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
Lest We Forget: Pension Woes Worse Than Ever
SDCERS has averaged 8.21% on its returns over the past 20 years as of June 30, 2009. So they are smarter, and paid substantially less than those folks running the County's Pension System. Even as bad as the first half of calendar year 2009 was, the latter half saw a rebound and that's just "averaged" returns puppyman. Yes it's true SDCERS has had some good years, and some bad years. Everyone does and that's why they have a 20, 30 and 40 year time horizon. But you've always been the pessimist with the glass half empty remarks. Problem is many if not all of your predictions have been wrong. What's wrong pup, made some bad investments choices yourself? My investments returned well exceeded what SDCERS made for the same period; 7-1-09 to 6-30-10, earning about 23%. And for the five years, about 15% annually overall. But my risk tolerance is much higher than SDCERS. Nevertheless they still rate in the top two percent of pension funds when measuring overall performance. Oh, by the way, while I thinking about your bad attitude, why as a taxpayer would you wish them anything but great success with their investments. Every dollar they earn from investments REDUCES the city's actuarially required payment. Let's hope they meet and substantially exceed my prediction.— July 21, 2010 2:32 p.m.
Suit Challenges Lid on City Workers' Healthcare Costs
Technically insolvent? How so, the City continues to pay its bills.— July 21, 2010 10:57 a.m.
Lest We Forget: Pension Woes Worse Than Ever
San Diego has made lots of changes on a going forward basis and recent court rulings (PSC purchases) have affirmed those changes. With the close of SDCERS fiscal year the system will most likely report between 10-12% annual return, slightly down from the 15-20% return growth reported during its third quarter ending in March. What important to note is SDCERS pays interest on vested monies using a composite index hovering just under 3% and long term annuity rates are capped at 5 percent. That is way down from the "actuarial rate of return" assumptions of 8 and 7.75% made just a few years ago. Thus SDCERS is making money on its investments and saving the taxpayers dollars they are legally obligated to pay. In addition, the over the last couple of years City is no longer diverting a portion of the investment returns, ones it labeled as the "waterfall" and illegally diverted to pay for retiree health care. SDCERS is a long term investment with a 30-40 year time horizon. The annual system valuation is just one barometer of measurement. SDCERS' long term health is the issue. On a going forward basis, 20, 30 or more years from now, the reduction of benefits is having a positive effect. Will there be pain while the City works on fixing the problems its leaders, both political and managerial created? You betcha. The trick is to make sure the city continues its reforms and never, ever, has the opportunity to tamper with the system in the future.— July 21, 2010 10:51 a.m.
Suit Challenges Lid on City Workers' Healthcare Costs
No surfpupsters you didn't care! No one needed to poll them then or now... Did you write letters to the editor in 1982 warning the San Diegans of the debt they'd be responsible to pay years later? What about 1996 or 2002 did you or any other citizens protest the underfunding? No. Where was the SDUT back then? It held the role of government watch dog? Where was scam san diego then? Where were the op/ed pieces when Golding/McGrory planned MP1, proposed and carried it out? What about the three year trial period for DROP, it was the City leaders who DID not do the required studies. And, as a matter of fact have drug their feet on those studies still, some 14 years later. Me thinks the SDUT and the Copley family was more interested in seeing Golding a US Senator then worrying about the financial health of the city it believed was populated by sheep. Then city leaders did it again in 2002 when pension safety net floor was breeched, the city leaders concocted a second underfunding to hide their malfeasance. I don't recall hearing your voice of protest. You call it a retroactive gift, but the State AG, who may be governor again soon, has filed a friend of the court brief in the Orange County case making its way up the appellate chain now. He believes it's not a gift. You say they, the SDCERS Board failed in their fiduciary duties. The Supreme Court of California disagrees with your legal conclusion and dismissed ALL conflict charges, except against Saathoff, and Bonnie has declined further action. But you keep on avoiding my question..what did the city do with matching dollars they did not send to SS for last 28 years? And since they were fully aware of their promise to pay for retiree healthcare, why didn't they do it?— July 21, 2010 8:26 a.m.
Suit Challenges Lid on City Workers' Healthcare Costs
No Johnny, as you know SDCERS follows the plan sponsor's i.e. the city's documents. Those documents are the Charter and the corresponding ordinances. In addition, SDCERS and its Board are fiduciaries with, what some have illustrated, are duties that conflict with each other from time to time. But, as you also know, the California Supreme Court recently ruled there was no conflict of interest when they acted. So why bring it up again? I can't count the number of times you've said, it's not over until the supreme court rules. Well my fried, they have, and, as you've pointed out repeatedly it's now settled law! The truth is City Management, and its political leaders didn't care and citizens didn't care either. Our only local newspaper, the SDUT, the one with first amendment right AND responsibility to keep and eye on government didn't care and was asleep at the switch for years. You cannot spin, nor change the facts, City leaders proposed leaving Social Security, they created DROP too. Then they approved it and codified it into the muni code and the SDCERS plan documents. City Management also defined the "waterfall" as a surplus portion of SDCERS' investment profits. Profits to be used for the pay-as-you-go method funding healthcare benefits. But honest people know there are no such thing as profits in a pension system. But no one cared back then because everyone was making money. But the good times ended and the malfeasance by the City leaders was brought into the light. The IRS ruled and the City acknowledged its retiree healthcare funding scheme was illegal. And as we know, the city hasn't repaid what they stole over all those years. Heck johnny even you the endless naysayer acknowledge in comment #1 "I think Conger is going to win another round......." and Don acknowledged a "promise" made by the City [leaders]. Which takes us back to 1982 when the City made the promise to employees to get them to agree to leave social security. What happened to money it wasn't paying, the matching 7.65%, over the past 28 years?— July 20, 2010 10:06 p.m.
Suit Challenges Lid on City Workers' Healthcare Costs
As usual pupster/JohnnyV/billyb you've missed the point once again. This has nothing to due with SS versus city pensions, it deals with missing tens of millions of dollars and politician who do anything to keep their elected office. It's a very simple question and statement. When the city stopped paying the matching dollars to SS/medicare in 82 what did they do with the money? It's especially troubling since they promised lifetime healthcare to what the AARP recognizes as senior citizens. Then they stole a portion investment returns, undermining the stability of SDCERS to pay for the promised benefits. The City has been cooking the books for years just so a handful of politician, the ones who contribute the least to their retirement and vest the soonest, could line their own pockets.— July 20, 2010 10:31 a.m.
Suit Challenges Lid on City Workers' Healthcare Costs
The City bailed out of Social Security in 1982 and the 7.65% in matching employer contribution. So what happened to all of that money over the last 28 years? That's the real question. Then Mayor Pete Wilson and City Manager Ray Blair concocted this plan to relieve the city of the require contribution in 82. I believe it was four years later circa 1986, the federal government require all new city employees to contribute to Medicare. There are tens in not hundreds of millions of dollars unaccounted. And that doesn't even touch the City stealing the so-called "waterfall profits" from SDCERS investments to pay retiree health care benefits. No wonder the pension system is grossly underfunded. The City was stealing from the investment returns for years.— July 19, 2010 11:42 p.m.
Ballpark Study Confesses: "We Hastened and Greatly Worsened the Glut"
Thanks for spending the time reading the report and shinning the light into the deep darkened areas. To bad SDUT chose not to spend a little time and conduct some due diligence to expose the truth themselves. But I suspect the reality is just as the UT chose to change their "Ring of Truth" logo, their "new truth" is to support those who would obfuscate the truth at taxpayer expense.— July 15, 2010 9:22 p.m.
U-T Doesn't Identify Paid Consultant
Wow the U/T has pulled out all the stops once again, first this joke a report filled with fraudulent omissions, then today, a SDUT editorial propping up the fraud. This time, lets us guilt; the Chargers have been such great neighbors since 1961, we should be loyal to them and build them a new home. Hey wait a second, we built them a new home in 1997, it's called Charger Park. The City gave them the land and built them house too. We spent, oops we're still paying the mortgage on the 78 million we paid in 1997. So all I want to know is how the U/T went from news gathering organization to football/building developer pimp?— July 15, 2010 6:56 a.m.
Hmmm. Lucchino Lauds Private Ballpark Financing
The Chargers complain about revenue sources...just how much would it cost to remove all the old fixed advertising and put in new electronic board? I suspect it would be a lot less that $750 million the taxpayers would ultimately be saddled with for a new undersized stadium downtown.— July 14, 2010 4:58 p.m.