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
Copley Building Sold for $4.75 Million Advertised for $6.5 Million
Don, Do you know what was the full price paid by Platinum? I have been confused by this deal, because it seems like the property acquired by Platinum is worth a lot more than they paid for the whole company, so it didn't make sense to me. I read in one place that the initial offer was only $15 million, and the actual deal was for not a great deal more than that. I assume the $40 million for the properties was in addition to the $15 million (though I don't understand why they are separate transactions). I am baffled why the paper would sell for such a low price AND the property would be sold for up to $60 million less than the current value. Does that somehow mean Copley had to give Platinum $45 million to take the paper? Does that make any sense?— June 8, 2009 1:29 p.m.
Copley Building Sold for $4.75 Million Advertised for $6.5 Million
The big question is what is the property actually worth? it wasn't sold as a standalone transaction to the highest bidder, so it may have intentionally been low-balled in the first place as part of the larger transaction, so money could be quickly extracted out of it when sold at its legitimate price. I don't pretend to know why that would be advantageous in this case, but maybe someone else here does. What I do know is that properties are sold below value all the time for a whole host of reasons, some legitimate, some nefarious.— June 8, 2009 9:05 a.m.
Realistic Funded Level of City Pension Plan Now 56.8%
JW, I think you dramatically overstate the market for city employees. Who is hiring? Chula Vista? Can you name a city that is looking for these expensive employees right now? Cities are on the verge of bankruptcy even before the state begins its raid on tax revenue. The State? Aren't they already threatening to layoff half our teachers and firefighters if we don't find some way to funnel them more money from our empty wallets? The private sector? Who in the private sector wants to hire public employees? To do what? The unemployment rate in the private sector is dramatically higher than in the public sector, and the pay is generally lower and the benefits are worse. I can see why City employees would be chomping at the bit to move to the private sector at a 15% pay cut with inferior benefits rather than take a 10% cut from their stable jobs with very good benefits. The cost of living has always been higher in San Diego because, well, you are in San Diego and not Omaha. You have always had the option of leaving. If you decide it is worth uprooting rather than taking a pay cut, then good luck and let us know how it turns out for you.— May 26, 2009 8:31 a.m.
Bad Review for New Union-Tribune Publisher
I am still confused about the purchase price of the UT. The articles I have seen floating around usually gave valuations for the included real estate that greatly exceeded the price paid for the paper. What was the actual price paid? Does it look like the reason for the sale is to strip the assets off, and then shut down the shell?— May 14, 2009 2:49 p.m.
State's Professional Sports Teams Ante Up for May 19 Ballot Measures
Surfpuppy, Don't underestimate the advertising campaign to blind the sheep, and don't underestimate the ability of the unions to rally their troops to go vote in an off-cycle election. The percentage of union voters will be disproportionately high, and the percentage of people that have absolutely no concept that 1A has anything to do with extending taxes is alarmingly high as well. I dearly hope that people get it, but I won't be surprised if one or more pass. For goodness sakes, that ridiculous high-speed rail bill even passed when everybody knew the economy was going into a deep recession.— May 12, 2009 8:35 a.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
monaghan said: "Please don't lecture me, Paul, about providing "factual justification" or a "better foundation" for my position: I've done that. You just don't want to hear it." I keep citing the Presidential Commission because they started with many of your same commonly known "facts", but found them to be false when they tried to validate them. I find that admirable because they had the integrity to perform a legitimate study and the intellectual honesty to follow their results and change their opinions even though they were not politically correct. I cite the economists because they clearly and succinctly (better than me) describe the cost savings, which you sort of admit and then say it doesn't matter because "we" (you?) prefer war. I personally believe in reviewing and evaluating the factual basis for an opinion contrary to mine, so I can evaluate whether it has any merit (in my opinion, of course.). If you want to offer some backing to any of your claims, I would be happy to evaluate the source and findings to see if it alters my view. I have given you references to a presidential commission, a large group of economists (including three nobel laureates), and an active law enforcement group with a very vocal former San Diego assistant chief all giving their arguments against prohibition. In response you have dismissed all of their arguments out of hand, and have offered no reasons why they are all wrong nor why you are right other than to repeat your opinions. You are correct that this horse is deader than dead. If you want a last word, feel free and I will let you have it. If not, I'll probably come across you on some other topic, where we probably will have a lot more agreement than disagreement. Lastly, you never called me a pothead, that was someone else.— May 9, 2009 4:04 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
monaghan said: "Legalizing marijuana and providing the necessary supports for addicts would carry a tremendous tariff that, in my opinion, Americans will never be willing to pay." Americans currently pay a much higher price to fight a war on drugs including a war on our border. The whole point of the legion of top economists in favor of legalization is not so they can get high, it is to save the country many billions annually. monaghan said: "But the truth is, for Stamper's ideas to work, the public health part would have to precede the legalization part -- and that is almost certainly never going to happen in this country." But it has already happened, you just aren't paying attention. Law enforcement already ignores individual use of marijuana, there are already PSAs and there are treatment centers covered by the government and employers health plans for problems associated with overuse just like for alcohol. Possession of a fairly large quantity for personal use is a minor misdemeanor if prosecuted at all. Compare that to any other schedule 1 narcotic and ask yourself "why"? The part you say must happen first but you claim can't, has already happened. I find it interesting that so many people refuse to even consider whether the foundation of their belief in prohibition has any factual justification. You have been stating "truths" that are common knowledge to be "facts", yet when the presidential commission analyzed many of these same "facts", they turned out to not be true. Top economists tell you that your opinion on cost is dead wrong, yet you still trot it out as your final argument. If you do a little honest investigation and test the basic beliefs you hold on this issue starting with the reason why all those economists favor ending prohibition, you might be surprised where you end up. If you end up in the same position you are now, at least you will have a better foundation to argue with someone like me. You ought to give it a try and challenge your beliefs at least a little. Instead of assuming anybody with a different view must be a pothead who should leave the country, try assuming that they might have a point and see where that logically leads you.— May 9, 2009 2:26 a.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
Not to beat a dead horse, but I found this very interesting. In another thread, monaghan said "Stamper was no fruitcake, even though he let dope-crazed proles trash his city of Seattle during the World Trade Organization riots a few years ago. I thought he was a classy, intelligent guy with a lot more on the ball than either Bill Kolender or Jerry Sanders, both of whom sold out to the San Diego establishment." I hope monaghan still feels that way, because I agree! Here is an open letter published today by Stamper to new Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norm-stamper/open-l…— May 7, 2009 4:22 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
Monaghan, I am not trying to be cute or clever. You say my arguments are fallacious, but have yet to say why. Typically you would consider a sophist someone who was over-complicating an issue or using a fancy vocabulary in order to give themselves more creditability than their argument deserves. I've tried to be very straightforward. I didn't bring "reductio ad absurdum" into the discussion, nor did I call anybody a sophist. Someone else did that.— May 6, 2009 4:49 p.m.
The San Diego Pot and Coke Connection at work
Actually, proper reductio ad absurdum requires you extend something to its logical conclusion. There was nothing factual to link your conclusion, just the threat that taking the first step will lead to bad things. That is classic Slippery Slope Fallacy. An amusing aside is that the classic example demonstrating the slippery slope fallacy in texts goes something like: "We can't legalize marijuana, because the next thing you know we'll legalize Opium, Meth, heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." In any case, reductio ad absurdum is in most cases a poor and fallacious argument, tending also toward the Fallacy Of The General Rule. Bottom line is you aren't going to get very far without facts to substantiate your position, and while it may be convenient for you personally to ignore the opposing argument (such as refusal to even consider a presidential commission), it does nothing for your argument except make you feel better.— May 5, 2009 9:30 p.m.