Thursday, June 30, 2005

You Can't Teach a Sneetch



There's no doubt about it. We would live in a much better world if we would simply follow the lessons of the great Dr. Seuss.

Take The Sneetches for example. You remember that story, right? The Star-Belly Sneetches would brag to the Plain-Belly Sneetches, "We're the best kind of Sneetch on the beaches.” And the Star-Belly Sneetches would shun the Plain-Belly Sneetches at playtime and social occasions.

One day a huckster named Sylvester McMonkey McBean came to town with a machine that could apply or remove stars. The starless Sneetches paid lots of money to get stars. But then, the Star-Belly Sneetches quickly had theirs removed and declared themselves still the best. That started a star-on, star-off frenzy, with McBean raking in the cash.

Eventually, nobody knew who was the "better" Sneetch.

Apparently, Sylvester McMonkey McBean rolled into Los Osos when he was finished with the Sneetches, because I hear it at the CSD meetings, and read it in the letters to the editor:

"The delays are the opponents fault. They're obstructionists."

But, the problem is, that, for the most part, the people pointing that finger were once opponents themselves (to the county's project) and they caused delays. They were the obstructionists. So, let me see if I have this straight -- the proponents that were once the opponents that caused delays are now saying that the opponents are causing delays, and the proponents that were once opponents say the opponents are obstructionists and the opponents are saying that the proponents were obstructionists... and my man McBean is a-grinnin' in the corner.



Let's take a look at a recent example of this whole "Star-Belly/Plain-Belly" confusion thing. In the latest Bay News, LOCSD President Stan Gustafson calls LOCSD Director Julie Tacker an "opponent" and then he blames the delays and escalating costs of the project on the opponents. But Gustafson, was a member of The Solution Group, and in 1998 The Solution Group was the ultimate opponent. It can easily be argued that ALL delays stem from them, Stan I am (to borrow some Dr. Seuss alliteration).

("The Solution Group (alternative) has the potential result (sic) in the disturbance of a greater amount of sensitive habitat areas, and jeopardize the implementation of a solution to the water quality problems faced by the region.")
-- California Coastal Commission staff report, November 1998, Page 41

So, I just don't know. Who is the Star-Belly and who is the Plain-Belly? It's all mixed up. When Gustafson, LOCSD Vice-President Gordon Hensley, and former LOCSD board member Pandora Nash-Karner (all of whom were members of The Solution Group before becoming members of the LOCSD board, and, as board members, they all pursued their deeply flawed plan despite the fact that there was an overwhelming amount of information that showed that The Solution Group plan was not going to work [and after after months and months of delays, it didn't work!]), point at the "opponents" and say that the delays are their fault, they are doing so with a very rich history of being opponents that caused massive delays.

It seems to me that the Los Osos CSD would be better off if, before pledging allegiance to the flag, they were to begin every meeting with a Dr. Seuss recital.

"The day they decided that Sneetches are Sneetches and no kind of Sneetch is the best on the beaches. That day, all the Sneetches forgot about stars and whether they had one, or not, upon thars."
-- Dr. Seuss

'til next time

(By the way, anytime you guys want to start clicking on the "donate" button, would be fine with me. I promise you, I'm no Sylvester McMonkey McBean.)

Sunday, June 26, 2005

The Root

I'm starting to have second thoughts about removing the "comments" section of this blog recently. The comments section, as you might remember, allowed visitors to respond to my articles featured here on SewerWatch. But the comments that were posted were so bad that I had to switch the "Allow Comments?" option to the off position.

However, in the brief time that I did allow feedback, some choice little nuggets of information emerged. And, without a doubt, one of my favorites was this:

"There were many, many public workshops where the citizens of Los Osos were asked over and over what they wanted at the site..."

That's one of my all-time favorite sewer quotes. Because there it is. Quietly hidden in a simple, anonymous comment to a humble blog -- the root.

"What they wanted at the site?"

Wanted? (The root.)

I don't understand. What do you want at the site of your sewer plant? What kind of question is that? Why was it even asked? Prior to Los Osos, was it ever uttered once in the history of civil engineering? What do you want at the site of your sewer plant? I'll tell you what I want at the site of my sewer plant: A sewer plant! A sewer plant, a chain link fence, and about 10 signs on that fence saying: "Stay Away -- Sewer Plant!"

(Keep in mind, it's o.k. if my sewer plant site doesn't look fancy, because as we all know now, without the park element in the LOCSD project, there's no rational to site the project at the "centrally located" Tri-W. My sewer plant site wouldn't have to accomplish the "project objective" of "centrally located amenities," so I could hide it outside of town. Who cares what it looks like?)

I have two questions: 1) Why was there more than ONE "workshop" on what you want at the site of your sewer plant, let alone "many, many?" And 2) Why did the first workshop last longer than 3 minutes?

Here's how I would have have conducted that first "workshop:"

(In script form for maximum comedic effect)

Me: This meeting, errrrr, workshop, is now in session. Everyone in favor of our sewer plant site containing a sewer plant and a chain link fence, say "AYE."

The other 17 people in the room: AYE!!!

Me: All opposed?

The other 17 people in the room:

Me: Beer time.

I just timed it, that first "workshop" should have lasted about 30 seconds. But, unfortunately for Los Osos taxpayers, it didn't, and the discussion of what Los Osos "wanted" in their sewer plant continued at "many, many" "workshops." Apparently, those 17 people (that's just a guestimate... it may have been as many as 19 people at those "public workshops"), and their "out-of-the-box" thinking, really, really wanted a park in their sewer plant. The ugly weed that is the "park" in the "sewer-park," and can not be pulled, was sprouted from the seed of those "workshops." The root.

###

Before I log off here, I just wanted to mention that I'm working on a couple of interesting, new stories on the project. I should have some updates by next week. Please check back (and feel free to click on the donate button to the right... help keep me motivated)

'til next time.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Journalism 101

[Update: 4/4/06: Why do some posts on SewerWatch have comments and others don't? If you read through this blog you will see that I am highly critical of the marketing tactics that have been used over the last eight years in Los Osos, primarily by Pandora Nash-Karner, and her marketing firm, Pandora and Company. On her web site it says she practices something called "behavior based marketing strategies." Using that type of strategy to sell a product or a business is one thing. Who cares? Buyer beware. However, using that type of strategy within the framework of Los Osos, a community where, according to polls, one-third of the residents are age 65 and over, I find that disgusting.

Criticism I can handle, it's the "behavior based marketing strategies" that I'm so wary of. So, whenever I get the slightest hint that something in the comments section is a little too "behavior based marketing strategy"-ie, I shut down the comments section... hate to do it, but why give people that I can show deliberately mislead, an opportunity to deliberately mislead? Below is the post I wrote when I turned off the comments section the first time.]

- - -

After reading some of those "comments" from yesterday, it is now very clear to me why newspapers have a "letters to the editor" policy.

Good God, you guys need to tighten up your game.

Sorry, but I had to remove the "comments" section. I wanted to keep the comments coming because I thought the interaction would make this blog better, but they were so poorly thought out and so completely unsourced that they were making this blog worse (with the possible exception of Mr. Sparks). So, as my friend Jim Rome says, "More of me and less of you is a good thing."

I want to give some of you posters from yesterday a quick journalism lesson.

When I was studying journalism at Cal Poly many years ago, it was department policy to give any story that made an unsourced claim an F. And, boy, my ol' journalism professors would have dished out some Fs yesterday.

Follow me on this... without pointing to a source, anyone can say anything:
- Jesus shot JFK
- The Dodgers won the last 10 World Series
- Bush lied about why he invaded Iraq

But WITH a source, look what happens:

According to the Downing Street Memo, Bush lied about why he invaded Iraq.

See the difference?

Now, let's look at some of the unsourced comments from yesterday:

- "It would take a minimum of five years to go from square A to square B and end up costing the residents a minimum of $500 per MONTH." (Grade: F)

- "The Tri-W location was selected because it was the closest acreage to where the majority of the effluent would be collected." (Grade: F)

- "The Coastal Commission told the CSD to remove the amenities." (Grade: F-)

Not only do all of those statements get Fs from me, but, I assure you, my former journalism professors as well. If that's the level of information that's been wafting around Los Osos for the past 4-5 years, then it's obvious why your community is so torn apart.

The Coastal Commission told the CSD to remove the amenities? Not according to the August, 2004, California Coastal Commission staff report, page 89.

I get an A.

'til next time

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Fun With Google

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then what's a picture of a Google search worth?



Monday, June 20, 2005

Local Media, Thank You. I Appreciate It

I just want to take a few minutes here and quickly thank The Tribune, The Sun Bulletin, The Bay News, KSBY, KCOY, and, to a lesser extent, New Times for letting me have the great: "The only reason the sewer plant is being sited at Tri-W is because of the park, and there's no good reason at all to include a park in the sewer project" story all to myself.

I really appreciate it, because nothing motivates me more to investigate a great story than the opportunity to get a scoop, and I'm gettin' all of these...

So, thanks again guys,
Ron

Not On Our Dime



According to a recent Tribune article, as much as $35 million in federal money could help pay for the proposed Los Osos sewer if an effort by Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, is successful.

No, no, no. Not on our dime.

Look, Los Osos, just because your CSD Board majority wants to throw your tax money at a multi-million dollar park that you have already voted that you do not want to pay for, and your Board majority can't answer why there's a park in your sewer project, doesn't mean that we should throw tax money at their mistakes too.

I mean, come on! An amphitheater in a sewer plant? And you want us to help pay for that?

Capps said recently that money for Los Osos' proposed $150 million sewer was authorized by a congressional subcommittee.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that the congressional subcommittee wasn't fully informed about the amphitheater, or the public restrooms, parking lot, dog park, community gardens, and everything else needed to accommodate the park, like the wave wall, and buried facilities, and odor scrubbing. $35 million? Sounds like Los Osos is going to need a lot more than that just for the park portion of their sewer project. And they want that to come from American taxpayers? Nice try.

Los Osos, you need a sewer, not a park. If your CSD Board can come up with a plan that includes a viable, bare-bones (translated: no park) treatment facility, then I'll argue that the Feds should pick-up at least half the cost. After all, they're picking up the tab for sewer projects in Iraq (I'm going to take another wild guess here and say that NONE of those systems include an amphitheater). But until then, I argue that the $35 million would be better spent elsewhere, like on the families of the service men and women that have been killed in Iraq.

"It's not a hard and fast guarantee," Capps spokeswoman Shannon Lohrmann said about the Federal funding. "But this is a great first step."

For the sake of American taxpayers, let's hope it's the only step... at least for this flawed project.

'til next time.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Wave Wall? As they said on Seinfeld last night, "I don't like the sound of that."

Happy Friday...



I came across this rendering of the treatment facility, and, boy, does that "wave wall" look expensive. The cost of that is on the park. Oh, and all of that pretty landscaping, that's not cheap, and that cost is on the park.

Joe Sparks made some good comments (when the "comments" section existed), and if he's right about the $10-million price tag for the permits, EIRs, studies, etc. required for a park-less, out-of-town facility, then the Los Osos CSD should really do that. Wow, they would save a bundle on not having to build the "wave wall," not having to bury the facilities, not having to build and maintain the park, and they would profit from selling 11 acres of prime real estate. All of that sounds like it adds up to a lot more than $10 mil.

Then, once you have that $10 million worth of permits, etc. in hand, you're good to go... without a disastrously expensive park in the plan. Fast-track a bare-bones, technically viable facility out of town, and get this damn thing over with. What's the problem? It sounds so simple.

"All in favor of voting for another $10 million to 'move the sewer' (permits, EIRs, studies, consultants, etc.), raise your hands?"

I'm raising my hand.

Have a great weekend!

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Tangled Web

According to the Value Engineering process conducted by the LOCSD's engineering firm, Montgomery, Watson, Harza, there could be significant cost-savings in the project if the "site amenities" (a.k.a. park) were removed. Yea. No kidding. In fact, multi-millions of dollars could be saved if the park was removed, but the problem is, according to the District's Coastal Development Permit (CDP), the CSD is not allowed to take the park out of the project. Apparently, someone needs to tell MWH about Special Conditions 12 and 17. Those are two of the many conditions that the California Coastal Commission made the LOCSD agree to before the CCC issued the CDP last August. A O.K.?

I love Special Conditions 12 and 17. They say, in no uncertain terms, that the park is not up for negotiation. Why? Because the only reason the CCC caved on the Tri-W site in 2002 (the agency doesn't like the idea of the facility at Tri-W... too much environmentally sensitive stuff), and agreed to amend the Local Coastal Plan (LCP) to allow the facility at Tri-W, was the "project objective" of "centrally located amenities." And in 2002, the LOCSD's site plan included all kinds of pretty "amenities" like "community gardens" and an amphitheater (that's right... for all you new-comers, the Los Osos CSD is putting an amphitheater in their sewer plant... I'm not making that up.)

So, imagine the surprise of the CCC when the LOCSD showed up two years later with a revised plan that was inexplicably missing all of that pretty stuff.

To me, the chronology of the park in the plan is amazing:
In 2002, the CSD says to the California Coastal Commission that the sewer plant has to be located at Tri-W because it's the only site that accomplishes the "project objective" of a "centrally located" park. The CCC reluctantly agrees, and goes through the laborious task of amending the Local Coastal Plan to accommodate the facility at Tri-W. Then, as a "cost-saving measure," the CSD yanks the park out of the plan almost entirely, then, when it comes time to go back to the CCC to get the development permit in 2004, the Los Osos CSD shows up with a park-less plan, and that left the Commissioners (and their staff) scratching their collective head... what happened to the friggin' park?

Wow.

The 2004 California Coastal Commission, understandably, was not amused by the Los Osos CSD's act, and in a strikingly harsh, yet warranted, move, told the CSD that they could not move forward with their sewer project unless the public park -- the same public park that the CSD originally presented to the Commission, the same public park that is dictating the "downtown" location -- was put back into the plan, and maintained "in perpetuity." Then (and in a great moment of bureaucratic smack) Commissioner Potter called the CSD "a little bait-and-switchy" (I still love that quote).

At a recent Los Osos CSD meeting, director Richard LeGros said that the process involved with developing the sewer was "followed to a T."

Well, I suppose my question to Mr. LeGros is this: If the Los Osos CSD followed the sewer development process "To a T," then why did a Coastal Commissioner refer to the way the Los Osos CSD followed the sewer development process as "bait-and-switchy?" Something doesn't add up.

I'll tell ya, the Los Osos CSD is lucky I wasn't a member of the California Coastal Commission in 2004 when they were applying for their CDP.

I wouldn't have made them "reincorporate" the park. No, my response would have been more along these lines:

"For God's sake, two years ago, we went through that entire amendment process (LCP Amendment 3-01) so you could accommodate your "centrally located" amenities in your sewer, and now you come back at us with a plan without the "centrally located" amenities? Are you playing with us? Who do you think you're messing with? We're the California Coastal Commission! Stop wasting our time! You know what? Since you guys are in the mood to pull your "centrally located" amenities, then we're now in the mood to pull your development permit. You don't want a park now? Then start the hell over. Go back to the damn drawing board. Oh, and by the way -- Regional Water Quality Control Board -- feel free to start fining the Los Osos CSD anytime you feel like it."

That would have been my reasonable, appropriate and understandable response.

Source stuff... The following is from the August, 2004, California Coastal Commission staff report, page 89:

"... the LOCSD has agreed to reincorporate public amenities that were included in the site plan reviewed by the Commission during the processing of LCP Amendment 3-01 but later removed by the LOCSD as a cost saving measure. These facilities, which include a 15 space public parking lot and drop off area, an amphitheater, community gardens, restroom, tot-lot, and picnic areas, factored into the previous decision to allow the treatment facility to be located on this site, since other alternatives were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities. Therefore, providing these facilities as part of the project, as required by Special conditions 12 and 17, is necessary to fulfill commitments to provide enhanced access and recreation opportunities that were made during the processing of LCP Amendment 3-01.

'til next time...

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Core Question

For now, the SewerWatch Blog is focused on getting an answer to this question:

Q. What was the rational for keeping the park in the sewer project after the treatment facility footprint dropped from 70 acres to about 5 acres, and the cost of the entire project skyrocketed?

The best answer I've received is from CSD Vice-President, Gordon Hensley. He said:

"Frankly I do not have an answer - but I think you are correct that IS the core issue."

The reason I am focusing on that question is because the following line is found in the California Coastal Commission, August 2004 meeting, staff report, page 89:

"... other alternatives (to the Tri-W location) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."


In other words, the ONLY reason the facility is being proposed for the "centrally located" Tri-W site is the park, and I've yet to find a good reason why there is a park in the sewer project (see my letter below).



More to come...

"Multi-Million Dollar Park" CSD Letter

I wrote the following letter to the LOCSD Board on 6/1/05...

Dear Los Osos CSD Board members,

I am writing this letter because I feel time is running out to address a subject of vital importance associated with your proposed wastewater project — a subject that I do not believe is even remotely clear amongst the citizens of Los Osos. So, please allow me the opportunity to clarify this point:

Los Osos, you do not have a sewer controversy, you have a park controversy.

The Los Osos CSD is not proposing a $151 million sewer project. The Los Osos CSD is proposing a $151 million park project, and part of THAT project includes a sewer system.

Supporting evidence for this claim can be found in several documents, however, there is no better reference to the fact that the Los Osos CSD is including a sewer system in their park project than the following line found in the California Coastal Commission, August 2004, staff report, page 89:

“... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”

That line can not be over emphasized, and every resident of Los Osos over the age of 10 should memorize it:

“... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities.”

As staff report jargon goes, it doesn’t get any clearer than that. ALL of the other potential sites for the treatment facility were “rejected,” because they were NOT “centrally located.” The site HAD TO BE “centrally located” to accommodate the park. After all, it was reasoned at the time, what good’s a “park” in a “sewer-park,” if you can’t get to it?

There is no doubt that the park element of the sewer project is THE reason the facility is being proposed for the Tri-W site. And that means, that if you factor in everything necessary to accommodate Tri-W’s central location -- the odor scrubbing, burying the facilities, the visual and environmental mitigation, the land costs, the amenities, and the maintenance of those amenities “in perpetuity,” are ALL on the park — not the sewer — and some recent estimates have put the figure of the combined cost to accommodate Tri-W’s central location at $70 - $90 million. Assuming those figures are accurate, then what is being proposed in the current project is a $70 - $90 million park. And even if those figures are not accurate, whatever that figure is, (and, to be sure, it is multi-millions of dollars) then that is the cost of the park.

Which begs a core question that, to the best of my knowledge, has never been answered, or even asked.

But before I ask that question, a little set up:

About three or four years ago, when the “better, cheaper, faster" system was being proposed — the ponding system — the footprint needed for that project’s treatment facility was about 70 acres, so, it was reasoned by the CSD at the time, that a type of 2-for-1 option existed. The thought process went along these lines: “Look, Los Osos taxpayers, as long as we have 70 acres to work with, in the middle of town, we might as well spruce ‘em up a little bit and get some parkland while we’re at it... 2-for-1 — park with sewer. Kick down a little tax money for the park, and we’ll make those 70 acres ‘drop dead gorgeous.’ After all, we are saving you ‘$30 million’ on our ‘alternative’ plan.”

So, I agree, that argument, at the time, made a tiny bit of sense despite Measure E-97 — the failed ballot measure from 1997 that would have increased property taxes $10 a year (a year) to be earmarked for public recreation in Los Osos.

But when the ill-conceived “Community Plan” understandably fell off the table, and the CSD turned to the current technically viable system (the Community Plan was not technically viable), and the footprint needed for the new treatment facility plummeted from 70 acres to about 5 acres, and the cost of the entire project skyrocketed wiping away the “$30 million” dollar savings of the Community Plan... well, that brings me to that critical, unanswered, core question I mentioned earlier:

What was the rational for keeping the park in the sewer project after the treatment facility footprint dropped from 70 acres to about 5 acres, and the cost of the entire project skyrocketed?

I have yet to see an answer to that question. What I have read are some vague and unsubstantiated references to a “strongly held community value” to include a park in the sewer project? But, what I can’t seem to find is the source of that “strongly held community value.” The best source I can find comes from the project report. It points to something called “The Vision Statement” as the source of this so-called “strongly held community value” to include a park in the sewer project. But the problem is that The Vision Statement dates back to 1995, and was developed by only a few Los Osos residents. Measure E-97 failed in 1997 with over 5,000 Los Osos residents voting on that Measure. Until someone can legitimately show otherwise, that “strongly held community value” is a myth.

If the Los Osos CSD really wants to see what a “strongly held community value” looks like, you should try this:

At the next CSD Board meeting, ask for a quick show of hands to the following question:
“How many people in this room would be willing to give up the park at the treatment facility in order to save $70 - $90 million on the project and to move the facility out of town?”

If you do that, you will see what a “strongly held community value” looks like.

What was the rational for keeping the park in the sewer project after the treatment facility footprint dropped from 70 acres to about 5 acres, and the cost of the entire project skyrocketed?

Someone needs to answer that question. Anyone. Bruce? Steve? George? What was the rational? Stan? Gordon? You both were in on that decision. Richard? You were a big proponent of the “Resource Park.” Do you have an answer? Pandora, feel free to chime in here, apparently, you were the driving force behind that decision. What was the rational?

The current board majority, past CSD directors, and the entire CSD staff owe Los Osos an answer to that question, because it was that decision — the decision to retain the park element in the the project after the ill-conceived Community Plan fell off the table, and the footprint plummeted to 5 acres, and the cost of the project skyrocketed — that has added an estimated $70 -$90 million to the project, and ensured that the treatment facility would be constructed in the middle of town. Unfortunately for Los Osos taxpayers, by all indications, that was a completely baseless decision.

Obviously, obviously, the park element should have been removed from the plan entirely the moment the treatment process changed, and if that would have happened, there would have been absolutely no reason, no justification whatsoever, to site the plant at the “centrally located” Tri -W site. It would have been moved, and, judging from California Coastal Commission documents, it would have been moved to the “environmentally preferable” Andre site. Out of town. No burying of the facilities. No odor scrubbing. No $70 - $90 million park.

I also want to quickly address the subject of possible fines from the Regional Water Quality Control Board associated with any potential delays resulting from stopping the current project, and correcting the poor decision-making of prior LOCSD boards.

It is well known that the RWQCB has threatened $10,000 a day fines on the Los Osos CSD if there are delays, beyond their control, with implementing a wastewater solution for Los Osos. (In my opinion, those fines should have started the moment the California Coastal Commission called the Los Osos CSD “a little bait and switchy,” but that’s another story entirely.)

To that point, I have another question:
How many years worth of $10,000 a day fines does odor scrubbing, burying the facilities, visual and environmental mitigation due to Tri-W’s “central location”, parking lot, restrooms, amphitheater, etc. buy?

It seems that if, if, the current project was stopped, and if, if, the RWQCB decided to start fining the CSD tomorrow (and they shouldn’t by the way... why punish the current CSD board’s efforts to reflect the true will of the people by correcting the mistakes of prior directors?), multi-millions of dollars would still be saved by not including the park in the sewer project.

I want to say one more thing about the board majority’s rational for supporting the current project. They claim that delays associated with implementing another project at this point would add to the degradation of the community’s water quality and increase the pollution of your beautiful bay. However, two members of that board majority, Stan Gustafson and Gordon Hensley, were members of the Solution Group, the citizen’s group that aggressively pushed the ill-conceived Community Plan. Due to their very poor decision to initially pursue the Community Plan, Stan and Gordon do not have the luxury or validity to discuss the environmental consequences of delaying the project. In my well-researched opinion, the two decisions that have led directly to the thick turmoil that exists in Los Osos today, are 1) the decision to initially pursue the deeply flawed Community Plan, and 2) the decision to keep the park in the project after the Community Plan fell off the table, and Stan and Gordon supported both of those decisions. For me, their arguments of “delays = money” and “delays = pollution” fall, understandably, on deaf ears.

Finally, and I want to make this clear, in light of the information presented in this letter, every “yes” vote on the current project from this date forward is a “yes” vote for a multi-million dollar park in a community that has already voted that they do not want to taxed $10 a year for parks anywhere in Los Osos, let alone in a sewer plant. That is a shameful rape of democracy, and an anarchically stance on California tax law. Every “yes” vote from this date forward should now weigh heavy on the conscience of those that cast them. Personally, as someone that treasures democracy, I find those votes unconscionable.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Ron Crawford

Welcome

Oh what the hell... let's try this -- a Los Osos sewer blog.

Why not? I have to admit, though, I'm very lazy, so we'll see how regular my postings are.