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
County Unemployment Rate Jumps to 10.8%
Whatsa mater pup...disappointed.... Wasn't you who said the system would have 3 maybe 4% returns.... The fact is great returns lower the City's ARC...and that helps overall. Get over yourself JohnnyV. You were wrong as usual.— August 20, 2010 8:36 p.m.
County Unemployment Rate Jumps to 10.8%
Don For all the naysayers out there...especially my good friend, surfpuppy, some good news: At the close of FY2010 (June 30, 2010) SDCERS investment returns for the year were up 13.1%. The market value of SDCERS assets were $4.1 billion. As of July 31, 2010 SDCERS market value of assets are $4.6 billion. Guess Surfpuppy got it wrong again. But then again surfpuppy usually gets it wrong.— August 20, 2010 6 p.m.
Pinpoint Forecasting, San Diego Style
Hey Don, Some good news: At the close of FY2010 (June 30, 2010) SDCERS investment returns for the year were up 13.1%. The market value of SDCERS assets were $4.1 billion. As of July 31, 2010 SDCERS market value of assets are $4.6 billion. Guess Surfpuppy got it wrong again. But then again surfpuppy usually gets it wrong.— August 20, 2010 5:58 p.m.
Pinpoint Forecasting, San Diego Style
This time it WILL be up to the voters to decide the future for San Diego. They'll decide if they want services or layoffs. In a tax adverse city like San Diego, where it citizens want services and city leaders have cooked the books for years, I understand the reservations about this ballot proposition.— August 18, 2010 11:57 a.m.
Pinpoint Forecasting, San Diego Style
In fairness...Voice of San Diego reported the following: "Goldstone, who wrote the fiscal analysis, agreed that the high-end of savings went beyond what the ballot measure required. That's why he said he included a range of savings. Goldstone said he believed ballot measure opponents would file suit over the savings estimate no matter what it said. If he didn't use any numbers, Goldstone said, he would have been accused of not being specific enough. If he used more precise figures, he would have been accused of being overly optimistic. "It's a no-win situation in that respect," Goldstone said. "Those who are going to challenge it are going to. We'll defend it and the courts will decide." " I believe Mr. Goldstone is being honest in his assessment of the potential for litigation. I also agree his saving assessments went beyond what the ballot issues calls for the voters to approve, and is misleading if you're not paying attention. The ballot statements need to be fair, nothing more, or less.— August 18, 2010 10:16 a.m.
Escondido traffic checkpoints take families' cars
I disagree with you characterization, Ripped Off. The legislature wrote the law with a specific method to motivate people to follow the law. If they, unlicensed, uninsured, or intoxicated drivers chose not to comply, then the driving privileged, and the means of exercising said privileged, would be removed from the roadway for a minimum of 30 days. Of course, if you follow the rules of the road, purchase, at minimum liability insurance, then you won't run afoul. In a representative form of government that what they do. Having a standard for whole, rather than a city by city willy nilly rules also makes sense. Speaking of the legislature, they, as your representatives, have not drafted nor passed a law requiring the hundreds if not thousands of automobile insurance companies to keep track of or report to the state which cars do or do not have insurance. There is no way for law enforcement agencies to check as there is no centralized database. Oh here's a news flash too, people lie to cops about their insurance.— August 10, 2010 7:37 p.m.
What costs $600,000 per day to run?
Founder, What's your point? Services, the ones demanded by San Diegans cost money. If citizens don't want these services or the level currently provided, then they should not fund them or eliminate them. For some reason, citizens just seem to want more services, rather than less, and also refuse get the revenues needed to pay for them. The Mayor and COO have suggested that if the ½ cent sales tax does not pass, then services, all services will see curtailment. I believe during the one of the last hearing on the tax, Mr. Goldstone suggested it would be necessary to close 21 fire stations or lay off 700 police officers to close the expected 70 million dollar deficit. So it really is up the taxpayers to decide what they want to pay for. Services costs money. But Government is not a business. Some argue it should be run like a business, and that's their prerogative. Running a business seven days a week, 24 hours a day is expensive whether you're a government or private enterprise.— August 9, 2010 7:40 p.m.
SDCERS Says City Breaking Law
Under the Charter and Ordinances, SDCERS must conduct actuarially studies, or experience studies from time to time to "tune" the system to "real world" facts. In addition, at the urging of the City Attorney, SDCERS decided for the first time in 50+ years to make the employees pay a substantially equal portion the disability component. SDCERS becomes the first retirement system in California, if not the nation to have its safety members, (Police, Fire & Lifeguards) contribute to cost of a disability retirement if they are injured while protecting the public. During the July Rules Committee hearing, after the Police Chief and others spoke out against this action, the rules committee decided to forward it on for discussion by the full Council. The new rates became effected 7/10/10 but were delayed by Goldstone, who believed the Council, as the plan sponsor, would change the rates eliminating the disability component. He implied he didn't want go through the expense and brain damage of changing the withholding tables twice. As it turns out, this may happen now if the Council dockets the item in September and changes the ordinances. I believe the old adage is no good deed goes unpunished. But, with all of the issues SDCERS has been subject to over the last 10 years I understand their position. Additionally, SDCERS has promised the IRS that it would follow the law. One of reasons we're in this mess, was loose interpretation, handshakes and promises. While I believe Mr. Goldstone's intentions are honorable. In fact he was attempting to save the taxpayers a few dollars based upon his belief a change was imminent. However it really IS better for all parties to follow the plan documents and controlling statues.— August 9, 2010 3:32 p.m.
SDCERS Says City Breaking Law
This story is now moot, as the City has agreed to implement the changes as requested by SDCERS. Goldstone's explanation and actions were reasonable considering what happened in July Rules Committee meeting. But Council President Hueso has not followed through, so the new rates are now in effect.— August 9, 2010 2:22 p.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Response to post #162: City employees have enjoyed excessive salaries and pensions for decades. The City is now in crisis. It cannot meet the commitments that were previously made by deluded (or crooked) councilmembers. As to your U-T analogy, the company DID take back salaries paid earlier. It did it through massive firings. Best, Don Bauder ============================================== Who are you to decide what is excessive? What qualifies do you posses to make such a arbitrary judgement? Decades...Really? Where were you back in the late 70's and 80's when this all fraud with with city started? Where were the columns back then? What..... did you bosses stop you from writing the truth? While the city may indeed be in crisis, today, as you describe, it was the city leaders, AND the tacit media, including the UT's financial columnist who, at best ignored it, or at worst, condoned it by remaining silent. As to my analogy... San Diego, compared to with cities of same size and population staffs 50% of the fire protection and the one third of the police, while the number of citizen served by these employees grows every year. The SDUT may have fired or laid off staff, it did so in response to an ever growing decrease in the number of daily readers and paid subscribers. It's those subscribers and those who paid for advertising who recognized the professional quality this news gathering organization had reached par with the National Enquirer and other publications found at your supermarket checkout stand.— August 7, 2010 9:28 p.m.