SEC Charges Five Former City Officials with Fraud for Roles in False Municipal Bond Filings

Don, when will they start talking about the unfunded health care for retirees? That is also estimated at over $1.2 Billion, so between that and the unfunded pension, there is over $2.4 Billion unfunded! At the current rate it would take 20+ years for SD to climb out of that hole.
— April 11, 2008 12:22 p.m.

California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies

To put it another way, lets compare the grocery workers. In many parts of the country, grocery workers are not in unions and make $6-$10/hour and contribute a portion of healthcare costs. In Calfirnia, where they are unionized, grocery checkers had been making $15-$20/hour, plus time and a half for OT and double time for holidays! They also hadnt been contributing anything towards their healthcare. Obviously this is changing and they have the two-tier system and things will continue to change. Is the service at grocery stores any worse in other states than in Calfornia? No. In fact you can go to a non-union grocery store like Windmill Farms and the service is just as good if not better. And its not based on California's cost of living either. Boston for instance pays grocery workers $6-$10 hour and housing and other costs are just as expensive as San Diego.
— April 10, 2008 2:35 p.m.

California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies

#125. Justice, So what do you think of this document? http://www.onlinecpi.org/downloads/THE%2... By JF 11:45 a.m., Apr 10, 2008 I think comparing the various California city government salary and benefits is like comparing MLB salaries for the Padres and the Yankees. Are the Padres underpaid compared to the Yankees? Only difference is that taxpayers arent forced to go spend money on season tickets. It also shows the unions have California in a strangehold.
— April 10, 2008 2:29 p.m.

California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies

What did you think about my assessment that we cannot save the city by cutting retirement benefits alone, or for that matter cutting benefits in general? By JF 2:46 p.m., Apr 9, 2008 JF, very true. Lots of fundamental changes need to be made. The government has to realize that it needs to be run efficiently but for so many years they have been selling out to special interests. Developers buy politicians with contributions and other kicbacks (consulting jobs for them, jobs for family and friends, free dinners, tickets, trips, etc.) and the politicians grease the wheels for projects that dont benefit the city and cause traffic, higher costs for services like police and fire and the result is a city that has boomed but doesnt have the money to pay for the infrastructure and services. A start would be to make gov't retirement similar to private sector. The plans can still be managed by SDCERS or CALPERS, same managers, same investments. The difference is that the payouts are based on the contributions and investment returns. There is never a surplus or deficit to the govt or the retiree. The govt has to really look at cuts in many areas. I also think there is missing revenue. Torrey Pines for instance. Ever try and get a tee time? The place is constantly booked, so obviously there is opportunity to make more money there. For those who argue that its a city course and fees need to be cheap for residents, too bad. There are many cheap courses to golf at, just because the city owns it doesnt mean you get to golf there 2, 3, 4 times a week at cheap rates. n fact, many of the residents who golf there have their company pay for "client meetings" anyway. The city is losing out on income there. I could go on for days on areas where they need to cut and need to improve but frankly the city is bought and sold by special interests and the voters are uninformed and vote for a personality.
— April 10, 2008 10:27 a.m.

California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies

"401K's and IRA's aren't fully funded for the individual if the market drops just as one is retiring." IRA's and 401k's are always fully funded. The value of the investments determines the balance. There is never an unfunded amount. The balances go up or down depending on the value of investments. If I have $100 in an IRA or 401k this week and the market drops next week and the balance goes to $90, that $90 is the fully funded balance. They can easily take a defined benefit plan like SDCERS or CALPERS and make it defined contribution. You still pay money managers and custodians and the volume dicounts and benefits would remain the same. I actually spent about 8 years working in that field (investment fund management) including private funds, public funds, 401k's, estates, pension funds, etc.
— April 9, 2008 2:06 p.m.

Award-winner milks Big Bear resort

Alice Dodd, I'd love to "Google" her!
— April 9, 2008 1:37 p.m.

California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies

Many retirement plans are 100% funded, including all 401ks and IRA's and many pensions. Also, I mean that the city benefist are far better even when you consider that SS is supplemental (when you estimate that SS contirbutions are 6% vs. what the city employees contribute at 13%). Yeah the name-calling and insults will happen I try not to get caught up in that. I;m more interested on the math/finance and trying to figure out the best way to get the city back to financial stability. I realize that contracts and agreements have been made but unless the city somehow gets flush or the SDCERS has amazing returns in the 15% area for the next several years, this will be a big hole for the city to climb out of for the next 12+ years.
— April 9, 2008 1:13 p.m.

California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies

What I'm saying is that the city benefits are much better than SS. Better than 80% funded still leave over $1 Billion unfunded (and dont forget the other $1 Billion in unfunded retiree healthare.)
— April 9, 2008 12:08 p.m.

California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies

"I've seen elsewhere on the SS website that SS replaces about 40% of one's salary." Not quite. If you use the simple SS calculator you can see thats not close. For instance a 40 year old person who makes $75,000/year and retires at age 67 would get $2,046/month or $24,552/year and the person would have to work unti age 67 to get that. That's 33% and to compare with police if that person worked until age 57 (you say average city hire starts at age 27 so I used 30 years for the base)the person would get $1,392/month or $16,704/year and that would not begin until age 62. That's 22%, so if police were roughly double they would get 44% of their salary and it wouldnt start until age 62.
— April 9, 2008 10:31 a.m.

California Is in Such a Financial Quagmire That There Could Be Municipal Bankruptcies

JF, I saw a few articles on it not sure of the dates but I think they ranged from 2006 to one as recent as 2007. Why would you think you would get a pay raise if you didnt get the offset? Just because that was an agreement between the union and city doesnt mean it should happen. How is it immaterial what percentage goes towards your pension? Are you saying the amounts fluctuate with age and other factors? I have never seen it published anywhere (besides your post) that the city employees contribution to their pensions averages 13%, so if you have the link for thatm it would be helpful also.
— April 8, 2008 3:25 p.m.