Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Reverse "rape of the ratepayer"
Petezanko, How does one get to be Mayor of San Diego after losing so badly last time by attacking the CPUC? Do you really believe that Aguirre and Severson crave minor publicity in the Reader so badly that they would work tirelessly for years on a case with a very low probability of success? Maybe your crystal ball is cracked. If you understood what is at stake is billions of dollars and public safety, maybe you could appreciate what is being done by not only Aguirre and Severson, but thousands of others on your behalf. If you think that you are safe and not being bilked by public utilities, you are living in a dream world. Look what happened at Fukushima. Look at Enron. Mindreading can be annoying. Do you have facts that SONGS was safe or that the settlement was fair? Attacking Aguirre is not an argument that is persuasive. If you have some facts, I would like to hear them.— June 26, 2015 1:36 p.m.
Reverse "rape of the ratepayer"
The questions will continue because this is not just about shifting corporate losses to shareholders; this is about public safety. A Fukushima-style meltdown on the beaches of Southern California is what was being risked. There are several other lawfirms working to for the disclosure of the hidden data. SCE will not release the data relating to the replacement steam generator tubes because it is "proprietary" and SCE is "too busy" decommissioning. SCE potentially endangered 8 million people and the entire US economy. Chernobyl ended the Soviet Union. We already have Hanford threatening the Columbia River.— June 26, 2015 8:33 a.m.
Reverse "rape of the ratepayer"
TURN supported the settlement. Now, they claim that they only did so because they did not know the full details of the deal made in Warsaw? What a gravy train! Get on board! Aguirre and Severson cannot be bought off. There is damaging data being covered up that will show the public safety was compromised. A loss of coolant event leading to a meltdown was prevented; the rest is about sticking it to ratepayers. The premature settlement hid the incriminating data and shifted a multi-billion dollar loss to ratepayers by avoiding a full judicial-style inquiry into whose fault it was that the replacement steam generator tubes were failing. The skeletons are buried in the data being withheld by SCE that will prove lack of prudence and placing profits over public safety. There is now a public outcry for release of that data and the issues surrounding the avoidance of relicensing hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This is what was "fixed" in Warsaw, Poland - shift the loss and hide the damaging data by premature settlement. I told the PUC in May of 2014 at the public hearing that only production of the documents and depositions of the authors of the documents would create a record that would support a settlement. They hung their heads in shame. Who "ran the red light" must be decided before allocating loses. They all know this.— June 25, 2015 4:38 p.m.
Don’t take this personal, Joe
Ex parte notice is required unless there are extraordinary cicumstances........ Reserving a hearing date never requires notice. Which was it? The fact that lawyers have heated words means little unless the exact context is provided. If a hearing date for an ex parte hearing was reserved, then there is no story here at all. The court requires notice to the other parte unless notice should be waived due to extraordinary circumstances. That the other party might flee the country, abscond with funds or destroy evidence would be examples when the hearing could go forward without notice to the other party. The clerk would not allow the ex parte motion to go forward without a declaration of exceptional circumstances. Just reading documents does not always provide the necessary context. I read what Mr. Cordileone said. If I understand it, he says that he reserved an ex parte date. Is that what actually happened? Then Marco Gonzalez was blowing smoke. The court decides whether notice is required or waived. The clerk checks this notice issue out before the motion gets in front of the judge. The moving papers are deposited in the department's box. There is a time stamp, but the papers are not "filed" until the notice issue is resolved. Sometimes, the moving papers are carried into the courtroom where ex parte matters are being heard. The baliff is checking.for declarations of notice. This is an example of reading emails without the full contect.— June 16, 2015 7:14 a.m.
Plead guilty or else we drop all charges
Prosecutors often file charges to discourage civil suits for battery, deprivation of civil rights under color of law 42 USC sec. 1983, or wrongful death (they allege a reason for the shooting or claim suicide in in-custody hangings). It is incredible that prosectors would engage in blatant attempts to use the full weight of the criminal justice system to protect wrongdoing by officers. This practice compounds the injustice. District Attorneys oftentimes roll on the scene with police officers and sequester witnesses and seize videos. Witnesses on probation or parole are sometimes threatened with violations to recant testimony favorable to the victim of police misconduct. Any plea makes prosecution of a civil suit more difficult, if not impossible, because the victim must stipulate to a factual basis for the plea to the charge. Officer-involved shootings (OIS) reports are privileged to a large extent. It is necessary to subpoena officers in the preliminary hearing and to put on an affirmative defense. This requires an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Most lawyers and victims plead out the case. This practice is used to defend the most egregious police misconduct cases. Not all DAs roll on the case. But they usually understand that some arrests are unjustified, even as they file charges to prevent civil suits. In such cases, a more serious crime is being committed by law enforcement. These crimes are rarely, if ever, prosecuted. This is a huge flaw in our system.— June 15, 2015 10:19 a.m.
No water problem — it's a no-water problem
San Diego gets 90% of its water from out of the county. Increasing its population by two million will severely exacerbate the situation. Those on the East Coast want to move here even more to avoid ever more harsh winters as disrupted jet streams dip further south bring frigid temperatures, even as Arctic ice melts. California's climate is disrupted by a high pressure zone that prevents deep deposits of snow on the mountains. It is that snow pack that slowly melts throughout the Spring and Summer that supplies the reservoirs. This system is broken. Climate change makes droughts in California more frequent, deeper, and longer. Our legal system does a poor job of water allocation. This problem is beyond this blog. Tighter water supplies will drive reform. Our politicians are bozos run primarily by campaign contributions and to a lesser degree, affiliation with one of two political parties. Central and Southern California have shortages; Northern California, not so much. The hope that snow-packed mountains will suddenly reappear, and that ancient wells will have bountiful replenishment as water tables suddenly rise to support unlimited population growth, is probably nothing more than a pipe dream. It is much more likely that our climate will revert to a historic norm of semi-arid desert - but one without snow-packed mountains, as Spring will arrive too early each year. The mountain water will run off prematurely as snow packs will melt in early Spring. The age of drilling deeper each year to satisfy the needs of agriculture is quickly vanishing. The science predicts disaster for increasing population unless agriculture is diminished. Canada can grow the food. San Diego can house an aging population of people with a lot of money. No lawns, no golf courses, no swimming pools, expensive water, more reclaimed water in urban areas, native drought-tolerant plants.... Livestock and dairy consume huge amounts of water. Becoming a vegan reduces climate change and conserves water both. We must change our lifestyles drastically.— June 6, 2015 10 a.m.
Did city opt to not bounce Briggs from case?
It would be up to the City to assert that lack of capacity caused the lawsuit to be a nullity and, therefore, the statute of limitations had passed. The Courts of Appeal have not always upheld this reasoning for a dismissal because of the prejudice to a party. It is better to deal with the "lack of capacity" in other ways. Giving the party a chance to pay the fee or cure the defect while staying the case is the usual course. To wait to bring the challenge also creates a situation of waiver or partial waiver. I always check corporate capacity as a possible defense. I bring it to the attention of the court through a demurrer. If the statute of limitations defense was available, I would have raised it. Failure to check corporate status and raise statute of limitations defenses could result in a waiver. Statutes of limitations are a disfavored defense. Equity favors the dilligent. It is not good to get sloppy about corporate matters, however. The consequences of piercing the corporate veil or a judicial finding the corporation is not de jure may be quite unpleasant.— June 5, 2015 6:07 p.m.
No water problem — it's a no-water problem
California would never today adopt the legal scheme that has evolved historically. It is unfair, irrational, and dysfunctional. It is wasteful and lacks flexibility. It will take 20 years or more to "fix" these problems. There are too many vested rights from past centuries. The state will have to pay off holders of these rights to free the rest of us. I would simply nationalize some of these resources. I would redistribute water rights. Right wingers want to own resources. So there you have it; it is a political problem.— June 5, 2015 8:07 a.m.
No water problem — it's a no-water problem
California is making efforts to solve its water shortage. The existing legal and administrative structure is a restraint upon the ability of the state to provide long-term relief. You are correct in assuming that there is vast complexity in these serious structural impediments. The state lacks a rational regulatory scheme for groundwater, despite recent legislative action; water rights allocations far exceed the state's mean annual runoff; water rights law reflects late 19th century visions of societal needs, rather than a regime designed to allocate a limited supply of water in an arid region experiencing rapid growth, and on which more recent judicial decisions have overlaid additional requirements addressing beneficial use and environmental concerns. Water conservation, recycling, use of improved agricultural irrigation methods, further curtailment of urban use, groundwater storage and regulation and storage, and facilitation of water marketing are all needed responses...... but they are yet to be implimented on the requisite scale. Water Rights - surface water - groundwater - the 1928 Constitutional Amendment......Protection of the Environment - the Public Trust Doctrine - the Delta curtailment of tbe Exercise of Water Rghts - "Reasonable use - Can Water Rights be Recorded or Curtailed without an Unconstitutional."taking?" See? Very simple soulutions than any blogger should have very strong opinions on without any study of the problem. Just like cable news - you must have an opinion just like the talking heads we so often see. I am currently studying this myself.— June 5, 2015 7:46 a.m.
No water problem — it's a no-water problem
Semi-arid areas in the Southwest cannot suport existing populations. Deep wells have already tapped into fossil water. Central and Southern California needs the water. Northern California, not so much. Agriculture uses and Western water law complicate the picture. It is complicated from a legal standpoint. There will be realocation through eminent domain proceedings to pay just compensation for the "taking." Courts are interpreting the water rights under a reasonableness standard. The legislature is changing laws where possible. The problems in agricultural subsidies in Arizona and California will need to ve reevaluated. Meanwhile, climate change will make droughts deeper, longer, and more frequent. I accept Stanford and NASA and Scripps Institute of Oceanography climate scientists' conclusions. It will get worse around San Diego.— June 4, 2015 4:27 p.m.