For days, rain. And cold. And fierce dark winds. Then suddenly a patch of warm sun and a hungry hummer stops by for a sweet snack of sugar syrup.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Sunday Brunch
For days, rain. And cold. And fierce dark winds. Then suddenly a patch of warm sun and a hungry hummer stops by for a sweet snack of sugar syrup.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Shut Up. NO! Sit Down. NO!
Oh, dear, Adam Hill, who’s now taking a turn as being Chairman of the BOS is apparently about to illustrate one definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. As the Tribune notes, he is asking “ . . . that people be civil and courteous and focus on the issue at hand.” He also “asked speakers to steer clear of personal attacks, rants, threats and slander, adding, ‘I’m not going to tolerate that kind of boorish behavior.”
Let me guess. He was addressing his remarks at people from Los Osos who regularly comment at BOS meetings? Well, good luck with that. As the Tribune reports, Richard Margetson, (who, I believe is actually from Morro Bay? Cayucos? not Los Osos,) once again, (as he had done with Hill’s predecessors who tried the same “civility” speech,) warned Hill to read the Brown Act. Said Margetson,” You really cannot control what’s said.” Added Los Ososian Leon Goldin, “You’re going down the road to all kinds of controversy.”
Ah, waltz me around again, Willie. Dat ol’ Brown Act. Alas. A thorn in every elected official’s side. What the bleep do we do about the bleeping public during public comment? Can’t shut ‘em up. Can’t really censor much of what they say since you’ve got to define all kinds of grey areas that defy definition. How is a strongly held opinion about some issue different from a “rant.” Besides, of course, the old standby: What I have to say is a strongly held opinion. What you have to say, is a rant!
And for the “regular Los Osos speakers,” Hill says they see themselves as victims.
Uh, yeah? I suspect some of these people will be losing their homes because of the Hideous Sewer Project. So, I think the word “victim” pretty well sums that situation up. And considering the, uh, very interesting way this whole “Process” was played then manipulated, the word “angry” certainly comes to mind. So we have a group of Los Ososians who are angry victims who, under the Brown Act, have the right to public comment.
And Hill is asking for “civility?” Let me suggest a different tack. Why not have the Supervisors, instead of sitting stone faced, actually acknowledge a speaker who gets up there and says, “We’re going to lose our home. What do we do?” and answer honestly: “We chose to ignore the promised Design/Build that might have come up with a less expensive system. What we chose and voted on instead, despite all of your “uncivil” pleadings, will likely put a good number of Los Ososians, like yourselves, out of their homes. We don’t know what you should do. We have no answers for you. It’s not our problem any more. We certainly will have staff keep trying to find whatever financial help is out there, and hope for the best. We are very sorry for your troubles, but we can do nothing for you and now it’s time for us to move on. Goodbye and good luck to you.”
Then do what was tried in the past: Set aside a small amount of time, maybe once a week (month?) specifically agendized for Los Osos Sewer Stuff, then if anyone speaks to L.O.S.S. at any other time, they can be hushed up and told to come back at the proper time for that topic.
Other than that, Brown Act still rules and defining “disruption” and ordering ejection via Sheriff will remain a politically tricky option.
Let me guess. He was addressing his remarks at people from Los Osos who regularly comment at BOS meetings? Well, good luck with that. As the Tribune reports, Richard Margetson, (who, I believe is actually from Morro Bay? Cayucos? not Los Osos,) once again, (as he had done with Hill’s predecessors who tried the same “civility” speech,) warned Hill to read the Brown Act. Said Margetson,” You really cannot control what’s said.” Added Los Ososian Leon Goldin, “You’re going down the road to all kinds of controversy.”
Ah, waltz me around again, Willie. Dat ol’ Brown Act. Alas. A thorn in every elected official’s side. What the bleep do we do about the bleeping public during public comment? Can’t shut ‘em up. Can’t really censor much of what they say since you’ve got to define all kinds of grey areas that defy definition. How is a strongly held opinion about some issue different from a “rant.” Besides, of course, the old standby: What I have to say is a strongly held opinion. What you have to say, is a rant!
And for the “regular Los Osos speakers,” Hill says they see themselves as victims.
Uh, yeah? I suspect some of these people will be losing their homes because of the Hideous Sewer Project. So, I think the word “victim” pretty well sums that situation up. And considering the, uh, very interesting way this whole “Process” was played then manipulated, the word “angry” certainly comes to mind. So we have a group of Los Ososians who are angry victims who, under the Brown Act, have the right to public comment.
And Hill is asking for “civility?” Let me suggest a different tack. Why not have the Supervisors, instead of sitting stone faced, actually acknowledge a speaker who gets up there and says, “We’re going to lose our home. What do we do?” and answer honestly: “We chose to ignore the promised Design/Build that might have come up with a less expensive system. What we chose and voted on instead, despite all of your “uncivil” pleadings, will likely put a good number of Los Ososians, like yourselves, out of their homes. We don’t know what you should do. We have no answers for you. It’s not our problem any more. We certainly will have staff keep trying to find whatever financial help is out there, and hope for the best. We are very sorry for your troubles, but we can do nothing for you and now it’s time for us to move on. Goodbye and good luck to you.”
Then do what was tried in the past: Set aside a small amount of time, maybe once a week (month?) specifically agendized for Los Osos Sewer Stuff, then if anyone speaks to L.O.S.S. at any other time, they can be hushed up and told to come back at the proper time for that topic.
Other than that, Brown Act still rules and defining “disruption” and ordering ejection via Sheriff will remain a politically tricky option.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Alice in Wonderland, Part HUH?
Some of the Sewer Addicted ankle-chewers who log onto this site and chew, have made it clear to me that they may have missed some important info in the PZLDF case.
A few:
1. PZLDF was originally founded by CDO recipients, among others, who were parties to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was and is and remains an effort on the part of some of the randomly singled out homeowners to protect their civil rights, property rights and constitutional rights from an illegal taking/abuse of process. It has nothing to do with sewer tanks or sewers. It has to do with fines and jail time hanging over these 45 heads (while ignoring all the other homes in the PZ.)
2. If memory serves, and please correct me if I've got this out of order, but the CSD had several CDOs of their own. (Firehouse, Vista de Oro, Bay Ridge Estates) For the ACL heaing, the CSD originally hired Steve Onstott to look out for the district's CDO's on the first Mad Hatter "Trial." During the second Mad Hatter Trial (which resulted when they had to stop and start all over again) Mr. Seitz (CSD attorney) successfully argued that the CSD had no assets the RWQCB could tap into (legally) and slyly noted that the CSD actually IS the People and the People ARE the CSD, hint-hint. After the ACL hearing, the RWQCB took Mr. Seitz "hint" and then issued their randomly targeted 45 CDO's (Thanks, Seitz). The RWQCB suggested that the LOCSD join the 45 as an “interested party” when they issued the CDO’s to the randomly targeted Los Osos 45 since the 45 were going to be relying on testimony and material already submitted in the ACL hearing, thereby mingling cases and incorporating by reference & etc. I beleive Shaunna and Seitz were the attorneys of record during the second co-mingled Mad Hatter Tea Party “Trial,” so the 45 and the CSD did have a common interest. At some point after the second Mad Hatter “Trial,” and after the CSD voted to continue to defend the CDOs in a "real court," (theirs and the 45, which were interwtined), Mr. Seitz severed the CSD’s role as an “interested party” in the lawsuit, while Shauna Sullivan continued on her own to represent the remaining Los Osos 45 who were involved in the suit.
3. The current lawsuit, in which Shaunna is still the attorney of record, is an appeal of the RWQCB actions and decisions. The appeal is confined to arguing only what the prosecution team asserted in the case. This included the RWQCB documents such as resolution 83-13, which is how that issue came into the case. So, while this case has nothing to do with sewers, the reason for all of this goes back to the original 83-13 and the various “findings” and all the other weirdness that 83-13 resolution contained. (For utterly bizarre weirdness, you can’t beat this: Slapping a moratorium on a town claiming that you have evidence that high nitrates in the groundwater are caused by septic tanks. THEN immediately allowing the building of 1,100 MORE homes with septic tanks that will, as you claim, pollute the groundwater with nitrates. You do not “fix” a nitrate problem by ADDING MORE nitrate producers. Then later claim that only 45 people are now suddenly “guilty of” polluting the groundwater when it was your regulatory body that allowed those additional homes &; etc.)
4. The insanity of so much of what the RWQCB asserts has, so far as I can see, gone unanswered by a “real” court of law, including Judge Crandall. And it’s possible that, as I noted in my previous post, looney, left-hand-doesn’t-know-what-right-hand is doing regulatory statutes may trump constitutional guarantees of due process and basic common sense.
For example, one funny (unless you’re one of the 45) outcome in the CDO: The moment The Los Osos 45 hook up to the county sewer, they are in immediate violation of their CDO. The CDO forbids any “discharge” of wastewater/pollution/etc. into the PZ. The County sewer will be “discharging” waste into the PZ. Catch 22: hook up to the sewer, violate the terms of your CDO. Also, the CDO forbids “discharge” of anything, even clean water, so this ban violates the community’s need to recharge the water basin as mandated by laws and regulations adopted since 83-13. More Catch 22.
And, while the RWQCB blandly claims that criminal prosecution and fines are not “likely consequences,” they never explain why are they in the CDO order? Plus, more Catch 22, if these CDO’s are not challenged now, they will not be challengeable if and when criminal actions/ penalties are sought. It’s the old game of: You have to wait until actual harm comes to you and when it does, it’s too late to file your suit since the window has closed. Ha-ha.
Which is another question a “real” court needs to answer. Is it a violation of basic civil rights and constitutional guarantees to create regulations that trap citizens in legal Catch 22’s with NO way to defend themselves or their homes?
While the Razor/Rock posted their personal take on Judge Crandall’s ruling, (while veering off on some irrelevant personal ankle chewing) many of their comments lead me to believe they are unfamiliar with the case as a whole. And, of course, neither R/R are attorneys, so I fully understand someone non-lawyerish not understanding the case as a whole since it’s incredibly complex, been through two judges, whole parts have been tossed out (with no appeal possible until the final ruling), so sorting through what’s left and what really needs to be appealed, is a real tangle.
Plus, since the case is wrongly but constantly reported in the press as being portrayed as sewerish and septic tankish, it’s easy to forget the narrow, non-sewerish issues that actually are being brought to a “real” court. And so it’s simple to veer off into irrelevant issues.
I have no idea if The Los Osos 45 who are party to this suit will file an appeal. As an original non-CDO part of this case, Judge La Barbara removed me from the case long, long ago. (Only actual CDO holders were allowed to proceed.) So, that decision is certainly not mine to make. But, personally, I rather hope they do since the unresolved issues raised in this case are going to show up again throughout the state in the future. And, if they decide not to proceed, I’ll understand that also.
I have said before and I’ll say again: What the RWQCB did to these 45 people was wrong. The reason for doing it (electioneering, coercion) was wrong. The abusive, Mad Hatter, Catch 22 nature of the regulations was (and is) both looney and wrong. And, if it stands, then everyone in the state of California will be Los Osos 45ers. And that will still be wrong.
Oh, and fair warning to some of the more out of control ankle-chewers who comment on this blog. Mother Calhoun and her little trash can icon are watching you.
A few:
1. PZLDF was originally founded by CDO recipients, among others, who were parties to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was and is and remains an effort on the part of some of the randomly singled out homeowners to protect their civil rights, property rights and constitutional rights from an illegal taking/abuse of process. It has nothing to do with sewer tanks or sewers. It has to do with fines and jail time hanging over these 45 heads (while ignoring all the other homes in the PZ.)
2. If memory serves, and please correct me if I've got this out of order, but the CSD had several CDOs of their own. (Firehouse, Vista de Oro, Bay Ridge Estates) For the ACL heaing, the CSD originally hired Steve Onstott to look out for the district's CDO's on the first Mad Hatter "Trial." During the second Mad Hatter Trial (which resulted when they had to stop and start all over again) Mr. Seitz (CSD attorney) successfully argued that the CSD had no assets the RWQCB could tap into (legally) and slyly noted that the CSD actually IS the People and the People ARE the CSD, hint-hint. After the ACL hearing, the RWQCB took Mr. Seitz "hint" and then issued their randomly targeted 45 CDO's (Thanks, Seitz). The RWQCB suggested that the LOCSD join the 45 as an “interested party” when they issued the CDO’s to the randomly targeted Los Osos 45 since the 45 were going to be relying on testimony and material already submitted in the ACL hearing, thereby mingling cases and incorporating by reference & etc. I beleive Shaunna and Seitz were the attorneys of record during the second co-mingled Mad Hatter Tea Party “Trial,” so the 45 and the CSD did have a common interest. At some point after the second Mad Hatter “Trial,” and after the CSD voted to continue to defend the CDOs in a "real court," (theirs and the 45, which were interwtined), Mr. Seitz severed the CSD’s role as an “interested party” in the lawsuit, while Shauna Sullivan continued on her own to represent the remaining Los Osos 45 who were involved in the suit.
3. The current lawsuit, in which Shaunna is still the attorney of record, is an appeal of the RWQCB actions and decisions. The appeal is confined to arguing only what the prosecution team asserted in the case. This included the RWQCB documents such as resolution 83-13, which is how that issue came into the case. So, while this case has nothing to do with sewers, the reason for all of this goes back to the original 83-13 and the various “findings” and all the other weirdness that 83-13 resolution contained. (For utterly bizarre weirdness, you can’t beat this: Slapping a moratorium on a town claiming that you have evidence that high nitrates in the groundwater are caused by septic tanks. THEN immediately allowing the building of 1,100 MORE homes with septic tanks that will, as you claim, pollute the groundwater with nitrates. You do not “fix” a nitrate problem by ADDING MORE nitrate producers. Then later claim that only 45 people are now suddenly “guilty of” polluting the groundwater when it was your regulatory body that allowed those additional homes &; etc.)
4. The insanity of so much of what the RWQCB asserts has, so far as I can see, gone unanswered by a “real” court of law, including Judge Crandall. And it’s possible that, as I noted in my previous post, looney, left-hand-doesn’t-know-what-right-hand is doing regulatory statutes may trump constitutional guarantees of due process and basic common sense.
For example, one funny (unless you’re one of the 45) outcome in the CDO: The moment The Los Osos 45 hook up to the county sewer, they are in immediate violation of their CDO. The CDO forbids any “discharge” of wastewater/pollution/etc. into the PZ. The County sewer will be “discharging” waste into the PZ. Catch 22: hook up to the sewer, violate the terms of your CDO. Also, the CDO forbids “discharge” of anything, even clean water, so this ban violates the community’s need to recharge the water basin as mandated by laws and regulations adopted since 83-13. More Catch 22.
And, while the RWQCB blandly claims that criminal prosecution and fines are not “likely consequences,” they never explain why are they in the CDO order? Plus, more Catch 22, if these CDO’s are not challenged now, they will not be challengeable if and when criminal actions/ penalties are sought. It’s the old game of: You have to wait until actual harm comes to you and when it does, it’s too late to file your suit since the window has closed. Ha-ha.
Which is another question a “real” court needs to answer. Is it a violation of basic civil rights and constitutional guarantees to create regulations that trap citizens in legal Catch 22’s with NO way to defend themselves or their homes?
While the Razor/Rock posted their personal take on Judge Crandall’s ruling, (while veering off on some irrelevant personal ankle chewing) many of their comments lead me to believe they are unfamiliar with the case as a whole. And, of course, neither R/R are attorneys, so I fully understand someone non-lawyerish not understanding the case as a whole since it’s incredibly complex, been through two judges, whole parts have been tossed out (with no appeal possible until the final ruling), so sorting through what’s left and what really needs to be appealed, is a real tangle.
Plus, since the case is wrongly but constantly reported in the press as being portrayed as sewerish and septic tankish, it’s easy to forget the narrow, non-sewerish issues that actually are being brought to a “real” court. And so it’s simple to veer off into irrelevant issues.
I have no idea if The Los Osos 45 who are party to this suit will file an appeal. As an original non-CDO part of this case, Judge La Barbara removed me from the case long, long ago. (Only actual CDO holders were allowed to proceed.) So, that decision is certainly not mine to make. But, personally, I rather hope they do since the unresolved issues raised in this case are going to show up again throughout the state in the future. And, if they decide not to proceed, I’ll understand that also.
I have said before and I’ll say again: What the RWQCB did to these 45 people was wrong. The reason for doing it (electioneering, coercion) was wrong. The abusive, Mad Hatter, Catch 22 nature of the regulations was (and is) both looney and wrong. And, if it stands, then everyone in the state of California will be Los Osos 45ers. And that will still be wrong.
Oh, and fair warning to some of the more out of control ankle-chewers who comment on this blog. Mother Calhoun and her little trash can icon are watching you.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Alice in Wonderland, Part Duh
The Razor weighs in on the PZLDF case. According to the Tribune story, it's not known whether an appeal will be filed. The Rasor opines that Judge Crandall's ruling could ease the way for more "zones." I wrote some time ago, after the RWQCB's "stealth" state-wide septic tank update, "We're ALL Los Osos now." Indeed. And what makes that so fascinating is, according to Judge Crandall, a regulatory assertion (not evidence) now trumps constitutional presumption of innocence and/or even "evidence." Which is fascinating. Some of the ankle-chewers who are addicted to this blogsite, have always mistaken this case with "the sewer." It never was about sewering; it was always about legal rights, property rights, civil protections from regulatory abuse, and checks and balance in law and regulation. THAT was what was critical in this case. And if that goes unchallenged, the statement that we are all Los Osos now will become the standard under law. And that is deadly serious.
Sunday, 02 January 2011 17:49
Failed Citizens for Clean Water/PZLDF Suit Boosts ‘Prohibition Zones’ Statewide
The consequences of the flimsy suit that sought to repeal CDOs targeting a random group of Los Osos homeowners could ease the way for more "zones" prohibiting septic system discharge. The judge’s ruling calls into question the quality and substance of CCW/PZLDF’s case against the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
» Read Article
http://www.rockofthecoast.com/news/local/877-failed-citizens-for-clean-waterpzldf-suit-boosts-prohibition-zones-statewide
Legal Analysis: PZLDF Suit a Colossal Disaster
On December 28, San Luis Obispo County Judge Charles S. Crandall issued his ruling of the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund v. Regional Water Quality Control Board -- and it was bad news for the Gail McPherson-led group. The judge found that the Regional Water Quality Control Board provided sufficient evidence to validate the Cease and Desist orders (CDOs) that were delivered to 45 individuals in January 2006. The judge relied heavily on 14,000 pages of documentation provided by the Regional Water Board including Resolution 83-13, which prohibited septic tank discharges within the Los Osos Prohibition Zone. And what did the petitioners -- whose burden was to prove their case with the preponderance of evidence -- provide the court?
If you believe the judge, next to nothing.
Click here to read more!
http://www.rockofthecoast.com/razor/2011/01/02/legal-analysis-pzldf-suit-a-colossal-disaster/
Sunday, 02 January 2011 17:49
Failed Citizens for Clean Water/PZLDF Suit Boosts ‘Prohibition Zones’ Statewide
The consequences of the flimsy suit that sought to repeal CDOs targeting a random group of Los Osos homeowners could ease the way for more "zones" prohibiting septic system discharge. The judge’s ruling calls into question the quality and substance of CCW/PZLDF’s case against the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
» Read Article
http://www.rockofthecoast.com/news/local/877-failed-citizens-for-clean-waterpzldf-suit-boosts-prohibition-zones-statewide
Legal Analysis: PZLDF Suit a Colossal Disaster
On December 28, San Luis Obispo County Judge Charles S. Crandall issued his ruling of the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund v. Regional Water Quality Control Board -- and it was bad news for the Gail McPherson-led group. The judge found that the Regional Water Quality Control Board provided sufficient evidence to validate the Cease and Desist orders (CDOs) that were delivered to 45 individuals in January 2006. The judge relied heavily on 14,000 pages of documentation provided by the Regional Water Board including Resolution 83-13, which prohibited septic tank discharges within the Los Osos Prohibition Zone. And what did the petitioners -- whose burden was to prove their case with the preponderance of evidence -- provide the court?
If you believe the judge, next to nothing.
Click here to read more!
http://www.rockofthecoast.com/razor/2011/01/02/legal-analysis-pzldf-suit-a-colossal-disaster/
Sunday, January 02, 2011
Your Sunday Poem
This is Thomas Lux, from his new book of poetry, “God Particles.” He’s a new poet to me, sharp, funny, fierce and I look forward to getting acquainted with his work.
The General Law of Oblivion,
Mr. Proust called it; the beloved gone so long
you forget what he/she looks like,
no matter portraits, photos, or memory,
which is the best tool for forgetting.
Though one cannot deny
its genius, Mr. Proust’s prose
kills me, it loops
me over and out. Is it just French novelists
who don’t know how to end
a sentence and so love the semicolon (“ the period
that leaks”) they can’t write two lines
without one? And I am so goddamned tired
of hearing about that cookie!
As if he were the first (first fish were!) to notice
the powers of the olfactory! But
about the General Law of Oblivion
he had it zeroed” “It breaks my heart
that I am gong to forget you,” he said
in a last letter to a friend.
The length and music of that sentence
is perfect, in English or in French.
The General Law of Oblivion,
Mr. Proust called it; the beloved gone so long
you forget what he/she looks like,
no matter portraits, photos, or memory,
which is the best tool for forgetting.
Though one cannot deny
its genius, Mr. Proust’s prose
kills me, it loops
me over and out. Is it just French novelists
who don’t know how to end
a sentence and so love the semicolon (“ the period
that leaks”) they can’t write two lines
without one? And I am so goddamned tired
of hearing about that cookie!
As if he were the first (first fish were!) to notice
the powers of the olfactory! But
about the General Law of Oblivion
he had it zeroed” “It breaks my heart
that I am gong to forget you,” he said
in a last letter to a friend.
The length and music of that sentence
is perfect, in English or in French.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
