Tuesday, December 29, 2009

How SLO County Government's Laziness Sends Senior Citizens to the Hospital

TO: Nancy Orton, Environmental Specialist, SLO County Dept. of Planning and Building
SUBJECT: Los Osos Sewer Story Questions, please
DATE: 12/29/09

Hello Nancy,

I'm researching a story, and I recently came across a 2004 document that lists your name as someone that was involved with the SLO County planning process in 2003 for the Los Osos CSD's proposed "Tri-W" wastewater project.

And, considering that County Supervisors recently approved a "preferred project" for Los Osos, and the old Tri-W project didn't even come close to making their short-list of preferred projects, I now have some questions regarding that 2003 process -- questions that are now very timely, and important.

As I'm sure you're aware, CEQA states, "If the (environmental) impacts (of a project) are not mitigated to a level below significance, and (in this case, the LOCSD) wishes to approve the project, it would also be necessary to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects."

CEQA also states that "a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the final EIR and/or other information in the record."

Here's my question:

What "substantial evidence in the record" did the SLO County Planning Department use in 2003 to support the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations for their proposed Tri-W sewer project?

The reason I ask, is because, as I first reported in 2006, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/loopiest-of-loopholes-recently.html

... in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for their Tri-W project, the LOCSD concluded:

- - -
"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: and

- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"
- - -

And that's it... the reasons stop there. Just those two reasons are listed on why the mid-town Tri-W site was "chosen over other (environmentally preferred) locations."

However, here's the huge problem I've found involving the LOCSD's two reasons on why they chose to override the environmental review process to accommodate their Tri-W sewer plant -- a process that showed that out-of-town sites were "environmentally preferred": I can't find one shred of "substantial evidence contained in the record" that supports either one of those claims, and, according to CEQA, if just one "assertion" in an SOC is "substantively infirm," then the certification of the entire EIR must be "vacated."

As I originally reported in New Times, in 2004, the EIR for the Tri-W project states:

"It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect (the) strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."

and;

"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 in the manner that a central location such as (the Tri-W site) could."

Then, there's this quote from the staff of the Coastal Commission, found in the Tri-W project's development permit;

“... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the 2000 LOCSD Board) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”

Nancy, I've looked everywhere for the "substantial evidence in the record" that shows that "strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community" -- an alleged "strongly held community value" that was solely responsible for the District's "project objective for centrally located community amenities” for their sewer project -- and I can't find any. None.

So, currently, I have a big hole in my story: What did SLO County officials use in 2003 as "substantial evidence in the record" to support the LOCSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations' assertion that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos for "the treatment plant site... (to) provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos."

Could you please point me to those documents?

What evidence did SLO County use in 2003 to support the LOCSD's assertion that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and then must also be "centrally located" so residents can easily to get to their "sewer-park?"

The only "official" document-like thing I can find that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD used as "evidence" for that "strongly held community value," is something called the "Los Osos Vision Statement," from 1994.

However, that document, is, frankly, nothing. It was loosely based on some completely non-scientific "visioning" from the early 1990s, organized by a tiny group of Los Osos residents, and it's simply not "substantial"... because it's nothing. Absolutely nothing "substantial" can be derived from that document.

To make matters worse, I went so far as to obtain the original 1993 documents that were used in the unscientific "visioning," and, not surprisingly, a version of this question:

"Do you want ANY sewer plant proposed for the community of Los Osos to be built in the middle of town so it can also double as a conveniently located "recreational asset," with a multi-million dollar public park that includes a picnic area?"

... isn't even asked... of course.

In other words, this quote from the Los Osos Vision Statement:

"It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect (the) strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."

... materialized out of nowhere.

There is nothing that supports that quote, yet, that absolutely baseless quote, coupled with this quote from the Tri-W EIR:

"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 in the manner that a central location such as (the Tri-W site) could."

... and this quote from the staff of the Coastal Commission in the 2004 Tri-W development Permit:

“... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the 2000 LOCSD Board) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”

... means that, unless someone in SLO County government can, today, point to the "substantial evidence in the record" that was used by the County in 2003 to support the alleged "strongly held community value" that ANY sewer plant in Los Osos must also double as a "centrally located recreational asset," I'm going to report that SLO County officials got lazy in 2003, and didn't bother to "substantiate" the LOCSD's fabricated Statement of Overriding Considerations, and therefore, SLO County officials approved an illegal project in 2003... because they got lazy... and that led to massive delays in developing a community-wide wastewater system for Los Osos.

Primary sources appear to show, that, had SLO County officials done their job in 2003, and actually demanded "substantial evidence in the record" to support the LOCSD's baseless Statement of Overriding Considerations, like I did, the Tri-W project would have collapsed in 2003, and a process to develop a project similar to the one recently approved by County Supervisors in 2009 -- with a treatment facility located outside of town -- would have started in 2003.

And, as you're also probably aware, the local Water Board levied ongoing enforcement actions ("Cease and Desist Orders") in 2006 against 45 randomly selected property owners in Los Osos (many of them seniors) as a result of the delays in constructing a sewer system for the community.

I want to show you a couple of quotes (out of many) that have come across my desk from some of those 45 property owners:

"Faced with the CDO's causing condemnation of our home and causing us to have to vacate our home - well, it's more than anyone should have to live with."

and;

"(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."

and;

"(This prosecution) sends us to the hospital for emergency treatment for high blood pressure, heart conditions, and stress."

Another piece of non-evidence that the early LOCSD Board likes to point to to support their made-up contention that there's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that any sewer plant for the community must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and, therefore, must also be "centrally located" so residents can easily to get to their "strongly" valued "sewer-park," is the election results that formed the Los Osos Community Services District in the first place, in November 1998.

As you may know, in 1998, 87-percent of the town's voters established a CSD in Los Osos so the community could pursue a "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project that was being proposed at the time by a small group of citizens (some of those citizens were also part of the same small group of people behind the Los Osos Vision Statement).

The proposed "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project was also planned for the mid-town Tri-W site, just like the District's second attempt at a sewer project, but their original "better, cheaper, faster" project was vastly different than the project approved by SLO County officials in 2003.

The first Tri-W project proposed by the initial CSD Board in 1999, was heavily advertised (before the election) as having a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," with a "drop dead gorgeous" series of large ponds on "50 - 70 acres" at the Tri-W site, but, and this is very, very important, that ill-fated project never included a public park.

In other words, the 1998 Los Osos CSD election results had absolutely nothing to do with a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that ANY sewer plant for the community must also include a multi-million dollar community park, and be centrally located so residents can easily get to the park... in their sewer plant... that they allegedly "strongly value."

The early Los Osos CSD Board blurred (apparently, intentionally, and to regulators) a "strongly held community value" for a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," into a "strongly held community value (of) creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community."

Nancy, stunningly, it gets worse.

The only other reason listed by the Los Osos CSD in their SOC on why an "in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other (environmentally preferably) locations," was, "It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served."

That claim is ALSO completely unsubstantiated.

According to recent County analysis, the Tri-W site has "higher costs overall" at an estimated "$55 million." The next costliest treatment facility option was estimated by County officials at $19 million.

Additionally, according to County analysis, "(Tri-W's) downtown location... require(s) that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

So, naturally, I'm confused: One of only two reasons the mid-town Tri-W site was selected by the LOCSD was because "it results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility," yet, according to recent County analysis, the central location added more than $30 million to the "overall" costs of the facility... because of its central location?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. (And, what strikes me about that take, is how obvious it is that it doesn't make sense.)

So, again, what "substantial evidence in the record" did County officials, such as yourself, use in 2003 to support the District's SOC's assertion that the Tri-W project had the "lowest cost" overall?

According to my extensive research, there isn't any.

And, according to CEQA, if just ONE of the "assertions" listed in a Statement of Overriding Considerations is shown to be "substantively infirm," then the certification for the entire EIR must be "vacated."

The LOCSD supplied only two reasons for "overriding" the environmental review process and selecting "an in-town site over other (environmentally preferred) locations," and, both of them are completely "substantively infirm."

Which means, it sure looks like SLO County officials (and I mean ALL SLO County officials -- from County staff, to the Planning Commission, to the Board of Supervisors) got lazy in 2003, and didn't bother to substantiate, using "evidence found in the record," the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations, and, therefore, approved an illegal project, according to CEQA law, in 2003.

And, unless someone in County government can show me the "substantial evidence in the record" that the County used in 2003 to support the District's made-up SOC, that is exactly how I'm going to fill that gaping hole in my story -- by reporting that the past seven years (and counting) worth of Los Osos sewer project delays, stem from lazy SLO County officials, and, because those officials got lazy in 2003, innocent Los Osos property owners were singled out for enforcement actions by the local Water Board in 2006, and the stress associated with those enforcement actions sent completely innocent senior citizens to the hospital.

So, with that in mind, please, this is kind of important here: Can SLO County officials, today, produce the "substantial evidence in the record" that they used in 2003 to support the Los Osos CSD's Statement of Overriding Considerations?

Do you have those documents?

Thank you very much for your time,
Ron

P.S. I've reprinted this e-mail on my blog, SewerWatch.

###

Monday, December 14, 2009

Dear Members of the Local Media

To: sduerr@thetribunenews.com, bmorem@thetribunenews.com, dsneed@thetribunenews.com, econnolly@newtimesslo.com, shredder@newtimesslo.com, george@calcoastnews.com, velie@calcoastnews.com, news@ksby.com, news@kcoy.com, davecongalton@edbroadcasters.com, news@tolosapress.com
Subject: Possible Story Idea

Dear members of the local media,

I hope you are all having a nice holiday season.

The reason I'm writing to you, is because, unless I missed it, I haven't seen any media coverage on what happened with the former "Tri-W" sewer project that was proposed by the Los Osos CSD from 2000 - 2005.

In case you don't remember (and, apparently, you don't), the Tri-W sewer project was to include a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos, so it was an extremely unpopular and controversial project. However, despite years and years of community opposition to the mid-town sewer plant, the LOCSD still spent some $25 million and five years on its development.

And, in 2005, just one month before a recall election that would ultimately stop the project, the CSD actually began construction of the project by removing (with heavy equipment) the vegetation (including many trees) at the "Environmentally Sensitive" Tri-W site.

The project was also the subject of numerous State and Federal meetings over those five years, at an unknown, but presumably significant cost to California and U.S. taxpayers.

At the time, it seemed like the proposed $160 million Tri-W sewer project was kind of a big deal (or, at least I thought it was... maybe I'm wrong, although the Los Osos sewer story was selected the #1 story of the year in 2005 by Tribune readers.)

However, now that the County of SLO has control over the project, and after some three years and $7 million worth of analysis by the County, the Tri-W project didn't even come close to making the County's short list of viable project alternatives for Los Osos, and Supervisors recently approved a project (with a sewer plant located out of town, downwind) that is vastly different than the LOCSD's project... that the District spent $25 million and five years developing.

Furthermore, in a June 2009 letter to the California Coastal Commission, County staff writes, "The Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W site) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan (for their Tri-W project), believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

And, in an official community survey conducted by County officials in 2009, it reads:

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location (as their preference for the treatment facility)."

So, when all of that is taken into consideration, it just seems like this story is a little newsworthy, and timely:

Why did the 2000 - 2005 LOCSD spend five years and $25 million designing a wildly unpopular sewer system that included an industrial sewer plant in the middle of town, and then began ripping up "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat" in an effort to build that project, yet when that project came under the scrutiny County officials, it didn't even come close to making the short list of viable projects, and the "Project Team" called it technically and socially "infeasible?"

So, I guess my question for the local media is: What happened?

Why did the LOCSD spend $25 million and five years on a wildly unpopular, "infeasible" project, that didn't even come close to being considered by County staff (and Supervisors) as the preferred project in 2009?

Will you be covering that story?

It seems newsworthy... at least to me.

If you have any questions, please just ask. I'm pretty sure I'd be able to assist in your research.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

###

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Why Was the Tri-W Project Permitted?

TO: Charles Lester, Senior Deputy Director, California Coastal Commission Central Coast District Office
DATE: 12/10/09

Dear Mr. Lester,

I'm researching a story that involves the sewer project pursued by the Los Osos CSD from 2001 - 2005 (the "Tri-W" project), and I'm hoping that you might be able to answer a couple of quick questions regarding that project.

As you likely know, the County of SLO is currently developing a wastewater project for Los Osos, and after some three years of analysis, County officials have selected a project that is vastly different than the LOCSD's Tri-W project.

As part of their analysis, County staff writes:

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

and;

"The Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."
-- SLO County Project team, June 29, 2009

And, in 2004, when the California Coastal Commission was discussing the Development Permit for the Tri-W project, Commissioner, Toni Iseman, according to official transcripts, said:

"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

and, Sara Wan said:

"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

Considering those quotes, here's my question:

If the Tri-W project was socially and technically infeasible, according to SLO County staff, and also very unpopular in the community because it included a sewer plant in the middle of town, and if it was not the "environmentally preferable alternative," and if it was also loaded with "cautions and questions" at the time of its permitting, why was it permitted by the California Coastal Commission in the first place?

That doesn't seem to make sense.

Why was a wildly unpopular, "infeasible" project that was loaded with "cautions and questions," and not the "environmentally preferable alternative" -- a project that the 2001 - 2005 LOCSD spent nearly $25 million and four years developing, yet didn't even come close to making the County's short-list of alternative projects -- permitted by the California Coastal Commission in 2004?

Do you know the answer to that question?

In the context of 2010, it seems like an important question.

Why was an "infeasible" project permitted?

I'm not clear on that.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Supervisor Gibson? Do We Have a Deal?

[Note: Below's my open e-mail to SLO County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson. About two weeks ago, I sent new County CAO, Jim Grant, an e-mail asking him what's the earliest the public will know when each Supervisor's appointment will be for Parks Commissioner in 2010. Of course, he never replied, resulting in the following e-mail. Incidentally, when David Edge was the County's CAO, he always returned my e-mails promptly, and with excellent responses.]

Hello Bruce,

I hope your holiday season is going well.

I just wanted to quickly contact you because I think I might have found a way to easily save both of us -- me and you -- some time and headaches (me: ones of minutes of time, and you: A LOT of headaches) next year -- and all you have to do is one simple thing: appoint a new 2nd District Parks Commissioner for 2010.

Here's what I'm getting at: I have a text file that I keep on my computer desktop, and it contains nothing but a huge collection of excellent Los Osos sewer related quotes that I've compiled over the years. So, now, when I'm researching a story, and I need to use one of those amazing quotes, I just pop that file open, and almost instantly find the quote I'm looking for through a quick keyword search, and then I just copy and paste the quotes into my stories. Works great! (Awesome journalism tip, too.)

The entire process takes just a few seconds.

Here, I'll show you a couple of examples of what I'm talking about.

The following quotes come from that file... that I just went and quickly copied-and-pasted:

"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

Done.

That took six seconds, 'cause all I had to do was copy-and-paste from my huge file-O-quotes. I didn't have to retype any of that, including the html code for the links.

See how that works?

Here's another example:

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

Ouch! [by the way, that took two seconds]

And because I have all of those great quotes (about 10 years worth) all ready to go, what I can now do is go, and in just a few seconds, assemble some amazing takes.

For example, here's a choice sequence:

"(This CDO 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."
-- Unnamed recipient of RWQCB enforcement actions

Followed immediately with this...

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

and, this...

- - -
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
- - -

and, this...

"Gary and I are supporting Bruce Gibson for Supervisor."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, gibsonforsupervisor.org

And, then, all of that, of course, immediately followed-up with this...

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

[21 seconds]

See how that works, Bruce?

I can do stuff like that easily, and then post it all on my popular blog, SewerWatch, over, and over, and over again... all the way up to your November 2010, when you're going to need a couple of votes from Los Osos.

But (and here's the point of this e-mail), I won't have to do any of that, if you were to just simply appoint a different Parks Commissioner in 2010, and since I'm kind of lazy, I'm really hoping that you choose the latter... or else I'm going to be forced, out of human decency, to do things like this for a year:

"More delays mean the LOCSD may be fined out of existence. We’d lose local control (of the sewer project)."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005 (six months before the recall election)

"... could the LOCSD transfer the sewer project to the county BEFORE the current CSD-3 leave office?"
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, September 28, 2005 (one day after the recall election)

"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005 (one day after the recall election)

"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 Nash-Karner, Wed, 28 Sep 2005

"To: Ben Campbell [Note: Barnard Construction was one of the contractors on the Los Osos CSD project.]

I have just gotten off the phone with Roger Briggs.
We MUST save this project!"
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Thu, 29, Sep 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

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

Boom. Done. 39-seconds. (But only because I was laughing so hard... I gotta admit, the mixing and matching of my quote collection can be kind of fun.)

Imagine, Bruce, a steady diet of that for an entire year... while you're campaigning.

And every word of it will be posted on SewerWatch, for ALL (read: Cambria, Morro Bay, Cayucos) to see, just like this e-mail. (Cool huh? Kinda like magic.)

Now, if my excellent idea comes across as a little ultimatum-ish, that's because it is, but, hey, what can I say? Enough's enough (I mean, good lord, c'mon!), so that's my final offer: You appoint a new Parks Commissioner for 2010 (one with absolutely ZERO ties to your current Parks Commissioner [I recommend Lisa Schicker, if she's up for it]), and I won't do things like this:

"A recall will not move or stop the sewer... The County or State would take over our (Tri-W) 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

"The (SLO County Los Osos wastewater) Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."
SLO County Project team, June 29, 2009

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

"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, Wed, Sept. 28, 2005

"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 Nash-Karner, Wed, 28, Sep 2005

"I have just gotten off the phone with Roger Briggs.
We MUST save this (Tri-W) project!"
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Thu, 29, Sep 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

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

[27 seconds]

... over and over and over again... for an entire year... while you're campaigning.

Deal?

As always, thank you for your time,
Ron

P.S. Just curious, did you ever get a chance to read my piece titled, Contrast?

It's at this link:

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

That's where I first broke the story that your Parks Commissioner developed, and then implemented, a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," (also her words) and then, seven months LATER -- AFTER I exposed the fact that your Parks Commissioner developed, and then implemented, a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," you (re)appointed her to the Parks Commission.

I wrote about that at this ink:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/06/district-2-parks-commissioner-pandora.html

And, just to be clear, I WILL continue to report on that over and over again throughout 2010, regardless of what you do with your Parks Commission appointment.

Finally, I just Googled: los osos sewer

... and out of over 15,000 results, SewerWatch was #2, just behind the County's official site.

Happy holidays.

###