Monday, July 28, 2008

Taxpayers Watch? We Want Our $9,247.50, and We Want it Now!

Los Osos? On July 31 (Thursday morning), you have a rare and beautiful opportunity to get a little sweet, sweet payback at the people that did this to you.

That's when the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) will consider a "request" by the shady citizens group, "Taxpayers Watch," to allow that group more time to pay off a nearly $30,000 bill they racked-up during their frivolous attempt to "dissolve" the Los Osos Community Services District beginning in 2006, shortly after the same people behind Taxpayers Watch were recalled from that same LOCSD Board.

[Yep. That's exactly how that sequence went down: They got recalled, and instantly turned so bitter that they spent $30,000 (at least) of their own money trying to eliminate the very government agency that they were just recalled from. The gall impresses me.]

If you're one of the thousands that witnessed recalled CSD Directors', Gordon Hensley and Richard LeGros (aka: Taxpayers Watch), act before and after the recall -- like ignoring the vast majority of Los Osos, and deliberately setting their own recall date at one of the latest possible dates, and, of course, by doing so, bought themselves the extra month needed to cash a $6.5 million state check and immediately begin ripping up environmentally sensitive land to build an extremely unpopular, technically embarrassing, mid-town sewer plant, and that action needlessly saddled the town with millions upon millions of dollars of debt, or how, after they lost the recall election, before the results were even certified, their operatives developed (and implemented) a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" -- then you HAVE to carve out some time on the morning of July 31, and go to that LAFCO meeting, and speak up.

Not since the recall has the town of Los Osos had such a beautiful "get 'em" moment.

Here's all you have to do: Show up, en masse, at that meeting and tell the LAFCO Board to NOT grant Taxpayers Watch an "extension" on their payment schedule -- an extension that LAFCO staff is recommending.

That's it. That's all you have to do. If you can convince LAFCO to NOT grant that time extension, Taxpayers Watch is going to be forced to come up with $9,000, pronto... or else!

After the Taxpayers Watch dissolution attempt officially failed in late 2006, following "4 hearings over a nine month period," LAFCO wasn't about to pick up the hefty administrative tab for such a blatantly frivolous action, so they told Taxpayers Watch to pay nearly $30,000 to help cover the cost of the fiasco, which they have been paying, at a clip of $1,000 per month.

However, here's where it gets interesting: They got behind on their payments.

"If the (LAFCO) Commission doesn’t follow the staff recommendation (and grant the time extension), Taxpayers Watch would be required to pay the balance pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment," wrote Paul Hood, LAFCO executive officer, in an e-mail for this story.

He added, "Taxpayers Watch continued with the payment of $1,000 at the end of June and another payment is due at the end of July. After the July payment the balance will be $8,247.50 out of a beginning balance of $27,747.50."

According to Hood, if Taxpayers Watch does not get their extension on July 31, and can't come up with $9-large in a hurry, "Enforcement would be through the courts because they signed the Stipulation as a condition of LAFCO not pursuing the lawsuit to require payment in 2007."

How sweet would that be... "enforcement" would rain down on the same people that are attempting (present tense) to get the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence." (Payback's a bitch, huh, Taxpayers Watch?)

Furthermore, and this is huge, had the dissolution attempt been successful, and the LOCSD had been wiped off the map, the millions upon millions of dollars in debt that the pre-recall board (aka: Taxpayers Watch) needlessly racked-up in the few weeks before the recall election (that they deliberately set at one of the latest possible dates), would have been transferred to county taxpayers... and Taxpayers Watch knew that, and didn't give a flip!

With their dissolution attempt, Taxpayers Watch essentially said to county taxpayers, "Look, we don't care if you guys get stuck paying the millions upon millions of dollars we wasted covering up our sewer plant lies over a seven year period in Los Osos, we're unbelievably bitter people, and we are going to do anything we can to eliminate the very agency we created, because the voters of Los Osos don't want US anymore... and, oh yea, we're also going to make sure that those same voters get 'fined out if existence.' And, even if our dissolution attempt isn't successful, we will still have forced the post-recall LOCSD to waste a ton of time and money fighting us, and that will cripple them, and also help terminate the CSD. Did I mention that we're unbelievably bitter people?"

Think about this. It's an outrage: Taxpayers Watch showed that level of disregard for county taxpayers, yet, LAFCO is on the verge of rewarding them with a HUGE favor by granting them an extension to their already-agreed-to payment schedule.

That's insulting.

Obviously, Taxpayers Watch doesn't care about county taxpayers, so why should county taxpayers care about them?

We want our $9,247.50, and we want it now!

###

The LAFCO meeting will be held at the Board of Supervisor's chambers at the county government center in downtown SLO. It begins at 9;00 a.m. If you can't make the July 31 meeting, you can e-mail Paul Hood your comments at: phood@slolafco.com

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Red Flag Warning for Coastal Commission Hearings

Los Osos? You have exactly one day to figure this out:

(you don't have to read it, just blur your eyes and look at it... that's my point)

San Luis Obispo County proposes to amend the Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (CZLUO), or Implementation Plan (IP) portion of its certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). The amendment updates multiple IP sections including: 1) Section 23.01.043c(3)(i) – Appeals to the Coastal Commission; 2) Section 23.04.186d3 – Landscape Plan Content; 3) 23.04.200 – Archaeology; 4) 23.04.210 – Visual Resources; 5) 23.04.220 – Energy/Solar; 6) Section 23.05.050 - Drainage; 7) Section 23.05.062 - Tree Removal; 8) Section 23.05.110 – Roads and Bridges; 9) Section 23.06.100 - Water Quality; 10) Section 23.06.104 – Municipal Wells; 11) Section 23.06.106 – Onsite Sewage; 12) Section 23.06.108 – Chemical Control; 13) 23.07.104c – Archaeology; 14) 23.07.170 - Environmentally Sensitive Habitats; 15) Section 23.07.172 - Wetlands; 16) Section 23.11.030 – Environmentally Sensitive Habitats Definition. The standard for review for the amendment is conformity with and adequacy to carry out the provisions of the County’s certified Land Use Plan (LUP).

... and, if all goes as planned, it will have a profound impact on your community, forever.

That blurry mess is what SLO County officials are asking the Coastal Commission to "amend" come Thursday, when the Commission holds hearings this week in SLO.

And the "Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (CZLUO)" that that blurry mess is referring to, that SLO County officials want to take a carving knife to, dictates every land use decision in Los Osos... every... single... one... of... them. (Along with every other coastal community in San Luis Obispo County.)

I have no idea what kind of "sewer-plant-site sleight of hand" is hidden in that mess, but, call it a journalistic hunch, I've got a 6-pack of Heineken that says it's in there.

Readers of this blog may remember how I showed last year that the moment county officials identified other "feasible locations" for a sewer plant to serve Los Osos, other than the unpopular, mid-town Tri-W site, it instantly became illegal to build a sewer plant at the Tri-W site, because the CZLUO says so:

"CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location."

Tri-W is ESHA, "sensitive dune habitat." And the county has already identified a basket-full of "feasible locations" that AREN'T "sensitive dune habitat."

So, when county officials sneak up to the Coastal Commission -- with a blurry mess of numbers, dots, semi-colons and dashes -- and ask them to amend the CZLUO in "multiple" places, friends, that is red flag time.

I don't have the time to go through all of those numbers, and letters, and forward slashes, and parentheses right now (I kind of looked through it, and I have no idea what it's talking about. It is so confusing. However, I did notice that some of those dots and numbers have something to do with "Onsite Sewage," and, "modifications related to identification of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs)" ), but I'm sure our friends at the Trib will be all over it tomorrow to help clear it all up.


NOT! (I've always wanted to do that.)


Here's the link to the proposed amendment.

(Also, is it just me, or is there something weird with that file? My version has about 15 pages after page 1 that are blank, and then it appears to pick up where it left off... to add to the confusion.)

Here's what the Coastal Commission staff is recommending for the blurry mess:

"Staff is recommending that the (CZLUO) update be approved if modified as recommended in this staff report."

And, in case you need it. There's also another 70-page staff report to digest that deals with another confusing document that will dictate the future of Los Osos, and, in that staff report, the word "osos" comes up all over the place.

Gotta love land use planning, huh?

Here's the link.

Happy reading! I'm sure we all have time for it.

###

Monday, July 07, 2008

Please Support Independent Journalism

"It shames me that I am about to ask these people for money, but that’s how I roll."
-- Ben Leroux

If you just clicked to SewerWatch after reading my story, Crowded women’s jail is big lawsuit threat, over at UncoverdSLO.com, and found it interesting (and, oh, is it interesting... how's THAT for a "wake-up call"?), please donate here on my blog. The PayPal button and mailing address is on the right.

Here's why you should donate -- because if you don't, I'm not going to be motivated to report, because, since my first reporting job in 1990, I've always been paid for my writing, including here on SewerWatch through donations, and I have some excellent story ideas.

And, as always, MUCH thanks to all of the beautiful, intelligent, well-rounded, handsome, coordinated, kind folks that have donated in the past.

Much thanks to UncoveredSLO.com, too. Don't forget to support that excellent web site as well.

###