Front Page  »  

Opportunity to save Los Osos so much money

January 5, 2012

Julie Tacker

OPINION By JULIE TACKER

It’s funny that Monday’s story about the California Public Records Act graced the pages of the Tribune just as I was writing my response to a December 1 Tribune  article, “Los Osos sewer project may get a little cheaper,” using information obtained in a California Pubic Records request to SLO County Public Works.

Yes, I am one of those pesky citizen activists who have had to learn the law and use it — because government isn’t always as transparent as we hope.

My CPRA request revealed exactly what I suspected, and the reason for my request.

Among all  correspondence over eight months between March 1 and November 30 the County Public Works Department, while negotiating a $70 million loan on behalf of Los Osos citizens, never asked for the lowest possible interest rate for the term of the loan from the State Water Resources Control Board staff.

In hundreds of pages, emails, interest rate scenarios, conference call agenda’s and spreadsheets, nowhere is the documentation that Public Works or our Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, advocated for a 0 percent interest 30 year loan. Not until the last day and last hour to comment on the item, after the county had presented all their material, after the state staff report had been posted and well after state staff had made their recommendation for 2 percent.

For a little background, the State Water Resources Control Board administers the State Revolving Fund, a source of low interest funds for water quality projects throughout the state of California. Our County representatives and a handful of Los Osos citizens (including myself) went to Sacramento on March 1 to make the case that the then proposed 3.0 percent interest rate was too high for the economically disadvantaged community. With unison pleas from the citizens and county reps, the State Board agreed to lower the interest to 2.6 percent and gave the county the ability to return — no later than December 2011 — to make the case for a further interest rate reduction.

What difference would it make?  According to John Waddell, the county’s project manager, reducing the interest rate to 2 percent would result in an overall savings of $5.9 million, and no interest would result in a savings of $22 million, a significant cost savings to an economically disadvantaged community.

The backroom negotiations were never brought to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors and public for their input. No invitation to engage with the state board to ask for a lower rate.

Not until November 29 when the State’s December 5 staff report was made available on the web (only a handful of citizens knew to search the web for it) did it become clear the county wasn’t advocating on behalf of Los Osos to the best of their ability. The report revealed the county’s request for lowering the interest rate was presented in 3 scenarios; 2, 1 or 0 percent for 10 years all with a bump to 2.6 after 10 years (assuming the LOCSD would take over the project at that time). As an aside, no one thought to ask the LOCSD if they would want the project back in the future — a wholly different debate for another time.

As the scene unfolded, I was in disbelief. Reading all the material, understanding what was at stake and the missed opportunity.

It is clear to me that for all the drama and sewer saga, all sides and detailed debates, lowering the interest rate was one thing we could all agree. This was the time in which sewer factions could unite and make a difference in the future of the project. But, there was no time to mount a citizen response, even the Tribune sat on their hands, having been notified ahead of time.

Sadly only three Los Osos citizens and President of the Los Osos Community Services District Board Marshall Ochylski commented in time.

But there was one more, in a strange and confusing twist, after all the negotiations and gyrations over the past eight months, Public Works Director Paavo Ogren writes a letter requesting 0 percent interest for 30 the year term of the loan submitted just minutes before the comment period closed.

Fortunately for Los Osos, homeless advocate Richard Margetson, drove the ten hours to Sacramento and back to further make the case. While his testimony was compelling and one board member motioned for 1 percent, the motion died and he was unsuccessful in lowering the rate below the staff recommendation of 2 percent.

After reading over all the negotiations in the CPRA, it’s clear that the public works department and our supervisor are disconnected from the citizens the project effects.  After repeated requests, they have refused to perform an economic impact study, claiming they know Los Osos is “disadvantaged” but continue to use community-wide MHI data, claiming $60,000 household are affected. But, using community wide census data does not get to the detail of those in the Prohibition Zone.

For example, of the 772 school age (K-6) children in Los Osos, 41 percent are eligible for the free lunch program, all the seniors many of whom live in mobile home parks and renter populations are higher in the sewer zone than outside.

While the sewer has been “studied to death” the economics of it has not. The costs associated with abandoning septic systems, hooking up, ongoing operations and maintenance and debt service for 30 to 40 years has not been analyzed against the real people who will forego medicine, heating their homes, and cutting out all discretionary spending to the local “mom and pop” businesses in Los Osos that currently scrape by, not to mention costs for the businesses to become customers of the project.

Furthermore, the economic ripple effect of Los Ososans no longer making the trek to their favorite spot in SLO, Morro Bay or beyond to catch dinner and a movie. As discretionary funds dry up and Los Ososans stay home to flush their new toilets for entertainment hasn’t been quantified as a countywide impact and should.

Making the economic case to the State and grant providers is paramount to receiving low-to-no interest funding for the project. These providers are political bodies and can be swayed to waive application fees, reduce rates and extend terms. But the case has to be good. For the good of the “disadvantaged” the economic study needs to be done, get the county “negotiators” out of the way and let the data make our case.

Julie Tacker is a 40 year Los Osos resident and longtime dedicated “Sewer Nut”


Loading...
Subjects:                 
Related:


55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Dear CalCoastNews,


I’ve been an avid reader of your site for a long time, and I noticed a very disturbing pattern. Lynette Tornatzky has been spamming your site, and many others, whenever someone has stated an opinion different than her own. I think the moderator should step in, and delete her comments as they are usually combative toward people, and she spams them by repeating herself ad nauseum.


Case in point:


Citizens for a Sustainability Community

http://csclososos.com/


KCCN.tv – Scent of Money

http://kccn.tv/sewer_los_osos.cfm


“Sewer Nut Shreds The Shredder”

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/10/sewer-nut-shreds-the-shredder/


“Sex and the Los Osos Sewer”

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/06/sex-and-the-los-osos-sewer/


Note her presence in all of these articles. Take everything she says, and you’ll see that she literally writes the same thing over and over again. I do not feel she should be allowed to comment when she’s shown so much disregard for people’s opinions. I don’t think it’s right. Telling people to move out of town over and over again is just plain rude, heartless, and beside the point. Please remove the pointless clutter so Los Osos can have a clean debate. Thank you!


0

Next this person above will be asking the Board of Supes to NOT ALLOW Linde, Julie, Mr. Margetson and Mrs. Taylor to speak weekly at the meetings because they say the same things over and over again! Sounds like censorship to me!


0

Per the CalCoastNews’ Comment Guidelines:


“Please do not hijack comment threads. We understand that discussions naturally take twist and turns and when the issue at hand involves your precious snowflake or issue.”


“We really dislike whining on a thread, like, ‘This isn’t news’ or ‘Where’s the meat?’ or ‘Why aren’t you writing something important?’ The editors care what you think, but only to a point.”


“If you would like to comment without restraint in whatever form you wish, we respectfully suggest you start your own website or blog.”


It’s not censorship. It’s being considerate of others. Every person you just mentioned has every right to express their opinion in a public space. The difference between the people you mentioned and you is that they use their allotted three minutes of public comment speaking time to advocate their point of view. They do not, and have not gone online or out of their way to tell literally every person who dares question the County’s authority that the “sewer is coming” and that they should move.


There’s a formal complaint filed against Mrs. Tornatzky at the LOCSD. If you find her behavior to be offensive, please e-mail the board at board@losososcsd.org. The next CSD meeting is on January 19, 2011. Make your voices heard, so we can finally, finally have a discussion without the hostility. The harassment must, and will end.


0

It’s very clear that any attempt to reveal the truth about the obstructionist’s and their well documented misdeeds, is routinely considered “character assassination and without merit.

Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear You see, morality is the basis of things and truth is the substance of all morality.


0

You’re right, Magoo. It’s very clear that any attempt to reveal the truth about the real obstructionists, their well-documented misdeeds and preference for “character assassination” is routinely plowed under. Why then do you continue to abuse your neighbors when you’ve got your killer sewer — are you simply a sore winner? Why do you believe abusing your First Amendment rights to deprive your neighbors of their First Amendment right is American or moral? Why, just because you are nouveau riche and have money, do you think you can pummel neighbors who have less? Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clearly. You see, morality is the basis of things and truth is the substance of all morality. The truth, Magoo, exists in a place far beyond your negative vision and perverse sense of morality. As in the past, the community will continue to reject the division you tragically peddle for sport.


0

Well Met, it is what it is…


0

Geez, Lynette YOU are truly pathetic. Take a moment & step down from that pedestal that YOU’VE placed YOURSELF on. YOU just don’t “GET IT”. I HATE to burst YOUR bubble, but YOU ARE NOT “SPECIAL”…


0

An interesting and informative read about our proposed Los Osos WWT project as it relates to our watershed basin & environment written by “The Watershed Institute, Division of Science and Environmental Policy” is available online.


I don’t know how to post a live link, maybe someone can do so.


The report is headed “Can Los Osos Valley Groundwater Basin Provide a Sustainable Water Supply”


I thought it a we bit strange that they didn’t address the “soil magic” part.


0

The link is:

http://ccows.csumb.edu/pubs/reports/CSUMB_660_LosOsos_100113_final.pdf


I was told that the study was paid for by Keith Wimer and The Sustainability Group in 2010.


I searched the document and could find no reference to magic sand. Maybe that is an indicator that those opposing the sewer that we are getting are not all in agreement as to what to do instead.


Wimer and his group have taken the stance that a septic management plan, a phased collection system – Step/Steg, and not using Broderson for recharge is the right path to take, among other things far too numerous to mention here.


0

Thank you for the link(s).


Yes, under “Acknowledgments” they mention both Keith Wimer and Michael Taraszki, but no name of the group.


Lots of issues covered well and extensive researched along with many pages of references.


Some predict that after all is said and done, it will take 20 or 30 years to know if what we spent $200 million dollars to control will even change things, as indicated in the aforementioned report. Apparently they couldn’t locate any case where it made improvement. (that is not to say there isn’t such a study) because I see no such reference.


I am not sure why the subject of magic sand was not considered because scientists agree the risk is “significant” as most reports read, even our EIR for the project.


I guess that Cal State University Monterey Bay, Science Division may have that answer.


0

I heard the payment and the Wimer and LOSG group support for this project somewhere verbally, a meeting maybe?


I would wonder if “significant risk” itself has degrees. Mitigation measures accompany risks for the present project at least as far as the Coastal Commission is concerned. One should also read the quote with the glasses of someone learned in the topic, as what it looks like to the layman may be different to the scientist. Just read the cautions on an aspirin bottle if you want to see “risk.”


20 or 30 years of water conservation because of the project will be a huge, positive impact.


Putting water back in at Broderson is better than leaching it out into the bay as we presently do.


Just what is it that you think “magic sand” does wolfhound?


0

I believe the words “Significant Risk” in this case means a ‘High-Probability-Risk’ likely to have a significant impact. Not to be confused with ‘minimal risk’, or ‘Non Significant Risk’. On a color-sccale it would be bright red.


“Risk” means ‘A chance that the investment will lose’.


Mitigation measures in this case are merely ”hold harmless agreements’ and in no way diminish the unnecessary ‘significant risk’.


As you undoubtably know, the quote “Significant Risk’ comes from the many scientific studies performed by the State and Cal Poly, even mentioned in the EIR.


I agree that the project will have a sudden huge impact on our groundwater when that bowl of ‘magic sand’ starts a shaking like in Japan and Christchurch.


Why do you ask questions you already know the answers to like an attorney?


0

Well, you didn’t give me the “magic sand” answer that I was expecting wolfhound and I am no attorney.


I still think we see “significant risk” through our own lens of experience and imagination. I was in close proximity to the Northridge quake, and that is my lens.


I think anyone too worried should move, rather than be constantly stressed over possibilities. Life is too short and stress is damaging to one’s health.


0

Sorrry, but I’m not going anywhere because I like it here, thus the reason for my concern for the environment and what could happen to the environment & our precious water source.


Ignore science if you will, but not at my peril.


You come across as a very angry & perhaps disturbed individual when you suggest that I should leave town because I believe what every scientist on the planet is telling me about our ‘soil magic’.


Your statement brings back memories from the past when another angry individual suggested the water-board “fine us out of existence” because we objected to the mid-town location called Tri-W (Willful Wanton Waste) and was later even rejected by the County.


0

You needn’t apologize for not going anywhere. I am not asking you to! I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion out of what I said. I suggested moving for “anyone” who is too worried. You are not at that point as you have just indicated.


The sewer that is coming, IS coming. So I hope that you are able to make peace with that for your own sake. Just as I have made peace with the higher price. I will pay it of course and am not going to hound the County about it. I think that they did an excellent job of delivering a sewer to the town amidst the many, many protests.


My ignoring of your science is irrelevant to the situation at hand. As is both of our opinions about what is right. It is out of our hands.


The County rejected Tri-W because they could not do what the CSD could do as they own a water company, in other words, the ability to do harvest wells. And they certainly were not going to get into the fighting over location either as they had enough fights over every single thing that they themselves proposed.


Where were you in 1999-2000? Did you try to move the sewer then? Or did you approve of the pond in the middle of town? (I didn’t live here then.)


What is “soil magic?”


0

Lynette


Please go and find another pinata to beat on with you’re boxing gloves and blather.


0

As I reflect on the last decade, I remain saddened, and troubled to think that Los Osos, once a close knit community, has been shamelessly torn apart by a few individual’s (you know who you are) poor decisions, and lack of vision and reality. Those very individuals whose only plan was to bring fiscal disaster by way of bankruptcy, enforcement actions, loan defaults, and credit rating reductions, to the community.

A sad decade indeed. A forgettable decade at best if we are to move ahead and once again become the Los Osos we once knew and loved.


0

Good morning fellow commenters,


I wasn’t able to make it to the BOS yesterday, but it appears to be full steam ahead on everything. Public Works didn’t blink when Julie asked about the current state of the Giacomazzi property. “Hey, let’s do an EIR on property we don’t even have!” Now the County wants to move forward with eminent domain proceedings for a property on Sea Pines. The owners don’t want to work with the County. There’s a lot of friction, sprinkled with desperation and a hint of afterthought. Don’t think the County is on the same wavelength as the people, who really want more updates on cost savings.


0

What is your source for the friction TheFacts? Julie?


The cost savings have been publicized as they are known. What portion of the public mindset do you have data for, or is your assertion just anecdotal?


0

The facts are these,”the real people who will forego medicine, heating their homes, and cutting out all discretionary spending to the local “mom and pop” businesses in Los Osos that currently scrape by, not to mention costs for the businesses to become customers of the project,” are victims of the Dedicated Sewer Nut and the years of delays and cost increases.


0

Lynette writes:


“Ron, we all know what your OPINION is of the old project.”


That’s one of my favorite takes from you guys: It’s my “OPINION” that the County didn’t even come close to selecting the Tri-W disaster.


Uh, earth to Lynette: The County didn’t even come close to selecting the Tri-W disaster, because it was an “infeasible” (County’s word) disaster.


And that means, I’m in excellent company.


The Sierra Club’s, Andrew Christie, agrees with my “OPINION.”


His sister, former SLO County Planning Commissioner, Sarah Christie, agrees with my “OPINION.”


Paavo Ogren agrees with my “OPINION.”


Bruce Gibson agrees with my “OPINION.”


The entire 2010 Coastal Commission agrees with my “OPINION.”


ALL of them agree with my “OPINION,” which is based solely on their primary source documents, because not one of those people/agencies came close to endorsing the Tri-W disaster during the county’s process… of course.


All the County’s five-year-and-counting process did, was show that my 2004 New Times cover story is (present tense) 100-percent right (of course), where I first exposed (seven years ago), how the Tri-W disaster was nothing more than a nonsensical park project that included a sewer system.


And I was, and still am, 100-percent right, just ask Maria’s friend, Paavo Ogren. After all, it was HIS department that called that disaster “infeasible” (twice), and then didn’t even come close to choosing it. (Excellent work, Paavo.)


So, the intensely interesting question I have these days, is, why did the State of California approve, and then fund, an “infeasible” disaster, that never even came close to working?


That horrible decision to approve and then fund the Tri-W disaster cost this state a gazillion dollars, give or take a bazillion, AND directly led to a extra decade-and-counting of continued water pollution in SLO County.


Soooooo, like I wrote before, what the heck happened there? Why did the State approve, and then fund, a now-miserably-failed, “infeasible,” park-project-with-a-sewer-system disaster?


Ooooops!


Those fines, and that bankruptcy would have never happened, had the State simply done their homework on the Tri-W disaster, in the first place, and NOT approved, and then fund, that disaster in 2004.


Sooooo… what in the heck happened there?


What a GREAT question in 2012, and one that I’m going to get answered in 2012. (Of course, if the local media wanted to help out on this over-the-top newsworthy story… that’d be nice. [CCN? Wink. Wink.])


And, again, before I go, and just because I know that the tiny handful of Tri-W Honks (the former LOCSD officials that were responsible for wasting seven years and a bazillion public dollars on that downtown sewer plant/picnic area disaster) HATE IT when I say this:


Julie Tacker is a hero!


Julie Tacker, and the rest of the post-recall Los Osos CSD Board, are, and will always be heroes in Los Osos, and ALL of SLO County, for having the brilliant leadership to pull the plug on that disaster. THE BEST local government decision I’ve ever seen in my 30 years residing in SLO County.


They were SO right, just ask Andrew, Sarah, Paavo, Bruce, the entire 2010 Coastal Commission, the National Water Research Institute, well, just about everyone, BUT the tiny handful of people that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster.


Imagine that.


Lynette writes:


“Just tell me this—is the new project cheaper or not?”


Is the current project “cheaper” than an “infeasible,” now-miserably-failed disaster?


That question makes my brain itch.


0

You failed to include the modifier to “infeasible” as to the County’s take on the project. It was SOCIALLY infeasible. The location divided the town almost EQUALLY. Not the handful of people that you claim.


As to the Christie’s take, anything NOT Step/Steg was infeasible.


Not having a water company as the CSD does, made Tri-W impossible for the County to implement.


Really Ron, you have missed a lot of the finer points of history to continue your personal view of the project.


Apply some Preparation H Ron, then answer my question. Is it cheaper?


0

“Julie Tacker is a hero!” Uh huh, and Osama bin Laden was once the Pope.


0

A little while ago, I got e-mails from Lynette, and she was bothering me with the same stuff that she’s writing to Ron about. “Is the project cheaper now? Do people enjoy CDOs?” It’s just harassment. I probably handed her a big clue about who I am, but whatever. She does not have a clue what civility is. A friend of mine said it best when he called her the “painkiller popper from Panorama City,” because who else constantly asks the same questions and ignores the answers?


0

Lynette writes:


“The project her (Julie’s) board stopped in 2005—while work digging up the streets was in progress—was $154 million…”


Ah, NOW we’re on to an excellent, very timely, SLO County/California-based story.


That’s where the Los Osos story should be, in 2012: Uh, just whatever happened to that “project,” that “her board stopped in 2005,” that was “in progress,” and “dug up the streets?”


I mean, yes, Julie’s post-recall Los Osos CSD board brilliantly “stopped” the nonsensical, downtown sewer plant/Tri-W disaster in 2005, but it wasn’t until the County unmercifully killed it in 2009, and then the Coastal Commission agreed in 2010, did that disaster FINALLY die… in 2010… after the 1999 – 2005 Los Osos CSD completely wasted seven disastrous years, and some $25 million, on that now-miserably-failed disaster.


So, what in the heck ever happened to that so-called “project” that was “in progress” and “dug up the streets,” and cost Californians a fortune?


Why did the 1998 – 2005 LOCSD waste seven unbelievably disastrous years, and some $25 million, on a crazy, downtown sewer plant/”picnic area,” that, in the end — which wasn’t until June 11, 2010 — didn’t even come close to working, and is now a miserably-failed disaster.


That wasted seven years of chasing the Tri-W disaster cost this state a FORTUNE.


So… uh… as a responsible California citizen, I have to ask: What happened there?


Now, THERE’s a “dazzling” story.


And, Lynette? You say this, “The project (Julie’s) board stopped,” like that’s a BAD thing.


Awww-HELL-yeah, Julie “stopped” that disaster.


[Julie? On behalf of EVERY California resident that loves that part of SLO County — the Montaña de Oro/Baywood/Sweet Springs/Morro Bay area — I say, “THANK YOU, for stopping that downtown-industrial-sewer-plant, on ESHA, disaster.


Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, and your entire post-recall Board. You guys were SO right… just ask the County’s Public Works Department, and the 2010 California Coastal Commission.” (Right, guys?)]


Stopping that disaster was not only, unquestionably, the BEST thing that ever happened to Los Osos, but also one of THE BEST things that ever happened to this county.


Excellent, excellent job, Julie. Great work.


She should add that to her bio:


“Julie Tacker is a 40 year Los Osos resident, former LOCSD Director, where she stopped the now-miserably-failed, downtown sewer plant/picnic area Tri-W disaster, and longtime dedicated “Sewer Nut”


THAT should be her bio.


And, before I go, quick question: I wonder how many of those anti-Julie “thumbs up/down” are FROM the exact people that ARE (present tense) responsible for wasting seven years, and a bazillion public dollars, on a now-miserably-failed, completely nonsensical, downtown/sewer plant/picnic area?


That tiny handful of folks can’t be happy with Julie (think about it), which is a perfect reason why that “thumbs up/down” option should be turned off in these comment sections — because that option can be abused, and manipulated, and skewed, by the, what I call, “agenda driven types.”


And if I had wasted seven years and a bazillion public dollars on a now-miserably failed “picnic area”/downtown sewer plant, I’d also be doing anything I could, in 2012, to deflect the blame… including coordinating with that tiny handful of people, to show up here and give everything pro-Julie “thumbs down,” and everything anti-Julie “thumbs up.”


And, knowing Los Osos the way I know Los Osos, that’s almost certainly why those “thumbs” numbers are heavily skewed.


I mean, really? At a 4-1 clip, the people of Los Osos REALLY wanted a “problematic,” “higher costs overall,” industrial sewer plant in the middle of their town, just so they could more easily get to the “picnic area” in that sewer plant?


That’s ridiculous, on the face of it.


And, there’s your answer on exactly why that “thumbs” option should be turned off.


It can be, and is being, used, as part of a coordinated “strategy,” by the agenda driven types.


And the “agenda driven types” will ALWAYS beat the “non-agenda driven types” on stuff like that. An excellent life-lesson, by the way.


0

Ron, we all know what your OPINION is of the old project.


Just tell me this—is the new project cheaper or not?


Is the delay worth the hundreds of feet of saltwater intrusion (about 700 ft a year since 2005) because there were no conservation measures to slow it down leaving our water supply at risk right now?


Did people enjoy getting Cease and Desist orders or Notices of Violation?


Do people enjoy having a $25,000 lien against their home?


Was it worth bankrupting the CSD?


My BIGGEST question has always been “Where were these 2004-2005 protesters in 1999-2001 when a different project could have been selected WITHOUT the damages listed above?” Where was Julie, Lisa, Gail, etc., THEN? Remember, when it was a pond, 80% of the people who voted were for that—IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN.


There is no way around it, there has been heavy damage to the community from stopping the project in 2005. And what we got in return is the project out of town with the SAME collection system that was preferred all along anyway. Now, in THAT CONTEXT, try explaining how this was worth it, OK?


0

You’ve got the “Nut ” part right, but the rest of the bio. is unprintable.


0

As a nearly 40 year resident of SLO I have watched the Los Osos sewer debate from afar without comment, waiting to see some common sense evolving; no matter how you feel about the sewer itself, I cannot fathom the near hatred I see for someone who is trying to hold local government leaders accountable for not making every effort to see that the funding for the sewer costs as little as possible. I understand that there has been an ongoing debate about specific scientific approaches to determine the the best possible sewer system for Los Osos, and scientific facts can certainly brought to the debate by a wide range of interests, but certainly the question of funding shouldn’t be an area of contention; how is that even possible?

I have read of all sorts of communities all over California that have put in different types of waste water treatment systems and it would certainly seem like objective studies of the results should not be up for debate; why is there still so much contention about the “best” type of system for Los Osos? I like to think that I am not “dense”, but why the most expensive type of system is supposed to be the “only one” that Los Osos can use just doesn’t seem to be inline with the facts of how alternative systems get the results needed at a much lower cost. Is it even possible for the sewer question to be discussed without charges of favoritism or nepotism erupting from one side or the other?


0

While I appreciate your take on this Bob, you don’t understand the role Ms. Tacker has played in making the sewer more costly for the community and just what the collateral damage has been. That is why you see anger in these posts. The project her board stopped in 2005—while work digging up the streets was in progress—was $154 million, with the very same type of collection system. The cost of the project now is $189 million.


The result of that board not heeding the instructions of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to resume the project that they stopped was Cease and Desist orders and Notice of Violation orders placed on every home in the Prohibition Zone. Our aquifers from which we get our water did not get the attention they needed by the heavy conservation measures imposed by the project they stopped inflicting further damage on them. The CSD had to declare bankruptcy due to the many lawsuits the board Julie was on, all filed to try to defend themselves against the State Water Board, The RWQCB, and the angry contractors whose work they stopped. The bankruptcy was finally settled last year, but it was appealed by one of the contractors, so the future of our CSD, our only means of local control, is uncertain for 18 months to two years. The outcome may be dissolution.


The possible type of collection systems, the most costly part of the project, was thoroughly laid out to the community despite what the naysayers may assert. We were given a choice and a gravity collection system was the clear preference.


The costs of the alternative collection system preferred by Ms. Tacker and company, Step/Steg, are never truly admitted by them. True, the overall PROJECT costs may be cheaper, but the large and unacknowledged burden lies with the homeowner, who is alone responsible for the property damage and electrical upgrades from a STEP tank being placed in their yard, which must be paid out of their own pocket and is not part of the project.


Wait for 10 or 15 years after the project is in the ground and then the discussion may go a little quieter.


0

Los Osos, specifically the Prohibition Zone, is for the most part disadvantaged & MOST residents fall into the EXTREMELY LOW INCOME CATAGORY, therefore, it’s unfortunate that Bruce Gibson & the rest of his “GOOD OLD BOY SUPERVISORS” would not put in more effort to find a project that is MUCH more affordable. Everyone, the State, County & even the Feds will benefit from “clean water” & since EVERYONE WILL BENEFIT, everyone should pay their fair share. I will NOT respond to any diatribe from Lynette Tornatsky, so please don’t waste your time trying to debate my statement, Lynette…..


0

My last name is spelled Tornatzky.


0

“As discretionary funds dry up and Los Ososans stay home to flush their new toilets for entertainment hasn’t been quantified as a countywide impact and should.”


This woman is clinically insane.


0

I noticed something, and it happens every time someone dares to say something that goes against the grain of the County. A bunch of anonymous people show up, demoralizing the “obstructionists” for one reason or another. The comments are deprived of facts, full of chest-beating, and nothing to show for it.


Julie Tacker is, well, someone who has made a lot of missteps pertaining to the wastewater project. But who — who has been in a leadership position in Los Osos — hasn’t? Not one sewer politico has a halo consistently over their heads, and not one sewer politico is completely responsible for all the world’s problems. The blame game is ridiculous. It’s juvenile, and it’s no wonder why people in SLO County think Los Osos is the red-headed stepchild of the Central Coast.


People are going to lose their homes over this sewer, and all you people do is bicker and complain for no reason. I find it funny because the only reason you people blog anonymously is that you would likely be scrutinized as much as Tacker if you weren’t anonymous — because mostly everyone, here, is wrong. They don’t want their names to be attached to their opinions because they don’t want to take responsibility. At least Tacker does, no matter what she’s said or done in the past. Think about it. You people are no better.


0

I understand Mr, I hate it when people post anonymously. Should we address you as ‘The’ or should we use your last name Mr. Facts?


0

Thank you Typoqueen for throwing it back at TheFacts.


I do come on here with my real name and get attacked, not only on the blogs but also in my personal life from TheFacts and others. I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to put there name out there.


Here is a quote from TheFacts about me on a CalCoast news article from Summer 2011.


“The LOCSD knows you’re a compulsive liar, and you’re about to lose your seat on the Emergency Services Committee because you are a compulsive liar and a nasty person.”


Now compare that quote to the seemingly measured, balanced posting above. Hypocrisy is the word that comes to my mind.


And with this quote, “Are you suicidal? Do you get turned on from being slapped around?” a large “yuckkkkk” factor is also present.


(No, I did not lose my seat on the committee, but someone tried very hard to make it happen.)


0

Oh boy, here we go again.


Lynette, sure, you post your name on here and complain about me. That’s fine. I’m okay with it, but I think you need to look up what “hypocritical” is in the dictionary. I was talking about how people complain for no reason, basically, every time someone from Los Osos says something that dares to go against the grain of authority — and how sad that is. And here you are.


You and your husband have hurt people. According to the e-mails I received through public records, you stalked people who disagree with your views, spam their e-mail inboxes, send others to go often people you disagree with. It’s sad. I don’t do that. I’m not like you. My wife and I speak, and express ourselves out of concern for the people around us. That’s what we do. That’s what we’ve always done. You chose the path of a criminal, and the LOCSD is aware of it now. You really got your butt kicked, yet you keep coming back. That’s why I assumed that it turns you on — because you keep going to the slaughterhouse. What do you have to prove? You’ve proved nothing.


0
1 2 3