Meanwhile the misuse of public money goes on.  09/30/07

Now, three years later, she has accepted two final bids, neither of which offer affordable housing and will simply pay back the NOFA funds. She used affordable housing funds to assemble a valuable site for a private developer.

Not only was the site assembled using money from the affordable housing fund, the threat of eminent domain was used to evict "seven tenants and two owner-occupants living in separate single-family dwelling units on the site", according to Smith's own report.

Carolyn Smith of SEDC actually says in her Report that by providing this type of "move-up" housing SEDC is creating opportunities for lower income folks to purchase the "recently-vacated" homes of the "move-up" people. This creates affordable housing according to her. I kid you not. Read it for yourself, I have underlined the passage in red.

The truth is that affordable housing (NOFA) funds was actually used to reduce the City's stock of affordable housing. SEDC used NOFA funds to acquire this site, then destroyed several low income homes to clear it for use by one of the above two private developers. This is just a sample of the craziness that is going on in San Diego government today.
 

America's Nastiest Blog  -  Chris Reed in the U-T.   09/30/07

The unions are still running the Mayor's office - they always have. 09/29/07

Are we witnessing a Mayoral meltdown? 09/27/07

Members hired or assuming office on or after July 1, 2005, are non Health Eligible.
("Non Health Eligible Retirees" added 1-17-2007 by O-19567 N.S.; effective 2-16-2007.)

Members hired or assuming office on or after July 1, 2005, may not participate in DROP.
("Ineligibility of DROP Participation, and Waiver" added 1-17–2007 by O–19567 N.S.; effective 2-16-2007.)

§24.1503.1 Prohibition of Annual Supplemental Benefit

Members hired or assuming office on or after July 1, 2005, shall not be eligible for participation in the annual supplemental benefit program established by this Article.
("Prohibition of Annual Supplemental Benefit" added 1-17-2007 by O-19567 N.S.; effective 2-16-2007.)

Now read Sanders' memo to the City Council today. Has he read the Municipal Code? What part of it does he not understand? The barn door was closed on February 16, 2007.

The only question that arises therefore is: how many of the approximately 700 employees hired by the City between July 1, 2005 and February 16, 2007 applied for any of the above benefits while, according to SDCERS, they were eligible? The above Municipal Code sections make it clear that they could only do so between July 2005 and February 2007.

Has Mayor Sanders launched his massive attack on Aguirre without reading the relevant Municipal Code? If so, he has truly "lost it". The gay marriage flip-flop was nothing to this.

There are no "millions of dollars" involved here. At worst, seven employees may have applied for "purchase of service" contracts between July 2005 and February 2007 and there are questions about even those.

As it happened I had called Rebecca Wilson, Member Services Director of the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System yesterday and asked her how many purchase of service contracts had been signed with employees hired between July 2005 and February 2007. She told me there were none. I asked her to confirm that by email.

Then today she sent me this email, changing her story: "In fact, there are 7 city employees who were hired between July 1, 2005 and February 15, 2007 who have entered into purchase of service contracts."

She had been very sure that there were no contracts yesterday, so I called her and asked if money had ever changed hands, or merely papers been signed. All she would say was that 7 contracts had been signed. "But when?" I asked? She was unable to give me dates even though apparently she had the contracts right there in front of her. Strange.

So I made a public records request for all the contract documents. Here is our exchange of emails. I will need to reconcile the information she gave me yesterday with what she gave me today. The two stories were quite different.

Any connection between all that and what was going on with the Mayor today I'm sure is purely coincidental. I will post the seven contract documents when I receive them.
 

The wastewater issue is far from being "An Inconvenient Waste of Time". 09/27/07

So far Mike Aguirre has taken the lead on this issue, highlighting a void created by Sanders, who scornfully tagged it "toilet-to-tap". The same scornful dismissal as those who dismiss Al Gore's global warming as "An Inconvenient Waste of Time".

While Sanders was laughing and making fun of Aguirre's "toilet-to-tap waste of time", Steve Francis was seriously looking into the wastewater issue and discovering that far from being "An Inconvenient Waste of Time" real San Diegans think it is a real issue.

Now what will Sanders do? He will probably do what he always does - jump on board.

The best way for anybody, including Sanders, to get up to speed on this issue is to read the "City of San Diego Water Reuse Study". The purpose of that study was to "evaluate opportunities available to the City to increase the citywide beneficial use of recycled water". It is a must read and far from being "An Inconvenient Waste of Time".
 

Mayor's end-of-year Budget Report raises political fairness issues. 09/26/07

It is obvious that there is a serious lack of information-sharing by the Mayor's staff.

There must have been significant swings of revenue and expense trends identifiable during the year. Were these changes in trends brought to the attention of the City Council? Each Council member should have been made aware of these significant revenue and expense shifts during the year. It impacted the services they were elected to provide.

Among the major trends known to the Mayor was the Property Tax surplus of $5,680,123. That swing must have been clear for some time. On the other hand Sales Tax was down by $9,034,884. That would have been clearly discernable for months.

That there were major cutbacks in Personnel Services was well known from the beginning of the year. The Mayor kept boasting about them. We therefore assumed he had provided for them in his budget. Now he tells us that he saved $34,567,905 in Personnel Services!

Does this indicate that the City was grossly overstaffed? Or were the budget figures manipulated? $34,567,905 is an awful lot of personnel services. How can you save that amount of money and not impact services? It sounds like manipulation to me.

Here is a video clip of the Independent Budget Analyst, Andrea Tevlin, worrying about the lack of "budget monitoring" by the City Council in the absence of information-sharing by the Mayor's office. She spoke about "significant swings" and "the lateness in learning about them".

Here is a video clip of Jay Goldstone, the Mayor's Chief Operating Officer, responding to Ms. Tevlin. He tried to address the lack of information-sharing and seemed to promise to improve it. But his boss, Jerry Sanders and his well-oiled spin machine, will probably continue to manage all City information for political purposes.

This can seriously skew the political process. Sanders' sole opponent in next year's mayoral campaign, Steve Francis, will not have equal access to vital information. We all know what happens in the absence of fair competition - the public gets an inferior product.
 

Laws to obey the Law: Aguirre's two Pension Ordinances. 09/25/07

Illegal pension benefits - still "the elephant in the living room". 09/24/07

April 17, 2007.

Here is the original video of  Ms. Frye asking for an accounting of one item, the "Proper treatment of IRS benefit limitation", just $22.8 million of that $527.3 million. She figured if they could explain the mysterious $22.8 million IRS item they probably could explain the whole $527.3 million.

As a result of their total inability to explain this $22.8 million "Proper treatment of IRS benefit limitation" item, we have gradually become aware of the enormity of the General Fund liability that will be associated with this

* Note: the only way 859 "safety" employees could decrease the City's actuarial liability is if they overpaid for those credits, just as the "general" employees underpaid for them. Another example of how one must always take numbers from the City with a grain of salt.

It is ironic that the only ones questioning this massive abuse of power by the employee unions, particularly the MEA, are people from the left: Aguirre and Frye. Where are the self-described champions of fiscal rectitude from the right? Jim Madaffer? Jerry Sanders?

Then, today, we are told that Sanders has found another $43.98 million under the bed. If, like Donna Frye, he sought answers on the pension deficit we might begin to believe him. He is still behaving like an employee of the City, which he was for 25 years.
 

Facing up to gay marriage may change how we think of politics. 09/21/07

Is Bob Kittle always on the side of the crooks? 09/18/07

The Pension Board is in gross violation of its fiduciary duty.  09/17/07

On September 11, 2007 the union-dominated Pension Board wrote this letter to Sanders. A copy was sent to Bob Kittle at the U-T who duly seized on the opportunity to write another nasty editorial against Aguirre entitled "City Hall's bully" on September 14, 2007. Kittle endorsed waste of pension assets so he could take a crack at Aguirre.

In that "editorial" Kittle described the City Attorney's effort to rein in Waddell's illegal use of the DROP program as "setting out to criminalize legitimate policy differences". It was more than policy differences, Waddell had, without authority, reinstated the DROP program for new hires, although it was ended by City Council action on July 1, 2005.

Waddell's decision, presumably endorsed by the Pension Board (although I can find no record of a meeting or Brown Act notice) ignored the fact that the City Ordinance passed on January 17, 2007and effective 30 days later on February 16, 2007, stated: "Members hired or assuming office on or after July 1, 2005, may not participate in DROP."

Waddell and the eleven Board Members are guilty of gross violation of their fiduciary duty for ignoring the will of the City Council and illegally distributing Pension Fund assets.

Here is Aguirre's August 21, 2007 letter to Waddell. Aguirre was responding to Waddell's letter of August 3, 2007 to Scott Chadwick, the City's labor Relations Manager. The (ostensible) purpose of Waddell's letter to Chadwick was to reinstate the DROP program for new hires between July 1, 2005 and February 16, 2007, but it's real purpose was much more sinister - Waddell didn't care about new hires, he was protecting the 13th Check.

The July 1, 2005 cutoff date was also contained in the collective bargaining agreement (MOU) adopted by the City Council on that date. In fact everything contained in that MOU had an effective date of July 1, 2005. There is clearly more to Waddell's decision.

My guess is that Waddell and the Pension Board want to protect the "13th Check". As explained above, that benefit is contingent upon the impossible concept of the fund assets producing "surplus earnings". Therefore it needs to be legitimized. But how?

The unions know that a legitimate 13th Check will require an Ordinance in the full glare of a City Council hearing. There will be huge opposition.

The unions are wrongly asserting that the 13th Check is already a vested benefit. It is not. Shame on Bob Kittle for supporting them on that falsehood. Our City Attorney needs to be even more aggressive in fighting the crooks, while Bob Kittle wants to muzzle him.
 

Managed Competition - the left and the right - Aguirre and Francis? 09/13/07

Maybe Jerry Sanders was right in 2004 - Prop. F was NOT a good idea. 09/10/07

The immense challenge facing the next Mayor and City Council. 09/08/07

			These six were charged by District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, in May 2005 with felony violation of Code 1090. Lexin was the City's human resources director; Vattimo was the City treasurer, Webster was the City's assistant auditor and comptroller, Saathoff was a City fire captain, Torres worked for the City police department crime lab, and Wilkinson was a City management analyst. The enhanced benefits package was conditioned upon the Retirement Board
Cathy Lexin	Ronald Saathoff	John Torres
Mary Vattimo	Teresa Webster	Sharon Wilkinson

agreeing to defer the corresponding increase in the City's contribution way into the future. It is still going on. Sanders has deferred it until after he leaves office in 2012!

The Appellate Court found that these six employees totally dominated the 13 member Retirement Board at the time. The charged members are in red.

The non-charged members of the Board were:

John Casey was an elected General Membership Representative. He worked for the Planning Department and was a Municipal Employees Association union official.

Thomas Rhodes represented the police. He was secretary of the POA. He had been a police officer for 26 years. He participated in most if not all negotiation meetings between the City and the POA.

David Crow sat on the board as an elected representative of the retired members of the system.

Diann Shipione, a vice president of investment at UBS Financial Services in La Jolla, was a citizen appointee of the City Council.

Richard Vortmann, President of National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO), a San Diego-based shipbuilder, was also a citizen appointee of the Council.

Ray Garnica who worked for United California Bank, was a City Council appointee.

Frederick Pierce IV was also a City Council appointee. He was President of the Board, a developer and close friend of Dick Murphy.

I do not know why Crow and Casey were not charged. They also personally benefited from their votes.

After various intermediate votes and modifications to the benefits plan, by both the Retirement Board and the City Council, the final votes took place in November 2002.

On November 15, 2002 Saathoff, Vattimo, Torres, Webster, Pierce, Crow, Garnica, Casey and Vortmann voted for the unfunded benefits. Shipione and Rhodes voted against it.

Shipione said: "my message back to whomever dreamed up that idea at the City is I think it is corrupt, period." Thomas Rhodes representing the police, showed great personal integrity by voting his conscience.

Just three days later, on November 18, 2002, the final benefits package was considered by the San Diego City Council. Accompanying the proposal were two letters supporting the deal, one from fiduciary counsel Robert Blum and another from actuary Rick Roeder. The City Council approved the benefit improvement by a vote of 8 to1, with Council member Donna Frye opposed.

On that fateful day, Diann Shipione to her eternal credit, appeared before the City Council in one last desperate effort to prevent the tragedy. Only Frye listened.

Thus, the City employees on the Retirement Board, joined by two other Council appointees, Garnica and Pierce, aided and abetted by the Pension's fiduciary counsel Robert Blum and its actuary Rick Roeder, granted billions of unfunded pension benefits to thousands of City employees, including themselves, most of it retroactive.

The final responsibility and shame rests with the City Council. They wanted their cake and eat it. They betrayed the people of San Diego on a massive scale and have shown zero remorse to this day. The current Mayor has shown no inclination to address the issue. Sanders continues to sweep it under the carpet until he has left office.

So let's look at the consequences we are living with today:

Here is a list of 617 current retirees whose Present Value of Annual Benefits (PVAB) is greater that $900,000 each. The list runs from one individual's PVAB of $2,354,565 to the 617th individual whose PVAB is $900,199.

That means that the Pension System has to maintain a cash investment of $2,354,565, earning a minimum return of 8% per annum, to pay the top individual's annual retirement of $164,383 or $13,700 per month for the rest of his/her life and 50% thereafter for his/her surviving spouse. And so on down the line to the last retiree.

These top 617 retirees account for $51,604,134 of the system's annual payout and $703,359,267 of the total investment required to be in the system. I do not have figures on the remainder of the retirees, but this is sufficient to dispel the myth that SDCERS has no Cadillac pensions. At least 617 of them can afford to drive Cadillacs.

I sorted the list of 617 into two other orders. First I sorted them into "Type" of benefit, showing a subtotal for each type.

("Beneficiary" means somebody other than the retiree. "DROP" means Deferred Retirement Option Plan.)

Then I sorted them into "Class" of retiree, showing a subtotal for each class.

Is this acceptable to the People of San Diego? Will the City Council get away with it? The current Mayor and Council seem disinclined or incapable of making the hard choices.

Here is what City Attorney had to say in a letter to the Mayor dated September 7, 2007:

"Rather than do the work needed to get rid of the illegal debt and fund the obligations, the Mayor and certain members of the City Council have opted to continue the past practices of relying on the pension system's phony numbers and pushing the debt off to future generations. The City must reverse course and make the hard choices needed to return the City to financial health before it can re-enter the public financial markets."

It is looking more and more like it will fall to a new Mayor and a new City Council to "return the City to financial health". The present Mayor seems absorbed with his own image and incapable of any meaningful action across a wide range of City business.

Four of the current City Council members, Peters, Atkins, Madaffer and Maeinschein are trying to avoid the fate of the above six City employees. They refuse to address the illegal pension benefits because that would require admitting that the benefits are indeed illegal. Mr. Aguirre has charged that these four Council Members are currently exercising "Adverse Domination" over the City Council. If Mr. Aguirre is correct then San Diego truly is "Enron-by-the-Sea".

Just as Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were less concerned with Enron's financial health than with manipulating its stock price on Wall Street, these four City Councilors are less concerned with San Diego's fiscal health than with hiding their own past misdeeds.

But just as Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling could not hang onto the helm of Enron forever, these four conflicted City Councilors will shortly to be termed-out (thank goodness for term limits). Before voting for fresh Councilmembers we must ask them whether they will join Sanders in sweeping it all under the rug or address the funding problem. We need real "reform", not more empty promises to "turn San Diego around" we got last time.
 

Carl DeMaio needs to rethink his "helping Jerry Sanders" slogan. 09/06/07

Sanders' Sunroad II - the Regents Road Bridge. 09/06/07

                                                     by Pat Flannery                                        top^

Below is a satellite picture showing the locations of the proposed Regents Road bridge relative to the three fire stations in that northern area. There is no fire station in all of University City, North or South, or is there likely to be, if Sanders and Fire Chief Jarman remain at their posts. The money for a new fire station will be squandered on the bridge.

Here is an email  from Assistant Fire Chief Tracy Jarman to Laura Brenner, the city's Public Safety Geofile Coordinator, dated June 7, 2004. Laura Brenner is responsible for maintaining the street layer of the Geographic Information System (GIS) used by both the Police 911 and the Fire/EMS 911 systems. Her GIS street layer provides both of the public safety services with the fastest route to the scene of an emergency.

Jarman also sent a copy of her email to Douglas Bolton, Information Systems Analyst for San Diego Fire and Life Safety Services. SDFLSS operates the  911 Computer-Aided Dispatch system (CAD) which is the heart of the City's 911 emergency dispatch system.

Here is Jarman's  letter dated July 19, 2006 to Kris Shackleford, Patti Boekamp's Deputy Director Of Engineering and Capital Projects Department, shortly before the City Council's vote approving the bridge on August 1, 2006. It was clearly designed to mislead the City Council regarding response times from all three fire stations to the proposed bridge.

It is impossible that Jarman could have made the egregious errors she claimed to have made when caught falsifying response times to the City Council on August 1, 2006. It is extremely unlikely that Laura Brenner's GIS street maps, on which the entire City's emergency services depend, could have been so badly wrong on all the three journeys from all the three fire stations to the proposed Regents Road bridge.

Dr. Daniel Arovas tried to warn her about her intended lies prior to the crucial August 1, 2006 City Council meeting. He wrote her this letter the day after the meeting. Watch again the dramatic video of Dr. Daniel Arovas' exposé of her lies to City Council.

Samuel Oates, a deputy chief and fire marshal who retired last month, had sent this unsolicited reply to Tracy Jarman email on June 29, 2004. Oates, who oversaw Fire Prevention, was known for his honest answers, a rare trait in San Diego public service. 

Atkins is treading water, hoping to stay out of jail after she leaves office. 09/02/07

Mr. Sanders, pull Item 334 off Tuesday's Agenda. It's political madness. 09/02/07

Will the Rose Canyon Bridge be Patti Boekamp's Sunroad? 08/31/07

                                                      by Pat Flannery                                        top^

We all know that this city is run by a few very powerful people, but do we really understand just how powerful they are? Takes this man, Bill Evans, for example.

The Evans family has made a fortune using San Diego City public land. They own the Bahia Resort Hotel, the Catamaran Resort Hotel and the

Here is a satellite view of the Evans shopping center in relation to the proposed bridge over Rose Canyon. You don't have to be a leasing agent for Burnham Real Estate to appreciate the significance of that bridge to rental values in the Evans shopping center.

A Rose Canyon Bridge would miraculously move that relatively isolated local shopping center to within yards of the teeming population of Northern University City.

The amazing thing is the length to which City staff and politicians were willing to go to accommodate the Evans family. It is so revealing of how San Diego City works. A big player like Doug Manchester, Aaron Feldman, Bill Evans, John Moores, Alex Spanos or the McMillin family can tell the City what they want and the City jumps to it.

When Bill Evans said he wanted a bridge linking his shopping center with the densely populated Northern University City, the whole City swung into action: the Mayor, the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, everybody. It's enough to make your head spin (or your stomach turn).

Here is how he got the City Council to approve his bridge on August 1, 2006:

First Jerry Sanders makes a rare appearance in the Council Chambers to lobby for a campaign contributor, the Evans family. Then its the turn of Fire Chief Tracy Jarman followed by the ever dutiful Police Chief Bill Lansdowne.

In her eagerness to please the power-elite, Chief Jarman falsely stated that a Rose Canyon Bridge would reduce the emergency response-time by 1.7 minutes. Fortunately she was challenged by an extraordinary public speaker, Dr. Daniel Arovas. She had to correct herself. She admitted that the response-time would be cut by only 0.5 minutes. A total of 30 seconds! Worth building a $30 million bridge for?

Of course she did not mention the fact that a fire station in Southern University City is the simple answer. But that's how you get promoted to Fire Chief in San Diego.

David Cherashore, husband of Grace Evans and Executive Vice President of the family business, made a PowerPoint presentation. It essentially said that the Rose Canyon was already dead from an environmental point of view and that those in opposition to the bridge were merely NIMBYs. He did not explain how he compiled his "for and against" list.

The Evans family attorney also made a presentation. Looking directly at her, he expressed confidence that staffer Patti Boekamp, would ensure the project's success.

If his confidence is well founded, north-western San Diego will have to forego a much needed upgrading of its main north-south thoroughfare, Genesee Avenue, to build a boondoggle bridge to further enrich a politically powerful well-connected family.

So, Patti Boekamp, faithful to her City training, put on the blinkers and stoutly defended the bridge on behalf of the Evans family. Bruce McIntyre of Project Design Consultants, as he has so often done in the past, reminded the City Councilmembers that they can choose the project alternative that does the most environmental damage if they so desire.

Karen Huemann was not happy. She knew what was going on - that the City was being railroaded. Then the vote. We have the best rubber-stamp City Council money can buy.

That was last year, August 1, 2006. Now we are about to witness, this Tuesday, another installment in this ongoing puppet-show. It is quite fascinating.

Sadly, the lead puppet will again be Patti Boekamp. Sanders has promoted her to the job vacated by Marcella Escobar-Eck - Director of Development Services. Like many others, Marcella and Patti learned how to get along in this City - just do what you are told.

As promotable City staff must be known for their unquestioning obedience, hirable consultants must be known for their understanding of what the City wants.

Over the years two individuals, Anthony J. Lettieri and Bruce McIntyre, have become very successful by knowing what the City wants. They were involved in the Petco Park project, Otay Ranch, Seaworld and many more.

A number of years ago they formed Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates. It was a small 15-employee firm when it merged with the 170-employee firm Project Design Consultants in June 2000. The merger caused controversy at the time because the marriage took place four days after the City contracted Project Design Consultants to do a land survey that ended up discovering an additional 26.84 acres in Mission Bay Park.

Lettieri and McIntyre understood why the City would spend $426,000 to add more land to its Mission Bay Park - the City can lease 25% of the surveyed land. It so happened that Lettieri-McIntyre and Associates were doing the Master Plan for SeaWorld's expansion at the time. Seaworld wanted to lease more land.

And so, the action before the City Council this Tuesday is to authorize the payment of a further $4,861,373 to Project Design Consultants (PDC), "for the purpose of preparing supplemental environmental document, obtaining permits,and providing design services for the Regents Road Bridge and Limited Roadway Changes Project".

The City has already paid them $1.8 million to advice the City on the best alternative to solve University City's north-south traffic congestion. They picked a Rose Canyon Bridge as the best alternative, because that is what they were hired to do. These guys not only came up with the desired solution, they helped City staff sell it to the City Council.

On July 24, 2007 Assistant City Attorney, Karen Heumann, wrote a legal opinion pointing out that "the purpose of PDC’s participation in the [August 1, 2006 City Council meeting] was to influence the Council’s decision to select the Regents Road Bridge alternative, and in turn to shape the content of the contract that PDC fully expected to receive as a result of that Council decision." She therefore concluded:

"Given these facts, while we have found Mr. Sullivan’s thoughtful analysis enlightening, [Patti Boekamp had not liked the City Attorney's advice so she hired her own outside attorney, who coincidentally used to work for Casey Gwinn] we remain convinced that any contract awarding PDC the task of designing the Regents Road Bridge would be unlawful. We will not approve such a contract as to form and legality, as Section 40 of the City Charter would require in order for any such contract to be valid".

Unless we can make the rule of law prevail, we will continue to see senior staff like Escobar-Eck, Jim Waring and now Patti Boekamp, serve the power-elite rather than the people. The rule of law must prevail on Tuesday, not San Diego's entrenched plutocracy.

Will the Rose Canyon Bridge be Patti Boekamp's Sunroad? It should. Bill Evans has just taken the place of Aaron Feldman that's all. The question is: will she do what she was  promoted to do? If she does she will end up like Escobar-Eck. And she should.
 

The real problem: politics. 08/28/07

Mr. Anderson is in charge of seven Divisions right now. The Mayor's Memorandum shows a clear preference for keeping it that way. It envisages rolling Planning and Development Services into one giant department. It says: "the merger of these two departments is looked at as part of their collective BPR’s (Business Process Re-engineering)".

But that flies in the face of the rationale given for moving Airports from READ:

"The Airports Department will now report to the Assistant Chief Operating Officer. The Airports Department was moved under the Real Estate Assets Department (READ) because of the number of leases managed by the Airport. While READ is separate and apart from DSD and Planning, this move did not take into account the inherent and/or potential conflict of interest created since all four Departments (Airports, READ, Planning and DSD) report to the same Deputy Chief Operating Officer, and information could be controlled at the Deputy Chief level and never elevated to the Chief Operating Officer or the Mayor."

Is there an "inherent and/or potential conflict of interest" when multiple departments "report to the same Deputy Chief Operating Officer"? If so, the Mayor's Remedial Memorandum is little more than double-speak - the Mayor is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. His remedial analysis fails to mention the most corrosive influence of all: politics. That's what caused the Sunroad scandal, not a systemic failure. The critical decisions were made right there in the Mayor's office, under the watchful eye of his political commissars, Fred Sainz, Kris Michell and Julie Dubick. That's why Froman quit.
 

Do City employees really have a Royal Prerogative? 08/27/07

The public employee unions seem to be operating under a different Federal Constitution from the rest of us. They believe they have a "federal constitutional right" to exorbitant pensions rights. Perhaps they think King George is still King of America and that they are his Court. I don't know how else to explain this concept other than as a Royal Prerogative.

Perhaps MEA General Manager Judie Italiano really believes she is Queen of City Hall.
 

In the interest of balance: Sanders and Aguirre's political contributions. 08/26/07

Second: Mike Aguirre's contribution list for the year 2006 totaling $6,721.97 and his contribution list for January to June 2007 totaling $14,080.00, both attempting to pay off his personal loan of $558,200 to his 2004 campaign for City Attorney.

It is hard to compare one with the other due to the massive difference in scale. The "Voice of San Diego" was simply trying to be fair to both politicians, as it should.

Scott Lewis of the Voice added this opinion piece on Friday August 24, 2007 (which brought out the Aguirre-bashers in droves - read the lurid comments). To support his premise that "City Attorney Mike Aguirre helped make it an issue", Scott dug up this U-T article from 2004. It deals with Aguirre's objections to a campaign fundraiser planned by attorney Mike Conger (who was suing the City regarding the pension system at the time) for 2004 City Attorney candidate Leslie Devaney.

Scott Lewis is right, political fundraising while in office is a huge issue, no disagreement about that. Elected officials accepting political contributions from people who have business before the City, should be a major concern for all citizens.

Two loopholes made it possible for the above political contributions to take place:

(1) a recent law change, requiring a candidate to pay off any personal loans to his/her campaign within six months after an election, was not backdated to 2004, when Aguirre's campaign for City Attorney took place. Therefore he has unlimited to time to recover his $558,200 personal loan to his 2004 campaign, the way it has always been.

(2) A General Purpose Recipient Committee, as "San Diegans for City Hall Reform" has apparently become, is much less regulated than the Candidate Controlled Committee it was when originally formed in 2006 for the support of Propositions B & C.

Read the San Diego Municipal Code on "Elections, Campaign Finance and Lobbying".

Here is a relevant quote from that section: "Committee means any person acting, or any combination of two or more persons acting jointly, who raise $1,000 or more, or make independent expenditures of $1,000 or more, within a single calendar year on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate or for the qualification to the ballot or adoption or rejection of one or more ballot measures. Committees include controlled committees, primarily formed recipient committees, and general purpose recipient committees."

I think §27.2903, Definitions, is particularly relevant: "Controlled committee means any committee controlled directly or indirectly by a candidate or that acts jointly with a candidate or controlled committee in connection with the making of expenditures. A candidate controls a committee if the candidate, the candidate's agent or any other committee controlled by the candidate has a significant influence on the actions or decisions of the committee".

This raises the question: is "San Diegans for City Hall Reform" controlled by Sanders' "directly or indirectly" or by "the candidate's agents"? Does Sanders', through his agents Jean Freelove and Tom Shepherd, have "a significant influence" on the actions or decisions of the "San Diegans for City Hall Reform" Committee? Of course they do! They run the darn thing! The same as they run his candidate campaign. They are inseparable.

Read this email from Jean Freelove to Steve Francis on April 16, 2007 and the attached contribution form for "San Diegans for City Hall Reform". It describes the aims and objectives of the Committee, which is to "support and oppose local ballot measures with the goal of reforming, restoring the financial stability and improving the efficiency of San Diego City government." As the Freelove email said: it is to "help Jerry".

So, in the interest of balancing the 2004 U-T article Scott Lewis "dug up" on Mike Aguirre, I dug up this 2006 U-T article on Jerry Sanders, making it crystal clear how the "pay-to-play" system works:

"On Oct. 13, Manchester Resorts gave $50,000 to a fundraising committee of the Lincoln Club of San Diego County, a Republican business organization that has long been active in politics. It was Manchester's second large contribution to the committee this year, after a $10,000 donation a month earlier, and it was the largest contribution to the club in 2006 by far.

While I agree that Mr. Aguirre should rethink continuing his effort to recoup the $558,200 he loaned to his 2004 campaign, I think the Voice of San Diego should be less concerned about Briggs, Wilkes and Whitemore buying favors from the City Attorney's Office, with a collective contribution of only $800.00 between them, than the likelihood of a whole host of "no further environmental review" findings flowing from the pen of Bob Manis of Development Services, in obedience to his boss Mayor Sanders seeking to pay back those who contributed well over a million dollars to his "Propositions War Chest".

No doubt this "Propositions War Chest" will be used in an aggressive "help Jerry" Charter Change next June. It may explain why Jerry threatened "taking it to the people" every time he did not get his way at City Council - Freelove and Shepherd had a "Committee".
 

This shocker right in the middle of the fire season! 08/25/07

Patti Boekamp, just another "campaign contribution list" bride? 08/24/07

Obviously, at least at that time, she saw government as a public-private partnership. The trouble with such a view of government is that the true "public" is not represented. Government becomes the tool of a few, in her case the contractors.

If that is still Patti Boekamp's government philosophy then we have another Marcella Escobar-Eck. Sanders' campaign contribution list again determined his selection.

That is why I recommended he go outside the County for key personnel. Here is what I wrote on August 15th: "I doubt there is anybody in the entire city, that is qualified, who would not be seen as a shill of the developers. That's how bad the recent history of San Diego has been. Sanders' best bet is to look outside the County."

Patti Boekamp is part of San Diego's insider culture. She has been around since 1990. She served as the City Manager's Council Liaison. She worked for Jack McCrory and Susan Golding during the Republican National Convention and the two Super Bowls.

These are two photographs of her, both from Scott Peter's web site. They are celebrating the construction of a bridge and a wall in Scott's District.

Patti on the left	Patti on the right

Whichever side she is on politically, I wish her good luck. Hopefully she will settle down in the middle - if her job is made permanent, as I suspect it will be.

She has been handed a unique opportunity to raise the City above its narrow special interest politics of the past. We will get a feel for her management style as she starts to attend the Community Planning Groups around the City. That experience will be a far cry from the clubby atmosphere of the Engineering & General Contractors' Association luncheons. We, the great unwashed, will find out what she really means by a "public-private partnership".

Let's hope she explores the real "public" side of that equation. If she talks down to us, as Marcella did, we will know that she is just another "campaign contribution list" bride.

As for Bill Anderson as Land Use Chief, he is just a charming version of Jim Waring. The developer-insiders are still in control. The old campaign donor list has prevailed - again. Maybe it's time to change the donor list. That would change the personnel at City Hall.
 

Sanders today created a powerful enemy - Marcella Escobar-Eck. 08/23/07

                                                      by Pat Flannery                                        top^

Well, she's gone. Marcella Escobar-Eck is now officially in the private sector, where she always was, even while you and I were paying her salary. She quit or was fired yesterday.

These two emails from former Chief Building Official for the City of San Diego did her in.

Interestingly these emails, leaked to the Voice of San Diego yesterday, were not on the CD compiled by DSD and given to the U-T, me and presumably all other interested parties a few months ago, as a complete record  of all City emails pertaining to Sunroad.

Under the direction of Escobar-Eck, DSD had opted for that approach rather than waste staff time replying to endless public records requests. The media liked it because everybody (lowly bloggers, TV stations and the venerable U-T) were all working from the same data. These two emails were obviously withheld. That will make a lot of people mad.

Their leaking must have sent a powerful message to Marcella yesterday. She knew she had lost control; it was time to clear out her desk - Sanders wanted her out of the way.

But somehow I don't think he has heard the last of Ms. Escobar-Eck. She had put her entire life into working for the City. Her encyclopedic insider knowledge made her feel invulnerable. Unlike Waring, she did not consider herself "serving at the will of the Mayor".

Sanders is a classic example of "if they'll do it with you they'll do it to you". Today he did it to Marcella. That's what she got for doing it with an unscrupulous person like Sanders.

But the City and Sanders may not be done with this well-connected lady. She has more developer friends than Sanders. She did a lot of favors for a lot of developers while on the inside. She can do a lot of damage to the remaining insiders, if she chooses to do so.

Her departure will seriously damage Sanders' fundraising. As Fred Sainz might say: "this is the wrong message to send to the developer community". If I were Donna Frye or Steve Francis I would be calling my political consultant right about now. Sanders has damaged his core developer support and will have to compete on equal terms for the middle ground, which is where the next mayoral race will be won. San Diegans, both Democrat and Republican, want no more inside privileges - no more Sunroads.

Sanders' credibility went out the door with Escobar-Eck. Everybody knows she only did what she was told. She served Sanders as she served his predecessors. That's how the City trained her. It is ironic that both Hasenin and Escobar-Eck are now gone: one for refusing to do the Mayor's Sunroad dirty work and the other for doing it.
 

Sunroad abruptly withdraws second permit application today. 08/21/07

What else happens on that day in San Diego? A three day Republican bash called the Western States Leadership Conference. Jerry of course is the guest speaker. Jean Freelove knows a thing or two about fundraising. Here is her email to Sanders' donor list.

But allowing Sanders to have a fundraiser as part of an important Republican statewide event raises serious ethical if not legal questions for the California Republican Party. What about other Republican candidates? Jean Freelove and Tom Shepherd have succeeded in turning this huge Republican event into a coronation of Jerry Sanders. That's not fair to the others and the Republican Party needs to be fair to all Republicans.

People like Freelove and Escobar-Eck seem to be characteristic of the Sanders' style of politics. These two ladies take no prisoners. Jerry seems to like women like that. Janice Weinrick is another. But he may be overplaying his hand. We'll see.
 

The Mayor's Charter Committee is a power grab, pure and simple. 08/19/07

The San Diego legal establishment is stacked against Mike Aguirre. 08/18/07

Who will replace Jim Waring? 08/15/07

Who Sanders appoints as his new Chief of Land Use and Economic Development will say a lot about Sanders' political independence and moral compass. He has always said, especially in recent months as the spotlight fell on him, that it was his former COO, Ronne Froman, who chose Waring. Well this time it is entirely Sanders' call. Froman is no longer around to take the blame.

If he chooses either Anderson or Weinrick there will be an uproar in the non-developer community. I haven't even mentioned Escobar-Eck as that would be worse than inviting Waring back. It would be a red rag to a bull.

I doubt there is anybody in the entire city, that is qualified, who would not be seen as a shill of the developers. That's how bad the recent history of San Diego has been. Sanders' best bet is to look outside the County. Maybe Jay Goldstone knows somebody in Pasadena, where Jay came from in January 2006.
 

Goldstone may be Sanders' last best chance. 08/15/07

This was really about curtailing Waring from acting as an un-elected City Attorney.

Jay Goldstone rose to the occasion. Many decades in municipal government paid off. His steady hand proved critical in the next few hours. He would have told his staff "get the Mayor and Waring on the phone no matter where they are".

He was able to talk to Sanders in Hawaii immediately, but was unable to raise Waring in Iceland. It was perfectly clear to Goldstone what had to be done. This time the Mayor had no choice but to listen to his Chief Operating Officer - Goldstone would have packed his bags on the spot if Sanders had sided with Waring. This was the critical moment.

After speaking to the Mayor, Goldstone acted quickly. Without waiting to hear from Waring he sent a reply to the City Attorney. Here is the letter. Again his experience shows. He said he was responding "on behalf of the Mayor". Obviously he had talked to Sanders. He used the word "we" have been unsuccessful in contacting Mr. Waring.

The Mayor had no choice but to distance himself from Waring's actions, which meant that Waring's goose was cooked and Goldstone would stay to steer the ship. If Sanders had faltered for a moment, he would have lost Goldstone. That much was clear to Sanders.

So who is Jay Goldstone? First of all let me say that I like him. He gave me the City's pension amortization schedule when he didn't have to. He could have stonewalled. Others would have. He is well regarded up and down the State in government financial circles.

He may be Sanders' last hope to save his administration from ignominious meltdown. It is just possible that given the appropriate authority Goldstone could weed out the sheep from the goats at City Hall and patch together an administration that would work for the good of the community instead of pandering to the insatiable appetite of the developers.
 

Sanders, Waring and Escobar-Eck risked their careers for this guy.  08/14/07

Sanders still has a lot of explaining to do. Firing Waring is only the beginning. 08/14/07

"Boy, did I get a wrong number" - Jim Waring. 08/13/07

The Mayor is still lying to us about Sunroad. Why? 08/13/07

Council Candidate April Boling got a free ride at the Realtors today. 08/09/07

Atkins storms out of Audit Committee meeting. 08/08/07

The Mayor's dirty little budget secret - an inevitable pension tax? 08/07/07

Who's going to be King? Business or Communities? 08/02/07

Citizens can act as Attorney General to stop the corruption. 08/01/07

Mr. Mayor, your credit card has just been declined. 07/31/07

Is Sanders backing away from Grubb & Ellis? 07/28/07

Aguirre sues live-in boyfriend of top Sanders' staffer Janice Weinrick. 07/25/07

CCDC served its client, Manchester, well today. But it may not be over. 07/25/07

Nancy Graham DID coach Perry Dealy in writing that letter. 07/25/07

Manchester's insider letter to CCDC avoids a Coastal Permit. 07/23/07

So that's what this Item on CCDC's Agenda this Wednesday is all about. It is for the City to set up Manchester's Navy Broadway development project in such a way as to avoid a Coastal Development Permit. All the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Somehow I managed to ask the right question of Eli Sanchez today. But I am not sure it will do any good. The CCDC Board will no doubt approve the Superseding Master Plan on Wednesday, minus the offending paragraph in its Master Plan Consistency Determination Matrix (Perry Dealy seems to be an expert on CCDC's "Matrices").

How could any citizen watchdog group be expected to pour over so much paperwork and find what they are hiding? They play cat-and-mouse with us. I just got lucky today.

The thing that bothers me the most is that Manchester's CEO, Perry Dealy, could never have figured this out on his own. San Diego's top developers are not entrepreneurs. They are not risk-takers. They just own top level staff at DSD and CCDC, that's all.
 

Madigan and City College President, Terence Burgess, are neighbors. 07/22/07

I did an ownership search and came up with tax Assessor's info on Burgess and Madigan. It turns out that they are neighbors in a ritzy downtown condominium complex called Parkloft. See the above picture.

Now I am not suggesting that everybody in that complex knows each other, nor that the Burgess's in 406 are always popping in to the Madigans at 508 for coffee and doughnuts. But it is possible that they know each other. It just seems like an interesting coincidence to go right along with Jim Waring and "Aaron" for this week's Sunday Funnies.
 

Jim Waring was involved with Sunroad as early as April 2006. 07/21/07

Where is our civic pride? 07/21/07

                                                San Diego Bayfront

                                                     Chicago Bayfront

                                                       Miami Bayfront

You will remember that Manchester sued the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for declaratory relief from having to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Here is the full brief filed on June 15, 2007. Here is my blog commenting on it at the time.

The suit says: "Manchester contends that its rights to develop the project is vested consistent with the Development Agreement and Guidelines are vested and that the only remaining approvals required of the project are from CCDC and the City".

Representing the CCC, State Attorney General Jerry Brown, responded: "the [Coastal] Commission cannot be sued in federal district court under the circumstances presented here", that the U.S. District Court therefore "lacks jurisdiction".

Manchester sued the entire Commission personally: Peter M Douglas, Steve Blank,  Sara Wan, William A Burke, Steven Kram, Mary K Shallenberger, Patrick Kruer,  Bonnie Neely, Mike Reilly, Dave Potter, Khatchik Achadjian, Larry Clark, Ben Hueso and Sherilyn Sarb. That should endear him to San Diego's own Ben Hueso and Pat Kruer.

The sooner this important case is decided the better. No matter which way it goes it will have far-reaching implications for California's sovereignty. If Manchester and the Navy win, it will gut the Coastal Commission. California will not be master in its own house.

As the above pictures show, a Delaware LLC (which could be anybody) is privatizing the last remaining piece of public land on our waterfront. It will be a civic tragedy of monumental proportions. The "suits" were there in force yesterday but only one private person turned up to protest this giveaway. We are losing our chance for a Chicago-style or Miami-style waterfront civic park because we have no civic pride. It's as simple as that.

The Navy and its greedy contractors are stealing this priceless 14 acres for their posh Headquarters and adjoining contractor offices. Their luxury hotels and central paseo will become a private playground for the wives of every crooked military contractor in the free world. While the Navy brass and their contractors sign their deals in the offices above, their ladies will stroll and shop along the paseo below - the Rodeo Drive of San Diego.

How can the Federal Government claim to still control the land it signed away in a 99 year lease to Manchester? A 99 year lease is as good as freehold. Jerry Brown should come down to San Diego and personally argue this case on behalf of all the people of California.
 

This recently acquired SEDC property needs careful watching. 07/18/07

The land at Euclid and 94, now vacant, was acquired by SEDC "for the purpose of developing affordable housing", according to this SEDC Report to City Council that resulted in SEDC obtaining the NOFA funds to assemble the parcels.

Here is a rendering from a DDA involving developer Barone Galasso that has now been abandoned by SEDC. The DDA was for 120 affordable dwelling units and 50 market rate single family homes. Another developer, Reese Jarrett, tried to take over the DDA and change it. Here is a letter from his attorney, Janice Brown. He requested "the flexibility to develop the site for retail or mixed use purposes". SEDC rejected the proposal.

But SEDC's consultants, Keyser Marston Associates Inc., has now posted an RFP on their web site, which says on page 4, under Development Guidelines: "SEDC does not have a preference as to the ultimate use of the Property". They don't?

This development project needs watching. If NOFA funds were used to acquire the site "for the purpose of developing affordable housing", then that is what needs to happen.

If SEDC intends to adhere to its NOFA commitment, to develop only affordable housing, only those bidders who know of this restriction stand a chance of getting accepted. If SEDC does not intend to abide by the NOFA commitment and intends to seek approval from City Council to switch the funding, SEDC should have disclosed that in its RFP.

SEDC has given itself the option to go either way - and justify it later. Knowledge is gold. Does one particular bidder know what SEDC intends to do? If somebody does, then that somebody will be the successful bidder and there is a lot of public money at stake.

The developing partner will be offered a substantial "incentive" to develop the site. This land is worth many times what SEDC paid for it. SEDC has not obtained an independent appraisal. It may be planning on giving the land at acquisition cost to the developer. That would be a huge giveaway to a private developer. In view of the Redevelopment Agency sale of 2.09 acres at 5415 Market Street, to Har-Bro Construction on January 12, 2007 for $300,000, such a giveaway is perfectly possible. I hope people will be watching.
 

SEDC needs a thorough investigation. 07/16/07

But Ms. Smith got her approval, based on her SEDC-06-008 Report. Is that how it is done? If so, Smith, Jim Waring and Chip Owen need to be investigated. Har-Bro paid more than $300,000 - to somebody. The real world doesn't work that way. This is a disgrace.

The final blow to Sunroad. It's over. 07/14/07

The entire site is only 13.87 acres. That is 604,177 square feet. Half of that is 302,088. Ignoring the fact that parcel 6 is dedicated to the SDG&E substation, in granting a permit for 306,000 square feet for Centrum I, the City used up all the available 302,088 and then some. They had no choice but to deny Centrum II.

For those of you knowledgeable enough to be wondering why this particular SCR is a Process Two: it is a condition of the original Master Plan. Here is the relevant page. And for those of you who like to read everything, here is the Master Plan (it is a very large file).

The only ones who could have made this project legal are our eight City Councilors voting to approve a special use permit. They were not asked. Mike Aguirre cannot make it legal by arbitration or mediation or whatever they are calling the talks that are taking place. The extra 20 feet the FAA objected to was never more than a side-show. The real issue remains compliance with our Municipal Code. You can't "negotiate" that.
 

Frye, Sunroad, Gaylord and "capricious characters". 07/12/07

Was the Community College District involved in "insider" deals? 07/10/07

Who is the Mayor's real real estate broker? 07/09/07

City College was offered the property for $750,000! 07/07/07

Zschiesche and the U-T articled finished with: “In the world of private enterprise, I sort of accept some things I can't change,” he said. “It's an interesting discussion, and if there are some better ways to do it, I would like to know.” Well now you do - it's called honest dealing. That's all that is needed.

Zschiesche and his colleagues on the College Board have a duty to the taxpayers who voted not one bond, Proposition S for $685 million, but also Proposition N for $870 million for such purchases. It is time the boards of public agencies started taking their oversight responsibility seriously. The least I would expect the Community College District board to do is call Mr. Schamu back from his sudden retirement and question him closely.

As for Grubb & Ellis, I think Mayor Sanders owes the San Diego public an explanation as to why he finds this particular real estate brokerage company to his liking.
 

About that Madigan-City College deal .... 07/07/07

Did Grubb & Ellis, who would certainly have known about the College's acquisition plans, approach the sellers out of the blue? Grubb & Ellis subsequently reported their buyer as a San Francisco Partnership named TMG. That's probably who they said they represented when they made their approach. Did the sellers suspect that City College might be the real buyer? Did they try to contact College staff themselves? It was widely known at the time that City College was acquiring property in the area. Was Grubb & Ellis representing both TMG Partners (Madigan & Nieto) and the City College? Or pretending to be?

What about that $1,125,00 independent appraisal? Did the U-T actually see it? Does it exist? If it does, the College Board needs to locate and publish it, to demonstrate that Proposition "S" money was not wasted and that a corrupt transaction did not take place. Either the buyer or the seller was cheated out of $534,375. That is a fact.

Madigan and Nieto sold the property to the College for $1,284,375, not $1,125,000. Can staff pay more than the appraised value? There are so many questions.

Interestingly, Madigan and Nieto first quitclaimed it to a trust, using an in-law's name, James Shillady, as trustee, on July 21, 2006. Was that to give College staff cover? So they could pretend they did not know they were purchasing it from their own consultants?

Contradicting an earlier quote: "District officials said they knew Madigan and Nieto had bought the property", the U-T reported: "In a May 22 interview, Schamu refused to acknowledge dealing with Madigan and Nieto on the 15th Street property. When asked whether the college knew it was buying the property from Madigan and Nieto, he said, “I don't believe that's the name of record,” and added that Shillady “is the name we dealt with.” It sounds like Mr. Schamu knows a lot more than he told the U-T.

Say what you will about the Chinese, they have the right idea: they execute officials who take bribes. Read this (two stories down). Maybe we should study their system. 
 

"Community Plans"  vs. "Stakeholder Plans". 07/04/07

The pretty colors below represent the way "stakeholders" plan to divide up the 9,300 acres between them.

Unfortunately the colors on their pie-chart don't quite match, but their numbers are helpful. Remember, "commercial" and "village" are high density multi-use (can be residential).

Then today the U-T ran this story by Jennifer Vigil. She reported that Jim Waring wrote a letter to Dave Nielsen (consultant to OMPC) last Friday telling him that the developer's control of planning is ended. The City is taking over. I wonder what prompted that. Ms. Vigil reported that Mayor Sanders approved it. That probably means he initiated it, or more likely his PR team initiated it. Waring would never pull the plug on developer friends like Sunroad. Sanders' handlers seem to be building a protective fence around their boss - the links between his campaign contributions and planning became just a little too obvious.

The incestuous little group of "stakeholders" who call themselves the Otay Mesa Planning Group tells the story. There is Tom Story representing Sunroad and Dick Murphy's brother Mike, representing Murphy Construction. Then there is Pepper Coffee, wife of Dick Murphy's old pal Dan Coffee who has undertaken a vengeful race for City Attorney out of little more than an irrational hate for Mike Aguirre (that will endear him to developers).

The Chair of this so-called "Community" Planning Group is none other than Senior Vice President of commercial real estate brokers, CB Richard Ellis, Rob Hixson.

But back to consultant Dave Nielsen - he is also the lobbyist for SEDC. Lobbying the City of San Diego for SEDC (which the City owns!) is so onerous that Nielsen had to hire Donna Jones, a senior partner in the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. This high priced Ms. Jones also represents Sunroad, McMillin, Horton, Centex AND Scott Peters (in his little problem with the SEC). Is this incestuous or what? No wonder Sanders put Jones on his Charter Review Commission - she is the ultimate insider.

Therefore we must learn to differentiate between "Community Plans" and "Stakeholder Plans". The same problem arose recently in Barrio Logan. Councilmember Ben Hueso and City Planning Director Bill Anderson want to have a committee of "stakeholders" draw up the Barrio Logan Community Plan. I attended a community forum at the Cesar Chavez Educational Center last week and got some idea of the complicated dynamics there.

I came away all the more convinced that the word "Community" must not be hijacked by greedy opportunist (some local) who just want to pick up cheap land from longtime residents who still trust their city government. Community Planning Groups are being hijacked all over the city by developer interests. The so-called Community Plans are being written by developers. Just ask yourself: what is Tom Story of Sunroad doing on the Otay Mesa Planning Group? We all know the answer.

Mike Aguirre has proposed a "Community Bill of Rights". I fully support that idea, especially Aguirre's proposal that the City finance all 42 Community Plans. Planning Director, Bill Anderson, estimates $1.5 million per Community Plan. Nonsense!  All 42 Community Plans could be done for $1.5 million. I know, I ran some tests using SanGis electronic mapping and experimented with templates using existing community plans.

Anderson either wants to pad his Department's budget (as Casey Gwinn did by charging millions of dollars to the Sewer and Water Enterprise Funds for non-existent services) or he has been told to kill the Community Plans, which would then kill the Planning Groups.

We all know that our City Government is run for developers - but our Community Plans too? We must chase the Tom Story's off our Planning Groups. We must ensure that our Community Plans are "Community Plans" not "Stakeholder Plans". It is up to us.
 

Manchester sues the California Coastal Commission. 07/03/07

Did a Redevelopment Agency official make a quick $1/2 million secret profit? 07/03/07

                                                       by Pat Flannery                                        top^

Here are the facts:

On May 1, 2000 an Illinois Corporation named Federated Industries Inc. granted the two properties depicted below to Caravan Properties LLC, a California Limited Liability Company apparently owned, or partially owned, by Artie M. Owen (a.k.a. "Chip" Owen), current chairman of Southeastern Economic Development Corp. (SEDC). The purchase price was $1,800,000 (Documentary Transfer Tax $1,980 divided by 1.1 per $1,000).

On May 1, 2000 (the same day), as part of the same transaction, Caravan Properties first granted these properties to itself and Artie M. Owen by quitclaim deed (without paying any Documentary Transfer Tax which means no money changed hands) then simultaneously granted it to the San Diego Redevelopment Agency for $2,300,000 (Documentary Transfer Tax $2,530 divided by 1.1 per 1,000), an instant secret profit of $500,000. In the real estate profession such transactions are always considered a "secret profit".

Who pocketed the $500,000? That's not all. It gets better.

Jim Waring "sold" lots 15 & 16, i.e. 2.09 acres, to Har-Bro Construction on January 12, 2007 for $300,000. That's right. Not $3 million, $300,000!

Here is the Grant Deed signed by Jim Waring (on page 8 of 17), posing as an Assistant Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency. Presumably all the real Assistant Executive Directors refused to sign it, just as the City's real building inspector refused to sign the infamous December 21, 2006 letter lifting the Sunroad stop work order that DSD Director Marcella Escobar-Eck then signed herself.

Why else would Jim Waring, the City's Chief of Land Use and Economic Development, sign that Grant Deed? Or maybe he just didn't want any staff person to know about it.

I visited these Market Street properties last evening. Construction is proceeding at a rapid pace on lots 15 and 16 and according to the leasing agent, it is already partially rented.

The other half of the original two properties RDA acquired on May 1, 2000, lot 37, i.e. 2.01 acres, was sold by the RDA to TayRad LLC for $2,100,000 on May 21, 2001. TayRad is a Limited Liability Partnership owned by Kenneth M. Taylor and Anthony D. Radovich.

TayRad then sold it to 5335 Market St. LLC, owned by Gustavo Spoliansky of 1307 Palisades Beach Rd., Santa Monica, on July 22, 2002 for an undisclosed amount. He signed a Trust Deed on March 15, 2005 securing $1,300,000 from a Loretta M. Scherer.

I was unable to determine why the grant deed did not show the Documentary Transfer tax as the the person who deals with "non-disclosures" at the County Recorder's Office does not answer their phone (how do I get a job in government?). Normally it is because there is no real change of ownership. Spoliansky recently re-sold the property. It is still in escrow.

So, a lot of money is changing hands in this "redevelopment" business. People are getting rich while the City is threatened with bankruptcy. The San Diego Redevelopment Agency is a real can of worms. It does not even publish accounts. According to the Mayor's office it is "consolidated" into the CAFR. I wonder why. It is in reality a black hole of corruption.

I intend to keep digging - deeper and deeper. I will let you know if anybody comes up with satisfactory explanations for the Market Street properties. I will be particularly interested to hear from Jim Waring and Artie M. Owen a.k.a. "Chip" Owen. Is there more? Probably.
 

© Copyright "San Diego Today"  November, 2004 - April, 2009