What happens to the Los Osos property owners that don't hook-up to the sewer?

[Note: I originally sent the following email to, John Waddell, SLO County government project manager for the Los Osos sewer project, on 2/25/16, and cc'd it to several local media-types. Waddell never replied (again), and the media never asked one question or typed one keystroke involving this extremely important question.]

Hello John,

I'm researching a story, and I was just reading Peter Johnson's interesting article in New Times, at this link:

http://www.newtimesslo.com/news/13476/hooking-up-slo-county-and-department-of-agriculture-offer-sewer-subsidies-to-los-osos-property-owners/

... where he writes:

"Property owners have a cushion of six months to complete the work (of hooking up to the sewer) after receiving the notice."

That gets back to a question that I've been trying to get answered for a few years now, yet, I still don't have an answer, and the question is getting more and more pressing.

Again, my question involves this:

Property owners have a cushion of six months to complete the work (of hooking up to the sewer) after receiving the notice, or else... what?

What happens to the property owners (plural [and there are probably going to be many]) that -- for whatever reason (but, mainly, they can't afford it) -- simply refuse to hook up?

What ultimately happens to those people? Is that "forced out of their homes at gun-point by SLO County Sheriffs" time?

I mean, is there another option?

Again, I've been trying to get this questioned answered for about the past four or five years now, so, please, someone from the county, please answer:

What ultimately happens to the LOPZ property owners that refuse to hook up to the sewer?

As always, much thanks,

Ron

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

"Unpaid" Trib political columnist question, please

Hello Matthew,

I'm researching a story, and I was recently reading your (interesting, and well-done) blog, at this link:

http://hoystory.com/2016/02/expansion-of-the-hoystory-media-empire/

... where you write:

"The local newspaper, the San Luis Obispo Tribune, has 'hired' me as their conservative columnist in an expansion of the Hoystory media empire. Hired in the 'you're doing this for free' sense of the word. I'm normally opposed to working for free because that devalues my work product."

Then, tagged at the end of your Trib columns, at this link, for example:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article67169732.html

... it reads:

"Conservative writer Matthew Hoy is a former reporter, editor and page designer. His column appears in The Tribune every other Sunday, in rotation with liberal columnist Tom Fulks."

Now, about a year and a half ago, I published a story on my blog, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2014/08/san-luis-obispo-county-supervisor-bruce.html

... where I show, using primary sources, of course, how local politicians, like County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, pay Tom Fulks tens of thousands of dollars to be their little "evil genius in the back room" (Gibson's phrase), where Fulks then sneaks around on the Internet (and elsewhere [i.e. The Trib]) and character-assassinates (or at least attempts to character-assassinate) anyone (especially media-types) that is/are critical of Tom's clients.

Now, the editors at the Trib also call Tom an "unpaid freelancer," however, as I show in my piece, he's actually highly paid to do things like write his Trib column -- it is simply part of his "evil genius in the back room" duties. The twist, of course, is that his pay comes from his clients (i.e. local politicians, like Gibson), and not from the Trib, so, in Tom's case, when the Trib's editors refer to him as "unpaid," I always have to point out that that is more accurately described as "'unpaid' [HUGE finger quotes]."

Additionally, if you read through Tom's columns, you'll see that in nearly every column, Tom attempts to character-assassinate his clients' critics... you know, because that's exactly what Tom's clients pay him BIG bucks to do.

However, in your columns, I notice how you do not attempt to character-assassinate everyone/anyone that's critical of the conservative politicians in SLO County, so, I'm assuming that you are NOT being paid by local politicians to do their... uh, "back room" dirty work.

So, that's my question: Are you, like the Trib's other "unpaid" [HUGE finger quotes] local-politics columnist, Tom Fulks, also paid by local politicians to do their "back room" dirty work?

I have a feeling that the answer to that question is, "no," and, if so, then I have another question: Considering that you are "normally opposed to working for free because that devalues (your) work product," do you think it's fair that Fulks actually gets paid BIG bucks for his "unpaid" column, and you don't?

Here's a (cropped) screenshot of one of Gibson's 2014 campaign finance disclosure forms, that shows a "$10,000" payment to "Tom Fulks," for "consulting" [wink, wink], with thousands of dollars of more payments in several other of Gibson's campaign finance disclosure forms:

Thank you,

Ron

P.S: This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again.

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Trib editorial policy question

TO: Stephanie Finucane, Opinion Editor, The Tribune

Hello Stephanie,

Howya been? : -)

Hey, something caught my eye at the bottom of a recent Tom Fulks column, at this link:

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/tom-fulks/article51753295.html

... where it reads:

"The Tribune is seeking an unpaid freelancer to succeed conservative columnist John Peschong, who is running for county supervisor..."

Editorial-policy-wise, I'm a little confused by that statement.

My confusion stems from a story I published a couple years back, on my blog, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2014/08/san-luis-obispo-county-supervisor-bruce.html

... where I show, using primary sources, of course, how local politicians, like Bruce Gibson, pay Tom Fulks tens of thousands of dollars to be their little "evil genius in the back room" (Gibson's phrase), where Fulks then sneaks around on the Internet (and elsewhere [wink, wink]) and character-assassinates (or at least attempts to character-assassinate) anyone (especially media-types) that are critical of Tom's clients.

And that's the source of my confusion. So, do I have this straight: According to the Trib's editorial policy, it's o.k. for a Trib local-politics-opinion columnist (i.e. Tom Fulks) to be highly paid by a county supervisor, for example, to do sneaky, "back room," uh... PR(?) for that politician (including in his Trib column), but not o.k. if a Trib local-politics-opinion columnist is actually trying to become a county supervisor, like former columnist, John Peschong?

Is that right? 'cause, I must admit, it really looks like that's the case, and, IF that's the case (and it really looks like it is), then that editorial policy has me scratching my head. I mean, of the two, wouldn't it be more journalistically honest to have the person that's trying to become a county supervisor be a local-politics-opinion columnist, instead of a sneaky, "evil genius in the back room," highly paid (by a county supervisor), professional spinster?

Sure, it's not the best journalism ethics to have a local candidate for public office also be a local-politics-opinion columnist, but that's WAAAAY better journalism ethics than having a sneaky, "evil genius in the back room," highly paid (by a county supervisor) professional spinster as a local-politics-opinion columnist, isn't it?

So, I guess what I'm looking for here is a journalism ethics lesson. Which one is worse: A local-politics-opinion columnist who's paid tens of thousands of dollars by local politicians to be their little "evil genius in the back room," where the columnist then sneaks around on the Internet (and elsewhere) and character-assassinates (or at least attempts to character-assassinate) anyone (especially media-types) that are critical of his clients, or a local-politics-opinion columnist that's actually running for office?

Apparently, according to the Trib, it's the latter.

Thank you in advance for clearing up my confusion on this issue,

Ron

P.S: This email automatically posted to my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again.

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com