Los Osos sewer/"Photos From the Vault" idea

TO: David Middlecamp, Photographer, The Tribune

Hello David,

I just wanted to quickly tell you that I enjoy your blog, Photos From the Vault, on the Tribune's web site, where you take old photographs of local, SLO County significance, and (re)shine a spotlight on them.

Well, have I got a Photos From the Vault idea for you!

It involves one of your pictures, from January, 1998. I've embedded the photo here, hopefully you can see it:

As you can see, it shows then-County Supervisor, Bud Laurent, sitting next to "the Solution Group's Pandora Nash-Karner and Gary Karner."

The back story to that photo, in the context of 2016, is stunning, and, now that the Los Osos sewer is finally on-line, I think that story would, now, make for a GREAT Photos From the Vault.

If it'll help, I can give a little context:

What the photo shows is then-2nd District County Supervisor, Bud Laurent, sitting next to Los Osos residents, Pandora Nash-Karner, and, her husband, Gary Karner, at a California Coastal Commission meeting, at the Embassy Suites conference room, on January, 16, 1998.

Interestingly, that meeting's agenda is still archived, at this link:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/mtg-198.html

The reason Laurent and the Karners were at that meeting, was because of this agenda item:

- - -

FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1998

3. COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATION.

a.  (Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Project, San Luis Obispo Co.) Application of San Luis Obispo County Engineering Dept. for wastewater treatment system to serve limited areas of the Los Osos and Baywood communities, including collection & pumping system, treatment plant at southeast corner of South Bay Boulevard & Pismo Street, and effluent disposal system 500 ft. south of Highland Drive between extensions of Broderson & Doris Drives, in South Bay Urban area of Estero Planning Area, San Luis Obispo County. (SM-SC) [TO CONTINUE]

- - -

So, the Coastal Commission was going to rule on a "Application of San Luis Obispo County Engineering Dept. for wastewater treatment system to serve limited areas of the Los Osos and Baywood communities..." in 1998, but the Karners' -- he, a landscaper and she, a marketer -- so-called "Solution Group" whipped up their "better, cheaper, faster," "alternative" sewer project, that was known-to-the-Karners to be DOA, but they heavily hyped it anyway throughout 1998 (in fact, that's what all of those "YES! YES! YES!" signs are in the photo, part of Nash-Karner's so-called "behavior based marketing" "strategy" for "YES!" on their fake "project") and the Karners' fake "project" went on to 1) form the Los Osos CSD in November 1998, 2) get Pandora Nash-Karner elected to the initial LOCSD Board, where that Board then immediately killed the county's "ready to go" project in early 1999, where Nash-Karner then, as a now-elected official, hired her husband's firm, The SWA Group, to help "develop" their fake project.

[Note: The reason it reads "[TO CONTINUE]" in the Item above was solely because of the Karners' fake "project." The Coastal Commission did NOT issue the county its permit at that meeting solely to allow more time to compare the county's "ready to go" project, with the Karners' known-to-the-Karners-to-be-DOA fake-"project."]

Then, of course, my New Times cover story, Problems With the Solution, in 2000, chronicled the spectacular (and predicted by numerous water quality experts) failure of the Karners' fake project. That spectacular story is archived at this link:

http://archive.newtimesslo.com/archive/2003-09-11/archives/cov_stories_2000/cov_07062000.html

And, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

... from 2009, I exposed (what I term), "The SWA Group Scam," where I show how the Karners knew that their fake project was never going to work, but they over-the-top-hyped it anyway, and then used it so they could make a lot of money, at a massive expense to SLO County taxpayers, Los Osos taxpayers, and the environment.

In other words, had the Karners simply NOT run their "SWA Group Scam" (starting in late 1997) -- just so they, and a small handful of their friends, could make a lot of money -- the county's "ready to go" project would have likely been up and running sometime in the year 2000, and the past 16 years (at "one million gallons (of water pollution) per day") of (very expensive) Los Osos sewer disaster would have never happened.

A spectacular story, and your excellent photo from 1998 captures its stunning beginning perfectly!

Anyway, thought you would find that photo interesting in the context of 2016, and how it would, today, make for a GREAT Photos From the Vault.

If you have any questions about the spectacular significance involved with your great photo, please just ask.

Thanks,

Ron

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

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Thanks again.

--   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Mail fraud question for story, please

TO: Virginia Chavez Romano, Executive Director, Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, United States Department of Justice

Hello Ms. Romano,

I'm researching a story, and I was reading the FFETF's web site, at this link:

http://www.stopfraud.gov/victims-massmarket.html

... where it states: "Mail fraud is an offense under US law, which refers to any scheme which attempts to unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offense."

Now, as part of my reporting on this story, I have already asked an attorney if the newsletter described in the following scenario constitutes fraud. He told me, "Yes, that is fraud."

Here's the scenario:

A local government agency produces (using public funds) an official newsletter, then mails that newsletter to "every property owner" in their District.

In that newsletter, the agency raves about how (relatively) inexpensive a public works project is that the agency is proposing, and that its development is "on schedule."

However, several years later, subsequent investigation reveals that at the time the government agency produced that newsletter, the "on schedule" project that they rave about in that newsletter had already failed, and the agency's own documents show the agency knew their proposed project had already failed... a full six months before they produced the newsletter.

Additionally -- and here's the kicker --  in order for the "on schedule" project to be funded, a property tax assessment had to be approved by the town's property owners, and included in the newsletter, is this wording, "Yes. For the assessment district to be formed, 50% of the votes must approve the project," and then the newsletter lists the schedule for the assessment election.

Of course, the newsletter accomplishes its sole purpose: It tricked the town's voters into passing the assessment -- an assessment for a fake-project that had already failed, and, frankly, never even existed in the first place.

So, to recap, the town's elected officials used the property owners' public money to produce a newsletter that clearly lied to "every property owner" about the status of a huge public works project, and those lies tricked the property owners into passing a property tax assessment to fund the already-failed, fake-"project" (a fake-"project" that some of the elected officials had a financial stake in, which, it turns out, was the REAL motive to get the assessment passed.)

Additionally -- and here's kicker #2 -- the fraud-based assessment is a 30-year assessment, that will appear on the town's property tax bills ("more than 4,000")... until the year 2033 -- 17 years from now, for a fake project, that will never exist.

A knowingly false newsletter, produced by a government agency, solely to dupe property owners into passing a tax assessment, leads to the passing of the assessment, but the public works project that the assessment was to fund, had already failed at the time of that newsletter, and the government agency that produced the newsletter was fully aware that it had already failed when they produced the newsletter, which means they, 1) deliberately covered up the fact that their non-project had already failed, and, 2) were deliberately lying to their constituents in that newsletter about the true status of their failed non-project.

Again, I asked an attorney if the above-described newsletter constitutes fraud. He told me, "Yes, that is fraud."

So, with all of that in mind, here is my question, today (in 2016), for the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.

Considering that the above-described newsletter, produced by a local government agency, constitutes fraud (according to an attorney) -- a "criminal offense" --  and that newsletter was mailed through the U.S. Postal Service, and, according to your agency's web site, "Mail fraud is an offense under US law, which refers to any scheme which attempts to unlawfully obtain money or valuables in which the postal system is used at any point in the commission of a criminal offense," would the above-described newsletter also constitute "mail fraud?"

In other words, is mailing fraud, also mail fraud?

Just a quick "Yes," or "No," answer is all I'm really looking for here, however, if you would like to elaborate, I'd be very interested in reading your response.

If you have any questions, or need any more details, please just ask.

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