voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Oh and Don't Forget Petco
an independent nonprofit |
March to 1,000 Members: 991 so far. Contribute today.

Oh and Don't Forget Petco

Published: Monday, June 23, 2008 9:34 PM PDT



As we continue to grapple with the reality that the city of San Diego is bringing in healthy revenues but, at the same time, cutting services, I'm reminded that I don't know/remember everything.

City Councilwoman Donna Frye e-mailed to remind me of a couple of other places she has noticed the money going. One, to pay for Petco Park. And, two, to pay for increased employee salaries.

The city has to fork over $11 million a year to pay off the debt it incurred to build the downtown ballpark. We will be making payments until 2023. Perhaps the Padres can make it to the World Series before then.

As for raises. The effect is a little tougher to nail down. A 7 percent or 8 percent increase in the total general fund each year should be plenty of money to handle the across-the-board salary raises that governments like to give each of their employee groups. The raises for police officers were the only ones that really went above and beyond normal inflationary jumps.

I could be wrong.

I think there's an interesting point to this exercise. It is to remember the cost of our civic luxuries in the future when we decide to buy them. Do you think the City Council would have been so easy going about a vote to increase city employee pension benefits if it had been clearly articulated what the consequences of it were to the city's budget and future services? Maybe, but they would have at least had to deal with them and they would have had to deal with the reality that if they wanted to give these benefit enhancements, they would have to pass some kind of tax increase at the same time.

Or Petco Park. Yes, I know, it's the sacred cow of 21st century downtown boom. There's no doubt the ballpark provoked the eastside revival of downtown. Petco is a very nice place. I like it too. But the next time you hear someone talk about a "bond" for some big project (think, I don't know, Gaylord maybe?) remember that "bonds" aren't free. They come with consequences like this. If the government doing the bonding doesn't also work to raise money through a higher tax or new fee, then you will feel a pinch like San Diego's feeling now.

You just will.

So all I'm asking is that these decisions about big beautiful projects and extra expenditures be accompanied with realistic outlines of their consequences. And that if we want new stadiums, or if we want to pay our city workers more, great, just accompany that desire with realistic sources of funds.

Pretty simple.

Now, one other point:

  • There's a revival of discussion these days about Richard Nixon. I'm engrossed, as a matter of fact, in the new book "Nixonland" by Rick Perlstein. It's great. I can't wait to get home tonight to keep reading.

    It's not just history for trivia. As is clear, what Nixon and the 60s did to politics still define a lot of our debates these days. So if that interests you and if you want to read a great story about one San Diegan's Forrest Gump-like encounters with historical figures from the latter half of the 20th century, you've got to read this excellent piece by my colleagues.

    And then read Part 2. I like Part 2 the best. Something about Russian oligarchs that just freaks me out.

    -- SCOTT LEWIS




    31 Comments so far on this story...

    And let's not forget that great big monstrosity of a "Central Library" that some people are so hot to trot over. Okaaaaay. Sure. Let's have all the geegaws you can possibly cram into downtown SD, but remember, please, the financial condition of this city and that rectifying that condition should come first. If that doesn't jar you back into the land of reality, then think of shrinking services -- among which is the library system. Why build a big, fancy-schmanzie (albeit UGLY as sin) central library when we can't afford to staff the branches properly? Branches are where people go -- you know, the taxpayers. They use the branches not the Central Libary and Homeless Daycare Center downtown. If they can't find a book they need at the branch they put in an inter-library loan request. They still don't go downtown. But, vagrants do.

    Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
    June 23, 2008 9:15 pm

    "If they wanted to give these benefit enhancements, they would have to pass some kind of tax increase at the same time." Wow, Scott. Talk about not remembering everything. The increased benefits were given in exchange for permission to underfund the pension fund, precisely in order to NOT HAVE TO RAISE TAXES (or alternately, cut services). Do you still not get this?

    Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
    June 23, 2008 9:24 pm

    At last, a few sensible remarks on Petco Park. Fine city asset you will say, but at what cost to the public? Apparently, $11 million a year until 2023. Of course, CCDC should be servicing the bonds since it is in their redevelopment area and that would return the same amount of money to the city general fund for use throughout the city. My recollection is that JMI was gifted the FAR (building rights) under Petco Park to increase the density of development they could achieve on all their other downtown properties bought on the cheap.

    Posted by Ian Trowbridge | reply to this comment
    June 23, 2008 9:44 pm

    So there is not a penny of increases in there for anything the citizens want, is that what you are saying? When I was a kid, there was no such thing as a library open on Sunday. Now, you can find many branches open on Sunday. How much more does that cost the taxpayer? Zero! And what about dog parks? When I was a kid parks for, well, me! Now we have special parks just for our dogs. How much more does the taxpayer pay for that? Oh, that's right...nothing!!! I think it is disengenous to blame all the City's woes on pension and Petco. The citizens are used to not paying anything more for what they expect to get.

    Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
    June 23, 2008 10:01 pm

    Scott- How about a piece on how the ballpark 'bonds' are privately financed at 7.6%! Maybe Sanders and Gang can get those in the open market and lower that rate and return some of that cash to other needs? I think Merrill Lynch and friends have had a nice ride, oh and they got $39 million up front to be kind of enough to finance them for us. SD got the bond rating back, why not run and refinance these???

    Posted by Another Joe | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 5:53 am

    Scott: You have done a good job of acknowleding the sky is blue and lecturing on prudence. So the question becomes: What do we do about it? Should we raise taxes? Sell petco to the highest bidder? Continue to take from our employees accross the board, layoff employees and cut programs? Seems to me everyone likes to talk about how the horrible the problem is but the conversation always seems to end before a real discussion of what to do about a systemic problem. Politicians are generally a lot more prone to make decisions after the media has taken their position. Apparently so is the IBA. So where are you? Alternatively, we can continue to fight about nickles and dimes all the while avoiding the real issue, basically its down to two options tax or cut. The mayor chose to cut,still waiting to see what everybody elses solution is...

    Posted by Basic Civics | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 8:53 am

    Speaking of bonds, I just heard the Mayor Sanders' man, Fred Sainz, on KPBS Radio this morning. Sainz said that we are going to leverage SAN DIEGO POLICE HEADQUARTERS to secure the new public financing the city needs to begin work on rebuilding crumbling streets, sewers and other urban essentials. Sainz actually declared this a common practice, citing the example of a person pawning a piece of jewelry to get a loan. While we face such folly and four more years of a know-nothing-got-no- municipal administration, Edgar's tiresome refrain about homeless people and a downtown library gets old, as does Ann's indefatigable defense of this city's disastrous employees' pension status quo.

    Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 9:10 am

    Speaking of bonds, I just heard the Mayor Sanders' man, Fred Sainz, on KPBS Radio this morning. Sainz said that we are going to leverage SAN DIEGO POLICE HEADQUARTERS to secure the new public financing the city needs to begin work on rebuilding crumbling streets, sewers and other urban essentials. Sainz actually declared this a common practice, citing the example of a person pawning a piece of jewelry to get a loan. While we face such folly and four more years of a know-nothing-got-no- municipal administration, Edgar's tiresome refrain about homeless people and a downtown library gets old, as does Ann's indefatigable defense of this city's disastrous employees' pension status quo.

    Posted by Frances O'Neill Zimmerman | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 9:10 am

    I agree with Ann. We expect so much from the city. And it's fine to expect a lot. We live in a beautiful city, and parks and museums and libraries and sports teams add to our quality of life and our civic pride. But these services are not free, so we should not balk at paying more. Donna Frye has the right idea about using CCDC funds to pay the ballpark bonds, but that alone won't solve our problems. Suck it up and pay more, or deal with service cuts. It might be simplistic to talk about the city budget like your household budget, but it's fundamentally the same thing. We've been buying groceries on credit cards, and it's got to stop.

    Posted by Right on, Ann | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 9:55 am

    Curious, so what is the 'total paid (or future) dollar investment' now, that the City, its Redevelopment Bond Debt, payments, grants, CCDC advertising, Redevelopment Agency 'capital improvements', etc. has 'put into' the Padres Ballpark?

    Posted by Wondering | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 10:29 am

    Old to you, FONZie, but not as old as your tired refrain about Alan Bersin. Zzzzzzz.

    Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 11:25 am

    As much as I disagree with the FONZ about her unbridled enthusiasm for making reading (and washing facility) support available to the winos, druggies and other denizens of the streets O'San Diego, I am in total agreement with her on the subject of Ann's harping on city pensions. Why does everyone feel that the answer to the problem of civic fiscal crisis have to be spending money like a drunken sailor??

    Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 11:29 am

    I resent being classified as a person who spends money frivolously. At all of my ports of call I have never spent other peoples money like Madaffer, Peters, and Atkins. On behalf of drunken sailors everywhere, please find a different metaphor for your utilization. Even in our enebriated state, we have a conscience, we are half-witted, and are capable of ethics and truth telling. If you think about it, that makes drunken sailors over qualified for Districts 1,3, and 7. Thank-you for your consideration.

    Posted by Drunken Sailor | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 12:04 pm

    @Drunken Sailor: Here's what you can do to clear your good name. Find $200M in the City budget that you would cut. Should be easy, right? Trash collection -- why not monthly? Police protection -- between noon and 8pm. Fire protection -- for the small fires only. So? What'll it be?

    Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 2:19 pm

    A public library is free to all who visit it. Petco Park is a private enterprise for the Padres Ball organization. What part of that don't you people get. Goawaychargers.com has some good source materials regarding stadiums and how much they really cost the general public..public financing for private projects will probably never happen again in this town.

    Posted by Coast Watcher | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 2:55 pm

    Okay, we'll say "drunken officer of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, probationary level IIa." Now, in exchange for my magnanimous conciliation, tell me, please, what on Earth do Districts 1, 3 and 7 have to do with one another (aside, of course, that they are currently, but happily soon no longer, represented by three -- and here I must choose my words carefully, lest this msg also land on the censor's floor -- of SD's least impressive, in history, city councilmen) Signed, A resident of District One deliriously happy to have Scotty Peters soon no longer in office (welcome Phil Thalheimer)

    Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 6:23 pm

    Oh. Upon a more careful reading of your comment, DS, I see you made perfectly clear the connection between those three districts. Sad, OH SO TRUE.

    Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
    June 24, 2008 6:39 pm

    Hey Jeffrey Davis. This port needs a larger cut than 200 million. I'd pull the plug on this bath tub and start over. Yes, that means bankruptcy, reorganization, etc. This city is unable to pay its obligations. There aren't enough cuts to make it happen. No elected official will politic for more taxes (just the Sanders method of cheesy rate increases, that only help modestly, short term). And, yes, Edgar, Peters, Madaffer, and Atkins knowingly voted for pension increases without caring that there wasn't a revenue stream to pay for the obligations. Credit card economics. The city is running out of other options for moving the debt around. Drunken sailors injure themselves with a hell of a hangover; but, when we crawl out of the bar, at least we have paid our tab. We don't leave the bill for the next patron

    Posted by Drunken Sailor | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 5:39 am

    Yes, DS, the P, M & A are among the worst city councilmen (if not THE very worst) we have ever had. Heuso may be w****less and surely certifiably b*mb, but he never pulled the trick Scotty, Jim ("let 'em sue") and Toni did on the citizens of SD. (Okay, maybe he would have, had he been sleeping ... I mean, sitting ... on the council then, but he wasn't and he didn't). Perhaps the fellow with the baseball cap and very mean disposition who always rants at council meetings, "You're all gonna go to jail!" is, despite it all, right. See, I'm self-censoring now, even the innocuous words.

    Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 7:50 am

    @Drunken Sailor: You're right, more than $200M is needed. Bankruptcy is an odd duck, though, because no one could conclude (to any creditor's satisfaction) that San Diego has no way to possibly pay its bills. We have income, assets, and expenditures. We can pay our bills if we choose to. So, bankruptcy in the traditional sense of 'give me some time to put plans in order' isn't in the cards. We've had time, just not the will.

    Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 8:39 am

    @Edgar: Before we get too huffy with the council of '96 and '00, their choice was simple: either cut services, raise taxes, or cut a deal to raid the pension fund in order to not have to cut services or raise taxes. Seeing as we still refuse to either cut services or raise taxes (and were fine with those decisions at the time) it's a bit hypocritical to single them out for all our problems. Maybe after we've learned to make difficult choices and sacrifices ourselves... As of yet, as a city, we haven't.

    Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 9:06 am

    Thank you Scott for being honest. Too sad that the politicians/leaders are that way. Why didn't you mention all the Redevelopment Bond costs to fix up Downtown prior to Petco?! Why don't any reports look at the $1 Billions worth of Bond debt that has gone into DT SD south/west of the I-5? The buying & taking of land, the fixing streets, sewers, sidewalks, lighting, highbandwidth cabling, and much much more was put on the taxpayers back rather than the developers/businesse expense sheets. When will the Redevelopment Dept. pay back the City coffers? How long will the City /Redevelopment Dept only pay the interest (or atleast very very little principle) on this Bond indebtedness? And this is only Downtown numbers. The rest of the City has lots of Redevelopment Bonding. See Scott the buck stops at OUR wallets, not the politicians or developers!

    Posted by FreedomPlease.org | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 9:47 am

    Scott way to see the Bonds! Now what about all that was paid for by Redevelopment Agency prior to Petco being built? Why hasn't any reporter investigated the $1 Billion in Bond debt for south/west of the I-5 parts of the CCDC? Why do they only pay interest & no or very little principle? I'll tell you why because it comes from our wallets over the long haul and the politicians & developers get off scott free. In fact, they get big profits, more jobs, or higher positions, maybe a combinations of all 3!

    Posted by FreedomPlease.org | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 9:58 am

    Jeffie Davis, EASY! Cut services -- and by that I do not mean libraries, golf courses, swimming pools or the hours same-sex love birds can get a marriage license (heaven forbid!). No, cut all the giveaways primarily to Districts 3, 4 and 8 and pie-in-the-sky socialist dreams (such as living wage mandates) of the likes of Surfer Chic. Cut the expenses of the city council (let us not forget automobile allowance or whatever they are trying to call it today), the mayor's office and even the city attorney's office. Last but not least eliminate gold-plated Cadillac pensions to the extent currently permitted by law and FOREVER in the future, while eliminating deadwood on the city payroll (your threats about cut services just do not scare people anymore). Go whine somewhere else.

    Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 11:34 am

    Edgar-You have my attention-What giveaways to Districts 3,4,8? Enlighten me. Maybe it is time to go back to the basics as far as City services are concerned. It seems that the Mayor doesn't want to upset the apple cart by demanding that CCDC pay th $11 million each year for the Ball Park. Why is that unreasonable? No one ever answers the questions raised. No one even attempts to answer the questions. Increased benefits in exchange for permission to underfund the pension fund--Why is no one really held accountable for this action? I'm beginning to think that Unions are out of control and our re-elected Mayor has a hidden agenda that he didn't share during the campaign, instead he distracted all with his attacks on one candidate.

    Posted by nelson | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 1:44 pm

    Wow! $11 Million bond payment. Well Misty eyed liberals , hold hands as the story only gets worse--yes chase the children out of the room, as we don't want them to learn that not only is the City paying $11 million BUT CCDC has its own ballpark bonds and its paying another $7 million on those.Has there been worse news for Voice Readers since Bibical times when God was inflicting his rath??? I just can imagine any one having to bear more problems and trouble then Petco has inflicted on us poor San Diegans- Well wait, in there a Rest of the Story??????????

    Posted by Sez Me | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 3:07 pm

    Now the rest of the story. Lets see how is CCDC doing since the Ballpark became a reality. Opps their revenues are up $54 Million a year-Humm $54 Million a year and Ballpark bonds cost $11 Million PLUS $7 million. Well wait a minute that sure takes away from the pain. That's not fair. We Voice readers and writers like misery. If so please read no further--as the news for the misty eyed only gets worse--YEP--the City revenues during the same period are up $100 Million dollars from Taxes collected in the Downtown area---Wow we pay $18 Million and get back over $150 million- Well that's not fair. That's what those rich bastards we love to hate do. Gosh imagine making money on your investment. Something certainly wrong with that picture- Hope you guys have pensions as fat as the Public trough employees do. Clearly you need some one to take care of you---

    Posted by Sez Me | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 3:11 pm

    @Edgar: It's not my threat, and it's not to scare anyone. Jerry's been busting his ass trying to find magical piles of money in the city budget that can make things right the "easy" way. And he's found a couple million here and $20 million there. Pretty soon you're talking about fixing the $1.5B pension debt by 2060. So, who's whining? (As an aside, your economic argument isn't well served by your homophobia. Might want to check that at the door.)

    Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 3:45 pm

    The whining remark was directed at whiners and those trying to make the public think we will only have police services on Thursday afternoons and fire services Monday mornings for three weeks following the vernal equinox. It was not necessarily directed at you, unless you consider yourself a whiner. You are a little hard to read, but actually I think we are not far apart on the issue of fixing the pension debt. Maybe. Maybe not. As far as homophobia is concerned -- moi? I go to Home Depot at least once a week.

    Posted by Edgar | reply to this comment
    June 25, 2008 5:00 pm

    Sez Me- You forgot to do your studying, just look at my commment^s. IT IS $1 BILLION in bond debt for the CCDC that will need to be paid back, heck they haven't even paid off the over 25 year old Horton Plaza project! Who cares if you get $300 million a year if you pay it out to salaries, buying more land to give your business friends, or to push up your own property value (former CCDC chair Peter ??) & his land partnership). Can you say "conflict of interest"?! Redevelopment and CCDC, SEDC, and all the others are SCAMs. How do I know? I was on the board as an elected (No.Park Redev, PAC) community member! They gave away $5 Million, and $1-2 Million we didn't even get a say in, but bonded to our community/committee, at high interest rates, and higher insurance coverages. Former candidateDist3- Beeman.

    Posted by FreedomPlease.org | reply to this comment
    June 26, 2008 4:02 pm

    14. Jeffrey Davis wrote on June 24, 2008 3:19 PM: "@Drunken Sailor: Here's what you can do to clear your good name. Find $200M in the City budget that you would cut. Should be easy, right?....VERY EASY, file BK and dump the million dollar pensions of the PD/FD, and any others "retiring" at age 50 and pulling down 6 figures.

    Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
    June 26, 2008 5:04 pm


    Reader feedback
    • 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.
    Post a comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Comments:
    Current Word Count: Verification Code
    1815368

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (October 18): Andrew Donohue and Scott Lewis talk in depth about the Chargers stadium search, municipal bankruptcy and whether residents are too dumb to vote on the City Hall project.

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.