Taxpayers Watch Needs to Grow Up

Aaron … Wise words!

I just wanna point out that this sword cuts both ways … some of the most vitriolic comments haven’t exactly been from the TW camp.

Hate, no matter the source, is hate and as such, is damaging to our community.

What you said is very true.

I placed an emphasis on Taxpayers Watch because their behavior — or should I say supporters of TW — has prevailed in online form over what has been said by those outside of the TW camp.

I will also be outlining the problems found within PZLDF and their supporters. I personally do not believe one person or group is more vicious or demeaning than another. Everyone has taken their pot shots unnecessarily and unfairly.

Hi Aaron, in future postings I hope you will be a little more inclusive than just PZLDF supporters. I can think of names outside that organization that have been quite rude. Since you have named names in this piece, maybe you will do so in your continuation of this theme. To be fair.

Also, the blogs are read by a pretty rarefied group in my opinion. You might want too take a poll sometime and see how many actually read these blogs. Then you could make your point about “nastiness” on the blogs as being very influential.

TW is trying to get $ back into the coffers of the CSD. To think that this does not benefit the community, is in my opinion, incorrect. You should attend some committee meetings and see what the LACK of reserves has done to us. There are other ways the community can be benefitted from returning money to the CSD, than just returning money to individuals, which would be in my opinion, impossible to do. We have collectively been deprived of things not individually. Like putting off testing fire hydrants and extra training for reserve firefighters as was done in 2007, drilling a new well, which has been simply put off.

I think I have been quite fair in stating MY opinion and those of my neighbors – positions I know to be true.

Maybe you can supply some quotes to back up your assertions?

You could well have made your point by not including names. I’m not sure how naming the three of us has benefitted the community. Perhaps you could explain how this heals divisiveness? I might have missed something.

Lynette,

The local blogs and message boards are read by the people who know about their existence — and not a lot of people know or really care. I understand that and so the comments aren’t “influential.” I didn’t imply that they were. However, there are comments that are mentioned in writing and there’s less room for interpretation there compared to hearsay mentioned at a meeting. I’m sure you agree.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that everyone has played a part in the nastiness and the lack of professional decorum.

I mentioned PZLDF because I am preparing a second part to this article regarding the Superior Court decision. I mentioned PZLDF because of its current relevance. Sure, of course you have a lot of people in that general area of thought who are rude and I’m not going to defend anyone. If they want to defend themselves, they are more than welcome to comment here.

I fully anticipated that people will label me as an apologist for those who oppose TW because of the article, but that simply is not the case.

I can’t imagine how the lawsuit would distribute the damages. I know of the intent to get the money back into the CSD coffers, but how is that going to happen specifically given that there will also be court costs and legal fees that need to be paid off (unless the court rules to include that in the damages if TW is the victor).

In that equation, where does the taxpayer benefit? You and others have stated that the money would be pumped back into the CSD, but how and how would the taxpayer, how would I benefit from it? If the buck were to stop with the CSD, you’re assuming that the CSD is going to utilize that money in a way that the majority of taxpayers will be satisfied with. I don’t like assumptions much.

You said, “I think I have been quite fair in stating MY opinion and those of my neighbors – positions I know to be true.”

Maybe you know that your positions are true, but is it just true to you and your neighbors or is it a fact that is universally acknowledged? I think that’s going into dangerous territory because you’re talking about the “I” factor. “I know this to be true.” That’s an opinion, not a fact, not a representation of other people’s opinions.

My comment is an opinion, my blog is mainly opinionated based on observations and I’m perfectly comfortable with saying that it is. I’m not a representative of my neighbor or any group unless they feel compelled to appoint me as a representative.

According to the 2006 CSD elections, Lynette, you lost. That is a matter of fact. The community did not elect you.

#

As far as the name drops go, I didn’t mention those names with the intent of healing the community. I mentioned those names because those are the names of people who have blogged and incorporated that Aryan-authoritative mindset online on both Calhoun’s Cannon and SanLuisObispo.com discussion boards. Those people are relevant to the discussion. They weren’t used as strawmen for insults.

If you feel offended that I brought up your name, you should also realize that you put yourself out there knowing that other people are reading what you’re writing.

When someone isn’t anonymous and they post online, they automatically put themselves up for scrutiny. I know that I put myself up for scrutiny, but I encourage discussion. I’m not afraid of it and I don’t mind if people look at what I’m saying. If you had a blog and wrote about how I’m part of the problem and not part of the solution, that’s completely fine with me.

As long as you open up the door for discourse and initiate talks, that’s when the healing begins. Silence doesn’t heal a thing.

Aaron says, “I placed an emphasis on Taxpayers Watch because their behavior — or should I say supporters of TW — has prevailed in online form over what has been said by those outside of the TW camp.” And, “I mentioned those names because those are the names of people who have blogged and incorporated that Aryan-authoritative mindset online on both Calhoun’s Cannon and SanLuisObispo.com discussion boards.”

Then why did you mention Joyce and Lou? Joyce and Lou have never once blogged, so have never put out anything other than the spoken word at meetings. You made a pretty big ASSUMPTION with the names you used.

Why didn’t you mention online offenders like Howie and Sewertoons is Looneytoons? Their words are off the scale in terms of lacking”professional decorum.” They are outside of the TW camp, but you say nothing about them. Do you see only two “sides” – TW and PZLDF?

Why would you offer that anyone can defend themselves? Joyce and Lou don’t even read this stuff. You are really only speaking to me, apparently. One lone blogger. Big deal. I am not offended, just surprised at your lack of inclusionism for other “unprofessional” bloggers and lack of documentation as to what I said that was so offensive.

Yeah, I lost in 2006, but that did not stop me from participating as it did many other candidates.

You, who do not participate in committee meetings and seldom at CSD meetings, are apparently unaware that the insurance company has picked up the CSD’s tab on the TW case. So all the money spent on that will be returned, ongoing fees will be covered. That is the money I refer to. Nothing can be done about the $100,000/yr to the bankruptcy attorneys. And the PZLDF case? Money lost. I don’t think putting money back into the Fire Reserves or other reserves will offend a lot of people, either, which has been spoken about in Committee.

Not everyone has contributed to the nastiness, and lack of decorum. That is an off-the-wall generalization. If you want us to take you seriously, not just someone with emotional, hazy, and unknowledgeable opinions, try showing us some quotes and facts so we have some basis for trusting what you say is worth paying attention to.

Joyce Albright posted as “CrapKiller” (not to be confused with “4CrapKiller,” who you said was Jon Arcuni) and “Masuganah” on SanLuisObispo.com Discussion Boards. She can confirm these accounts.

As far as mentioning Lou, he’s your husband, correct? You live in the same house, correct? I seriously doubt that he’s completely unaware that you blog given the frequency of your blogging and I seriously doubt that he plays absolutely no part in your blogging given the fact that he’s highly opinionated.

I don’t know if he uses the Sewertoons account or not, but I can see that at times, your posts demonstrate a tag-team effort. Some of your posts are much more articulate and crafted than others.

You mentioned “Howie” and “Sewertoons is Looneytunes,” and I don’t know much about this Howie character but “Looneytunes” was unquestionably out of line. I’ve always condemned vulgar, misogynist hate speech, but it appears that you’re saying that I conveniently left them out of the discussion and focused on you instead. I just don’t feel the need to dignify their existence by replying to them or acknowledging their role in the discussion. If their words are morally bankrupt, I see no need to acknowledge them.

Aren’t you making an big assumption yourself that I’m “apparently unaware” that the insurance company has picked up the CSD’s tab? If you read what I wrote again, I was concerned about the specifics as far as how the damages would be distributed to the CSD/taxpayer, not about the CSD taking a direct loss as a result of the TW lawsuit.

When I say “everyone,” I’m talking about the players. I’m talking about the folks who often go to meetings and who are on the frontlines of the Los Osos wastewater issue.

Yes, I’m part of that “everyone” group as well.

I started out lacking decorum. Over the years, I grew to accept differing opinions and learned to play the game the way it was meant to be played. I no longer feel the need to post “emotional, hazy and unknowledgeable opinions” because I am posting based only on what I know and what I feel and I accept the fact that I don’t know a lot about everything. When I made this blog, I committed myself to only posting concrete thoughts and information that I’m comfortable with posting.

This should not be a discussion about nitpicking additional information because it takes away from the points at hand and the discussion becomes a lot more personal than it really should be.

If you want to have a more personal discussion with me, you can e-mail me.

Back to the whole “me” pundit situation. You keep saying that you’re a representative of the community and that you represent the majority.

On November 7, 2006, you got 2,220 votes (12.82%), failing to earn the community representative role as a member of the Los Osos CSD.

Here, I’m not talking about your participation. I’m talking about your presumption of authority, your idea of being a community leader, your idea of being a representative of the majority.

Maria Kelly, Joe Sparks and Marshall Ochylski earned that right to be a representative of the community. You did not. They did not feel the need to shout from the highest mountaintops that they speak for everyone and are knowledgeable about all things, but you do and after observing supporters of Taxpayers Watch speak at meetings over the course of two years, they have been incubating that same attitude and that is unhealthy.

Taxpayers Watch needs to understand that they are not the judge, jury and executioner of Los Osos. The buck does not stop with them.

TW has a long ways to go before they become serious contenders in Los Osos politics given the following issues:

(1) In September 27, 2005, the community voted to recall two Taxpayers Watch figureheads (Richard LeGros and Gordon Hensley) for their conduct on the LOCSD board. It’s been more than three years since the recall election, but there has been no effort to rebrand their image so all that people know about TW is that the people behind TW were recalled and they put a bunch of portable “Honey Huts” toilets all over Los Osos as protest shortly after the recall. That showed a sign of vindictiveness.

(2) Taxpayers Watch has exaggerated the number of members that they actually have. Gordon Hensley had stated that the members of TW are those who signed the LOCSD dissolution petition. Just because you signed the petition doesn’t make you a member. Just because you signed the petition doesn’t mean that the “community” wants an expensive megasewer on Tri-W.

(3) Taxpayers Watch members online and offline have bent over backwards to vilify — and at times even boycott — the opposition even if that opposition happens to be objectively knowledgeable in the Los Osos wastewater issue. TW has outright dismissed scientific insight from those who have been significantly recognized as experts from Dr. Alexander to Dr. Ruehr to Ripley and those who came before them. If TW wants to be a contender, they need to play the role of diplomacy and understanding — not the role of crafting character assassinations anonymously on the Internet, not feeling the need to crudely dismiss others because of disagreements.

And when people say, “Well, TW are not the only ones who contribute to nastiness,” they are absolutely right, but due to the insurgency of Taxpayers Watch opinion online, I felt the need to address the problem. I feel that it’s like the Black Death, a plague that refuses to stop spreading and infecting people.

And you, Lynette, have been spreading that plague whether or not it was your intent to.

Aaron,

Two things …

First, I think it’s a bit of an overstatement to say that the recall was about the behavior of boardmembers. Perhaps this was not your intention, but the recall was primarily over the pro vs anti-TriW issue.

It is also fair to say that some of the extremists on both sides have been dismissive of “science” that doesn’t match up with their individual preconceived biases. Anytime Cleath is brought up there is someone on Ann’s blog who has a hissy fit.

I’m anxiously awaiting your analysis of the PZLDF actions.

All the best…

Hi Aaron,

I’m comfortable with continuing our discussion right here on your blog.

Jon Arcuni was Crapkiller and 4Crapkiller. I know Jon and he told me himself, prior to stating who he was on the blogs. Do you know Jon and have you spoken to him? He might have been Masuganah; before my time. Anyway Crapkiller postings are ancient history now, he’s moved to Panama. I have spoken to Joyce on this topic, have you? I think I know Joyce a bit better than you do. She does not blog and my husband certainly does not blog. He does not use my account. He does not advise me on what to say. Sorry, wrong on all counts there. Ask Joyce and Lou if you do not believe me. You should not accuse me of making assumptions if you do the same thing, right? If my posts are more articulate and crafted, it reflects the amount of time I put into the posting. I appreciate your implied compliment on my alleged tag team posting though. I’m not a Ph.D with many books and published articles to my credit.

Aaron says, “I was concerned about the specifics as far as how the damages would be distributed to the CSD/taxpayer.” Maybe you can innumerate what specific damages you meant and how they are to be distributed.

You criticize my request for facts as nitpicking personal information? What are your first three statements in your last post?

Please point out some statements I’ve made that support your statements about me, ” I’m talking about your presumption of authority, your idea of being a community leader, your idea of being a representative of the majority,” AND “Back to the whole ‘me’ pundit situation. You keep saying that you’re a representative of the community and that you represent the majority,” AND “They did not feel the need to shout from the highest mountaintops that they speak for everyone and are knowledgeable about all things, but you do…” Pick out some quotes and post them here.

Please list who you feel is this powerful TW force online as Joyce and Lou are not involved? Insurgency? Did “we” ever leave? You stated in an earlier post, “The local blogs and message boards are read by the people who know about their existence — and not a lot of people know or really care. I understand that and so the comments aren’t “influential.” Then you turn around with “…due to the insurgency of Taxpayers Watch opinion online, I felt the need to address the problem. I feel that it’s like the Black Death, a plague that refuses to stop spreading and infecting people.” OK, which is your true opinion?

TW has been quite silent these days – what is your point in bringing all this up? I see someone trying to stir the pot rather than offering solutions toward healing. Was that your intent? You only named 3 names for TW, and two are not relevant to blog statements. Actually I think this has to do with something I said earlier on another blog and this whole topic has been brought up to get back at me personally for your offense at what I said.

Lynette,

I’m not going to go into the matter of who’s who on the blog too deeply, but if what you say is true, if Jon Arcuni was also the original CrapKiller, then I find that to be a tad creepy given that he provided Joyce Albright’s personal phone number as contact information. Personally, if I knew someone — say as a friend — who put up my personal contact information on the Internet, I wouldn’t be too happy with that. Maybe that’s just me.

As far as Lou being completely absent from your blogging ventures, I doubt that.

It’s true. While not a lot of people read the blogs, I can see a clear representation of Taxpayers Watch in the comments posted both on Calhoun’s Cannon and SanLuisObispo.com. That sentiment is clear and if you’re asking me to post instances of that sentiment on here, I can’t help but find that laughable.

I’m not here to psychoanalyze you. You need to look at yourself in the mirror. I’m not going to hold that mirror up for you nor should you rely on anyone else to do that for you.

Talking about and dissecting your posting habits takes away from the original topic that I was discussing about.

Let me tell you my intent. My intent is to hold Taxpayers Watch’s feet to the fire, ask that they hold themselves accountable, ask them to have a more humble, inclusive approach to the community, ask them to refrain from vilifying people and focus more on building a consensus.

This is not a “Why I hate Taxpayers Watch” discussion nor is this a discussion about healing the community nor is the discussion solely about you or what you said in some other form on some other site.

You were mentioned because (like so many others) you were courageous enough to put your words out there and stand by them, and that’s what I like about you. You stand your ground, but at the same time, you also put yourself up for scrutiny. While being in spotlight of scrutiny, you’ve conveyed a hostile, dismissive attitude — while saying you speak for the majority of the community — that seems to be a recurring theme amongst supporters of Taxpayers Watch. That’s a very unhealthy perception.

When you showcase this mentality and then get upset with me for not healing the community, I can’t help but laugh at the irony of the situation.

Aaron,

I don’t know if what you say is true or not re: Jon. No use to speculate as to how Joyce reacted this if it is true. Perhaps she gave him the phone number to use. I have no facts here, so I won’t comment.

You are in essence calling me a liar. Lou is COMPLETELY absent from blogging. If you don’t want to believe me, fine. Doubt all you like. Let’s not confuse the issue with facts. Call Lou at Cal Poly. Ask him. Then please report back here what he said.

You say, “I can see a clear representation of Taxpayers Watch in the comments posted both on Calhoun’s Cannon and SanLuisObispo.com. That sentiment is clear and if you’re asking me to post instances of that sentiment on here, I can’t help but find that laughable.”

NO, I wasn’t. I was asking you to quote ME as you had made references as to what I had said.

And IF I was asking you to post instances of “that sentiment,” what would be laughable about it? Wouldn’t the use of examples support your argument? Could people outside of TW also hold the sentiments of which you speak? Does holding that sentiment make them members of TW?

Nothing has been going on with the blogs on SanLuisObispo for ages. Why is it even mentioned here?

Where did I ask you to psychoanalyze me? I was psychoanalyzing YOUR motives for using names! If you did not intend to make this personal, in my opinion, you would have left names off of the post on TW.

TW has been very quiet on the public front, maybe you can innumerate what they have to be accountable for – something recent perhaps? Why do they need to be a “contender?” Why you bring up ancient history is not jiving with your intent – in my opinion. That intent could have been said with “rude extremists of every type and sewer position need to pipe down and build consensus.”

I’ll ask again regarding your statement, “I was concerned about the specifics as far as how the damages would be distributed to the CSD/taxpayer, not about the CSD taking a direct loss as a result of the TW lawsuit.” What did you mean?

Reminder: Please post something that represents “…(me) speak(ing) for the majority of the community.”

Really, I think you have potential, I’m encouraging you to be a better writer here. And other than facing the ravages of age, I’m fine with my mirror.

Lynette,

Let me explain how the online medium works when it comes to blogging as yourself.

You have stated publicly that you’re a supporter/member of Taxpayers Watch. For the past several months, you have posted under the name “Sewertoons” but when people referred to you as Lynette, you didn’t deny it.

Here we have Lynette, someone who clearly represents Taxpayers Watch, posting messages that are now in writing, clearly documented and people apparently have found something wrong with the things that you’re saying, but interestingly enough, your message is similar compared to what others have said in the past (ancient history).

I have reached a boiling point starting from the days of SanLuisObispo.com to now. When I see what is written currently on Calhoun’s Cannon, I’m thinking, “Holy cow, there’s a lot of viciousness,” and when the very same people — who are vicious — also say that they are leaders and speak for their neighbors, their community, it’s insulting because I know those people aren’t representing me. At the same time, I can also see that there seems to be a very problematic view of what a leader is.

I’ll give you an example. Let’s take this person, “Mike.” I don’t know who he is. All I know is that he’s said in the past that he’s a supporter and donator of Taxpayers Watch. I read a comment of his to me. He wrote, “You are NOT an authority of Los Osos” as if he was an authority figure. If he’s an authority figure in Los Osos, then that’s not a good thing for our town.

I’m not insulted by what he said because it’s true. I’m not an authority in Los Osos. I want to help out as much as I can, but you don’t see me tooting my horn as the “authority,” but people who align themselves with Taxpayers Watch feel the need to do that. Their attitude as “leaders” is very inclusive as that sentiment appeals only to their base — not to the community at large.

I see Maria Kelly as a positive role model. She sought the seat on the board aggressively as someone who wanted to help and she was approachable to everyone. She had community-wide events, appealed to the independent voters even though she had closely associated herself with people like Don Bearden, Judith and Joe Sparks, who are highly opinionated and have a sharp tongue themselves. She accepted them and she accepted those with differing views.

Now if Taxpayers Watch followed Maria as an example, then there would be more public support for TW initiatives. That’s when everyone will start sitting side-by-side at meetings.

Aaron, thanks for the tips, but I think I know my way around the blogs. I was outed by someone we both know. OK, I’m fine with that, it’s done. I have been blogging under Sewertoons since 2006. I have and still support TW, but do I “clearly represent them” every time I blog? I don’t know the answer to that. You however, seem to think that I do. Do I need to label myself as such with each post I make or make a disclaimer that I don’t represent them this time? Do I represent no other group I belong to while I blog or must I state with each post that I represent XYZ group and ABC group or no group at all?

How is this TW topic relevant other than to promote name calling? Why do you need to single out TW, or even PZLDF for that matter. What is TW doing NOW that is so divisive? Is holding public officials accountable for alleged misdeeds wrong in your book? Eventually this will end and we will see what comes out of it.

I would, in the interest of unity, urge you not to write bad things about PZLDF. Or at least be fair to both TW and PZLDF and write what you see to be good AND bad points on BOTH. There must be some other groups we can throw in. How about Al – doesn’t he have a group?

Is every group required to appeal to the community at large? PZLDF didn’t. TW didn’t. Can you name a group that does? As much as I disagree with PZLDF and in my opinion see they have caused unnecessary upset in people’s lives, people I know, I still say they have the right to say what they say.

You still refuse to show me the words I have written that you find so divisive. At least you quoted some of Mike’s. (Hopefully correctly.) Why did you wait until now to cite him? Is he an authority figure? I don’t know! He is a blogger on Ann’s site. He either appeals or he doesn’t — on Ann’s site!

I agree, Maria is a great example. To be fair to me though, please point out people I snub at meetings. I am friendly with Bruce, Ben, Piper, Chris, Linde, Gewynne, George, Al (although he occasionally screams at me, I don’t take it personally), so please find some other “examples.” We have agreed apparently to disagree on certain topics and move on to others. In my book, that is a positive. I appreciate their passion, dedication, and think they are all good souls at heart, even if I disagree with them on sewer issues!

What TW initiatives do you foresee? I have not hear of any. I doubt that with this new Board majority — that understands finances — that much, if any, persuasion in ANY direction will be needed. I think we are in good hands, and they will find us a good, new GM.

Lynette,

I didn’t understand the first paragraph. It didn’t make much sense so I’m not going to try to make any more sense out of it.

You’re basically asking, “Why are you going after TW now?” and I believe I have answered that several times in several ways. I’ll be more than happy to explain one more time.

People, who have stated on the blogs that they support Taxpayers Watch, are people who claim to be representatives of the majority (or have similar verbage) yet they’re not especially due to the behavior that they exhibit online. In my opinion, people who call themselves “leaders” are not leaders. Leaders lead, not isolate, not humiliate, not retaliate.

Let me provide another example. Lynette, you wrote about me at 9:05 AM on this page: “You, who do not participate in committee meetings and seldom at CSD meetings…” How do you know? I didn’t know you kept tabs on my levels of participation. Are you now the authority of how much I should participate or how many meetings I should be attending even though many of these meetings run on TV repeatedly AND they’re available on DVD to check out at the library AND they’re readily available at AGP Video?

On Calhoun’s Cannon, there has been a recurring instance of you quizzing and verbally hazing Mark Lowe on numerous things as if you’re the undeniable authority on information that counters his views and his information (ex. “No, it is YOU who does not get it,” 1/27/09 at 7:49 PM). And YOU get it? I don’t get you. You never counter him with data, just tongue.

Even with Ann, you’re pushy and demanding. You feel the need to constantly cast your weight around in hopes that people will deliver the information the way you want it to be delivered, but what gives you that right to be demanding? Is there something you know that nobody else knows — and why haven’t you shared that knowledge with anyone?

Your overusage of the word “obstructionist” highlights divisiveness. Do you honestly feel that people delay progress because they like it? Do you honestly think that all people want to do is filibuster growth for no apparent reason? Do you think that these “obstructionists” are solely to blame for the divisiveness? Do you seriously think that attributing politically derogatory labels stimulates unity and community healing?

It doesn’t.

So when you to come to me and urge me to not write about certain groups and people for the sake of unifying the community, I really cannot take your recommendation seriously especially since you don’t know what I’m about to write. If you’re assuming that I’m going to issue a tirade of insults ad nauseum, further expanding the rift, then you’re making a big assumption about me just as you assume that I rarely participate at meetings.

You don’t know me, Lynette. You may think you know me, but if you want to get to know me better, ask more questions instead of demanding answers. I’ll be more than happy to answer all of your questions.

For any future TW endeavors, if TW were to rebrand themselves as a more inviting, humble organization that did more grassroots taxpayer efforts than just assume that they are the masters of all known knowledge, then I bet you that the community will accept TW more.

Aaron says, “I didn’t understand the first paragraph. It didn’t make much sense so I’m not going to try to make any more sense out of it.”

Then I’ll try again. I have identified myself as a supported of TW. I also support/belong to other groups. Should I need write a tagline with each blog posting that states whether or not I am representing a group or no group with each posting? You seem to assume each posting of mine represents TW.

You yourself have admitted that few read the blogs, so I still ask how is going after TW now relevant to the world outside the blogs where most people live? If it is relevant in here, by all means, go for it.

Who are these people who you claim “call themselves leaders?”

I know you are not at committee meetings because they are attended by about 6 people max. I think I would have noticed you as I sit on the committees. Ditto CSD meetings except for the one or two I did see you at. It is pretty easy to ID all in the room, I know I would have noticed you. As for watching them on TV or checking them out, you may have missed some as you did not seem to know what I was writing about and the topic had come up at a CSD meeting.

Aaron says, “…there has been a recurring instance of you quizzing and verbally hazing Mark Lowe on numerous things as if you’re the undeniable authority on information that counters his views and his information.”You never counter him with data, just tongue.”

ws mark! “Verbally hazing him.” I tell him things that the County has said about getting a project to them and ask Mark why he has not followed the process. I and others have repeatedly asked him to point us to the data to support his product(s) meeting guidelines on what the RWQCB will require of a project for Los Osos (a reasonable request) and he counters with 400 pages of stuff to read and an, “it’s in there.” If he wanted us to find it, he could cite the sections and page numbers. His obfuscation on pertinent information and insults to we the potential customers, have earned him my words. It isn’t my job to supply him with technical information, nor do I proclaim to be an “undeniable authority.” Are you good with how he treats us – especially the ever-polite Shark – on Ann’s blog?

Demanding with Ann. OK, your judgement call, your right.

Aaron says, “Your overusage of the word “obstructionist” highlights divisiveness.” OK – how do you rate yourself of the divisiveness scale with, “…Taxpayers Watch is full of “me” pundits. People like Lynette/Lou Tornatzky and Joyce Albright have only shown expertise in knowledge that only they believe to be true, not the truth.”

“(TW) …just assume that they are the masters of all known knowledge…” A judgement call on your part. Your right. (Phew! ALL known knowledge?)

Then I’ll try again. I have identified myself as a supported of TW. I also support/belong to other groups. Should I need write a tagline with each blog posting that states whether or not I am representing a group or no group with each posting? You seem to assume each posting of mine represents TW.

Not at all, but you’re one out of a few Taxpayers Watch supporters who post on the blog. Also, your views are similar to TW supporters who don’t post on the blog so I can safely conclude that you are showing insight commonly acknowledged by TW. It’s not rocket science.

You yourself have admitted that few read the blogs, so I still ask how is going after TW now relevant to the world outside the blogs where most people live? If it is relevant in here, by all means, go for it.

Good question. It’s beside the point, but I’ll answer it briefly. It’s relevant to the world outside the blogs because I feel the world needs to know where Taxpayers Watch is coming from. I post observations and opinions on my blog and on my blog, I dictate what I feel is relevant.

The bigger question is this: given the way members of Taxpayers Watch behave, given the way that they pompously presume and delegate authority, why should they ever be relevant in Los Osos? Why should they matter?

Just because you have a perfect attendance record at meetings does not make you any more “informed” than me or anyone else. I’m not going to mention the extent of my knowledge because this discussion should not be a contest of who knows more. However, I’d urge you to not assume that I’m lacking in the understanding of topics.

As far as Mark goes, I gave him a link to the blog so he can speak for himself, but as someone who is looking at the comments made objectively between you two, you’re still very demanding and every other thing you say to him dwindles down to a character assassination. If I was Mark, my gut reaction would be, “Why would I want to respond to you? Who are you? What gives you the right to be so vindictive?” and I’d simply post my information elsewhere and not take you all that seriously.

Let’s talk about this “obstructionist” term versus me saying, “Taxpayers Watch is full of ‘me’ pundits.”

To call someone an obstructionist has the same ending syllables as terrorist, communist, socialist etc. (nice little word associations there) and you diminish if not ignore the value of the people’s fight against a megasewer in the middle of town by saying that all they do is obstruct the process of getting a sewer built. In other words, I by calling people “obstructionists” left and right, the usage of that term directly undermines the opinions, knowledge and insight presented by people you disagree with.

Interesting trivia bit: the first letter mentioning the term “obstructionist” — regarding Los Osos community members — in The Tribune was written by Doug Morin, which is someone who has publicly come out as a supporter of Taxpayers Watch. In the same letter as well as other letters posted elsewhere, he also referred to the “obstructionists” as “terrorists” and anarchists. Classy.

I define a “me” pundit as people who claim they specialize in knowledge that only appeals to them, but they only take a kernel of what is actuality. I’m not saying that these “me” pundits are limited to only being “me” pundits. They may know and be experts on all sorts of things, but they specialize in information only they can benefit from.

Lynette,
Please send me the 400 pages you claim I sent/pointed you to.

Your perception is way off the “mark”.

Lynette wrote: I and others have repeatedly asked him to point us to the data to support his product(s) meeting guidelines on what the RWQCB will require of a project for Los Osos (a reasonable request) and he counters with 400 pages of stuff to read and an, “it’s in there.”

The important thing to understand Lynette is that the county seems bent on burying a leaky sewer pipe in the shifting sands of LO/BP in order to transport the wastewater outside the PZ where they intend to build a “secondary quality” effluent that is to be disposed of somehow and ECOfluid’s designs produce tertiary quality water.

Asking for “data to support his(ECOfluid’s) product(s) meeting guidelines on what the RWQCB will require of a project for Los Osos (a reasonable request)” is not a reasonable request in light of the fact that ECOfluid designs are tertiary and MBR which can be built for $7.4/gallon and the county is seeking a premature secondary treatment design capable of being upgraded to tertiary for $20.+/gallon.

Please send me that file you claim I dumped on you without any guidance and I’ll do my best to help you find what you think you are looking for.

Aaron, when other bloggers post views similar to TW views, does that mean they are now "posting as TW," too? Like Shark? He is NOT TW, never been to a meeting, I have never met him in person. If I write on the topic of saltwater intrusion, which another TW member has mentioned in a speech once, is that then also a TW viewpoint?

Why is TW so important? Maybe once this case is settled there will not be a need for TW – then what? A lotta brouhaha over — nothing.

You say, "I'm not going to mention the extent of my knowledge because this discussion should not be a contest of who knows more." Why would it need to be a contest? Wouldn't having knowledge on a topic only enhance the discussion, broaden it? I'm not trying to make it a contest, I just didn't get why you didn't seem to know what I was referring to and explain why I knew about it and you didn't.

Have you looked at ws mark's comments to me –or to Shark, one of the nicest people in the blog world? How can you castigate me and then be silent on ws mark's blog behavior? Maybe you are not quite as even-handed as you like to portray yourself. Please read the postings between the two of them. Shark has never crossed the line, yet ws mark treats him badly.

Environmentalist, pacifist, feminist. Associative ending syllables give a negative connotation? Give me a break! Do a little more research before you head down a path. Also, I am not responsible for what Doug Morem (please note spelling – good lesson for all writers) has concluded years ago. No disrespect to Doug (whom I do not know), but that is HIS OPINION. I do not need to be held to it.

With your penchant for association, next thing I know I'll be an associate of Dwight Eisenhower or Edward Teller's.

Here it is, hot off the web – obstructionism brought to you by the Compact Oxford English Dictionary.
• noun the practice of deliberately blocking or delaying the course of legislative or other procedures. DERIVATIVES obstructionist noun & adjective.

You might try a few definitions for a word before settling on your own. I've got a great website that I use daily for you — http://www.onelook.com.

I see "me" pundits on the anti-Tri-W side, don't you?

As for ws mark, I truly hope he takes your observation to heart, "If I was Mark, my gut reaction would be, "Why would I want to respond to you? Who are you? What gives you the right to be so vindictive?" and I'd simply post my information elsewhere and not take you all that seriously."

Thank you for posting this. I can only hope… Oops, too late.

ws mark, I appreciate the offer, but Shark asked first. Please accommodate his request in place of mine.

Lynette,
Your statement: “ws mark, I appreciate the offer, but Shark asked first. Please accommodate his request in place of mine.” Demonstrates the disingenuous nature of your behavior.

I am still waiting to see the data you and the county used to support leaky sewerage as “best”.

A comparison of gravity with say, E/ONE would be nice. Oh well too late…maybe. Sometimes there is never enough time and money to do things right the first time but there always seems to be enough time and money to do it over until it is right. Time will tell.

Mark,

No offense, but since November, you’ve sent me nearly 500 pages of discussion-related attachments; about 43 megabytes of files (and that is not counting the off topic discussions like commentary about Obama).

‘Toones is on the mark, Mark. When e-mailing me all that documentation, you rarely referred to any specific page or chart as supporting your claims.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the majority of pages you sent were items authored by individuals who, most likely, know nothing about your company and were addressing questions not raised by you or your firm. (Ripley was commenting on Los Osos and his proposed solution, not yours.)

Even more interesting, the items which you sent which do discuss your firm’s product are all of the “flyer” or “memo” variety … not a single report by you or unbiased experts in the bunch.

What should we make of this?

Someone is telling us that he as the best solution. However, he only has self generated handouts to back up his claim … and he doesn’t seem to have a single expert outside his company who can confirm his claims, let alone address questions of how well this particular product would work for Los Osos which needs a stable long-term solution to a serious problem.

Mark, I can respect your goal. I even believe that your method or device might actually help Los Osos. However, hope is not proof and a noble goal doesn’t make insufficient results magically become convincing.

Like I said over in Ann’s blog comment section … if your method really is that good, you might wanna give up on your SLO County/Los Osos goal and focus on getting investors who can provide you and your company the sort of funding you will need to provide the sort of proof necessary to convince other communities down the road.

If your method is as good as you say it is, yes Los Osos will lose because we won’t be able to adopt your superior product. Why? Not because of a stacking of the deck on the part of the County, but because your company hasn’t done their job to allow the County to select your product.

Don’t fuss at us that the County isn’t playing fair when it is you who’ve dropped the ball. Watch the game on Saturday (presumably you are a Kardinal’s fan) and see if players who fumble the ball complain that it was too slippery for them to handle. See if the receivers who miss overthrown balls fuss that it wasn’t fair that their QB didn’t throw the ball to them but the other team’s QB was right on the money.

Business isn’t fair in one way … not all companies have equal resources to bring to any endeavor. On the other hand, it is fair in another way … you all have the same chance to go out and get those necessary resources.

Steve,

Please post the claims you say I make that you claim are not backed up by the paperwork I sent you that you haven’t read.

I did not read any “expert reports” in the county generated memos, did you?

Would you be sogod as to show me an example of an “expert report” that you would like to see?
Preferably from the county’s efforts in support of gravity and oxditch

I did see anything that compared leaky gravity sewerage with low pressure.

The incentive to use a system which costs less to buil dand operate has, so far, not been forthcoming from the county. Why not?

The Cardinals Play the Steelers in Florida on Sunday.

I did NOT see anything that compared leaky gravity sewerage with low pressure.
Can you point it out? Lynette?

Low pressure was knocked down to the lower level of consideration because of the expense/problems of grinder pumps. It will have to be used for around 200 homes in the low lying areas, but to cover the whole town with them was cost-prohibitive.

The expert reports are in the DEIR Appendixes.

Aaron, is Mark’s hijacking of your blog’s topic a surprise to you?

I’m going to be shortening my comments since I’m working on another blog article and I don’t want to take any more time away from that.

Some of your comments go up, over and beyond the topic I was originally talking about in the article. So when you ask me about relevance, I start wondering why your discourse is relevant to the article.

I am not an apologist for anyone else’s behavior. I don’t speak for them, I don’t represent them. I can only hold myself accountable for my own behavior. By my opinion, I am entitled to urge people to take accountability for their own transgressions and you have no right or power to strip that entitlement from me. Having me observe other people’s behavior is a distraction.

You don’t use “obstructionist” under the same connotation as “environmentalist.” I understand the definition, but I hold a higher standard. I will not cast limiting labels — that mostly evoke strong emotions of anger — to define people and what they stand for. You feel the need to mention that word repeatedly and that word — used within the context of defining the “anti-sewer” establishment — undercuts the meaning of having meaningful discourse.

It reminds me when people use racial slurs to protest Obama’s candidacy and presidency. There’s a major tune-out factor there. They outline their prejudice by tossing around hateful slurs and labels and that divisiveness deters people from engaging in a healthy debate.

There’s “me” pundits everywhere, but the article was about Taxpayers Watch and the article did not encourage ignorance nor endorse other people’s selfishness outside of TW or people who have similar ideologies to mine.

You have a ways to go.

Also, before you lecture me on my writing and spellchecking skills, be sure to correct your own corrections. You’re confusing Morem with Tribune columnist Bill Morem. Doug’s last name is actually spelled Morin.

Mark,

I’m not playing your “game”. If you don’t think that you’ve been telling us that your new device is best for Los Osos, fine.

As far as your claim that I haven’t read what you sent … prove it.

The “captcha” word verification is “boloni”.

Prove it? OK I’ll play:

What is the highest total nitrogen reported in the Nitrogen Reduction Memorandum?
What was the location and size of the treatment facility?
What was the date?

What is the average total phosphorus for the 1MGD as reported in the Phosphorus Reduction Memorandum?
How many months were used?

What is the area of a 1MGD USBF Bio Reactor?
How tall is it?
How many aeration basins does it have?
How many anoxic zones?
How many Clarifiers?

How many kWh per million gallons treated does USBF use?

As an aside and for comparison, has any of the information above been provided by the county?
Answer –No.

Lynette wrote: Low pressure was knocked down to the lower level of consideration because of the expense/problems of grinder pumps. It will have to be used for around 200 homes in the low lying areas, but to cover the whole town with them was cost-prohibitive.

Aren’t you referring to the STEP/STAG pumps Lynette? The E/ONE Pumps were never evaluated.

Lynette wrote: The expert reports are in the DEIR Appendixes.

Those reports in the appendix only address what the county evaluated, which did not cover E/ONE or ECOfluid.
Aside from the NWRI 2006 and 2008 I see no “expert reports” just county and consulting engineers who didn’t do a complete study of technology which was presented.

I’ll be happy to reread the one you think supports the comparison of gravity with low pressure E/ONE type(not step/stag) that puts gravity on top, if you would be so good as to “name that report”.

Hi Aaron,

You got me on the Doug/Bill thing! My boo-boo. I was wrong. However, my point still holds (as you say about yourself above), I too can’t be an apologist for anyone else’s letter’s. What he said is what HE said.

I thought we – you and I – were having a discussion that was evolving out of your original posting. You invite ws mark in and he takes off on, “I did NOT see anything that compared leaky gravity sewerage with low pressure. Can you point it out? Lynette?” HUH?

We all observe other people’s behavior daily. It is part of the normal psychology of living in a society. People’s behavior was certainly observed enough for you to compose, “Taxpayers Watch Needs to Grow Up.”

Some questions:
1. Do you see an anti-sewer person as NOT being an obstructionist to cleaning up the dirty Los Osos water? If so, why?

2. How do I attempt to strip the entitlement from you to “…urge people to take accountability for their own transgressions?” I’m a FIRM believer in urging people to take accountability for their own transgressions. The trouble I’ve had is getting people to realize that they have transgressed at all! Even when evidence of such stares them directly in the face they rationalize, change the topic, or deny it. Like the little kid with frosting on his face that denies eating the last piece of cake, “the dog ate it.” People just don’t like to be wrong, I guess it undermines their shaky self-image and threatens them.

3. What do you think the points of the TW lawsuits are about?

TW has always been about trying to get a sewer into Los Osos. If it is not your favorite sewer type – so be it. If you think we don’t need one, getting consensus for that viewpoint will be a tough sell. There will only be ONE sewer put in here and those of us not liking it will just have to settle down and learn to accept it. You know, had you not named names, I would have left this whole topic alone.

Happy writing!

Mark,

It looks like instead of sending me over 400 pages and 43 megabytes of stuff without telling me which document contained what information, you could have at least outlined what questions would have been found where.

As for the County and their obligation and yours … you seem to be suggesting that they have an obligation to provide details to you. You have it backwards, my friend. If you want to convince the County, you’ll have to offer them more than a two page handout that in four sites during the last six years (these are all pretty small plants, aren’t they … how many households are served by those plants?). Maybe if you have records on nitrates from multiple years for each plant it would be more convincing. Sure, these systems are “well understood” and all that (and if that is the case, how is yours special in any way), but maybe some design parameters cause great performance in the first year or two but make the plant more and more difficult to successfully operate over time.

And no, I don’t happen to remember exactly what the numbers which would answer these questions … I’ll have to look it up … okay, here it is … You ask “What is the highest total nitrogen reported in the Nitrogen Reduction Memorandum?
What was the location and size of the treatment facility?
What was the date?”.

The answers … your memo says that at the Mill Bay site (150 cubic meters/day) on September 11, 2007, the TN was 8.5.

Maybe it would also be helpful to know the nitrate levels in the input. After all, if these communities have water use habits which cause their wastewater to already be rather low in nitrates, it should be no surprise that the output from the plant is good.

Do you really know, Mark, that other companies bidding on the job didn’t do a far better job demonstrating that their systems are ideal for Los Osos? Simply put, you don’t.

Last question, Mark … why isn’t the Ripley group here fussing and whining that the the County didn’t like their suggested system? Could it be

Steve,
The county and their consulting engineer eliminated or ignored ECOfluid from the study process early on. That point won’t become dull over time. This is a fact of life, get over it.

Your statements reveal you do not understand treatment design or process.
Of course we can supply daily treatment results and we provide that data upon request from any interested and qualified party.

My question remains unanswered, “Where are the treatment results that support a $25M ox-ditch?”

Thank you for taking the time to review the Nitrogen Reduction Memo.
Congratulations, you answered the Nitrogen Reduction question correctly.

Normal municipal flows or stronger flow into all our installations.

Every design is scalable ours and theirs. Ours is more efficient because all biological treatment is accomplished in a single basin, unlike every other treatment process. Biological process is ageless and designs never wear out. The fewer parts that make up a process the more reliable and less costly that design is to build and operate. We use gravity and hydraulics and an upflow clarifier in a way every other treatment does not. As long as aeration is constant treatment results will be also. Please take a few minutes to read about the process, it is genius.

There isn’t any bidding going on at this time Steve. The county has not issued a Request for Proposal yet. The DEIR comment period has not been closed, yet.
Lastly regarding the Ripley Group, can you prove what they are doing or not doing?

Thank you for playing.

You got me on the Doug/Bill thing! My boo-boo. I was wrong. However, my point still holds (as you say about yourself above), I too can’t be an apologist for anyone else’s letter’s. What he said is what HE said.

I never said that you should be an apologist.

1. It depends on the actions they take. You can be anti-sewer and let septage pollute the groundwater freely (and I don’t know anyone who actually wants that) or you can be “anti-sewer” in a sense that you prefer on-site treatment over a wastewater treatment facility. People may qualify under those two categories, but their methods may vary. Not everyone is an obstructionist by definition.

2. You can be a firm believer in holding people accountable — and by all means, continue to do so — but the way you do it (and the way that other Taxpayers Watch members do it) is that you set yourself on a high pedestal without looking at your own shortcomings, your own weaknesses. Instead, you go to another level and then you attack what you feel is a lack of understanding on their end without enlightening others about how you know what you know. Simply put, it’s that, “You don’t GET it!” attitude.

3. As Richard LeGros stated time and time again, the TW’s lawsuits are aimed at holding the individual CSD board members Cesena, Senet, Tacker and Schicker accountable for the debt that they caused and then taking the damages awarded and putting the money back into the CSD’s coffers.

I get that part. What I don’t get is how exactly is that money going to be flushed back into the reserves and if the district is suppose to get all of the money that was lost. I can still see that court/legal costs will have to be addressed. Unless the judge forces the CSD’s insurance company to pay for the legal costs as special damages, then really, the CSD isn’t getting all of their money back.

Personally, I felt that the timing of filing the lawsuits was in poor taste given that district is still waiting for the dust to settle. Handling the currently problematic budget anomalies on the board should be priority number one. With more litigation hanging overhead, that adds more pressure on the board than is necessary.

Like many others who have voted for Maria and Marshall, I am outraged by that debt accumulated by the previous board incarnation, but at the same time, I feel that all this litigation is bogging down talks and progress.

You know, had you not named names, I would have left this whole topic alone.

Good to know. If that’s the case, I’ll be mentioning more names of those who put themselves up for scrutiny and I’ll look forward to hearing from you more.

Mark,

Do you know why your system was eliminate early on? If not, you should figure it out. Perhaps it was the quality of your presentation package. If you sent them what you sent me, it looks pretty unprofessional. Maybe that is how folks in your area work, but I would think that engineers base their decisions on more than flyers with minimal data and no analysis of the specific need.

As for your “This is a fact of life, get over it” comment, I wonder why you’re still here if that is your attitude? I also wonder why you don’t actually take your own advice and move on to another job and another community who needs a system.

Did you include daily treatment flows in your proposal to the County? If not, this might be why they didn’t move you past the 1st cut.

As for your fancy one-basin does it all system, the fact that you are proposing something different from other systems is most likely why they would want to see more detailed analyses over a longer timeframe than what you’ve provided. Sure, biological processes are ageless, but can also be rather finicky to keep in equilibrium. The more things going on in that one basin, the more likely that something will get out of kilter.

Whether the process is genius or garbage, it is your job to provide materials that would convince the County engineers that your system is best. Presumably you didn’t do that. If you wanna cry about it or cry foul, bring your evidence of foul play. If you don’t have data, you are little more than a random guy with an opinion.

As for Ripley … I don’t see them posting lots-o-comments every day complaining and whining that they were cheated. Do you?

That means that they played by the rules and submitted a solid package to the county and made the first cut or that they did get cut and aren’t whiners or that they didn’t participate at all. Whatever the case, I would hope that you would learn from their example.

I think that we’ll never see eye-to-eye on this issue because you seem to want the County to justify to you each and every decision they make and especially to prove to you that they’ve selected something superior to the product you are selling. I believe that the job of the County is to evaluate the ideas which are submitted on time and if a package comes in which is woefully inadequate for one reason for another, the County shouldn’t select that plan. As you have no evidence that your plan even met minimal criteria the County has for the project, you don’t know that they were playing unfair. To repeatedly ask for proof that ox-ditch beats your method is silly if you’ve not even demonstrated your method has long-term stability.

Aaron,

Perhaps the real reason of the TW lawsuit isn’t about the money or about vindictiveness, but about process. If the post-recall LOCSD board violated the process for doing things … like by retroactively approving the transfer of funds from restricted accounts … they should be held accountable.

This example shows quite clearly that it all depends on your point of view. Process wonks seem to care more about process when they perceive the possible outcome of process issue complaints as in their favor. Realpolitik people seem to care deeply about process only when it is to their advantage.

I do think the post-recall board cut some corners and didn’t follow thru on their stated goals of open and accountable government. They were even less transparent than the pre-recall board. As such, I don’t mind so much the TW lawsuit even if the boardmembers now being sued were well intentioned. Well intentioned doesn’t mean that the rules can be ignored without consequence.

Also, if they want to palm the blame onto Bleskey, who was overseeing Bleskey? They were.

Aaron, “If that’s the case, I’ll be mentioning more names of those who put themselves up for scrutiny and I’ll look forward to hearing from you more.”

And I shall look forward to writing.

Steve,
I see you do not understand process or “the process”.

Mark,

I don’t need to write comments here which show an understanding of the minutiae of the process. It is folks who want to work with the County who need the details.

If, however, you feel that a proper explanation of the details of the process is important, by all means, please elaborate!

$25M for an Ox-Ditch that is “upgradeable to tertiary” …………………………BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve, if you reallywant to uderstandthe proces, read the process description I sent you with the PowerPoint and Engineer’s Comments.

$25M for an Ox-Ditch that is “upgradeable to tertiary” …………………………BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mark,

Either I didn’t get that powerpoint or I’ve lost it somewhere. What date did you send it?

Even so, if you wanna make such a big deal over my characterization of your not getting selected by saying that I don’t understand the process … please explain how you know this to be the case. You should, of course, explain the process itself and explain why my earlier comments justify your criticism.

Don’t you think it is at least possible that I was writing a bit sloppy on the process issue to make another point with greater clarity?

In any case, if process is a big deal, you will, of course, want to explain it here.

Steve,
I resent the PwerPoint.

Your are so deep, you are losing me…

Mark,

I think that there has been some confusion. I was writing about the County process for evaluating the various proposed project designs and you were writing about the process of your system.

Let’s chalk that one up to an oops.

Steve wrote:
Mark,

Do you know why your system was eliminate early on?

Answer: ECOfluid’s “PRE-ENGINEERED” tertiary design at a build price of $8.8M vs. the county’s consulting “engineer’s” $25M secondary Oxidation-Ditch design that “must be upgradeable to tertiary.

Is this a mistake? Was it willfull?