Wednesday, February 22, 2006

The incredible melting town

We have a very serious issue here folks,
To be or not to be-
Probably one of the most overused cliches of all time.

In Los Osos it will become a very real question.

Should we ask LAFCO to dissolve our CSD?
I'm hoping the comment section gives us substance to hold on to.

Not conjecture or opinion without merit

Base your statements on facts

If its your opinion, say so.

Thanks for participating.

Mike Green

14 Comments:

Blogger Mike Green said...

In todays Trivial letters, Joyce expounds on the desireability of dissolving.
I think she is fudging the truth just a wee bit.
I know lots of differing opinion has been laid out here concerning that issue,
But there are some things I would like answered.
How do we KNOW that the Co. Bo. 'o supes
would do what she is saying?
Where are the statements by said board?
Would LAFCO be inclined to hand over controll of LO even if the Co. states they want nothing to do with it?
Some surrounding citys have already gone on record that they want nothing to do with us (Groover Beach)
If, as Sharkey contends, TriW would be the cheapest and fastest, But not the best, dont you think the county would take a good hard look at that?
After all, it's no sweat off their nose if the "Water Gods" want to stomp all over us, especialy now that they are figuring out a way to go after us individualy.
They could take their sweet time about it too, whats to stop that?
Which brings me to my last question,
Dose it seem strange to anyone else about the timing of those articles?
Forgive me if it sounds like I just dont trust the Trivial.
I dont.

6:50 PM, February 22, 2006

7:43 PM, February 22, 2006  
Blogger Mike Green said...

I posted that last letter over at Ann's great blog.

http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/

Hoping to get the ball rolling.

7:49 PM, February 22, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is my opinion that we should not dissolve the CSD, at least not yet.

7:51 PM, February 22, 2006  
Blogger Mike Green said...

To "not yet"
When?

8:06 PM, February 22, 2006  
Anonymous Dogpatch Refugee said...

Opinonated semi-rhetorical Question: What do the dissolvers say to the LOCSD staff,South Bay Fire Station employees, etc. in terms of how dissolution may affect them in some way or another?
Another one:
Is any indication from any official body supporting the dissolution of the CSD, or support from a political candidate?
and dammit one more:
How often, (statewide, nationwide,say...)are INDIVIDUAL elected board members from ANY KIND of elected offices targeted by lawsuits for legally executing a public mandate?
Opinion: This boondoggle project is all about the worst of the State Of California. Private and Public. The LOCSD is like the body armor in Iraq. Do you take it off cuz its hot, hard to move in, and doesn't always work real well, or you wear it, because what happens when you're hit? Its been dropping hard here everyday for awhile already. The LOCSD maybe not the best , but, it was too hard a work to get it in the first place, so right now I'm wearing it, because the Water Board is shelling our town, relying on bad intelligence to implement tactical policy in a stratigic environment. Stretched that analogy out taut, didn't I?
Fact: 4000 homes pumped 6 times a year = 24000 pumpings over a 365 day span or 65.753 pumpings across the Prohibition Zone each and every day of the year.
Assumption: these pumpings would only occur during daylight hours.
Peace Big Mike!

9:31 PM, February 22, 2006  
Blogger Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

Let me ask you a similar question to your first. What did the Fire Fighters think about the trasnsition to CDF? While "we" saved money, they'll end up with several years of no raises.


Even if the TriW project is the worst ever ... it is not a good idea to pursue something even more expensive just to make sure we own the record. Presumably you think the "out of town" project will be less expensive. Show it. Presumably you think it is worth the additional wait ... that the extra pollution we'll produce during that intermediate timeframe is worth it. Explain your cost/benefit analysis on this one and you'll stand a chance of convincing people who wouldn't be convinced your your statement of "the worst" ever.


Hell, I want a CSD. But if this individual board does so much damage that it means that we'll never get a project, I want them out. If I am convinced that this board has burned their bridges with the property owners and will never get a 218 vote to raise the money they need to make progress, I want them out.

If a future board with a new majority cannot get a project going because of CCLO and the likes, dissolution may be a wise choice.

Convince me that I am wrong ... convince me that our community can make some progress.

6:21 AM, February 23, 2006  
Anonymous PublicWorks said...

Shark, I'll give you the typical response:

'You're the problem Shark, you wanted the sewer, so that makes you and anyone with a similar view the cause of all this, and you should have and should band with people that will never accept anything that costs over $80/month. You should band with people that have fought the sewer, because they had your best interests at heart. You should never endorse a project that might allow you to actually finally deal with the pollution mandate that was imposed by the state. You should fight the state, because as you've seen, all the failures to put in a treatment plant have saved you a ton of money, and the pollution is really not that bad, even though the fact it is considered bad allowed previous agencies to get funding. So no matter what, if you don't support this board, no matter how stupid you consider them to be, you're the problem, and furthermore, you're undemocratic, and possibly a fascist at heart.'

or something along those lines.

11:16 AM, February 23, 2006  
Anonymous PublicWorks said...

Sorry Mike,

But the question you asked is faulty.

'Should we dissolve the CSD?'

It is not up to us to dissolve the CSD, it may be up to LAFCO.

'Should LAFCO dissolve the CSD?'

or

'How should LAFCO dissolve the CSD'


It's possible there may be an election at another time, and then the question becomes important.

How about a different question:


Should the CSD request the County of SLO to take over responsibility for the Los Osos Wastewater Project and continue with management of all other services of the CSD?

11:43 AM, February 23, 2006  
Blogger Shark Inlet said...

Publicworks,

You've got an error in your "typical" response. There are too few words spelled inkorectlee.

If anyone is going to complain about my snotty attitude ... you've got to admit that Mike advertised a rant party.

1:58 PM, February 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No. The CSD should sell TriW to the County for a park and proceed to build a wastewater project that is out of town, sustainable, and offers water recycling and recharge. Cool, huh?

5:11 PM, February 23, 2006  
Blogger Mike Green said...

Publickworks, Thanks I'll make that correction right away.
I like the first one, less typing, I'm lazy
Also, thanks to all you regulars. Lets keep this going, I know its going to be hard to tear people away from the Olympics, but I realy want to hear more opinions about this as I am undecided so far, but leaning towards opposing dissolution.

6:08 PM, February 23, 2006  
Anonymous PublicWorks said...

Why couldn't the county build a wastewater project that is out of town, sustainable, and offers water recycling and recharge?

Also, why would anyone want a wastewater project that offers water recycling?

Wouldn't a water project that offers water recycling make more sense, and which is paid for by water users, not wastewater disposers?

Why can't world class figure skaters get thru a 5 minute program without falling?

6:22 PM, February 23, 2006  
Blogger Mike Green said...

publickworks, I can't think of any reason that the county couldn't build that
I can think of some reasons that the county wouldn't build that.
If we are saddled again with the voice of one supervisor, and not even the whole voice at that, I think its going to be cheapest is bestest and I also fear that since there will be no hurry on their part the delays will be even worse.
On the other hand it would be somewhat satisfying to toss this mess back where it came from,
The reason the skaters fall is because of the insane tricks they feel they need to try, I'll take a Torvil and Dean anyday over whats on now.
I also have reservations about figure and dance skating even being an olympic sport.
Although I will admit the scoring seems improved.
And I also admit I'm going to watch it.

6:47 PM, February 23, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If one is undecided about dissolution please be aware of the rapid ever mounting cost of energy. Sustainability is a necessity NOW! Building a energy guzzler that relies on trucking sludge away to places that can deny our business in the future also a plant that does not knock the nitrate numbers down for thirty years and by that time will be obsolete and just think what energy will be then. Also loading water up on Broderson is a slide waiting to happen right down on our homes. This current CSD is doing a heroic job and in such a short time.

Hey Shark inlet ( Joe Sparks )where did you come from and what do you have to gain by endorsing this mess are you in a developers hip pocket?
Leave Los Osos alone go haunt elsewhere

10:39 AM, February 27, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home