Monday, March 26, 2012

Los Osos Sustainability Group, You're in Luck: I Give You My "Revocation Hearing Lesson"

"The Attorney General's Office is frequently unable to represent or assist individuals regarding non-criminal complaints against state agencies because this office is required by law to represent those agencies in disputes arising out of their actions."
-- The California Attorney General's Office web site

I see that a citizens' group, The Los Osos Sustainability Group, recently filed for something called a "permit revocation hearing," with the California Coastal Commission.

Well, lucky them.

It turns out, I, personally, have excellent experience with, of all things, a permit revocation request with the California Coastal Commission, and the lessons I learned from that experience, that went from 2005 - 2007, are so valuable (not to mention, super-interesting) that I thought I'd now share those lessons with LOSG. Perhaps they can glean some insight on the process, from my experience.

My, personal (just me) and, strangely, very interesting, permit revocation experience involved the development permit for the now-failed Tri-W disaster, that the 2000 - 2005 Los Osos spent (read: wasted) more than five years and some $25 million... uh... developing?.

Here's the lesson my permit revocation experience taught me:

How Coastal Commission Revocation hearings REALLY work

... and this is great.


If you (the person [me], or group [LOSG] requesting the revocation) are right, and your arguments are air-tight (like mine were/are), you DON'T -- repeat: do NOT -- get a hearing, but, eventually, you WILL get the permit revoked.

If you are wrong, and your arguments are NOT air-tight, THAT's when the CCC grants you an official hearing, and that means you've already, automatically, failed.

In other words -- and this is just so funny -- if they grant you a hearing, you're automatically done, because, if they see, in advance that you ARE right, that means they screwed-up by approving a faulty permit in the first place, and you're not going to get a hearing.

See what I mean there? It's a little tricky to wrap the mind around, but it's hilarious, and it makes so much sense, and it's true, because that's exactly what happened to me.

I mean, to even attempt to get a revocation hearing, you have to, waaay in advance, show the CCC staff your arguments, just like LOSG recently did with their "over 10,000 pages," and if your arguments are air-tight (like mine were/are, and which I can produce on one page of super-tight, primary sources), and CCC staff sees, in their offices, that THEY were wrong in recommending the approval to begin with, do you really think that that exact same staff is now going to say, "Whooaa, hold on here. Wait a sec. Uh-oh... These guys are right! We DID f-up. Whadaya say we now schedule a gigantic public hearing, with lots of microphones and cameras, so they can now show everyone, in an extremely public fashion, just how badly we f-d up?"

Ain't... gonna... happen... ever.

So, that's what this piece is, a story of what happens when your revocation request is air-tight, like mine.

My excellent revocation hearing story starts with someone named Steve Monowitz.

Steve WAS the CCC staffer, "permit supervisor," back in 2004, that handled the disastrous Tri-W development permit between the Los Osos CSD and the CCC.

Steve was ALSO the guy that handled the first revocation hearing for another Los Osos group (Los Osos Technical Task Force) involving the Tri-W disaster, and that request, after a ton of time and official back-and-forth, failed, in a public meeting, because it wasn't very good, and the CCC staff could see that, in advance, so they granted the hearing, because CCC staff knew in advance that the request didn't hold water. (Again, see what I mean there? Makes perfect, and funny, sense, right?)

Fast-forward to about June of 2005, and Monowitz now thinks he's completely in the clear with regard to the Tri-W permit. At that point, that permit is tiny in Monowitz's rearview mirror.

And that detail is extremely interesting: From the moment the original revocation request failed, in early 2005, to the moment I ended up on the phone with Monowitz, in about June of 2005, Steve thought that the entire Tri-W permit was waaaay behind him, and had NO IDEA what a complete disaster the Tri-W permit actually was, until I informed him... on the phone... that day, in 2005.

Repeat: I... informed... him.

And, after I told him what REALLY happened with the Tri-W permit, which was basically everything I exposed in one of my New Times cover stories, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown (in 2004), Monowitz KNEW I was right. He got it, right there, on the phone, and, right there, on the phone he realized he f-d up. I could hear it in his voice. He instantly realized that he f-d up by trusting the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD. (HUUUGE mistake, just ask Steve, today.)

I showed him, using nothing but the primary sources I dug up in my reporting, how he was actually lied to by Los Osos CSD officials about the only reason the CCC approved a mid-town sewer plant/"picnic area" in the first place, when District officials, told Steve, and his supervisors, that there was a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that ANY sewer plant for a community-wide system must also include an elaborate public park, and then that "sewer-park" has to be "centrally located" so the town's residents can easily access their "sewer-park," and the ONLY "centrally located" site that could accommodate a sewer plant, was the Tri-W site.

THAT's what LOCSD officials told the Coastal Commission, yet, as I first exposed, that "strongly held community value" -- the ONLY reason why an industrial sewer plant was being built, on ESHA, in the middle of a beautiful California coastal town, in the first place -- was a complete, deliberate, fabricated lie by the LOCSD to the CCC, as I showed Steve, using nothing but primary sources... and he knew I was right.

"It was inappropriate of me to rely on (Solution Group-turned-LOCSD Directors) to determine 'community values' for Los Osos," Monowitz told me, after I showed him how he, and the entire Coastal Commission, was lied to by the 1999 - 2004 LOCSD.

I also showed him that the reason they lied to him was because the Los Osos CSD HAD to cook up SOME reason to keep their second, vastly redesigned sewer plant, in the exact same location as their first proposed project (the DOA, now-failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, that Monowitz also handled), because if that site WASN'T used for a sewer plant -- and this is an extremely important point in the entire history of the the Los Osos sewer wars -- it would have shown that the only reason to form the Los Osos CSD in the first place, in 1998 -- the PURSUIT of the DOA, now-failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, also AT the Tri-W site, and which ALSO killed the County's then-"ready-to-go" project (another over-the-top important/interesting point) -- had failed, and the people behind the formation of the LOCSD just couldn't let that happen (think about it, it's very powerful motivation), so they cooked up that "strongly held community value" lie, and sold it, hard, to the Coastal Commission over a disastrous four year span... and it worked!

I also showed Steve, in 2005, almost a year after he recommended approval of the Tri-W disaster -- a recommendation based solely on that "strongly held community value" lie -- all of the primary-source documentation that I dug up, that showed that if anyone knew that that "strongly held community value" DIDN'T exist in Los Osos, it was the exact same LOCSD officials telling him that it did.

And Steve knew I was right, on all of it, because I could show him the primary-source documents, and he, like I, could just see it. It was obvious. Caught 'em. Done.

He could now see that he was lied to by the LOCSD about the only reason why the Coastal Commission approved an industrial sewer plant, with an elaborate $6 million "picnic area" built into it, sitting on ESHA, smack-dab in the middle of a beautiful California coastal town.

THAT's what I showed Steve.

He could now see that, in reality, there was no documentable reason whatsoever to build a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos... on ESHA.

A quote from Monowitz, from those phone calls in 2005, that haunts me to this day, is, after he realized I was right, and that he was lied to, I could actually hear him sigh in frustration over the phone, and then he (painfully) said, "Where were you during the permitting process?"

Great question.

I mean, my arguments DID exist at the time of the permitting process, but the problem was, unbelievably, NO ONE, not one person (other than me), knew that there was no REAL reason whatsoever to build the sewer plant in the middle of town. (And when I write, "unbelievably," there, that's about as literal of a meaning of that word as I've ever used: TRULY, unbelievable, that the ONLY person (let alone reporter) that saw the Tri-W disaster for exactly what it was, was me. Unbelievable, but that's exactly what happened... and to this day, that dynamic plays into this story, in a big way, because, now, interestingly, ALL of those people that were relentlessly fighting for years to get the Tri-W plant out of town during the permitting process, failed to see the ONE argument that would win their case: mine.


So look at that weird scenario that exists to this day, it's also great: Even the people that fought to kill the Tri-W disaster, from about 2001 to... well, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, in September 2004, can't really get on board with my reporting, because it's kind of embarrassing for them, as well.

What my timeline/time-stamped stories show, is that, for years, everyone that fought so hard to kill the Tri-W project, failed to see the one, simple argument that would have stopped it in its tracks, in, what? 2001?

So, THAT's the amazing context of what Steve was talking about, when, in a highly pained voice, he asked me, "Where were you during the permitting process?"

Steve could now see, from just two quick phone conversations with me, that ALL of that -- the entire previous four years of dealing with the Tri-W disaster, and the over-the-top sneaky Los Osos CSD (that Monowitz, for the previous year, believed was deep in his rearview mirror) -- ... was... for... absolutely... nothing.

ALL of the meetings (including the 2005 revocation hearing).

ALL of the correspondence.

ALL of the (massive stack) of official documents.

ALL of the wasted public time and public money.

ALL of the continued water pollution.


ALL of it... for... absolutely... nothing.

A lie.

So, yeah, Steve's question is a valid one: Where was I, with my excellent, air-tight arguments, during the four years of the permitting process for the Tri-W disaster?

That's when I explained to him, "Steve, I am not an activist. I'm a journalist looking for a good story," and TRUST ME, a tiny, local governmental agency, tricking the California Coastal Commission into approving a mid-town sewer plant/"picnic area," sited on environmentally sensitive habitat, by lying to the Commission about a "strongly held community value" to actually "picnic" in said "community's" sewer plant, and then how all of that led directly to a now-ten-year-and-counting, over-the-top disastrous, public works train wreck, is a GREAT story.

[Note: That's another super-interesting fact that I just can't get over, to this day. It leaves me shaking my head: Look what EVERYONE, but me, missed: The "strongly held community value" to actually want to "picnic" in a "centrally located" sewer plant.

I mean, huh?!

Had anyone -- Monowitz, LOTTF, the local Sierra Club, the worse-than-nothing local media -- had done the ONE thing that I did, and simply say, "Uh, guys? Ya know what? This "strongly held community value" to want to "picnic" in a "centrally located" sewer plant, sounds kind of weird. So, what's the source of this so-called "strongly held community value?," the Tri-W disaster would have died on the spot, right then and there.

I actually pressed Monowitz into admitting that he did not have a source to back that up, and, he knew I was right, there is none... not a shred of "substantial," documentable, evidence that shows that "community value," anywhere, of course, (but, A LOT of evidence that shows the exact opposite was/is true, of course, and that District officials were keenly aware of at the time they were telling the CCC "strongly held community value.")

So, yep, that's what blows me away, to this day: Not only was I the only person to ask the question, it was THIS question: "What's the source of this so-called 'strongly held community value' to 'picnic' in a sewer plant?"

And the moment I asked that question, and there was no official answer to it, that was that. Right there, the Tri-W "project" died, when I was researching Three Blocks, in 2004.

Had anyone asked that question -- anyone... THAT question -- in the previous four years before I asked it, the Tri-W disaster would have never happened, and, even worse, I wouldn't have landed this excellent story.

Unbelievable, but true.]

Back to the Revocation Hearing Lesson

A few months after my conversations with Monowitz, I stumbled onto the official language for what it takes to get a revocation hearing:

"Any person who did not have the opportunity to fully participate in the original permit proceeding by reason of the permit applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information or failure to provide adequate public notice as specified in Section 13105 may request revocation of a permit ...".

Well, I already knew, through my reporting, that's exactly -- and I mean exactly -- what happened with the Tri-W permit-- "the applicant's intentional inclusion of inaccurate information" -- and so, as a responsible citizen (let alone reporter), I couldn't just sit there, with all I knew, and do nothing, and just sit back and watch a sewer plant get built in the middle of Los Osos, when I (and, apparently, I, alone... well, and [now] Steve... o.k., considering this was AFTER Three Blocks, there could have been more, but, remember, the peole that SHOULD have been on my side, all took a HUGE swing-and-a-miss, so now my story is very embarrassing for them, so they, also, have to pretend it doesn't exist [which is a very interesting little twist in all of this]) knew it was being built there for absolutely no reason whatsoever, other than a lie.

So I contacted Steve and told him that I wanted a revocation hearing, for the exact reasons that I discussed with him a few months earlier... where he KNEW I was already right.

And that's when he told me, "If anyone deserves a revocation hearing, it's you," referring to LOTTF's 2005 embarrassment, and knowing how tight my arguments are/were in relation.

And that's when Steve and I struck that weird, little arrangement, that I first wrote about at this link:

Our arrangement went like this:

Considering it's now 2006, and the final LOCSD Directors that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster were finally kicked out of office, of course, through a successful recall election, in September, 2005, the Tri-W permit was in limbo. No one had any idea what was going to happen. Would the project eventually go forward, or would it die out?

So Steve and I struck a deal.

I agreed to hold off on my revocation hearing request (I mean, why go through that huge process if the permit may not even be used in the future anyway, was our rationale), and Steve agreed that if the Tri-W project ever got the green light again, I would THEN get my revocation hearing.

So, look at that amazing dynamic. It's pretty much the entire point of this piece:

In 2006, Steve now knows (through me, and my reporting) that my arguments for revoking the disastrous Tri-W permit are air-tight, and what it shows is a bombshell: The LOCSD lied to the Coastal Commission about the only reason to build a sewer plant in the middle of a beautiful California coastal community, and the CCC, and its staff, including Steve, all failed to do their homework, and therefore went on to approve a nonsensical "sewer-park" disaster, and then that approval would go on to waste millions and millions of public dollars (including millions in SLO County, and California public money), and waste now-ten-years-and-counting of time, and all of that time, the water pollution continues (present tense) in Los Osos. (That's true too: To this day, the continued water pollution in Los Osos is due DIRECTLY to that "community value" lie, starting in 2001.)

And, very importantly, had the LOCSD not cooked up that "community value" lie, starting in 2000, the project would have simply reverted BACK to the county's "ready to go" project, that the LOCSD killed in March of 1999 -- that would have been the only logical thing to do -- and the entire formation of the LOCSD itself would have been for absolutely nothing, which is the exact case today, and will always be that way.

THAT's what my revocation hearing was going to show... in front of the entire Coastal Commission... and its staff... right to their faces.

Put yourself in their shoes. Would YOU grant me a hearing under those circumstances? Where I show up, and publicly embarrass you, by showing, in great, primary-source-detail, how you fell asleep on your jobs, and approved a "mid-town" on "ESHA" "sewer plant/picnic area" disaster, and you already know, in advance, that's exactly what's going to happen?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And that's exactly why I never got that hearing.

See? I was right, and they knew I was right, therefore, it stands to reason (in a humorous, yet, logical way), that there's NO WAY I was EVER going to get a hearing to explain exactly WHY I was right.

However, here's the great ending to my experience: I DID eventually win.

Fast-forward to 2007, and SLO County officials now have control over the Los Osos sewer project, AND the Tri-W "project" is STILL being considered by SLO County officials (because, as it also stands to reason, they were being forced [all behind-the-scenes like] to consider it by the exact same people that were responsible for wasting all of that time and money on it [think about those behind-the-scenes moments, we can only imagine the panic]), but then, something very interesting happened.

It turns out, the Tri-W permit had an expiration date, something, surprisingly, I wasn't aware of until the subject came up at a SLO County Supervisors' meeting in 2007.

So look at what's happening there, in 2007, it's great: Steve Monowitz is STILL the CCC staff guy for the sewer project, but THIS time around he's working with SLO County officials, namely, public works director, Paavo Ogren.

So, here's Steve, in 2007, and he still KNOWS I'm right -- by then, he'd known that for about two years -- that the disastrous Tri-W permit is based on one thing, and one thing only -- a lie -- and now that permit is about to expire, when all it would take to extend its shelf-life would be for Ogren to file a tiny bit of paperwork to extend the expiration date.

Now, keep in mind, that permit cost the 1999-2005 Los Osos CSD about $25 million to get, over a disastrous six year span, and the only thing the county had to do to keep it alive in 2007, was fill out one simple form, yet, Monowitz recommended that they not even do that, and just let the disaster quietly expire, and Ogren, and the Supervisors, all agreed, and the Tri-W permit was officially "revoked."

I'm left to my imagination what Monowitz must have said to Ogren during their private conversations involving the expiration of the Tri-W permit:

"Uh, Paav, I'll be blunt: It turns out that Ron's right, and if you choose to pursue that disaster, he's going to get a revocation hearing, that I've already promised him, and that hearing is going to blow that disaster out of the water, in spectacular, and highly embarrassing to both of us (the CCC and SLO County), fashion. So, for the love of god, please just let it die quietly on the vine, and don't even fill out the extension paperwork, because, as Ron already knows, that permit's already dead."

Which is exactly what happened. Paavo didn't fill out the simple form, and the permit quietly died.

In other words, THAT was my revocation hearing -- the quiet expiration of the disastrous Tri-W permit, at that 2007 Supervisors meeting -- which is too bad, because the Power Point presentation I had locked-and-loaded for my REAL revocation hearing, was going to be dazzling. (Tell ya the truth, I'm kinda bummed I was deprived of that life-moment. It would have been like the ending of The Natural.)

So, LOSG, there's my Coastal Commission Permit Revocation lesson:

If your arguments are air-tight, like mine were/are, the staff of the CCC will see, in advance, that they screwed up, big time, and they WON'T grant you a hearing, but they will maneuver around, behind-the-scenes, to make their mistakes go away as quietly as possible, and you end up winning (in a weird, unsatisfying way) that way, just like I did.

If your arguments are NOT air-tight, like LOTTF's in 2005, Commission staff sees that in advance, and THAT's when the Commission grants you a hearing, and then they show you, publicly, how you failed, which means, if they grant you a hearing, you've automatically failed, so why even do the hearing? You're just getting set up to fail, publicly.

Of course, shortly after the Tri-W permit just quietly died on the vine, in 2007, Monowitz "left" the Coastal Commission, and is now a county planner in the Bay Area.

Finally, and, also of course, to date, there's yet to be one shred of accountability for the Los Osos CSD lying to the Coastal Commission about the Tri-W disaster, a lie that would go on to cost the State of California millions upon millions of dollars, and add another 10-years-and-counting of water pollution to the State's waters.

And one deposition -- one simple, quick deposition -- of Steve Monowitz, asking him about how the Los Osos CSD lied to him about the Tri-W "project," and everything involved with that to-date-covered-up, statewide disaster, would ALL come out.

One deposition of Steve Monowitz, is all it would take to make that happen, even to today (considering how relevant all of this still is).

However, as I always report these days, it's actually illegal in this case for the State Attorney General's office to conduct that one deposition, because Monowitz was a client of the State Attorney General's office back in 2005 - 07, which makes Kamala Harris' current client, the California Coastal Commission, AND its current executive director, Charles Lester, STILL on the hook for not only the Tri-W disaster, but the resulting massive delay in implementing a reality-based sewer project in Los Osos, a delay directly attributable to the Tri-W disaster, and a delay that continues to this day, more than 10 years after the Los Osos CSD first tricked Monowitz with their deliberately fake "strongly held community value."

Unbelievable... but true.



  • Wow, interesting article with many things I never know before about our 'quazi-judicial' CCC body that both investigates & adjudicates its own cases.

    Not only will the investigation & adjudication be determined by the same rather gullible folk that caused the problem, neither are they all elected nor accountable to Californians.

    However, there may be some hope in the fact that the Public Resources Code section 3065(a) provides & allows for internally generated appeals upon the concurrence of at least two commissioners. I guess this is intended to check the commissions power.

    It is a known and well documented fact that some CC Commissioners pre-sign forms of acceptance of appeals of development decisions. This practice, that was apparently acceptable to Czar Peter Douglas, lead the Commission to sorta shop for Commissioners sympathetic to land use restrictions and also resulted in increased power to the staff.

    Considering how serious we take even the appearance of unfairness and the presumption of honesty & integrity in those serving as adjudicators, surely there are at least two out of the twelve that have a conscience.

    By Blogger FOGSWAMP, at 10:32 AM, March 28, 2012  

  • "Steve was ALSO the guy that handled the first revocation hearing for another Los Osos group (Los Osos Technical Task Force) involving the Tri-W disaster…"

    Your link is not to a revocation hearing, but to an uncertified transcript of the a hearing on an APPEAL of the CDP, held Wednesday, August 11, 2004. The appellants were trying to get the project CHANGED from what the BOS had approved.

    Agenda for the 4-15-04 hearing:

    See the staff report for the 4-15-04 hearing:

    April 15, 2004, the CCC determined that an APPEAL raised a substantial issue, so he CCC took jurisdiction over the permit and a De Novo hearing was held in August.

    See this staff report for the hearing 8-11-04:
    (You provided the transcript of this hearing:

    The REVOCATION hearing came months later to try to STOP the project:

    First the Burke, Williams & Sorenson letter from 2005:

    The agenda for 4-14-05:

    Then, the staff report for the hearing on 4-14-05:
    (Excerpt below)
    Filed: 02/14/05
    Staff: SM-SC
    Staff Report: 04/01/05
    Hearing Date: 04/14/05

    "CCLO and LOTTF are requesting that Coastal Development
    Request.........................Permit A-3-SLO-03-113 be revoked on the basis that the LOCSD and the State and Regional Water Quality Boards intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous or incomplete information to the Commission regarding: the environmental and financial urgency of the project; the true cost, extent, and impact of the project; and, community sentiments regarding the project. Additional contentions include a failure to comply with noticing requirements, circumventions of public process, and other procedural deficiencies."


    You can view the meeting here:
    See Part5.

    One wonders what other inaccuracies lie herein......

    (I can't document the conversation that I had with Steve Monowitz as I ran into him unexpectedly several years ago and didn't have a tape recorder, but your representation of his opinions on Tri-W are not what I heard then.)

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 10:03 AM, March 29, 2012  

  • 'toons writes:

    "The REVOCATION hearing came months later to try to STOP the project:

    First the Burke, Williams & Sorenson letter from 2005:

    Wow, how embarrassing is that for Burke, Williams & Sorenson?

    That was AFTER Three Blocks.

    Had they just taken a copy of my story, and plopped it on the Commissioners' desks, and said, "I rest my case," they would have instantly won, and the recall election, the ripping up of the Tri-W site, the millions of dollars of public money needlessly pounded into the ground, the CDOs... ALL of it, from early 2005 to today, would have never happened.

    That's why, whenever it gets to this point in the story, I always write that BWS should give LOTTF their money back.

    My argument -- the ONE argument that would have instantly won it for their clients -- they didn't even see, and it was sitting right in front of their faces.

    Ouch! That's terrible.

    Ya know, if my book's about anything, it's about journalism, and look how interesting of a case study this is:

    Of course, the people responsible for the Tri-W disaster HAVE to pretend I don't exist.

    And, also of course, the worse-than-nothing local media ALSO have to pretend I don't exist.

    But, just like I write in my piece, even the people that SHOULD have been on my side, like CCLO and LOTTF, ALSO have to pretend I don't exist, because my reporting is SO embarrassing for them.

    Is it wonder that my story has received zero traction? A "Journalism 601" lesson.

    Although, the BIG difference between the 2004 appeal, and the 2005 revocation attempt, is that the appeal was BEFORE Three Blocks, and the revocation attempt was AFTER.

    I mean, here these people were, year after year after year, fighting and fighting and fighting to kill the Tri-W project, and they ALL failed to see the one simple argument that eventually did it: mine.

    That is SO embarrassing to Burke, Williams & Sorenson, I don't even know what to say, except, they should pick up a newspaper every now and then, and, oh yeah, give LOTTF their money back.


    "...but your representation of (Monowitz's) opinions on Tri-W are not what I heard then"

    Uh, again, Earth to 'toons: It was HIS recommendation that Ogren not even fill out the tiny bit of paperwork needed to extend the Tri-W permit.

    Did you hear that?

    If I could only get that quick, simple deposition of Monowitz under my belt, THEN it'd be recorded... under oath. It's too bad that it's illegal for Kamala's office to conduct that deposition, that would show a ginormous waste of California's time and money.

    'toons, tell your friend, Pandora, that she's also "in luck." She has the California constitution on her side -- that actually makes it illegal for Kamala to depose Steve.

    Trust me, that's GREAT news for Pandora, and Gordon, and Stan, and...

    Fog writes:

    "... surely there are at least two out of the twelve that have a conscience."

    I'm not going to take that bet.

    The amount of litigation that would result from that one, simple deposition with Monowitz, would be through the roof.

    I can already think of 45 property owners in Los Osos, that would be first in line.

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:13 AM, March 29, 2012  

  • As always, your comment Ron is really all about you.

    Monowitz's advice to Ogren was simply based on the REALITY that the County was not even going to look at Tri-W because of the rancor involved. I believe it was called "social infeasibility." So of course that was his advice. The County would ONLY pursue a different project, IT COULDN'T EVEN DO TRI-W, AS IT IS NOT A WATER PURVEYOR - remember those harvest wells?

    And you are welcome for correcting your mis-information, or didn't you read that part?

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 11:50 AM, March 29, 2012  

  • Well... It wasn't "Engineering in-feasibility". I spent a lot of time trying to get the CSDs to do appropriate flood water control on the un-graded and unfinished-"The Midtown site" AKA "The Site that used to be called Tri-W".

    The CSDs rightly claimed snail surveys etc... But they coulda done more..Shoulda. Perhaps I should had spent the time at the CCC instead of on George Milanes. Then the County finally finished the Palisades drainage project, (disguised as a stop light for a one horse town). The pipe was re-planned then placed, the one I predicted to the County two years prior would bring "Waters with great force". Julie was pretty much the only other person vocal on this, and later Linde with other similar, but different issues, but by then it was too late.
    Because in the great flood of 2010- The whole thing washed out. Exactly in the spots and manner, I predicted. Or was it winter 2011? It was so... soooo long ago....

    "Social infeasibility"-Double speak for "Julie won't let us". (kidding)
    not even "Political infeasibility".

    Actually Survey said-"If you want to get on with it, and like this location, you'd better choose another, cause this one has a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-ot of history".
    Speaking of a LOTTF history, and as for the time when it could had made a difference; Sounds like CCLO didn’t click, and LOTTF dropped the ball, big-big time.
    Back to spinning the old records of Midtown…
    For about a thousand years that upper corner of the lot was a level (?) something, Coastal Chaparral. About 3 clicks on the dial, lesser than the classification of the area 500 yards north and Baywards. Then a human activity related both to upcoming project deadlines and an upcoming election happened. And it became a Level “0” construction yard. Then silence……….uninterrupted except by the squawks of gulls and the occasional commotion carried over by Al’s altercations in the parking lot of the South Bay Community Center.
    The plants returned to the veldt, the non-native grasses in predominant succession. Then a band of local Snails shouldered through the gaps in the fence and repopulated the churned serpentine sands and alkaline clays. There the Snails grew and prospered, drinking thirstily at the base of the thoughtfully provided fog catching fence, undisturbed except by local dog walkers using the area again as a De novo Dog park for their dogs to De facto onto.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 9:26 AM, March 30, 2012  

  • 'toons writes:

    "And you are welcome for correcting your mis-information..."


    "One wonders what other inaccuracies lie herein..."

    Uh, 'toons', you DO realize that you simply caught a typo, right?

    That's one of those "red flags of a cover up" things that the people, that are exposed by investigative journalism, always do.

    It happens to Michael Moore all the time: "Hey, I caught you! You wrote 'there,' when it should have read 'their,' therefore, everything you've ever reported on, ever, is wrong, and will always be wrong, and I'll repeat that over and over and over again, forever."

    A red flag of a cover up.


    Endlessly repeating:

    "You're living in the past. It's time to move on."

    BIG red flag.

    and, of course;

    "That's your opinion." (That one always cracks me up, too... "It's your OPINION that that document contains that quote. [A quote that I copy-and-pasted directly from the document -- THAT's "my opinion."]

    And, of course, the old stand-by: Endlessly repeating carefully crafted slogans, that aren't even true. I-friggin-E: "Anti-sewer obstructionist," to describe anyone that doesn't want a sewer plant built in the middle of their beautiful coastal town for no documentable reason whatsoever.

    Ah, behavior based marketing at its finest.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:23 AM, April 06, 2012  

  • Ron, c'mon, who do you think that you are fooling? A typo switching De Novo and revocation is not analogous to "there" and "their!" Your article is on revocation hearings, not appeals and De Novo hearings! You mention revocation and link us to an appeal! Why not simply admit the mistake?

    What then was the deal with a pond in the middle of town? 80% or something voted to put the treatment there. That was the vote that created the CSD - to have the treatment pond mid-town, instead of the County's Pismo site! You are basically calling Pandora all-powerful and the citizens idiots to assert she convinced them what to do.

    And there is no public Monowitz quote, just you claiming "that's what he said."

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:19 AM, April 07, 2012  

  • 'toon writes:

    "You are basically calling Pandora all-powerful and the citizens idiots to assert she convinced them what to do.

    Is that a GREAT story, or what?

    "Hello all,

    It's time to launch a serious letter writing campaign to the local media.
    Attached is a lengthy list of ideas for letters to the editor. 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.

    LENGTH: Please keep your letters as close to 100 words as possible.

    Just use the ideas as CONCEPTS to write your own original letter.

    We need to repetitiously communicate a simple message: A VOTE FOR THE FUTURE OF LOS OSOS IS A NO VOTE ON C, D & E, AND A NO VOTE ON MEASURE B. (Please do not use the word initiative).

    Send your original letters by email to:

    Bill Morem
    Tony Prado
    Neil Farrell
    New Times News

    Questions? Please call me.

    Thank you!


    -- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005, in a mass email to her followers

    See 'toons? She TREATS them/you like idiots.

    How's that taste?

    'toons writes:

    "And there is no public Monowitz quote, just you claiming "that's what he said."

    Well, that's what he said, and it makes perfect sense. (I mean, did I miss something? Is there a "sewer-park" in the middle of Los Osos right now? ['toons, could you run down to the middle of Los Osos real quick, and take a peek, and lemme know what you see.])

    But don't worry, 'toons. I've come up with a great idea on how to get that deposition from Monowitz. It'll be great. Then you can stop whining.

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:50 AM, April 07, 2012  

  • Ron, if your above quote makes Pandora into Svengali and Los Osians into idiots in your world, good for you!

    I am eagerly awaiting the Monowitz deposition that is verifiable. Bring it on!

    What will be in the middle of town is restored ESHA with a wood fence around it and a few trails. A park as it were.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 2:07 PM, April 07, 2012  

  • 'toon writes:

    "What will be in the middle of town is restored ESHA with a wood fence around it and a few trails. A park as it were."

    A park as it were? That the entire community (read: Cabrillo Estates) can use, but is only funded by part of the community?

    Hmmmm... Times like these, always remind me of that Barenaked Ladies song, "Everything Old is New Again".

    From my Sept. 2, 200-f-ing-5 post:

    ... where I quote a Trib story on how Judge Hilton ruled, "that the city of Morro Bay can't single out one subdivision to pay for a public park," because, "Some Cloisters residents said forcing them alone to maintain the park is both illegal and unfair because everyone can use it."

    Judge Hilton agreed with that argument.

    Which, of course, prompted the following email from me to Paavo, just last week:

    - - -

    I understand that, as part of the Tri-W restoration, there's going to be public walking trails, with signage, and other amenities, and all of that will be funded solely by the Prohibition Zone property owners.

    Here's my question: What's the difference between what Judge Hilton ruled in Morro Bay -- where "residents said forcing them alone to maintain the park is both illegal and unfair because everyone can use it," and the Tri-W restoration, that will include a public area, that "everyone can use," yet, will be funded and maintained by just a portion of Los Osos?

    Is there any, and, if not, is the County concerned that a PZ property owner might argue the same case as "some Cloisters residents" did back in 2005?

    And, if they are successful, just like the Cloisters property owners, what would happen with the restoration?

    Would the non-PZ property owners also be assessed for the new park?



    - - -

    Of course, he never replied.

    Boy, it's too bad I'm not an "anti sewer obstructionist," because I'd make a GREAT one.

    Whadaya say we start a pool on when that lawsuit -- that will halt the entire sewer development process in its tracks -- comes down the pipe?

    I say... oh, before July.

    [Uh, anti sewer obstructionists? Do I have to do everything for you?]

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:54 AM, April 09, 2012  

  • Ron, the restoration is a condition imposed by the Coastal Commission. Please note their word, "restoration." You misheard Paavo. Signage is not included. There are no amenities, just a plain fence to keep vehicles out. It will be as it was, only planted with natives, not eucalyptus.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 7:17 PM, April 09, 2012  

  • 'toonsy writes:

    "There are no amenities, just a plain fence to keep vehicles out. It will be as it was, only planted with natives, not eucalyptus."

    Soooo, in other words (and I can't believe I'm about to say this), but you're right: It's a public "park as it were."

    A, what?, nearly $1 million (plus O&M) public "park" ("as it were"), funded entirely by the PZ property owners, that Cabrillo Estates property owners get to use at absolutely no cost to them.

    Judge Hilton says that's no bueno, and he's right.

    There's already legal precedence in this county -- right across the bay from Los Osos -- that says that that arrangement is "unfair and illegal," and the reason it says that, is BECAUSE that arrangement is, clearly, unfair and illegal, as we're all about to find that out...again, before July, I'm betting.

    'toonsy also writes:

    "Ron, the restoration is a condition imposed by the Coastal Commission. Please note their word, "restoration.""

    And that's exactly why that lawsuit will 1) Win, and 2) Instantly stop the project in its tracks, because it will now be in violation of its development permit.

    I'm tellin ya, if I was an "anti-sewer obstructionist," I would dominate.

    Of course, if I was an "anti-sewer obstructionist," this entire mess would have wrapped up back in 2000, right after my New Times cover story that showed "better, cheaper, faster" going down the toilet, because I would have made damn sure that the logical thing happened back then: Just turn back to the County's "ready to go" project from the 1990's, at about $70.00/month (that then-LOCSD director, Pandora, killed in March of 1999, just so she could pursue her DOA "better, cheaper, faster" disaster).

    If I WAS an "anti-sewer obstructionist," that's exactly what would have happened, in 2000, and, for the past decade-plus, there would be a community-wide sewer system in Los Osos, with a treatment plant out on the edge of town, at about $70.00/month.

    THAT's is what would be the case, IF I was an "anti-sewer obstructionist."

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:01 AM, April 10, 2012  

  • Ronnie, they are restoring a piece of land to the condition that the Coastal Commission wants, one with native plants. It never was a park because the old project didn't get built. People walked through there so I am told when it was just a piece of property owned by the Tri-W group of owners. PZers and Cabrillo-ites and visiting Martians alike used it. People walked through there sans the owners permission, I'll bet. Bikers have been using the bottom part now. A trail through it to encourage people to not trample the plants is the likely goal.

    You are not an attorney and neither am I, so we will just have to wait and see, won't we? But there is a long string of FAILED lawsuits regarding a sewer in Los Osos.

    Quick question - do you ever write a response that doesn't include a plug for some ancient article that you wrote years ago?

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:13 PM, April 10, 2012  

  • 'tooncie writes:

    "Quick question - do you ever write a response that doesn't include a plug for some ancient article that you wrote years ago?

    Ah, hell no.

    I mean, I have, time-stamped, a 12-year-old New Times cover story, that shows I was 100-percent right... 12 years ago!

    And then I have ANOTHER, time-stamped, 8-year-old New Times cover story, that ALSO shows I was 100-percent right.

    So, uh, yeah, I'm pretty much gonna link to those bad boyz at every chance I get. SOOOO fun!

    'tooncie also writes:

    "But there is a long string of FAILED lawsuits regarding a sewer in Los Osos."

    That's because none of those lawsuits came from me.

    By the way, my take is based on Judge Hilton's take, so, again, yeah, we WILL "see."

    Now, here's my question to you: Do I EVER get the last word in my own comments section...ever?

    By Blogger Ron, at 2:42 PM, April 10, 2012  

  • Yes, a couple of times you do, but I am certainly not the last word person except maybe once or twice. It is your blog Ron, you are in control of having the last word if you so choose. You have allowed many to do that for you.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:22 PM, April 11, 2012  

  • 'toons writes:

    "It is your blog Ron, you are in control of having the last word if you so choose. You have allowed many to do that for you."

    The reason I "allow" that, is because you guys won't stop.

    Hey, toons'? Since I already know that you're going to reply to anything I post, didja hear Linde Owen at the last Supes meeting? Already grumbling about how she's going to have to pay for the mid-town public "park," "as it were," and the property owners outside of the PZ aren't?

    A red flag warning, already up the staff.

    And, as long as I'm here, a little thinking out loud:

    How is it, that four SLO County Supervisors (I'm not counting Bruce, because I already know he doesn't care)... but how do the OTHER four Supervisors sit there, and listen to a citizen tell them, to their faces, that it's not fair that she, and her neighbors, have to pay for a $1 million public trails area in the middle of their town, while her OTHER, wealthier neighbors, up in Cabrillo Estates, in that exact same town, don't have to pay a cent for that same $1 million public trails area, and those four Supervisors don't say a fucking word about that "unfair" arrangement, and just allow it to happen?

    Well, as a 5th District resident, that voted for Jim Patterson last time, I just have one thing to say about that: Debbie Arnold for Supervisor!

    You know who I'd like to interview? The property owner that's at the far north-eastern part of the PZ -- you know, somewhere near the corner of the Elfin Forest -- and ask them how they feel about their tax money going towards a $1 million public trails area in the middle of Los Osos, a section of town that they probably rarely drive through (unless they're going to Montaña de Oro, or something), yet the Los Osos residents up in Cabrillo Estates, that drive right by that $1 million public trails area, every single day, won't have to pay a cent for it.

    That would be a fun interview.

    By Blogger Ron, at 3:00 PM, April 11, 2012  

  • Aw, c'mon Ron, you like keeping the conversation going!

    As for Linde - yes I did see her on the Supes, but don't think that between last week and this week she passed the bar or anything. Her pronouncement will mean as much as her wanting to stop the current project to go STEP. In other words, zip. The other 4 Supes don't seem inclined to have any sympathy for STEP or suing the Coastal Commission, but if you think Debbie Arnold will, go vote for her. But of course you don't really have a dog in this poop-fest and neither does she.

    I will repeat myself as to the trails: They are there to keep the public off the newly planted ESHA. Fencing it with chain link is bad for the wildlife (remember your pal Joey and the posed carcass?), so we are getting an open wood fence, enough to keep the cars out. Except for the outta control drunks of course, should there be any.

    If you don't like that Cabrillo was excluded from the sewer, go take it up with the Water Board - oh wait, it is 25+ years too late and we have PZLDF still fruitlessly plugging away at that!

    As for your interview with the property owner, just make sure that they aren't a hiker first, OK?

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 5:27 PM, April 11, 2012  

  • 'toons:

    "I will repeat myself as to the trails: They are there to keep the public off the newly planted ESHA.

    Exactly. And now, I repeat myself: A $1 million public trails area, funded by part of Los Osos, that all of Los Osos gets to us, or, as Judge Hilton calls that arrangement: No bueno.


    "But of course you don't really have a dog in this poop-fest..."

    Just my story. I need a better ending to my book.

    And, speaking of my book, this thread brings up a VERY interesting, yet dangling, question.

    Above, I write:

    "Of course, if I was an "anti-sewer obstructionist," this entire mess would have wrapped up back in 2000, right after my New Times cover story that showed "better, cheaper, faster" going down the toilet, because I would have made damn sure that the logical thing happened back then: Just turn back to the County's "ready to go" project from the 1990's, at about $70.00/month (that then-LOCSD director, Pandora, killed in March of 1999, just so she could pursue her DOA "better, cheaper, faster" disaster)."

    'toons, do me a favor, ask your friend, Richard LeGros, why he didn't do exactly that.

    Why didn't Richard-"I was against the CSD formation"-LeGros, the moment my New Times cover story, Problems with the Solution, hit the streets in mid-2000, that showed "better, cheaper, faster" going down a toilet, immediately start showing up at CSD meetings, demanding -- absolutely demanding -- that the project simply turn back to the County's "ready to go" project?

    I mean, after all, he DID write:

    "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

    So where was he in 2000, the moment after my story was published?

    In the summer of 2000, Richard LeGros and I were on the exact same page.

    So what happened? Why didn't Richard take my story into a CSD meeting, plop it in front of then-LOCSD Director, Pandora Nash-Karner, and scream, "Go back to the County's plan, NOW!"

    Instead, he sits on his hands, does nothing, then, a few years later, he actually gets elected to the CSD, and HELPS waste $25 million and some six years on a now miserably-failed, mid-town, "sewer-park" disaster -- a disaster that is solely responsible for the delays today.

    Had Richard simply plopped my New Times cover story in front of then-LOCSD Director, Pandora Nash-Karner, and screamed, "Go back to the County's plan, NOW!," in 2000, you guys would have a 10-year-old sewer project, TODAY, at about $70/month, but he didn't do that, which makes him as much as an "anti-sewer obstructionist" as Pandora, and that's REEEEELLY saying something.

    Ohhhhh, Riiiickyyyyy? Answer?

    [And if the anonymous blog commentor, with the ridiculous handle of "Sewertoons," answers that question FOR Richard, I'm just going to assume that he's part of the Sewertoons committee.)

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:03 AM, April 12, 2012  

  • Ron, there is no "Sewertoons Committee," so let's clear that one up right away. You might note that my real name is attached to my moniker.

    As to Tri-W and your claim of park over my claim of restoration, let me repeat myself, "You are not an attorney and neither am I, so we will just have to wait and see, won't we?"

    Ron, the reason NO ONE went back to the County's project was because 80% of the community was against it as evidenced by the CSD formation vote. Really, with all of your "history" knowledge you should not be asking that question. You sure don't say after the recall's "Lisa" sewer flopped that we should have demanded we go back to Tri-W do you, and that was only HALF the town against that, not 80%!

    You keep ignoring that people were OK with a sewage pond IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN!

    Sorry, but your new hypothesis has just gone down the toilet as it were.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 11:13 AM, April 12, 2012  

  • 'toons writes:

    "... my real name is attached to my moniker."

    Well, if you say so... whoever you are.

    'toonsie writes:

    "... the reason NO ONE went back to the County's project was because 80% of the community was against it as evidenced by the CSD formation vote."

    Shout out to Richard LeGros: Yo, Rick, are you aware that an anonymous blog commentor is posting on my blog, that you thought it would be a better idea, following the (predicted) failure of Pandora's "better, cheaper, faster" disaster in 2000, to throw $25 million and the next five years at a 200/month, mid-town, (now miserably failed) "sewer-park," instead of simply going BACK to the County's "ready to go," $70/month-project, because you were afraid at what the community might think about you doing that?

    Uh, Richard? An anonymous blog commentor is putting those words in your mouth, on SewerWatch.

    Are you good with that take?

    'toons' writes:

    "You keep ignoring that people were OK with a sewage pond IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN!"

    And you keep ignoring Pandora's heavily hyped, 1998 promise of "drop dead gorgeous," "no odors," "at a maximum monthly payment of $38.75."

    TRUST ME, no heavily-hyped "maximum monthly payment of $38.75," no "80% of the community" for the "CSD formation vote."

    TRRRUUUUSSST me on that one.

    And, of course, as I always like to show at this point in my story, at the same time Pandora was saturating Los Osos with "drop dead gorgeous," "no odors," "at a maximum monthly payment of $38.75," throughout 1998, she already knew that her "sewage pond IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN" was already "blown out of the water."

    Gawd, I love her. The stones on that girl. Impressive.

    Thanks for the opportunity to reset all of that, "'toons."

    And, you're right. I am enjoying this conversation, especially if it answers that hole in my book: Why didn't Richard scream at LOCSD Director, Pandora, in 2000, "COUNTY PLAN, NOW!"?

    According to 'toons? Because he's afraid of Pandora.

    Uh, Rick? Aaaaahahahahah!

    By Blogger Ron, at 2:59 PM, April 12, 2012  

  • Ronster, I have put no words in Richard's mouth. This is a shameless ploy to get him to blog! Richard knows who I am even if you don't.

    Did you not read my explanation why no one was going back to the County plan?

    Your timing was way off as to when Richard was running for Director - 2002! County plan long dead.

    Can you ever stop being self referential? I still maintain that your obsession with Pandora is bizarro. How you stretch so absurdly far to string things together is amusing though.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 12:32 AM, April 13, 2012  

  • "Did you not read my explanation why no one was going back to the County plan?"

    Yeah, I sure did.

    But, when the project that 87-percent of the community was tricked into voting for -- Pandora's, DOA, "better, cheaper, faster" disaster -- failed, as predicted, and almost immediately after I first exposed it was going to, the ONLY logical option left at the time, was the County's "ready to go" project, at about $70/month, that was just sitting there, "ready to go," on the CSD's shelf.

    'toons, since you're all conflicted on the Los Osos sewer, and you don't even know it, and since I already know that I'll never get the final word on any of my own blog comments, which means you'll be back here soon to answer this, let me ask YOU the same question I asked Richard... that you then answered for him:

    'toons, considering you are SO pro-community-wide-sewer for Los Osos, that you, actually post things like, "Hooray, the sewer is coming!," on every blog comment section you can find, what would YOU have done back in 2000, the moment after my New Times cover story, hit the streets, that showed "better, cheaper, faster" going down a toilet.

    Would YOU have started showing up at CSD meetings, and screaming at then-LOCSD Director, Pandora, to simply dust off the County's "ready to go" project for Los Osos, at about $70/month, and that had ALREADY received approval from County Supervisors, but was appealed (by Pandora) to the Coastal Commission, and that the Commission was just itching to ALSO approve (but didn't, SOLELY because of Pandora's "better, cheaper, faster" disaster)?

    I mean, after all, then-CSD Director, Pandora, officially killed the County's "ready to go" project in March of 1999, and my New Times cover story was published in July of 2000, so, we're only talking about one year removed, was the County's project, at the time of Problems With the Solution.

    So, uh, 'toonsie, what would YOU have done there, had you lived in Los Osos at the time?

    Would YOU have screamed at Pandora, in 2000, "COUNTY PLAN, NOW!," OR, would you have done what YOU say Richard did: Just sit on your hands, be afraid of Pandora, do nothing to get the County's "ready to go" project back on track, and then support wasting the next six years, and $25 million on a now-miserably-failed downtown "sewer-park," that never even came close to working?

    Which path would YOU have supported there, 'toons, in 2000, with the "87-percent" "project" now in the toilet.

    Which path, 'toons?

    See 'toons? You're as conflicted as Richard on this.

    Both you and Richard -- both, "Hooray, the sewer is coming!" types -- SHOULD love me for exposing "better, cheaper, faster" going down a toilet, in 2000, because it set the stage for what SHOULD have happened, simply go back to the County's "ready to go" project. But you both despise me for doing that, and that makes no sense whatsoever.

    So, would you have wanted a community-wide sewer, starting in 2000, at about $70/month, or would you just rather hate on me, for no discernable reason whatsoever, other than my excellent journalism.

    Talk about "bizzaro."

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:04 AM, April 16, 2012  

  • Ron, you seem to be saying that people in Los Osos were so stupid in 1999 that they couldn't figure out that a pond was going to be in the middle of town when they voted. You seem to be saying that people even liked the county's project. You, who have never lived here, seem to think that there wasn't fertile ground for Pandora's idea to take root. Pandora may have been the marketing person, but there were other people involved with this project which I'm sure you already know, but you act like those other long-time residents' influence meant nothing and that Pandora was the only force that got this plan going.

    Was there naïveté involved in all of this? Sure, there was, but people also wanted to have local control. There was a lot of suspicion about the County and its motives built up through years of neglect. I have friends that lived here back then who really mistrusted the county because every time they asked the question about the county's sewer project they got a different answer. They also didn't like the chlorine gas being stored near the middle school.

    I don't know why you think I'm "conflicted" on the Los Osos sewer situation. I come from LA and have always lived with gravity sewers, so I really can't predict how I would've felt about Pandora's project in 2000. Context is everything. Your hypothesis seems to indicate that I would've fallen under Pandora's spell as did the 87% and been thrilled with a pond in the middle of town using Step/Steg. But it's possible that I would have voted against forming the CSD just on the basis of Step/Steg alone, I really don't know. Having lived now with a septic tank in a town of septic tanks for 7 years, I would now (and did) vote against tanks. It's possible that I would have talked (not screamed!) at a CSD meeting about going back to the county's plan. One thing I am SURE about however is that I LIKED the Tri–W plan with the treatment in the middle of town because I think it was just really technologically very cool. That is what I CAN be sure about, because in MOVING here in 2005 that was the project that was going at the time, so obviously I was fine with that.

    You are mistaken Ron, that the plan did not come close to working; we would be flushing and forgetting right now if it hadn't been for the illegal Measure B. There are sewer plants in the middle of town in many places. I have visited the Tillman Water Reclamation plant in Van Nuys more than once and found it to be completely inoffensive and very interesting. I went to a concert there. That plant is, by the way, in the middle of a larger park. But they do use the reclaimed water in its water features as does the nearly Lake Balboa for its water.

    Richard wasn't active in the CSD doings back in 2000, I don't understand why you think he was afraid of Pandora, or why you feel the need to make that up. Richard won the election in November of 2002, and was seated on the board January 2003. That is 3 years later. A better question for you and a fair one might be, where was Julie, where was Lisa, in 2000? Why weren't they asking to go back to the county's out-of-town plan if location/cost was the issue, were they "afraid of Pandora?" Why are you singling out Richard?

    (Don't you think that it is ironic that the very plan Julie and Lisa wanted to do was Step/Steg with a pond? It was clear that there wasn't enough room in town to do a pond, but they wanted that same pond out-of-town! Do you then find them to be infected with Pandora's enthusiasm for Step/Steg with a pond?)

    Ron, you are mistaken, I certainly don't "hate on you!" I may think you obsessive about Pandora, and rather crazy on that topic, but that isn't hate! And regarding that last word, I am certainly not the only person who has gotten the last word on your blog postings! Many others have gotten the last word, I went back and looked.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 5:19 PM, April 16, 2012  

  • 'toons writes:

    "You, who have never lived here, seem to think that there wasn't fertile ground for Pandora's idea to take root."

    Nope. I don't "seem to think that."

    I SHOW that -- how the RWQCB told both of the Karners that their "idea" flat-out wasn't going to work, and the RWQCB told them that in January of 1998, then I show how the Karners, in 2005, actually confess that they knew their "idea" was "blown out of the water" in January 1998, and then I SHOW, how they kept that information to themselves, of course, and then, for the reast of that year, leading up to the CSD election, over-the-top hyped their DOA idea to the, yes, "stupid" people of Los Osos. (Oooooo, lookeeee, Los Osos, looookeeee... little shiny things, you stupid f-ks.)

    Boy, I'm tellin' ya, it's a good thing that Pandora ALSO has both the Sheriff's office and the SLO County DA's office in her back pocket, because nothing screams fraud, as much as that sequence of events:

    Pandora, throughout 1998, over-the-top hypes her "better, cheaper, faster" disaster to the stupid people of Los Osos, and the ENTIRE time -- the entire year of 1998 -- she already knows it's "blown out of the water," as she now confesses to, then, of course, she uses her "little shiny thing" to get herself elected, and, then, also, of course, her husband's SWA Group's name immediately starts showing up on officials LOCSD documents, with his wife, Pandora, as the vice-president.


    So, yeah, it's a REEEELLY good thing for her, that she's on a first name basis with recently retired Undersheriff, Martin Basti and, SLO County DA, Gerald Shea, AND that the State AG's office web site reads:

    "The Attorney General's Office is frequently unable to represent or assist individuals regarding non-criminal complaints against state agencies because this office is required by law to represent those agencies in disputes arising out of their actions."

    ... because, if any of that wasn't the case, she, and her husband, would be in prison right now.

    'toons writes:

    "I may think you obsessive about Pandora..."

    Well, she IS the central character in my book, which reminds me...

    MEMO TO HOLLYWOOD: I present you with a Hollywood rarity -- A CHOICE lead role for an older actress. The role of Pandora Nash-Karner, from my book: The "without conscience" crazy lady, that started popping "behavior based marketing" out of her Mac Plus, starting in 1990, and then, 20 years later, utter disaster.

    A microcosm of everything that's wrong in the world -- that great Bill Maher quote, "“The true Axis of Evil in America is the genius of our marketing combined with the stupidity of our people."

    That goes straight to the heart of my entire story. (And, "thank you" to Ann Calhoun, for digging up that great quote. It's perfect. That'll be the opening quote at the start of the movie.)

    It'll be a period piece, starting in 1990, with a Mac Plus! (How cool is that?)

    I have Kathy Bates in mind for the role, but Helen Mirren would also be excellent.

    A choice, meaty, fun role, for an older actress. A Hollywood rarity. (I already smell an Oscar nod.)

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:00 AM, April 17, 2012  

  • Well, it is certainly enlightening to see how you really feel about the residents of Los Osos, "yes, 'stupid' people of Los Osos." But you only mean this in a nice way because they just didn't heed your written warnings, right?

    The problem with your writing Ron, aside from not answering questions asked, is that you recycle the same material over and over but it never expands to show the whole picture. Obsession isn't always a good thing, and thanks for proving my point on Pandora with your last post.

    Smelling that Oscar nod like you once smelled that Pulitzer?

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:18 AM, April 18, 2012  

  • 'toons writes:

    "Smelling that Oscar nod like you once smelled that Pulitzer?"

    Once smelled? You make it seem like that's past tense.

    I haven't written about it yet, but my Pulitzer story is excellent. Ya know, the Pulitzer Board actually accepted my entry last year, which made me -- little ol' me -- one of the first, if not THE first, "non-print" "online-only" media outlet to be officially considered for a Pulitzer Prize. I didn't win, but I DID make Pulitzer history. How cool is that?!

    The City of Bell story won in my category (investigative journalism), but, as I like to point out, and as the Pulitzer committee also knows (now... and still knows), my story is about a bazillion times better than the City of Bell story (just the public funds waste alone is WAAAAAY more in my story, than what happened in Bell), but what killed my chances, is that then-AG, Jerry Brown, was able to bring indictments in the Bell case, and it's actually illegal for the AG to do that in my story.

    Had the City of Bell scandal involved State agencies, like my story does, it would have been illegal for Jerry to get those indictments, because, as I show, "by law," "this office is required by law to represent those (State) agencies in disputes arising out of their actions," and, trust me, the LA Times wouldn't have won that Pulitzer, because, just like my story, even though the LA Times was able to show the corruption, there wouldn't have been a shred of accountability for it, and that would have doomed their chances at that Pulitzer. (Uh, Journalism 701 lesson: When it comes to investigative journalism, The Pulitzer Prize selection committee wants to see blood.)

    And without some sort of accountability -- the tiniest friggin' drop -- the Pulitzer Board isn't going to give me my Prize, so (and this is REALLY bad news for the Karners [and Richard, and Gordon, and Stan, and...]) that's what I'm doing these days: For me to win my Pulitzer (and I'm pretty sure the Pulitzer folks already know I will win it, because they are now familiar with my story [heck, I'm practically on a first-name-basis with their administrative staff these days]... I just need some accountability, and that'll also be the excellent ending to the movie) there needs to be some accountability for the Karners running their massive fraud scam on The People of California. THEN I'll win.

    But the problem I'm running into is, not only is it illegal for California's current AG, Kamala Harris, to seek accountability for what the Karners did to The People of California, but SLO County government is SOOOO corrupt, and the worse-than-nothing local media is SOOOOO worse-than-nothing, that my effort to simply get a shred of accountability for the hundreds of millions of dollars that the Karners' scams have cost The People of California over the past 12 years-and-counting, along with the decade-plus of added water pollution that they are directly responsible for, is surprisingly difficult, yet, strangely, kinda fun to report on, and super-fascinating, and is making for a GREAT section in my book.

    I mean, I show how it's actually ILLEGAL for the AG to get accountability for a 12-year-and-counting, $100-plus million fraud on The People of California, and that arrangement, interestingly, makes for an excellent chapter in my book: When it comes to the California Attorney General's priorities on who he/she protects, it's the The State of California FIRST, and The People of California SECOND.

    You don't learn THAT lesson in civics class.

    (Is my book/movie gonna rock, or what?)

    By Blogger Ron, at 10:20 AM, April 18, 2012  

  • No, as it is one-note and missing all the facts that you have chosen to ignore.

    By Blogger Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky, at 1:29 PM, April 18, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home