Saturday, February 27, 2010

Gibson Asks Parks Dept. to Withdraw Funding Request for Tri-W Park, a "Result" of the "Failure" of the Coastal Commission to Approve Sewer

I know, I'm such a dork, but I have a new favorite CD: The recording of the January 28, 2010 meeting of the SLO County Parks Commission.

It's rockin'! So revealing.

I acquired it through an official public records request that I did recently with county officials, because I suspected the recording would contain spectacular evidence to support my Brown Act violation case against the SLO County Parks Commission, that I recently filed with the District Attorney's office.

You can read all about that case at this link:

And, although the CD does contain the spectacular evidence that I suspected it would (beyond my wildest expectations), there's also other GREAT stuff on that CD, that I wasn't so much expecting, and what that great stuff shows is that, apparently, the honeymoon's over. There appears to be a great deal of friction between 2nd District Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, 2nd District Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, and, recently hired SLO County Parks Director, Curtis Black.

Trouuuuublllllle in par-a-dise!

What the recording reveals, is that shortly after last month's Coastal Commission hearing, where the Commission "failed" (staff's word) to issue a permit for the county's proposed sewer system for Los Osos, Gibson contacted the Parks Department and asked them to "withdraw" their application for funding for a proposed Tri-W park project.

"The failure for the sewer project to get through the Coastal Commission, resulted in (Supervisor Gibson's) request to withdraw (an application for Prop 84 funding for the Tri-W park project)," Black said at the meeting.

Gets better.

Nash-Karner, Gibson's own appointment to the Parks Commission, was completely unaware that he had made that request.

"I had no idea," she said, and then seemed devastated upon hearing the news, and launched into a desperate rant about the project, and how it could be funded, before finally saying, "I'll talk to Bruce Gibson about this (Prop. 84 funding for the Tri-W park project) issue."

At one point, Black actually calls Nash-Karner, "very unfair... truly unfair," for her "disappointment" with Parks staff... simply because they followed Gibson's request to withdraw the funding application.

SewerWatch has sent the following e-mail to Supervisor Gibson:

- - -

DATE: 2/27/10

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

On the recording of the January 28, 2010 meeting of the SLO County Parks Commission, a Parks Dept. staff member (it sounds like, Curtis Black, Deputy Director of SLO County Parks) said that you recently asked him to "withdraw" the Parks Department's request for Proposition 84 funding for a park project the department is proposing at the Tri-W site in Los Osos.

He said that, prior to your "request," that project had received staff recommendation to proceed.

He also said that you asked him to "withdraw the request" for the Prop. 84 funding as a "result" of the recent Coastal Commission meeting, where the Commission "failed" (staff's word) to issue a permit for the county's proposed sewer system for Los Osos.

Here are my questions:

-- Why did you ask the Parks Dept. to withdraw their Prop 84 funding request for the Tri-W park project, after the Coastal Commission "failed" to issue a permit for the county's sewer project for Los Osos?

What were your reasons for doing that?

Also, on that same recording, your appointment to the Parks Commission, Pandora Nash-Karner, was surprised to hear that news. She said that she, "didn't realize that (Supervisor Gibson) had sent this (notice to withdraw the funding request)." And, "I had no idea," she said.

Here's my question on that:

Why didn't you notify your own Parks Commissioner about your request to withdraw the Prop. 84 funding proposal prior to the Parks Commission's January 28 meeting, especially considering that the Tri-W park project is located in Los Osos, her district, and hometown?

Finally, Ms. Nash-Karner also said at that meeting, "I'll talk to Bruce Gibson about this (Prop. 84 funding for the Tri-W park project) issue."

That was on 1/28/10.

Did she ever talk to you about that?

If so, what did she say? What was the nature of that conversation?

As always, much thanks for your time,

- - -

IF he replies (and almost certainly, he won't... because he never does... even for EXCELLENT questions like that), I'll post it.

On 2/23/10, SewerWatch also sent Curtis Black these questions:

- - -
Are you aware of Pandora Nash-Karner's involvement with the development of the Tri-W sewer project?

How she was the vice-president of the LOCSD in 2000, and a quote from the 2000 EIR for the Tri-W project report, that I first exposed in one of my New Times cover stories, reads:

"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 (the Tri-W site) could."

Before this e-mail, were you aware of that?
- - -

He replied, "No, I wasn't aware of her concerns or actions regarding the sewer project."



  • I'm finally getting caught up on my reading and LOOK WHAT I've BEEN MISSING. And I thought nothing was happening lately.

    I'd like to know from the beginning: what is Prop. 84 funding? Is this 'funding' connected to the $20 million dollar botanical dealings? And is it connceted to the Los Osos pool dealings? And who's idea was it to build a park without a sewer at the Tri W. site? Aren't the residences still paying for that site on their taxes for the sewer? Meaning, if the sewer isn't going to go there (but now it looks like it is), then the people would need to sell it and buy the site where the sewer would be going?
    I donno. Last year with your articles on the missed meetings dealings.....there I learned about POWER. Power, power, power. Who has it and who doesn't have it.

    Now play that Lambchop song that's playing on You tube: "the song that never ends, goes on and on", a must listen. It's never over. And well why should it be; if you have that much power, you'd keep plying your schemes also.

    Was there a Feb. meeting?

    By Blogger Commentary, at 4:46 PM, March 03, 2010  

  • SewerWatch's been the rockin' the house, huh C.?

    C.: wrote:

    "what is Prop. 84 funding?"

    Excellent question, as usual.

    That was a bond measure that was passed by CA voters a few years back. It's primarily for water quality, but, for reasons unknown (although, I'm sure, sneakiness is involved), tucked in the measure was about a half billion for parks.

    And if there's one thing Nash-Karner has learned over the years, it's where the grants are, and how fast can she start cashing checks from them.


    "Is this 'funding' connected to the $20 million dollar botanical dealings?"

    Welp, considering Commissioner Nash-Karner decided to run the Brown Act through a shredder, we don't know the answer to that question... for now, although, we WOULD know the answer to that question had Commissioner Nash-Karner NOT decided to run the Brown Act through a shredder.

    What happened there, with Item #8, was flat-out terrible. An egregious breach of democracy.

    ALL journalists, everywhere, should be extremely concerned with what happened with Item #8.


    "And who's idea was it to build a park without a sewer at the Tri W. site?

    I'll give ya a hint... it was the same person that had the idea to jam an industrial sewer plant in the middle of town, for the SOLE reason of making it easier for the town folk to easily get to their multi-million dollar picnic area... in their sewer plant.

    Yeah... I first exposed that story in 2004. It's at this link:


    "Was there a Feb. meeting?

    Already have the Public Records Request in for the recording. Can't wait.

    Great questions, C.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:09 AM, March 04, 2010  

  • Yeh, rockin the house all right. Forgot to ask: if all of those 'landscape' projects' are going to be done by the husbands group? Like that unknown park without a sewer at Tri W. Did they only get one bid? Does the husband have an ownership interest in this out of town company?

    So, I'm learning how: get control of the money and funnel it towards your company. Dear Mr. Gibson, Would you give me the same power that you give Pandora? I promise to abuse it in clever ways although I do admit, I'm not that clever. Darn. That probably knocks me out of the running. Would a lower level of sneakiness be allowed if I don't currently possess as much as Pandora has?

    By Blogger Commentary, at 9:54 AM, March 04, 2010  

  • I just noticed, that I missed ANOTHER great question from C.:

    "And is it connceted to the Los Osos pool dealings?

    EXCELLENT question.

    As you probably read, in my FPPC complaint, I actually ask them to investigate that angle.

    Right now, the Los Osos pool is working its way through the Parks Commission, of course, and, also, of course, Nash-Karner is deeply involved with the Los Osos Community Pool Association. And, so far as I know, it's just her.

    Wanna see what could be the shakiest web site you've ever seen?:

    And it's been exactly like that for about five years now, at least.

    I'm not going to do the research here, but if you stop by the SLO Community Foundation's web site, there are actually TWO funds (at least there were last time I checked) set up for the LO Pool.

    And, keep in mind, as I also first exposed, Measure D-98, was a Los Osos ballot measure in 1998 that was to tax property owners $40 a year for a community pool. It need 2/3rds to pass. It failed to get 50-percent.

    Pandora Nash-Karner spearheaded that effort. I remember it clearly, because that's when I was the editor for The Bay Breeze.

    And, also, of course, the fact that people didn't want to pay for an expensive pool project at the same time they were looking at a gigantic sewer assessment never stopped Parks Commissioner Nash-Karner from moving forward on that project.

    It's amazing how she does that. She doesn't take "no" for an answer, as evident, AGAIN, but her refusal to accept that HER Tri-W Park Project isn't going to get the Prop 84 funding.

    You should have heard her on that recording. When she found that out -- by the way, nice job Commissioner Nash-Karner by NOT looking at your agenda packet BEFORE the meeting -- when she found that out, she was dazed. She kinda freaked out. By the end of her 20 minute rant, Parks' staff, understandably, was pissed.

    As I've shown... repeatedly... whether it's the pool project, the Botanical Garden, or the sewer project, it's all the same: "Where are the public funds, and how fast can I cash checks from it," via behavior based marketing?

    The girl makes Bernie Madoff seem cool.

    That's why I always say that the Los Osos sewer story is simply a side-bar of the blow-your-hair-back amazing, Pandora Nash-Karner story.

    Over-the-top interesting stuff.

    As for your other question, that I just read, they actually have a variety of scammy ways to cash in.

    You can read all about them at this link:

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:03 AM, March 04, 2010  

  • Quick correction: The Measure was D-97, from 1997.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:07 AM, March 04, 2010  

  • Very interesing about the 20 minute rant.

    Was there the 'ol one bid on the table for that design like there was for the Botanical $20 million dollar 'garden'? (Meaning, was there already one bid on the sewerless park at Tri W that the funding was pulled for. What amount was the funding? Did the funding (that was pulled) include purchasing the land from the residents of Los Osos who are already paying for the land? AND! Did it include a pool? AAgghhhh.

    The people are already paying for the land (for the sewer). This has been a bigga secret about this park. If they got the funding, which it sounds like they did but it was pulled, would that 'help' show the Coastal Commission that the people really do want a park there and that it's going to be funded by this Prop. money and not sewer money? I bet the design includes settling ponds... Maybe this was cleaning up that snafu with the C.C.? The park is now funded by separate money. How clever. That was easy.

    Meanwhile, they are cleaning up the botanical dealings.

    By Blogger Commentary, at 8:51 PM, March 04, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home