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
SEC Charges Five Former City Officials with Fraud for Roles in False Municipal Bond Filings
Cash flow bankruptcy, eh? You mean that they can't float the tax anticipation bonds they used to? Because a select few in city hall chose to ignore their duties? Nobody forced them to do that, they did it on their own. That's why the city can't get bonds -- disclosure, not debt. There is no doubt in my mind that some of the pension deals contributed to the city's financial state. However, it is not near as much as you state nor is it the only issue. It's not even the biggest issue. One simple fee change -- charging for trash separately from property taxes would raise 1/3 of the pension bill. How is you put it? BOOM? And Don, the city paid more than the bill issued by SDCERS. The bill was $165 million. The mayor threw in an extra $100 million of tobacco money as a one time boost.— April 13, 2008 6:52 a.m.
SEC Charges Five Former City Officials with Fraud for Roles in False Municipal Bond Filings
Response to #60: Artificially low? All the city can afford? Interesting, given that SDCERS essentially gives a bill to the city. SDCERS tells the city how much to pay each year. If the city decides to pay more, so be it...— April 12, 2008 8:40 p.m.
SEC Charges Five Former City Officials with Fraud for Roles in False Municipal Bond Filings
#51. Response to post #46: In early 2004, the City was forced to admit in a filing that services and infrastructure would lag or income (taxes, fees) would have to go up as a result of the pension liabilities that had been concealec. ============================== Don, Sorry, but it is more than just the pension problem that is plaguing San Diego. Again, the pension payment is only about 5% of the General Fund -- $165 million dollars. The pension system is PART of the problem, in combination with a poor funding stream and developer give-aways/corporate welfare. Don't think for a second that you can "save" San Diego solely by "fixing" the pension system.— April 12, 2008 6:38 a.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
The problem is when citizens want to see the Yankees play, but only want to pay Padre prices. (Actually, I have no idea what comparable ticket prices are, but you get the point) If you don't want to pay for the services and don't want to pay employees, just hang out a sign that says, "America's cheapest city". That's something we can all be proud of. Comparing California cities is the only way to determine whether or not salaries are reasonable and taxes are reasonable. It's the closest possible comparison. One interesting thing with the mayor's salary survey. He failed to include highly paid CA cities such as San Francisco and San Jose. Instead he substituted lower paid cities such as Phoenix and Houston. And SD cops and firefighters still ended up towards the bottom of the barrel. Interesting.— April 10, 2008 2:56 p.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
Justice, So what do you think of this document? http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/THE%20BOTTOM%2…— April 10, 2008 11:45 a.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
Baloney-it costs un 100 times MORE. It is shifting one time up front costs recurring costs long term to a person "retiring" at age 50 and maybe living to 100. By JohnnyVegas 4:26 p.m., Apr 9, 2008 > Report it ================================== Johnny, What are you talking about? Just how does it cost the city 100 times more to give a pay raise in the form of retirement offset, or "pick-up" versus a raise in base salary? It costs the city much less to give a raise in the form of an offset. Why do you think those high paid LA lawyers keep pushing it?— April 9, 2008 5:28 p.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
Justice, The funds are fully funded from the manager's perspective. Not so much from the retiree's perspective. What did you think about my assessment that we cannot save the city by cutting retirement benefits alone, or for that matter cutting benefits in general?— April 9, 2008 2:46 p.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
401K's and IRA's aren't fully funded for the individual if the market drops just as one is retiring. The defined benefit plan is, or should be, large enough to absorb the occasional down year. Plus, it gets a better rate due to it's size. Plus, most of the profits stay within and aren't funding some broker's million dollar a year salary. I certainly agree that some benefits should be cut. I'm strongly opposed to the artificial POSC and some of the so called waterfall benefits. My feeling is that the problem is larger than the few cuts that can be made in pensions. The city needs to increase it's funding stream, whether that's from Sacramento or taxes within. Let's say we cut pensions enough to save 20% of the payment. OK, that's $32 million than we had before. That's a start, but nowhere near enough to save the city. Not even close. It is a big hole. But remember that pensions are figured in the 30 year range. I certainly don't expect that the city engage in negative amortization, but why are you setting a 12 year cap?— April 9, 2008 1:46 p.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
Oh, and one other thing. Thank you for having a rational discourse without all the stupid name calling.— April 9, 2008 12:37 p.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
What's the funding percentage for Social Security? If I recall correctly, the city's retirement system was funded in the mid-80 percentile range when I was hired. Very few pension systems across the country are 100% funded. As long as the system can pay retirees, politicians usually find other things to use that money for. On a similar vein, let's say you owe 500K on your house. The monthly payment is $3000. Do you pay $5000 on it knowing that you won't be able to pay the electricity bill? Or do you pay the minimum? Or do you split the difference? SD is splitting the difference. Of course city benefits are better than SS. Again, one is supplemental and one is supposed to be a full retirement. The city is taking steps to fund the healthcare as well. A fund has been set up to allow interest to eventually pay for healthcare. And frankly, I don't mind paying into that fund as well. Remember, we still do pay into Medicare, so a lot of the healthcare is covered.— April 9, 2008 12:36 p.m.