Congratulations, Los Osos! You are Now Internationally Famous for Something OTHER than a Sewer

Of all the "dive bars" in the world, only one deserves the spotlight in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dive_bar

###

[43 weeks down... 9 to go.]

SewerWatch Files Complaint with County Grand Jury Alleging SLO County Parks Commission Violated Open Meeting Laws

"The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created."
-- The Ralph M. Brown Act

TO: San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
DATE: 10/20/10

Dear SLO County Grand Jury,

Thank you for the opportunity to file this complaint.

Earlier this year, I believe that I was the victim of at least two apparent, and egregious, violations of the Brown Act by the San Luis Obispo County Parks Commission.

Here's the setup, including specific details, timeline, and primary evidence:

Current San Luis Obispo County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, also currently sits on the Board of Directors for a local non-profit agency -- the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden.

That facility -- on county-owned land -- is planning a "$20 million" expansion, according to their documents, and, as I first exposed in a 1/20/10 investigative piece, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/great-san-los-osobispo-botanical-sewer.html

... according to their executive director, Liz-Scott Graham (who told me over the phone), the one proposal the SLO Botanical Garden received to design the expansion was from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

Shortly after I published my above-mentioned investigative piece, I noticed on the Parks Commission meeting agenda for January 28, this item:

8. Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

Here's where it gets (even more) interesting.

I first spotted that posted agenda item about five days before the meeting.

However, I'm also aware that the Brown Act requires that a "posted" item's agenda packet be available for public inspection "72 hours" before the meeting (code cited below).

So, I deliberately -- I want to repeat that, because it is a very important point -- I deliberately waited until the 72 hour requirement kicked-in before I requested, from Parks Commission staff, a copy of the staff report for Item #8.

[Note: All e-mails cited below are easily available as evidence for this case on the SLO County government e-mail servers.]

On the morning of 1/26/10, well within the "72 hour" Brown Act requirement for the January 28 meeting, I sent SLO County Parks Planner, Jan Di Leo, this e-mail:

- - -
On the agenda for this Thursday's Parks Commission meeting, it reads:

"Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

Please e-mail me the staff report for that item, and the proposal.

Thanks again,
Ron
- - -

After not receiving a reply for 24 hours (even though I had received prompt e-mail replies from her previously) I sent Ms. Di Leo another e-mail on the morning of 1/27/10:

- - -
Hello Jan,

Yesterday morning I sent you an e-mail requesting the staff report for the following item on this Thursday's Parks Commission meeting agenda:

"Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

That was 24 hours ago, and I've yet to receive a response, although you were kind enough to promptly respond to my other e-mails... and thank you for that.

That meeting is tomorrow, so PLEASE, is there any way I can get that report today? (And, frankly, I'm a little disappointed that the report isn't linked on the Parks Commission web site, like they are with other SLO County government agencies, like the Planning Commission, and the Supes.)

So, again, please e-mail me the staff report for that item, and the proposal (if available) as soon as possible. And, please don't force me to do a public records request to get that staff report, as those take up to 10 days to fulfill, and the meeting is tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Ron
- - -

The next morning, on 1/28/10 -- the day of the meeting -- Ms. Di Leo finally replied:

- - -
Ron,
That item was continued until February 25, 2010. At this point there is no report. I believe Dave Porter was simply coming to give a report. Our web site has the Parks Commission agenda and staff reports. So, prior to the February meeting (around Feb. 19th) you should be able to down load the agenda and the report (if there is one).

Jan Di Leo
Parks Planner
SLO County Parks
- - -

Please note, Ms. Di Leo writes, "I believe Dave Porter was simply coming to give a report," when Item 8 clearly says, "proposal."

Then, Ms. Di Leo writes, "Our web site has the Parks Commission... staff reports," when it does not.

That's egregious Brown Act violation #1: I deliberately waited until within 72 hours of the meeting, then requested the staff report for the posted item, and then, on the day of the meeting, that single staff report -- the only document I was interested in -- simply vanished.

According to the Brown Act:

"54954.2. (a) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session."

and;

"54954.1. Any person may request that a copy of the agenda, or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet [bolding mine], of any meeting of a legislative body be mailed to that person."

Egregious Brown Act violation #2, in this case, is extraordinary.

Shortly after that January 28 meeting, I sent a public records request to Parks' staff for an audio recording of that meeting. (Again, the audio recording of the 1/28/10 meeting is also amazing evidence in this case, that is easily acquired through SLO County staff.)

What I discovered on that recording left me shaking my head.

Here, according to the official recording, is what transpired at the 1/28/10 SLO County Parks Commission meeting:

First, the agenda order on the recording is different than that of both the posted agenda, and even the agenda order listed in the minutes, at this link:

http://www.slocountyparks.com/information/pcommprevmeetmins.htm

For example, on the posted agenda, Item #2 was supposed to involve, "Nominations and Election of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair."

Even in the official minutes for that meeting, Item #2 reads:

- - -
2. Nominations and Election of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair. Commissioner (and current Chair) Nash-Karner nominated Commissioner Hilton for Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Mathews. Motion passed 4-0.
- - -

However, on the recording, that agenda item is NOT #2. It's Item #7 (for reasons I'm not clear on), and here's why that appears to be a HUGE problem.

Immediately after that motion passes, I can hear the sound of applause from the people in attendance -- which, apparently, consisted of the Commissioners, Parks' staff, and one member of the public -- congratulating Hilton on his election to the Chair.

I can also hear Hilton say, "I'll take the gavel."

Then -- and here's where it gets very fishy -- immediately after the gavel is passed to Hilton -- after he has become the Chair, and, therefore responsible for how the meeting is conducted -- Commissioner Nash-Karner, all of a sudden, out of the blue, says:

"Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February."

Then, Hilton pauses, and says, "O.K."

Then, Nash-Karner immediately says, "So, Item #9 is all yours."

Then, Hilton says, "So with that, we have Item #9..."

After listening to the recording, I e-mailed Commissioner Hilton this question:

- - -
"Considering that (previous Chair) Nash-Karner 'forgot to mention' that Item #8 had been 'deferred,' shouldn't Item #8 have been your first official item to discuss, and not Item #9?

With this quote:

'Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February.'

... it seems like she acted as the Chair, AFTER you were elected Chair."
- - -

He never replied to my question. (Perhaps he will respond to the SLO County Grand Jury, if you were to ask him that question.)

And to top all of this off, Item #8 was NOT "deferred until February," of course, nor was it on the March Parks Commission meeting agenda, as you will easily discover if you look into the evidence of this amazing case.

As of, March 30, 2010, Item #8 simply disappeared the moment after I started inquiring about it, and not only will I now never know the contents of that "proposal," but neither will the public, or the members of the SLO County Grand Jury, unless you investigate this very important case.

So, to summarize, here is the timeline that clearly shows that I was the victim (there's no other way to put it) of egregious violations of the Brown Act by the SLO County Parks Commission:

I published an investigative piece on 1/20/10, where I show that San Luis Obispo County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, also sits on the Board of Directors of a local non-profit agency, the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden -- a facility that leases county-owned land, and is planning a "$20 million" expansion, and the one proposal they've received to design the expansion, according to their executive director, was from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

Then, just a few days after I published that piece, I noticed on the Parks Commission meeting agenda for January 28, this item: "8. Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

Then, I deliberately waited until within the 72 hour Brown Act posting requirement before twice-asking (1/26/10 and 1/27/10) Parks' staff for a copy of the staff report for Item #8.

Then, on the day of the meeting, 1/28/10 -- two days after my initial inquiry, and with Item #8 STILL posted on the agenda -- a SLO County Parks staff member writes me, "That item was continued until February 25, 2010. At this point there is no report."

Then, at the meeting that night, as former Chair of the Parks Commission, and current 2nd District Parks Commissioner, as well as current Director for the SLO Botanical Garden, Pandora Nash-Karner, says, "Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February."

Then, of course, Item #8 did NOT appear on the February meeting agenda, or the March meeting agenda.

And, now, because of all of those apparently egregious Brown Act violations, the public will never know the contents of the "proposal" from Item #8. Never.

The foremost expert on the Brown Act, Terry Francke, at this web site:

http://altadenans.com/current-issues/terry-francke-foremost-authority-on-the-brown-act-speaks-on-atcs-actions/

... writes:

"As for criminal prosecution, there have been about five or six initiated in the Brown Act’s (57) year history. Only one went to trial, and it resulted in a hung jury. A conviction imposes on the prosecution a proof burden nearly unique in the law: that the member attended a meeting at which a violation occurred, and did so knowing that the violation was occurring, and intending that the public be deprived of information it is entitled to by law."

That's exactly what happened with my case, and therefore I also ask that the SLO County Grand Jury "forward" these "allegations of criminal wrongdoing" to the "County District Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution," as your documents read.

Thank you very much for your time,
Ron

P.S. According to my research, alleged Brown Act violations fall under the jurisdiction of a County Grand Jury.

###

[42 weeks down... 10 to go.]

The SewerWatch "Rally to Erode Public Trust"Part I: Supervisor Gibson's "Mistake"

[Hey, if Stewart can have his "Rally to Restore Sanity," and Colbert can have his "Rally to Keep Fear Alive," I can have my "Rally to Erode Public Trust."]

TO: Bruce Gibson, SLO County Supervisor, District 2
DATE: 10/11/10

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

I'm researching a story, and I just have a couple of quick questions involving one of your comments at the 10/5/10 Supervisors' meeting.

At that meeting, you said that you find it "offensive" when Los Osos residents, during the public comment portion of the meeting, talk about untrustworthy County officials, and then you asked, "Where's the evidence?"

Considering that I've reported on the Los Osos sewer story since 1990, with various newspapers as a reporter and editor, and now on my blog for the past 5-plus years, I actually CAN provide you with evidence -- very specific evidence -- that shows that, indeed, weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding things DO happen when it comes to SLO County officials, and the Los Osos wastewater project.

I have several very, very specific pieces of evidence that shows that, and I'll be getting to the rest of that evidence in future posts, however, for my current story, I'd like to focus on just one piece of evidence: You.

One of my favorite pieces of evidence that shows, clearly, that weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding things happens when it comes to SLO County officials, and the Los Osos wastewater project, comes from you.

It's something you did at the August 7, 2007 Supervisors meeting, and that I first reported on at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/quick-look-at-bruce-gibsons-job.html

You probably remember that 2007 meeting. That was the meeting when the development permit for the Los Osos CSD's former sewer "project" -- the "Tri-W" project, that the LOCSD spent some $25 million and six years (1999 - 2005) developing, yet didn't even come close to making it to the short-list of county-preferred projects -- was set to expire.

The County had the option of requesting an extension for that permit (by simply filling out a little bit of paperwork), or just letting it expire.

Every official associated with that permit was saying, "Just let it expire."

And when I say, every official was saying that, I mean EVERY official: The California Coastal Commission, the Commission's staff, your own public works staff (including Paavo Ogren), AND every other member of the SLO County Board of Supervisors were all one massive chorus, on August 7, 2007, "Just let the Tri-W development permit expire."

However, at that meeting, you were not in that chorus.

Nope.

You free-styled a solo at that meeting. And, thanks to an official Public Records Act request that I did with the County about a year ago, I now have a copy of that solo.

And that free-styled solo is the specific evidence I mention above, that shows that, when it comes to SLO County officials and the Los Osos wastewater project, weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding things clearly happen.

That "solo" is in the form of an unsent letter, drafted by you, and that I've recently, and for the first time, made available for public download at this link:

http://www.slocreek.com/CDP_extension_gibson.pdf

Do you remember that letter?

That's the letter, addressed to California Coastal Commission staff, that you drafted at the 11th hour for the August 7, 2007 meeting, and attempted to get your fellow Supervisors to approve.

That letter countered everything that every official everywhere was saying about the Tri-W permit, and in the strangest way.

In that letter, you write, "... we (the SLO County Board of Supervisors) suggest, however, that the Coastal Commission, of its own accord, defer the (Tri-W) permit's expiration until a final project determination is made..."

So, look at what you're asking there, it's so bizarre:

As I've reported, nearly $8 million and four years worth of careful SLO County analysis has now shown the Tri-W project to be the exact embarrassing disaster that I first reported it to be (six years ago, and something, apparently, that every other official already knew at that August 7 meeting. That's WHY they were all one big chorus).

But with your letter, you were asking your fellow Supervisors to support extending that disaster's permit by, of all things, throwing the entire matter back in the laps of the Coastal Commission -- a Commission (and staff) that, obviously, no longer wanted anything to do with that disastrous permit.

So, I have to ask:

Huh?

That letter makes no sense whatsoever. It's completely inexplicable. And it goes right to the heart of the entire Los Osos sewer controversy.

As I'm sure you remember, not ONE of your fellow Supervisors supported you on that letter (nor even your own public works staff, who was, frankly, blind-sided at that meeting with that letter, like everyone else), and, after much embarrassment for you, you publicly withdrew the letter on the spot, and called the entire incident a "mistake" (that's your own word, Supervisor Gibson, to describe what you did at that meeting), and, in the end, your Board voted 5-0 to let the permit for the Tri-W disaster simply, and wisely, die on the vine -- a permit that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD spent (read: wasted) six years and $25 million acquiring.

So, if you want to see "evidence" that shows that weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding things happen when it comes to SLO County officials and the Los Osos wastewater project, grab a mirror.

The evidence is you. You and that inexplicable letter.

Here's my question (that I already know you will not answer, because I've asked it in the past, and you've never answered it, further eroding public trust, but, if you were to answer it now, I'd really appreciate it):

What inspired you to draft that nonsensical, 11th hour letter? What prompted it?

I mean, are we to believe that you just woke up in the wee hours of the morning on August 7, 2007, and said to yourself, "Hey, I have a great idea! I'm going to pop out, all by myself, without any input from anyone else, a letter for today's meeting, that counters everything every official is saying about the Tri-W permit?"

Yeah... see how that doesn't make sense?

I want to show you a scenario where that letter actually does make sense, and this scenario further erodes public trust -- erosion that you find "offensive."

This scenario involves your current appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, Pandora Nash-Karner.

As I hope you know, Nash-Karner is also the mother of the Tri-W project, when she launched that disaster as vice-president of the LOCSD, beginning in 1999.

Throughout the next six years Nash-Karner, after her days as LOCSD vice-president, actually went on to form official Political Action Committees dedicated to getting her Tri-W project built.

Immediately following the 2005 LOCSD recall election, that finally put a stop to Nash-Karner's Tri-W disaster, Nash-Karner writes in correspondence with officials associated with her project, "Please... is there any way to salvage the (Tri-W) project??????????????????," and, "We MUST save this (Tri-W) project!"

Your current Parks Commissioner also went so far as to actually develop and implement a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" (also her words), solely, and in a desperate effort, to save her Tri-W project.

I first reported on your Parks Commissioner's "strategy" at this link:

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

I first published that story on May 13, 2006.

So, to be clear, and further erode public trust, you appointed Nash-Karner to the Parks Commission AFTER I reported that she develop and then implemented a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence."

I focused on that extremely interesting "sequence" of events at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/sequence-pandora-nash-karner-is-bruce.html

As I've also reported many times, Nash-Karner public endorsed, and financially supported your campaigns in both the 2006 and 2010 elections.

So, Bruce, let me ask you: If you lived in Los Osos, which scenario would seem more probable to you?:

You, Supervisor Gibson, woke up in the wee hours of the morning on August 7, 2007, and, out of the blue, said to yourself, "Hey, I have a great idea! I'm going to pop out, all by myself, without any input from anyone else, a letter for today's meeting, that counters everything every official is saying about the Tri-W permit, and then try to get my fellow Supervisors to approve it."

OR;

That letter was a result of some weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding collusion between you and your Parks Commissioner, in a desperate (and, ultimately, highly embarrassing for you) effort to save your Parks Commissioner's Tri-W project -- a Parks Commissioner that publicly and financially supported your campaigns, and was desperate (for highly suspicious reasons) to save her Tri-W project.

Unlike scenario #1, scenario #2 makes perfect sense.

By the way, "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location (as their preferred location for the sewer plant)," according to the County's Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009.

Finally, you know what else further erodes public trust, Bruce? When you say that you're "offended" by allegations that County officials are untrustworthy, when you do things like your bizarre, nonsensical, embarrassing, public-trust-eroding "mistake" of August 7, 2007.

Now, that's offensive.

Sincerely,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog, of course:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

To read an excellent report on the above-mentioned 10/5/10 Supervisors' meeting, check out Ann Calhoun's great blog, Calhoun's Can(n)ons, at this link:

http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/2010/10/move-along.html

[41 weeks down... 11 to go.]

Sheriff's Candidate, Parkinson, and Endorser, Supervisor Hill, Appear to be on Opposite Pages

TO: Ian Parkinson, Candidate for SLO County Sheriff
DATE: 10/7/10

Dear Mr. Parkinson,

I'm researching a story, and I just have a quick question.

Please allow me to set it up:

On your web site parkinson4sheriff.com, one of your key endorsements is from Supervisor Adam Hill.

"'I am pleased to join with my colleague Frank Mecham in endorsing Ian Parkinson to be our next Sheriff," stated Supervisor Adam Hill.'"

Additionally, according to a Tribune article concerning a recent Sheriff's debate between you and Joe Cortez, it reads:

"Their plans for addressing overcrowding in the woman’s jail: Cortez said alternatives, such as work release and home detention programs, need to be studied. He also suggested county officials work with Santa Barbara on helping expand its proposed new jail to house some of San Luis Obispo County’s inmates. Parkinson said plans for the jail can’t be put off, but inmates should also be exposed to more job skills."

Assuming the Trib's report is accurate (and, yes, I realize that's a RISKY assumption), then I'm a little confused here.

The reason is, if you happened to listen to the Board of Supervisors meeting on 9/21/10, when the Board was discussing the proposed $35 million women's jail expansion, Supervisor Hill seemed very critical of that project, and even said that it appeared to add to an "empire of incarceration" (his words).

So, I guess what I'm doing with this e-mail is giving you a chance to clarify your stance on the women's jail expansion.

Because, if you take that quote from the Trib, "Parkinson said plans for the jail can’t be put off," and compare it with Supervisor Hill's quote of "empire of incarceration," it looks like one of your main endorsements, Supervisor Hill, and you are on completely opposite ends on the $35 million women's jail issue.

So, do you really feel that the $35 million women's jail "can’t be put off," or do you agree with Supervisor Hill, that the project needs revision, and that's why he voted to "put it off" until next February?

Finally, I recently published a piece on my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/single-handedly-terminating-slo-county.html

... that shows that a new State law (SB 959) allows for counties to enact a mandatory home detention program to ease overcrowding in county jails.

In that piece, I show how SLO County is now in the minority of California counties to NOT enact a SB 959 style program.

I also show in my piece how, according to SLO County Sheriff's department numbers, the current women's facility is overcrowded by 30 inmates, on average.

Then I crunched the numbers:

To professionally monitor a "low risk" woman inmate from home costs the county somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 per year, according to official figures.

However, the cost to SLO County, if Supervisors were to go ahead with the current women's jail plans, would be over $75,000/year, per over-the-limit inmate.

In other words, if County Supervisors were to simple adopt a SB 959 style program, and place those 30 (on average) "low risk" women inmates on a mandatory home detention program, instead of building a $35 million expansion, with an additional cost to county taxpayers of nearly $2 million a year to staff and operate the facility, the county would end up saving tens of millions of dollars.

Incidentally, SB 959 was supported by the California State Sheriff's Association.

So, here are my questions:

Do you really disagree with one of your main endorsements -- Supervisor Hill -- on the $35 million (plus nearly $2 million/year to operate) women's jail expansion, or did the Trib get that wrong?

and;

What are your thoughts on SB 959?

Do you support SLO County adopting a mandatory home detention program that would instantly save the County tens of millions of dollars, and immediately end the illegal overcrowding at the current facility, or do you favor spending up to $118,000 per year (when County AND State funds are included), to incarcerate 30 extra "low risk" women inmates at the proposed jail expansion?

Thank you for your time,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog: sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[40 weeks down... 12 to go.]

Mad As Hell, And They're Not Going to Take it Anymore: Los Osos Sewer Protest, Tuesday, October 5, from Noon - 1:00, SLO County Government Center

I'm not sure if this makes sense, but, I have some bad news for the foxes watching the hen house. I think the chickens are about to come home to roost.

E-mails from Los Osos residents are starting to fly around announcing, "a 25-? person protest in front of the BOS from noon until 1," this Tuesday, October 5.

The protest coincides with a Los Osos Sewer Project Update, scheduled for a Board of Supervisors meeting that morning.

And, I've got a bad (read: good, journalistically speaking) feeling about what might happen at that protest.

Here's why:

The way I see it, all AB 2701 -- the State law that handed control of the Los Osos sewer project to the SLO County Board of Supervisors in 2007 -- did, was give the project back to the exact same people that were responsible for creating the Los Osos sewer disaster to begin with, starting in 1998-99.

I mean, think about it.

As I've been reporting forever, in 1998-99, the people directly responsible for killing the county's 1998 "ready to go" project, and, thus, launching a decade-long (and counting) environmental, social, and economical disaster in Los Osos, were then-Los Osos CSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, and the person she hired in 1999 to be her LOCSD interim general manager, Paavo Ogren.

When it comes to the list of people who are responsible for the Los Osos disaster, without question, at the very top of that list are Ogren and Nash-Karner, for killing the county's "ready to go" project in 1999, obviously.

Another important similarity I want to point out between 1999, and today is what I term, "Pandora's Puppets." Those are the past three 2nd District Supervisors, that Nash-Karner all helped, both professionally and financially, get elected.

Former Supervisor Bud Laurent, former Supervisor Shirley Bianchi, and current Supervisor, Bruce Gibson: "Pandora's Puppets."

And they ALL do/did whatever she tells them to do, including appointing her to Parks Commissioner, which they all did/do.

She's been on the SLO County Parks Commission since 1991, after working as Laurent's "campaign materials manager" throughout 1990.

Now, with all of that in mind, fast-forward to today, and look at this situation. It's crazy-great:

Ogren is now the Director of the SLO County Public Works Department, and in charge of the county's Los Osos sewer development process, and Nash-Karner is still a SLO County Parks Commissioner, appointed by her Puppet, Supervisor Bruce Gibson.

So, look at what AB 2701 did:

Los Osos voters were FINALLY able to wrestle control of the project away from the Nash-Karners of the town -- who wanted to build a disastrous, wildly unpopular (for obvious reasons), industrial sewer plant smack-dab in the middle of town (and wasted some $25 million and six years trying) -- when they recalled three of Nash-Karner's followers from the LOCSD Board in 2005.

That election killed the mid-town "Tri-W" disaster, and finally, for the first time since Nash-Karner formed the LOCSD in 1998, someone other than Nash-Karner was calling the sewer shots in town.

However, thanks to Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, and his AB 2701, that arrangement lasted about one year.

In January 2007, AB 2701 -- legislation that was heavily supported by Nash-Karner's followers -- handed control of the project right back into the hands of Ogren, Nash-Karner, and her Puppet.

And, now, after four years and some $8 million of SLO County study later, the situation is almost identical to the way it was in Los Osos from 1999 - 2005, when Nash-Karner and her friends (including Ogren and her Puppets) were calling the shots in Los Osos: An expensive-as-possible sewer system (when there are numerous alternatives that are MUCH more environmentally sensitive), pushed along by taxpayer-funded propaganda disguised as "public surveys," a long list of consultant/friends -- consultant/friends that ALL played a role in creating the Los Osos sewer disaster in 1999 (and then were able to cash fat checks for years to come, because they created the disaster) -- STILL cashing fat checks from their friend, Paavo Ogren, and a governing Board that refuses to listen to public input... because the District's Supervisor is Nash-Karner's Puppet, and her LOCSD Boards did the exact same thing... for six years... until they were all finally either driven from office, or recalled.

The only difference between Nash-Karner's 1999, and 2010, is that her sewer plant won't be built in the middle of town. Other than that? It's the EXACT same thing -- Ogren, Nash-Karner, and their consulting friends cashing checks FAT taxpayer-funded checks... and, oh yeah, her Puppet, of course.

Here's where my "bad feeling" about that protest comes in.

I think it's all about to bubble over. I think that the AB 2701 reality of handing the project back to the exact same people that are responsible for creating the Los Osos disaster in the first place, is about to come home to roost (again, if that makes any sense.).

People are getting pissed, understandably.

In one of those e-mails flying around, it reads, "My e-mail list is bigger... and I think your message (of the Tuesday protest) needs to go out to all of them and then everyone needs to fill their cars w/ friends, neighbors etc. I can fill up my 7 passenger van w/ pissed off neighbor's."

Which means those e-mails, from "pissed off" Los Ososans are going out on more than one e-mail list.

So, with the current Nash-Karner/Ogren/Consultant-friends/Puppet fueled powder-keg environment, it'll be interesting to see what happens this Tuesday, October 5, from Noon - 1:00.

Finally, you know who else should join that protest? ALL SLO County residents.

From the staff report: "Approve a budget adjustment, by 4/5 vote in the amount of $750,000 from the Roads Fund to the Los Osos Sewer Project"

###