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
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Every legitimate analysis shows San Diego leaders have chosen not tap into, greatly ignored, or under utilized revenue streams. San Diego ranks at or near the bottom when comparing it to other cities, both larger and smaller for not only sources of revenue, but also the amount collected. The new sales tax proposal, tied to more reforms is a start. As we've discussed here ad infinitum San Diego and San Diegans are tax and fee adverse but demand services. Obviously trash collection is one large $34 million dollar example. Out T.O.T., mainly paid by visitors, loses out on millions, but when tourist business interests wanted their own special assessment district the Council granted it. There are many more fees. Another example, rental cars, they use our roads but contribute little if anything towards their maintenance. Here too the tax would be paid mainly by visitors. What about fees to park? Why does it cost money to park downtown on a public street, but not a penny to park in public lot at the beach? Doesn't the city spend money maintaining parking lots there too? If the city just used the average fee and tax structure of other cities in California another giant step would be taken to solving its structural deficit. Then as you know there are developer subsidies. CCDC owes the City hundreds of millions. But no one wants to collect? Why? Downtown is WAY overbuilt. And as proposed managed competition. Why is the city STILL in the business of collecting trash? While there may be law regarding disposal sites, private companies can and do collect trash. I outlined other going forward changes in employee contributions to this problem in previous posts. In my opinion it took the city years of lying to the public, lying to its auditors and lying to itself to get into the mess. It will, in all likelihood, take the next 20 years to work our way out.— August 3, 2010 11:08 a.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
No Johnny wrong again... In '95 the multiplier was 2.5% at 50 and escalated to 2.99 at 55 with no cap. Why do you purposely chose to write inaccurate statements? COLAs or cost of living allowances have been in place since 1971 according to the 2009/10 SD County Grand Jury Report, pg. 10... As pointed out by the Grand Jury Report it's tied to the CPI. In 2009 SDCERS did not pay the COLA. In July 2010 the did pay 2% COLA. Read the memorandum on the CERS site, everyone does not earn the same COLA. So that's another falsehood. Regarding Fiduciary duty; In context of my response #75 to Paul about Mr. Kogan's analysis. Paul believes unions have a fiduciary duty to SDCERS. I pointed out..."Labor unions are "a group of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals in the key areas of wages, hours, and working conditions." Read Mr. Kogan's analysis. It carefully looks at a number of factors which contributed to the City's financial condition. You asked the question, "Do you seriously think the pension fund would be upside down today if the pension directors refused to play ball with McGrory and Golding on the under funding of it in exchange for bumps in pensions?" Exactly the point. If the City Management, had not tampered with or used undue influence and pressured, we would not be in the mess we're in today. If City leaders in 1982 had not pulled out of Social Security and Medicare in 1982, promising Health Care Benefits for retiree as replacement we wouldn't have that debt. If City leaders had taken those monies they were no longer paying to the feds for its matching 7.65% over the past 28 years and put it into a Retiree Health Care we'd have it funded. If City leaders did not STEAL SDCERS Investment gains, euphemistically called the "Waterfall" to pay the bill for retiree health care, SDCERS' funding ratio would be substantially higher. If Mayor Murphy and City Manager Uberraga followed the guidelines on MP1 and not allowed SDCERS' funding ratio to breech the floor of 82.5% we would not be suffering the ill effects. Heck the 2002 MP2 plan even called for a 5 year catch up plan but they ignored it too. If the City leaders in all the wisdom, had negotiated base pay increases, rather than retirement pick-ups, in violation of the Charter, then further underfunded by not paying the pick-up or wage offsets, we would not be in the mess we find today. Those are the facts. City leader, both political and managerial lied. Repeatedly lied to its citizens about the City's financial health. Employees were in the dark, just like the citizens, but they're made the scapegoats of gross incompetence. As I said before, Mr. Kogan's analysis is fair, balanced and credible.— August 3, 2010 10:24 a.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Oh and by the way... for some city employees on a going forward basis, the so called "deals" have been undone. For example, for new employees since July 2005 there are NO retiree medical benefits. New employees cannot access the DROP program even though the City has yet to publish the report on cost neutrality. A report which was required by Ordinance in 1999 but specifically ignored by City leaders then all the way up until today. New Police Officers cannot access the so-called 3@50 retirement system. They've been returned to the 1995 levels of 3%@55. Well not exactly the 1995 levels. You see in 1995 the rate was up to 2.99%@55 BUT with no cap. In other words, if you chose to work longer, past 55 you could earn more than 100% of your salary. New employees today are capped at 90% with no access to DROP. New Police Officers earn six percent less in wages, PLUS all retirement pickups have been eliminated. Some officers pay as much as 13% of their salary into the retirement system. Our former City Attorney advocates the return of, or rollback to, the 1995 benefits level. But has he mentioned the fact that under the 1995 rules more than 100% could be earned? And the latest, as of July 10, 2010, safety employees, the ones who risks their lives on a daily basis, now pay a substantially equal portion of the cost of disability retirements. This means up to an additional two percent reduction in pay for some. This saves the city taxpayers millions. Or does it? In making this change, San Diego, is the ONLY city in California, if not the nation to make its safety employees pay for their disability injuries. All, if I may add, while your disability insurance is still part of the social security withholding that hasn't changed in decades. So please don't tell me that city employees haven't done anything, because they have and continue to do so.— August 3, 2010 7:39 a.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Paul, That's nonsense. You've swallowed the media hype. Unions do not have fiduciary duties unless you mean a service, such as health benefits, to their members if money is held in trust. Unions are advocates. Sometimes zealous advocates. They represent the interest of their members. Labor unions are "a group of workers who have banded together to achieve common goals in the key areas of wages, hours, and working conditions" (Boone and Kurtz, 1999, Contemporary Business. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press p. 414). When you put City of San Diego wages and benefits into context and examine the historical record. You'll find there was a concerted effort by City Management, from the Pete Wilson era forward, to keep base wages lower. While San Diego worked on keeping a lower base wage, competing agencies were raising wages to lure workers. Hindsight reveals San Diego financial problems were, most likely, beginning then but no one recognized it. Example, San Diego exited the Social Security/Medicare Systems to avoid paying the 7.65% employer match. In doing so, City leaders, Wilson and Blair, promised lifetime health care for retirees. Another example in the context 80's and early 90's. To keep "base" wages low, but raise the take home pay in order to recruit and retain experience employee, the City offered to "pick up" part of the required retirement contribution in lieu of wage increases. This happened over multiple labor contracts. Now the bills are due, millions saved from not paying Social Security Medicare matching dollars have disappeared. Hundreds of millions not paid into SDCERS, a direct result of the City's MP1 and MP2 proposals. Not to mention the City pickups unpaid, the redirection of "excess earning" which should have remained at SDCERS but were taken by the City to pay for retiree health care(rulled illegal by the IRS). All actions by city leaders, political and allegedly professional, are the reasons we are ALL in the same boat today. Mr. Kogan's analysis is right on the mark, it's fair, balanced and credible.— August 3, 2010 7:04 a.m.
Lest We Forget: Pension Woes Worse Than Ever
For an impartial analysis read this: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/peoplespost/vkogan…— August 2, 2010 10:11 p.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Well it's only taken several years, but an impartial analysis of the pension issue was just posted over on the VoSD... http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/peoplespost/vkogan… A very interesting read.— August 2, 2010 8:43 p.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
If the pup goes then I gotta go too. It's all about balance. Otherwise the planet, like the puppy's "tales", may spin wildly out-of- control. I'd even spring for beers at DT johnny browns, we could have a summit like that guy at 1600 Pennsylvania.— August 2, 2010 4:34 p.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Lets see when I started driving gas was $0.37 a gallon now it $3.25. My first NEW car in 79 cost me $6500 a new one today will cost me $30,000 but the one I'd really want would be $65K. My first home in the mid 80's cost me $125K, today they say that house is valued at about $875K. When I was in school k-12 it was "free" my kids tuition began at preK @5500 and HS was $14K a year. My point everything gone up and out of sight over the last 35 years but my earning as a percentage to expenses basis really haven't changed much. While I made my way up the food chain, we're just middle class folks. Putting 50, 60, 75K into the context of 2010 really isn't wealth. Especially when I think back at my Dad's earning 50K a year in 1962 running his own business. Our family can afford ½ cent increase in taxes tied to reforms suggested. I think most San Diegans, 50% +1 will agree in November too.— August 1, 2010 9:31 p.m.
This Crisis Is New? The City Confessed Six Years Ago
Hmmmm I don't know... with the proper motivation, the taxpayers may pass it and wouldn't that just chap Johnny's rear end, LOL. And for sake of discussion lets just say it becomes one of the motivating factors behind more reforms... Donna's measure gets the credit for turning the city around just in time for 2012 campaign season. I could see a grassroots effort for Frye for Mayor testing the waters. She certainly couldn't be or do any worse the last six years of Jerry Sanders. If she were successful, she might even draft Don Bauder out of his blissful retirement for Press Secretary, part time of course. But if you chose not the leave the good life in the mountains of Colorado, at least you'd get access to the Mayor's office again.— August 1, 2010 11:54 a.m.
Did Somebody Change the Charter?
More smoke and a new generation of carnival mirrors. This carefully crafted interpretation of Section 80 is for the convenience of the city. As it stands now the city has contracted to build the shell of a building with nothing inside. I don't recall a transparent conversation about that and it's NOT what taxpayers were told or apparently now sold.— July 28, 2010 8:48 p.m.