Hilarious Dynamic On Display in Los Osos

Now that the County of San Luis Obispo has just spent three years and some $6 million proving my reporting over the past four years right -- specifically, that there is no rationale whatsoever to build a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos -- I'm starting to see a funny dynamic emerge.

It's this...

On one hand, every single official document coming out of the county these days regarding a sewer system for Los Osos, shows that the "Tri-W" project -- a plan for a mid-town "sewer-park" that the 1998 - 2005 Los Osos Community Services District spent over $20 million and seven years developing -- was a a terrible project, on every level, just like I reported it to be, beginning in 2004.

Then, there's the other hand, and here's where that dynamic gets great.

On the other hand, there are the people that either supported the nonsensical Tri-W project, or, much worse, were directly responsible for its development, and they still reside in Los Osos.

Which means, of course, that, today, the people that were responsible for the Tri-W project, and continue to reside in Los Osos, in the face of all of the recent official evidence, still have to... they are forced to... stick with their original Big Lie -- that their mid-town Tri-W "sewer-park," that they spent over $20 million and seven years developing, was a good idea -- that there actually WAS sound rationale behind their project, when, as I have repeatedly shown, there wasn't, and every county document produced on this matter over the past three years proves me 100-percent right.

It's the nature of a cover up -- once you're locked into it, you have to commit to it, even after you've been officially shown wrong.

Which brings us to today, and it's hilarious. The people that either supported or developed the nonsensical Tri-W project, now have to continue to defend their decisions, when there's a mountain of official evidence that shows they were wrong.

Awesome!

Call it a "guilty pleasure," but I can't tell you how much entertainment value I'm getting by watching this play out.

For example, in the comments section of Ann Calhoun's excellent blog, an anonymous, long-time, pro Tri-W honk, with the handle of "Sewertoons," recently wrote:

"That is why I like Tri-W - in town, not expandable - oh, and cheaper."

Here's why that's hilarious:

The Tri-W project, when scrutinized by objective officials (read: NOT 1998 - 2005 LOCSD officials), didn't even make the short list for potential projects.

Furthermore, the National Water Resources Institute, comprised of some of the top water quality professionals in the world, were unanimous: "Given the number of problematic issues with the downtown site (Tri-W), it is the unanimous opinion of the Panel that an out-of-town site(s) is a better alternative."

So, when a Tri-W project developer/supporter, these days, says something like, "That is why I like Tri-W - in town, not expandable - oh, and cheaper," what they are also saying is that every SLO County official is wrong, and every NWRI member is wrong, and they (in this pathetic case, an anonymous blog commenter with the handle of "SewerToons") are right.

To add to the hilarity, nowadays, the only people willing to stick their necks out for the failed Tri-W project, ARE anonymous commenters on blogs... which is exactly what they will do in the comments section below this post. I already know they will, because they have to.

They HAVE TO keep the Big Lie going.

Without it, it will immediately become clear to everyone that the 1998 - 2005 Los Osos CSD wasted over $20 million and seven years on a technological embarrassment, and ripped the town apart in the process.

Also, without the continuation of the Big Lie in some form -- not only am I shown right, but also that the recall of the elected officials responsible for the Tri-W project in 2005 was the exact right thing to do, and the stoppage of the Tri-W project by the officials that replaced the recalled three, was also, the exact right thing to do.

And the people that developed the Tri-W project can never let that happen... at any cost.

They will never be able to say, "Whoa, what were we thinking? A 'sewer-park' in the middle of Los Osos? What a dumb idea."

They can never say something like that... ever.

So, just to emphasize the hilarity that's about to ensue in the comments section below, I'm going to copy-and-paste some of the bio information for the NWRI members, that brilliantly concluded, "Given the number of problematic issues with the downtown site (Tri-W), it is the unanimous opinion of the Panel that an out-of-town site(s) is a better alternative.":

GEORGE TCHOBANOGLOUS, PH.D., P.E.: For over 35 years, wastewater expert George Tchobanoglous has taught courses on water and wastewater treatment and solid waste management at the University of California, Davis, where he is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.

BLAKE P. ANDERSON, P.E.: Blake Anderson is an independent consultant specializing in strategic planning, describing environmental public policy, drafting public policy, providing senior level planning advice on public infrastructure decision-making, organizational development, facilitating conflict resolution and addressing regulatory matters related to water quality protection, public infrastructure, water supply and environmental issues.

MARTIN B. FEENEY, PG, CEG, CHg: Martin Feeney has been a consulting hydrogeologist since 1997, providing hydrogeologic consulting services to water agencies, private industry, and engineering firms.

ROBERT JAQUES, P.E.: Bob Jaques has been a private engineering consultant since retiring from the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency in September 2005 after 30 years of service.

VALERIE J. YOUNG, AICP: Valerie Young is a senior environmental planner and water reuse specialist with 29 years of professional planning experience. Since 1993, she has focused her environmental planning work (CEQA/NEPA) on recycled water and water-related projects in California.

And the remaining Tri-W supporters, exclusively anonymous commenters on blogs, that are now in the comical place of being forced to disagree with all of those respected professionals (and, every county official) by clinging to the failed Tri-W project, are...???

Let the hilarity ensue.

###

Tri-W's Dead -- Now, Behold, as I, the Amazing SewerWatchini, Magically Make Governor S.'s "Signing Statement" Disappear

It doesn't get much cooler than this.

Over four years after my New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown was published, where I was the first (and, still, only) reporter to show how there was no documentable rationale whatsoever for why a sewer plant was being constructed smack-dab in the middle of Los Osos, the agency now responsible for that project, the county of San Luis Obispo, will not be constructing a sewer plant smack-dab in the middle of Los Osos.

Sweee-EEEET!

County officials recently presented to the National Water Resources Institute the location options they've identified for a sewer plant for Los Osos, and, the mid-town Tri-W site -- the site where the 1998 - 2005 Los Osos Community Services District spent upwards of $50 million and over seven years planning their mid-town "sewer-park" project -- doesn't even make the list.

According to the NWRI report, the only treatment site options presented by the county were, "Branin, Cemetery Site, Giacomazzi, Tonini."

All four sites are east of town, and downwind.

"Those are the sites we are pursuing," said, Mark Hutchinson, environmental planner for the county, during a recent phone interview.

"Those are the 'A Level' sites," he said.

When I asked, "Then what category is the Tri-W site in?"

He said, "Well, there really isn't a technical term for it, how about we just say 'B Level' for lack of a better phrase."

Although Hutchinson wouldn't get into specifics on why the county isn't pursuing the 1998 - 2005 LOCSD's project, he did laugh at it.

I know he'd prefer that I not relay this story, but he knew he was speaking with a reporter, and this is great.

I was asking him if his office, the SLO County Public Works Department, had been lobbied by anyone to continue the pursuit of the Tri-W project.

The reason I was asking that question, is because I can see how the elected officials that spent all of that time and money developing that nonsensical, mid-town "sewer-park," could be highly motivated to see that their project be constructed, of course.

He told me that his office had indeed been "lobbied," but it wasn't from the Tri-W developers, it was, apparently, from a "few" folks east of town, which, I can understand.

So, after he said that, I asked, "Well, you can understand why I asked that question, right? I mean, put yourself in the shoes of the people that developed the Tri-W project."

And that's when Hutchinson laughed, out loud.

No doubt about it: The County of San Luis Obispo just spent nearly $6 million, and three years proving Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown right.

Next week, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Los Osos sewer project is expected to be released, and it is also expected to be brutal on the former Tri-W "sewer-park," much like Three Blocks.

And, speaking of $6 million, and being proven right...

Sometimes I'll do something just to get it time-stamped.

For example, when the State of California was on the verge of cutting a $6 million check to the Los Osos CSD in 2005 so the agency could begin construction on a project that doesn't even make the short list these days, I knew, through my research from reporting on this great story, that the loan that the State was handing to the District was illegal.

I knew that that loan was illegally financing a multi-million dollar public park for Los Osos, and, here's the cool part, I was the ONLY one that knew that.

So, just before the State was set to release the first installment of that loan, $6 mil, I challenged it -- I contacted the office that oversees the State Revolving Fund loan, and formally challenged it, arguing that it was illegally funding things like an amphitheater, and picnic area for Los Osos.

When I originally filed my challenge, I figured there was about a 5-percent chance that the officials that regulate the SRF loan would have a moment of clarity, and actually see my tight, tight arguments, and the gigantic mistake that they were about to make, and do the right thing by saying something like, "Whoa. Hang on a second. We need to get this 'why is the State of California funding an elaborate, multi-million dollar public park for Los Osos?' thing straightened out."

They didn't do that, just like I predicted.

Instead, they wrongly argued that the amphitheater in the Tri-W sewer plant was "mitigation," and therefore, State taxpayers were going to fund it.

They were wrong, of course. I was right, of course.

And my tight, tight arguments are now sitting in some dusty filing cabinet in the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of Financial Assistance office, time-stamped.

As with a lot of posts on SewerWatch, here's where it gets interesting(er).

My challenge, if officially argued today, would save Los Osos a fortune, and make Governor S.'s signature disappear.

In the legislation he signed in 2006 that ripped control over the project away from the LOCSD and gave it to the county of SLO, the Gov added something called a "signing statement" to the legislation.

In his statement, the Governor wrote that Los Osos would not be able to get another low interest loan from the State, until they paid back the $6 million from the first loan.

Apparently, the Gov isn't a SewerWatch reader.

My argument these days is:

That loan should have never been issued in the first place.

After I formally challenged it, the officials that oversee that loan, namely, Darrin Polhemus and Barbara Evoy, should have stopped, and sorted out that whole "multi-million dollar park" thing.

They failed to do that.

So, now, I argue, that Los Osos shouldn't have to pay that $6 million back. Why should the good people of Los Osos have to pay for the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance's gigantic, $6 million mistake?

That doesn't sound fair.

Moreover, the Gov's "signing statement" is actually punishing the people of Los Osos for his staff's incompetence.

If county officials were to resurrect my challenge, and argue it, they would 1) win it, 2) get Los Osos off the hook for that $6 million, and 3) immediately pave the way for another low interest, SRF loan for the community, saving residents many more millions.

###

SewerWatch Exclusive: Did the Chicago Tribune Pave Obama's Road to the White House?

by Ron Crawford

The Chicago Tribune seems to take the idea of "candidate endorsement" to a whole new level.

For example, in 2004, when then-Illinois state senator, Barack Obama, was locked in a tight race for the U.S. Senate with his republican opponent, Jack Ryan, the Chicago Tribune, along with a local television station, filed a lawsuit to force the release of Ryan's "sealed" documents associated with his 1999 divorce from actress, Jeri Ryan (yes, guys, that Jeri Ryan [hubba-hubba]).

The Tribune prevailed in its lawsuit, and Ryan's divorce documents were ordered to be "unsealed."

The documents revealed an array of embarrassing, sexually explicit details that quickly forced Ryan to withdraw from the senate race.

He was replaced late in the campaign by Alan Keyes (yes, ladies, that Alan Keyes), whom Obama then trounced in the election by a 70%-27% margin, earning (finger quotes on the 'earning') Obama his seat on the U.S. Senate.

Here's where it gets interesting(er).

The Chicago Tribune, it turns out, is a huge, and long-time, Obama supporter.

Soon after the newspaper prevailed in its lawsuit against Ryan, the Tribune would go on to "promote" Obama for the U.S. senate throughout the rest of the 2004 campaign.

In an editorial earlier this year, where the Tribune endorsed Obama for president -- the first democrat ever endorsed for the office by the 150-year-old Trib, according to its web site -- the newspaper wrote, "The Tribune's editorial board has been a consistent supporter of Obama, backing his run for the Illinois Senate in 1996 and promoting him for U.S. senator in 2004."

In a December 6, 2006, editorial, the Tribune even "encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign."

So, to recap, and to emphasize, the Chicago Tribune actively "promoted" Obama during his 2004 U.S. senate race, after they paid a high priced law firm to dig up extremely damaging dirt on his republican opponent in 2004 -- dirt that would immediately force Obama's opponent from the race.

Then, in 2006, the Chicago Tribune "encouraged Obama to join the presidential campaign."

Even the timing of the Tribune's legal action in 2004 to have Ryan's divorce documents "unsealed" appears suspect.

News reports from the time show that, during the republican primaries for the Illinois U.S. senate seat, many of Ryan's fellow republican candidates were also demanding that his divorce records be made public, however, the Tribune apparently waited until after Ryan had locked up the republican nomination before filing their lawsuit.

According to Wikipedia:

- "On March 3, 2004, several of Ryan's GOP primary opponents urged release of the records..."

- "On March 16, 2004, Ryan won the GOP primary..."

- "On March 29, 2004, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider ruled that several of the Ryans' divorce records should be opened to the public..."

SewerWatch (sewerwatch.blogspot.com) recently sent Chicago Tribune editor, Gerould W. Kern, this question:

"Did the Chicago Tribune wait until after the republican primaries before seeking court action to unseal Ryan's divorce documents?"

SewerWatch has also sent Kern this question:

"Has the Chicago Tribune sued another political candidate in an effort to get them to reveal their divorce/custody records? If so, could you please give me an example?"

As of publication time, Kern has yet to reply.

If he replies, SewerWatch will post a follow-up below this piece.

###

[Note: Don't forget to support independent journalism. PayPal button's on the right.]

[11/6/08 -- UPDATE! UPDATE!]

Wow. It's beginning to appear that Chicago politics is as interesting as 1998 - 2005 Los Osos politics. Who knew? (yea, yea, yea... I know, I know, "Taxpayer Watch" types: Like Los Osos, I don't live in Chicago either, so why should I care about Chicago politics?)

In my post above, I asked Chicago Trib editor, Gerould W. Kern, this question: "Has the Chicago Tribune sued another political candidate in an effort to get them to reveal their divorce/custody records? If so, could you please give me an example?"

Found out the answer myself.

It turns out the the ol' Chicago Tribune DID have a hand in forcing another political candidate to reveal their sealed divorce records -- Obama's leading opponent in the democratic primary for the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate seat, Blair Hull.

I'm not making that up.

According to Wikipedia, "In early media polls leading up to the March 16, 2004 primary election Hull enjoyed a substantial lead and widespread name recognition resulting from a well-financed advertisement effort. He spent over $28 million of his personal wealth on the campaign. When allegations that Hull had abused his ex-wife were reported in the media, Hull's poll numbers dropped and he failed to win the nomination. Illinois State Senator Barack Obama later became the nominee."

Granted, the "Republican Majority Campaign" web site probably isn't the most objective source, but they've also posted some VERY interesting information:

- - -
February 23. 2004.... little-known Chicago state legislator Barack Obama is on his way to losing the Illinois U.S. Senate Democratic primary to local millionaire businessman Blair Hull. A WGN-TV poll shows these totals,  with the primary just 3 weeks away:
 
Blair Hull 24  %
Barack Obama 15
Dan Hynes 11
Maria Pappas 9
Gerry Chico 5
 
Hull is buying Millions of  dollars in TV ads and has come from behind to lead over state comptroller Dan Hynes and Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas.  Hull's primary victory is seen as a foregone conclusion.
 
Then.... Blair Hull's 1998 sealed divorce file was mysteriously leaked to the news media.  With Chicago newspapers leading the pack, Hull was forced to make his confidential divorce settlement public.

It included a 1998 police report stating that during an argument, Hull's wife kicked him and he responded by striking her on the shin (Chicago Sun-Times February 27, 2004.)
 
This dispute was made to sound like a scandalous event by the Chicago Tribune newspaper, which endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination.  Hull began to tumble swiftly in the polls... and on March 17, 2004, state senator Barack Obama won the Democratic U.S. Senate nod, as the ruined Blair Hull tumbled all the way to 3rd place with 8% of the vote!
 
4 months later Barack Obama was announced as the "Keynote" speaker at the Democratic convention which nominated John Kerry.  Blair Hull was left to try to reassemble his life and reputation.
...

Then there's this:

"The Trib had no record of making divorce records relevant in political campaigns prior or since the Hull/Ryan cases."

So, if you're keeping score at home:

The Chicago Tribune, that "promoted" (their word) Obama throughout his 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, blew Obama's opponent in the democratic primary for the U.S. Senate out of the water by forcing his divorce documents to be unsealed, and then, just a few month's later, the newspaper blew Obama's republican opponent out of the water by hiring a high priced law firm to force his divorce records to be unsealed.

Awesome!

Gets better.

Political junkies may have seen someone named David Axelrod, an Obama adviser for his presidential campaign, being interviewed by the all of the major televison news outlets in the run-up to the election.

Axelrod is the former "political writer" for, you guessed it, the Chicago Tribune.

Two thoughts on all of this:

1) Obama is such a strong candidate, did the Chicago Tribune really have to go to the "unseal his opponents' divorce records" card twice, within a matter of months, to pave his political road?

and;

2) I wonder how close (and how fast) I could get to the Governorship of California, if, say, the Los Angeles Times were to blow all of my political opponents out of the water, and then "promote" me?

###

[Note: Don't forget to support independent journalism. PayPal button's on the right.]