Saturday, May 12, 2007

She is Los Osos, Part II

(SewerWatch note: This is the second part of the post immediately above this one, linked here. The entire story was too large to fit in one posting.)

So, to summarize (and, this, unfortunately for all taxpayers, is a loooooong summary), for those keeping score, the following is a list of Nash-Karner's strategies for Los Osos over the years (for the sewer only, mind you! She also has a bunch of little strategies for other stuff, including pushing her precious pool project through the system, even though LO voters shot down Measure D in 1997 that would have assessed property owners in the community $40 a year to pay for that project. Yep, that multi-million dollar pool project is currently making its way through the system, despite the failure of Measure D -- a Measure that Nash-Karner spearheaded. Oh, and one more thing, she is also a current member of the SLO County Parks Commission, a seat she has held since 1991, and it's the SLO County Parks Commission that is carrying the Los Osos pool project through. I call that project "sewer junior." The parallels are almost identical.):

  • A strategy in 1997, to get the the local media to embrace her deeply flawed Community Plan, developed by the Solution Group, a citizens group she founded, and, as marketing director, sent out an elaborate press kit to the local media that trumpeted her deeply flawed project. That strategy worked on all media but The Bay Breeze.

  • A strategy in 1998 to discredit Questa Engineering and the Questa Study that was highly critical of the Community Plan. Her strategy worked, even though the Questa Study would prove to be 100-percent accurate.

  • A strategy in 1998 to convince the Coastal Commission to allow her to chase her Community Plan, even though the Commission had a ton of evidence in front of it, like the Questa Study, that showed her project was never going to work, and the Commission's own brilliant staff was telling them not to listen to her. The 1998 Coastal Commission ignored their brilliant staff and listened to Nash-Karner, and her strategy worked.

  • A strategy in 1998 to absolutely saturate the community with Solution Group marketing material, most of it with made-up numbers, to get the voters of Los Osos to form the LOCSD on the back of "Better, Cheaper, Faster" so she could chase her dead-on-arrival Community Plan. That strategy worked.

  • A strategy from 1999 - 2000 to convince the RWQCB to withhold enforcement actions against the LOCSD while she futilely chased her Community Plan for two years, even though that Board and its staff were sitting on a mountain of credible evidence that showed that project was never going to work. Her strategy worked. (Yep, Briggs was Jedi mind tricked, like many other government officials, by Nash-Karner.)

  • A strategy to get the State Water Board to agree to extend a crucial loan for her Community Plan, even though there was a ton of excellent evidence that showed that project was never going to work. Her strategy worked. (A great example of that particular strategy can be found at this link, where Coast & Ocean writes: "The State Water Board was reluctant to reassign the $47 million loan commitment it had made to the County to this little novice CSD. Other projects that seemed more likely to succeed could use the money. So "we went to Sacramento and told them we can do the job. I'm surprised they didn't laugh at us. We didn't even have business cards yet." With 15 minutes to present its case, the CSD decided "to show them our project was not about pipes and pumps, it was about keeping people in their homes," (Nash-Karner) said.

    All that crap about "doing the job" (which she didn't) and "keeping people in their homes" was pure behavior based marketing in action, and she did it to a State agency, again, and they bought it, again, when they should have known better... Jedi mind tricked.

    And because the Water Board bought that crap in 1999, that led to massive delays, because it unnecessarily kept the Community Plan around for almost two years. If all those State agencies, and that includes the RWQCB, had not bought in to Nash-Karner's marketing strategies in 1998 - 2000, her Community Plan would have either never happened, or it would have fallen off the table almost immediately, and the county's ready-to-go plan would have been the obvious replacement.)

  • A strategy in 2001, as CSD vice-president, to convince the Coastal Commission that there was a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant in the town must also double as a "centrally located recreational asset," even though there isn't a shred of evidence that shows that, thereby locking in Tri-W for her second project, because her first project, the one that got her elected and the CSD formed in the first place, failed miserably, just like the Questa Study, and others, predicted, but, if she could just quietly weasel her second project in at Tri-W too, via a non-existent "community value," no one would notice, at least no one from her coddled press. That strategy worked, (until I re-entered the picture with my second New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, in 2004. [Wow, now that I look at it, that was a long time between the two, wasn't it? Sorry 'bout that, Los Osos, but in my defense, it did take awhile for "bait and switchy" to play out. And would it have killed the Tribune to write ONE story on any of this stuff? For God's sake, I realize Nash-Karner's "tool," Bill Morem, is only the Opinion page editor, but does he call ALL of the editorial shots at the Trib? If so, it sure would explain the complete absence of any story critical of Nash-Karner in that paper, ever!]

    [Note: I always have to interject something at this juncture: Considering she spearheaded two ballot Measures in 1997 that both dealt with public recreation in Los Osos, and they both failed, yet just three years later, as an elected official and a County Parks Commissioner, she's telling the Coastal Commission, in an apparent attempt to cover-up the failure of her first plan, that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant must also double as a "centrally located recreational asset" even though there isn't a shred of evidence that supports that extraordinary claim, and the only "centrally located" sewer-park site is Tri-W, and considering that scenario fits every definition of fraud in California that I can find, I don't see how that is not a slam-dunk case of fraud... massive, very expensive fraud.]

  • A strategy in 2000 to flood New Times with letters and an op-ed piece the week after my first New Times cover story, Problems with the Solution was published in July of that year. In that story, I showed how her Community Plan was going down the drain. In the very next issue of New Times, there was a "serious letter writing campaign" and an editorial from Nash-Karner herself, as CSD vice-president, attempting to discredit me and my story. Shortly after that issue, I learned that her Community Plan was officially, and quietly, down the drain... just like I predicted in my story. Her strategy did not work there, unless, and this is extremely interesting, her strategy's only goal was to obfuscate the Community Plan's failure, and make it as quiet as possible. If that was her goal, then her strategy worked perfectly.

    Which is why it is so critical that a firm date be established for the demise of the Community Plan. Shockingly, as it exists today, today, there is not one person that I know of that can name that date. And I'm very interested in that date, because if that date is before July, 6, 2000, and I know it's REALLY close to it, then that means Nash-Karner was lying in Problems with the Solution when she said: "We're confident that this is the most appropriate and most environmentally friendly plan. And we will be able to build it faster (than the county could have)."

    She told a reporter that the Community Plan was still on the table when, almost certainly, it wasn't, and at best it was just a few weeks away from complete failure. Just a flat-out, bold face lie, to a journalist. And that means the only reason she would have told that lie was to muffle the sound, and muddy the waters of the Community Plan's collapse, that had likely ALREADY HAPPENED when she did that interview. And that means there's only one reason she would have muffled that hideous sound, so she could, as quietly as behavior-basedly possible, buy some time to sneak project #2 in to the Tri-W site for no legitimate reason whatsoever, and then hope to hell no one noticed the difference, at least no one from her media "tool" box.

    So, considering Problems with the Solution was published on July 6, 2000, what date did the Community Plan fail!?

    [SewerWatch note: I need to do a "full disclosure" thing here, and it's an interesting one. Although I wrote 95-percent of Problems with the Solution and the by-line for that story is mine, I did not conduct the interview with Nash-Karner found in that story. The editors at New Times added it after I submitted my original copy. I deliberately did not interview Nash-Karner for that story because, at the time, I was really starting to see the impacts she was having on Los Osos with her marketing, and I was also noticing -- how do I put this? -- the less-than-truthful ways she goes about her marketing business, and that combination -- someone that practices less-than-truthful saturation marketing, is over-the-top when it comes to all things "parks" (even if it means cramming them in to a sewer plant to get one built, and then have that park dictate an expensive, mid-town location), not ashamed at all to employ "behavior based marketing" tactics and "compelling language" all over the place... on her neighbors, on government agencies... it doesn't matter, uses the media as "tools," and is pristine Teflon when it comes to any sort of accountability (just wipes it off. In her mind, nothing sticks to her.) -- that combination has no business being around a reporter, or an elected seat, or an appointed seat, ever.

    However, in fairness, I did interview her husband, and fellow Solution Group founder, Gary Karner, for that story, along with then-District general manager, Bruce Buel, and everyone else, but there was no way I was going to hand Nash-Karner a megaphone. Not then. Not there.

    But the NT editors did, without my knowledge. I first became aware of that interview when I read my story after it was printed in New Times. At the time, I was kind of mad, but these days I'm glad they interviewed her, because now we have this great, time-stamped quote: "We’re confident that this is the most appropriate and most environmentally friendly plan. And we will be able to build it faster (than the county could have)."

    At the time she gave that interview for a story that focused solely on the Oswald ponding system technology found in her Community Plan, the "appropriate" plan she was so "confident" in, the plan that got her elected and the LOCSD formed in the first place, was either already in the garbage bin, or damn close to it.

    Let me put it this way, I'll do the math: Problems with the Solution, chronicling the imminent demise of the first project at Tri-W, Nash-Karner's Community Plan, was published in July, 2000. The draft version of the Environmental Impact Report for the second Tri-W project was published in November, 2000. That leaves less than five months to fire your existing engineering firm, the one whose plan got you elected in the first place (Oswald Engineering -- and then sue them, which they did), hire another engineering firm (Montgomery, Watson), have them completely redesign everything -- collection system, treatment facility (from Oswald's 50 - 70 acre ponding system, to MW's 5 - 7 acre conventional sewer plant), and then knock out a complex draft EIR. All of that in less than five months? I DON'T THINK SO. Which means that at the time I was researching Problems with the Solution, the Community Plan, the project that was the sole focus of that entire story, had likely been off the table for months, and Nash-Karner was lying through her teeth, as vice-president of the Los Osos Community Services District, when she told editors at New Times, "We're confident that this is the most appropriate and most environmentally friendly plan. And we will be able to build it faster (than the county could have)."

    Absolutely disgusting.

    So, why did she lie? Don't need to be Jim Rockford to figure that one out.

    1) To cover her ass from the highly embarrassing, and possibly highly litigatable, failure of her Community Plan, and a boat-load of other behavior based, documentable lies stemming from her 1997 - 98 LOCSD/Solution Group campaign.

    and;

    2) To buy her some time to figure out a way to jam another sewer plant in to her Tri-W site, which she ultimately did with her "strongly held community value" fraud-lie to the California Coastal Commission in 2001, and then obfuscate like hell so no one notices.

    No wonder she's trying so hard to get a project, ANY project, built at Tri-W. Her relentless, over-the-top zeal to put a sewer plant at the unpopular, expensive, fatally flawed, mid-town Tri-W site is finally beginning to make a heck of a lot of sense to me, along with quotes like these to Roger Briggs one day after the 2005 recall election:

    "Please... is there any way to salvage the project?"

    and;

    "We MUST save this project!"

    And let the record reflect, that is exactly why I chose not to interview her for that story. I was worried she was going to lie to me, and I hate it when a source lies to me. However, look what happened, she lied to the New Times editors, and those lies ended up in my story anyway. Those editors f-d up and trusted Nash-Karner. I know better. But what pisses me off is that their f-up allowed behavior based marketing to leak in to my otherwise super-tight story, especially since I took such care to keep it out!]

  • A strategy in 2001 where Nash-Karner, as a CSD vice-president, used public funds to commission a "public opinion study" shortly before a crucial assessment vote. That study had pollsters phone hundreds of Los Osos property owners, in a vote that included only property owners, and tell them wildly inaccurate, yet favorable, information about Nash-Karner's second Tri-W project. A public opinion expert would later tell me she was astonished by some of the highly questionable wording in that study. State law prohibits the use of public funds for campaign material. That strategy worked, and, along with a hefty dose of fear, another key component in any good behavior based marketing strategy (You're going to lose your home unless you vote for this!), the 218 vote was successful, and that kept Nash-Karner's second Tri-W project chugging on down the poorly-laid track. The train wreck was just a matter of time at that point.

  • A strategy in 2002 to keep her fingers on the strings of Los Osos voters, using their money, by placing a $700,000 bid for public relations services to the LOCSD shortly after leaving office, serving just one term as a CSD Director, during which time she burned through three sewer projects (the county's viable project, her non-viable Community Plan, and her second Tri-W project, that was also never going to work, by the way.) Although her bid was accepted by the District, she did not get the contract.

    However, her strategy may still have worked there, because, apparently, that's not where the expensive public relations contract story ends.

    I recently did a little research on that contract because it deals specifically with the subject at hand -- Pandora Nash-Karner, and the marketing of the Los Osos sewer project -- and, well wha-da-ya know? Something stinks about that contract.

    That fat contract was eventually awarded to someone named Maria Singleton, to the tune of almost $520,000.

    According to a Tribune report at the time, "the contract also calls for her writers and other assistants to be paid at separate rates ranging from $30 an hour to $80 an hour."

    Here's the problem I'm having, I can't seem to track down Maria Singleton to ask her if Pandora Nash-Karner was ever one of those "writers" and/or "other assistants."

    Call it a journalistic hunch, but I've got $100 bucks that says she was.

    I looked Singleton up in the phone book, and although there's a Maria Singleton listed, when I called the number, I got a message machine, and the name left on that machine is not Maria Singleton's. Furthermore, according to the Trib, her company's name is Singleton & Associates, out of San Luis Obispo. Not only is there no listing for that company in the phone book's Yellow Pages (that I could find) or business section, but even a Google search for -- "Singleton & Associates" obispo -- doesn't return any information on her company at all, other than the same link I supply above -- that great case-environmental.org link.

    Poof. Gone. Three short years ago she was pulling in over a half of a million dollars from the Los Osos Community Services District for popping out a few "spiffy quarterly publications," and all of a sudden both Singleton and her company seem to be awfully hard to find.

    From a December, 2003, Tribune opinion piece:

    "What kind of bang for its buck has the community been getting from the district's public relations firm? Spiffy quarterly publications called Bear Pride on heavy stock paper filled with graphics and color. Unfortunately, all the whistles and bells haven't served their desired purpose: A growing segment of the community seems to have ever more questions about the changing nature of the sewer. The question arises: Have relations between the district and public been served? Apparently not."

    Apparently not! Because those "ever more questions" about the "changing nature of the sewer" were never, and I mean EVER, answered with that half million bucks.

    Instead, Los Osos got this...

    From a December, 2003, Tribune report regarding the Singleton contract:

    "An effort to clear up confusion and misinformation surrounding the Los Osos sewer project may have backfired. Some Los Osos residents and business people are upset by a contract approved in November by the district Board of Directors to pay $318,595 for seven months of public relations work." (Note: The contract was an extension of a 13-month, $200,000 contract that was previously secured by Singleton.)

    Tribune reporter, David Sneed, got that wrong.

    That was never, "An effort to clear up confusion and misinformation surrounding the Los Osos sewer..."

    Oh, no, no, no.

    Let's be crystal clear on what that "effort" was: That was an effort to create "confusion and misinformation surrounding the Los Osos sewer," and it was paid for by the same people it was targeted at. (Give me a sec... I'll be right back... I need go to take some nausea "medicine.")

    THAT's why none of those "ever more questions" were answered. They were never intended to be answered, just obfuscated.

    The Tribune finishes off their opinion piece with this great blast:

    "Perhaps the first whittling from the Singleton contract could be the $6,000 budgeted for "media relations." Why? When Singleton was contacted about her contract by The Tribune, she said she couldn't comment and referred questions about it to district officials.

    Now that's bang for your buck."


    That is quality smack. (Why don't they write more editorials like that?)

    Sooooooo.......... ummmmmm.......... that seemed like $518,000 well spent, huh? It ensured that voters in Los Osos would stay completely confused on why they originally voted for a $38.75/month ponding system in 1998, but were now getting a $much-much-much-more-than-that/month industrial sewer plant in the middle of their town. Plus, there was the added bonus of the Tribune getting stonewalled by Singleton (and, by the way, major props to the Trib, at least they were able to track her down... that's more than I can say) even though she pocketed $6,000 to talk to them, and these days, just three years later, Singleton & Associates seems to be nowhere in sight... gonzo, with over a half million dollars of Los Osos taxpayer money for less than two years worth of "work" -- "work" that would prove to be nothing more than a publicly financed, behavior based marketing mindfuck, just like Nash-Karner's public opinion study two years earlier.

  • A strategy in 2005 to stave off a looming recall effort following the election of rivals Lisa Schicker and Julie Tacker to the LOCSD Board, when Nash-Karner formed yet another one of her citizens groups, "Save the Dream." As marketing director, she would, among other questionable marketing efforts (remember the port-a-pottie story?), publish a series of glossy newsletters and, of course, immediately saturate Los Osos with them. I e-mailed one of those newsletters to a State official. He said he was "galled" by the blatant falsehoods contained in it. Despite those falsehoods, her strategy did not work there.

  • A strategy in 2005 to defeat the recall by using the Los Osos Community Services District's recently hired Public Information Officer to do her behavior based marketing dirty work. (I say that because, shortly after the District hired Mike Drake as their PIO, I called him to get some questions answered that I wasn't getting answers to before they hired him (at around $100,000/year, a damn steal when compared to Singleton), and after fumbling around with some non-answers, Drake finally told me to e-mail my questions to him, which I reluctantly did. (I prefer phone interviews, especially when it comes to media matters and the Los Osos CSD) When I got that e-mail back later that day, Nash-Karner's easy-to-spot behavior based fingerprints were all over it, and the terrible responses to my questions had nothing to do with what Drake was telling me over the phone, just a few hours earlier. Yet, when I phoned him back to ask him, straight-up, "Are these answers your answers," he said, "Yes." I even gave him a second chance, and repeated, "These are your original answers," and, again, he said, "Yes." [Mike, nothing against you, buddy. You were simply hung out to dry, just another in a long line of people that f-d up and trusted Nash-Karner.]) Her strategy did not work there.

  • Another strategy in 2005, the one I report on above, where she coordinates a smear campaign against then-minority CSD members, Lisa Schicker and Julie Tacker. That strategy did not work.

  • Another strategy in 2005, one day after the recall election, to have the people on her e-mail list contact Roger Briggs of the RWQCB and demand that the agency immediately begin fining the District and the property owners of Los Osos -- many elderly and on fixed incomes -- in order to "fine the CSD out of existence" and get the fate of her Tri-W project in the hands of the County. Although the project is in now under the county's control (I'm sure, due in large part to Nash-Karner's meddling), the LOCSD has yet to be fined out of existence. That strategy has not worked, yet.

    And if you think for a moment, after reading about all of her silly little strategies over the years, that she's not behind the scenes, right now, desperately pulling whatever strings necessary to make sure that a sewer plant is built at Tri-W, then you don't know Pandora Nash-Karner.

    She is Los Osos.

    Please excuse me now, I need to go shower.

    ###

  • 38 Comments:

    • Ron

      Did you try Maria Singleton in Santa Margarita? Or Singleton & Associates in San Diego?

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:42 PM, May 13, 2007  

    • Wow! Pulling back the curtain on the great Wizard of Osos.

      Thanks. I think. I wanna write more but a shower is beckoning me. Gonna have to use the whole hot water tank too. And then I'm gonna stand under the cold water until I'm blue and can barely move. Or think.

      When I thaw out I'm submitting another small Paypal donation for independent jounalism. Not necessarily to reward yet another anti-Pandora screed. We've come to expect those from you. Kinda like trains thru the train station. But this one is worthy. And like nothing we're ever gonna get from The Triv, or the radio hosts or any of the other neighborhood rags. It is long and it is a challenging read - for many reasons and on multiple levels - but all of it is worthy of being documented. < shudder > Thanks.

      Special thanks for the link to the Pandora&Company website. Can't believe this is the first time I've gone there. It helps to put a face on the machiavella blowing all the smoke pulling the levers and gears behind the curtain. Even if the face published on her website looks about twenty-three years out-of-date. Such is the face of vanity which pulls on us all.

      I gotta say, based on her website she appears a skilled marketeer. Like you however, I hafta wonder about ....

      > Through the power of behavior-based marketing strategies, ... compelling language, and sometimes a touch of the outrageous, we create communication that is out of the ordinary, attention-grabbing, and highly effective.

      Uh, yeah. maybe. I kinda wish she would describe Behavior Based Marketing a bit more. As noted on her website it is a key strategy in her marketing services but we only know of it as a result of her manipulative practices with respect to her Los Osos sewer activities. Which seems to me is marketing gone terribly awry. Perhaps not her best reference. As I read this expose I couldn't help but think about Karl Rove. I can't help but wonder whether Pandora doesn't aspire to be a Karl Rove mini-me. One can appreciate the brutal effectiveness of a Karl Rove even while disagreeing with him and his methods. He has taken his art to a high level indeed. Watching a lessor skilled wannabe attempt the same is both ugly and painful. It is especially painful when the entire community - including her supporters - lose so much due to her pandering. < sigh >

      By Anonymous *PG-13, at 3:08 PM, May 13, 2007  

    • This is a very nice article I understand the business strategy is more useful to people and

      the marketing strategy is also same use. If you are interesting visit the site

      herf:"http://www.ideacenter.com/">marketing strategy

      By Anonymous Ragupathi, at 9:26 PM, May 13, 2007  

    • PG13 sez:"Uh, yeah. maybe. I kinda wish she would describe Behavior Based Marketing a bit more. As noted on her website it is a key strategy in her marketing services but we only know of it as a result of her manipulative practices with respect to her Los Osos sewer activities. Which seems to me is marketing gone terribly awry."

      Behavior Based Marketing works because you view customers as "marks," "suckers" to be manpulated into buying your product. Where it can end up injuring whole communities (or countries) is when you view citizens as "marks" and "suckers." Unfortunately, the stragegies work both on consumers AND citizines.

      Another one out of the ball park, Ron. I need a shower, too, but I'm also so sad reviewing all of this. It was all so unnecessary and very real people have been harmed in very real ways. This was never just about selling a box of breakfast cereal.

      By Blogger Churadogs, at 7:44 AM, May 14, 2007  

    • Maria Singleton would often vacation on the east coast (New Hampshire? Maine?) and spoke of relocating there.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:29 AM, May 14, 2007  

    • Using Ann's definition, would it be fair to say that CCLO used behavior based marketing? After all, CCLO manipulated people into thinking that they would get the sewer out of town and lower the bill at the same time ... what is the real difference between behavior based marketing, politicking and the big lie? Any?

      By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 10:35 AM, May 14, 2007  

    • Made me chuckle. ;-)

      > ... what is the real difference between behavior based marketing, politicking and the big lie? Any?

      Ahhhhhhh, yes. Good question. Are we painting with shades of grey now?

      + As I only recently found out .....Behavior Based Marketing is used by Marketeers so they can use a fancy name to describe the services they are providing for a nice fee. End result: induce the target/mark/sucker/customer into buying something based on their own perceived (read: recently re-programmed) needs. Doesn't need to be true or have validity of any sort. It just needs to deliver a sale.

      + Politicking is pretty much the same thing. Used to describe the services a politician or fellow underling provides (for an even bigger fee ;-). End result: induce the voter/citizen/shill to lean a certain way and/or vote a certain way as if it was in their best interest. Behavior Base Marketing without an invoice.

      + Big Lie - depending on who is telling it - is still just a lie. Some are white. Some are black. Most aspire to be grey. A big lie is often used to spin a perspective or to gain some advantage BUT its still just a big lie. Big lies are usually self-serving. Otherwise why tell them? The best Big Lie leaves no invoice nor accountable records.

      There are also Delusions. Delusions are lies backed by a strong belief that they may be true. Truth be told, we are all masters of delusions! Its how we live our lives. Its the basis of the human condition. We believe things that aren't necessarily true but we want them to be true. A delusion is a lie without the conscious volition of a lie. Delusions masquerade as the truth and don't leave invoices. They cost us in the long run though when their reality is proven false and we are left grasping for that which they once represented.

      I guess it all comes down to: (1) Behavior Based Marketing is a lie which is invoiced and is expecting to be paid, (2)Politicking are lies that expect to be paid indirectly without an invoice, (3) Big Lies may, or may not get paid, but usually serve some other purpose or misdirection, and (4) Delusions are our natural state.

      By Anonymous *pg-13, at 1:44 PM, May 14, 2007  

    • PG,

      With that in mind, what does Ron stand to gain from choosing to only write on the negative of Pandora's team and refuse to consider the negatives of the other team?

      Does he get paid? I doubt it. Does he get some sort of psychological benefit? I would hope so, because his Karma with Los Osos is shot to hell due to his dogged relentless desire to paint this one individual in a negative light. Heck, even if she deserves it, his willingness to allow others to think that she is the only problem is going to cause him to be beaten up by a pimply faced junior high school softball team.


      It just doesn't seem to me that Ron's motives are as pure as he would have us believe ... either that or is one hell of a bastard.


      The upshot is this ... who befits from his continued attempt to refocus everything on Pandora?

      By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 2:13 PM, May 14, 2007  

    • "The upshot is this ... who [sic]befits from his continued attempt to refocus everything on Pandora?"

      Absolutely no one. All it does is give Ron something to do with his useless, pathetic life.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:39 PM, May 14, 2007  

    • I think Ron Crawford has great karma with Los Osos, well, some of us. I like having people dig into it really deep. Of course, I knew it already when "save the dream" emerged. I was fooled once but not twice! I didn't vote for that assessment. Who in their right mind would considering everything that was going on?

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:52 PM, May 14, 2007  

    • The article on Pandora merely records history. It’s important to expose how she has influenced the direction of the sewer (dare I say, down the drain?) However, could she have done all of this without the influence and financing from her husband, Mr. Gary Karner? Didn’t he also have a multi-million dollar contract with the first sewer for something like the landscaping? He’s the one who formed the Solutions Group and wanted to sue the County because he didn’t like their project. Hey, I know, maybe she was just trying to please her husband and help him get his sewer through and (get contracts for both of their businesses at the same time)? Now what dutiful wife would deny her husband his sewer?


      Another thing that’s is interesting is watching the demise of Julie Tacker. It might be interesting to compare how she has been following in Pandora’s footprints.


      And we have the pot (Pandora) calling the kettle black (…they are negative, don’t refer to them as women—and this coming from the woman who may have helped start the Woman’s Network or something like that, not sure, vague recollection on that).

      By Anonymous commentary, at 9:38 PM, May 14, 2007  

    • Ron, the secret to getting any large public works project completed has always been to do it before anyone notices.

      It seems that Pandora's schemes worked best when everyone was just half paying attention... once we were all shocked into listening to the truth, her strategies plans started failing (as you noted in your article).

      It took certain individuals to become vocal, and sometime downright shouting, to get the masses to listen. And then they had to endure the attempts to discredit them by Pandora and her minions.

      The challenge was always one of credibility... how to overcome the professional smear campaign of Pandora to a town only half listening... and to do that when there were a few "wildcards" out there that had little credibility.

      We all know which "wildcards" I am talking about... and we know that Pandora loved to paint all of her opponents with that brush.

      Ron, maybe an interesting story for you... without a few of the crazies, could Pandora's plan been prevented much sooner?

      Would our message have been heard and heeded much sooner if the message been delivered more professionally, sooner?

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:25 AM, May 15, 2007  

    • Ron,

      I recommend that people read this site and consider Pandora's behavior.

      http://www.internetidiot.net/socially-dangerous-psychopathy-links.htm

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:06 PM, May 16, 2007  

    • First, thanks to everyone for the compliments, but after reading this mind-blowing link:

      http://www.internetidiot.net/socially-dangerous-psychopathy-links.htm (thanks for supplying it, Anon)

      ... I want to take back something I wrote in my main piece. One of my questions to Nash-Karner was, "Are you out of your freaking mind?"

      I'm taking that back. Mental disorders are very real, with very real consequences, and are nothing to joke about. I just didn't know about "compensated psychopaths" when I wrote my piece. (However, to be clear, I'm keeping my second "ringy-dingy" question to Nash-Karner on the table: "Would you and your "behavior based marketing" strategies just go away?")

      After the shootings at Virginia Tech, before any details of the shootings were reported, I already knew what the cause was -- untreated paranoid schizophrenia. In fact, the night before those shootings, I was watching an interesting NBC Dateline story that focused on a New Mexico man that shot and killed five people in one day a couple of years back. He was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic that wasn't receiving treatment. (That's why I find it interesting that Cho, the V.T. shooter, sent his videos to NBC the day after that broadcast. I wonder if he was watching that same program the night before.)

      Now, after reading that link above, I'm blown away. It's almost like I read that link first and then wrote my story around it. Everything all of the psychiatrists talk about in that article describes Nash-Karner's actions perfectly.

      ". . . impress others with their sincere motives and positive intentions and wind up causing great institutional and personal harm. With an unexplainable capacity to engender trust, even in experienced and cynical observers [bolding mine], these people create chaos . . . "

      and;

      "Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret. Their bewildered victims desperately ask, 'How can  we protect ourselves?' "

      Oh, my Lord.

      I don't know what to say here, other than it sure looks like the entire Los Osos mess is nothing more than a result of a "compensated psychopath's" "chaos" over the past 10 - 15 years (and counting), and, if you think about it, that makes so much sense. Finally, something makes sense on why there IS a "hideous sewer war."

      What I found particularly disturbing in that link was this:

      "Dr. Hare believes in developing a good treatment plan; there just isn't one yet.

      Uh-oh.

      By Blogger Ron, at 11:36 AM, May 17, 2007  

    • ". . . impress others with their sincere motives and positive intentions and wind up causing great institutional and personal harm. With an unexplainable capacity to engender trust, even in experienced and cynical observers [bolding mine], these people create chaos . . . "

      and;

      "Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret. Their bewildered victims desperately ask, 'How can we protect ourselves?' "

      Holy shit!!!! Julie Tacker to a tee!!!!!! Very nice read.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:05 PM, May 17, 2007  

    • Hi all,

      You might want to look up narcissistic personality disorder as well. It seems to fit both Julie and Pandora far better than paranoia.

      By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 1:18 PM, May 17, 2007  

    • Pandora isn’t a psychopath so save your sympathies. I did read the link provided above and looked up Dr. Robert Hare to see if he is legit and he is. I read his article that is posted online in the publication Psychology Today. In addition, I did a search online about the differences (and debate) between the narcissist and a psychopath (before I read Shark Inlets post, by the way, hmmmm).



      http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/R3C110V4J284CQ

      Differences between Psychopath and narcissist:

      “…From my book "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" (Reprinted with permission):

      "As opposed to what Scott Peck says, narcissists are not evil – they lack the intention to cause harm ………Narcissists are simply indifferent, callous and careless in their conduct and in their treatment of others. Their abusive conduct is off-handed and absent-minded, not calculated and premeditated like the psychopath's."

      Psychopaths really do not need other people while narcissists are addicted to narcissistic supply (the admiration, attention, and envy of others).”



      From a site about the book mentioned above:
      2. The narcissist feels that his time is invaluable, his mission of cosmic importance, his contributions to humanity priceless. He, therefore, demands total obedience and catering to his ever-changing needs. Any demands on his time and resources is deemed to be both humiliating and wasteful.
      3. But the narcissist is dependent on input from other people for the performance of certain ego functions (such as the regulation of his sense of self worth). Without Narcissistic Supply (adulation, adoration, attention), the narcissist shrivels and withers and is dysphoric (=depressed).


      I believe that Pandora lacks integrity and that she could learn right from wrong if she could be shown a very real consequence for her crimes (forging signatures, mis-quotes in press releases, intentional misrepresentations could be considered crimes). If faced with real jail time or given the opportunity to cease and desist from polluting the sewer process, I think she would choose the latter.

      And I think there is another way. From the psychopath article link provided above I think this could apply regardless of what lack of moral fiber she has,

      “According to Professor Hare, who led the research:
      “Wherever you find money, prestige and power you will find them. The most important thing is to be aware you are working with a psychopath. Then you are in better position to deal with them.”



      Getting control of the money, prestige and power source, e.g. husband Gary Karner, could also get control over the rampant improprieties perpetuated by Pandora Nash Karner. Case in point, demanding and ordering a government agency (Where’s WaldoBriggs) to fine/devastate an entire town (except the exclusive Cabrillo Estates area), is abhorrent. How could and why did Mr. Karner allow this? Pandora is the conductor of a runaway train called the Pandemonium Express and Mr. Karner could be the brakeman if he had an ounce of decency and integrity himself.

      By Anonymous commentary, at 7:31 PM, May 17, 2007  

    • Shark Inlet MUST be Gary Karner!
      & or Pandora...

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:39 PM, May 17, 2007  

    • nope-not Mr.Karner. I doubt you'll ever get who it is, Shark doesn't even know I know or how I figured it out and I've been asked and I refuse to tell to protect their professional status. I appreciate people who don't use their title inappropriately, ie Tom Ruehr who makes comments out of his professional scope.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:54 AM, May 18, 2007  

    • If Shark is a psychopath and narcissistic, how do we identify:
      Gail, Lisa and Julie. They have orchestrated profound mayhem in this community and if we lump them together with Pandora we have an entire coven. This community seems so committed to identifying the evil doers that it is turning into Salem and Ron is the outside religious leader to run them through their tests until their dunking.

      I'm embarrassed I'm even taking time to write but curiosity got the best of me and now I'm nauseous.

      Besides, if Shark is Pandora/Gary then Ron Crawford is the Shredder at the New Times. Actually I believe the later because I know the first ain't so.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:02 AM, May 18, 2007  

    • Anonymous dude of 10:54 am ...

      Sounds like you're saying you know who I am.

      I do know that at least two people that I consider important in the LOCSD debate know my name and that I know at least three people I consider important ... but none of them know me as Shark Inlet.

      I sort of like being relatively anonymous because then folks are more forced to confront the ideas behind what I might write than able to dismiss the ideas with some sort of subconscious ad hominem attack.

      I would be curious who you think I am and how you figured it out ... just e-mail me SharkInlet@gmail.com ... I'll let you know if you're right or not.

      By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 3:56 PM, May 18, 2007  

    • Yikes. I think what may be needed here is Ocam's Razon: Don't go do a higher order of explanation when a simpler one will suffice. Instead of speculation about psychological disorders, there another far simpler explanation: The original County plan didn't solve the water recharge problem, cost nearly $100, the community was balking and things were heading to a standstill. Enter the Solutions Group with the Ponds of Avalon, a plan that is weirdly close to Ripley's original idea of a phased-in Step collection with septic maintenance district, possibly future enhanced onsite improvments for uncollected areas & etc., all with an eye to lowering the nitrate load of the basin (hence meeting state requirements) and recharging the aquifer. It was a great idea. I loved the Ponds of Avalon. Alas, as Ron documents, there were some flies in the ointment. Well, several flies. (An immediate problem is the RWQCB's staff that set the discharge levels & all sorts of other requirements. After watching the recent debacle of the ACL CDO CAO mess, I have absolutely NO confidence in anything "scientific" that comes from the RWQCB staff. So, there's a really interesting "fly" right there. Were their demands really valid and "scientific" or merely politically expedient?)Instead of psychopathy, I believe that what began to happen then was the Tar Baby Syndrome: by fixing problem A you're stuck and in unsticking A you latch B to A, now A&B are stuck, so you try C which becomes stuck and so forth.

      The central site was picked to keep the length of collection pipe short to keep the cost down. Since it was Ponds, the surrounding area could be park-ish, so centrally locating them would hadd a greenish-waterish-parkish place not waaay out of town, but in town. Alas, the site was ESHA which required huge mitigation and ponds have a large footprint, hence a huger mitigation, so the cost flew up past the County plan, so instead of stopping flat and going back to the community and saying, Dang, this can't be done, or moving the ponds out of town to a more appropriate site and just fessing up that the cost of piping would result in a project just as high as the County plan, (in other words, stop and re-look at several possibilities and compare the two then let the voters decide what they wanted --keeping in mind that even the whisper of "stopping" resulted in Roger Brigs' FINES!FINES!FINES!YOU'RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THE STREET LIKE DAWGS!, which constantly closed off any hope of re-grouping and going in a better direction) the new CSD just kept plowing forward, (don't forget that highly illustrative video of an early CSD meeting wherein Rose Bowker and the board had to vote on a discharge site even though they didn't have enough geology and other scientific information to be sure the site would work, and Bruce Buel said, Yes Madam chairman, we know but you have to decide tonight because of the FINES!FINES!FINES! Time Schedule set by the SWB, etc. In other words, GOOD SCIENCE was ignored because of BAD SWB POLICY), hanging onto that site way past any reason, (That still remains the most interesting puzzle) which then led to the stuck-tight tar baby. Having WMH come on board was akin to hiring the fox to design a chicken coop. The fox's only interest in the chickens was cullinary. And so it went down that fatal train track. The Coastal Commission failed to call a halt, the County Planning failed to say, Are you Nuts? The BOS? Then Supervisor Bianchi said she wanted to slap everyone silly because this was a mess, but she voted for it anyway. and so it went, step by step, chugga-chugga, right off the cliff.

      If psychopathy was involved, it infected a whole bunch of people, the entire original CSD board, most of the community, & etc. That's scientifically unlikely. But Good Intentions Gone Awry, Government Failure on a Grand Scale, Human Failure on a Grand Scale, Public Apathy (typical), oh, so many other "normal" behaviors adding up to The Perfect Sewer Storm.

      By Blogger Churadogs, at 6:33 AM, May 22, 2007  

    • Churadogs wrote:

      "If psychopathy was involved, it infected a whole bunch of people, the entire original CSD board, most of the community, & etc. That's scientifically unlikely."

      However, that's part of the description of a "compensated psychopath," according to that link: "With an unexplainable capacity to engender trust, even in experienced and cynical observers, these people create chaos..."

      "Enter the Solutions Group with the Ponds of Avalon, a plan that is weirdly close to Ripley's original idea of a phased-in Step collection with septic maintenance district, possibly future enhanced onsite improvments for uncollected areas & etc., all with an eye to lowering the nitrate load of the basin (hence meeting state requirements) and recharging the aquifer. It was a great idea."

      A great idea, except for one small thing... the location of the ponds. (o.k., two things... it was originally designed to collect only a small portion of the PZ -- and that was simply never going to work for a bunch of excellent reasons).

      "The central site was picked to keep the length of collection pipe short to keep the cost down."

      That's what Los Osos voters were told by the original CSD for years. But that was just more false information disseminated by... well, Nash-Karner.

      CSD documents would later show that the high cost of the Tri-W (and Broderson) site would have paid for any extra collection piping, AND something like 300 years of the energy it would take to pump everything out of town to a MUCH less expensive location, like the Andre2 site -- a site that was considered in the Final EIR (and is still on the table today with the TAC) and does not include PG&E deed restrictions, but wasn't selected for the CSD's second project because it couldn't meet the "project objective of centrally located community amenities."

      I was golfing at Chalk Mountain golf course over the weekend, and, out behind the back nine, hidden in the hills, is Atascadero's wastewater treatment facility. It's a huge, stinky, very sewer-like ponding system thing-y -- something no one wants to be around (that's why it's hidden away in the hills) -- and all I could think of is what a disaster that would have been at the Tri-W site. Completely, totally inappropriate for a mid-town location, yet, 87 percent of Los Osos voted for it. Why?

      There is only one answer to that question: The Solution Group's aggressive, deliberately false, saturation marketing tactics. Think about it, strip away the spin, and if someone were to plainly tell Los Osos voters, "We're going to put sewer ponds in the middle of town," 99-PERCENT would say, "The Hell you are!"

      But if you tell them, through an over-the-top, saturation, behavior based marketing campaign that the ponds will be "drop dead gorgeous," "will not smell," and cost "a maximum monthly payment of $38.75/month," all of a sudden that 99-percent "No," turns into 87-percent "Yes."

      "Good Intentions Gone Awry..."

      I don't buy that. What the Solution Group did was not "Good Intentions."

      For example, If I was proposing, and heavily marketing throughout my hometown, a huge public works project that I developed, and all of a sudden an engineering firm is telling me it has all kinds of problems, and if the Coastal Commission's staff corroborates that engineering firm's conclusions, and if a county supervisor "hand delivers" to me a list of huge problems associated with my idea, and if the local Water Board is also highly critical of my plan, I don't say to myself, "Awww, what do those people know? I have good intentions, so I'm going to plow ahead with my multi-multi-million dollar project anyway." Hell no, I don't. I'm much too much of a pragmatic wuss to heap that kind of irresponsibility on my shoulders.

      Instead, if all of that information is flying at me before the election that is going to have the town vote on my plan that I now know is deeply, deeply flawed, I would find the highest rooftop in Los Osos, climb on top of it, and I would begin shouting, "DO NOT VOTE FOR MY PLAN!"

      But the Solution Group didn't do that... just the opposite, in fact. That's not "Good Intentions Gone Awry," that's messed up.

      So, to me at least, the "compensated psychopath" explanation IS the "simpler explanation." It makes so much sense. (I also find it very interesting that the Anon that supplied that link read my story, and THEN recognized the symptoms as "compensated psychopath." How did he/she know that?) It was WHY there was Government Failure on a Grand Scale (funny how government agencies fail when they are given false information by elected officials, huh?). It was WHY there was Human Failure on a Grand Scale (funny how Humans fail when they are given false information by soon-to-be-elected/elected officials, huh?).

      Heck, to me, it seems like the Public Apathy folks are the only ones that didn't contribute to this mess. When 87-percent of voters don't take the time to sift through all of the saturation marketing that is deliberately loaded with false/misinformation, then the Public Apathy people are the GOOD GUYS.

      "Alas, the site was ESHA..."

      From the Tri-W development permit: "CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location."

      Andre2 was/is an "environmentally preferable," feasible location. The early CSD Boards were required by law to put the treatment facility there. Of course, had they abided by that law, it would have shown that the deeply flawed project that got them elected and the LOCSD formed in the first place, had failed.

      When the Tri-W project finally, officially falls off the table (which should be any day now), I will immediately call for -- nay -- I will immediately DEMAND an investigation in to what happened. Why did the Los Osos Community Services District choose to violate CZLUO Section 23.08.288d, thus costing California taxpayers tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars?

      Can't wait. The results of that investigation will be awesome, and clear up a lot of confusion on why Los Osos happened.

      By Blogger Ron, at 12:02 PM, May 22, 2007  

    • I want to clear something up from my previous comment.

      I wrote:

      "CSD documents would later show that the high cost of the Tri-W (and Broderson) site..."

      To be clear, according to those LOCSD documents, the cost of Tri-W alone would have paid for Andre2, the extra piping needed to get everything there, plus the cost of energy, for something ridiculous like 300 years, needed to pump everything out to Andre2. I added, "(and Broderson)" because that was another HUGE expense needed solely due to Tri-W's ESHA... for the park... in your sewer plant... because of Los Osos's "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant must also double as a "centrally located recreational asset."

      Right, Los Osos? You know, THAT "community value." You guys are all familiar with that "community value," right? The one that locked in Tri-W for your second project at Tri-W? Yea, that "value." That one you all "strongly" hold, right?

      By Blogger Ron, at 3:28 PM, May 22, 2007  

    • Ron, Ann... you guys keep missing an important point.

      churadogs wrote... "Alas, the site was ESHA which required huge mitigation and ponds have a large footprint, hence a huger mitigation... "

      Now follow me on this closely...

      This was part of the plan all along... develop a piece of land that was unuseable the only way you could. Think about it. How could you develop Tri-W when it was ESHA? What steps would you have to take? Ron knows the answer to this, because it is exactly the steps Pandora took when she made up the "community value" thing.

      And that had to be tied to a sewer... noone ever would have allowed just a park there because it was a "community value", it was ESHA for cryin out load. A strip mall for "community values", houses for "community values"... you get my point.

      But tie a much needed sewer project to the "community value" and back that up with "we're all going to die from slogging in our own sewage" and "there's no other possible location for a sewer" and now you have a case to take before the CCC... and we know what happened next.

      But the mitigation is part of the plan as well... taking Broderson out of circulation along with Tri-W lowers the buildout number of Los Osos from 26,000 to 19,000.

      Once you do that, you have decreased the potential developeable lots in town by approximately 2,000.

      Combine that with a sewer plant on a small piece of property and you have now controlled the growth rate of Los Osos... something most towns have never been able to accomplish through anti-growth legislation.

      So, what happens to the value of remaining developeable property when most of it is taken out of commission? Its value sky rockets.

      Imagine of you own property in Los Osos and you bought it with the intention of building houses on it to sell for a profit. How much could you get for those houses, or even for the empty lots if a sewer goes online and a building moritorium is lifted? How much could you get if 8,000 lots are being developed at the same time?

      What if 6,000 of those lots are taken out of commission and you own a large portion of the remaining 2,000 lots?

      You see where I am going with this? Restrict the supply and drive up the demand.

      Most of the time when there is corruption in government... just follow the money... it never lies.

      Who owns most of the undeveloped land in town? Compare that list to the list for the Solutions Group, Taxpayers Watch, The Dreamers...

      What does that tell you?

      You want to know who i heard this from?

      Bob Semonson... former LOCAC member, former LOCSD board member, former Solution Grouper, etc.

      Current property owner and developer.

      And current member of the TAC!!!

      I asked him why he supported Tri-W. He claimed that building the sewer there was partially his idea as a way to control growth in Los Osos.

      I asked him if he thought site selection on a sewer was an appropriate way to control growth and he said yes.

      Ask him at a TAC meeting... he may just spill the beans.

      When I had that conversation with Bob, it was the day I realized the whole site selection was rigged. He knows the whole sordid story about how and why Tri-W was selected... and how the EIR was rigged to make Tri-W come out on top. The intention was to make the site selection process conclude Tri-W was the only alternative... when what they were supposed to do was let the process itself determine where to build the sewer.

      Once you rigged that process... everything after was tainted. Everything needed to be shoehorned to fit... lies, er... I mean "behavior based marketing" needed to be wielded to justify the choice.

      Now we have that guy on the TAC... Ann is right... we all better watch them close or they will try and sneak it through again. "Thumbs on the scale" for sure.

      You see Ann, in your quote at the beginning of this post you ponder why the Solution Group/LOCSD didnt rethink their plan when it was realized they would need huge mitigation for destroying the Tri-W ESHA... why would they change their plan? That was the plan all along.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:00 PM, May 22, 2007  

    • Whoah! Anon above, thank you. I've been wondering for a long time why so many people dislike Bob Semenson. Is he really a developer? Man, that explains a whole lot.

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:02 PM, May 23, 2007  

    • Anon posted:
      " why would they change their plan? That was the plan all along."

      OOOGH! now I gotta shower! UGH!

      By Blogger Mike Green, at 5:01 PM, May 23, 2007  

    • Anonymous sez:"I asked him why he supported Tri-W. He claimed that building the sewer there was partially his idea as a way to control growth in Los Osos.

      I asked him if he thought site selection on a sewer was an appropriate way to control growth and he said yes.

      Ask him at a TAC meeting... he may just spill the beans."

      Bob spilled the beans in public on tape at a CSD meeting a couple of years ago. That was, indeed, the plan. He's made no bones bout it. Use the sewer to control growth. Don't think anyone in the community knew that at the time of the CSD formation vote. Ironically, it may turn out that water, not sewage, may well be the limiting factor.

      Ron notes:"It was WHY there was Government Failure on a Grand Scale (funny how government agencies fail when they are given false information by elected officials, huh?). It was WHY there was Human Failure on a Grand Scale (funny how Humans fail when they are given false information by soon-to-be-elected/elected officials, huh?)."

      Amen, Brother, Amen. As for an investigation into all this, what laws exist require that elected officials tell the truth, especially when they can simply say that whatever they told regulators was What They Believed, To The Best Of Their Ability, Was Accurate, At The Time, Heh-Heh. Sort of like proving perjury -- requires that you knowlingly lied, i.e. knew the truth but deliberately lied. Without a smoking gun email to that effect, perjury usually goes nowhere because the liar can simply say, Well, Dang, I believed That To Be True AT The Time, Who Knew? Heh-heh.

      anon also sez:"Now we have that guy on the TAC... Ann is right... we all better watch them close or they will try and sneak it through again. "Thumbs on the scale" for sure."

      Yep. Now there's some other bigger players in the room with their thumbs on the Scale. The SWB's SRF Breach of Contract And original SRF Loan and Additional Gazillions Added on Without a 218 Vote "Interesting Mess." That's a pretty heavy thumb with a vested interest in seeing THAT little can of worms never gets opened.

      I'll tell you, that room and that scale's getting pretty crowded.

      By Blogger Churadogs, at 7:22 AM, May 24, 2007  

    • Ann Calhoun said... "That was, indeed, the plan. He's made no bones bout it. Use the sewer to control growth. Don't think anyone in the community knew that at the time of the CSD formation vote."

      If that was the reason they picked Tri-W and that reason was never mentioned... not once... in the EIR and Project Report... then isn't that fraud?

      If instead of "growth control", they listed other reasons for choosing Tri-W... such as "community values" and "centrally located ameneties"... isn't that fraud?

      By all means, lets put that guy on the TAC...

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:32 AM, May 24, 2007  

    • Churadogs wrote:

      "As for an investigation into all this, what laws exist require that elected officials tell the truth, especially when they can simply say that whatever they told regulators was What They Believed, To The Best Of Their Ability, Was Accurate, At The Time, Heh-Heh. Sort of like proving perjury -- requires that you knowlingly lied, i.e. knew the truth but deliberately lied."

      From what I understand from my research on fraud, is that one of the three things needed to show fraud is that a person said something they knew was false, and then that lie benefited them in some way. That's why I keep brining up the fact that Nash-Karner spearheaded Measures E-97 ($10 a year for "recreational services" in Los Osos) and D-97 ($40 a year for a pool facility in Los Osos.) Both of those Measures failed. Yet, just three years later, as an elected official, she's telling the Coastal Commission that there's a "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos also must double as a "centrally located recreational asset." That's ludicrous and not supported by a drop of anything... besides Nash-Karner, of course. And if anyone was in a position to know that that "community value" did not exist, it was Nash-Karner, because of her intimate involvement with Measures E and D.

      I mean, what's she going to say, "Your honor, at the time I was telling the Coastal Commission that there was a 'strongly held community value' that any sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a 'centrally located recreational asset,' I forgot that I spearheaded, just three years earlier, two failed ballot Measures that showed that Los Osos taxpayers were in no mood to spend a dime on 'recreational services" anywhere in Los Osos, let alone multi-millions of dollars on an elaborate park in a sewer plant... and then have that park dictate and expensive, unpopular, environmentally sensitive, mid-town location."?

      Well, she can certainly TRY to say that, and I guess it's up to a judge and/or jury whether or not they believe it. I sure don't.

      As for Semonsen saying that Tri-W was selected to control growth, that is exactly why there needs to be some subpoena power mixed in to this whole affair. Everyone deserves REAL answers to these excellent questions. We are talking about tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars of California taxpayer money, after all. That would have bought a lot of children's dental surgery, as Supervisor Achadjian nicely alluded to at a recent meeting when they were discussing the high cost of fixing the Morro Bay Golf Course irrigation system.

      By Blogger Ron, at 9:57 AM, May 24, 2007  

    • Ron,
      Excellent articles & very factual! As for Shark saying that you only focus on Pandora's NEGATIVES, let me ask, ARE THERE ANY PANDORA POSITIVES? She has ALWAYS had Shirley Bianchi in her BACK POCKET & you know how much help Los Osos got from old Shirley? zero, zip, nada. As for Pandora digging up dirt on people, IE: Lisa, Julie, etc. Why hasn't she ever EXPOSED THE VERIFIABLE TRUTHS ABOUT HER GOOD BUDDY & FELLOW HATCHET MAN, Gail Briggs McPherson? BTW, is Gail related to Roger Briggs, another of Pandies cronies?
      Danny

      By Anonymous Danny, at 11:00 AM, May 28, 2007  

    • Danny,

      Just a point of clarification. I was pointing out that Ron only wrote negatives about the entire Solutions Group and all that they've ever supported but that he never writes anything negative about the CCLO/LOTTF/CASE folks.

      As I've noted here before ... even if Pandora is a lying sack of weasel dung, that doesn't mean that anyone who has disagreed with her must be right. It would be interesting if Ron actually put as much effort into writing on post-2004 and post-2005 matters as he's put into pre-2004 issues. Perhaps he should retitle his blog "Los Osos sewer history between 1997 and 2004". Certainly the history is interesting, but you've got to admit that Ron has never written anything substantial that could be considered negative about the post recall board's decisions.

      By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 9:44 PM, May 28, 2007  

    • Shark Inlet, the incessant, creepy blog lurker, wrote:

      "... Ron has never written anything substantial that could be considered negative about the post recall board's decisions."

      That's because there is no story there. It's boring! What have they done wrong? Spent too much money on lawyers, according to some people that are still bitter over the results of the recall election? So what? Big deal. Zzzzzzzz...

      However, if AB2701 turns out to be the waste of over a year and more than $2 million that it is shaping up to be, then there will be an interesting story regarding the post-recall board, and that will be that four of them f-d up when they voted to support AB2701. The only dissenter was Julie Tacker, and it's really starting to look like Tacker was 100-percent right, because the LOCSD could have hooked up some type of private financing and moved forward with Ripley's plan -- a plan that will achieve "zero discharge" and make everyone in the PZ 83-13 compliant. Instead, we all get another expensive delay with AB2701. Great.

      By Blogger Ron, at 9:41 AM, May 29, 2007  

    • Ron,

      Good reply. Honest reply.

      Essentially you're telling us that you don't actually care about Los Osos or what is happening to us but that you only care about things that tickle your funny bone.

      If you're interested in Pandora, fine ... maybe you can re-title your blog "Pandorawatch" so that way people wouldn't be misled into thinking you're actually covering the entire story even with your horribly biased point of view.

      Face it, the post-recall board really screwed the pooch.

      If it was possible for someone to get the sewer out of town for a reasonable cost, the bankruptcy and other poor choices of the board cost them the possibility of doing what they claim they were elected to do. If it wasn't possible to move the sewer at a reasonable cost, they shouldn't have told us they would.

      As for your support of the Ripley plan ... even if it would work (and there are open questions on that issue that you've never addressed) ... how was the LOCSD supposed to afford putting in a Ripley system even while bankrupt? A 218 vote to use private financing would be necessary. The LOCSD could have moved forward on that back in Feb-Aug 2006 but they didn't bother. Oh yeah ... working from an assumed $100M project (ballpark what Ripley was telling us), once one factors in inflation, an 8% interest rate (even for a 30 year bond), it still works out to payments in excess of TriW. The board ... your board ... the screw-up board ... didn't have the balls to admit they were wrong.

      The sort of 218 vote necessary to do the sort of thing you are proposing they should have done would have required them to admit they were screw-ups. Rather than admit it, they chose to lose the project to the County so that they could continue blaming others.

      Nope, you've clearly not read the Ripley proposal or thought about how the board could do what you propose.

      Sort of proves the point, Ron. It confirms that you don't give a rats ass about our community because if you were writing because you cared, you would bothered to consider the question of "what would have to happen for self-financing of Ripley to actually work?".

      By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 2:27 PM, May 29, 2007  

    • One more question, Ron ... and I ask this more because I think it will be instructive for others than because I expect you'll benefit ...

      Why would it help the conversation to use phrases such as "Shark Inlet, the incessant, creepy blog lurker"? Perhaps if you removed the word creepy it would be more appropriate, but even then the choice of wording with lurker seems more of a personal insult that something that adds to the understanding of anyone.

      If I were to refer to you as "Ron, the person who only lives to hate Pandora and who chooses to wield facts like weapons, avoiding those which could make his pre-determined conclusions look bad" it would be similarly unhelpful.

      So ... the question ... why bother with insults? If what you have to say is so solid, shouldn't the facts and analysis speak for themselves?

      By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 11:31 AM, May 30, 2007  

    • it is quite interesting that Ron puts sooooo much effort into pre-2004, and digs sooooo deep to find a story, yet.....

      in a simple swoosh uncharacteristic of his supposed 'investigative' skills, he takes private financing as gospel, no (or almost no) questions asked,

      ya just bring in a private company like magic, and woosh, solution!!

      the fact is, his recital of the same documents and conclusions over and over ad nauseum with quasi-legal innuendo is making Ron into his own comic character

      his 'take' of the idea that the CSD (with Blesky as the GM to boot) actually could have brought forth a project while in bankruptcy is a legend (in someone's mind) that would have more likely been a toss-up between entertainment value and sad tragedy rather than selective figment of Ron's rather creative imagination

      By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:53 PM, May 30, 2007  

    • Anon left:

      "... in a simple swoosh uncharacteristic of his supposed 'investigative' skills, he takes private financing as gospel, no (or almost no) questions asked... "

      That's almost a compliment.

      My sources for that "take" are excellent and varied. I'm just not going to break it all down, because AB2701 makes the private financing matter moot (unless, of course, the 218 vote fails, then I'll be sure to revisit that very interesting subject.)

      By Blogger Ron, at 10:28 AM, May 31, 2007  

    • Ron,

      Fair 'nuff. You'll get back to us on how private financing would work and make sense if the 218 vote fails and the LOCSD (if it isn't in n the question of receivership at that point in time) takes over again.


      On a related issue, I would love to hear your opinion on whether the recall board should have done a 218 vote in early 2006 to finance their move-the-sewer idea or not. As a follow-up, I would also be interested in your opinion on the matter of why you think the board didn't pursue this tack ... something that to me seems pretty much a no-brainer. Heck, if you don't have any money but you need some, shouldn't you ask permission to borrow some?

      By Blogger Shark Inlet, at 3:59 PM, May 31, 2007  

    Post a Comment

    << Home