Yawn - Chargers to Leave San Diego

The impending move of the Chargers to Los Angeles has left with me with a so what feeling.  I lost emotional connection with them a few years back.  I had no intention of supporting another hold-up of the city finances.

The only silver lining is that maybe we will have incentive to figure out how to make stadiums profitable without football teams. If that problem could be solved, we could build stadiums and not get soaked on the deal.  

So long.  And good luck playing second fiddle to the Rams in LA. 

San Diego Voter Guide - Vote NO!

My TrumpNation Guide To San Diego Ballot Propositions.

In a previous post on California ballot measures, I mostly recommended voting NO.  I am repeating this same recommendation for local ballot initiatives in San Diego.  There is all sorts of disguised skullduggery afoot, as I explain below; so if you don't know, Vote No!



Measure A. 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for SANDAG. NO
They say they will fix potholes with the money; maybe they will maybe they won't.  They can spend the extra money however they want within the listed priorities.

Measure B. Lilac Hill Development near Escondido. YES
The developers are having troubles with the seemingly endless regulation needed to build a project of this size.  So I say yes, as part of my bid to poke the eye of all regulators.

Measure C. Hotel Tax for Downtown Charger Stadium. NO
Raises the hotel tax to build a stadium downtown for the Chargers.  Just say no to professional sports owners getting sweetheart deals from cities.

Measure D. Competing Hotel Tax Measure for Charger Stadium. NO
Supposedly a better deal for taxpayers than Measure C; but my same objection to funding billionaires businesses applies.

Measure E. Removal of City Officials. NO
Provides for removal of "mayor, city attorney and City Council members to forfeit their job outright if they are convicted of a felony, found civilly liable for fraud or declared incapacitated by a court."  Source: VOSD.  Only voters should remove elected officials.  Further, this opens up the door for judicial shenanigans.  A friendly judge could declare the mayor "insane" and voila, the City Council President is Mayor.

Measure F. Probation Period for City Attorneys. NO
This measure would decrease the probationary period for city attorneys from 2 years to 1 year.  The elected City Attorney needs the right to shape the staff, so no. Plus, if this is a problem it can be a campaign issue.  It was one reason I voted for Jan Goldsmith in 2008, because he promised to clean up the managerial practices of the then City Attorney  We need to fix issues by electing the right people, which is why I am voting for Trump.

Measure G. More Teeth for Police Oversight. NO
This would give the Citizens Review Board a new name, more power to investigate and issue subpoenas.  This might be good if the San Diego police were doing a bad job.  But I fear that the police will get hamstrung and crime will rise as a result, like we are seeing in Baltimore, New York, and Chicago.

Measure H. Change to City Contracting Legal Language. NO
Supposedly uncontroversial measure removes requirement to publish advertisement of contracts in local paper, so too bad, NO! Much good work in uncovering corruption has been performed by perusing public documents.  Dave Maass is an example of someone who has done such work.

Measure I. Keep San Diego High School in it Current Location. NO
Directs the city to lease a portion of Balboa Park to the school district which would keep San Diego High in its current location.  I can't help but think this will also save taxpayer dollars and save the flagship high school.

Measure J.  Take More Money out of Mission Bay Rentals. NO
Increases from 25% to 35% the amount of money that the city can shift out of Mission Bay Park to other parks from the rents it produces.  Seems unfair to me.

Measure K.  November Elections No Matter What Happens in June. NO
Requires a run off for Mayor and other offices even if the winner of the June primary got over 50% of the vote.  Since Republicans turn out better during primaries, this favors Democrats.  If Democrats want their lazy voters to make a difference, turn them out in June. 

Measure L.  November Elections for Ballot Measures. NO
Allows certain type of ballot measures to only be voted on in November.  Why bother having a June election if it is meaningless?

Measure M. Raise Limits on Affordable Housing City Manages. NO
This would increase the number of units of "affordable housing" the city is allowed to manage.  Stop all the regulations that prevent new homes from being built instead.

Measure N.  Taxes on Marijuana if Legalized. NO
The only good that would come of legalized weed would be a reduction of violence due to no more black market.  This would re-establish the black market and the violence by raising the price of marijuana above street prices. As we have seen in New York City with the death of Eric Garner, cigarette taxes kill.

San Diego vs. Chargers - All Over But the Divorce Decree

Mayor Faulconer appears to have played a weak hand badly with regards to negotiations with the Chargers, if his goal was to keep the Chargers in San Diego.  Jeffrey Siniard has been covering the situation at www.boltsfromtheblue.com:

Mistakes made by the City of San Diego:
1. Mayor Faulconer and his staff got in over their heads the moment they didn't realize how much pressure the Chargers were under to make a deal, and assumed it was primarily an attempt by the Chargers to manufacture leverage.
2. A better understanding of the situation by Falconer and his staff could have led to an earlier City/County partnership, earlier hiring of negotiating experts, who then could've worked with CSAG to produce a polished offer in shorter time.
3. Instead of ignoring all of the noise coming from the Chargers, the City has instead chosen to respond in kind, which abets the Chargers "We have to Los Angeles" narrative.

But I also agree with Siniard said earlier in the same article, Falulconer's main goal seems to be to avoid blame should the Chargers leave town.  Charger attorney Fabiani's overheated rhetoric serves that end so well, it makes you wonder if it isn't a conspiracy.

In a more recent post Siniard argues that the December election is a sure loser for the City:

- There is no solution the Chargers and/or the NFL will accept in San Diego for 2015. Stop trying to come up with one. Much as people want the Chargers to accept San Diego's idea, they are a private business and are under no obligation to accept it.
- All of the options presented by San Diego for getting around the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) carry a significant degree of risk from a successful lawsuit, or take too long to complete for a vote in 2015.
- Furthermore, no deal in San Diego can beat the deal the Chargers have put together with the Raiders in Carson. Until that option disappears, there's no reason for the Chargers and/or Raiders to negotiate in good faith with their home markets. The Chargers and Raiders are going to see how Los Angeles plays out this year. They'd be stupid to do otherwise.

I have argued that there is no way the Chargers can remain in town, because we will never be able to compete with Los Angeles in terms of what the city gives away to the team.  Siniard take the view that the only way to keep the Chargers here is to apply pressure on the NFL. But he is clear that it only buys some time for an election to be held during "prime time" that would have a chance of passing a plan that would satisfy the Chargers.  Too many ifs, in my opinion; better to just let the team walk rather than divert leadership attention from other pressing problems.

Qualcomm Stadium By Intersofia at en.wikipedia [CC BY-SA 2.0], from Wikimedia Commons

What You Should Be Reading:

• The Voice of San Diego, because even if they are left of center, they break important stories.  It's called journalism and the national press should take notice.  Going after Dumanis in today's edition with more great investigative work. 

The Chargers Must Leave San Diego

Qualcomm Stadium By Intersofia at en.wikipedia [CC BY-SA 2.0], from Wikimedia Commons

As long as the voters of San Diego are willing to punish politicians for subsidizing a new Chargers stadium, or as long as the law is interpreted that such subsidies require a public vote, there is no way that the Chargers can remain in San Diego for much longer. Numerous studies have shown that the value of a football stadium to a city is never more than the amount of money plowed into subsidies, so there will never be a viable economic argument for a new stadium, and I think San Diegans understand that. See Pacific-Standard for a great summary of the issue in general in America.

. . . from 2001 to 2010, 50 new sports facilities were opened, receiving $130 million more, on average, than those opened in the preceding decade. (All figures from Long’s book adjusted for 2010 dollars.) In the 1990s, the average public cost for a new facility was estimated at $142 million, but by the end of the 2000s, that figure jumped to $241 million: an increase of 70 percent.
. . .
Due to these oversights, Long calculates that economists have been underestimating public subsidies for sports facilities by 25 percent, raising the figure to $259 million per facility in operation during the 2010 season.

This only leaves emotional arguments about the value to the city of being in the "big leagues."  However,  even with the Chargers threatening to leave, the latest polls indicate that the public is unwilling to subsidize the team to stay in San Diego, with 54% disapproving of using tax dollars to keep the Chargers.

However, the situation is also unfair from the Spanos family's viewpoint. Other cities are willing to subsidize their football teams with money for stadiums, so San Diegans attitude puts the Spanos' Charger team at a competitive disadvantage. They have to compete against teams in larger markets who are playing on subsidized ballfields. The interest on loans to build a stadium is money not available to pay players salaries.  If the Chargers are a business, then they would be crazy not to look to move to a location where subsidies drive down their costs.  Ultimately, the business with the higher cost goes bust.  In the NFL, this would mean never being in contention and slowly losing your fan base.  Also, if the Chargers aren't going to receive subsidies, then moving to a larger market and sharing the costs of a stadium with the Raiders in Carson is still better than footing the bill alone in San Diego.

The real problem is that politicians in most other states and cities are willing to ignore public opinion and provide tax payer funding to professional sports franchises.  They do so, even when the public votes against ballot measures, like in Pittsburgh.  In such an environment, the only way to win is not to play the game.  But it means the Chargers have to go.

The Surveillance State and the Erosion of Trust in San Diego

Revelations about the surveillance state are eroding trust in government and in law enforcement in particular.  Police officer involved deaths of civilians are also responsible. Setting the Ferguson incident aside, which details are murky; Eric Garner's death in New York and the death of Tamir Rices in Cleveland, both captured on video, cast doubt on the fairness and integrity of those police departments and the justice system.

Locally, this distrust played out in social media on my app, NextDoor,which allows people to connect with others in their neighborhood (the comments referenced below come from the Bay Park neighborhood news feed.)  Significantly on this app, anonymity is not allowed, which seems to improve on-line behavior.  SDPD Officer Hesselgesser posted an article about car break-ins by thieves capturing the key-fob signal. I applaud the SDPD for taking to social media in this way to work with the community.  But, subsequent commentary revealed the impact of the lack of trust.  Officer Hesselgesser advised against covering up the vehicle's VIN as a means of preventing thieves from getting fobs from the dealership. Some wondered why.

What's the valid, non big brother reason we should keep the VIN uncovered?

Asked Tom from PB in the comments.

Another interaction that reveals the mounting concern over surveillance comes from this posting about video cameras at a Balboa Ave. intersection.

At the intersection of Balboa Ave. and the Target store entrance driveway, there are 4 video cameras installed next to the hanging traffic signals. All 4 cameras are aimed toward the center of the intersection. Does anyone know why the cameras are there, and who is monitoring them?

And comments worrying about transparency:

I noticed those also. For sure those are video cameras. They are *not* traffic light sensors or Traffic Signal Preemption (TSP) sensors for emergency vehicles (turn traffic lights green). The TSP sensors don't look like cameras. That intersection is not on the 511 camera list: http://traffic.511sd.com/#cameras/search/layers=cameras
I'm guessing those cameras are for law enforcement against illegal use of Traffic Signal Preemption devices which are sold on the Internet. If you want to dig deeper, call councilmember Chris Cate's office and ask.

In case you are curious the cameras appear to be optical detection cameras to sense approaching vehicles and linked to the traffic light controls.

Cylindrical object is optical detection camera. (Source: WikiMedia Commons.)

Finally, there is the unresolved issue of how the San Diego police are using the cell phone tracking devices known as the Stingray.  (This stingray is much more pleasant.) The Stingray is a mobile cell phone device that masquerades as a cell phone tower, allowing law enforcement to get a suspect's (or average citizen's) cell phone to divulge information to the interceptor.  Because information on the operation of the device is being kept secret by the San Diego police, we have no way of knowing if bystanders or even love interests of officers, are under surveillance.  The Snowden revelations have made us realize that once a technology is in the hands of the government, it will likely be misused without oversight.

Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher, not lower, standard than the average citizen.  There should be consequences when the police don't live up to high standards, rather than the current culture that rallies the DA and fellow officers to get an exoneration.  Even when circumstances don't warrant prosecution, poor police conduct that results in the citizen deaths should be punished by dismissal.  Finally, local law enforcement needs to be transparent.  The San Diego police should release as much information about the Stingray that pushes the envelope of what the Justice Department has told them.  When they engage on social media, a good thing, they need to follow up on citizen's concerns.  Restoring trust that law enforcement is doing its job while protecting our constitutional rights will make us all safer.

The "Living Wage" Sham

The campaign to raise the minimum wage here in San Diego has been fraught with distortions and misleading information.  Thankfully, it looks like we will see the wage hike put to the voters in June 2015 2016.  Why the wait?  I'll find out.

The arguments for a minimum wage boost are fraught with emotionalism: always expected from the left.  But how much help does the minimum wage boost provide and does it do what its supporters say it will?  Since 79% of those receiving the minimum wage work part-time (national statistic), let's assume that a minimum wage worker averages 29 hours per week (from 2010 census data).  The San Diego minimum was set to increase $11.50 per hour against a new state minimum of $10.00 per hour (as of 2016).  That works out to $17,342 vs. $15,008 per year.  Can anyone support a family on $15,600 per year?  Of course not, but $17K isn't going to cut it either.

The main argument for increasing the minimum wage is that we should pay a "living wage" (also called a social wage by some economists).  The theory is that wages below that needed to pay for basic living expenses are exploitive because the employer shifts social costs to society. It presupposes that such workers are forever stuck in such jobs and have no other options.  It also presupposes that large numbers of people earn what the minimum wage law dictates, but that is only about 2% of the workforce.

In fact, minimum wage jobs are intended to be stepping stones as employees gain skills and work experience.  A study that is now over a decade old stated that nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers get a pay raise after a year on the job.  We also know that minimum wage workers are likely to be young (less than 24).  I posit that they are often living with their parents. This makes the calculation of a "living wage" problematic because the "social cost" of labor varies widely with age.  Certainly there are other circumstances that greatly vary the social cost of labor.  In order to help the relatively few workers who are full time heads of household, are we going to reduce employment opportunities for younger workers who need to build work experience?

The other myth regarding the "living wage" is that heads of household earning the minimum wage have no other supplements to income (some data based on two parents, one child making $17,000 per year):

• Many minimum wage workers are in industries where tips supplement income.  Nationally, tips earn an average of $8 an hour.  (I have no local figures.)
• The Earned Income tax credit can provide up to $3250 in additional annual income.
• The annual value of food stamps is $1789 in California for low income persons.
• The annual value of Medicaid for poor families is equivalent to a $4500 insurance policy in California.
• Students who earn the minimum wage may use student loans for room and board while they gain skills to increase their employment value.  (Helping students was one of the arguments raised by the proponents of the increase.)

In general, we provide social safety nets for those making the minimum wage.  Raising it may feel good, but it penalizes employers whom we need to keep our fragile economic recovery on track.

There are some other myths used to support a minimum wage rise that I will take on in other columns.  I note that the studies regarding macro-economic benefits of minimum wage increases apply to states or countries, not individual cities and there is reason to believe that they wouldn't hold up for a single city.

What You Should Be Reading

• Richard Rider points out the very high cost of water in San Diego.
• Word Warrior points out that Obama is failing to learn lessons from the Vietnam War in his conduct of war against ISIS (and yes it is war.)

Ebola Ethics

The Washington Post blog post about "white" Americans getting an Ebola serum reminds me of an old joke about the Post.  The Almighty gave the editors of the Post a call to let them know that the world was ending the next day.  True to form the WaPo headline read: "World to End - Women and Minorities Impacted Most."  Distribution of the serum to Americans has jack to do with the fact that they are white and everything to do with the fact that they are Americans.  The serum is being developed by an American company, Mapp Biopharmaceutical, based right here in San Diego, I am proud to say.

Before this outbreak, ZMapp had only been tested on monkeys. Mapp, the tiny, San Diego based pharmaceutical company that makes the drug stated two years ago: “When administered one hour after infection [with Ebola], all animals survived…Two-thirds of the animals were protected even when the treatment, known as Zmapp, was administered 48 hours after infection.”

Here are the ethics.  American technology and compassion are fighting Eblola and when the disease is brought under control, it will be because of America.  So Americans get first call on the vaccine.  To be fair, Arthur Caplan touches on some of this in the article.  He also asks why there is no process to allow more experimental use of drugs when a new disease is getting started.  Great question.  Our medical bureaucracy doesn't care if it kills a thousand people by withholding a treatment, if one life is saved that might have ended from a new treatment.

Unfortunately, Caplan concludes:

An ethical case can surely be made for an organization that puts health-care workers in harm’s way to acquire access to experimental drugs and bring staff home to get the best possible care. But that is neither a fair nor just policy for deciding what to do when an emergency arises and rationing is the only option.

Have to disagree, protecting the people doing good is always the right answer.

What You Should Be Reading

• Professor Perry looks at why there are so many part-time workers.
• I skewer KPBS for their tale of two people minimum wage story.
• Dalrock takes on frigidity, yes, frigidity, here and here (it's not pretty).
• Few of the still 30 million uninsured Americans will face fines.  Of course they won't.  Of course there is still millions of uninsured.  What, you thought the ACA solved that?
• And this speech by Justin Amash, who won his re-election primary against crony capitalist and Chamber of Commerce backed challenger Brian Ellis.

Yes, You Should Be Punished

KPBS has a story about how the purported affect of a San Diego minimum wage hike on a restaurant owner and burger flipping Mom with four kids.  They try to make it sound as if their is no some kind of moral symmetry in the situations, there isn't.

Kristin Aguirre is a married mother of four daughters, all under age 8. She's 25 years old and earns minimum wage working at the Burger King in City Heights.
. . .
"I could have waited to have kids and gone on with school, but I didn't," she said. "Just because of that, we shouldn't be punished and make a low wage to raise our kids."

News flash for you Kristin, you should be punished for having not one, but four kids, with both you and your husband lacking the skills to support them. (Her husband makes $200/week, they both get assistance.)  Both of you decided to be leaches on society through your lifestyle choices and take advantage of society's compassion.  You are punishing your children as well, cramming all four of them into a single bedroom.  What's wrong with you?

Meanwhile, restaurant owner Matt Gordon is going to be hit with over half a million dollars per year in additional direct costs and untold indirect cost increases.  If his business fails, 54 employees will lose work.  Meanwhile, the immediate impact of the minimum wage rise is for Kristin's pay to go from $500 to $540 per month. Not exactly life changing.

The contrast between who we are rewarding and punishing with the left's push for a minimum wage hike couldn't be more revealing of the damage they wish to inflict on society.  Matt Gordon is clearly a successful, creative, ambitious man and pretty decent looking to boot.

The contrast with Kristin Aguirre couldn't be more striking.  Check the pictures in the article and ask yourself "Do we want more Matts or Kristins in our society?"

California Primary Results - San Diego

I am leaving early on a trip, but I am pretty pleased with the early returns in San Diego.  In Council District 2, Lorie Zapf seems to have a good chance at clearing the 50% threshold to avoid a run off in November.  Propositions B & C also appear headed for defeat, a huge victory for jobs in here in the city.  I live in the 52nd CA congressional district and it looks like a Peters (D) vs DeMaio (R) match up in November.  Peters is only showing 43% of the vote in early returns, against the Republicans seeking to replace him.  I don't think that bodes well for his November odds.

At the state level, it seems as though Kashkari will beat out Donnelly for the right to face Jerry Brown.  I am under no illusions that the Republican can take back the Governor's mansion, so my support, went to the man who was having an effective outreach and effectively hammering home Jerry Brown's support for the "Crazy Train" aka High Speed Choo-Choo.  Checking other results, I am amazed to see two Republicans in the lead for State Controller at this time, Ashley Swearingin and David Evans.  

Right now I am listening to Scott Peters giving a pretty lame defense of the Bergdahl deal today, but he backtracked with "I wasn't consulted and not sure if it was a good deal."

On the down side, Democrats are still in control of this state.  Also, I didn't vote for Bonnie Dumanis, but she may avoid a run off.  I don't know if Brewer would be so great, but her ethical challenges after 12 years in office deserve closer scrutiny. 

San Diego Economy and My Son's Union Job

After about a year of looking for work, my youngest son (M) got two job offers within a matter of a week.  The first was with a fast food outlet and the second with a grocery chain.  Signs that the local economy is picking up?  I hope so.  The alternate explanation is that hiring by local stores, ramping up for Christmas, left other openings in the economy.

My son shares my political philosophies, but he didn't hesitate to take the union grocery job as the better offer of the two.  It didn't help that the fast food outlet seemed to have challenges with its hiring process, a week after their offer, he still didn't have a start date.  I am leaving store names off this story to respect his privacy.

Meanwhile, the grocery chain made it clear that the sooner he joined the union the better it would be, so it was off to Mission Valley.  They asked him to donate to their political fund, which he declined; but it was good to see that no undue pressure was placed on him.

When he came home, I told him that now that he had joined the union, I expected him to go on strike if it came down to it.  By joining, he had made a promise and keeping one's word is more important than our personal political beliefs.  I have lived through the 2003-2004 grocery strike in this city and think the union made a terrible decision; but that is irrelevant to M's personal circumstances.  The 2003-2004 strike went on far too long, and I believe the union suffered long term damage.

If the union could provide more reliable and more productive workers, they would be doing employers a service that justifies higher wages over the non-union competition.  But no one argues this is the case, do they?

I am hoping that the local economy is turning around; people have suffered long enough over the last four years.

Hotels, Politics and San Diego

Looking for local news to blog about, I notice the extent to which news regarding rich hoteliers looms large locally.  Perhaps because tourism is so important to the local economy, we see so many stories.

1. Evans Hotels was recently granted an extension to the lease of the Bahia Resort land on Mission Bay for another 21 years under circumstances that call into question the real motives of the council. Andrew Keatts at VOSD has the story.  The $75,000 annual payment doesn't seem like much for such a choice location, but I am no expert. I really distrust any "public-private" venture.  Rich business interests can easily use influence and donations to get good deals that wouldn't be available in a free market where another private party owned the land.  I would like to see the city sell the land at auction and use the money to make up pension shortfalls. 

2. Dave Maass seems to have taken a particular dislike to Doug Manchester, local financier famous for developing the Manchester Hyatt downtown, ever since Manchester purchased the U-T.  Most recently Maass reported that Manchester's company's admitted to violating FCC regulation on cell phone boosters.  I have responsibility for cell phone contracts where I work, so I can understand Manchester's frustrations with coverage.  But we successfully worked with a vendor to fix the problem, we never considered taking matters into our own hands, even though we had access to technology to do so.  But Maass seems really intent on making Manchester look bad, so I wonder where that animus comes from.

3. I previously posted about Filner's illegal attempt to repurpose hotel tax revenue for "public safety."  The tax was approved by the city council prior to Filner's inauguration, another 39 years, to be specific.  It is highly unlikely that the new mayor could make such a change now, according to the VOSD, because of the restrictions on fees that can be passed without a public vote. 

Why do hotels attract attention, political and otherwise in San Diego?  I guess, because that's where the money is.

San Diego Navy Lights and USS Benfold Tour

I took a break from politics this evening and took family and friends to the Naval Base in San Diego for the Holiday Lights and a tour of the USS Benfold (DDG-65). It was great that the Navy opened up the base to the public and let them tour some of our ships. I was struck by the professionalism and high spirits of all the officers and sailors involved. There was quite the line to get on base, and the line of cars moved slowly, but it was worth it. Here are a few photos and explanations from the tour.



This is the fantail of the Benfold, where the ship can land a Navy helicopter. Our tour guide mentioned that they occasionally hold barbeques on the "steel beach" (the fantail) during long deployments. You can also see pier security in the background. The Navy did a great job of balancing security with making people feel welcome. I noticed that a lot of sailors on duty made a point of saying Merry Christmas to us.



Here's our tour group on the forecastle (pronounced foc'sle) with the 5 inch gun mount featured prominently. We were told that the spent rounds from firing the gun put dents in the non-skid on the deck. Our tour guide was the ensign in camouflage in the foreground. She was very patient with the questions from our group and had great answers. The hexagonal features below the bridge wings are part of the ship's ballistic missile defense system. On the deck behind the gun is the vertical launch system for various missiles, including the famous Tomahawk.


Here's another photo of the five inch gun with San Diego Harbor in the background.



This is a view across the dock, towards the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6), I believe. During the tour, one of the ships was playing the made for TV Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer on the fantail, which was a great touch.

On our way off the ship, we were treated to Christmas cookies. They were as delicious as any I have ever tasted. Better than Army cookies by a long shot. Beat Army!

Renaming the Coronado Bay Bridge for Reagan

Well, officially, the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge. There is an effort underway to rename the bridge after former President Ronald Reagan. Great, I'm thinking, honor a great American. There is also a counter effort underway to prevent the name change. David Klowden is heading the counter effort:

“I started this page because I don't want the San Diego-Coronado Bay Bridge renamed the ‘Ronald Reagan Memorial Bridge,’ he writes on his Facebook page. “I know there are many San Diegans who agree with me that this effort by a very partisan right wing individual to politicize a non-political local landmark is unnecessary. Please help me protect the name of the bridge ….”
. . .
Klowden does not see this as a liberal-conservative issue. “This city has a tradition of not having traditions” he said. “When it comes to preservation, I’m fairly conservative.”

So what do you think? At first, I was pretty miffed and it seemed like a typical leftist reaction to the greatness of Reagan. But I also thought, in 1987, San Diego voters voted to restore Market Street to its original name after a short spell as Martin Luther King Way. I'm also still miffed about the Murph being renamed after a local firm beginning with the letter Q. Is this issue so different?

Contrariwise, its only a bridge, not a piece of San Diego history, the way Market Street was. And supposedly serious coin, to the tune of $18 million, changed hands to get the name of Jack Murphy Stadium changed.

What do you think? Please vote in my poll.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com. (Where my career might be short lived, judging by the comments on my last article.)

Another Small Step - 401(k) for San Diego City Employees

Apparently the defeat of Proposition D has concentrated the minds of local politicians. Mayor Sanders announced a plan to put new workers into defined contribution plans yesterday. Labor leaders were of course skeptical, but made one comment with which I can agree.

Lorena Gonzalez, head of the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, said ending pensions for new hires does nothing to solve the city’s current budget crisis. . .

But you have to start reforms somewhere. Further, by changing to a defined contribution plan, the city will stabilize its future costs for pensions. Changes in market conditions won't cause changes to the city's required funding profile. Defined contribution shifts the risks to the employees, which is why the labor unions oppose. However, I am very happy to be in a defined contribution plan at my work. I think it will actually provide far better returns than the defined benefits portion of my plan, so I don't understand why labor leaders oppose it.

Carl DeMaio also pointed out that the plan does not really solve the current pension crisis.

Another Proposition D critic, Councilman Carl DeMaio, said the mayor’s plan is a good first step but doesn’t go far enough. He has proposed ballot measures that would cap the city’s labor costs and freeze salaries to control pension expenses.

“The bandwidth in the public will gravitate toward the plan that actually solves the problem,” DeMaio said. “I’m supportive of the 401(k) for new hires. It’s just that it’s not complete. It falls short of what the city needs ... You have to do a lot more.”

But the momentum is shifting in the debate over pensions and budget woes. It is becoming widely accepted that most of the problems we face with government deficits must be solved through spending cuts, however they are achieved.

The mission of the Tea Party is to hold our politicians' feet to the fire and push for real reform and budget cuts.

Lorie Zapf Stopped By This Evening

I was starting to wonder what was happening with the Zapf campaign, but who should ring my doorbell but the candidate herself. Unlike when I saw her in the debates she was much more relaxed and personable in person. She had a young man in tow who I thought might be her son, but couldn't tell for sure. He had visited before, so this was a return visit.

Zapf, a slight woman full of energy, said she had been walking the district for about a year. She asked if I had concerns about the election. I introduced myself as the author of this blog and said that I had endorsed her. She asked what concerns I had about the election. I told her that her problems with mortgages had not been sufficiently rebutted, that basically I had not seen an adequate rebuttal. She said that her second mortgage on her home was being renegotiated and that it was a mistake for the bank to have issued the notice of default. She asserted that the bank has since wiped out any back fees owed since she got the new second. She also said that the issue in Las Vegas had to with her husband's real estate transaction on a short sale.

Honestly, she seemed believable, but I am nervous about the situation. Zapf looked at the young man accompanying her and they both agreed that there would be a statement on her web site soon. In my opinion, this very slow response is hurting her campaign. She pointed out that much of the negative press comes from the San Diego City Beat, which she said has been hostile to her candidacy. Candidates probably need to have blog sites, twitter, facebook and youtube accounts so that the can swiftly respond to mud-slinging by their opponents. Regardless, I look forward to reading more of her response.

I told her that my key issue was the pension mess. I pointed out that Howard Wayne seems to be the most knowledgeable candidate on the nuances of the issue, but I didn't trust him because of the union endorsements. She pointed out that Howard Wayne voted for the very pension increases that have gotten the state of California into budget trouble. Read a little about that here.

I am still convinced that I will vote for Lorie Zapf, but I am disappointed in the way her campaign has handled controversy. My make or break issue this year is the issue of pensions and who will be the most aggressive in dealing with the mess prior politicians have left us.

Coincidentally, Kim Tran endorsed Howard Wayne today over the very issue of pension reform among other reasons. You can read the whole article here:

Howard has given me his word that he is committed to revitalizing our communities by creating middle class jobs, restoring fire and police protection and repairing our streets. He is also committed to reforming the pension and reducing the budget deficit.

I interviewed Kim Tran last May and was very sympathetic to her candidacy. I think she is making the classic mistake of going on simple trust when Howard Wayne's endorsements and previous record indicate that he is the worst candidate on the pension issue. A possible motive for her endorsement?

Tran quit the San Diego County Republican Party’s central committee last month, calling the party leaders the committee “ineffective, unethical and tyrannical” and complaining that she was being targeted because she had refused to leave the race after the party endorsed Zapf.

I don't doubt that there are Republican committeeman that are ineffectual, as Kim states, but I am disappointed by her actions. Kim seems like she would feel at home with the Tea Party and we need more people like her on the inside of both Democrat and Republican organizations. I hope to see Kim active in politics in the future; but I hope that Zapf will win this race even more.

San Diego Firefighters - Less Fight for your Buck

The local fish wrap has inadvertently performed a public service in their attempts to push the local half cent sales tax increase. To be fair, I don't know if that is really the agenda, but the wall to wall coverage they have given the issue makes it appear that they favor the tax. Regardless, they published some statistics about fire department costs in a number of large cities through out America. At first glance the numbers don't look so bad for San Diego:



Let's take a closer look at these numbers. Everyone pay attention, class is officially in session. Look at the column called sworn personnel. These are the numbers of firefighters and paramedics that will actually show up at your door to provide rescue. Notice the low numbers for San Diego? So despite comparable spending on the total budget, we actually put fewer firefighters on the streets. I have done the math for you to make the comparisons easier. Click to enlarge.



San Diego doesn't have a firefighting budget problem, we have a pay and management problem. We spend approximately the same amount per resident that comparably sized cities do. What really jumps out is the outrageous cost per sworn personnel. Our firefighting department is far and away the most expensive per sworn personnel. This mismanagement is the real reason we are idling engines. A hint as to why we have the highest expense ratio is contained in my earlier post, our firefighters are significantly over compensated, especially considering how much overtime is paid to senior firefighters.

So when asked what really caused the tragic death of Bentley Do, don't blame lack of budget for our fire department. No matter what ultimate cause is assigned, it isn't that. If people are going to blame the slow response of the fire department for this death (I am not so sure) then the root cause is the greed of the unions and the spinelessness of our politicians that allowed firefighters pay to skyrocket. It's time the city got it's moneys worth for what we pay in taxes. San Antonio gets almost double the number of personnel for only 10% more budget. Not an extra nickel to the San Diego fire department until they show they can reform their management practices.

Half Cent Sales Tax Increase - DOA

Will a half cent sales tax increase in the city of San Diego pass this November? The fact that Howard Wayne (candidate for District 6 Council seat) has come out against it speaks volume. Here is a candidate endorsed by every employee union that matters, saying he would vote No on the proposed increase. Howard Wayne is an experienced politician, and an astute campaigner, so his read on the situation says a lot. Listen to the following report from local station KUSI.




By the way, does David Alvarez sound like a wishy washy weakling or what? Glad I'm not in district 8. I am also concerned that Lorie Zapf, whom I have endorsed, can't get herself on TV.

For those of us in the Tea Party, keep in mind the last little sentence about this tax increase only needing a simple majority vote to pass. Time to get busy, this is our issue, we are Taxed Enough Already. And what's this crap about San Diego being one of the lightest taxed cities in the nation? California has both a high sales tax rate, and a high income tax rate, fact. Sick of this union crap to extort more money from us. With the parcel tax on the ballot, we have some work to do.

I would like to thank Steve Rivera, Howard Wayne's campaign manager, for providing the link to the KUSI piece.

San Diego Tax and Spend Alert Update

I posted earlier about San Diego's Mayor Sanders eyeballing a half cent sales tax increase. Now the school board (President Shelia Jackson at right) is getting into the act of energizing us Tea Party types. From the Union-Tribune:

The San Diego Unified School District has proposed a parcel tax for the November ballot to help pay for teachers, protect class sizes and maintain education programs. It would generate $58 million annually over five years.

If the measure is placed on the ballot and approved by voters, single-family homeowners would be charged $98 annually while condominium and apartment owners would be taxed $60 per unit. Low-income seniors would be exempt.

I am now hoping that both the half cent sales tax and the parcel tax increase make it on the ballot. Given the falling property values, high unemployment, and generally difficult economic times, this is a great opportunity to let the politicians know that more taxes are unacceptable. The city is contemplating building a new city hall with your hard earned scratch. The district wants to keep the teacher's unions happy with this tax rather than deal with needed structural reforms. Fortunately the parcel tax requires a two-thirds majority to pass. I guarantee, right here and now, that the San Diego Tea Party won't let this happen.

So what could be done to plug the hole in the school district budget? If you look at the ratio of teachers to non-teacher employee counts in the district, compared to say the ratios in the private school systems, you will find a huge disparity. Time to cut administrative positions. This would expose the hypocrisy of the teacher's unions, because they would decry such cuts, as they have in the past. But such cuts protect class size and teacher salaries. Some cool facts:
Number of teachers: about 8100.
Number of staff members: about 14500.
Ratio of teachers to non-teachers: about 1.25 to 1
Ration of teachers to non-teachers, Chicago Catholic schools: about 7 to 1
(data derived from multiple sources)

Just something to think about.

Pre-emptive Action Against San Diego Sales Tax Increase

Temple of Mut has information on protests to convince politicians to not even try to put a half cent sales tax increase on the ballot this November. Save the date of Monday, July 12 at 1230. (I will be in New Orleans, unfortunately.) Long time local advocate for freedom, Richard Rider is leading the charge. (I have had acquaintance with Mr. Rider for over 25 years, it was out of a sense of loyalty to him that I took so long to leave the LP.) Here is the some of the good news that Mr. Rider has to share about the opposition coming together:

Likely included as organizations will be my SD Tax Fighters, San Diego County Taxpayers Assn, the GOP, the Libertarian Party, … major “Tea Party” operations in the county, the SD Restaurant Association and hopefully several others...

I have to admit that I almost want to see this tax increase on the ballot, because it will so energize those sympathetic to the Tea Party, that it may influence the outcome of local elections, in particular, Council District 6, which looks to be close. My lefty buddies at OB Rag points out that Mayor Sanders used this issue to pillory Donna Frye in their mayoral contest. However, OB Rag doesn't appear to be opposing the tax.

(Picture of Richard Rider from "A Brief History" blog.)

San Diego Tax and Spend Alert

Not coincidentally, the same day that Carl DeMaio's outsourcing initiative failed to make the November ballot, comes news that Mayor Jerry Sanders is considering putting a half-cent sales tax increase on the same November ballot (H/T Temple of Mut.) The city council and the mayor have failed to outsource a single service to save money, even though the voters approved managed competition two years ago. The lack of coincidence is that the only reasonable way to cut the cost of government is to reduce labor costs by outsourcing. That way, the big overhang of future obligations from city pensions can start to be reduced. Carl DeMaio had this to say about the situation:

Voters overwhelmingly passed proposition C in 2006 to require the city to use regular competitive bidding on city services with the exception of police and fire. And so four years have passed, not one city service, not one function not even one taxpayer dollar in the city budget has been subjected to managed competition under proposition C.

Richard Rider discusses the idea of a ballot measure in the article about the tax increase:

Taxpayer advocate Richard Rider said any proposed tax increase from Sanders would be shot down by voters because they believe they’re already paying enough.

“If he likes to get his teeth kicked in, I guess he can go ahead,” Rider said.

Rider also said the proposed ballot measure would stop financial reforms already under way.

“Nobody is going to do anything else in terms of reform,” he said. “They’re going to hope that they can get bailed out with taxes.”

Exaclty. If there is an issue that conservatives, libertarians, Tea Partyers and taxpayers can get together on, this is it. If Sanders proposes this initiative, I will never vote for him again.

Not convinced of the efficacy of outsourcing? See Adam Summers article for the Reason Foundation. Just one example:

The City of Phoenix implemented a managed competition program in the late 1970s to address a looming fiscal crisis. One of its successful competitions was for trash and recycling collection. The city was divided into six geographic regions and collection services in each sector were put up for bid on a rotating basis. Some bids were won by the city, and others were won by private providers. As a result of the competition, the city has saved about $25 million over the past 30 years. Add in savings for competitions for solid waste transfer hauling and landfill operations and the city has saved a total of almost $40 million.

I would like to hear Howard Wayne and Lori Zapf provide their views on the proposed tax increase. I have my suspicions, but maybe we can find out.