voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Like Mike
an independent nonprofit |
We depend on your donations. Consider joining us today.

Like Mike

Published: Monday, August 11, 2008 9:19 PM PDT



I have a feeling a lot of people will be talking about this morning's debate so I won't harp on the obvious absurdities of the exchanges.

But there was one point that bothered me. Incumbent City Attorney Mike Aguirre kept accusing his rival, Jan Goldsmith, of doing this or that simply to curry favor with the people who were endorsing him.

It was an incessant repetition. Aguirre kept thinking he had pinned Goldsmith down on the questions about who endorsed the former judge and who he was beholden too. This was kind of weak.

After all, Aguirre was the one with all the endorsements in 2004. It was Aguirre who pleaded with reporters to attend his big press conference when he announced the endorsement of the firefighters and police officers. Yet today, support from those groups was a bludgeon Aguirre's used to hit Goldsmith. Aguirre said support from unions was the only reason Goldsmith might criticize the city attorney's legacy pension lawsuit, for example.

But that's an old point.

One of the groups Aguirre was proud to receive the endorsement of in 2004 was the San Diego Association of Realtors.

Now, if I were him and I acted like he did today, I might make use of that little historical fact.

When Aguirre was explaining his foreclosure sanctuary lawsuit he had this to say (emphasis mine):

Foreclosures as a concept exist to collect when there's a legitimate debt but the state of Massachusetts, and our case here in San Diego, we've established a certain type of loan which was a subprime loan that was a predatory loan that had certain characteristics very specific characteristics that on their face was unfair.

What's happening is we need to stop those foreclosures stop the use of foreclosing for illegal loans so that we can try to help stabilize the market here in San Diego that's one of the functions that the city attorney's office performs -- a consumer function.

Whoa donkey! "Stabilize the market here in San Diego..." That's a clarion call to anxious homeowners all over the county who may not be facing foreclosure but are surely a bit freaked out about the plummeting value of their homes.

But perhaps not as freaked out about it as are local Realtors. Yes, the group who endorsed Aguirre four years ago spent every available minute of their time since then trying to convince people not to worry about those crazy loans that Aguirre now says are illegal. The housing market in San Diego would never go down, they claimed. Go ahead, get the weirdest loan you want and it won't matter because you'll be able to refinance or sell your home. Heck, you don't really want to live in that home longer than two years anyway, do you?

Now things have changed. Nobody wanted to "stabilize the market" when home prices were skyrocketing. Nobody cared about prudent residents who avoided the frenzy and temptation to get one of those loans. They found themselves priced out of the market.

Where's their city attorney?

Now, just as homes are becoming more affordable, Aguirre says it's time to stabilize the market. Who would that benefit? Most of the really struggling people trapped the worst loans would probably be better off foreclosing and moving to a rental than desperately trying to pay even a restructured mortgage.

The people who would undoubtedly benefit from a stabilized market are Realtors. Their commissions would finally recover. They could start selling again with assurance that their empty promises about the market being stable are now backed by the public's top lawyer.

Why, if I were like Mike, I might insinuate that the only reason he's doing what he's doing is as part of a desire to lobby for the group who endorsed him -- the powerful Realtors group.

And I would be wrong.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




Editor´s Choice
The reader comments you won't want to miss. (Editor's Choice selection do not represent the views of the editors. They are comments that seem to add to the discussion as opposed to less productive insults or arguments.)

What a bizarre take on such a small part of the debate. As the few comments that bothered to stay on topic have pointed out, it would be generous to call this supposed rationale -- connecting Aguirre's apparently absurd desire for a stabilized housing market to a 2004 Realtor's endorsement to the practices of completely separate lending institutions -- a stretch. I also got a kick out of this imaginative retelling of the debate in which Aguirre apparently criticized Goldsmith simply for having endorsements (as opposed to criticizing Goldsmith for the particular endorsements he has). Below-average attempt, Scott, but as I'm sure you can see, the Aguirre-bashers in the comments don't even care what the column is about as long as it gives them another chance to say "bully" and "squirrel." Hopefully the man will give you something better to work with next week.

Posted by Neal | reply to this comment
August 15, 2008 10:04 pm

27 Comments so far on this story...

Goldsmith has already promised the Municipal Unions that he will drop the pension appeal, thereby solidifying multi-billion of dollars in pension benefit, never voted on by the taxpayers as required by law. Under the Enforcement Section 17204 of the California Business and Professional Code, Mr. Aguirre is helping the taxpayers fight against fraud link Mr. Aguirre stated: We believe these borrowers are victims of fraud and were roped into unconventional sub-prime loans when they probably could have qualified for a conventional fixed-rate mortgage...the parties come together and work out a reasonable alternative based on the values of these properties today...” link Helping families stay in their homes is noble. Because of Mr. Aguirre stance on protected home value, Countrywide stated they are willing to correct their opportunistic ways and work with their customers. In contrast, Goldsmith would do nothing. It is the difference between being proactive and doing_nothing.

Posted by La Playa Heritage | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 2:52 am

Very simply Agurrie "wears a suit of no clothes." His attempts to attack Goldsmith were weak and juvenile. With regard to the pension lawsuit Goldsmith pointed out that Aguirre's points were found to be to little, too late and baseless, but Aguirre ignored the legal facts. As for Aguirre attacking Goldsmith's support from the Lincoln Club were clear example of his in ability to view reality with a clear mind. To call Goldsmith a "right winger" is ignorant. I hope the rest of San Diego is as sick of Michael Aguirre as I am. I just want it to be over!

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 3:49 am

Sorry Scott, but you have too much rhetoric in this article. Not all realtors acted in this way, some did, however, it was the loan officers who made the loans, and it is the financial institutions who backed them. We recently sold a house in La Jolla and bought in NorCal and we experienced the best and worst of realty practitioners, so please be balanced. It doesn't help the market to make blanket statements. As for homeowners better off being renters - perhaps some would - but if one has never owned a home before, has children in the local school, they play at the local park, have friends in the neighborhood and are no longer at the whim of landlords, it might not appear that way at all. It is a multi-variate problem - as are most!

Posted by Sue Moore | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 5:24 am

Wow, Scott, get your facts straight. Real estate agents are not loan officers and do not comment on loans. People get loans and loan recommendations from mortgage brokers. Some brokers represent buyers, but this is rare. Aguirre's accusation that Goldsmith, a right wing republican, is endorsed by labor unions because he will drop the pension suit is an honest analysis of the situation. Then at the end you cry about a "foreclosure sanctuary" when in reality, he is just defending those people whom were defrauded by lenders. You provide no analysis of what created the housing bubble in the first place. The Fed changed the rules of what was allowed to purchase a home and gave more leeway to institutional lenders in designing their own loans. Many engaged in fraudulent lending practices which formed the basis of Aguirre's suit.

Posted by freethinker | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 8:09 am

Scott, who do You know of the 'local Realtors?' "..who endorsed Aguirre four years ago,' who tried to, "convince people not to worry about those crazy loans that Aguirre now says are illegal," saying, "The housing market in San Diego would never go down?" The group has itself been 'infiltrated & controlled' by certain special interests, hopefully to change soon. With it for decades, a Few of us discouraged Any Clients from buying into these 'liar loans.' There IS reason for Mike and Many Cities suing those who pushed this Lender Fraud-that SD's naive/corrupt politicians endorsed. Did you Listen to the wrong, short-term, developer-backed, profit-minded-only real estate agents, to get into a home? Or now you're not getting 'nice invites' to their parties? Otherwise, we can't figure out why you so Continually Attack the only person who 'does the right thing' for SD's residents?

Posted by Wake up | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 8:30 am

Mike Aguirre is a one-trick pony. File a law suit. Lose a law suit. File an appeal. Lose an appeal. Call everyone involved with the other side/opinion corrupt. Old news. move on.

Posted by Point Loman | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 8:56 am

H! Aguirre haters. It matters not what Mike Aguirre has done for we citizens, it's all the impure gossip you naive people fall for and into. A Question: Can any of you Aguirre haters provide one name of any local politician past or present who has really looked out for us? And don't give me the Pete Wilson propaganda. He was as much for the downtown machine as any politician. Okay, the ball is now in your court; let's hear some names.

Posted by Pietro | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 10:24 am

The pension benefits granted in 2002 were not required to be approved by the voters. That was the whole point of putting it on the ballot in 2004, so any future increases in pension benefits would require voter approval. Unless a court determines them to be illegal, the pension benefits are valid and must be paid.

Posted by Cheeky | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 11:03 am

Pietro, the true "puppet master" in this election is Aguirre's self-serving ego. As previously Posted, in the last election Aguirre pandered to the City Employee Unions, but only received the support of the Police Officers Association. Their support was for a strong City Attorney to support them in enforcing the misdemeanor laws in San Diego. Aguirre has failed drastically in this area. It's been documented that thousands, upon thousands, of valid Misdemeanor Cases sent to the City Attorney's Office for prosecution have never been prosecuted! It's a costly waste of the Police Officer's efforts. Aguirre has the majority of his office's resources chasing their tails, from one law suit to another, one appeal to another, from one social or natural disaster crisis to another, etc. While the work of the City Attorney goes undone. The loan crisis was first a State issue, and Aguirre said it's now Federal; SO?

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 12:23 pm

Be very careful about supporting Goldsmith. he was handpicked by special interests, primarily the developers to take over so that the corruption can remain under wraps. VOSD, you guys are too hard on Aguirre and way to easy on Goldsmith. Aguirre is in a tough position and we owe him a debt of gratitude. I dont always agree w/ him, but I believe that he is genuinely on the side of the public. I KNOW Goldsmith is not.

Posted by Christine | reply to this comment
August 12, 2008 8:07 pm

Good blog. I bet Aguirre tried to call you up and scream at you about how you were wrong after you posted this, about how you were corrupt, how voice got $30 from someone who is a member of the Lincoln Club, etc. Aguirre needs a straightjacket and maybe an honorary Realtor blazer for carrying the water of special interests.

Posted by Beholden to the Realtors | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 6:26 am

Hey Ralph, We get it that you hate Aguirre, but making undocumented statements that only you say are documented is as transparent as your own personal interest in seeing Mike go away. Far as I can see his is the only office in City government looking out for the people instead of themselves. Now go put on your uniform and hit your beat. And Scott, you really ought to get a grip. While I'm sure that real estate salespeople where happier than squirting clams that lenders decided to make loans to anyone who made the highest offer on a property, they didn't fail to check the credit of applicants and make predatory loans based on BS, that was the lenders.

Posted by Jaxonb | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 6:38 am

Enough about Aguirre. What is our strong mayor doing about CDCC, SEDC, inflated bills on debris hauling from the fires, pot holes, sewer spills, homelessness etc? I'd like to know....can the UT give us a report since we don't get one from the Mayor's office? What is Sanders doing and working on? How come Sanders is not out in the public eye asking the people of San Diego what they expect of our government and coming up with a plan of action? I don't want to hear from Sainz .... let him go so he can talk about his new employer and life. We are here and now!

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 9:20 am

Jaxonb, First I'm not an officer; second can you deny the fact that Aguirre pandered to all of the City Unions during the first race; third can you deny the fact that over the last 3 years there are literally thousands of misdeameanor cases that have not been prosecuted; fourth, Aguirre was making statements as the City Attorney on the La Jolla hill collapse before the dirt had quit moving, and the cause had been determined; fifth, that he recommended an evacuation of the City of San Diego during the fires without consulting the firefighting agencies; sixth, that he's taken credit for the success of the De LaFuente case, when it was started before he came to office; seventh; his pension appeals are not founded by the law, case law or any precedents; eigth, he mistreats people in his office; etc. etc. etc. My information is extremely good!

Posted by Ralph of San Diego | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 11:46 am

The City Attorney contest may be said to represent a battle between the people making millions off of redevelopment and development and the redirection of tax increment revenues to their own groups -v- the average citizens of San Diego. Goldsmith and Mike can be said to represent these two sides. I believe it is clear for all to see that Mike does not blindly support the big developers/redevelop and it seems clear to see that Goldsmith is the redevelopers/develop candidate of choice. It look as if we have had no less than 20 years of local government being in the near absolute control of the developers/redevelop With revenue falling, infrastructure crumpling, and City Services being cut hand-over-fist, perhaps it is time for a change.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 5:36 pm

Right on Ralph of San Diego! How soon People forget. Fortunately, I believe we will have enough of us around to keep the public re-informed of the disasterous 4 years of Aguirre. I even think Edgar is geting on board.

Posted by Ron Weiss | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 7:05 pm

And Aguirre loves squirrels! Don't forget that! I know I feel better knowing that our City Attorney watches out for the rodents taking over our parks.

Posted by Ann | reply to this comment
August 13, 2008 10:11 pm

Ralph is incorrect about the pension case not having basis in case law. But Ralph is clearly not a lawyer either. Aguirre won the appeal on the De LaFuente case, the mayor cuts Aguirre's staff by 30% then idiots wonder why misdeameanor (wow-big deal) cases back up. You people repeat the lies in the UT, then you dont even care about the pay-for-play politics that have ruined this city. Then you support Goldsmith who will ignore the major crimes that insiders have committing to swindle this city for decades.

Posted by Freethinker | reply to this comment
August 14, 2008 7:13 am

Ralph, that's a pretty good run-down, but you forgot to add "playground bully" to the list. I honestly wonder how this man retains his bar card sometimes.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
August 14, 2008 7:41 am

As Judge Barton said to Aguirre in the courtroom during the pension case, regarding his arguments, that the city should be going after the city (itself), because the city was the driving force in the pension underfunding. Rush Limbaugh was advising listeners back then to watch their employers because they were going after the pension funds. The city would have done anything to get at the employee's money. And they took until the pension was underfunded. The city was not the victim here but the culprit. Judge Barton made his decision against Aguirre on two important issues. First, Aguirre filed after the statue of limitations - and secondly, after 6 amended cross complaints, Aguirre sued the wrong folks! That's just bad lawyering in my book. We need a good attorney for the city now. Time to move on back to sanity.

Posted by Kathi Ward | reply to this comment
August 14, 2008 2:32 pm

Like Mayor Sainz, I mean Mayor Sanders? How would you interpret this statement written in the VOS? Sainz, said the mayor focused on filling what he considered the most important posts first, citing appointments made to the Centre City Development Corp., the employees' retirement system and the Planning Commission. "That's not to say that SEDC is not important," he said. Then if appointments were important, why didn't our Mayor act on them? HUH? Tell me? What is Sanders doing?

Posted by Norman | reply to this comment
August 15, 2008 5:22 am

Freethinker, why do you continue to mistate the facts? Aguirre had NOTHING to do with the de la Fuente case. Latham & Watkins handled that case from well before Aguirre was elected. And Sanders did not cut his staff by 30%. For 2008, Sanders refused to fund 14 unfunded positions. When that budget passed, Aguirre got rid of only 5 attorneys, NONE of which where the ones he said were threatened. Shortly thereafter, he gave raises to his closest advisors (and contributors) in the office. The 2009 budget was about $400k less than 2008, or about 4 attorneys (3% staff cut at worst) - Hardly the 30% you claim. Why should anyone listen to you when you can't even get the most basic facts correct?

Posted by Rock Ojn | reply to this comment
August 15, 2008 10:09 am

Editor´s Choice
What a bizarre take on such a small part of the debate. As the few comments that bothered to stay on topic have pointed out, it would be generous to call this supposed rationale -- connecting Aguirre's apparently absurd desire for a stabilized housing market to a 2004 Realtor's endorsement to the practices of completely separate lending institutions -- a stretch. I also got a kick out of this imaginative retelling of the debate in which Aguirre apparently criticized Goldsmith simply for having endorsements (as opposed to criticizing Goldsmith for the particular endorsements he has). Below-average attempt, Scott, but as I'm sure you can see, the Aguirre-bashers in the comments don't even care what the column is about as long as it gives them another chance to say "bully" and "squirrel." Hopefully the man will give you something better to work with next week.

Posted by Neal | reply to this comment
August 15, 2008 10:04 pm

Let's see, Aguirre criticizes Goldsmith for being backed by the POA. The same POA that backed Aguirre in 2004. Why was it ok for Mike to claim the POA in his camp, but not Goldsmith?

Posted by Cobracat | reply to this comment
August 17, 2008 7:20 pm

Ridiculous M-haters! The realtors had endorsed their 'guy' before December '07 was over! Before the Primary, Before even knowing who was 'running!' The Special Interests there-all 'agreed' that this 'experiment ' of impossible loans was good-not 'remembering' the Home Fed debacle, 20 years ago! Aren't Lenders & Developers (in close association),'associ members' on the board? What choice does the rest of San Diego have? Another Casey Gwinn-on the wings, more corruption, more 'slight of hand.'..especially from 'ex-judges' who, like the present lending crisis, ignore history. Learn from the past? Or will we follow again, the same diatribe, 'Never in San Diego do the corrupt get caught', where the politicians & special interests-many Real estate folks...COUNT on SD's 'transient population', being stupid, always falling for the same old 'tricks' that 'worked before'- anyone can pull one in 'SCAM DIEGO.

Posted by Wide Awake | reply to this comment
August 18, 2008 12:50 pm

The point is that Aguirre proudly received the same endorsement four years ago that he condemns Goldsmith for getting this time around. The same is true with the POA and many endorsements he lauded in 2004. It appears Aguirre is simply playing politics at a transparently 3rd grade level when he engages in such obvious hiposrisy. No one has addressed this issue, because it can't be explained.

Posted by Rock On | reply to this comment
August 21, 2008 10:38 am

Personally I may be better off if the pension benefits were to stay in place, but that is not really the question. It is not about what is better for me or any single group I may belong to, nor even about if I like or dislike someone on a personal level; it is about our city and the average person living in our city. It seems clear that we have no oversight, little to no effort enforcing contract compliance, few if any checks and balances, and little if any ethics/integrity in our city owned planning, development, or redevelopment departments. We seem to have more homeless, hungry, and citizens in need of assistance. Who's working actively with these problems, our city attorney. What is most sad? IT IS NOT HIS JOB, but who else would even try? Our Mayor? Yeah, hold your breath and wait for that.

Posted by Iknowtodd | reply to this comment
September 17, 2008 10:45 am


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
820acb9

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.

'Outrageous':

 

What CCDC's board members said when Nancy Graham first addressed conflict-of-interest allegations.

Monday, September 8 -- 5:26 pm

The Un-Refuted Claim:

 

No CCDC staffers challenged Nancy Graham when she told the agency's board that she didn't negotiate a deal.

Monday, September 8 -- 4:41 pm

Council Approves Notice for Water Rate Increases:

 

Added revenue would pay for pilot program for sewage recycling.

Monday, September 8 -- 4:21 pm


Sponsored By

MOST POPULAR STORIES:

SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

More on Vantage Pointe :

 

A take from a guy who pulled out of the building.

Friday, September 5 -- 11:50 am

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Prop D: Ender of Benders:

 

Kick back with an O'Doul's, it's time to vote on the booze ban.

Monday, September 8 -- 3:36 pm

CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

Quid Pro No:

 

Prop S will cast its heaviest financial burdens on those least-equipped to deal with it -- young first-time homebuyers.

Thursday, September 4 -- 1:28 pm

COMMENTARY: SLOP

Like Graham, Minus the Lies :

 

What CCDC wants from its next prez.

Friday, September 5 -- 2:24 pm

COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

Monthly House Payments, Rents, and Incomes :

 

Monthly payments are less out of whack than home prices themselves -- but this could be deceiving.

Thursday, September 4 -- 9:49 pm

Sponsored by

This Just In

The Economics of School Lunch:

 More factoids on why a free lunch makes money for San Diego Unified. » Jan. 8 -- 3:07 pm



Which Schools Serve the Most Lunches:

 Hoover tops the list and La Jolla is last.

Jan. 8 -- 2:09 pm


Frye: What's So Secret?:

 Councilwoman wants talks on retirement benefits.

Jan. 8 -- 2:03 pm


SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

Six Days, 798 'For Sale' Signs:

 A look at inventory in the first few days of the year.

Jan. 8 -- 3:25 pm



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Eww de Toilet:

 Want to drink recycled sewage? Don't forget to factor human error into the equation.

Jan. 8 -- 2:11 pm



CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

MPA Success Stories:

 Here's a look at the tangible results MPAs have yielded.

Jan. 6 -- 4:30 pm



COMMENTARY: SLOP

You're Corrupt? Get Out of Jail!:

 Convicts find freedom, the former city manager of Chula Vista heads to Iraq, and more tidbits.

Jan. 6 -- 7:22 pm



COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

Another Resale Home Price Drop in December:

 The median-based price indicators closed out a dismal 2008 with another monthly decline.

Jan. 6 -- 4:06 pm


Copyright © 2008 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.