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
Andrea Tevlin, San Diego's budget analyst, too busy to talk
Don, I was just wondering if you'll tell us where the markets will close on June 30, 2009? What's that, you can't! You don't know? But isn't this really the only date that matters according to the SDCERS sponsoring documents and Municipal Code? For it is the Fund's valuation on that date that the actuary sets the amount of payment necessary to meet the City's contractual obligations. Now don't take me the wrong way, the financial system is a mess and I believe most agree there were many cooks stirring this stew. But on January 20, 2009, a new day begins to rise on our nations and "Change" has been promised. Historically we know most new administration get a honeymoon period. Chances are President OBAMA will get one too. You and I know SDCERS have 20, 30, 40 year time horizons and there will be dramatic ups and downs. The early 80s, 1987, the early 90s come to mind. We are in one of those downs right now... and it's a bad one, there's no doubt there. But others see this as a buying opportunity. Real estate has dropped 30%. Mortgage rates are trending downward too. More people, ones with "real" jobs have real opportunity to OWN a home and actually pay for it. Equities are beaten down, P/E are realistic bargains BUT volatile. I believe we'll work our way out this... with CHANGE. And everyone of the interested parties, those attending this dance need to participate in finding solutions, one way or another. Does the snapshot of 2009 that you presented look pretty bleak? YES it sure does. But, to use a football analogy, it's only the first of four quarters played in this fiscal year and a new quarterback is coming into the game. Don't you think we should see what his team can accomplish before we capitulate?— December 3, 2008 1:48 p.m.
SDPD -- Got An Attitude?
Where is the respect for each other and the law? These bicyclists belief they are above the law and don't have to obey it. Blocking intersections, running red lights and stop signs, some go as far as vandalism to private property to have their way. Do this justify the incident, no. This does not justify the actions of the driver and this sounds like a case of mayhem, a felony in California. The officers should have acted more professionally putting their bias aside. In other words, there's a lot of blame to go around in this case. But the root cause are these folks in "Critical Mass" who believe they have unfettered rights to the public roadways and there are no consequences for their arrogant and boorish behavior.— December 3, 2008 1:19 p.m.
Flight of Fancy Evanesces. Gaylord Won't Build Convention Center Complex on Chula Vista Bayfront
Taxpayers in Chula Vista managed to dodge a bullet this time...but I it's only a matter of time until some politician, who wants to make a big name for themselves, attempts to reach back into MY pocket one more time. It's time we all start living WITHIN our means and stop mortgaging our and our kid's futures...— November 18, 2008 7:29 a.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
hmmmmm where's DON? I enjoy reading his comments...— November 15, 2008 12:29 a.m.
11/14 Scoreboard
at Scripps Ranch 37 , Cathedral Catholic 70. Cathedral season of Perfection as the team takes the San Diego Section Eastern League CIF Championship. Of Note.... Oceanside tied tonight...Cathedral was undefeated in regular season play and now has gone 18 games without a loss over the last two seasons... Go DONS!— November 15, 2008 12:24 a.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
JF you said ..."Joe Esuchanko has stated that the city MADE money on PSC contracts with firefighters." This is perplexing....if this was correctly analyzed by the actuary, then why did SDCERS change the rate from 26% for those who bought time prior to Nov. 1, 2003 to 37% for safety employees purchasing credits on or after 11/1/2003. Is there a difference between being "Cost Neutral" as required by the muni-code or, as he said, the City made money on them. To me this is the issue. And after thinking about this further, no solution I can think of is equitable for ALL involved. Whether it's taxpayers or other vested SDCERS members someone is going the get the short end up with the short end of a very stinking stick. In all likelyhood, since the Writ of Mandate offered no path or remedy, other than the taxpayers are not liable for their error. So, whatever SDCERS decides will ultimately be litigated by one party or another who feels they had a contract and now it's breeched. This means this matter will be tied up for years in the court, enriching lawyers, who'll argue until the cows come home.— November 14, 2008 3:23 p.m.
League titles up for grabs in seven games on Friday night
So if Cathedral loses tonight to Scripps and both teams have league records of 4-1 what are the tie breaker rules?— November 14, 2008 8:37 a.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
Well that begs the question....why? Johnny, if what you say is true... "This is very common procedure, in fact the exact same thing happened to me back in January." Then why did our City Attorney file this appeal now? If as you say..."They like to hear all the appealable issues at one time-which is at the end of a case." Yes, I read previous sentence regarding harm but as we know there are many avenues of harm when it comes to the pension mess. It seems a better tactic would have been to complete this case at the trial level. A year has been "wasted" while the appeals court mulled this over, with their outcome ...."[a] very common procedure" very predicable. I suspect this is why most people, considering the recent election results, lost faith in Mr. Aguirre's "ability" to bring some positive resolution to this matter. But what I find more interesting is the ruling by Judge Nevitt, on the Purchase of Service Credits issue. He tentatively ruled in the Dec Relief action the City is NOT liable for underpricing of credits by SDCERS. He offers no remedy path, not a single suggestion. While it's obvious the taxpayers are now off the hook for at least $40M, which is good, how does SDCERS go about unwinding these purchases ... fairly? I see some potential solutions. I list them in order of what I think should happen. 1. Cancel all PCS contract and refund the moneys to employees. In researching the program, I believe its original purpose was to fix a loophole for employees who had "broken service" a result of being recalled to military service. Somehow, someone in authority, someday, just decided they wanted up to 5 more years of service to raise their lifetime pension and subverted the original intent. This needs to be undone. 2. Reset the time purchased to the rates set by 2003 that made the rate cost neutral as required by the MuniCode. 3. Have the employees pay the difference between their purchase price and the appropriate rate set in 2003 if they wish to keep the "time purchased.— November 14, 2008 8:33 a.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
From the Voice of San Diego...11/13/08 12:30PST In what could be a final blow to outgoing City Attorney Mike Aguirre's flagship pension lawsuit, the Fourth District Court of Appeals has dismissed the city's appeal on procedural grounds, according to the court's website. In August 2007, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Barton threw out the last remnants of Aguirre's pension case. The case, based on conflict-of-interest violations, was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for conflict cases, Barton ruled. Aguirre filed the civil lawsuit in 2005, alleging that retirement trustees improperly boosted their own pensions while at the same time agreeing to let the city underfund the retirement system in 2002. Aguirre appealed the decision and it has been pending at the Fourth District Court of Appeals. Other arguments contained in Aguirre's original case had been struck down previously. The appeals court recently considered a motion by the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, the defendant in the lawsuit, to dismiss Aguirre's appeal on procedural grounds, according to the docket. The court docket says that the justices read and considered that motion and agreed with SDCERS, dismissing Aguirre's appeal. The docket says that the city is, effectively, attempting to appeal a decision that is couldn't be appealed. Here's what the docket says: The City purports to appeal the September 17, 2007, judgment of dismissal of the City's sixth amended cross-complaint, which is a nonappealable interlocutory judgment. There's no more information on the docket about why the justices decided the appeal shouldn't be heard. Neither Aguirre nor attorneys for SDCERS could be reached immediately for comment, but we'll have more information as we get it.— November 13, 2008 1:45 p.m.
City Pension Fund Is Only 58 Percent Funded, Council Will Learn Tomorrow. Will It and Mayor Listen?
I read ( http://weblog.signonsandiego.com/news/breaking/20… ) with interest that Mr. Aguirre has found a chink in the pension armor. Although this is a tentative ruling, it seems that some purchase of service or "PSC" benefits may be unwound, rolled back, correctly credited or some other remedy may be applied. I also note, the current "financial state of the nation" may have affect on judicial analysis. With times tough now and potentially tougher in the foreseeable future for pension system it seems this judge wants to spread the costs like Obama wants to share the wealth. My question is how long will it take to calculate and what happens next. Has the court open Pandora Box or is this a crack in the dam.— November 12, 2008 1:01 p.m.