidence of superiority, what you are asking me to do is to take a gamble on a cheaper solution when the likely result is more expensive. That's not a gamble I want to take and I'm afraid that many homeowners in Los Osos agree. Many of us are tired of people promising us better, faster, cheaper or a $100/month solution only to have these better plans get transmogrified into something even worse than the original plan.
Shark,
Maybe you should re-post the many "guestimates" you and Richy filled the pages of the old blog in years past. Maybe folks could understand those "calculations"....ya think?
Franc,
First off, I would suggest a bit more politeness. Even if you strongly disagree with Richard, name-calling never really draws people to your point of view.
As for those calculations you refer to, which ones? Maybe you could dig thru Ann's old comments section and find them somewhere. I would be happy to explain something if you would like .... just let me know what calcs you refer to.
It isn't too late to get the low pressure sealed collection pipe and high efficiency cost effective technologies in place to cease the septic tank discharge for 50% of the cost of what Paavo is planning, in a very quick and very cost effective manner.
His actions will serve as a very useful example for years to come.
He need only be made accountable for why he didn't look/isn't looking, at that technology.
$7 million dollars should have yielded a report denouncing vacuum.
Why wasn't vacuum collection studied, compared and denounced?
The way STEP/STEG was held up and dismissed before it could be fully and properly compared as the only alternative to con-gravity was pitiful.
Having the FOIA ability to review carefully all the billings and change orders as the project morphs into a sealed system as the project progresses will be painful and instructive.
Shark,
It all boils down to the raw data without any editorial input from Public Works.
If the County organized their analysis so that provide a short list of advantages and disadvantages for each system along with project cost estimates (preferably based on the total cost averages from similar systems built in the country), then that would have taken care of the transparency issue.
It's likely that we're not going to see a reduction of complaints under any form of compromise, but the County can reduce tension by having fewer decisions made behind closed doors. I believe a good amount of the decisions made so far were made in private and the public has only been able to appeal or criticize the decisions in public comment after the fact.
I think a good chunk of the complaints revolve around the County's decision-making process. Their methodology needs a lot of fine-tuning.
Shark, in your opinion, what factors contribute to the annual 9% increase in estimated monthly costs?
Steve,
For your enlightenment:
fuss
2 entries found.
1fuss (noun)
2fuss (verb)
Main Entry:1fuss
Pronunciation:\ˈfəs\
Function:noun
Etymology:origin unknown
Date:1701
1 a: needless bustle or excitement b: a show of flattering attention -made a big fuss over his favorite niece
2 a: a state of agitation especially over a trivial matter b: objection, protest c: an often petty controversy or quarrel
It is crystal clear that you don't understand the gravity of the issue at hand, daddy...
Not answering the $100,000,000.00 question doesn't make it go away, son.
Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...
Spin is the use of rhetorical devices to convince others of your opinion.
An argument is when you use facts and reason to convince others of your point of view.
Both are reasonable.
10:26 AM, March 06, 2009
Steve,
Perhaps you should send a copy of "this" post to your "Supervisor"...
Aaron,
I'll bet you dollars to donuts that had the survey been written differently there would be a different group of people fussing about the bias in the wording and the way the results were presented.
Essentially, there is no such thing as "raw data" which are presentable to the public in a way which they would find helpful. It is only once those data are analyzed (often by folks who make assumptions which seem reasonable to them) that they can be translated into information. The problem really is this ... those assumptions (like comparing only construction and O&M costs but ignoring costs associated with design and the permitting process) are hard to sniff out.
I wouldn't disagree with your assertion that the County has messed up the process so far in some ways. Some people could (reasonably) think that it is almost as if they decided in advance that out of town+gravity would be best and then they pretended to go thru a screening process designed to get the result they wanted. I don't feel that way myself, but I can see why some would.
Others would say that the County screwed up by their site selection without first verifying that the chosen site would pass muster with the CCC, Army Corps and USFWS and that now that original misstep of not choosing something closer into town will cost us time and delay.
Myself ... I'm in favor of whatever project is most likely to be done soonest with the cheapest possible result. Again, it seems that inflation is the enemy, not a particular type of collection system or treatment technique.
A $150M plan will become a $180M plan with 2 years of delay to study an alternative. Essentially, the alternative must be no more than $125M (including additional design costs) and a guaranteed two year delay only before it is worth considering.
In that regard, I have difficulty believing that TriW would currently be a bad option. It has already passed thru the permitting process and so would probably get quicker approval than other sites. It has already survived several legal challenges and could thus be quicker. We have already paid for a design for TriW also. When you also remember how we were told repeatedly about how the actual bids were way too high, it seems that if the County were to just put those out for rebid today, they would get a far lower figure.
With some back of the envelope calcs, it seems to me that any location and system would have to be estimated at about $110M (total, including design and permitting costs, thus less than $90M estimated construction+land costs) today before it would compete with a re-bid TriW on the cost criterion, the criterion deemed most important by those who responded to the survey.
But that's me.
You are certainly welcome to argue that their methodology needs fine-tuning or a complete overhaul .... but unless you can convince me that the likely result of such a fine-tuning or overhaul is a lowering of my costs, I'll suggest it is wiser to cash this one in and retrench for the future. If you've been troubled by Gibson's behavior, finding someone reasonable to replace him would seem a better way of spending time than pursuing a lawsuit, for example. In a lawsuit the lawyers who turn a profit would win, but my costs go up and I lose. The only winner in this sort of a lawsuit might be the person who cares more about location than costs.
About the factors in the increase? Dunno, exactly, but inflation plus the increased expense associated with out of town versus at the Jr. High.
Lastly, I would remind Mark that he had his opportunity to provide input to the County a long time ago and that he has done jack-squat-nothing to convince us that his preferred method would save us what he claims. That being said, I remain unconvinced as are all those who want to see data and evidence before believing someone telling a tall tale. To fuss over my use of the word fuss is simply ... um ... fussiness.
Steve,
Please explain how it would take two years to study vacuum?
As some other mice and Lynette n this blog contend, it was already studied. There just isn't anything or report to prove that contention.
I know now you have not read the linkage and proposal I have provided. If you had you would know a collection and treatment D&B project could be done for less than $75,000,000.00.
Your continuing misdirection techniques are ineffective and are not working as you wish they would.
The question remains: Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/sole source consulting engineer.
You once indicated that you knew the answer to this question but you wouldn’t provide your answer to it. Why? What are you hiding?
One of the points to asking the question is to help illuminate that Paavo and his handpicked engineer didn’t do the job they got paid to do.
Paavo compounded that problem with by rushing STEP off Stage and specifying gravity in the DEIR which was then put forward to the other agencies before the PC and CCC processes were initiated.
Here’s a fresh question for you and all the other mice- What’s the rush to bury the as you admit $150,000,000.00 con-gravity when the alternative is half price?
It would take at least double the amount of time to bury con-gravity compared with vacuum, so that blows your inflation argument out of the “bowl” you are trying to make it in.
Steve,
Please explain how it would take two years to study vacuum?
As some other mice and Lynette on this blog contend, it was already studied. There just isn't anything or report to prove that contention.
Paavo compounded that problem with by rushing STEP off Stage and specifying gravity in the DEIR which was then put forward to the other agencies before the PC and CCC processes were initiated.
Let me restate this:
Paavo compounded that problem with by rushing STEP off Stage and specifying gravity in the DEIR which was then put forward to the contracting communityfor RFQ before the PC and CCC processes were initiated.
That's better.
Oh Shark...there you go again....!!
Cost for in town or out of town....
When all this sole-sourcing is going on in the County, it will cost the taxpayer big time....doesn't matter what sewer or where.
Carollo picking friend (gravity) MWH.
How can you even write what you do knowing facts like this?
And how about facts like nitrates can be fixed at the well head.
$200 million for what again? Why?
Then only the PZ to pay for water issues (including salt water intrusion) for the entire basin? Why?
Only the PZ has to retrofit? Why?
And if the County would have followed the (CEQA) law, we would have had costs to compare.
How can you defend the survey with no costs included? That's insane. People can not make a decision without prices!! That's crazy!
You were NOT assessed. How can you loose anything?
Tell me again why you care so much about something you don't have to pay for and that you won't have to contend with as far as the construction, the noise, the big mess for years to come.
P.S. Did you know about the two rapes of young girls during the start of the Tri-W project?! ...these guys from out of town here for a good time? I have a police scanner and heard both calls. That doesn't bother you and Lynette either, but it should.
Or how about the fact that the Tri-W project had day workers on the job to do the job in two years for a big bonus. Is that why a few homes got flooded? Don't know...
Besides, the County has lied through their teeth on every issue since they took the project.
Morro Bay has leaking and broken pipes, and other towns have sewers in place that pollute like crazy. Why do you and Lynette promote this craziness? Why do you two want to ruin Los Osos completely?
You must get something in return.
Oh, shark! How can you live with yourself?
Paavo compounded that problem with by rushing STEP off Stage and specifying gravity in the DEIR which was then put forward to the contracting community for RFQ before the PC and CCC processes were initiated and completed.
Even better.
GetRealOsos:
Steve doesn't use facts.
They just get in the way...
Steve says: Spin is reasonable...
Not this time Steve.
Mark,
For Steve to talk about delays...wow!
If you want to talk about delays, talk about the digs and 10,000 bodies found during deep trenching with gravity...now that's delay!
Far Western works with Cal Poly, and they'll have their hands full of work.
How much of an added cost to the gravity project and to the PZ homeowners will those delays mean?
Is that why Paavo said the project cost could double?!?
I think Paavo is clever enough to know not to reveal what he knows about how his process will play out.
He is trying to get leaky bell and spigot approved by the "Sups" once that is accomplished the thoughtful study can resume and viola:
The leakage will be the reason for the very expensive change orders that will provide years of deep trenching “sealed” gravity.
Who in their correct mind installs a untreated raw sewage leaking sewer system in a drinking water aquifer? Why??
Less invasive, less expensive small diameter directional bore drill installed sealed vacuum collection pipe is available but was never studied.
This is, so very obviously, part of Paavo’s plan. Los Osos will pay for sealed pipe, which is why I continue to ask a very clear concise question:
Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied in a co-equal manner by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/sole source consulting engineer?
I sure hope “sorry, I forgot his last name” Lynette is alright…I understand she had nothing to say at office hours yesterday.
I guess the cat got her tongue…Bhaaa…Bhaaa…Bhaaa…Bhaaa…
Steve should listen more carefully to Paavo regarding costs because he has shown he is a man of his word…He just forgot to “study”.
Remember “If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away”
That’s ”Supe” not to be confused with ”Dupe”.
No offense Mark, but do you really think that your input merited more than half of the total number of comments?
Do you think that others would view your input as meriting more than half of the total number of comments?
Shark,
No response from you (to me) -- only to Mark? How come?
GetReal,
Considering your tone when saying I want to ruin Los Osos, why do you wonder why I wouldn't bother replying?
Seriously, most if not all the issues you've raised tonite have been discussed before and the way you've brought these subjects up was a bit unclear.
Perhaps if you would like to narrow down the laundry list to one item or a few related items we could have a more beneficial conversation.
GetRealOsos,
Steve is off topic because he knows the facts kill his rhetoric.
Steve,
Here are the answers to your questions:
Yes.
Yes.
I'm trying to keep the pressure up on the issue that will affect many people in LOs Osos.
Why don't you answer the $100,000,000.00 dollar question, daddy?
What's the problem???
Mark sez:"At this point in the process, I contend that: Design-Build isn't what the county is doing.
When they specified technology instead of parameters they dictated the outcome."
And Mark sez:"Paavo compounded that problem with by rushing STEP off Stage and specifying gravity in the DEIR which was then put forward to the contracting community for RFQ before the PC and CCC processes were initiated and completed."
And sez:"Why wasn’t vacuum collection studied in a co-equal manner by Paavo’s handpicked/no bid/sole source consulting engineer?"
and sez: "$7 million dollars should have yielded a report denouncing vacuum.
Why wasn't vacuum collection studied, compared and denounced?"
I'm still waiting for an answer to all of those questions.
Alon Perlman said...
Don't encorage him, Ann.
Not that I wouldn't mind learning the answers.
As for the comments by Mark; They have been repeated umpteen times in this blog (groan and drone). Mark's questions are valid but hardly original. Something similar to Sez #1 was stated by Al Barrow recently, also nicely stated but not new. Sez #4 on the other hand, while not new is phrased in an original(?) manner.
W-Mark, Supply and demand; flood the market with an undifferentiated product and you may make an occasional sale. Not a real business plan though.
"Just who is looking out for the citizens of the PZ?"
In theory, in a democracy, THEY are.
Many are called, fewer are chosen, fewer yet, have demonstrated competance.
On Blogger Since February 2008
Profile Views (approximate) 390
On Blogger Since September 2008
Profile Views (approximate) 20
USBF™ is different Alon.
I'll keep asking questions until I get answers, so don't you worry.
As a self starter, I need no encouragement.
Why no email address Alon?
What are you afraid of????
It's open source Mark.
Google "CSD ALON Smartvoter".
It's under campeign contact information.
Incidentally, I got 1444 votes, with the next higher vote-getter outspending me 10 to 1.
Since based on profile views you are much more popular than me, you should run for the LOCSD.
I haven't yet found anything to be afraid of, but I am open to suggestions.
I'm still waiting for an answer to, "What was the poison pill in Vacuum that got it knocked off the table early on?" The question isn't rhetorical, I'd like to know? Was it too energy intensive? Expensive? Toonces claimed the onsite footprint was huge, Mark said, No, very small. So, what was it?
alonatwork@email.com
Great thanks.
I believe in being brutallty honest which isn't a quality that is acceptable for any public office anytime soon. But maybe later...Thanks!
I think I remember saying that you would be moving when the finacial burden of the county's current study process finally hit home.
If that doesn't scare you, it should.
Perhaps you are nomadic by nature, but what about those who will left holding the bag?
Ann,
I fully appreciate your wanting to understand how a cost effective could not have been evaluated when $7,000,000.00 was available for a process to study alternatives.
The mice seem to have all been ordered into their holes, which helps explain part of the problem.
Who wants to ignore the least cost lowest energy intensive technology?
More importantly, why?
"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."
"Beatitude is a possession of all things held to be good,
from which nothing is absent that a good desire may want.
Perhaps the meaning of beatitude may become clearer to us
if it is compared with its opposite.
Now the opposite of beatitude is misery.
Misery means being afflicted unwillingly with painful sufferings."
I thought this appropriate for today and everyday.
Don't worry, I'm not going all "religious", it wouldn't help. Bhaaa, Bhaaa...
I asked:"I'm still waiting for an answer to, "What was the poison pill in Vacuum that got it knocked off the table early on?" The question isn't rhetorical, I'd like to know? Was it too energy intensive? Expensive? Toonces claimed the onsite footprint was huge, Mark said, No, very small. So, what was it?"
And Mark, who's touting the vacuum system answers with beatitudes? Uh, Mark, the questions isn't about Jesus, it's What WAS the poison pill concerning Vacuum that shoved it off the table early-on?
Ann,
I am asking why wasn't/isn't vacuum studied?
It doesn't leak like bs con-gravity and cost less while ir ususe less energy.
Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
It doesn't leak like bs con-gravity and cost less while it uses less energy.
I'm touting ECOfluid's USBT(tm)...
ECOfluid's Upflow Sludge Blanket Fitration USBF(tm) designs.
It costs less and uses less energy than what the county is attempting to specify.
Not to make too fine a point of it, Ann. but Twas I who stated, "very small-" in--"
I'm still waiting for an answer to, "What was the poison pill in Vacuum that got it knocked off the table early on?" The question isn't rhetorical, I'd like to know? Was it too energy intensive? Expensive? Toonces claimed the onsite footprint was huge, Mark said, No, very small. So, what was it?"
It has become increasingly cumbursome to navigate through your Blog due to Mark's multiple postings
In fact I wont even verify this comment cause it would take too long
I consider Mark to be very capable of originating new and relevant remarks, but let's face it, He is more dedicated to being annoying.
Repetition does not cement "ownership".
Well, It's your Blog and thanks for hosting.
Incidentally off topic and for your eyes only, I only award "Original Gangstah" nicknames to people I have a high level of respect for.
Post a Comment