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.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
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,
Monday, August 30, 2010
MTS exec tops transportation pay list
As far as I know, all the officials discussed below earned their pay. But I wonder what's so special about transportation? Maybe transportation decision-making requires more objectivity than other fields.
MTS exec tops transportation pay list
By Jeff McDonald
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
August 29, 2010
The man in charge of making San Diego’s buses and trolleys run on time tops the list of transportation executives whose salary and benefits were examined as part of The Watchdog’s ongoing public compensation survey.
Paul Jablonski, who signed a five-and-a-half-year contract in 2008 and is promised annual 5 percent raises, will receive a $414,000 compensation package this calendar year, records show.
The pay package starts with a $279,300 base salary, but includes a series of retirement and other benefits that push him past the city manager of San Marcos, Paul Malone, who topped The Watchdog’s list for municipal administrator compensation at just over $408,000 a year.
The Metropolitan Transit System operates the San Diego Trolley and the city bus system. It also contracts to provide freight-train service in San Diego and Imperial counties.
Jablonski oversees a 2,300-member workforce and a budget of nearly $220 million. In addition to his salary and benefits, he gets 41 paid days off a year, which is among the lowest in the latest survey...
MTS exec tops transportation pay list
By Jeff McDonald
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
August 29, 2010
The man in charge of making San Diego’s buses and trolleys run on time tops the list of transportation executives whose salary and benefits were examined as part of The Watchdog’s ongoing public compensation survey.
Paul Jablonski, who signed a five-and-a-half-year contract in 2008 and is promised annual 5 percent raises, will receive a $414,000 compensation package this calendar year, records show.
The pay package starts with a $279,300 base salary, but includes a series of retirement and other benefits that push him past the city manager of San Marcos, Paul Malone, who topped The Watchdog’s list for municipal administrator compensation at just over $408,000 a year.
The Metropolitan Transit System operates the San Diego Trolley and the city bus system. It also contracts to provide freight-train service in San Diego and Imperial counties.
Jablonski oversees a 2,300-member workforce and a budget of nearly $220 million. In addition to his salary and benefits, he gets 41 paid days off a year, which is among the lowest in the latest survey...
Saturday, August 28, 2010
What does Lorie Zapf do for a living?
Aug 27, 2010
What does Lorie Zapf do for a living?
City Council candidate’s small business was dissolved months ago
San Diego City Beat
By Dave Maass
Back in March, each candidate for San Diego City Council filed with the City Clerk a Form 700, or “Statement of Economic Interests.” Among other disclosures intended to reduce conflicts of interest, the candidate is required to list all sources of income.
District 6 candidate Lorie Zapf listed only one business interest: “Zapf & Associates, Inc.,” a corporation engaged in “consulting, creative, sales” activities. She listed herself as the president and CEO.
CityBeat has learned that Zapf & Associates Inc. has gone out of business.
According to records on file at the California Secretary of State’s office, the corporation was dissolved on April 6, 2010, which means it no longer exists. The corporation had been registered to Zapf’s home address in Clairemont—the same address against which a bank filed a “notice of default” in March that said she and her husband, Eric, were behind on their mortgage payments by several months.
Zapf, a Republican, and her Democratic opponent, Howard Wayne, emerged from the June primary election with the most votes and will face-off in the November election.
On the campaign trail—and on the ballot—Zapf describes herself as a legal advocate and a small-business owner. However, it is unclear what happened to her small business and what, exactly, she now does for a living.
Zapf has also publically described herself as the regional director for Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, a non-profit organization that advocates for tort reform. This position was not disclosed on her Form 700 (as is usually required) and instead Zapf listed CALA as one of her company’s sources of income.
Records with the San Diego Treasurer’s office indicate that in 2008 the couple applied for a Business Tax Certificate, the required document one needs to run a business in San Diego, for Eric Zapf & Associates, Inc.. However, the real estate business (also listed to the Zapfs’ home address) has not yet received the certificate. The treasurer’s office tells CityBeat it has requested more information, though declined to say what information was requested and when the request was made.
Meanwhile, the Zapfs seem to be operating at least one other business under a fictitious name. Eric Zapf claims to be the founder of Wet Kiss Creative, which distributes items such as Slapitz—a “slap on” bracelet-style device that is used to display stuffed animals. He also seems to be marketing a magnetic wall mount under the name Air-Pin.
Companies operating under fictitious names are required to register with San Diego County. Wet Kiss Creative is not listed in the county’s database.
Both Eric and Lorie Zapf are featured on the web site for Eric Zapf Homes & Estates, which provides “full brokerage services.” The website says it is currently being upgraded.
The Zapf campaign refused to respond to inquiries regarding anything related to these issues. Instead, campaign spokesman Matt Donnellan wrote via e-mail:
“You and CityBeat have adopted the role of advocates and agents of former Assemblyman Wayne's City Council campaign. It is absurd to think that we would respond to this thinly veiled inquiry by our opponent.”
Donnellan is referring to investigative reporting published in CityBeat that revealed that the Zapfs had defaulted on a mortgage on their home in Clairemont and that Eric Zapf had defaulted on a second home in Nevada and was delinquent three times on his taxes. Our reporting also uncovered that Zapf had falsely described herself on official forms as holding a master’s degree in business. On top of that, we also published anti-gay e-mails sent by Lorie Zapf and dug into the numerous lawsuits she and her husband have filed even while advocating against frivolous lawsuits.
While Wayne has used some of the reporting to attack his opponent, for the record, none of the information originated with the Wayne camp. The campaign did lend CityBeat a DVD recording of a public forum that featured Wayne and Zapf; it did not result in a story.
The newspaper did not endorse Wayne in the primary—it endorsed Steve Hadley—and has not yet endorsed a candidate for the general election.
What does Lorie Zapf do for a living?
City Council candidate’s small business was dissolved months ago
San Diego City Beat
By Dave Maass
Back in March, each candidate for San Diego City Council filed with the City Clerk a Form 700, or “Statement of Economic Interests.” Among other disclosures intended to reduce conflicts of interest, the candidate is required to list all sources of income.
District 6 candidate Lorie Zapf listed only one business interest: “Zapf & Associates, Inc.,” a corporation engaged in “consulting, creative, sales” activities. She listed herself as the president and CEO.
CityBeat has learned that Zapf & Associates Inc. has gone out of business.
According to records on file at the California Secretary of State’s office, the corporation was dissolved on April 6, 2010, which means it no longer exists. The corporation had been registered to Zapf’s home address in Clairemont—the same address against which a bank filed a “notice of default” in March that said she and her husband, Eric, were behind on their mortgage payments by several months.
Zapf, a Republican, and her Democratic opponent, Howard Wayne, emerged from the June primary election with the most votes and will face-off in the November election.
On the campaign trail—and on the ballot—Zapf describes herself as a legal advocate and a small-business owner. However, it is unclear what happened to her small business and what, exactly, she now does for a living.
Zapf has also publically described herself as the regional director for Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, a non-profit organization that advocates for tort reform. This position was not disclosed on her Form 700 (as is usually required) and instead Zapf listed CALA as one of her company’s sources of income.
Records with the San Diego Treasurer’s office indicate that in 2008 the couple applied for a Business Tax Certificate, the required document one needs to run a business in San Diego, for Eric Zapf & Associates, Inc.. However, the real estate business (also listed to the Zapfs’ home address) has not yet received the certificate. The treasurer’s office tells CityBeat it has requested more information, though declined to say what information was requested and when the request was made.
Meanwhile, the Zapfs seem to be operating at least one other business under a fictitious name. Eric Zapf claims to be the founder of Wet Kiss Creative, which distributes items such as Slapitz—a “slap on” bracelet-style device that is used to display stuffed animals. He also seems to be marketing a magnetic wall mount under the name Air-Pin.
Companies operating under fictitious names are required to register with San Diego County. Wet Kiss Creative is not listed in the county’s database.
Both Eric and Lorie Zapf are featured on the web site for Eric Zapf Homes & Estates, which provides “full brokerage services.” The website says it is currently being upgraded.
The Zapf campaign refused to respond to inquiries regarding anything related to these issues. Instead, campaign spokesman Matt Donnellan wrote via e-mail:
“You and CityBeat have adopted the role of advocates and agents of former Assemblyman Wayne's City Council campaign. It is absurd to think that we would respond to this thinly veiled inquiry by our opponent.”
Donnellan is referring to investigative reporting published in CityBeat that revealed that the Zapfs had defaulted on a mortgage on their home in Clairemont and that Eric Zapf had defaulted on a second home in Nevada and was delinquent three times on his taxes. Our reporting also uncovered that Zapf had falsely described herself on official forms as holding a master’s degree in business. On top of that, we also published anti-gay e-mails sent by Lorie Zapf and dug into the numerous lawsuits she and her husband have filed even while advocating against frivolous lawsuits.
While Wayne has used some of the reporting to attack his opponent, for the record, none of the information originated with the Wayne camp. The campaign did lend CityBeat a DVD recording of a public forum that featured Wayne and Zapf; it did not result in a story.
The newspaper did not endorse Wayne in the primary—it endorsed Steve Hadley—and has not yet endorsed a candidate for the general election.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Ethics Commission Fines Graham $32,000
See all posts re Nancy Graham.
Ethics Commission Fines Graham $32,000
Former CCDC President Nancy Graham at an Ethics Commission hearing in May
By Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego
August 12, 2010
Nancy Graham, the former Centre City Development Corp. president, was fined $32,000 Thursday by the San Diego Ethics Commission, ending a two-year saga that derailed nearly $2 billion in downtown projects, drew FBI attention and almost took down the city's downtown redevelopment agency.
Graham, who didn't attend the hearing, was penalized for failing to report some $3.5 million she received from a private business deal done in Florida before moving here in 2005. The commission found that she violated city ethics laws 18 times.
Her partners in that deal, which included the Lennar Corp., paid Graham while she was CCDC's president. But she never reported that income on her annual conflict-of-interest disclosures. Without any stated conflict, she went on to negotiate the terms of a downtown hotel proposed on land Lennar owned near Petco Park.
The issue went unnoticed until I asked her about it in spring 2008.
She told me that the private deal was long in her past, that she hadn't had any interest in the private deal for years. She said she'd sold her interests in N-K Ventures, the business she owned with her former husband.
"I have no interest in N-K or anything they do," Graham told me in 2008. "It is a bullshit argument by either sour grapes losers or other people."
That claim proved false.
In fact, it was Graham's own testimony -- this time under oath, not to me -- that unraveled her changing story. We found a sworn deposition she'd given in 2007. In it, Graham acknowledged receiving $125,000 from the Lennar deal while she was CCDC's president.
At the same time she was negotiating a deal with Lennar, the company was paying her profits from the old business deal.
That drew the Ethics Commission's attention, prompting an investigation that started in the summer of 2008 and ended Thursday night.
A three-member panel of commissioners had proposed fining Graham $25,000. But two other commissioners, John O'Neill and Bud Wetzler, argued for more. O'Neill pointed to Graham's public statements and called them disingenuous. He recalled a statement she made during a day-long ethics hearing in May when she claimed she didn't know that building a hotel near Petco Park would be profitable to its developers.
O'Neill held up a blue post-it note he'd written in his notes about that claim. It simply said: "Absurd."
"The record does show an attempt to deceive," O'Neill said.
Wetzler said Graham's actions, coming at the top levels of the organization, were "one of the most serious of all violations we could have."
"I'm convinced," he said, "that someplace along the line she shifted from accidental to intent."
A $36,000 fine was entertained and rejected; the five commissioners had to unanimously agree, and two did not.
So they deliberated quietly and settled on $32,000 -- less than the maximum $90,000 that could've been levied but more than originally proposed. The fine was unanimously approved.
Graham was fined $4,000 each on two violations: Preparing a staff report on the hotel project and discussing it at a CCDC board meeting. She was fined $1,500 apiece for 16 other violations, including sending e-mails and participating in negotiations about the project.
It's the second-largest fine in the Ethics Commission's nine-year history
The Question on Nancy Graham: Why Was She Hired in the First Place?
By Don Bauder
July 26, 2008
Nancy Graham, who recently resigned as head of Centre City Development
Corp., has left the state, supposedly to be with her ill mother. The
city attorney's office has been investigating her for a month, and now
CCDC will hold its own investigation, supposedly by an outside lawyer.
Questions abound on whether she was at all influential in a developer
named the Related Group getting the nod on a planned CCDC project at
Seventh and Market.
Before CCDC hired her, it should have asked
questions. On Nov. 23 of 2005, I reported in a Reader column that
Graham's successor as mayor of West Palm Beach, Florida, had charged
that she was too cozy with Related Group. She didn't arrive in San
Diego until the following month.
While she was mayor, her signature project was done by Related.
Then she went into the private sector
with her husband (from whom she is now divorced), and did a project
with Related. I have subsequently learned that her ex-husband is still
owed money by Related.
On April 23 of this year, I wrote a column on
the Seventh and Market project; Karen-Huff-Willis, head of the Black
Historical Society of San Diego, and activist Ian Trowbridge,
questioned whether she had been involved in Related negotiations.
Graham told me she had been in some meetings in which an agreement had
not been reached reached, but she did not negotiate the deal. The CCDC
backed up her claim. Huff-Willis this week threatened to sue CCDC. She
says that under Section 1090 of state law, public officials must be
guided by the public interest, not personal interest...
Ethics Commission Fines Graham $32,000
Former CCDC President Nancy Graham at an Ethics Commission hearing in May
By Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego
August 12, 2010
Nancy Graham, the former Centre City Development Corp. president, was fined $32,000 Thursday by the San Diego Ethics Commission, ending a two-year saga that derailed nearly $2 billion in downtown projects, drew FBI attention and almost took down the city's downtown redevelopment agency.
Graham, who didn't attend the hearing, was penalized for failing to report some $3.5 million she received from a private business deal done in Florida before moving here in 2005. The commission found that she violated city ethics laws 18 times.
Her partners in that deal, which included the Lennar Corp., paid Graham while she was CCDC's president. But she never reported that income on her annual conflict-of-interest disclosures. Without any stated conflict, she went on to negotiate the terms of a downtown hotel proposed on land Lennar owned near Petco Park.
The issue went unnoticed until I asked her about it in spring 2008.
She told me that the private deal was long in her past, that she hadn't had any interest in the private deal for years. She said she'd sold her interests in N-K Ventures, the business she owned with her former husband.
"I have no interest in N-K or anything they do," Graham told me in 2008. "It is a bullshit argument by either sour grapes losers or other people."
That claim proved false.
In fact, it was Graham's own testimony -- this time under oath, not to me -- that unraveled her changing story. We found a sworn deposition she'd given in 2007. In it, Graham acknowledged receiving $125,000 from the Lennar deal while she was CCDC's president.
At the same time she was negotiating a deal with Lennar, the company was paying her profits from the old business deal.
That drew the Ethics Commission's attention, prompting an investigation that started in the summer of 2008 and ended Thursday night.
A three-member panel of commissioners had proposed fining Graham $25,000. But two other commissioners, John O'Neill and Bud Wetzler, argued for more. O'Neill pointed to Graham's public statements and called them disingenuous. He recalled a statement she made during a day-long ethics hearing in May when she claimed she didn't know that building a hotel near Petco Park would be profitable to its developers.
O'Neill held up a blue post-it note he'd written in his notes about that claim. It simply said: "Absurd."
"The record does show an attempt to deceive," O'Neill said.
Wetzler said Graham's actions, coming at the top levels of the organization, were "one of the most serious of all violations we could have."
"I'm convinced," he said, "that someplace along the line she shifted from accidental to intent."
A $36,000 fine was entertained and rejected; the five commissioners had to unanimously agree, and two did not.
So they deliberated quietly and settled on $32,000 -- less than the maximum $90,000 that could've been levied but more than originally proposed. The fine was unanimously approved.
Graham was fined $4,000 each on two violations: Preparing a staff report on the hotel project and discussing it at a CCDC board meeting. She was fined $1,500 apiece for 16 other violations, including sending e-mails and participating in negotiations about the project.
It's the second-largest fine in the Ethics Commission's nine-year history
The Question on Nancy Graham: Why Was She Hired in the First Place?
By Don Bauder
July 26, 2008
Nancy Graham, who recently resigned as head of Centre City Development
Corp., has left the state, supposedly to be with her ill mother. The
city attorney's office has been investigating her for a month, and now
CCDC will hold its own investigation, supposedly by an outside lawyer.
Questions abound on whether she was at all influential in a developer
named the Related Group getting the nod on a planned CCDC project at
Seventh and Market.
Before CCDC hired her, it should have asked
questions. On Nov. 23 of 2005, I reported in a Reader column that
Graham's successor as mayor of West Palm Beach, Florida, had charged
that she was too cozy with Related Group. She didn't arrive in San
Diego until the following month.
While she was mayor, her signature project was done by Related.
Then she went into the private sector
with her husband (from whom she is now divorced), and did a project
with Related. I have subsequently learned that her ex-husband is still
owed money by Related.
On April 23 of this year, I wrote a column on
the Seventh and Market project; Karen-Huff-Willis, head of the Black
Historical Society of San Diego, and activist Ian Trowbridge,
questioned whether she had been involved in Related negotiations.
Graham told me she had been in some meetings in which an agreement had
not been reached reached, but she did not negotiate the deal. The CCDC
backed up her claim. Huff-Willis this week threatened to sue CCDC. She
says that under Section 1090 of state law, public officials must be
guided by the public interest, not personal interest...
Thursday, July 08, 2010
A judge will decide tomorrow whether to count 12,000 ballots that the Country Registrar failed to pick up
UPDATE:
Barry Jantz sent this news:
From: @FlashReport
Sent: Jul 21, 2010 10:11p
**Breaking News** Moments ago Salas called Vargas and conceded the 40th SD Dem Primary. The recount is over!
Thank you Barry for keeping us up to date!
UPDATE:
Good news: The Riverside votes are being counted, thanks to a Superior Court Judge.
Bad news: Juan Vargas has gained several votes. What's up with this? I am ashamed if, as it appears, roughly half of Democrats in this district either don't know or don't care that the head of the Assembly Insurance Committee took a job as vice-president of an insurance company immediately upon leaving office. But then I wonder: did Republican-leaning individuals ask for Democratic ballots so they could vote for Juan Vargas in the primary?
Thanks to Jim Sills and Barry Jantz at San Diego Rostra for keeping us posted.
ORIGINAL POST:
Was it miscommunication? Or intentional neglect? Why didn't the County Registrar of Voters collect 12,000 ballots from the post office on June 8, 2010? Or why didn't the Post Office deliver them? How did this ball get dropped?
No matter what the outcome of the counting, however, I have come to wonder why so many Democrats would vote for someone as unethical as Juan Vargas. I sure hope Mary Salas wins. Juan Vargas should be running as a Republican.
Barry Jantz sent this news:
From: @FlashReport
Sent: Jul 21, 2010 10:11p
**Breaking News** Moments ago Salas called Vargas and conceded the 40th SD Dem Primary. The recount is over!
Thank you Barry for keeping us up to date!
UPDATE:
Good news: The Riverside votes are being counted, thanks to a Superior Court Judge.
Bad news: Juan Vargas has gained several votes. What's up with this? I am ashamed if, as it appears, roughly half of Democrats in this district either don't know or don't care that the head of the Assembly Insurance Committee took a job as vice-president of an insurance company immediately upon leaving office. But then I wonder: did Republican-leaning individuals ask for Democratic ballots so they could vote for Juan Vargas in the primary?
Thanks to Jim Sills and Barry Jantz at San Diego Rostra for keeping us posted.
ORIGINAL POST:
Was it miscommunication? Or intentional neglect? Why didn't the County Registrar of Voters collect 12,000 ballots from the post office on June 8, 2010? Or why didn't the Post Office deliver them? How did this ball get dropped?
No matter what the outcome of the counting, however, I have come to wonder why so many Democrats would vote for someone as unethical as Juan Vargas. I sure hope Mary Salas wins. Juan Vargas should be running as a Republican.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Did Republicans work for Juan Vargas to sabotage the Democratic primary?
I can't help thinking that it was very odd that Juan Vargas, who had so few Democratic endorsements, apparently got so many Democratic votes. Or did he? Democrats allow Independents to vote in the Democratic primary. Did some people ask for Democratic ballots to sabotage the primary? I also wonder why the post office delivered ballots late to the Registrar. Did someone at the Registrar intentionally delay the delivery?
Back before he made it official that he was best friends with insurance companies (by accepting a lucrative position in an insurance company), Juan Vargas was already raising doubts about his integrity. Here's an article from 2006 about Juan Vargas, followed by an article about San Diego County Office of Education's Diane Crosier that was written about a week ago.
Lawmaker opposed homeowners' efforts
By Bill Ainsworth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
March 4, 2006
Assemblyman Juan Vargas, criticized by some homeowners for opposing consumer-oriented changes in insurance laws, accepted nearly $2,000 for a golf trip and more than $500 in meals from the insurance industry last year, state documents show.
Major insurance companies, including Allstate, Hartford Life and Prudential Financial, paid for Vargas to play golf at exclusive courses, including Pebble Beach, last September, according to state records.
Vargas is chairman of the Assembly Insurance Committee, which oversees legislation affecting the industry...
I am trying to figure out how Juan Vargas was able to be taken seriously as a candidate for public office after his shameless personal gain from insurance companies during and directly after serving as insurance committee president of the California Assembly. My conclusion is that some people and institutions are as corrupt as he is. Here are the endorsements he boasted about on his website:
The United Domestic Workers of America, AFSCME Local 3930
United Nurses Associations of California
Crime Victims United
Coachella Valley Teachers Association
Desert Sands Unified School District Teachers Association
Palm Springs Unified School District Teachers Association
California National Guard Veterans Association
San Diego City Firefighters, Local 145
CDF Firefighters, Local 2881 “California’s Fire Department”
Black Police Officers Association of San Diego
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO
AFSCME, Local 3299, University of California Workers
Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, San Diego
Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, retired
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, retired
Senator Ron Calderon
Senator Waddie Deddeh, retired, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, San Diego
Senator Joe Simitian
Senator Leland Yee
Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, retired, former Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus
Steven Hernandez, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Coachella
Emmanuel Martinez, Council Member, City of Coachella
John Minto, Board Member (ret.), San Diego Police Officers Association
The list of endorsements for Mary Salas was huge, many times the size of that of Juan Vargas, and included many more elected officials. So how did Juan Vargas manage to get approximately the same number of votes as Salas in the 2010 California Senate 40th district election? I will continue to ponder this question as I mourn the fact that so many Democrats are either ignorant of or tolerant of shocking and inappropriate acceptance of insurance company largess by Juan Vargas.
There Is a Free Lunch, and They're Not Telling You About It
June 27, 2010
By EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
Top employees at the San Diego County Office of Education have been allowed to avoid reporting gifts despite a California law that is supposed to ensure that the public can peek at who is paying for meals, handing out baseball tickets or giving other gifts to influential government employees.
The office has allowed employees to report their income without revealing gifts, an exception that could obscure important information about who is wining and dining public officials. California law says that gifts are income, no different than the other earnings that top employees already must report on annual statements of economic interests.
The Fair Political Practices Commission urged the County Office of Education to change its guidelines after being alerted to the issue by voiceofsandiego.org earlier this month. Depending on how long the office has failed to report gifts, its employees may need to report gifts they received years ago. Office spokesman Jim Esterbrooks said the agency is updating its guidelines to comply.
Gifts have played a role in a contentious lawsuit filed by a former employee that alleges free meals contributed to a "culture of corruption" at the agency that steered County Office of Education business to specific law firms.
For instance, employees who help oversee legal work for school districts regularly accepted free lunches from an attorney who is frequently hired by their department, according to testimony by employee John Vincent taken as part of the lawsuit. Attorney Dan Shinoff usually paid for the meals, which happened more than once a month, Vincent said.
Diane Crosier, who directs the office's risk management department, was one of the employees that accepted the meals, according to the testimony. Her department controls millions of dollars in legal work for school districts across the county. While Crosier does not decide which attorneys to assign to each legal case, she oversees Rick Rinear, the worker who does. Rinear also went to lunch with Shinoff from time to time, along with other employees, Vincent said in the deposition this year.
Crosier is required to reveal her economic interests to the public because she helps make decisions with a financial impact for a public agency. The County Office of Education does not require Rinear or the other employees to do so.
California law typically requires employees like Crosier to reveal gifts worth $50 or more from a single source annually, so frequent free lunches would likely need to be reported.
Yet Crosier did not report any lunches with Shinoff...
Back before he made it official that he was best friends with insurance companies (by accepting a lucrative position in an insurance company), Juan Vargas was already raising doubts about his integrity. Here's an article from 2006 about Juan Vargas, followed by an article about San Diego County Office of Education's Diane Crosier that was written about a week ago.
Lawmaker opposed homeowners' efforts
By Bill Ainsworth
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
March 4, 2006
Assemblyman Juan Vargas, criticized by some homeowners for opposing consumer-oriented changes in insurance laws, accepted nearly $2,000 for a golf trip and more than $500 in meals from the insurance industry last year, state documents show.
Major insurance companies, including Allstate, Hartford Life and Prudential Financial, paid for Vargas to play golf at exclusive courses, including Pebble Beach, last September, according to state records.
Vargas is chairman of the Assembly Insurance Committee, which oversees legislation affecting the industry...
I am trying to figure out how Juan Vargas was able to be taken seriously as a candidate for public office after his shameless personal gain from insurance companies during and directly after serving as insurance committee president of the California Assembly. My conclusion is that some people and institutions are as corrupt as he is. Here are the endorsements he boasted about on his website:
The United Domestic Workers of America, AFSCME Local 3930
United Nurses Associations of California
Crime Victims United
Coachella Valley Teachers Association
Desert Sands Unified School District Teachers Association
Palm Springs Unified School District Teachers Association
California National Guard Veterans Association
San Diego City Firefighters, Local 145
CDF Firefighters, Local 2881 “California’s Fire Department”
Black Police Officers Association of San Diego
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), AFL-CIO
AFSCME, Local 3299, University of California Workers
Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, San Diego
Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, retired
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, retired
Senator Ron Calderon
Senator Waddie Deddeh, retired, Chula Vista, Coronado, Imperial Beach, National City, San Diego
Senator Joe Simitian
Senator Leland Yee
Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, retired, former Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus
Steven Hernandez, Mayor Pro Tem, City of Coachella
Emmanuel Martinez, Council Member, City of Coachella
John Minto, Board Member (ret.), San Diego Police Officers Association
The list of endorsements for Mary Salas was huge, many times the size of that of Juan Vargas, and included many more elected officials. So how did Juan Vargas manage to get approximately the same number of votes as Salas in the 2010 California Senate 40th district election? I will continue to ponder this question as I mourn the fact that so many Democrats are either ignorant of or tolerant of shocking and inappropriate acceptance of insurance company largess by Juan Vargas.
There Is a Free Lunch, and They're Not Telling You About It
June 27, 2010
By EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
Top employees at the San Diego County Office of Education have been allowed to avoid reporting gifts despite a California law that is supposed to ensure that the public can peek at who is paying for meals, handing out baseball tickets or giving other gifts to influential government employees.
The office has allowed employees to report their income without revealing gifts, an exception that could obscure important information about who is wining and dining public officials. California law says that gifts are income, no different than the other earnings that top employees already must report on annual statements of economic interests.
The Fair Political Practices Commission urged the County Office of Education to change its guidelines after being alerted to the issue by voiceofsandiego.org earlier this month. Depending on how long the office has failed to report gifts, its employees may need to report gifts they received years ago. Office spokesman Jim Esterbrooks said the agency is updating its guidelines to comply.
Gifts have played a role in a contentious lawsuit filed by a former employee that alleges free meals contributed to a "culture of corruption" at the agency that steered County Office of Education business to specific law firms.
For instance, employees who help oversee legal work for school districts regularly accepted free lunches from an attorney who is frequently hired by their department, according to testimony by employee John Vincent taken as part of the lawsuit. Attorney Dan Shinoff usually paid for the meals, which happened more than once a month, Vincent said.
Diane Crosier, who directs the office's risk management department, was one of the employees that accepted the meals, according to the testimony. Her department controls millions of dollars in legal work for school districts across the county. While Crosier does not decide which attorneys to assign to each legal case, she oversees Rick Rinear, the worker who does. Rinear also went to lunch with Shinoff from time to time, along with other employees, Vincent said in the deposition this year.
Crosier is required to reveal her economic interests to the public because she helps make decisions with a financial impact for a public agency. The County Office of Education does not require Rinear or the other employees to do so.
California law typically requires employees like Crosier to reveal gifts worth $50 or more from a single source annually, so frequent free lunches would likely need to be reported.
Yet Crosier did not report any lunches with Shinoff...
Saturday, July 03, 2010
How corrupt does Juan Vargas have to be to make voters turn against him? His lucrative job at Safeco after accepting gifts as assemblyman
I still have high hopes that Mary Salas will win this contest, but I can't believe there are so many Democrats in the South Bay who would vote for Juan Vargas, who went straight to a lucrative job in the insurance industry when he left the California Assembly and gave up his seat on the insurance committee.
40th STATE SENATE DISTRICT
Vargas maintains 6-vote lead over Salas
Riverside County votes uncounted
By Michele Clock, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
June 28, 2010
State Senate candidate Juan Vargas maintained a six-vote lead Monday over rival Mary Salas in a South Bay Democratic race, but while the vote count is almost over, the dispute may go on for some time.
Not only is a recount likely, but a controversy over uncounted ballots could alter the vote totals from the Riverside County portion of the district.
Updated tallies by the San Diego County registrar’s office from the June 8 primary election in the 40th state Senate District showed Vargas with the same lead he had Friday. Both candidates gained 45 votes in the latest batch of results.
There are 50 absentee and provisional ballots left to be counted in San Diego County.
The district reaches into Imperial and Riverside counties, and registrar officials in both those counties said Monday that they have finished counting votes.
However, questions over uncounted votes in Riverside County could be a wild card. About 12,500 mail-in votes were delivered after the 8 p.m. June 8 deadline, meaning the votes wouldn’t be counted. Elections officials there are exploring whether they have the legal right to count those votes.
There were reports of miscommunication between the county and the U.S. Postal Service, which resulted in the ballots arriving late...
Vargas takes insurance job
Ex-assemblyman's reversal draws fire
By Bill Ainsworth
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE S
December 8, 2006
Profile Juan Vargas
Job as of last Sunday: Assemblyman, insurance committee chairman
Interesting fact: $335,000 in campaign contributions from insurers over the years.
Notable quote: “I'm not going into insurance or finance. I'm just not interested.” (April) New job announced this week: Vice president of California external affairs for Safeco insurance
During his campaign for Congress, Juan Vargas was harshly criticized for accepting $335,000 in campaign contributions from insurers and frequently taking their side while chairman of the Assembly Insurance Committee.
The San Diego Democrat not only disputed that but he went further and said he would not take a job in the industry after leaving office.
Now he has done just that.
Vargas, whose Assembly term ended this week, is the new vice president of California external affairs for Safeco, a Seattle-based company that sells auto, surety and homeowners insurance to 4.3 million customers nationwide...
40th STATE SENATE DISTRICT
Vargas maintains 6-vote lead over Salas
Riverside County votes uncounted
By Michele Clock, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
June 28, 2010
State Senate candidate Juan Vargas maintained a six-vote lead Monday over rival Mary Salas in a South Bay Democratic race, but while the vote count is almost over, the dispute may go on for some time.
Not only is a recount likely, but a controversy over uncounted ballots could alter the vote totals from the Riverside County portion of the district.
Updated tallies by the San Diego County registrar’s office from the June 8 primary election in the 40th state Senate District showed Vargas with the same lead he had Friday. Both candidates gained 45 votes in the latest batch of results.
There are 50 absentee and provisional ballots left to be counted in San Diego County.
The district reaches into Imperial and Riverside counties, and registrar officials in both those counties said Monday that they have finished counting votes.
However, questions over uncounted votes in Riverside County could be a wild card. About 12,500 mail-in votes were delivered after the 8 p.m. June 8 deadline, meaning the votes wouldn’t be counted. Elections officials there are exploring whether they have the legal right to count those votes.
There were reports of miscommunication between the county and the U.S. Postal Service, which resulted in the ballots arriving late...
Vargas takes insurance job
Ex-assemblyman's reversal draws fire
By Bill Ainsworth
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE S
December 8, 2006
Profile Juan Vargas
Job as of last Sunday: Assemblyman, insurance committee chairman
Interesting fact: $335,000 in campaign contributions from insurers over the years.
Notable quote: “I'm not going into insurance or finance. I'm just not interested.” (April) New job announced this week: Vice president of California external affairs for Safeco insurance
During his campaign for Congress, Juan Vargas was harshly criticized for accepting $335,000 in campaign contributions from insurers and frequently taking their side while chairman of the Assembly Insurance Committee.
The San Diego Democrat not only disputed that but he went further and said he would not take a job in the industry after leaving office.
Now he has done just that.
Vargas, whose Assembly term ended this week, is the new vice president of California external affairs for Safeco, a Seattle-based company that sells auto, surety and homeowners insurance to 4.3 million customers nationwide...
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The Grand Jury's Big Flub
I can't understand why people don't admit it when they're wrong. Especially when it's obvious to everybody that they're wrong.
Morning Report: The Grand Jury's Big Flub
Jun 17, 2010
Voice of San Diego
It's a pretty stunning number: $679 million.
According to the San Diego County Grand Jury, that's how much the county has saved through outsourcing, managed competition and other cost-cutting strategies. A grand jury report implies that the savings came over 16 months in 2007 and 2008.
The Union-Tribune adapted the statistic in an editorial bashing the city for failing to more fully embrace outsourcing.
But there's a problem with using that number for the 16-month period: It's just plain wrong.
As we show in our latest Fact Check post, the savings actually refers to the period from 1998 to 2008.
The grand jury's forewoman responded to us with this head-scratcher: "I stand by what was written in the report. I have no response to give you, to correct or deny."
Morning Report: The Grand Jury's Big Flub
Jun 17, 2010
Voice of San Diego
It's a pretty stunning number: $679 million.
According to the San Diego County Grand Jury, that's how much the county has saved through outsourcing, managed competition and other cost-cutting strategies. A grand jury report implies that the savings came over 16 months in 2007 and 2008.
The Union-Tribune adapted the statistic in an editorial bashing the city for failing to more fully embrace outsourcing.
But there's a problem with using that number for the 16-month period: It's just plain wrong.
As we show in our latest Fact Check post, the savings actually refers to the period from 1998 to 2008.
The grand jury's forewoman responded to us with this head-scratcher: "I stand by what was written in the report. I have no response to give you, to correct or deny."
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Ernie Dronenburg will be opposing county assessor David Butler
When he was on the San Diego County Office of Education board, Ernie Dronenburg was a firm supporter of Diane Croiser. He wouldn't even acknowledge a constituent's information about problems in the business office at SDCOE. (His attitude seemed to be the same as Sergeant Schultz on Hogan's Heroes: "I know nothing!") He stood shoulder to shoulder with Bob Watkins in refusing to question practices regarding the SDCOE Joint Powers Authority. What was the result of this attitude? Among other fiascos, Dronenburg's inaction resulted in the MiraCosta College Mess.
I figured Dronenburg just wasn't interested in politics. I thought he had been drafted to serve on the SDCOE board when it was being torn apart by crazies. But I was wrong. Dronenburg is interested in politics. Politics as usual. Shame on him.
More Intrigue in the Assessor's Race
David Butler is a 34-year veteran of the assessor's office and currently serves as assessor.
Kelly Bennett
Voice of San Diego
Jun 9, 2010
For the first time since the early 1980s, the county assessor/recorder/clerk post is up for grabs.
And in the obscure race, last night's results brought even more drama.
David Butler, the appointed assessor, garnered 36.8 percent of the vote last night. He'll face a runoff in November with longtime politician Ernie Dronenburg, who snagged 34.2 percent of the vote...
I figured Dronenburg just wasn't interested in politics. I thought he had been drafted to serve on the SDCOE board when it was being torn apart by crazies. But I was wrong. Dronenburg is interested in politics. Politics as usual. Shame on him.
More Intrigue in the Assessor's Race
David Butler is a 34-year veteran of the assessor's office and currently serves as assessor.
Kelly Bennett
Voice of San Diego
Jun 9, 2010
For the first time since the early 1980s, the county assessor/recorder/clerk post is up for grabs.
And in the obscure race, last night's results brought even more drama.
David Butler, the appointed assessor, garnered 36.8 percent of the vote last night. He'll face a runoff in November with longtime politician Ernie Dronenburg, who snagged 34.2 percent of the vote...
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Another deceptive mailer sent to Democratic voters
The flyer that was mailed to my house sure looks like it came from the Democratic Party; it says in large capital letters, "VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE FOR DEMOCRATS." It contains color photos of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.
But Democrats don't support Proposition 16. So why does this deceptive flyer urge me to vote to help energy companies?
I think the flyer was paid for by friends of Pacific Gas & Electric, which is hoping to prevent municipalities from providing energy to citizens. After the energy companies caused the horrible California financial crisis of 2000-2001, they should allow citizens to defend themselves from unscrupulous corporations who are happy to plunge an entire state into crisis in order to increase profits.*
This kind of deception is why voters need good reading and thinking skills, and this deception may also explain why those in power allow (or perhaps encourage?) our failing education system to continue shortchanging children. It's shocking to me that the biggest changes have merely led to privatization of education, not real change. We now have a bunch of failing charter schools in addition to failing public schools. The success rate hasn't changed significantly, and I don't think it will until we change how teachers are evaluated.
______________________________________________
*From Wikipedia:
The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis, of 2000 and 2001 was a situation where California had an artificial shortage of electricity. The state suffered from multiple large-scale black-outs, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis's standing.
Artificial supply shortage was created by gratuitously taking power plants offline for (unnecessary) "maintenance" on hot summer days of peak demand. Rolling blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers. This demand supply gap was further exploited by energy companies, mainly Enron. Enron traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20x its normal peak value. State cap on retail electricity charges squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.
The financial crisis was possible because of deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by Governor Pete Wilson (Republican). Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets. The crisis cost $40bn to $45bn...
But Democrats don't support Proposition 16. So why does this deceptive flyer urge me to vote to help energy companies?
I think the flyer was paid for by friends of Pacific Gas & Electric, which is hoping to prevent municipalities from providing energy to citizens. After the energy companies caused the horrible California financial crisis of 2000-2001, they should allow citizens to defend themselves from unscrupulous corporations who are happy to plunge an entire state into crisis in order to increase profits.*
This kind of deception is why voters need good reading and thinking skills, and this deception may also explain why those in power allow (or perhaps encourage?) our failing education system to continue shortchanging children. It's shocking to me that the biggest changes have merely led to privatization of education, not real change. We now have a bunch of failing charter schools in addition to failing public schools. The success rate hasn't changed significantly, and I don't think it will until we change how teachers are evaluated.
______________________________________________
*From Wikipedia:
The California electricity crisis, also known as the Western U.S. Energy Crisis, of 2000 and 2001 was a situation where California had an artificial shortage of electricity. The state suffered from multiple large-scale black-outs, one of the state's largest energy companies collapsed, and the economic fall-out greatly harmed Governor Gray Davis's standing.
Artificial supply shortage was created by gratuitously taking power plants offline for (unnecessary) "maintenance" on hot summer days of peak demand. Rolling blackouts adversely affected many businesses dependent upon a reliable supply of electricity, and inconvenienced a large number of retail consumers. This demand supply gap was further exploited by energy companies, mainly Enron. Enron traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20x its normal peak value. State cap on retail electricity charges squeezed the industry's revenue margins, causing the bankruptcy of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and near bankruptcy of Southern California Edison in early 2001.
The financial crisis was possible because of deregulation legislation instituted in 1996 by Governor Pete Wilson (Republican). Enron took advantage of this deregulation and was involved in economic withholding and inflated price bidding in California's spot markets. The crisis cost $40bn to $45bn...
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Would Lorie Zapf bring "strategic fraud" to City Council?
Would Lorie Zapf bring "strategic fraud" to City Council?
by Pat Flannery
Blog of San Diego
May 24, 2010
Lorie Zapf, a candidate for City Council District 6, is attempting to turn a bust into a boon. Last week Dave Maass of CityBeat broke a story busting her for being in default on her family home in Clairemont. Responding to CityBeat Ms. Zapf tried to paint herself as the champion of all families who are attempting to negotiate a modification of their mortgage with their lender.
Maass asked me for my (real estate) opinion on the veracity of Zapf's claim, that "strategic defaults" are now commonplace. I told him it was "B.S." Lenders do not modify loans for borrowers who have the means to make their payments. Modification is for families who have genuine hardship, not slick real estate professionals like Zapf's husband.
Before responding to CityBeat I pulled the relevant Deed of Trust and the Notice of Default from the County Recorder. The loan on which the Zapfs are in default is an interest-only Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). A quick look confirmed that Zapf's "explanation" to CityBeat was indeed B.S. HELOC rates are already the lowest rates available.
Reporter Maass was now caught between two opinions on "strategic defaults". Mark Goldman, a real estate lecturer at SDSU, was telling him "In order to just have the bank consider your request, they pretty much force you into going into default. There’s a lot of people in that situation.” A classic example of "Those who know, do. Those who profess to know, teach". But the journo handbook requires that reporters call know-all professors.
Then CityBeat asked me to research another Zapf Notice of Default, this time in Las Vegas. Was this too a "strategic default"? So I dug out all the Zapf documents on their property at 2446 Craigie Castle St., Henderson, NV. It is a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom single-family house built in 2004. The Zapfs bought it from the builder, Dell Web of Arizona, on September 10, 2004 for $511,875 as a second home.
It was a "second home" because they used "second home" financing. They got a $417,950 first loan and a $52,277 second, both from Countrywide. Wife Lorie would have to be intimately involved. A husband can't get "second home" financing without a wife's full cooperation. Their combined 1st and 2nd loans, $470,277, was 92% financing. That kind of loan-to-value ratio is not available for investment properties. If Eric rented out this property as an "investment", he defrauded his lender and Lorie was equally responsible. Yet that is exactly what Lorie told Channel 10 they did. She said it was an investment property, owned by her husband...
by Pat Flannery
Blog of San Diego
May 24, 2010
Lorie Zapf, a candidate for City Council District 6, is attempting to turn a bust into a boon. Last week Dave Maass of CityBeat broke a story busting her for being in default on her family home in Clairemont. Responding to CityBeat Ms. Zapf tried to paint herself as the champion of all families who are attempting to negotiate a modification of their mortgage with their lender.
Maass asked me for my (real estate) opinion on the veracity of Zapf's claim, that "strategic defaults" are now commonplace. I told him it was "B.S." Lenders do not modify loans for borrowers who have the means to make their payments. Modification is for families who have genuine hardship, not slick real estate professionals like Zapf's husband.
Before responding to CityBeat I pulled the relevant Deed of Trust and the Notice of Default from the County Recorder. The loan on which the Zapfs are in default is an interest-only Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC). A quick look confirmed that Zapf's "explanation" to CityBeat was indeed B.S. HELOC rates are already the lowest rates available.
Reporter Maass was now caught between two opinions on "strategic defaults". Mark Goldman, a real estate lecturer at SDSU, was telling him "In order to just have the bank consider your request, they pretty much force you into going into default. There’s a lot of people in that situation.” A classic example of "Those who know, do. Those who profess to know, teach". But the journo handbook requires that reporters call know-all professors.
Then CityBeat asked me to research another Zapf Notice of Default, this time in Las Vegas. Was this too a "strategic default"? So I dug out all the Zapf documents on their property at 2446 Craigie Castle St., Henderson, NV. It is a 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom single-family house built in 2004. The Zapfs bought it from the builder, Dell Web of Arizona, on September 10, 2004 for $511,875 as a second home.
It was a "second home" because they used "second home" financing. They got a $417,950 first loan and a $52,277 second, both from Countrywide. Wife Lorie would have to be intimately involved. A husband can't get "second home" financing without a wife's full cooperation. Their combined 1st and 2nd loans, $470,277, was 92% financing. That kind of loan-to-value ratio is not available for investment properties. If Eric rented out this property as an "investment", he defrauded his lender and Lorie was equally responsible. Yet that is exactly what Lorie told Channel 10 they did. She said it was an investment property, owned by her husband...
Friday, May 21, 2010
Ethics Official Says Nancy Graham's Actions Had 'Appearance of Corruption'
Perhaps Gil Cabrera wasn't the right person to head the San Diego Ethics Commission. He has made a career defending those accused of white-collar wrongdoing. Now that he's gone, the Commission is at last going after real corruption rather than small mistakes in reporting campaign finances.
* San Diego news, analysis and conversation.
* Government
Ethics Official Says Graham's Actions Had 'Appearance of Corruption'
May 20, 2010
Voice of San Diego
By ROB DAVIS
Sitting a few feet from Nancy Graham, one of her former bosses testified Thursday of how hard the former Centre City Development Corp. president worked in San Diego. Came in early, CCDC chairman Fred Maas said. Stayed late.
When voiceofsandiego.org first raised questions in 2008 about Graham's undisclosed financial ties to developers doing business downtown, Maas gave Graham the benefit of the doubt, he told the San Diego Ethics Commission at a daylong Thursday hearing. She was the agency's president, he said, and he held a "kinship" with her.
Maas recalled asking Graham directly about the financial relationship: Did she know where her past business venture's income came from?
"I was told absolutely not," Maas said. So he stood up for her.
Then VOSD reported that Graham earned more than $3 million from a Florida development deal. Lennar Corp., which paid her from that deal, owned land in downtown San Diego, the site of a proposed hotel that Graham was negotiating about.
Graham never reported receiving those millions on her annual conflict disclosure forms here. If she did, she would've had to recuse herself from negotiations designed to clear the way for a hotel on the land adjacent to Petco Park. If the hotel had been built, Lennar and another developer would've made about $100 million...
* San Diego news, analysis and conversation.
* Government
Ethics Official Says Graham's Actions Had 'Appearance of Corruption'
May 20, 2010
Voice of San Diego
By ROB DAVIS
Sitting a few feet from Nancy Graham, one of her former bosses testified Thursday of how hard the former Centre City Development Corp. president worked in San Diego. Came in early, CCDC chairman Fred Maas said. Stayed late.
When voiceofsandiego.org first raised questions in 2008 about Graham's undisclosed financial ties to developers doing business downtown, Maas gave Graham the benefit of the doubt, he told the San Diego Ethics Commission at a daylong Thursday hearing. She was the agency's president, he said, and he held a "kinship" with her.
Maas recalled asking Graham directly about the financial relationship: Did she know where her past business venture's income came from?
"I was told absolutely not," Maas said. So he stood up for her.
Then VOSD reported that Graham earned more than $3 million from a Florida development deal. Lennar Corp., which paid her from that deal, owned land in downtown San Diego, the site of a proposed hotel that Graham was negotiating about.
Graham never reported receiving those millions on her annual conflict disclosure forms here. If she did, she would've had to recuse herself from negotiations designed to clear the way for a hotel on the land adjacent to Petco Park. If the hotel had been built, Lennar and another developer would've made about $100 million...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)