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
PG&E to pony up big for San Bruno explosion
Don Bauder I read about their plan to remove vegetation and structures that block access to its network of natural gas pipelines, but what I read was only regarding the East Bay at the time. They call it their Pipeline Pathways Project: http://www.pge.com/includes/docs/pdfs/myhome/cust… Not exactly a zero-vegetation policy as described. It actually seems pretty reasonable to me.— September 2, 2014 9:54 p.m.
PG&E to pony up big for San Bruno explosion
don bauder, Nevertheless, that wall street isn't getting the punishment it deserves is irrelevant except as a comparison to PG&E. Personally, I think that the destruction of property and loss of life in San Bruno due to PG&E's willful negligence warrants a punishment much more severe than anything served up to Wall Street— September 2, 2014 9:44 p.m.
PG&E to pony up big for San Bruno explosion
Visduh, I thought the same when I heard the news. Then I had this thought. Look at some of the fines recently levied against the financial industry. Wasn't BofA fined about $16 billion for its faulty mortgage practices that contributed to the credit crisis? I mean yes, these guys may have caused many people problems, but nothing to mach the death and destruction that PG&E caused. So yeah, I think the market saw the fines as good news.— September 2, 2014 8:47 p.m.
Hope for the little people
don bauder, that may well be. But if founder/captd actually thinks that Brown is actually keeping "his options open for a future run at the Presidency of the USA", well then who knows. But the point is that founder/captd is really good with asking others questions, but is terrible about responding in kind. This is the second time in just the last week or so that there has been a lack of response to posit directed towards him.— September 2, 2014 8:39 p.m.
Poll: San Diegans don't want to subsidize stadium
If by your source, you mean the book you cited, I don't know as I've never read it. I know it's the store I've known for quite a while; I probably originally read it when the Cards were moving to Tempe, probably in the Arizona Republic. But since the story as I remember it is also on the Arizona Cardinals website, I'll go ahead and believe it. I have read some of Moldea's work. In this particular case, if you remember, Moldea filed suit against the Times, alleging defamation and false light invasion of privacy, because he didn't like the York Times Book Review, which was highly unfavorable, saying in part that the book was " was marred by "too much sloppy journalism." In the end, after all of the appeals were done, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the New York Times Company. That lawsuit, by an author who didn't like a review, reminded me of the little leaguer who argues a called third strike. Nobody wants that kid on their team next time around.— September 2, 2014 8:32 p.m.
Hope for the little people
captd/founder Here's something else to consider. The Los Angeles metro area is the second largest in the country and it's population is about 1/3 of the entire state's population. The MWD supplies water to the LA metro. It is the largest supplier of treated water in the country, providing water to 18 million people in a 5,200-square-mile area. That's bout 1/2 of California's population. To quote an article from LAT "The drought is not a constant presence here. Los Angeles residents are generally environmentally oriented, but they’re feeling the drought less than they otherwise might, in large part because the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California invested ratepayer money in the 1990s building and filling reservoirs." Until or unless the majority of those 18 million customers start to panic, water will NOT become a major political issue, for Brown or any other Governor. And that's at least 2 or 3 more drought years away. Oh and BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.— September 2, 2014 12:27 p.m.
Poll: San Diegans don't want to subsidize stadium
don bauder, As I said, it can't be converted. Now I suppose if you want to renovate, meaning tear down and reconstruct parts of the stadium to accommodate football at the cost of tens of millions, and call it a "conversion", well I guess you can call that whatever you want. On occasion, we went up to Anaheim for a Rams game. The "Big A" was a good baseball stadium before the Rams, and a very good stadium after the remodel back to baseball only, but as a football field in a baseball stadium, it absolutely sucked. BTW, the Bears played at Wrigley for almost 50 yrs. I'm not surprised you didn't like an outdoor football game in Chicago in the winter. But then again, you don't like pro football. When was the that time you went to an NFL game. Surely you must have seen a few Charger games. We may have even both been at the same ones. LOL— September 2, 2014 9:55 a.m.
Poll: San Diegans don't want to subsidize stadium
Actually, I think Bidwell was an officer with the Cardinals at the time. The 2K was actually just the down payment, because that was all the cash he had in the pocket at the time. According to what I read, the full price was $50k. Bidwell supposedly had been trying to buy the Bears, or at least he wanted to, but Papa Bear wouldn't sell. So the sale wasn't announced until the next year so he could get rid of his Bear stock.— September 2, 2014 9:42 a.m.
Poll: San Diegans don't want to subsidize stadium
Actually, Petco can't be converted into into a dual use stadium. While it has been used for both soccer and rugby, even in it's original design, the field cannot meet the NFL's requirements for field, sideline and end-line dimensions. I vaguely recall reading someplace that this was an intentional design feature.— September 2, 2014 9:08 a.m.
Poll: San Diegans don't want to subsidize stadium
don bauder, the Cardinals played in Chicago, and for far longer, before they deserted that city for St. Louis. They left because they couldn't compete with the Bears...and because they got close to $20million in yearly in ticket and concession incentives to play at Sun Devil Stadium.— September 2, 2014 8:45 a.m.