Wednesday, March 22, 2006

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.

###

27 Comments:

  • Hi Ron,

    Blah, Blah, Blah.........So what if your OPINION is you do not like the 2001 survey.
    Nothing wrong here.
    No laws have been broken.
    No conspiracies have transpired. Nothing but folks doing the best they can to solve a community problem.

    You just don't like the result of their work.

    Also...how is your attempt at getting a Grand Jury investigation going? Nowhere fast no doubt.

    Still Laughting At You

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:20 PM, March 22, 2006  

  • I'd like to see the public documents as promised by the NEW, transparent CSD, but those are pretty hard to come by too. So much for THEIR "Sunshine Week."

    So what's the point about the park thing? I'm reading the date of your post, March 22, 2006, and this park stuff happened when? Beating up the old board is kinda irrelevant, when there is so much current stuff to froth over on the new board.

    Hey - community leaders, (if you would believe the article in THE ROCK and the evidence is pretty compelling as it is accompanied by photographs), are currently meeting with world famous "eco"-designer Patricia Johanson. If you go to Ms. Johanson's website, you can see the ponding systems and wastewater parks that she has created. Some parks are right on top of sewer systems, and are undetectable to those standing above. Imagine that.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 2:39 PM, March 22, 2006  

  • Ron, your suggestions earlier that somehow only 7% and 1% support the park portion of the TriW project is not supported by this survey.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 9:32 PM, March 22, 2006  

  • "Laughing at You," said: "how is your attempt at getting a Grand Jury investigation going?"

    "Laughing," that's actually a really good question...

    I'm assuming you're a U.S. and California taxpayer, so, therefore, I'm also assuming you're on my side on this... so it's good to have ya on board.

    My answer to your question is, I have no idea what's going on with that investigation. I do not know what the Grand Jury process is. Their web site sucks, and I don't file requests for a Grand Jury investigation often.

    Do they need more info? (They shouldn't, but I've got a lot more, if they need it, all they need to do is ask.)
    Is there anymore interaction after the initial filing?
    Are they able to wrap their minds around my arguments?
    Do they contact me?
    Do I contact them?

    "Laughing," you're the one with all the "contacts," maybe you could help me out.

    I called the Grand Jury once after I filed my request, but the person that answered the phone was very confused... that didn't bolster my confidence that they'll investigate, which they absolutely should -- it was tens of millions of wasted U.S. and California taxpayer dollars, after all.

    That investigation should take all of about ten minutes. Just get Bruce Buel in front of them, and ask, "We now know that there was no rationale to site your second project at Tri-W, so why did the CSD lie to the Coastal Commission about the only reason to site the second project at Tri-W? Was it to save face, or was it some sort of shaky land deal?"

    And that would be that. We'd finally know why they put Los Osos through all of this.

    The better question is -- what's going on with the Tri-dubya permit revocation request?

    Will the Coastal Commission say they still would have favored "faster water clean-up" over "no rationale behind siting?" THAT'S the question.

    I'm much more confident that the Coastal Commission staff can wrap their bright minds around my arguments.

    Thanks for asking.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:39 AM, March 23, 2006  

  • I've got a question too. How about investigating Bleskey and all the state's SRF money he has spent on lawyers? Of course, if you have read his deposition taken by the state DA, he could be no help here to actually EXPLAIN anything.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 4:24 PM, March 23, 2006  

  • Sewertoons,

    Don't bother Ron with that question ... he only asks questions about parks at TriW.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 4:52 PM, March 23, 2006  

  • Shark - thanx for the advice!!

    Hey - apparently Churadogs has caught the disease too -

    http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/2006/03/survey-said-over-at-www.html

    I mean who cares? Do we really need to feed the new board more lawsuit ideas. Unless those in the know are thinkin' Tri-W really COULD get resurrected and this is their preemptive strike....

    Did you look at the CSD meeting agenda for tonight? There's a couple of new lawsuits that I haven't seen before!

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 9:21 PM, March 23, 2006  

  • I just don't get it. Why isn't everyone on my side on all of this?

    All I do is show that from Jan. 1, 1999 to about the Fall of 2000, the CSD/Solution Group Board wasted millions of dollars of state and federal taxpayers' funds, and two years of everyone's time because they refused to listen to an army of credible water quality professionals, then, from late 2000 - 2005, the CSD/Solution Group Boards wasted tens of millions of dollars more of state and federal taxpayers' funds, and five more years of everyone's time because they thought it would be a good idea to play "bait-and-switchy" with the California Coastal Commission -- all while other California communities like Mariposa couldn't land a penny of State loans for their reality-based sewer projects (translated: sans tot lots and amphitheaters) -- and some folks dislike SewerWatch why?

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:59 AM, March 24, 2006  

  • Ron,

    Why do people not side with you?

    The answer is simple......Your conspiracy theories about what the old CSD Board did are baloney.

    The only wasted money that has occured is the $60,000,000 thrown away by the new CSD Board when they killed the Tri-W Plan.

    Those that voted to recall the old Board got EXACTLY what they voted for....... loss of the SRF loan, multi-million dollar fines, CDO's, and a huge bill (27 million) from the contractors for breach of contract.

    DESPITE repeated warnings by the old Board, the SWRCB, the RWQCB, and the Attorney General.....the voters elected a new Board that flushed all that money away....all on the lie that they have a better, cheaper plan.

    Regards, Laughing

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:14 PM, March 24, 2006  

  • Ron, I find your analysis of the situation with Los Osos over the years very informative and apparently very truthful.
    Why else did the old Board 'Rush, Rush, Rush' into contracts when it was very apparent that they were headed into a very close election outcome. The CSD 3 gave us all a Poison Pill to swallow after their defeaat. If any of the 'nay-sayers' watch the re-runs of the meetings just prior to the election, they will see, once again, that they were faced with a Conga line of citizens who BEGGED them to hold off on signing contracts until the outcome of the election. The hubris of the old Board and the 'Solutions Group' brought them down and their bitterness over having been found out as incompetent put us all in this position.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:34 PM, March 30, 2006  

  • Hi Anonymous,

    Has a President of the United States stopped making decisons and implimenting policy just because an uncomming election MIGHT remove them from office?. Does ANY elected official stop making decisions that they were elected and obligated to make because of an upcoming election (regular or not)?

    The answer is NO......elected officials have the responsibility to continue in their office REGARDLESS of the spector of an election.

    As far as the old CSD Board is concerned, they all acted exactly as they believed to be the best interest for the community of Los Osos. They had a responsibilty to keep the waste water project on tract for they believed (rightly as time has shown) that stopping the project would result in the loss of the SRF loan, fines, and CDO'S against property owners. Go ahead....review all the old tapes; all the old CSD board members repeately told the community why they were continuing the Tri-W project.

    If any hubris or incompetence has been shown, it is by the actions of Tacker, Schicker, Fouche, Senet, and Cesenia. Despite repeated warnings by the State, CSD legal council and the old Board, the new CSD took the actions that has resulted in the disaster that has ensued. I would not be suprisd that such incompetence results in a lawsuit by citizens against The CSD's attornies, Blesky, Wildan and their minions (and maybe the new CSD Board) for malpractice; and demand damages to the tune of $40,000,000. After all, it was the BAD ADVICE given to the community prior to the recall (such as theat Measure B legally protected us from fines, loss of the loan, etc.) that helped recall the old Board.

    Stay tuned....it will soon get VERY INTERESTING.

    Laughing

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:40 PM, March 30, 2006  

  • Anon said:

    "Ron, I find your analysis of the situation with Los Osos over the years very informative and apparently very truthful. "

    'ppreciate it.

    Laughing said:

    "Stay tuned....it will soon get VERY INTERESTING."

    Finally, Laughing, who got something right.

    Laughing, quick question:
    What was the rationale behind the Tri-W siting? Why there?

    By Blogger Ron, at 12:15 PM, March 31, 2006  

  • Anon said:

    "Ron, I find your analysis of the situation with Los Osos over the years very informative and apparently very truthful. "

    'ppreciate it.

    Laughing said:

    "Stay tuned....it will soon get VERY INTERESTING."

    Finally, Laughing, you got something right.

    Laughing, quick question:
    What was the rationale behind the Tri-W siting?

    By Blogger Ron, at 12:18 PM, March 31, 2006  

  • Hi Ron,

    Why Tri-W ?

    That's easy.......restarting the fully designed and permited project (with treatment sited at Tri-W)will be the least expensive means by which to satify the State, end pollution of the groundwater, and allow the Community to get on with life.

    I can say this with cetainty because the CSD, with the SRF now funds frozen, tens of millions in debt and the probable invalidation of Measure B, will never be able to develope a new prooject.


    Laughing

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:28 PM, March 31, 2006  

  • Laughing,

    That doesn't answer my question. The question is:

    What was the rationale behind the Tri-W siting?

    Why was it selected in the first place?

    By Blogger Ron, at 6:59 PM, March 31, 2006  

  • Hi Ron,

    As for Tri-W, there are numerous compelling reasons for its' selection.

    I sat on the site selection committee and was personally involved in the process which resulted in Tri-W. The "reasons" that you have been spewing in all your rants about the selection of Tri-W do not have a thing to do with that reality or that process; nor exhibit that you have any understanding of the site selection committee's meticulous processes or intemse site scrutiny that occured during that time. In a word, you are "clueless".

    I assume you want me to respond to your question; but why bother. You will not believe the truth describing real events from a first-hand source. The truth will not fit in with your conspiracy theories, your imagined "proof" of malfeasence, and maniacal need to play the "blame-game".

    Besides, it does not matter what you or I think about Tri-W because the CSD has failed....the CSD just don't know it yet. As we speak a battalion of court-ordered auditors are reviewing the CSD's books, the CSD's SRF funds (ie their spending money) are frozen, the Grand Jury has subpoenaed Julie Tacker and Lisa Schicker, the contractors have a well documented case for fraud against the new CSD Board and Dan Blesky, on April 3 the Court will rule Measure B invalid, on April 28 the RWQCB will vote to enforce the CDO's and issue a few hundred more, and in June the contractors will prevail in their 28 million dollar claim against the District.

    By the time the CSD gets to the LAFCO hearings in June it will be obvious that the CSD cannot function or solve the community's problems.

    The CSD will be disolved.

    The County will take over the functions of the LOCSD and restart the Tr-W project.

    And there is not a thing you or I can do to prevent these events from happening.

    Laughing

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:40 PM, March 31, 2006  

  • Hello Laughing,

    I'm glad we are having this discussion, because if you were indeed on the site selection committee, then it sounds like you can bring some good stuff to the table.

    Me and someone from the site selection committee? That's what healthy debate is all about.

    If I'm "clueless," it's due in large part to the following two quotes.

    This one is from the highly competent Coastal Commission staff:

    "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

    and this one is found the in Final Project Report:

    "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..."

    If those two quotes are accurate, and I'm assuming they are since I found them printed with toner on pages in official documents, then how can my "rants" not have a thing to do with the selection reality?

    Was there another reason for Tri-W other than the project objective for centrally located community amenities? Because, if there was, I'm not seeing it, and neither did the Coastal Commission, or the Final Project Report.

    What were the "numerous compelling reasons for its' selection?" Hey, I'm open minded. If those reasons actually exist, please tell me what they are. I'm listening.

    Thanks in advance.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:34 AM, April 01, 2006  

  • Laughing,

    Still here? I'm waiting.

    "Numerous compelling reasons?"

    Care to elaborate?

    I'll save both of us some time...

    Reduced pumping costs?

    I'll shred that to tiny pieces using CSD documents.

    Pipe over a creek?

    c'mon... please don't make me shred you to iddy-biddy pieces on that one.

    So, what are those "compelling reasons?"

    Laughing, you said you were part of the selection committee, so I'm assuming you know, and that's refreshing, because neither the Coastal Commission or the Final Project Report know what those "numerous compelling reasons" are. So, what are they?

    Thanks in advance for your specific answer.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:17 AM, April 04, 2006  

  • wow, this place is getting pretty whacky. Who were on that "site" committee?
    April 2nd has come & gone. A REAL audit could find some interesting stuff going back a few years. Who else besides Mss. Tacker & Schicker has been called before the Grand Jury? IF they've been called...
    Hell, I'm a member of SPECTRE, really just a bit of consulting these days, you know, but you'd think i'd of heard something of these political inevitabilities:
    "And there is not a thing you or I can do to prevent these events from happening."
    Mistah Bond. ahahahahaha.

    By Anonymous Dogpatch Refugee, at 11:57 PM, April 04, 2006  

  • Hi Ron,

    It is nice to be home after my business trip. I can see by your posts you were impatient for my return. So was Ann.

    Steve Clarey of MWH and the Site Selection Subcommittee met over a period of two months in 2000. We looked at a short list of eight properties that made it through the initial site review process (via the Waste Water Committee). Some of the properties evaluated were Turri, Eto, Pismo, Andre, Tri-W, Holland; and two other parcels. An evaluation matrix was set up listing attributes that were to be evaluated. I do not recall all of the attributes; but several of them were expandability (did site offer potential for treatment plant expansion), regulatory agency acceptance, public acceptance, adherence to core community goals (as stated in the LOCAC Vision Statement), location (proximity to minimize collection and recharge system), topography, ESH issues, life-cycle costs for site development, and others. Theses attributes were given weighted numeric values. Not all attributes were weighted equally. For example, potential expandability was given a low weight to address growth-inducing concerns stressed by the CCC. Site location that would result in usable open space was given a high weight in order to address community goals listed in the Vision Statement.

    The subcommittee reviewed each site extensively, comparing a given sites’ known assets and liabilities. Numerical weights were given to each attribute; the values added up; and each site given a numerical score. The two sites that rose to the top (highest scores) were Andre and Tri-W. If it had been known back in 2000 the extent of the PG&E site deed restricts, Andre would have been discarded. Anyway, the life-cycle costs between the two differed by less than $200,000 (statistically negligible.) The subcommittee decided on Tri-W due to adherence to the Vision Statement goal of community projects that simultaneously resolved multiple community goals (including space for parks).

    The subcommittees’ site selection process and results were discussed at several public general meetings of the LOCSD Board, publicly reviewed and commented on, and the LOCSD Board made the final selection of Tri-W. At that time, no one, in neither the Public nor the LOCSD Board, objected to the selection of Tri-W. Please compare this public review to the public outcry that occurred just three months earlier with the public review of the Holland site by Sunset Terrace.

    It was not until October of 2002 (20 months later) that the public, specifically Julie Tacker, began criticizing the selection of Tri-W. The LOCSD by that time had spent millions and had acquired a variety of governmental approvals in regards to the Waste Water Project; public money that would have been wasted if the LOCSD decided to look for another site. The rest is history; however I firmly believe that the LOCSD acted properly and correctly. The objections to the site had been thoroughly discussed and mitigated in the FEIR and the final project design. The objections to the Project a, specifically the location, were emotional in nature and not borne out by the facts; essentially an aesthetic issue which is completely subjective.

    Later, Laughing

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:09 AM, April 06, 2006  

  • Hello Laughing,

    You could have saved yourself a lot of typing if you had just read my story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, where I address almost all of your weak takes. Read through my blog, too. There's a lot more where that came from.

    But I did find one thing you said interesting -- You selected those 8 potential sites in 2000? Wasn't that when the CSD's first project was on the table. You remember? right? That ponding system that needed, what, about 50 acres?

    Are you saying that the site selection committee kept the same 8-site-pool for the CSD's second project -- a project that required only about 7 acres? They were two completely different projects, yet there was no reassessment of the site rationale from the first project to the second?

    Are you telling me you guys didn't go back and readdress potential sites when the footprint dropped from about 50 acres to about 7 acres? Why the hell not? If you had, how many more potential sites would there have been?!! Dozens?

    One more thing,

    You said:
    "... resolved multiple community goals (including space for parks)."

    How did the "community goal" for parks, get smushed into a "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant must also double as a centrally located "recreational asset?"

    You have read the Vision Statement, right?

    DogPatch said:

    "And there is not a thing you or I can do to prevent these events from happening."
    Mistah Bond. ahahahahaha.


    That's funny.

    By Blogger Ron, at 12:05 PM, April 06, 2006  

  • Ron,

    Think whatever you wish. Write whatever you desire. It does not matter. The issue about the selection of Tri-W is really old and stale. As for the dates, I erred...it was 2001.

    I have read all your rants. They do not make sense as they do not report actual events or the facts...only your opinion on what happened. "Stiring the pot" is not news or reporting fact. Also, you do not wish for fact as it messes up your conspiracy theories. Why did I even bother to explain the process to a hack such as you?

    Ron, you miss the obvious. The CSD was elected to make decisions on behalf of the public. They all ran promoting park space as part of any project. The desire for park space held on both ponding and buried treatment plants. Nothing wrong here. No conspiracies or skullduggery. All decisions were made before the public. You just do not like the decisions made. So what...they were not yours to make, nor did you have to perform under the eye of the RWQCB or the the SWRCB or the County or the CCC or the EPA.

    In closing, rail against the prevailing wind all you want. The LOCSD is a dead agency as it is hopelessly unstructually sound. Time and the process will blow the remains of the District away.

    Really Laughing Now!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:41 PM, April 06, 2006  

  • Hi dogpatch,

    Julie and Lisa appeared before the Grand Jury on Wednesday, April 5, 2006, in response to their subpoenas of last week.

    In The Statement of Dan Blesky, dated April 5, he states that in the months of January and February, 2006, the CSD spent $420,872 on attorneys.

    In the same statement, Blesky claims that freezing the SRF funds will make it impossible for the CSD to pay attorneys to continue their myriad of lawsuits; nor be able to fund a waste water project.

    In the last two weeks of March, 2006, the CSD has spent another $210,000 on attorneys and consultants.

    The CSD is taking $220,000 out of the Fire Reserves to pay for Administration (Fund 100-governance) costs....$50,000 of that to pay for attorneys. Review the mid-year budget to verify.

    The CSD wants $500,000 out of the Water Department Reserves to go towards Administration (Fund 100-governance) costs. Seems they need money for the attorneys.

    On April 5, 2006, the CSD sent a letter of objection to the Superior court. They claim that last Thursday ruling by Judge Picquet is incomplete, does not specifically state a dollar amount to be frozen, and requests that the audit be completed prior to a ruling. In short, the CSD is going to continue to spend SRF money regardless of the Court ruling freezing it. Sounds like Contempt of Court to me.

    In short, it is obvious that the CSD is spending vast amounts of public funds on attorneys and settlements (over $1,300,000 the six months since October). Please compare this to the fact that in the three years from 2002 to the recall election the CSD spent $675,000 on attorney fees.

    Yup, the CSD is out of control. It has resported to draining public funds out of other government fund (Fire and Water) to pay their attorneys insatiable greed.

    Just thought you would want to know.

    Laughing (a.k.a Mista Bond)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:44 AM, April 07, 2006  

  • Laughing,

    Do me a huge favor... please make sure your information is accurate before you post it, that way I won't waste my time responding to inaccurate information.

    You post like you know more about the future than Nostradamus, but you can't get a simple, yet, important date correct? That's not instilling much confidence in me towards your prognostication capabilities. You might want to break out some Windex on your crystal ball.

    "They all ran promoting park space as part of any project."

    Really? You should have run that quote past Gordon Hensley, before you posted it.

    Because, last year, I asked him:

    "What was the rational for keeping the park in the sewer after the treatment facility footprint dropped from 70 acres to about 5 acres, and the cost of the entire project increased dramatically?"

    And he said:

    "Frankly I do not have an answer - but I think you are correct that IS the core issue."

    Stan Gustafson ran on the platform of "promoting park space as part of any project?"

    Just a guess... but that would probably come as a surprise to Stan. Doesn't he remember Measures E-97 and D-97?

    Finally,

    Laughing said:

    "Why did I even bother to explain the process to a hack such as you?

    And you also said:

    "I have read all your rants."

    Question: If I'm such a hack, why do you read all my stuff?

    I'll consider that a left handed compliment, and I'm left handed.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:40 AM, April 07, 2006  

  • Of course, I meant:

    "What was the rationale for keeping the park in the sewer after the treatment facility footprint dropped from 70 acres to about 5 acres, and the cost of the entire project increased dramatically?"

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:42 AM, April 07, 2006  

  • Ron,

    Your right....why bother to read your rants? Your a crackpot. No need to waste my time anymore.

    Goodbye

    Laughing at You more than Ever

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:59 AM, April 07, 2006  

  • Awwww, c'mon now, Laughing, who are you trying to kid? I know I gotcha hooked. Deep inside, you're a SewerWatch fan. You'll be back.

    Laughing, instead of four paragraphs of smoke screen, do your "numerous compelling reasons" like this:

    - boom

    - boom

    - boom

    For example:

    - Tri-W's central location reduced pumping costs.

    - Out of town sites would require running a pipe over a creek.

    - Another tight, specific, "compelling reason" here.

    O.K., now you try it... it's fun:

    - boom

    - boom

    - boom

    Go.

    (Hell, numerous? I'd settle for one real, "compelling reason" for the second project to go at Tri-Dub. Don't ya find it a little more than coincidence, that two completely different projects had to have the exact same location?)

    By Blogger Ron, at 12:15 PM, April 10, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home