Comments by laplayaheritage | San Diego Reader

laplayaheritage

Gaseous dismay

The Summary Order states that the City's Appeal did not even provide evidence to analyze. http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/5… "The City has proffered no evidence to show that the Policy was issued, or even signed, in New York... The City has adduced no evidence to demonstrate that its 58‐day delay was reasonable." Grande North HOA, 1205 Pacific Highway, $29 million in claims. Element Owner Association 550 15th Street, $1.9 million in claims. 235 on Market Street, unknown claims. http://www.sandiego.gov/cityattorney/pdf/news/201… According to the November 12, 2013 City Attorney Update, one of the cases settled for $50,000.
— October 10, 2014 12:22 p.m.

Faulconer chooses scandal-linked lobbyist

City Council Hearing Tuesday, September 30, 2014 at 10 am. http://dockets.sandiego.gov/sirepub/pubmtgframe.a… * ITEM-S501: Authorization to execute an Agreement for Federal Legislative and Executive Branch Consulting Services and Representation between the City of San Diego and Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP. Not to exceed $372,000 ITEM-S502: Authorization to execute an Agreement for State Legislative and Executive Branch Consulting Services and Representation between the City of San Diego and Platinum Advisors, LLC. Not to exceed $312,000.
— September 26, 2014 1:32 p.m.

"Military style" pot raid backfires

This particular case is very fishy. https://www.facebook.com/SanDiegoASA There was no evidence that "600 pounds" of weed existed. The extremely large number was literally made up in paperwork after all the supposed evidence was destroyed. The DEA could not back up their claims with the normal video or photographic evidence taken during the raids. Shady.
— September 26, 2014 1:18 p.m.

San Diego stadium, convention center lies you will hear

According to this week's Successor Agency (SA) Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS-7 and ROPS 14-15B), $224,070,688 is still owed for outstanding bond payments for the Convention Center Phase 2 expansion that will finally be paid off in 29 years, by May 11, 2043. New 2014 San Diego Convention Center Board Member Gil Cabrera asked that an analysis be done on how much our Convention Center lost in existing business when the San Diego Tourism Authority (SDTA) took over scheduling of upcoming Conventions. The SDTA stated they would be moving current, small, and lucrative Medical Convention from the public Convention Center to private hotels, as part of the deal for the Hoteliers to privately vote on an up to 3% Special Tax that was deemed unconstitutional for the Convention Center Phase 3 Expansion. http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/file-252-.pdf It would be interesting to see how much of the decrease in Convention Center Revenue came from the SDTA poaching clients from the public space to their private hotels. http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-13372-… "... Gil Cabrera, an attorney who sits on the Convention Center Corporation board of directors, has requested that the board discuss the relationship at its Sept. 24 meeting. (Convention Center officials have long detested the transfer of duties.) In an Aug. 15 letter to board Chairman Nico Ferraro, Cabrera notes that the transfer of sales and marketing duties from Convention Center staff to the Tourism Authority “was entered into as part of the overall funding scheme.’ “Given that the recent decision invalidates the special tax,” Cabrera continued, “I believe we have a responsibility to review this agreement to determine whether it is still in the SDCCC’s interest going forward and explore our options within the contract.” He further requested that the board’s legal counsel “opine on whether the appellate decision changes the conditions of the agreement and our consideration for entering into it….”" http://visitsandiego.com/system/files/meetings/%2… From yesterday's September 24, 2014 Agenda for the Convention Center Board meeting, it looks like Mr. Cabrera's important financial issues were ignored, and not put onto their agenda for discussion.
— September 25, 2014 5:23 p.m.

"Military style" pot raid backfires

The Federal money for DEA and San Diego County Sheriff raids were suppose to fight the deadly Mexican cartels, and the illegal growing operations on Federal and State lands. Instead the Federal money to combat the Mexican cartels was used to terrorize elderly marijuana patients in rural San Diego County. http://www.justice.gov/dea/divisions/sd/2012/sd12… Hopefully the Littles will get justice and compensation for violations of their Civil Rights.
— September 25, 2014 4:23 p.m.

How Darbeau's hide was nailed

Friday morning 8 am, September 24, 2010 we had a meeting at Port of San Diego with then-Port CEO Charles Wurster and Vice President of Administration Wayne Darbeau. We verbally agreed to a course of action for solutions to our outstanding 2006 Seismic concerns. Both Port Executives agreed to ask our State Geologist John Parrish for help and assistance in adherence to the State Seismic Hazard Mapping Act as it relates to active faulting on public Port Tidelands subject to liquefaction. And recommendations for public utilities prone to soil deformation. Later that afternoon then-Port CEO Wurster resigned. http://www.portofsandiego.org/about-us/general-pr… On October 5, 2010, 11 days after the abrupt resignation after our verbal agreement, Wayne Darbeau became the interim, then final President/CEO of the Port agency. He did all he could to hide evidence of active faulting on Port tidelands from the State Geologist, Port Commissioners, Public, etc. The Port is still in collusion with the City, CCDC, Airport Authority, and local judges. http://www.portofsandiego.org/about-us/general-pr… Good riddance. Hopefully someone with ethics or a clue at the Port will asked the State Geologist to step in and give the San Diego region, including Coastal Commission staff, guidance on the ignored standard of care. All government agencies ignore their responsibility to confirm or deny active faulting under liquefiable soils on public State Lands. Including the Airport, North Embarcadero Visionary Plan (NEVP), Navy Broadway Complex (NBC), Old Police Headquarters, original Convention Center basement that leaks, Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal (TAMT), and the Point Loma Fault near Nimitz. http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-holly…
— September 6, 2014 3:14 p.m.

Victory! San Onofre settlement deemed unfair

Great news. Thanks to Mike and Ray. Ruling: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/… News Release: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G…
— September 6, 2014 8:24 a.m.

Pretty slick, City

Proposition 26 broadened the definition of taxes to include MANY payments considered to be fees or charges. MANY, but not ALL fees turned into taxes. Some fees still remain through Exemptions to the new law such as Parking Districts, Special Benefit Assessments Districts, Maintenance Assessments, and limited Business Improvement Districts (BID). Proposition 26 in 2010 passed with only 52.4% of the vote, not 67%. Section 1, Article XIII C "Voter Approval for Local Tax Levies" of the California Constitution was amended to read: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2010/general/pdf/englis… http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCS… "(e) As used in this article, “tax” means any levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government, EXCEPT the following: (1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege. (2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. (3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. (4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property. (5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government, as a result of a violation of law. (6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. (7) Assessments and property-related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D. The local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge, or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity, and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity. (Sec. 1 amended Nov. 2, 2010, by Prop. 26. Initiative measure.)" California Constitution Article XIID Assessment and Property-Related Fee Reform states: Section 2 (b) “Assessment” means any levy or charge upon real property by an agency for a special benefit conferred upon the real property. “Assessment” includes, but is not limited to, “special assessment,” “benefit assessment,” “maintenance assessment” and “special assessment tax.”
— August 28, 2014 2:46 p.m.