The BOS and County staff focused on ambiguous, topical rebuttals of the appeals before the appellants spoke. Board Chairman Bruce Gibson asserted repeatedly that the board reviewed all the materials submitted by the appellants — but neither he nor the other members raised specific issues as documented in the appeals. In short, the appellants were denied a fair hearing, if they were heard at all.
Before the appeals were heard and dismissed (by a unanimous 5-0 vote) at the September 29th Board of Supervisors meeting, SLO County staff recommended the board dismiss the 16 appeals and proceed with the project, which was recently modified by the Planning Commission.
By having their presentation come before the appellants’ presentations, County staff willingly waived consideration of any new arguments or evidence that the appellants could present for their case. Throughout the County LOWWP process, the BOS has unanimously voted in favor of County staff recommendations without personally questioning those who oppose.
Disturbing trend
Hours before voting unanimously to approve the Planning Commission’s conditions for the project, appellants and regular speakers at public comment presented their case to the disinterested-looking board, which dedicated more time to ratifying and modifying some of the Planning’s conditions than responding point-by-point to the appeals and public comment.
The majority of appellant opinion shifted toward approving the PC’s efforts but advising the board to put STEP/STEG back into the design-build process. The rest of the appeals argued against the sewer being placed at the Giacomazzi site, citing odor and visual concerns including the site’s close proximity to the Los Osos Valley Memorial Park and homes that were not assessed for a sewer. Only one appeal focused exclusively on the preference of having the sewer located at Mid-Town.
The BOS and County staff focused on ambiguous, topical rebuttals of the appeals before the appellants spoke. Board Chairman Bruce Gibson asserted repeatedly that the board reviewed all the materials submitted by the appellants — but neither he nor the other members raised specific issues as documented in the appeals. In short, the appellants were denied a fair hearing, if they were heard at all.
What are the consequences of that tactic? The BOS has successfully transferred the workload of dissecting the appeals to the California Coastal Commission. Adding the possibility that new lawsuits may come from the appellants as a result of the BOS stifling appeals, the process of approving the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) could come to a complete halt.
In their recent editorial on the Los Osos wastewater project, The Tribune wisely wrote (regarding the opposition’s willingness to take the matter to court), “We won’t even go there.” Needless to say, the County hasn’t done the CCC any favors by refusing to address specific concerns made by the appellants.
While last Tuesday’s BOS meeting was a slow and grueling grind for everyone involved, the consensus of opinion showed a rise of distrust in the County. Questions were raised. Did the BOS really understand the appeals? Were all of the appellants’ concerns unjustified? Was it all a colossal waste of time for those who spent countless hours of time researching the issues and forming their appeals — and an excruciatingly long day in chambers? We may never know for sure.
On a related note, Paavogate has transcended from being a 1,300-page formal complaint filed by Lisa Schicker to a potpourri of irrational, sadistic typecasting of LO residents made by anonymously written newspaper editorials. What started as an assessment of the County’s handling of no-bid contracts — and claims of Mr. Ogren’s appearance of conflict of interest — ultimately became the punchline of a joke that took several millions of dollars (and several years of Prohibition Zone resident anguish) to make.
Shredding the truth
On October 1st, the New Times published their “Shredder” opinion (titled “Poo-poo ca-choo”), calling supporters of the complaint, “LONs” or Los Osos Nuts. The anonymous man-child wrote, “Personally, I’d rather be buried neck deep in the contents of their collective compacted bowels than hear anymore about this.”
Mr. Shredder, it’s nasally congested, whiny, pompous opinions like yours that invite the discussion. Mr. Shredder, it’s thoughtless, inaccurate, cynical editorials like yours that invite bricks being thrown at your window — like the time in 2006 when your newspaper educated readers on how to make Methamphetamine. Mr. Shredder, when you make childish, inane diatribes that compare the debate of gravity vs. STEP/STEG to how you manage your bowel movements, you invite the discussion.
Granted, you personally don’t like Los Osos or even writing about Los Osos — even though you often bring up the subject in your column repeatedly — but $165 million is a lot of money that Prohibition Zone residents will be shelling out for a project (and Paavo once stated that the cost could double as projects often do) that will force many to leave. If they’re paying for it, or unable to pay for it — and others outside the PZ are benefiting from the sewer without having to pay — they have the right to talk about it. It’s your job to cover the news — not to berate those who embrace the issue more than you do.
The “Shredder” editorial accomplishes one thing. The editorial reveals a mindset that is proudly toted by the most vocal supporters of the County project and anonymous bloggers, who have labeled opponents as egomaniacs, malcontents, selfish, fat ladies, clowns, trolls, selfish retirees, nut-jobs, loons, obstructionists, obstructionist follies, whores, “fecals,” losers, morons, unprofessional, self-indulgent, self-serving, misfits, delusional, retards, “mongoloids,” dogs, rodents, buzzards, devils, and all creative names one could make with banned FCC words.
One would wonder if the BOS sees the opposition through the same lens as those who thrive in the abundance of logical fallacies and cognitive biases, those who find gratification from inciting fears and arousing prejudices. Did the BOS deny those appeals because they feel the opposition encompasses all those labels?
In the end, editorials like the Shredder’s ” Poo-poo Ca-Choo” do nothing to ease tensions or inform. Tribune editorials like “Bouquets and Brickbats” do nothing to combat misconceptions and insult-ridden propaganda. The vicious cycle of rebranding continues; the newspapers — that many once believed were fair in their coverage — condone, even encourage it.
Without acknowledging the propaganda at face value, the BOS fuels it. And last Tuesday, all 16 appeals were denied without any case-by-case review.
This is one big heavy ball of wrong.
—Aaron Ochs
