JustWondering

JustWondering July 6, 2012 @ 1:57 a.m.

It's worse then people realize. The Megan's law website only list the felony sex offenders on the screens the public may see. Those convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes are excluded by statute. In addition there are various ways to go about getting yourself removed from public display by going through the courts. So instead of getting the full picture the public can be lulled into a sense of security, not knowing the next door neighbor likes to expose himself (314.1 Cal Penal Code) But the even scarier part, mere possession of Child Ponography in California is still a misdemeanor. (Cal PC 311.11)

1

AlexClarke Oct. 5, 2016 @ 6:04 a.m.

I hope the idiot Board votes against getting in bed with the Chargers nonsense. If the stupid Charger fans and idiot San Diego voters want a stadium fine but keep the County out of it.

2

jnojr Oct. 5, 2016 @ 12:50 p.m.

If someone is "free", that must include the freedom to ingest substances that aren't good for them. There is no moral support for the "War on Drugs"... the intention was to go after the effects of drug use, and has failed badly.

Legalize it. Tax it. Bring it out into the light. If someone wants to blaze away 24/7, that's their business. If they then want to do something stupid or criminal, there are laws for that. get stoned and drive? Already illegal. Commit burglaries to buy dope? Already illegal. Want to give pot to a kid? Illegal.

Stop the hand-wringing. Time for the nattering ninnies to shut up. Don't want to use pot? Don't. But you don't have a right for nobody else to use it because you disapprove.

6

La Jollans complain about airport noise

An issue historically griped by Point Lomans

La Jolla residents are the latest to complain about jetliner noise from the airport. However, their formal complaint to the La Jolla Town Council tonight (February 9) has been removed from the agenda because the ...

Local landmark(?) restaurant repurposed as mausoleum

Pernicano’s in perpetuity

Somewhere in the afterlife, former local businessman George Pernicano is twirling his famous mustache and chuckling. And while the 25-foot bronze angel that now sits atop his former restaurant in Hillcrest suggests heaven, both his ...

Rocket_J_Squirrel Oct. 22, 2016 @ 8:56 p.m.

It would help alot if those receiving public assistance wouldn't call 9-1-1 if their butt itches or their hair hurts. If they have a car, drive themselves (or uber/lyft) to the Emergency Department. Of course that would cost THEM their own money, so it ain't happening.

2

JustWondering Jan. 12, 2017 @ 12:02 p.m.

Two thoughts:

FIRST Well it's the end of an era of 'San Diego Charger' football and the endless drama regarding the fleecing of the taxpayers by weak kneed politicians.

It also means it's the beginning of something good for San Diegans! Now is the time for our elected leaders, who were promising hundreds of millions to a private entertainment business, owned by a billionaire, to put forth a real plan to fix our infrastructure needs.

SECOND I realize this is wishful thinking, but Mr. Kronke did buy the land and is paying for his own facility, maybe the tide is turning on the fleecing of taxpayers.

4

Don Bauder Nov. 11, 2016 @ 7:06 a.m.

Dennis Hull: Right you are. One of the major factors in San Diegans knowing a scam when they see one is the greed of the billionaire NFL owners who believe their costs should be picked up by taxpayers. The league keeps finances secret for an understandable reason: they are a colossal embarrassment of riches. The fans are exploited, both when going to a game and when watching on on TV.

Example: Each team brings in $226 million a year from the TV deals alone. That figure should be widely publicized should the Chargers try to rape San Diego again. Best, Don Bauder

3

Cassander Jan. 12, 2017 @ 1:20 p.m.

Now our next concern should be that our sleazy, breezy, Cover Mayor doesn't go secretly promising our tax dollars to relocate some other, any other NFL team, so that he can claim he kept San Diego a pro football town (at our expense).

2

billdsd April 20, 2015 @ 8:14 p.m.

My "interpretation" of the vehicle code? The vehicle code is straight forward and plain.

CVC 21200. (a) A person riding a bicycle or operating a pedicab upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this division, including, but not limited to, provisions concerning driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or drugs, and by Division 10 (commencing with Section 20000), Section 27400, Division 16.7 (commencing with Section 39000), Division 17 (commencing with Section 40000.1), and Division 18 (commencing with Section 42000), except those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.

I have been riding on the road since 1971 and I have 6 figure mileage experience. I'm still alive. I ride on busy roads all the time.

How about if you stopped giving advice on subjects that you know nothing about?

Bicyclists have as much right to the road as motorists do. That's the law. That's always been the law, since there have been road laws, since before the California Vehicle Code was created.

How about you just move over to pass bicycles at a safe distance of at least 3 feet as required by CVC 21760?

1

billdsd April 20, 2015 @ 9:02 p.m.

I've got 6 figure mileage experience riding on the road since 1971. I'm still alive.

You really don't know a thing about bike safety. I am a League of American Bicyclists Certified Instructor. I know how to ride safely in traffic. I ride on major roads all the time. I actually prefer them because they tend to have multiple lanes which makes it easier for motorists to move over to pass me.

I'm not "interpreting" CVC 21200(a). It clearly says that bicyclists have the same right to the road as motorists do. You need to learn the actual law rather than the imaginary law that you wish for.

You also need to learn how to move over to pass bicyclists with at least 3 feet of clearance as required by CVC 21760.

1

ImJustABill May 16, 2015 @ 3:03 p.m.

"meeting the state's pollution goals ultimately requires a significant reduction in miles traveled by cars."

That is a completely false statement. If car efficiency improves then that will reduce pollution even with the same number of miles traveled by cars.

2

AlexClarke May 17, 2015 @ 6:18 a.m.

I would love to take a trolley or bus to work but it is not feasible. If one does not work near a trolley station or bus stop or if the hours of operation do not coincide with the transit schedule then the system is unusable. San Diego's transit system is a patchwork of trolley, train and bus systems that get you nowhere fast and only serve limited areas. From East county it takes 2 hours to get to downtown SD by bus about 45 minutes by Trolley and then you have to walk to work. Add to that the times of day/night and areas where it is less than safe it all adds up to an ineffective transit system. Add to that a bunch of bicycle paths that few can use to get to work and it is nothing but transportation chaos.

2

Visduh May 21, 2015 @ 8:28 a.m.

That infrastructure deficit is growing, not shrinking. That is due to the fact that the city (and in same cases the county) isn't even keeping up with the deterioration going on now. If the city wanted to make a herculean attempt to make up that deficit, it would require decades to do it. First would be a need to just spend enough, and spend wisely enough, to stay even. Then more would be needed to begin catching up. And the political will to keep spending on infrastructure and not on police and fire pay raises and fat pensions would have to be steadfast through a couple generations of local pols. What's the likelihood of that ever happening? Very slim, or vanishingly small, I'd say. BUT, it needs to be attempted, and it needs to start "yesterday." All this whoop-de-doo about a new and unneeded stadium just distracts all the players from the things they need to be doing. And while this is front-page news, little or nothing will be done to start the repair work.

3

Don Bauder May 21, 2015 @ 6:09 a.m.

Twister: We made the same argument when the Petco scam was on the table, and ultimately before the voters. And look what has happened. San Diego has a recognized $2 billion infrastructure deficit that is certainly far more than $2 billion. The city ignored infrastructure and neighborhoods by spending so much money on Petco subsidies.

If San Diego approves the silly plan put forward by the task force, and the Chargers can't get to L.A. and decide to stay, and the subsidized stadium goes forward, the infrastructure will rot at an accelerated rate. So will the neighborhoods. Best, Don Bauder

5

Twister May 20, 2015 @ 10:34 p.m.

I resent every penny of tax money being spent on this. Government's business is public health and safety, NOT lining private pockets.

6

jemsd May 31, 2015 @ 12:42 p.m.

Am I understanding correctly? If a molester's victim was their child, stepchild, sibling, or grandparent ( which to me, is even more sicker than a friend or strangers child ) than they can be excluded from the website? What in the world would be the rationale behind such an exclusion?

3

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!

Close