This report is based on research that tracked online activity of Los Osos residents since the 2005 recall elections, which effectively stopped the controversial wastewater project on the Tri-W site. The recall was followed by a handful of lawsuits filed by contractors and a local group run by two of . . . → Read More: The Los Osos Sewer Wars: Fought in Cyberspace]]>

Los Osos Internet Troll promotes "healing"

This report is based on research that tracked online activity of Los Osos residents since the 2005 recall elections, which effectively stopped the controversial wastewater project on the Tri-W site. The recall was followed by a handful of lawsuits filed by contractors and a local group run by two of the three recalled district board members. Online, there was outcry from anonymous residents who — for more than five years — have conspired to undermine the “obstructionists” who were in support of recall efforts. Their campaign against the “obstructionists” persists to the present.

“Check this out. This is scary,” wrote former Los Osos Community Services District president Lisa Schicker to supporters in July 2006. Elected in November 2004 as a candidate who fought for an “affordable, environmentally superior sewer project,” Mrs. Schicker provided a link in her e-mail to comments made about her by anonymous pseudonyms on a message board operated by The Tribune.

The pseudonyms, who adopted an overwhelmingly hostile tone in their messages, expressed anger over the 2005 project being stopped. On The Tribune message board, Los Osos residents complained about the decline of their property values and the continued degradation of the groundwater in their community. There was a sense of hopelessness — that the sewer was no longer going to be affordable due to rising construction costs, inflation, and lack of competency by the post-recall board.

The 2005 recall was successful. On September 27, 2005, three board members of the LOCSD — president Stan Gustafson, vice-president Gordon Hensley, and director Richard LeGros – were recalled by a narrow margin. All three men were staunch supporters of a wastewater treatment project that was located in the middle of town. It was a historical turnout for Los Osos. More than 6,000 residents — in a town with a total estimated population of 14,000 residents — went to the polls, and a majority voted “Yes” for the recall and the controversial Measure B, which attempted to forcibly move the sewer out of town by a now-defunct local ordinance. This was widely perceived as a surprise to the establishment because they outspent the grassroots recall movement with media buys and slick public relations marketing. The campaign was partially funded by a $10,000 donation from MWH Americas, a controversial contractor that was tapped to oversee the design and construction of the 2005 project.

Losing in the recall election rekindled nearly 30 years worth of bitterness, but once it was clear that the 2005 MWH project was going to be scrapped, a boiling point was reached.

Meet the Mastermind

“We’re going to have to do something about this — even if it means fighting dirty,” said Tribune member “SHARKINLET.” SHARKINLET was perceived to be the intellectual mastermind of the anonymous angst. He wrote a series of lengthy and thorough essay-style posts that argued the merits of the Tri-W site, and the use of gravity collection. He appeared on a handful of other local blogs (including Razor Online), and passionately debated recall supporters like Ann Calhoun of Calhoun’s Cannon. SHARKINLET also had a notable temper, and his posts would sometimes strike a violent tone toward the post-recall board, including then-interim general manager Daniel Blesky.

“I’m going to punch Blesky in the face one of these days,” said SHARKINLET. “Next would be Lisa [Schicker].”

He tried to reduce his sharp outbursts, and compensated for them by writing with level-headed eloquence. As a self-described evangelical Christian, SHARKINLET tried so desperately to keep his distance from the others, who resorted to speaking so crudely about the ones who undermined their cherished plans with the recall election, by never condoning violent acts or threats made by others. Yet he appeased them, and he spoke with them like a sober friend who tried to inject reason into their arguments. Though he remained anonymous and members claimed that he did not know the man personally, SHARKINLET was respectfully elevated to a position of high regard. He was the Los Osos version of Karl Rove: a sharp-witted, silver-tongued sewer strategist from behind the curtain.

SHARKINLET was the one who initially floated the idea of dissolving the district because he felt that establishing a CSD, to begin with, raised the costs for the sewer with delays. Given the results of the recall, he felt the voters made a “grievous error” in reinforcing the district’s authority over the wastewater project. He mused that the dissolution of the CSD would result in the County of San Luis Obispo assuming authority for the project. He would later endorse Taxpayers Watch, the non-profit organization led by Mr. LeGros and Mr. Hensley, and their push to dissolve the district in late 2006.

SHARKINLET was critical of Mrs. Schicker and board member Julie Tacker. Mrs. Schicker and Mrs. Tacker were the dissenting opinion on the 2005 LOCSD, and had pushed for moving the sewer out of town. SHARKINLET argued that the two board members were conspiring to pocket money from the district offers to help their supporters. That premise later became the argument made by Taxpayers Watch in lawsuits filed shortly after the recall. He criticized the two women at length, and would sometimes rant incoherently with mixed metaphors, confusing analogies, and a call for justice to be done. Mrs. Schicker was puzzled by his critique, and had e-mailed people with a link to his diatribes in July 2006. In that e-mail, Mrs. Schicker wrote, “Why is he so obsessed with me? Who is this guy? Very creepy.”

In October 2008, SHARKINLET was unceremoniously revealed to be a man named Steve Rein, a Statistics professor at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo who had repeatedly criticized the founders of a site called Growing Families International (GFI), a parenting ministry with teachings that Rein found to be alarming. Mr. Rein started a website Ezzo.info, which houses his critique for the ministry. Authorities say that in 1997, Rein was detained by campus police at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) — where he worked as a professor – for hacking the GFI web site, and illegally retrieving private documents found in a password-protected area of the site. The suspicious activity was traced back to Rein’s computer on campus. The desktop also hosted a web site code-named “RedRhino,” which housed several documents that he illegally obtained from GFI. Rein was not charged, but VCU issued Rein a reprimand. Rein subsequently left campus later that year, but maintained the departure was on “good terms.”

Mr. Rein never openly denied the incident, but he criticized the site that first discussed it on his web site and sidestepped the specific accusations. He alleged that any and all criticism by GFI, and their supporters, was questionable given the negative press they received.

By the time the accusations were revealed, Mr. Rein had faded into obscurity but posted once in a while. None of the accusations phased his anonymous fan base on The Tribune message board. Instead, they were inspired by his actions, and often credited his tenacity for “exposing the truth.” Inspired by his actions at VCU, others would eventually follow his example.

The Jester

A member by the name of “Wonky1″ coined the term “the fecal five” to describe the post-recall board, and the “butt sisters” to describe Schicker and Tacker. Wonky1 was considered the beloved jester — the wordsmith with a “refreshingly wicked sense of humor,” according to one supportive member. Wonky1 was known for crafting parody lyrics that mentioned both Mrs. Tacker and Mrs. Schicker in a lewd fashion topped with vivid, misogynistic-sexual innuendo.

He was eerily fixated on Mrs. Tacker. Unlike the punditry on television where people discuss their opposition of politicians based on their positions, Wonky1 limited his opposition to trivial assessments about her clothes, her weight, and alleged promiscuity. Intertwined with trivialities were statements that accused Mrs. Tacker of criminal impropriety. In one post, Wonky1 described Tacker as a “pond scum bitch” who deserved to “get blindsighted and porked.” The comments came after Tacker moved in with Jeff Edwards, a local developer with whom Tacker had a relationship. The relationship spurred a series of accusations involving conflict-of-interest violations. Wonky1 wrote several sexually-charged parody lyrics to make light of the accusations, and implied that she would be raped once she was behind bars. Mrs. Tacker did not face any criminal charges as a result of her tenure at the LOCSD.

In more extreme cases, Wonky1 created and promoted scenarios of the “obstructionists” being dead as retribution for their opposition to the sewer project, though he did not name anyone specifically.

The jester would target other members of the community, including residents who regularly spoke during public comment at board meetings. He would occasionally make anti-Semitic statements about community members who he presumed to have Jewish descent. He posted photos of known Jewish celebrities including comedian Jackie Mason and actor Abe Vigota, and compared their “big noses” to residents that he thought were Jewish under the presumption that having a big nose “was the sign of a liar.” Other comments showed that Wonky1 had a particularly disturbing disdain for women who opposed the Tri-W project and the current project. He often described his female adversaries as “weak” and “sluts” who needed to “get their purses out,” and pay for the sewer.

Wonky1 was unabashedly vulgar, though he hid the vulgarity in satirical prose. When he wasn’t playing the crude jester, Wonky1 — who was articulate when he was asked a serious question — repeatedly accused Mrs. Schicker, Mrs. Tacker and the “fecal five” of “moral turpitude.”

Using an arsenal of pet expressions and uniquely worded satirical lyrics to describe his feelings for the “obstructionists,” Wonky1 appeared as other pseudonyms.

Wonky1 once claimed to be a reputable business professor at Cal Poly, who had moved into Los Osos in mid-2005, and wrote several books. He changed his initial story, and explained to members that he was, in fact, an “University English Instructor” who was going to leave Los Osos, move to British Columbia, and marry his high school sweetheart.

Lou Tornatzky, who also moved to Los Osos with his wife Lynette in mid-2005, is currently a business professor at the Orfalea College of Business at Cal Poly. Mr. Tornatzky was a regular critic of the post-recall board, and from the audience, he had threatened “to take [the board] down” with legal action if they did not reverse course and reinstate Tri-W at one meeting in January 2006. When it became clear that they were going to halt the project, he stopped speaking at LOCSD meetings until July 7, 2011. At that meeting, Mr. Tornatzky came out in opposition to Mrs. Tacker, who was one of the candidates seeking to replace former director Maria Kelly.

“And then I frankly got disgusted with the level of discourse that evolved on this board, particularly after the recall election,” said Mr. Tornatzky. “What I request of you is: anybody but Ms. Tacker. I believe she only has one note, and that note is confrontation. That’s what she knows. You don’t need to come back to that. She’ll be here confronting you anyhow.”

Mr. Tornatzky, himself, was confrontational and had a fiery temper. He had a score of violent outbursts when he was watching the meeting as a member of the audience. “He was like a guy, at a football game, who watched his team lose, but was in constant, angry denial that his team actually ‘lost,’” told one observer, who saw Mr. Tornatzky kick an empty chair in front of him at a CSD meeting in March 2006. At the next meeting, standing at the back of the South Bay Community Center where the meeting was held, Mr. Tornatzky turned to then LOCSD Utilities Manager George Milanés and criticized Mrs. Schicker as she spoke.

“Someone should hit that bitch with a hammer,” remarked Milanés.

Mr. Tornatzky laughed. “Sure, sure,” he replied. “Maybe some poison instead. Don’t worry. We’re working on it.”

There were times that he behaved civilly, and watched the meetings attentively. But when Mrs. Schicker or Mrs. Tacker spoke about the sewer project, Mr. Tornatzky often displayed anger by standing up from his chair noisily and shouting, “For God’s sake!” He stormed out of the South Bay Community Center several times, leaving his associates concerned.

According to sources close to him, Mr. Tornatzky had a penchant for penning poetry with sewer references. Friends reportedly encouraged Mr. Tornatzky to share his work online.

Los Osos students, who attended Mr. Tornatzky’s classes, explained that their professor would often joke with them and tell them to “get out their checkbooks.”

Mr. Tornatzky is also the board president of ReCreate Los Osos, a local 501(c)(3) non-profit founded on the intent to “heal the rifts in our community by creating venues for having fun together.” In their program strategy, it is written that the non-profit intends to “studiously avoid becoming involved as an advocate or adversary in community politics.”

The Enforcer

Lynette Tornatzky has been the most vocal of all the anonymous and non-anonymous supporters of the Tri-W project, and continues to argue the merits for it nearly three years after San Luis Obispo County Public Works dismissed the project as a “clear social infeasibility issue” on June 29, 2009. Shortly after the San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) struck down Taxpayers Watch’s push to dissolve the district, Tornatzky — a proud supporter of Taxpayers Watch — ran for the LOCSD in 2006. She ultimately lost the election, garnering 12.82% of the total vote.

Mrs. Tornatzky developed a reputation of appearing friendly and diligent. Even her political adversaries gave her high marks for her civility, which was a treat that many could appreciate in Los Osos. She often attends LOCSD meetings, and has proven to be informative and laid back — a sharp contrast to her husband. However, she was also a member of the Los Osos anonymous, and proved to be more cantankerous than her spouse.

Mrs. Tornatzky assumed the pseudonyms “sewercrazed” and “Sewertoons.” She assumed the responsibility of debunking and disparaging opinions expressed on The Tribune message board and elsewhere. The 55- year-long Los Angeles native and homemaker showed she was capable of disputing claims and opinions expressed by “Move the Sewer” advocates, and showed a strong political backbone. She’s known for having a condescending and combative variant of the Socratic dialogue, which frequently frustrates those who challenge her views. Supporters perceive her as a skilled debater, though she remains undeterred by criticism and facts that often contradict her positions. Many have found her comments to be callous, cold, and out of touch with the plight of homeowners residing in the Prohibition Zone.

Mrs. Tornatzky has a morbid fascination with illnesses and death suffered by her adversaries. She has repeatedly talked about the medical misfortunes of her critics, and has tried to establish a connection between their disagreeable views and their stress and ailments. She defended her peculiar views by expressing sympathy for her targets and their health, but speculated that their physical misfortune was somehow related to their sewer politics. Mrs. Tornatzky has repeatedly urged her critics to move out of town for “worrying” or being “stressed” over their opposition for the project. She was heavily criticized for her comments about the late Dr. Thomas Ruehr, a reputable Cal Poly professor and soil scientist, who passed away in January 2009.

On July 7, 2011, Los Osos resident Bo Cooper assailed Mrs. Tornatzky at an LOCSD meeting for comments she made on a temporarily used pseudonym, “Lie_Detector.” In her comments on The Tribune site, she expressed a desire for Cooper to succumb to leukemia after opining about his wife, Lacey, and her opinions of the Rates & Charges Ordinance. Mrs. Tornatzky removed her controversial comments only 15 minutes after posting them. Though she responded to being called Lynette, Mrs. Tornatzky denied that she used the pseudonym, and vehemently denied making those statements.

Mrs. Tornatzky recently endorsed attacks on Mr. Cooper — after his letter to the editor was published on December 9, 2011 — which accused him of “abusing time at the podium, bankrupt[ing] the community of Los Osos, default[ing] on low interest loans, and pollute[ing] the environment without once providing a viable alternative.” Mr. Cooper never served on the LOCSD, and his positions on sewer alternatives have been well-documented at the podium and on his column, “The Common Good,” which is featured on The ROCK. These attacks were one of many that were intended to incite anger, and publicize that anger to people inside and outside Los Osos.

In later years, her aggression went beyond politics. Things escalated into criminal harassment and psychosis in her pursuit of dissent to the County’s $189 million wastewater project.

“Expect me to stop you if you have an opinion, or put up an opinion piece. I have every right to,” warned Mrs. Tornatzky in a March 2010 e-mail to a “Move the Sewer” supporter and a regular speaker at BOS meeting public comment. Shortly after the e-mail was sent, two anonymous members on CalCoastNews accused Mrs. Tornatzky’s e-mail recipient of being violent and “clearly unstable.” The comments were removed. It was unclear whether one of them was Mrs. Tornatzky.

In October 2010, under the name “Lie_Detector,” Mrs. Tornatzky reportedly entertained the idea of reporting Tacker to the Department of Social Services after a member complained about her young son crying during a few CSD meetings.

“Julie’s [Tacker] son needs to be with better parents if she thinks the CSD will babysit,” wrote Mrs. Tornatzky under a Los Osos sewer-related article in The Tribune, who sympathetically asked the complaining member to call Social Services.

In 2008, Mrs. Tornatzky attempted to terminate the employment of one of her most vocal critics. She sought to terminate the employment of ECOFluid spokesman Mark Low, who heavily criticized her on the local blogs. She claimed that she was being harassed by Mr. Low. In a March 14, 2009 e-mail to SHARKINLET, Mr. Low wrote this about Mrs. Tornatzky: “Lynette still has her deceit to account for, so unless and until she admits her lie[s] how can she be ‘forgiven?’ How can the healing begin? I’ll continue to ask about her deceit until she admits it [...] I dislike liars.”

Mrs. Tornatzky was unable to get Mr. Low fired.

She had made calls to local businesses — including Carlock’s Bakery — and threatened them with boycotts if they continued supporting people like Schicker, a candidate that the bakery owners previously endorsed in 2004. Business owners scoffed at the boycott threats, stating that it had no impact on their business. However, some were quick to mention that the wastewater project itself would impact their sales because Prohibition Zone residents would have to cut down on their discretionary spending.

Some critics of the wastewater project have reported that Mrs. Tornatzky followed theirs cars, and parked outside their homes on several occasions.

“I looked out my window one afternoon [on March 12, 2009] after I came home from office hours at Sea Pines. She was there, parked in front of the house. She was just staring at me. It was weird. I wanted to ask her, ‘Why are you here? What do you want?’” told one elderly resident who regularly criticizes the County’s wastewater project. “Friends tell me she’s paid them ‘visits’. Doesn’t she have anything better to do?”

After spying on property of project dissenters, posts were published on The Tribune message boards, which provided her target’s home address, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and miscellaneous descriptions about their property. As one of her several proxies, Los Osos resident Judith Reilly (posted as “alabamasue” and “judith”), a long-time friend and supporter of Mrs. Tornatzky, supplied personal information on the message boards to reinforce her beleaguered ally’s narrative, and posted rumors that were wholly undocumented. Rumors included accusations that post-recall board members and supporters used drugs, committed infidelity, and invested in the flawed “Reclamator” system. Mrs. Reilly claimed that she received information from tax records and “curious neighbors who dug through the trash and some mailboxes.” Mrs. Tornatzky incorporated a lot of Mrs. Reilly’s “information” in her own posts, and praised her loyal friend for her exploits — though nothing actually happened as a result.

Mrs. Tornatzky preferred talking about where the sewer critics worked and where they were educated, though she was unable to establish a connection between critics’ opinions and their occupations. The disclosure of personal information appeared gratuitous. There were times when she posted personal information about project critics, and suggested that people should “take action,” though the kind of “action” was left undefined. Many of those comments were swiftly deleted after her targets complained to The Tribune.

Lately, she has written e-mails to known project dissidents in hopes of “countering the lies,” as she put it, about the County wastewater project and their supporters. Some have reported that Mrs. Tornatzky had sent more than 30 e-mails a day to project dissidents with the intent to “stop” them from supporting the STEP/STEG collection system, and other alternatives that County Public Works had previously torpedoed. She made similar vows on the local blogs.

Similarly, Mrs. Tornatzky has a peculiar habit of hijacking online discussions with talking points that contradict the views of the “obstructionists,” despite the County already achieving a series of milestones that have made her ideal sewer a reality. She has posted on many local blogs and news sites, telling people to accept the project or move. The online, obsessive-compulsive tirades against the opposition have mired her current tenure as a volunteer of two advisory committees that serve the LOCSD. She was voted into both committees by board president Marshall Ochylski, who also helped incorporate her husband’s non-profit organization and once served as a board member.

The Accountant

“I have access to many important CSD documents,” bragged “InsideTheCSD,” a member of The Tribune message boards. The anonymous, self-described “in-the-know accountant” uploaded several classified documents from the LOCSD office that showed “impropriety by the current board.” The documents were, in actuality, fiscal reports that were drafted by the general manager. The leaked documents were dated usually one week after InsideTheCSD disclosed them on the message boards. He would debrief the anonymous with his reports, and subsequently receive praise for his vigilance.

In between leaked documents and rants about voters who deserve his wrath for recalling three “honorable” board members, InsideTheCSD provided financial spreadsheets that forecasted economic devastation for Los Osos residents. According to his projections in July 2007, the sewer that once cost $154 million in 2005 would balloon to $200 million in 2007, and maybe $250 million in 2009 if he was lucky. These projections were not based on any sources. InsideTheCSD speculated that monthly costs would skyrocket to at least $300 a month — and he was unusually exuberant about the idea that thousands of residents would have to pay for the high pricetag. “They deserve to pay for it,” said InsideTheCSD. “They fucking earned it.”

Drumming up support for Taxpayers Watch lawsuits, which were initially filed in February 2006, the accountant accused the post-recall board of misappropriating more than $1 million from the district coffers, and alleged criminal conduct. Specifically, InsideTheCSD alleged that the board settled with non-profit organizations that they once belonged to with the intent to profit from those settlement agreements. However, authorities never investigated the post-recall board for criminal activity, and the lawsuits never reached the trial phase.

Richard LeGros announced that was the man behind InsideTheCSD, and he was completely shameless. He didn’t care that people knew that a bitter, recently recalled board director was riding the seas of anonymous discontent and profanely castigating the very same voters who elected him into office. He wanted nothing more than to destroy the establishment that he once served, and highlight the faults of the post-recall board in hopes of vindicating himself, and clearing his reputation. Ultimately, while LeGros was able to document some legal problems with the post-recall board, his vindictive tone against those who unseated him overshadowed the benefits of the settlement his group ultimately struck with the LOCSD.

When people, such as Ann Calhoun, criticized him for his extravagant scenarios of Doomsday for Los Osos residents, Mr. LeGros snapped back at his critics, calling them “mentally ill” for “mau-mauing” and making “theatrical nonsense,” though critics have accused him of being theatrical and over-the-top.

Notwithstanding the recall that ousted him from the LOCSD, Mr. LeGros had a few accounting problems of his own. In the mid-1990s, Mr. LeGros was reportedly sued for fraud by a lot owner in Paso Robles. The lot owner claimed Mr. LeGros had failed to disclose that the lot required major improvements — such as water main and street improvements — before it could be built on. The lot owner sued and prevailed. But by 1998, Mr. LeGros filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and went into straight liquidation (Bankruptcy Case ND 95-12641-RR). He left behind $225,000 of debt, including his liability to the lot owner that was set to recover damages. Mr. LeGros has denied the accusations, though the court records are readily available at the SLO County Courthouse.

Nearly 10 years later, he co-founded Taxpayers Watch and spear-headed the dissolution for the LOCSD. When LAFCO demanded the unincorporated association to pay $40,247.50 in expenses, LeGros’ name and signature was nowhere to be found in the Stipulated Entry for Judgment filing from March 20, 2007. Though he aggressively pushed for dissolution since he started posting as “InsideTheCSD,” the burden of debt was shifted to group’s lead organizers, yet he personally owed nothing. This was history repeating itself.

“I don’t regret anything,” said LeGros in March 16, 2009 during a casual, friendly conversation at his residence in Cabrillo Estates: a part of town that draws from the groundwater in the Prohibition Zone, but doesn’t pay for the sewer. “I have to tell the truth about these problems. Can’t help it, really. That’s who I am.”

Sitting cross-legged in his white loveseat, LeGros looked down at the Prohibition Zone and chuckled. “Online, we called the shots. We chose the candidates. We laid out the issues. We made things happen, and I didn’t have to leave the house,” he told me.

Conclusion

Think boiler-room, but in the form of anonymous, hyperbolic electronic communication between the self-described elites of Los Osos. The theory is that a group of Los Osos citizens came together and decided to take down the people who wronged them — and they would do anything to make it happen. Politics is still very dirty in Los Osos — and a small but dedicated core of politicos continue their fight a childish, high-tech war. There are others who continue to participate, but their comments are nothing more than your typical cyber-bullying that commonly appears in political discussions and Facebook discussions with high school students.

There’s something very ghoulish about these people — very cult-like. There is a lineage of obscene, criminal behavior that spans more than five years. The recent embrace of digital communications by political-savvy residents gives tremendous insight into the dark underbelly of Los Osos politics — and why a sewer would do nothing to prevent civility from being a permanent pipe dream.

For every twist and turn in the Los Osos sewer saga, the boiler-room crew descend on the discussion, and warp it with revisionist history lectures and finger-pointing until the subject matter is no longer recognized — and people outside the Hatfield-McCoy struggle are unable to discern the issue as it applies to them so they turn to cynicism, and wait for the chips to fall. The same people, who wage these sewer wars in cyberspace, have already had their story told in Barbara Wolcott’s “Small Town Perfect Storm: The Los Osos Sewer Saga,” but apparently the book was not enough. With the County’s project hurtling toward construction, they are often hard-pressed to explain why they persist in their attacks.

Even other proponents of the 2005 Tri-W project cannot explain why the war continues to be waged. “I don’t understand it,” said an exasperated local realtor who supported the “Move Forward: Save the Dream” campaign in 2005. “We’re good people. I don’t like being misrepresented by the angry few.”

The County of San Luis Obispo has remained mum regarding the ongoing hostility. Since AB2701 was signed into law, District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson has personally met with each known member of Los Osos boiler-room. Some continue to attend his office hours in Los Osos, and remain well-versed in County actions. None of the former anonymous actively attend board meetings, but they continue to stay informed and ready to attack if someone challenges the County. Many of their attacks mirror the conduct observed by former board chairman and District 3 Supervisor Adam Hill, who instructed The Tribune to peg the “obstructionists” as rude, violent, and requiring police supervision. The Tribune delivered, and the boiler-room cheered.

When I announced that anyone supporting that article would be noted for future reference, they accused me of trying to scare them away from posting any agreement with the article: an ironic charge when considering their previous objectives.

While some can say this online activity is insignificant and irrelevant to the project as it currently stands, there remains a very painful truth: no sewer will heal these rifts. For $189 million and counting, the Prohibition Zone may have a sewer, but there will always be the nagging nuisance of being told that sewer critics are responsible for the delays and rising costs by those who refuse to take accountability for their own actions. For $189 million and counting, the sewer will not bring peace — even if it’s able to clean up the groundwater and do everything the County projects that it would do.

Here’s the sad reality: For every person who criticizes the sewer, there are a handful of people who are dedicated to destroying that person from the inside out with unabashed, unparalleled hatred. For every person who speaks at the podium during BOS meetings, seeking answers about a project with still so many unanswered questions, there are several people who want nothing more than to ruin that person’s life by any means necessary. They have shown the intent instill fear into their hearts of their adversaries the very moment they step outside the confines of their home.

Whatever the boiler-room is trying to accomplish, it’s not working. Residents — on many sides of the debate — remain concerned about the wastewater project, and they have every right to be. There are reasons why people fight this project, but they choose not to wage their battles under aliases with a never-ending desire for vengeance, self-vindication and self-righteousness.

– Aaron Ochs

On December 13, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors approved a $7.6 million contract to HDR Engineering, a Nebraska-based global firm that would provide construction management services for the Los Osos wastewater project. This came after District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson assailed the project opposition for being “irrelevant” and “in denial” . . . → Read More: Gibson Calls Saving Millions “Irrelevant”]]>

Saltwater intrusion ignored

On December 13, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors approved a $7.6 million contract to HDR Engineering, a Nebraska-based global firm that would provide construction management services for the Los Osos wastewater project. This came after District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson assailed the project opposition for being “irrelevant” and “in denial” in comments that weren’t directly related to the contract itself.

While the costs continue to rise for the project — despite assurances from County Public Works that they are working within their $174 million budget — the project is once again overshadowed by Gibson’s draconian provocations, and the County’s callous unwillingness to look at the social and environmental impacts that Prohibition Zone homeowners would have to face and ultimately pay to mitigate. The last BOS meeting of the year ended on a note of defiance from the board, with no legitimate reason for them to do so other than to lay down a smokescreen to obscure the many questions and concerns they left unanswered.

The December 5, 2011 State Water Board meeting in Sacramento included on their agenda, a resolution which would authorize the board to reduce the interest rate for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan from 2.6% to at least 2.0%. County Public Works along with Gibson — who was also in attendance at the meeting — sought to reduce the interest rate to 0% for the life of the loan. According to Public Works, reducing the interest rate to 0% would reduce the average cost by only $18 per month. However, with only one SWB member supporting a 1% reduction, the board approved a reduction to 2.0%, which reduces the average monthly costs to $155/month.

That $160/month does not include sewer-related costs, such as on-lot costs, which would add around $44 more a month for a single-family residence — and that’s assuming that the single-family residence could have those costs financed by a 10-year personal loan with 9% interest. Add the property assessment to the total, and the monthly costs come to at least $222 a month. The $222/month figure is presumed, by Public Works, to remain consistent or lower because of their “cost-reducing strategies,” including “bid sizing, bid sequencing, contractor outreach, and front-end specifications.” In other words, Public Works continues to assume that construction bids and costs would come significantly lower than engineer estimates. The cost, at $222/month, remains an assumption — and that doesn’t include additional future costs to mitigate saltwater intrusion or for retrofitting homes.

Many public comment speakers on December 13 recognized that saltwater intrusion posed a greater threat than nitrate discharge.

Discussion of saltwater intrusion was conspicuously absent from the scope of work as prescribed in the $7.6 million contract with HDR Engineering. There was a mention that the issue was in the jurisdiction of the Interlocutory Stipulated Judgment (ISJ) agreement between the three major water purveyors in Los Osos: Golden State Water, Los Osos Community Services District, and S&T Mutual Water Company. However, the project — which supersedes the authority of the water purveyors in this respect — would remove septic systems, which is a major source of basin recharge. The basin recharge is what hinders saltwater intrusion from aggressively infiltrating the upper aquifer, which is the source of Los Osos’ drinking water. While septic systems don’t stop saltwater intrusion all together, it has been widely recognized by researchers that septics would be able to hold off the intrusion enough to implement an aggressive water conservation program that would help preserve the drinking water and assure its quality for residents.

To date, the County has not implemented a water conservation program that would also help mitigate adverse impacts to the basin by saltwater intrusion. A water conservation program is one of the conditions issued for the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) by the California Coastal Commission. Many experts agree that failing to implement a water conservation program would result in the inevitable destruction of the groundwater basin, and a spike in imported water rates as designated by the water purveyors. The local water purveyors have proposed a 40% rate hike on Los Osos residents as a means of implementing saltwater-intrusion prevention measures, nitrate treatment, and conservation that is completely irrespective to what the County is proposing.

Public Works defines HDR Engineering’s scope of work as providing a “constructability review that will provide recommendations to increase efficiency, safety and public convenience, reduce construction costs, and reduce risks of contractor conflicts. The review will also include recommendations for bid packaging to produce the best bid results and outreach to the contracting industry to increase interest in the Project.”

Critics of the sewer believed that awarding of the contract — based on this limited scope of work — was more “soft money” spent because the money didn’t go toward building the sewer. Public Works’ John Waddell disputed the accusation, saying that expenditures — like the overseer contract with HDR — fell squarely within the 10% of their $174 million budget. However, the “soft money” claim was not related to the budget at all. “Soft money” is defined as “one-time” funding from governments and organizations for a project or special purpose. That special purpose, according to the critics, pertained to resolving suspected groundwater pollution from nitrates, instead of actual groundwater destabilization with saltwater intrusion among other things.

“A good fraction of [public] comment is incorrect in one fashion or another,” Gibson told the board. Gibson said that there were “voices” calling for further delay, and those “voices” were in “denial,” and disconnected from the reality of the situation. Waddell did mention that while it was not related to the agreement with HDR Engineering, saltwater intrusion was a “necessary” issue to address in conjunction with the wastewater project, but it was labeled as being completely separate from the project entirely.

Gibson is uneducated about the project, if not uneducated about the comments that were brought before his board. Either that or he is a deadbeat “district dad” who owes $189 million in child support to his 12,500 district children he is abandoning.

Several speakers said, quite plainly, that they opposed the $7.6 million agreement with HDR Engineering because it was costly (see relevance) — and that cost was not being directed to addressing problems that should have already been addressed before. It was not about the cost as it pertained to being covered in the County budget. On countless occasions, people mentioned what the unmitigated problems were at every critical juncture of the process only for Gibson to make some snide remark about how “irrelevant” they are before motioning to adopt resolutions.

At the last BOS meeting of 2011, Gibson and Public Works demonstrated that the project has already failed, especially on the issue of saltwater intrusion. Clearly, Gibson lacks the courage to step outside the curtains of semantics to find the relevance of these issues. He has spent more time spewing whimsical denials than addressing his own growing disconnect from the reality that concerned residents have spent many years living in.

Clearly, the orange groves of Cayucos have shielded Gibson from being responsible for 12,500 ruined lives in Los Osos. If Gibson’s crass denials of the reality of thousands serve as any indication of how the County acts and feels about the project — and the people who are supposedly benefiting from it — how are they ever going to construct an affordable, sustainable project that actually works?

The best option to resolve these issues is for Los Osos homeowners to strike hard at the County’s failures with facts in 2012. Saltwater intrusion is a crisis, and overpaying $7.6 million from an economically devastated community to make sure it’s not fixed will not make things any better in Los Osos.

– Aaron Ochs

Los Osos environmental activist Joey Racano weighs in on the controversy surrounding the Morro Coast Audubon Society’s plans to remove Eucalyptus trees from the Sweet Springs Nature Preserve.

As misunderstood as King Kong and standing nearly twice as tall, the Eucalyptus of California is alive and well, and living in Sweet . . . → Read More: Don’t Disparage the Mighty Eucalyptus]]>

Do not cut these trees down!

Los Osos environmental activist Joey Racano weighs in on the controversy surrounding the Morro Coast Audubon Society’s plans to remove Eucalyptus trees from the Sweet Springs Nature Preserve.

As misunderstood as King Kong and standing nearly twice as tall, the Eucalyptus of California is alive and well, and living in Sweet Springs Nature Preserve. There are as many varieties of Eucalyptus as there are flavors at Baskin Robbins, with names like Blue Gum, Wooly Butt and Black Peppermint. As with many trees inhabiting present-day California, the Eucalyptus originated elsewhere, and some, like the Black Peppermint, grow taller in their native lands. There are some who disparage the mighty Eucalyptus, branding her an alien, an invasive, a weed to be eradicated. But like it or not, this tree is now part of our ecosystem, and causing us to redefine the word native.

According to the authoritative work “The Eucalyptus of California” by librarian/archivist Robert L. Santos, California State University, Stanislaus, Charlie Danielson of the California Native Plant Society once made the statement “No animal species feed on Eucalyptus.” But on a recent outing to Sweet Springs East, I personally observed and recorded a squirrel in one of the very trees marked for eradication, and it was eating Eucalyptus seeds! This throws into question how much the ecosystem would actually benefit from removal of these trees as compared to what these trees have come to provide.

Then there is the question of the Monarch butterfly, that solar powered two-winged riot of color that even now continue to be photographed in the very trees slated for removal. Cal Poly Graduate students have spent years documenting the Monarch butterfly’s use of the Eucalyptus in Los Osos and their movements among them. It is the opinion of these grad students that every Eucalyptus tree in the area is de facto critical habitat for these endangered butterflies.

In fact, of all the trees used by Monarch butterflies in California, a whopping 75% of them are Eucalyptus. The SLO County Land Conservancy in its very early days around 1998 wrote the “Sweet Springs Management Plan.” They had a Monarch specialist determine the Eucalyptus trees were used by the migrating Monarchs and that Sweet Springs was on the flyway for their migration. What are now left may be stragglers, but it is our job to bring them back.

In nearby Morro Bay, Eucalyptus make up an entire grove that serves year after year as a rookery for the Great Blue Heron, Black Crowned Night Heron, Great Egret and Cormorant. In Sweet Springs East, where this ill-conceived clearcut is proposed, species I have observed — using the trees in question — not only include Monarchs, but Admiral butterflies as well, along with squirrels, many hawks and a rather noisy Peregrine Falcon.

—Joey Racano

Because of their unyielding tenacity to present the sewer as a problem on a weekly basis, they have become political fodder for project supporters and outside observers who believe the . . . → Read More: Breaking Down the Fragmentation]]> Everyone in the County agrees that the opposition to the County’s planned Los Osos wastewater project is a stubborn bunch of watchdogs. And it’s true. They are.

Because of their unyielding tenacity to present the sewer as a problem on a weekly basis, they have become political fodder for project supporters and outside observers who believe the project should be moving forward.

They have also been accused of desperately cajoling officials into investigating scandals. Scandals between contractors, their own employees, and the relationships between employees and individuals with special interests, any weak link in the chain that is also somehow in some way connected to the Los Osos sewer.

For many years, the opposition has long held the belief that public comment at board meetings is crucial to “getting the message out” and influencing board members in their decisions. While the message was getting out, since 2006, 96% of sewer-related staff recommendations were approved unanimously by the board. Few of those recommendations received only one dissenting vote (namely board member Frank Mecham), but those initiatives won by a majority vote despite contentions raised by the opposition. Though the opposition earned a victory during the Planning and Coastal Commission permit appeal process, both commissions ultimately granted permits.

Still, some have chosen to speak on themes that, barring a miracle, don’t apply in the advanced stages of the project. Though the speakers’ intentions are compassion-driven, the weekly repetition has reduced the strength of their arguments and contributed to growing exasperation over 30+ years of project delays — and that exasperation has fueled misconceptions about the opposition and their core beliefs.

Misconceptions are reinforced by the opposition’s embrace of scandals and rumors that circulate around the community with the intent to undermine the County’s “ramrodding” progress. While many of these scandals would naturally raise suspicions about the credibility of the County project team, the County determined that there was no wrongdoing or — at the very least — there wasn’t enough wrongdoing to result in reprimands or terminations of those who were involved. The opposition has consistently chosen to abandon the scandals as a possible wedge issue once County investigations were concluded — and that has led critics to believe that the opposition relies heavily on diversionary tactics.

Local media has often castigated the “you delay, we pay” opposition for alleged rude behavior and their strong tendency to be repetitive based on what County officials view as misconceptions and exaggerations. In doing so, in their insularity, the opposition appears to lose their ability to look at their weaknesses objectively.

Every active member of the sewer opposition has a specific vision and set of solutions that are filtered through an individualized agenda. There are some who believe that a sewer is unnecessary because, in their opinion, nitrate-groundwater studies have not gone far enough to provide justification for a project that will cost $200 million, a heavy price-tag that 5,000 homeowners begin paying for this month.

There are some who believe that a sewer would be beneficial to Los Osos, but not at the cost of the current project. There are some who believe that project alternatives have not been thoroughly considered as promised, and that those alternatives would save the Los Osos community many millions. Because there is a variety of beliefs, the opposition has a very decentralized approach to resolving critical issues — and because of that decentralization, any unifying message is lost in the whirlwind of individualized agendas.

The amount of people presenting their agendas publicly has diminished significantly since late 2006. Since the passage of then Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee’s AB2701 legislation — which authorized the transferal of project authority to the County of San Luis Obispo — and as the County achieved project milestones, public participation began to fall off.

Despite various milestones that helped achieve the permits and funding for the project, a small group of residents have continued to advocate their positions regularly at Board of Supervisors meetings with the intent to correct County misstatements and decisions made on their behalf — at the community’s expense because Los Osos Prohibition Zone homeowners are paying for the project, not the rest of the County. Many residents still oppose the project privately.

The visible opposition, those that come out to publicly contest County decision-making and offer solutions, focuses on a variety of issues that relate to each other but have no clear methodology for applying resolutions — nor the leadership that bridges them or speaks for them.

The most popular opposition contention is the lack of commitment from the County to thoroughly review project alternatives, namely the STEP/STEG collection system. Though that system’s vendors have asserted that installation would cost at least $50 million less than a conventional gravity collection system, which the County selected in early 2009, the opposition has been unable to overcome major hurdles that undermine their vision. The biggest hurdle remains the passage of the Proposition 218 assessment vote, which gave the County complete autonomy to set the course for the project. Once the County achieved USDA funding in 2010, and permits from participating regulatory agencies — culminating with the California Coastal Commission permit — the opposition lost most, if not all, options to challenge the County’s decision-making.

Project opponents have traditionally rallied behind legal remedies. Legal challenges are often presented, initially, as a definitive solution to the wastewater project crisis, but are ultimately defeated or unrealized because of lack of funds, broad support community, a strong cause of action, or transparency.

However, the effectiveness of most legal challenges is barred by time, money and statute of limitations. Prior directives to improve water quality in Los Osos (i.e. Resolution 83-13) were left mostly unchallenged during their designated protest periods. Over time, opportunities to provide legal recourse have appeared sporadically, without the elements necessary to galvanize the wider community.

How can the opposition be effective in the short amount of time remaining to contest the project?

The ongoing fragmentation of the project opposition has led it closer to its vanishing point as summer construction start-up nears. Holding on to a smorgasbord of niche talking points and issues weakens a shaky foundation of ideas, ideas that could find new life out in the hidden community, if they get to people in their homes. The common, uniting point has always been affordability. Discussing technology and sewer-related issues in terms that are just as antiquated as the County’s sewer project do not hit people where they live, in their pocketbooks and wallets.

Only by speaking about their personal pain as homeowners (not activists) will the discussion be able to expand to a larger audience of people who want to know about their own future in Los Osos, not about the lost opportunities. But before any of that can be accomplished, sewer critics must acknowledge the flaws and the repercussions of their fragmentation, in-fighting, and colliding egos — and remember the goal: an affordable project.

Because those who make up the opposition to the County’s deeply flawed plan are the proponents of an affordable project for thousands.

– Aaron Ochs

UPDATE (December 23): According to the RCLO web site, Marshall Ochylski was removed from the board of directors roster.

After our article about ReCreate Los Osos was published, many residents came forward to raise concerns about the non-profit organization, their intentions, and the mystery surrounding the group’s formation. Here . . . → Read More: UPDATE: Say “No!” to ReCreate LO]]>

Popcorn Politics (Original photo by the New Times)

UPDATE (December 23): According to the RCLO web site, Marshall Ochylski was removed from the board of directors roster.

After our article about ReCreate Los Osos was published, many residents came forward to raise concerns about the non-profit organization, their intentions, and the mystery surrounding the group’s formation. Here is some more information about the organization and its founders.

RCLO legal counsel and Los Osos Community Services District Marshall Ochylski filed as an Articles of Incorporation on behalf of RCLO in February 2011, but the formation of the group was announced by Ochylski at an LOCSD meeting on August 5, 2010, the same day that the district signed a settlement agreement involving Taxpayers Watch. If he was involved with the non-profit at that point in time, Ochylski did not — at the very least — disclose his specific involvement with RCLO. He also did not disclose that some of the board members were also board members and significant financial contributors to Taxpayers Watch.

Ochylski signed the agreement without disclosing information that was potentially potent enough to merit recusal.

Without mentioning his involvement with RCLO, Ochylski had helped vote in Lynette Tornatzky, wife of the current board president, twice to two advisory committees in the LOCSD by unanimous roll call. Currently, there is no one citizen that serves on more than one committee. According to the minutes from the February 3 (when Mrs. Tornatzky was voted in as a member of the Utilities Advisory Committee) and July 7 (when Ochylski approved the staff recommendation to appoint Mrs. Tornatzky to the Emergency Services Advisory Committee) meetings, Ochylski did not disclose his involvement with her husband’s organization. Legally, this merits disclosure as ex parte communication. Given the closeness of their relationship as a result of RCLO’s formation, it can be reasonably deduced that ex parte communications between Ochylski and the Tornatzkys had a substantial likelihood of taking place.

Calling herself a “volunteer,” Mrs. Tornatzky defended the existence and mission of her husband’s non-profit organization.

When Calhoun’s Cannon published an article that also questioned the motives and the mission of RCLO, Tornatzky wrote in response, “There are whole professions based on healing injury and pain that was not caused by those practicing those professions.” When the sewer portion of her non-profit’s mission was addressed by local blogger Ann Calhoun‘s readers, Tornatzky wrote, “People are sick of the drama, sick of the divisions. Time to move on.”

Repeating several times that she is a “volunteer,” Tornatzky said RCLO was “aware that people need free stuff to attend, and that is what the goal is — RCLO pays the big items like rent, props (like a popcorn cart or something like that) and the insurance on the venues. There needs to be funding to do things like that.”

Funding may not be as lacking as Mrs. Tornatzky is loosely suggesting.

Mr. Tornatzky, who is a professor of Industrial Technology and Co-Director of University Center for Innovation & Entrepreneurship at Cal Poly’s Orfalea College of Business, earned a total of $114,345.38 in annual income last year, according to the Sacramento Bee’s State Worker Salary Search. In comparison, the controversial Community Survey report from March 27, 2009 had 30% of residents inside the Prohibition Zone earning under $50,000. Forty-two percent of the same respondents indicated that they would definitely or probably apply for financial assistance to pay for the Los Osos sewer. Mr. Tornatzky can be more aptly described as a local member of the “1%” that prioritizes funding for “big items” — like renting popcorn carts and insurance for venues — over record-breaking sewer expenses and additional mitigation costs that the “99%” incomes would be paying for, or “something like that.”

The “volunteer,” who said that “sewer talk” was prohibited at RCLO’s events, took aim at her critics and their “sewer talk” by saying, “The thing that gets me about this, is when there are true things brought forth, those who believed something else, or don’t like that answer just say that isn’t what happened, and accuse the fact finder as lying! Some just prefer to stay mad [...] Many of the answers ARE out there, but they don’t satisfy those who don’t want to move on or didn’t like that particular truth.”

Therein lies the fundamental flaw of ReCreate Los Osos.

The non-profit organization, whose mission is comprised mostly of “sewer talk,” never once mentions the group’s political origins. The majority of RCLO board members backed the 2005 Tri-W plan, which was later defeated by a community referendum in 2005, the Los Osos Technical Advisory Committee in 2007, and San Luis Obispo County Public Works in 2009.

Though the almost-universal, resounding “no” from voters and authorities on Tri-W officially set the trajectory for the project, the majority of RCLO was not satisfied. Instead, they formed and clearly supported an uninformed association of recalled board directors in hopes of suing Tri-W critics and board successors for public waste and conflict of interest — thus spurring more division in the community. Once it was clear that they couldn’t prove their case with the preponderance of evidence in a trial court, they focused on dissolving the district — and they were ultimately unsuccessful.

The answer “no” to Tri-W had become cemented in the history of the Los Osos wastewater project, but “no” was still not accepted even though it was past time “to move on.” RCLO board members continued to fight for their vision by fighting to diminish the opposition, while telling everyone that the “war” is over, that 5,000 homeowners are at risk of losing their homes over a sewer is merely one of the “bad things in every life that just need to be gotten past.” That’s because the real problem, says RCLO, is the lack of “free events.”

RCLO is the shining example of why Los Osos is in serious trouble. When one drives through the town, they see businesses closing down and people walking around wondering what’s next for them. Some have lived in this seaside community for several decades, watching every wastewater project incarnation come and go, in and out like the tides in the bay. Nonetheless, people love living there. Unfortunately, the sewer costs will change forever the way people live, the ones that can survive the eventual $250 month sewer bill, in Los Osos.

But there are some people — especially those who can personally and easily afford the sewer, just like the politicians on the County Board of Supervisors — who believe that this burden is simply a “part of life” or it’s some divine punishment for those who were unable to accept the vision of a select group of homeowners isolated to pay exclusively for the project. But when “healing” is invoked by the very same people, you must stop talking about a sewer that is unjustly expensive in a historical era of severe economic decline, and bring out the popcorn carts. Forget about the repression, the social engineering of elected officials, the gentrification, or the forceful and antagonistic deprivation of the people’s rights to protest. Who else but the socially tone-deaf ReCreate Los Osos could brush aside the writings on the wall, and disingenuously draw over it with bright-colored crayons?

There is no reason for ReCreate Los Osos to exist, and it would be an insult to the Los Osos people for this group to solicit donations and spend other people’s money — for the sake of “creating venues for having fun together” — when they refuse to spend their own money in restitution for the political and economic turmoil that they either concocted or contributed to. There is no reason for a sitting CSD board president to do them any favors.

This is corruption in action. Contributing to any RCLO events only endorses it.

– Aaron Ochs

Not another “healing” group! At least that’s what they claim to be. Razor Online took a closer look to see who’s “healing” who.

This year, Taxpayers Watch ReCreate Los Osos made its debut during this year’s Oktoberfest. RCLO is the newest in a long line of local non-profits in Los Osos that have . . . → Read More: ReCreate Tri-W]]>

Free the Tornatzky Six?

Not another “healing” group! At least that’s what they claim to be. Razor Online took a closer look to see who’s “healing” who.

This year, Taxpayers Watch ReCreate Los Osos made its debut during this year’s Oktoberfest. RCLO is the newest in a long line of local non-profits in Los Osos that have aimed to “heal the rifts in the community” that have been caused by the wastewater project controversy.

Ironically, like the other non-profits — such as Celebrate Los Osos, from whom they’re cloned –  RCLO has contributed, if not created, the rifts that are currently in place in Los Osos. In their mission statement, ReCreate Los Osos states that the “multi-year sewer conflict is the initiating spark for the formation” of the non-profit. Instead of the inherent desire to make the community of Los Osos better, RCLO is founded upon and thrives on decades of misery.

Their spellcheck-deprived mission statement goes on to say, “We’d like to heal the rifts in our community by creating venues for having fun together – projects, gatherings, music, plays and walks, leveraging the bountiful creativity and wide variety of our residents.” Interestingly, Celebrate Los Osos has a similar mission. CLO writes, “We are an all-volunteer community-based organization whose goal is to ‘make a difference, one project at a time’ by improving public spaces in Los Osos and Baywood Park, California.” Instead of “public spaces,” RCLO calls it “venues.” There appears to be a redundancy of non-profits that are supposedly trying to achieve the same goals, and RCLO doesn’t establish the difference between them and their predecessors. However, their rationale is exclusively their own.

On their “History” page, RCLO summarizes what they call “The Problem.”

The sewer controversy is compared to the eviction of the Chumash from Los Osos, and the slaughter of grizzly bears in the late 1700s. The disruption and violence from the community’s historic past is compared to “three decades of shouting matches in public meetings, neighbor to neighbor anger, public and private character assassinations, calling out sheriff deputies and a seemingly endless reformulation of the questions and solutions that define the conflict.” Interestingly, the board members of RCLO do not specifically disclose their involvement in the conflict.

But they do address their involvement, albeit ambiguously.

RCLO establishes a narrative full of contradictions.

For one, the positions made by the board members of RCLO are not “various.”

For example, Lou Tornatzky is the CEO. Mr. Tornatzky and his wife, Lynette, repeatedly endorsed the 2005 wastewater project, which was configured to be in the middle of town (“Tri-W”). The project was subjected to a community referendum in September 2005, which included a recall of three board members that received $10,000 worth of campaign contributions from MWH Americas, the controversial contractor which has been involved in the current incarnation of the project.

Shortly after the recall, Taxpayers Watch was formed. The “non-profit corporation,” which never had 501(c)(3) classification and was not registered in the state in California, was formed with the intent to challenge the now-defunct Measure B — which a majority of voters approved in the recall election that moved the sewer away from Tri-W — and dissolve the Los Osos Community Services District. The LOCSD included members who strongly opposed the sewer project at Tri-W.

RCLO board member and Legal Counsel Marshall Ochylski was once hired to represent Tri W Enterprises, the original owners of the mid-town location. Ochylski did not disclose his legal interest on his application when he applied for the Technical Advisory Committee. As part of TAC’s environmental ad-hoc committee, Ochylski pushed for a comparison between the sewer’s alternative locations and the Tri-W site, which was then called the “mid-town site,” as requested by Ochylski. The “mid-town site” was later dismissed on June 29, 2009 by San Luis Obispo County Public Works are being a “social infeasibility issue.” Later as president of the LOCSD, Ochylski would vote in favor of the April 2010 settlement agreement with Taxpayers Watch. Now, Ochylski serves as Legal Counsel for Taxpayers Watch’s board members and most prominent contributors.

RCLO board member Jan Harper is also the Administrative Clerk for the LOCSD. In early 2005, Harper worked with then-LOCSD board members Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley and Richard LeGros, and assisted them in locking the LOCSD office when former board members Lisa Schicker and Julie Tacker sought documents pertaining to the Tri-W project. According to sources directly involved with district affairs, Harper was also responsible for deleting e-mails of public records requests that were relevant to the 2005 project. Harper also has a reputation for being provocative toward Tri-W opponents. On a couple occasions, Harper made a throat-cutting gesture, in the direction of Vicki Milledge, at vocal community members who advocated against Tri-W at both LOCSD and Los Osos Community Advisory Council meetings. Harper is now a member of LOCAC.

RCLO board member Milledge is also the chairwoman of LOCAC. Milledge has been accused of preventing vocal opponents of Tri-W from serving on the advisory council, though the council sometimes recommends otherwise. On Thursday, October 27, Milledge conducted a secret ballot vote, which resulted in approving Deborah Grisanti for the board, thereby circumventing the recommendation made by the council to appoint former CSD director Julie Tacker. During her tenure as chair, Milledge has refused to comply with the California Brown Act, a series of mandatory open meeting laws. Instead, Milledge has opted to abide by the “spirit” of the Brown Act, while refusing to publicly disclose the board actions — as well as her actions — on public record. The LOCAC web site, which provided the agenda and minutes under former chairwoman Carole Maurer‘s leadership, has been “under construction” for the past year.

The board members of RCLO are far from being models of civility. Quite to the contrary. Mr. Tornatzky has issued threats to the post-recall board, and had violent outbursts, such as kicking chairs and shouting obscenities at the board randomly, when he expressed disagreement over post-recall board actions and demanded they listen to him.

Mrs. Tornatzky is an active blogger on several local sites and has used multiple blog pseudonyms to inundate online discussions with antagonistic messages and threats to “stop” those who disagree with her positions. She has been accused of repeatedly smearing the reputations of community members. She has also been seen inspecting property of project dissidents, and has tailed community members she has labeled “obstructionists.” In 2007, Mrs. Tornatzky fought to terminate the employment of ECOfluid Systems’ Mark Low over comments he made on Calhoun’s Cannon. Since RCLO was incorporated in February 2011, Mrs. Tornatzky has continued this activity, though her husband’s organization has vowed to “studiously avoid becoming involved as an advocate or adversary in community politics.”

RCLO board members were actively involved in the production and promotion of Barbara Wolcott’s Small Town Perfect Storm: The Los Osos Sewer Saga, a book that many have seen as riddled with inaccuracies and heavily slanted in the favor of those who previously supported the 2005 Tri-W project, if not commissioned by them directly. Razor Online reviewed the book, saying it was “not entirely a work of fiction, [but] it thrives as a work of hyperbole, which some may find dangerous for undermining the possibility of engaging in constructive discussions regarding the wastewater project.”

So when RCLO says that they’ll “studiously avoid becoming involved as an advocate or adversary in community politics,” that’s not true — not by a long shot.

It’s always a good thing when people want to do good for their community, and nobody — not even the ones who e-mailed the water board to “fine [Los Osos residents] out of existence” — should be excluded from making a difference, but it’s remarkably insincere and dishonest for these people to isolate themselves away from the problems they helped create and perpetuate up to this very day, months after their web site was established.

To form a non-profit organization based on the sewer controversy is strange, and while that gaping wound remains open, the idea of “creating venues for having fun together” is purely insane. The sense of timing is downright ghoulish. With costs rising on top of the $200+/month for the sewer during a time of economic turbulence, it’s irresponsible to turn away from the problems they helped create and continue to “recreate.” Instead, they focus on creating opportunities for thousands of residents and local businesses unable to remain in Los Osos to fully partake in any opportunities.

The “sin and repent” non-profit organizations — such as Celebrate Los Osos and ReCreate Los Osos — attempt to resolve smaller issues while deliberately ignoring the problems on a larger scale. Unfortunately, the two-faced leaders behind these “sin and repent” non-profits are incorrigibly bent on destroying the lives of those who would theoretically benefit from their good deeds. This mind-numbing contradiction calls for everyone involved in ReCreate Los Osos to stop their destructive behavior and focus on doing good — if that’s actually their intent.

Otherwise, ReCreate Los Osos is merely a lazy rebranding of a pedigree of dangerously partisan groups, and failed ideas by people who have long heaped hate upon their neighbors for disagreeing with them.

– Aaron Ochs

Razor Online has an exclusive report, detailing a large-scale operation by County officials to discredit Los Osos wastewater project dissent in never-before-seen detail.

When San Luis Obispo County Public Works Director Paavo Ogren attended a town hall meeting on June 19, 2007, he was asked by a resident about working with Dana . . . → Read More: Inside The County Sewer ‘Game’]]>

The evil engineers of division

Razor Online has an exclusive report, detailing a large-scale operation by County officials to discredit Los Osos wastewater project dissent in never-before-seen detail.

When San Luis Obispo County Public Works Director Paavo Ogren attended a town hall meeting on June 19, 2007, he was asked by a resident about working with Dana Ripley of Ripley Pacific Company and the STEP/STEG collection system. He calmly told the resident, “Personally, I’m not a fan of that technology. Besides, [Ripley] and his project is more or less absurd. I don’t want to work with him, and… so what’s the point in complaining, right? We just follow the process. I just do what I’m told.

“It’s part of the game.”

At that point, Ogren made the determination not to pursue that system based on petty dislike, not science or economics — so it came as no surprise to many that nearly two years later, that technology was removed from consideration. This effectively nixed initial promises — made by Public Works in several mailers to residents — to bring both STEP and gravity collection to the total cost-comparison stage. Since then, the County Board of Supervisors has tightened restrictions on Los Osos public comment after publicly extolling their own benevolence for allowing an “unprecedented amount of public comment.”

Current board chairman Adam Hill had publicly chided Los Osos residents several times. But in recent communications with top fundraisers and supporters of Adam Hill’s 2012 re-election campaign (Team Adam Hill), Hill had stated his intent to “dismount [Los Osos] from their high horse.”

Supporters, speaking on the condition of anonymity, reacted to a post I made on the Team Adam Hill Facebook page, which linked to my open letter to Adam Hill. Hill never replied to my letter, and my post was swiftly removed from his page — but not before his supporters personally wrote to me in his defense. “Hill just wants the [Los Osos wastewater project] issue to go away,” wrote one supporter in a Facebook message, “but it’s bothering him that week after week, people keep speaking about an issue that he sees is already dealt with.”

Another supporter, who often has candid conversations with Hill, told me, “Adam says, ‘Get rid of [Los Osos public comment speakers]. They’ve done nothing for my district, my constituents. They’ve done nothing for me, personally. Those assholes should be shot, in my opinion. I can’t stand to look at their faces anymore.’”

Hill explained to his supporter that Hill had summoned sheriff deputies because he was “threatened” by their “constant viciousness,” which, in actuality, does not legally constitute an actual threat. Supporters claimed that Hill vaguely alluded to threats that were allegedly communicated by one of the public comment speakers, but declined to cite the source of the threat(s).

This past Tuesday, two sheriff deputies were in the board chambers when Los Osos residents spoke. Regular speaker Richard Margetson asked the board for an explanation about the increase of deputies present, but received no response, as usual. No response is their response.

The supporter explained that Los Osos speakers are “corralled into a block of speakers” by Hill, which makes it easier for the deputies to supervise at a given time. Though he disagreed with how “heavy-handed” Hill’s actions have been, the supporter emphasized heavily on Hill’s willingness to move forward with the wastewater project “without the vile bickering,” though Hill has not provided any evidence to substantiate what he believes to be “vile bickering.” In fact, it was Hill who, at the October 4 Board of Supervisors, cut the microphone of Los Osos resident Linde Owen because she was allegedly making a “personal attack” toward staff — though she was only referring to an article written by CalCoastNews and made no personal attacks.

Regarding Owen, Hill allegedly told a few of his supporters in e-mails that she “deserved to be smacked” for what he called “obnoxious, repetitive attacks against honest people.”

Supporters referred to e-mails they received, which showed Hill detailing his rationale for pursuing Owen, and others like her. The e-mails outlined a counter-strategy, which Hill said was perfected by his supportive colleague, District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson. Gibson found the methods to be “very effective,” according to Hill.

The strategy involved relaying e-mails to The Tribune’s Bob Cuddy, who allegedly expressed enthusiasm over publishing dismissive columns about the “obstructionists.” The term “obstructionist” was repeatedly used by Hill, according to sources. The e-mails relayed instructions to The Tribune to describe the “obstructionists” as “violent,” a claim which has remained unsubstantiated.

In turn, Cuddy — after meeting with Tribune Vice President & Executive Editor Sandra Duerr — would publish an article with the intent to manifest animus toward project dissidents and diminish their credibility. These articles often omitted the core arguments of the dissidents, or took the arguments out of context. Duerr refused to publish Owen’s rebuttal to Cuddy’s column. Owen would later explain her situation in detail on the KVEC 920′s “Dave Congalton Show.”

Though other news sources covered it, The Tribune declined to write about Owen’s microphone being cut.

In another e-mail, Hill once quipped to a supporter, “Remember the lemon? That worked.”

The “lemon” is a reference to a gimmick once utilized by Los Osos resident Al Barrow, a vocal critic of the County project, who brought a lemon to the podium at Board of Supervisors meetings. The lemon was a symbol of the project, according to Barrow. The lemon was used to describe the project during the protest period for the Rates & Charges ordinance, which was passed with 15% of residents protesting the service charges. Without explaining, in detail, why residents were protesting, the David Sneed-penned article included a large photo of Barrow holding a lemon. The photo was placed prominently in the paper.

Barrow has been a target of The Tribune, who once published an article on June 21, 2006 that claimed he entered then-Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee‘s office, “criticized Blakeslee’s recently announced plan” to his scheduler, Audrey Crescenti, who told The Tribune, “He was so aggressive and agitated that I was frightened by his threat [to "attack the office"],” that she called the California Highway Patrol. The CHP later determined that Barrow posed no threat, but the insinuation that dissidents were “violent” was already cemented into the consciousness of Los Osos residents — and even then, dissidents were not allowed by The Tribune to offer their rebuttal. The results of the investigation were not published by The Tribune.

Thus, the strategy was “very effective.” Mission accomplished.

This begs many questions: If this sewer project is fully justified on the milestones alone, why is there such a massive undertaking to discredit the opposition? If there is a large groundswell of support for a project, why conspire with a newspaper to smear the few for speaking out, and conflate the misconstrued actions of a few to represent the cause as a whole?

If there is a sincere belief that your personnel are innocent of wrongdoing, why cut the microphone of those who are concerned about the allegations? If you’re calling for civility and don’t like the “vile things” being communicated by speakers at the podium, why do you act so uncivilly with violent words and uncivil actions to justify your mission? There has been no answer to these questions, except cowardice.

I understand The New-Times’ Shredder now. The “local parade of familiar characters” who keep coming to the podium week after week are “nuts.” With a thorough narrative that has been constructed — with tremendous precision — since 2006, how could you not think that these people are “nuts”? On paper, these “nuts” seem to be nuisances, or miscreants, who protest with no rational explanation. And when they exhibit anger — with the same kind of nonviolent anger that has been exhibited by those wanting justice and rights throughout the history of our country — they are “violent,” and supposedly “out of touch” with the “amazing” progress that has finally come after 30+ years of torment. How dare they?

With Los Osos politics already being something that could turn friendly neighbors into mortal enemies at the slightest utterance of the word “sewer,” the narrative of the “nut”  — and the sewer game our elected officials whimsically play — has pushed people into hiding out of fear of retaliation by the government, the press, and the people that support them. Perhaps that’s what has made the majority “silent.”

Yet, there is no evidence to suggest, in any shape or form, that the “silent majority” tacitly approves what comes before them, and what will come their way. Instead, there is only evidence to show that people do not want to have an opinion for the sake of their livelihoods — and then there are some who have no idea of what’s about to happen to them.

No government should ever be in the business of engineering division. No newspaper should ever be in the business of aiding and abetting in the engineering of division on behalf of elected officials. The prevalence of these tactics only illustrates corruption, and why people need to speak up in order to stop it.

– Aaron Ochs

Welcome to the “Great Seismic Disaster Game,” the only game show in America where you spin the Seismic Wheel of Misfortune and, if you live in Los Osos, you lose your home no matter what!

Now let’s meet the host of “The Great Seismic Disaster Game,” County whipmaster and Gordon Gekko impersonator, Bruce . . . → Read More: The Wheel of Misfortune]]>

Your host for disaster.

Welcome to the “Great Seismic Disaster Game,” the only game show in America where you spin the Seismic Wheel of Misfortune and, if you live in Los Osos, you lose your home no matter what!

Now let’s meet the host of “The Great Seismic Disaster Game,” County whipmaster and Gordon Gekko impersonator, Bruce Gibson!

“Hi everybody, I just want to say you’ve heard the rules of the game over and over, and we’ve answered all your questions here and elsewhere, so I’m just going to cut the comments and introduce our first contestant, Ramona Farrell from Los Osos. Tell us a little something about yourself, Ramona, but not too much.”

“Well, I’m a single, divorced mother of two sons, I live in the Prohibition Zone and I can’t afford…”

“Shut up, Ramona, and spin the Seismic Wheel of Misfortune! Remember, you have no choice.”

“Oh all right…  Here goes nothing.”

“Oh no, Ramona. Bummer. You landed on “Liquefaction”!”

“What does this mean, Bruce!”

“It means you win that sinking feeling everyday for the rest of your life. Because your house and the sewer are in Los Osos’ documented liquefaction zone, and if there’s a major earthquake, you have the opportunity to lose everything!”

“Like in New Zealand and Japan?”

“Exactly, Ramona. “

“Isn’t there anything you can do to protect us?”

“Well, Ramona, the only true protection is improving the soil in the liquefaction zone or modifying the design of the sewer, and we’re going to do neither. We want to make absolutely sure you suffer the maximum consequences for our mistakes and get stuck with the bill for the damages when the quake hits. Either way, you pay.”

“So you propose to do absolutely nothing to reduce the liquefaction hazard – knowing how dangerous it is to thousands of people?”

“Clearly, yes, Ramona. That’s right. We have a report, two plans, a couple tractors and bottled water we can throw at the quake if it shows up unannounced. But I’m betting it won’t, not as long as I’m on the Board of Supervisors.”

“Wouldn’t it be smarter to use what was learned from Japan and New Zealand and incorporate that into the design of the sewer before an earthquake here likely triggers liquefaction?”

“That would be logical, wouldn’t it, Ramona? But we’ve already put our money, which is your money, in the wrong technology, ignored the lower-cost technology, ignored affordability to build the most expensive project, conned the USDA into ignoring the risk to homeowners and taxpayers, wasted both public and federal stimulus dollars in the process – and I see no reason to change policy now.

“But what happens if that earthquake does hit those fault lines under Los Osos and Diablo Canyon? Then what?

“Run for your life! If the radioactivity doesn’t fry you, you’ll be sucking sand in Los Osos till Kingdom Come!”

“I thought you were a geophysicist and would know better?”

“And you probably thought Senator Sam Blakeslee, a seismologist, would know better, too, I suppose? You also probably thought because Sam led the fight for a complete, deep seismic study for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant before relicensing it that he would also demand a parallel seismic study for the Los Osos sewer before building it with faulty materials, since the same fault lines lie under Los Osos’ liquefaction zone that lie under and around Diablo Canyon, only eight miles apart… But he didn’t and never will! And you know I won’t unless someone pays me royally.”

“That simply defies logic, Bruce.”

“That’s my job as host of the show, to defy all logic, push the show, fatten my portfolio, and make absolutely sure a colossal failure is completely predictable.”

“That’s a good bet since experts have known about the liquefaction hazard in Los Osos for 15 years, and established measures to…”

“Shut up, Ramona, and spin the wheel again. Your three minutes are up. You’ve got plenty of misfortune ahead and so let’s get to it!”

“You must hate Los Osos a lot to wish us death and destruction so you and your buddies can profit…”

“Well, let me put it to you this way, Ramona, whenever one of you Los Osos people step up to the podium to speak at public comment at Board of Supervisors meetings, I keep finding myself singing a well-known Rolling Stones song and slightly changing the words. You know the one, Ramona…”

“Which one is that, Bruce.”

“I can’t get no, no liquefaction… no, no, no, no… no liquefaction. NO LIQUEFACTION! Yeah! Sing along with me, Ramona…”

“Do I have to?”

“Did you know, if you don’t pay your sewer bill, we can take your house away and sell it within five years?”

“In what key should I sing?”

— Ed Ochs

On Thursday, the New Times’ Shredder doubled down on criticism about Los Osos residents, and mentioned Razor Online in a particularly unflattering light.

The Shredder wrote, “As much as I bitch and moan about having to listen to people say the same things over and over and over and over . . . → Read More: New Times ‘Lame’ Identity Crisis]]>

New Times sticks it to Los Osos

On Thursday, the New Times’ Shredder doubled down on criticism about Los Osos residents, and mentioned Razor Online in a particularly unflattering light.

The Shredder wrote, “As much as I bitch and moan about having to listen to people say the same things over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, I don’t actually prevent [Los Osos public comment speakers] from doing so. That’s lame.”

If you write an editorial that tells concerned residents to “shut up” and “put a cork in it,” you’re advocating people to remain silent on issues that they are concerned about. That’s lame. To be fair, Shredder did not advocate people being prevented from speaking as some sort of physical restraint. The Shredder simply made a recommendation — during a time when people are speaking out more prominently because of Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protests — that people should just “shut up” because this anonymous figure has determined that “people say the same things over and over and over again.”

I hope you don’t mind saying the same things over and over and over again, but when the government is not listening, it’s often necessary to repeat yourself. To thumb your nose at repetition — as being a member of a westernized democratic society — is to encourage the deprivation of Americans from participating in a democracy. Now that’s lame.

The Shredder wrote, ” I write one column, and suddenly all of New Times is part of an ongoing campaign being waged against the paper’s opponents in Los Osos in an effort to silence them?”

There’s been more than one article from the New Times that has disparaged Los Osos residents. There have even been comments issued by the publication’s top brass — which have been posted on Razor Online — indicating a strong disdain for Los Osos residents. However, the New Times has provided favorable coverage in some instances (see Colin Rigley). Coincidentally, the New Times has consistently penned editorials that have sought to undermine the residents as being “curmudgeons” or “sewer nuts.”

Despite this, Los Osos residents, such as Linde Owen, have repeatedly reached out to the publication to have their viewpoints published — only to have their viewpoints later dismissed by an anonymous mouthpiece that has become a trademark for the publication. Now that Owen’s microphone was cut by BOS chairman Adam Hill, Owen is unceremoniously grouped into the “sewer nuts” category without much consideration for the principles that she stands for. Yet, the Shredder denounces Hill for attempting to do the very same thing. There is enormous inconsistency that even flip-flopping politicians might find offensive.

But the Shredder addresses the inconsistency. He writes, “New Times writers have been loved and hated by the very same folks in the sewer-starved burg, depending on their story of the week. Write something one side likes? You’re a hero who deserves a parade. Write something they don’t? You’re the scum they scrape off their shoes with the despised paper. Do both, as tends to happen in a complex paper featuring a multitude of voices covering a complex community with a multitude of voices over several decades? Well, you’re labeled schizophrenic, an enemy of the state, or both.”

New Times co-founder Steve Moss was the original Shredder. After he passed away, the Shredder was penned by several writers working for the publication, and the views — expressed by the Shredder — alternate regularly. This is the format that was conceived by Moss, according to sources close to him. The New Times creates a bizarre mysticism that the Shredder is a raging alcoholic, who casts blame on his alcoholism for publishing his controversial views. He writes in his latest column, “If you think I even believe most of what I write about, you obviously haven’t gone out drinking with me.”

If you don’t want people to believe most of what you write about, then don’t publish editorials under the guise of a news publication. Additionally, if your publication’s writers are contributing to the ire in your columns, then it clearly reflects the paper’s stance.

The Shredder targeted Razor Online. Here is the relevant quote:

To be fair, one of my biggest critics seemed to be The Razor’s Aaron Ochs, who’s been known to, you know, Photoshop local leaders’ heads on stakes to illustrate his opinion pieces. But hey! First Amendment rights, right? As every Bill of Rights scholar will tell you, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or of bloggers to cut and paste supervisors’ faces over portraits of Napoleon Bonaparte while making sexual double-entendres to illustrate stories about suspected conflicts of interest of the ‘hubba-hubba-wink-wink’ variety.”

Aaron builds his case by noting that my column echoed “similar sentiments” to comments made in 2009 on his site by a former New Times writer, Patrick Klemz, who, as a former writer giving his thoughts to an unrelated media outlet, doesn’t exactly speak for this publication.

That’s absolutely damning, if you sort of squint at it.

The accusations — albeit that it could be satirical — are troubling. For one, I have never Photoshopped local leaders’ heads on stakes to illustrate my opinions. In fact, I criticized Kevin P. Rice, a regular contributor to CalCoastNews, for using local leaders’ heads on stakes to illustrate his opinions. The “heads on stakes” is a reference from a comment made on “John & Ken Show,” a talk show on KFI radio. While “heads on stakes” has been used as a common political metaphor, I disagreed with Rice’s graphical interpretation. I wrote under Rice’s article, “Regardless of what you think about Blakeslee and Achajdian, putting their decapitated heads on pikes is over the top. It sends the wrong message.”

My message has remained consistent.

Like Shredder, I’ve been known to dabble in satire in my writing and imagery, but I have never used violent rhetoric or imagery to convey my message, which has always been — and always will be — a message of nonviolence. None of my articles use “sexual double-ententes” to illustrate stories.

The Shredder misconstrued my comments regarding former New Times writer Patrick Klemz. In my previous article, I wrote, “This echoes similar sentiments from the publication in October 2009, when the Shredder compared project opposition to his bowel movement.” The similar sentiments were made by Shredder, not Klemz.

The comment by Klemz were provided in the Razor Online comments section, which I included as something that was supplemental to the narrative communicated by the New Times staff. It was Klemz, who penned an article for the New Times on July 20, 2006, which included the following comments about Los Osos residents:

• “How the hell did these fruit bats get in my cubicle?”
• “For those seeking answers, the 23-year-old saga of the Los Osos sewer debacle is most accurately told through the clusters of malcontents trapped in the now-infamously idiosyncratic berg.”
• Klemz generalizes each concern in the form of “three sorts of malcontents.”
• “Now, thanks to Blakeslee, an entirely new breed of cantankerous curmudgeon readies to make an appearance.”
• “Send a Sewerville malcontent to shadow every assemblyperson in the state for a day, just so they can see what we’re up against.”
• Klemz compares concerned Los Osos residents to “scrapping feral dogs” with rabies.

This article was also the cover story.

Additional comments were provided by Executive Editor Ryan Miller and Senior Staff Writer Glen Starkey on Razor Online, which provide the official New Times perspective in no uncertain terms.

So when the Shredder asked if anyone can point to New Times’ actual ‘stance’ on the sewer situation, he can refer to his own publication.

Finally, the Shredder attempts to modify his statements about the “nuts.” He wrote, “Note that in my column I didn’t tell everyone with an interest in the Los Osos sewer to cork it in the interest of focusing on increased clarity and coherence: Just the nuts.”

The Shredder failed to specifically define who the “nuts” are beside saying that they are the “rotating cast of characters,” which could be anyone who has been vocal about their positions on the sewer. The broad-stroke smear of the “sewer nuts” found in the Shredder’s previous column is just as disingenuous as his definition of “sewer nut” in his newest article. It’s one thing to call for increased clarity and coherence, but it’s another to apply it in your own writing.

The New Times is a quasi-publication full of wicked contradictions embraced by an unjustified, unqualified, overzealous ego. The words expressed by Shredder could be indicative of the decline of civil discourse in San Luis Obispo County, which starts by news publications discrediting the voices of those expressing concerns about their livelihoods. Or, it could be poorly constructed satire that inflames more than enlightens. In any event, the New Times has built a thin reputation on being a hip, but unpredictable double-edged sword that stabs everyone in the name of objectivity. While it’s well within their rights to be “edgy,” it is unacceptable to slander and marginalize Los Osos residents with anger-fueled fiction. You can criticize our words — and believe me, there are many words to criticize — but there’s no viable reason whatsoever to discriminate against critics and groups of individuals with ambiguities and falsehoods.

New Times, you are an embarrassment to the people’s collective intelligence with your inconsistency, obfuscation and venom. And please, do everyone a favor, and not blame it on the alcohol.

– Aaron Ochs

I’ve written several articles about your conduct, and I strongly suspect that you’ve read them all. There’s no need to rehash the subject matter. It’s already been ingrained into your consciousness — so let’s cut to the chase.

You broke the law.

No, this letter isn’t about the Los Osos wastewater project. This isn’t about advocating cheaper, . . . → Read More: An Open Letter to Adam Hill]]> Chairman Hill,

I’ve written several articles about your conduct, and I strongly suspect that you’ve read them all. There’s no need to rehash the subject matter. It’s already been ingrained into your consciousness — so let’s cut to the chase.

You broke the law.

No, this letter isn’t about the Los Osos wastewater project. This isn’t about advocating cheaper, more sustainable alternatives. This isn’t a matter of sour grapes or hurt feelings. This is about the law, and you broke it. You violated the California and Federal constitutions by infringing on the very same right that allows you to openly persecute people who disagree with you. You violated the very same amendment that has allowed local newspapers to tell people to “shut up.” It’s very telling when your own counsel Warren Jensen was silent during the October 18 meeting.  As a man who has been practicing law since 1976 — for 35 years — Jensen, who has repeatedly defended your board and staff through controversy, most likely knew you made a very grievous error. That error is reflective of the lack of credibility your board has along with the credibility of County Public Works.

I’m sure you’re absolutely tired of the “personal attacks” against Paavo Ogren, and the investigation has “vindicated” your most loyal public servant of all wrongdoing — and therefore, anyone who continues to scrutinize Ogren must be held accountable by your vindictive gavel, and a summoning of the sheriff deputy. You feel that the dissenting opinion lacks merit because it’s “vile” and it shouldn’t be “defended under the hazy banner of what’s democratic.” You have this arrogant presumption that you are the moral arbiter of what is “vile,” what is “democratic,” “undemocratic,” and what is a personal attack. If we were to live in a world that universally upheld your oppressive standards, you would be barred from entering the board chambers. You would be cast out, shunned, and condemned by every local newspaper for being “way, way over the line.” You would be compared to Senator Joseph McCarthy, extremist Christian sects that protest at funerals, and an incoherent madman who killed six people. You would be denied the opportunity to freely defend yourself in public, and you would be needlessly chastised for even trying. You feel entitled to speak your mind? No, it would be taken away from you because — according to supporters of this authoritarian utopia that is bereft of free speech — you’re just one person. You’re not the “majority.” Who cares? Shut up! If you and your family were put in financial dire straits, tough luck. Get out the checkbook or move because you’re not allowed to exist here. Get out!

Fortunately, for you, that is not reality. For many others, it is. For Prohibition Zone homeowners, they’ve been found guilty and sentenced to die by lethal rejection and a $200-plus monthly fine. Instead, they ought to be treated like shareholders investing in something that clearly lacks necessary assurances that it would be a worthy investment. More importantly, they ought to be treated like people who have every right — as you do — to speak their point of view without retaliation. But, you’ve consistently retaliated, and continued the cycle that Supervisor Bruce Gibson first instigated.

Ironic.

In September 2008, I met you at a Democratic Party gathering in Los Osos. You just announced your candidacy for District 3, and life was good. You shook my hand. I asked you, “Are you going to treat the people of Los Osos fairly?” Without hesitation, you replied, “Of course. I’m going to be respectful and courteous to everyone, regardless.” The response was as effortless as a snap of the fingers.

Then you got elected.

Over time, the honeymoon behind the dais ended, and you showed everyone who Adam Hill really is: a hot-tempered, spiteful man who walked with closed fists. You wanted nothing to do with Los Osos, and quipped regularly about your constituents having to foot the bill for the project. But when it was your turn to become chairman, you were going to make sure that those pesky “obstructionists” were going to pay dearly for trying to stop the project. You watched as Gibson was ridiculed by the “sewer nuts” week after week, and you reached a boiling point. Enough is enough! You summon a sheriff deputy in the back of the room to make sure they were kept in place. You locked them up and threw away the key. Then you made a mistake. You broke the law, and everything you tried to do — to demean your constituents and move forward with the project — fell apart.

People asked that you apologize on Tuesday, but you didn’t. Adults typically apologize when they make mistakes.

Where are you, Mr. Hill? Is civility merely a game that you play with your own rules? Or has civility diminished to the level of a clichéd guarantee made by politicians who want to seek re-election? It’s an absolute rarity to see someone like you, who is consistently belligerent when calling for civility — and have people actually support your confrontational antics. We still have a democracy to run, Mr. Hill, and your constitutionally unhinged bravado stands in the way of equality for everyone. Our country’s history of equal rights have decreed it: those who deprive a group of people from exercising their fundamental rights will become obscured, lost and forgotten in the sea of time.

You are already underwater.

Sincerely,

Aaron Ochs
Razor Online