What about Atikins ($416), Peters and Faulconer ($1,626 each) in addition to the greedy Madaffer (who just had to drag along some guests)? Yes, I know the others (some or all) paid on time, but they all had to pay. It wasn't like the lock box on Madaffer's water meter. He couldn't break it this time. It's the funniest thing about our sad city government I've read in a looooong time. Peters's and especially Atkins's comments were priceless. I almost fell on the floor laughing.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
September 10, 2007 11:45 am

Now every San Diego citizen and taxpayer should know why this City gets hosed so much by developers.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
September 10, 2007 1:13 pm

What are the CCDC people doing at ANY developer event? It's a "duh" decision. Wasn't Janice Brown one of SD Magazine's "50 People to Watch?" Perhaps she and her cohorts should spend more time watching out for the taxpayers interests, and less time watching go go dancers.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
September 10, 2007 11:11 pm

The law has a gift limit. the law is wronmg. The law should be-no gifts,period. When you accept a gift, you are obligated.City staff and city councilmembers are obligated to the gift givers. As Nancy Reagan once said,just say No.

Posted by mel | reply to this comment
September 11, 2007 12:25 am

I'm sorry, but this whole thing is just silly. So a city councilperson can't attend an event marking the completion of a major residential project in his own district (i.e. Faulconer)? It's part of the job, just like how they cut the ribbon at schools. It's a courtesy you pay to those whose efforts make the community (and tax base) more robust. My guess is Faulconer would have rather been home with his family than attending some stupid party, but it was expected because Doug Wilson has done really great things for Downtown San Diego (blah blah blah). Can we not behave in a civilized manner anymore? We have very big problems if we think our politicians can be bought for a martini and a couple of goat cheese canapes.

Posted by Silly | reply to this comment
September 11, 2007 5:26 am

What is a "goat cheese canapes"?

Posted by Kevin | reply to this comment
September 11, 2007 6:55 am

Kevin: -- You go to the grocery store and buy a tube of goat cheese, from California if you are a chauvinist, or from France if you are Euro-trash. Then you go home, open the package, spread the yummy white stuff on simple crackers like melba toast rounds, -- no crackers that have jalapenos or seeds or bumps in them -- and break out some wrinkly dried black olives, roasted almonds and a bottle of California wine. You then have got yourself a party with goat cheese canapes. For a really fun time, do not invite City Councilmembers or CCDC "staff".

Posted by Martha Surrogate | reply to this comment
September 11, 2007 9:12 am

Silly, you are the one who is being silly -- over-the-top silly at that! There is a perfectly valid reason why city officials are restricted from accepting gifts from those who deal with the city: it's called a BRIBE. If these clowns had each been named Cunningham, they'd be sitting in the slammer wearing striped suits. The only difference between their actions and Cunningham's was a matter of degree. mel is absolutely correct. There should be NO gift limit, i.e., no gift of any amount permitted. A courtesy? To the tune of thousands of dollars?!! There is no reason why a city official could not attend an event, extend his personal and the city's "courtesies," and then get the hell out of there without dancing on table tops or putting a lampshade over his head. Silly it really is "civilized behavior" not to take bribes.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
September 11, 2007 2:51 pm

Maybe since Madaffer was hit for the highest amount because he tried to slip in some guests (who was it, Jim, your cousin and his wife? Did you get a kickback from them?), he has to resort to his usual bag of tricks to recoup his losses. If you drive by the Madaffer double-wide estate, you'll probably find some funny lines leading out from his trailer to the power, telephone and cable lines. The water people are long-since on to him. They probably have extra monitors to ensure that he hasn't turned off the meter again. THESE are the leaders of our city??

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
September 11, 2007 2:51 pm

Re: silly, problem is, yes they have been bought for trinkets, Mr. Moores purchased a City Council member a few years back for about two thousand dollars, some stock and a couple of airplane trips. Sad but true. Also did Mr Madhatter pay with city funds? Or from campaign funds? or from his own meager bank account? Also why NO STORIES about Mike and Laurie Madigan ever in VOICE? Have they bought and paid for you?? Inquiring minds want to know. jim del mar

Posted by jim del mar | reply to this comment
September 12, 2007 4:49 am

jim del mar raises a good point. Of course there are city officials being bought for trinkets. You have to remember what a bunch of small-time racketeers this group is. They don't have the brains to go for major-league riches and, when they have caused a major upheaval (namely, the pension crisis), it was the result of unintended consequences. They were after peanuts (enrichment of their own pensions), but like the small boy in the store who pulls out an orange from the bottom of the pile, brought down the whole city on top of themselves. I don't know at whom I'm madder: this bunch of chintzy crooks or the uninformed, disinterested voters who, election after election, continue to place them and people like them on the city council. Instead of continuing a useless carping campaign against Aguirre, what we really need to do is CONT.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
September 13, 2007 3:02 am

CONT. is figure out a system that will attract brighter and more effective people to the council. This city has suffered enough from the long line of losers trying to break into the big time. For starters, we should RETURN to the former system of district nominations and city-wide general election for council posts. That will force candidates and incumbents to consider the city picture, not just how voters in their own district will react (Young, Heuso, for example) to up their chances of reelection.

Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
September 13, 2007 3:17 am

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.