Tuesday, April 14, 2009

"The Sequence" -- Pandora Nash-Karner is Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner

Seems like a good time to remind people of this...

Pandora Nash-Karner is Bruce Gibson's current Parks Commissioner.

Right now.

That's true.

You can see it for yourself at this link

... where it says, "Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."

I find that absolutely fascinating, for many, many reasons.

One of those reasons, is, what I call, "The Sequence."

Part 1 of The Sequence is this:

As I first reported, former Los Osos CSD vice-president, former "marketing director" for the Solution Group, former "marketing director" for Save the Dream, and long-time, and current SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, immediately after the 2005 recall election that doomed a mid-town "sewer park," that she spent some seven years developing and promoting (heavily), conceived, and then implemented, a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos, "fined out of existence" (also her words).

You can read-up on the nauseating details of that excellent story, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/contrast.html

That's Part 1 of The Sequence: In September, 2005, just a couple of hours after the unofficial elections results were announced, Nash-Karner hatched a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" (a "strategy" that appears to be working, by the way. So far, so good for Nash-Karner's strategy... it would appear.)

Part 2 of The Sequence is this:

As I also first reported, Nash-Karner donated money to the "Bruce Gibson for Supervisor" campaign throughout 2006.

Part 3 of The Sequence is this:

Recognizing what an amazing, and completely untold story it was, I wrote a blog piece (linked above) on the fact that Nash-Karner developed a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence."

Word eventually got back to me, that my story was "the talk of the town."

Part 3 of The Sequence is important, because what it shows is that Nash-Karner's "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," was no longer a secret in 2007, and that is very important to The Sequence.

Now, here's Part 4 (and, in true SewerWatch fashion, this is f-ing great!):

Current 2nd District Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, shortly after his election, in one of his first official actions, in early 2007, appointed Nash-Karner to the SLO County Parks Commission, a position she has held since 1991, when she helped then-2nd District Supervisor, Bud Laurent, win his seat, as his "campaign materials manager," Laurent told me in an e-mail.

On a journalism level, it really doesn't get much more beautiful than that:

  • Nash-Karner, immediately following a bitter loss at the polls for her precious (for reasons unknown) Tri-W project, develops, and then implements, a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," THEN she donates cash to the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign (and publicly endorses him on his web site, by the way), THEN, everyone finds out about her little "strategy" (thank you very much), and THEN newly-elected Supervisor Gibson selects her as his appointment to the Parks Commission, one of only five Commissioners.

  • Ab-so-lute-ly freak-ing beeea-u-ti-ful. (Stuff like that -- The Sequence -- will never be lost on SewerWatch. )

    Gets worse (if you can imagine)...

    Because everyone NOW knows that Gibson's appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, is also the same person that developed a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," the subject continually comes up -- like, all the time -- during public comment at Supervisor meetings, and Gibson just sits there, and listens to how his appointment to the County Parks Commission (AND a financial donor to, and public endorser of, his campaign) developed, and then implemented a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," and he can't do a thing, well, other than limit the amount of public comment on the subject. (That, he can do, and does.)

    I also wrote a blog piece, where I (exclusively) reported on how Gibson has also done all of these weird, pro Nash-Karner-position actions as Supervisor, like, in 2007, when he drafted an 11th-hour letter to the California Coastal Commission, that he wanted other Supervisors to sign, that asked the Commission to NOT let the development permit expire for Nash-Karner's doomed mid-town Tri-W "sewer-park."

    The problem for Gibson?

    Every single staff member involved with the project, from the County of SLO, to the California Coastal Commission, wanted nothing to do with that "bait and switchy" permit, and their recommendation was to just let it expire, and go away.

    Not one other Supervisor would sign-on to Gibson's letter, and, out of pure humiliation, he was forced to "withdraw" the letter on the spot, calling it a "mistake," and the Tri-W permit just died on the vine that day.

    Gets worse(er)...

    Pandora Nash-Karner, as LOCSD vice-president, hired current SLO County Public Works Director, Paavo Ogren, to be her interim general manager of the Los Osos CSD in 1999, where the two would spend the better part of that year pursuing a dead-on-arrival sewer "project" that Nash-Karner, as part of her marketing efforts, labeled as "better, cheaper, faster." As readers of this blog know, that project failed in late 2000 (late 2000, apparently, however, recent documents show that that project may have failed loooong before the LOCSD's official story. More to come on that, later.)

    Finally, I want to do something that I rarely do on the main portion of SewerWatch -- comment:

    Before he was promoted to head the Public Works Department, Ogren, in 2007, was tapped to manage the county's handling of the Los Osos wastewater project (an assignment for which he received a FAT pay raise), and part of the rationale that Supervisors, including Gibson, used for giving Ogren the gig, was his experience in 1999 as the interim general manager for the LOCSD.

    [insert buzzer sound here]

    That is not a plus. That's nothing to be proud of.

    The fact that Ogren was the interm GM for the LOCSD in 1999, hired by Pandora Nash-Karner, and, while in that position, spent (read: wasted) precious time and money developing an ill-fated "better, cheaper, faster" sewer "project" that official documents everywhere showed was never going to work (yet that project was solely responsible for forming the Los Osos Community Services District in the first place, in 1998), is a GIGANTIC negative.

    Furthermore, reports also show that the engineering firm, Montgomery, Watson, Harza, was hired by the LOCSD in 1999.

    Just last month, Montgomery, Watson, Harza was selected to the short-list of contractors to build the Los Osos wastewater project, by Ogren's Public Works Department.

    At what point does Ogren's involvement in the 1999 LOCSD stop being resumé material, and start being a massive conflict of interests?

    ###

    51 Comments:

    • Ron,

      Great post and terrific commentary, especially about: Paavo “If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away” Ogren and his part in the current “process” as it relates to his past involvement. Good eye!

      You are correct when you write “Excellent Story” in regards Bruce “insert to be determined legacy here” Gibson and Pandora “fined out of existence” Nash-Karner.

      By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 2:19 PM, April 15, 2009  

    • Ron,

      LOL....such a fervid delusional mind at work! Playing 'connect all the pretty dots' without having an ounce of evidence as to what the true reality is/was when compared to your fantasy is just friggin' amazing!

      Keep up with your Pandora-Mania; you truely have a gift for convoluted fantasy; maybe that is where your talent is.

      LOL-R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 3:33 PM, April 15, 2009  

    • Richard wrote:

      "... 'connect all the pretty dots' without having an ounce of evidence..."--

      Just because it's so much fun, I'll do it all again...

      - Did Pandora develop, and then implement, a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" just a couple of hours after a bitter, bitter, loss at the polls?

      Check.

      - Did Pandora donate cash to the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign?

      Check. (Personally dug those documents out of the County Clerk-Recorder's office myself.)

      - Did I write a story exposing the fact that Pandora developed, and then implemented, a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence"... just a couple of hours after a bitter, bitter, loss at the polls?

      Huge checkage.

      - Did a newly-elected Bruce Gibson appoint Nash-Karner to the SLO County Parks Commission AFTER I exposed the fact that she developed, and then implemented, a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," and AFTER she donated cash to his campaign (in those sneaky little $99 increments)?

      Check.

      All that fun evidence is kind of, well, self-evident, doncha think?

      Man, you Taxpayer Watch honks are all over the place, huh?

      I mean, on Ann's blog, you can't back-pedal away fast enough from Pandora, and then, on my blog, you come in and defend her.

      Joyce Albright is the "spokesperson" for Taxpayers Watch, yet she writes a recent editorial in the Trib (of course), that says she's the spokesperson for Taxpayers Watch, and you and Gordon are all like, "Oh, no, no, no. She WASN'T speaking for Taxpayers Watch when she wrote THAT editorial."

      You guys are all over the map. Mix in a compass, for god's sake.

      By the way, Pandora, and Taxpayer Watch's sometimes-spokesperson, Joyce Albright?

      Buddy-buddy:

      "Joyce Albright found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

      How's that for evidence, Richard?

      Want some more?

      Ounces? Dude, I've got tons.

      By Blogger Ron, at 11:29 AM, April 16, 2009  

    • Ron,

      As I have blogged before, you are ill. You have not gotten better; just more deeply entrenched into your fantasy.

      You have taken facts and blown them all out of proportion.

      For example, did Pandopra do a dumb thing when she emailed the RWQCB to 'fine the district out of existance'...Yes, she did; she did something stupid in a fit of frustration over the folly of the recall boards actions. Not nice, but understandably human.

      Her stupid actions does not mean; nor is there any evidence to support; nor does it logically follow that she developed a 'strategy' and 'implimented' a plan with the RWQCB, the Regional Board or the State to dissolve the LOCSD. .......Where exactly this 'strategy plan' located...and how was it 'implimented'?
      Just because the RWQCB and the State have taken actions against the CSD does not mean that Pandora's 'strategy and implimentation' exists or occurred; especially when the RWQCB and the State had the LEGAL RIGHT to take whatever actions they saw fit REGARDLESS of what Pandora said or did. The State does not act on the direction of Pandora....never has.

      Pandora's political contributions are well known. Nothing exciting here.

      Pandora has served on the Park commissin for, oh, about a zillion years. The fact that Gibson sees value in Pandora's knowledge of County Park matters is well placed. She is a logical canidate for the seat he appointed her to.
      Also, Pandora does not receive any payment for her hard work on the Parks Commission. Never has, never will.

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 1:55 PM, April 16, 2009  

    • Richard wrote:

      "Her stupid actions does not mean; nor is there any evidence to support; nor does it logically follow that she developed a 'strategy' and 'implimented' a plan with the RWQCB, the Regional Board or the State to dissolve the LOCSD. .......Where exactly this 'strategy plan' located...and how was it 'implimented'?"-

      Richard, you keep confirming a suspicion I have about you -- you can't read (or you don't know how to use a computer).

      My favorite part of Pandora's e-mails to Briggs, is how buddy-buddy THOSE TWO are.

      I mean, they're all, "Hi Roger," and, "Hello Pandora," and she says she'll call him to discuss her "strategy," and...

      I wonder if they have matching sweat suits?

      "Pandora has served on the Park commissin for, oh, about a zillion years."And that affords her access to influential government officials, that none of us get.

      You know what I'm going to have fun with?

      I recently read that Gibson will be running for re-election next year.

      During his campaign, I'm REALLY looking forward to constantly reminding the 90-percent (at least!) of the voters from the largest voting block (by far) in District 2 (Los Osos) -- 90-percent (at least!) of the voters that DON'T want a nonsensical "sewer-park" built in the middle of their beautiful coastal town -- that Gibson's Parks Commissioner is the Queen of the Tri-W project, and that she developed, and then implemented a "stratgey" to have the entire town "fined out of existence," just because that town didn't want to build her little project.

      That should be a lot of fun.

      If there's anyone reading this that is considering a run against Gibson next year: that is very, VERY good news for you.

      And, while I'm here, has anyone caught the new Amy Poehler show, "Parks and Recreation?"

      Is it just me, or does her character seem AWFULLY familiar?

      By Blogger Ron, at 10:35 AM, April 17, 2009  

    • LOL.....babble away Ron!

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 11:12 AM, April 17, 2009  

    • Hi Shark,

      Yeah!.....What happened to your post which followed my 1:55 posting above?

      Here are a few of the answers Ron might give as he knows everything:

      1. You wrote it in invisible ink.
      2. Mr. Phelps, the Shark Inlet post is set to self-destruct in 60 seconds.
      3. Your post was abducted by aliens; and anal-probed too!
      4. Pandora took it!
      5. Those nasty international conspirators Briggs and Gibson got into Ron's hard drive and drove off with it!
      6. Ron has developed a new phobia with concurrent nervous tic that causes him to automatically delete anything containing the word 'shark'.

      -R ;-)

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 4:55 PM, April 17, 2009  

    • I am reluctant to come over here because I don't want to give Ron anymore hits than I have to - I used to check here frequently to see if there was anything new, but now I only bother if Richard or Shark are posting. I have figured out how to understand what Ron is writing by the comments back to him - this way I don't have to suffer through his postings. Let's see if he deletes this -

      By Blogger Sewertoons, at 10:46 PM, April 17, 2009  

    • Steve wrote:
      "If he would just admit that he has a huge inability to actually address the issues I've repeatedly raised with crystal-clear-laser-focus."

      &

      "...the truth will get out."

      Steve, would your incorrect statement that Phoenix is in overdraft be an example of your laser like truth?

      Speaking of “truth”…

      Mr. Dean "I forgot his last name" Lynette wrote:

      "I used to check here frequently to see if there was anything new, but now I only bother if Richard or Shark are posting."

      LOL-Mr. Dean "I forgot his last name" Lynette: You are still checking...
      Have you found Mr. Dean "I forgot his last name" yet? Just checking.

      I think a case can be made that you like OJ Simpson are looking for someone who may not exist.
      But I'll keep asking away because it shows your "true colors" as you attempt to ignore the "problem".

      Don't worry I'll try not to let anyyone, least of all you, forget.

      By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 6:53 AM, April 18, 2009  

    • Ron,

      You keep on deleteing Shark Inlet's excellent posts!

      To date on this one thread you have done so three times (once after my 1:55, April 16 post; and twice after my 4:55 April 17 posts!) What a guy!

      Gee Shark....obviously you have gotten under Ron's very thin 'skin'; or should I say 'hide' as that is what Ron is doing! LOL

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 10:32 AM, April 18, 2009  

    • Richard wrote:

      "Ron's very thin 'skin'"-

      and Richard also wrote:

      "such a fervid delusional mind at work"-

      "without having an ounce of evidence as to what the true reality"-

      "you truely have a gift for convoluted fantasy"-

      "you are ill"-

      "babble away Ron"-

      "Ron has developed a new phobia with concurrent nervous tic"-

      "or should I say 'hide' as that is what Ron is doing!"-

      ... and your posts are still here, Richard.

      However, if you want to see your posts disappear as well, here's what you should do: Cowardly hide behind a ridiculous anonymous username, and then scurry around other people's blogs, like a little rat, and publicly call me a "liar."

      Then sit back, and watch how fast YOUR posts disappear.

      By the way, Richard, if I'm "ill" and "delusional" and "convoluted" and I "babble" away "without having an ounce of evidence," why do you post here so much?

      "Joyce Albright found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

      By Blogger Ron, at 11:18 AM, April 18, 2009  

    • Hi Shark,

      Yup! Keep nibbling away at Ron's amazing fantasies. Soon he'll have nothing left.

      It is so sad that the man thinks he is doing something of value when all he is really doing is wasting time (ours and his).

      I, like you, really have better things to do with our time; but blogging to Ron is like an having an itch....irritating but relieved after being scratched!

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 11:53 AM, April 18, 2009  

    • "Our goal is to... DEFEAT the Recall of Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley & Richard LeGros."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

      By Blogger Ron, at 12:14 PM, April 18, 2009  

    • "Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."
      -- Richard LeGros, February 27, 2009

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org

      By Blogger Ron, at 5:11 PM, April 18, 2009  

    • Richard, are you 12?

      You act like it.

      Are you kidding me? I 86 some human garbage from this blog, and then you think it's a good idea just to have that... whatever it is... e-mail you whatever it is they do, and then YOU post it for those disgusting... things?

      THAT was the level of intellect that Los Ososans had to endure while you were in office?

      Uhhhg.

      I'm not sure which behavior is more disgusting -- Cowardly hiding behind a ridiculous anonymous username, and then scurrying around other people's blogs, like a little rat, and publicly calling someone who's man enough to put his name to his words a "liar," or defending that despicable behavior.

      So... bad Richard, bad Richard!

      Now, like should happen to a bad, little 12-year-old, I'm going to have to discipline you, again. (And, trust me, this is going to hurt you MUCH more than it is going to hurt me):

      "More delays mean the LOCSD may be fined out of existence."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

      "I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005, the night of the recall election

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November, 2002

      "A Sewer Standing Committee was created by the (LOCSD) Board... to include two CSD Directors, Stan Gustafson and Vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner. (The Board) appointed... Richard LeGros as (one) of the four 'at-large' Sewer Standing Committee members."
      -- The Bay Breeze, March 26, 1999

      See how that works, Richard. You do something stupid here, like post crap from the one disgusting... THING that's been 86'd from this blog, and I'll just have to keep disciplining you:

      "Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."
      -- Richard LeGros, February 27, 2009

      "Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005
      Subject: Signing off + new group forming
      From: "Pandora Nash-Karner"
      To: "Undisclosed Private List"

      "For those who may be interested in continuing to work toward saving the current project: We have just learned of a new group forming, tentatively called 'Tax Payer Watch'."

      ---

      "We MUST save this project!"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner

      "TO: Bruce Buel, Stan Gustafson, Richard LeGros, Gordon Hensley, Jon Seitz, Michael Drake

      SUBJECT: Can we transfer the project this week?

      Gentlemen... Granted, it's late, but could the LOCSD transfer the sewer project to the county BEFORE the current CSD-3 leave office?"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005, 12:40 a.m., the night of the recall election

      ---

      "I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005, the night of the recall election

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November, 2002

      Dude, when I said, I've got tons," what I meant was I've got tons.Too fun.

      By Blogger Ron, at 9:36 AM, April 19, 2009  

    • Hi Richard and Shark,

      Maybe ron deletes this stuff because he is embarrassed because he is so bad at math. I recall a couple of years back that he would never get back to either of you when you posted Excel spreadsheets and equations as to how expensive moving the sewer would be. Now that it has all come true, it just shows how truly inept he is, he cannot subtract $200 from $250 to come up with the difference. That is really, really sad and maybe we should lighten up on him a little as it is not his fault…

      (Nah, keep hammering guys!!!)

      And ron, Pandora is NOT part of Taxpayers' Watch, I am a witness who will testify to that.

      By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:10 PM, April 19, 2009  

    • Before I deleted it, Richard wrote:

      "Lastly, I see you are deleting my posts now too! LOL, such a guy!" -

      Only when you do something as stupid as publish -- verbatim -- the ONE... whatever it is, that's ever been 86'd from here, like you have done several times already in this thread.

      It just floors me, Richard. They know they're banned from here, but they're Sewer OCD, so they think it'd be a good idea if they e-mailed you their... whatever it is, and that YOU'd just go ahead and post whatever that crap is... and you do!

      Bad Richard:

      "A Sewer Standing Committee was created by the (LOCSD) Board... to include two CSD Directors, Stan Gustafson and Vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner. (The Board) appointed... Richard LeGros and Jerry Gregory as (two) of the four 'at-large' Sewer Standing Committee members."
      -- The Bay Breeze, March 26, 1999

      - - -
      Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005
      Subject: Re: Enforcement action on Oct. agenda?
      From: "Pandora Nash-Karner"
      To: "Roger Briggs"


      I'd like to talk to you about potential strategy from the property owners to stop a new board from stopping the project. I'll call you Thursday morning.

      -- Pandora
      - - -

      - - -
      From: "Jerry Gregory"
      To: Rbriggs@waterboards.ca.gov
      Subject: Los Osos
      Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005

      Roger... At Rose Bowker memorial I asked you to fine the Community of Los Osos if the Recall is successful. Well, I am asking you again. Please do this immediately and with the largest fine that is legal for you to do.
      - - -

      "Solution Group members are... Jerry Gregory... Pandora Nash-Karner."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from a Solution Group newsletter, 1998

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Jerry Gregory"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      "Our Dream was to...
      • Restore civility and unite our community
      • Create a community coalition to seek grants to reduce the wastewater project’s cost and to help residents on fixed incomes...

      Save the Dream cannot move forward with our goals..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, October 2, 2005

      "SAVE THE DREAM COALITION
      Pandora Nash-Karner, Chair
      Karen Huntoon, Treasurer "

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Karen Huntoon"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      How's that for "quid pro quo," Holmes?

      Richard, you should probably ask your buddies if THEY think it's a good idea for you to act like a 12-year-old in SewerWatch.

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      "I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

      "Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
      -- SLO County Parks Commission web site, Current

      "SAVE THE DREAM COALITION
      Pandora Nash-Karner, Chair
      Karen Huntoon, Treasurer "

      "We are much stronger as a united community."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

      "I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

      "Our goal is to... DEFEAT the Recall of Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley & Richard LeGros."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

      " A recall will not move or stop the sewer. The County... would take over our Project, assume the permit and build the same Project in the same location."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

      "Don’t listen to gossip — learn the facts for yourself."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November, 2002

      "Please...is there any way to salvage the project??????????????????"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner- - -
      Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:58:57
      Subject: Enforcement action on Oct. agenda?
      From: "Pandora Nash-Karner"
      To: "Roger Briggs"

      Dear Roger,

      In order to expedite the situation and lesson the damage, can the enforcement issue be placed on the October RWQCB agenda?

      Thanks, Pandora
      - - -

      "Pandora, we're just wrapping up the Oct agenda right now, and legally required lead times for a hearing may not reasonably allow it. But I've already received and reviewed a draft ACL complaint, so we're rolling.
      -- Roger Briggs, Wed, 28 Sep 2005

      "Thank you Roger!"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Wed, 28 Sep 2005

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November, 2002

      "Joyce Albright found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

      "Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."
      -- Richard LeGros, February 27, 2009

      Dude, that was about three minutes worth of copying-and-pasting.

      Like Will Hunting, do have any idea how easy this stuff is for me?

      - - -
      Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005
      Subject: Re: Enforcement action on Oct. agenda?
      From: "Pandora Nash-Karner"
      To: "Roger Briggs"


      I'd like to talk to you about potential strategy from the property owners to stop a new board from stopping the project. I'll call you Thursday morning.

      -- Pandora
      - - -

      Off to enjoy the day... you have until tomorrow morning to do something stupid again, and, I'm sure, you will.

      By Blogger Ron, at 1:40 PM, April 19, 2009  

    • - - -
      Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005
      Subject: Re: Enforcement action on Oct. agenda?
      From: "Pandora Nash-Karner"
      To: "Roger Briggs"

      I'd like to talk to you about potential strategy from the property owners to stop a new board from stopping the project. I'll call you Thursday morning.

      -- Pandora
      - - -

      - - -
      Date: Thursday, 29 Sep 2005
      From: "Joe Sparks"
      Subject: Los Osos Prohibition Zone Assessment District
      To: rbriggs@waterboards.ca.gov

      "... it is my hope that the RWQCB will exercise due diligence in bringing the LOCSD into compliance... "
      - - -

      - - -
      Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:44:06 -0700
      From: "Roger Briggs"
      To: jsparkslo@aol.com
      Subject: Re: Los Osos Prohibition Zone Assessment District

      Mr. Sparks,
      Thanks for your thoughts. I am proceeding with enforcment action. Part will be against the district, most likely followed by action against the dischargers (septic system users). Some of the latter may not seem fair.
      - - -

      By Blogger Ron, at 10:44 AM, April 20, 2009  

    • I'm going to time this copy-and-paste job.

      Ready? Go...

      "Gary and I are supporting Bruce Gibson for Supervisor. We believe Bruce Gibson has the background, knowledge and scientific expertise to help us build the sewer..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, 2006

      "The County couldn't care less about the Los Osos Community..."
      -- Gary Karner, February, 2005

      "... could the LOCSD transfer the sewer project to the county BEFORE the current CSD-3 leave office?"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, September, 2005

      "More delays mean the LOCSD may be fined out of existence. We’d lose local control."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

      "I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      "Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
      -- SLO County Parks Commission web site, Current

      "We MUST save this project!"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

      "(This prosecution) is there when we help our children with their homework and when we play with our pets. It is there when we talk to our grandchildren on the phone. It is there when we spend time with friends, attend church, or work in our gardens."
      -- Anonymous recipient of RWQCB enforcement actions

      - - -
      Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005
      Subject: Re: Enforcement action on Oct. agenda?
      From: "Pandora Nash-Karner"
      To: "Roger Briggs"

      I'd like to talk to you about potential strategy from the property owners to stop a new board from stopping the project. I'll call you Thursday morning.
      -- Pandora
      - - -

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      - - -
      From: "Jerry Gregory"
      To: Rbriggs@waterboards.ca.gov
      Subject: Los Osos
      Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005

      Roger... At Rose Bowker memorial I asked you to fine the Community of Los Osos if the Recall is successful. Well, I am asking you again. Please do this immediately and with the largest fine that is legal for you to do.
      - - -

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Jerry Gregory"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      ... Boom, done.

      3-seconds.

      Keep it up, "Richard."

      By Blogger Ron, at 12:17 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • "Yes, the Solution Group plan deep-sixed the County's Plan."
      Richard LeGros, 2009

      "Solution Group members are... Gary Karner, Pandora Nash-Karner, Jerry Gregory, Frank Freiler, Bob Semonson, Virgil Just, Les Bowker..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from a Solution Group newsletter, 1998

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Gary Karner, Pandora Nash-Karner, Jerry Gregory, Frank Freiler, Bob Semonson, Virgil Just, Les Bowker"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      "Our goal is to... DEFEAT the Recall of Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley & Richard LeGros."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

      "Solution Group members are... Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from a Solution Group newsletter, 1998

      Too damn fun.

      By Blogger Ron, at 1:06 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • The funny thing is, Richard, YOUR posts would stay up on the site, if you weren't copy-and-pasting -- VERBATIM -- the crap from the disgusting... whatever it is, that's been 86'd from SewerWatch, and then including it in YOUR posts.

      Unbelievable.

      Above, I said that you were acting like a 12-year-old.

      That's unfair to 12-year-olds.

      Discipline time...

      "Board members told local blogger Ann Calhoun that the former CSD paid the contractors sooner than they were legally required to and without properly invoicing the state. New Times later verified that tidbit through official documents. By law, the contractor fees weren't due until after the recall date. Former CSD co-chair Richard LeGros stated in a letter to the current board that the part of the SRF loan used to repay planning expenses kept the CSD from crashing in 2005. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak."
      -- New Times, July 20, 2006

      This thread sure is turning into a helluva story, huh?

      I can't stop reading it. It's so compelling.

      I'll be posting it on the main part of SewerWatch soon.

      Thanks for the material!

      By Blogger Ron, at 2:18 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • Ron is showing us with the post above exactly why the post-recall CSD went bankrupt.

      The CSD was formed to create wastewater treatment for Los Osos, and the very real fiscal impacts of doing that required that the SRF monies continue to come in to support the CSD itself, as their own CSD monies had been spent to forward the project. So, big surprise, they had to pay their own CSD monies back. Well, duh. Gee, compelling story Ron… snore.

      By Blogger Sewertoons, at 3:08 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • This comment has been removed by the author.

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 3:39 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • I'm lovin' this.

      With all the copying-and-pasting, it's so fast and easy, and it's REALLY helping me organize my book.

      So... damn... interesting...

      "It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community values (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

      "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

      "The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents..."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

      "Although the Turri site would have less potential environmental impacts, its distance from the center of town precluded it from providing a community amenity in the form of a public use area."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

      "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the Los Osos CSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
      -- California Coastal Commission, Tri-W Development Permit, 2004 (now expired)

      "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

      "It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community values" of "creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

      "Richard LeGros: Top Priorities if Elected -- TO CREATE the foundations upon which the LOCSD can provide community park and recreational programs."
      -- SmartVoter.org, November, 2002

      "Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
      -- SLO County Parks Commission web site, Current

      "We MUST save this project!"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

      "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
      -- California Coastal Commission, Tri-W Development Permit, 2004 (now expired)

      "It was inappropriate of me to rely on Solution Group members to determine community values for Los Osos."
      -- Former Coastal Commission Permit Supervisor, Steve Monowitz, told to SewerWatch, June, 2006

      "Solution Group members are... Gary Karner, Pandora Nash-Karner, Jerry Gregory, Frank Freiler, Bob Semonson, Virgil Just, Les Bowker..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from a Solution Group newsletter, 1998

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Gary Karner, Pandora Nash-Karner, Jerry Gregory, Frank Freiler, Bob Semonson, Virgil Just, Les Bowker"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      "Our goal is to... DEFEAT the Recall of Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley & Richard LeGros."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

      "Solution Group members are... Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from a Solution Group newsletter, 1998

      "It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community values" of "creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

      "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

      "It was inappropriate of me to rely on Solution Group members to determine community values for Los Osos."
      -- Former Coastal Commission Permit Supervisor, Steve Monowitz, told to SewerWatch, June, 2006

      "Yes, the Solution Group plan deep-sixed the County's Plan (in 1999)."
      -- Richard LeGros, 2009

      By Blogger Ron, at 4:04 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • This comment has been removed by the author.

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 4:14 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • And while you are searching for that grip ron, please explain how $250/mo. is less than $200/mo..

      Great post Richard!

      By Blogger Sewertoons, at 4:22 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • O.K. Richard, here's the deal, as much as I'm enjoying this, and as much as this excellent writing exercise has helped polish my book, I'm going to have to bring it to an end.

      You may have the behavior of an 8-year-old (you've been demoted), but me? Not so much.

      So, I'll let you do your creepy, little... post-y thing one more time, and then I'll just shut off the comments section (sorry 'toons and Watershed Mark, blame Richard.)

      Hey, at least I gave ya a 'heads-up."

      But I do appreciate the focus you brought out, and the material it generated, Richard.

      I had no idea you were so crooked... o.k... maybe a tiny idea.

      Enjoy:

      "A Sewer Standing Committee was created by the (LOCSD) Board to include two CSD Directors, Stan Gustafson and Vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, plus one Solution Group member, Bob Semenson. The four 'at large' appointments were Frank Freiler, Jerry Gregory, Virgil Just, and Richard LeGros."
      -- The Bay Breeze, March 26, 1999

      "Solution Group members are... Stan Gustafson, Pandora Nash-Karner, Bob Semonson, Frank Freiler, Jerry Gregory, Virgil Just..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from a Solution Group newsletter, 1998

      "A Sewer Standing Committee was created... to include... one Solution Group member."
      -- The Bay Breeze, March 26, 1999

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner, Bob Semonson, Frank Freiler, Jerry Gregory, Virgil Just"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the Los Osos CSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
      -- California Coastal Commission, Tri-W Development Permit, 2004 (now expired)

      "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

      "A Sewer Standing Committee was created by the (LOCSD) Board to include two CSD Directors, Stan Gustafson and Vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, plus one Solution Group member, Bob Semenson. The four 'at large' appointments were Frank Freiler, Jerry Gregory, Virgil Just, and Richard LeGros."
      -- The Bay Breeze, March 26, 1999

      "An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because: It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served."
      -- LOCSD Statement of Overriding Considerations, 2001

      "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the Los Osos CSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
      -- California Coastal Commission, Tri-W Development Permit, 2004 (now expired)

      "An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because: It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos."
      -- LOCSD Statement of Overriding Considerations, 2001

      "It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community values (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

      "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

      "... we find that a statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record."
      -- Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California, Nov. 4, 1992

      'toons wrote:

      "Great post Richard!"-

      'toons? He's a grown man that keeps posting crap that a banned... whatever it is, sends to him.

      That's not a great post. That's embarrassing.

      "I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      By Blogger Ron, at 7:52 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • Thanks Ron.
      Lynette,
      Have you located Mr. Dean "I forgot his lat name" yet?

      By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 9:37 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • Ron,


      Ok...do as you please.

      But before you do ban all those that question you, why not comment on the County's 'Statement of Overriding Concerns' as presented in the Staff report for the upcoming SLO County Planning Commission meeting?

      Yeah Ron...as part of their process they are formulating their own 'SOC' as part of their project. You see Ron, the agency running the project is legally allowed to determine by whatever means they see fit to establish an SOC to shape their project. Nothing sinister here Ron...just the way project parameters are formed. The lead agency may use whatever method they wish to accept or reject project alternatives based upon whatever data they chose to use...regardless of what you think Ron.

      Just as the County wishes to adopt an SOC rejecting in-town WWTF placement due to 'political concerns', the CSD had just as legitimate an argument in their SOC to place the WWTF within the community to offer park space.; which despite what you think is still in short supply in Los Osos (why do you think there has been a long-going effort to by the recall CSD to use the Tri-W site for Parkland?...simple answer in because it is needed!).

      Earlier you pasted: "It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community values (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001"
      AND you pasted "... we find that a statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record."
      -- Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California, Nov. 4, 1992"

      Response: Reread the CSD's SOC Ron...need for parkland was only one of many project parameters used. It is a valid consideration when you consider the LOCAC Vision Statement formulated back in the mid-1990's; which is a substantial document formed over many years by community leaders; and that was used as the basis of the SOC. Any court would find the LOCAC Vision Statement as a valid basis for the SOC.

      You pasted :"... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the Los Osos CSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
      -- California Coastal Commission, Tri-W Development Permit, 2004 (now expired)"

      Response: The CSD had the right to determine for itself, based upon the LOCAC Vision Statement, an SOC that shaped a project; and those considerations were acknowledged as valid by the CCC.

      ++++++++++++++++++
      At this time you need to CAREFULLY read the CCC letter to the County regarding their project on Turri Road (a different site than the one rejected by the CSD by the way). The CCC, the mother of all the permitting agencies, has told the County that their project is DOA.

      The reasons their project is dead are:

      1. Only Tertiary-treatment will be acceptable.

      2. When you use Tertiary treatment, the land area requirement of a project will change such that using large land parcels is not needed; hence project direct and indirect impacts are drastically reduced by using much smaller land parcels. The conversion of Ag land for a WWTF is no longer justified in the view of the CCC.

      3. The CCC has made it clear that they consider the loss of Ag land by converting it to WWTP use as far more egregious and non-complying with the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) than the loss of ESH (especially when the ESH is marginal like at Tri-W). Why are they so concerned about loss of Ag land...simply because Ag land cannot be replaced or mitigated (other than by converting urban land to Ag land). ESH on the other hand can be mitigated by establishing of an HCP (which was and is required by any lead agency developing a WWTP.)

      4. The CCC considers ANY use of Ag land for a WWTF outside the established URL of the CSD as GROWTH-INDUCING...which is a cardinal sin that will quash any attempt by the County to get a CDP for ANY project located on ANY Ag parcel from the CCC.

      5. Because the conversion of Ag lands for a WWTF is not permitted by the current LCP as there are other non-ag land alternatives that are located within the URL of the CSD to be served, the County stand that there are no other site alternatives is not supported by fact; nor will that policy stand up to CCC scrutiny.

      6. The CCC has made it clear that they consider the CDP Conditions as reviewed and developed by the prior project as the 'gold-standard' which the County must use as a basis for their project. I suggest you read the CSD Conditions for the old project....there is far more there than just park land.

      7. The final nail in the coffin of any attempt by the County to pursue an 'outside of town' project (hence forcing it back into the CSD district) is the CCC insistence that ANY site out of town will require:
      a. The expansion of the CSD boundaries east of Los Osos Creek to encompass an out of town site. In essence, the County will have to ask out of town property owners to come into the CSD boundaries; which is a political project-killer for what property owner would want to be dragged into a CSD that will obligate their property to pay for CSD financial issues...like the BANKRUPTCY?.
      b. The County will be required by the CCC to put together an AG LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM in order to GUARANTEE to the CCC that an out of town location will not cause development growth. In essence, another project-killer for the County does not have the legal means (nor the years need to put together a program) to force large parcel property owners to agree to limit FOREVER the future use of their land.

      In conclusion Ron, despite what you think, the CCC has forced the County to reconsider their project. As the County goes through the process and tries to develop other Ag sites, the above CCC issues will make those projects problematic and unviable too. Eventually you will see the County rejecting all out of town site altogether; and the return to an in-town solution....maybe even Tri-W.

      Now THAT would be a story!

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 10:35 PM, April 20, 2009  

    • Now, was that so hard, Richard?

      Thank you for growing up (although, probably a little too late for some of your buddies' tastes).

      By Blogger Ron, at 9:22 AM, April 21, 2009  

    • Ron,

      Thanks for realizing you were being an unreasonable a**.

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 9:31 AM, April 21, 2009  

    • You know, Richard, now that I've read your post, it's got all kinds of HUGE holes in it... too many to address right now, but I did want to quickly touch on one:

      Richard wrote:

      "It is a valid consideration when you consider the LOCAC Vision Statement formulated back in the mid-1990's; which is a substantial document formed over many years by community leaders; and that was used as the basis of the SOC. Any court would find the LOCAC Vision Statement as a valid basis for the SOC."

      Oh, I've considered the Vision Statement. I've written about it several times.

      Two of the eight people whose names are attached to that document?

      -- Gary Karner
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner

      "Any court would find the LOCAC Vision Statement as a valid basis for the SOC."
      -- Richard LeGros, 2009

      "It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community values (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

      "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

      "... we find that a statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record."
      -- Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California, Nov. 4, 1992

      "Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
      -- SLO County Parks Commission web site, Current

      "... the LOCAC Vision Statement formulated back in the mid-1990's; which is a substantial document formed over many years by community leaders..."
      -- Richard LeGros, April 21, 2009

      "The Los Osos Vision Statement: Approved by the Los Osos Community Advisory Council June 22, 1995. VISION TEAM: Henry Hammer, Maryellen Simkins, Warren Hamrick, Lesa Smith, co-chair Gary Karner, co-chair Al Switzer, Pandora Nash-Karner, June Shepard"
      -- The Los Osos Vision Statement, June 22, 1995

      "Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."
      -- Richard LeGros, February 27, 2009

      "... the LOCAC Vision Statement... formed over many years by community leaders..."
      -- Richard LeGros, April 21, 2009

      "Any court would find the LOCAC Vision Statement as a valid basis for the SOC."
      -- Richard LeGros, 2009

      By Blogger Ron, at 9:49 AM, April 21, 2009  

    • As you can well see in the LOCAC Vision Team roster (which you posted) there were many more Los Osos citizens other than just Pandora or Gary involved in LOCAC; all of whom represented a huge cross section of the community. Agreement was reached amongst all of them as they formulated the VISION STATEMENT. That Vision Statement became the guiding force behind the SOC; both of which are a valid reflection of the desires of Los Osos.

      Any court of law would find that for Los Osos to base a SOC upon the Vision Statement as a valid basis for the SOC.

      To date, you have not offered up any facts or evidence that refutes what I have posted on this matter; nor offered any facts or evidence that the Vision Statement was flawed or not representative of the community’s desires.

      You cannot undo history Ron....the community had clearly spoken through it's LOCAC leaders as to how they wished Los Osos to develop; as reflected in the LOCAC Vision Statement and subsequent SOC.

      Meanwhile, you yet again avoid current events by:

      1. Not even attempting to address the County's SOC.

      2. Not even attempted to address the CCC letter to the County; nor responded to my post as to the letter's meaning and affect on the County's WWTP (as posted above.)

      Time to get out of the past Ron and get with the program.

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 10:27 AM, April 21, 2009  

    • Now, I'm just doing this for fun of it, because Richard dragged the Vision Statement into the discussion (BAD idea, by the way. You do realize this is SewerWatch, right?), and that document is so interesting.

      I first mentioned the Vision Statement in Three Blocks, in 2004, and I joked about that joke of a document then, too.

      Now, in 2009, it's really kind of amazing... if Pandora's fake SOC did actually end up in court in 2009, and the defense of it was the Vision Statement, a fourteen-year-old document, and EVERYTHING about the Tri-W embarrassment hinged on the Vision Statement, SewerWatch would blow that joke of a document through the back of the courtroom.

      That scenario -- Pandora's fake SOC actually ending up in court in 2009, and the defense of it being the Vision Statement -- that'd be like the sweetest thing in the world... for me, at least.

      ---

      "Pandora Nash-Karner - Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bud Laurent"
      -- SLO County Parks Commission, June 22, 1995

      "The Los Osos Vision Statement: Approved by the Los Osos Community Advisory Council June 22, 1995. VISION TEAM... co-chair Gary Karner ...Pandora Nash-Karner...
      -- The Los Osos Vision Statement, June 22, 1995

      "A Sewer Standing Committee was created by the (LOCSD) Board to include... Vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner... and Richard LeGros."
      -- The Bay Breeze, March 26, 1999

      "Our waste water treatment facility(s) is based on a natural biological process rather than mechanical system approach to the highest extent possible. These facilities have become a visual and recreational asset to the community, including development of water supply for agricultural or irrigation purposes, and habitat for wildlife."
      -- The Los Osos Vision Statement, June 22, 1995

      "The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents..."
      -- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

      "... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the Los Osos CSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
      -- California Coastal Commission, Tri-W Development Permit, 2004, now expired (As first reported in SewerWatch, June 15, 2005)

      "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

      "It was inappropriate of me to rely on Solution Group members to determine community values for Los Osos."
      -- Former Coastal Commission Permit Supervisor, Steve Monowitz, told to SewerWatch, June, 2006

      "Solution Group members are... Pandora Nash-Karner... Gary Karner..."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from a Solution Group newsletter, 1998

      "Yes, the Solution Group plan deep-sixed the County's Plan (in 1999)."
      Richard LeGros, 2009

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      - - -

      Like I've always reported, exclusively (in fact, I was the ONLY one that saw this, media or otherwise, and it gives you an idea of just how behavior-based-marketed Los Osos was/is): the Tri-W project was never a sewer controversy, it was a parks controversy. And, as usual, I was 100-percent right.

      Back to work, for a change ; - )

      By Blogger Ron, at 11:18 AM, April 21, 2009  

    • Ron,

      We all know what your OPINION is about the SOC.

      However, to date you have yet to provide valid facts and/or reasons validating your OPINION showing that:

      1. Why the LOCAC VISION STATEMENT, as written by a large cross section of Los Osos leaders over a period of years at dozens of public meetings, was not representative of the community’s desires for the development of Los Osos.

      2. Why basing the SOC upon the LOCAC Vision Statement makes the SOC invalid.

      3. Why a judicial court would invalidate the SOC.

      Just cut and pasting quips and quotes….many of them your own from past blogs or stories you have written, from sources that you can not verify, or quotes/data taken out of context, do not suffice as FACTS Ron.
      Also, your avoidance of critical FACTS that are contrary to your opinion does not bode well as to the validity of your opinion either.

      ON another note, in the past you have belabored the fact that the CSD formed a SOC; and have insinuated that somehow the formulation of an SOC is improper behavior. Yet here we are today with a County-composed SOC and not one peep out of you.
      Hmmmmmmm

      Lastly, you show not one bit of interest that the CCC letter has shown that your opinion that the CCC hated Tri-W was incorrect. It can be argued by the content of that letter that the CCC is gently pushing the County to reactive Tri-W too. Yet not one peep out of you.
      Hmmmmmmm

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 12:52 PM, April 21, 2009  

    • I heard Piper Reilly say at the Supervisor's meeting yesterday that the AG's office is investigating the Tri-W embarrassment ('bout friggin' time).

      If that's true...

      Richard, I've got two words for you and your buddies -- "uh" and "oh."

      By Blogger Ron, at 9:38 AM, April 22, 2009  

    • HA HA HA ...... a very funny joke you made...the AG is not investigating the Tri-W project; never has, never will as nothing to investigate! LOL

      Piper does not know of what she speaks.

      -

      Back to deleting SharkInlet again I see. Soooooo small of you Ron...sooooo very small.

      Still quiet about the Count's SOC AND the CCC letter I see.
      Hmmmmmmmmm

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 11:54 AM, April 22, 2009  

    • Richard wrote:

      "...the AG is not investigating the Tri-W project; never has, never will as nothing to investigate..."

      If there's nothing to investigate, why is this thread so long?

      "I don't remember anything with as many cautions and questions that came up with an approval, than this project."
      -- California Coastal Commission member, Toni Iseman, August 11, 2004, discussing the Coastal Development Permit for the Tri-W project.

      Boy, did they fuck-up approving that permit. HUUUUGE fuck-up.

      And, Iseman was the only dissenter in a 7-1 vote. Uhg.

      "I admit that I probably didn't look at the specific language of the LCP, the way I should have."
      -- California Coastal Commission member, Sara Wan, August 11, 2004, discussing the Coastal Development Permit for the Tri-W project.

      Great, thanks for that, Sara.

      So, basically, the reason there's a gigantic hole in the middle of Los Osos, is because Sara Wan is lazy.

      Nice.

      How's that taste, Los Osos?

      If you could read, Richard, you would see that me and my boyz from the Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, don't have a problem with an SOC, as long as the government agency popping it out doesn't just make it up for no reason whatsoever... other than to cover-up the fact that the project that formed the LOCSD in the first place, AND "deep-sixed the County's project" had failed, predictably.

      By Blogger Ron, at 3:11 PM, April 22, 2009  

    • Ron, what has the thread being so long to do with whether or not the AG is investigating? Like somehow your "facts" presented here are part of an "investigation" that is not actually happening?

      Well, duh, the most controversial sewer in probably the history of the US has more cautions and questions than other projects? I repeat, DUH.

      So if the vote had been 6-2 it wouldn't have been granted the permit? You are assuming had Sara looked more closely she would have voted no?

      Ron, get a grip - you are reaching so far you are going to fall off the wall.

      By Blogger Sewertoons, at 3:24 PM, April 22, 2009  

    • Hiya Sewertoons!

      Ron is reaching.........
      rather GRASPING.........
      for a lifeline, as shown by him pitiful cherry-picking quotes that have absolutely NOTHING to do with anything.....all in a vain attempt to be taken seriously.
      Until Ron realizes he is pursuing a fantasy we may expect more of the same nonsense from him. LOL

      Meanwhile,

      Still no commentary from Ron about the County's SOC.

      Still no commentary from Ron about the CCC letter to the County.

      Still no commenty from Ron explaining how he has 'saved Los Osos soooo much money' through killing the old project.

      Still nada, zip, zilch.
      Never will be either becuase he cannot form a rational thought even if his life depended on doing so.

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 3:47 PM, April 22, 2009  

    • 'toons wrote:

      "So if the vote had been 6-2 it wouldn't have been granted the permit? You are assuming had Sara looked more closely she would have voted no?"

      I guaran-freakin'-tee it: If Sara Wan wasn't lazy, that would have been an 8-0 vote to NOT approve that mess, because she would have been able to explain to her fellow commissioners, exactly what SewerWatch discovered when I (read: NOT a California Coastal Commission member) discovered when I "looked at the specific language of the LCP, the way I should have" -- that the ONLY reason to build the sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos -- the "strongly held community value" -- never existed.

      Then, that 8-0 "NO" vote should have been immediately followed by a phone call to Roger Briggs.

      THAT's when it would have been over-the-top appropriate to fine the LOCSD "out of existence." No one would have even blinked.

      "It seems to me that what is driving this here, and what is driving this entire thing, is the timing, and it is not a question of the feasibility of the site, but the need to proceed forward with the timing... this is what the Water Quality Control Board is saying, and that is what is driving the site selection, or feasibility at this time, not (the) environmentally preferable alternative."
      -- California Coastal Commission member, Sara Wan, August 11, 2004, discussing the Coastal Development Permit for the Tri-W project.

      And the ONLY two reasons that "timing" issue existed in the first place?

      1) Because Pandora, Paavo, and Bruce wasted two years chasing Pandora's dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" project.

      and;

      2) The 2001 - 2005 LOCSD then wasted 4 years playing "bait and switchy" with the CCC in an effort to cover-up the fact that Pandora's dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" project had failed.

      "I don't remember anything with as many cautions and questions that came up with an approval, than this project."
      -- California Coastal Commission member, Toni Iseman, August 11, 2004, discussing the Coastal Development Permit for the Tri-W project.

      What a friggin' mess.

      By Blogger Ron, at 3:54 PM, April 22, 2009  

    • Ron, maybe you could explain the furor that erupted when Montaña de Oro was being discussed as to charging entrance fees. LOCAC, you know, the Board with Linde and Keith, were leading the charge on the discussion on how horrible this was - Los Osos has NO PARKS - how can there be a thought of charging - we need a park!Please do explain that.

      I don't know how a "journalist" can be so clueless to NOT get that the furor that built around Tri-W was because of the NO-SEWER people and the "we-don't-want-to-pay-for-a-sewer" people. They took the NO-SEWER poison pill and sugar coated it with "Out-of-Town," which was swallowed down with "green" kool-aid by unsuspecting folks - $100/out-of-town - remember that?

      Just tune in tomorrow to the Planning Commission hearing - there will be protests galore over this County sewer proposal - just like at the BOS with the histrionics over stopping step and the hand-wringing of "oh, the water is being thrown away!" So it isn't just Tri-W that gets the heat.

      No-sewer is alive and well - maybe you are infected with that disease too Mr. Composting Toilet Guy, which prevents you from seeing the obvious?

      By Blogger Sewertoons, at 5:03 PM, April 22, 2009  

    • Richard, you are so right about Ron's mind! Plus his obsession with Pandora is just c-r-e-e-p-y!

      By Blogger Sewertoons, at 5:11 PM, April 22, 2009  

    • Richdora wrote:

      "Eventually you will see the County rejecting all out of town site altogether; and the return to an in-town solution....maybe even Tri-W."

      and 'toons wrote:

      "... please explain how $250/mo. is less than $200/mo"

      So, let me see if I have your guys' argument straight:

      If Prohibition Zone residents were to take the county's three years and $6 million worth of careful analysis, and simply toss it out the window, and instead, do what 90-percent (at least) of your town doesn't want, and build a "sewer-park" at the Tri-W site, the project would be better, cheaper, and faster.

      Hey, I think you guys might be on to something there.

      Here's what I think you should do... saturate Los Osos with that message.

      'toons wrote:

      "Plus his obsession with Pandora is just c-r-e-e-p-y!"

      LOCAC member? Check
      "Vision Team" member? Check
      Solution Group marketer? Check
      LOCSD Director? Check
      Save the Dream marketer? Check
      Parks Commissioner since 1991? Check
      Richard LeGros endorser? Check
      "Fine out of existence" strategizer? Check

      'toons, that's not an "obsession," that's kick-ass journalism.

      "Our company markets... through the power of... compelling language, and behavior-based strategies."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from her marketing business web site

      "A recall will not move or stop the sewer. The County... would take over our Project, assume the permit and build the same Project in the same location."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

      "Don’t listen to gossip — learn the facts for yourself."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

      "We MUST save this project!"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

      "Additional Endorsements for Richard LeGros: Pandora Nash-Karner"
      -- SmartVoter.org, November 2002

      By Blogger Ron, at 9:55 AM, April 23, 2009  

    • Ron,

      YOU BLOGGED:
      "So, let me see if I have your guys' argument straight:

      If Prohibition Zone residents were to take the county's three years and $6 million worth of careful analysis, and simply toss it out the window, and instead, do what 90-percent (at least) of your town doesn't want, and build a "sewer-park" at the Tri-W site, the project would be better, cheaper, and faster."

      RESPONSE:
      That's PARTIALLY correct.

      The forces driving the project back into the boundaries of the CSD....maybe even Tri-W, is NOT the County or the PZ property owners.

      THE DRIVING FORCES that are shaping what the County does are the governmental agencies that providing permits that the County MUST GET to build a project

      Regardless of the analysis that the County has done, or the results of the recent survey, the CCC (the Mother of all permitting agencies) has made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the County Plan does not meet the SLO-LCP or State laws regarding the conversion of AG land to other, growth inducing uses. The reason is very simple...the County DOES HAVE SITING ALTERNATIVES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE THE USE OF AG LAND....specifically there are urban parcels that may be used (such as Tri-W). No matter how hard the County tries, it will not convince the CCC or the State to allow the conversion of AG land when other non-ag sites are available; even if those in-town non-ag sites are POLITICALLY UNPOPULAR.

      Further, IF the County insists on using Ag land, the CCC will REQUIRE two items that are politically impossible to meet (hence never get a CDP for the project):

      1. The CCC will require the formation of an AG LAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM to prevent growth-inducing forces of a WWTP by forcing large parcel private property owners to give up control of their property development rights ...i.e. essentially codify the lands use as AG forever. The County (and the PZ property owners) will have to pay the parcel owners compensation for giving up their development rights; which is a VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE proposition.

      2. The CCC will require that an out-of-town site be brought into the boundaries of the LOCSD.
      To do so, the property owners out of town will have a public election to decide IF they want to be absorbed by the CSD or not. The likelihood of such an election being successful is zero.
      Why would any property owner want to be forced into a bankrupted CSD; and have the pleasure of letting a WWTF be located in their area?. Ain’t' going to happen.

      So Ron, it boils down to the fact that the County, regardless of all their analysis, cannot avoid the codes of their own LCP or the States clear policy that the conversion of Ag land to non-ag uses is only allowed if NO OTHER NON-AG LAND SITING ALTERNATIVES EXIST.

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 10:57 AM, April 23, 2009  

    • Richdora wrote:

      "So Ron, it boils down to the fact that the County, regardless of all their analysis, cannot avoid the codes of their own LCP or the States clear policy that the conversion of Ag land to non-ag uses is only allowed if NO OTHER NON-AG LAND SITING ALTERNATIVES EXIST."

      Well, there ya go.

      Fire up the 'ol behavior based marketing machine... again. I'm sure it'll work out for Los Osos... again.

      "CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location."
      -- Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance, Current

      "Tri-W -- Con: ESHA"
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Techincal Advisory Committee Pro/Con Report, 2007

      "We MUST save this project!"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

      By Blogger Ron, at 11:59 AM, April 23, 2009  

    • Ron,

      YOU BLOGGED:
      "CZLUO Section 23.08.288d allows public facilities within ESHA only where there is no other feasible location."
      -- Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance, Current"

      RESPONSE:

      BINGO!
      You hit the nail on the head....ALL OF LOS OSOS and the surrounding area is ESH, including every piece of urban land and AG land; and heavily salted with culturally significance attributes too. No site is free of issues.

      However, the CCC and the CZLUO holds existing AG land as more sensitive and in need of preservation than ESH.

      Ag land cannot be replaced without destroying ESH...or converting urban land back to Ag land. As ALL land in Los Osos is considered ESH (either significant or minor), it is UNAVOIDABLE NOT TO DISTURB ESH when developing anything. But that does not mean that development is not allowed...just that when you develop you must take into account the ESH being disturbed and MITIGATE FOR its LOSS / DISTURBANCE.

      The CCC has made it clear that they would rather see ESH disturbed and mitigated to achieve the goal of clean water (THE major coastal resource) than to have AG land converted to other growth-inducing uses. This belief is a CORE CCC POLICY backed by State legislation; and has long as it is they will not allow the County to use AG land either for a WWTF treatment site or for waste water disposal AS LONG AS THERE ARE NON AG LAND SITES AVAILABLE FOR BOTH TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL.

      The County will not be able to factually demonstrate to the CCC that they do not have other viable alternative site available per CZLUO Section 23.08.288d; hence the County out-of-town WWTP on AG lands will never get a Coastal Development Permit from the CCC.

      Now Ron, if you want to continue to be not relevant to what is happening here in Los Osos by sticking by your 'it's all Pandora's fault...and her little dog too' fantasy, be my guest. What is occurring has nothing to do with Pandora or 'behavior-based marketing'. But remember...reality is far more fascinating than wishful thinking.

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 2:24 PM, April 23, 2009  

    • Richdora wrote:

      "The CCC has made it clear that they would rather see ESH disturbed and mitigated to achieve the goal of clean water (THE major coastal resource) than to have AG land converted to other growth-inducing uses."

      Great. Sounds like you guys have it all figured out. I'm sure it'll go smoothly for your ridiculous little "strategy."

      "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
      -- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

      In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear back from the AG's office. I figure either way they answer, I'm going to have an excellent story.

      If they are investigating the Tri-W embarrassment, well, that'll be a helluva story, and if they aren't, that'll be a helluva story too, because now that the county's analysis has shown the EXACT OPPOSITE to be true of the six years and some $25 million that was wasted on the Tri-W embarrassment -- six years that ripped Los Osos apart, and cost the people of California a friggin' fortune -- if they're AREN'T investigating, the Attorney General's office take would be, "Ah, so what? Water under the bridge... let's just move forward... big deal if Steve Monowitz told SewerWatch that he was lied to by the LOCSD in 2001 regarding the siting of the Tri-W project, and then those lies cost the people of California millions upon millions upon millions of dollars, and completely ripped a town apart. So what? Screw the people of California!"

      I'm not sure which one of those stories would be better.

      "What is occurring has nothing to do with Pandora or 'behavior-based marketing'. But remember...reality is far more fascinating than wishful thinking."
      -- Richdora LeKarner, April 23, 2008

      "Pandora Nash Karner has absolutely no affiliations with; and absolutely no input into; the Taxpayer's Watch organization at all. Neither now or in the past. Period. Those folks that claim Pandora is part of the Taxpayer's Watch organization are are incorrect and uninformed. After this post, those that continue saying she is affiliated with Taxpayer's Watch are lying."
      -- Richard LeGros, February 27, 2009

      "Joyce Albright found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

      "Joyce Albright, Taxpayers Watch"
      -- LAFCO Minutes, September 21, 2006

      "Please...is there any way to salvage the project??????????????????"
      -- Pandora Nash-Karner, September 28, 2005

      By Blogger Ron, at 4:03 PM, April 23, 2009  

    • Ron,

      Just what exactly are the points you are trying to make here?

      Seems to me that your only concern is to 'shame and place blame' upon a select group or individual that you do not agree with. Additionally, you are so infatuated with your story that you have lost sight of all else.
      You seem hell bent to see folks investigated and/or prosecuted over behavior that is perfectly legal. In all the time I have been reading your posts, I have yet to see any solid verifiable evidence that clearly and undisputedly shows that certain behaviors have been illegal. Basing your prosecution only on insinuation, cherry-picked documentation and unverifiable information (such a Mr. Monowitz’s 'quotes') would not be allowable in any judicial setting; let alone lead to successful prosecution.

      Anyway, I know nothing that I or others say will keep you from your pursuit of god-knows-what; it is your life to do as you please. Just know that reality is far more interesting that the corral you have fenced yourself into. Really, at the end of the day how does your behavior help Los Osos water resource issues; if at all?....or do you not really care on anything other than being taken serious and proven 'right'?

      -R

      By Blogger Richard LeGros, at 5:06 PM, April 23, 2009  

    • By Blogger Ron, at 2:20 PM, May 06, 2009  

    • Election Summary Report
      LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT SPECIAL ELECTION
      Summary For Jurisdiction Wide, All Counters, All Races

      FINAL OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS
      Date:09/30/05
      Time:15:00:53
      Page:1 of 2
      Registered Voters 9788 - Ballots Cast 6651 67.95%
      Num. Report Precinct 7 - Num. Reporting 7 100.00%

      MEASURE E-05 SHALL RICHARD LEGROS BE RECALLED?

      YES, 3412, 51.49%

      CANDIDATES TO REPLACE RICHARD LEGROS

      STEVE SENET, 3545, 95.73%

      By Blogger Ron, at 11:58 AM, May 12, 2009  

    Post a Comment

    << Home