Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 19, 2019 at 12:32 PM in reply to: Piggington’s Evoloution-when will housing prices become the discussion again. #812133March 19, 2019 at 11:05 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #812131
bearishgurl
ParticipantWell, it looks like phaster beat me to the punch (on a current thread) as to the conclusion of this extremely lengthy, colossally-expensive, go-nowhere litigation (as predicted lo-o-o-ong ago). Of course, City’s humongous legal tab was mainly picked up from Teeter Funds garnered from its property taxpayers (but likely not phaster to a large extent, due to his gigantic Prop 58 reduction in his property taxes … lol).
The 4th DCA-1 in San Diego now must fashion a remedy for all those city employees hired within a particular window who were involuntarily thrown into the ill-fated Prop B retirement tier, both vested and unvested! Was anyone here actually expecting a different outcome?
Um, phaster?? As I have posted here many times before, CA Government Code section 3500 et seq. is well-settled LAW in CA. Why on earth would SCOTUS bother to review this case?? They only agree to hear about 9% of cases brought to them.
As you may recall, the cities of Vallejo and San Bernardino filed for municipal bankruptcy in the fairly recent past and neither city was able to discharge their pension obligations made in good faith during employee collective bargaining under the MMBA (CA GC sec 3500 et seq). For reference, see:
https://www.perb.ca.gov/laws/mmba.aspx
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/milias-meyers-brown-act.html
phaster and all others here guilty of continually lambasting CA state and local government pensions must now accept the results of the CA Supreme Court decision to reverse the 4th DCA-1’s opinion and order it to decide how these thousands of affected City employees will be made whole.
October 30, 2018 at 11:12 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #811134ParticipantYou’ve got Jerry Sanders and his “sidekick” Carl DeMaio to thank for this mess as well as the SDTPA and the Lincoln Club (who acted as “straw” plaintiffs for City) and their ilk.
You SD residents would do well to log all this info in the back of your brain and bring it out when needed as these idiots (who somehow believe they are “movers and shakers” in SD) will likely come up with more harebrained schemes for SD taxpayers to fund.
October 30, 2018 at 10:56 AM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #811133ParticipantUhh, phaster?? You’ve been straying off the subject here, as usual. This thread is about SDCERS/Prop B.
Why don’t you create your own Libertarian blog where, as the moderator, you can rant all you want through your ultra-repetitive, cut-and-paste diatribes with ridiculous cartoons which nobody reads?? As an interesting social experiment that YOU’LL be paying for, you will surely be able to gauge how much traffic you generate to your blog over time.
**********************************************************
Now, back to the OP. Of COURSE, the CA Supreme Court denied City’s Petition for Rehearing on 10/10/18. The 4th DCA (Div 1 – SD) issued its remittitur on 10/12/18 and the Supreme Court received its copy of it on 10/22/18.
How did this happen, you ask? Um, well, because the MMBA (CA Gov Code section 3500 et seq) is well-settled law which has been in place since the 1960’s. DUH! City WELL KNEW all of this but instead arrogantly elected to waste millions of your taxpayer funds on this go-nowhere litigation, including the fees of at least five attorney firms of their opponents that they have now been ordered to pay back PLUS three outside attorney firms for themselves over the years cuz their own “in-house attorneys” had a blatant conflict of interest (the [DCAA] Deputy City Attorney’s Association was one of the charging parties in the underlying ULP charge which had a decision from its [proper] tribunal which became the entire basis for this ill-fated case, lol). In other words, folks, the wheel was invented long ago to address this issue and it’s called “Meet and Confer.”
http://www.caperb.com/2011/03/25/a-little-history-on-the-labor-movement/
After five years and eight months, its GAME OVER for SD. Among other thorny actuarial calculations they will be forced to hire expensive consultants to make, they are now forced to figure out how to UNDO their pension takeaways for their newer employees who were not yet vested in SDCERS as of about June 30, 2012. What a mess! It’s time to put their heads together and come up with a PLAN to make their affected employees whole again. I will surmise that none of your elected or appointed “officials” have any idea how to fix these problems they created without a lot of outside help (more $$$$$ off SD taxpayer’s backs).
Was anyone really expecting a different outcome?
August 29, 2018 at 5:01 PM in reply to: OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B #810795ParticipantWell Peeps, here we ARE, five and a half years after the adverse PERB decision against City with this Decision coming across my desk this morning from my monthly retirement “union’s” newsletter.
I haven’t had a chance to peruse the entire decision yet but the case has been reversed and remanded back to the 4th DCA, Div 1 (SD) for “further proceedings to resolve issues beyond the scope of this opinion.” Please wait to load pdf:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S242034.PDF
Predictably, Proponents of the measure (Lincoln Club et al?) elected to appeal the aforementioned Feb 2013 (subject of this thread) PERB decision re: illegal placement of Prop B on the 2012 ballot and won at the appellate level. Then the unions appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court which issued its opinion on 8/2/18. Due to the City Attorney’s office’s blatant conflict of interest (their own union was one of the charging parties in the ULP charge which was the subject of the underlying PERB decision which was appealed, lol), the firm of Lounsberry Ferguson Altona and Peak out of Escondido was hired to represent them before the California Supreme Court (partially with YOUR tax dollars, folks). Opposing counsel (for Firefighters Local 145) were among the heaviest-hitting, most well-versed labor law attorneys in the entire state (Smith & Steiner of Smith Steiner Vanderpool and Wax).
The four attorneys from LFA&P likely cost City several hundred-thousand dollars in fees because the case is still ongoing (City will likely end up being on the hook for the three Respondent unions’ attorney fees) and has undoubtedly proved to be a HUGE FAIL for Team City and a colossal waste of money. (Do any of you still have potholes that have needed filling in your neighborhood for years?)
We can assume by the Supreme Court’s instructions for remand that the placement of Prop B on the City ballot in 2012 by then Mayor Sanders, et al was found to be illegal due to City’s failure to first meet and confer with all unions representing city employees who would be adversely affected by the passage of Prop B (involuntary reduction in wages, salary, benefits or working conditions). Of course, the city employees most harmed by City’s failure to meet and confer were those employees hired from as far back as FY 05/06 to the present who will or already have been placed on a “401K-style” retirement tier created by Prop B. (The “pensionable pay freeze” that was supposed to be implemented on current employees during the ensuing years pursuant to Prop B never came to pass due to an agreement with the unions over meet & confers on that issue during Mayor Filner’s tenure.)
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-pension-ruling-20180802-story.html#
The $64M question here is, will all those affected pensions be subject to recalculation?
Here is the ballot text (including arguments for and against Prop B) – wait to load:
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/city-clerk/pdf/pensionbenefits.pdf
It is very likely that more than half of those similarly-situated employees hired in the past ~12 years are already vested. However, city has since removed their “Retirement Plan Summary Booklet” link for General Members from their site re: vesting rules (perhaps since this Decision came down?) See:
https://www.sdcers.org/Member-Benefits/Active/City-of-San-Diego/General-Members.aspx
Well, of course they did, since it appears City will soon be court-ordered to “undo” everything they have done to new hires since the passage of Prop B. Are we surprised?? How much is all this going to cost City taxpayers? Will City need to bring in outside actuaries and other specialists to reverse the big mess they made by jumping the gun to implement all or part of Prop B while still in litigation?? It’s going to be interesting so stay tuned!
Meanwhile, Ex-Mayor Sanders and Ex-Councilman DeMaio et al are both still beyond delusional and eager to waste millions more of your money. See:
San Diego’s Deplorables: Jerry Sanders & Carl DeMaio Want to Sell ‘Son of B’ to Voters
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-pension-ruling-20180802-story.html
State Supreme Court Upends Prop. B, San Diego’s Public Pension Reform
Here’s a recent VOSD article on Ann Smith. She’s a powerhouse!
I do NOT believe that City’s Petition for Rehearing (filed 8/20) will be granted.
Phaster . . . where ARE you?? You’re a resident of SD. Have you been paying attention to this recent “real-world” occurrence (instead of your usual rant-filled Libertarian blogs)?
The wheels of justice turn slowly . . . . but they DO turn :=D
Happy reading, Piggs!
ParticipantI just researched common core a little and realized it only applied to my youngest and only in HS.
Aside with helping with 4th grade mission projects, I didn’t get too involved in my kids’ schoolwork, as I am unqualified to do so. I left that to the professionals … their excellent public school teachers and after-school programs they attended.
I have the utmost respect for public school teachers. They manage to get the best out of their students often with few resources. I don’t have the skills or patience for it. CVESD and SUHSD have the best teachers … just incredible. And a high percentage of them have a LOT of experience. Many of them stay on past retirement age even though they could have retired yesterday for the same monthly pay. They just love what they do.
ParticipantTime to dig out your trenchcoat, folks, and book a holiday trip to SF :=)
Participant[quote=plm][quote=bearishgurl][quote=spdrun]For either price, I’d take the fucking BART.[/quote]So would I (and exit Daly City to board the SamTrans bus line which goes to the SFO – not sure about CalTrain but I don’t think so). Also, (mostly business-type) hotels in SSF, Colma (Serramonte area), Millbrae, Burlingame and the Brisbane Business Park (just south of Candlestick Park, facing the bay) have their own shuttles to/from SFO. So do many hotels in SF but I have found the ones which have airport shuttles to be too expensive.
I almost always drive to SF. When I don’t stay with my kid(s), I have stayed in the Beresford and Beresford Arms (BA has very large rooms). They used to comp guests in the commercial parking lots they used for valet parking (normally $20+ daily). The guest just needs tips for the valet. They also have a nice wine and cheese buffet laid out for guests between 3:00 and 5:00 pm daily :=]
I’ve also stayed at the Holiday Inn at the Wharf. It has (cramped) free parking for guests but its rooms are very small.
The other hotels I’ve stayed in up there were in the SFO cities, mentioned above. They are out of the city so have more room (and free parking for guests) but a guest in those hotels really needs a car at their disposal (whether their own or rented).
Another thing … Many hotels in SF and near SFO are quite old and some are a bit remote (ex: the Brisbane). As such, they didn’t have wifi in the rooms when I stayed there. You can attach your computer to their network via CAT 5 cable (provided on the desk in the room). I carry a longer CAT 5 wire with me if I plan to stay in a hotel like this so I can use my computer in different parts of the room. Their lobbies DO have wifi and a computer room with printers and sending/receiving faxes is free at the Beresfords’ front desks.[/quote]
You might want to invest in a travel router for when there is no wifi. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00RVIGY1I?tag=hootoo-us09-20
I have the older model so don’t know how this one is but it takes care of all my needs, wifi router, charger, battery bank, transfer files.[/quote]That looks interesting, plm. I’ll check them out.
I just looked at the Beresford sites and they apparently have wifi now, lol …
http://www.beresford.com/beresford/rooms.htm
http://www.beresford.com/arms/
It’s been a few years since I’ve stayed there. The pics make me wish I was spending TK weekend there at the BA! November is the best time to visit SF … especially during Veteran’s Day weekend!
Christmas is nice there, too. The skating rink at Union Square is up and running in November.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]AN, if you live in an attendance area of excellent public schools, what do you have against them? Do you currently have any kids attending public school in your neighborhood?
If not, how do you know your public school will offer a sub-par education for them?[/quote]
I have nothing against them. I just like the private school I sent my kid to better. I have my kid going from private to public, so I know exactly what both system provide.I never say anything about sub-par.[/quote]Is your kid currently attending public school … or are they still at their private school?
ParticipantAN, if you live in an attendance area of excellent public schools, what do you have against them? Do you currently have any kids attending public school in your neighborhood?
If not, how do you know your public school will offer a sub-par education for them?
November 23, 2016 at 12:23 PM in reply to: Conventional Loan limits going up a bit in 2017 ! #804078ParticipantInteresting, HLS. Can you explain the Agency High Balance? Is that the difference between conforming and jumbo rates … possibly the “superconforming limit?”
November 23, 2016 at 12:21 PM in reply to: Electoral College: the disenfranchisement of Californians #804076Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]One thing I’m thankful for is that Orange County finally flipped blue as i predicted, thanks to changing demographics.
The takeover of coastal California is finally complete (who cares about Del Norte County).http://m.ocregister.com/articles/county-734831-orange-blue.html
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/californiaThe deplorables can have the rust belt.[/quote]I was surprised to see Fresno County go (light) blue this cycle. The OC isn’t deep blue yet so it always has the possibility of turning purple or even red again.
Deplorables have wa-a-a-a-y more than just the rust belt. Don’t discount them, FIH. They have proven that they are a force to be reckoned with.
Participant[quote=flu]Lol… Looks neither sides like here. Perfect! She’s for voucher and supported common core…. Lol. But maybe you can still have it both ways… Go to a charter school that ain’t teaching common core.
Edit: noticed she’s also a billionaire elite. I bet all her kids go to ivy’s.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/politics/betsy-devos-picked-for-education-secretary/index.html
But Trump is also already drawing fire from both sides of the political spectrum for his pick. The largest teacher’s union in the country slammed DeVos within an hour of the announcement for her advocacy of charter schools and school voucher programs, while conservatives quickly pointed out DeVos’ association with groups supporting the Common Core education standards, which Trump has vowed to nix.
DeVos chairs the American Federation for Children, a group that promotes charter school education, and also served on the board of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, a group led by former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush — one of Trump’s GOP primary opponents — which promoted both school choice and the Common Core education standards.
[/quote]I have responded to the Trump campaign’s request for comment on this issue several times. I am against vouchers and explained to them in detail why they will not fly in CA. There will be too much public opposition to it and the CEA will block it until the cows come home. I have no opinion about common core. I believe my youngest kid had the common core curriculum in most of their public K-12 education.Participant[quote=FlyerInHi] . . . Don’t bother me no more.[/quote]FIH/brian. from your last several posts, I gather you are suffering terribly from sore-loseritis. It’s okay … this condition has become quite common of late among the uber-liberal/progressive set.
Say, I have a deplorable friend in SD County whose sow had cute little pink piglets. Are you in SD and if so, would you like to borrow one for TK weekend? They’re tame enough to sit on your lap while you pet them over and over and get out all of your micro-agression through love and compassion. You will also get the opportunity to bottle-feed it. Let me know :=)
Participant[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]flu, she’s actually not anti-common core. Although, she’s not pro-common core either. So, I’m assuming she can be swayed one way or the other. But the biggest thing about her is that she push for private school voucher. That would be F*cking AWESOME if she can get it done before 2017-2018 school year.[/quote]AN, I thought you previously posted here that you live in an attendance area of awesome public schools![/quote]Not as awesome as the private school my kids could be going to.[/quote]You DO realize that “school vouchers” will only pay a portion of private school tuition (unless they are Catholic or Protestant – Grades 1-8 only, which tend to be less expensive). I would surmise that you will only receive 1/3 to 1/4 of the tuition from a voucher to pay for any non-denominational well-known private school in SD and possibly only enough to pay 1/5 to 1/6 of the (exorbitant) tuition for private HS through your kid(s) voucher.
-
AuthorPosts