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
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
Justice, that was my point. If we're going to replace developer owned council members who will end corporate welfare, shouldn't we do that with new council members who aren't already in corporate pockets? I'm assuming if you're anti-Glora based on this criteria, you're also anti-DeMaio. I was wondering why Ace Parking was donating to DeMaio. Maybe they're planning pay parking for golf carts in RB? I'd like to see district only elections with contributions only allowed to come from within the district.— April 4, 2008 1:02 p.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
By Justice4all 11:16 a.m., Apr 4, 2008: "Check their political contributors and you will see the payments from developers and construction companies, these are nothing more than kickbacks." Does this include DeMaio? Look at who his contributors are.— April 4, 2008 12:10 p.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
Justice, you say, "We do pay for trash, its just not taken out seperately." Obviously, that's true. However, when San Diegans are paying less in taxes than comparable cities and aren't paying separately for trash the net result is the same. If San Diegans paid the same rate as comparable cities for trash pickup, the city would generate $52 million/year, or a third of the pension tab. The city only raises $39/person/month as opposed to the average of the ten largest cities in CA which raise $58/person/month. (http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/THE%20BOTTOM%2…) That's a huge difference. According to the above report, changing San Diego's fee and tax structure to the AVERAGE of the ten largest cities in CA would raise $280 million/year. That would pay the pension bill AND allow the needed increase in the FD and PD. Remember that a lot of that tax money is raised by tourists paying TOT. Not all of it is on the backs of residents. On top of that, San Diegans get back much less of their tax dollars from the state than cities such as LA. That needs to be fixed. And now.— April 4, 2008 12:08 p.m.
California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies
JV, the entire pension bill for San Diego was about $160 million, including the court-ordered amortization payments. The 'normal' bill, without that settlement would've been about half of that. That $160 million was about 5% of the total budget of about $2.5 billion dollars. Here's part of the issue. California does have a generally high tax rate. However, San Diego has a much lower tax rate than other CA cities. Yet residents want the same level of services that other cities have. Really, they want more, since trash is subsidized. Don't believe me about the tax rate here? LA charges a flat rate of $27.24 per rental unit + taxes the profits as business tax. SD charges a variable rate that benefits larger complexes. A one hundred unit complex in LA pays $2724/year plus a percentage of profits. A one hundred unit complex in SD pays $950 plus a $34 business tax. For comparison, a single unit in SD pays $50 + $34, while in LA they pay $27 + a percentage of profit. As usual, SD is geared to benefit large corporations and big complexes. You say residents aren't leaving because of high tax rates, yet you oppose the tax increases such as the TOT and paying for trash that will let this city function as it should. That's a little short sighted, isn't it? Shouldn't SD residents pay the same as everyone else if they want the same level of service? Of course, there are many other problems, including corporate welfare, council pork and yes, employee compensation. And there are problems with hiding the truth of the situation going back to the McGrory days and further. Hopefully that will change, but I really don't see it from Sanders.— April 4, 2008 9:41 a.m.
San Diego plays big role in Field of schemes
I was only half paying attention to the news the other day when they were talking about concession prices at Petco. I thought I heard the Padres rep say that the high beer prices were in place to keep people from drinking too much. Yeah, they charge $8 for a beer solely to keep me safe. Did anyone else hear that?— April 4, 2008 8:06 a.m.
Why plummeting dollar hurts you
How did that Tom Paxton song go? "I'm changing my name to Chrysler, I'm heading down to Washington DC. What's good for Iacocca, will be perfectly acceptable to me. I'm changing my name to Chrysler, I'm heading for that great receiving line. When they hand the million grand out, I'll be standing with my hand out, baby, I'll get mine." I left a few lines out, but you get the point...— March 24, 2008 9:49 p.m.
Fed Completely Ignored Moral Hazard in Bailing Out Bear Stearns. Were the Fed's Moves Legal?
Gee Johnny, watch Jim Cramer tonight? As it turns out, I agree with you. When CEO's are making in the hundreds of millions while simultaneously destroying their worker's lives, something is wrong.— March 20, 2008 9:19 p.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
Good thing we're 20 engines, several truck companies and chiefs short. The other thing that no one ever talks about is that SDFD engines and trucks are currently staffed with four people. National Fire Protection Ass'n standards call for five or six people in 'high hazard' areas -- including anyplace with apartments, schools, condos, hospitals, etc. In other words, anyplace in SD. So we're really a lot thinner than even the mayor admits. And, I still don't think the city will save money by creating a thousand extra jobs. Wouldn't BBH call that 'workfare'?— March 18, 2008 2:26 p.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
So creating an additional thousand city jobs is cutting costs? Those jobs don't exist now. So what do you suggest we do with a thousand firefighters for a decade? What the city cannot afford is to continue the corporate welfare of politician's benefactors. Nor can the city afford to walk away from income sources.— March 17, 2008 4:17 p.m.
Why Financial Reform of Near-Bankrupt City May Be Impossible: Aguirre Jeered Yesterday by Business, Labor Moochers
So since we have almost a thousand firefighters, you're willing to create an additional thousand jobs, basically doubling the size of the FD, just to keep folks employed an additional decade? Wouldn't we be better of financially by planning ahead for their retirement, letting them go and then using that money to increase the size of the active force? Sure we could use those folks. We could find jobs in training for them, they could perform inspections, they could do outreach, etc. But... you'd have to pay them. And.. like the cops, straight day folks still have to be able to perform the job. They're part of the 'reserve force'. Remember, presumptive illnesses for firefighters last until 5 years after leaving employment. Do you really want the city to be responsible for all cancer, lung and heart disease in firefighters until age 72 if they retire at 67? Ah, that's right... you'll do anything to prove you're right and force the city into bankruptcy.— March 17, 2008 12:16 p.m.