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
Appeals Court Says Mount Soledad Cross Unconstitutional
If memory serves.... I believe the City did "sell" the land to the Mt. Soledad National Cross Association, a private group. But the sale failed to pass muster on ground it wasn't public, "enough". Thus the court ruled the sale invalid. For once I agree with the pupster...the land should be in private hands. However, once again, the buffoons running the two-bit City of San Diego, the so called "leaders" have screwed it all up again. Driven by the fear of being outbid for the land, the City in all of its wisdom deeded the land to the federal government ultimately coming under the control of the Defense Department. Another disaster and a waste of the taxpayer's money. In my opinion faith and religion beliefs are parts of our hearts and minds. Sites such as the one built on top of Mt. Solidad in 1913, and remodeled a few time since are monuments to men who built them, and who, at the time back then had the power to do so.— January 6, 2011 12:34 p.m.
Police Sorry They Brought Frivolous Lawsuits, Suing Their Lawyer
First off to be clear, participation in the litigation was voluntary, not mandatory. Second, the POA did not charge it members. The attorney Mr. Petersen, first thorough his former Orange County law firm and then as an individual attorney charged nearly 3 million dollars in fees over the years of litigation. The POA only acted as middle man, funneling the payments to Petersen. Petersen, who was could have been described the Jim Bakker/Jimmy Swaggart of litigation attorneys at the time, sold a lot folks a bill of goods, with promises never delivered. However, Mr. Petersen's skills as an attorney...well that's still up to debate as is his $20 Million of malpractice insurance. Suffice to say, nearly identical litigation was won in the Northern District. In another case Petersen, failed to present absolutely vital evidence, the City's own memoranda and resolutions, that promised life time health care for retiree in 1982. You can draw your own conclusions from these additional facts. And for reasons of full disclosure, I was not parts of any of these cases. My own evaluation, especially the Donning and Doffing litigation, was it was ridiculous no matter what happened in Northern California.— December 18, 2010 4:30 p.m.
Bankruptcy — Good for San Diego
Politician? Wasn't he elected to be the City Attorney? Maybe that was why he was so confused. He forgot he was supposed to be the City's Attorney, and NOT a politician.— December 6, 2010 9:16 a.m.
Bankruptcy — Good for San Diego
No, not the "employees" it was the people who are the elected representatives who approved negotiated retirement benefits. And it was those same elected representatives who approved the "Elected Representative" retirement package where they are eligible to collect immediately. But the NEW U~T doesn't complain about that.— December 6, 2010 9:11 a.m.
CIF Finals Previews: Divisions I/II/III/IV
Nice write up on the Division III game, and while not trying to be too picky, both teams are "Eastern" League opponents.— December 6, 2010 9:04 a.m.
Bankruptcy — Good for San Diego
Whose, you mean his warped version of the truth. If that was the case, why did the trial court reject all the claims?— December 5, 2010 9:47 p.m.
Bankruptcy — Good for San Diego
So telling Mt. Soledad landslide victims the City is liable for damages is solving the city's financial problem. You've got to be kidding. Thank God the City has the wherewithal to hire outside attorneys to look after that taxpayers' wallet on that case. Aguirre's quick grasp of complex litigation issues must have been on vacation that day. Probably confused by all the Grand-Standing for the media.— December 5, 2010 9:40 p.m.
Bankruptcy — Good for San Diego
Will you have the same attitude on Dec 6th, when Donna start collecting her Elected Representative Pension? She'll be 58 years young and seven years younger than surfpuppy's 65 or older requirement.— December 5, 2010 9:34 p.m.
Bankruptcy — Good for San Diego
The negative critique of Mr. Aguirre's work product was from the bench, not me. If you want to be his apologist that's up to you.— December 5, 2010 9:24 p.m.
Bankruptcy — Good for San Diego
It says something either about the case or an attorney's work product when he needs to file his 47th amended complaint (yes I know it's an exaggeration) and the Court is force to dismiss WITH prejudice. I'm just not sure if it was the wild theories of the attorney or his work product.— December 5, 2010 1:41 p.m.