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
Mary Hoffman takes on CPUC
Skeptic? Yeah I guess you could say that. But perhaps I am not making my point salient enough. Florio and Sandoval have held their positions since January of 2011 and Ferron since March of 2011. In my book, they are far from "new Brown appointees"; Twenty months, in my opinion, is quite long enough for them to have realize the extent of the corruption and cronyism that exists. After her confirmation, Sandoval said "I pledge to be diligent in discharging our fundamental responsibility to ensure that utilities under our jurisdiction provide safe, reliable service at just and reasonable rates." and "Part of my goal is to be able to bring the resources and perspective of academia into rule making,". and that she wants to "practice what she calls an evidence-based approach. Because leaning hard on the facts is the best way to make good decisions for the state's future." Also, as I have pointed out, the "new three" constitute a majority and if they are indeed "fed up" as you related in your story, they do have the ability to, for all practical purposes, decide the direction of the CPUC. I have read the Public Utilities Code, Sec 301-307, and fine nothing in them which allows for the President of the CPUC to "get around" a majority vote by the entire commission. So again, as I have said, in my opinion 20 months is more than enough time for the moost recent appointees to show they want a change in direction and yet they have failed to do so. How long would you propose we wait before reaching the conclusion that it's business as usual? Just my opinion. Opinions vary.— September 27, 2012 12:26 p.m.
Mary Hoffman takes on CPUC
I think you have it backwards, Don. It's the public who needs commissioners who listen, and act, when the public talks to them. The three newest members CAN do something, if they are all on the same page, but thus far they have not yet given any indications that it is anything but business as usual.— September 26, 2012 10:02 p.m.
Mary Hoffman takes on CPUC
I don't know if there is a procedure for removing someone from the position of president of the commission without removing them from the commission completely. Perhaps you can look into that. I do know that only the State Legislature can remove a member of the commission from office. It requires a charge of incompetence, neglect of duty, or corruption, and a 2/3 concurrence of the membership of each house. Since both the Senate and the Assembly are in recess until January, nothing will happen until next year. Simon's term is up in February, I believe. Best case scenario is that he will not be reappointed and will simply just fade away into oblivion after this term is up. I would like to point out that a majority of the commissioners constitutes a quorum for the transaction of any business, for the performance of any duty, or for the exercise of any power of the commission, so it would seem that if the three new Brown-appointed commissioners are fed up, they do have the power to do something about the way the CPUC does it's "job". They have all now been in office for at least 18 months, so if they are indeed "fed up", it's time for them to show their true colors. Personally, I have my doubts about Ferron. For my tastes, he spent way to much time in finance and banking, where corruption and back room dealings are an every day way of life. I am impressed my Sandoval, though. She is one of the most highly educated commissioners we've ever had. It doesn't get a lot better than Yale, Oxford and Stanford, although one might question her choice in law firms to practice with. Although she wasn't there at the time, the firm she worked represented SCE and sued the CPUC, getting a settlement in SCE's favor. How's that for irony. I also have concerns about how much influence the Executive Director of the CPUC has. He's been in that position since 2007 but has been at the CPUC for almost 30 years. Too much time in the old boy network for my tastes. Perhaps a change is in the wind in that area also.— September 26, 2012 10:55 a.m.
Group to Ask for Full Disclosure on San Onofre
Founder, You posted all of the above questions on the KPBS website a while ago. Obviously they weren't of your own creation, so I would be interested in reading them in their original context. Can you please provide a link?— September 25, 2012 9:13 a.m.
Prostitute Left Duct-Taped by John in Hotel Room
I'm confused. You've never heard of Duck brand tapes? It's a division of ShurTech, and they make all kinds of tapes, including duct tape. BTW, duct tape was invented by J&J for the US gov't during World War II as a waterproof sealing tape to keep the moisture out of ammo cases. Because it was waterproof, everyone referred to it as “duck” tape. I thought everyone knew that. My dad used it in the Pacific and till the day he died, he called it duck tape.— September 25, 2012 9:03 a.m.
Group to Ask for Full Disclosure on San Onofre
I am not aware of these layoffs. As I'm sure you are aware of, since it was enacted in 2003, the WARN act would require SCE to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. I referred to the only notifications that I am aware of in my below comment, so I would appreciate any links you might have concerning these other 1300 layoffs that you refer to.— September 25, 2012 8:39 a.m.
Group to Ask for Full Disclosure on San Onofre
SCE filed documents with the CPUC in 2010 outlining a projected reduction of 500 workers by October of this year, though no staffing cuts actually took place. In August, SCE announced a planned reduction of about 730, bringing the staffing down to 1,500. An outline which jobs are to be eliminated will be finished by the end of October, so no layoffs at San O have happened as of now.— September 25, 2012 8:30 a.m.
Chargers Stadium, Affordable or Not
"The measure of whether taxpayers are completely scammed is NOT, NOT whether the team wins. It's whether the taxpayers break even." I agree with you 100%. However, your comment from Sept. 16, 2012 @ 8:47 a.m. didn't make reference to taxpayer participation. You were very specific on how "the subsidized stadium/ballpark scam works" Under those criterion you you gave, Broncos did not completely scam Colorado taxpayers. As for "stimulating" development, I really don't believe that the new stadium was intended to "stimulate" development. The new stadium was built basically right next door to the old one, I believe on land that was used for parking for Mile High, If you've never been there, it's close to downtown, the convention center and the Pepsi Center. I agree that the Broncos are an exception, but that is not relevant. My question was simply by the terms you specified for the "subsidized stadium/ballpark scam", did they apply to the Broncos and their new stadium. And by those terms, they didn't. As for the taxpayers breaking even, well if you'd like, I'm sure you can research the 1999 bond issue for the stadium. And I don't think anyone, anywhere, gives a crap about the Rockies. They were a bad idea in the beginning and they remain one now. Though they continue to out draw the Padres— September 19, 2012 9:28 a.m.
Chargers Stadium, Affordable or Not
Exactly how is it that I am being disingenuous. My above comment was directed towards your claim that you were referring to the Rams before they moved to Anaheim. That was in 1980. From 1946 until the beginning of the 1973 season, attendance simply didn't matter. The Rams could have dawn 100K per game and they still would not have had their games televised in their home market. Period. From 1973 thru 1980, the Rams would have sold out many games had they been in a smaller stadium, but they weren't. And that's the biggest reason that Carol Rosenbloom announced plans to move the Rams to Anaheim Stadium, which his widow Georgia did after his death. I have no idea what you mean by the Raider's having to compete with "the real home team's fan base." If you're talking about the Rams, well I think fans people from OC eroded the LA fan base of the Rams, so I don't think that had a perceivable effect on the Raiders' attendance. And as for having done fine in a 61K stadium, perhaps you are the one who needs to review the attendance for those years, though I guess it depends on your definition of "fine". During the 13 yrs the Raiders were in LA, they failed to draw 61K in over 60% of their games, actually almost 70%. To me that's far from "fine". I am aware of the blackout rule changes which were made earlier this summer and their lack of affect on the San Diego games. Let me close my participation with this. The Chargers and their possible move to L.A. are a conundrum. Phil Anschutz is steadfast in his requirement to own, at minimum, a majority interest in any team that moves to his stadium. At this time, it appears as if the Spanos clan is not interested in divesting itself of the team, although on various occasions, I have read reports of a willingness to do just that. Who knows and Who cares. Personally, I would not want the Chargers here as a Spanos owned team. I want a team with an owner that will spend money to try and win, which a Spanos won't. I say to the Chargers, stay put, I don't want you here.— September 16, 2012 8:17 p.m.
Chargers Stadium, Affordable or Not
Georgia Frontierre took the team to St. Louis precisely because the taxpayers WOULDN'T pay for a new stadium— September 16, 2012 5:51 p.m.