Tacker is the most qualified candidate for Los Osos

November 4, 2016

Los ososOPINION by PEGGY PAVEK

Sadly, there is too much misinformation being put out on “social media” and elsewhere about Julie Tacker and I would like the opportunity to clear up any “confusion” about Ms. Tackers position and qualifications.

First, it’s an outright lie that Julie “intends” to dissolve the Los Osos Community Services District. What she has stated many times is that she wants to gather all possible material and data so constituents can make the best informed decisions possible. She wants the Community to have the opportunity to make a choice and have a voice.

If the numbers don’t pencil out and it becomes apparent the district is no longer a viable option without constant water rate increases, she wants the rate payers to decide the outcome based on solid reliable data.

It makes absolutely no sense for anyone to “think” the district can continue to be almost wholly subsidized by water rate payers alone! That’s just not fair and equitable. Ms. Tacker wants to establish a level playing field for the water rate payers, they alone cannot continue to pay the “lions share” for the “luxury” of having a district. Local control is not that much of a “benefit.”

Second, there are a couple of other “candidates” running for the district that have outright misconstrued and/or misstated the true facts of Ms. Tackers position. She has never said she is “for dissolution.” These people are purposely misleading constituents. She is all for letting the Community/ratepayers decide what is most beneficial and economically feasible.

Again, the district cannot survive on water rate payers alone, the figures won’t support that. The high cost outweighs any benefit for ratepayers.

That leads me to the next important issue and that involves the “qualifications” of at least one other candidate.

Third, this “candidate” is making the false and erroneous assumption that “they” will be able to “somehow” generate “new revenue” for the district!

Clearly, this should disqualify this person as even being a viable candidate because he obviously doesn’t know that the district’s main revenue stream is from the “water district.” If he doesn’t know that, he is in way over his head and is doing a grave disservice to an already financially damaged community.

Please, get the facts or don’t run. We’ve been led down the primrose path far too many times!

Fourth, finally, we’ve had the district for 16 years and in those 16 years, we’ve had 16 “General Managers.” That’s got to be a track record for a mismanaged district in a “disadvantaged community.”

Ms. Tacker was the person who discovered many inconsistencies and irregularities involving a recent general manager, Kathy Kivley. It was Julie who brought this discovery to the attention of the board. It’s still a mystery to many of us why it took the “board” so long to take action and why it had to be such a costly and lengthy “procedure.”

The current district board majority seems to be unable or unwilling to make necessary decisions and that’s a huge part of the problem. We need a “decision maker” on the board and that is why I feel Julie Tacker will best serve the needs of the community.

It’s refreshing that she is willing to take the heat and flush out corruption, get us correct and relevant data so the rate payers can make informed decisions based on actual facts and not “pie in the sky promises.”







Loading...

15 Comments

  1. wolfhound says:

    Anyone interested in learning about ‘Special Districts’ & how they behave nationwide, just
    tune into “Special District: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)” U-tube.

    It’s hilarious & an eye-opener.

    (3) 3 Total Votes - 3 up - 0 down
  2. TWEEKSBALMER says:

    The choices we have as voters is like picking the easiest way to die. I do not however see why anyone would wan the job.

    (0) 2 Total Votes - 1 up - 1 down
  3. Grrr says:

    Enough of Julie, she had her chance. You state the district has been mismanaged for 16 years. She was part of the problem. She was in on at least 4 of those years.

    (19) 47 Total Votes - 33 up - 14 down
    • Julie says:

      Grrr,
      Really, I was part of the problem? I didn’t enter into contracts the community couldn’t honor, that was the board before mine, or I voted “Hell No.”.
      I recognized crappy managers early on and was first to cry foul and encourage the dismissal process for each one before and after I left the board in 2008.
      LOCSD has been a place where manager/opportunists have preyed.
      I’ve been off the board for the last 10 managers. I remain cautiously optimistic with the new manager firm.
      I am an equal opportunity critic and will cry foul when necessary.
      Actually, I wish the board had waited to hire a new firm until the new board was seated. Seems like the new board should have had the opportunity to do the interviews.
      We shall wait and see what happens.
      Elected, or not, I’m not going to change what I do.
      Julie

      (-9) 43 Total Votes - 17 up - 26 down
      • Pelican1 says:

        YES…you were part of the problem…and until,such time as you are willing to accept responsibility for your poor judgement and unprofessional history, you do not deserve to be elected dog catcher.

        (20) 42 Total Votes - 31 up - 11 down
        • kaylett says:

          Pelican1 Are we talking about the same Julie? Unprofessional and poor judgement. Haven’t seen that but before 2002 I have to admit I wasn’t paying to much attention.

          (-9) 17 Total Votes - 4 up - 13 down
    • kaylett says:

      Grrr….wrong..I believe Julie has been the most honest and well informed CSD board member and local activist that I’ve seen over the last 14 years that I’ve followed the CSD. I worked very hard along with others to make sure we didn’t have a waster water treatment plant in the middle of town. So I did take a active role in the actions of the CSD. But look around. What’s changed. Still unpaved streets, no curbs. Abandoned houses and vacant lots. It seems the CSD is great if your the General Manager and pull in $100,000 a year. But what are we getting for our money…not much. I believe Julie is right, we need to take a close look and decide if it’s time to quit throwing our money down the rabbit hole and try something better.

      (-11) 35 Total Votes - 12 up - 23 down
  4. Pelican1 says:

    Dissolve the LOCSD!

    (16) 26 Total Votes - 21 up - 5 down
    • Julie says:

      Pelican1,
      I believe I am the only candidate who is willing to have that conversation.

      (-3) 35 Total Votes - 16 up - 19 down
      • Pelican1 says:

        Dissolve the LOCSD…just do it…before you can do any more harm.

        (14) 24 Total Votes - 19 up - 5 down
        • Julie says:

          Pel, the people of Los Osos are the only ones who can dissolve the CSD. I plan on giving you that choice.

          (-5) 25 Total Votes - 10 up - 15 down
          • Mitch C says:

            Actually, Julie only LAFCO can dissolve LOCSD. The people may get the ball rolling, but the final decision rests with LAFCO so it is best to start there to get their feeling on the issue before you get the Los Osos citizens all stirred up thinking that the issue is in their hands when LAFCO may have another feeling.

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

              Where Los Osos is today is very different from where it was when dissolution was tried and rejected in 2006. Today it doesn’t do sewer, garbage and some of its lighting. It never did Parks & Rec, and it contracts out its fire. Leaving half the town’s water and a few drainage facilities. It’s out of bankruptcy. It’s had 16 GM’s over 16 years. Admin. costs are high.

              All I want for the community is the facts and to let them have the conversation. A vote of the people would be the fair way to let them decide; since the district isn’t what it set out to be and if the residents don’t want it anymore, LAFCO would follow the vote of the people.

              (-7) 7 Total Votes - 0 up - 7 down
    • kaylett says:

      although I don’t agree with your characterization of Julie, I’ve with you 100% for dissolving the LOCSD. We could have done more for LO by forming local groups, addressing our concerns and working with the county.

      (0) 12 Total Votes - 6 up - 6 down
  5. AlanB says:

    With all due respect Ms Pavek, I believe Ms Tacker may have good intentions, and I also believe she thinks her actions are benificial to the community. She sees her self as a activist for the people. I’ve been following her for the last four years. For a board to be effective its members need to be able to work well with others, take time to understand listen to and accept different perspectives. I understand she has championed some good over the years, but her actions in the last few years have been almost exactly the opposite. She is disruptive, prone to angry and vindictive behavior, she had cost taxpayer many thousands of dollars with her arrogant and mean spirited behavior, her misguided witch hunts chasing down minor and even nonexistent activity all the while believing it is some sort of corruption. This kind of destructive obstinate personality is hardly what this board needs. It is time to move this board to new level, get things done through cooperation and negotiation. I wish her well, but we can’t afford more years of dysfunction.

    (9) 11 Total Votes - 10 up - 1 down

Leave a Comment