UPDATE (11:00 PM PST): A tipster forwarded to Razor Online an e-mail Mr. Hill sent to his supporters last Friday at 11:45 PM PST. The e-mail, which called the outrage over the impersonation call to Mrs. Blake “silly season,” is available here.

District 3 Supervisor Adam Hill apparently doesn’t make . . . → Read More: Adam Hill: Profile of a Tyrant]]>

Is Adam Hill a communist or a Marx brother?

UPDATE (11:00 PM PST): A tipster forwarded to Razor Online an e-mail Mr. Hill sent to his supporters last Friday at 11:45 PM PST. The e-mail, which called the outrage over the impersonation call to Mrs. Blake “silly season,” is available here.

District 3 Supervisor Adam Hill apparently doesn’t make apologies. He offered none during the January 24 Board of Supervisors meeting in San Luis Obispo, even when publicly sought by a concerned fellow supervisor.

Mr. Hill would have preferred to stay silent and dismiss his critics with icy stares and nasal-toned grunts, but District 1 Supervisor Frank Mecham – and many of Mr. Hill’s critics — weren’t going to let it go. Mr. Hill slumped in his chair behind the dais, looking genuinely baffled as his colleague on the board insisted on escalating board discussion pertaining to a bizarre phone call Mr. Hill made to Sheila Blake, a friend of Mr. Hill, who wrote a letter in The Tribune on January 6.

Mrs. Blake provided her phone number, and asked residents to call her about the proposed annexation of the Los Robles Del Mar project into Pismo Beach on January 19. Pismo Beach is in Hill’s district. The San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission met on January 19 to discuss the annexation of Los Robles Del Mar — which is 180 acres located along the northeastern edge of Pismo Beach — but ultimately decided to postpone their decision until March. Like many of Mr. Hill’s constituents, Mrs. Blake strongly opposes the proposed annexation of the residential development. At fundraisers, Mr. Hill stated his opposition to the annexation while Pismo Beach City Councilman Ed Waage, the sole candidate vying for Mr. Hill’s supervisor seat, voted consistently to approve it.

After reading Mrs. Blake’s letter in The Tribune on January 6, Mr. Hill called and left the following voicemail, which was subsequently obtained by CalCoastNews: “Hi Mrs. Blake, I read your letter in the Tribune. Are you a communist, or a socialist, or both or maybe a Marxist? This is Ed Waage. Just wanted to let you know what I thought.”

Mr. Hill has often rallied his leftist base using techniques like this. He relishes setting up the contrast between himself, the righteous liberal, and conservatives. He frequently typecasts conservatives as dogmatic, draconian and discriminatory. Clumsily donning the persona of Mr. Waage, Mr. Hill projects the conservative straw-man onto his political opponent: anyone who opposes developers is automatically deemed a “communist,” “socialist” or something like it. Mr. Hill parodies and aggressively takes issue with the sensationalist political rhetoric from the right — some of that rhetoric accusing the progressive liberal-left of moving toward the principles of socialism, communism and Marxism. Mr. Hill takes pleasure in creating ideological brinkmanship between liberals and conservatives, even though partisanship is not often the source of most local issues in San Luis Obispo County.

The San Luis Obispo Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business (COLAB) was previously Mr. Hill’s most notable political target. State Senator Sam Blakeslee (R-San Luis Obispo) postponed a fundraiser with the conservative-leaning COLAB in June 2011 after Mr. Hill took exception to the inclusion of a presidential impersonator, Steve Bridges, a Caucasian who impersonates President Barack Obama. Mr. Hill criticized COLAB in several e-mails, calling them “racists” who host “hostile, secretive and frequently racist activities.” In published e-mails, Mr. Hill had also tried to sway local leaders from participating with COLAB, and had threatened to release tax records of COLAB members, including representative Mike Brown and executive director Andy Caldwell. Mr. Hill subsequently apologized for making “strident generalizations” about the organization and its members, but criticized some conservatives for “attacking our country’s first President of African heritage by suggesting he is not a native born American, or by resorting to very familiar racist imagery.”

Mr. Hill’s personal war against the right was waged during the times he was a English lecturer at Cal Poly from 1995 through 2008. For those 13 years, Mr. Hill received mixed reviews from students. Some former students said he was cheerful, vibrant, and imposed high standards that productively challenged students. However, others have said that Mr. Hill was often erratic, bitingly sarcastic and constantly argumentative. He was known for making lengthy political diatribes about “right-wing punks who bring our country down,” with former president George W. Bush being one of his favorite politicians to criticize. Both liberal and conservative students were frustrated with Mr. Hill’s political diatribes. By late 2008, some students grew weary of his rants and left the classroom during the lecture. One of his former students told Razor Online that Mr. Hill threatened to change his class grade to an “F” after finding out that the student was a vocal conservative.

Several former students revealed that Mr. Hill had made an off-color, bizarre speech to students in November 2008. He stood in front of the classroom with his arms crossed, looking disheveled and tired. He stared at the students, one by one, and paced back and forth before them. Mr. Hill lowered his brow, and grumbled to himself while the class remained silent.

He told students, “If you don’t like my political views, fine. I don’t give a shit. There’s the door. You can leave. It’s your right. I’m running for office. I have my campaign. If you don’t like what I have to say, run against me. I don’t give a shit. I never have, to be honest.”

In his speech, he openly professed his disdain for the students who attended his class, and brushed off the significance of their opinions about him. He called the students “uninspired idiots” for not showing enough enthusiasm for his lectures — not that his crass branding of college students would ultimately matter. He was retiring, he bragged to students, so complaining about him to anyone would be futile. He repeatedly touted his candidacy for County supervisor as “something more worthy of [his] time.” By the end of his 25-minute-long tirade against working for the establishment and dealing with “idiotic” students who couldn’t synchronize with his unique views on literature, students were left aghast by their lecturer’s unprecedented arrogance and maliciousness.

Students reported that this was not the first time he provoked students. In class, he would share anecdotes about students who privately expressed their frustrations about him, and e-mailed him to complain. He would “out” those who complained without hesitation or subsequent remorse, point his finger at them, and publicly humiliate them for speaking out. He warned students that it would “not be advised” for them to express their displeasure, and failing to heed his warning would result in “a very undesirable outcome for them by the end of this semester.”

When they were able to receive their graded essays, Mr. Hill would write comments on their papers, and provoke them with a stroke of his red pen. He wrote comments like, “I disagree with your statements. Have you been listening to my lectures?” [Note: Underline was Mr. Hill's emphasis] and “Were you sleeping when you wrote this?” He also wrote comments that advised students to seek a different career because “obviously you’re not going to be a fiction writer with a paper like this.”

He justified his provocations by referring to his experience as a book critic who contributed reviews to the Los Angeles Times.

Students observed Mr. Hill acting erratically during class. There were times he showed spontaneous bursts of anger that seemed unjustified. His voice would sometimes reach an exasperated high-pitched squeal when someone asked him a question that he didn’t want to answer. He repeatedly made threats to issue failing grades to students who had the misfortune of showing up late to class. Ultimately, former students arrived at a very startling consensus: no matter how unique their experiences were with Mr. Hill, each source used the word “tyrant” to describe him.

As Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in 2011, Mr. Hill doubled down on his “tyrant” reputation. In fact, his behavior at Cal Poly appeared to foreshadow the misconduct allegations mounting against him.

He criticized Los Osos residents for taking up too much time at the podium, “spreading misinformation,” and showing “boorish behavior.” Supporters of Mr. Hill’s re-election campaign stated that he was having trouble watching the sewer critics from the dais as District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson and staff were repeatedly berated for a project that was well on its way to construction. He admired Gibson, and considered him a “intelligent and eloquent colleague” who was undeserving of the weekly wrath he faced every Tuesday — so Mr. Hill did what came naturally to him. He wanted to stop the critics any way he possibly could. He felt it would be a relatively easy task, given that the $189-million Los Osos wastewater project wasn’t in his district and it wasn’t as hotly contested as in years past. Losing supporters in District 2 was collateral damage. He thought he was able to take the slings and arrows, and return the favor with impunity, without recourse.

Mr. Hill contacted The Tribune on several occasions, forming strategies to undermine the sewer opposition. With a circulation of 35,919 and 90,800+ daily readers, The Tribune had enough influence to sway public opinion. Mr. Hill noted — in e-mails forwarded to Razor Online by his supporters – that it was cheaper to diminish the credibility of the opposition through free press than to regularly engage residents with materials explaining the sewer’s benefits.

With advice from Supervisor Gibson, Mr. Hill crafted a villainous illusion of the Los Osos critics, portraying them as violent, crude, threatening, and requiring police supervision during public comment. On October 11, 2011 when Los Osos resident and sewer critic Linde Owen‘s microphone was cut — during public comment — and was then escorted away from the lectern, Mr. Hill was able to put a spotlight on his illusion. In doing so, Mr. Hill received criticism for violating the First Amendment of the U.S. and California Constitutions in conjunction with the Ralph M. Brown Act open meeting laws. When the chairmanship torch was passed to District 5 Supervisor James Patterson at the beginning of this year, The Tribune’s Bob Cuddy wrote Mr. Hill “denied [the] complaints” about his misconduct. The article was written in a way that definitively dismissed the criticism without specifically identifying what that criticism was.

Yet none of that was mentioned by Mr. Mecham as he criticized Mr. Hill for his phone call. Mr. Mecham, who has always kept his distance from speaking out about his colleagues’ conduct, was incensed by Mr. Hill’s behavior. He considered Mr. Hill’s conduct an embarrassment to the board, insisting that the incident warranted an apology to the board and Mr. Waage. Mr. Hill was defiant, and did not apologize for making a call he previously couldn’t remember making more than a week earlier. Supervisors Gibson and Patterson believed the phone call was not worth discussing, and, stifling Mr. Mecham, pressed on with board business.

At the same meeting, a public comment speaker mentioned that Mr. Hill had recently smeared opponents of the plastic bag ban as “homophobic” and “anti-abortion activists.” As a member of the board, Mr. Hill and seven others voted to approve the ban by a 8-5 vote. Sources, who were involved in the debate that took place January 11 at the County Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) board meeting, have mentioned that none of the labels attributed to opponents of the ban are relevant to the topic. Critics of the ban were alarmed by Mr. Hill’s frenzied push to attribute partisanship to the issue. Like so many issues that preceded the plastic ban debate, Mr. Hill seized on the opportunity to paint the opposition to him as partisan extremists with character flaws that mainstream America could never accept.

As Mr. Hill sees it, everything is left versus right, a perspective he sees equivalent to being right versus wrong. He proudly stands by his perverted take on liberalism and partisan hackery, which even shocks the conscience of his own progressive base. In actuality, his partisan dog-whistling has led to people misunderstanding what the issues are — but to what end? Not everything is rooted in political ideology, and not every substantive issue requires heavy-handed partisan bullying. Mr. Hill continuously fails to understand this — and his heady, stubborn repetition of failing to grasp the obvious clearly underscores his inability to lead.

Good leaders are able to perform their duties well, and not be bogged down by constant questions of their moral character. But with Adam Hill, there is no “question” of moral character. To even stipulate that there would be a question of moral character implies a benefit of the doubt, but there is no doubt that Mr. Hill is erratic and mentally ill. He is ill with a rapidly metastasizing megalomania, an over-inflated, very grandiose vision of himself as a transformational leader who rails against ignorance — though he never actually transcends the petty, political war-mongering that keeps him small. Quite to the contrary. In reality, Mr. Hill is very paranoid that even the smallest cobblestone of dissent would undermine his principles, so he brutishly provokes people and ends up losing every time.

For that, he is truly a poor leader, and because of that, he is hardly invincible. Stepping down from his supervisor position would be ideal course of action for his untenable circumstances. Forced, insincere apologies and unsubstantiated, schizophrenic-tinged arrogance is no longer an accepted standard for a public official in San Luis Obispo County.

– Aaron Ochs

District 3 County Supervisor and current Board of Supervisors Chairman Adam Hill has witnessed the fiery downfall of Sunny Acres. Meanwhile, Hill and his colleagues are allowing the controversial Roandoak of God rental facility in Morro Bay to thrive while failing to uphold the same standards that are being applied to Sunny Acres.

The . . . → Read More: Hill’s Homeless Hypocrisy]]>

Adam Napoleon BONE-aparte

District 3 County Supervisor and current Board of Supervisors Chairman Adam Hill has witnessed the fiery downfall of Sunny Acres. Meanwhile, Hill and his colleagues are allowing the controversial Roandoak of God rental facility in Morro Bay to thrive while failing to uphold the same standards that are being applied to Sunny Acres.

The County has imposed a heavy burden on farmer Dan De Vaul to bear the consequences of failing to comply with code enforcement while Roandoak received thousands in donations from a County-backed non-profit led by Hill’s new girlfriend. Though he has used De Vaul as a convenient contrast to highlight his accomplishments in homeless assistance for his re-election campaign, Hill has inadvertently shown the County’s contradictions that could very well secure his own downfall.

Hill, who is also the current chair of the Homeless Services Oversight Council, has repeatedly called for the establishment of a new homeless shelter on Prado Road. Hill has been featured on several television spots, promoting his support for the proposed shelter. Curiously, Hill has been mostly mum about the County’s handling of local rancher Dan De Vaul’s Sunny Acres sober-living facility except when he’s given the opportunity to promote his homeless advocacy efforts.

Sunny Acres, a 501c(3) non-profit corporation, was cited for various code violations in 2005, and local code enforcement has deemed the 72-acre facility to be both unsafe and illegal for use as a homeless shelter. As a result of incurring these code violations, the County gave De Vaul a choice: address the code violations or face evictions. After a lengthy legal battle with the government, De Vaul had to make a painful decision. Ultimately, more than a dozen residents were evicted as a step toward being in complete compliance with Judge Charles Crandall‘s recently imposed requirements. Some of the evicted are now living in their cars. One of the evicted is the daughter of the late Maxine Lewis, a beloved local homeless advocate who has a homeless shelter named in her honor.

In a press release hastily sent to media reporters to counter the September 7 protest rally held by Becky Jorgeson, founder of The Homeless Project of San Luis Obispo County and vocal supporter of Sunny Acres, Supervisor Hill dismissed the protest and maintained his record for working with the Prado Center and the Maxine Lewis shelters. However, Hill stopped short of addressing the point of the protest — the inadequacy of homeless care in the County, an issue he claims he is passionate about.

Shortly after Hill issued his statement to the local media, The Tribune wrote an article that underscored the protest’s low turnout and Jorgeson’s alleged “creat[ion] or exploiting a rift in the homeless community and among their advocates” more than the reasons for organizing the protest.

The article focused heavily on Jorgeson’s comments, in which she claimed that the rally was “to protest of the general lack of respect for our homeless by Prado and Maxine Lewis shelters,” among other reasons. Seeking counterpoint, Tribune columnist Bob Cuddy spoke with Dee Torres, Director of Homeless Services for the Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County (CAPSLO). According to sources close to the board chairman, Hill and Torres are currently dating.

The alleged relationship between Hill and Torres illustrates what many have seen as an apparent double-standard by Hill and County government.

For instance, prior to the issuance of new building permits last April, CAPSLO donated at least $23,000, possibly more, to the manager/owner Joseph Goodwin of Chorro Creek Ranch (CCR), a religious commune/rental facility, claiming they serve the homeless. The facility also goes by the names of West Coast Housing and The Discipleship Institute, to name a few.

The funding, according to Chanel Channing of West Coast Housing, was to help bring the commune to complete compliance with the County. Hill, who has worked closely with CAPSLO, was — according to a source knowledgeable of the situation — “instrumental” in securing the funding for CCR.

It’s worth noting that Channing had sent out an invitation to people to celebrate Joseph’s birthday, mentioning the CAPSLO donation was $75,000, not $23,000. Channing asked those who RSVP for the party to bring alcohol. This appears to be a total contradiction of the commune’s rules, which read in part, “If you are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, you will not be welcome on the commune property.”

Calling their 8,000+ square-foot commune  a “dynamic work for Jesus,” CCR (formerly Roandoak of God) has been in operation since 1970. Since 1970, the County has tried forcing the commune to comply with building codes, but had avoided similar enforcement and compliance procedures foisted on De Vaul, since Goodwin declared Roandoak a “single family residence.” Harley Voss of the County Code Enforcement staff told local media sites in February 2009 that CCR qualified as a “single-family residence” because residents were paying rent and supporting each other.

Supervisor Bruce Gibson has agreed with Goodwin on the property’s stated “use,” despite 40 years of evidence of expired building permits that repeatedly stated the property is a “commercial, multi-family business” that houses more than 30 people on non-permitted septic tanks, with unresolved electric issues, foundation issues, and an illegal kitchen.

At a time when he has aggressively pushed for a wastewater project in Los Osos to replace permitted septic tanks, Supervisor Gibson’s willingness to condone the operation of a commune on non-permitted septic tanks is puzzling.

More specifically, CCR’s septic tanks rest on top of the aquifer and less than 600 feet from Chorro Creek, which flows to the ocean. The building is also located in a flood zone, within 200 feet of wells, and operates on non-permitted, faulty leachfields. As The ROCK reported in May 2009, “excessive volume of sewage and gray water is not permitted or engineered to sustain the numbers of residents there, and is possibly making its way to the creek and into city wells.”

Shortly after the $23,000 donation from CAPSLO was given to CCR, Sharif Traylor of the California Coastal Commission expressed concerns over the County’s reinstatement of the facility’s expired permits. Traylor writes to County Code Enforcement Supervisor Art Trinidade, “From recent developments in this case, including the recent conversation between you and I, we are concerned that there may be some confusion regarding the validity of [Coastal Development Permits] associated with the development of the Roandoak site.” Traylor asked Trinidade to provide permit history copies pertaining to the Roandoak facility, including supporting documentation.

Calls and e-mails to the Coastal Commission and County Code Enforcement regarding the availability and validity of supporting documentation were not returned at press time.

CCR’s motives have been deemed as suspect by neighbors and former residents. One former resident of CCR told Razor Online that Goodwin had approached her and demanded access to her bank accounts and anything else of value that could be signed over to him.

Another source verified the woman’s account, and added that he was forced to provide his Social Security number, and pay $500-600 a month in rent, an amount verified by the facility’s official web site. Other residents had to pay $700 a month rent. Monthly rent was not the only prerequisite for occupancy. According to sources, the commune also asks for tenants to provide their Social Security number, disability and unemployment checks. Some residents are also required to perform labor. Furthermore, former residents claim, rent must be disclosed as “donations,” and failure to disclose the rent as such has resulted in immediate eviction and threats communicated by Goodwin, his son Levi, and local contractor Steve Sharp of Sharp Construction. Sharp has actively worked on the CCR property.

Goodwin has also targeted people who oppose him and his business.

Goodwin had contacted Supervisor Gibson’s office on September 29, 2010 and claimed that neighbor Carrie Burton, a vocal opponent of Roandoak, had threatened his personal safety. Goodwin claims, according to Jason Nefores of the County Sheriff’s Department, that Burton enlisted a man named John Lynn Harris in their mission to oppose and intimidate Goodwin. Interestingly, John Lynn Harris doesn’t seem to exist, thus calling Goodwin’s claims into question. What Nefores chose to focus on, however, was the assertion made by Goodwin that a deputy had been visiting Burton for “lengthy periods of time.” That also was not proven. Ultimately, the San Luis Obispo Sheriff’s Department had decided to pass over the insinuation of Burton having a relationship with a deputy. Burton has denied the claim and its natural insinuations, calling Nefores’ musings “unprofessional.”

If it’s true that Adam Hill helped facilitate at least $23,000 in CAPSLO donations to an extremist Jonestown-esque religious cult with a 40-year-long disdain for code enforcement, labor laws, and law in general, he is truly unelectable on character alone. Meanwhile, Hill has remained unusually quiet — perhaps in callous jubilation — over a farmer who sincerely thought that he was doing the right thing for the County’s growing homeless population. Unfortunately, Dan De Vaul has helped make himself a convenient scapegoat for the County to be selective in their code enforcement.

Many agree that De Vaul is a man of integrity, but many also agree that he is stubborn and perhaps sorely, naively mistaken about the idea that government has no right to intervene and regulate what he does on his own property. De Vaul’s tenacity is a trait to be admired, but his strength has also been his greatest weakness. This dichotomy was shamelessly exploited by government officials who want nothing more than for people not to discover the monumental, seemingly astronomical incompetence and negligence surrounding their handling of Roandoak of God. While it is crucial to comply with Health and Safety code requirements to ensure the personal safety of the homeless occupants, the responsibility to comply is something that must be the same for all properties housing the homeless.

County government has worked tirelessly to turn De Vaul into a wanted man — a monster disguised as a farmer with questionable motives — while extolling their virtues for working with CAPSLO and the homeless using limited resources. Ironically, the County has invested much of their limited resources in a facility run by opportunistic thugs running a business in the name of God. The County can no longer afford to masquerade as saints when the situation is clearly anything but holy. Displacing more than a dozen people from Sunny Acres while leaving nearly 30 people — living in unarguably squalid conditions for 40 years — to contaminate the environment and the legal process is patently absurd.

With double standards like these, Hill and the County government’s alleged benevolence to the homeless community is a sick joke — just like Hill’s fraudulent campaign for re-election.

– Aaron Ochs

The County of San Luis Obispo is unlike most counties in California — and across the nation — because of its distinct preference for silence as a general response to public inquiry. Many inquiries and concerns are raised and have been raised by citizens who demand transparency and accountability. However, many of those inquiries and . . . → Read More: The Culture of Silence]]>

Shhhhhh!

The County of San Luis Obispo is unlike most counties in California — and across the nation — because of its distinct preference for silence as a general response to public inquiry. Many inquiries and concerns are raised and have been raised by citizens who demand transparency and accountability. However, many of those inquiries and concerns are swept under the rug without recourse. This is the culture of silence, and it’s rudely counter-intuitive to making progress and uncovering the truth about highly questionable governmental practices that have become standard operating procedure in the County.

Trouble at the Los Osos CSD

Emergency Services Committee member Michael Wright was chosen as resigned Los Osos Community Services District director Maria Kelly’s replacement on the board at Thursday’s meeting. The meeting became contentious after it was revealed that LOCSD President Marshall Ochylski and director Leonard Moothart personally solicited Wright’s application, and had chosen him before reviewing other applicants.

In the midst of the conflict of interest investigation involving Kelly and County Public Works Director Paavo Ogren, there are new allegations of cronyism on the LOCSD board. Previously, Wright was Ochylski’s campaign manager when Ochylski ran for Bruce Gibson‘s District 2 spot on the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, Ochylski and Moothart attend the same church, and were close with Wright. Wright, an insurance agent working for Farmers Insurance Group, is reportedly Ochylski’s own insurance agent, according to sources close to the LOCSD president.

When Ochylski stated that he preferred the board choose someone like Kelly, who is now the subject of conflict of interest allegations, tempers flared from the audience. Ochylski threatened to clear the room, but opted to take a 10-minute recess instead. When the meeting reconvened, the board declined to comment or launch their own investigation into the recent conflict of interest charges from the LOCSD side of the voting ledger. LOCSD General Manager Dan Gilmore, who stated he was a friend of County Public Works Director Paavo Ogren, declined to comment about launching an investigation. At the previous meeting, Ochylski stated he was reluctant to conduct an investigation because the board couldn’t afford an independent private investigator.

By the end of Thursday’s meeting, a friend of the board president was appointed allegedly because he was a friend of the board. Considerable qualifications, such as prior board experience (Julie Tacker) and popularity (Keith Swanson) were ultimately deemed superfluous.

Adam Hill vs. The World

District 3 Supervisor and current BOS chairman Adam Hill had launched a very public feud against the conservative-leaning Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business (COLAB). Hill decried the group as being “hate-mongerers” and “racists” because they hired a known Caucasian presidential impersonator, Steve Bridges, to headline one of their events as “President Obama.” COLAB fired back, alleging that Hill was using COLAB as a means of “cast[ing] aspersions upon [State Senator Sam] Blakeslee via guilt by association,” writes spokesman Andy Caldwell in a statement sent to local media.

Ultimately, Hill apologized for his antics and called his words “admittedly strident generalizations about racism,” but COLAB felt that Hill did not go far enough in his apology. In fact, Hill’s overtly partisan apology focused on denouncing racism as projected by conservatives: an admittedly strident generalization about conservatives. His apology garnered sympathy from local Democrats who, as leaders should, decry racism in any form. However, Hill omitted the fact that he threatened to expose the organization’s IRS Form 990 statements and the salaries of their members, and he allegedly threatened to expose the organization using County resources.

COLAB and Hill reached a truce in late June, and agreed to tone down the rhetoric. However, citizens have continued to question Hill’s temperament as a member of the board.

Prior to his feud with COLAB, Hill had angrily chided Los Osos residents who opposed the sewer project in its current form. Hill had sent disparaging e-mails to local residents, and complained to The Tribune about Los Osos speakers regularly hindering the flow of BOS meetings. Hill asked Sheriff Ian Parkinson to dispatch a deputy to stand guard at every meeting and protect the board from a half-dozen elderly residents.

Deputies have threatened to arrest Los Osos speakers if they used certain words to express their dissatisfaction with the supervisors, and have continued to reiterate their threats. Residents have compared Hill’s actions to McCarthy-like communist witch-hunts and voter disenfranchisement legislation — yet Hill has made no apologies or statements regarding his spiteful, authoritarian actions.

Questions remain unanswered about Hill’s emotional stability as chairman and member of the BOS.

Kill the Messenger

The County of San Luis Obispo has repeatedly failed to comply with public records requests from local residents. County government has shown to be extremely squeamish when confronting residents and dissidents directly about landmark issues such as the Los Osos Wastewater Project. When cornered, the County government, particularly District 2 supervisor Bruce Gibson, has literally told people to take the County to court to get answers. Gibson and his colleagues know full well that residents — who are already burdened with the prospect of having to pay $200+/month costs plus connection fees — would be unable to afford legal representation.

The County’s inability to engage in a mutual debate about the sewer has resulted in project cost increases and missed opportunities. After the BOS and Public Works soundly rejected public input on specifics of their sewer plan, the County Planning Commission sided with residents and changed the project location from the Tonini site — which would have utilized sprayfields to dispose of reusable water, a much needed resource in the Los Osos basin — to the Giacomazzi site. As a result of the County’s failed siting plan, project costs increased by 15%-20%.

Later, when the project reached the California Coastal Commission, board members there decided to grant a de novo hearing after siding with appellants, who were previously turned away by the County on relevant issues. Between the time of the initial meeting and the de novo hearing, United States Department of Agriculture officials told Razor Online that the loan and grant funding for the project changed from $80 million in financing ($16 million grant/$64 million loan financed over 40 years at “below market interest rates”) to $87 million ($4 million grant/$83 million loan financed over 40 years at 3.25% interest). In other words, project financing increased, but so did the interest. Because the County did not acknowledge the merit of concerns from residents, the costs are now higher for those in the Prohibition Zone singled out to pay for the project.

Over the years, local media outlets have sent inquiries to County government only to receive no response. Attempts to speak directly with contractors and consultants closely associated with County projects are deferred to County officials who offer ambiguously worded non-responses that often spur — at BOS meetings by supervisors — answers that people “don’t like.” For example, when The ROCK investigated the effects of liquefaction in Los Osos, Public Works’ John Waddell merely referred to the wastewater project’s Environmental Impact Report. Waddell completely sidestepped questions regarding the necessity to conduct a liquefaction study “prior to approval of the improvement plans for the proposed facilities that are part of the collection system and at the treatment plant site,” as mandated by the EIR.

Final Thoughts

Let’s be realistic: government cannot please everyone all the time. They also cannot respond to every person who has something to say, but when hundreds and thousands of people speak to a significant, widespread issue, the government must address it. Clumsiness, incompetence and ignorance are no longer acceptable excuses. In the democracy we live in, we have the good fortune of expressing ourselves at the ballot box and creating change over time, when possible at all.

However, voters are no longer in control once their candidates ascend to a position of power. Once their candidates — in San Luis Obispo County, at least — are able to sit behind the dais, they quickly accept the devil’s temptation of silence. Silence is so prevalent within the County government it’s become a culture. It’s so tempting to pledge transparency and insist that it’s there, even if it can’t be seen, but when nothing is said or done except grimace and groan at the working middle class, then transparency has been sacrificed for political expediency. The people who come week after week to express their concerns to their elected officials are left to draw only one plausible conclusion, however tragic: they are despised by the very officials they elected to serve them.

Officials seem to believe their silence is a right of privilege, not merely a statement of disapproval. We are facing a prolonged period of silence under this misconception that our elected leaders have the right to be silent when, in fact, their silence has only reinforced the idea that corruption exists — and that corruption is here to stay.

In order to uncover that corruption, we cannot be as silent as they are. We can’t stand idly by and support our elected officials who think silence is acceptable. The solution? Be loud about your freedom. Demand accountability from your public officials, no matter what Supervisors Gibson and Hill or the deputy in the back of the room say about you to your face in public or via e-mail. If they prefer silence and insults, give them no choice but to listen to their litany of failures for the rest of their days in power.

— Aaron Ochs