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
Sempra spins Sunrise Powerlink in the Union-Tribune
Don, This is amazing. The PUC has actually found that SDG&E deliberately misstated facts about the Sunrise Powerlink to the commission, and has given them 15 days to explain, formally and under oath, why sanctions should not be imposed. http://www.ucan.org/%5Bvocab-raw%5D/sdge_lied_cpu… I wonder if this is why they wanted Bob Kittle to write that nasty editorial in the UT about Michael Shames and UCAN two weeks ago. SDG&E must have known this was coming.— August 2, 2008 7:35 a.m.
The Question on Nancy Graham: Why Was She Hired in the First Place?
Rather than reprint it in, take a look at Pat Flannery's blog here: http://blogofsandiego.com/. He has links embedded in his text to a bunch of documents so you would lose a lot of the context if I reprinted it here.— July 26, 2008 10:21 p.m.
The Question on Nancy Graham: Why Was She Hired in the First Place?
One obvious question is how active Related was in San Diego before Graham came along compared to after she arrived. As you hinted at, I wonder if Related (and others) angled to have her hired in the first place. I am also interested in your reaction to Pat Flannery's recent digging into the SEDC mess showing the off-shore money connection. I wonder how many off-shore partnerships Sanders is involved in? I've said it before and I'll say it again, he surely ain't working for six years as mayor for $35K a year for our benefit. There is a lot more in it for him somewhere.— July 26, 2008 5:30 p.m.
More Wall Street Socialism: SEC Wants to Thwart Short Selling of Fannie, Freddie, Brokerage Stocks
I especially liked the part where the UT eds criticized Shames for making an average of under $90K a year over a three year span as if that made him grossly overpaid. I wonder what the average salary was for the stable of lawyers and experts lined up against Shames at the PUC hearings. I'd wager at least double (probably far more), and there were a lot more of them. I just came across a rebuttal on the UCAN website (http://www.ucan.org/energy/electricity/union_trib…) which includes: "Of course, the editorial was blatantly wrong. It didn't address the fact that UCAN's success in reducing SDG&E rate hike requests caused rates to be lower. It complains that over a 17-year period, SDG&E paid UCAN some $2 million in reimbursed costs. Yet, it ignores its own January,2002 editorial extolling Michael Shames a "Consumers' Hero" (see PDF) for returning $363 million in wrongful SDG&E charges to San Diego consumers. And it ignores the law that prohibits UCAN receiving any compensation from SDG&E if UCAN duplicates the arguments tendered by the PUC staff. " And from Shames himself: "Mr. Kittle admitted to me that SDG&E supplied most, if not all, of the numbers upon which he relied. He called me last Thursday afternoon asking me to verify SDG&E's numbers that same afternoon. I explained that I was out of the office that day but would be happy to sit down with him after the weekend and share with him all of the numbers that he sought from me as well as a tally of the hundreds of millions of dollars in rate savings to SDG&E customers for which UCAN has been responsible for since it began its work in 1985. Mr. Kittle insisted he had a deadline and that he needed the information no later than Friday morning. After I explained that this compressed schedule wasn't possible, he spewed the yellow journalism phrase that so demeans his profession: "So, you are saying that you refuse to answer my questions?" He then hung up on me."— July 16, 2008 10:50 p.m.
More Wall Street Socialism: SEC Wants to Thwart Short Selling of Fannie, Freddie, Brokerage Stocks
Response to #3: The UT editorial board already has dibs on the bumper sticker "UCAN FLEECE US". They wrote a hilarious editorial a couple of days ago on that very subject, only they think it is a swipe at Michael Shames in deference to their Sempra masters.— July 16, 2008 12:11 p.m.
County Democrats Endorse Aguirre for City Attorney; Only One Vote Goes for Opponent
Don, I am not predicting that Aguirre will win easily, or even win at all. I was just pointing out how silly the "percent who voted against" argument is in a 5 person race where they all polled a significant percentage (even Lepine at 6%). What I really want to know is why the democrats are so inept in this town. They can't even leverage Obama-mania to gain any traction, and they routinely field nonviable candidates. Just what is in the water in San Diego that allows a filthy rich republican minority to co-opt the labor unions and has people like Bonnie Dumanis, Tracy Jarmin, Fred Sainz and David Copley towing the republican party line for the same masters who want a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage? On a related note, does anybody know the nature of the boyfriend/girfriend relationship of Ronne Froman and Linden Blue? Maybe I am just overly cynical and jaded at what goes on in this town, but it seems odd that a man in his position that would usually be on a series of trophey girlfriends/wives would instead be dating an older career navy woman. If it is real, then god bless them, but it seems a little too convenient. It does seem that the impetus for the defection of so many people who would normally be part of the Democratic party relates directly to the "filthy rich" part of the local republican power structure. It is sad that ideals come so cheap in San Diego. I also remember vividly that during the Andrew Cunanan episode the UT's silence was deafening. They were reprinting stories from all over the country, but sourced almost nothing here where he was from. Don, you worked for the UT then, right? How obvious was it that reporters were not to investigate anything to do with Cunanan locally? This is such an odd town....— July 13, 2008 2:50 p.m.
County Democrats Endorse Aguirre for City Attorney; Only One Vote Goes for Opponent
Response to post #16: "If count the votes for and against Mr. Aguirre during the recent primary there were Total Votes: 212035 JAN GOLDSMITH 68326 32.22% MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE 61257 28.89% SCOTT PETERS 43295 20.42% BRIAN MAIENSCHEIN 26267 12.39% AMY J. LEPINE 12687 5.98% That's 71% for someone other than Mr. Aguirre and 29% for him." Those numbers also show that republican candidates lost to democrat candidates by over 10% (44.61% to 54.69%). Considering that there was extremely low voter turnout in a republican dominated minor election (because of Sanders vs Francis, republican vs. republican for mayor), it is arguable that Goldsmith is not in a very good position come fall with the Obama factor increasing turnout in a presidential election. Remember that the Republicans whole plan was to sneak through Goldsmith with 50% of the vote with a big republican push in a minor election, so they could avoid a runoff. They always knew they would have a tough fight in a November runoff. Mainschein scuttled those dreams.— July 13, 2008 12:33 a.m.
Yes We Cannes! The Yacht That Tells a Lacht -- Everything, Actually -- About Copley Newspapers
Response to post #27: The ballpark vote was a classic example of what is wrong with "democracy" as practiced in San Diego. First, a wealthy special interest with a billion dollar development at stake put up almost $3 million dollars to promote the measure. There was nothing close to an equal incentive for any one party to step up to contribute a substantial sum against the measure. Second, as the Grand Jury found in their investigation: "The Grand Jury concludes that the City of San Diego Mayor and possibly other members of the City Government may have violated the laws governing the conduct of public officials once an issue has been placed upon the ballot for voter action, specifically: after August 8, 1998, the date upon which the issue was placed on the ballot, by planning and taking improper steps designed to produce a favorable vote on the Proposition C, the Redevelopment and Ballpark Project, on November 3, 1998." The pro Prop C people (primarily funded by the Padres, of course) outspent the group against prop C 111 to 1. Put into perspective, the Padres spent $8.84 for every yes vote, while the opposition spent $0.13 for every no vote. With the city illegally promoting the measure, the Padres winning the National league pennant, the city's illegal boosterism and the fact almost no campaign was raised against it, still over 40% over the voters rejected it. If it was an honest measure about building a stadium (rather than being a "redevelopment") it would have required 2/3 vote and would have lost. Of course on top of everything else, the city and Padres then did a bait and switch and didn't adhere to the MOU that was voted on. Funny that many of the same people complaining about Francis spending his own money to run for mayor had no problem with the Padres spending more in 1998 dollars to push through their billion dollar development than Francis spent running for mayor.— June 13, 2008 10:10 a.m.
Realtors Hold Post-Election Fundraiser To Help Mayor Sanders Pay Back His Debt
Don, A silly question, that I think I already know the answer to: Sanders retired very young (49 according to his bio on wikipedia) with what I assume was a very hefty pension based on 26 years worked plus purchased years against a chiefs salary. My recollection is that he is not drawing much of a salary (I've read it's about $36,000) as mayor because he made a campaign promise not to reenter the pension system. Of course if he reentered the pension system, he would stop receiving his $84,000 pension, so it seems like he comes out no worse and possibly better by keeping his "promise". My question is that seeing as how there is absolutely no way that Sanders is working for 7 years as mayor at $36K per year, exactly who is paying him, how, and how much?— June 12, 2008 9:44 a.m.
Kroll's Wolves, Who Fleeced the City of $20 Million, Return To Chase Foxes
Don, Totally off topic: The North County Times and the VOSD both reported that the UT sold off the Copley News Service. Any thoughts on that sale, and the implications for what is left of the Copley Press?— May 31, 2008 2:08 p.m.