Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
John Kaheny defends rising pensions in San Diego
Interesting story, Don. But I'm not sure I agree with your assessment about the list. I often disagree with what you have to say, but I still read your posts. I'm not so sure that DeMaio will end up on the hit list. Go look at the list of his campaign donors. Most are downtown business interests. I wonder what they have to do with his district up in Rancho Bernardo? Mike Conger is the lawyer behind the Corbett settlement, which created 3% at 50. (I'm still waiting for Johnny Vegas to read the settlement and admit that) However, he's also the lawyer behind settlements (McGuigan) requiring the city to pay more into the pension system.— October 30, 2008 8:26 a.m.
Proposition A
Fred, When I worked in Normal Heights in the early 90's, we had a hard time getting residents to clear some defensible space around their homes. That was only five years after the fires. No one cared. The fire service has had horrible success convincing people that fire strikes the same areas over and over. The term, "fire corridor" must make it's way into the lexicon. I don't feel that Prop A is perfect by any means. However, the money raised will fund several engines here in the city of SD. Other cities may get one. Plus, it will fund spare engines that can be staffed at a moment's notice. Here in SD we typically have 3-7 spares on any given day. That's it. Prop A will also help fund aircraft needed in the entire region. Most importantly, Prop A will begin the process of having a unified voice for fire protection in SD County. Things went well at the fire on Pendleton a few weeks ago. But what if there was a second fire? Who decides where resources go? Answer: No one.— October 30, 2008 8:05 a.m.
Good News: SDCERS Discussing Lowering Interest Rate on DROP Account
Maybe the big difference is that I still have a decent pension, while you've been screwed out of yours. The problem is that you've been screwed so long you don't know the difference anymore. My view not that *I* should have a decent DB plan -- it's that almost everyone should.— October 28, 2008 2:31 p.m.
Good News: SDCERS Discussing Lowering Interest Rate on DROP Account
3%@50 was NOT etablished by Corbett-it was proposed and voted into policy by the City Council. ============================================= Sorry, Johnny, you're wrong. Here's a quote from the settlement portion of the Corbett Judgement. "Your retirement calculation factor will be raised from 2.5% at age 50 to 3.0% at age 55." or "Your retirement benefit will be calculated on the basis of Retirement Calculation Factors in effect on June 30, 2000, and your retirement benefit so computed will be increased by 10%" See... 3% at 50 is not in a contract... Corbett gives it to employees. We have an option of 3% at 50 or using the old factor and adding 10%. The whole thing is here for your reading pleasure: http://www.lawconger.com/images/images/Corbett%20… You'll only need to get a few pages in before you see how wrong your statement above is. Here's another quote from the VoSD, "The court found that the 2000 court settlement that resulted in the increases in pension benefits, known as Corbett, obstructs Aguirre from challenging the benefits that were part of the 1996 agreement." The sad thing is that I've been through all of this before, but you refuse to use a lick of critical thought, preferring instead to parrot the same crap over and over.— October 28, 2008 12:25 p.m.
Good News: SDCERS Discussing Lowering Interest Rate on DROP Account
Don wrote, "It looks like JF is counting on his money no matter what happens." ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As I said, Don seems incapable of any actual analysis anymore and relies on glib comments. If he were, he'd crunch the numbers on a "typical" retirement and see what I'm talking about. Under the system you want to roll back to, the average retirees percentage will go up at the same "stop work" date. It turns out I am counting on my money. Aren't you counting on your money? If you were wondering if I'm counting on my SDCERS retirement, I maintain a portfolio on the side and am doing OK. I won't need the money for 20 years, so I'm not too stressed just now -- much as people should be too terribly stressed by the losses in the retirement system. Most of that money won't be needed for decades.— October 28, 2008 12:03 p.m.
Good News: SDCERS Discussing Lowering Interest Rate on DROP Account
Corbett and the 1090 violations are mutually exclusive of each other-one does not factor in on the other. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Exactly. Let's say that Aguirre does win the 1090 suit. 3% at 50 was not established by MP1 or MP2, it was established by Corbett. We take the city back to court and re-establish Corbett or an equivalent settlement. Perfectly legal... not based on 1090. Again, even if we roll pensions back to pre-MP1 percentages, I'll still have a higher percentage and will retire at the same age. I just won't have the DROP. In a pre-MP1 system, I'd only make 7% more than I would currently. Meanwhile, Aguirre will have spent millions of dollars... and my benefit increases. Who really loses? The retirement system still owes me the money and the General Fund is a few million dollars of your money shorter.— October 27, 2008 9:49 p.m.
Good News: SDCERS Discussing Lowering Interest Rate on DROP Account
No, Johnny, I just realize that no matter how much proof I offer, you'll just ignore it and start with the same old BS again. And I realize that Don will post a glib one liner rather than actually looking at my numbers and making a rational comment. Which battle did you figure you were fighting? If Aguirre wins, there might be a chance in the courts to overturn DROP and 3% at 50. Or there might not. The track record thus far suggests not. If Goldsmith wins, it's all over. Besides, the only way to reverse 3% at 50 in the courts is to reverse the Corbett case... and that's not even under appeal. Frankly, if you overturn Corbett and return to the pre-Corbett calculations, I'll end up much better off in the long run, though maybe without the DROP. Let's see... with pre-Corbett, I'll walk out the door with 9% more final retirement and leave sooner. Bummer.— October 27, 2008 8:25 p.m.
Good News: SDCERS Discussing Lowering Interest Rate on DROP Account
OK, at 3:37, Johnny wrote, "The $200K number is good for the majority of CA muni's. SDFD is paid less, I admit that, but certainly not more than 20%-25% less, which would still put the number at $150K+ (with benefits)." Then at 7:26 he wrote, "Now-if you re read my post I said SDFD FF's may make less their FIRST YEAR-but they too will be at $200K after their "step" increases. So all FF's DO make $200K, with benefits." Back when he posted as Billy Bob Henry, it was $250K. Which is it, Johnny? Having a little consistency problem?— October 24, 2008 9:16 p.m.
Good News: SDCERS Discussing Lowering Interest Rate on DROP Account
Gee, that's funny... Johnny's gone from saying that ALL firefighters make $250K to saying they make $200K to saying they make $150K. That's still too high, but we're making progress.— October 24, 2008 7:01 p.m.
Good News: SDCERS Discussing Lowering Interest Rate on DROP Account
JF-as stated above-ALL FF's make over $200K in full compensation (except possibly a first year hire-but with OT even a first year hire will make that much)-the pensions are what drive it over that 200K number. =================================================== Johnny, you're really lost it, dude. Read your own report. You keep sputtering that ALL (in caps - shouting it to the people) firefighters make over $200K. But your own report disputes that. Look at the numbers. Contra Costa County makes more than SDFD. Go look at our pay rates. A Engineer in CCCo makes more than a Captain here. Actually, an Engineer there makes about the same as a Battalion Chief here. Contra Costa County has better benefits, so that cost is higher. Contra Costa County has more time off, so that cost is higher. Contra Costa County has 3 people on an engine, SDFD has 4. The number in the CCCo chart for firefighter is a firefighter/paramedic. Here there is a fourth person who is paid even less. That drives the average down. And.... San Diego is self-insured for worker's comp, so for us that cost is much less. In other words... my numbers were pretty close, you proved it for me, and your ALL (as in every) firefighter makes $200K shtick is crap.— October 24, 2008 2:52 p.m.