Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Aren't Blogs Great?

I posted the following in the comments section at Ann Calhoun's great blog, and I liked it, so I'm reprinting it here (I'll link up the documents later... little busy right now:

- - - -

Ann... nicely done, as always.

However, you left out one of my favorite lines from the project report. This one just blows me away:

The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents...

As I so accurately wrote in Three Blocks (a year and a half ago, by the way)... with logic like that, why consider other potential sites all? In fact, when you think about it, with logic like that, considering any other potential out-of-town sites would be a complete waste! If the early CSD's overriding "project objective" was "centrally located community amenities," then why were out-of-town sites looked at at all? Talk about a waste of time and money!

There's another great, great, great line from the project report:

"The clearest result of the first workshop was that the Resource Park (Tri-W) site was the preferred site because of its size and central location."

And that was that.

How many times were Los Ososans told that there were "hundreds" of public meetings regarding the Tri-W site selection? Yet, according to the project report, Tri-Dub was locked in after the first "workshop." Ouch!

I have a question, because I'm having a hard time understanding it: How can you people in Los Osos stand all of these lies? They're everywhere! Lie, lie, lie, lie ,lie.

When radio talkshow host, Dave Congalton, called the anti Tri-W folks "angry children" last year, I thought that was very unfair. They were angry adults, and understandably so.

Also, Ann, you did mention the failed ballot measures that showed Los Osos taxpayers didn't want to pay for public recreation anywhere in Los Osos, let alone a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant, but you forgot my favorite piece of evidence that shows that the early CSD "lied through their teeth" (to quote my friend) to the Coastal Commission (the friggin' Coastal Commission) during the lengthy and expensive 2001-02 LCP Amendment process that made the Tri-W site possible.

That great evidence is the CSD's own 2001, $28,000 public opinion survey that showed almost zero support, obviously and reasonably, for the idea of including a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant and then have that park dictate a very expensive, highly controversial, environmentally sensitive downtown location.

The early CSD Board had that study in their hand (along with those failed ballot measures that some on the board worked on in 1997) at the same time they were telling the Coastal Commission that their was a "strongly held community value" to include a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant and then have that park dictate a very expensive, highly controversial, environmentally sensitive downtown location.

They said that because it was the only way they could keep Tri-W in their second plan. Without that "community value," the Coastal Commission would have never approved, or even needed LCP Amendment 3-01 for the second plan. There would have been no reason for it. Out of town sites were cheaper, and less environmentally sensitive. It's a no-brainer.

(By the way, yesterday, I sent sent Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz, an e-mail asking him if CC staff would have still recommended a "Yes" vote on the LCP Amendment that made Tri-W possible if they had been shown that evidence above. He has yet to reply. In an earlier e-mail he told SewerWatch that he was "not aware" of the strong evidence that showed the exact opposite "community value" from what the District was telling the Commission in 2001-02.)

The early CSD lied to the Coastal Commission to keep Tri-W in the plan because they realized that if they could somehow keep Tri-W in the plan, they could just confuse everyone by saying their first plan -- the plan that got them elected and the CSD formed in the first place in 1998 -- was somehow still on the table and that it simply "morphed" into their second plan, and everything else was just a "design change."

When in actuality, the plan that got them elected and the CSD formed in the first place was doomed before the 1998 election, but they wasted two years chasing it anyway. There was absolutely no rationale whatsoever to keep the facility at Tri-W in their second plan. None.

They lied to the Coastal Commission from 2000-02 in a desperate attempt to keep it there, and it worked, and then that lie promptly ripped your beautiful community apart.

The question now is, why did they do that?

Is my rationale for a Grand Jury investigation becoming any clearer?



Post a Comment

<< Home