I remain frustrated that Mr. Lewis too quickly moves past a legitimate debate about "the size and scope of city operations". There is an argument that SHOULD happen in this community about whether there are certain "lines of business" (golf courses? Public Art? Open Space management?) that the City just simply should not be in. Another is whether there is a level of service that could be reexamined and not negatively impact the citizenry in the slightest. Here is just one example...until 2003 I lived in Carmel Mountain Ranch. We had, within 10 minute drive, FIVE city branch libraries plus 2 County Branches. There were at least 6 major multi-sport (soccer, softball, pop warner) sports fields within a similar drive. It is legitimate to ask, especially when facing hundreds of millions in shortfall, whether that scope of services isneeded.

Posted by Erik | reply to this comment
June 15, 2009 12:32 pm

Scott, I listened to the radio show and Vladimir made a point that you're omitting here (and elsewhere). We granted those pension benefits and underfunded our contributions _explicitly_in_order to avoid either revenue increases or service cuts. We have time-after-time used the pension system to paper-over OTHER spending. It's the bill we never paid. // What I think Vladimir's article shows is that efficiency in government isn't new to San Diego and isn't just talk. It's been something of a local obsession at least since "Reinventing Government" was a regular stocking stuffer at the Chamber. And it's paid off. We ARE more efficient! Thank goodness. The trouble is, those gains have already been won. DeMaio and co are right that we should continue, but the efficiencies left to win are on the single-digit $Millions scale: they simply won't solve our problems. Facing our situation maturely means tackling the big stuff.

Posted by Augmented Ballot | reply to this comment
June 15, 2009 3:17 pm

Looks like it is time to consider cutting the pension benefits back to where they were in 1996. If the unions don't like it, then bankruptcy reorganization is the only other option. If tax increases are even discussed, it'll be time to start getting the pitchforks and torches ready.

Posted by shawn1874 | reply to this comment
June 17, 2009 12:03 pm

Following that sort of logic, if benefits were rolled back to 1996 levels (legally impossible for existing hires, but for the sake of argument...), then the City would have to reciprocate by eliminating the pension fund deficit. Remember, the city was permitted to underfund -- and use that $$ elsewhere -- in exchange for improved benefits. The pension fund deficit sits around $2B now as I recall. And let's assume that the pension rates in 1996 were only half of what they are today (I'm sure that's not true, but again, for the sake of argument). Then in exchange for dialing the pension rates back to 1996, the city would only need to return the $1B it borrowed. Know where we can find $1B?

Posted by Augmented Ballot | reply to this comment
June 18, 2009 12:34 pm

Scott, It is not just the cost of those benefits from 1996,2002 it is the fact they actually started to pay less into the pension while increasing obligations. It was insane. Is it a coincidence that the convention center and Petco park were both built during that time?

Posted by johnny gage | reply to this comment
June 15, 2009 7:19 pm

Although it's difficult to get agreement on this issue, I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If the City cannot demonstrate that it uses its funds wisely, I doubt if much of the citizenry will be sympathetic to tax increases. Unfortunately, governments have a tendency to spend all of their income and, in addition, borrow against the future. Of course, private citizens tend to do the same, but citizens pay the price for that behavior...and the government's behavior as well.

Posted by josil | reply to this comment
June 15, 2009 9:56 pm

Posters above have hit the nail on the head. The City has always operated on a thin margin. They used the money they didn't pay in to the Retirement system for nearly 7 years to pay for rennovations to the stadium, to host the '96 Rpeublican convention, and to build Petco. But, most importantly, the City didn't pay in at the exact time when the stock market was going up and the money would have compounded the most. Here is an interesting exercise, Scott. Add up the contributions they didn't make for all those years, apply the actual return earned each year, and see how much more money they Retirement system would have today if the City hadn't taken "contribution holidays". I have no doubt it would be in the hundreds of milllions of dollars.

Posted by Mike | reply to this comment
June 16, 2009 8:24 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.