There was a time when the city attorney's brand of shake-'em-down, take-no-prisoners politics seemed refreshing. City Hall was under investigation by nearly everyone, and few allegations appeared implausible as the city's finances sank deeper into the red and its political fibers unwound.
But his act is wearing thin. Recently, Aguirre again chose to wander down a wild path in which he has publicly impugned individuals or groups based on fragments of information. He deemed the mayor's top development aide corrupt and called a press conference to demand a federal investigation -- but offered scant evidence of what exactly constituted the corruption.
After two years of investigation into the Liberty Station development, he curiously came up with his first allegation of misdeeds on a Friday evening as the Union-Tribune prepared to go to press with a two-part series looking into the development. And last week he issued a terse statement tying the Little Italy Association to state and federal investigations.
These all seem like worthy alleys of investigation. But there are two problems. First, the allegations don't appear to have been completely and thoroughly investigated yet. Second, like the boy who cried wolf too many times, it's hard to tell when Aguirre has something legitimate anymore.
Unfortunately, this has become a troubling pattern for a city attorney who has very publicly announced more investigations and allegations than can be counted, yet actually followed through on a precious few.
We have both supported and opposed Aguirre in the past. We believe his pension case had to be filed given the depth of the city's financial troubles and the evidence of impropriety. His case was based on sound legal theory, despite its current troubles in court. His sharp questioning of consultants and other public officials during public meetings brought a new level of conscience to council chambers. We appreciate his zeal for protecting the public good.
Aguirre often attracts criticism that he has "not won a case" since he took over. He has, indeed, lost some high-profile legal battles. But he did the city a service by crafting a successful settlement between San Diego and the Securities and Exchange Commission when other officials may have used negotiations to shield their own culpability. His management of that effort spared the city -- and its taxpayers -- punitive actions from the federal government.
Aguirre oversaw the successful defeat of the ominous and potentially devastating lawsuit filed by developer Roque de la Fuente and his legal maneuvering forced former investment consultants to the city's pension fund to pay millions after alleged wrongful acts. And, despite opponents' cries to the contrary, his office needed a housecleaning following the disastrous tenure of the previous City Attorney Casey Gwinn.
But we have also criticized the city attorney for using words such as "investigation" and "corruption" not as ultimate tools of justice, but rather as blunt political weapons of intimidation. He has launched countless investigations into a wide range of municipal business. They include numerous probes into pension conflicts of elected officials; his own office; Councilman Jim Madaffer; Naval Training Center; the relationship between former Mayor Dick Murphy and union head Ron Saathoff; the county Board of Supervisors; and more.
However, more than two years into his first term, he has produced next to nothing in the way of charges or closure, instead coming up with only sound bites that resonate with a public that long ago lost its faith in city government.
Ten months ago we asked the city attorney to wrap up a long list of announced investigations. Today, even more probes have been announced, and we are still waiting for the conclusion of even one.
As we've said in the past, this sort of shoot-first, ask-questions-later investigating both sullies the reputations of those in the crosshairs and degrades the power that an effective investigator in Aguirre's position could have.
City Hall still needs Mike Aguirre. It needs his attitude, his intelligence and his oversight. What it doesn't need is the reckless manner in which he sometimes chooses to use these skills.
In order to be an effective politician and a worthwhile leader, Aguirre must understand that people can disagree with him and still be honest. Today, disagree with the city attorney, and it's not that you're wrong, or that you've simply come to a different conclusion than him. It's that you're corrupt.
The people of San Diego need Mike Aguirre to be their attorney. They don't need him to serve as their self-appointed moral compass.
Part of Aguirre's appeal has been the combat he's waged against an unfortunate legacy of San Diego leaders past. But, if he's not more careful with his position of power, he will be left battling his own unfortunate legacy.
Comments so far on this story:
1. John from Poway wrote on March 20, 2007 12:26 PM:
"Your editorial is right on. Mike is intelligent but lacks the social and interpersonal skills to effectively work with others. His bullying style turns supporters away from the issues at hand. His reckless delivery does nothing to solve the City's problems - he's immature and it shows. Glad I live in Poway where our leaders do just that - LEAD!"
2. Ron Weiss wrote on March 20, 2007 8:13 PM:
"An excellent portrayal of Mike Aguirre. What was not emphasized enough though was how his reckless maneuvering through his office, firing everyone in sight has cost this City the benefit of excellent attorneys who had served this City well. Cleaning house is one thing but Aguirre not only started frivolous investigations; his reckless abandon of “house cleaning” was and is extremely unprofessional. If Aguirre does not settle down, finish something he starts and allows some discussion with alternative viewpoints with his peers, HE NEEDS TO GO!"
3. MG wrote on March 20, 2007 9:20 PM:
"I take exception to a couple of your opinions in this Aguirre piece: 1. You say "his pension case had to be filed" and was "based on sound legal theory." This is far from true. His position was extremely weak, as was his presentation. The whoopin' he took in court was deserved. 2. You say "City Hall still needs Mike Aguirre." Wrong again. Mayor and council know what needs to be done. Aguirre is nothing more than a distraction and an embarrassment. The mayor needs to distance himself from City Attorney Aguirre."
4. Gayle Clarkson wrote on March 20, 2007 11:08 PM:
"Mr. Aguirre is spending millions of taxpayer dollars while tilting at windmills. Watch any City Council meeting on Monday or Tuesday and you will see that the Council is not receiving the legal opinions that they need in order to make decisions. This past Monday, he had not even given a legal opinion on an ordinance that he had written. The Council had to send it back to his office for a legal opinion. Go to court some time and watch him, all he does is beg and plead with a room full of deputy city attorneys, cheering."
5. The Raoming Gnome wrote on March 20, 2007 11:24 PM:
"While in general, I definitely agree with your comments on Aguirre. He has cost the City lots of time and effort chasing his personal observations and not letting facts get in the way. As for the de la Fuente case, there has been no "successful defeat", the matter continues and it is along way from being over. Tha actions of Golding and others on this will haunt the City for years to come. Aguirre should stop the grandstanding on cases and comments that he cannot support or complete."
6. RW wrote on March 20, 2007 11:38 PM:
"Your criticism of Aguirre is well founded but you missed many other important issues: his volatile temperment is ill suited to his office; his reckless management style has severely damaged the City Attorney's Office; his belief that the office is a primarily a policy position and he uses his legal analysis to fit his policy positions; his frequent ethical lapses, etc. And given the court's well-reasoned rulings to date, how can you possibly believe that Aguirre's pension case was 'based on sound legal theory'? The City does not need Mike Aguirre."
7. tim wrote on March 21, 2007 12:38 AM:
"Interesting that no one talks about the vast amounts of municipal corruption that continues to plague our city. In many cases, Aguirre is the only person to stand up when everyone is so busy scratching each others backs to make the next deal, regardless of the costs to the public. In terms of Liberty Station, why are people not more outraged at the disastrous deal for the city rather than Aguirre's role. With so much corruption in City government, Aguirre is really the least of our problems."
8. SET wrote on March 21, 2007 1:04 AM:
"In the text you write, "... putative actions from the federal government." You probably mean "punative actions.""
9. Dimples wrote on March 21, 2007 1:54 AM:
"Unfortunately the media benefits from the drama that Aguirre stirs up because bad news sells better than good news. We need to make the good news more interesting. As for your take on Aguirre... AMEN and Hallelulia!"
10. Jack wrote on March 21, 2007 2:39 AM:
"Look at the headlines today...."Aguirre declares the pension sound". What a joke! He just lost his appeal last Friday in his pathetic attempt to roll back earned benifits. The council warned him 2 years ago he was "conflicted", and now you see why. Do some investigative reporting and see how many misdemeanor crimes his office is rejecting...staggering!"
11. Questioner wrote on March 21, 2007 2:55 AM:
"Is the "Voice" intending to become a city employees' blog/newsletter or are city employees just the primary readers?"
12. Dimples wrote on March 21, 2007 3:28 AM:
"To "Questioner".. if the special interests can tear themselves away from reading the self serving reporting they've bought and paid for through political favors..read the UT..they may see that the "Voice" provides balanced reporting because it is not yet.. I repeat yet.. owned by big money interests...can you say balanced and objective?"
13. LS resident wrote on March 21, 2007 5:10 AM:
"Tim, you have been sucked into the falsehoods on Liberty Station. The city never expected to see a dime from the profit-sharing deal. They got $130 million in infrastructure at zero cost -- infrastructure that had to be completed or the land would have been polluted and worthless to anyone. $8.5 million they owe McMillin is actually for an off-prokject (rosecrans st) improvements out of the scope of the contract. The city is making HUNDREDS of millions in tax (TOT, sales and property tax) from LS. Read that UT story a little more carefully to see how much is missing."
14. LS resident wrote on March 21, 2007 5:20 AM:
"(CONT.) Also, I urge you to come down to LS to see what a great project it is. Huge waterfront park, arts and culture, retail, homes, promenades. It's gorgeous -- all without a single dime from city coffers, only contributions in new taxes that would not have been there otherwise. Don't be snowed by the sensationalistic fish wrap and the glory hound city attorney, who had nothing to say until about it after 2 years of reviewing the contract until he saw an opportunity to look like a hero. Think!"
15. Aguirre is a joke wrote on March 21, 2007 5:27 AM:
"ANYONE who believes Aguirre is good for the city is just plain weak minded and ignorant. He has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and brought about lawsuit after lawsuit that have yet to be settled. When these suits are adjudicated, the city WILL be bankrupt. This is who you chose to be your lawyer?...unbelievable!"
16. SDS wrote on March 21, 2007 5:32 AM:
"San Diego doesn't need Mike Aguirre as its city attorney. San Diego needs a city attorney who is a leader with ability to bring cohesiveness and professionalism into city operations, not divisive fingerpointing and paranoia. Mike Aguirre has alienated too many people to be effective anymore. It's hard to take a clown seriously when he cries "wolf.""
17. Dennis Howerton wrote on March 21, 2007 6:45 AM:
"Regarding the NTC property: Mike Aguirre's Office blew a $3.7 million case prepared by the Water Department Code Enforcement Unit against Clark Realty Group, developer of the Federal Housing at NTC, for massive theft of utility services. This case began in 2003 when I was Code Enforcement Supervisor. While Aguirre is tilting at windmills, he gives scant attention to solid cases based on fact prefering to level baseless accusations and pursue hopeless causes."
18. tim wrote on March 21, 2007 7:37 AM:
"LS resident, by your screen name I can tell you have no bias on the liberty station project. The city got a bad deal because it lacked foresight and got outplayed by McMillan Cos. The City of San Diego does not need to beg developers to make a killing on prime public land. Of course the city gets TOT and other taxes out of the project, that would of happened with any new mixed use development. The point is the project could have been better for everyone in San Diego. Stop settling..."
19. Point Loman wrote on March 21, 2007 8:34 AM:
"Actually Tim, the Reuse Plan for NTC was developed by the city and community over a 5 year period. Lots of public meetings. Lots of public input. So really, the city and community is getting exactly what it asked for at Liberty Station. Were you part of the process or are you, like so many, looking back with 20/20 hindsight and saying "I would have done it better"? It's a gerat project providing great benefits to the community and city. Did you even read the UT? Lots of innuendo. Lots of smoke. No fires. Time to move on."
20. Mike is KING-Billy Bob Henry wrote on March 21, 2007 10:54 AM:
"The only ones who are out to get Mike, the only guy in this town NOT corrupt, are the City/Union employees that are milking the City and tax payers dry with their pension scams."
21. LS resident wrote on March 22, 2007 1:54 AM:
"Tim, what you call "bias," I call simply "knowledge." As a resident, I know a lot more about the project than most, which is why I feel compelled to explain the lack of outrage. I have a feeling you've never seen the project and don't know the details of the deal the CITY and the COMMUNITY put together before they awarded it to anyone. I happen to know they purposely stayed out of housing development--risks and profits--before McMillin even got the contract. The city wasn't outfoxed or outnegotiated. They made a decision based on goals. (cont.)"
22. LS resident wrote on March 22, 2007 2:04 AM:
"The goal was to get the place redeveloped without spending a penny of taxpayer dollars, and they accomplished that. It wasn't, let's redevelop this and make a mint initially. McMillin's competitor, Lennar, didn't offer a better deal. And frankly, I'm glad the builder of the home I live in is headquartered literally three blocks from me, rather than in Florida. They're accountable, they manage the project well, and their profits stay in San Diego."
23. Dave wrote on March 22, 2007 3:18 AM:
"Aguirre is not an attorney. He is a politician. Elected by a few votes, immediately became drunk with power and has abused his position ever since. He manipulates the media to gain popularity. He attacks city/private officials to gain clout. He strokes the taxpayer to gain a vote. All talk no positive results. SD needs leaders with credibility. The last thing SD needs more of is politician Mike"king"Aguirre"
24. Billy Bob Henry-I Have A Tear wrote on March 23, 2007 1:32 PM:
"I just read the BEST legal brief ever written, by my hero the City Attorney. Supreme Court of California-here we come! There is NO WAY this brief can fail-it hits on every single cylinder. It also is EXACTLY what I have stated here on Voice of San Diego-that the pension board broke a fiduciary duty by taking benefits while AT THE SAME TIME decreasing funding. Here it is folks-read it for yourself, only the first 30 pages are the main brief-this is gold baby-GOLD! http://voiceofsandiego.com/pdf/pensionsupreme.pdf"
25. Donald Reno wrote on March 24, 2007 12:45 AM:
"I like Mike Aguirre, and Oh By The Way I was born in San Diego the rest of you transplants who in my opinion have been Bad for San Diego should just stop with the sour grapes - Mike was elected because by the Majority so please give it a rest - Mike keeps everyone who is probbably up to no good watching their back for the hammer to fall on them - I for one am glad he does what he does - the loudest complainers usually have the most to loose and are transplants."
26. Sunny wrote on March 24, 2007 1:22 AM:
"Just more of the same rubbish in Aguirre's brief that will go nowhere (again). Aguirre is already under budget, so where is he getting the money to pursue this frivolous appeal since it was not authorized by Council? Today's Editorial (3/24) in the UT about Aguirre's smear tactic is a must read folks. Kudos to Chief Lansdowne for refusing to serve Aguirre's baseless search warrant on Sunroad."
27. Sunny wrote on March 24, 2007 1:48 AM:
"Aguirre assails people with impunity & his ineptness is costing the city so much money it’s frightening. I’ve lost count of the lawsuits that involves Aguirre b/c there are so many. Let me see, he was 1) forced to dismiss case against former mayor/council; 2) sanctioned monetarily ($19,000) in the SDCERS case; 3) lost in his attempt to stop payment of the “illegal benefits”; 4) amended his complaint 6x to get it right & still lost; 5) lost when he wanted to be the atty for SDCERS. I could go on & on but not enough space here."
28. BBH wrote on March 24, 2007 8:38 AM:
"Sunny-you're, as usualu, wron again.....On your numbered list, lets star with 3)-the "illegal" payments you said was "lost" is now headed to the Sup. Ct. of CA., so you are WRONG,, 4)The complaint was amended 5x, not 6, and only because the issues were of first impression and novel-WRONG again, so, don't state flat out falsehoods. You are just another UNION lacky milking the pension/welfare system."
29. Sunny wrote on March 25, 2007 5:10 AM:
"What difference does it make if he filed 5 or 6? He just couldn’t get it right BEFORE Judge Barton allowed him to proceed. He lost his attempt to have the court SUSPEND the payment of the "illegal benefits”; this is different from his present appeal to the Sup.Ct. How about the Ct. of Appeal’s ONE SENTENCE DENIAL of Aguirre's “short 135-page” petition for a writ ? LOL! See UT article of 12/20/2005 - the Ethics Commission levied a $9,000 fine against Aguirre for violating campaign laws. Does San Diego need him? Like a hole in the head we do."
30. Billy Bob Henry wrote on March 25, 2007 9:16 AM:
"Sunny-you were the one making all the wild statements-not me-I just called you on them. Given the novelty of the issues and Judge Barton's unfamiliarity of them it is not uncommon to re-file a superceding amended complaint. Mike tried to stop the illegal pension payments while the suit was pending; a long shot at best and has nothing to do with the merits of the case. As for the appeals court's denial-who cares what they said-it is over their head -and rightly so. I am going to laugh very hard when the Supreme Court invalidates the pension contract as void."
31. Sunny wrote on March 26, 2007 3:41 AM:
"Go to sleep and get plenty of rest Billy Bob. It's obvious from your writings that your health is in jeopardy from all your nonsensical writings. You're working waaaaay too hard for Aguirre and he's not worth you losing sleep in protecting him night & day, 7/24. Is he paying you? He's going to cause you to have a nervous breakdown with all the spinning that you do for him. But then again, you might be him...split personality. I wouldn't be at all surprise."
32. Billy Bob Henry wrote on March 26, 2007 2:26 PM:
"Sunny-you must be RW-more people claiming I am Mike-so sorry. Mike is my idol though, and he does not have to pay me anything-I would pay him to do the pension lawsuit-we are both on the same page and see it exaclty the same. OK-now that we have that settled-you better hope dreamland does not get crushed when your pensions get tossed!"
33. Sunny wrote on March 27, 2007 1:13 AM:
"Get off your merry-go-round Billy, you’re getting too dizzy. You must be very sick right now, to hear your idol has been estopped from dipping into the public treasury without Council approval! The Council has had enough of his losing lawsuits & frivolous spending of taxpayers’money & kicked his wild spending to the curb LOL! Watch the tape of Monday’s (3/26) Council mtg; your idol wasn’t even there, as usual. Get your $$ out Billy; he’ll need it since your idol can still file unauthorized lawsuits, but he’ll have to pay for them himself. Your nightmares are just beginning Billy."
34. Liberty Joke wrote on March 27, 2007 7:51 AM:
"Liberty Station is a joke. Go drive around it, and get out of your car. Check out the asphault. In two years, there will be huge potholes because the roads were built so cheap. The infrastructure is made of Elmers Glue and popsicle sticks. The "improvements" on Rosecrans are the same quality. The Corkster made millions by hiring himself to do the work he was contracted to do, and taking a very nice profit. We, the taxpayers, will be paying for his shoddy workmanship for decades to come. Even the golf course redesign is a joke."
35. Rock On wrote on March 28, 2007 6:55 AM:
"Hey Aguirre supporters, please answer me this one... how do you justify his unethical conduct behind closed doors? His psychotic paranoia? His inability to keep quality municiple attorneys? His yelling, profane tirades to his employees? His firing of employees because they refuse to be unethical? His inability to manage others? Anyone who has worked under him at the City Attorney's office has first hand experience of all these things. I have yet to see anyone from his office, save a 2 or 3 of his henchmen, support his eratic behavior at all. Can you?"
36. Paul wrote on March 30, 2007 12:21 AM:
"The analogy between Joe McCarthy and Mike Aguirre is striking. I wish there was someone of stature in our community, like Edward R. Murrow, that could expose this shameless, self promoting and conspiratorial fool for what he truly is."
37. Carly wrote on March 30, 2007 3:04 AM:
""all he does is beg and plead with a room full of deputy city attorneys, cheering." - so true. And you can bet that the deputies are either forced to go or are some of Mike's few loyal friends. No one else in the office would willingly support him - trust me, I was one of those deputies. He rules from a paradigm of fear. It was well known in the office that he would file charges first, then investigate a case later. If you didn't go along - you lost your job."
38. Sunny wrote on March 30, 2007 11:58 AM:
"I can't wait for the trials (that's plural) to begin that will expose how AHGguirre treated his employees. And who will be stuck paying the bills for the lawsuits filed against him by his former employees? The taxpayers, that's who!!! He's playing kissy-face with the media now that he knows he's in trouble. His act is so pathetically embarassing."
39. RECALL AGUIRRE wrote on April 3, 2007 12:36 AM:
"THE TIME HAS COME TO RECALL MIKE AGUIRRE!!! The taxpayers of San Diego cannot afford this guy any longer."
40. Brian "Not Well Round wrote on April 3, 2007 7:15 AM:
"BBH: If you are so confident of Aguirre's appeal to the CA Supreme Court, are you willing to use your real name if he loses? Shouldn't be an issue if you're right."
41. Sunny wrote on April 3, 2007 12:53 PM:
"Billy Poop, if you were as qualified as you propose to be, than why hasn’t your daddy AGH hired you already to join his slapstick pension team? Perhaps he knows you’re loonier than him & he couldn’t handle another nutcase clown stealing his limelight at his press conferences. We already know you would grovel at his feet & beg to work with him, so I can’t fathom why you haven’t met his low standards to work in his office. He could use you."
42. I Support Mike wrote on May 3, 2007 7:13 AM:
"And so do most taxpayers in San Diego! Hey City employees: get back to work and quit flaming the City Attorney! You guys (and girls) loath Mike because he's had the temerity to rip the veil off the bloated disgusting City pension system. About the worst thing anyone seems to be able to say about Mike is that he's "abrasive". PUHLEEZ!! He's an ATTORNEY, you know, a lawyer!! Lawyers are usually kind of "abrasive", so grow up! The more the downtown "In Crowd" screams and carries on about Mike, the more validity I give to his charges."
43. Tired of the rhetoric wrote on May 6, 2007 1:58 AM:
"I'm so sick and tired of hearing about the Pension "Scam". You people need to do your homework. Check around....almost every City (locally) AND the County have a better deal going. Check your percentages. Yes, the City has a pension. That's a trade off for the pay cut you're going to take when you hire in. Also, there's no perks. No xmas parties, no coffee, no water, no bonuses, no promotions due to work history, no raises due to work history. Check it out! Also, if YOU put a couple of hundred dollars away a month, you too can have a retirement. That's what it costs us!"
44. Steve G. wrote on May 25, 2007 7:30 AM:
"Billy Bob, are you laughing hard now that the Supreme Court laughed Aguirre out the door with no comment? I didn't think so but, we're all laughing at YOU!!"
PRINT 
E-MAIL STORY
SHARE
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
NEWSVINE
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
BLINKLIST
