January 9, 2011
The Privilege of Not Proving Your Point Publicly
Posted on January 9, 2011
by Liam Dillon
Voice of San Diego
San Diego City Councilman Carl DeMaio argues his major pension reform proposal is legal. He says he's got a legal opinion to back it up. But you aren't allowed to see it.
Former head of the city's downtown redevelopment agency Fred Maas believes there are legal problems with requiring the agency to pay off the previous expansion of the city's Convention Center. Maas says there's a legal opinion to back it up. But you aren't allowed to see this one, either.
"I wish it was available," Maas said.
Both opinions are hidden under a veil of secrecy called attorney-client privilege, a legal protection that can keep lawyers' advice private. The idea is to keep legal strategies and opinions confidential so that a client, in this case the city, isn't disadvantaged in litigation.
But circumstances over the past few months have raised potential inconsistencies in how the city uses its legal privilege. It has allowed city leaders like DeMaio and Maas to make their case without having to show the nuance, risk and complexity that often accompany these types of discussions.
The result is that a key element of public debate on significant topics is left out. The proof.
"The public is certainly entitled to be skeptical of their claim that the opinion supports their position," said Terry Francke, head of public records watchdog Californians Aware.
Both situations would benefit from more scrutiny.
DeMaio has an idea to reduce the city's $2.1 billion pension debt. He calls the concept "pensionable pay" and it's central to his financial recovery plan. DeMaio's plan relies on the city excluding specialty pay, such as extra pay for speaking more than one language, from current employees' pension calculations. Doing so would reduce the city's pension debt without affecting employees' take-home pay.
The councilman, who did not respond to a request for an interview, has insisted this idea is legal. He cited a privileged opinion from the city's outside labor counsel as backup.
"We also have written legal opinion from Mayor's own labor counsel Tim Davis confirming this," DeMaio wrote on Twitter last month.
But others argue DeMaio's idea is analogous to a California Supreme Court decision that said a similar move was illegal. Further, 10 years ago the city settled a lawsuit brought by retirees that argued the city was improperly excluding some specialty pay items from pension calculations.
The lawsuit was based on the same principles that DeMaio's plan hopes to follow, said Michael Conger, the retirees' attorney in that case. Conger believes the settlement means you can't do what DeMaio is proposing.
"When parties resolve a dispute, you can't come back 10 years later and say, 'Did not,'" Conger said.
DeMaio also has been on the other side of the debate. He, along with three other council members, want the downtown redevelopment agency to take over the Convention Center bond debt. Doing so would free up $9.2 million annually to pay for general city services, such as police and fire.
A publicly available November opinion from City Attorney Jan Goldsmith asserts the council can shift the Convention Center debt to the downtown agency, the Centre City Development Corp., if the council makes certain legal findings.
But there's another opinion on the Convention Center debt that's private.
"There's a contrary opinion by our own legal counsel that disagreed with [Goldsmith's]," Maas said.
Goldsmith's opinion on the Convention Center includes many caveats. The city would have to determine that the expanded center benefits downtown and there's no other way to pay for it. The Convention Center expansion was finished more than nine years ago and the city has been paying the bond debt out of its day-to-day budget. Goldsmith's opinion concedes that argument is "difficult to make."
The standard for attorney-client privilege is intended to be clear. Privileged information is communication between a lawyer and his client including confidential legal strategy. Because revealing the city's strategy to its potential adversaries could cause harm, privileged documents are exempt from disclosure under the state's public records law.
But the declaration is not without discretion. Goldsmith's Convention Center opinion, for example includes a reference to the private opinion. Francke said it was "certainly not" normal for one opinion to be public and the other privileged on the same subject.
Former City Councilwoman Donna Frye, whose nearly 10-year term ended in December, said Goldsmith's decisions on attorney-client privilege have been inconsistent, especially compared to Goldsmith's predecessor, Mike Aguirre. Aguirre often was criticized for going the opposite way: making too much information public to the detriment of the city's legal position.
Frye questioned why this summer Goldsmith released a memo publicly detailing the legal complications with Proposition D, the city's financial reform and sales tax ballot measure. Lawsuits challenging the ballot measure appeared soon afterward.
Frye added she believes both the private Convention Center and pension opinions should be released because they address public policy issues, not legal strategy. Further, Frye said, if DeMaio and Maas are to be believed the public already knows what they contain.
"If the conclusion is already known, what is the secret, then?" Frye said.
Goldsmith's spokeswoman said the city attorney was busy finalizing a public memorandum of law on pensions and unavailable for comment for this story.
Of course, there's one way the privilege issue becomes irrelevant. There's nothing keeping the person or agency that receive the legal advice — whether that's Mayor Jerry Sanders, the City Council, CCDC or someone else — from waiving privilege and making the information public. Here, that hasn't happened.
"I'd just say this coyness can't and shouldn't be trusted," Francke said. "If the client here won't waive the privilege, the public is entitled to conclude it has something to hide."
Monday, January 10, 2011
Monday, January 03, 2011
How to Drown 'Enron By the Sea'
How to Drown 'Enron By the Sea'
January 2, 2011
by Liam Dillon
In September 2004, The New York Times bestowed a nickname upon San Diego that the city has yet to shake: Enron by the Sea.
Though Enron, the famously corrupt Texas energy company, is long gone, the reference to San Diego's financial failures remains. Just last month, the national media revived it when discussing San Diego's reputation in stories about Mayor Jerry Sanders' plan to foist 401(k)-style retirement plans on most new city employees.
Like many folks, I wouldn't mind seeing "Enron by the Sea" go to sleep with the fishes. But how? The most surefire way is to end the city's series of budget problems. Deficits now stretch back a decade and most observers point to 1996, the year the city hosted the Republican National Convention and began underfunding the pension, as the beginning of the city's modern money woes. Budget problems predate the most recent recession, though the economic downturn certainly hasn't helped matters.
Here are five issues the city should address before it can declare victory over the many-headed hydra that is the city budget. All of them will be discussed in one form or another in the coming year.
Solve the Pension Problem
This one is a no-brainer. But as the last six years have proven, meaningful pension reform can be one of the hardest changes to make.
What could happen in 2011, though, is that city leaders could decide what the pension reform endgame looks like. Decide to develop or pursue legal strategies, such as forcing employees to share investment burdens. Decide to cut salaries or exclude certain compensation from pension calculations — if it's legal. Decide to lobby state and federal officials to change rules guaranteeing certain pension rights or for a negotiated bailout.
It's clear that the city's annual pension payment will continue to put a crushing burden on its ability to provide basic services over the next 15 years. City employees also deserve to know when leaders will stop going after benefits that have been promised to them and perhaps stop with misleading attacks.
Also worth noting is the city's $1 billion-plus deficit for another retirement cost: health care. Negotiations on reforming this benefit, which doesn't enjoy the same guarantees as pensions, are expected this year.
Solving the pension problem doesn't mean resolving everything at once. Lawsuits, for example, often take years. But the city needs to develop a clear finish line.
Fix Stuff
To figure out that San Diego is broke, you need to look no further than at what is broken. Estimates of the city's backlog of repairs for its buildings, streets and sidewalks approach $1 billion. Fixing streets alone will cost $377.5 million.
Despite an infusion of new bond money, streets continue to deteriorate to the point that people are filling potholes on their own.
A comprehensive report on the city's maintenance backlog was expected over the summer, but has yet to materialize. Getting a grip on needed repairs will help determine how much San Diegans must pay to maintain the parts of the city they touch and feel every day. The quicker the better. Spending $1 on street repair now, according to an estimate in a recent city audit, will eliminate or delay the need to spend $6 to $14 to fix streets in the future.
Restore Some Services
In summer 2013, San Diegans will celebrate the grand opening of a new downtown main library. As long as it's not a Saturday.
Budget cuts made over the past decade have degraded city services already. Operating hours, for example, at branch libraries have decreased by 30 percent to 36 hours a week over the past decade. The main library now is closed Saturdays.
Restoring at least some of the library hours and other cuts, most notably the rotating closures of city fire engines, will be central to the city's full recovery.
What Will Redevelopment Pay For?
Both our own Scott Lewis and the Union-Tribune editorial board have noted that redevelopment — the subsidizing of private sector development to fix rundown neighborhoods — has become the City Hall flashpoint.
And why shouldn't it? Time and again, people ask me how city leaders can consider $2 billion worth of big building projects while begging for new taxes to keep police officers and firefighters on the streets. The answer always is that redevelopment dollars are separate from the dollars that fund police and fire services, and redevelopment money can pay only for things like schoobraries and Chargers stadiums.
Now, even with downtown redevelopment continuing for 20 years longer than expected there's a growing consensus that redevelopment money still can't pay for everything. City leaders are going to have to make choices, and they won't be happy ones. Have redevelopment money take over debts, freeing up cash for police and fire services, or build a Chargers stadium?
Add lingering questions about the fiscal impacts of last fall's downtown redevelopment state legislation on other city neighborhoods and you have an issue central to San Diego's financial future.
Define the Role of the Public and Private Philanthropy
Catch nearly anyone who has spent time studying the city's budget for long and they'll tell you, most of them privately of course, that the city should charge all residents for trash pickup and collect greater fees for storm water. Together, according to a recent estimate, the city would collect an additional $60 million-plus a year if both fees were in place.
Given San Diego's reputation as an anti-tax city and recent history, both of those ideas don't appear to be coming soon. Still, no current city leader has made a sustained push to explain why San Diegans should consider these fee hikes for equity or other reasons.
At the same time, the role of the private sector in city affairs has increased, though in fits and starts. Funding for fire pits on the city's beaches, a national cause célèbre, now appears to come from philanthropy after years on the budget chopping block. A plan to create a gathering place in Balboa Park relies heavily on private financing. Opportunities for greater direct involvement from the private sector to provide city services, notably through volunteering, exist.
The definition of the city's structural budget deficit hinges on the word "structural." San Diego's structure is such that the city is set up to spend more money than it collects. Though Proposition D, a sales tax/financial reform measure failed in November, the potential fix to the problem remains simple. The city must cut costs, increase revenues or do some combination of the two.
Until that happens, San Diego will continue to drown in Enron's sea of red ink.
January 2, 2011
by Liam Dillon
In September 2004, The New York Times bestowed a nickname upon San Diego that the city has yet to shake: Enron by the Sea.
Though Enron, the famously corrupt Texas energy company, is long gone, the reference to San Diego's financial failures remains. Just last month, the national media revived it when discussing San Diego's reputation in stories about Mayor Jerry Sanders' plan to foist 401(k)-style retirement plans on most new city employees.
Like many folks, I wouldn't mind seeing "Enron by the Sea" go to sleep with the fishes. But how? The most surefire way is to end the city's series of budget problems. Deficits now stretch back a decade and most observers point to 1996, the year the city hosted the Republican National Convention and began underfunding the pension, as the beginning of the city's modern money woes. Budget problems predate the most recent recession, though the economic downturn certainly hasn't helped matters.
Here are five issues the city should address before it can declare victory over the many-headed hydra that is the city budget. All of them will be discussed in one form or another in the coming year.
Solve the Pension Problem
This one is a no-brainer. But as the last six years have proven, meaningful pension reform can be one of the hardest changes to make.
What could happen in 2011, though, is that city leaders could decide what the pension reform endgame looks like. Decide to develop or pursue legal strategies, such as forcing employees to share investment burdens. Decide to cut salaries or exclude certain compensation from pension calculations — if it's legal. Decide to lobby state and federal officials to change rules guaranteeing certain pension rights or for a negotiated bailout.
It's clear that the city's annual pension payment will continue to put a crushing burden on its ability to provide basic services over the next 15 years. City employees also deserve to know when leaders will stop going after benefits that have been promised to them and perhaps stop with misleading attacks.
Also worth noting is the city's $1 billion-plus deficit for another retirement cost: health care. Negotiations on reforming this benefit, which doesn't enjoy the same guarantees as pensions, are expected this year.
Solving the pension problem doesn't mean resolving everything at once. Lawsuits, for example, often take years. But the city needs to develop a clear finish line.
Fix Stuff
To figure out that San Diego is broke, you need to look no further than at what is broken. Estimates of the city's backlog of repairs for its buildings, streets and sidewalks approach $1 billion. Fixing streets alone will cost $377.5 million.
Despite an infusion of new bond money, streets continue to deteriorate to the point that people are filling potholes on their own.
A comprehensive report on the city's maintenance backlog was expected over the summer, but has yet to materialize. Getting a grip on needed repairs will help determine how much San Diegans must pay to maintain the parts of the city they touch and feel every day. The quicker the better. Spending $1 on street repair now, according to an estimate in a recent city audit, will eliminate or delay the need to spend $6 to $14 to fix streets in the future.
Restore Some Services
In summer 2013, San Diegans will celebrate the grand opening of a new downtown main library. As long as it's not a Saturday.
Budget cuts made over the past decade have degraded city services already. Operating hours, for example, at branch libraries have decreased by 30 percent to 36 hours a week over the past decade. The main library now is closed Saturdays.
Restoring at least some of the library hours and other cuts, most notably the rotating closures of city fire engines, will be central to the city's full recovery.
What Will Redevelopment Pay For?
Both our own Scott Lewis and the Union-Tribune editorial board have noted that redevelopment — the subsidizing of private sector development to fix rundown neighborhoods — has become the City Hall flashpoint.
And why shouldn't it? Time and again, people ask me how city leaders can consider $2 billion worth of big building projects while begging for new taxes to keep police officers and firefighters on the streets. The answer always is that redevelopment dollars are separate from the dollars that fund police and fire services, and redevelopment money can pay only for things like schoobraries and Chargers stadiums.
Now, even with downtown redevelopment continuing for 20 years longer than expected there's a growing consensus that redevelopment money still can't pay for everything. City leaders are going to have to make choices, and they won't be happy ones. Have redevelopment money take over debts, freeing up cash for police and fire services, or build a Chargers stadium?
Add lingering questions about the fiscal impacts of last fall's downtown redevelopment state legislation on other city neighborhoods and you have an issue central to San Diego's financial future.
Define the Role of the Public and Private Philanthropy
Catch nearly anyone who has spent time studying the city's budget for long and they'll tell you, most of them privately of course, that the city should charge all residents for trash pickup and collect greater fees for storm water. Together, according to a recent estimate, the city would collect an additional $60 million-plus a year if both fees were in place.
Given San Diego's reputation as an anti-tax city and recent history, both of those ideas don't appear to be coming soon. Still, no current city leader has made a sustained push to explain why San Diegans should consider these fee hikes for equity or other reasons.
At the same time, the role of the private sector in city affairs has increased, though in fits and starts. Funding for fire pits on the city's beaches, a national cause célèbre, now appears to come from philanthropy after years on the budget chopping block. A plan to create a gathering place in Balboa Park relies heavily on private financing. Opportunities for greater direct involvement from the private sector to provide city services, notably through volunteering, exist.
The definition of the city's structural budget deficit hinges on the word "structural." San Diego's structure is such that the city is set up to spend more money than it collects. Though Proposition D, a sales tax/financial reform measure failed in November, the potential fix to the problem remains simple. The city must cut costs, increase revenues or do some combination of the two.
Until that happens, San Diego will continue to drown in Enron's sea of red ink.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
San Diego firefighter wins $424,000 from city in court
San Diego firefighter wins $424,000 from city in court
He claimed retaliation for exposing wrongdoing in San Diego fire department
By Craig Gustafson
December 20, 2010
San Diego firefighter Paul Vandeveld on the job during the 2007 Witch Creek Fire.
A jury has awarded $424,000 to a San Diego firefighter who said he was suspended and denied a promotion in retaliation for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing in the city’s fire department.
Paul Vandeveld, 44, of El Cajon, has worked in the department since 1990 but his career stalled four years ago after he tried to stop his fellow firefighters from harassing a colleague and aided then-City Attorney Michael Aguirre with his investigation into the city’s pension scandal.
He was suspended without pay for 96 hours for sending an e-mail to higher-ups about the harassment and was denied a promotion several times despite being on the department’s “next in line” list to become a captain.
Overview
Background: Paul Vandeveld, a San Diego firefighter, filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against the city in 2008 for suspending him and denying him a promotion in retaliation for helping a city attorney investigation into pension issues.
What’s changing: A jury awarded $424,000 to Vandeveld in a verdict Thursday, a majority of the sum represents what he would have made had he received a promotion to captain.
Future: The city is considering an appeal. Vandeveld, a 20-year department veteran, has asked to have the suspension removed from his record so he’ll be eligible for promotions in the future.
The 12-member jury’s unanimous decision called for Vandeveld to receive the difference between what he would have made as a captain versus his current salary as a fire engineer. The jury also awarded him $60,000 in punitive damages and the lost pay from his suspension.
Vandeveld burst into tears when the verdict was announced Thursday in Superior Court, said his attorney Steven Shewry.
“He’s been under exceedingly high levels of stress and humiliation since people started getting named captain ahead of him,” Shewry said. “It’s been pretty tough on him. He’s not an emotional guy but you can see that it’s not all that pleasant every day for a guy who always wanted to be a firefighter.”
The circumstances that led to Vandeveld’s lawsuit began in 2006 when Aguirre interviewed the firefighter as part of an investigation into so-called pension spiking, a practice in which employees are promoted to higher ranks or positions shortly before retirement allowing them to collect larger pensions once they leave.
Shortly thereafter, Vandeveld tried to intercede on behalf of a fire captain who many in the department believed had leaked to a reporter that a battalion chief had been arrested for drunken driving. In his lawsuit, Vandeveld said some firefighters physically assaulted the captain and spray-painted “rat” on his fire helmet...
He claimed retaliation for exposing wrongdoing in San Diego fire department
By Craig Gustafson
December 20, 2010
San Diego firefighter Paul Vandeveld on the job during the 2007 Witch Creek Fire.
A jury has awarded $424,000 to a San Diego firefighter who said he was suspended and denied a promotion in retaliation for blowing the whistle on wrongdoing in the city’s fire department.
Paul Vandeveld, 44, of El Cajon, has worked in the department since 1990 but his career stalled four years ago after he tried to stop his fellow firefighters from harassing a colleague and aided then-City Attorney Michael Aguirre with his investigation into the city’s pension scandal.
He was suspended without pay for 96 hours for sending an e-mail to higher-ups about the harassment and was denied a promotion several times despite being on the department’s “next in line” list to become a captain.
Overview
Background: Paul Vandeveld, a San Diego firefighter, filed a whistle-blower lawsuit against the city in 2008 for suspending him and denying him a promotion in retaliation for helping a city attorney investigation into pension issues.
What’s changing: A jury awarded $424,000 to Vandeveld in a verdict Thursday, a majority of the sum represents what he would have made had he received a promotion to captain.
Future: The city is considering an appeal. Vandeveld, a 20-year department veteran, has asked to have the suspension removed from his record so he’ll be eligible for promotions in the future.
The 12-member jury’s unanimous decision called for Vandeveld to receive the difference between what he would have made as a captain versus his current salary as a fire engineer. The jury also awarded him $60,000 in punitive damages and the lost pay from his suspension.
Vandeveld burst into tears when the verdict was announced Thursday in Superior Court, said his attorney Steven Shewry.
“He’s been under exceedingly high levels of stress and humiliation since people started getting named captain ahead of him,” Shewry said. “It’s been pretty tough on him. He’s not an emotional guy but you can see that it’s not all that pleasant every day for a guy who always wanted to be a firefighter.”
The circumstances that led to Vandeveld’s lawsuit began in 2006 when Aguirre interviewed the firefighter as part of an investigation into so-called pension spiking, a practice in which employees are promoted to higher ranks or positions shortly before retirement allowing them to collect larger pensions once they leave.
Shortly thereafter, Vandeveld tried to intercede on behalf of a fire captain who many in the department believed had leaked to a reporter that a battalion chief had been arrested for drunken driving. In his lawsuit, Vandeveld said some firefighters physically assaulted the captain and spray-painted “rat” on his fire helmet...
Monday, December 20, 2010
Former union boss gets $700,000 for lost pension; Judge says the payout wasn't legally necessary
I see that attorney Ann Smith and Judie Italiano are still working closely. I'm wondering if the pension board was worried about dirty laundry being aired. Ann Smith was closely involved when the illegal pension deal was made, and she knows where all the skeletons are buried.
Former union boss gets $700,000 for lost pension
Judge says the payout wasn't legally necessary
By Craig Gustafson
December 17, 2010
The San Diego city retirement board has awarded a $700,000 settlement to former labor leader Judie Italiano despite a judge’s ruling that she isn’t owed anything beyond her $5,700-a-year pension.
The settlement was approved by Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman because he had no choice once the parties agreed. He expressed concerns, however, that it was “clearly not legally necessary” given his previous decision against Italiano. The City Attorney’s Office also argued the deal wasn’t reached in good faith.
Italiano, former president of the city’s union representing white-collar workers, had been battling with the city and its pension system to restore the annual $86,000 pension she lost in 2007 after the Internal Revenue Service deemed it invalid.
At issue is the city’s past decision to allow labor leaders to include their union service toward their pensions as city employees. In Italiano’s case, she was able to combine her 22 years as head of the Municipal Employees Association — peaking at $114,000 annually — with her nine years as a city typist making about $17,000.
The IRS said the practice, called presidential leave, violated tax law because union leaders aren’t city employees and thus can’t receive credit for union work when it comes to a city pension.
Italiano sued the city and pension system for $1.8 million — the estimated value over time of her combined union-city pension — accusing officials of negligence and making false promises about how much she would have for retirement.
Judge Pressman ruled last month that the city didn’t properly approve the presidential leave benefit so it doesn’t owe Italiano anything but the smaller pension for her nine-year stint with the city.
While the case was still going on, pension and union officials were negotiating a settlement for Italiano. The pension board unanimously approved the deal in closed session Oct. 1 — 45 days before the judge ruled against Italiano.
Pressman reluctantly approved the deal on procedural grounds Monday despite his concerns.
“This court does not see this as a good faith settlement,” he wrote in a tentative ruling. “It is a settlement crafted to give judicial cover to an agreement based on prior illegal acts. This court is not inclined to grant that cover. If the parties choose, the settlement can go forward but without this court’s good faith determination.”
Mark Sullivan, board president for the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System, said the city and pension system were sued by Italiano on different grounds and the judge’s ruling only cleared the city from damages. He said the board needed to limit its financial exposure by settling the lawsuit.
“The cost to defend ourselves in this action would be pretty close to the amount that we were seeking to settle and there’s no way we would be able to recover that,” he said. “Our goal is to minimize the impact to the trust fund.”
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said it didn’t make any sense to agree to a settlement given the court’s decision.
“Once again, the pension board has overstepped its bounds,” he said. “Although the judge applied procedural standards, he made it absolutely clear that he is not inclined to grant ‘cover’ for this deal. We have other avenues to challenge the pension board’s side deal and will do so.”
Goldsmith declined further comment, saying he would seek City Council input before making any decision.
Italiano’s attorney, Ann Smith, did not return a call for comment.
Italiano, 64, won’t receive the entire $700,000 settlement. She owes the pension system $250,000 for overpayments she received in the first few years after she retired, a sum that will be subtracted from the settlement.
The remaining $450,000 will be used to purchase an annuity for Italiano that is expected to pay her nearly $28,000 annually for the rest of her life. The settlement also leaves Italiano eligible to receive taxpayer-funded health care in retirement, although it’s unclear if she is actually receiving the benefit.
Before the settlement, Italiano had a $480 monthly pension although she received nothing because the system used the money to pay down her outstanding debt. If the presidential leave benefit had been upheld, she would have received nearly $7,200 per month.
The settlement could fall through if the IRS raises any objections.
Italiano resigned from the union in May 2009 amid an internal investigation into her potential misuse of a union credit card. She repaid nearly $14,000.
Former union boss gets $700,000 for lost pension
Judge says the payout wasn't legally necessary
By Craig Gustafson
December 17, 2010
The San Diego city retirement board has awarded a $700,000 settlement to former labor leader Judie Italiano despite a judge’s ruling that she isn’t owed anything beyond her $5,700-a-year pension.
The settlement was approved by Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman because he had no choice once the parties agreed. He expressed concerns, however, that it was “clearly not legally necessary” given his previous decision against Italiano. The City Attorney’s Office also argued the deal wasn’t reached in good faith.
Italiano, former president of the city’s union representing white-collar workers, had been battling with the city and its pension system to restore the annual $86,000 pension she lost in 2007 after the Internal Revenue Service deemed it invalid.
At issue is the city’s past decision to allow labor leaders to include their union service toward their pensions as city employees. In Italiano’s case, she was able to combine her 22 years as head of the Municipal Employees Association — peaking at $114,000 annually — with her nine years as a city typist making about $17,000.
The IRS said the practice, called presidential leave, violated tax law because union leaders aren’t city employees and thus can’t receive credit for union work when it comes to a city pension.
Italiano sued the city and pension system for $1.8 million — the estimated value over time of her combined union-city pension — accusing officials of negligence and making false promises about how much she would have for retirement.
Judge Pressman ruled last month that the city didn’t properly approve the presidential leave benefit so it doesn’t owe Italiano anything but the smaller pension for her nine-year stint with the city.
While the case was still going on, pension and union officials were negotiating a settlement for Italiano. The pension board unanimously approved the deal in closed session Oct. 1 — 45 days before the judge ruled against Italiano.
Pressman reluctantly approved the deal on procedural grounds Monday despite his concerns.
“This court does not see this as a good faith settlement,” he wrote in a tentative ruling. “It is a settlement crafted to give judicial cover to an agreement based on prior illegal acts. This court is not inclined to grant that cover. If the parties choose, the settlement can go forward but without this court’s good faith determination.”
Mark Sullivan, board president for the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System, said the city and pension system were sued by Italiano on different grounds and the judge’s ruling only cleared the city from damages. He said the board needed to limit its financial exposure by settling the lawsuit.
“The cost to defend ourselves in this action would be pretty close to the amount that we were seeking to settle and there’s no way we would be able to recover that,” he said. “Our goal is to minimize the impact to the trust fund.”
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said it didn’t make any sense to agree to a settlement given the court’s decision.
“Once again, the pension board has overstepped its bounds,” he said. “Although the judge applied procedural standards, he made it absolutely clear that he is not inclined to grant ‘cover’ for this deal. We have other avenues to challenge the pension board’s side deal and will do so.”
Goldsmith declined further comment, saying he would seek City Council input before making any decision.
Italiano’s attorney, Ann Smith, did not return a call for comment.
Italiano, 64, won’t receive the entire $700,000 settlement. She owes the pension system $250,000 for overpayments she received in the first few years after she retired, a sum that will be subtracted from the settlement.
The remaining $450,000 will be used to purchase an annuity for Italiano that is expected to pay her nearly $28,000 annually for the rest of her life. The settlement also leaves Italiano eligible to receive taxpayer-funded health care in retirement, although it’s unclear if she is actually receiving the benefit.
Before the settlement, Italiano had a $480 monthly pension although she received nothing because the system used the money to pay down her outstanding debt. If the presidential leave benefit had been upheld, she would have received nearly $7,200 per month.
The settlement could fall through if the IRS raises any objections.
Italiano resigned from the union in May 2009 amid an internal investigation into her potential misuse of a union credit card. She repaid nearly $14,000.
David Malcolm: A Plant's Power Over a Man's Life
A Plant's Power Over a Man's Life
December 19, 2010
by Liam Dillon
The man with the troubled past walked into the downtown San Diego elevator.
In itself, this incident wouldn't be notable. The man walks into lots of downtown elevators. His bank is downtown. So is his business and the top-floor, invitation-only private club he attends where you have to wear a jacket at dinnertime. He lives downtown, too.
This time people noticed. They were about to walk into a meeting on the source of one of the man's greatest triumphs and greatest troubles.
The man in question, David Malcolm, wasn't invited to the meeting.
It had been more than 10 years since Malcolm put together a $100 million deal to buy 165 acres of bay-front land without cash or credit. A man accustomed to crafting big land deals for private gain did this one for the public, snagging one of the few undeveloped urban coastal parcels in Southern California.
"It could possibly be one of the single best financial deals done in the state of California's history," Malcolm said.
It had been more than five years since the deal became the noose that hung his public career and, according to a close friend, nearly killed him. Malcolm pleaded guilty to a felony conflict of interest charge after it was revealed his company was working as a $20,000-a-month consultant for the land's tenant and he didn't leave his public position. Despite the plea, Malcolm maintained that he's innocent or, at worst, an innocent victim. He even successfully fought to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and the conviction expunged from his record...
Ever since he became a Chula Vista city councilman 28 years ago, Malcolm's public life and his life as a real estate wheeler and dealer rarely has been without controversy. For 20 years, all the allegations against him — including one in which he was accused of plotting arson to collect insurance money — came to nothing.
Then the power plant happened. The deal Malcolm brokered as chairman of the Port turned over the plant's operations to Duke Energy, a power company in North Carolina. Duke, in turn, hired a company Malcolm ran for $20,000 a month to try to make similar deals happen elsewhere. In essence, Malcolm began working for a major Port tenant.
Malcolm stayed on the Port, which was negotiating tax breaks for businesses, like Duke, operating on Port lands in the South Bay...
Instead, Malcolm was sentenced to 120 days in a county-lockdown facility, probation and almost $300,000 in fines and court fees. His public career was over.
But Malcolm didn't leave the issue alone.
He sued the Port unsuccessfully over its legal advice. Three years after his plea, Malcolm won a fight to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and the conviction expunged from his record. The topic remains raw. Malcolm speaks in extended monologues about the case's arcane details...
[Maura Larkins' comment: I have a sense that plenty of public officials betray the public trust even more than Malcolm did, and they never get called to account. For example, Juan Vargas took a lucrative job with an insurance company right when he left his job on the California Assembly insurance committee. And then the voters returned him to office a few years later!
Also, Duncan Hunter is famous for warm relationships with military contractors. I also have sympathy for Malcolm's disgust with public entity lawyers. It seems that they are often chosen because they tell officials they can help them get away with ignoring the law.]
With Malcolm was his cousin Dan Malcolm, an incoming Port commissioner from Imperial Beach. David Malcolm said that he and Dan were "very close," according to a Port memorandum on the conversation. The memo added the environmental director felt uncomfortable discussing the power plant and the conversation ended.
"This information is included only for public disclosure and to avoid any appearance that the District has been cooperating or in any way engaged with David Malcolm on matters related to the South Bay Power Plant," the Port report states.
It's not just future development that's at stake. There's about $60 million set aside to pay for the plant's demolition. The Houston-based company that currently owns the plant, Dynegy, pays the Port rent. Dynegy also is for sale.
The city of Chula Vista wants in, too. Its leaders were the ones who contacted Malcolm, Peace and other South Bay leaders over the summer to get the plant down. Malcolm and Peace helped arrange a meeting with state regulators this fall to push for the plant's closure.
"I had a choice of saying, 'Oooh, I'm not going to call David Malcolm,'" said Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox. "Why wouldn't you call someone who knows as much about it as he does?"...
Last week, that ask came. A Chula Vista councilwoman emailed Malcolm, Peace and others requesting advice for responding to the Port's latest demands...
[Maura Larkins comment: Was that councilwoman Patricia Aguilar?]
December 19, 2010
by Liam Dillon
The man with the troubled past walked into the downtown San Diego elevator.
In itself, this incident wouldn't be notable. The man walks into lots of downtown elevators. His bank is downtown. So is his business and the top-floor, invitation-only private club he attends where you have to wear a jacket at dinnertime. He lives downtown, too.
This time people noticed. They were about to walk into a meeting on the source of one of the man's greatest triumphs and greatest troubles.
The man in question, David Malcolm, wasn't invited to the meeting.
It had been more than 10 years since Malcolm put together a $100 million deal to buy 165 acres of bay-front land without cash or credit. A man accustomed to crafting big land deals for private gain did this one for the public, snagging one of the few undeveloped urban coastal parcels in Southern California.
"It could possibly be one of the single best financial deals done in the state of California's history," Malcolm said.
It had been more than five years since the deal became the noose that hung his public career and, according to a close friend, nearly killed him. Malcolm pleaded guilty to a felony conflict of interest charge after it was revealed his company was working as a $20,000-a-month consultant for the land's tenant and he didn't leave his public position. Despite the plea, Malcolm maintained that he's innocent or, at worst, an innocent victim. He even successfully fought to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and the conviction expunged from his record...
Ever since he became a Chula Vista city councilman 28 years ago, Malcolm's public life and his life as a real estate wheeler and dealer rarely has been without controversy. For 20 years, all the allegations against him — including one in which he was accused of plotting arson to collect insurance money — came to nothing.
Then the power plant happened. The deal Malcolm brokered as chairman of the Port turned over the plant's operations to Duke Energy, a power company in North Carolina. Duke, in turn, hired a company Malcolm ran for $20,000 a month to try to make similar deals happen elsewhere. In essence, Malcolm began working for a major Port tenant.
Malcolm stayed on the Port, which was negotiating tax breaks for businesses, like Duke, operating on Port lands in the South Bay...
Instead, Malcolm was sentenced to 120 days in a county-lockdown facility, probation and almost $300,000 in fines and court fees. His public career was over.
But Malcolm didn't leave the issue alone.
He sued the Port unsuccessfully over its legal advice. Three years after his plea, Malcolm won a fight to get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor and the conviction expunged from his record. The topic remains raw. Malcolm speaks in extended monologues about the case's arcane details...
[Maura Larkins' comment: I have a sense that plenty of public officials betray the public trust even more than Malcolm did, and they never get called to account. For example, Juan Vargas took a lucrative job with an insurance company right when he left his job on the California Assembly insurance committee. And then the voters returned him to office a few years later!
Also, Duncan Hunter is famous for warm relationships with military contractors. I also have sympathy for Malcolm's disgust with public entity lawyers. It seems that they are often chosen because they tell officials they can help them get away with ignoring the law.]
With Malcolm was his cousin Dan Malcolm, an incoming Port commissioner from Imperial Beach. David Malcolm said that he and Dan were "very close," according to a Port memorandum on the conversation. The memo added the environmental director felt uncomfortable discussing the power plant and the conversation ended.
"This information is included only for public disclosure and to avoid any appearance that the District has been cooperating or in any way engaged with David Malcolm on matters related to the South Bay Power Plant," the Port report states.
It's not just future development that's at stake. There's about $60 million set aside to pay for the plant's demolition. The Houston-based company that currently owns the plant, Dynegy, pays the Port rent. Dynegy also is for sale.
The city of Chula Vista wants in, too. Its leaders were the ones who contacted Malcolm, Peace and other South Bay leaders over the summer to get the plant down. Malcolm and Peace helped arrange a meeting with state regulators this fall to push for the plant's closure.
"I had a choice of saying, 'Oooh, I'm not going to call David Malcolm,'" said Chula Vista Mayor Cheryl Cox. "Why wouldn't you call someone who knows as much about it as he does?"...
Last week, that ask came. A Chula Vista councilwoman emailed Malcolm, Peace and others requesting advice for responding to the Port's latest demands...
[Maura Larkins comment: Was that councilwoman Patricia Aguilar?]
Convicted of a Felony, But Not a Convicted Felon
July 5, 2006
Convicted of a Felony, But Not a Convicted Felon
Voice of San Diego
You'll remember my question about the little present former Port Commissioner David Malcolm received last week from Superior Court Judge John C. Einhorn. In 2003, Malcolm pleaded guilty to violating the state's law against public officials participating in deals in which they have a personal financial interest. He was sentenced to three years probation and he had some fines and other economic penalties.
Like many people who finish their probation time, Malcolm asked the judge to expunge his record. Einhorn agreed and gave Malcolm one more little benefit - he ordered Malcolm's charge to be lowered from a felony to a misdemeanor and then expunged.
I wondered what the deal was. Did this mean that, like Britney Spears' first marriage, Malcolm's conviction was successfully annulled? Does it mean that Malcolm is no longer a convicted felon?
I called the district attorney's prosecutor in the case, Stephen Robinson. He said, essentially, that no, Malcolm is no longer a convicted felon, but he was still convicted of a felony.
My brain exploded after we talked but let me try to put this puzzle together:
Malcolm's recent pardon allows him to have the benefits and privileges that we non-felon citizens enjoy: to vote, to run for office, etc. But Robinson said that certain benefits won't be available to Malcolm. For instance, he can't carry a firearm.
"If, four years from now, I was going to run his criminal record sheet - his rap sheet - it will be there. It doesn't disappear," Robinson said about the criminal conviction. He said that if he was investigating Malcolm again, he could use the "rap sheet" to argue that Malcolm has a history doing such and such.
Now, apparently, it's a normal thing for someone to complete his or her probation and to ask the judge to expunge the record as such. If it's not normal, let me know.
But what's really interesting is the second part of this deal: that Malcolm had his charge reduced to a misdemeanor before it was expunged.
I asked Robinson if Malcolm could now argue that he was never convicted a felony, but, instead he was convicted of a misdemeanor.
"I suppose he can say that. I just look at it from my perspective, which is from the criminal-justice perspective. The conviction still stands," Robinson told me.
My brain just exploded again thinking about it.
Robinson, for the record, had argued strongly against the judge allowing Malcolm's charge to go from a felony to a misdemeanor.
His reasoning seems pretty logical: While a port commissioner, Malcolm agreed to become a paid consultant to Duke Energy and he agreed to put the interests of Duke Energy above those of the Port District.
From the DA:
While actively participating in Port District business that directly benefited Duke Energy, Malcolm was being paid $20,000 each month.
So, it wasn't as if he were urinating in public or committing another such misdemeanor violation. This is a heavy accusation to which Malcolm pleaded guilty.
Again from Robinson's brief:
While occupying this position of trust, he betrayed the people of San Diego for his own pecuniary gain. Malcolm's behavior cannot be described as one or two mistakes. It similarly was not a series of errors that took place over a short period of time or in haste. Rather, Malcolm deliberately and methodically engaged in a course of conduct that put the interests of the people of San Diego second to his own financial interests.
Again, it doesn't appear to be a misdemeanor offense.
I called the judge, who referred me to Malcolm's own court filings. When I get them, I'll share them. We still, after all, are left with important questions: If it's true, as Robinson said, that Malcolm's conviction will always haunt him as a felony, then why would Malcolm want it to be reduced to a misdemeanor before it was expunged? What's the point?
"I'd have to ask him what motivated him to take that two-step process," Robinson said.
- SCOTT LEWIS
Convicted of a Felony, But Not a Convicted Felon
Voice of San Diego
You'll remember my question about the little present former Port Commissioner David Malcolm received last week from Superior Court Judge John C. Einhorn. In 2003, Malcolm pleaded guilty to violating the state's law against public officials participating in deals in which they have a personal financial interest. He was sentenced to three years probation and he had some fines and other economic penalties.
Like many people who finish their probation time, Malcolm asked the judge to expunge his record. Einhorn agreed and gave Malcolm one more little benefit - he ordered Malcolm's charge to be lowered from a felony to a misdemeanor and then expunged.
I wondered what the deal was. Did this mean that, like Britney Spears' first marriage, Malcolm's conviction was successfully annulled? Does it mean that Malcolm is no longer a convicted felon?
I called the district attorney's prosecutor in the case, Stephen Robinson. He said, essentially, that no, Malcolm is no longer a convicted felon, but he was still convicted of a felony.
My brain exploded after we talked but let me try to put this puzzle together:
Malcolm's recent pardon allows him to have the benefits and privileges that we non-felon citizens enjoy: to vote, to run for office, etc. But Robinson said that certain benefits won't be available to Malcolm. For instance, he can't carry a firearm.
"If, four years from now, I was going to run his criminal record sheet - his rap sheet - it will be there. It doesn't disappear," Robinson said about the criminal conviction. He said that if he was investigating Malcolm again, he could use the "rap sheet" to argue that Malcolm has a history doing such and such.
Now, apparently, it's a normal thing for someone to complete his or her probation and to ask the judge to expunge the record as such. If it's not normal, let me know.
But what's really interesting is the second part of this deal: that Malcolm had his charge reduced to a misdemeanor before it was expunged.
I asked Robinson if Malcolm could now argue that he was never convicted a felony, but, instead he was convicted of a misdemeanor.
"I suppose he can say that. I just look at it from my perspective, which is from the criminal-justice perspective. The conviction still stands," Robinson told me.
My brain just exploded again thinking about it.
Robinson, for the record, had argued strongly against the judge allowing Malcolm's charge to go from a felony to a misdemeanor.
His reasoning seems pretty logical: While a port commissioner, Malcolm agreed to become a paid consultant to Duke Energy and he agreed to put the interests of Duke Energy above those of the Port District.
From the DA:
While actively participating in Port District business that directly benefited Duke Energy, Malcolm was being paid $20,000 each month.
So, it wasn't as if he were urinating in public or committing another such misdemeanor violation. This is a heavy accusation to which Malcolm pleaded guilty.
Again from Robinson's brief:
While occupying this position of trust, he betrayed the people of San Diego for his own pecuniary gain. Malcolm's behavior cannot be described as one or two mistakes. It similarly was not a series of errors that took place over a short period of time or in haste. Rather, Malcolm deliberately and methodically engaged in a course of conduct that put the interests of the people of San Diego second to his own financial interests.
Again, it doesn't appear to be a misdemeanor offense.
I called the judge, who referred me to Malcolm's own court filings. When I get them, I'll share them. We still, after all, are left with important questions: If it's true, as Robinson said, that Malcolm's conviction will always haunt him as a felony, then why would Malcolm want it to be reduced to a misdemeanor before it was expunged? What's the point?
"I'd have to ask him what motivated him to take that two-step process," Robinson said.
- SCOTT LEWIS
Friday, December 17, 2010
San Diego police are sorry they sued the city
San Diego police are sorry they sued the city
Lorie Hearn
Watchdog Institute
December 16, 2010
By Kelly Thornton
The San Diego Police Officers Association has sued the city several times in recent years, and the city has spent $8.6 million to fight them so far. That makes the city’s own cops its most expensive legal adversary.
Now, the officers are sorry.
The police union has a new lawyer who called two of three lawsuits “frivolous” and has filed two malpractice lawsuits against the attorneys who sued in the first place.
“The San Diego Police Officers Association knows this was expensive litigation for the city and has apologized profusely and we’ve done what we can to make it right,” said the POA’s new attorney, Michael Conger, an employment, business and personal injury lawyer from San Diego. “We’ve gotten rid of any litigation to the city related to this nonsense.”
In total, there are 23 lawsuits filed against the city between 2003 and 2010 in which the city has spent more than $1 million. The POA cases are three of those. For all 23 cases, the city has spent $55.3 million, according to an analysis by the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative reporting center based at San Diego State University.
One of the three cases brought by the POA was to force the city to pay officers for time spent putting on uniforms and protective gear and answering work-related emails. Another case accused then-City Attorney Michael Aguirre of bribery and extortion related to contract negotiations, and sought his removal from office. A third suit was a spinoff of the second; both alleged that the city’s underfunding of the pension violated police officers’ constitutional rights.
The POA lost all three cases – two at summary judgment, meaning a judge didn’t even think the case was worth going to trial. In the overtime case, a federal jury decided in favor of the city after a six-week trial.
More than 1,000 officers opted to drop any appeals based on advice from Conger. The previous lawyer, Gregory Petersen, an Orange County civil rights and employment attorney, is appealing one of the cases on behalf of about 100 clients who’ve stuck with him.
As the cases dragged on, POA members’ credit cards were charged $20 to 40 a month. To cover legal fees, the organization had to mortgage its headquarters.
“I think they were hurt dramatically,” Conger said of the officers. “They paid Petersen over $2.8 million for the privilege of bringing frivolous lawsuits, and he didn’t win one single motion. He doesn’t think he did anything wrong and doesn’t want to pay a dollar.”
At the same time, the financially crippled city hired an outside legal firm, Latham & Watkins, at up to $750 an hour, because the city had a conflict defending against its own employees...
Lorie Hearn
Watchdog Institute
December 16, 2010
By Kelly Thornton
The San Diego Police Officers Association has sued the city several times in recent years, and the city has spent $8.6 million to fight them so far. That makes the city’s own cops its most expensive legal adversary.
Now, the officers are sorry.
The police union has a new lawyer who called two of three lawsuits “frivolous” and has filed two malpractice lawsuits against the attorneys who sued in the first place.
“The San Diego Police Officers Association knows this was expensive litigation for the city and has apologized profusely and we’ve done what we can to make it right,” said the POA’s new attorney, Michael Conger, an employment, business and personal injury lawyer from San Diego. “We’ve gotten rid of any litigation to the city related to this nonsense.”
In total, there are 23 lawsuits filed against the city between 2003 and 2010 in which the city has spent more than $1 million. The POA cases are three of those. For all 23 cases, the city has spent $55.3 million, according to an analysis by the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative reporting center based at San Diego State University.
One of the three cases brought by the POA was to force the city to pay officers for time spent putting on uniforms and protective gear and answering work-related emails. Another case accused then-City Attorney Michael Aguirre of bribery and extortion related to contract negotiations, and sought his removal from office. A third suit was a spinoff of the second; both alleged that the city’s underfunding of the pension violated police officers’ constitutional rights.
The POA lost all three cases – two at summary judgment, meaning a judge didn’t even think the case was worth going to trial. In the overtime case, a federal jury decided in favor of the city after a six-week trial.
More than 1,000 officers opted to drop any appeals based on advice from Conger. The previous lawyer, Gregory Petersen, an Orange County civil rights and employment attorney, is appealing one of the cases on behalf of about 100 clients who’ve stuck with him.
As the cases dragged on, POA members’ credit cards were charged $20 to 40 a month. To cover legal fees, the organization had to mortgage its headquarters.
“I think they were hurt dramatically,” Conger said of the officers. “They paid Petersen over $2.8 million for the privilege of bringing frivolous lawsuits, and he didn’t win one single motion. He doesn’t think he did anything wrong and doesn’t want to pay a dollar.”
At the same time, the financially crippled city hired an outside legal firm, Latham & Watkins, at up to $750 an hour, because the city had a conflict defending against its own employees...
Monday, December 13, 2010
Mayor of Redevelopment No Longer?
Mayor of Redevelopment No Longer?
(Click on the link above to get all the links in the story.)
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
December 13, 2010
Redevelopment is the reason the city of San Diego can consider building a new Convention Center, football stadium and other enhancements downtown at a time when rec centers, libraries and swimming pools are in danger of closing elsewhere.
Cities all across the state use the mechanism for their blighted neighborhoods. But unlike most of them, San Diego does things differently. For one, it allows two nonprofits, fully funded by the city, to manage its redevelopment efforts downtown and in southeastern San Diego: CCDC and SEDC respectively.
And, also unlike other areas, San Diego made its elected mayor the executive director of the Redevelopment Agency -- the entity that oversees not only CCDC and SEDC but the other areas considered blighted in town.
Now, that may change. The City Council is considering ousting him as San Diego's redevelopment leader and hiring a professional manager wake of the mayor's efforts to extend the lifespan of downtown redevelopment without involving the public or City Council.
U-T: We Want Maas Redevelopment
The Union-Tribune made its case for downtown redevelopment this weekend featuring an editorial about, and a Q&A with, the outgoing chairman of CCDC, Fred Maas.
If that didn't give you enough Maas, the man himself penned an op-ed of his own with a now common claim that visionaries like him are only held back by shortsighted "small-town undertakers."
In the Q&A, Maas blasts the proposal supported now by five City Council members that the downtown redevelopment agency take over from the city's ailing general fund, the duty to pay back bonds on the last expansion of the Convention Center - a move that would free up $9.2 million a year.
"We run the risk of bankrupting ultimately over the next 20 years the redevelopment agency. This is not that different from underfunding pensions or from granting benefits without a way to pay for them by raiding our coffers to pay for things that were never contemplated."
Moral: If you don't like something that's happening in the city, compare it to the pension system! But question: Aren't redevelopment efforts eventually supposed to run out of money?
The new City Council president is considering your thoughts on those questions and others as he proposes a new ad hoc committee for redevelopment. And he has set up an email address to collect them: budgetandfinance@sandiego.gov.
Snow? Ha!
The U-T drew a direct line from the major snowfall and incredible collapse of the roof of the Metrodome in Minneapolis to the Chargers search for a new stadium (did you see the video of the roof collapse?). Presumably, this adds urgency to the stadium debate there - the Minnesota Vikings are often mentioned in the same breath as the Chargers as possible teams that could relocate to Los Angeles.
Back in San Diego, it was a pretty nice day at the stadium yesterday, as Sam Hodgson's photos prove...
Sulking in San Diego
» Last week, we mentioned a video provoking guffaws across San Diego's political twitterati the last few days. It portrays San Diego as an insecure teenage girl uncomfortable that "the boys" keep making fun of her big pension. It's clearly trying to chide the media for begin so negative while making the case that we shouldn't worry so much about the city's problems, and we should support a new stadium and other projects championed by downtown redevelopment officials and the mayor.
As the U-T summarized, nobody wants to take credit for the flick.
I actually agree with another anonymous commenter, though, who said that the city is better represented by the mother figure in the video - always trying to convince people who are worried here that everything is fantastic. And she does that, even though she regularly admits (even trumpets) how bad things are going to get if we don't deal with our big pension.
(Click on the link above to get all the links in the story.)
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
December 13, 2010
Redevelopment is the reason the city of San Diego can consider building a new Convention Center, football stadium and other enhancements downtown at a time when rec centers, libraries and swimming pools are in danger of closing elsewhere.
Cities all across the state use the mechanism for their blighted neighborhoods. But unlike most of them, San Diego does things differently. For one, it allows two nonprofits, fully funded by the city, to manage its redevelopment efforts downtown and in southeastern San Diego: CCDC and SEDC respectively.
And, also unlike other areas, San Diego made its elected mayor the executive director of the Redevelopment Agency -- the entity that oversees not only CCDC and SEDC but the other areas considered blighted in town.
Now, that may change. The City Council is considering ousting him as San Diego's redevelopment leader and hiring a professional manager wake of the mayor's efforts to extend the lifespan of downtown redevelopment without involving the public or City Council.
U-T: We Want Maas Redevelopment
The Union-Tribune made its case for downtown redevelopment this weekend featuring an editorial about, and a Q&A with, the outgoing chairman of CCDC, Fred Maas.
If that didn't give you enough Maas, the man himself penned an op-ed of his own with a now common claim that visionaries like him are only held back by shortsighted "small-town undertakers."
In the Q&A, Maas blasts the proposal supported now by five City Council members that the downtown redevelopment agency take over from the city's ailing general fund, the duty to pay back bonds on the last expansion of the Convention Center - a move that would free up $9.2 million a year.
"We run the risk of bankrupting ultimately over the next 20 years the redevelopment agency. This is not that different from underfunding pensions or from granting benefits without a way to pay for them by raiding our coffers to pay for things that were never contemplated."
Moral: If you don't like something that's happening in the city, compare it to the pension system! But question: Aren't redevelopment efforts eventually supposed to run out of money?
The new City Council president is considering your thoughts on those questions and others as he proposes a new ad hoc committee for redevelopment. And he has set up an email address to collect them: budgetandfinance@sandiego.gov.
Snow? Ha!
The U-T drew a direct line from the major snowfall and incredible collapse of the roof of the Metrodome in Minneapolis to the Chargers search for a new stadium (did you see the video of the roof collapse?). Presumably, this adds urgency to the stadium debate there - the Minnesota Vikings are often mentioned in the same breath as the Chargers as possible teams that could relocate to Los Angeles.
Back in San Diego, it was a pretty nice day at the stadium yesterday, as Sam Hodgson's photos prove...
Sulking in San Diego
» Last week, we mentioned a video provoking guffaws across San Diego's political twitterati the last few days. It portrays San Diego as an insecure teenage girl uncomfortable that "the boys" keep making fun of her big pension. It's clearly trying to chide the media for begin so negative while making the case that we shouldn't worry so much about the city's problems, and we should support a new stadium and other projects championed by downtown redevelopment officials and the mayor.
As the U-T summarized, nobody wants to take credit for the flick.
I actually agree with another anonymous commenter, though, who said that the city is better represented by the mother figure in the video - always trying to convince people who are worried here that everything is fantastic. And she does that, even though she regularly admits (even trumpets) how bad things are going to get if we don't deal with our big pension.
Thursday, December 09, 2010
With more than 130 lawyers on staff, since July 2006, San Diego spent $34 million on private lawyers."
Morning Report
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
Dec. 9, 2010
In other city finance news, 10News and the Watchdog Institute report that "despite having more than 130 lawyers on staff, since July 2006, the city of San Diego has spent more than $34 million on private lawyers."
And the U-T says about 2,200 current and retired city workers "may be forced to accept significantly reduced pensions or pay a lump sum of as much as $50,000 to keep their current pension."
December 10, 2010
Calculating the Cost of a City's Litigation
by Brian Baxter
The AM Law Daily
San Diego, no stranger to large legal bills, is grappling with $130 million in litigation costs accumulated over the past eight years, according to an analysis conducted by the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative reporting center at San Diego State University.
KPBS, a media arm of the university, has the details on the Watchdog Institute's findings. One of the more interesting tidbits: although San Diego has 137 in-house city attorneys, including 27 in its civil litigation unit, since 2006 the city has spent more than $34 million on outside lawyers.
Some of those who spoke to Watchdog said that former San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre bears the responsibility for some of those bills. In the spring of 2006, Aguirre threatened to sue two law firms--Vinson & Elkins and Willkie Farr & Gallagher--for malpractice.
Eventually, Aguirre hired his own lawyers--on contingency--for litigation in which he claimed both firms charged excessive fees and failed to meet deadlines on work the firms did related to the city's pension crisis. (A voicemail message left for Aguirre at his office--he now is in private practice after losing a reelection bid in November 2008--was not returned by the time of this post.)
But wasn't Aguirre the one who was fighting to reign in the billing rates of Am Law 100 firms doing work for San Diego, as The American Lawyer reported in November 2008?
In that story, reporter Ross Todd detailed Aguirre's suits against three firms--Vinson, Willkie Farr, and bond counsel Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe--for work they did related to San Diego's financial disclosure practices. Vinson paid $4.35 million to settle its role in the case in June 2008. Orrick paid $2.8 million in a similar settlement a month later. A case against Willkie Farr is pending. (Bryan Vess, a San Diego plaintiff's lawyer trying the case against Willkie Farr, did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did Patrick Swann, Jr., a partner at Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps defending the firm.)
Since then Aguirre's successor, former local judge Jan Goldsmith, has told Watchdog that Aguirre's litigiousness contributed to a spike in San Diego's legal expenses and insurance rates. Goldsmith claims that Aguirre lacked confidence in his own lawyers, hired expensive outside lawyers, and made insurers nervous with his "sue happy" mentality.
One firm singled out by the Watchdog Institute for its billing rates is Latham & Watkins. Watchdog reports the firm has received $18 million for work it has done for San Diego over the past eight years, charging up to $750 an hour for its services.
Goldsmith also told Watchdog that when he took office in 2008 he was shocked by the amount of money being spent on outside counsel at firms like Latham.
"It was huge, and it was obvious that we had to rebuild the law firm...and make it to a point where we have confidence to handle these cases in-house," Goldsmith said. "It was a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars to use Latham & Watkins essentially as a division of the city attorney's office."
After Aguirre was voted out of office in November 2008, The Am Law Daily reported that Latham's role as "most-favored-firm status could be jeopardy." Goldsmith described the hourly rates charged by Latham lawyers as "outrageous," and noted that attorneys from his own office made only $49 an hour. Goldsmith told Watchdog he negotiated Latham down to $550 an hour on cases the firm already was handling, ones in which it would have been more costly to start over with new counsel.
A Latham spokesman disputed the hourly rates stated by Goldsmith, telling Watchdog that the firm's discounted hourly rates were closer to $400 per hour, with the current city attorney likely citing figures billed by senior lawyers at the firm. Latham noted its success in recovering legal fees from insurance companies for the city.
"A primary reason why municipal clients engage a firm of the caliber of Latham & Watkins is that we often save them money in the long run," the firm told Watchdog. "The total collections from insurance companies equal or exceed the amounts billed by Latham to the city for work since January 1, 2005--with approximately $18.5 million collected to date." (Latham stood by its statement to Watchdog when contacted by The Am Law Daily.)
Despite the firm's successes, Latham's yearly billings for San Diego have decreased from $11.9 million in 2009 to $2.7 million through October of this year, according to the Watchdog Institute report. Aguirre told Watchdog that the city council--not the city attorney--is responsible for hiring outside counsel. Latham, he told Watchdog, was first hired under his predecessor, Casey Gwinn.
"Isn't it funny how two years later it's still my fault," Aguirre said. "The idea of trying to blame me even two years later is so ludicrous. That just shows you how desperate they are."
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
Dec. 9, 2010
In other city finance news, 10News and the Watchdog Institute report that "despite having more than 130 lawyers on staff, since July 2006, the city of San Diego has spent more than $34 million on private lawyers."
And the U-T says about 2,200 current and retired city workers "may be forced to accept significantly reduced pensions or pay a lump sum of as much as $50,000 to keep their current pension."
December 10, 2010
Calculating the Cost of a City's Litigation
by Brian Baxter
The AM Law Daily
San Diego, no stranger to large legal bills, is grappling with $130 million in litigation costs accumulated over the past eight years, according to an analysis conducted by the Watchdog Institute, a nonprofit investigative reporting center at San Diego State University.
KPBS, a media arm of the university, has the details on the Watchdog Institute's findings. One of the more interesting tidbits: although San Diego has 137 in-house city attorneys, including 27 in its civil litigation unit, since 2006 the city has spent more than $34 million on outside lawyers.
Some of those who spoke to Watchdog said that former San Diego City Attorney Michael Aguirre bears the responsibility for some of those bills. In the spring of 2006, Aguirre threatened to sue two law firms--Vinson & Elkins and Willkie Farr & Gallagher--for malpractice.
Eventually, Aguirre hired his own lawyers--on contingency--for litigation in which he claimed both firms charged excessive fees and failed to meet deadlines on work the firms did related to the city's pension crisis. (A voicemail message left for Aguirre at his office--he now is in private practice after losing a reelection bid in November 2008--was not returned by the time of this post.)
But wasn't Aguirre the one who was fighting to reign in the billing rates of Am Law 100 firms doing work for San Diego, as The American Lawyer reported in November 2008?
In that story, reporter Ross Todd detailed Aguirre's suits against three firms--Vinson, Willkie Farr, and bond counsel Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe--for work they did related to San Diego's financial disclosure practices. Vinson paid $4.35 million to settle its role in the case in June 2008. Orrick paid $2.8 million in a similar settlement a month later. A case against Willkie Farr is pending. (Bryan Vess, a San Diego plaintiff's lawyer trying the case against Willkie Farr, did not respond to a request for comment. Nor did Patrick Swann, Jr., a partner at Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps defending the firm.)
Since then Aguirre's successor, former local judge Jan Goldsmith, has told Watchdog that Aguirre's litigiousness contributed to a spike in San Diego's legal expenses and insurance rates. Goldsmith claims that Aguirre lacked confidence in his own lawyers, hired expensive outside lawyers, and made insurers nervous with his "sue happy" mentality.
One firm singled out by the Watchdog Institute for its billing rates is Latham & Watkins. Watchdog reports the firm has received $18 million for work it has done for San Diego over the past eight years, charging up to $750 an hour for its services.
Goldsmith also told Watchdog that when he took office in 2008 he was shocked by the amount of money being spent on outside counsel at firms like Latham.
"It was huge, and it was obvious that we had to rebuild the law firm...and make it to a point where we have confidence to handle these cases in-house," Goldsmith said. "It was a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars to use Latham & Watkins essentially as a division of the city attorney's office."
After Aguirre was voted out of office in November 2008, The Am Law Daily reported that Latham's role as "most-favored-firm status could be jeopardy." Goldsmith described the hourly rates charged by Latham lawyers as "outrageous," and noted that attorneys from his own office made only $49 an hour. Goldsmith told Watchdog he negotiated Latham down to $550 an hour on cases the firm already was handling, ones in which it would have been more costly to start over with new counsel.
A Latham spokesman disputed the hourly rates stated by Goldsmith, telling Watchdog that the firm's discounted hourly rates were closer to $400 per hour, with the current city attorney likely citing figures billed by senior lawyers at the firm. Latham noted its success in recovering legal fees from insurance companies for the city.
"A primary reason why municipal clients engage a firm of the caliber of Latham & Watkins is that we often save them money in the long run," the firm told Watchdog. "The total collections from insurance companies equal or exceed the amounts billed by Latham to the city for work since January 1, 2005--with approximately $18.5 million collected to date." (Latham stood by its statement to Watchdog when contacted by The Am Law Daily.)
Despite the firm's successes, Latham's yearly billings for San Diego have decreased from $11.9 million in 2009 to $2.7 million through October of this year, according to the Watchdog Institute report. Aguirre told Watchdog that the city council--not the city attorney--is responsible for hiring outside counsel. Latham, he told Watchdog, was first hired under his predecessor, Casey Gwinn.
"Isn't it funny how two years later it's still my fault," Aguirre said. "The idea of trying to blame me even two years later is so ludicrous. That just shows you how desperate they are."
The City Is Losing Institutional Knowledge on the Chargers Issue
...The City Is Losing Institutional Knowledge on the Chargers Issue
More than just football fans should be concerned about Michell's departure and how it fits into the unrelenting Chargers debate.
Downtown stadium or not, the city has to do something about the Chargers. The city loses $12 million a year operating Qualcomm Stadium in Mission Valley, money that otherwise could pay for police, fire, parks and library services.
Why does the city lose that much money? Because past city officials failed in their negotiations the team. The city struck such a series of bad deals with the Chargers that the team essentially gets free rent and can leave town whenever it wants while the city bleeds tax dollars.
Michell, Rath and outgoing downtown redevelopment head Fred Maas all were key figures in the city's current talks with the team. Soon they'll all be gone — though the city could hire Maas back as a consultant.
Whomever takes that trio's place will be going up against a team attorney who has worked on stadium issues for eight years and in his recent spare time has advised on other crises involving one of the nation's largest private financial institutions, Lance Armstrong's doping allegations and the divorce case with the fate of the Los Angeles Dodgers in the balance.
Five Things to Know About Kris Michell's Departure
December 8, 2010
by Liam Dillon
1. The Mayor's All Grown Up
Yesterday's departure of Kris Michell, San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders' top political aide, came with many things left undone...
"I think she was critically important to the mayor," said Phil Rath, a former city policy advisor who is now a lobbyist. "She was intimately involved in all of the major issues. She was the mayor's point person for pretty much everything that is a major issue in our time."...
2. She Was the Mayor's Link to the Downtown Establishment
...Still, Sainz agreed with the premise that Michell provided the link between the Mayor's Office and the downtown establishment.
3. Expect the Mayor to Hire a Political Expert
If Michell was the city's most powerful person you knew nothing about, her replacement Julie Dubick is a little less of a mystery.
She's an attorney, former partner at downtown law firm Seltzer Caplan and has worked as assistant director of the U.S. Marshals Service and with the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington D.C. She ran unsuccessfully for school board in 2000. Her biography from that time notes that she was the highest-ranking woman in federal law enforcement when she worked with the Marshals Service.
Dubick joined Sanders' staff when he took office in 2005. Her legal background has allowed her to give the mayor guidance independent of the City Attorney's Office. Rath said Dubick was one of the top lawyers in the city.
"We never trusted (former City Attorney) Mike Aguirre's legal advice because we always thought it was political advice," Sainz said. "Julie provided the legal perspective."
[Maura Larkins comment: Baloney, Mr. Sainz. Julie simply provides the interpretation of the law that suits your agenda.]
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Adding to the Porkfest's Questions
Adding to the Porkfest's Questions
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
December 7, 2010
Downtown's redevelopment agency devoted quite a bit of effort to keep the public from seeing an early version of a report justifying its future existence.
The agency stonewalled our requests under public records law, but finally relented and released the draft of a report that aimed to determine whether downtown San Diego was still blighted - rundown - and needed billions in public money to help it recover.
"The study in its current form does nothing but add to burgeoning questions about the deal's legitimacy and the core mission of redevelopment agencies," writes City Hall reporter Liam Dillon.
All this comes in the wake of the secretive late-night pork-barrel deal in Sacramento that greatly extended the life of the redevelopment agency and circumvented the public process that this study was supposed to kick off.
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
December 7, 2010
Downtown's redevelopment agency devoted quite a bit of effort to keep the public from seeing an early version of a report justifying its future existence.
The agency stonewalled our requests under public records law, but finally relented and released the draft of a report that aimed to determine whether downtown San Diego was still blighted - rundown - and needed billions in public money to help it recover.
"The study in its current form does nothing but add to burgeoning questions about the deal's legitimacy and the core mission of redevelopment agencies," writes City Hall reporter Liam Dillon.
All this comes in the wake of the secretive late-night pork-barrel deal in Sacramento that greatly extended the life of the redevelopment agency and circumvented the public process that this study was supposed to kick off.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Randy "Duke" Cunningham regrets guilty plea
Disgraced ex-congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham regrets guilty plea
Nov 22, 2010
CBS Channel 8 San Diego
SAN DIEGO (CNS) - In his first media interview since going to prison, Randy "Duke" Cunningham said he regrets pleading guilty almost five years ago to conspiracy and tax evasion charges, and that he did so on the advice of his lawyers when he was physically and emotionally weakened.
The former GOP congressman from Rancho Santa Fe is serving eight years and four months in the Federal Corrections Institution in Tucson after admitting to taking $2.4 million in bribes from two defense contractors in exchange for steering government contracts their way.
During the nearly hourlong interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune, he also said his visitors have included former Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter of Alpine and Ron Packard of Carlsbad but his only family member who has come is his son. He said his wife, whom is in the process of divorcing him, and their two daughters do not communicate with him.
The 68-year-old former Navy fighter pilot also told the newspaper he fears the prostate cancer that caused him to drop nearly 100 pounds during the scandal has returned.
Upon his sentencing in 2006, Cunningham told a judge his decision to plea guilty was not made under duress. But to the Union-Tribune this month, he said he was pressured by lawyers who said it would costs millions to fight the charges and he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Those lawyers could not be reached for comment, according to the newspaper.
Nov 22, 2010
CBS Channel 8 San Diego
SAN DIEGO (CNS) - In his first media interview since going to prison, Randy "Duke" Cunningham said he regrets pleading guilty almost five years ago to conspiracy and tax evasion charges, and that he did so on the advice of his lawyers when he was physically and emotionally weakened.
The former GOP congressman from Rancho Santa Fe is serving eight years and four months in the Federal Corrections Institution in Tucson after admitting to taking $2.4 million in bribes from two defense contractors in exchange for steering government contracts their way.
During the nearly hourlong interview with The San Diego Union-Tribune, he also said his visitors have included former Republican Reps. Duncan Hunter of Alpine and Ron Packard of Carlsbad but his only family member who has come is his son. He said his wife, whom is in the process of divorcing him, and their two daughters do not communicate with him.
The 68-year-old former Navy fighter pilot also told the newspaper he fears the prostate cancer that caused him to drop nearly 100 pounds during the scandal has returned.
Upon his sentencing in 2006, Cunningham told a judge his decision to plea guilty was not made under duress. But to the Union-Tribune this month, he said he was pressured by lawyers who said it would costs millions to fight the charges and he could spend the rest of his life in prison.
Those lawyers could not be reached for comment, according to the newspaper.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Out of the Loop, in a Snit
My question: why wasn't Fred Maas investigated at the same time Nancy Graham was investigated? How come she took all the blame for helping developers? Maybe Fred Maas will be investigated now. See video of Maas refusing to answer questions.
City Council members grilled outgoing CCDC leader Fred Maas on Monday about details of a deal that allows the agency to sequester $6 billion more in property taxes for downtown redevelopment.
Out of the Loop, in a Snit
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
Nov. 16, 2010
When it comes to running the city, one might assume that the City Council wouldn't just be in the loop, it would be the loop. That would be a bad assumption, as the council learned last month when the city's downtown redevelopment agency worked out a deal with the state to sequester property tax money. The council had no idea what was going on.
The City Council, which thinks the agency went rogue, spent Monday trying to figure out what it didn't know and when it didn't know it. There was plenty of bipartisan agency-slamming and talk about whether the agency's head deserves to keep his job. It's a rather moot point: he's leaving.
Council, City Attorney Feast Again on Porkfest
November 15, 2010
by Liam Dillon
If the state Legislature is where the late-night downtown porkfest gets fattened up, San Diego's City Council is where it gets slaughtered.
For the second straight hearing, council members sliced and diced staff from the city's downtown redevelopment agency, the Centre City Development Corp., about secret negotiations that led to a last-minute state deal to eliminate limits on downtown redevelopment. The deal happened without the council's knowledge even though members were working on a plan to remove the limits themselves.
Last month, the council had requested a timeline of when key players knew about the deal, which allows the agency to collect $6 billion more in property taxes and potentially finance a new downtown stadium for the Chargers. Outgoing agency head Fred Maas, who had revealed previously that discussions about the deal began in August, attempted to do that Monday afternoon.
Maas said he spoke between five to 10 times with local Republican state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, the provision's sponsor and he had briefed others on the deal.
But that — and a bland memo from Mayor Jerry Sanders' office also released Monday — wasn't enough. Councilman Carl DeMaio wanted to know about how the deal began, specifically contact between Maas and mayoral chief of staff Kris Michell. Maas refused to answer. DeMaio, in turn, openly wondered if he could fire Maas.
"I don't think I feel comfortable with Mr. Maas staying until the end of the year," DeMaio said.
Incidentally, Maas had just formalized his resignation effective at the end of the year, as the city is seeking to replace him with a permanent downtown redevelopment chief.
Had that not happened, Councilwoman Marti Emerald said, she might have sought Maas' removal sooner.
"I think there's probably some of what you're hearing too is that maybe it should be an immediate resignation," Emerald said. "No offense to the great volunteer work you've done, but this City Council is trying to repair the damage done by previous councils and mayors in doing deals behind closed doors that have gotten us into a lot of trouble."
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who also was kept in the dark about the deal, poked a hole in one of the main arguments made by its proponents. City Council, backers say, has the ultimate decision on how and if the city should spend the new money.
But there are restrictions to how that new money could be spent, Goldsmith pointed out. Had the deal not occurred, property tax dollars would have flowed directly to the city's day-to-day operating budget, meaning it could pay for police, fire and other city services. Now the money will be sequestered downtown, meaning it couldn't pay for those services...
City Council members grilled outgoing CCDC leader Fred Maas on Monday about details of a deal that allows the agency to sequester $6 billion more in property taxes for downtown redevelopment.
Out of the Loop, in a Snit
by Randy Dotinga
Voice of San Diego
Nov. 16, 2010
When it comes to running the city, one might assume that the City Council wouldn't just be in the loop, it would be the loop. That would be a bad assumption, as the council learned last month when the city's downtown redevelopment agency worked out a deal with the state to sequester property tax money. The council had no idea what was going on.
The City Council, which thinks the agency went rogue, spent Monday trying to figure out what it didn't know and when it didn't know it. There was plenty of bipartisan agency-slamming and talk about whether the agency's head deserves to keep his job. It's a rather moot point: he's leaving.
Council, City Attorney Feast Again on Porkfest
November 15, 2010
by Liam Dillon
If the state Legislature is where the late-night downtown porkfest gets fattened up, San Diego's City Council is where it gets slaughtered.
For the second straight hearing, council members sliced and diced staff from the city's downtown redevelopment agency, the Centre City Development Corp., about secret negotiations that led to a last-minute state deal to eliminate limits on downtown redevelopment. The deal happened without the council's knowledge even though members were working on a plan to remove the limits themselves.
Last month, the council had requested a timeline of when key players knew about the deal, which allows the agency to collect $6 billion more in property taxes and potentially finance a new downtown stadium for the Chargers. Outgoing agency head Fred Maas, who had revealed previously that discussions about the deal began in August, attempted to do that Monday afternoon.
Maas said he spoke between five to 10 times with local Republican state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, the provision's sponsor and he had briefed others on the deal.
But that — and a bland memo from Mayor Jerry Sanders' office also released Monday — wasn't enough. Councilman Carl DeMaio wanted to know about how the deal began, specifically contact between Maas and mayoral chief of staff Kris Michell. Maas refused to answer. DeMaio, in turn, openly wondered if he could fire Maas.
"I don't think I feel comfortable with Mr. Maas staying until the end of the year," DeMaio said.
Incidentally, Maas had just formalized his resignation effective at the end of the year, as the city is seeking to replace him with a permanent downtown redevelopment chief.
Had that not happened, Councilwoman Marti Emerald said, she might have sought Maas' removal sooner.
"I think there's probably some of what you're hearing too is that maybe it should be an immediate resignation," Emerald said. "No offense to the great volunteer work you've done, but this City Council is trying to repair the damage done by previous councils and mayors in doing deals behind closed doors that have gotten us into a lot of trouble."
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who also was kept in the dark about the deal, poked a hole in one of the main arguments made by its proponents. City Council, backers say, has the ultimate decision on how and if the city should spend the new money.
But there are restrictions to how that new money could be spent, Goldsmith pointed out. Had the deal not occurred, property tax dollars would have flowed directly to the city's day-to-day operating budget, meaning it could pay for police, fire and other city services. Now the money will be sequestered downtown, meaning it couldn't pay for those services...
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Jack Johnson's arrest shows development as a blessing and a curse
Jack Johnson's arrest shows development as a blessing and a curse
Jack B. Johnson, Prince George's County's executive, was arrested on Nov. 12 as federal investigators served search warrants at the County Administration Building. His wife, Leslie Johnson, was also arrested. Each was charged with evidence tempering and destroying evidence.
By Miranda S. Spivack, Ovetta Wiggins and Carol Morello
Washington Post
November 14, 2010
Development deals have been at the center of Prince George's County's most contentious political fights for decades, the source of its highest hopes and deepest embarrassments.
The wins have included luring the Redskins from the District, creating a tourist and shopping destination at National Harbor and, most recently, persuading Wegmans, the Rochester, N.Y.-based grocer with a cultlike following, to open a mega-store in a county that has long been shunned by upscale retailers.
But the arrests of County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D) and his wife, Leslie Johnson, on Friday as part of a federal probe of political corruption in Prince George's are a reminder that the money swirling around big development deals can be both a blessing and a curse.
In a recent interview with The Washington Post outlining his achievements during his eight years as executive, Jack Johnson said he was "very, very proud" of his development record.
Two weeks later, according to an FBI affidavit, the Johnsons were overheard on a wiretap plotting how to rid themselves of a potentially incriminating $100,000 check from a developer and hide wads of cash totalling $79,600. They could each face 20 years in prison if convicted.
"Upper Marlboro has developed a reputation for having a pay-to-play atmosphere, and you certainly don't hear that about other jurisdictions" in the area, said Joel D. Rozner, a lobbyist and former county zoning counsel, referring to the county seat.
Jack B. Johnson, Prince George's County's executive, was arrested on Nov. 12 as federal investigators served search warrants at the County Administration Building. His wife, Leslie Johnson, was also arrested. Each was charged with evidence tempering and destroying evidence.
By Miranda S. Spivack, Ovetta Wiggins and Carol Morello
Washington Post
November 14, 2010
Development deals have been at the center of Prince George's County's most contentious political fights for decades, the source of its highest hopes and deepest embarrassments.
The wins have included luring the Redskins from the District, creating a tourist and shopping destination at National Harbor and, most recently, persuading Wegmans, the Rochester, N.Y.-based grocer with a cultlike following, to open a mega-store in a county that has long been shunned by upscale retailers.
But the arrests of County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D) and his wife, Leslie Johnson, on Friday as part of a federal probe of political corruption in Prince George's are a reminder that the money swirling around big development deals can be both a blessing and a curse.
In a recent interview with The Washington Post outlining his achievements during his eight years as executive, Jack Johnson said he was "very, very proud" of his development record.
Two weeks later, according to an FBI affidavit, the Johnsons were overheard on a wiretap plotting how to rid themselves of a potentially incriminating $100,000 check from a developer and hide wads of cash totalling $79,600. They could each face 20 years in prison if convicted.
"Upper Marlboro has developed a reputation for having a pay-to-play atmosphere, and you certainly don't hear that about other jurisdictions" in the area, said Joel D. Rozner, a lobbyist and former county zoning counsel, referring to the county seat.
The downtown porkfest continues: The $20 Million Subsidy of the Visitor Industry
The $20 Million Subsidy of the Visitor Industry
November 13, 2010
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
The Convention Center Corp. this week released the snazzy new drawings of its proposed expansion, which could be the most expensive facility the city has ever built.
The drawings showed the newest feature, meant to give us all chills: They put grass on top of it to make a five-acre park. It's like a gigantic Chia Pet. The Chia Center!
The Chia Center came with a barrage of stats.
On his Facebook page, for instance, Councilman Kevin Faulconer noted one of them: The city collects $20.2 million a year in sales and hotel taxes directly from the business the Convention Center delivers to pay for "police and fire."
"The San Diego Convention Center is the definition of return on investment," he wrote.
Is the expansion the definition of return on investment, though? In plugging the new expansion, the city's Convention Center Corp. said it would bring in an additional $17.1 million in taxes to the city.
Do a little arithmetic and we get to $37.3 million total coming in to the city's day-to-day budget because of this new building.
There's only one problem. Actually, two.
No. 1: The new convention center is expected to cost $50 million-to-$60 million a year in debt payments on the loan the city would have to get to build it.
N0. 2: The city still pays $8.75 million a year on the last Convention Center expansion.
So let's do that arithmetic. That's at least $58.75 million a year for the facility.
That means it's a loss to the city of more than $20 million a year.
Or, I suppose we could call it not a "loss" but a subsidy of the visitor industry of about $20 million a year.
There are basically four ways to pay for this facility being floated.
• I. Raise some kind of special tax. This would be, most likely, a type of rental car surcharge or maybe a hotel-room tax increase. It would require a vote of the people mdash; perhaps even a two-thirds majority. This is not going to happen. They might alternatively put it through the Hotel Government, aka the Tourism Marketing District. We'll see.
• II. Form a new, special, group — known as a business improvement district — just among the businesses that benefit directly from the Convention Center. This would make them all chip in a bit and pay for it — or a good portion of it.
• III. The port district. The port, a government agency, makes its money from hotels and other lease holders on port land. It could, and should, at least chip in. Port Commissioner Stephen Cushman is the mayor's special designate in charge of all things Convention Center expansion.
• IV. The Downtown Money Tree (aka The Porkfest): Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher has now made it possible for billions of dollars of downtown property taxes to stay sequestered downtown into projects that are supposed to spruce up neighborhoods.
I would be willing to bet that they'll go almost wholly for Option IV. Trust me, they will not take this to the voters, so that eliminates the chance for a new tax. (I know, raising a special tax to pay for a special effort! Absurd! What is this, 12th Century England!?)...
November 13, 2010
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
The Convention Center Corp. this week released the snazzy new drawings of its proposed expansion, which could be the most expensive facility the city has ever built.
The drawings showed the newest feature, meant to give us all chills: They put grass on top of it to make a five-acre park. It's like a gigantic Chia Pet. The Chia Center!
The Chia Center came with a barrage of stats.
On his Facebook page, for instance, Councilman Kevin Faulconer noted one of them: The city collects $20.2 million a year in sales and hotel taxes directly from the business the Convention Center delivers to pay for "police and fire."
"The San Diego Convention Center is the definition of return on investment," he wrote.
Is the expansion the definition of return on investment, though? In plugging the new expansion, the city's Convention Center Corp. said it would bring in an additional $17.1 million in taxes to the city.
Do a little arithmetic and we get to $37.3 million total coming in to the city's day-to-day budget because of this new building.
There's only one problem. Actually, two.
No. 1: The new convention center is expected to cost $50 million-to-$60 million a year in debt payments on the loan the city would have to get to build it.
N0. 2: The city still pays $8.75 million a year on the last Convention Center expansion.
So let's do that arithmetic. That's at least $58.75 million a year for the facility.
That means it's a loss to the city of more than $20 million a year.
Or, I suppose we could call it not a "loss" but a subsidy of the visitor industry of about $20 million a year.
There are basically four ways to pay for this facility being floated.
• I. Raise some kind of special tax. This would be, most likely, a type of rental car surcharge or maybe a hotel-room tax increase. It would require a vote of the people mdash; perhaps even a two-thirds majority. This is not going to happen. They might alternatively put it through the Hotel Government, aka the Tourism Marketing District. We'll see.
• II. Form a new, special, group — known as a business improvement district — just among the businesses that benefit directly from the Convention Center. This would make them all chip in a bit and pay for it — or a good portion of it.
• III. The port district. The port, a government agency, makes its money from hotels and other lease holders on port land. It could, and should, at least chip in. Port Commissioner Stephen Cushman is the mayor's special designate in charge of all things Convention Center expansion.
• IV. The Downtown Money Tree (aka The Porkfest): Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher has now made it possible for billions of dollars of downtown property taxes to stay sequestered downtown into projects that are supposed to spruce up neighborhoods.
I would be willing to bet that they'll go almost wholly for Option IV. Trust me, they will not take this to the voters, so that eliminates the chance for a new tax. (I know, raising a special tax to pay for a special effort! Absurd! What is this, 12th Century England!?)...
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Did Ernie Dronenburg falsify his credentials?
From my personal experience with our newly-elected County Assessor, Ernie Dronenburg, I can safely say that he seems interested in protecting the powerful and has a habit of ignoring the little guy, even when he also has to ignore the law to achieve his goals.
San Diego county results
November 4, 2010
San Diego Union-Tribune
DAVID L. BUTLER 244408 48.86%
ERNEST J. DRONENBURG 255780 51.14%
Election 2010: Assessor, congressional incumbents and more
By The San Diego Union-Tribune
October 24, 2010
Assessor/Recorder/Clerk endorsement
I emphatically disagree with your endorsement of Ernie Dronenburg for San Diego Assessor/Recorder/Clerk (Editorial, Oct. 16). In my professional capacity as the county assessor/clerk/recorder of Riverside County from 1991 to 2004, I have worked with both candidates. David Butler is by far the superior candidate. With more than 30 years of experience in the office as an appraiser, manager and assistant department head, Butler has consistently demonstrated his knowledge of the needs of the office and the needs of the taxpayers of San Diego. His focus has always been on providing excellent public service.
In his candidate statement, Dronenburg states that he was an “assessor 20 years.” This statement implies he was an elected county assessor. The truth is Dronenburg was never an elected assessor of a California county. David Butler is the assessor of San Diego County, and has demonstrated his ability to implement budgetary cutbacks and still get the job done.
Gary L. Orso
Encinitas
The recommendation for Ernie Dronenburg cites Dronenburg’s qualification as a “state-certified assessor.” In fact, there is no such thing as a “state-certified assessor.”
Scott Olsen
Chula Vista...
San Diego county results
November 4, 2010
San Diego Union-Tribune
DAVID L. BUTLER 244408 48.86%
ERNEST J. DRONENBURG 255780 51.14%
Election 2010: Assessor, congressional incumbents and more
By The San Diego Union-Tribune
October 24, 2010
Assessor/Recorder/Clerk endorsement
I emphatically disagree with your endorsement of Ernie Dronenburg for San Diego Assessor/Recorder/Clerk (Editorial, Oct. 16). In my professional capacity as the county assessor/clerk/recorder of Riverside County from 1991 to 2004, I have worked with both candidates. David Butler is by far the superior candidate. With more than 30 years of experience in the office as an appraiser, manager and assistant department head, Butler has consistently demonstrated his knowledge of the needs of the office and the needs of the taxpayers of San Diego. His focus has always been on providing excellent public service.
In his candidate statement, Dronenburg states that he was an “assessor 20 years.” This statement implies he was an elected county assessor. The truth is Dronenburg was never an elected assessor of a California county. David Butler is the assessor of San Diego County, and has demonstrated his ability to implement budgetary cutbacks and still get the job done.
Gary L. Orso
Encinitas
The recommendation for Ernie Dronenburg cites Dronenburg’s qualification as a “state-certified assessor.” In fact, there is no such thing as a “state-certified assessor.”
Scott Olsen
Chula Vista...
Friday, October 15, 2010
Frye's Disgust at the Late Night Pork Fest; Marti Emerald stands with Frye
Frye's Disgust at the Late Night Pork Fest
October 15, 2010
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Perhaps nobody was more angry about what happened last week when Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher and the Centre City Development Corp. just decided themselves to extend the life of redevelopment downtown than City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Not only has she been demanding CCDC begin paying back the loans from the city that got downtown redevelopment started in the beginning, she's also been sticking her neck out for Proposition D, the tax increase paired with 10 financial reforms.
Her alliance with the mayor, once an arch rival, on that has been rather inspiring to see. But like a lot of us, she was startled to learn of the news from Sacramento that the deal had been done.
On Tuesday, she came up with the idea to send the governor a letter asking him to veto the legislation. As it turned out, the governor had yet to sign that part of the budget and she figured that if the city of San Diego officially sent him a letter asking him not to, he actually might not.
But it didn't happen.
Why? I told the story earlier of Councilman Kevin Faulconer grappling with the issue. He, like Frye, was so incensed by what Fletcher did that he just ... well ... couldn't bring himself to undo it.
But that ended up being dwarfed as a display of insecurity by what Council President Ben Hueso did. He had supported the idea of sending the letter to the governor but when the opportunity to try again — after Faulconer killed it — he balked.
Well, he didn't balk. He ran away. Seriously. After expressing his concern about it and saying he thought everyone should relax a little, he called a recess on the meeting and then disappeared. Since he runs the City Council meetings, Faulconer had to take over the dais.
Whatever bug Hueso caught also, then, landed in Councilman Todd Gloria's donut. Gloria suddenly decided that the discussion they'd been having about how outraged they were was enough for him. That is, just them bloviating in council chambers was enough to send a message to the state that they aren't going to take getting undermined like that anymore...
And Frye was angry. When I talked to her on the phone after the tumultuous day, I told her that I thought people might feel like they couldn't trust city leaders right when they're asking people to have faith in their pledges about how extensive the Prop. D reforms will be.
"I don't blame them," she said...."We sat through a very lengthy public process to assure the public that there would be a full blight study and a public process they could participate in. Not only was that not true. But at nighttime, they essentially went behind the back of the redevelopment agency members — which means the public — and completely thumbed their nose at the process and that is wrong."...
Wednesday, the letter went out, authored by Frye and Councilwoman Marti Emerald...
October 15, 2010
by Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
Perhaps nobody was more angry about what happened last week when Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher and the Centre City Development Corp. just decided themselves to extend the life of redevelopment downtown than City Councilwoman Donna Frye.
Not only has she been demanding CCDC begin paying back the loans from the city that got downtown redevelopment started in the beginning, she's also been sticking her neck out for Proposition D, the tax increase paired with 10 financial reforms.
Her alliance with the mayor, once an arch rival, on that has been rather inspiring to see. But like a lot of us, she was startled to learn of the news from Sacramento that the deal had been done.
On Tuesday, she came up with the idea to send the governor a letter asking him to veto the legislation. As it turned out, the governor had yet to sign that part of the budget and she figured that if the city of San Diego officially sent him a letter asking him not to, he actually might not.
But it didn't happen.
Why? I told the story earlier of Councilman Kevin Faulconer grappling with the issue. He, like Frye, was so incensed by what Fletcher did that he just ... well ... couldn't bring himself to undo it.
But that ended up being dwarfed as a display of insecurity by what Council President Ben Hueso did. He had supported the idea of sending the letter to the governor but when the opportunity to try again — after Faulconer killed it — he balked.
Well, he didn't balk. He ran away. Seriously. After expressing his concern about it and saying he thought everyone should relax a little, he called a recess on the meeting and then disappeared. Since he runs the City Council meetings, Faulconer had to take over the dais.
Whatever bug Hueso caught also, then, landed in Councilman Todd Gloria's donut. Gloria suddenly decided that the discussion they'd been having about how outraged they were was enough for him. That is, just them bloviating in council chambers was enough to send a message to the state that they aren't going to take getting undermined like that anymore...
And Frye was angry. When I talked to her on the phone after the tumultuous day, I told her that I thought people might feel like they couldn't trust city leaders right when they're asking people to have faith in their pledges about how extensive the Prop. D reforms will be.
"I don't blame them," she said...."We sat through a very lengthy public process to assure the public that there would be a full blight study and a public process they could participate in. Not only was that not true. But at nighttime, they essentially went behind the back of the redevelopment agency members — which means the public — and completely thumbed their nose at the process and that is wrong."...
Wednesday, the letter went out, authored by Frye and Councilwoman Marti Emerald...
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Nathan Fletcher in the dark of night gets stealth stadium deal into California's budget
In the Dark of Night
Voice of San Diego
Randy Dotinga
October 9, 2010
Should law be patched together in the middle of the night when hardly anyone is watching? Sacramento seems to think so: in a last-minute move that sent local eyebrows skyward, the state legislature slipped a bill into budget negotiations Thursday night that would pave the way for San Diego's downtown redevelopment agency to more easily pay to build a downtown football stadium.
This is hardly a case of simple bureaucracy at work. As we report, the mayor's promised "transparent process" over this issue is now history, and the effect of the deal on the city's day-to-day budget is unknown, just as voters begin considering boosting their sales taxes to bail out the city. On top of all that, "the deal was done in stunning secrecy."
The assemblyman who spearheaded the deal defends his move, saying it's a big job creator, but acknowledges that the county wasn't thrilled about the idea. County supervisors issued statements, with one saying the deal could actually spell trouble for the stadium.
Also: the city attorney says a public vote on the stadium won't be necessary if only redevelopment funds are used to build it. The city's head of redevelopment says this deal will save the city money.
Fletcher: Bill About Jobs, Not Chargers
October 8, 2010
by Liam Dillon
Republican state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher said the word "no" a lot when we spoke on the phone about the last-minute deal that removes a major financial hurdle to the city building a new Chargers stadium downtown.
Fletcher authored a provision introduced and approved in last night's state budget that lifts San Diego's downtown redevelopment cap, a necessary step before the city could build a new Chargers stadium using public money.
Was this bill something you required to support the state budget? No, he said.
Was this bill done to build a Chargers stadium? "Not exclusively, no," Fletcher said.
Fletcher emphasized that lifting the downtown redevelopment agency's cap would affect hundreds of projects, not just a football stadium. He did say a football stadium was the most high-profile effort now being discussed. He said he had been in contact with the Chargers in the last week, along with other stakeholders.
Is this deal similar to the 2009 one the city of Industry received, and Fletcher opposed, to help build a potential football stadium there? No, he said. That was an environmental waiver specific to the stadium, he said. This action affects lots more, Fletcher said.
"It's like comparing apples to carburetors," he said.
Instead, he said, this was all about jobs. Fletcher released a fact sheet saying it would create 110,000 permanent and temporary jobs.
But not everyone's happy. San Diego County, for one.
"The county expressed their opposition to this," Fletcher said.
County leaders had been meeting with city officials to discuss increasing the cap and potential financing for a stadium. In June, the city hired a consultant to examine the need for further redevelopment downtown. The $500,000 study was expected to take 18 months and City Council members had praised it as a public process.
This deal ends both of those things.
Fletcher conceded the process wasn't pretty.
"We can have a long debate on the process," he said. "There's probably fair criticism. I criticize the legislative process frequently, but at the end of the day what we're focused on is the product and the results. If we have the opportunity to take action to get tens of thousands of San Diegans working again, we had to do it."
Voice of San Diego
Randy Dotinga
October 9, 2010
Should law be patched together in the middle of the night when hardly anyone is watching? Sacramento seems to think so: in a last-minute move that sent local eyebrows skyward, the state legislature slipped a bill into budget negotiations Thursday night that would pave the way for San Diego's downtown redevelopment agency to more easily pay to build a downtown football stadium.
This is hardly a case of simple bureaucracy at work. As we report, the mayor's promised "transparent process" over this issue is now history, and the effect of the deal on the city's day-to-day budget is unknown, just as voters begin considering boosting their sales taxes to bail out the city. On top of all that, "the deal was done in stunning secrecy."
The assemblyman who spearheaded the deal defends his move, saying it's a big job creator, but acknowledges that the county wasn't thrilled about the idea. County supervisors issued statements, with one saying the deal could actually spell trouble for the stadium.
Also: the city attorney says a public vote on the stadium won't be necessary if only redevelopment funds are used to build it. The city's head of redevelopment says this deal will save the city money.
Fletcher: Bill About Jobs, Not Chargers
October 8, 2010
by Liam Dillon
Republican state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher said the word "no" a lot when we spoke on the phone about the last-minute deal that removes a major financial hurdle to the city building a new Chargers stadium downtown.
Fletcher authored a provision introduced and approved in last night's state budget that lifts San Diego's downtown redevelopment cap, a necessary step before the city could build a new Chargers stadium using public money.
Was this bill something you required to support the state budget? No, he said.
Was this bill done to build a Chargers stadium? "Not exclusively, no," Fletcher said.
Fletcher emphasized that lifting the downtown redevelopment agency's cap would affect hundreds of projects, not just a football stadium. He did say a football stadium was the most high-profile effort now being discussed. He said he had been in contact with the Chargers in the last week, along with other stakeholders.
Is this deal similar to the 2009 one the city of Industry received, and Fletcher opposed, to help build a potential football stadium there? No, he said. That was an environmental waiver specific to the stadium, he said. This action affects lots more, Fletcher said.
"It's like comparing apples to carburetors," he said.
Instead, he said, this was all about jobs. Fletcher released a fact sheet saying it would create 110,000 permanent and temporary jobs.
But not everyone's happy. San Diego County, for one.
"The county expressed their opposition to this," Fletcher said.
County leaders had been meeting with city officials to discuss increasing the cap and potential financing for a stadium. In June, the city hired a consultant to examine the need for further redevelopment downtown. The $500,000 study was expected to take 18 months and City Council members had praised it as a public process.
This deal ends both of those things.
Fletcher conceded the process wasn't pretty.
"We can have a long debate on the process," he said. "There's probably fair criticism. I criticize the legislative process frequently, but at the end of the day what we're focused on is the product and the results. If we have the opportunity to take action to get tens of thousands of San Diegans working again, we had to do it."
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Report: San Diego County spends less on fire services than neighbors
Report: San Diego County spends less on fire services than neighbors
Sep 1, 2010
La Jolla Light
By City News Service
San Diego fire agencies invest significantly less in fire and emergency medical services than their counterparts in Orange and Los Angeles counties, according to a study released Wednesday.
The study by the National University System Institute for Policy Research found that fire agencies in San Diego cumulatively spent $152.85 per resident in fiscal year 2009-10, compared to $177.98 in Orange County and $217.71 in Los Angeles County.
The data was culled from the budgets of more than 70 separate fire protection agencies throughout the three Southern California counties, according to the Institute for Policy Research.
Erik Bruvold, the institute's president, said the findings should be "worrisome" to San Diego residents in the wake of the 2003 and 2007 firestorms that destroyed 4,500 structures and caused billions in damages.
"In the seven years since the 2003 firestorm we have seen many important steps toward improving our fire fighting efforts," Bruvold said. "However, the biggest one - significantly increasing investment and the priority placed on fire and EMS among municipal budgets - hasn't been a step that enough local policy makers have embraced."...
Sep 1, 2010
La Jolla Light
By City News Service
San Diego fire agencies invest significantly less in fire and emergency medical services than their counterparts in Orange and Los Angeles counties, according to a study released Wednesday.
The study by the National University System Institute for Policy Research found that fire agencies in San Diego cumulatively spent $152.85 per resident in fiscal year 2009-10, compared to $177.98 in Orange County and $217.71 in Los Angeles County.
The data was culled from the budgets of more than 70 separate fire protection agencies throughout the three Southern California counties, according to the Institute for Policy Research.
Erik Bruvold, the institute's president, said the findings should be "worrisome" to San Diego residents in the wake of the 2003 and 2007 firestorms that destroyed 4,500 structures and caused billions in damages.
"In the seven years since the 2003 firestorm we have seen many important steps toward improving our fire fighting efforts," Bruvold said. "However, the biggest one - significantly increasing investment and the priority placed on fire and EMS among municipal budgets - hasn't been a step that enough local policy makers have embraced."...
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
How To Be Wiser About Wildfires
How To Be Wiser About Wildfires
Voice of San Diego
August 30, 2010
This is the season to get the message out that although wildfires can be extremely destructive, they are not like tsunamis or tornadoes: with the right information, people have a chance to make wise choices, and can reduce their risk of losing a home by making the wisest changes they can afford to make. Who wouldn't want to reduce home losses in a wildfire? I think that it could happen in our region, when enough people understand a few basic facts: how homes burn and how to reduce the risk of that happening.
Basic fact number one: Most homes ignite in a wildfire from embers igniting the home itself, or a structure close to the home. A few ignite from superheated air, especially from other burning homes, and even fewer ignite from the actual wildfire flames.
Basic fact number two: there is no such thing as a "fire-safe" plant, but there are "fire-wise" people.
Home Ignition Risks from Wildfires:
Embers: 80 percent of home ignitions in a wildfire are caused by embers landing on the house and igniting the house, due to the home's flawed design and construction. New homes now must be built to standards that will prevent ember ignition. Older homes that have not been retrofitted against ember attack are at high risk.
Live embers can land from a fire five miles away. Fire-wise professionals tell us the only way to protect older homes is to retrofit them to resist ember attack. Some fixes are cheap: installing attic and foundation vent screens and adding screens to tool-shed windows, and weather-stripping garage, sunroom, and shed doors. But wood shake roofing is the greatest hazard of all, and a new roof, or replacing small dimension handrails or exterior stairways with heavy timber or metal, or replacing windows and doors, are expensive.
Heat: some homes are destroyed in a wildfire after igniting from heat radiated from an adjacent burning building. For example, a tool-shed ignites because it had unscreened windows and embers got in. The tool-shed radiates heat up to 2000 degrees then ignites the house. In suburban areas, where homes may be as close as 10 to 20 feet apart, 2000 degrees radiating from a burning home will ignite the adjacent homes. Each home that has been made low-risk will also protect its neighbors.
Flame: Flames moving from the wild-lands across the homesite cause a small percentage of home ignitions, compared to homes ignited by embers. Assume the area for 100-foot around the home is fire-wise. If so, the wildfire flame is too far away to ignite the house. A fire-wise homesite, out to 100 feet from the home, will have non-combustible latticework, decks, sheds, fabric structures and furniture, gravel mulch and fences within five feet of the house, and plants that are lean, clean and green.
If homeowners spent $1,000 a year on the lowest-cost retrofit items — vent screens, weather-stripping, a bit of fencing, etc., — they would reduce their risk a lot in a few years. However, replacing a wood roof, siding or decking, or putting in fire-resistant windows are big home improvements, and some people simply may not be able to do them. One home that is still a high risk can threaten a whole neighborhood. Santa Barbara, after suffering huge home losses from wildfires, now requires these improvements be made as point-of-sale upgrades. Is this something San Diegans should consider? Other models exist: communities could accept donations for non-profit funds to help neighbors who can't afford to do the most important work. This kind of mutual assistance would be very fire-wise.
Homesite Risk Reduction:
How to keep the homesite from igniting? Assure that all the man-made materials for shade structures or furniture near the house are noncombustible, or keep them in storage when not in use, and decide how best to keep the plants noncombustible. No magic plant exists that will protect a home, though some require a lot less work to keep from igniting. Any plant, even the low-maintenance ones, still needs two things in order to not ignite: cleaning and water.
Every year before fire season, cut down dead weeds, remove leaf litter over two inches deep, and clean off roofs. Then keep going: green hedges, beds of ferns and succulents, and some plants like junipers, rosemary, and cypresses build up a dead layer under the green foliage. Clean out all that dead stuff before July, and during fire season remove new buildup is removed. Some plants can be cut very short in the summer and regenerate in the cool wet season. If a plant is too much work to maintain, learn if anything else can be planted that is less work. Make decisions carefully.
A plant list with water needs and cleaning requirements would help people be more fire-wise. Plants need water to be hydrated and resist ignition. Many species need water three times a week, and without it, will dry and die. Dead and dry plants ignite. Others require much less water, and need it less frequently, to be hydrated. If water is limited in your homesite or your budget, less thirsty plants will help you have a low-risk homesite with the water they need, some only three times a month.
For a homeowner with a tight budget for maintenance, plants that require less water and less cleaning, e.g., small trees versus big trees, will have a lower-cost, low-risk landscape. But some people like bigger trees and are able to invest more to maintain a landscape of more high-upkeep plants, and still have a low risk homesite. Both are fire-wise, as long as the homesite is clean and plants are hydrated through fire season.
A Better Future:
These pre-defended homes and communities would be likely to survive in a wildfire. A pre-defended home with a wildfire approaching will need someone to shut windows and, if they have it, to spray aon a fire-retardant foam for extra insurance.
When the smoke clears, we all could return to our lives in our communities, and the charred wildlands would start on its natural post-burn healing cycle. What a different future that would be, than the one we presently anticipate when wildfires threaten. And yes, it is possible, if we choose wisely and make it happen.
-- KAY STEWART, San Diego
Kay Stewart is a California registered landscape architect. Many local experts can help homeowners learn more. Wildfire Zone lists many of them,
Voice of San Diego
August 30, 2010
This is the season to get the message out that although wildfires can be extremely destructive, they are not like tsunamis or tornadoes: with the right information, people have a chance to make wise choices, and can reduce their risk of losing a home by making the wisest changes they can afford to make. Who wouldn't want to reduce home losses in a wildfire? I think that it could happen in our region, when enough people understand a few basic facts: how homes burn and how to reduce the risk of that happening.
Basic fact number one: Most homes ignite in a wildfire from embers igniting the home itself, or a structure close to the home. A few ignite from superheated air, especially from other burning homes, and even fewer ignite from the actual wildfire flames.
Basic fact number two: there is no such thing as a "fire-safe" plant, but there are "fire-wise" people.
Home Ignition Risks from Wildfires:
Embers: 80 percent of home ignitions in a wildfire are caused by embers landing on the house and igniting the house, due to the home's flawed design and construction. New homes now must be built to standards that will prevent ember ignition. Older homes that have not been retrofitted against ember attack are at high risk.
Live embers can land from a fire five miles away. Fire-wise professionals tell us the only way to protect older homes is to retrofit them to resist ember attack. Some fixes are cheap: installing attic and foundation vent screens and adding screens to tool-shed windows, and weather-stripping garage, sunroom, and shed doors. But wood shake roofing is the greatest hazard of all, and a new roof, or replacing small dimension handrails or exterior stairways with heavy timber or metal, or replacing windows and doors, are expensive.
Heat: some homes are destroyed in a wildfire after igniting from heat radiated from an adjacent burning building. For example, a tool-shed ignites because it had unscreened windows and embers got in. The tool-shed radiates heat up to 2000 degrees then ignites the house. In suburban areas, where homes may be as close as 10 to 20 feet apart, 2000 degrees radiating from a burning home will ignite the adjacent homes. Each home that has been made low-risk will also protect its neighbors.
Flame: Flames moving from the wild-lands across the homesite cause a small percentage of home ignitions, compared to homes ignited by embers. Assume the area for 100-foot around the home is fire-wise. If so, the wildfire flame is too far away to ignite the house. A fire-wise homesite, out to 100 feet from the home, will have non-combustible latticework, decks, sheds, fabric structures and furniture, gravel mulch and fences within five feet of the house, and plants that are lean, clean and green.
If homeowners spent $1,000 a year on the lowest-cost retrofit items — vent screens, weather-stripping, a bit of fencing, etc., — they would reduce their risk a lot in a few years. However, replacing a wood roof, siding or decking, or putting in fire-resistant windows are big home improvements, and some people simply may not be able to do them. One home that is still a high risk can threaten a whole neighborhood. Santa Barbara, after suffering huge home losses from wildfires, now requires these improvements be made as point-of-sale upgrades. Is this something San Diegans should consider? Other models exist: communities could accept donations for non-profit funds to help neighbors who can't afford to do the most important work. This kind of mutual assistance would be very fire-wise.
Homesite Risk Reduction:
How to keep the homesite from igniting? Assure that all the man-made materials for shade structures or furniture near the house are noncombustible, or keep them in storage when not in use, and decide how best to keep the plants noncombustible. No magic plant exists that will protect a home, though some require a lot less work to keep from igniting. Any plant, even the low-maintenance ones, still needs two things in order to not ignite: cleaning and water.
Every year before fire season, cut down dead weeds, remove leaf litter over two inches deep, and clean off roofs. Then keep going: green hedges, beds of ferns and succulents, and some plants like junipers, rosemary, and cypresses build up a dead layer under the green foliage. Clean out all that dead stuff before July, and during fire season remove new buildup is removed. Some plants can be cut very short in the summer and regenerate in the cool wet season. If a plant is too much work to maintain, learn if anything else can be planted that is less work. Make decisions carefully.
A plant list with water needs and cleaning requirements would help people be more fire-wise. Plants need water to be hydrated and resist ignition. Many species need water three times a week, and without it, will dry and die. Dead and dry plants ignite. Others require much less water, and need it less frequently, to be hydrated. If water is limited in your homesite or your budget, less thirsty plants will help you have a low-risk homesite with the water they need, some only three times a month.
For a homeowner with a tight budget for maintenance, plants that require less water and less cleaning, e.g., small trees versus big trees, will have a lower-cost, low-risk landscape. But some people like bigger trees and are able to invest more to maintain a landscape of more high-upkeep plants, and still have a low risk homesite. Both are fire-wise, as long as the homesite is clean and plants are hydrated through fire season.
A Better Future:
These pre-defended homes and communities would be likely to survive in a wildfire. A pre-defended home with a wildfire approaching will need someone to shut windows and, if they have it, to spray aon a fire-retardant foam for extra insurance.
When the smoke clears, we all could return to our lives in our communities, and the charred wildlands would start on its natural post-burn healing cycle. What a different future that would be, than the one we presently anticipate when wildfires threaten. And yes, it is possible, if we choose wisely and make it happen.
-- KAY STEWART, San Diego
Kay Stewart is a California registered landscape architect. Many local experts can help homeowners learn more. Wildfire Zone lists many of them,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)