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
San Ysidro Is Too Far South for Sidewalks
apparently you like to argue for arguement's sake. That's fine with me. you apparently also did not bother to investigate the link that I so kindly provided. If you want to dispute what the city of San Diego says on their website, have at it. As far as I'm concerned, if a city, be it SD or LA says "Normal wear and tear or age damage is the responsibility of the homeowner", I'm not going to waste my time argueing with them. Since you purport yourself to be an attorney, from what I've read, maybe your one of those who likes to file nuisance lawsuits, for no good reason, just to be a pain in the ass. I don't know and really I don't care. In this case the facts seem to speak volumes. The city of SD says Normal wear and tear or age damage is the responsibility of the homeowner. Case closed— March 5, 2011 8:15 a.m.
San Ysidro Is Too Far South for Sidewalks
I think both posters are partially correct. We live in Los Angeles, but we have owned a condo on Coronado for quite a while. I have never had any sidewalk issues in Coronado, but the city does do sidewalk repairs. There was an open bid in December for a contract to do sidewalk repairs. Up in LA , the cities special projects division does sidewalk repairs. At one time they did have a 50/50 program to help residents with sidewalk repairs, but budget issues kept them from funding it for the past couple of years. At least that’s what the very polite form letter we received said. LA does exclude damages caused by city owned trees, which the city of Los Angeles takes responsibility for. I know from personal experience that they will take care of it, but it’s a long drawn out ordeal to get it done; it took 9 or 10 months. According to the special services division website, there is something called The State of California Improvement Act of 1911 that provides cities the”authority to require property owners to effect repairs to sidewalks abutting their property Should the property owner fail to effect such repairs, City forces are authorized to make the repairs and the property owner is assessed for the cost.” A quick search of San Diego’s city website found this page: http://www.sandiego.gov/street-div/sidewalk.shtml I don’t know about installing new sidewalks, but apparently property owners and the city are responsible for repairing damaged sidewalks. Normal wear and tear or age damage is the responsibility of the homeowner and the city claims responsibility for damage caused by “vehicle accidents, water main breaks and natural subsidence” and damage done by city owned trees. And it seems that the city does have a 50/50 program for some repairs.— March 4, 2011 12:21 p.m.
Lerach: Don't Blame Public Union Members. Blame Wall Street
According to an article I read in the wsj late last year, SG was promoting 110 people to partners and that gave them a total of about 475 or so. The article also mentioned that GS normal has around 450 partners so I guess a few have left in the past couple of years.— March 1, 2011 10:28 a.m.
California State Bar Rejects Charges Against Mike Aguirre
twister and don bauder are you using internet explorer or firefox? I normally use Firefox, which doesn't show post #s for some reason. This is being done in IE and post numbers are showing. Strange. BTW to see which post 85 is a reply to just put your pointer on the far left edge of the comment and scroll up. when you get to the comment box just slightly large, that's the one. In this case post 73 by surfpuppy619. It's never been an issue for me figuring out which replies belong to which posts, but I don't comment very often because I'm not in town much and most times there haven't been this many comments.— February 28, 2011 5:32 p.m.
Trustee Plucked Trust Accounts to Gamble at Casinos
perhaps now you misunderstand me. I don't disagree with you on the social costs of gambling. However, I think that the Nevada commercial casinos and the Indian casinos, here in Ca. or elsewhere cater to different demographics. It seems to me that it is more likely that generally speaking the people who frequent Indian casinos rather than go to Vegas are more likely to be those with lower incomes or living on fixed incomes, retirees for example, that the people who frequent Vegas. It would seem to follow that losing at casinos would have a greater impact, not just financially but sociologically for these people than for those who go to Vegas. Not in every case, but as I said generally speaking. That's the difference I was alluding to.— February 27, 2011 9:46 p.m.
Trustee Plucked Trust Accounts to Gamble at Casinos
surfpuppy619, let me clarify what I meant. When I was talking about the Ca. casinos, I meant no Nevada style casinos in Ca. EXCEPT at Indian casinos. I thought that would be understood. Although my wife and I go to Vegas at least a couple of times a year, I don't think we've been to an Indian casino to gamble since while my parents were alive, so at least 8 years. I knew the ban on gambling was in the constitution, but I had to go to the Bureau of Gambling Control website for info on Indian Casinos. It was 2000 when voters approved the change in the constitution to allow gambling on tribal lands.— February 27, 2011 9:28 p.m.
Trustee Plucked Trust Accounts to Gamble at Casinos
OK then perhaps I'm confused. To me, your comment seemed to be directed towards Indian casino gambling, not commercial casino gambling. I say that because many of the comments here, including the one the your reply was posted to, concerned Indian casinos. My presumption was that you were referring to the Indian casinos because you mentioned Ca. and Nevada in the same sentence and because Nevada style casinos are prohibited in Ca. I don't think you can compare the impact of the commercial casinos in Nevada with the Indian casinos in the rest of the states. They are 2 completely different things.— February 27, 2011 5:06 p.m.
Trustee Plucked Trust Accounts to Gamble at Casinos
visduh, you kind of need to define what you mean by "have gambling everywhere you go". If you've ever been to spring training in Az, the you know there are almost as many Indian casinos in Az as in SoCal, apparently with a few more on the way, with a whole lot less people than in SoCal. In fact, every state on the west coast has Indian gambling. Every state west of the Rockies except Utah has Indian gambling. Every state west of the Mississippi River except Utah, Wyoming and Arkansas has Indian gambling.— February 27, 2011 10:27 a.m.
California State Bar Rejects Charges Against Mike Aguirre
As I read it, you are saying you're a "fan" of NJ Gov Christie. Am I reading that correctly. From what postings I've read of yours, it seems incongruous that you would be a fan his. Actually, it seems just downright odd.— February 26, 2011 10:39 a.m.
Wisconsin Governor Proposes Deep Benefit Slashes
According to a Forbes article I read, Wisconsin has a budgetary shortfall over the next 2 years of $3 billion. If I read the article right, the loss of revenue from the corporate tax break is spread out over that period. Apparently, It doesn't go into effect until the start of the new fiscal year. The $137 deficit you refer to, I believe is the budget shortfall for the remainder of the current FY, which I believe ends in June 30th? At least that's how I understood it in the clip i saw last night. I hadn't heard of the new spending you refered to but I found this article. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/wiscon…— February 17, 2011 9:16 p.m.