• Scam Diego alerts

The sober-sided Wall Street Journal, which regularly follows offshore banks, is now following offshore booze. In this weekend's Journal (Sat./Sun. July 24), a front page story with color photo features San Diego's Floatopia. After the city permanently banned drinking on the beaches in 2008, young party folks set up Floatopia. They booze it up in inflated air mattresses not far from the shoreline. On Monday, the city council is expected to vote on making it "unlawful for any bather to consume any alcoholic beverage within one marine league [about three and a half miles] of any beach," says the Journal. Even some drinkers/floaters support the ban, says the publication.

  • Scam Diego alerts

Comments

Visduh July 24, 2010 @ 10:29 p.m.

The definition of what constitutes "news" is elastic. At least the report was in the weekend edition of the WSJ (which is more for entertainment than really hard news.) And, heck, it's summer, isn't it? Let's all loosen up and kick back and enjoy the season. What's more appropriate than a report of boozing to ones heart's content, and looking at pix of drunk, half-naked (or even more so) young bodies in the silly season? Isn't that sort of thing what summer and San Diego are for?

0

News Light July 24, 2010 @ 11:38 p.m.

Did you notice that News Light completely missed the last Floatopia? They write about the upcoming ban every other day, but did not report one word about the event last week.

Does anyone see the irony that News Light thinks the future of journalism is on Twitter and Facebook, but completely missed Floatopia, which is promoted on those websites.

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 7:46 a.m.

Response to post #1: My guess is that a Journal reporter (maybe from L.A.) was down to cover Comic-Con, spotted the Floatopia controversy stories, and decided it would make, as you point out, a nice summer feature. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 8:13 a.m.

Response to post #2: The Floatopia story would seem to be a natural for the U-T these days. Maybe they have all their horsepower covering Comic-Con -- another natural one. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder July 25, 2010 @ 8:58 a.m.

SD's Beer Float in the News

Seems Floatopia made the National News:

I saw it first on HuffingtonPost http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/24/floatopia-san-diego-beach-liquor_n_658147.html#comments

and

then realized that they got it from the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954804575380652536796866.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsCollection

Re; The comments on On Huffington Post:

A number of locals were mentioned and it was interesting to note that what for US is normal every day stuff in SD, is for the rest of the Country hot news! While many folks on HuffingtonPost commented on "Freedom of Beach Boozing", many were in support of limiting the Drunks's and trying to find solutions that would allow the rest of US to enjoy our Beaches in peace. Others were amazed that SD limits drinking on the Beach at all and they were also surprised to find that dogs on a leash were not allowed on our beaches except in special areas. A number of suggestions were made about how other Cities run their beaches and many of those ideas might very well make SD's beaches fun for all, again...

0

SurfPuppy619 July 25, 2010 @ 10:13 a.m.

Floatopia would not be news if the idiot clowncil didn't ban alcohol on the beach.........

We don't need nanny clowncil members telling us grown ups how to act or behave.

If someone gets too drunk and gets out of line there are laws to deal with it.

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 10:29 a.m.

Response to post #5: Just because one publication has a story a day or two after another publication, don't assume it was lifted from the one that printed or announced it first. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 10:32 a.m.

Response to post #6: It was a hot issue when the temporary ban was debated in 2007, and then made permanent the next year. Best, Don Bauder

0

Ridiculous July 25, 2010 @ 11:10 a.m.

Surfpuppy:

Perhaps you would like to be on the bay and tell the young adults (most minors) how to behave. Living on Sail Bay it is refreshing to have it attract people for the right reasons and not the Circus it was with the booze on it.

Yes there are laws to deal with drunk and disorderly. Here's an idea: You try approaching 1000 to 3000 drunk people and start issuing citations. See how far you get without fearing for your own life.

Next: Try travelling to the East Coast (or even Hawaii) and see how many public beaches have MORE laws than ours.

Then: Go home and teach your kids something other than the old freedom line. Oh I forgot, you probably don't have any yet.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 25, 2010 @ 11:40 a.m.

Perhaps you would like to be on the bay and tell the young adults (most minors) how to behave. Living on Sail Bay it is refreshing to have it attract people for the right reasons and not the Circus it was with the booze on it.

I lived in Mision Beach for years, and there was NEVER the problem that a few VOCAL whiners claim. The vast majority of reisdnets do NOT want an alcohol ban at the beach/bay.

MS, Mission Bay/Sail bay, I have RARELY seen alcohol problems. I saw one or two problems on major holidays like the 4th of July or Labor Day, but that was very rare, and limited to the most heavily visited 2 holidays of the year.

I'm sorry, but there has never been alcohol problems outside of the rare incident on a major holiday and we have laws in place to deal with those problems already.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 25, 2010 @ 11:41 a.m.

Next: Try travelling to the East Coast (or even Hawaii) and see how many public beaches have MORE laws than ours.

I don't care about Hawaii or any other state or any other county for that matter. This is San Diego.

If you like Hawaii or the East Coast beaches so much, then move there.

0

News Light July 25, 2010 @ 2:11 p.m.

4 News Light just completely missed it. Floatopia was the weekend before Comic Con on a fairly slow news day. News Light appears not to be covering Comic Con as well. They are barely scratching the surface with it.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 25, 2010 @ 4:19 p.m.

The G4 TV station is covering Comic Con live in 4 hours blocks....... it is a little too over the top for me, just too many costumes and such....in a way it reminds me of Star Trek conventions on steroids.

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 8:02 p.m.

Response to post #9; I would not want to wade into 3000 people, drunk as billy goats, and start issuing citations. You have made your point. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 8:03 p.m.

Response to post #10: Would the measure have passed council if as many as you say oppose it? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 8:05 p.m.

Response to post #11: Nobody likes the East Coast except those who live there. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 8:07 p.m.

Response to post #12: They may miss the story, but they won't miss the chance to tell readers that Comic-Con was crowded, and the convention center has to be expanded. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 25, 2010 @ 8:10 p.m.

Response to post #13: Even the NY Times is following it. I just hope their reporters don't begin looking at San Diego's fiscal outlook while they're in town. All SD needs is another "Enron by the Sea" headline. Best, Don Bauder

0

a2zresource July 25, 2010 @ 8:21 p.m.

A Floatopia ban may have an adverse impact on beverage producers, bottlers, transports, plastics manufacturers, and plastic surgeons.

If there is no such impact, then I imagine all that trash that gets dumped during Floatopia consists of all used stuff, not new.

Ewwwww...

0

Founder July 25, 2010 @ 8:49 p.m.

Regarding #18

Maybe "Enron by the Sea" is EXACTLY what should be,

and about the rest to you, all the Best!

0

Founder July 25, 2010 @ 8:59 p.m.

Regarding # 19

  • Bottoms Up -

A2Z Let them Be,

Let them create a drunken stupid stink that will bury them in their own RED ink!

Drink a real lot become a sot!

It's no floating joy when they say, "Ahoy"!

That's that is what I think, and I hope they don't sink.

That would be a sad solution, and cause lots of bad pollution!

0

News Light July 25, 2010 @ 9:20 p.m.

From what I hear News Light himself didn't want to cover Comic Con. Even though the event had brought record hits to SOSD in previous years, News Light thought the event was too niche for his readers. Comic Con, regardless of what you think about it, is a huge event for the city. Did you notice there were no videos, photo galleries of hot nerds or stories of actual celebrities. I am sure no News Light reader has ever heard of Angelina Jolie.

In a bizarre twist, one of his cronies from the OCR who is now the biz editor at News Light was out covering it for her own freaky agenda.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/24/charlaine-harris-was-everywhere-even-audience/

http://paranormalromance.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/charlaine-harris-about-to-finish-book-11-of-sookie-series/

If she is getting all wet over the Con, there must be some thirst for it.

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 6:22 a.m.

Response to post #19: Some of the industries you mentioned, along with alcoholic beverage distributors, probably lobbied quietly against the beach ban. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 6:24 a.m.

Response to post #20: "Enron by the Sea" was an accurate portrayal of San Diego then, and it would be accurate again today. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 6:29 a.m.

Response to post #21: Shout "Skoal"" and lose your soul. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 6:31 a.m.

Response to post #22: I can't imagine that Light didn't want to cover Comic-Con. He may have wanted to soften the coverage. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder July 26, 2010 @ 8:26 a.m.

Fiesta Island has been suggested as a great "Alcohol Allowed" area by many folks and locating a small DUI check point there would insure that users did not abuse their alcohol use. San Diego is becoming the City of "NO", instead of figuring out how to address problems in a way that is "accommodating" to all; what's next, life jackets and or helmets for all surfers?

It's sad that now in all of San Diego there is no place for folks to have a beer, watch the waves and party at the Beach!

UNLESS

You are wealthy and pony up for a Special Park fee. Then you and your Buds can all gather and have fun at the Beach, without allowing any "locals" to spoil "your" special Party, by being on what is now your Rented beach... I bet soon, you'll be able to buy tickets at TicketMaster for private beach party's in San Diego, unless you are well connected and then of course you'll be comp'd plenty of free passes and valet parking!

The City would never restrict offering special access for the well connected wealthy and that is just unfair to all the rest of US...

If we can have dog Beach's where owners pick up after their pets; why not "Alcohol Allowed" beaches where folks do the same? BTW: The response that so many wild people cannot be controlled by the Lifeguards would not be a problem if all these folks were not forced to gather in only one tiny spot!

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 9:16 a.m.

Response to post #27: An "Alcohol Allowed" beach would be known as an AA Beach. But not AA as in Alcoholics Anonymous. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd July 26, 2010 @ 10:01 a.m.

Banning something doesn't always guarantee that it will go away. It would be refreshing to hear the City Council actually think a problem through rather than to simply react to it. The types that enjoy drinking on the beach, or now in the water, are simply going to resort to some other way to get their kicks. I agree with Founder, I would rather see that activity exist in a controlled and safe manner than to see it occur illegally and even perhaps unsafely.

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 11:21 a.m.

Response to post #29: I agree that banning beach drinking is not going to change alcohol consumption quantities. It will only change the location of that consumption. Best, Don Bauder

0

MsGrant July 26, 2010 @ 12:06 p.m.

Re #14: I would not want to wade out to issue citations because it would be one big pee soup. They should name it "floatoiletbowl".

0

Founder July 26, 2010 @ 12:51 p.m.

Response to post #28, then #29 & #30 an finally #31:

AAA make me proud "All Alcohol Allowed"

Special beaches would get the top rating, lines for all drinks would be with "No Waiting"...

+

Ask any Realtor and they will say, "Location, location, location", but would you call going to the beach without a cool drink a vacation?

If not at the beach and not in a bar, look out drivers, it will be in a car!

+

I'd like to suggest, without being snide: All bathers, look out for the yellow tide,

and as far as someone wading in some pee soup, that's "fun", compared with swimming with a brown poop!

0

nan shartel July 26, 2010 @ 1:20 p.m.

OMG u crack me up Grantie...oceanic chaos reigns...

the whole thing just gets sillier and sillier doesn't it

and the Wall Street Journal will do anything to get our minds elsewhere

it's like saying..."oh look over there at the drunks"!!!!!!!

while i pocket even more of ur cash

0

nan shartel July 26, 2010 @ 1:22 p.m.

i thought Fiesta Island was alcohol permitted...they drink at "Over The Line"

0

David Dodd July 26, 2010 @ 1:37 p.m.

Nan, I think they get a permit for that at OTL, I could be wrong though. But the venue is set up perfectly for alcohol, basically there's only one way in and out of the place, and the cops can easily police it at their leisure. Simple rules like only cans and no bottles, only within the specified area, and so on. I don't hold out much hope that the City Council will come to their senses though, the easiest thing to do is to say, "no" rather than to find a proper solution...

0

SurfPuppy619 July 26, 2010 @ 2:04 p.m.

I don't think I would enjoy floating around Mission bay/beach getting high on alcohol, it just does not sound like a very fun thing to do-not to mention the very real risk of drowning.

But I DO think the alcohol ban was a bad idea (this floatilla proves my point) and think gov eceeded their purpose and over stepped, and I don't even drink.

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 2:50 p.m.

Response to post #31: Someone could get rich having a floating pay toilet out there. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 2:52 p.m.

Response to post #32: Again, the floating pay toilet is the answer. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 2:54 p.m.

Response to posts #s 33 and 34: Why drink at Over the Line when you can gawk? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 2:56 p.m.

Response to post #35: The city council should have said "no!" to the city workers' labor unions long ago. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 3 p.m.

Response to post #36: Have you been invited to Floatopia? Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. Best, Don Bauder

0

MsGrant July 26, 2010 @ 5:43 p.m.

Now that would be funny. Don, maybe you should attend a Floatopia and report back to us the real experience. Take pup along, secure him real good (so as not to let him drown), and see if he gets into it or not. A sort of "social studies" experiment. I'm sure you two would be a huge hit with the ladies!

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 6:06 p.m.

Response to post #42: Neither Pup nor I drink. I think we would be outcasts. Best, Don Bauder

0

JustWondering July 26, 2010 @ 6:42 p.m.

The City Council Torpedoed the floatopia loophole today. After 45 minutes of discussion with the usual arguments, the Council voted unanimously to enact an emergency ordinance which goes into effect immediately.

The City Attorney office said they defend the action should litigation be brought regarding an ordinance amending the people's vote. They original vote applied the beach and the voters were "silent" when came to the water. So this is completely different.

0

David Dodd July 26, 2010 @ 7:10 p.m.

Yeah, I think it was a foregone conclusion that they were going to pass this thing without any real thought behind it. Unfortunately, people are still going to want to drink, so I'm not certain that they've solved any real problem here, other than to give law enforcement more headaches to deal with.

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 7:39 p.m.

Response to post #44: Well, at least the Floatopians pay taxes when they buy their hooch. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 7:46 p.m.

Response to post #45: I'm not aware of what happened today, although the sales tax balloon was apparently shot down. So it won't go on the ballot -- yet. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 26, 2010 @ 7:50 p.m.

Response to post #46: Bring back Prohibition! We have plenty of Al Capones to take advantage of it. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd July 26, 2010 @ 7:59 p.m.

@ #49: Apparently. The low estimate of annual illicit drug trade from Mexico alone is 20 billion dollars. Add booze to that, and I can't imagine how rich Mexican cartels are going to get.

0

paul July 26, 2010 @ 9:12 p.m.

Response to #48: "the sales tax balloon was apparently shot down. So it won't go on the ballot -- yet"

I don't think that is correct. The school board just withdrew their proposal for a parcel tax specifically because they didn't want it on the ballot at the same time as the sales tax, so I think the sales tax on the ballot is considered to be a done deal.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 26, 2010 @ 10:10 p.m.

so I think the sales tax on the ballot is considered to be a done deal.

Nope, no sales tax on ballot.

Would never pass anyway.

0

paul July 26, 2010 @ 10:11 p.m.

Response to #15: "Would the measure have passed council if as many as you say oppose it?"

============================================================

Yes, it would.

The backers of the measure (as well as the original temporary ban and the original ballot prop) are the wealthy land owners along the coast. They have a lot of wealth and a ton of influence with the mayor and council.

The incident which spurred the original temporary ban was no big deal. It was blown out of proportion to push the ban. The police chief initially said he was against the ban because it was easier for police to know where the drinking would take place on the big holidays and heavily patrol that area. After hew was informed by the mayor and council that wasn't the correct position, he changed his mind.

Since I have young kids, I rather like the beaches without alcohol, but I also know that the reason is so that rich and influential landowners won't have to deal with the riffraff while they still drink from their patios and their boats.

Curious that the water ban doesn't extend to boats, and the beach ban doesn't extend to the illegal patios that owners have built along the boardwalk in Mission Beach, encroaching on the city's easement.

0

paul July 26, 2010 @ 10:17 p.m.

Response to #15: "Nope, no sales tax on ballot."

===============================================

Look again, little surf dog.

From the VoSD today:

"School board President Richard Barrera will ask the rest of the San Diego Unified board tomorrow to withdraw plans for a parcel tax to fund local schools, less than two weeks after the board voted to put it on the November ballot.

Barrera said he decided to reverse course on the school tax, which he'd championed, after he and Superintendent Bill Kowba had a series of meetings with Mayor Jerry Sanders and two City Council members over the weekend."

0

paul July 26, 2010 @ 10:18 p.m.

Surf pup: I meant to also add the next paragraph from the article:

"Barrera said he became convinced that it would be extremely difficult for the parcel tax to pass this November with a city sales tax increase also on the ballot."

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2010 @ 7 a.m.

Response to post #20: Laundered drug money is significant in the San Diego economy. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2010 @ 7:03 a.m.

Response to post #51: I don't believe your interpretation is correct. Council couldn't muster the votes to put the sales tax increase on the ballot. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2010 @ 7:05 a.m.

Response to post #52: Would it have passed? It depends on whether the public gets realistic numbers on the shape of San Diego finances. Those numbers are still being concealed. The very fact that the sales tax balloon was floated was an indication that city hall insiders are finally realizing how grim the situation is. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2010 @ 7:09 a.m.

Response to post #53: Yes, the affluent that you mention get special treatment. This is hardly anything new. Best, Don Bauder

0

Founder July 27, 2010 @ 8:55 a.m.

Regarding #58 At yesterday's meeting,

Councilmember Carl Demaio (carldemaio@sandiego.gov)

had two great charts ("before & after") that made it easy to see, THAT YOU COULD NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE and that the "proposed" tax increase would not even be detectible unless you got real close and squinted! The Councilmembers that did vote for "letting the voters decide" will, I believe, regret their decision, because during the "pleading period" by Council President Ben Hueso trying to get Councilmember Donna Fry to change her mind, it became obvious to those in the room that the Council was not even in "the City, much less the Ball Park" when it came to getting our Finances in order!

After the meeting, a comment overheard on the way down (no pun intended) in the elevator summed up our City Leaders efforts to date, " I would not even want to rent to them, would you?

0

paul July 27, 2010 @ 10:10 a.m.

The sales tax is absolutely not dead.

Frye put herself in a strong position to negotiate some of the reforms she wants in exchange for her vote. DeMaio also said he would be interested if reforms were included. They still have two more weeks to work out a deal.

Hueso's spokesman said the deal is now dead, which is a sure sign that it is alive and in negotiations.

The mayors office and Hueso are pressing hard for the tax, including the aforementioned talks with the school board to get them to put off a parcel tax.

I am really bothered with the sudden interest Sanders has taken in the school board and the early proposal to restructure the district and the school board. I am confident Sanders didn't come up with that on his own, so I wonder who is trying to loot the school district.

0

Founder July 27, 2010 @ 10:56 a.m.

Regarding #61 Time will tell,

But given Councilmember Donna Frye's very clear definition of exactly what it would take for her to change her mind, a completed roadmap (my words not hers) for the City to achieve financial balance, then and only then would she consider asking the City voters to also do their part.

That is why I think that two weeks is no where near enough time for the City Council to "suddenly" get themselves together, and make the really huge decisions (that are "against" the Police and Fire Unions) that are necessary for our City Budget to get any where near balanced!

Given the size of the "debt hole", I think the only way out is for the City to declare Bankruptcy, as our Ex-City Attorney Mike Aguirre explained yesterday and he does have some idea of just what is entailed to get that job done. The City Council was not happy hearing what he had to say but they could not refute his numbers, the enormous size of the City's "debt hole" or his logic!

0

paul July 27, 2010 @ 11:52 a.m.

Aguirre spoke?

Did someone invite him to speak, or was he part of public comments?

How was he received? It's been interesting to watch the mayor and council since they lost their battle cry of "everything is Aguirre's fault".

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2010 @ 1:31 p.m.

Response to post #60: Donna Frye made a very smooth move. She voted against it but said she could change her mind (and there is time) if there are concessions. Now it's up to the labor unions to make significant concessions. Then there could be a re-vote. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2010 @ 1:35 p.m.

Response to post #61: One thing came through yesterday: palpable panic. City hall finally realizes the well has gone dry. That's why there was the sales tax trial balloon. So the city is no longer dodging the issue of insolvency, which it was forced to confess publicly in 2004. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2010 @ 1:38 p.m.

Response to post #62: Some folks, including Aguirre, have been saying for six years that the city was inexorably headed by BK. Those in power know it, but they hope to get out of office or out of town first. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 27, 2010 @ 1:44 p.m.

Response to post #63: Aguirre spoke as part of public comments. Some member of council and the administration could barely look at him for several reasons: 1. They hate him; 2. They were part of the smear campaign against him; 3. They know he is right and know that they are lying and withholding the truth of the fiscal situation from the public. Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd July 27, 2010 @ 2:01 p.m.

The thing about Aguirre - there is a correct way to persuade the public, and then there is Aquirre. You can be 100% correct and manage to tick off an entire city, and that is Aguirre. I have always been surprised that a public figure could be so insulting. If that guy had a fraction of an ounce of charisma and could somehow keep from practically calling the citizens of San Diego idiots, I can't imagine the amount of good he might have done in the course of his career serving the city.

If you want to make a difference, you have to offer the people you want to help the opportunity to do it of their own accord. It isn't always about being right, but more often about showing people how they can make the right decisions. I know that mine is not a popular point of view in this thread, but I can't help but to bring it up. Of course the politicians have been a bunch of corrupt liars! But man, don't scold us as though we can't see the obvious, just hand us torches and tell us where the bastards ran off to, we're capable.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 27, 2010 @ 3:40 p.m.

had two great charts ("before & after") that made it easy to see, THAT YOU COULD NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE and that the "proposed" tax increase would not even be detectible unless you got real close and squinted! The Councilmembers that did vote for "letting the voters decide" will, I believe, regret their decision, because during the "pleading period" by Council President Ben Hueso trying to get Councilmember Donna Fry to change her mind, it became obvious to those in the room that the Council was not even in "the City, much less the Ball Park" when it came to getting our Finances in order!

After the meeting, a comment overheard on the way down (no pun intended) in the elevator summed up our City Leaders efforts to date, " I would not even want to rent to them, would you?

By Founder

You're my new hero "Founder"

0

SurfPuppy619 July 27, 2010 @ 3:43 p.m.

The sales tax is absolutely not dead.

Sorry, it is 100% DOA.

If it even were to get on the ballot it would NEVER, EVER, EVEN IN A MILLION YEARS, EVER pass.

IMO anyway.

0

paul July 27, 2010 @ 4:18 p.m.

Response to #70:

Surfpup, If it comes to a vote I would surely hope it doesn't pass, but the claim by you to which I responded was "Nope, no sales tax on ballot."

If it is on the ballot in this town, it is not DOA. It will have strong union support (and money) along with the entire mayor and council, against very little in opposition dollars for the campaign. If they make a deal to sign up both Frye and DeMaio, it will probably pass.

0

SurfPuppy619 July 27, 2010 @ 5:13 p.m.

If it is on the ballot in this town, it is not DOA. It will have strong union support (and money) along with the entire mayor and council, against very little in opposition dollars for the campaign. If they make a deal to sign up both Frye and DeMaio, it will probably pass.

Nope, not happening (IMO).

The unions can spend all the money in the world, until the cows come home, but until the pay and pension problems are addressed FIRST there is not going to be any tax hike initiative, much less approval.

EVEN with pay and pension reform there is still a good chance there would not be a tax approval from the public, not in San Diego.

EVEN with Carl and Donna backing it it would face an almost impossible task of passing (which Carl is not going to do, and Donna only with serious conditions).

This country is in a depression, and San Diego is in far worse shape than the country. We no longer have a middle class or the tax base the middle class brings with it. We continue to ship our manufacturing jobs to China, India and other third world countries that do not have the same standards we have, and with those jobs goes our tax base.

Anyway, we have a few more days, but my money is on Carl.

EVEN if the sales tax passed-do you or anyone else here- think that will solve ANYTHING??? No, it will not. We have a structural deficit that we cannot tax our way out of , we need to either lower (or CAP) all pay, and we need to push gov retiremnt to age 67, or if SS raises that to 70, then we need to push it to age 70. You cannot have gov employees making $70K, $80K, $90K-$150K "retiring" at age 50-57 and receiving pensions up to 90% of their highest years salary with 3% COLA's (so in 4 years, at age 54, they would be making MORE in retirement than their highest paid year on the job) and FREE healthcare for life.

Does not add up, the math simply does not work.

Rant over. Sorry for the passion.

0

hydrofan July 27, 2010 @ 8:58 p.m.

The city held a rigged election after the people voted TWICE before and told the city a bsn was illegle. They rigged the re sults then refused to allow a recount. Now they ban floatopia events. What we as San Diegans must now do is to make sure everyone world wide knows to BOYCOTT SAN DIEGO- enron by the sea- America's most corrupt city. spred the word to everyone, everywhere to boycott San Diego

0

nan shartel July 28, 2010 @ 12:52 a.m.

Bauder...hahahahahahahahahaha...u got a wicked pen going here today homey...pay toilets and gawking....HMMOG...u can be one funny man!!!

geebus...they act like everyone who has a beer is a rollin' in the ocean drunk

guess they'll all have to switch to medicinal marijuana to have some fun

no that won't work...it'll get wet!!

0

nan shartel July 28, 2010 @ 12:54 a.m.

never be sorry for the passion pupster...

0

nan shartel July 28, 2010 @ 12:55 a.m.

hey Fiesta island is sounding better and better eh Refried??!!

0

David Dodd July 28, 2010 @ 1:15 a.m.

I don't know what they're going to do nan, but I think they're going to be stuck with a more difficult decision at some point, because people are going to drink regardless of what they ban. I was a teen, once upon a time, and man, you couldn't make us do anything, I can't imagine that this generation is any different. Youngsters just want to have fun, and they will, they really don't care about the City Council. And really, I find it hard to blame them. Fiesta Island is realistically a good choice for them to acquiesce and find a happy medium.

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 7:51 a.m.

Response to post #68: Aguirre made some mistakes and admits them. He tried to do too much too quickly. But don't blame Aguirre for the woes. Blame the establishment, particularly the U-T. They engaged in a smear campaign to get him. It worked. Now the things he warned of are coming to pass. The City is broke, just as he and others (including yours truly) said over and over and over. I hope San Diegans do not have short memories. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 7:56 a.m.

Response to post #69: But if the sales tax increase is accompanied by significant reforms, would you change your mind? Trouble is, the reforms that Donna has offered aren't enough, at least in my mind. This is a city in which the sum owed those who are already retired is 60% of the total payroll. An institution carrying such a load is simply not viable -- period. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 7:59 a.m.

Response to post #70: In the past, San Diego has always wanted champagne services on a beer budget. What it was getting was phony accounting. Now the false philosophy has hit a brick wall. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 8:04 a.m.

Response to posts #71-73: You may be right: the tax would never pass, even with accompanying spending cuts. The alternative is bankruptcy. The vote could go this way: pick your poison -- sales tax increase or bankruptcy. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 8:08 a.m.

Response to posts #74-80: What effect does the ban have on tourism? Do tourists who want to imbibe on the beaches go somewhere else? These are questions worth investigating. Best, Don Bauder

0

Visduh July 28, 2010 @ 8:58 a.m.

Aguirre's bombastic style worked against him. He is one of those people I used to say was "his own worst enemy." Somehow in all this, the smear campaign resulted in Mike being seen as a wild-eyed liberal/progressive, and the antithesis of a fiscal conservative. Yet the lawsuits he was pursuing had to do with getting the city back on solid financial ground.

I have to hope that surfpup is right about the chances of a sales tax boost being nil. Along with that SDUSD parcel tax proposal, the passage of either of those proposals would just be two more big nails in the economic coffin awaiting the city.

And as far as Floatopia goes, there was a time when the hard partying crowd often headed to Baja for its blowouts. Punta Banda was a favorite destination for those who wanted to "camp", meaning stay up all night with blaring boomboxes and a half-ocean of brews. Now that some sanity about travel in Mexico is keeping them closer to home, they crave an outlet. And just at that time, the city banned alcohol from the beach. What's a partier to do? Huh? What? The county needs an "anything goes" beach, and there is none. How sad.

0

nan shartel July 28, 2010 @ 9:50 a.m.

74...i think many who would normal come to San Diego would have second thoughts as beer drinking seem innocuous when we think about it...is there not a moderation consciousness any more...i mean does everyone have to get rolling drunk to have fun????????

i think Parkers idea of making it a paid for event...designating one beach..give the public the information long in advance is a worthwhile idea

Floatopia on Fiesta Island in May http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TlcQa...

Carolyn Grace

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 1:44 p.m.

Response to post #86: Yes, the smear campaign portrayed him as wild-eyed and shooting from the hip, and he did sometimes shoot from the hip, but he was trying to get the city's fiscal house in order. His lawsuits and decisions were well reasoned. However, to achieve financial stability, he had to step on toes of the downtown establishment. It and the U-T went about to smear him, and it worked. This permitted Sanders and Aguirre's replacement, the waffling Goldsmith, to find pretexts to shove everything under the rug, and gave judges excuses to dump Aguirre's lawsuits (some of which would have affected them financially.) Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 1:47 p.m.

Response to post #87: I am not gainsaying your statement, but do wonder: where did you learn that there is no evidence that the alcohol ban is affecting tourism? Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 1:50 p.m.

Response to posts #88 and 89: This topic, which was passed on a temporary basis in 2007 and then made permanent the next year, is still fomenting controversy. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 10:45 p.m.

Response to post #93: You beat me to that pun. Congrats. Best, Don Bauder

0

Don Bauder July 28, 2010 @ 10:47 p.m.

Response to post #94: It would take a pollster to try to get a reading on that. I don't think anybody has the time or inclination or money to spend on such a project. Best, Don Bauder

0

Sportsbook Aug. 1, 2010 @ 8:23 p.m.

First of all, the city council is full of complete dumbass hypocrites.

I cannot tell you how many times I have seen a certain councilman, drunk as heck, hootin and hollering around SDYC. Heck, this years 4th of july celebration, he was so drunk, he walked up to another person at the bar, and yelled at the top of his lungs, while pointing at his buddy..."you're Drunk" "you're Drunk" "You're Drunk" Like 25x in a row. Obnoxious would be too kind.

I can't believe this stupid city banned booze EVERYDAY...a logical solution to the problems would have been enforcing drunk and disorderly laws, and to propose a beach ban ON HOLIDAYS. But nooooo. I have been sitting on the sand @ Law street, and have seen Lifeguards on ATV's come up to every person holding a red cup and using some device to see if there was booze in said cups...Yeah, that's really looking out for swimmers. Pfft, I am so sick of the paternalistic crap these entitled city government officals propose. Lets ban booze on yachts within the 3 nautical mile rule and see how fast these yacht club millionaires change their tune.

0

Don Bauder Aug. 1, 2010 @ 8:29 p.m.

Response to post #97: Tell us more about the councilman. If you don't want to make it public, email me at don.bauder@mac.com or phone 619-546-8529. 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