Self-proclaimed Los Osos sewer expert Gail McPherson has thrown her hat into the political arena by endorsing Los Osos Community Services District President Marshall Ochylski for District 2 Supervisor over incumbent Bruce Gibson. In an e-mail sent on Memorial Day, McPherson urged residents to pass her message to “District 3″ voters (rather than Ochylski’s District 2) who care about Los Osos. “I’m coming after you, Adam Hill!”
Here is the e-mail in its entirety with commentary below:
Please pass on to all Dist 3 voters who care about Los Osos:
Remember the vote that was promised by Blakeslee????
Your vote in this election is the vote Gibson refused honor.
A vote for Gibson is a absolute guarantee for the MWH and gravity project. Only by ousting Gibson will the BOS get the message—to accept proposals from DBIA for independent oversight for the Co. run contracts, and to restart the RFP that includes STEP.
The election timing is critical!!!
THE STATE & FEDS ARE WATCHING——The vote gives a strong message to the Coastal Commission, USDA, and the SWRCB.
This is a vote of NO CONFIDENCE for the Gibson led rigged bid.
A vote against Gibson and to elect Marshall is the strongest “last stand” for an environmentally and cost effect project.
May this vote be the vote LOS OSOS was promised in AB 2701, by Paavo/Gibson that was never provided.
This vote is your only voice. Make it count!
Vote and elect Marshall Ochylski
Not surprisingly, McPherson doesn’t get it.
Ochylski has had several opportunities — at candidate forums, debates and on his web site — to explain how he differs from Gibson on the issue of the Los Osos wastewater project. For the most part, he has not. However, in a May 9th, 2010 article written by Bob Cuddy of The Tribune, Cuddy writes that Ochylski “faults Gibson for allegedly allowing the state Coastal Commission to assert control over the project.” In other words, Ochylski — who once challenged the Coastal Commission on behalf of Cayucos developer Franco DeCicco — believes that the Coastal Commission shouldn’t have found substantial issue with the County’s wastewater project plan. In fact, Ochylski believes that there shouldn’t have been a de novo hearing for a project that inherently required one due to the wealth of flaws, miscalculations and unsupported assertions that came with it. Contrary to McPherson’s daffy assertions, a vote for Ochylski would actually be a vote to push the currently proposed project further down the turnpike. In other words, if Gibson’s plan is to push for the MWH/gravity collection system, Ochylski would push for that configuration even harder than Gibson.
Ochylski, a lawyer who has worked with real estate developers, such as DeCicco and Tri W Enterprises, does not disagree with how the County handled the wastewater treatment project, with the exception of their lack of formalities like consensus-building and transparency. Here’s another way to look at it: Ochylski doesn’t believe that the County should proceed with revisiting the design-build process. In her e-mail, McPherson claims that outing Gibson would create a domino effect that would somehow get the board and Public Works to accept proposals from the Design-Build Institute of America for independent oversight and to restart the RFP that includes STEP/STEG. Publicly, Ochylski has not made such a campaign promise and there’s no viable reason why he would.
Voting for Ochylski would not include a triumphant reinstatement of a process that started and abruptly ended more than a year ago. McPherson’s e-mails to residents is heavily misleading. No public figure claiming to represent residents should spend copious amounts of time projecting their political views onto candidates who believe in exactly the opposite. To that end, it’s not just misleading. It’s sabotage.
Instead of evidence to suggest that Ochylski would even consider having those positions, there are questions as to why Gail McPherson would go to great lengths to send misinformation to residents. On June 8 it’s ultimately up to the voters to vote responsibly based on the real facts, not McPherson’s false facts for false hope.