Los Osos: Getting Stronger When Focused
Posted on 06. Mar, 2009 by Aaron in Uncategorized
I just wanted to make a quick note because this got my attention for the past couple of weeks.
For as long as I lived in Los Osos, I had a one-track mind arguing that other people had a one-track mind. As soon as I started looking at all of the options for Los Osos in terms of wastewater treatment, it became clear to me that people will gladly accept those who keep an open mind. The idea of togetherness has become a very appealing factor and people with unique ideologies have come together to make progress.
The people of Los Osos first need to understand that they are not wastewater experts, but if they want to get their hands dirty, they need to focus on the finer details instead of placing faith in those who have relied on ambiguous, repetitive rhetoric to carry their message across.
I’m not a wastewater expert. I don’t want to be one. However, I am interested in the process because I want Los Osos homeowners to have a sustainable, affordable system and will not settle for anything less. If you see me coming to the podium, sharply criticizing backers of the process, that does not mean that I’m “anti-sewer” or that I’m simply filling the room with hot air. I’m speaking primarily because I feel tthat the missing element in creating the change we need is the conservation that the people need to have with the county. Public meetings only summarize decisions without any extensive reasoning. Public meetings do not create dialogue.
As the people of Los Osos are starting to mature and unite behind the solutions that they deem to be appropriate for their community, the County has yet to observe that trend and be as warm and receptive as the community.
I formally asked to meet with Supervisor Bruce Gibson over the issues I had with the Los Osos wastewater project. At the moment, he’s declined to meet with me in person and had offered to schedule a phone call. I’m not someone whose concerns can be eased by one phone conversation. However, I can understand that my reputation precedes me given that The ROCK had been a very vocal critic of the County staff and process including Gibson. With that in consideration, I must emphasize that we’re in this together and we have to put our prejudices aside in order to make the process work effectively.
I’ve had a lot of fun talking to people who have once turned away from me and now I’m very receptive to their ideas. On that note, I feel that Los Osos has earned a passing grade in diplomatic communication and I’m happy to be a part of it.
50 Responses to “Los Osos: Getting Stronger When Focused”
Leave a Reply
- Maria Kelly: Los Osos Water Witch Bitches Again
- Los Osos Animosity
- Los Osos: Getting Stronger When Focused
- Pitiful Criticism of Schicker in New Times
- Friday Round-Up: Back to 2005
- Robert: Aaron is right on the money. Los Osos is getting s...
- susan: Type your comment here......
- Julie: Excellent points Aaron. The Trib just wants to se...
- Liza Klump: I don't think LAPD, Ventura PD or even Simi PD wou...
- David Duggan: 54950. The people of this State do not yield their...
News From The ROCK
- 'Reclamator' Man Sues Everybody
- COASTAL COMMISSION HAS MORE ‘SUBSTANTIAL ISSUES’ WITH SEWER PROJECT THAN COUNTY ADMITS
- County’s Omissions, Gaps and Lies Force Coastal Commission Hearing on Unresolved Sewer Issues
- COUNTY’S SEWER PROJECT TIMELINE DELAYED MONTHS
- ARE YOU HAVING SEWER PROBLEMS???
- ‘PROHIBITION ZONE’ FEVER GRIPS MALIBU
- The Freestyle Magic of Tokyo Joe’s Sushi
Sewertoons
07. Mar, 2009
Aaron, I will have to say, your tone is a whole lot nicer and your mind is a lot more open than views put forth in The ROCK (sorry Ed).
I have to disagree with this sentence, “As the people of Los Osos are starting to mature and unite behind the solutions that they deem to be appropriate for their community, the County has yet to observe that trend and be as warm and receptive as the community.”
Look at the last BOS meeting – the same strident, immovable, angry bunch is still saying the same things. The rest of the speakers were not regulars, made the effort this one time to be visible, but have been the silent majority all along. I’m not sure I have seen any real change. The Supes and County staff have bent over backwards to try to placate the angry ones, and frankly , all they get for it is more anger thrown at them. The patience and understanding I have seen at TAC meetings and Bruce Gibson’s office hours has been outstanding.
I’m not sure what you want to see from the County and where.
Aaron
07. Mar, 2009
You need to first ask yourself, “Who is the County bending over backwards for?”
They haven’t bent over backwards for me or my family. They haven’t reached out to me, my friends and my neighbors. How do you account for that?
They haven’t reached out to the young people whose parents and relatives living in Los Osos will be affected.
In the public, they haven’t gone any further than speaking behind the podium. In private, they’ve only spoken off-the-record and baited some into becoming the “angry ones.” Sometimes, that anger is justified, even if you don’t see why.
Aaron
07. Mar, 2009
I don’t speak for Ed, but he had something to add here:
“Yes, Lynette, I am one of those who you call ‘the angry ones’ — and proud of it. I am angry that the county’s over-inflated project will kick thousands of innocent homeowners out of their homes. I know you and Lou could care less because you’ve got yours and party on — by the way I enjoyed Lou’s reading of his résumé last week at the BOS — classy! Anyway, you should know Paavo and Gibson have never addressed any of my comments ever, so if they’ve ‘bent over backwards’ it certainly wasn’t for me!
“Far better to ignore us and the issue entirely, if you know what I mean. Gee, could that be one of the reasons I’m so mad?
“My fight has always basically been the same — first there was no 218 vote to tax us on the SRF loan (the SWRCB agreed) and now we’re about to be taxed out of our homes to the tune of $400 a month by an unaffordable project (excluding you and 82 friends and neighbors who can afford it, of course). There are more than a few who agree with me who can’t afford it, as well. Apparently, you can’t fathom anyone fighting for their home. That’s too bad, because I can understand you not giving a damn. Whether or not some powerful people are offended by my presentation is something else again; how can I be concerned about their hurt feelings when I and many others face losing our homes because of them? Through the pages of The Rock I brought in expert after expert who testified that the County is full if shit and corrupt to the gills. But people also know, without a lawyer fighting for them, there’s isn’t a damn thing they can do about it. The County knows this too, obviously. And so on and on it goes.
“I understand you and Taxpayers Watch are happy with the County, that you can afford their MWH megasewer, now that Lou has found refuge at Cal Poly, in the bosom of the County. Goody for you ‘haves.’ I still believe in fighting for my home and will continue to be a grain of sand in the County’s eye until they change course for a more affordable solution.”
I read your comment about the “angry ones” again and I’m thinking, “I hope you’re not including people like me,” because my concerns are not so irrational that one could say I’m simply angry or bitter. I can see where people’s anger override any substantive opinion or research, but some of us aren’t part of that “angry” mold.
Of course I’m angry. I don’t want to be taxed out of existence, but I know I’m not limited to simple emotions.
Sewertoons
08. Mar, 2009
Hi Aaron, I’ll answer you first, to go in order.
You say:
“They haven’t bent over backwards for me or my family. They haven’t reached out to me, my friends and my neighbors. How do you account for that”
Well, first I’d ask, what were you expecting? I have been to every TAC meeting, to all but one of the Workshops, most of the Bruce Gibson meetings — and the County has been UNFAILINGLY polite and respectful of every person’s opinion, even when it was one yelled at them.
Those who do not participate cannot expect the County –on our dollar I might add — to go door to door soliciting advice. I’m not trying to be snotty here, but I guess I don’t know what you are asking for. For instance, many suggestions made by the Sustainability Group were incorporated into County values and goals.
The anger, the accusations that the County staff, including Bruce Gibson, has taken has been met with no angry emotional response back other than to take the content, and see where it fits into getting a better sewer. There were lots of suggestions given at the beginning TAC meetings which were incorporated into the process.
You are a young person who is making the comment that you haven’t been reached out to. I would ask – did you ask for something? If you don’t ask, you won’t get. There were so many meetings at which you COULD have asked. I’d say, as a young person, you may not own property, or even rent – it would be up to your elders to bring you along to meetings to get you involved.
You say:
“In private, they’ve only spoken off-the-record and baited some into becoming the “angry ones.”
I don’t know what these instance might be – care to enlighten us?
Sewertoons
08. Mar, 2009
Hi Ed, (Aaron, I’ll get back to you after this answer.)
Oh, I just wish we could agree to disagree. I appreciate your fervor, your drama, your intelligence, your humor AND your child rearing, but I simply disagree with you!
Sorry you feel so bad about this – but who told us living by the ocean was going to be cheap? There is NO cheap sewer solution – that was voted down before either of us chose to live here.
I’ve blogged this before – but in my life I’ve lived in places where the rent got raised. I couldn’t afford it, so I moved out. I didn’t feel that I was somehow entitled to continue living there, that I should harass the landlord to stay or trash the place to get even. How different is owning when you know the same principle applies? No one guarantees you a future with the same taxes and a free pass on infrastructure. Did you not know that the sewer issue was going on when you bought? We did! I am terribly sorry if you did not know that! When we got here – it was $205/mo. We could have gotten less house on a smaller lot in Morro Bay and been paying comparative peanuts for the sewer service. But we liked it here and gambled. I’m angry too – about the recall and $250/mo. for less of a project. Please explain the $400/month.
Polluting the bay and our groundwater has to stop. That is the big truth that keeps getting overlooked by the people who want to stall.
Yeah, I know we disagree on this but legally, there was no need to have a 218 on the old project. The money was going to be paid back on rates and charges (no lien). This time we have a $25,000 lien on our property – and no – I am not happy about that, but that – along with a bunch of other grief, is what the recall brought us.
I think the County of old made some horrendous mistakes, but that is over – cannot be changed, time to move on.
You need to know that there are people I know in TW that will be facing real hardship with this project – that is why they wanted to do the Tri-W $205 project. Well, it is worse for them now, isn’t it?
I will dispute your experts. Sorry. A soils scientist is not the same as a geological engineer. If they were, they would be signing off on engineering reports on large construction projects.
Sadly, at this point, he only “affordable” solution is a 30-year SRF loan for 0% interest for part of the project, a good bidding climate and help for the disadvantaged – call John Diodati for details. Los Osos residents shot themselves in the foot back in 1983 and shot everyone to follow.
Sewertoons
08. Mar, 2009
Hi Aaron, you are NOT part of the “angry ones” I refer to, as you have an open mind and are willing to listen to other viewpoints.
I guess whatever happens, there isn’t a one of us that will get exactly what we want. We will learn to live with that, I hope.
Sewertoons
08. Mar, 2009
And Ed, those TW people I referred to were struggling with the $205 and some may not have been able to make that – but they knew the price would only go higher if there was delay. I wonder what a re-bid on that overpriced project (yes it was – bad bidding climate and death threats) would come out to be now?
Anonymous
08. Mar, 2009
Aaron
Thank you for offering a great forum to discuss the issues. Since Sewertoons tends to answer questions posed on your site, I am hoping that I can get some real answers.
Sewertoons
In reading your posts, both here and on Ann’s blog, I have found that you often obscure, manipulate and avoid the truth, only to promote the most expensive and least environmental sound project. Why?
Everyone has a motive for their actions. What is yours? What personal advantage do you and your gravity supporters gain with the county “politically preferred” system? I have heard so many reasons from various venues. Is it monetary? I have heard that Paavo, Gibson, and/or Pandora may be getting paid off by MWH, (and the survey and brochures definitely point to Pandora’s ”behavior based marketing”), but how does Cal Poly fit in with this? Does your husband benefit directly? At least Mark is upfront with who he is promoting. The MWH promoters are shielding their affiliation and using government power and money to promote their project.
If not money, is it a matter of gentrification, eliminating the undesirables such the retired, the single parents, or the postmen, firefighters, or K-12 teachers? You speak of renters having to move when the costs increase, but we are talking about HOME OWNERS forced to move, people who have worked hard, paid their bills, and planned for their future, never anticipating that a utility bill would eat up a large percentage of their income. Most did not work in the jobs that made great gains when times were good, but the government jobs that took care of all citizens equally. Do these people have no value in your vision of the world?
Is this an attempt to gain a community that looks just like you, or that prays to your God? Just what is your real motive? What will happen to the people “just like you” if the economy continues to crumble? If, due to salary cuts, a Cal Poly single breadwinner is unable to support a family, or the layoffs run deep in the state university system?
The strategy has been to label all those that question the process: ANTI-SEWER OBSTRUCTIONISTS. Your husband stated that mere citizen should not question the findings of engineers. Is this “Do not question” his teaching philosophy at Cal Poly? This country has just suffered through eight years of “Do not question” government and look where it has got us.
Once you start to think that you know better than anyone else or that your life has more value than others, the world seems to balance out the inequities, tipping in the opposite direction. We are now going through a balancing period. The era of “looking out for number one” is giving way (kicking and screaming) to a more compassionate world.
It is time that all sides in Los Osos come together with a system that is sustainable and economical, and that all we can live with. STEP and gravity should be eliminated from the equation since they are the center of this controversy (in which relatively few citizens are engaged) and have not been proven to be the most sustainable or economical. The remaining options should be simply and honestly explained so that the regular working citizens with lives outside of the sewer can once again engage in the process without the distrust of all local government and the antipathy that now pervades our community.
Aaron
08. Mar, 2009
Thanks for your comments, Sewertoons and Anonymous.
In response to Sewertoons:
I have reached out to the County several ways. I’ve spoken behind the podium but the County didn’t respond to that. I’ve e-mailed specific questions to the County and the Public Works department, but the County didn’t respond to that. I’ve formally asked members of the BOS to meet with me but they did not respond to that. Gibson wanted to schedule a phone call, but not a meeting.
If the overall question is, “Did you make the effort?” the answer is yes.
The Sustainability Group had reported that the County was polite when they meet with them in private and they were receptive when listening to them, but they rejected any information or new ideas that contradicted their initial, hard-lining positions.
I’m curious to see if they do the same to me. Please don’t take this as being presumptuous or dismissive but the issues I want to talk about are complex and extensive, but I can assure you: I will not be providing the “same arguments made time and time again,” as Garfinkel would put it.
I’ll post some more analysis shortly. I’ll be analyzing the Low Pressure tech memo.
Sewertoons
08. Mar, 2009
Aaron, I am really sorry to hear this. Yes, you did make the effort.
My experience has been different. I’ve just called County staff and talked to someone right away or left a message and someone has called me back. I talk to staff at meetings – maybe that is the key? – I am always there and they kinda know me? Like in the business world, the more known you are the more likely you are to be addressed? Or maybe I just called on a day they weren’t that busy!?
The Sustainability Group did get in – but they are a group. I would take the rejection of their information by the County as perhaps the information was not valid in the larger sense, but was a narrow finding or really wasn’t relevant to this situation? (Of course, they will not see it this way – but I have seen Bruce and Paavo dismantle some of these arguments that sound valid on the surface but aren’t really.) Are there any engineers in that group? I only recall one member recently stating he had studied the issue for a year – which tells me that this is not equivalent knowledge to someone with an advanced degree in wastewater. (Even then, Gail has some qualifications, but do you trust her?)
I’m not making this statement as an excuse, but maybe on the e-mail thing, if you get two or three hundred of them, there is just no way to answer them all? I have found answers to questions summarized in responses to the TAC reports – the questions of several on the same topic were combined and the County responded to all at once. Maybe some of your questions were answered – or were attempted to be answered that way? (Maybe you HAVE read all of the TAC reports, the Rough and Fine Screenings – but could the rebuttals have contained any answers for you?)
Maybe if you had done the phone interview it could have lead to an in-person interview with Gibson?
Well, I don’t know. This is the best I can come up with for now. I look forward to what you find out on vacuum actually – low pressure means grinder pumps and I personally would not want to go there. Although with gravity – over 200 high ground water homes will need to employ this method.
Sewertoons
08. Mar, 2009
Aaron, I just thought of one more thing. Perhaps, as my experience is only on phones with specific questions – I would ask around to a variety of people – those who support the County and those who don’t and see what reception that they had with interviews and e-mails. You all may be getting the same result and the answer really could just be time constraints. I do recall finally that I DID e-mail the County a question right at the beginning of the process, and I too did not hear back. But I did see the answer later when the TAC reports came out.
Ed
08. Mar, 2009
Hi Lynette,
Of course we can disagree in peace. I always enjoy talking to you. I’m very easy going, except when I’m talking to the Board of Soups and protecting my rights. True, under the County, there is no cheap solution. There were opportunities along the way, but they were squandered by both sides. Still, the same job can be done cheaper. If the County and RWQCB really wanted to consider a less expensive project, which they don’t, I doubt too many besides TW/Tri-W warriors would have complained.
One key difference between owning and renting: As you said, when the landlord raises the rent, you can move and rent somewhere else. No harm, no foul.
But when you’ve sunk all your money into your home, or are old and have paid off your home, or live on a fixed income, to name just a few scenarios, the monthly average cost of the County sewer – always going up each year – will force a whole bunch of people who did absolutely nothing but follow the law (using County-permitted septic tanks) to sell their homes for peanuts, that is if they can in this down market, or possibly lose their homes when they can't come up with the cash increase on their property taxes. Few can get loans, or are plumb out of credit. Grants won't pay the sewer bills. This is more complex than landlord raises rent and tenant moves. I don't believe in entitlements either, but taxing people out of their homes for the most expensive project — when there are less expensive alternatives — is "Eminent Domain by Taxation."
Of course it all depends on your point of view, right? I believe we are all connected to each other and the trade-off of one infrastructure for another — pipes for people — is a bad bargain for Los Osos. What we gain in big pipes we lose in teachers, nurses, mechanics, healthcare support, babysitters and mom & pop business owners — the very human infrastructure that supports community, that will be lost to the sewer. The wealthier among us don't seem to realize that, or that they actually might not have as much money for their future as they imagine. How short-sighted!
Even the winners are losers in Los Osos.
If you want to stop pollution, first find out where it’s coming from – there at least 26 known contributors and sources to a wide range of pollution in Morro Bay. You can’t play pin the tail on Los Osos septics alone to any degree unless you study the whole picture — and it hasn’t been studied to the extent it should. The Kitts Study estimated 1/10th of 1% of pollution in the bay as of human origin, and it was a study of shellfish, not pollutants. Birds, cows, horses, pets, plants play their part. LO’s wells sit untested in 2008-’09. And County Health continues to permit the drinking water as safe. That primarily the PZ is paying to clean up the whole community’s and the State’s water is way out of whack.
We didn’t get the real facts on the sewer issue when we moved here. We were one of the many victims of the “don’t tell-won’t ask” non-disclosure policy of local agents. In fact, when we asked how much, our agent told us the total cost per home for the sewer would be under $4,000. Ha-ha-ha!
The $400 a month figure I used is based on the County’s acknowledged $250, plus hookup & tank decommissioning charges, which are rarely factored in the total since it is a separate charge. This doesn't include all yet-to-be-determined back-end costs, subsequent 218s, or fines when, not if, the system fails. Point being, $400 isn't the end of it.
Confirmation of the $400 comes from a most unlikely source, someone I rarely agree with on anything political (though he may be a fun dude) and whose credibility I wouldn't rely on — but you would.
Here’s a graph from Richard LeGros’ March 4th blog on Ann’s:
“Regardless of the County’s progress towards a WW Plan and the Community Survey results, I am disheartened. I am equally disheartened by both the process-players AND the County. Stuck in the middle are the Los Osos PZ property owners who, while waiting for an outcome, will be very lucky to see a waste water project resulting from the current process be operational before 2015; and that costs less than $400 per month.”
The last person I would call for any reliable information would be
John Diodati. He sings falsetto in Paavo’s Cal Poly Boy’s Chair … and couldn’t give it to me straight if his life depended on it. He still says the 218 vote was “80/20.”
Your ol’ campaign trail pal,
Ed
P.S. Regarding the lost 218, you can’t put that many millions ($93 million?) on to fees and charges without a vote. Fees and charges do not qualify for a secured loan and are not dedicated source of revenue.
Anonymous
08. Mar, 2009
Great forum for discussion, Aaron. Thank you very much for hosting us. Lynnette has asked about “the election” that lost us the affordable county sewer back in the day. Someone replied it was the election of Bud Laurent to the SLO Board of Supervisors. I would have to comment that for me, personally, it was the vote of the residents of Los Osos in 1998 to form a CSD. Those running to form the new CSD campaigned on the promise they would provide a sewer for $38/month.
Sewertoons
08. Mar, 2009
Well, anonymous, I’m not sure anything I would say now would mean anything to you as you have your mind made up having read what I have written in the past. So what would be my point in answering back?
You think gravity supporters have an agenda beyond getting the most reliable system – so I can’t change your mind there, even though I believe it is not true.
You go for underground payoff theories – I sure can’t fight that by merely saying it is untrue. (I could ask you to prove it is true, however.)
Homeowners. If I bought a home here in the past 30 years, I’m sure I’d be aware of the infrastructure problem. it would be hard to avoid it. Our realtor told us, we thought about it and we decided to buy anyway. The price was at a discount compared to similar houses in other communities around here – and yes, we looked all over. Some financially aware and responsible people I know started a “sewer fund” so they would be ready when the time finally came. And they are.
I don’t like the cost of this thing either, and fear that it is the middle income person who will be hit the worst – the disadvantaged will have aid, the rich won’t care – and despite what some write about the supposed income here, we fall in the middle. Why would we want to eliminate a group that we are part of? Cal Poly will not be part of the income stream here forever, so we too are saving now. We don’t travel abroad like many of our Poly professor friends do every summer.
I don’t believe in pushing for a system because it “sounds innovative and green and it’s cheap” and would rather move than mess this place up to suit my desires to stay. I do not trust salesmen to know what is best for us in Los Osos. Who do you think they are looking out for? Do you think that they do not “obscure, manipulate and avoid the truth” to make a sale? I’m willing to look at anything innovative, but I want to see the data to back it up and that data must be a similar fit for Los Osos.
I don’t believe in your conspiracy theories, have taken the time to know the character of the people at the County and on the TAC. They ELIMINATED certain technologies using interviews and far better data than I will dig up on the internet. I trust them over the salesman, and certainly don’t believe I can figure this stuff out for myself. I am promoting information from people I trust.
Just what is “sustainable” and “economical” is open to interpretation. There is no perfect project.
What gets built depends on the bids given for varying technology, and the Supes. Nothing need be eliminated. Although I am grimly amused that all this energy put into step now winds up showing us that it is not the most sustainable thing since sliced bread as was said at the time of the recall. I’ll continue to argue for what I think is best and so will you, but neither of us decides this. The “regular working citizens” you refer to probably don’t want to spend their time on “other options besides step and gravity.” It is a very important issue to us but we have to realize not every one is fascinated by, or even interested in, sewer technology.
Sewertoons
09. Mar, 2009
Hi Ed (glad you got yourself a blog name),
Nice discussion we are having here – we actually ARE disagreeing in peace! Hope some readers will catch on as we all must realize that not any of us is going to get the exact sewer we want. And we’ll just have to deal with it and not waste time hating each other over a freakin’ sewer. Yeah, I know it is more than a sewer, but where the anger should have gone is a long-gone place. At some point – when this thing is built I think, we will start to put our attention elsewhere and lay down our axes in the process.
The economic downturn has just made this project a whole lot worse for the unwealthy. Which is more of us than there we were last year. I know my 401K tanked horribly.
(I think, taking the comments written here to me in order, I have responded with my take on some of the points you make when I responded to Anonymous. I won’t repeat myself.)
I am truly sorry that you were misled by your realtor – we were given some scary cautions by ours – but it wasn’t enough to make us not buy. I think what your agent meant $4,000 or under to hook up, never mentioning the $205/mo. fee. Perhaps your property had the sewer assessment already paid for? Ours didn’t – so we will continue to pay for the design and property for Tri-W for the next 15 (approx.) years – PLUS the new one of course. The subsequent 218’s will probably be from the water purveyors to pay clean the water up to tertiary, and maybe giving us purple pipe, causing the cost to go to $400 – this was paid for within that old price of $205/mo.. See? It just keeps getting more expensive. The old project didn’t put a lien on one’s house like this one does, either.
Maybe you can fill me in on the tank decommissioning charges – all I know about is gravity hook-up charges and filling the tanks with rocks – or a final pumping and disinfecting if we can find a legal way to collect and leachfield out our rainwater.
When the system fails – well, I doubt that it will happen in our lifetimes, so I am not going to worry about that at all. ANY system will have its problems – eventually, if not maintained. We are not discharging into a creek that is being monitored and new pipes (not clay, not iron) will last a long time.
As for the 218 Tri-W didn’t have, the SRF loan did not require it at that time – I probably have a copy and paste of something on this on my computer, but it might take hours to find it, so I won’t do it now. I’ll also add when the original CSD went to get that first SRF loan and said they wanted to do the environmentally right thing with new technology, ponds and step they were turned away. The State was not going to risk the money on that. So there were conditions to using the money – it never would have been disbursed fraudulently, but with the default, all that is different now. And now apparently you can get that money using step.
On the October 2007 218– 6,172 ballots were returned, 78 were incomplete. 79.67% of those completed ballots said yes or 4,913, and 1,181 said no, or 20.33%. I don’t know how many were sent out and never returned. If they were not returned, maybe the people just don’t care?
The upper aquifer has nitrates in it. Can we fix the problem of nitrates from dog and cat pee in our yards some of which is going in to the upper aquifer? No, but we can fix our own. I disagree, we have plenty of proof that we are polluting it. The fact that emerging contaminants are in our upper aquifer has to tell you something – it is US contaminating it, cows don’t use shampoo. The pollution doesn’t just go into Morro Bay, one whole aquifer has been damaged and because of this, the one below it over-pumped.
Most of the water used in Los Osos proper is pumped by purveyors. (Yes there are wells, but how many of them are active?) 85% of the population is in the PZ. 15 % will not be paying right away. The County is splitting off the water – only 33% going to return to the basin at Broderson as the project can do no harm – that is enough to satisfy the conditions of AB2701. The rest of the water is going to sprayfields. We won’t pay to clean it up, now anyway, we will be throwing it away instead. The purveyors will eventually figure out what to do with the water and charge us to do it. We are the bulk of the problem with nitrates, and allowing this housing density to be on septics was just nuts. I’d say it was our water more than the State’s water too, as we use over a million gallons of it daily. We do not return it in the condition we got it, do we?
Ed, I will never forget that candidates’ forum where you pulled out that bag of spinach. That speech of yours still has me laughing!!
Lynette
Sewertoons
09. Mar, 2009
Anonymous, there is no shortage of blame to go around. Let’s just make sure no more delays are caused by us.
Anonymous
09. Mar, 2009
Sewertoons
I agree that you can’t trust a salesman. My sh*t detector goes off the chart when I speak with Gibson, Paavo, or Mark. But Mark is not the only one with an alternative system: he is just the most vocal. I learned far more from Pio Lombardo and John Todd. They are both world renown for their innovative sustainable systems. Although they may not be the right solution for Los Osos, they are focused on the direction we need to move; sustainable and economical. The world is changing.
I too have saved for the sewer, but I am not prepared for constantly increasing payments for water infrastructure. When I moved here there was no overdraft, and we had the best water in the world from our lower aquifer. The overdraft is a direct result of overbuilding during implementation of 83-13. The piper is going to make us pay for this one. Read the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element and you will see the desalination projects proposed to solve the counties water problems. You can bet that we are going to be the site for the first project, and we are going to pay. Then the county will offer to drop our payments an insignificant amount for the right to pipe our water to the rest of the county. The regional plan.
Sustainability to me means that we can operate independently of the rest of the county with regards to our water resources. The county is building us into an integrated system that will take away our ability to control our destiny. We will forever have to play the backroom, kiss ass game to meet our basic needs. TW and Pandora think they are experts at this game and think they can win forever, but changes in power will someday knock them out of this jesters position. When the competition for our water is coming from North County ranchers, South County farmers, or the cities we lose.
Paavo has parroted the sustainable jargon to appease the public, but there is no conviction behind his words. He is using you to achieve a predetermined goal. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that he cares about Los Osos.
Sewertoons
09. Mar, 2009
Anonymous, we can’t wait forever. Lombardo and Todd both had interesting ideas, but as you say correctly, neither will work here. So what are we supposed to do – wait? Overdraft further, pollute further until that perfect system arrives? We can see how poorly that choice has worked.
Did you mean the upper aquifer? I know people who lived here when water was taken from the upper aquifer and it was apparently famous for its quality. What happened with building after 83-13 is shameful. But ancient history now. We get to fix the unaddressed problems that building spree exacerbated.
I think Nipomo will be the first site for desal (if there ever is any)- they are working on it now.
http://ncsd.ca.gov/Library/Supplemental_Water/DESAL/TechMemo2%20-%20Desal%20Work%20Plans092807%20with%20appendices.pdf
Please explain your theory of an “integrated system.” If all goes well, we get the sewer back after 3 years of operation and regional wastewater plans are a non-start.
As to the Draft Conservation and Open Space Element, can you please refer me to a section of it? It is 238 pages long.
I think you are going way overboard on the power you think Pandora and TW (TW?!) has. All 5 Supes will decide which project we get, not Paavo, Pandora or TW (of which I am a part – and as such, I can report nothing is going on there). TW is concerned only with the breaking of law by the “Lisa Board” directors.
Ed
09. Mar, 2009
Lynette,
It's hard not to be angry when you're fighting for your home over a freakin' sewer. That's serious stuff, closer to life and death than you’d think, when you consider uprooting young and old in this jobless, cashless depression. The axes will be put down when there are no more axes left in LO and that day is sadly coming.
I tried to simplify it for Supervisor Patterson so even he could understand it: Suppose you knew there was going to be a fatal car crash at Santa Rosa & Monterrey in one hour. What lengths would you go through to tell someone in authority what was about to happen? Would you allow yourself to be ignored? Multiply that by 5,000 and then maybe you can better understand my tenacity.
Patterson's response: mute. You see, he too is a salesman with a product, one that is too expensive to compete with less expensive, even more efficient technology, and so he limits the market to his product. Nasty business, county politics. Patterson thinks gravity is “green” because the County’s sewer cost a lot of green. He is what is known as an old-school Shinola salesman. A rubber stamp in a suit.
To me anyway, 5,000 shattered lives is unacceptable collateral damage in the building of a public works project in the U.S. today. It’s shameful, it shouldn’t happen, but it is. The BOS just looks away because it’s not happening to them, of course – which translates to me as cold, calculating, premeditated, purposeful. For many, the County’s “preferred” project is nothing more than the sewer version of the final solution for Los Osos. I can’t stop it, but it should be stopped for being so wrong in so many ways.
Who knows, maybe an attorney representing PZ homeowners (not Shauna Sullivan, but a real attorney) will zoom in, stand up and make the case before it’s all said and done. Maybe someone will make a federal case out of it.
Maybe if Obama knew federal stimulus money was winding up in the hands of the corrupt SWRCB to be sole-sourced to Carollo and MWHalliburton for a non-green gravity townbuster he would shut the project down. Or, if this is Obama’s idea of pork he can live with, then we need to tell him and the Justice Dept. that the only ones really benefiting here are the rich and those about to get rich off the project, not those who need it most.
Yes, the “Roger Briggs Ecoli Salad Mix” was the beginning of the end for me and my campaign.
If you remember, I told the Tribune I wanted to cap the project at $200 a month and that way way too much – that was before I was tossed out the front door of the Tribune offices in front of the whole staff.
Thank you for telling me cows don’t use shampoo. That explains their dirty tails. Gravity treatment plants, like the one the County is planning for Los Osos, won’t get rid of all the emerging contaminants or immune bacteria. With allowable gravity leakage in the PZ we are guaranteed traces of bad things we don’t want in our water for years to come. Shampoos and pharmaceuticals are in almost all groundwater nowadays, everywhere. County Public Health here says it’s yummy.
Ed
Aaron
09. Mar, 2009
There is so much to read and so much to say.
The County is definitely selling this system and they’ve been selling gravity even before AB2701 was chartered into law — and that’s why I’m looking at these tech memos to see if the analysis was thorough and balanced.
It’s easy to come to pre-conceived conclusions about Carollo and their involvement with the previous project, but I’m going to dedicate some time to reading and researching because I want to be reasonable. People from differing points of view have been coming together to discuss the issues with me so that I’m more informed.
However, I have to be tough. I understand what Ed is saying and I’ve looked at expert testimonials that contradict the County’s process and reasoning. Some of the experts had an agenda to put their work in Los Osos. Some didn’t. Unlike the County, these experts weren’t paid to provide an favorable opinion. I put Carollo on the same level as expert witnesses. Sure, they know what they’re talking about, but if you give them money, their opinion could be skewed to favor what the County has wanted all along: gravity.
After all, it seems like Montgomery Watson-Harza and Carollo are inseparable.
Sewertoons
10. Mar, 2009
Gentlemen, what is it that you want? Or do you both want the same things? Step? Low pressure? Vacuum? Pond? Nothing?
I do agree, it is very expensive. If we can’t afford it, we will move. We don’t think our wishes on where to live supersede the need for clean water. No one yet has shown me “cheap” that isn’t a salesman, or if not a salesman, their technology has never been used for a town as large as this. If they are so certain that they have the best price on something that will actually work, they then have someone on the list of approved contractors and they will prove it to us with a cheap bid. If not, they were scamming us.
Don’t hold your breath on an 11th hour attorney – they cost money. Even bad ones, as we have seen. Shaunna Sullivan is still owed money I am told.
We are putting a million gallons of dirty water into the ground daily, so a few POSSIBLE leaks some time in the future are not going to freak me out. I will always vote for good maintenance. What freaks me out is experimenting with a system that hasn’t been used in a place this large. These little systems shown as examples by the salesmen are not comparable.
Aaron, please continue your research and let us see what you find. Ed, I will always appreciate your writing, even if I disagree with the content.
Aaron
10. Mar, 2009
I don’t have any strong leanings toward any specific technology because I still have a lot to learn and since I’m not elected or appointed to pick a system, I’m going to take my time.
The “million gallons” of dirty water claim is an unsubstantiated assertion. First, tests and studies came inconclusive if you don’t take into account that they were also outdated. Second, there’s no proof that most of the nitrates found in the groundwater were from septics.
I'm sure there is septage pollution but nitrates can also be a by-product of surface runoff from agricultural or landscaped areas that have received an excessive amount of nitrate fertilizer. Additionally, not only are nitrates a chemical that is left after the break down or decomposition of human waste, but the chemical is also left after break down or decomposition of animal waste. We have quite a few farms in the area and if memory serves correctly, one of the wells (albeit illegal) that was tested by Cleath & Associates was found on a horse farm.
I think it would be more useful if you could provide information behind the "millions of gallons" claim. I'd greatly appreciate it. You've mentioned this claim as if it's a given, but without real documentation, it sounds very surreal.
We cannot build a sewer for the wrong reasons. We need to have a sewer in town, but we need to have a sewer for the right reasons and we need to have a sewer that won't financially devastate at least three quarters of the Prohibition Zone.
Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener)
10. Mar, 2009
Ed,
I like your traffic accident analogy.
What if the situation were a bit different. What if you believed there would likely be a traffic accident at that location (perhaps because you observed a drunk guy in Los Osos saying that he was gonna drive downtown to crash into the County building because he was angry with the County). Still probably worth warning the County.
However, would you insist on shutting down foothill, highway 1, Madonna and LOVR at the 101 interchange as preventative measures? The answer would probably depend on the degree to which this individual is intending to carry out the threat.
If we’re talking costs here (and that is my key question, not really caring over gravity versus STEP and MBR versus who knows), the question is really one about likelihoods. What is the likely cost of each approach and how likely will the RWQCB be to go along with each of the options.
That is where I find those opposed to TriW and opposed to the County plan to be missing something really key … whether the cost savings are likely to really occur.
Which is better? To bet place fifty $10 bets on black on the roulette wheel or to place fifty $10 bets on “lucky 7″? Certainly one could come out quite a bit ahead when betting on 7 (as opposed to black), but one could also lose considerably more.
I don’t wanna go with STEP if it could possibly save me $30/month but could also possibly raise my bills by $70/month.
So then … what is the collateral damage of insisting on STEP or TriW or whatever is not the County’s intended choice? Would a lawsuit be a good idea? Would a lawsuit likely result in a cheaper system or would an increase in our costs be more likely? What are the chances? If a lawsuit prevails, how much cheaper will the system be? If it fails, how much more expensive.
Without addressing these questions, this sort of discussion is missing some key facts. Like a two-legged stool would be unwise to sit on, it is unwise to draw conclusions about what is best without a reasonable cost-benefit analysis. Look at what happened in 1998-2001 and 2005-2007 if want proof.
Ed
10. Mar, 2009
No problem, Lynette.
I’m for the cheapest system, but the way the RWQCB and County have stacked the deck with gravity free-pass cards there’s zero chance we’ll get that. We — that is, anyone paying attention post-recall knows — it was always going to be gravity. I’m somewhat alarmed that many were distracted by a fantasy of what could be and didn’t see it coming.
I think AirVac should be invited back into the competition — and pass or fail on the same level playing field of applicability and cost. RFPs for four gravity systems and one STEP is just keeping the dog-and-pony show going, wasting millions more, to reach a foregone conclusion. We deserve better.
For me, the community is no different than a family. Especially in these times, you don’t go deeper into debt, you build a sewer you, the family/community, can afford. Moreover, you don’t go out and buy the most expensive sewer just because somebody handed you a blank check. That’s simply fiscally irresponsible — it’s not their money to begin with. If you can get basically the same results for $50 million — because that’s all the family/community can afford — then get the best and the most for your $50 million — and stay in Los Osos. Far fewer will be forced out AND we clean our water AND it’s not either/or, it’s both.
Thousands forced out, many losing homes, engineering who stays and who goes, is a grotesque example of government colluding with big business to pave the way for developers, who we subsidize with my tax dollars while they pay nothing and make millions.
This is just one big ball of wrong.
Ed
P.S. Paavo himself said the 218 vote was closer to 60/40, so you might want to update your notes on that. The 80/20 was just for the crowd that wasn’t paying attention because of the blackmail choice they were given to be fined or taxed out of their homes.
Ed
10. Mar, 2009
Steve,
Enjoyed your Al Barrow story, which is no story since it happens every week, almost down to your last detail. I’m warning everybody right now: “AL BARROW IS ON HIS WAY!!!”
Cost vs, location cuts to the chase of your argument, which is the inconsistency if not hypocrisy of drawing the line at Tri-W if the bottom line is cost.
Yes, I want the least expensive/most efficient system needed and nothing more, but no, I don’t want Tri-W even if it’s cheaper now, because the “minuses” outweigh costs.
The twin morals of the story: Money isn’t everything … Money won’t help you if you foul your own nest.
I live downslope from Tri-W. Heard of any spills recently? How many? Can anybody say eminent domain?!
Ed
Anonymous
10. Mar, 2009
Ed said, “Thousands forced out, many losing homes, engineering who stays and who goes, is a grotesque example of government colluding with big business to pave the way for developers, who we subsidize with my tax dollars while they pay nothing and make millions.”
This will be the second developer raping of Los Osos. The first was 1983 to 1988 when they built the 1150 homes and used the profits to buy property outside the PZ. Check the building permits on the homes that went up during this time period and you will find many familiar names
Sewertoons
10. Mar, 2009
Hi Aaron,
Not having much time this moment to see where I got that figure of 1 MGD, I know I could find something here:
Page 4
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=18509
Technical Memorandum Flows and Loads Final November 2008
“Using these figures for the District and Golden State water customers, indoor domestic
water consumption for the community was estimated to be 66 gpcd (average of 68 gpcd for
the District and 65 gpcd for Golden State). Assuming a buildout population of
18,428 (estimated by the LOCSD and used in previous reports), this corresponds to an
ADDWF to the future treatment facility of 1.2 mgd.”
The math is pretty close if you cut it down to today’s population to almost 1 mgd.
Sewertoons
10. Mar, 2009
Ed, with Tri-W we do not pave the way for developers as that plant can accommodate buildout and nothing more.
Sewertoons
11. Mar, 2009
Anonymous, I have no idea why Cal Poly fits in with this and neither does my husband who works there.
Sewertoons
11. Mar, 2009
Ed, you state, “RFPs for four gravity systems and one STEP is just keeping the dog-and-pony show going…”
I’m confused. The RFP’s have not yet gone out, the Companies on the County website haven’t been whittled down to the shortlist yet, which will be needed before the RFP’s CAN go out (although that is to happen this month). It is not on the next BOS meeting agenda for March 17 and it looks like there was no meeting today.
I looked through the Agenda item on the December 9, 2008 meeting where the BOS was to approve the design/build RFQ’s and there is nothing in that lengthy document too refer to RFP’s or even what the collection system is to be – just a list of components which any system would have.
Want to tell us what you refer to?
Sewertoons
11. Mar, 2009
Ed, you say, “I don’t want Tri-W even if it’s cheaper now, because the “minuses” outweigh costs.”
What are your list of minuses that would outweigh cost?
Anonymous
11. Mar, 2009
Will we get any bids for vacuum? Paavo is already manipulating the process by trying to convince vacuum to only go for the hybrid 5%of the gravity project. Convince them that this is the only possibility, and that wasting time on a complete vacuum project would be a waste of time and diminish their chances with the county for the 5%.
Sewertoons
11. Mar, 2009
Anonymous, can you please cite a location similar to Los Osos in size that uses a vacuum system.
Aaron
11. Mar, 2009
Lynette,
Based on your post made at 6:21 PM yesterday, does that statistic also include groundwater pollution?
Methinks you may want to reassess that and read what I wrote previously. I’m talking about nitrates in the “dirty water.”
Sewertoons
11. Mar, 2009
That statistic is for indoor water usage – sinks, tubs, washing machines, toilets. The water with its chemical soup of detergents, excreted medicines, oven cleaners, fabric softeners, body waste – you name it – that exits the house via the leach field.
I just think nitrates are only part of the problem, and yes, nitrates can come from other sources. However, short of sticking a lysimeter under every home and monitoring it monthly for several years – a cost prohibitive task, it is safe to assume that a huge amount of the nitrates come from our leach fields, and leach pits (especially leach pits on the smaller lots) when the houses are crammed 8 to 12 per acre. Leach fields work just fine (in most cases) and are permitted at one per acre. We are WAYYY over that.
(Aaron, I am so happy that you know the word, “methinks!” It is so old school and in danger of being lost!)
Ed
11. Mar, 2009
Lynette,
The “small matter” of the 1150 homes built between ‘83 and ‘88 bothers me a lot, too (thanks, anonymous No. ?). You say it’s past, done, over, move on. But it won’t be over until the County paves over any liability as fast as it can, and they can’t seem to move fast enough, can they?
Opening up the PZ to homesteaders ‘83 to ‘88 — without any infrastructure to support it — corralling them to tax them to pay the cost of future infrastructure (for existing non-Los Osos-related County infrastructure as well) is still on the table as a debt owed.
What will put the past to rest is accountability and responsibility, and now is the time. The County must pay its fair share. So far they acknowledge only “mistakes were made.” They need to make up for those “mistakes” they made, i.e. LO tax dollars spread countywide, less in town, less countywide than in town.
Somehow that has to come back to LO taxpayers in some form of relief. A one-time, one-year PROPERTY TAX CREDIT for PZ homeowners (tiered for others) equal to one year’s property taxes at the home’s reassessed value would help many homeowners stay in their homes with meaningful dollars (forget grant nickels and dimes), return money to homeowners as credit from the County — no cash, and position the County to contribute to the project to solve the problem they created. Why should the burden fall like a piano on the backs of PZ homeowners who can least afford it and, individually, have done nothing that hasn’t been legally permitted by the County. Talk about selling polluted sand dune and getting away with it.
Re: Cal Poly. Cal Poly, town college, will benefit more in grant dollars from the big sewer. Cal Poly professors have historically debated the sewer, in class as well as out, primarily preaching Tri-W. I can’t remember the last time a Cal Poly preacher actually spoke out for Tri-W technology at the BOS — oh wait, two weeks ago, a Prof. Tornatzsky did that with gravitas and résumé.
Re: “Minuses” of Tri-W? Too much effort for a non-blogger like me. Here’s my short version: I live downslope from Tri-W. If there was a big spill, perhaps from an earthquake, it would go through my living room on its way to the bay. If the pipes leak under my house I’ll have to move out. I could be eminent domain’d (Katrina). Too many lift stations, serious odor control problem. If it back flushes into the bay or Sweet Springs, then maybe Tri-W will actually raise the potential opportunity for disasters that otherwise would never occur out of town.
Re: RFPs. I was describing (according to Paavo) what will happen, not what has already happened. 3/4ths of shortlist teams are gravity.
Please tell me why you and Taxpayers Watch are not speaking up
at BOS meetings about the $7 million of public waste of Los Osos taxpayers’ money for a predetermined, preselected project. Shirley Bianchi, Noel King, Gail Wilcox, Paavo and Jeffrey Young have all said it was going to be gravity from Day 1.
The costly charade covered up the screening out of all possible alternatives, providing the smokescreen for an even costlier project … when no expensive cover would have been needed for a project that allows many of us to live within our and the town’s budget and sewer the town at the same time.
Affordabilty should have been the first criteria, not the last.
Ed
Sewertoons
12. Mar, 2009
Ed, I have to agree with you – the County really, really messed up. Whoever those Supes were in ‘83-’88, shame on them. I wish they were here now having to face the mess they helped to cause. I wish they had to fix it. Donations would be accepted.
I appreciate the feeling behind the one-time, one-year property tax credit, but don’t quite know how it could be done without causing a riot in the rest of the County – who thinks we are a bunch of out-of-control whiners. Of course they don’t see this saga from our viewpoint.
I still don’t get why Cal Poly will get grant dollars. A grant for what?
I don’t know about preaching Tri-W in class – before our time – we have a fairly extensive social network of professors in IT and in the Biz School – but no one knows much about the sewer situation – maybe talk was localized in some other departments? Which ones?
Gee, we live right next to two tanks holding between them about a million gallons of water. Guess I should be more fearful – but I see your point – if we drown, it will be with nice clean water, not sewage.
Predetermined, preselected? You mean just the collection system, right? Well, I have a theory. Gail, Lisa, Julie and all were so persuasive for step, it had to be evaluated as it was one of the factors for stopping Tri-W. So due to popularity, the County dutifully evaluated it (to be PC)- but apparently – so far anyway, people aren’t so in love with it anymore. We will have to wait until the final tally of course.
Gee, burying a VW van in my nicely landscaped front yard, paying to put that landscaping back – a large tree in a big box costs a lotta money, paying for a new fence, maybe the driveway too if it is messed up, and since things in this house were constructed on the cheap, I suspect we might get to pay for a new electrical box too. Too risky for this bank account. A manhole cover in the front yard? No thanks. And having the thing pumped and inspected on a schedule, not acceptable. (I noticed an ad in the Bay News with misinformation on a landscaping allowance and removal of septic tanks no matter what the collection system. Apparently it wasn’t successful.)
Please show me collection alternatives other than step that are used in a town this size. Grinder pump? I don’t see how maintaining that is cheaper. And vacuum – never been done in a town this large. (Unless Aaron finds something we’ve missed!)
Where would you like to see it out of town? What collection and what treatment?
Anonymous
12. Mar, 2009
The county included STEP because the knew that TW proponents would truck a septic tank around town spreading fear, The county did not include a comprehensive evaluation of grinder pumps and vacuum because gravity would not have floated to the top, but instead sunk out of the competition.
The whole process was a farce. It was design to select gravity as the “environmentally superior” system.
Sewertoons
12. Mar, 2009
Anonymous,
Don ISN’T TW.
Please give some examples of low pressure and vacuum systems in a town this size.
Anonymous
12. Mar, 2009
Sewertoons
You are right that there are not many examples of vacuum systems in a town this large. But to conclude that this is because vacuum cannot handle a larger town is false. In fact, the vast majority of towns currently requiring wastewater infrastructure are smaller than us. You will have a difficult time finding an example of a town this large with no wastewater collection infrastructure. The small size (population) of the towns needing systems only made it imperative that they got the highest quality for the lowest price. Forced to look outside the box, they found vacuum as the preferred choice.
Many towns in Florida are turning to vacuum, as are cities in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Japan. The biggest factors for this selection are reduced cost, high ground water, proximity to protected waterways, dense population with other infrastructure already in place, and protection of the aquifer.
The following link gives some feedback on the Cedar Grove project
http://www.pwmag.com/industry-news-print.asp?sectionID=0&articleID=787859
Even Venice, Italy is slowly changing from gravity to vacuum. That is a far greater challenge than we are facing here in Los Osos.
Paavo has proven over and over that he is either unwilling or unable to think outside the box. America is not the leader when it comes to innovation in public works, and Paavo is their poster child. Government and corporate greed supersede the public interest every time. Please make sure that you are not Paavo’s (or Pandora’s) Puppet. He has wasted so much time and money to promote a gravity system, all the while implying that anything else will cause delays and fines. The public needs to demand a fair process.
Sewertoons
12. Mar, 2009
Anonymous, I disagree with you. I think there are NO examples of vacuum in a town this large. There certainly should be towns of our size that are needing to replace their aging systems – why are there no examples of these replacing them with vacuum? Could it be easements and the reluctance of people to join several homes together, one of whom will have to give up their property rights for the pit? And the reliance of your neighbors not to flush things that they shouldn’t jamming the system that all will get to pay to fix?
Cedar Grove has both gravity and vacuum. What is the age of the gravity system and how well had it been maintained prior to 2002 when the guy who wrote the article came on board? How many of each type? Those would be critical questions. Why does each gravity lift station there not have a permanent generator like the vacuum system does? How many of each lift station is he talking about? The population density is 549 people per square mile, it is flat. Los Osos has 1,883.5 people per square mile and is hilly. The article reads like an ad for vacuum systems!
As of the census of 2000, there were 5,367 people in Cedar Grove and they went through a process to dissolve the town in October 2008. it is unclear when he wrote the article – we only know when it was published. As he praises vacuum so highly and in such detail, was he about to lose his job as were the policemen and was looking to become a sales rep for Air-Vac?
Anonymous
13. Mar, 2009
Hooper, Utah
http://www.airvac.com/pdf/Hooper_E-print.pdf
Anonymous
13. Mar, 2009
Virginia Beach
http://www.govengr.com/ArticlesSep05/lessons.pdf
Anonymous
13. Mar, 2009
Underground Construction (Mag)
http://www.oildompublishing.com/uceditorialarchive/Sept04/septairvac.pdf
Anonymous
13. Mar, 2009
Many other documents mearly show how vacuum floated to the top of the selection process. Vacuum had no chance to compete in Los Osos because Paavo did not include it in the evaluation process.
He did not include it because he was afraid it would beat out gravity in spite of his lies and manipulations.
Sewertoons
13. Mar, 2009
Vacuum was evaluated in the Rough Screening Report, pages 6-7 to 6-9. It did not make it into the Fine Screening Report on its own as there was no advantage to it on its own. It can be used combined with gravity which is where it makes sense.
Do you own a house? Do you want to share maintenance costs with your neighbors? If one neighbor continually clogs the system, do you want to pay for this? Air-Vac says between 2 to 4 homes per pit, but an example in the Rough Screening shows 5 to 7 houses per pit. It will need to be located on private property. Which house is the lucky house to get the pit? Draw straws?
Your examples are nice, but appear to be puff pieces written by Air-Vac as a compensation for advertising in the publication they appear in or were written for the Air-Vac website. Flat terrain that has no “gravity” or bedrock and large trees hardly characterize Los Osos, but obviously would seem an appropriate fit for Virginia Beach, VA and Forest, Ohio.
There was no “fear” to evaluating vacuum systems. It was evaluated and sank on its own.
Sewertoons
13. Mar, 2009
Hooper, Utah is flat as well.
Anonymous
13. Mar, 2009
Many of the vacuum systems are installed in areas where no other system would work. This is why we are getting a Hybrid system with some vacuum. No other system will work in parts of Los Osos. This does not mean that it will not work for the whole town.
Pandora and neighbors will be getting vacuum regardless.
Sewertoons
14. Mar, 2009
Of course it will work for the whole town, but do you want to pay for it? To avoid the hassles of “who gets the pit,” each house would need one – and there go your cost savings.
Anonymous
17. Mar, 2009
The “pit” does not go on private property. Why do you keep repeating this? Is it a scare tactic?