Friday, June 09, 2006

The Coastal Commission / SewerWatch Compromise

SewerWatch has struck a deal with the staff of the California Coastal Commission.

It goes like this: I have agreed to shelve my request that the Tri-W development permit be revoked now -- as in today -- and pursue it only if there is "an official determination by the CSD or a future successor to build the treatment plant at Tri-W," and, in return, Steve Monowitz, a senior staff member with the Commission, told me that if the Tri-W project does come back, I will be granted a hearing on my revocation request.

"You deserve a hearing," Monowitz told me in a recent phone interview. "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation."

The only bump in the road to my guaranteed hearing is a technicality. Commission regulations state:

"Any person who did not have the opportunity to fully participate in the original permit proceeding by reason of the permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information (bolding mine) or failure to provide adequate public notice as specified in Section 13105 may request revocation of a permit ...".

"The permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information?" Are you kidding me?

As I wrote to Monowitz, "I'll be able to get around that for many, many, many, many documented reasons."

He then added, "If you do have standing (meaning, I can show "intentional inclusion of inaccurate information," which I can, all over the place), and there is an official determination by the CSD or a future successor to build the treatment plant at Tri-W, your revocation request will be reported to the Coastal Commission at the next available hearing."

My extremely tight argument for pursuing my extremely tight argument for revoking the Tri-W permit now -- even though it's a long shot that it will ever be needed in its current form anyway -- is that it is still in play. There is still a very vocal, and active group of "about 50 community members" in Los Osos that is fighting to get the defunct project back, and that continues to divide the community, and that continues to make it harder to clean water faster, at a location that actually has rationale behind its siting. So, I argue that if the permit was revoked now, and the no-rationale-behind-siting Tri-W location was officially off the table, Los Osos, for the most part, wouldn't have a choice but to row in the same direction, thus, cleaner-water-faster.

Sound argument, eh?

However, I agreed to the compromise because there's a very good chance that the current development permit is already irrelevant, and I didn't want to put Monowitz through the considerable amount of work it would require to handle the request. And, no one, and I mean no one, is more sympathetic towards Monowitz on that issue than I am.

I find astonishing the amount of Monowitz's time that was wasted by the Solution Group/early Los Osos CSD. When I read through some of the volumes of documents that he has had to produce due to the careless and sloppy actions of the the Solution Group/early Los Osos CSD (I'll even lump in the loose and unnecessarily lengthy, revocation request that came from the Los Osos Technical Task Force in 2004, here), I feel so bad for him. I just sit there and shake my head as I read through that stuff... what a waste! (If I was Monowitz, I'd be pissed.) So, the last thing I want him to do is spend more time on Los Osos when it's a long shot that it will even be necessary.

But, with my concession not to pursue the revocation now, my argument that forcing Los Osos to row in the same direction will lead to cleaner-water-faster, gets kicked to the side of the road. So, in an attempt to keep that excellent argument in play, I offer the following two memos:

Memo to Taxpayer's Watch: First, stop stealing my ideas (SewerWatch -- Taxpayer's Watch... nice originality, guys), second, if you insist on continuing to waste everyone's time, and energy, and money by desperately and relentlessly fighting for Tri-W, you should probably know something right now -- if that ridiculous $160 million-park-project that you refer to as a "sewer project," ever comes back on the radar screen, I will instantly take Monowitz up on that hearing, and I will hit that no-rationale-behind-siting mess deeeeeep into the upper deck, on the very first pitch of the new game, and all of your efforts -- the call for fines, the entire dissolution process, your silly "letter writing campaigns," everything -- will be rattling around in the cheap seats after the very first pitch of the new game.

Memo to Pandora Nash-Karner: Do you really want that to happen? Do you, as a former CSD Director and current member of the County Parks Commission, appointed by Shirley Bianchi in early 1999, really want me to show up in front of the California Coastal Commission, with a highly informed attorney in tow, and lay out exactly how a certain nonsensical "strongly held community value" got into an early version of the Vision Statement -- a document that not only has your name attached to it, but your husband's as well -- and then lay out how that "community value" was in the Vision Statement just long enough for it to get into the Final Project Report, and then lay out the consequences of that alleged "community value?"

Do you want that, Pandora?

Do you really want me to get into the details on why Coastal Commissioner, Dave Potter, called your little scheme "bait-and-switchy," while he's sitting 15 feet in front of me. That may not go so good for you, P. -- as a former CSD Director and current member of the County Parks Commission.

Do you really want me to get into the details on how the proposed treatment facility location for your first terrible project, the ponding system -- the project that got you elected and the CSD formed -- just happened to be the exact same treatment facility location as your second terrible project, the Tri-W "sewer-park" -- a project that required 10-times less land?

Do you really want me to breakdown for the Coastal Commission, in detail, how the siting criteria listed in the Final Project Report is a meaningless mess?

Do you really want me to demonstrate how I have "standing," and then get in front of the Coastal Commission and lay all the above out, Pandora? Does Stan want that? Does Gordon want that? Does Bruce want that? Does Montgomery, Watson, Harza want that? If so, keep fighting.

Because, I guarantee you, in the slim chance that the Tri-W plan ever comes back, that is exactly what is going to happen.

P., you and your friends at Taxpayer's Watch need to think about what you're currently doing very carefully, because, the instant, and I mean nanosecond, that the Tri-W site officially comes back, if it comes back, I will take Steve up on that hearing, and everything that should have come out from 2001 - 2004, will come out.

I also want you to keep something else in mind -- and I want you to follow this very closely -- when I asked Monowitz how he feels about State officials' decision to use the State Revolving Fund -- a public fund that is supposed to be used only for water quality issues in California -- to pay for the $2.3 million worth of park amenities proposed in your ridiculous ex-project, he laughed, and then said, "no comment."

At the hearing, if needed, he'll comment on that, Pandora, current County Parks Commissioner, and he has already told me that he is none too happy with the fact that you have repeatedly said (and that I can document), "the Coastal Commission required the amenities." And he also said, "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation."

Wow. I would enjoy, very much, discussing all of the above, in sourced-out detail, with the California Coastal Commission, and their brilliant staff... in a very public setting... with lots of media types around.

My end of the bargain is to put my revocation request on the back-burner until, and if, Tri-W becomes relevant again.

The Commission's staff end of the bargain is to give me a hearing when, and if, Tri-W becomes relevant again.

Your choice, guys.



  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 5:21 PM, June 09, 2006  

  • Ron,

    You've said in the past that you don't care what we do and you think the decision ought to be up to those in Los Osos.

    So, why are you now threatening to get involved if the CSD decides that they want to pursue a TriW project?

    Oh yeah ... are you going to get back to me on the numbers after you check them out? I've asked you to do so repeatedly and I don't remember you indicating that you would be willing to take the financial side of this issue seriously.

    After all, why should you have the right to raise my bills just so that you can be satisfied that all "i"s are dotted and all "t"s are crossed correctly?

    If you aren't willing to admit that my bills will go up if you get your way and there is a permit revocation hearing please note that you've never disputed inflation and if we do settle on TriW (which you've only lamely suggested isn't the cheapest even in the light of a somewhat thorough financial analysis that you perhaps didn't read), the delay associated with that hearing (maybe about six months) will cost us about $6M in inflation. Hardly neighborly on your part. After all, I don't drive up to your town and insist that you pay three or four times the going rate for milk and electricity.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 6:30 PM, June 09, 2006  

  • Shark, the tri W has been shown to be the least acceptable environmentally, and engineering and air quality wise. why do you hang onto a train wreck that will be MORE EXPENSIVE? considering the cost of materials the cost of operation and management and the cost that may occur from a devastating over flow into the estuary. Also the fact that this out dated monster does nothing for recharge of our water which is in overdraft. Also with that expensive CEMENT $$$ wave wall enticing grafitii will slum the center of our town, What is your real agenda Shark? Because you seem to be intelligent but holding onto a plant at a siting that would possibly blight our community and force many of us out of town is down right mean.. Or maybe thats your agenda???

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:16 AM, June 10, 2006  

  • Thank you THANKYOU RON!! I appreciate your warrior attitude . Thankyou for fighting the injustice rampant in our town We appreciate you and look forward to every chapter you add to the saving of our town.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:19 AM, June 10, 2006  

  • Oh, so Anon, you think that a pond out of town in 2012-13-14-whenever - WON'T drive people out of town when it proves to be more expensive?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:42 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • sewertoons-- where do you get 2012-2014 This board is moving soo fast we have a plan already going strong by Ripley and it is great and will be soo much cheaper and sustainable! Get into the positive! That is what are educated Board is doing and doing rapidly and they are for the citizens. With thier vast knowledge about this very science we are in good hands and finally we have an honest board to put our faith in. Also this plan is not for ponds if you would watch the meetings you would be informed.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:29 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • Anon and sewertoons WE do not know if it is for ponds, but if that is revealed as the best solution for Los Osos and the environment, water and our coast. Then, so be it. I understand there is many wonderful things you can do with ponds. Johanson(sp)as Judy Vick spoke about, is an engineer and artist in waste water and she designs these beautiful environments which are works of art and treating waste water naturally. We could become an example for the future! Los Osos would be famous for solving the sewer probem in a creative holistic way , This was done in Arcadia and I saw a special on pbs and they were world reknowned for thier beautiful ponds which many hold as thier glorius sunset walks.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:50 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • To our anonymous friend,

    You claim that TriW has been shown to be the worst project from an environmental point of view. I've been wondering about this for at least a year or so because it is something that Lisa has been telling us. However, no one has been able to point to a reference that shows this claim to be true. What is your source?

    I would also ask you how it is environmentally preferable to delay any project by five years which will result in an additional 1.8B (billion with a B, gallons of partially treated sewage going right into the groud directly above our aquifer ... in case you want a visual, imagine a pool that is 5 feet deep that covers all of the numbered streets from the bay all the way up to LOVR)?

    You also claim that TriW is now more expensive than some mythical alternative which hasn't really been defined. Where do you get that? I've shown here and elsewhere my calculations that show that even a project that is "waaaaaaay cheaper", if it is five years down the road, actually is considerably more expensive. Perhaps you should read that argument before you reply with your own, showing that we'll save money with whatever Ripley has in his 1st draft?

    You ask me what's my agenda? To get stop pollution as quickly as possible with a cost as low as possible.

    Until you show your claim that TriW is the worse, I'll reject it because you claim seems to fly in the face of all other analyses I've read. However, I remain open to hearing your arguments because.

    Looking forward to hearing back from you?

    Ps - if your claim that TriW is more expensive is not true, it is you not me who is advocating actions that will force people out of town. I would not take such a position lightly, because after all, it is the most fragile of our neighbors who will be forced out.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 3:10 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • Regarding the language Ron cites . . . "permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information . . . "

    Intentional is one of those wonderful weasle words that you can drive a truck through. Has anybody found a smoking gun memo by our old CSD or staff that states, "Heh-heh, I intend to deliberately include false info in this report?" If not, then even though there's mountains of documents, and piles of statements, all of them phony and NONE of them backed up by fact or data, couldn't the folks being accused of bait and switching or intentionally including inaccurate info, (i.e. the "permit applicants") simply plead incompetence, ignorance, forgetfullness, out-to-lunchness -- ANYTHING except "intention?"

    I mean, if you have a choice between declaring yourself a complete doofus or facing perjury or other malfeasance charges, heck, I bet a whole lot of folks would cheerfully claim doofus-hood and so wiggle out of any violations or accountability.

    Plus the CC could cover their behinds again and cheefully say, "Oh, well, there you are!These people weren't lying to us, they were all brain dead and out to lunch," and then shove everything off the table once again?

    Just asking.

    By Blogger Churadogs, at 5:14 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • Ronnie,

    Ah! Your continued ranting of things you know nothing of shows just how delusional and egomanical you are. Your mistaken and pathetic belief that you are such a BIG man that you can just snap you little fingers and voila...the CC does what you command. I read nothing but threatening and boorish behavior on your part.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:27 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • Hey Inlet --how was Tri W gonna save our town (trucking our water out of town).Now it is water which appears to be more powerful control method than oil .Shark, Stay away from our town do not prey on us let us preserve our water, you little minded man

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:37 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • Concerning proof that triW is more expensive . The previous boards ratings rated Tri W #4 out of 5 as site rating for a sewer location- what about that dont you get it? And as Ron has proved that this town did not want to fund even 10$ for a park . Szjo what about a 2.4 millionsewer park exploitation LIE . Im sorry but I quess repetition is in order. We dont want no stinkin sewer plant/park in the middle of our town!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:02 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • To our anonymous friend,

    The TriW plan wasn't to truck water out of town, just sludge. The water was to be disposed of back into the aquifer.

    I don't remember the previous board putting TriW as 4th out of five possible sites. The site selection matrix showed it was the best choice.

    I can understand not wanting an in town WWTF ... but TriW is still the best available option. Alternative sites and collection technologies don't make our monthly bills any cheaper.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 8:44 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • Anonymous - well, whichever Anonymous - you spoke of the board moving fast. Doesn't matter how fast they move. All the permitting agencies DO NOT MOVE FAST.

    Also, what are they going to do for money? Designs cost money and SRF money cannot be used for land, designs or permits. (That is if the agency that they are suing for the last disbursement of SRF money feels like handing the current CSD some more.)

    I saw the board meeting. Ponds are what Ripley knows. Do you think this thing is going out of town to become a traditional sewer plant? And let's say it is. How lovely is a cut-rate sewer plant with the frills taken off to save money?

    As for PARKS, (that hated word parks), even Bahman Sheik mention the smell and the prevailing winds as part of the evaluation criteria. So how's that gonna work?

    And what about the people downwind?

    And what about a stench of sewage as the aromatic "greeting" to Los Osos?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 10:27 PM, June 10, 2006  

  • WOW Sewertoons you need to do some research I cant even tpo address your misconceptions

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:49 PM, June 11, 2006  

  • how lovely out of town and tucked away and sustainable . That downwind was the most objective criteria fact.And that in the middle of town was objectively not acceptable as to the affecting of the population. It was obvious that the very very most least affecting area was out of town.. ALSo the gateway to Montano de Oro is Los Osos Valley Road inthe heart of Los Osos. thus a sewer tucked behind a cemetary that no one sees and is sustainable.. A Brillliant solution in a time when those are rare. SO There You just clipped your self

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:59 PM, June 11, 2006  

  • Don't get me wrong ... I like the site (assuming it passes muster with regulatory agencies ... you know, the kind that caused some five years of delay in getting a project started at TriW).

    I just don't think that we can afford five years of inflation on any project.

    Even if we don't have any fines and even if we do get a low interest loan for the whole thing (which seems pretty unlikely) and even if the new project saves some $45M off the cost of the previous project, the $10M to design and get the project permitted and the inflation will make this new alternative more expensive than TriW.

    More expensive = bad.

    More pollution of our aquifer in the next five years = bad.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 9:58 PM, June 11, 2006  

  • every person in los osos is batshit insane.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:23 AM, June 12, 2006  

  • Shark said:

    "... why are you now threatening to get involved if the CSD decides that they want to pursue a TriW project?"

    Because there is no rationale behind the Tri-W siting. None. (Don't forget, I also get my hearing if the county decides to pursue Tri-Dub.)

    "... are you going to get back to me on the numbers after you check them out? I've asked you to do so repeatedly and I don't remember you indicating that you would be willing to take the financial side of this issue seriously."

    Shark, no offense, but you are an anonymous poster to blogs -- not exactly a primary source. I'll wait for actual wastewater engineers' numbers before I comment, until then, there's really nothing to take "seriously," especially some "spreadsheet" posted by an anonymous poster. Sorry, but I prefer real sources.

    "Has anybody found a smoking gun memo by our old CSD or staff..."

    I have... several of them, but I should only need one -- the Vision Statement -- Bruce Buel pointed to it as the source of the "community value" and so does the Final Project Report, but that "value" is nowhere to be found in the Vision Statement, to make matters worse, the documents that the VS is based on do not show that "value" anywhere, either. So where in the hell did it come from, and how did it end up in the Final Project Report? Who, specifically, is responsible for the wording of that "strongly held community value" in the VS? Even the most "doofus" people don't manufacture nonsensical "strongly held community values," especially when one of those alleged "values" just happens to lock in the same sewer plant location that got a certain group of people elected and the CSD formed, even though the plan that got them elected flamed out in spectacular fashion two years after they were elected.

    Churadogs said:

    "Plus the CC could cover their behinds again and cheerfully say, "Oh, well, there you are! These people weren't lying to us, they were all brain dead and out to lunch," and then shove everything off the table once again?"

    Although the, "they were all brain dead and out to lunch," is impossible to argue with, that scenario is not going to happen... I can assure you. Remember, Monowitz has already told me, "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation." Monowitz now knows what happened, and he's, understandably, none too happy about it.

    Shark said:

    "The site selection matrix showed it was the best choice."

    As I showed in Three Blocks, and as I will show again at my hearing, if it comes to that, that "matrix" was a "meaningless mess."

    Shark, you want to hear something interesting? All of a sudden, I'm a HUGE fan of your efforts to get Tri-W back. My Power Point presentation at that hearing, if it comes to that, will be spectacular, and air tight, and I just can't wait. You won't want to miss it. I need a good ending to my book, and I can't think of a better one than that.

    Go-Shark-Go! Go-Shark-Go!

    An anon said:

    "Thank you, THANK YOU RON!!"

    My pleasure.

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:31 AM, June 12, 2006  

  • Ron ...

    Okay, I'll grant you that you didn't like the outcome of the site selection process for a wastewater treatment facility in a town that isn't your own. Fine. However, to use this as a justification for making me spend more money is just plain petty. You need to see that everything is done not just according to government standards, but to your beliefs as well. You want to have Ron as the governing body of the Los Osos sewer. You want to second guess everyone and everything when you feel like and you don't care that others disagree with you and you certainly don't seem to care that it is life and death serious to many of those who do live here.


    Your ducking of my question about costs was just plain pathetic. If I had signed my name to the post, you likely would have found a different way of ducking the question.

    If it is a serious question, you should address it. If you simply bother asking a real accountant about the current state of the CSD and whether a "waaaaaay cheaper" plant in the future will actually save us any money, you'll quickly learn that I am on the mark here. The fact that you're not even going to bother addressing the financial issues just shows you are playing for sport here ... that you don't care about anything other than showing the previous board made an unwise choice to put a park with the plant at TriW.

    As to your claim that the matrix was a mess, any set of evaluation criteria is essentially a mess. There will probably never be one and only one winner. Subtle variations on assumptions will often give different outcomes. It is all a matter of trying to make one's best judgement at the time. You've claimed all along that the park caused TriW to come out on top ... yet you've never shown it.

    As to whether Monowitz is unhappy ... it doesn't really matter. What does matter is whether there is evidence of intentional misleading. What you've presented to us in your blog by no stretch shows any misstatements, let alone intent. What you're asking for is the opporunity to delay the project by another few months should the CSD or the County choose TriW.

    Is it worth it? Let's see ... if the construction is about $140M and we have another six months of delay and inflation on construction is about 8%, that six months of delay is an extra $5M ... or $1000 from each of the 5000 households in Los Osos who will need to pay for the sewer.

    I admire your resilience and your skills at looking through the public records archives of this mess ... but not your unwillingness to spend time addressing reasonable questions just because you are uncomfortable with financial affairs.

    What's the upshot ... if you want to be a serious player here (if you are really threatening to go through with another CCC delay which is highly likely to fail), please spend some time and consider the costs first. If you don't you appear to have made up your mind about what is best before having gotten all the information, something you criticize others for consistently.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 12:59 PM, June 12, 2006  

  • Ron, what a giant, lame, cop out to Shark! If you wanted to, you could figure out some rough numbers, and state them to be such.

    Actually, I suspect that you already have and they don't support the WWTF being placed out of town as cheaper, so you are stalling.

    Besides, by the time "the numbers" come in, the CSD will be bankrupt and the whole job will go to the county anyway.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:07 PM, June 12, 2006  

  • Ron wrote:

    "Shark, no offense, but you are an anonymous poster to blogs -- not exactly a primary source. I'll wait for actual wastewater engineers' numbers before I comment, until then, there's really nothing to take 'seriously,' especially some 'spreadsheet' posted by an anonymous poster. Sorry, but I prefer real sources."

    Okay, I'll take that as a promise to show us in August when the Ripley report is in how we'll actually save money by pursuing his project instead of going ahead with TriW.

    The funny thing here is that I gave you the tool to use, told you how to use it ... all you had to do was to enter your own estimates of years before construction starts, inflation rate, etc ... and if you are right (earlier you told us we would save a lot) it should have popped out. Hell, you could have even put the file on your website as proof that you were right that we'll save money with an alternative.

    However, you chose not to bother.

    Good thing that you did promise that you would comment once the official numbers are in.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 3:42 PM, June 12, 2006  

  • ""You deserve a hearing," Monowitz told me in a recent phone interview. "It looks like there may, indeed, have been some misrepresentation."
    My man, Ron Crawford.
    Inlet starting to get a little shrill lately, aun't it?

    Just amazing how in all the insistance that you look at those unbiased, unblinking, infallable calculations, that Inlet and its court fail to cop to the fact that a Recall election was lost because of the very project to which they so unerringly subscribe. How could Monowitz not start seeing your argument. The TriW worshipers over sell it every goddam day...even to the diminishment of our ever weakening democratic process. Cheerleading the government to punish their neighbors. Eventually any right minded person would start feeling, at least, uneasy when confromted by the small town, small county, small minded facts of this scene. Thanks Ron for helping to get someone to finally pay attention.
    Besides, Triw might find itself transacted to a private party. If so, all of your hard work might not get an official hearing in front of the state CC, but you can always expect free cold beer when you're in Osos.
    However, if that hearing date were to ever occur. I'm a couple of rows behind you. Bet I won't be alone either...

    By Anonymous Dogpatch Refugee, at 8:11 PM, June 12, 2006  

  • So Dogpatch, if my cost analyses are so much in error, why not take a crack at exposing them as fraud?

    What the hell is the problem with all you supporters of the current board that you can't expose the horrible errors in my analysis? Are you all dumb or incompetent or simply unwilling to try something new? The analyses are there ... at least look at them for crissake.

    The key point here is that you are all so quick to judge my calculations as speculation or silly or irrelevant because we'll get more information later. I've been doing these sort of calculations for comments in Ann's blog since just about the time of the recall election. She (and a few others) blew me off then and many others have since then. If I'm so darn wrong, try it yourself and show me.

    The fact that no one has risen to the challenge makes me think something, though. It makes me think that either you all are intellectually lazy and simply unwilling to try because it is too confusing or that I must be right because otherwise someone would have shown me up long ago.

    No, go ahead and keep poking fun Dogpatch ... but please realize that you've been warned for many months now that the path you are advocating for our community is a path that will force many more people out of town than would have been forced to move with TriW. If you really care for your neighbors ... if you are really a populist like you claim to be, why don't you show it for once.

    Talk is cheap. Do something productive. Think.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 9:18 PM, June 12, 2006  

  • Hey Ron,

    In the permit revocation regulations, are there any fixed or flexible time limits on permit revocation requests?

    I would think that, for example, one couldn't challenge (today) Unocal's re-do of Avila Beach because the project has been completed. Even if someone were able to show that there was an intentional lie in the permit, the CCC surely wouldn't force Unocal to dig up all of what they just paid to put in. Maybe some penalties or additional work could be required.

    Along those lines, I would imagine that you might be out of luck if you put things on hold. After all, if another two years go by and you want to bring the issue up again they might say "why didn't you do bring it up anytime between 2004 and 2008?". I would think that after the start of construction at TriW, they would (typically) be unwilling to hear revocation requests for any reason other than to perhaps impose penalties or to require appropriate changes to the project. If you ask the entire project be moved because you disagree with the interpretation of some polling numbers, they likely wouldn't force the project be moved.

    On the other hand, the CCC and other groups have done some wacky things in the past. Just remember, Katcho is no a CCC member and the CCC tends to defer to staff and the local commissioner. How do we think Katcho would feel about delaying the project yet again because some guy from Paterson's district is unhappy with the way a poll was interpreted by people who lived in Gibson's district?

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 10:43 PM, June 12, 2006  

  • Maybe DpR & Ron don't own copies of Excel or don't (can't) "do math!"

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:12 PM, June 12, 2006  

  • Shark said:

    "You've claimed all along that the park caused TriW to come out on top ... yet you've never shown it."

    Yes I have... many times... many ways. And, if it comes to it, I'll show it all again at the hearing. I highly recommend you attend. You might finally comprehend what I've been reporting.

    "Your ducking of my question about costs was just plain pathetic."

    Negative, home boy. Me responding to unsourced material by an anonymous poster would be pathetic.

    'toons said:

    "Besides, by the time "the numbers" come in, the CSD will be bankrupt and the whole job will go to the county anyway."

    Well, then it looks like I'll have to wait for the county's numbers. Sorry, but I prefer real sources over made-up ones.

    Shark said:

    "The funny thing here is that I gave you the tool..."

    Yea, that's the problem, the "tool" came from you -- an anonymous poster... not exactly a primary source.

    "Good thing that you did promise that you would comment once the official numbers are in."

    Funny how reporters are like that, huh?

    DPR said:

    "How could Monowitz not start seeing your argument."

    He sees it, and he's none too happy about it.

    "... you can always expect free cold beer when you're in Osos."

    I knew all of this would be worth it.

    Shark said:

    "... you disagree with the interpretation of some polling numbers."

    As I told Monowitz, all of the excellent evidence I have that shows that that "strongly held community value" never existed -- all the election results, all the public opinion surveys, all the great prima facie evidence -- is going to sit in my hip pocket, and is all but moot right now, until someone shows me something, anything, that shows that that "strongly held community value" actually existed in the first place.

    That "community value" is an extraordinary claim, and that requires extraordinary evidence, so where is it? Until someone shows me something, anything, that shows that that "strongly held community value" actually existed in the first place, I really don't need to break out all my excellent evidence at all. Without that extraordinary evidence, that "strongly held community value" was made-up, and used as a tool to unnecessarily lock in Tri-W for the CSD's second project.

    The instant someone comes up with a single document that shows that Los Osos, indeed, "strongly" wanted a multi-million dollar park in their sewer plant, and then have that park dictate a really expensive downtown location -- well, then I'll break out all my tight evidence and blow that document away.

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:06 AM, June 13, 2006  

  • Okay Ron, fine.

    You don't need to treat financial issues seriously because you can't be bothered to go find a real source.

    As a journalist goes, either you are pretty pathetic or, far more likely, you just don't want to bother addressing the cost issues.

    That is fine ... yet very sad.

    Because of your single-minded focus you've gotten some good insight into some issues here but because of that same single-minded focus you are refusing to look at other issues that are inextricably linked.

    However, it's your blog. I just figured that you as a journalist with an interest in this subject would perhaps want to explore it from all angles. Silly me.

    Oh, on your other claims that you have shown everything with tight arguments and the like ... we've discussed that before. I disagreed. You didn't like what I wrote and my comments were removed when you turned off comments. Again your call, but I showed your tight arguments were essentially based on your own personal interpretations of various documents and that there are other interpretations that make far more sense. Just to remind you, remember when you claimed the poll showed nearly zero support for a park ... that is not a conclusion that one could fairly draw out of those data.

    In any case, if you don't want to bother considering what many people consider key issues in this discussion, that is your choice. An odd choice for a "journalist" but still a choice.

    When the Ripley report comes in I'll check back to see your discussion of how we'll save money even with the inherent delay.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 11:18 AM, June 13, 2006  

  • Shark Inlet is pompous and obsessed, and is highly misinformed.
    Or is he only Gary Karner??

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:50 PM, June 13, 2006  

  • Shark/Gary,
    Your reference to the 2001 (fictional) Project Report's siting matrix (that didn't add up, and made no sense), is not where Tri-W was seen as less than desireable, it was in the CERTIFIED EIR, where Table 8-4 identifies Tri-W as less preferable than several other sites, with the Andre (extremely Gacamazzi-like)site at the top.
    Your lack of knowledge on the sludge quality confirms that you may indeed be Gary Karner, who left the wastewater committee soon after the 2003 Value Engineering excersize that raised the cost of the project and that put in the energy hungry pig MBR's and reduced the quality of sludge, to something never heard of "Unclassified". The EIR had promised the Tri-W project would produce Class B (the Vision Statement would have perfered Excellent Quality, EQ.) The Tri-W sludge was going contain 80% water (1,300-1,500 gpd), and would be trucked out of town with 20% material, to then be dried and mulched into an EQ material that could be used productively eventually, of course this came a great cost; trucking to Santa Maria, paying tipping fees, and paying Engle & Grey to do the rest, while our water would be recharging their aquifer, or evaporating into their atmosphere, when it should be drying here and staying here and being used here.
    Shark/Gary, you keep harping on the cost, please remember Tri-W was incomplete, and no clue to what the cost to the downtown businesses, homes, estimated in an Economic Impact Report, no clue to the cost of our quality of life in Los Osos when $12+ million per year would be leaving our community to pay for the Tri-w sewer (could be similar in any sewer, I recognize that), it has just never been measured, I pray to God we'll never know how muxh that sewer would cost.
    Go Ron, have your hand ready to play, we'll be there to back you up.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:54 AM, June 14, 2006  

  • Anon and Ron,
    Will one of you please explain to the group why the people outside of town will want a smelly pond in their neighborhood?
    Thank you.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 10:46 AM, June 14, 2006  

  • Shark, do you remember the scene at the end of the last Indiana Jones movie where the tomb of the knight is crumbling down on everyone, and they only have a little time to get out alive, but Indy is still reaching for the Holy Grail that's resting on a small ledge after it fell down a deep crevice, but he can't quite reach it, and the bad guy (or in this case, bad, yet hot, girl) has already fallen to her death attempting to grab the Grail off the ledge?

    Do you remember that scene?

    Do you remember what saved Indy?

    Yep, his wise dad, played by Sean Connery, when he calmly said in his deep Scottish accent, "Indiana, let it go. Let it go." And Indy looked back at him, realized he was right, and stopped reaching for the Grail, then they both ran out of the tomb just before it crumbled down on everyone. Great scene.

    So, with that scene in mind...

    "Shark, let it go. Let it go."

    (My apologies to anyone that hasn't seen that movie, and I just ruined it by giving away the ending.)

    An anon said:

    "Go Ron, have your hand ready to play, we'll be there to back you up."

    My hand is already ready. With a bit of luck, however, I'll never need to play it. But I do appreciate the support. Thanks.

    'toons said:

    "Will one of you please explain to the group why the people outside of town will want a smelly pond in their neighborhood?"

    They won't. What's your point?

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:39 AM, June 14, 2006  

  • Lawsuits. How long do you want to wait for a WWTF and how much would you ike to spend?

    But hey, we don't have to live out there so - so what?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:50 PM, June 14, 2006  

  • I'm sorry Ron,

    Did you address an issue I raised somewhere in your comment? I couldn't tell.

    Seriously, if you want to discuss something I think matters, the financials, I'm all ears. Otherwise, don't bother writing anything for my benefit. I've already heard your story and agree with you some 60%. I am just interested in a different issue than you seem to be.

    By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 5:42 PM, June 14, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home