San Diego Today
Unfiltered News  based on  Source Documents
An independent, issues-oriented, online news organization

One more negative result of pension giveaways - no brush management. 12/31/07

"Money that could have been spent since the Cedar Fires in 2003 on brush management to prevent the 2007 wild fires was diverted to fund the City’s illegal pension debt."

Between 60% and 70% of the City's Budget is payroll. The unions are calling due a rash 2005 City promise to raise $500 million before July 2008 by borrowing against or selling City properties. Will Sanders tell the people about that little upcoming fiscal problem in his State of the City address on January 10th? Probably not. Good news only for Jerry.

Sanders is hiding the fact that our city has become one giant employee welfare system.

KPBS did an excellent series of TV Specials on  June 12, 2007,  June 15, 2007,  July 5, 2007 and July 6, 2007 clearly documenting why "we’re setting ourselves up for a massive fire storm", as Gloria Penner so prophetically put it.

In pushing for better brush management in June 2007, Donna Frye told KPBS that we need: "To do everything we can possibly do to prevent tragedy from occurring in anyone's community. We've all seen what happened with the Cedar Fire, we all went through that. We saw the tragedy of people losing their home and efforts to rebuild. Those are lessons. Those are sad memories that no one should forget, ever." She published this Memo in May 2007.

Sanders on the other hand told KPBS that "We think we've got a program that works". His timing was off a little, that's all, is how the U-T appears to see it. On Sunday they allowed him to brush away his no brush management policy with: "If you don't have a fire for 15 years, people probably don't see it as money well spent." In other words Sanders gambled on the 2003 fires not being repeated for at least another 15 years.

The U-T again: "In his ongoing search for budget cuts, Sanders this year suggested eliminating one of the three fire inspectors responsible for identifying brush violations" ..... "in 1986 the City had 11 such fire inspectors" ....."A deputy city manager told the City Council it would cost at least $4.4 million a year to adequately tackle the brush problem". 

Good information, but shouldn't Sanders' inability (or unwillingness) to find that $4.4 million have been the real story? Instead, the U-T reader is left with the impression that homeowners, environmentalists and gnatcatchers are the problem.

As background the U-T explains: "This story is based on more than two dozen interviews with elected officials, city administrators, deputy fire marshals and residents who live near San Diego's canyons and wild lands. The reporting, writing, mapping, editing and production of the story took two months."

It shouldn't have taken them two months to discover that Sanders had other priorities. Sanders' "plan that worked" was to cut the number of fire inspectors and deprive City workers of the money they needed to clear brush on City-owned land.

Sanders' commitment to protecting the pensions of former and current City colleagues means that City services must be sacrificed on the alter of "pension rights".

Towards the end of his long career with the police department, Sanders was one of the main beneficiaries of retroactivity. He received a huge "benefit" in the form of an increased pension "multiplier" for previous years of service. These retroactive benefits cost the City $451 million, nearly 40% of the current pension deficit. Yes, he owes them.

The runaway DROP program (retiree nest eggs with a guaranteed 8% interest compounding quarterly), the $146 million "air time" and the $451 million retroactive benefits are the real reasons why Sanders could not afford a brush management program. Yet, down at the U-T, he can do no wrong, while Aguirre, a so-called "liberal", who is tackling this fiscal problem, can do no right. Very strange behavior for a "conservative" newspaper.

If this is modern "conservatism" then something very strange has happened since the days of Ronald Reagan. The welfare reformers of yesteryear have become the welfare queens of today. While "liberal" Aguirre defends the taxpayer by fighting the over-benefiting of City employees, the "conservative" U-T helps a "conservative" Mayor preserve illegal "benefits" as the spoils of office. Ronald Reagan would turn in his grave.
 

The story the U-T does not want you to read - Dumanis and Chula Vista. 12/29/07

                                                     by Pat Flannery                                        top^

Here is a video of a letter being presented to the Chula Vista City Council on December 18, 2007.

" ... conduct an investigation to determine if there are conflicts of interests, abuses of power and prosecutorial misconduct involving John Moot, Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox and the local District Attorney’s office. For the reasons listed below, we are not confident that the District Attorney’s office or the City’s Board of Ethics can perform a fair and impartial investigation into these matters.

We further request that you investigate a potential conspiracy involving former Chula Vista City Councilmember John Moot, the office of District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, local land developer Jim Pieri and Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox to deprive Chula Vista voters of good government by abusing their positions and power to improperly influence and intimidate elected officials and community groups on behalf of the proposed condominium high rise."

It makes interesting reading, especially the parts about Bonnie Dumanis and Pat O'Toole. The civic group suspects that Dumanis and O'Toole may have filed bogus charges against Chula Vista City Councilmember Steve Castaneda, at the behest of a well-connected Chula Vista developer named Jim Pieri, who apparently wanted "someone more likely to approve his projects" on the City Council. A natural reaction for an ambitious developer.

The group reports that Pieri contributed $15,050 to the Lincoln Club of San Diego County during Cox's campaign who in turn contributed $51,000 to Cox. Yep, that's how it works.

I was also informed that the U-T refused to run the story, despite the fact that the "Chula Vista Better Government Association" did all the work. It compiled these 334 pages of back up material and obviously did its research. This story should be the kind of juicy political yarn any red-blooded newspaper would love to run. And it is all documented.

Pieri is now leasing office space to the DA in Chula Vista at $71,328 per month. That's a pretty nice lease. Here it is. Interesting how Dumanis ended up renting from Pieri.

I have a feeling we have not heard the last of this story. I wonder why the U-T did not want you to read it. Are they protecting Dumanis? Well, here it is anyway, all 334 pages of it.
 

The DROP program is an illegal gift of public funds. 12/23/07

                                                     by Pat Flannery                                        top^

"DROP is intended to be cost neutral."  So says the Municipal Code. As I explained in my December 19, 2007 blog, each individual DROP participant's account is credited with an 8% "actuarially assumed rate of return", and compounded quarterly.

Unfortunately that "actuarially assumed rate of return" of 8% is not being achieved by SDCERS in the real world. Over a 7 year period from 1999 to 2005, years for which I was able to obtain figures, actuarial losses exceeded gains by $334 million or 1.51% less than the assumed  8%.

	Year	$	%
	1999	-18	- 0.71
	2000	110	3.66
	2001	- 264	- 8.84
	2002	- 297	-10.74
	2003	-114	- 3.86
	2004	242	6.60
	2005	8	- 0.18
	Total	- 334	- 1.51

To verify those figures please check my two source documents: SDCERS published "Net Assets" and SDCERS published "Investment Income" for those years. Where SDCERS alters the figures for a previous year in a subsequent year, as it frequently does, I used the subsequent year's figure. I found no note or explanation as to why they made those alterations.

Here are the same numbers in more detail and in table form.
 

That shortfall (from 8% to 6.49%) added $334,105,354 to the unfunded actuarial liability. Amazingly, it is still widely believed that the cause of San Diego's pension deficit is "under funding" by the City, when the real cause is investment losses and over-benefiting.

During those 7 years SDCERS continued to credit individual retiree DROP accounts with 8 % interest, compounded quarterly. For some degree of member/sponsor equity those DROP accounts should have been credited with the actual rate of return, 6.49%, and should at least have been charged an administration fee as they would elsewhere.

The dishonest assertion by the employee unions that the UAAL is a "loan" to the City, causes serious structural anomalies. One anomaly is that SDCERS actually credits itself with 8% interest on its own investment losses!

But the biggest member/sponsor inequity of all is an ongoing attempt by the unions to impose an "obligation" to "pay back" this "under funding" in the form of "Pension Obligation Bonds" and the sale of City property. In many ways this fight for member/sponsor equity is only beginning.
 

How pension liabilities continue to threaten the City's financial health. 12/20/07

I have not yet had a chance to fully study the Report but I found the following graphs and charts compelling. First, they offer a comparison of PVFB  vs. pension assets.

"The “present value of future benefits” (PVFB) measures the total amount of money owed to all active employees and retirees who have worked long enough to receive a pension."



In the Report Aguirre goes on to examine the main causes of the above growth e.g. DROP, purchase of service credits, retroactive benefits etc. But I will confine myself to comparing the PVFB with the value of pension assets. Here they are side by side in chart form:

Here is the source document for Aguirre's PVFB figure of $6,475,469,077. It is important to understand what that PVFB figure is, because much of his presentation depends upon it. The following information should help you understand it.

These are some actuarial terms that may help. Here is the full 2006 Actuarial Valuation Report and an extract showing two different PVAB valuations for accounting purposes known as FASB No. 35 and GASB No. 25. See how confusing it can get? For those who really want to study this thing here are FASB No. 35 and GASB No. 25.

Note that a FASB 35 valuation returns a "Ratio of Assets to Value of Benefits", in this case 98.87%. That was the number quoted by City actuary Joe Esuchanko on the witness stand in the POA case and is often misquoted by union people as the UAAL ratio.

The PVAB used by Aguirre is used in a popular method of calculating the UAAL ratio, EAN, because it offsets the PVAB with the "Present Value of Future Normal Costs". SDCERS uses the less popular PUC method, which does not use the "Present Value of Future Normal Costs" and returns a lower value for the UAAL ratio. Perhaps that's why.

Now let's look at the relationship between the City's annual required contribution (ARC) and the employees contribution. It reveals a disturbing trend..

First, the City's 2006 "contribution" needs to be adjusted because it includes a once-off payment of $100 million, derived from borrowing against the City's tobacco settlement.

Note that the lines on the graph dramatically parted company in 2004. Even after a "tobacco adjustment" the City's red line continues arching upwards, opposite to the downward trend of the employee contribution black line.

Both lines should trend in the same direction, whether the number of employees is increasing or decreasing. Therefore the City's annually required contribution (ARC) is spiraling upwards for reasons other than the number of employees entering or leaving the system. It is primarily because of a growing UAAL amortization component in the ARC.

Unfortunately no UAAL amortization schedule can keep pace with such an actuarial liability growing exponentially due to interest accruing at 8%, compounded annually. Oh, the magic (or curse) of compound interest. The interest alone on a billion dollars at 8% is $80 million per year. At least another $80 million per year would be needed to amortize it. An out-of-control upward spiral is inevitable using 8% compounding annually.

Therefore in my opinion the pension system has serious internal structural problems. Unfortunately four of the current City Councilmembers want to keep it all under wraps until they term out next year. Unfortunately also the Mayor is avoiding the pension problem until he is safely returned next year for a second term. He will not fight the unions.

With the exception of Donna Frye, Aguirre is the only elected official willing to take on this issue. He is paying a very high political price for it. The employee unions, and strangely the conservative U-T, are ganging up on him, while the Mayor eggs them on. But it is inevitable that sooner or later Aguirre will be vindicated because the facts are on his side.
 

The pension DROP program is a financial wildfire. It is out of control. 12/19/07

The rationale for DROP was the retention of highly trained employees, especially police and fire - it costs a lot of money to train cops and firefighters. It quickly became another abused element of the City's pension plan. It is now almost totally out of control.

The reason: where can you get 8% on your money compounded quarterly? Where can you double your money in 8 years and 9 months, in total safety? So, everybody wants in.

The above $126,199,852 has been shrewdly left in their DROP accounts by 580 ex-employees who have actually retired. But why would the City continue to offer DROP to them when the rationale is gone - retaining them is no longer possible? Here is a web site that does the calculations. That $126,199,852 becomes $252,385,765, roughly double, in 8 years and 9 months, 35 interest periods, at 8% APR with 4 interest periods per year.

Therefore, if these shrewd 580 retirees leave their money in their DROP accounts for the next 8.75 years, they will double their money. But it will cost SDCERS $126,185,913 or $14,421,247 per year in interest alone, in addition to normal pension benefits.

How many of the current 995 "actives" who, by DROP rules must already be within 5 years of retiring, will opt to stay in DROP after they actually retire? Probably quite a few. If they all do, it will cost SDCERS $312,102,839 - $156,060,038 = $156,042,801 or $17,833,462 per year in interest alone for the next 8.75 years, in addition to normal pension benefits.

If not one new person joins DROP after November 30, 2007, SDCERS still has a potential liability of $14,421,247 + $17,833,462 = $32,254,709 per year in DROP interest alone.

There are currently 9,772 active members in SDCERS. The vast majority of these people were hired prior to July 1, 2005 and will therefore be eligible for DROP. I dread to think what will happen if they all enter DROP when they become eligible and stay in it for an extended period of time after retiring. I won't do the calculations. It is too scary.

Even if the entire DROP program was terminated today, and everybody took their money and left,  SDCERS would still have to find $282,259,890 in cash to close the existing accounts. It is clear that the DROP program, as currently administered by SDCERS, is unsustainable. If ever there was an "inconvenient truth", this is it.
 

Sunroad gets compensated - it doesn't need to move the substation. 12/18/07

                                                     by Pat Flannery                                        top^

I went to the Planning Commission meeting last Thursday December 13, 2007 to watch the City let Sunroad off the hook from its promise to move the old SDG&E transformer from its present inappropriate location, smack in the middle of a condominium complex, to a City-mandated location in Sunroad's new commercial area.

I watched as Aaron Feldman, Tom Story, Steve Strauss and a roomful of Sunroad "suits" smiled as they got their way.

Why did I get the feeling it was all arranged behind closed doors and that I was just watching a public farce, put on for the CityTV cameras to make it all look legitimate?

Anyway, Sunroad got its Planned Development Permit and its Vesting Tentative Map for its 5-story residential building containing 129 "residential units" and its two 4-story residential buildings containing 379 "residential units". These "residential units" will be converted into condominiums when they are about 90% completed. That is how, with the aid of DSD, San Diego developers avoid discretionary permits, CEQA and impact fees.

Our DSD is a stand-alone, developer-serving "Enterprise Fund" within the City Budget. It is all perfectly legal. The developer pays DSD's direct expenses - we pay the rest.

Remember this? I took some video of the old SDG&E transformer and talked to local residents back in June 2007. The residents were horrified that the City would allow an ugly transformer to remain right in the middle of a new condominium complex. I notice that as of today my video on YouTube has been visited 2,293 times. That suggests there is continuing local interest - and anger. I received a lot of angry emails and phone calls.

Even Jim Waring was adamant that no more permits would be issued to Sunroad until that out-of-place transformer was moved. Here is Waring in a May 11, 2006 email to Sanders' political commissar, Kris Michell, making it clear that the "environmental documents and the development agreement between Sunroad and the City require the substation to be moved". He was adamant that no permits were to be issued to either Sunroad or Lyon until the substation was moved. Here is his email to DSD's Gary Halbert on March 2, 2006. And here is Gary Halbert reiterating that same position to Sempra on June 2, 2006.

SDG&E promised the PUC on February 7, 2003 to build a new substation as required by a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared for the City of San Diego and designated LDR No. 41-0101. They told the PUC:

Why then did the City cave in to Sunroad again last Thursday?

My guess is that Sanders wanted to compensate Sunroad for the loss of the top 20 feet of the infamous "too-tall" Tower. Therefore a way had to be found to get Sunroad its Planned Development Permit and its Vesting Tentative Map. The City could settle for a promise to move the transformer later. That is exactly what happened. All the City demanded of Sunroad was a commitment not to build on the dedicated 0.69 acre site until after SDG&E decommission the transformer. In the meantime it can be used as a parking lot.

SDG&E indicated at the Planning Commission meeting on Thursday that "within 3 to 5 years" they would "probably" increase the capacity of another transformer in the area thus releasing the site to Sunroad. They announced that they have forged a "confidential" agreement to that effect. One thing is for sure, Sunroad's 0.69 acre site will never see an SDG&E substation. After a suitable passage of time Sanders will fix it for them again.

Sanders needed to send a message to his developer contributors, that he was still in charge of planning and land use and could still deliver for them. The message of last Thursday will not be lost on the developer community. Their campaign money still works.

So Feldman and his slick Sunroad lawyers came out smelling like roses. They were even brazen enough to tell the Commission that they estimate on getting 92 condominiums on the site. Sometimes they forget they are speaking in public and that we are not all idiots. They were applying for a permit to build "residential units", i.e. rental units, but spoke of condominiums. They don't even bother to hide the fact that they fully intend to pull a "switcheroo"  when they are 90% built, getting a condo conversion on Council "consent".

I feel very bad for the people who bought Lyon condominiums in full expectation that the transformer would be moved. Now SDG&E can move it when and if they please. Maybe never. In the meantime, Sunroad gets to use the 0.69 acre site as a parking lot. I never thought I would actually miss Jim Waring.

Even Waring would not have countenanced this crooked deal. I said many times that Jim did not belong in government - he didn't realize just how crooked government work can be.
 

AG Report on City SLAs may prompt tighter Internal Controls. 12/17/07

Mayor forced to do an "about-face" on pension disclosures. 12/14/07

It is only by working together, the City Council as the Legislature, the Mayor as the Executive and the City Attorney representing the Law, that the business of the City can get done. The Mayor, with the help of the U-T tried to exclude Aguirre and Frye.

If the Mayor wants to meet his own policy deadlines, like getting to the bond markets next year, he needs to start thinking of Aguirre and Frye as part of the Citywide team, not as his political opponents. For the welfare of the city as a whole, he needs to stop conniving with fellow doctrinaire "insiders" like "Bowtie" Bob Kittle who think that "outsiders" like Aguirre and Frye should be seen but not heard. The people want to know the truth.
 

The snake in the garden - "surplus earnings". 12/12/07

Obviously City Auditor and Comptroller, Greg Levin, obliged. So did the independent public accountant, Macias Gini. Here is the proof. Mark Hovey, Chief Financial Officer for SDCERS, presented the required certification from Macias Gini to the Business & Governance Committee of the SDCERS Board on November 2, 2007.

The Board then presumably transferred $186,095,249 from the "Undistributed Earnings Reserve" to the "Reserve for Employer Contributions" for "earnings received that were attributable to fiscal year 2005". But according to page 60 of SDCERS 2005 CAFR: "At the beginning of each fiscal year, SDCERS’ Board credits all Surplus Undistributed Earnings to the Reserve for Employers’ Contributions in order to reduce SDCERS’ current liabilities." Why only $186,095,249? What about the rest - 344,884,797- 186,095,249 = 158,789,548?

Is that how much will be distributed to retirees as "surplus earnings"?

I wonder how Mayor Sanders will explain that little piece of arithmetic in his forthcoming "cover letter to the 2005 audit". Will addressing the distribution of "surplus earnings" affect his own pension check? Does he receive a 13th Check?

In his "meddling" Mike Aguirre discovered all this and wrote to Macias Gini on December 4, 2007. Amazingly, Macias Gini denied having provided the above certification. Therefore either Macias Gini or Mark Hovey of SDCERS is lying. How Sanders must long for the good old days of City Attorney Casey Gwinn, who took office in 1996 promising to "be more responsive to the business community's needs". He was.

Both Aguirre and Frye have called for the practice of paying "surplus earnings" to be docketed at City Council for review. Here is Donna Frye's letter to Peters dated November 19, 2007. But with Scott Peters in the Council President's seat, I wouldn't hold my breath. The last thing Peters wants to do is raise his past transgressions against the SEC.

He and Dick Murphy must be top of the SEC list of elected officials to be prosecuted if this purge continues. Peters should do the constructive thing and "get out of the way to let the City Attorney and the Mayor do their jobs". The City needs a fresh start. It can't wait until December 2008 when Peters will be "termed out". Go now Scott, for the City's sake and Mayor Sanders, have that "honesty" epiphany real soon. We need our infrastructure fixed.
 

Maybe it's time for another epiphany by Sanders. 12/12/07

SEC accuses San Diego's former auditor of fraud. 12/11/07

Snake oil vs. the truth in the "excess benefits" pension issue. 12/10/07

Scott Peters "star chamber" antics were in vain. Dr. Pollack lost. 12/05/07

The privatization of Transient Occupancy Tax. What's next?  12/04/07

Why this site is "more than a blog". 12/02/07

Poway should go on red alert. "Findings" Manis is coming. 11/29/07

The citizens of this city still hold the purse strings. 11/28/07

What do the Chargers really want? 11/27/07

McCann first listed all the reasons why the Chargers would be great for Chula Vista and finally got around to mentioning what I was looking for, the Chargers' "incentive".

Two Chula Vista sites are considered suitable, a 139-acre site owned by the Port District, currently occupied by the South Bay Power Plant (which everybody wants rid of) and a 500-acre site in East Chula Vista known as the "university site" (because everybody wants a university there). So which site will the Chargers pick?

The answer is BOTH.

They would rent the bayside site from the Port District for the stadium while the inland site would be a "development opportunity" for the Chargers. There would be no such "opportunity" at the bay front as Gaylord and smooth-talking local developer Ash Israni have already staked out everything except the power plant. The "university" project would therefore have to generate the $850 million in profit, the going rate for a stadium nowadays.

Fabiani says the Chargers will not ask for a penny from the Chula Vista taxpayers. Just as well, Chula Vista is broke. He and McCann both promised total transparency with regard to the wording of the ballot measure, but no word yet on the exact words.

I spoke to Fabiani afterwards and asked why not offer the same "cost neutral" deal to San Diego, if it exists. Apparently he did, but Sanders turned him down! Blaming Aguirre! "Why Aguirre?" I asked. "Oh, he would think of some way of stopping us" said Fabiani.

I suggested that maybe Sanders had his own reasons for not wanting to keep the Chargers in San Diego and was using Aguirre as an excuse. How could Sanders turn down a stadium deal that did not require a dime from the City? What would the fans say?

If all that is required is a suitable "development opportunity" for the Chargers, SDSU badly needs student housing, as is evidenced by the mini-dorm problem. Surely $850 million could be squeezed out of a housing deal near the present campus if it could be done in Chula Vista. SDSU has been trying to do the Paseo project for years, right on its own campus, and now it is ready to do an $850 million deal in Otay Mesa?

If the Chargers are really offering a genuine "cost neutral" stadium deal to Chula Vista, Sanders should grab it for San Diego. You will hear no objection from Aguirre, from Donna Frye, or anybody else. If bonds are not involved, as with Petco Park, then the fact that Chula Vista has access to the bond market, while San Diego does not, is not the issue.

It just doesn't make any sense. My guess is that the Chargers aren't going anywhere. Why would they? They already have the sweetest deal in the NFL. So, relax Charger fans.
 

Why the San Diego Pension System is like a Ponzi Scheme. 11/24/07

                                                     by Pat Flannery                                        top^

During a three-day run on his Securities Exchange Company he paid out $2 million in cash to a frenzied crowd outside his office. He passed out coffee and donuts and cheerfully told them they had nothing to worry about. Many believed him and the run stopped. He would have made a perfect Mayor of San Diego.

San Diego's pension system is not technically a Ponzi scheme but it has many Ponzi-like characteristics. Like all Ponzis it is ultimately doomed to fail because it is based on a false premise. The San Diego pension Ponzi assumes the unlimited taxing power of city government, that pension promises can grow unrestrictedly like the national debt.

But it has been repeatedly demonstrated by the San Diego electorate that they will never agree to additional taxes to pay down the pension deficit. Politicians who propose such a tax will continue to be defeated at the polls. Ask Donna Frye.

The reason: San Diego pension deficit is caused not by underpayment of taxes but by over-benefiting of employees. The main examples of that over-benefiting are:

(1) The Purchase of Service Credits (PSC) program,
(2) The DROP program,
(3) The 13th Check.

The PSC program alone has added $146 million to the pension deficit. The SDCERS actuary has not provided similar analyses for the DROP program or the 13th Check. But, we know that these three programs combined have caused at least 102 retirees to exceed IRS qualifying limits, thereby jeopardizing the entire pension system as a 401(a) tax-deferred plan. The Mayor's 2005 CAFR failed to disclose that material fact.

The Mayor admitted learning of this unauthorized $146 million deficit in his September 21, 2007 "angered response". He said: "I am angered by this revelation and find it to be completely unacceptable." Since then his anger seems to have mysteriously dissipated.

Another reason the present San Diego pension system will fail is because its perpetrators know exactly the fraud being committed, and like all Ponzi operators, they hide it.

According to SDCERS own actuary, in this letter dated August 14, 2007, SDCERS "sold" 20,643 years of service, adding $350 million to the total actuarial liability. The amount actually paid for those phantom years, after accumulating compound interest at 8% for many years, was $204 million as of June 30, 2006.

In order to arrive at that figure of $204 million (and therefore the $146 million), SDCERS and its actuary had to know what portion was the original contract cost and what portion was the accumulated interest, because each contract had to be calculated separately.

Like all Ponzi operators they withheld that vital piece of information. And Sanders has now become their willing spokesman. All that is missing is the coffee and donuts.  

Despite the fact that we cannot know the actual amount paid for these phantom years, without access to the original contracts, if we take the "accumulated" $204 million as the actual purchase amount, we find that it is 58% of the total liability of $350 million. Therefore the real contract price for each year of service "sold" was considerably less than 58% of its true value.

If you divide $350 million (the total value of benefits added) by 20,643 (the total number of years "sold") you get a value of $17,000 per year. Divide $146 million by $17,000 and you get 8,588, the number of service years actually given away.

The SDCERS Board had no authority to sign these contracts. Giving away 8,588 years of phantom service, valued at more than $146 million, was a breach of their fiduciary duty to the Pension Trust and an illegal gift of Trust assets.

If Sanders proves as slow to correct this as he was with Sunroad, it will be his undoing. These "purchase of service credits" are as illegal as the top 20 feet of that Sunroad building. And just as sure as that Sunroad building had to be reduced in height, the 2005 CAFR will have to be amended to disclose the illegality of these benefits.
 

Lest we forget - Our politicians lied to us. 11/21/07

It tells, in a very graphic way, how the men and women of the U.S. Navy (in the foreground) were forced to stand idly by while their home port city was threatened by fire.

Within this picture (bottom right) stood Navy helicopters ready and willing to fly up there, to San Miguel Mountain, and put out that fire.

This man, Ruben Grijalva, was all that prevented them from doing so.

And where was Arnold Schwarzenegger? Covering for Grijalva! Several times Arnold lied to the cameras, blaming high winds.

There were no high winds when this picture was taken. I know: I too was watching those flames, from a lot closer than the person who took it. I could have flown up there in a Cessna that night.

And what about our own fire chief, Tracy Jarman? Did she cede control to Ruben Grijalva during the fire emergency?

If so we do not have a City Fire Department any more. Grijalva is our fire chief.

Contrary to Schwarzenegger's lies about the wind, it was precisely because there was no wind that awful night that the city was spared. If the winds were as bad as he said, the fires would have engulfed the whole city.
 

The 2008 Eminent Domain Initiative is "something else". 11/21/07

"The provisions of this Act shall become effective on the day following the election ("effective date"); except that any statute, charter provision, ordinance, or regulation by a public agency enacted prior to January 1, 2007, that limits the price a rental property owner may charge a tenant to occupy a residential rental unit ("unit") or mobile home space ("space") may remain in effect as to such unit or space after the effective date for so long as, but only so long as, at least one of the tenants of such unit or space as of the effective date ("qualified tenant") continues to live in such unit or space as his or her principal place of residence.

At such time as a unit or space no longer is used by any qualified tenant as his or her principal place of residence because, as to such unit or space, he or she has: (a) voluntarily vacated; (b) assigned, sublet, sold or transferred his or her tenancy rights either voluntarily or by court order; (c) abandoned; (d) died; or he or she has (e) been evicted pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), (4) or (5) of Section 1161 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 798.56 of the Civil Code as in effect on January 1, 2007; then, and in such event, the provisions of this Act shall be effective immediately as to such unit or space."

The relevant provision that shall "immediately apply" is that "limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property" will henceforth be considered a "taking" and consequently unlawful under this initiative.

This initiative is considered by many, including Jim Madaffer, President of the League of California Cities, as a sneak attack on rent control. It certainly looks that way to me.

It is not the first time much needed reform of eminent domain was used as a Trojan horse for "something else". This 2008 initiative bears a remarkable resemblance to the defeated 2006 Proposition 90. That initiative's "something else" was this:

"Except when taken to protect public health and safety, “damage” to private property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. “Government action” shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation."

Much as the people desire to limit the use of eminent domain to genuine "public use" (yet to be satisfactorily defined) and outlaw the "taking" of private property and giving it to another private owner (supposedly to achieve a desirable public "purpose", as allowed by Kelo v. City of New London), they rejected the "substantial economic loss" principle of Prop 90 and will probably reject the intended extinction of rent-controlled properties, in the 2008 initiative.

It is time somebody proposed a "clean" solution to Kelo v. City of New London. This initiative is not it.
 

Push-pull in politics is healthy, just as in business. 11/20/07

Excess Benefits - we need answers, not more questions. 11/19/07

"What happens if SDCERS loses its "Qualified" or "Tax Deferred" status per the Internal Revenue Code?
(a) What is the likelihood of this outcome? (remote, reasonably possible or probable);
(b) What is the range of loss to the City that arises to the City from this outcome?
(c) Please describe potential legal remedies to this situation."

Thus Sanders has answered Aguirre's dire pension warnings with a flurry of "avoidance" questions. Is Sanders seriously contemplating pressing the "Excess Benefits" button? He seems to be asking: "will the City's Pension Plan lose its "Tax Deferred" status if I pay these Excess Benefits"? Of course it will. He sounds like a President asking "will people really die if I press the nuclear button". Sanders is in pension denial happy land.

Aguirre didn't make this up. For five months Donna Frye has been warning about not having IRS approval for "Excess Benefits". For five months Jay Goldstone ignored her. In the meantime the City kept paying them, as if they were normal pension benefits. These are not normal pension benefits. They are contrary to the IRS code for a qualified pension plan.

Is Sanders now going to ignore Aguirre? In his "response", Levin does not seem to be making a good faith attempt to grapple with the issue. Does Sanders really think he can sweep it under the carpet? Does he really think he can gain access to Wall Street while in open breach of IRS pension rules? Maybe he thinks he can fool the people until after the June 2008 election. No doubt he hopes to get over 50% in that Primary. But how is he going to explain his broken promise - to get the City back into the bond markets?

The City's current auditors, Macias, Gini & O’Connell, are not going to sign off on the 2005 CAFR until they get pension answers. Wall Street has said that it will not even look at San Diego again until it has certified its 2006 CAFR. And we don't even have 2005 yet!

Levin needs to rethink his strategy. Asking mouse questions of Aguirre while there is an elephant in the living room is not wise. Wall Street knows that Aguirre did not create this problem. Rather it knows that Casey Gwinn would have swept it under the carpet.

Mr. Aguirre has made his position clear: if the City cannot show a legal basis for having credited "Excess Benefits" within a qualified 401(a) pension system, i.e. having credited retirees with benefits in excess of IRC Section 415 limits, it must correct its 2005 CAFR.

These benefits were credited to "qualified" retiree pension accounts illegally. Period.

If Sanders cannot face up to that reality, he should resign. He was elected to make tough choices. This is one of them. Again and again he has proven to be a weak Mayor, not a strong Mayor. He has not stood up to the union bosses. He has not stood up to Scott Peters who is using his position as Council President to cover up the pension giveaways. Not standing up for the people, against powerful insider special interests, cost Dick Murphy his job and his reputation. Sanders is Murphy II. Sadly, the "happy talk" continues.

Here is the Mayor's "Strategy for Accessing the Capital Markets and for Issuing Outstanding Audits" dated November 19, 2007. And that strategy is: blame everything on Aguirre.
 

"Yet another rip-off of San Diego taxpayers" - purchase of service credits. 11/15/07

• With respect to SDCERS’ service credit pricing structure that was in place prior to November 2003, Cheiron, SDCERS actuary, has determined that the full cost was not reflected in the price then charged to SDCERS members.

• This pricing shortfall, which totals approximately $146 million, has been included in the System’s Unfunded Actuarial Liability since the inception of the service credit program.

• With respect to the SDCERS’ service credit pricing in place since November 2003, Cheiron advised SDCERS that structure covers the full projected cost to the System when members purchased the service credits.

The $146 million was a giveaway. It is a clear breach of the State liability limit law. It is an unconstitutional "gift of public funds".

Yet Sanders will pay it, because he is unable or unwilling to stand up to Ann Smith and the MEA. Is the (employee union) tail wagging the dog or is Sanders still part of the tail?
 

The 102 retirees who got $8,160,027 in "excess" pension benefits. 11/13/07

City Council picks and chooses among City Attorney's legal opinions.  11/10/07

The City Council used that flawed opinion to pass a Density Bonus Ordinance, which gives a 35% density bonus for "moderate" income families, a category for which, based on their Council salaries, most Councilmembers qualify. "Moderate" income is based on a county-wide median income, skewed upwards by our gorgeous county being host to a disproportionate number of individuals declaring some of the highest incomes in the nation.

Now for that City Attorney's opinion on Navy Broadway rejected by the City Council. Deputy City Attorney Shirley Edwards wrote:

"Based upon the analysis provided herein, it is the recommendation of the Office of the City Attorney that before CCDC can make its consistency determination, the City must complete a 21166 evaluation to determine whether any further environmental documentation under CEQA is necessary for the Navy Broadway Complex Project."

For emphasis, the day before the November 6, 2007 Council hearing (page 41 of 45, to uphold or reject appeals against the so-called CCDC "determination", that the 1990 EIR was adequate), the City Attorney personally reminded the City Council of the October 4, 2007 opinion letter. Here is his urgent November 5, 2007 letter to City Council.

Those two letters may have been sufficient to give even Jim Madaffer second thoughts. After all, Madaffer is now Chairman of the California League of Cities and has his state-wide reputation to consider. He can no longer afford to do the old San Diego "so sue me" trick and scoff at California State law, as he used to. He seemed to baulk a little at the November 6, 2007 CEQA hearing. Strangely, he favored a continuation to January 7, 2008.

It may turn out that when the adequacy of CCDC's "determination" on Navy Broadway comes up for a final City Council vote on December 4, 2007 (it was continued to that date), we may not need Tony Young's vote to uphold the CEQA appeal. According to Deputy City Attorney Shirley Edward's opinion letter, wholly endorsed by her boss Mike Aguirre, the City must make a whole new 21166 environmental determination, i.e. a whole new EIR.

Finally, if Madaffer decides to stick to his old ways, and Young is too beholden to the developers to change his infamous January 9, 2007 vote, the City is guaranteed to lose in an inevitable court challenge. According to Deputy City Attorney Shirley Edwards: "Courts have set aside government actions where review of the current adequacy of an EIR, given changed circumstances, has not occurred first."

So, if I were Perry Dealy (Manchester's CEO) I would be nice to John Moores and Steve Peace when I next run into them. "Pappa" Doug has a history of "not being amused" when one of his pet projects goes south. And Navy Broadway was to be the jewel in his crown. Right now it is headed due south.
 

The 30-foot coastal height limit was given away. 11/08/07

(2) A deviation from the requirements of the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone (Chapter 13, Article 2, Division 5)."

Note that the above extract from the new Density Bonus Ordinance says: "the requirements of the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone" (the 30-foot height limit) "are not considered incentives by the City of San Diego".

Even that weak "not considered" phrase is tentative: "until the date the California Coastal Commission unconditionally certifies those provisions as a local coastal program amendment."

I asked Bill Anderson what will happen if the Coastal Commission does not "unconditionally certify" the City Ordinance but instead rules that a coastal height deviation IS available as an incentive - he will just fall back on the City Attorney's advice, but no resignation.

The future of our 30-foot coastal height limit therefore hangs on Mr. Aguirre being right.

It was clear to me from my discussion with Mr. Anderson last night that he knows very well that the Coastal Commission will not enforce the coastal 30-foot height limit. All he would say was that, based upon the City Attorney's advice, he was "very confident" that the Coastal Commission would "unconditionally certify" the City Density Bonus Ordinance.

He ended his "explanation" by saying "they (the developers) can sue the City". The game plan obviously was:

(1) give Councilmembers like Kevin Faulconer cover to pass the Ordinance by pretending that the coastal 30-foot height is protected by the Coastal Commission;
(2) then when a developer is refused a deviation from the height limit as a density bonus incentive, he will "sue the City", right on cue as Mr. Anderson predicts;
(3) the developer will win and the City Attorney will be blamed for giving wrong advice.
 

A General Plan: of the developers, by the developers, for the developers. 11/08/07

D-Day for Tony Young. Who does he represent? 11/06/07

10 News did an in-depth TV investigation and raised some serious concerns about building on that site. Finally, the USGS has a web site that shows up-to-the-minute recent-earthquakes, just in case anyone has forgotten how earthquake-prone California really is.

P.S. A reader just sent me Young's campaign contributions list. It reads like Peters, Madaffer, Faulconer and Maeinschein - the developers own him too. Thanks reader.
 

Four reasons why Tuesday's proposed Density Bonus Law is BAD. 11/04/07

(A) Reduce the cost of the residential development; and
(B) Are compatible with the proposed residential development; and
(C) Are compatible with existing or planned development in the area where the proposed residential development will be located."

That means that any development, even in a residential zone, can become a mixed use development.

All it would require is a Bob Manis "finding". Bob would easily "find" that a 7-Elevan in your subdivision is perfectly compatible with your residential zoning. So is a hairdresser, a dry cleaners, even a McDonalds. All a developer would have to do is provide 10% housing for "moderate income" families, who can earn more than a San Diego City Councilor.

(3) Regarding the coastal zone the DSD proposed ordinance says at §143.0740 (c):

"Items not considered incentives by the City of San Diego include, but are not limited to the following:

(2) A deviation from the requirements of the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone (Chapter 13, Article 2, Division 5)."

That offers false protection to the coastal 30-foot height limit. It is overridden by Section 4 of the Proposed Ordinance which says:

"This ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day from and after its passage, except that the provisions of this ordinance applicable inside the Coastal Overlay Zone, which are subject to California Coastal Commission jurisdiction as a City of San Diego Local Coastal Program amendment, shall not take effect until the date the California Coastal Commission unconditionally certifies those provisions as a local coastal program amendment."

Including the above "protection", putting §143.0740 (c)(2) into San Diego's Local Coastal Program, whether it be approved by the California Coastal Commission or not, will not override the State Density Bonus Law. Enforcing a local coastal height limit, whether put there by ordinance or by ballot measure, is not covered by the Coastal Act and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of The Coastal Commission. DSD and the politicians know that.

(4) §143.0740 (d) deals with the processing of a density bonus application. It says:

"(2) Granting an incentive shall not require a General Plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.

(3) The decision process for a development requesting an incentive shall be the same decision process that would be required if the incentive were not a part of the project proposal.

(4) The development permit requirement for a development requesting an incentive shall be the same development permit that would be required if the incentive were not a part of the project proposal.

(5) Notwithstanding Sections 143.0740(d)(3) and (4), when a development permit is required, the decision to deny a requested incentive shall be made by the decision maker for the development permit."

All they had to do was use the wording of the State Density Bonus Law:

"The granting of a density bonus shall not be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval."

The reason DSD and the politicians did not use the State language is because it includes the words "local coastal plan amendment."

Put another way, the State Law says that any development standard in either a general plan, a local coastal plan or a zoning regulation, can become a concession.

It says: "the granting of a density bonus" shall not require "a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval".

What could be clearer than that? If they had adopted the State Law wording they would be admitting that the coastal 30-foot height limit, which is part of a local coastal plan, is not protected, as they falsely claim. They have been giving false assurances to the people.
 

Two political hacks have to go: Ruben Grijalva and Tracy Jarman. 11/03/07

Fire Chief Jarman is a mere tool of the Mayor's office. Just as Police Chief Lansdowne had to check with the Mayor's office whether to serve a subpoena on a former mayoral chief of staff, Tom Story, this Fire Chief had to receive political direction before calling in the Navy and Marine helicopters to drop water on Rancho Bernardo homes.

The real chain of command was: Jarman to Sainz (Sanders' political handler), Sainz to the Governator's equivalent, Ahnuld's political handler then calls Cal Fire's Ruben Grijalva (who needs no political handler). Grijalva, still sitting at his immovable desk, reminds everybody of political realities; this is the private fire of private contractors - remember?

The Governator "remembered". First rule of politics: follow the money. Ahnuld says: OK, I'll tell the media it's the wind. They will print anything I say.

And so the word came back to Tracy. This fire has already been privatized. No military.

Did she react like a firefighter? No, she reacted like a civil service job climber, just like her counterpart in Sacramento. Maybe some day she hopes to be State Fire Marshal or even get Grijalva's job. If she sticks around Jerry Sanders long enough, she might. She will master the art of the photo op. That's how you get to the top. Ask Sanders.
 

Mike Aguirre's Report "sparks" a discussion on the wildfires. 11/02/07

Density Bonus - "In and of itself" is being avoided like the plague. 11/02/07

Shame on you Tony Perry. I used to think you were a good reporter. 10/30/07

The picture opposite is of Doña Adelina Hernández, remembering her 11 year old son, Omar Alonso Hernández, killed on that day. He would now be 34.

Read this editorial by Daniel L. Muñoz, Publisher of La Prensa San Diego, dated August 19, 2005. It is a long way from Tony Perry's description of Sanders as an "immensely popular police chief before he retired in 1999 to run the local United Way."

Here's what we know for sure about Sanders' movements on that fateful day, from 4:00 P.M. until Huberty was put down by a single shot from a police sniper, Chuck Foster, positioned on a post office roof a block south of the McDonalds restaurant.

Sanders was attending a San Diego police department event and a police birthday party afterwards at the Salmon House, Marina Village, Mission Bay. Soon after 4:00 P.M. he was informed of the San Ysidro situation, although he claims his beeper did not go off.

Eye witnesses say he was dressed in civilian clothes, yet he arrived at the massacre scene over an hour later dressed in police uniform. Did he go home to change or did he have a spare uniform in his car? The question has never been asked.

There are numerous reports of intercepted radio communications between Sanders and the police snipers on the scene at San Ysidro asking for the "green light" to take down the shooter Huberty. Each time Sanders answered in the negative. Yet we are asked to believe that he spoke on the radio only once. Why not release the 911 tapes? That would clear the whole thing up. But they were never released. Are they still in existence?

How could any human being, particularly a man entrusted with the power of life and death as a SWAT commander, put his own desire to be present at the scene and be the one before the cameras afterwards, above the lives of innocents he knew to be dying as he drove south on I-5? Yet that is exactly what Jerry Sanders did. All he had to do was give the "green light" earlier and several of the above named victims would be alive today.

Here is Wikipedia's account of the incident. At the very least Jerry Sanders should have never again been entrusted with life or death power. The incident was never independently investigated. We only have police accounts. Bill Kollender openly lied about the 77 minute time frame the following night on Nightline. It was all neatly swept under the carpet.

And I was willing to let sleeping dogs lie until Tony Perry wrote this disgracefully misleading line in the LA Times today: "The gunman was threatening to kill more when Sanders gave the green light that allowed a police sniper to kill him."

It was clearly designed to give the false impression that Sanders actually saved lives not caused deaths. Shame on you Tony Perry. I used to think you were a good reporter.

Final quote: "Sanders has announced his intention to run for reelection". And Tony Perry has announced his intention to write whatever distortions it takes to get him reelected.
 

Let's not kid ourselves, we just got lucky. 10/30/07

Source: San Diego County Emergency Homepage The thing that still puzzles me is the mind-set of the authorities on that Monday. What were they thinking? As they repeatedly told us, the dry east winds were blowing hard and forecasted not to let up until Wednesday. Things looked very bleak that morning: two huge fires raging out of control, expected to burn to the ocean. Despite all the congratulatory hoopla, the firefighters were essentially just getting out of its way. Undermanned, they had little choice. What did they expect to happen Monday and Tuesday? Did they just pray for a miracle? It is clear that if the fires got into the heavily populated areas the situation would be out of control. In a way, they got their miracle. But what about next time?

We have only two choices: (1) we plan for "sheltering-in-place" or (2) we plan for a "mass evacuation". In October 2007 we did neither. Let's not kid ourselves, we just got lucky.
 

There's your answer Mr. Aguirre. 10/29/07

Who is Ruben Grijalva? A political hack. 10/28/07

Duncan Hunter	Ruben Grijalva

This smoking gun quote is from Duncan Hunter himself, in today's U-T:

"Immediately after the fires were under way, Gen. Mike Lehnert, the Marine Corps Regional Facility commander, deployed three CH-53s and one CH-46 to the tarmac at Miramar, ready with their buckets to engage the fire. He was notified by the California Fire Fighting Agency that his choppers could not be used without certified Cal Fire “spotters” accompanying each chopper.

“Fine,” responded Gen. Lehnert, “put your spotters on the choppers, and let's go.” Cal Fire responded that no such spotters were available at the moment and, therefore, the choppers would have to sit.

At 10 p.m. on Tuesday night, I talked to Cal Fire chief Rueben Grijalva by telephone, and he agreed to lift the spotter requirement. This was done during the operational briefing between me, Congressmen Issa and Bilbray, and Supervisor Ron Roberts. To Grijalva's credit, he agreed to drop his spotter requirement [my emphasis] for the Marine aircraft, and they were able to take to the air the next day ".

HIS spotter requirement?

I thought we were a government of laws, not of men. Yet here is an instance of one man deciding the fate of tens of thousands of families. A true political hack, he remained faithful to the terms of his appointment: to protect and serve the political patronage of his office. Accordingly, he let the homes burn. That kind of political loyalty is well rewarded.

By Wednesday when he finally relented, lifting HIS spotter requirement, the fires had largely burned themselves out. He is still free to impose HIS requirements next time.

Where was Schwarzenegger in all this? Covering for Grijalva. He lied to the cameras. He blamed high winds that had long died down. It could so easily have been different.
 

There were only 3 ways out. And Mexico. Whew! 10/25/07

We need an evacuation plan before the next one. We live in a fire trap. In the meantime enjoy the guaranteed Charger win on Sunday. San Diego is on a lucky streak.
 

Mission accomplished. Evacuate the evacuees. 10/25/07

If we still have that 2003 banner we can hang it out at Qualcomm Stadium this Sunday for the San Diego Chargers vs. Houston Texans. The game is on.

The following quote from an article in the U-T today pretty well guaranteed that the Stadium would be cleared of evacuees for the big game on Sunday:
 

T-Mobile offers free HotSpot service for hot spot San Diego. 10/24/07

Now if Starbuck's would offer free coffee I might move my laptop over there.
 

Aguirre needs to be perfected - "Just like Ann Coulter". 10/24/07

The cowboys and environmentalists must be friends. 10/23/07

It bears a striking resemblance to the recent Greek fires. The cumulative impact on wild life of these two pictures must be enormous.

Is man burning down the natural forests to make room for his "developments"? Would these "wildfires" be happening naturally, if we were not here? Probably not like this. The fact is we are hard on "wildlife", i.e. every species other than our own. They have not done so well since "the rise of man" in the last few millennia.

Before the proliferation of man's "developments", wildlife escaped a forest fire by out-running it or running in the opposite direction. Now there are precious few places to run.

If we continue to destroy the habitat of so many species (our manifest destiny as earth's masters?), pretty soon we will be the only species left on the planet.

Just as in the great Oklahoma song: "The farmer and the cowman should be friends", the developers and environmentalists must be friends. Otherwise Hollywood will soon be making "How the West was Lost".

Now that we can view our handiwork from space, to survive we must learn to sing "Oh What a Beautiful Morning". The cowboys and environmentalists must be friends.
 

Dumanis' email - DA or private individual? 10/21/07

• be candidates for public office in a partisan election
• use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
• directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate."

There isn't much doubt that a District Attorney is a "covered employee", the only question is whether Ms. Dumanis exercised "official authority or influence" in this email. She signed herself "Bonnie" and used a hotmail address.

However, she did write: "Shortly, I will be sending a letter to the legal community and my supporters asking them to also support Bill."

What supporters was she referring to? Those who supported her election to "official authority", or some kind of supporters in her private life? Could be.

We should ask a District Attorney - or a Judge Wellington. Never mind.
 

The $146 million pension rip-off was NOT legitimate union bargaining. 10/21/07

Sanders is now "running with the unions".  10/20/07

Hell hath no fury like an attorney defamed. 10/19/07

Does a developer always have a right to an "economic benefit"? 10/19/07

Here is the assessor's map of the 5 acre site.

Here is an aerial photo. It is a classic steep hillside lot. It never had any economic value.

Peters has closed the item to further public comment. He will ram it through on October 23rd, just as he did with the $4.8 million gift to PDC for the Rose Canyon bridge design.
 

Did Nancy Graham's attorney, Sabrina Teller, go too far in covering up? 10/17/07

Next she will be bringing her developer friends into the City Council Closed Sessions. I am sure attorney Sabrina Teller could think up some cover story for even that.
 

Nancy Graham's "deny, deceive and delay". 10/16/07

Scott Peters "Star Chamber". 10/16/07

Is Sanders up to Dick Murphy's old tricks, lying to the markets? 10/15/07

Here is the full Pension Report released January 12, 2007. Go to page 4 of the Report for an explanation of how the UAL was reduced by $393.2 million.

Notice that the $393.2 million figure is a "net" figure. Not all the figures reduce the UAL. There are three items that Increase the UAL:
 

The items that Reduce the UAL are:

Therefore the real reduction is $539.6 million. But can we rely on it?

Here is the published Agenda for a Special Meeting of the Pension Board scheduled for this Friday October 19, 2007 at 8:30 A.M. Referring to how much the below-market "purchase of service credits" program (PSC) has cost the pension fund, it says:

"The shortfall totals approximately $146 million, and has been included in the system's Unfunded Actuarial Liability since the inception of the PSC."

But Cheiron's August 14, 2007 letter to SDCERS administrator, David Wescoe, says that at least $20 million ($22.8 million) of that $140 million ($146 million) is NOT included in the UAL. It says:

"approximately $20 million of the $140 million (sic) is not part of SCDERS Unfunded Actuarial Liabilities (UAL) as of June 30, 2006".

It goes on to say that the $20 million ($22.8 million) "represents benefits in excess of IRS limitation (Section 415) and is a direct obligation of the City".

Cheiron's figure of $140 million is just sloppy for the total shortfall of $146.6 million in the table below and the $20 million is another sloppy reference to the $22.8 million item 8 in the "Increases" table above. It is hard enough keeping track of all this without having to deal with such sloppiness from the highly paid consulting actuary, Gene Kalwarski.

Here is a table I have prepared of the $146.6 "shortfall". Don't confuse this amount with the $146.4 million "increase" in UAL liability. They are unrelated, just similar amounts.

Who is telling the truth? Cheiron or the Pension Board? Somebody should ask them at Friday's meeting. They should also ask if the figure of $20 million ($22.8 million) is reliable. Could it be much more? If so, how much more? And where does it appear on the City's balance sheet? It should appear somewhere if it is in fact a City liability.

Is this another case of hiding a known pension liability from the bond markets? Until the Mayor's office and the pension board answer these questions, the City Attorney should not sign a "representation letter" for the 2005 audited financial statements.

Councilmember Donna Frye has asked everybody to follow her example and give back, or pay for, any undervalued PSCs. I can just see Ann Smith's face in reaction to that suggestion.

Read Ms. Frye's press release. It is an appeal to any City employee with a conscience to do the right thing. She writes: "I do not believe that it is reasonable or proper for me to receive any benefit that I have not fully funded. I hope others feel the same". We will find out how many consciences there are in our fair city.

If only Ann Smith and Judie Italiano had the moral integrity of a Donna Frye. It is the total absence of such morality that has put this city in the state it is in.

Sanders seems to be up to Murphy's old tricks, lying to the markets. Just as back in the bad old days that got us into this mess, these pension figures seem to have been tailor-made for Sanders to get him back into the bond markets.

His political consultant, Tom Shepherd, has already publicly identified getting back into the bond markets as his basic re-election strategy. It's all raw politics.
 

Did Fred Sainz commit a felony in "IP-gate"? 10/14/07

John Kern should quit while he is ahead. 10/14/07

Who will go first, the Union-Tribune or Bob Kittle?  10/12/07

How stupid was it for Sanders to lie about Mount Soledad? 10/12/07

Sanders fixes it for Manchester. 10/12/07

Here is the infamous Bob Manis' "NBC CEQA Finding" dated October 19, 2006. When I learned about it, on the same day, I wrote this blog dated October 19, 2006, .

Manis was instructed by Sanders to reward Manchester's donation of $50,000 with what must be the most corrupt CEQA finding in the history of all California. Manis, on behalf of the City, certified that no substantial environmental changes had taken place in downtown San Diego between 1990 and 2006 and therefore Manchester need not do a new EIR.

Back to the present: the Mayor was in Washington DC on the day of the catastrophic landslide in La Jolla.  He was on a lobbying trip to the Secretary of the Navy for Manchester's Navy Broadway project. Everything else was just cover.

The San Diego Business Journal published his schedule: "First up, a meeting at the Pentagon, with Donald C. Winter, secretary of the Navy. Among the issues scheduled to be covered: military priorities in San Diego, the war on terror and the proposed Pacific Gateway, which would redevelop the Navy Broadway Complex in downtown San Diego."

What neither Sanders nor Manchester knew was that Cory Briggs, attorney for the appellants, had sent this settlement offer to Malinda Dickenson, the City Attorney handling the case, on October 2, 2007. It was an offer the City could hardly refuse. (I did NOT get my copy of the email from ANY of the attorneys involved, but it IS genuine.)

On Monday October 8, 2007 Ms. Dickenson shared this information with Sabrina Teller, outside counsel for CCDC, pursuant to an information sharing agreement between the City and CCDC on legal matters. Attorney Cory Briggs was not previously aware of that agreement. He had assumed he was dealing with the City Attorney's office only.

It turns out that this sensitive information was immediately shared with more than CCDC.

When Perry Dealy, Executive VP of Manchester Financial, became aware of it for the first time on Monday October 8, 2007, he rejected it out of hand. He was not willing "to conduct a comprehensive seismic study and a traffic study for the proposed Manchester development of NBC before Manchester receives any further approvals to proceed with the development". A seismic study of the site is the one thing he dreads above all else.

That $50,000 Manchester donation to Sanders for the passage of Proposition C in 2006, is still in play. In other words Sanders still owes Manchester. There wouldn't be much point in lobbying the Navy Secretary in Washington DC on behalf of Manchester one day and on the next day conceding the one thing he dreads the most - a seismic study.

Sanders had to kill the offer because it was such a good deal for the City. It would be impossible for the City Council to resist it in open session. Therefore it had to be forced underground to a closed session, where CCDC and the Mayor could control the outcome.

But why not just go for a continuance when the Item would be called on Tuesday? It is very telling that they did not take that option. Why? Because the public can speak to a continuance. They wanted to silence all public comment on the issue of seismic activity.

Therefore the Item must be pulled from the public session, until such time as the present consciousness of seismic issues, raised by the La Jolla landslide, has died down and the decision in closed session to reject the enviros' settlement offer will be fully implemented.

But how to explain pulling it off the regular Council Docket? The CCDC project manager for Navy Broadway, Eli Sanchez, called attorney Cory Briggs on Tuesday morning at 11:00 A.M. He left a message asking if Mr. Briggs would agree to a postponement. He didn't hear back from Briggs until Wednesday. The answer was a firm "no". The appellants wanted that seismic study - that was their bottom line.

Now for the interesting part. DSD arranged a City staff meeting for 1:00 P.M. on Tuesday October 9, 2007 to discuss the settlement offer. It was to include Deputy City Attorney, Malinda Dickenson, together with representatives from DSD and CCDC.

Guess who turned up. Perry Dealy. At the invitation of CCDC President, Nancy Graham.

To her surprise, City Attorney Malinda Dickenson discovered that Nancy Graham had already discussed the settlement offer with Perry Dealy, prior to the 1:00 P.M. meeting.

We do not know whether Perry had attended DSD and CCDC meetings the previous day. We DO know that Graham and Perry had already decided to pull the item off the regular Council Docket because they had instructed Eli Sanchez to contact Michelle Strauss at the Council President's office and Sanchez had left a message on Cory Briggs' answering machine, to that end. Sanchez had been told to "fix"  the Docket.

But Sanchez lied to Michelle Strauss at Scott Peters' office. He told her that the NBC Item had been improperly noticed and needed to be pulled from Tuesday's Docket. She chose to believe him and so instructed City Clerk Liz Maland, who then marked the item "NOTE: This item has been taken off the docket". It is now scheduled for November 6.

Was the Mayor in on all this? Of course he was. Nancy Graham would never take such responsibility upon herself without Sanders' express instructions. Kinda reminds one of Lansdowne refusing to serve Aguirre's warrant on Tom Story. Of course Lansdowne talked to Sanders. The insiders stick together. That's the whole purpose of insiders.

Besides, the only one Manchester has leverage over is Sanders. $50,000 is a lot of money even for "Pappa" Doug. Sanders owes Manchester even more than he owed Sunroad. Feldman merely organized a fundraiser, while Manchester donated $50,000 of his own money. That should be enough to bury the seismic issue. So far it has.

But the Mayor and Nancy Graham made two fatal mistakes:

(1) they invited Perry Dealy to a City staff meeting attended by a City Attorney, involving a very delicate legal matter, in which he is an affected party. In doing so, Graham put Manchester's interests before that of the City and the people of San Diego. They are so used to inviting Dealy to all City staff meetings involving Navy Broadway that they forgot that this one included a City Attorney. Bad mistake Nancy. You gave the game away.
(2) then they lied to the Council President's office and in turn to the City Clerk. As I have demonstrated above, the item was in fact properly noticed.

They were so anxious to get the Soledad Mountain excitement calmed down, that they made mistakes. They wanted no media attention on seismic issues until Navy Broadway is clear of the public hearing at City Council.

The settlement offer Item is still on the Closed Session Docket (Item CS-4) for Tuesday October 16, 2007, but only as a legal issue related to the action taken by the City Council in January 2007. There can be no discussion of the Environmental Determination made by CCDC on July 25, 2007regarding the Navy Broadway project. That matter can only be discussed in open session. I hope everybody remembers that.

The City Attorney will probably make a recommendation regarding the settlement offer, but we may never know what it was. This is another way of sidestepping the advice of a City Attorney that does not play their games. The Mayor will seek to get the City Council to reject the environmental settlement offer in closed session. If the City Council accepts it, the matter will be docketed for open session, but probably in the Consent Agenda.

However, Sanders must take responsibility for the improper actions of Graham or fire her. Did she act with his instructions or not? She put the interests of a large campaign donor before that of the City. Did she decide to invite Manchester's CEO, Perry Dealy, to attend a City meeting on her own authority, or was she instructed to do so by the Mayor's office?

It is precisely the same question that precipitated Waring's firing: did Waring approach Donna Frye with the 166 foot high compromise on the Sunroad building on his own authority or was he instructed to do so by Sanders? Waring has never admitted to doing it without instructions, nor has he accused Sanders of instructing him - he wants to be able to work in this town again, while he is still young.

In either case Nancy Graham, in addition to having helped Manchester dodge  the seismic bullet, may have helped him set the City up for a lawsuit similar to his successful suit against the City of Oceanside. That's what Manchester does when he fails to get his way.

Manchester's Navy Broadway project is in the same geological fault zone, the "Rose Canyon Fault Zone", as the Mount Soledad landslide. This explains why Sanders handled the La Jolla landside issue so carefully and why he is so frightened of Aguirre's openness.

The City (DSD and CCDC) has been helping Manchester avoid a seismic study at Navy Broadway from the very beginning. They shudder when anybody utters the words "Rose Canyon Fault Zone". How many times did the Mayor refer to any fault zone in his Mount Soledad press conferences? Never, that I am aware of. "Pappa" Doug told him not to.

When Manchester filled out his "Environmental Checklist Form" he failed to check the box at VI a) i) at page 7, which asks if there is a "Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?"

The City has known from the get-go that the Navy Broadway site is on "the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map". Manchester has refused to indemnify the City against all lawsuits, even though he is contractually obliged to do so. He is reserving the right to sue the City itself and the Mayor and Nancy Graham are helping him set it up.

If there is a heated argument going on right now between the Mayor and the City Attorney over how to handle the subsidence of a section of Soledad Mountain Road, where miraculously a school bus was not traversing at the moment of subsidence, can you imagine the argument that would result if future fatalities took place at Navy Broadway as a result of knowingly building on an earthquake fault. $50,000 can only go so far.
 

Speaking of Charter Sections ...... 10/11/07

No person about to be appointed to any position in the service of the City shall sign or execute a resignation, dated or undated, in advance of such appointment."

Didn't His Honor the Mayor request and obtain a signed resignation letter from Ronne Froman and perhaps other hires "in advance of their appointments"? I seem to remember Jerry boasting about the fact that he had the resignations of all his senior staff sitting on his desk as a "Sword of Damoclese" hanging over their heads? The Voice of San Diego wrote this at the time.

Bob Kittle needs to get a new lawyer. He needs to quo warranto the San Diego Charter Section 135. In fact he needs to go quo warranto himself. Ooops.

For those of you who like to check things out for yourselves, here is a treasure trove of campaign contribution info, courtesy of the Center on Policy Initiatives. And here is the Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure at the City Clerk's office. Have fun.

I don't think Kittle did Sanders or the Republican Party any favors in opening this can of worms. It's time Kittle got "canned" himself. He and Krvaric are an embarrassment to ordinary decent Republicans - like Executive Assistant City Attorney, Don McGrath, who will probably sue the pants off Kittle. I see Kittle admitted in a U-T article today that he was in fact the author of yesterday's editorial hit piece on McGrath and the others.

Yeah, I think Kittle is going to need a better lawyer than the amateur who fed him the quo warranto nonsense. Don McGrath is an old salt and will have them both for lunch.
 

Speaking of deals .... 10/08/07

I noticed that he closed his escrow on September 9, 2000 and that his Corbett Judgment was granted on May 19, 2000. Again, no problem. Lots of successful attorneys move to better digs after winning a big case. It still does not answer why the U-T favors him and hates Mike Aguirre. Even the U-T is above simply taking care of - the nouveau riche.

The answer must lie in the Corbett and Gleason cases themselves. So I read and reread both of them. First the Corbett Settlement with its accompanying Clarifications.

Conger files a lawsuit on July 16, 1998 against the City of San Diego's pension administration, SDCERS. The city unions join Conger as "Intervenors". Ann Smith becomes the lead attorney for the four city unions: the MEA, Firefighters 145, AFSCME Local 127 and the San Diego Police Officers Association (POA).

This was a case of collective bargaining using the court system as leverage, facilitated by a private attorney, Michael Conger, for which he got well paid. Conger did not come up with all this stuff himself, it was a well-planned black bag operation by the unions.

Conger ostensibly based his suit on the "Ventura" case, where the California Supreme Court ruled in August 1997 that Ventura County's retirement board:"was required to classify certain payments made by the County of Ventura to its employees over and above their basic salaries as "compensation earnable" and to include those payments in "final compensation" used to calculate the monthly pension benefits payable to the retired employees". He argued that the "same rationale" should be used in San Diego.

The unions wanted the courts to secure their pensions. And the courts fell for it.

The case quickly became a class action suit. Part of the plan? All members of SDCERS would be bound by the outcome. Corbett was just the John Doe and Conger the willing accomplice. He had the full resources of four powerful unions behind him.

The City Attorney at the time, Casey Gwinn, allowed the City to "settle" the case and sign away hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal benefits - retroactive pension raises, "contingent" benefits such as the 13th Check, below-cost purchase of service credits and  the DROP. All this disregarded the State's spending limitation laws.

How a judge, Robert E. May, could override the State Constitution escapes me. But that is exactly what happened, he "approved" a "settlement" that broke State law.

We are definitely missing something here. It has to be more than personalities. Casey Gwinn gave away hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars but the U-T fusses over the present City Attorney spending $968,000. Why?

The answer begins to emerge when you carefully read the Corbett case. You come to realize that the Corbett "settlement" was an integral part of the pension heist all along. NTC and the ballpark could only happen if the unions were given their turn at the public trough. Such giveaways required the collaboration of senior (union) staff at City Hall. That is why the U-T is committed to protecting the pension deal. So was Murphy.

But back to Conger. Not content with his fee from Corbett, Conger came back for more. Perhaps his Rancho Santa Fe house needed a pool or something. So he files the Gleason case. This too becomes a class action case, which means that any settlement will be binding on all City employees and retirees. It was "settled" on July 26, 2004.

This time the unions wanted a mortgage on City properties. They got it. They were afraid their greed would bankrupt the City. Here is the so-called Gleason settlement.

Now read Barton's ruling on Phase One of the SDCERS' lawsuit. Notice the Pension system sued Aguirre not the other way around, as the U-T always fails to mention. Again, just as in the two Conger cases, the City unions are the real suing party and Ann Smith is the lead attorney for the city unions: the MEA, Firefighters 145 and the AFSCME Local 127, who again come in as "Intervenors", a legal term meaning somebody who "enters into a suit as a third party for one's own interests". Planned in advance?

It has all the hallmarks of a setup to me. Barton was asked to decide: "Whether the City’s argument the Managers Proposal I ("MP1") and Managers Proposal II ("MP 2") benefits are null and void is barred because of the Gleason litigation and settlement" (line 18 page 2). What did he decide? You guessed it: "the Gleason settlement ended the contribution relief by SDCERS and thus the City’s reliance on setting aside the benefits under the debt limit laws by suing SDCERS alone, is unavailing" (line 17 page 6).

Now we know why the unions sued Aguirre: he would have no choice but to defend the City and when he inevitably lost, they would make him look like a loser and close the pension case forever. The unions used judges as part of their "collective bargaining" strategy. After each major benefit increase they went to the courts on some pretext, such as the Corbett and Gleason cases, to draw the mantle of court protection around their illegal benefits. It worked.

Barton knew it and threw Aguirre this compliment: "The legal principles the City uses to challenge the benefits in this action appear to be one of the few available mechanisms to do so under the remedies in the state court system. Despite the creative use of these principles and the excellent presentation of the case at trial by the City, previous inconsistent positions taken by the City before the filing of the cross-complaint raise significant obstacles to the City’s current effort to undo the remaining pension benefits."

You can say that again, Judge Barton. "Significant obstacles" were indeed raised by the City's "previous inconsistent positions". It was all well planned and well executed.  The  U-T does not want to undo the long sordid pension affair because it was tied to the ballpark deal. Absent major sports in this town, the U-T's circulation would drop by half.

Aguirre's election caused panic to the architects of the plan. But they soon turned it into an opportunity to create smoke. His unwelcome presence morphed from being a worry to being a godsend for the purpose of obscuring the nuts and bolts of the pension giveaway.

It reached its zenith yesterday in a front page story eviscerating him. So long as the U-T keeps us thinking that this is all about Mike Aguirre, so long will the unions get away with their $900 million heist. But the U-T may have made its first major mistake yesterday in juxtapositioning Aguirre's $968,000 with the $900,000,000. It just doesn't add up.

The next Mayor will simply refuse to pay the illegal pension benefits. Sanders will not get re-elected. The fact is that this administration continues to violate State spending limitation laws by continuing to authorize illegal payments. Sanders will inevitably pay a price for siding with the unions. Law breaking can never be part of "collective bargaining".
 

Let's make a deal. 10/06/07

We move the whole thing to what is now Qualcomm Stadium - by way of a land swap.

That would remove the worrying security problems associated with the waterfront site. It is much too small to build a buffer zone around the proposed Navy HQ building. Such a building, wherever it is located, will inevitably become a prime target for terrorists.

At Qualcomm the Navy could build an open space perimeter and use it for parking. A truck bomb would be spotted and neutralized long before getting to its target. We don't want another Oklahoma City and the Navy needs to practice force protection.

Rather than a tempting target for terrorists, a park, similar to Chicago's "Grant Park", would greatly enhance overall property values downtown. Chicagoans preserved their waterfront and built a magnificent municipal park. Development boomed. Everybody wanted to be near the water and the parks. We could do the same - if we are smart.

Look at how much Chicago has given over to its waterfront park. All the private development took place behind a line. Our line should be Pacific Highway.

A Military Contracting Center at Mission Valley would help our regional economy as much as the downtown Convention Center undoubtedly has done. This Mission Valley complex could be the national meeting place for all military industrial contracting - where the nation's military leaders meet the nation's best private contractors to compete for the honor of making our military more efficient and effective. Where better than San Diego?

The Navy's "Admiral Baker Golf Course" is nearby. "Montgomery Field" could handle the executive jets. One spouse could enjoy our Mission Valley Malls while the other closed the big contract deals. The MV traders would love it. A win-win for everybody.

What about Manchester, the Navy and the Chargers?

Manchester could still build his hotel rooms - perhaps do even better than he had hoped at Navy Broadway. "Hoped" being the operative word, because the Navy will never be able to build on its waterfront site. There is an earthquake fault running right through it. It is worth about as much today as a site on the 5700 block of Soledad Mountain Road.

The Navy is still vainly trying to get around the California Coastal Commission, which means it knows only too well that the State will never grant it a building permit. The Navy has the same chance Sunroad has in getting the FAA to allow its 180 feet high building.

As for the Chargers, nothing short of an out-and-out gift of the Qualcomm site would stop Mark Fabiani from whining to the media. Well, here's the deal Mark. Go to Chula Vista and don't let the door hit you in the rear on your way down there. But we will help you.

Chula Vista has the site, but it does not have the borrowing power to put a stadium deal together. We could still call the team the "San Diego Chargers", if we formed a Joint Powers Authority, called "The Stadium Authority". It would consist of the Port of San Diego, the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. Here is the Chula Vista site.

Surely all this is not beyond our powers of good business and good government. If it makes sense, let's do it. Does anybody have a better idea? I don't mean Doug Manchester or Mark Fabiani. We know what they want - everything for themselves.
 

Sanders is in deeper trouble than we thought. 10/05/07

If I were a Sanders supporter right now I would be thinking that my boy was in trouble. He has taken an enormous hit over the gay marriage issue and the jury is still out on how the La Jolla disaster will play with the public. It can't be good. Our infrastructure is crumbling.

To add to Sanders crumbling infrastructure problems Arthur Levitt gave an interview yesterday to Bloomberg News where he practically shut off all doors to the public municipal bond market until officials' heads roll in San Diego as an example to cities and counties around the country. San Diego is Enron-by-the-Sea in a very real real sense. It will be from here the municipal bond sacrificial lamb will come.

Of course Levitt is being a charlatan as always. He is stealing the thunder of the real SEC Chairman, Christopher Cox. Levitt knows that Cox has not done with San Diego. Here is some of what Cox had to say about San Diego in a major policy speech at the Biltmore Hotel Los Angeles, on July 18, 2007.

Who is going to pay for the La Jolla landslide? 10/04/07

It was listed in the MLS until yesterday. Here is the listing and the accompanying photographs. It had been on the market since February 7, 2006. Two back-to-back listings with Greg Neuman of Prudential California Realty had expired without selling.

The thing that struck me about the listing's "remarks" section was the total absence of any reference to the property being in a Natural Hazard Zone. It is located both on an active earthquake fault and in a designated slide area. That would have to be disclosed in the settlement papers but I would have put it in the remarks section of the listing as well, just as I would for a cracked slab or other known adverse site condition.

A potential purchaser deserves to know such things before wasting their time going to look at a property they would never buy. There is a limited market for homes with known site problems, but realtors by nature are reluctant to mention negatives up front.

The current owners are Hany & Summer Girgis who purchased it on March 14, 2001 from William Sheehan for $589,000. Did they fully understand the slide condition? Did they try to get insurance and fail? It had been listed since September 9, 2000. Sheehan purchased it from Marcy Holthus on May 29, 1998 for $409,000. Holthus was also the listing agent. She had purchased it from Julio & Mary DeGuzman on December 29, 1997.

Perhaps the most interesting situation is that of the McCormicks at 5734 Desert View Drive. They purchased their home on May 24, 2007 for $1,050,000. Here is the listing and the pictures. This is the tax assessor's public record. I notice that the lender of their $634,259 mortgage is a private party and that it was dated 12 days after close of escrow. This would suggest that the McCormick's were unable to get institutional financing.

Again, they could hardly not have known about the pre-existing slide condition and the proximity of an earthquake fault, otherwise their realtor has serious liability. Realtors are required by law to make Natural Hazard Disclosures, which include known geological conditions. It is standard procedure in all residential transactions.

Each of the above sellers are liable to their respective purchasers for such geological disclosures.

It is very unlikely the purchasers were not aware of the slide condition.

This geological map clearly shows the location of this well known slide area with a seismic fault running right through it.

It would have appeared on the statutory disclosure.

The information was readily available to the sellers, purchasers and their lenders. The above geological map was kindly provided by my very good friend Katheryn Rhodes PE.

The City sent this letter to all homeowners in the 5700 block of Soledad Mountain Road on September 19, 2007. It reveals that there was a series of water leaks from the main water line. The City had commenced installing an above-ground water pipe so that they could shut off the underground pipe that was leaking.

It is not clear whether they had already shut off that pipe by October 3, 2007. What is clear is that the City knew there was a problem. The Mayor may not have helped the situation by denying in his press conference that the City was aware of any problem prior to the landslide. That will not help the City's defense later when the claimants' attorneys try to paint the City as caring more about its budget than its citizens.

However, one can hardly blame the City for the above slide and seismic fault condition. One could blame it for having permitted development in that area. But then most of La Jolla is unbuildable by that standard. Look at another of Katheryn Rhodes' maps below.

There are several areas similar to the area circled in red. For example there are huge slide areas marked north of Mount Soledad. The main Rose Canyon Fault (the black line) runs along Mount Soledad Road, up to Mount Soledad and right down to La Jolla Cove.

The only thing the City could be accused of is not doing enough to prevent water leaks, which may have triggered the actual slides or it may have been something else, like the series of earthquakes we have had recently. But nobody can deny that the actual slide was an event waiting to happen. Nobody can say that the City is solely responsible.

I am told by legal experts that all the affected homeowners need prove is that the City was partially responsible and it will be held fully liable. That seems very unfair, but that is what attorney Patrick Catalano will be trying to prove. If he succeeds, then the City will need to look at its permitting procedures to protect itself in the future.

One way would be to require all future developers to indemnify the City against all claims or loses arising out of any development in areas designated as a "Natural Hazard Area". That indemnity would "run with land" as a deed restriction. In other words all future owners would assume that risk from the original developer. No more claims against the City.

This area of Soledad Mountain Road is a designated Natural Hazard Area. Any future permits for rebuilding should carry such deed restrictions. It may give pause to anybody who thinks they can rebuild and sue the City next time nature takes its course.

There are lots of such "Natural Hazard Areas'" around the city, such as the controversial Navy Broadway site. Our City Government needs to take immediate steps to protect the taxpayers from potential liability, such as La Jolla in the future.
 

The La Jolla landslide: community meeting at 6:00 P.M.  10/03/07

Here is high quality data on Charter Review progress. 10/03/07

Mayor Sanders: reinstate Rick Reynolds and Lance Wade.  10/02/07

She was reprimanded by Scott Chadwick, the City's Labor Relations Director, in this email as soon as he heard about it. Forced apologies do not sit well with Ms. Italiano so she has been seething about it ever since.

The problem for this city and for its citizens is that not even the current "Strong Mayor", Jerry Sanders, was able to resist "She who Must be Obeyed" Judie Italiano when she demanded that Fred Sainz and Jay Goldstone provide her with the IP addresses of all the computers in the City Attorney's office. They actually provided her with that list!

When Mr. Reynolds expressed concerns to his boss, Jay Goldstone, regarding the appropriateness of the Mayor's office, or anybody else, having such sensitive information, he was fired. Mr. Wade was fired for no better reason than he was closely associated with Mr. Reynolds, having served together in the U.S. Navy. Both were hired by Ms. Froman.

But why would Judie Italiano want the IP addresses of all the City Attorneys' computers?

Because she actually believes that it really was the San Diego City Attorney, Mike Aguirre, who made that 11:26 P.M. "Post a comment" entry on an LA Times story dated May 11, 2007 regarding the sensationalized murder trial of Phil Spector.

Chris Reed has been hyping this story on his U-T "America's Finest Blog". He writes: "If it was Mike, does he owe Italiano and the city in general an apology for using his official e-mail address to express the following sentiments in defending the honor of the victim in the Spector case from the attack of another poster?" She hopes to even the score.

Thus, Italiano's need to justify her inappropriate blast email may have cost two honest City employees their jobs. These two men are damaged for life. Even an eventually successful wrongful-dismissal law suit against the City will not restore their good name or their current employment prospects. Right now they are in disgrace and without income, apparently because of the inability of a weak Mayor to stand up to a labor leader.

Or did Mayor Sanders seek and obtain that list of IP addresses for his own purposes? If so, what were his purposes? What could possibly justify his requiring the IP addresses of all the attorneys in the City Attorney's office? There can be no doubt that he actually did it. I will leave it to the two men who were fired when and how to release the proof.

My immediate concern is one of fairness and decency for these two men. It is totally intolerable that two retired Navy officers and blameless employees could find themselves in this position, simply because they "no longer fit the political profile" of the Mayor's office. Jay Goldstone asserted that they served at the pleasure of the Mayor.

True, but the Mayor serves at the pleasure of the people. Richard Nixon had to resign over the Watergate break-in.

Last week Sanders dispatched his goons to bag the IP addresses of those whom he considers his political enemies, the City Attorney's office. Stealing the City Attorney's IP addresses is as serious as breaking into the National Headquarters of the Democratic Party. Reynolds and Wade were fired for protesting its immorality.
 

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