Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Dick Rider wants competition, Mike Aguirre wants bankruptcy
Just to clarify the comments attributed to me in the article. They are accurate, but due to the natural limitations of such a piece, some of my comments were not included. I do not reject bankruptcy -- it's just that it's the last choice we should consider. Well, next to last -- tax increases pulls up the rear. As I view it, BK is the nuclear option -- the last arrow in the quiver (to mix metaphors). Before we go to BK court, we have to push solutions. We need to negotiate with the greedy employee labor unions, holding the BK threat over their heads. We need to aggressively pursue contracting out, costing government employees their cushy jobs (and again forcing labor concessions). If the city went to BK court today, the judge would toss out the plea. We haven't yet pursued all options. Only after those options fail (and for political reasons they may indeed fail) should we finally go to the BK crap shoot.— November 20, 2008 1:39 p.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
So Anon92107, it's the GOP -- and apparently (after your perfunctory first paragraph sop to equal party guilt) ONLY the GOP -- that's caused our pension woes. Is this a joke? Is that why you post anonymously? Don't get me wrong. The GOP is equally guilty with the Dems. It's been a BIpartison effort. You seem incapable of recognizing that fact. A change of the party in power will not improve our situation. I deal with a lot of local governments, and I find the differences between the local GOP and Dem Party elected officials to be indistinguishable. Both party's members vote benefits for themselves and "their" employees that are unsustainable, unfair to taxpayers and totally unjustified. You gotta' get over your tribal animosity and deal with the facts.— November 12, 2008 7:07 a.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
One seldom mentioned aspect is that the San Diego City Council is unique in that in 2000 they gave themselves pensions that can start IMMEDIATELY after retirement. Maienschein is -- what? -- 39?? Assuming he earned or bought a total of 10 years, ee can start his pension immediately with almost zero penalty. I know of no other government officials that have this benefit. Nor a group less deserving of it! Richard Rider Chairman, San Diego Tax Fighters— November 11, 2008 4:17 p.m.
Water Pumps
Sadly, the professional fire fighters flat out refuse to support any use of such pumps by residents DURING a fire, even in suburban areas where personal risk is truly nominal. Can you imagine -- buying a $2,000 fire fighting pumper, having a swimming pool full of water, and the police and fire department insist you leave if a fire draws near? The truth is, you can tell the police to kiss off, and they'll back off eventually. But most citizens don't know that. I know that in my Scripps Ranch community, attempts were made by CERT and the Scripps Ranch Civic Association to get such portable pumps made available by the city, but a recognition of the all-important firefighter opposition caused the project to die a quiet death. The ONLY solution our ff's will accept is more full-time professional union ff's -- for a problem that comes up once every 4-10 years.— April 30, 2008 4:29 p.m.
Time for pension reform in San Diego
One reason the DROP program is not revenue neutral is that a general employee in the DROP program continues to get SPSP matching contributions for the minimum 3% amount of salary. Nobody looks at this extra giveaway. It’s true that the DROP contributions are all the employee’s money. JF, you infer that the DROP money constitutes a large portion of the 225% pensions. Not as much as you think. Of the 225% total annual pension payout I described for a 35 year general employee with 5 years in DROP (and assuming 8% earned on SPSP plan) retiring at age 60, only about 16.8% of that payout is from the employee DROP contributions. The rest is from the other three pension plans.— February 13, 2008 10:37 a.m.
Time for pension reform in San Diego
JF, in your comment #52 about Escondido's 401k plan, I learned something! Thank you. I didn’t know that Escondido subsidized their employees’ 401k plan. But if you do a bit more checking, you’ll find that the city does NOT match the employees’ contributions, as does San Diego’s SPSP plan. Remember back why I brought up the point. I know of no city that REPLACED their SS plan with an SPSP-type plan AND kept a full DB plan. Indeed, this Escondido plan was not started until 1995 – long after the city had stopped paying into SS – dropping it since they had a DB plan. Their standard government pension plan (a DB plan) is all that was needed to get out of SS. Escondido taxpayers simply give every employee either $900 or $1,200 annually for their 401k plan (depending on job category and labor agreement, apparently). It appears that the Escondido employee can put zero in, and still get this gift. It is quite different from the formula used for employer contributions to SS and SPSP, which is a match of the employee’s contribution. BTW, this gift rather than a matching program apparently was why my Google searches did not find this Escondido plan. Just about every DC plan out there has some sort of matching formula – and I surely used “matching” in my search. That being said, this Escondido gift is only a small fraction of what San Diego city general employees get – 6.1% of their SD pay. The average SD city employee makes about $60,000, so that comes to a bit over $3,600 taxpayer contribution annually to their SPSP plan – three to four times the Escondido 401k plan subsidy. So my basic assertion still stands – the city of San Diego was under no obligation to set up a DC plan in order to opt out of the SS system.— February 13, 2008 10:35 a.m.
Time for pension reform in San Diego
SDBlogger, congratulations! In comment #51, you’re stepping up your game! This time you are only half wrong. Yes, the city MANDATES a 3% general (and lifeguard) city employee SPSP payroll contribution which it matches – but it ALLOWS these city employees to contribute another 3.1% which the taxpayer ALSO matches. Only a complete idiot would not put in the full 6.1% for the 100% match. If you do some searches of private sector 401k plans, you’ll find relatively few such DC plans where the employer matches more than 3-4% of the employee contributions. And almost none of those employers (except perhaps semi-government companies such as monopoly utilities) also offer these same employees a defined benefit plan such as our city gives away.— February 13, 2008 10:33 a.m.
Time for pension reform in San Diego
(continued) 4. Was the city paying most city employees’ share of the DB pension in 1982, as they were as recently as 2004 (don’t have more recent figures)? That’s right – the city has been paying most general employees’ 5.8% DB pension contribution (presumably the union general employees). It’s called the “employee contribution offset,” an innocuous term to hide the fact that workers are not paying their half of the DB pension cost – we taxpayers are. I’m pretty sure that the city’s managers no longer get this freebie, but I suspect most union general employees are still getting this free ride. As I understand it, in 2004 this giveaway cost the city $34 million. 5. In 1982, could employees buy up to five years of credit at deeply discounted rates, as they have been able to do in recent times? 6. What was the life expectancy of a retiring city worker in 1982, and what is that expectancy today, and in the future? Okay, okay, you won’t have access to that info. But one of the many reasons that all DB pensions go into the red (and will go DEEPER into the red) is because clever pro-government actuaries use outdated mortality tables. By pretending that people will die younger than really is the case, pensions can be increased and underfunded for years before the harsh truth becomes apparent – you city employees live too long! We taxpayers wouldn’t care if you were getting paid JUST a 401-k type plan where we had no unfunded liability, but guaranteed DB plans leave us to cough up 100% of the shortfall. That might bother you (at least a little) too, but, like many city employees and most city firefighters, you don’t LIVE in the city, and almost surely won’t retire here.— February 13, 2008 10:31 a.m.
Time for pension reform in San Diego
JF, thanks for the historical info on the increase in the firefighter’s pension since the early 1980’s in your comment #50. BTW, I’d appreciate an online reference, if you can provide it. I realize that hanging on to (and further inflating) your firefighter benefits is your ditch to die in. But this discussion has primarily been about the general (nonsafety) employees’ pensions since about 1982, the DROP program and the SPSP plan. As a city employee, you and your union have access to information that I have to file written public records requests and perhaps take court action to get to. Mayor Sanders has all but closed off public access to information about the city -- info that has not been already screened by the Mayor’s flunkies – primarily Fred Sainz. But city employees can get on the Intranet, or call other city employees, or get their labor union to come up with this info relatively easily. So check this out for about 1982 and report back (I know some of the answers, but not all of them): 1. For general employees, what was the DB pension formula prior to the implementation of SPSP in 1982? 2. For general employees AND firefighters, was the DB payout figured on the average of the highest three years (or perhaps only the LAST three years), vs. today when the DB payout is based on the highest SINGLE year’s pay? 3. What was the 1982 minimum age for a general employee’s full retirement? Assuming that that full retirement age has dropped from 60 (or 62) down to the present age 55, that’s a substantial increase in the pension payout. (continued)— February 13, 2008 10:29 a.m.
Time for pension reform in San Diego
JR, in your comment #49, You claim that the city workers pay an average of 12% into their retirement plans. Not so. More detail will follow in another comment. Put that error aside. You claim that since city employees pay 12% into pensions vs. the private sector paying 6% for SS, then 140% city employee pensions at age 55 are “perfectly right.” The average SS recipient gets between 15% and 35% of their highest salary if they wait to take full withdrawal at age 66. So double your contribution to pensions as a city employee and get 140% pensions at age 55? Turko called it – it ain’t right. Neither from a fairness nor mathematical standard. You further assert that the city takes the age of hire and the assumed retirement age into account. Again, not so. When it comes to the city’s DB plans, the formulas are negotiated (and raised retroactively) politically, with no real concern by anyone in the “negotiation” process as to how the benefits will actually be paid. EVERYONE in the negotiation process profits from underfunded, inflated pensions. Any actuary who points out the underfunding miscalculations will be replaced by one who better understands the game.— February 13, 2008 10:28 a.m.