Responses to the CCC Hearing on Los Osos (Jan 14)
Posted on 16. Jan, 2010 by Aaron in Los Osos
After the California Coastal Commission hearing on Jan. 14, there have been a flood of responses from Los Osos residents who reflected on the board’s decision to move forward with a denovo hearing. If you have something to say about it, feel free to contact us here or post a comment.
Here are some of The Razor’s favorite responses from people on SanLuisObispo.com:
shyster (January 15) writes:
“If you [Coastal Commission] delay this project for some minute detail and the county misses the deadline for federal stimulus (similar to an event years ago), I – and I’m sure I speak for many others – will be convinced that you’re a bunch of elitist kooks.”
So what’s the correlation between the County’s inability the substantial issues raised (i.e. the inability implement a water conservation plan, the inability to properly apply wetlands delineation and the inability to resolve the issue involving ESHA on Broderson) and the commissioners being “elitist kooks”?
bleedingheart (January 15) writes:
“Roger, Lois, and Sam, get on the phone and start calling these commisoners [sic]. Let them know that the people appealing are a bunch of wack-a-doodles, that have made a career out of stoping [sic] the Los Osos Sewer project.”
Would he accept my appeal if I wrote in big capital letters with a red crayon, “LET’S MOVE FORWARD! IGNORE THE WACK-A-DOODLES”? Calling the appellants “wack-a-doodles” makes him sound like one. On a serious note, it’s not Roger, Lois or Sam’s job to intervene in deliberations with state regulatory agencies. Let the Coastal Commission have their denovo hearing. This is democracy. Want some crow?
Insider (January 15) writes:
“Idiots! Tacker, Jeff Edwards, and their crazy anti/no-sewer minority are going to put the kibosh on $80 MILLION DOLLARS worth of Federal aid to the Los Osos residents!?!?!?”
The USDA has allowed the County of San Luis Obispo to submit an application for $80 million, but that doesn’t mean Los Osos is going to receive the full amount. The County anticipated the ideal funding amount would be $64 million in loan — the majority of the federal aid, which Los Osos property owners would eventually have to pay back — and $16 million in grant. According to SLO County Public Works’ John Diodati, the USDA stimulus funds are also based on fixed project component costs, meaning the stimulus funds will not cover additional costs such as costs for decommissioning septic tanks, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, costs for repairing streets in the Prohibition Zone after deep trenching, sewer leaks, repairs etc. The x factors — that are incorporated with the County plan — have the potential of negating foreseeable cost savings for each property owner.
Read the fine print.
Clairevoy (January 15) wrote:
“The CCC overstepped their bounds and the community of LO should ensure their demise. Arrogant is the only word to describe their actions yesterday. Re-open Sarah Christie’s grand jury investigation regarding this situation- taking her agenda and knowledge from SLO Planning Commission to her legislative aide job. Andrew Christie standing in front of the CCC and lying about Sierra Club support for the position – there are active members WHO DO NOT SUPPORT “his” position on this issue. Ponds don’t fit @ the suggested plan site; Surfrider attorney presenting MISINFORMATION to the commission – set up poor thing. LOSG-whoever they are – misrepresenting the comments by county staff-lying and holding the community hostage. The citizens of Los Osos lost yesterday. Is it possible to sue Sierra Club and Surfrider for lying and stupidity?”
The California Coastal Commission did not overstep their boundaries. On January 14, the CCC heard the appellants, the County’s presentation/rebuttal and they deliberated over the staff recommendation: the motion to find no substantial issue. The only boundary they overstepped was their ego.
Sarah Christie did not participate in the discussions of Appeal No. A-3-SLO-09-55 and Appeal No. A-3-SLO-09-69 — so she’s mentioned because…? Christie was cleared in the grand jury investigation of conflict of interest. Suggesting another grand jury investigation based on the same accusations is to suggest double jeopardy.
The Sierra Club has consistently advocated the same positions of support and concerns for the Los Osos wastewater project (as shown in the Santa Lucian newsletter).
Lastly, screaming “lies and misinformation” repeatedly only intensifies the burden to provide proof.
Solomon (January 16) writes:
“The most devastatingly destructive part of this whole process is the selfish, obstructionism of a small group of people in Los Osos who did not succeed in early life and whose only recourse seems to be their l,2,3 minutes in front of a microphone to show just how truly selfish they are towards the county and the rest of the community. Those who will suffer the most from all this delay are the poorest. However, perhaps that is the good news [...] Everyone in the county needs to read ‘The Perfect Storm, the Sewer Saga.’ One of the most interesting observations the author makes is that not one of the obstuctionists would allow an interview except J. Tacker.”
Though the rhetoric is nauseatingly repetitive, the angle is still fascinating. The problem shifts away from the County. Instead, it’s all about the no-name “obstructionists.” Instead of reflecting on the substantial issues raised, the author focuses on the “selfishness” of the “small group of people” in Los Osos… and let’s not forget those pesky poor people for being poor. What a classy touch.
When an opinion is followed up with a promotion of a book that recklessly skews information that clearly lacks citations and footnotes, then one needs to seriously question the merit of that opinion.
#
The recent, devastating earthquake in Haiti reminded all of us that a disaster can happen at any time. However, despite the bitterness, the name-calling and the shenanigans that make things sound like a disaster waiting to happen, the current trajectory of the project is not one of them. The cacophony shown by the anonymous property owners and renters of Los Osos is analogous to the deep-seeded vitriol that has caused the sewer to be delayed — and everyone else but critics of the “small, anti-sewer minority” are responsible for the delays. How ironic.
8 Responses to “Responses to the CCC Hearing on Los Osos (Jan 14)”
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
16. Jan, 2010
Doesn’t double jeopardy apply only to trials? Was Sarah on TRIAL? I don’t think so.
Double jeopardy is a procedural defense (and, in many countries such as Canada, India, Israel, Mexico and the United States a constitutional right) that forbids a defendant from being tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts.
As stated in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970): “…when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit.”
Aaron
16. Jan, 2010
You’re right, but not only is it legal protection, it’s legal principle. Investigating Christie for the same exact thing twice isn’t going to work because the first investigation has already cleared Christie of conflict of interest.
Asking for another grand jury investigation for Christie is like Schicker filing another formal complaint against Paavo Ogren. Counsel already delivered the final evaluation of materials. Why bother going for round 2?
sewertoons
16. Jan, 2010
Aaron says:
“The x factors — that are incorporated with the County plan — have the potential of negating foreseeable cost savings for each property owner.”
So what you are saying is that it is better to NOT GET the $80 million or any portion thereof to help with this project? We all know that with a few tweaks the current project is the one we are going to get, right?
Aaron
16. Jan, 2010
It’s better to have an idea of what the actual cost savings are. The question I’m posing is: what costs — notwithstanding the loans and grant savings that discount the project components — are going to reduce the amount of savings we could get with stimulus funds?
sewertoons
17. Jan, 2010
I’m not sure I get what you mean, but if I understand correctly – the changes the CCC wants the County to make — all cost us something. Time for starters, and at this late date, that might be the least of it.
If you mean water savings down the road, how do you calculate that? Those things that they are asking for, while not delineated down to the gnats eyebrow, would be done in the project anyway. (Some of the things Wimer wanted – like new washing machines for all are just plain silly – they are portable and will vanish with the next move.)
Since I am not sure what we are talking about here, maybe I should simply ask, what specifics do you mean? Not doing XYZ as per the CCC now will be worse than loosing potentially $12,000 per property if we don’t get that money?
sewertoons
17. Jan, 2010
OK, I guess that you mean:
“meaning the stimulus funds will not cover additional costs such as costs for decommissioning septic tanks, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, costs for repairing streets in the Prohibition Zone after deep trenching, sewer leaks, repairs etc”
I reply – well, so what if it doesn’t! We are not going back to STEP, which you imply would lower costs, so the costs that it does lower, given the project at hand, should be helpful, right?
O & M costs are part of the monthly sewer fee, so of course it wouldn’t cover that, that isn’t even what we are talking about! Street repair is part of the project costs and we are going to pay for it regardless, so how is that relevant? Sewer leaks – that is down the road and will be part of our utility bills – that would be true no matter what system we have – O & M is more expensive with STEP anyway. Decommissioning tanks is part of whatever project we got, so how does that count?
I mean, are you saying we should cut off our nose in spite of our faces because we didn’t get STEP?
How would ANY amount we get NOT be helpful?
Aaron
18. Jan, 2010
Conventional gravity systems are prone to error (exfiltration, ruptured pipes, maintenance requiring additional deep trenching on narrow streets etc.). Los Osos residents are going to pay a little more to compensate for these errors. Keep that in mind.
We don’t know if we’re going to get the full $80 million from the USDA, but any money we get is good. That’s not the problem. The problem is the five to ten-year outlook. The problem is down the road. I only mentioned the decommissioning of tanks because it’s an immediate out-of-pocket cost for the homeowner.
We’ll be saving money on the project components that the stimulus funds will address — and that’s great — but with a conventional gravity system, there will be a greater demand to increase the monthly costs to compensate for problems that will arise beyond what is already covered with stimulus funds.
Stimulus funding has been a powerful wedge issue here. It would be great to have the money, but at the same time, the focus is to remedy preexisting substantial issues with the permit. These issues must be remedied so that the project has fewer chances of causing problems that LO property owners will have to pay for in the long run. It’s definitely a catch-22.
The most logical step would be to petition Diodati to submit a request to extend the USDA’s projected deadline for stimulus funds due to special circumstances. We’re on the 2010 FY Agricultural Appropriations bill. We will get that money — and now that the bill is signed into law, that’s leverage for us to secure stimulus funds and negotiate with the USDA. Diodati knows this.
sewertoons
18. Jan, 2010
Diodati does not control the deadline and thousands of people are lined up to get this money, with reasons as compelling as ours. We make think that we are “special” but that doesn’t make it so to the rest of the world. No, if we went to the end of the line and the ice cream was all gone when we got to the front, too bad, so sad.
STEP is more costly to maintain, but cheaper from a project perspective, to install. Tanks would be decommissioned with either system as most tanks would need to be replaced for STEP. Many of us will either use the old tank for rainwater collection and dispersal, or just fill them in with gravel and leave them in place, and not actually remove them. STEP or gravity, the contents of the tanks will need to be removed.
It is unfair to quote statistics on gravity when pipes of every age and material are thrown into that average. Some pipes 20 years old don’t leak at all.
Problems that we don’t even know about may come up, but trying to identify each one and address it means no sewer for the next umpteen years. We are so close here – to make it cost more would really be a tragedy.