Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Fun With Google

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then what's a picture of a Google search worth?


  • Let's see...you do not live in Los Osos, and have few, if any ties to the community. So, why should anyone who does live here and has had to listen to all the drivel and misinformation the naysayers are constantly spouting give a hang what you have to say?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:36 PM, June 21, 2005  

  • Excellent question.

    Here's why you should give a hang: because I've listened to "all the drivel and misinformation" from the naysayers AND the yeasayers for the last 15 fifteen years as I've covered this story. Now that I think about it, I can't think of anyone else that has interviewed the amount of people involved with this story as I have. From Bill Coy to Bruce Buel. From George Gibson (many, many times) to Steve Hyland. From Zeolite, to Ponds. From Turri Road to Tri-W. From $71 million County Project to $151 million "Sewer-Park." I can even tell you what T.A.P.P.S. stands for. I broke the Questa Study story. I know what the "fatal flaw" is. I can go on and on and on...

    That should be about all you need to know to "give a hang."

    By Blogger Ron, at 4:36 PM, June 21, 2005  

  • ...and on and on and on and still not get it right.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:08 PM, June 21, 2005  

  • My, my. Pontificating from a distance must have its pleasures.

    Those of us who have lived with this issue for 30 years want the Wastewater Project NOW. It may be expensive now, but it is never going to get any cheaper. Even if the contrarians received donated land and the best sewer design in the world, it would take a minimum of five years to go from square A to square B and end up costing the residents a minimum of $500 per MONTH. Its not rocket science, Ron. Just the
    realistic facts of life.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:52 AM, June 22, 2005  

  • In response to the "still not get it right line:"

    Thank you for the comment. I really do appreciate the discussion.

    Since I want to make sure I'm as accurate as possible, please tell me, specifically, where I'm wrong.

    Here's what I know:
    1. The park is the only reason to site the facility at Tri-W. ("Project objective of centrally located amenities")

    2. There's no reason to include the park in the sewer plant. ("Frankly, I do not have an answer...," Gordon Hensley.)

    3. The park is adding tens of millions of dollars to the project. (wave wall, buried facilities, etc.)

    Let's stay on topic... please tell me where I'm wrong on these points, and please be specific. Thanks, Ron

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:00 AM, June 22, 2005  

  • "Those of us who have lived with this issue for 30 years want the Wastewater Project NOW."

    I agree... Los Osos needs a viable wastewater project now. And, with the exception of the park element, the current project seems viable. I don't have a problem with it, other than the park element. The park is dictating the location, adding tens of millions of dollars to the project, and there's no reason to include it in the project. And even then, I wouldn't have a problem -- hey, I don't live in Los Osos, I don't pay taxes in Los Osos... if you guys want to build your sewer plant on the top of Carlock's Bakery, I don't care -- but the problem is, that the LOCSD is seeking fat chunks of state and federal money, which means WE'LL be paying for YOUR park that you already voted that you do not want to be taxed for. Sounds like a fleecing to me.

    According to the Save The Dream web site (savethedream.info), getting to square A to square B would add a "2 to 3 year delay in project completion if the WWTF was located at an alternative site"

    Excellent comments... keep 'em coming. I enjoy the discussion.


    By Blogger Ron, at 11:15 AM, June 22, 2005  

  • From the LOCSD website - FAQs "What amenities were originally planned for the site and what will we actually get?
    The first conceptual plan for the Project site included, in addition to the current amenities, an amphitheater, community garden, water garden and picnic area. These amenities were outside of Project scope. The final design site plan, with a much smaller facility footprint, still includes the off-leash dog park, a multi-purpose play area, and a trail system."

    There were many, many public workshops where the citizens of Los Osos were asked over and over what they wanted at the site, as well as where it should be located. These requests were incorporated into the design. The CSD Board did not arbitrarily decide to include a park.

    Also in reference to your "bait and switch" comments. The Coastal Commission told the CSD to remove ammentities and then later told them to return them.

    The selection of the Tri-W site was made in 2001 a year before the "Move the Sewer" faction decided to start up. Where were all the "concered citizens" when the decision was being made? Most of them claim to be long term residents and the CSD certainly made sure every resident (not just property owners) in Los Osos were notified any and all public meetings.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:43 AM, June 22, 2005  

  • Ron, this is specifically where you are wrong:

    The Tri-W location was selected because it was the closest acreage to where the majority of the effluent would be collected. To pump effluent miles to a facility is inefficient, costly and fraught with potential problems.

    You keep harping on this *park* thing. Gee Ron, why don't you take it a step further and say it is a *dog* thing, since a dog park is planned, too?

    Realistically, any installation servicing a population our size, even if it was in the middle of the Mojave Desert, would have to conform to environmental and aesthetic regulations and standards.

    What would you have? Some ugly vacant lot with a few scraggly weeds? Funny, no one cares when a little grading, some plantings and a restroom is put at the beach. We Californians expect this. Why would anyone mind having them in Los Osos? And too, with the county skatepark consuming the only park in the area, we *need* a park.

    The contrarians will play the *odor* card, but in reality, the cutting-edge technology of a reverse-flow airlock trumps any card they may play.

    You say, "There is no reason to include a park in the Wastewater plan."

    And I say, "There is no reason to NOT include a park in the Wastewater plan."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:13 PM, June 22, 2005  

  • One last thing:

    Extimates of 2-3 years for a new design through to completion is in a perfect world. Of course, in a perfect world we would all be the beautiful people and be incredibly rich.

    Unfortunately, we don't live in that perfect world. Real life has delays, increased governmental regulations everywhere and on everything, and cost escalate exponentially. Perhaps I estimated a bit low. Probably more like $600 per household per month if this is delayed for another reinvention of the wheel.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:25 PM, June 22, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home