• News Ticker alerts

The April 5 public meeting at which San Diegans can speak about San Diego Gas & Electric's desire to make customers pay for uninsured fire costs will focus only on the costs of the 2007 fires, according to Timothy Alan Simon, commissioner of the California Public Utilities Commission, who is in charge of the case.

However, the utility is not only trying to get customers to pay for the uninsured costs of 2007 fires; it also wants customers to pick up the tab for FUTURE fires -- in effect, it wants an open checkbook.

Since San Diego Gas was found negligent in those 2007 fires, opponents of the scheme say the costs should be borne by shareholders, not customers. Thus, the future blank checkbook should be discussed April 5, say opponents.

As it is, the cost of bailing out SDGE for uninsured costs of 2007 will cost $450 per meter. The proposed blank check should also be up for discussion, because "the entire application is on the table" at the CPUC, says Diane Conklin of Ramona's Mussey Grade Road Alliance.

The meetings will be at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. April 5 at the All Bahr Shrine Center, 5440 Kearny Mesa Road.

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

Twister March 22, 2012 @ 7:47 p.m.

The new "look" of the Reader site may be "cool" in some ways, but SUCKS in terms of navigating through the latest on stories and blogs. It is so clunky and awkward that I may just give up. Also, the "preview" feature is gone. What are they thinking? They obviously don't care what users think, or if they do, they don't inform us. They would do well to consult with Jacob Nielsen at useit.org (or is it .com?).

I hope everybody shows up at the "meeting" but stays out in protest of this charade.

0

Don Bauder March 22, 2012 @ 10:32 p.m.

It's been my experience that every time a site changes, people holler. Later, they find it is an improvement. Please give us a chance. Best, Don Bauder

0

Duhbya March 23, 2012 @ 7:01 a.m.

I agree 100% with your assessment, Don, having exhibited such behavior on prior occasions. But I admit I winced when I saw the seemingly obligatory homage to Facebook. Wonder if the combination of my advancing age and living with our 14 year old daughter might have anything to do with that?

0

Don Bauder March 23, 2012 @ 3:22 p.m.

Hey, Duhbya, I am almost 76. How do you think I feel about these new technologies. Thanks heavens, the Reader people indulge me, knowing I am a Luddite. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister March 23, 2012 @ 4:47 p.m.

Hey, Don. Don't change.

But you did inadvertently get one thing right--The Reader People (TRP) do INDULGE us. That's what we're getting at!

SPECIFICS, SPECIFICS, SPECIFICS.

DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS.

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.

RELEVANCE, RELEVANCE, RELEVANCE.

Agitate, agitate, AGITATE! --Frederick Douglass

0

Twister March 23, 2012 @ 4:22 p.m.

I will NOT sign up on facebook--PERIOD!

0

Don Bauder March 24, 2012 @ 8:12 a.m.

I am not even sure what Facebook is all about. That's how out of it I am. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister March 23, 2012 @ 4:41 p.m.

How condescending! We're not hollering about generalities, we're complaining about SPECIFICS. It seems to me that avoiding being directly responsive to specifics is evasion and defensiveness. We are NOT your enemies--we want the best for you. Please, no more wounded rebuttals.

Nielsen believes, as I do, that the great potential of the Internet goes largely unrealized when sites insist upon controlling the user. This is the fundamental issue around the world--concentration of power vs diffusion of power. Or, more accurately, the CIRCULATION of power according to relevance and context.

The Internet, and this site, are still in their infancy, largely because they cling to the paradigm of hierarchical control and the old bad habits of the media they are eclipsing. Yes, these are "growing pains." But when feedback of a specific nature is defended against instead of integrated, the potential for true progress is compromised. With respect to "style," the site is somewhat improved (or at least "different" or "fresh"), but with respect to substance, please, anyone, define and list those improvements.

The foxes are in charge of the henhouse (and in denial) and the upper echelons never get the feedback. There is zero responsiveness to the SPECIFICS of the criticisms. If the bottom-line is eyeballs, time will tell. As for me, it lack features that were useful, and it gets in my way rather than out of my way as a user.

I am NOT saying that it's ALL bad--just in case someone wants to throw that straw-man back. What IS the "proper form" or forum for addressing such issues? Since they didn't ask for input while they were re-styling (no discernable substantive improvements, but several deletions of useful features), we could not help them in advance. We, the partially-empowered, see ourselves as PART of your site, not just eyeballs to count for your advertisers. I should think you would see that as a positive development, attesting to the quality of your site. Yes, you might consider us tantamount to disobedient children . . .

0

Don Bauder March 23, 2012 @ 5 p.m.

Well, I am in charge of the content and substance on those News Ticker items that I post. I don't think there has been quality slippage over three days. Best, Don Bauder

0

Reader Staff March 23, 2012 @ 12:28 a.m.

Latest stories can be found via the News & Stories option under "Latest Stories": http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/

Latest blogs can be found in the Blogs section under "Latest Entries"

Please let us know if we can help locate anything else. webadmin@sdreader.com

0

Burwell March 22, 2012 @ 8:05 p.m.

The new Reader format is a step backwards, in my opinion.

0

Don Bauder March 22, 2012 @ 10:33 p.m.

Again, please give us a chance. You will adjust and ultimately find it an improvement. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister March 23, 2012 @ 4:20 p.m.

Kindly list the improvements, and how they are superior to the originals.

0

Don Bauder March 23, 2012 @ 5:02 p.m.

How can I list the improvements when I said they will ULTIMATELY arrive? Best, Don Bauder

0

David Dodd March 23, 2012 @ 3:42 a.m.

I am also having my problems adjusting, Burwell. However, this direction is indeed in step with how most successful media websites are going. I think half of this is some tweaking that the Reader will likely do as time goes on, and the other half is us simply getting used to a somewhat different format and presentation. Newspapers and magazines have an opportunity to gradually evolve in their presentation which allows readers to "get used to" what the final presentation will be. Websites do not have that luxury so much.

Website developers work on the final presentation offline, all sorts of code is written, embedded, and so on. Once the final product is approved, then that's usually the product that goes up. To do it a little at a time is often impossible. And even when it is possible, it is usually cost-prohibitive. But I sympathize, I'm fumbling around in here at times myself.

0

Don Bauder March 23, 2012 @ 3:25 p.m.

I was flustered Wednesday and Thursday, but already on Friday I am finding the new site easier to navigate. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister March 23, 2012 @ 4:18 p.m.

The foxes are in charge of the henhouse (and in denial) and the upper echelons never get the feedback. There is zero responsiveness to the SPECIFICS of the criticisms. If the bottom-line is eyeballs, time will tell. As for me, it lack features that were useful, and it gets in my way rather than out of my way as a user.

I am NOT saying that it's ALL bad--just in case someone wants to throw that straw-man back. What IS the "proper form" of addressing such issues? Since they didn't ask for input while they were re-styling (no discernable substantive improvements, but several deletions of useful features).

0

Don Bauder March 23, 2012 @ 5:04 p.m.

I haven't heard about deletions of useful features. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister March 23, 2012 @ 4:08 p.m.

I don't know how. The so-called "preview," in its present form, seems redundant, as the type face is the same as the entered text. There is no real preview in the form in which it will appear, thus no opportunity for correction. Egad, Don, are you becoming a company man?

As you know, I am always eager to be corrected with respect to substance, but all I get from the web folks is cya--condescend you again.

0

Don Bauder March 23, 2012 @ 5:06 p.m.

You get to preview it before it goes on. Best, Don Bauder

0

Burwell March 23, 2012 @ 9:14 p.m.

I sent a letter to Jimbo Holman canceling my subscription to the Reader. I demand a refund.

0

Don Bauder March 24, 2012 @ 8:17 a.m.

Why don't you ask for 10 times what you pay for your subscription? 0 times 10=0. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston March 24, 2012 @ 4:19 p.m.

Actually, if you live out of the area and have a mail subscription for the print version, it costs $299 per year.

0

Don Bauder March 25, 2012 @ 8:20 a.m.

That's not my department, and it's also news to me. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston March 26, 2012 @ 10:41 a.m.

Yeah think about it surfpupppy619. Almost 6 bucks per issue. Would you pay 6 bucks just to get the print version that's at least 1/3 ads? Would you pay 25 bucks to access the web version?

0

tomjohnston March 25, 2012 @ 11 a.m.

"That's not my department, and it's also news to me. Best, Don Bauder"

Without that knowledge, then perhaps you shouldn't have made such a flippant reply to Burwell.

0

Don Bauder March 26, 2012 @ 7:47 a.m.

Ask Burwell if he was joking. I was, but I didn't have knowledge, admittedly. Best, Don Bauder

0

tomjohnston March 26, 2012 @ 10:42 a.m.

I didn't perceive Don Bauder's comment as a joke. Sarcasm yes, but joke no.

0

Don Bauder March 26, 2012 @ 7:45 a.m.

Yes, bereft of knowledge, I make too many flippant remarks. Fifty lashes. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister March 26, 2012 @ 8:11 a.m.

Be as flippant as you want; we are all big boys and girls here--we can take it. But the defects remain, and mention of the specific issues has brought only (with Don's single exception) generalizations rather than addressing specific and responsive answers. The attitude seems to be, "Hey, we sweated blood getting this going, and nobody's gonna tell US that it isn't perfect." Or: "Thou art knaves and it is clear that we are casting pearl-pixels before cyberswine."

It is clear that the Reader staff are ill-disposed to criticism.

PS: Yes, I know that the "preview" is below, but it is redundant rather than useful--it does not display the post as it will appear, it is just a copy of what is typed here.

And, the irony contained in this post is left in intentionally.

0

Reader Staff March 26, 2012 @ 10:59 a.m.

Dear Twister:

The preview does show the post as it will appear. It embeds all photos, videos, and links, as well as styling all text with bold, italics, etc. Perhaps this is a browser issue? Please let us know what operating system and browser you are using.

0

Twister March 26, 2012 @ 5:01 p.m.

Not on my screen it doesn't. It's the same washed-out type style and the same formatting, both of which appear differently when the post is posted, which is too late to edit it for WYSIWYG. Microsoft and Google Chrome.

0

Don Bauder March 26, 2012 @ 5:06 p.m.

Hey, Twister, I specialize in being a pin cushion, a dart board. Incidentally, I like that word "cyberswine." Best, Don Bauder

0

SurfPuppy619 March 26, 2012 @ 8:44 a.m.

I just noticed that not all the comments appear anymore.

There is a tab for "Reply/Replies"

0

Twister March 26, 2012 @ 5:05 p.m.

Yeah, and that's inconvenient. Also, one can't go back in time ("Archives" doesn't work). Inexplicable! Again, Date/time no longer are displayed. Who gives a damn how many hours and minutes the post was done? Inexplicable.

Web Admin apparently doesn't want to set up its own blog for complaints and suggestions. Explicable?

0

Don Bauder March 26, 2012 @ 5:07 p.m.

We've always said that certain comments are not appropriate. But I don't know that those rules have changed. Best, Don Bauder

0

Twister March 26, 2012 @ 5:19 p.m.

Eureka! Clicking on "suggestion box" took me to a blog site for Web Admin! I take that part back. Here's a link for those addicted to that bad habit (rather than favoring the subtler "suggestion box"). http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/website-feedback/2012/mar/26/suggestion-box/?c=116359

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