Los Osos -- You Paid For It, You Should See It

Unlike the 2001 Los Osos Community Services District Board, SewerWatch believes that taxpayers in Los Osos should be privy to public documents, especially since those same taxpayers shelled out damn near $28,000 for said documents.

It took awhile, but I finally broke down and scanned in that amazing public opinion survey that the LOCSD commissioned in 2001 to gauge support for their sewer project. It's great, and very interesting.

You can download it here: Los Osos 2001 Public Opinion Survey.

Among many, many things, it shows a community that strongly supports a sewer system in Los Osos, and a community that was worried about fines from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In short, a community that wants to do the right thing.

It also shows a confused community -- a community that was still largely under the impression that the Solution Group's "better, cheaper, faster" Community Plan was still on the table, even though that project crashed and burned months before the survey was conducted. But the confusion was understandable. According to the survey, Los Osos's main source of information at the time was the Tribune, and that was unfortunate, because the Trib did not write one story on the intensely newsworthy demise of the Community Plan in 2000, even though I had just written a New Times cover story chronicling it. (Hey Trib, quick question -- why didn't you do a public information request for this document? Ohhhhhhh yea, that's right, because it reveals that you guys had no idea what you were talking about last year when you were popping out editorials on Los Osos, including one on election day. So, I can understand why you wouldn't want to request this document. In fact, it makes perfect sense.)

Throughout the survey, there are leading and misleading questions and statements everywhere. So much so, that when you read through it, it gets blurry on whether the survey was commissioned to gauge public opinion on the sewer project, or whether it was used as campaign material (funded by Los Osos taxpayers) in an effort to sway an election.

"This measure is our last chance to approve a wastewater system for Los Osos."

"It builds a treatment facility that is completely covered and equipped with odor removal equipment."

"This measure includes funds to build a large park for the citizens of Los Osos. The park would include ballfields, a picnic area, gardens, walking paths, and amphitheater, and even constructed wetlands."

Even constructed wetlands? Wow. That's one sweet sewer plant!

'coupla questions on that one:

Why did they leave out the minor details that those "funds" would amount to $2.3 million just for the amenities, like the "constructed wetlands," and about $3 million, at least, in operation and maintenance costs over the next 20 years?

And another thing -- why didn't they follow-up their lovely description of the park with, "Oh, and by the way, that "large park" is also going to require a large piece of expensive land, and that large piece of expensive land is going to have to be in the middle of town so people can get to the "large park," so we're also going to have to add tens of millions of dollars to the project for expensive environmental mitigation, massive odor control, land costs, and lots of expensive visual mitigation because of the central location to accommodate the park."?

Why didn't the early CSD Board add that to their survey? I'll take a stab at the answer -- because if they had, 100-percent of the respondents would have said, "Are you out of your freaking mind!?"

Just curious... what percentage of the 53-percent of respondents that said they would be "much more inclined" to support the measure because it creates a park, would still have supported that idea if they had been apprised of those minor details?

There are so many notable items in the survey. Things will jump out at you that I haven't even touched upon -- things like attaching "special loans" to mortgages. Huh? Did that mean if a homeowner couldn't keep up with the $35 a month added to their mortgage by the "special loan," they would no longer be a homeowner? Just a thought.

But, without a doubt, my favorite part of the survey is where it asks:

"What is the most important issue that you would like to see local governments in the Los Osos area do something about?"

And from a list of answers, respondents said:
"Open space/park protections -- 1%"

That thin number was tucked away in that dusty document at the exact same time that the LOCSD was telling the California Coastal Commission, and printing in their Final Project Report, that there was a "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a centrally located "recreational asset."

Naturally, Coastal Commission staff recently told SewerWatch that they were not aware of the survey, and that's too bad, because the Coastal Commission believed the CSD, and in 2002, reluctantly signed-off on the ESHA-filled, Tri-W site based solely on that "community value." And, of course, again, the Tribune did not cover any of that, even though I wrote another New Times cover story chronicling all of it. (Nice job, Trib... you're one hell of a "watchdog.")

However, the survey does show some good news for the ladies in Los Osos. The town has 6-percent more men than women, at least that was the case in 2001.

###