• Scam Diego alerts

In 1996 (the same year the City tapped the retirement fund to finance the Republican convention), the City of San Diego enacted a purchase-of-service credits plan. Employees could buy years of service and grab those hyper-generous benefits without having been on the payroll. For six years, the employees were able to buy those credits very cheap. The years weren't priced at actual cost. The mistake was discovered in 2003, but the City then gave the employees several months to buy in at the old, actuarially fallacious rates. Obviously, employees piled in, snapping up more than 8,000 years of service -- costing the City $146 million.

So here is the list of City employees who bought the benefits for years they didn't serve: former Mayor Susan Golding 5 years; former City Attorney Casey Gwinn 5; former City Manager Michael Uberuaga 5, and former portfolio manager for the City pension fund Doug McCalla (who is getting $14,537.06 a month in pension) 5 years.

Also grabbing at the purchase-of-service windfall were employees who were indicted on state and federal charges for various offenses, but got off the hook: Lawrence Grissom, 5 years; Loraine Chapin 5; Mary Vattimo 1.83; Ron Saathoff 3.58, and Teresa Webster 5.

Finally, former councilmembers snatched up the full five years: Juan Vargas, Harry Mathis, James Madaffer, Ralph Inzunza, Michael Zucchet and Bria Maienschein.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 25, 2010 @ 11:03 p.m.

This scam is as big a fraud as the DROP scam.

I had heard that the so called "cost neutral" SYC purchases ended up covering only 10% of the true costs-don't know if that was true or not, but I know it was not cost neutral, same with DROP.

Notice how all the leeches sucked up the maximum allowed-5 years!

0

Don Bauder Aug. 26, 2010 @ 6:42 a.m.

Response to post #1: DROP is hardly cost-neutral. The same is true of purchase-of-service credits. Yes, many took the 5 years. Best, Don Bauder

0

HonestGovernment Aug. 26, 2010 @ 7:27 a.m.

"The mistake was discovered in 2003"

Can you please explain what is meant by the term "mistake"?

0

Don Bauder Aug. 26, 2010 @ 8:51 a.m.

Response to post #3: Those who bought in to the purchase-of-service credit program underpaid. From an actuarial perspective, they were not paying enough for the pension benefits they were purchasing. This actuarial error was discovered in 2003. But the City then gave the employees several months to buy in at the old, actuarially unsound rates. Naturally, they jumped in. It cost the City a bundle. Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering Aug. 26, 2010 @ 9:06 a.m.

Don,

Now you're telling only half of the story. As you know the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled on this matter on June 7, 2010, abd neither party is appealing so this seems to end it.

https://www.sdcers.org/Documents/Opinion_PSC_Writ.pdf

In the ruling, the court carved out certain periods where PSC contracts signed by SDCERS and the participating employee, are now in question. The period is the window between the time period of August 15, 2003 through November 1, 2003. The Court agrees with the City's argument that it should not be held financially responsible for the under priced contracts.

The SDCERS Trust has three sources of revenues, Employee contributions, Plan Sponsor contributions and Investment returns. The City, as plan sponsor, has been excluded by the Court for the under priced contracts, this seems to leaves only one source, the employees. This has open a Pandora's Box of issues with many more question then there are answers. If watch the video from the August 6th SDCERS Ad Hoc Committee meeting you get a feel for some of the issues covering some 3600 contracts and 2100 employees.

Ann Smith, MEA Attorney, spoke at this meeting and commented on many of issues now faced by the current Board. I'll forward you a copy of her Open Letter to SDCERS' Ad Hoc Committee on PSC issue via email. In it you'll find interesting legal arguments that all interested parties should consider.

The current SDCERS Board, by Court Order, must find some sort of resolution to the under pricing issue that does NOT include the City as part of the ARC, Annual Required Contribution, or UAAL, Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability.

However, one argument still holds the City responsible and it falls under indemnification of the City's Boards and Commissions. All City Boards and Commissions are insured for their acts or omissions.

The Court has ruled; "In November 2007 the SDCERS Board of Administration voted to charge the City for a shortfall in service credits purchased by City employees." The court found that the Board's decision was contrary to the City's Municipal Code and Charter, which required the purchase of service credits by employees to be "cost neutral" to the City. In other words, the Court said the Board acted illegally in November of 2007. Further, acts by Boards in 1997 and 2003 may have also been illegal. Finally, everyone MUST remember, SDCERS does not create ANY benefits. Benefits, even PSC contracts were created by the City Council, the Plan Sponsor, SDCERS' error was relying on the actuaries who price them out in 1997.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 26, 2010 @ 10:46 a.m.

Response to post #5: Put the court's statements aside for a moment and ask the key questions: 1. Why do there have to be purchase-of-service credits at all? Who was smoking what when they were adopted? Had anybody given any thought to the possibility of an economic downturn? 2. Similarly, who was smoking what when DROP was adopted? Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 26, 2010 @ 11:53 a.m.

I too wonder why PSYC are allowed.

If it takes 10, 15, 20 whatever the number of years it takes to vest-then that should be a HARD number that must be met.

0

JustWondering Aug. 26, 2010 @ 12:50 p.m.

I must agree with you in this context.

The ORIGINAL intend of PSC was to solve a problem with the retirement system that required "continuous" service. If an employee was on a non paid leave, military leave or a few other types of leave where continuous service was disrupted then they lost eligibility for their pension. To fix it a solution was presented and passed by City Council. How this eventually evolved into AIR TIME credits is something you'll need to research, but to be clear, it had to be approved by City Leaders and the City Council.

Furthermore, no city employee hired on or after July 1, 2005 may access the program.

0

Dennis Aug. 26, 2010 @ 12:50 p.m.

Please note that all of these agreements were completed under Republican mayors (have we ever had any other kind?) so that they could underpay the pension funds and use the $ for their political and developer friends. Why does everyone keep blaming the unions?

0

Don Bauder Aug. 26, 2010 @ 1:28 p.m.

Response to post #7: Why have purchase-of-service credits at all? Public sector pay already tops private sector pay, and public sector pensions vastly top private sector ones. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 26, 2010 @ 1:30 p.m.

Response to post #9: If memory serves me right, the last Democratic mayor was Maureen O'Connor. She is not to blame for the current pension mess. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 26, 2010 @ 11:48 p.m.

CASEY G GWINN Retirement date= 12/7/2004 Branch= Legislature Service Birth= 9/1960 Monthly= 8,155.95$ service=24.28 Service credits= 5 ==================== How can Gwinn "retire" at age 44????????????????

With a pension of $8K per month???

Don, please tell me how he can do that??? How can Gwinn start collecting at age 44?????????

If he lives to age 81 that will be 37 years of pension payments-on a work career of 24 years?????

You need to fill in the blanks for me, I just don't get this one.

As bad as the other scammers are, this one is the worst I see skimming over the list-there are several who started pulling pensions at age 50, like the former SDPD chief David Bejerano, who is now collecting a second pay check at CVPD as their chief.

But Gwinn?????? How can the system allow someone to "retire" at age 44! Much less with a pension at $100K/year.

The system is broken, obviously. But someone needs to tell me how a 44 year old can collect a "pension" from this moronic city.

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 26, 2010 @ 11:50 p.m.

Since Gwinn did not start working for the city at age 20, you need to take out his 5 years of servie credit-which means he only worked 20 years, for 37 years of $100K pension payments.

20 years of work, and 37 yeasrs of 6 figure pensions.

Where is JustCLueless at, we need him to post some of his nonsensical whoppers justifying this cities public pension system............

0

mel Aug. 27, 2010 @ 8:50 a.m.

Short cut for taxpayers. Instead of making out check to County Treasurer or Franchise Tax Board, make it payable to your city councilmember, because that's who gets it.

0

mel Aug. 27, 2010 @ 8:53 a.m.

Reelecting an elected official increase their pension so it increases our taxes . One term limit -a way to cut the budget.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 27, 2010 @ 9:51 a.m.

Response to post #12: Gwinn was termed out of office. Upon leaving, he was set up with a fat contract working on domestic abuse. He took that and his near-$100,000 a year pension and is rolling in dough at age 50. And his record as city attorney was terrible -- recall the 60,000 seat guarantee, how the city got pitifully outlawyered in both the Chargers and Padres scams, etc. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 27, 2010 @ 9:53 a.m.

Response to post #13: Just Wondering will be back with an answer, I am certain. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 27, 2010 @ 9:54 a.m.

Response to post #14: Yes, purchase-of-service credits is a euphemism. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 27, 2010 @ 10 a.m.

Response to post #15: Or make it out to the councilmember's bank in his/her favorite Caribbean tax/secrecy haven. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 27, 2010 @ 10:02 a.m.

Response to post #16: Or one term in office, one term in jail. Automatic. Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering Aug. 27, 2010 @ 11:13 a.m.

SP please read the Muni Code for Legislative Members of SDCERS. Not only do they contribute the least of all three groups, General, Safety and Legislative, they also vest the earliest. And, the Legislative Group, as Plan Sponsor, writes and approves the benefits.

What, surprised? I and others have been pointing this out for years. But you and Don still blame the rank and file workers when City Management, both political AND bureaucratic leaders are the ones who are the largest recipients.

0

Founder Aug. 27, 2010 @ 12:21 p.m.

Reply #22 JW again, I agree with what you say but also want to add that the "rank and file" are also the benefactors of this "situation" and should not be left out of the discussion. One only has to read the huge listing of all the folks that are receiving OUTRAGEOUS pensions to see why out Leaders have given away our "farm" and are themselves now part of the problem... http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs...

0

Don Bauder Aug. 27, 2010 @ 5:02 p.m.

Response to post #22: I don't think SP or I put all the blame on the rank and file. Far from it. We are always sniping at the pols who set up this system, along with the bureaucrats who carried it out. The unions do deserve a lot of the blame, though. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 27, 2010 @ 5:05 p.m.

Response to post #23: Yes, read that list. Especially note the FFs and police who are getting such fat pensions. And, of course, the officials whose dubious activities left San Diego in shambles: Casey Gwinn, Jack McGrory, etc. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 28, 2010 @ 5:27 p.m.

Don, please take a look at these two graphs-especially the 2nd graph. Same with the public employees posting here.

After looking at these two graphs-I dare anyone-I DOUBLE DOG DARE anyone- to say these pensions are sustainable.

I predict in 1-3 years Calpers will not be able to meet pension payment funding, nor will Calpers be able to collect the extra funding/money needed from the muni's to keep the fund above even a 40% funded level (Calpers is currently at a 47% funded level using private sector accounting standards). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449813071709510.html .

0

Don Bauder Aug. 28, 2010 @ 9:59 p.m.

Response to poset #26: No question: that Schwarzenegger piece in the Journal the other day is a powerful one. And, as you say, the accompanying graphs tell the story: the state can't continue paying these pension benefits (or salaries, for that matter). Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 7:50 a.m.

Reply #26 & #27 The only way, that I could imagine, that the State could pay all these outrageous Pensions, is if we have runaway inflation after getting some kind of Pension Cap or disconnect from the COL and what the economy is doing; then the State would be paying off it's obligations/loans with much "cheaper" dollars...

Despite what some think, I see inflation on our horizon and all those with paper money will then kiss their "assets" goodbye!

That is why to me, all this "new" talk about, "why owning ones home is "now" a poor investment and the folks in the shrinking middle class should not "invest" in home ownership", is such a cruel joke being played on the masses by the Rich; who will then be only too happy, to become BIG landlords and rent to the Masses!

The 1st of every month will become a National Holiday for the Wealthy and a day of infamy for everyone else!

0

Founder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 8:22 a.m.

One only needs to look at other MAJOR changes that the State of CA has enacted in the last few years, to see what's coming down the road for all of US...

BTW: Governor Schwarzenegger has already "gutted" the States Workers Comp. Laws and anyone that still thinks that they will receive any kind of fair restitution, if they are really and truly injured while working in the State of California, better WAKE UP to the new Schwarzenegger legislated reality!

Anyone now seriously injured, will be forced to "settle" (less the 12% - 15% attorney fee) if they want actual treatment and then will only receive a tiny amount of money and a educational "voucher" worth a few thousand dollars IF IT IS SPENT AS A DOWNPAYMENT ON A MORE EXPENSIVE STATE APPROVED RETRAINING COURSE, the balance of which, of course, is the obligation of the injured party to pay!

Then as they used to say in the cartoons, "That's all folks....".

or

Perhaps a more modern saying would be from the Movie "Alien", when the crew is discussing what happens if the Alien enters the ship and one crew member said. "GAME OVER, MAN... GAME OVER..."

0

Don Bauder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 9:50 a.m.

Response to post #28: Historically, governments inflate their way out of expenses that they cannot pay. We may not have inflation any time soon because of the anemic economy, but it is certainly a possibility. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 9:54 a.m.

Response to post #29: I honestly haven't spent much time on the workers comp question in California. Looks like a subject of study. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 10:07 a.m.

Reply#30 Inflation without "caps" would just inflate what is then owed because of COL increases; those must be capped (or eliminated) before inflation is allowed to "happen"...

BTW: you might also consider an article on how the Gov't.'s definition of inflation has itself been inflated; and what effect those "wording" changes have made on American's lives...

0

Founder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 10:46 a.m.

Response to post #31: I bet you have not "dis-honestly" spent much time on the Workers Comp question either!

That said, (Only in jest, as comic relief, to a very troubling discussion)!

I believe that CA WC's laws have recently "MORPHED" into something so completely unbelievable, (as compared to what, just a few years ago, folks considered the accepted norm), that they will themselves serve a the "model" to redefine the future of California "NEW" legal code; that will bridge the gap between where we were 5 years ago and where were are going to be a few years from now!

After a few years, "benefits" will be known as just a thing of the past (which was only for those with connections; try watching the movie, "Brazil") and fondly compared to what it must have been like when gas was really cheap, to drive down to the Ocean, to enjoy an all night beach party, have a big bonfire, drink some beers and go skinny dipping with your friends...

0

nan shartel Aug. 29, 2010 @ 12:10 p.m.

founder

i like Don also know very little about Workman's Comp in Calif

my HB Bobby had a finger severed by a powermower when he worked on a small golf course in Oregon...the mower was determined unsafe and he was on workmans comp for a while and eventually received a settlement that was predetermined for the loss of a digit...left hand pointer finger

we had a social worker there that had been nearly crippled in one leg in a timber industry accident...he was retrained for a different job (social work)by Workmans Comp

that required 4 years of college

in the face of these pensions being spoken of here workman's comp determinations for the those affected seem grossly unfair

0

Don Bauder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 2:01 p.m.

Response to post #32: The government actually deflates its definition of inflation. It uses all kinds of tricks to understate inflation, just as it understates unemployment. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 5:33 p.m.

Reply #34 When someone needs WC, they are so crushed that they seldom advertise that they have been raped! The folks making the huge monthly retirement benefits are not bragging to the masses, you have to be friendly with them to hear those stories... So "we" do not find out about any of these types of issues until someone we know gets "RAPED" by WC or gets Wealthy from a City Pension, and then all their friends suddenly learn from them, the new reality...

I have no knowledge about the folks getting UNBELIEVABLY BIG City pensions but I do know someone that got RAPED by the new WC regulations.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 29, 2010 @ 9:20 p.m.

Response to post #36: You have no knowledge of people getting unbelievably big city pensions? Come now. Go to the post above, with the headline beginning "Rolls Out, Rolls Out..." and click for the list of city retirees' monthly pensions. The link is in red. Then come back and say you have no knowledge of unbelievably big city pensions. How about a pension of $15,000 a month? Or one for $10,000 when the guy retired at age 44? Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering Aug. 30, 2010 @ 6:01 a.m.

Johnny,

Mr. Schwarzenegger op/ed piece, that's right OPINION is full of projections that may or MAY NOT come true. In other words, more half truths from our actor/politician. He's using all of the tricks and skills as an actor to play on one of the two biggest emotions that drive financial decisions; fear.

As usual Johnny, your predictions of the sky is falling, what a surprise, are as predictable as Obama wanting to waste another trillion of taxpayer's money on a new stimulus deal.

Since you Double Dog Dared, let's look at Graph#2 that you say is so important. While the graph has a VERY DRAMATIC for maximum visual impact upswing, did you bother to read the fine print at the bottom? The disclaimer at the bottom says, in part, "Assumes ....2000-2011 annual growth rates."

As a bottom dwelling lawyer you should be very familiar with the fine print. Especially items like this one used as disclaimers for politicians who needs a built in excuse in the future.

We already know the State has reduced compensation for a majority of it's employees through various means. So the growth rate projected in Graph #2 is already wrong.

But let's talk about where we live in San Diego, many of the complaints voiced by you and Don have already been addressed by pension reforms enacted in and since July of 2005.

We also know there are more to come with each contract negotiation. In addition, City employees wages have been reduced by as much as 6% while the employee contribution to SDCERS has risen too. To address the growing retiree medical cost issue, the City capped to retiree medical benefit in July 20009 (subject to ongoing litigation). To end the growth with this issue, no employee hired on or after 7-1-05 has access to the retiree medical benefit.

While it is true, the State need to implement some the same reforms, San Diego has led, not by example but by taking real action, and implementing real change.

Double Dog Dare Done.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 6:38 a.m.

Response to post #38: You sound like Mayor Sanders talking about the so-called reforms enacted on his watch. If you put them all together, they have been very weak. He has made a lot of noise about unimpressive changes. Repeat: if the City cannot make deep cuts in pensions through the bankruptcy court, salaries of existing employees should be slashed 25 to 35 percent. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 30, 2010 @ 7:02 a.m.

We already know the State has reduced compensation for a majority of it's employees through various means.

LOL...your nose just grew 50 feet with that whopper....the state has not reduced salary for anyone, and has made changes so minor to SOME pension plans that they are basically meaningless.

0

Founder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 8:10 a.m.

Reply #37 Don I meant that I had no PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE (as in friends of mine) of folks getting "huge monthly retirement benefits"

but

"I do know someone that got RAPED by the new WC regulations."

Hope that makes it more clear, or better yet, "clearer"!

BTW: I loved the posts you mentioned

Best

0

Founder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 8:32 a.m.

Reply #38 I'd also like to add that perhaps you should review Councilmember DeMaio own chart which he projected, showing the "effect" of the proposed ½ % sales tax increase on the City and challenged anyone to see the effect without using a magnifying glass!

I think that chart puts into perspective, the amount of "Strong Changes" that have been done to date by our Mayor and Council vs. what needs to be done...

Remember it costs San Diego cost over $600,000 a day to operate!

So each day our City's Leaders waffle on true change, we are all just getting, to quote the famous "Sixteen Tons" Work song:

"Another day older and deeper in debt"...

0

Founder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 8:55 a.m.

Adding to Reply #40

For what #38 posted RE: Both the City and State Budgets:

This might be a helpful analogy,

You are in our "Budget" car, driving (Spending) WAY TOO FAST and you are almost upon the "Financial" cliff's edge. If you lift your foot a bit (too tiny reform), so you are not pressing down, as hard, on the gas pedal as you were before, you might HONESTLY say, "you have reduced your speed" and perhaps even take the time to note the exact reduction in your speed, but all of your "actions" have NO REAL AFFECT on the car's future

because,

The car still going way too fast to stop from going over the Cliff !

Our Politicians may bail out, or just depend upon their golden Parachutes to save themselves, but what happens to US and our "Budget" car?

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 30, 2010 @ 9:50 a.m.

The car still going way too fast to stop from going over the Cliff !

Our Politicians may bail out, or just depend upon their golden Parachutes to save themselves, but what happens to US and our "Budget" car?

I would make just one change in Founder's analogy;

We are not diving off a cliff, we are driving off Mt Everest!

0

JustWondering Aug. 30, 2010 @ 10:45 a.m.

Founder,

Lets examine your dramatic $600,000 to run the city and look at it another way.

San Diego consists of about 325 square miles. Maintaining San Diego streets, water and wastewater systems, beaches, parks, cemetery (Yes the city owns a cemetery) dams, lakes, bridges, over-crossings, buildings, stadiums, marinas, and golf courses is a just a short list of the physical plant side of the "house".

Then there's daily cost of operating the lights, you know the building lights, 40,000 street lights and signal lights, not to mention 53,000 street signs. What about 2800 miles of streets and alleys, or 5,000 miles of sidewalk and 70,000 storm and sewer drains.

The city is also green outside of parks with more than 200,000 trees lining roadways, paths and public landscaping. Not to mention the cost of providing law enforcement services, fire and paramedic protection, lifeguards and trash collection. There's also the cost of running and maintaining all of the city vehicles. They don't run on air, and if there cars are like mine, the breakdown and wear out tires. Oh and don't forget the multitude of other services demanded by the folks who live here.

All of this infrastructure and beauty in 325 square miles of southern most southern California costs about $1850 per square mile, per day.

According to the latest US Census Bureau data San Diego has about 3771.9 persons per square mile. This means each of those persons, enjoying the parks, getting clean water, not having to worry about how their waste, both sewage and solids are handled, clean beaches, great libraries, a world famous zoo in one of the nicest parks on the West coast, pay about 50 CENTS a day to live here in San Diego.

San Diego has a population of about 1.3 million. This means each citizen is paying roughly $2.10 each day to enjoy, what Pete Wilson called, "the Sunshine Tax". Hell I pay twice that everyday for coffee and piss it away in an hour or two. Every morning I get up and look out my window and know I live best places on Earth.

If you ask me, $6OOK a day to run a city, with all that San Diego offers to its guests and provides to its citizens, is a bargain.

0

Founder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 11:40 a.m.

Reply JW's #45 If as you say, "$6OO,OOO a day to run a City, with all that San Diego offers to its guests and provides to its citizens, is a bargain"...

THINK HOW REALLY GREAT IT WOULD BE

IF WE DID NOT NOW HAVE A FISCAL CRISIS

AND WE SPENT ALL OUR REDEVELOPMENT

MONEY FIXING SAN DIEGO,

Instead of Building more grandiose Buildings & Stadiums that we can't afford! We might also build more water reserve and other vital things San Diego needs to prosper and attract more Green business's!

I wonder what you would call that?

I'd call it A REALLY MUCH BETTER BARGIN for San Diego and we would not need any ½ % sales tax increase on the Ballot either...

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 12:36 p.m.

Response to post #40: Between JW's declaration and your reply, it looks like someone is lying in state. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 12:38 p.m.

Response to post #41: Yes, that clarifies your statement. Sorry for jumping on you. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 12:40 p.m.

Response to post #42: It seems to me that backers of the sales tax increase are going to have to come up with more plausible savings if they are going to win over the voters. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 12:41 p.m.

Reply #48 No worries! Keep up the good fight against "$PIN" and BS!

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 12:43 p.m.

Response to post #43: That's a very good analogy. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 12:46 p.m.

Response to post #44: Think about it this way, though: if you drive off a cliff, you're dead quickly. If you drive off Mt. McKinley, it takes you much longer to expire. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 12:50 p.m.

Response to post #45: Clean beaches? Great libraries? No worries about the sewer system? Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering Aug. 30, 2010 @ 1:15 p.m.

Yes Don we have clean beaches in San Diego! Imperial Beach may suffer from time to time from the pollution from Mexico, and San Diego may have a sewage spill now and then, but San Diego beaches are very clean.

Our libraries are great! They will be even better with the new 21st century central library, although I'll admit I'm not a backer of that project. I'd rather see the money spent on the branches.

Our wastewater system has been exempted once again from ridiculous federal regulations because world renown scientists have proven San Diego's treatment processes are safe. Does the system have breakdowns from time to time, of course it does. On going maintenance is necessary part of every complex system. Even humans suffer breakdowns, some nature repairs others require intervention.

But I see you chosen not to comment on the $600K a day it cost to run a 325 sq mile, 1.3M citizen city. My numbers come documented sources and $2.50 a day from it's citizens is a bargain for what San Diego gives us in return.

0

JustWondering Aug. 30, 2010 @ 1:19 p.m.

Founder,

May I suggest you call or write to your Councilperson and demand the disillusion of the CCDC and SEDC boondoggles. Also demand the repayment of several million dollars in loans and end of the give-a-ways.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 2:48 p.m.

Response to post #54: I didn't mention the $600K and 325 sq. miles because I didn't have time to check them out. Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 Aug. 30, 2010 @ 2:50 p.m.

May I suggest you call or write to your Councilperson and demand the disillusion of the CCDC and SEDC boondoggles. Also demand the repayment of several million dollars in loans and end of the give-a-ways.

By end the "give-a-ways", do you mean the retroactive pension scams??

But I think everyone agreees the CCDC and SEDC have to go!!! So at least we agree on somehting.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 2:50 p.m.

Response to post #55: How about the dissolution of CCDC and SEDC themselves? Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 3:25 p.m.

Reply #54 Consider these:

  1. "Imperial Beach may suffer from time to time from the pollution from Mexico, and San Diego may have a sewage spill now and then" if we spent more money updating our system we would not have very many, if any, problems at all; and I don't think it is cool to downplay the pollution problems by saying that it's OK for IB to have them "time to time"...

  2. Yes, I love our Great Library's, if ONLY we could keep their doors open! The City is holding our children hostage, while rewarding our Big Union Hero's...

  3. Cleaning up our Waste water should be a no brainer, but our Leaders would rather spend our money on Stadiums and more BIG City buildings at a time when we could get long term leased space at record low prices...

  4. And BTW: I see you have chosen NOT TO REPLY to my Comment #46 about what you call the "$6OO,OOO a day to run a City, with all that San Diego offers to its guests and provides to its citizens, is a bargain" but as I mentioned above it is not such a good deal at all!

UNLESS you happen to be one of the folks getting the big bucks from the City and or Working for them...

Here is some more on that: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/np-star/2010/aug/06/what-does-it-cost-to-run-sd-per-day/#c69057

0

Founder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 3:37 p.m.

Reply #55 Believe me, my Councilmember knows exactly how I feel about allowing the City Council sitting as the Redevelopment Agency to give money to CCDC and the other PAC's during these periods of Financial "Meltdown"...

and

he knew it, BEFORE he took office, and he heard it again loud and clear during the CRRECC meeting that we both attended, which by the way, was rehashing a bunch of tiny pro Business "gestures" and did little if anything toward solving our GIANT problem of reducing the Salaries of City Employees and Pensions that we now owe...

We are all lucky that the City Council did not "forgive" that HUGE loan to CCDC! I think it was over $100 million, but don't have the exact number...

0

JustWondering Aug. 30, 2010 @ 3:43 p.m.

my bad on the typo but you knew what I meant.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 4:13 p.m.

Response to post #59: Is that where the $600K per day came from? Remember, those bonds are spread over a number of years. The yearly or daily cost is actually the expense of servicing the bonds. For an annual or daily look at total City expenses, you have to figure in maintenance, employee costs, infrastructure spending, etc. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 4:19 p.m.

Response to post #60: Good appellation. CCDC is a political PAC. Best, Don Baudr

0

Don Bauder Aug. 30, 2010 @ 4:22 p.m.

Response to posts #61 & 62: Why apologize? If you will notice on post #64, immediately above, I spell my own name wrong. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close