Here's an update to the previous posting's press release. What always makes “the law” so interesting is how it’s always looking in the rear view mirror after the train wreck. For example, this hearing on Tuesday before the BOS to hear, discuss and re-consider and possibly act on the Coastal Commission's appeal – but nobody else’s appeal – is decidedly odd to me, since its been cherry picked and makes clear that while the BOS pretends that it treats all appellants equally, it’s plain that some are created MORE equal than others. That is, the Coastal Commission’s appeal is getting a very special hearing of its own. Everyone else is chopped liver. And that’s o.k. with the court. And later, if and when it can be shown that “real harm” has been done to some appellant by this move, the court can then dismiss the case as “too late.” A perfect Catch-22, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The danger here in making some appellants more equal than others is that it may tick some appellants off so they’ll sue which can then delay things and create an ever bigger mess further down the line. And if Mr. Edwards is correct and . . . the Coastal Commission is . . . unclear? Uhhnnnhhh, does all this sound hideously familiar? Well, stay tuned.
NEWS RELEASE
November 20, 2009
The request by Los Osos developer Jeff Edwards for a Temporary Restraining Order was denied by Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney, wherein Edwards asked the Court to postpone the County Board of Supervisors hearing on the Los Osos Wastewater Project set for Tuesday, November 24, 2009 . In the early morning exparte hearing, Edwards was unable to convince the court that the outcome of the Tuesday hearing would irreparably harm him at this time.
Edwards waived his right to a December 3, 2009 hearing to further consider the main issue. Unfortunately the central question of proper procedure being employed by the County for changes to the wastewater project wasn’t heard. Among other issues, an unintended consequence of the County’s Tuesday hearing may render his pending Coastal Commission appeal moot. Edwards who has 25 years experience in Coastal land use issues cautioned, “This is uncharted water and even Coastal Commission staff is unclear as to what will happen as a result of the intended Board action on Tuesday to the 23 appeals.”
Jeff Edwards can be reached via cell phone, 805-235-0873
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
46 comments:
First a disclaimer; I am not generally supporting actions that may delay the project. I do regret not filing an appeal though, to affect “conditions of Approval”.
1st; Lawsuits- A Lawsuit apparently filed by Steven Hastings Page, V.S. the county, may have come in under the Radar. The action by Jeff Edwards (Who is the person most likely to be successful in putting forth, such an action) has not resulted in a change in the Counties agenda.
Tues. 24, Nov. ‘09
C-2
Hearing to consider a resolution by the County to modify, supersede, or replace conditions of approval imposed on the previously issued Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit (DRC2008-00103/Los Osos Wastewater Project) pursuant to Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance Section 23.02.034c(2)(iii); 2nd District. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND INSTRUCT CHAIRPERSON TO SIGN.)
The likely rationale; The Coastal Commission is the only (and lead) government agency among the Appellants.
The following from the Blog posting and an email. “Unfortunately the central question of proper procedure being employed by the County for changes to the wastewater project wasn’t heard. Among other issues, an unintended consequence of the County’s Tuesday hearing may render his pending Coastal Commission appeal moot. Edwards who has 25 years experience in Coastal land use issues cautioned, “This is uncharted water and even Coastal Commission staff is unclear as to what will happen as a result of the intended Board action on Tuesday to the 23 appeals.”
This indicates a concern that somehow not hearing the 22 remaining appeals means that they do not move forward to the coastal commission. We will probably hear more as to why.
Without actually fully reading the appeals;
And then there were 23
They fall under the categories discussed before when there were 16 Appeals. 14 reviewed in CDP process.
Old School, Newbie me-too’s, 2 environmental groups.
Noticeable that a previously under represented group; Empty lot owners, 40 approx. with 2 or more additional appeals, also by individuals from that group (FAIR). At least 2 similar but separate appeals from property owners are present. (expect that they represent a significant portion of 218 undeveloped property votes)
Julie Tacker’s Appeal has some superficial similarities to Jeff’s but they are very detailed and, as expected, do cover different areas.
"Memorial Park" and "Bruce Corelitz" of the original 14 heard by County as of this cursory review do not appear to be present.
Sauna Sullivan is included in (FAIR)
Al Barrow is present as Environ-mental (CASE) and of course as “Laugh Out Loud Defense Fund” (LOLDF)
Ann says:
"…this hearing on Tuesday before the BOS to hear, discuss and re-consider and possibly act on the Coastal Commission's appeal – but nobody else’s appeal – is decidedly odd to me, since its been cherry picked and makes clear that while the BOS pretends that it treats all appellants equally, it’s plain that some are created MORE equal than others."
Well, since the Coastal Commission issues the premier PERMIT to build this thing, (not found to be true for any other appeals) maybe theirs is just a little, tiny bit different?
Toonces, the issue for me is this project has a long, long, long history of falling over cliffs because i's were not dotted beforehand when people figured, aw, let's not "waste time" with those i's and somebody else filed suits because the i's were missing. As annoying as The Process is, it's in place for a reason: Haste makes waste and delay. IF -- under the rules and laws -- appellants are supposed to be "equal" and one gets treated as more equal than others or one gets heard and by that solo hearing damages or moots the other's cases unfairly, and that is the basis for a lawsuit that could unravel this project later down the road, or add on more expense, or delay it so it has to take several steps back, then could someone please, please, please tell everyone to shut up and sit down and take a number and do this by the book, please???
I can see no reason to jump the line for the CC since they are fully able to "condition" anything they want to this project prior to issuing a permit and after THEIR official full hearing of all the appeals. And having the county suddenly hold a "do over" appeals hearing for just one appeal but not the others, makes me fear that the county fears they've got a fatal flaw somewhere they feel they better fix or else they'll lose it all. Not good. That should have been done during the formal BOS appeal process. The CC's "warning shots across the bow" letter during the Oh Darn Let's Let The Public Comment Including The CC, spelled out loudly and clearly their requirements. They, like everybody else, had ample time and space to spell out their concerns and the PC and the BOS had ample time to consider those concerns and add them to the project or not during the proper hearings. Every time people start getting "cute" with The Process it opens another door for monkeywrenching. Hasn't anybody learned anything by this time????
"Monkeywrenching," as you put it, has occurred by people who do not want a sewer.
Delaying the recall vote is a perfect example of what delay can do if you want to put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak. Having a valid reason is not a requirement for initiating a lawsuit. They will probably be initiated whether or not the BOS goes ahead on Tuesday. (No one [including Jeff] has explained how Jeff will be harmed by having the County go ahead on Tuesday.)
If the CC does not find anything noteworthy in the appeals, they do not have to address them. In other words, they do not need to hold a De Novo hearing. If the County has cleaned up the objections that the CC has, perhaps we can simply move ahead. I know this strikes terror in the hearts of the No Sewers.
The CC is a slightly different appellant than an ordinary citizen, they issue the BIG permit for the project. I think it is darn nice of the CC to detail what their concerns were so they could be fixed in advance and not waste time during the CC hearing.
I think by now - this is my opinion - the CC is aware of the tricks that can be used - sounding all "green" or "protecting the basin" to stop a project. Thirty years is long enough, no need to further wreck our aquifers. I think the CC "gets" that. It is time to move ahead, perfect project or not. The tide has turned, so to speak.
I think the whole idea that this "monkeywrenching" is only done by the "no sewer" people is poorly conceived because this idea is contingent on the assertion that these "no sewer" people -- by Lynette's subjective standards -- are actually influential in the County decision-making, and I can assure you that they're not.
Every appeal, every complaint, every lawsuit that was initiated by people who have once expressed interest in not having a sewer, has been unanimously denied by the County Board of Supervisors. Complaining about the "no sewer" people monkeywrenching is just vilifying those who don't come on these blogs to defend themselves -- and that's disrespectful.
Upon review of the Appeal by Coastal Commissioners, as it pertains to condition 97, ("Given the possible export of treated effluent outside of the Los Osos Groundwater Basin and the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of legal adjudication, the long-term integrity of the Los Osos Groundwater Basin and the biological productivity of aquatic habitats may be significantly adversely impacted.")
And upon review of condition 97 proper;
"e.
Other agricultural re-use within Los Osos Valley."
and
"Highest priority shall be given to replacing potable water uses with tertiary treated effluent consistent with Water Code Section 13550."
and
"No amount of treated effluent may be used to satisfy or offset water needs that result from non-agricultural development outside the Urban Reserve Line of the community of Los Osos."
I propose to the Board of Supervisors that they follow the precedent established in the handling of Condition 93. e.g.,
93. Condition eliminated
Can you say "flush it in the loo?"
Monkeywrenching-“Getting rid of Paavo would unravel the entire process”
Remember it was he who said-"If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away."
So why did he choose a consulting engineer that never studied any?
The County, State and Federal governments are broke.
The tide has turned, proceed with caution due to submerged obstacles...
Toonces sez:""Monkeywrenching," as you put it, has occurred by people who do not want a sewer."
this is an interesting example of your black/white "anti-sewer-obstructionist" thinking. Are you saying a person seriously concerned with making a sewer project BETTER would not "monkeywrench" (i.e. file lawsuits, appeals, etc.) in order to make a bad project BETTER or even stop a really BAD project so a BETTER one could be built??
And sez:"Delaying the recall vote is a perfect example of what delay can do if you want to put the shoe on the other foot, so to speak."
Uh, but the Recalled Three delayed the recall vote as along as possible, thereby triggering what turned out to be the law of unintended consequences, i.e. that very delay helped unseat them, which delayed the sewer, thereby making the Recalled Three, ironically, "anti-sewer obstructionists."
and sez""protecting the basin" to stop a project."
More irony, this time it's the CC that's insisting on protecting the basin and the County that initially came up with a BAD project (tonini spray fields spraying water out of the basin)which the PC had to "fix," certainly with the input of those notorious anti-sewer obstructionists, the Sustainability Group, among other anti-sewer obstructionists seriously interested in a BETTER project.
Aaron sez:"Complaining about the "no sewer" people monkeywrenching is just vilifying those who don't come on these blogs to defend themselves -- and that's disrespectful."
While the intent is to vilify and obscure, the real problem is that you're looking at a type of knee-jerk, semantic tic, in a way, a cookie-cutter mental mantra mindset that rubberstamps a stereotypical meaningless phrase onto certain people and actions thereby blocking and blinding author/speaker (and the listener/reader) to the complex reality that's really there. A semantic blindness, as it were. To mix many metaphors . . . . It's a trap the so-called "dreamers" keep falling into constantly. Poor Barbara Wolcott certainly fell into that trap, among others.
Ann sez: "...a person seriously concerned with making a sewer project BETTER would not "monkeywrench" (i.e. file lawsuits, appeals, etc.) in order to make a bad project BETTER or even stop a really BAD project so a BETTER one could be built??"
Is this some attempt to justify the halting of a fully designed and permitted project...??? All in some personal "opinion" that the Tri-W project was BAD and that some non-plan, holistic, wishful thought would produce a BETTER project...??? HOW MANY YEARS WILL IT TAKE TO PRODUCE THAT "BETTER" PROJECT...?????
Guess I should have said; How many MORE years will it take... because that is exactly what the no sewer activists are driving for...as many years of delay as possible...and by any means possible...
Please keep in mind that the old CSD did actually produce a plan and obtained ALL permits... So far, there have been NO PERMITS ISSUED for the County project... HOW MANY MORE YEARS WILL IT TAKE TO PRODUCE THAT "BETTER" PROJECT...?????
Again, people are trying to diagnose the intent of the "no sewer" people and reality is lost in the spin. The reality is that people who actually don't want a sewer -- which consist of only a few "obstructionists" who haven't filed lawsuits since the passing of AB 2701 -- are in favor of new on-site treatment and septic management plans.
The demoralization of these "no sewer" people seem to expand when so-called "Dreamers" invoke the logic: if people want an affordable sewer, that means they don't want a sewer at all because no sewer solution could ever be "affordable." Well, if people want a sewer -- be it affordable or not -- they want a sewer, period. End of story.
People that I've talked to have all expressed interest in having some degree of wastewater treatment from having composting toilets to installing Piranhas to even having a gravity/vacuum-hybrid system that would cost less than the cookie-cutter gravity system that has a track record of leaking and causing bad odors. There's also a group of people who believe that STEP/STEG is the best alternative that can be applied to Los Osos.
If you're going to ask, "How many more years will it take to produce that 'better' project?" you should probably ask the County since the BOS had to account for their errors in the process and thus, request more budget adjustments for additional studies, ISJ modification without listening to scope recommendations provided by members of the community. Every time there are proposed budget adjustments, more time is added on the clock; more money is spent spent out of the Los Osos road funds to remedy and prepare for the next big step.
And one more thing, to put it bluntly, the majority of Los Osos voters voted in favor of halting the Tri-W project. Though it was a 50+1 majority, it was still a majority. There's your justification. Deal with it.
Ask yourself how many people voted for Measure B because they believed what they were told - that they would get a project for $100/month. Even going STEP/STEG doesn't save a project THAT much money - 20% on a good day. So 20% off the $250 leaves you with $200 (and a bankruptcy to pay off as it turned out AND your driveway/yard to replace out of your own bank account or off credit cards if you still have anything left).
Now ask yourself if the Water Board is going to say OK to onsite and septic management plans instead of a sewer.
Now ask yourself if the Farm Bureau is going to allow acres and acres for ponds -- like at Tonini maybe!
Now ask yourself about your belief in magical thinking. Maybe the word "dreamer" has taken on a new meaning.
There is NO affordable sewer, it doesn't exist. So wanting one is like asking to meet Santa Claus. If you keep asking for something that doesn't exist and expecting it to happen - what does that make you? No Sewer or maybe just plain crazy.
No septic management plan is going to remedy 8 to 12 houses per acre which was wrong to begin with. Onsite systems are more costly and impossible for a homeowner to manage - and more expensive for a CSD to manage. I'd like to hear the Department of Health's take on a composting toilet. Most of us would have to move walls to accommodate one of those things. Do you want a service person coming in to check that? STEP/STEG has the little problem of a taking of property which is far worse than what Mr. Paige is complaining about. And a piecemeal solution is NOT going to work - how do you legally regulate that?
So when you see people claiming to want a sewer, but attempting to postpone one with with reasons like "Onsite will work," and "All we need is septic management" that really IS No Sewer or a lack of critical thinking. When you hear people say "STEP/STEG is cheaper," you conclude that they can't do math. Or if you are paranoid like myself, you figure they say, "I want S/S," knowing full well that they are NOT going to allow anyone onto their property. It is NOTHING like the guy checking the gas meter! He will forbid you to USE that piece of property the gas meter is attached to? Of course not! And a nasty legal battle will ensue with the next incarnation of PZLDF claiming that it is a taking of property that SHOULD belong to you but doesn't really as you can't use it. The County isn't going anywhere near eminent domain.
Why do you defend the impossible?
The County has taken its time to be as inclusive as possible to all viewpoints and has taken MANY, MANY suggestions to improve the project. But that is just not enough for some of you is it?
Just how long are we supposed to wait?
There's another faulty line of thinking.
Ask yourself how many people voted for Measure B because they believed what they were told - that they would get a project for $100/month.
You can't say that everyone -- who voted yes for Measure B and yes for the recall -- voted simply because of the $100/month fliers. How many times have you been corrected on this issue, Lynette? It's getting ridiculous.
Now ask yourself if the Water Board is going to say OK to onsite and septic management plans instead of a sewer.
If the onsite treatment technology or septic management plan adheres to certain requirements as mandated by AB 885 -- and it doesn't impair the groundwater pursuant to Section 303
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(d)), then the water board can approve it. The language in the chartered version of the bill does not explicitly ban the usage of septic tanks. Looking at the state water board's regulations, they actually permit onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) if those systems follow their requirements.
Now ask yourself if the Farm Bureau is going to allow acres and acres for ponds -- like at Tonini maybe.
It depends on the kind of ponds and how that water is used. There's no clear-cut answer to that.
There is NO affordable sewer, it doesn't exist.
As you were told repeatedly on every single means of online communication relevant to the Los Osos sewer, there are alternatives that are cheaper in total cost than what we're seeing today. Now, you can keep saying that until you're blue in the face, but only when the BOS magically adds the alternatives back for consideration will that statement of yours have actual validity. If there really is no cheaper solution than gravity, then let the raw data from a co-equal analysis of viable alternatives speak for itself instead of taking your word for it -- and let God have mercy on the poor souls that do.
With a situation as complex as Los Osos, there's no standing to say with total confidence that there are NO (in capital letters) solutions other than a system that really does very little to clean up the groundwater; that has a real possibility of polluting and causing fine-inducing odors. You can't say "NO" with certainty. I can't say that unless you work in the wastewater field and spent lots of time researching what each and every system does including their pros and cons.
The County isn't going anywhere near eminent domain, you say? Ever heard of eminent domain by taxation?
And no, Lynette, it's not enough. Having said that, I didn't know you were a County employee. I didn't know that you know exactly what the County has taken its time doing and not doing. Maybe you should have a beer with Thomas Jefferson and think things over.
As you said Aaron - 1%, get over it. Had the community not been lied to, the vote would have gone the other way. All it would have taken was just a few votes. Do I think all people voted on the price? No, just enough to bring us to this mess. And yeah, we are dealing with it.
Do you really, really think that after all that has gone down, the Water Board is going to change its mind on us not needing a sewer in Los Osos? Are YOU going to sue them for not allowing onsite? Got the money?
There is a clear cut answer, you just don't like it. Ponds take up acres and acres. Tonini was rejected by the Farm Bureau due to size. The PC moved it to Giacomazzi and there is just enough room to fit a conventional plant, but not the acres of ponds. Do you really think the Coastal Commission would change this? Last spring they told the County a big NO on Tonini due to conversion of ag land! Think they are suddenly going to reverse this?
No one ever says NO with certainty - I don't - but after all this going back and forth - where is that radically better plan? I haven't seen it. That is why we are moving ahead with this one, and really, at this point, there is nothing you can do to stop it. Gee Aaron, maybe I DO KNOW a few things more than you do.
Sorry, I lost his last name and got him confused with your outfit Lynette writes: where is that radically better plan? I haven't seen it.
It is vacuum collection and low energy high efficiency tertiary treatment, Paavo is hiding it from you.
But then you know that given your "insider" status with the county.
"submerged obstacles"- GUARANTEED
Poor, poor Lynette.
The recall happened, Measure B happened... a few "lies" here and a few "lies" there... shoulda, coulda, woulda. Tri-W was voted down by the majority of Los Osos voters. Let's not continue to beat this dead horse.
Personally, I don't think the Water Board nor the Coastal Commission is going to change its mind on anything. That's their problem. That's politics. In actuality, current laws and regulations provide far more flexibility for solutions, but Resolution 83-13 specifically assigns milestones to design and construct a "community sewerage disposal system."
These outdated resolutions impair efficiency by precluding the consideration of modern-day OWTS that actually comply with AB 885-based regulations and current water board criteria. In short, the water board is shooting themselves in the foot as far as not letting the process include viable onsite systems.
As far as lawsuits are concerned, that's up to the people of our community. The water boards, as Sarah Palin would likely put it, are "going rogue" when it comes to Los Osos.
I'll be frank with you, Lynette. There hasn't been a lot of room to develop that "radically better, perfect plan" since the RWQCB and the CC have made their predispositions toward conventional gravity systems very clear. Vacuum, STEP/STEG, various decentralized systems: those options all died on the operating table without a co-equal analysis. All people can do, at this moment, is to plead their case to bring those options back for consideration. They're not going to give you that "radically better plan" that will exceed your wildest expectations unless the process allows them to.
Given that I've been providing objective information and you've only been posting non-substantive spin since you moved to Los Osos, it's a little ironic that you're telling me you know a few things more than I do. That sort of smug attitude cost you the Tribune endorsement and the 2006 CSD election.
Hahahaha... Aaron has been "providing objective information" is an absolute joke... since Aaron has no real education in either law or civil engineering...
But then what else can we expect from a young person who fancies himself an intellectual giant...
Get a grip Aaron, this is a blog with no influence in changing laws that the grown-ups have put on the books, although a few of the Los Osos "majority" (another joke) would like to see changed... Why haven't those pesky laws been changed...??? Could it be that the Los Osos monarchy never had a Plan and refused to work WITH the State Water Board and Legislature...???
Sorry Aaron, no one is ever going to take you seriously until you actually obtain credentials... You're just a wantabe lud-mouth Rocano and even he is a failure in the world of environmental politics...
My, my, no need to get so nasty just because 30 years isn't long enough for you and we are actually going to get a sewer that doesn't have Aaron's stamp of approval!
Still mad about the PZLDF case that flopped? Say, how's that second PZLDF case going - the one that was to go to trial in September? Or maybe you can explain how the "rogue" Water Board has shot itself in the foot! Someone got another lawsuit planned to prove it?
See you at the BOS today? It ought to be very interesting!
Some people will give themselves so much rope.
Also, given that I've said -- many times before -- that I don't support the PZLDF suit, why are you telling readers that I would be "mad" about the first lawsuit flopping? Wasn't I the one who personally told you at a BOS meeting about my thoughts on the subject?
If you're going to be a pathological liar, Lynette, you're only going to hurt yourself.
Mike wrote:
"Is this some attempt to justify the halting of a fully designed and permitted project...??? All in some personal "opinion" that the Tri-W project was BAD and that some non-plan, holistic, wishful thought would produce a BETTER project..."
I hope to be blogging this soon: What ALL Californians deserve for Christmas this year, is a Edge-Wilcox type of investigation into what happened with the Tri-W project... you know, where an independent attorney investigates, and then writes up a report (like the "Robertson Report") on what happened.
Then, we'll officially know if people like Mike is right, with their behavior-based-marketing-ish mantra of "fully designed and permitted project," or if I'm right -- that the ONLY reason the Tri-W embarrassment was permitted was because the 2000 - 2004 LOCSD lied to the Coastal Commission, and played "bait and switchy" with the Commission for four years.
(A little secret: I'm right.)
How great would that be?! Heck, just in 2009 alone, County staff called the Tri-W embarrassment "infeasible":
"The (SLO County Los Osos wastewater) Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."
SLO County Project team, June 29, 2009
AND, the Tri-W embarrassment didn't even come close to making the county's short list of potential projects.
AND, my personal favorite, when I was on the phone with county environmental specialist, Mark Hutchinson, and I asked him to put himself in the shoes of the people responsible for throwing $24 million and five years at the Tri-W embarrassment, and his immediate reaction was to laugh... out loud.
Apparently, the Robertson report cost about $80,000.
If the State were to spend $80,000 on studying what happened with the Tri-W embarrassment, it would be THE BEST $80,000 that this State has EVER spent, because what would emerge would be a handbook on what NOT to do when running a government.
That one, $80,000 report could/would end up saving California literally BILLIONS and BILLIONS of dollars over the years/decades.
So, we should ALL support my idea for an independent investigation, including Mike. (Hey Mike, don't you want to put the State's money where your mouth is, or are you just not that confident with your "fully designed and permitted project" take? Because, I'm VERRRRRRY confident in my "bait and switchy," fake "strongly held community value" take.)
I'll hit you up for support for my idea, Mike and 'toons, after I write my piece.
Kumbaya, my Lord, do do dooooo....
I estimate the actual time in revising the condition to be 30 seconds.
I just read the staff report for the first time, and it's exactly as predicted-delete the first paragraph re adjudication and sentence in sub item e re-agricultural use out of basin.
A parade including your's truly will take up the rest of the 2 1/2 hrs estimated of item C-2.
Item E-1
Is of interest to Los Osos even though it is about repartitioning planning in the County to five areas. Very good public comment there. And Good public comment on C-2 Appeal of Condition 97 about 1 hr + (not 2.5 hrs, the decision was about 30 seconds as predicted)
Word Verification; projecu
As in, the projecu will be gettin is workin its way thru da process
ron, I will quote Realistic1 from Ann's blog, February 16, 2009:
"Jesus, Ron.
"How many times do you have to be told, the "commission" didn't call it "bait & switchy"? ONE commissioner did - and it was a phrase put in her ear, THAT DAY, by Julie & Company. The commission still voted unanimously to approve the project."
There will be no investigation ron, nor does there need to be one - unless the CSD settlement with the 5 Lisa-board directors doesn't settle, then we will see how the REAL story of how NOT to run a government, complete with self-induced bankruptcy and CDO's, plays out in court.
You just go ahead and stay confident ron, so you can keep entertaining us with your space-cadet fantasies and inaccuracies.
Gee Aaron, did I misread that you dislike the Water Board --and would only be too happy if the PZ was busted up and we were back to Square One on getting a sewer? And you never explained how you think they are shooting themselves in the foot by not including on-site for us. Please do explain!
Missed you at the BOS today!
Sorry, I lost his last name and got him confused with your outfit Lynette writes: There will be no investigation...
You wish.
Aaron sez:"There hasn't been a lot of room to develop that "radically better, perfect plan" since the RWQCB and the CC have made their predispositions toward conventional gravity systems very clear. Vacuum, STEP/STEG, various decentralized systems: those options all died on the operating table without a co-equal analysis. All people can do, at this moment, is to plead their case to bring those options back for consideration. They're not going to give you that "radically better plan" that will exceed your wildest expectations unless the process allows them to."
There, in a nutshell, is the tragedy of Los Osos. The Process was monkeywrenched and now the community is stuck with a done deal. No co-equal analysis, no Best Technology floating to the top. Best technology, best solution was strangled in the cradle.
Ron sez:"I hope to be blogging this soon: What ALL Californians deserve for Christmas this year, is a Edge-Wilcox type of investigation into what happened with the Tri-W project... you know, where an independent attorney investigates, and then writes up a report (like the "Robertson Report") on what happened."
That investigation needs to continue forward into how the county's promised "process" got strangled in the cradle, and why, and by whom.
Toonces sez:"There will be no investigation ron, nor does there need to be one - unless the CSD settlement with the 5 Lisa-board directors doesn't settle, then we will see how the REAL story of how NOT to run a government, complete with self-induced bankruptcy and CDO's, plays out in court."
Actually, the CSD's breach of contract suits really, reeeeeely need to go ahead; Those will, I'm betting, inform the community quite nicely, methinks. Settling them quietly will bury the bodies forever. Guess which choice do I think will be made by the present CSD? Sunshine? Or a shovel and darkness? Ultimate Question regarding those suits: Who will benefit if those suits are shut down? And What does THAT tell you?
“Getting rid of Paavo would unravel the entire process”
Lynette,
As a regulatory agency, the state and regional water boards have a fiduciary duty to remedy their overlapping policies to establish consistency and efficiency.
By straightening out their standards and policies, if that means Los Osos needs to start at square one, then it has to start out at square one.
Also, I want the Prohibition Zone dissolved so that everyone who benefits from the sewer pays for it. Is that "code language" to imply an anti-sewer position? Absolutely not. There are two things I would really like to see: (1) the improvement of quality in our groundwater and (2) a solution that prevents the rapid acceleration of saltwater intrusion. Designing and building this current WWP will not add any water to the basin. By the time the project is completed, then there won't be any water to actually treat AND people within an imaginary, non scientifically conceived line will have to pay large sums of money for a system that's not going to have enough water to treat. At this point, the plan is wholly counterproductive to preserving and treating the basin.
You may see this view as "obstructionist," but I clearly see it as following the law. Striking at the heart of the matter, we have common goals. We want a sewer built and I believe my friends, neighbors and colleagues all want that, but the burden on homeowners is tremendous for a solution that will create more problems than solutions in the long run.
Think ahead. Oh wait, you can't. The pathological lying of yours is obstructing reality.
Great Aaron... You sure started to sound "mature"... and then you stuck your head up your arse once again...!!!!
Do you have a mental disorder...??? You certainly are not the almight great saviour of Los Osos even though you like to try sounding like you are some authority with experience and knowledge... You just keep on proving you are simply a phony...
Ann... I finally sort of agree with you...
Ann sez: "...the CSD's breach of contract suits really, reeeeeely need to go ahead; Those will, I'm betting, inform the community quite nicely, methinks. Settling them quietly will bury the bodies forever. Guess which choice do I think will be made by the present CSD? Sunshine? Or a shovel and darkness? Ultimate Question regarding those suits: Who will benefit if those suits are shut down? And What does THAT tell you?"
First of all, are you sure the TW lawsuit is over "breach of contracts"...??? If you are still recommending no settlement and proceed to a court date, I'm with you 100%... I don't want an insurance payment to cloud the mismanagement of the CSD by the CSD5... The community should be allowed to finally see the behind the scenes dealings Lisa and Julie. They lied to the community and they never ran a "transparent" CSD... So far, the CSD5 have stalled all attempts to create a settlement or to face a court... It has not been TW stalling...!!!! The stalling has been directly through the CSD5...
So Ann, do you really know what the still not settled "settlement" is all about...????
Ann... after re-reading your comment, it appears you would like to see the Contractors "breach of contract" lawsuits go to court...and again, I have to agree and for the same reasons that I would like to see the TW lawsuit go to court... Either the CSD5 should be vindicated or they should be shown to have violated the laws...
Are you realllly sure you want to see these issues in court....??? So far, Lisa et al would prefer to continue the stall game...
Mike Hensley, you don't need any more rope, do you?
Kids games with Amazing guesses... you're about the 4th one to try... keep trying...
Prove that you're not him.
Hilarious Aaron! How's "Mike" supposed to do that on a blog!?
But let's get back to you - A little slow over in razor-land isn't it? The same 12 comments on your old posting and only 1 on the new one.
Here's a quote from you:
"Designing and building this current WWP will not add any water to the basin. By the time the project is completed, then there won't be any water to actually treat…"
Then this one:
"By straightening out their standards and policies, if that means Los Osos needs to start at square one, then it has to start out at square one."
Oops, you just contradicted yourself! If there is no water left to treat by the time this current project is built, how will straightening out the policies (- which would take years to do -) then designing, funding and building a new project - many more years - how would that even matter if there was no water left to treat even for this project?
Let's say there was a drop or two of water left - how will years of doing nothing have helped either of the two things you claim to care about - improvement in the groundwater and stemming saltwater intrusion?
Maybe you can explain how you came to these contradictory conclusions.
Lynette,
The blog that you tried to disrupt illegally is doing fine, thanks. I find that to be even more hilarious than anything your BFF, "Mike" has said lately.
Aside from that, I didn't contradict myself. For one thing, the current plan will not desalinate the water that's in our basin. One who is really concerned about treating the groundwater would want to first preserve whatever groundwater is left. Since the current plan doesn't take that into consideration -- as the County is only applying AB 2701 by literal interpretation (the bill does not address the issue of saltwater intrusion in how it must be resolved) -- square one would actually be the fastest route to getting the project done legally and more effectively.
With what you're saying, it sounds like a Catch-22. Going back to square one would not help the issue any more than simply keeping the project on track as it stands right now. Interestingly enough, for someone who is into water conservation, you've conveniently forgotten the need to incorporate water conservation plans, which would help the basin. You should check out the Los Osos Sustainability Group's indoor/outdoor water use plan or maybe WH2O's plans -- oh, that's right. You don't have any. You hand out fortune cookies with messages that tell children to turn off the sink when they're done brushing their teeth.
That's alright, though. I forgive you out of pity mostly.
Aaron sez:"By the time the project is completed, then there won't be any water to actually treat AND people within an imaginary, non scientifically conceived line will have to pay large sums of money for a system that's not going to have enough water to treat. At this point, the plan is wholly counterproductive to preserving and treating the basin."
There's the tragedy of Los Osos. "non scientifcally conceived line(s)" This would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. But is a pretty good indication that regulatory boards such as the RWQCB really don't know what they're doing, and in their ignorance are doing great harm to the very resources they're supposed to be protecting.
Aaron, how did I illegally disrupt you blog?
How is bringing water back into the basin not helpful - did none of you hear the BOS Tuesday on condition 97? Ann, you were there!
There are conservation measures in the plan conditions. And it is easy for you to criticize WH2O - but what have YOU done to promote water conservation? Anything?
Cleaning up leaks and improving infrastructure must fall to the water purveyors. (200,000 gallons lost during the last CSD infrastructure improvement - the workers had to go back 5 valves to find one that would work.)
Water rights are LAW - talk conservation to the farmers! But I'll bet they are already aware - with lower water levels and increased electricity to pump.
Desalinate the water? Just how do you propose to do that? Please explain just how that works.
Lynette,
If you want to talk about my site and what you've done, e-mail me. Since you like transparency, you are more than welcome to post my response to you.
I'm not going to get into the, "What have you done for me lately?" argument, but I will point you to the Wikipedia definition of Desalination.
Happy Thanksgiving.
I was kicked off your site and beyond that, I have done nothing. I do view your site, I haven't attempted to post.
I prefer Ann's sort of transparency, which I guess is the point I was hoping to make. She is inclusionary, outside of harassment, she shows extreme tolerance and that is we we all blog over here.
I do hope that you have a nice holiday though.
Lynette Tornatzky, you're a very dishonest person.
...and you Aaron are only playing the games of an extremely immature, uneducated fool guessing at answers and trying to act like you knew what you are chatting about...
I'm not going to go back and forth with you for hours on end with the end-result of having Ann say, "The children are still fighting." It's happened quite a few times already so I'm going to actively stop that trend.
You and Lynette are very complicit with this tag-team, gotcha-style blogging. You've been working with each other for a very long time since Lynette joined the SanLuisObispo.com discussion boards and you were ReApprazor. Over the years, a lot of people have made that observation.
As ReApprazor, you would post something defamatory and chide the "fat ladies, cheerleaders and trolls" for doing the same thing so this whole persona of yours has always acted as a "mirror": if the CSD5 did it, so can you. Lynette would agree with you and post similar sentiments. You and her would post hate-filled comments back and forth -- never once have you shown to be educated or objectively knowledgeable (ironically, you call me "uneducated" even though you never showed readers your qualifications as an anonymous) -- until the SanLuisObispo.com site layout changed.
When she ran for the CSD, while she smiled, shook people's hands and pretended to be extending the olive branch as a member of the LOCSD, Lynette posted derogatory comments about others who were also running. Without ever using your alleged experience to explain your disagreement with some people, you would chime in and wish people death... wish people "Q&F" strokes. In your words, Q&F means people are getting so worked up that they're going to have "quick and final" strokes.
Interestingly enough, you started mentioning "Q&F" after news came out that Los Osos resident Frank Thompson had a stroke over stress related to the sewer. Lynette tacitly approved your fiery rhetoric at a time when she filed her candidacy papers to represent the people of Los Osos. In my opinion, that makes her dishonest by the very fundamental definition of the word: to act like you want unity while putting everyone down at the same time.
If you want me to continue, I can, but if I did, it wouldn't bode well for you.
Ann is very inclusive, I agree, but at the same time, the Blogspot service does not have the ability to ban users or IP addresses. Also, she's given both of you many opportunities to give yourselves plenty of rope. In my opinion, Ann has been a gracious host by letting her comments section become a medium for Taxpayers Watch to show their true colors. Thank you, Ann, for helping the community realize who the real "obstructionists" are.
Aaron sez:"Thank you, Ann, for helping the community realize who the real "obstructionists" are."
You're welcome. There is no disguising that "voice," no matter how "anonymous" you think you're being or how much you deny you're saying what you're saying. It is important for the readers to hear that voice if they want to begin to understand some of the players and some of what really went(still goes) on here vis a vis this Hideous Sewer Project.
Gee, Aaron, thanks for the 6 paragraph character assassination - after saying that you weren't going to continue fighting! Hilarious!
Do you think Ann hasn't given you that very same rope that you say she has given me?
Who is fighting?
Yes, the truth can be an awful thing, I know. You and Richard LeGros are the only ones who consider actual fact to be "character assassinations" only after both of you thoroughly assassinated the character of most of the recall supporters anonymously since early 2006.
This is what happens when you mock people and get away with it for nearly four years. You get the truth.
Post a Comment