San Diego Reader

So San Diego

Nice job Joe. Donna is a classy lady and we owe her a lot. I wish somebody would hire her as a columnist or commission her to write a book.
— January 26, 2012 10:29 a.m.

Sanders's "Frighten 'Em" Prop. D Scam

Don: So you also think that Seiler may be leaking the mail-ins to Krvaric and Sanders as a running poll? Is there any way we can find out? Is there not some on-going independent supervision of the mail-in count? Has Seiler sole custody of it? Was that why our Republican Supes hired her? We know that her ex-employer, Diebold is an extention of the GOP. Like you I had assumed it was why Sanders had taken to the road with his Town Hall Halloween Show, but I had hoped it was because Seiler was tipping him that Prop D was losing badly. Now you've got me worried that maybe he was a no-show because she is telling him that it is winning by a wide margin. But somehow I can't see that. Maybe he is getting ready to resign if D goes down in flames. Wouldn't that be nice. Maybe his wife can see the writing on the wall and will pull him out of the game if it gets too rough. Wives do that you know. PS. Thanks for the link and quote.
— October 20, 2010 8:56 p.m.

Did Somebody Change the Charter?

CCDC's $80 million cash contribution to the DT Library could have balanced this year's budget and saved lives. It is not a question of the merit of any of these capital projects, we simply can't afford to pay for day-to-day commitments.
— July 29, 2010 12:37 p.m.

Did Somebody Change the Charter?

Don, here are links to the two MOLs mentioned by Mr. Goldsmith. http://blogofsandiego.com/Issues/Library/ML-90-... http://blogofsandiego.com/Issues/Library/ML-91-... As our email exchange was on the record and subject to a PRA request, here is a copy of the emails: http://blogofsandiego.com/Issues/Library/Charte... It should not be considered a new MOL as I'm sure Jan never intended it as such. But clearly it reflects his thinking. Aguirre probably feels that what was done in '91 to avoid a devastating impact on sewer rates, in complying with a mandated Clean Water Program, is different from building an optional library. Also there is the question of whether this phased funding technique will be applied to other major capital projects. Anyway, it all makes for an interesting discussion on your blog.
— July 29, 2010 11:05 a.m.

Did Somebody Change the Charter?

Sorry, I forgot to include a link to the Showley story: http://bit.ly/cXb9I6
— July 29, 2010 10:09 a.m.

Did Somebody Change the Charter?

What do you think of Aguirre's one-on-one yesterday with Roger Showley? Is it true? Showley reports that Aguirre "will not sue the city over the issue and may even donate to the project himself." Didn't he say at City Council public comment that Jacobs was harming the city by donating?
— July 29, 2010 9:11 a.m.

Did Somebody Change the Charter?

Don: I got a prompt and very detailed response from Jan Goldsmith personally. He obviously takes your concerns very seriously. He emphasized this part of Section 80 “all moneys applicable to its payment which before the maturity thereof are anticipated to come into the treasury to the credit of such appropriation shall, for the purpose of such certificate, be deemed in the treasury to the credit of the appropriation from which the contract, agreement or obligation is to be paid”. He pointed out that the Comptroller’s certificate covers Phase 1 only. It does not apply to Phase 2. The Phase 1 contract is for a total amount of $127,931,121.00 and is fully funded relying in part on $30,770,000 of privately pledged funds. He attached two MOLs from John Witt, one from ’90 and one from ’91, dealing with the questions of “anticipated” income and phased funding of contracts. So he appears to have done his homework. As I understand it, he seems satisfied that the pledged $30,770 can properly be treated as “anticipated” income under Section 80 for Phase 1 and the “missing” $32 million applies to Phase 2, which has not yet been contracted. He ended with: “In sum, we have an enforceable contract for the donations pledged so far ($30,770,000), and we haven’t authorized construction of that part of the library that depends on future donations ($32,512,092).” I hope that helps you and your readers.
— July 28, 2010 7:32 p.m.

Did Somebody Change the Charter?

Don and your readers, I just emailed the following question to Mr. Goldsmith: "Could you please explain how hoped-for private gifts could equate with anticipated normal City revenues to qualify as “is anticipated to come into the treasury” in a Comptroller certification under Charter Section 80? Also, how can the Comptroller “encumber” the former? The concept of encumbering anticipated future City revenue is widespread but such revenue must be a City entitlement not some hoped-for generosity of a private citizen or citizens." I will let you know his response.
— July 28, 2010 2:38 p.m.

Graham Claims She Was "Spotless" in Florida. Hogwash!

Don: read my blog about Nancy Fay of The Reader and a key email exchange between Nancy Graham and CCDC Director Kim Kilkenny. http://www.blogofsandiego.com/BlogArchives/2008...
— May 21, 2010 1:07 p.m.

Graham Claims She Was "Spotless" in Florida. Hogwash!

She was a virgin too.
— May 21, 2010 8:43 a.m.