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
Fire Department Compensation Far Higher than Private Sector's: Study
And "retiring" much earlier than the medical doctor and with a larger pension too.— April 21, 2011 9:48 p.m.
Fire Department Compensation Far Higher than Private Sector's: Study
Add all that to the security of public employment, and there is no conclusion that can be drawn other than that public employees are compensated at a rate double or triple that of the privately employed taxpayers whom they "serve." Isn't that simple? ================== Bingo, we have a winner. FF is a semi skilled blue collar job that is being compensated at a rate higher than a general practioner medical doctor with 10 years of serious college under their belt.— April 21, 2011 9:47 p.m.
Pessimism Worst in Two Years, Says Poll
Seventy percent think the nation is on the wrong track =============== Count me in this group, and count on me voting for change in 2 years.— April 21, 2011 9:43 p.m.
Major League Baseball Will Run Dodgers
McCourt has already indicted he may go to court and he has certainly read the purchase agreement and rules. Also, once again, this clause above may not be valid or enforcable. Just because lawyers put something in, like tons of clauses and fine print, that does not mean it is a done deal. The fact is many contracts have tons of legally invalid, unenforcable portions, yet they still put the junk in, it is the nature of the contract. The LA Times article said the "best interests" clause is found no where else in business, and it can have a wide application in MLB (why?? who knows), but there are indeed limits to its application-which is basically what I have said. The question is have the limits been pushed too far in this case?— April 21, 2011 6:15 p.m.
Home Prices May Have Bottomed. But...
25% of all mortgages are still underwater. That fact prevents a bottoming out. We are not there YET. We will not hit the bottom until ALL of the bank owned properties, now and in the future, are cleared out. And once that happens we will start a slow climb out fo the bottom. That will not happen for a few more years, 3-5 years. So I am going to have to disagree with the title, we are not yet at rock bottom. Also, if we have a serious double dip recession and we shed more jobs that 25% could increase, instead of decrease.— April 21, 2011 6:08 p.m.
Major League Baseball Will Run Dodgers
I said the clause may be upheld, but it would depend on the issue and how much support the Commissioner has to prove up his decision, and I think I am right based on the LA Times article just posted this story on the issue; "One option for McCourt and his attorneys would be to seek an injunction to stop the takeover, arguing that Selig's move was arbitrary and capricious." . http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dodgers-l… .— April 21, 2011 6:04 p.m.
Major League Baseball Will Run Dodgers
The only challange I have ever heard was by the former partners of the Montreal owner and it went nowhere. As I said, I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt any court would every deem the commisioners clause unconstitutional. It was put in place by the owners, for the owners the owners can change it and anyone coming into ownership knows it's there. ====================== Pete Rozelle said the same thing to Al Davis when he wanted to ,ove the Raiders to LA, the NFL teams needed either a 2/3's or 3/4's majority vote to move-don't recall what the % was. Davis said he didn't. Rozelle said those are the rules. Davis sued. Davis won. Howard Coselle, who was a lawyer, said the clause would have stuck if they just used a SIMPLE MAJORITY, instead of an arbitrary amount like 2/3 or 3/4 and that a simple majority been held up in prior cases, but the NFL thought they could call al the shots. As for the Dodgers, the financial portion is an easy call because the rules are laid out in black and white. That is not a hard to issue to settle. A clause that can take away ownership of a team for virtually ANYTHING the Commissioner says is in the "best interest" of MLB (and that could be abything, liek you are the wrong race/sex/relegion/comb your hair), that is going to be a hard sell depending on what the Comissioner is claiming is undermining MLB.— April 21, 2011 12:51 p.m.
Major League Baseball Will Run Dodgers
same "private ownership" laws as, say, Surfpuppy Hardware, Inc. =============== Yeah, I have no idea how the ownership structure is set up. I did not know it was set as similar to a franchise system, since these pro sports teams, most of them anyway, go back close to a century- or more in some cases. I also did not know Steinbrenner, or his heirs, were forced to sell the Yankess. I just don't follow this stuff. I find it odd that Steinbrenner could own the Yankees at all under what looks to be very stringent MLB ownership rules given his felony conviction/s.— April 21, 2011 9:53 a.m.
Major League Baseball Will Run Dodgers
Selig has tremendous latitude under the best interest" clause. ====================== Has it ever been tested in court???? If I was an owner and I met the debt rules, and I wanted to keep the team I would test it. As I stated above, that clause and the "tremendous latitute" of it may render it uncosntitutional. Don is correct though, McCourt would get taken to the wood shed if he hired a blue chip law firm to argue the point. The issue is very simple, yet the very business model today of blue chip law firms is their hourly billing and to extract the highest amount of money possible, not to bill on the complexity of the issue.— April 21, 2011 9:39 a.m.
Major League Baseball Will Run Dodgers
In the case of conduct by Major League Clubs, owners, officers, employees or players that is deemed by the Commissioner not to be in the best interests of Baseball, punitive action by the Commissioner for each offense may include any one or more of the following: ====================== The problem with this clause is it may not be valid. The term "deemed by the Commissioner not to be in the best interests of Baseball" could be open to being struck down as unconstitutionally vague, ambiguous and overly broad-IMO. I read the statement McCourt put out yesterday-and it essentially said the Dodgers were taken over by the Commissioner because of financial violations. Debt problems. McCourt disagrees. Now that is easy to determine because I am sure there is some sort of debt/coverage ratio that is black and white. McCourt says he meets the ratio-whatever it is. If that is true then the question becomes one of whether the above "best interests" clause is constitutional.— April 21, 2011 9:32 a.m.