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
Escondido traffic checkpoints take families' cars
The Legislature intended to provide safer roads for California's motoring public be removing the vehicles driven by unlicensed, suspended, or revoked drivers for 30-days. As the owner you are responsible for anyone who drives it. If a friend or relative who has a suspended license, or who does not have a valid license, drives it will still be impounded for 30-days. The fact that you were not the driver at the time of impoundment does not qualify as an excuse. Under California Vehicle Code Section 14604; you have a duty to assure the person driving the vehicle has a valid driver's license. This includes: your wife, son, daughter, friend or relative. If a person does not have license, you are responsible for towing and storage fees for the entire 30-day period. The registered owner may request a storage hearing with 10-days of notification to determine if the vehicle is eligible to be released earlier than the mandatory 30-days; however, it is important to note that a hearing is not for the purpose of asking for leniency or stating excuses such as those listed above. The sole purpose of a hearing is if you intend to question the validity of the impound. An impounded vehicle is eligible for early release to the registered owner ONLY under the following circumstances: • The impoundment of the vehicle was invalid • The vehicle was stolen • Vehicle is subject to bailment and is driven by an unlicensed employee of a business • When the license of the driver was suspended or revoked for an offense other than those specified in CVC 14602.6(f) • When the driver reinstates his or her driver's license or acquires a driver's license and proper insurance IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE LAW GET THE LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE IT. Otherwise, like the tens of thousands of licensed drivers who have passed through checkpoints, obey the law.— August 7, 2010 12:24 p.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Don that's not true...and as actions by the City Council and others have shown us, pay rates change. The council imposed a contract in 2009 that lead the a decrease in pay. SDCERS just imposed new contribution rates in July that reduce an employees net and lowers the amount the city must contribute. My argument is and has been, this applies on a going forward basis. Imagine if the UT said, oh by the way Bauder, we paid you to much for the last 5, 10, or 20 years. So we're going to take it back now.— August 6, 2010 1:31 p.m.
Council Votes to Put Tax Increase on Ballot
No, they ARE set in well settled contract law and constitutional protections.— August 5, 2010 9:37 p.m.
Council Votes to Put Tax Increase on Ballot
It a guiding principle of civil law and it's not impossible. If you want an example of something really impossible, it would be Surfpuppy619 not posting another comment in Don's "Scam Diego" Blog. I'm just kidding JohnnyV.... Really it's a joke, and funny too. When Don read it he chuckled! The City's financial obligations have been labeled by some as distasteful. Nevertheless, they are lawfully negotiated contracts. In fact repeated contacts over several years. But the City, if it chooses, can negotiate. In fact, in the last few years, the City, through meet and confer negotiations, has imposed new contracts on employee groups.— August 5, 2010 4:41 p.m.
Escondido traffic checkpoints take families' cars
Two words; driving privilege. Operating automobiles on public roadways is not a right. Obey the law, follow the rules of the road, possess a valid driver's license and carry liability insurance. You won't have any problems it's just that simple. Over the years tens of thousands of cars and drivers pass though these checkpoints without any problems whatsoever. The belief that you're entitled to do as you please and other drivers who follow the law owe you something is as ridiculous as the premise of this story.— August 5, 2010 9:46 a.m.
Council Votes to Put Tax Increase on Ballot
Thanks Don for catching my spelling error. You're right I did mean meddle. Of course our city leaders meddled with it over the last 28 years bringing. They had their legacies to build. Susan Golding probably the biggest offender, left us with the city we're all dealing with today. For Paul, as you can read Johnny's comment in #11 above, his posts are like a broken record, stuck in groove, repeating, repeating repeating. Please note, I didn't say the benefits were Constitutionally protected. I merely linked it to comments made by our City Attorney in a speech to the Taxpayers Association. I suspect his analysis, as the Attorney representing the City, regarding the vesting rights just might carry some weight. As I suggested before, you should watch video of our City Attorney's speech and reach your own conclusions.— August 4, 2010 10:03 p.m.
Council Votes to Put Tax Increase on Ballot
Sorry Paul, Johnny Vegas has all the answers, all the time. He just keeps on repeating the same drivel. He undoubtedly believe if you say it long enough someone, anyone, will believe. All I'll say is, City Attorney, Former Judge, and former elected State Assemblyman from the 75th District, Jan Goldsmith has said vested pension benefits are constitutionally protected. Benefits, or the right to certain benefits vest on the day you're hired. Under the law, benefits can be negotiated away as long as they are replace with same of better benefits. That's why the discussion always centers on new hires. I believe the intent of the constitutional protections, when they were granted, was to keep politicians from medaling or corrupting the system. Unfortunately, in San Diego, our creative politicians found new ways to medal and corrupt the system by tampering with hundreds of millions of dollars in the retirement system. With that said, please don't take or rely on my or JohnnyV's interpretations. Here is a link to a video of Mr. Goldsmith's speech to the San Diego County Taxpayer's Association luncheon in January of this year. http://granicus.sandiego.gov/ASX.php?publish_id=8… The video is not really that long and he WILL answer most, if not all of your question without the bias.— August 4, 2010 7:04 p.m.
Philadelphia Finds DROP a Big Drain
But no one makes a peep about a lawyer making $950 an hour sitting on his old tired ass flying cross country, probably in 1st class. Plagiarizing work already paid for by the taxpayers. Gotta love San Diego, its leaders and those of you who believe someone has a JD they've "earned" a license to steal.— August 4, 2010 3:28 p.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Pupster and Paul Study: US police fatalities increase 43 percent Friday, July 23, 2010 By Nafeesa Syeed Associated Press WASHINGTON — A nonprofit group in Washington says the number of police officers who have died in the line of duty is up 43 percent so far this year. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund released preliminary data Wednesday. It shows that 88 officers died in the line of duty between Jan. 1 and June 30. That's compared with 61 officers during the first six months of last year. The deaths were spread across 36 states and Puerto Rico — with California, Texas and Florida showing the most fatalities. Other states included Virginia and Maryland, where a state trooper was fatally shot June 11. Among the causes of death were traffic accidents and shootings. If the trend continues, 2010 could become one of the deadliest years for U.S. police agencies in two decades. I believe this information is more accurate than the other posted. Paul I'll ask you the same question that Don and Surfpuppy ignored. What do you believe is fair salary, not benefits, for a journeyman police officer?— August 4, 2010 8:09 a.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Response to #121...see how Johnny plays, just like a lawyer. Oops I forgot he's is one.— August 3, 2010 4:51 p.m.