MERCURIO: Board of Supervisors hypocrisy
Aug. 13, 2012
By RICK MERCURIO
Property rights. Taxpayer protection. Fairness.
Supervisors Bill Horn, Ron Roberts and Greg Cox tout these principles, but recent actions show hypocrisy at its worst.
The three supes voted to give land speculators a free ride to trash the new general plan. What would be free to the developers may cost us taxpayers $1.56 million.
It is a long, sordid story, and the shameful saga continues. The county's general plan was adopted a year ago after $16 million had been spent on many years of hearings, studies, and professional planning. Difficult compromises were reached among builders, environmentalists, and planners. The plan encompassed "smart growth" concepts, which encourage more density in town centers and lower density in outlying areas.
Horn cast the lone dissenting vote, but didn't accept his defeat.
Before the ink was dry, Horn, who is tied tightly to outside developers, began lobbying his fellow supervisors to make exceptions to the new zoning in the plan. Roberts and Cox agreed, asking the professional planners to magically manipulate the plan's guiding principles in order to accommodate speculators.
Horn's justification was that "downzoning" deprived property owners of their development rights. Of course, the properties that had received lower zoning were largely unbuildable, requiring taxpayer subsidized infrastructure in the backcountry.
More significantly, the two biggest developments affected ---- Merriam Mountains and Accretive ---- were not downzoned at all. To the contrary: Under the previous general plan, these rugged, rural properties were properly zoned for a fraction of the houses that the developers wanted.
The property rights that Horn, Roberts and Cox have hurt are those of existing residents, whose lifestyle and choice of location was premised on the county living up to its general plan.
How can Horn justify using taxpayer dollars to hand over an enormous gift of increased density, and therefore profits, to his developer buddies?
As for taxpayer protection, on June 20 Roberts did an end run. Normally, landowners must pay their own costs when seeking an amendment to the general plan. The public had been advised via the Agenda that a super-majority of four votes would be required to increase the current budget to approve funds to trump the new General Plan.
When Roberts realized that Pam Slater-Price and Dianne Jacob would not go along with his scheme, he left the meeting while public testimony was still in progress, and quietly directed staff to add the $1.56 million to the budget. He knew that this maneuver would only require three votes.
Showing posts with label San Diego County Supervisors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label San Diego County Supervisors. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
The county board of supervisors hasn't had a new member since 1995
We have some off-the-wall school board members out here in East County (I'm thinking of Jim Kelly), but we have a fine representative on the County Board of Supervisors. I think Dianne Jacob is the most conscientious supervisor on the board.
On the other hand, I think Greg Cox is just one small step above Bill Horn. Why do candidates like these keep getting reelected?
Mary Salas, why don't you run?
Randy Dotinga at Voice of San Diego notes:
"...The county board of supervisors hasn't had a new member since 1995, and if three board members have their way, it'll stay like that for at least a few more years. The U-T says incumbents Pam Slater-Price, Dianne Jacob and Greg Cox are all sending signals that they'll run again in 2012..."
County supervisor races continue to take shape
By Christopher Cadelago
SDUT
January 10, 2011
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price has signaled her intention to seek re-election in 2012, joining an early slate of candidates that includes two board colleagues and a pair of familiar faces.
Slater-Price, who represents the county's District 3, was first elected in 1992. Steve Danon, chief of staff to Rep. Brian Bilbray, is also vying for the seat and has been actively running for several months.
The San Diego County Registrar of Voters office has also received initial paperwork from Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who represents the county’s District 2, and Santee’s Rudy Reyes.
Reyes mounted an unsuccessful campaign against Jacob in 2008 and lost bids for the Santee City Council in 2008 and 2010.
Supervisor Greg Cox, who represents the county's District 1, has made it clear he would run again. Jacob was first elected in 1992 and Cox joined the board of supervisors in 1995.
On the other hand, I think Greg Cox is just one small step above Bill Horn. Why do candidates like these keep getting reelected?
Mary Salas, why don't you run?
Randy Dotinga at Voice of San Diego notes:
"...The county board of supervisors hasn't had a new member since 1995, and if three board members have their way, it'll stay like that for at least a few more years. The U-T says incumbents Pam Slater-Price, Dianne Jacob and Greg Cox are all sending signals that they'll run again in 2012..."
County supervisor races continue to take shape
By Christopher Cadelago
SDUT
January 10, 2011
Supervisor Pam Slater-Price has signaled her intention to seek re-election in 2012, joining an early slate of candidates that includes two board colleagues and a pair of familiar faces.
Slater-Price, who represents the county's District 3, was first elected in 1992. Steve Danon, chief of staff to Rep. Brian Bilbray, is also vying for the seat and has been actively running for several months.
The San Diego County Registrar of Voters office has also received initial paperwork from Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who represents the county’s District 2, and Santee’s Rudy Reyes.
Reyes mounted an unsuccessful campaign against Jacob in 2008 and lost bids for the Santee City Council in 2008 and 2010.
Supervisor Greg Cox, who represents the county's District 1, has made it clear he would run again. Jacob was first elected in 1992 and Cox joined the board of supervisors in 1995.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Did San Diego County make a big mistake by investing almost a billion dollars in hedge funds?
Jacob's Jaw Dropping Worry Spreads to Other Issues
Voice of San Diego
Scott Lewis
March 16, 2009
This month's Vanity Fair is almost wholly devoted to financial stories...
But most interesting to locals is this story on hedge funds and "why hedge funds are imploding by the thousands..."
Obviously, the story is interesting from the perspective of San Diego County's pension fund, which has something less than a billion dollars now invested in hedge funds. But the story also helps explain one of the attributes of these hedge funds that has apparently caused some alarm among those who oversee the county's retirement system.
You might remember that when the trustees of the pension fund accepted the resignation of their chief investment officer, David Deutsch, they also talked about their potential losses in the hedge fund WG Trading. WG Trading, of course, is under scrutiny from federal prosecutors who accuse its principals of fraud. And San Diego asked for its $78 million back from the fund late last year.
But they can't get the money back for several more months. Why?
From Seth Hettena's story (emphasis mine):
The pension terminated its relationship with WG Trading on Dec. 31 after the hedge fund refused to cooperate with an SDCERA consultant. Under its agreement with WG Trading, SDCERA is not entitled to receive its money until June 30.
Such restrictions on hedge fund redemptions, known as gates, have caught many investors by surprise, including SDCERA. Board member Dianne Jacob, chair of the County Board of Supervisors, requested a review of all similar restrictions SDCERA might face with other investments.
Take note of that word: "gates."
Vanity Fair helps illuminate Jacob's worry about hedge fund gates:
There are many managers who argue that the industry's problems are at least in part of its own making. Says Leon Cooperman, who founded the $3 billion hedge fund Omega Advisors in 1991, after a 25-year career at Goldman Sachs, "Hedge funds have shot themselves in the foot. They have not treated investors correctly." Atop his list of sins: refusing to allow investors to take their money out, which is known in the industry as "gating" investors.
The author explains more about gating later in the story, which focuses on Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund that evolved into a publicly traded company.
Managers who employ gates defend the practice on the grounds that it's within their legal rights, and that selling their positions to meet redemption requests would be unfair to those investors who wanted to stay. But the widespread impression among investors is that managers broke a social contract and are doing it to save their own skins. And there may be another reason for the gates. Fortress's documents, for instance, disclose that "our funds have various agreements that create debt or debt-like obligations ... with a material number of counterparties. Such agreements in many instances contain covenants or 'triggers' that require our funds to maintain specified amounts of assets under management."
In other words, gates may mean that the money invested in a hedge fund simply isn't accessible -- or worse, that the assets simply don't exist...
Voice of San Diego
Scott Lewis
March 16, 2009
This month's Vanity Fair is almost wholly devoted to financial stories...
But most interesting to locals is this story on hedge funds and "why hedge funds are imploding by the thousands..."
Obviously, the story is interesting from the perspective of San Diego County's pension fund, which has something less than a billion dollars now invested in hedge funds. But the story also helps explain one of the attributes of these hedge funds that has apparently caused some alarm among those who oversee the county's retirement system.
You might remember that when the trustees of the pension fund accepted the resignation of their chief investment officer, David Deutsch, they also talked about their potential losses in the hedge fund WG Trading. WG Trading, of course, is under scrutiny from federal prosecutors who accuse its principals of fraud. And San Diego asked for its $78 million back from the fund late last year.
But they can't get the money back for several more months. Why?
From Seth Hettena's story (emphasis mine):
The pension terminated its relationship with WG Trading on Dec. 31 after the hedge fund refused to cooperate with an SDCERA consultant. Under its agreement with WG Trading, SDCERA is not entitled to receive its money until June 30.
Such restrictions on hedge fund redemptions, known as gates, have caught many investors by surprise, including SDCERA. Board member Dianne Jacob, chair of the County Board of Supervisors, requested a review of all similar restrictions SDCERA might face with other investments.
Take note of that word: "gates."
Vanity Fair helps illuminate Jacob's worry about hedge fund gates:
There are many managers who argue that the industry's problems are at least in part of its own making. Says Leon Cooperman, who founded the $3 billion hedge fund Omega Advisors in 1991, after a 25-year career at Goldman Sachs, "Hedge funds have shot themselves in the foot. They have not treated investors correctly." Atop his list of sins: refusing to allow investors to take their money out, which is known in the industry as "gating" investors.
The author explains more about gating later in the story, which focuses on Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund that evolved into a publicly traded company.
Managers who employ gates defend the practice on the grounds that it's within their legal rights, and that selling their positions to meet redemption requests would be unfair to those investors who wanted to stay. But the widespread impression among investors is that managers broke a social contract and are doing it to save their own skins. And there may be another reason for the gates. Fortress's documents, for instance, disclose that "our funds have various agreements that create debt or debt-like obligations ... with a material number of counterparties. Such agreements in many instances contain covenants or 'triggers' that require our funds to maintain specified amounts of assets under management."
In other words, gates may mean that the money invested in a hedge fund simply isn't accessible -- or worse, that the assets simply don't exist...
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
San Diego Supervisors give out surplus revenue when there's no surplus
The Supes' Logic
The San Diego Union-Tribune, a local newspaper, has a bit of interesting context about the county's financial situation today. The county is considering laying off employees to cope with declining revenue.
Reporter Craig Gustafson writes:
"In a video message today to the county's 18,000-plus employees, Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard warned "actual layoffs will be necessary" to close a budget gap caused by the slumping economy."
At the same time the county is cutting, the supervisors that oversee operations continuing giving out grants to local community groups -- money the supervisors describe as coming from surplus revenue.
Why give out surplus revenue when there's no surplus? The supes say it's because there was a surplus when they approved their budget last year.
They're sticking to their budget when it allows them to give out grants that critics say are used to curry campaign support.
But they're not sticking to their budget when they have to make adjustments to cut services or eliminate staff.
-- ROB DAVIS
Tuesday, January 13 2009-- 12:47 pm
The San Diego Union-Tribune, a local newspaper, has a bit of interesting context about the county's financial situation today. The county is considering laying off employees to cope with declining revenue.
Reporter Craig Gustafson writes:
"In a video message today to the county's 18,000-plus employees, Chief Administrative Officer Walt Ekard warned "actual layoffs will be necessary" to close a budget gap caused by the slumping economy."
At the same time the county is cutting, the supervisors that oversee operations continuing giving out grants to local community groups -- money the supervisors describe as coming from surplus revenue.
Why give out surplus revenue when there's no surplus? The supes say it's because there was a surplus when they approved their budget last year.
They're sticking to their budget when it allows them to give out grants that critics say are used to curry campaign support.
But they're not sticking to their budget when they have to make adjustments to cut services or eliminate staff.
-- ROB DAVIS
Tuesday, January 13 2009-- 12:47 pm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)