Emory_Kendrick

HonestGovernment Nov. 14, 2013 @ 8:47 a.m.

"will not be reimbursed at this time" [italics added] Even though it will be a violation of State law, the DT SD Partnership will eventually get the property owners' tax-bill special assessment money, after Goldsmith and Carmen Brock do their dodging and hedging and there is some sort of agreement by Briggs to withdraw the suit.

FatCat: Of the collected total county 2013 property tax revenue ($3,821,244,316), 3.4% is collected as special assessments in neighborhood MADs and the downtown PBID. That money is turned over by the county to the city, to distribute to the administrative boards of the MADs and the PBID (for the PBID, the admin is the Downtown San Diego Partnership). Much of the collected property assessments distributed to these boards goes not for real and special services to property owners, as the law specifies, but for admin stuff and anything the boards want to spend it on, with very little oversight. It takes a lawsuit to stop improper use and reimbursement of the assessment dollars. Ojeda will return to giving the boards money for just about anything they want as soon as the spotlight is dimmed.

In 2013, only 0.7% of the property tax revenues is destined to go to libraries. Wouldn't if be wonderful if the city promoted property-based special taxes on everyone in the county in order to fund libraries' needs (see Reader article on library patio)? If only the city would undertake equal PR efforts to support causes other than privatized special assessment districts, we'd have a much finer city.

1

FatCatSegat Nov. 13, 2013 @ 3:41 p.m.

Man these people have cojones! Mis-manage,(lose,steal,appropriate for pay raises) five and a half million dollars and ask us to pick up the tab after being sued? The question is begging to be asked. How much money do we give the Downtown Business Partership?

1

Visduh Nov. 12, 2013 @ 5:48 p.m.

In some sports, that's called a "forfeit." They were invited to play; they declined, hence they lose. What's so hard to understand about that? That this was a joint decision by the League and UT-TV is the mysterious part. Why not just go ahead and hold the "debate" or whatever the heck it is, and let the chips fall? Oh, the UT wants it this way, but must the League of Women Voters just meekly go along?

Questions, questions, questions. Answers? Nah, nevahappen.

1

Visduh Nov. 12, 2013 @ 8:22 p.m.

Don, can the UT by either commission or omission determine the results of this election? The readership is lower than the belly of a snake, the credibility of Dougie and Johnnie is a joke, and the TV experiment is just getting started. I'd be more interested in knowing what the four large local TV stations are saying in their news broadcasts. We know that they are completely impartial and have in-depth reporting (yuk, yuk) and will tell the truth. So what are they telling the voters?

1

aardvark Nov. 12, 2013 @ 7:03 p.m.

Gee--I guess if they don't talk about the multi-billion dollar pension deficit, it doesn't really exist.

1

Matt101 Nov. 12, 2013 @ 8:41 p.m.

Not only is "shaky" an understatement re the finances, but "misinform" is an understatement re what the U-T prints.

1

ImJustABill Nov. 13, 2013 @ 7:58 p.m.

This is ridiculous. The candidates who are willing to show up should be given a forum to advocate their viewpoints and raise issues. Major candidates not willing to show up should have empty podiums with their names on them.

1

Dennis Nov. 22, 2013 @ 12:50 p.m.

So the City Attorney who orchestrated Filner's removal from office now says he did nothing wrong! "was not subjected to unwelcome, harassing conduct by Defendant based on her gender or sex" and that the "harassing conduct alleged by Plaintiff was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiffs employment at the City and create a hostile or abusive work environment on the basis of sex."

4

Brian_T_Peterson_DVM Nov. 6, 2013 @ 1:19 p.m.

Yet, a Voice of San Diego “Fact Check” somehow labeled Faulconer’s Billion-Dollar-Savings claim “Mostly True.” http://voiceofsandiego.org/2013/11/04/fact-check-pension-savings-for-neighborhoods/ In the same article, however, the VOSD “fact checker” labeled Fletcher’s similar Decreasing-Pension claim “Misleading.” Amazing. Maybe over there at Liberty Station the VOSD folks are spending too much time over at Stone Brewing. Anyway, I will go with Mike Aguirre’s assessment: Faulconer is “materially misleading.”

5

Don Bauder Nov. 6, 2013 @ 1:46 p.m.

Emory_Kendrick: Yes, Steve Erie, Vlad Kogan, and Scott MacKenzie pegged the San Diego situation perfectly in their book Paradise Plundered. Steve and Vlad are regularly quoted in this blog.

In this election, San Diegans are being fed a bunch of hooey about the City's financial status. Three of the candidates no doubt figured that in such a short election cycle, voters would not have time to check the validity of statements. Mike Aguirre had the sense to bring out the truth.

The Union-Tribune has said the City has a "shaky financial outlook," and that is true. Now it is up to that newspaper to back away from its fatuous stands, such as building a convention center expansion into a horrible national glut (San Diego is already cutting its prices 50%), and building a stadium for the Chargers, owned by a billionaire family. Best, Don Bauder

4

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2013 @ 11:11 a.m.

dwbat: Of course there was an intergovernmental lynching. Why do you think the city attorney, AG, US Attorney, sheriff were all involved in this? Wake up, child. Best, Don Bauder

6

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2013 @ 9:42 a.m.

dwbat: Filner should have said that there WAS a coup. And he was involved in it. And the implications of that coup are far more serious than what Filner did. Best, Don Bauder

5

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2013 @ 9:34 a.m.

ImJustABill: But you are not addressing the key question: if all these women, and all these politicians, knew what they now say they knew before the election, why in the world didn't somebody bring it out? Their credibility is zero. Yes, Filner brought it on; his behavior was not excusable. But an intergovernmental, illegal lynching -- kept secret from the public -- is far more serious than what Filner did. Best, Don Bauder

4

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2013 @ 9:27 a.m.

rehftmann: This is why this is a show trial. To what did Goldsmith really plead guilty to? Details are very skimpy. We don't know the names of the women, who were not city employees. The women haven't been identified or cross-examined. It smells that the AG, sheriff, city attorney, and US Attorney have been involved in this intergovernmental lynching. Best, Don Bauder

3

rehftmann Oct. 18, 2013 @ 8:51 a.m.

I'm completely befuddled by the legal situation here. Filner pleads guilty to what? And Goldsmith's job was to defend him from what? What happened to all the alleged victims?What miracle of jurisprudence joined them? This is possibly the best protection from the curse of history repeating itself… no history, continuous befuddlement. (Predatory plutocrats plunder best under the 'fuddle cloud of their own making.)

3

Don Bauder Oct. 18, 2013 @ 9:25 a.m.

FatCatSegat: Goldsmith is termed out. But he can be kept from holding any other office. He possibly can be prosecuted for this -- but won't be. This is San Diego. Best, Don Bauder

3

Visduh Oct. 18, 2013 @ 10 a.m.

On one hand we might be gratified that Goldsmith was taking on wrongdoing by hiring that psychologist. But it was not his office that could have gone after Filner--that would have been the role of the DA or the attorney general. So, if Goldsmith used taxpayer funds to start an investigation/campaign that he could not complete, his actions were abusive. Whatever he knew should have been immediately passed along to one or both of those "higher" authorities.

This still fails to explain how/why, if Goldsmith was the orchestrator of this coup, he managed to enlist Donna Frye and others to go public with the denunciations. I doubt that they were so foolish and naive as to be lured into something that was baseless. She especially would not be a party to a huge conspiracy sponsored by the GOP. In an analogous manner, it is most unlikely that Goldsmith tricked Kamala Harris, Democrat state attorney general, to join such a conspiracy.

Now, dwbat, if you want to disagree with Don Bauder, you can do that. I often do. I more often agree with him. You can probably see that he and I have some differences in this matter. But I don't insult him or his journalistic abilities and he doesn't take shots at me because we differ. We've corresponded for years, going back long before he joined the Reader, and he knows who I am, and quite a lot about me.

I'd suggest some de-escalation of the rhetoric.

3

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close