Cal Poly students cleaning up Sunny Acres

April 11, 2012

Dan De Vaul

A group of Cal Poly students is working to bring Dan De Vaul’s 72-acre ranch and sober living facility   north of San Luis Obispo up to code. [Tribune]

After years of the county battling De Vaul over code requirements, in August, Superior Court Judge Charles Crandall ordered De Vaul to remove people he was allowing to stay in non-code compliant structures until several county health and building code violations are corrected. De Vaul was then forced to evict 15 people from the property, many of whom began living in their cars or tents.

Aside from cleaning up the ranch, students from an engineering project management class plan to raise money and get permits needed to bring several barns up to code during the quarter long project. The quarter ends in mid-June.

“We are focusing on turning the ranch into something that will be a source of pride for the community and a resource for those who need help,” said Roya Javadpour, Cal Poly industrial and manufacturing engineering instructor to the Tribune.  “We are taking it one step at a time.”



  1. Ted Slanders says:


    There was no reply button on your last post to me dated; 04/12/2012 at 7:43 am below. Therefore, I had to bring it to the top. Hopefully the moderators will allow this for me to be able to show your continued nonsensical argument in question.

    YOUR QUOTE ( 04/11/2012 at 6:37 pm); “ I clarified in my statement that ‘I can’t prove it. It’s impossible to prove something that was simply told to me. Admittedly it was gossip and frankly who knows for fact if that cop was being honest, I believed him/her but I’m not asking that anyone take my work for it.”

    Barring the fact that you can’t absolutely tell us the correct gender of the cop, this statement of yours relates to a cop telling you that there were 12 sex offenders at Sunny Acres at one time. Tell me, what’s wrong with your statement above?

    What’s wrong is the FACT that you admit it was gossip, aka hearsay, and not fact, but nonetheless, you believed there were 12 sex offenders at Sunny Acres at one time! Also, you’re not asking us to take your word for it.

    Simply put, you believe HEARSAY as FACT! Your pigheadedness and bifurcating argument leads to an absurd and embarrasing conclusion! GET IT?

    “I’m feeling better now so I don’t have the time to keep going back and forth like this.”

    Excuses, excuses, excuses. I don’t blame you for wanting to opt out of this discussion subsequent to you making such outright nonsensical statements!

    Good day, Miss Typoqueen!

    (0) 4 Total Votes - 2 up - 2 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      I believed this hearsay because it was told to me by a cop that had dropped people of there, I heard it first hand from the person that did it but you don’t know me so it means nothing to you, it is simply gossip to you. But once again you are diverting from the fact that you got snarky with Roger because of his claim that there were sex offenders out there. He was right and you were wrong, there were and perhaps still are sex offenders out there. Not that I mind anyone getting snarky with Roger but you need to know the facts or risk looking silly. There were FACTULLY sex offenders out there. Hey, I’m taking one more day off to rest so I can keep this up ntlCCNgtsssckthtthybtmff.

      (0) 4 Total Votes - 2 up - 2 down
      • Ted Slanders says:


        Shhhhhhhhhhhh……. know when to quit, okay?


        (2) 4 Total Votes - 3 up - 1 down
        • Typoqueen says:

          Nope, I’m going to get the last word :)

          (-2) 4 Total Votes - 1 up - 3 down
  2. willieslo says:

    Ordinary people (including businesses) struggling to feeding, cloth and educating their own children and trying to make ends meet donate what they can
    Even Devaul BUT his donation is not good enough, the county has compelled him to dish out the big bucks (in the form of land and money).
    When the politicians, lawyers and courts get finished with SLO, there will be more taxation for half the vagrants that aren’t woth a shhhh.
    Attracting and inviting more vagrants will require more policing or safety measures in the future
    They already get Federal and State Aid, plus a lot of free community services
    Lets not forget there is going to be some people somewhere profiting from all this (already in the makings)!
    The county have already stolen a large lot of land from Devaul via receivership.
    Hard working Tax payers (SLO and other cities) are next in line!

    (-8) 18 Total Votes - 5 up - 13 down
    • ON2U says:

      Yes, they have a scam going. The government supports them so they can live free and live HIGH.

      (-2) 6 Total Votes - 2 up - 4 down
  3. Ted Slanders says:

    It warms my heart to see Christians actually following the bible for a change by helping Dan Duvall, when Dan himself was just following the commands of Jesus in helping the poor prior to the city shutting him down! Serioulsy, do you think Jesus in this situation would have been stopped by a few code violations? NOT!

    Yes, by the SLO city council proposing 80k to the girlfriend of Adam Smith at CAPSLO for a mere 5 parking spaces for 6 months, and some help for the homeless involved, that money sure would have gone a lot farther at the Duvall ranch!

    But, ol’ Dan is not hooked up with the insiders of SLO city like Adam Smith is, therefore, thank the Christian God for these Cal Poly students stepping up to the plate to help Dan, therefore helping our homeless.

    Praise Jesus!

    (8) 20 Total Votes - 14 up - 6 down
  4. rogerfreberg says:

    Oh, I applaud the Cal Poly students for trying to do something for the community… however, the unintended consequences of their effort is harmful to the surrounding community .

    Housing violent offenders within walking distance of two schools makes little to no sense.

    Ask the crossing guards how many folks they have had to ‘shoo’ away… it might open your eyes.

    (-12) 26 Total Votes - 7 up - 19 down
    • Ted Slanders says:


      You’re kidding us, right? Sure you are, you ol’ kidder! LOL

      Uh, just in case you weren’t kidding in your post, are you actually stating that if Sunny Acres went forward, and what you allude to, that it’s inhabitants would include violent offenders in the way of child predators? Otherwise, why would you proffer that this element is close to nearby schools?

      To make a statement like this, do you know as a fact that sexual predators were previously living at the De Vaul Ranch? How did you determine this alleged fact? Did you allegedly know this by seeing records of registered child molesters in SLO at the time? Or, was your proposition based upon hearsay, ie, crossing guard personnel?

      Are you also against CAPSLO on Prado Road, because this entity is also within walking distance to the same schools that you mentioned.

      Besides, does it really take a close proximity to a school before a child molester follows their ungodly act? No, it doesn’t if they’re determined to prey upon our children.

      Unless you have absolute evidence to support your claims, then they’re nothing but unsupported sweeping generalizations that smack in the face of what Sunny Acres is trying to accomplish.

      (13) 23 Total Votes - 18 up - 5 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        TS, it is common knowledge and it’s even on the DeVaul Ranch website that they housed sex offenders. Sharon Ostman was murdered and dumped next to the creek in SLO by a former resident of the DeVaul Ranch. I once had lunch with a SLO cop that told me that at one time there were 12 sex offenders at one time living there. I can’t prove that, it’s just what I was told but there definitely was/is sex offenders living out there. That was one of my major objections to the place. When the cop told me that they dropped known sex offenders out there because they didn’t know what else to do with them and at least they knew where they were, I did some research and found out that it’s very dangerous to house multiple sex offenders together. Sex offenders should never live together, it’s a disaster waiting to happen and perhaps Ostman was a consequence of that action. They weren’t receiving proper counseling and supervision, if they were then DeVaul would have been advised not to allow this.

        Check out Megans list, look for the name Jonathon Rodriguez
        There is still a sex offender registered out there.

        (-11) 17 Total Votes - 3 up - 14 down
        • Ted Slanders says:

          “I once had lunch with a SLO cop that told me that at one time there were 12 sex offenders at one time living there. I can’t prove that, it’s just what I was told but there definitely was/is sex offenders living out there. “

          Typo, key words to your above statement, to wit: “I can’t prove that…” WHAT?! I am appalled by your response! Are you not becoming what you’re allegedly against by you stating the following, and that is within this thread; “when someone makes an outrageous claim it is up to them to back it up or else what they say is baseless.” (Typoqueen quote; 04/11/2012 at 12:05 pm) Shameful!

          “When the cop told me that they dropped known sex offenders out there because they didn’t know what else to do with them and at least they knew where they were,”

          Huh? First off, barring the blatant fact that your quote above is another assertion without FACTUAL basis, as described previously above, if this is actually true, then your major objection shouldn’t have been the alleged fact that the SLO PD dumped this element on Du Vaul, but the fact that this event happened in the first place!!! How in the hell could a SLO PD do such an insidious action? Aren’t the SLO PD here to “PROTECT and to serve” the citizens of San Luis Obispo?!

          Furthermore, why didn’t YOU report this alleged fact above to the proper authorities to do your part as a concerned citizen after this alleged statement was made to you? Especially with the damaging statement of from the alleged PD officer; “at least we know where they are”. In either case, IT STINKS and you should be ashamed if you had such knowledge and didn’t do anything about it!!!

          Typo, with all due respect, practice what you preach in your subsequent posts!

          (5) 15 Total Votes - 10 up - 5 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            Unlike those that shoot out stupid claims about one woman making $80K a month or even a year to over see 5 parking places as if it is factual, I clarified in my statement that ‘I can’t prove it’. It’s impossible to prove something that was simply told to me. Admittedly it was gossip and frankly who knows for fact if that cop was being honest, I believed him/her but I’m not asking that anyone take my work for it. At least I’m not slandering anyone and ruining their reputation simply based on hate and gossip as is common practice over here. If I say something is true or a fact then I provide evidence. By looking at Megan’s list and by looking at Sunny Acres website anyone can see that there are sex offenders out there and I did provide proof of that.

            I did tell the cop that I thought that was wrong and I was appalled. The cop really felt justified because his/her argument was that it’s more important and that we are more safe knowing where they are. Why would I report this, it was common knowledge. There was a lot of discussion about it on the Trib at the time (don’t believe that CCN was around then). I’m not the only one that knows this, a lot of people know this and I’m pretty surprised that you didn’t know about it.

            Regarding practicing what I preach,,,I do in most cases provide facts but does that really matter here? Come on, lets not start something new, you guys don’t need facts. $80K a month for one person,, yeah that’s the ticket.

            No matter how much cr@p you give me, I still like reading your posts.

            (-6) 10 Total Votes - 2 up - 8 down
            • Ted Slanders says:


              You stated that 12, I repeat, 12 sex offenders inhabited Sunny Acres through hearsay at the time in question. You admit that this statement is gossip, and that you can’t prove it, but nonetheless, you believe it! Within the same context, you ask others to prove beyond any doubt that what they propose has to be based upon provable facts. What’s wrong with this picture?

              Then the obvious question has to be asked, what is the criterion for you to actually believe admitted “hearsay”, as in this case, from someone without foundational facts? It seems oxymoronic, doesn’t it?

              You did NOT give proof that there were 12 sex offenders at Sunny Acres. Furthermore, all sex offenders are NOT child predators, therefore, your school analogy falls upon deaf ears, that is, unless you can prove beyond any doubt that the 12 offenders were actually former child molesters! Get it? I am using YOUR guidelines for giving another proof of their claims.

              The notion that the SLO PD drop off sex offenders at Sunny Acres, because they know where they are, is insidious on it’s face! It’s not an absolute that they remain at this address. If they did stay, then they know where they are “after the fact” of a possible subsequent molestation? In other words, shutting the barn door after the horse got out? If they were known offenders, don’t they have restrictions within a community that wouldn’t allow the PD just to “drop them off?” How pathetic if this is true.

              Your own admittance in stating that “in most cases” you provide facts doesn’t bode well when your adamant about others producing absolute facts when you’re in discussion with them. And, don’t include me as one of the “guys” in your acquiescing analogy of not needing facts.

              In conclusion, yes, you have to practice what you preach!

              (4) 10 Total Votes - 7 up - 3 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                “what is the criterion for you to actually believe admitted “hearsay”, as in this case, from someone without foundational facts? It seems oxymoronic, doesn’t it?”

                I’m not asking you to believe me on the point that a cop told me that there were 12 sex offenders out there at one time. The cop told me, not you and you don’t know me so of course I wouldn’t expect you to believe me. So we can move on from that, fine, don’t believe me, it really doesn’t matter. You started this off by calling someone out by telling them (in other words) that they were full of cr@p regarding sex offenders being out there. I provided a link that proves that there is a sex offender out there. I gave you a name of woman that was murdered by a sex offender that lived at Sunny Acres. Those were FACTS. I gave you a link that demonstrated that they take sex offenders, you are now diverting from that issue because you were wrong.

                This issue was, Roger said that DeVaul housed sex offenders. You responded to Roger with this: “To make a statement like this, do you know as a fact that sexual predators were previously living at the De Vaul Ranch? How did you determine this alleged fact?” I proved it to be a fact because it is a fact. You are now trying to divert the attention away from that because you were wrong. You shouldn’t be so afraid to admit that sometimes you might be wrong, you are not above being wrong once in awhile. I spoon fed you facts and I told you that what the cop said was hearsay, again you harp on the hearsay to divert away from the FACTS. There is nothing wrong with hearsay if it’s not presented as factual and that’s just what I did and that’s exactly how I worded it.

                “Furthermore, all sex offenders are NOT child predators, therefore, your school analogy falls upon deaf ears,”

                Come on, you know that if I say something that you don’t agree with that even if were verified by the pope that it will fall on deaf ears anyway. I provided you a link, the last known address of the man on Megan’s List was Sunny Acres, he was convicted of doing something unsavory with a child under the age of 14, that would make him,,,hmm a ‘CHILD PREDATOR’. My comment was not an analogy that was fact. But perhaps Megan’s List isn’t good enough to convince you. Seeing that you will never admit that your comment to Roger was wrong I suppose that you will find a way to twist the link around to fit your needs. But it’s pretty simply, as much as I hate to admit that Roger was right he was right. Spin it how you want but you are wrong wrong wrong.

                (-5) 7 Total Votes - 1 up - 6 down
                • Ted Slanders says:


                  Just got back from uptown SLO. I see that your still grasping for straws, how sad.

                  Relative to Roger Freberg, how can I be wrong in any way when all I was doing is “questioning” Roger Freberg’s assertions?! Key word being; “questioning”. I did not say, or allude to, that he was wrong! Understand the difference? Read the context!

                  YOUR QUOTE; “ …. you harp on the hearsay to divert away from the FACTS. There is nothing wrong with hearsay if it’s not presented as factual and that’s just what I did and that’s exactly how I worded it.”

                  You worded it as follows: “I once had lunch with a SLO cop that told me that at one time there were 12 sex offenders at one time living there. I can’t prove that, it’s just what I was told BUT THERE DEFINITELY WAS/is SEX OFFENDERS LIVING OUT THERE.

                  If you want to play semantics, then what you stated is specifically based upon provable FACTS by using the phrase “there definitely was sex offenders living out there”. YES, THIS IS EXACTLY HOW YOU WORDED IT, AND THIS PHRASE IS SHOWN AS FACT BY YOU AND NEGATES YOUR ASSERTION OF HEARSAY NOT BEING PRESENTED AS FACTUAL! GET IT?!

                  You seem to want to play “parse your words infinitesimally”. Therefore, in a specific past that is in question by your statment, EXACTLY when is this past, EXACTLY how many sex offenders were there, and what is your basis of fact to prove your point?

                  You know the routine, I am asking for the same provable facts that you want from others to prove their point, and I want YOU to accomplish this act in the same vein!

                  Isn’t semantics fun?

                  (0) 6 Total Votes - 3 up - 3 down
                • Typoqueen says:

                  You are still wrong, Roger and I were right, there were sex offenders out there and it appears there still might be a sex offender there. That means that there ‘DEFINTLY’ have been sex offenders housed out there. You would feel so much better if you admitted that you were wrong. I gave you a link and a name those are TWO ‘PROVABLE FACTS’ of two different sex offenders. You keep trying to turn this around on me but you aren’t making sense. If I were going to slander someone such as a police chief, Co. Supervisors or a school superintendent and ruin their reputation then yes, you bet your @ss that I would provide facts. There is nothing wrong with hearsay as long as it’s clear that it is hearsay. I provided two facts that demonstrate that Roger was correct. It’s that simple, a name and a link. You can keep trying to twist and spin it but there is no point in going on with this. I’m feeling better now so I don’t have the time to keep going back and forth like this.

                  Roger, you are one of the few people that I really don’t like but you won this one, you were correct and Ted was wrong. Factually there were sex offenders out there.

                  (-2) 4 Total Votes - 1 up - 3 down
    • SanSimeonSam says:

      Wow Roger, your concern over the students while extremely insincere is totally transparent. As politically correct as it was it must have come from your buddy Christine M. Lets not forget that you two live right above Sunny Acres and built there long after Sunny Acres existed. You are no better than the folks that buy cheap land near an airport and then lobby to have taxpayers build a new airport elsewhere because of the noise.

      (8) 10 Total Votes - 9 up - 1 down
      • Typoqueen says:

        There are a lot of homes next to that ranch and a school that were all there before DeVaul took on job of being the county slumlord.

        (-10) 12 Total Votes - 1 up - 11 down
        • Ted Slanders says:


          So, to use your own statement, is the Prado Shelter and the Maxine Lewis Memorial Shelter, just to name a few shelters is SLO Town, also SLUMLORDS?!

          It matters not if they’re near homes or schools! The fact remains, the same type of homeless inhabit these shelters as well.

          (7) 13 Total Votes - 10 up - 3 down
          • Typoqueen says:

            Do they charge at least $300.00 month and then extra for TV, cigs etc? Do the residents work to maintain those places while paying that rent at those shelters? Are those shelters buildings not up to building codes? If the answer to any of those questions is yes, then yes I would call them slumlords.

            I disagree, when there are sex offenders (I sent a link over to show that there is still at least one still there) then I believe that it’s wrong to have them near a school. A school is like a buffet for some sex offenders. If this were just a sober living facility for people that aren’t registered as sex offenders then I wouldn’t feel that way regarding the school.

            (-5) 9 Total Votes - 2 up - 7 down
            • Ted Slanders says:


              Point taken on the Slumlord analogy.

              Your point on a sex offender, whether a child molester or not, near a school doesn’t hold water. As if they wouldn’t walk or drive that extra mile if in fact, as an example, they resided in the Prado Road area.

              Going to the Megan’s Law link, we have approximately 55 sex offenders in town at this time. Now, you state that there is ONE at Sunny Acres, and near a school. To cement your premise, are you worried within the same vein about the other 54 sex offenders possibly living near schools as well? If so, what are you going to do about it?

              Picking on Sunny Acres for only ONE offender, whereas, we have another 54 around town, is seemingly and blatantly partisan on your part. What is your agenda concerning Sunny Acres?

              (0) 6 Total Votes - 3 up - 3 down
              • Typoqueen says:

                Oh geez, Ted, there are laws about sex offenders living near parks and schools. I don’t know why the cops have allowed DeVaul to get away with this but they have. It’s really quite amazing how much he has gotten away with. It’s not just one sex offender. Although the women that was murdered was an adult the guy that killed her was a sex offender. The point is, there has been more than one sex offender out there. I’m not in a position to monitor and dictate where sex offenders live. This discussion was about DeVauls place not the other 50+ offenders.

                I ‘BELIEVE’,, not that I know for a fact, I BELIEVE from reading the newspapers and from talking to that infamous cop that there has been more than one sex offender out there at one time. I don’t believe that to be a healthy situation, that is my opinion. I have read about this and it’s a bad thing especially when not supervised by trained pros in this field.

                I don’t have an agenda. I know that we need a place for these people. But I also know DeVaul’s history with the county. DeVaul has an ax to grind. He was profiting off of those people and IMO that is victimizing people that are already down and out and I feel that’s reprehensible. IMO and according to the law his buildings must be up to code. If those buildings were up to code, if there were no sex offenders out there and if DeVaul didn’t charge so much a month to the residents for living there then I would give him my blessings. I feel the county has bent over backwards and that DeVaul has been deliberately obstinate. Those poor people work out there for him and on top of that they pay him, what scam.

                (-3) 5 Total Votes - 1 up - 4 down
    • dactoman says:

      So having the evicted people from sunny acres living in the creek doing drugs and alcohal next to the JR high is a better solution. Mulholland don’t care as long as their not in her back yard.

      (5) 11 Total Votes - 8 up - 3 down
  5. celebratepaso says:

    Kudos to the Cal Poly students for giving stepping up to better their community. May they have success in their endeavors!

    (18) 24 Total Votes - 21 up - 3 down
  6. doggin says:

    Of course my post was a load of crap, just like the bill for $8000 dollars Pismo just paid, oops, I mean us tax payers paid, to clean up after for the party on Silver Shoals a couple weeks ago, ya know in honor of Cesar somebody they said. So set us straight on Pismo there Typo, Id like to see some of what you think are facts about the cost of weekly clean up resulting from its party time crowd.

    (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      Oh please, they had one unexpected inventions of students and they are being proactive for next year. Where did you come up with more ‘502 arrests’? Of course they have more traffic, they have more tourism (thank goodness). There’s plenty of things to bag on Pismo about without making things up or exaggerating the issues. Again, where did you come up with the 502 thing?

      (-5) 7 Total Votes - 1 up - 6 down
      • doggin says:

        The DUI/502 stats are statistics from a recent news article in either the trib or new times. Course neither of them would lie would they. Gotta ask yourself why an annual budget of just shy of $5,000,000, yes, thats 5 Million for a town with under 8000 residents.

        (0) 0 Total Votes - 0 up - 0 down
        • Typoqueen says:

          The dunes attracts over 2 million tourists a year and many of them shop, visit and stay in Pismo. Pismo has a small population, actually permanent residents even smaller than what you said but they have a huge influx of tourist, of course they are going to have higher spurts of crime but I still don’t see anything that proves what you are claiming. You comparing Pismo’s crime rate is like comparing the population of SLO in the summer when the students are gone as opposed to the winter when the town is populated with students. The population of Yosemite is very low much lower than Pismo’s but they have a high rate of crime and emergency services. Let me say this one more time,,Pismo generates more tourism then any city in the county.

          (-2) 2 Total Votes - 0 up - 2 down
          • doggin says:

            Yeah so? BTW the dunes are NOT in Pismo, their in Oceano. look up Pismo PD’s annual budget on line, the facts are there like I said. As far as proving the rest…well considering you have 10 posts on this page alone it looks like you have nothing but time on your hands to do nothing worth while…recon you work for the government… LOL.. Funny you should mention Yosemite, at least the parks service realized the damages by over tourism. The paragraph below is from the park service,and just think how many drunk asshats would be off the road, less traffic on 46,41 and 166 and a huge decline in highway deaths if we bussed them here
            The Yosemite National Park Service administration, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, is faced with the task of determining the most sustainable, cost-effective, and beneficial method of reducing traffic in the park. The GMP stipulates that park management should strive for the eventual removal of all vehicular traffic from Yosemite. Current adoption of the Valley Implementation Plan (VIP) has been delayed to fall 1997 and is contingent upon further negotiations with surrounding communities, and sufficient funding.

            (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
            • Typoqueen says:

              I do have time on my hands right now, I’ve been down with a really nasty cold for the last week.

              There was a study that showed that a good chunk of the visitors in Pismo are tourists from the Oceano dunes. There is also a few campgrounds and a lot of hotels in Pismo that also service a lot of tourists that go out the dunes. But you are missing the point, no point in going on with this, it’s just over your head. You were wrong, no one is getting $80,000 a month and you have nothing to back any of your accusations, case closed.

              (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
              • doggin says:

                So says Typo, the judge,jury and executioner of all CCN posters..LOL.

                (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
    • Typoqueen says:

      BTW, are you going to prove that wild $80K a month claim? To use your words,,’set us straight’.

      (-4) 10 Total Votes - 3 up - 7 down
      • Citizen says:

        To Typo. No one said anything about $80,000 a month.

        “The pilot program permits CAPSLO to allow five cars to park overnight in the Prado Day Center parking lot without being ticketed for having homeless sleeping inside. Those allowed to park in the lot would also be required to utilize CAPSLO case management offerings.

        Most members of the community who spoke during the meeting approved of the pilot program, though some questioned the cost – $80,000 for six months or $16,000 per car.

        “It will cost $16,000 each for six months versus handing out parking vouchers,” said San Luis Obispo based attorney Stew Jenkins” Cal Coast News.

        The agenda for the SLO City Council meeting specifies how the money is to be used:

        (1) 7 Total Votes - 4 up - 3 down
        • Typoqueen says:

          “No one said anything about $80,000 a month”

          Really, then what does the following comment mean, please help interpret that for me.

          From doggin, 7:12 AM: “if Hill’s better half gave Dan the $80K a month she’s gonna get for those 5 parking places”

          “Typo, Why don’t you do some of your own research. You are the biggest “lazybut” around. Find out for yourself or stop complaining and demanding facts from other people.”

          I will address this other insulting post to me as well. It is not me that doesn’t do the research. If I am going to accuse someone of something such as the above slanderous claim then I would certainly back it up, when someone makes an outrageous claim it is up to them to back it up or else what they say is baseless. I don’t accuse people of things by just pulling info out of my ear, I provide a link. Some of you people have no problem with others just throwing out accusations that hurt other people, it’s disgusting.

          It’s so transparent how you people can call me names, insult me and say what you want but if I were to even resort to a mild form of that I would monitored and deleted, not really a level playing field. But that’s okay, the only time that I call names is when someone is openly racist or mean, I wouldn’t call anyone a name like you just did simply because I don’t’ agree with them. I get called names simply because I am giving my POV. There is a bully mentality that is encouraged on this website and even though you are allowed to proceed with your bully behaviour I won’t let it bother me.

          (-5) 5 Total Votes - 0 up - 5 down
    • MaryMalone says:

      The costs of the 4th of July bash at Pismo doesn’t seem to have deterred them one bit from having a 4th of July party each year.

      I think it has to do with if businesses and vendors can make money off of it. Clearly, cleaning up after a big party isn’t the issue. Otherwise, the 4th of July parties would have ended years ago.

      (-1) 1 Total Votes - 0 up - 1 down
  7. willieslo says:

    Strained relations between the County and Devaul my @ss, how cunning!
    Devaul is an example of of Government legal infringement, oppression, theft, extortion, blackmail.
    He cannot not afford to get his land back, all he’ll get is a bone if he cooperate with the County.

    (1) 19 Total Votes - 10 up - 9 down
  8. doggin says:

    I hope that’s a recent picture and Dan’s smiling because he’s happy of the direction his ranch is taking. BTW, bet Dan would be smiling even bigger if Hill’s better half gave Dan the $80K a month she’s gonna get for those 5 parking places. Just think..Dan could turn that 5 into 50 for the same price. We all know Dan’s ranch could be a community land mark in helping the lesser fortunate. I had to laugh last time one of SLO’s council members was interviewed on KVEC. The complaints were, some of the druggies, the noise, the trash, the alcohol abuse and probably a generally environmentally unfriendly result of their being. Funny, the city of Pismo produces more trash, has more 502’sarrests than any city in Ca, more traffic and vehicle and human created pollution on any given weekend, more noise and likely qualifies as the most environmentally destructive city in Ca resulting from its need for “transient” tax revenues, no pun intended. But its OK because those who create these problems and substantial costs to local tax payers bring money with them to float a handful of local businesses and drive shiny new RV’s. How dare these homeless people pee on SLO county’s greedy little parade when they offer nothing to us.

    (5) 13 Total Votes - 9 up - 4 down

Comments are closed.