On Wednesday, December 10, Trent Gene Veasey, Jr., charged in Superior Court that he was forced to perform oral copulation on former San Diego policeman Christopher Hays. The suit names Hays, former Police Chief William ...
December 13, 2014
Daniel_Torres
Suit charges ex-cop forced man to perform sexual act
Some of that Mexican drug-dealer money
For five years, a San Diego–area confidential informant worked for Don Rodmel, a San Diego–based federal agent conducting money-laundering investigations. As part of the job, Rodmel confiscated hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash that ...
January 9, 2015
Less Briggs, more potholes, says Goldsmith
City attorney Jan Goldsmith is on the offensive, publicly calling out attorney Cory Briggs for his opposition to a public financing plan used to pay for infrastructure repairs and public services. On January 15, the ...
January 17, 2015
Thanks for mentioning the tree-injury lawsuit. It was very under-reported by the UT at the time the injury/lawsuit occurred, because it was the outcome of privatization and assessment districts, the precious ideology of the City.
It was NOT caused by a cutback in services, but by a reappointment of services to a profit-making company, paid directly by property owners on specific streets, within specific boundaries.
The tree that injured the Mission Hills man in fact was not untended. Rather, it was "maintained" by West Coast Arborists, under contract with the City and the nonprofit board of the Maintenance Assessment District imposed within the area. WCA was the co-defendant in the lawsuit.
Of course, like all MADs, the work was "overseen" by the City (joke). Property owners in the injured man's area paid an assessment tax to (theoretically, aka propagandistically) provide services "over and above that already provided by the City." Such MADs have now been ruled illegal, but in an existing illegal MAD, if property owners do not sue, the City just keeps on imposing the assessments and the money collected just keeps going, mostly as a partial kickback, as a percentage of the take, to Development Services (to "oversee") and to the nonprofit board.
Privatization is a FAIL. City workers/departments usually do a great job, but City staffers who "oversee" private contractors are inept.
Jan. 18, 2015
No, I think you can say the Spanos gang is football rich, otherwise (relatively) poor. Sort of like the saying of being "asset rich and cash poor." Don's point is a good one. Do they want to sink most of their assets into a stadium--even though it is a small contribution of the total--that makes the gang, er, family, even more dependent on a sports franchise?
And as far as the big development in Stockton, I'd not want to double down on anything in California's Central Valley until the water supply is assured. It isn't and it may never be.
Jan. 17, 2015
A lesson in racism?
Arthur Scott, an African-American police sergeant, filed a harassment and discrimination suit yesterday (January 20) against the City of San Diego. Scott, who has been with the San Diego force since 2004, says that discriminatory ...
January 21, 2015
I hope that no one who reads this blog is the tiniest bit surprised by this. The SDPD has been, and unfortunately still is, the world's largest hick-town police department. It was that when I arrived here over forty years ago, and still is. The parade of undistinguished chiefs who have headed the operation is a reflection of the lack of awareness of all the other weaknesses in city government. The sad part is that there were many, many good cops who served and who now serve. Why is it that they have to report to losers? When I think back over the chiefs of police in SD from 1970, there is no picking the best one. "Best" suggests good, and that doesn't apply. Which one was worst? Hands down, it was Kolender, who then went on to be sheriff for three terms. Excuse me while I shudder.
Jan. 21, 2015
"On October 1, 2014, Black gave $550 to the campaign of recently sworn-in councilman Chris Cate, a former lobbyist for the San Diego Taxpayers Association, a business advocacy group."
I applaud Matt Potter for calling the "San Diego Taxpayers Assn." the pro-business group, not a "Taxpayer-advocate group," as they are fond of calling themselves.
Jan. 27, 2015
Really? The building in question is past it's economic life. It is functionally obsolete and is a maintenance nightmare. Lease-to-buy deals are among the worst for the "buyer" and a windfall for the "landlord/seller". The City may own the building at the end of 20 years but it will need to be torn down.
Jan. 28, 2015
Goldsmith loses to Briggs
Emails from city attorney Jan Goldsmith's personal email address discussing city business are public record, ruled Judge Joel Wohlfeil in a January 23 ruling. In his ruling, judge Wohlfeil sided with Cory Briggs/San Diegans for ...
January 27, 2015
Wow Sjtorres....sounds to me as if you are the one doing the smearing, not the author of a fact-filled story about a legal process that McCann was apparently attempting to dodge.
IF you have facts about anything the Mayor has done that you think are newsworthy you should write an article yourself...just beware of that pesky old rule against defamation.
To help you stay on the right side of the fairness line, you should be reminded that FYI, the Mayor is still a US Citizen and free to meet with whomever she chooses and where and when (the Bill of Rights...look it up...it is the right of Assembly.)
Council members are only prohibited (the Brown Act) from meeting with more than one other Council person at a time if city business is discussed...are you alleging that she did?
Bias in reporting is when not all of the known facts are presented, or not presented in an even-handed way. I believe Susan's article passes that test and is bias-free. The reporter has the same Constitutional right that you and everyone else has...she can critique whomever she pleases as long as it is truthful.
What's your excuse for not knowing (or choosing to ignore) these basic and essential rules?
Feb. 1, 2015
The Devil is always lurking in the details and, it seems, transparency is an merely a word, never something actually practiced in City government. Is the City in such poor shape financially that our elected leader have to use these convoluted schemes to avoid accountability? How many times do we have to go down this road until someone steps up and says, no more schemes, no more less-than-honest deals?