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
Orange County Loses Fight against Deputy Sheriff Pensions
Yes it part of what Governor Brown is proposing changes similar to the ones you mentioned as a statewide initiative. And, they are also part of the proposed DeMaio/Sanders/Faulconer ballot proposition. But don't loose sight of the fact that the City proposed leaving Social Security to save money in 1982 and never saved a penny of it. That's almost 30 of funds intended to pay for retiree medical. Don't forget it was the City who invented a new financial term, "the waterfall" to describe SDCERS investment returns above the Actuarially expected return of 8%. So instead of re-investing the returns from above average years for years where investments failed to meet the projected rate of return, the City took the "waterfall profits" to pay the health care costs of its retirees until they were caught stealing by the IRS. And don't ignore that City leaders proposed and paid substantially LESS than their equal portion of their pension payment, taking a euphemistically labeled "holiday". There is no doubt the plenty of blame to go around.— April 15, 2011 2:23 p.m.
Orange County Loses Fight against Deputy Sheriff Pensions
Yes many think it, but that does not make it so. Remember, when you were a young lad, many thought the world was flat and the sun revolved it, until they became educated. The fact is, in the context of this discussion thread, the issue here were and are lawfully negotiated contracts.— April 15, 2011 2:10 p.m.
Orange County Loses Fight against Deputy Sheriff Pensions
Yes 3% @ 50 has been recognized and, in the City of San Diego, is not available to any new employee prospectively since July 2005. (Exception of FD who will have the same benefits beginning July 2011. "But the proponents say that if they had won, the savings would have been $500 million, or roughly 200 times or more the cost of the suit." Yes they CLAIMED that, but you must take into account other facts. Two law firms evaluated the theories raised in the complaint and advice against going forward. Moorlach lost at the trial court level but he convinced his peers to continue to spend other peoples money. In my opinion it was after the trial made it ruling, combining it with the two other law firms and the proponents claims became unreasonable.— April 15, 2011 1:51 p.m.
Orange County Loses Fight against Deputy Sheriff Pensions
Surfpuppy, The Court has a duty? Really? A duty to waste its time and the taxpayer's money on two ridiculous theories? Too much time and money has already been wasted litigating this lawfully negotiated labor contract. The ONLY ones WINNING, as in Charlie Sheen context these days, are the lawyers. Is that why you became an attorney surfpuppy? So you too could say.."WINNING"— April 15, 2011 9:34 a.m.
Orange County Loses Fight against Deputy Sheriff Pensions
Don, Well that's another interesting, albeit a cynical analysis. It seems reporters who see and write about the worst, like cops, are NOT immune to becoming more and more cynical. . That's a pretty nasty allegation, where's the proof? I'd argue the Court reviewed the relevant materials and denied Moorlach's petition finding no valid argument(s) for the theory promulgated by Moorlach and his Chief of Staff Mario Mainero. Their case was based on violations of two sections of the State's Constitution. Article XI, Section 10 “A local government body may not grant extra compensation or extra allowance to a . . . public employee . . . after service has been rendered or a contract has been entered into or performed in whole or in part . . . ” The question put forth to the Supreme Court in part was; In light of this provision, did the Court of Appeal err by fashioning a new per se exemption from Article XI, Sec. 10 for grants of extra pension benefits awarded to County employees for past work after service had been rendered? and Article XVI, Section 18(a) “No County . . . shall incur any indebtedness or liability in any manner for any purpose exceeding in any year the income and revenue provided for such year, without the assent of two-third of the voters . . . ” The second question in part was; In light of this provision, did the Court of Appeal err by holding that a County can, without first taking a p ublic vote, incur any amount of pension liabilities to be paid in future years and with future tax dollars, so long as the ultimate cost of those liabilities “is not a certain total for which the County is immediately liable”? Way back in 06 two OC respected law firms opined the case had no merit. Nevertheless Moorlach and Mainero himself an attorney, pursued it spending millions of taxpayer dollars. Mainero's also a hypocrite. In June 2009 Mainero criticized OC DA for "wasting taxpayer dollars" on Death Penalty cases, maybe a million bucks or more a year. Really? Then Mainero resigned as Moorlach's Chief of Staff on 6/30/09. County CEO Tom Mauk, rehired Mainero to continue working on the appeal. An astute politician himself, CEO Mauk, paid Mainero a substantial hourly salary to shepard the case. Some believe it was to give Mauk cover when the case failed. So what about Moorlach? His press release on the matter shows his arrogance. Moorlach closed it saying, "As it is the Lenten Season, all I can say is Father, forgive the Supreme Court, for they know not what they do." OC taxpayers have a couple of real winners, ala Charlie Sheen. One who invokes the words of Jesus Christ as he was crucified on the Cross, to describe the denial of his petition, the other who double dips pursuing his failed theories. Another example of wacked out California politicians who believe they know more than the people they're suppose to serve and believe they are untouchable too.— April 15, 2011 9:28 a.m.
Orange County Loses Fight against Deputy Sheriff Pensions
Well that's one interpretation. Here's another. The facts are the Court examined the record at the trial and appellate levels and concluded no valid issues or arguments worthy of Court's time existed. So as Surfpuppy has reminded us on so many occasions, this case is over because the California Supreme Court says it is. Unfortunately this was one man's, John Moorlach's, crusade. He's been tilting at these windmills since 2006, all while using other people's money to do it. But this could be a deeper issue. Maybe Moorlach was trying to rekindle his glory days back from back in 1994 when he warned of Orange County's insolvency issues. Sure he was right then, but this time he had his hat handed to him, not once, not twice, but over and over with some very smart people saying the theories were preposterous. But why would he do this? Because he, and other politicians like him hold no personal liability and it's just too easy to spend other people money when your not going to be on the hook for it. So not only will the taxpayers of Orange County foot the bill (estimated at 2.5 Million so far) for Moorlach's folly, there's little doubt the court will award attorney fees (estimated at another two million) to the Association of Orange County Sheriffs. And this nonsense over the gift of public funds, from lawfully negotiated labor contracts, is done.— April 14, 2011 11:28 p.m.
Case-Shiller Data Suggest Possible Housing Double-Dip
. http://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/reappraisal.… . Details on Props 60, 90 and 100 regarding transfers of your real estate property tax base.— April 1, 2011 1:25 p.m.
Issa's Earmarks Meant to Line his Pocket: Publication
And this surprises you how? Both sides of the aisle are crooked as a dog's hind leg. Yet the people of North County and all over America return these public servants year after year.— March 30, 2011 3:24 p.m.
Lerach: Don't Blame Public Union Members. Blame Wall Street
Note to the Reader webmaster... What's the issue with links? Before the new reply system was initiated links were easily included in comments. But now you have carefully insert a dot or period character and a space before and after a http link. If you don't get it exactly right the link appears as plain text which isn't web friendly or a link. Is the Reader attempting to stifle links to supporting material or information from its website? What happened?— March 8, 2011 6:46 a.m.
Lerach: Don't Blame Public Union Members. Blame Wall Street
Seems others are beginning to see it Lerach's way.... This is from the McClatchy Newspapers. . http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/06/109649/why-… .— March 7, 2011 1:35 p.m.