Obsolete Pete

E-MAIL POST

When Pete Wilson, then the mayor of San Diego in the 1970s, created the model of using a semi-private corporation to perform redevelopment, it was hailed as a success story around the country. The genius of this structure was built on three pillars:

(1) Autonomous from the city's employment system. Hiring, salaries and bonuses of the corporation employees could be set independently from the city. The corporation could thus emulate private sector practices in hiring as opposed to the civil service system, and did not have the limitations imposed on bonuses and raises that city workers face.

(2) No electoral accountability. Neither the board members nor the key executives in such a corporation could be voted in or out of office. This buffered the structure from direct voter influence.

(3) Input from the private industry at the highest levels. Since the Board members themselves were from the private sector (often from the real estate, finance and development industry), there was a seamless venue between the regulators and the developers.

After 30 years in the works, this structure now faces a crisis. The autonomous employment system has raised questions about irregular pay practices and bonuses. The lack of electoral accountability has put the mayor and Council on the hot seat for responding to a public outcry over improprieties that they had little role in directing. And the questionable involvement of developers at top levels has put the limelight on the perceived conflicts of those that are supposed to be serving the public interest.

The reporting by voiceofsandiego.org has exposed not only the fundamental problems with the Pete Wilson structure of redevelopment, but it has tainted the credibility of the agency itself to the point that no amount of grand jury reports and citizen complaints could do. As a planner who thinks that redevelopment could generate community benefits if done right, I have several questions that result from this dilemma:

Question: To what extent has the privatization of the redevelopment function of government been responsible for the problems of this Pete Wilson model?

Question: Are taxpayers really benefiting from these entities, and who watches their books? For example, why is voiceofsandiego.org doing the homework that the city auditor is supposed to do?

Question: Are our conflict-of-interest and revolving door policies adequate and clear enough for the staff and boards of these entities, in order to regain the public trust?

It is time to raise these questions. It is time to end the "holy cow" status of CCDC and SEDC.

--MURTAZA BAXAMUSA

Thursday, July 24 -- 7:56 pm

 
Click here to post comments (0 posted so far)

A New Path

E-MAIL POST

As a consumer of new technology, both owners and veterinarians should ask for the best data available and then evaluate the evidence as to the risk-benefit.

Since stem cell therapy is quite new, many vets are not yet trained or current on the recent advances. The most recent publication on stem cell therapy in dog hip arthritis was published in the peer-reviewed journal, Veterinary Therapeutics, in December 2007.

In a clinical study of real hip arthritis in large referral clinics, the use of stem cells was proven to statistically improve lameness, pain, range of motion and disability compared to a blinded control group that was treated with just saline placebo. This is the kind of data we like to see as clinicians and owners to help us decide the value of a new treatment.

-- BOB HARMAN

Thursday, July 24 -- 11:31 am

 
Click here to post comments (0 posted so far)

In Praise of the F-Word

E-MAIL POST

Stem Cells from Fat?

Not only are there stem cells in your own fat tissue, over 1,000 veterinarians from all over the U.S. have treated over 3,000 horses and dogs with orthopedic injuries using each animals own fat tissue as the source of stem cells.  Each animal is its own donor!  No controversy about embryos, no controversy about religion, and no controversy about ethics.  Your veterinarian can use this procedure to help your dog with arthritis or your horse with a bowed tendon.  This technology has been adapted from research in human medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and UCLA.  And, surprise, it is brought to the veterinary community by San Diego-based Vet-Stem in Poway.   This technology is in clinical testing in the United States in humans (heart disease and reconstructive surgery) and across the world. 

Another San Diego-based company called Cytori has been developing this therapy for humans, but it is still several years away from commercial approval.  But Vet-Stem has been providing this service to veterinarians across the U.S. for over five years.  So how does it work?  Your veterinarian can get certified to do the procedure via an advanced internet course in regenerative medicine.  Then they do a simple in-clinic procedure (which is not very different from procedures they do every day) to collect a small sample of fat (a few tablespoons) from under the skin.  They FedEx the sample in a special box to a lab in Poway.  The next day, the lab technicians at Vet-Stem extract, purify and concentrate the stem cells in the fat and return them the same day in a syringe to inject into the joint or tendon that is injured.  It is totally natural, and is, in fact, the way we all heal anyway.  It is just an accelerated way to enhance the natural healing of your pet's injury.  Over 70 percent of animals treated with their own stem cells have a very positive response and side effects are less than 1 percent.  Let's talk about how this applies to your pets and how this might be used in the near future for ourselves.  Anyone have arthritis or an injured knee?

--BOB HARMAN

Thursday, July 24 -- 12:28 pm

 
Click here to post comments (2 posted so far)

Life's No Beach for Littered Shores

E-MAIL POST

I want to thank the reader that posted the link to the Los Angeles Times flash presentation "Altered Oceans." It's amazing to read some of the facts they have about ocean pollution:

--90 percent of worldwide stocks of big fish have disappeared

--Over the past seven years, 650 gray whales have washed up dead on beaches

And the one that really caught my eye: "On Midway Atoll, forty percent of albatross chicks die, their bellies full of trash." Animals are actually overwhelmed and dying because of all the trash out at sea. If you want to learn about other sources of ocean pollution, check out the Surf eCo blog.

It's amazing the impact humans can have on the ocean without knowing what they are doing.

In response to littering laws, I was wrong, there are some weak littering laws along with many other laws for beaches. In a long list of rules and regulations for the beaches, the only two littering laws that I could find were the following two:

All helium, blow up, metallic/mylar, water balloons and balloon arches are NOT allowed in the beach and park areas

You are responsible to clean up after yourself. Please put your trash in the trash cans and/or the dumpsters within the park and beach area. Please do NOT litter. 

Unfortunately these rules are not regulated. You will see police patrolling the beach to issue citations to people for loud noise, alcohol, dogs, and smoking. But I don't think I've ever seen a law enforcement officer write a ticket for littering n it's just frowned upon. I do agree that giving lifeguards the ability to ticket for littering would be a great idea, but I can see where this can distract them from doing their jobs. 

Well, it looks like it's up to us. Spread the word. Pick up three pieces of trash every time you go to the beach and get someone else to join you. Even if you don't immediately notice the effect, it will make a huge difference for our future.

--TORREY TRUST

Wednesday, July 23 -- 5:28 pm

 
Click here to post comments (2 posted so far)

EnviroSurfing

E-MAIL POST

When you think of surfing, you think of a person standing on a board in the ocean. What you don't realize is that there are many aspects of surfing that are not environmentally friendly.

Surfboards:Most surfboards consist of polyurethane foam and fiberglass. The Environmental Protection Agency closed Clark Foam, one of the world's biggest foam plank distributors for surfboards in the world, in 2005 because the polyurethane is highly toxic. Fiberglass is a cheap and not-so-sturdy resin. Fiberglass boards break a lot easier and more and more surfboards are ending up in landfills today.

And don't even get me started with the extremely cheap foam boards that most surf schools use. They fill up with water or breakdown very fast, but since they are so cheap, schools go through many of them every year.

With Surf eCo, our surfboards are made from Biofoam material. We do have a thin foam top and rubber fins for safety, but the boards are coated with an epoxy resin (commonly used on boats) which makes them very strong. Surfboards made with epoxy can last up to five times longer than fiberglass boards.

Wax and Sunscreen: Surf wax is petroleum based and not biodegradable. Some surfers wax their boards every time they surf and the wax continues to fall off into the ocean. This wax can build up on coral reefs or be eaten by fish and cause damage-- since there have yet to be any studies done, we do not know what the results will show. Sunscreen is full of toxic chemicals and is one of the causes of coral bleaching --the sunscreen builds up on coral reefs, blocks the sunlight, and kills the coral. Many places, such as Cancun, are now requiring snorkelers to use biodegradable natural sunscreen to preserve the environment.

At Surf eCo we top our boards with a thin layer of Matunas Biodegradable sunscreen. All of the ingredients come from California and they are natural. We also provide Mexitan Organic Sunscreen (SPF 50). I've talked to many class participants who do not wear sunscreen on their face because they get rashes from the toxic chemicals in sunscreens, but after trying the Mexitan sunscreen, they had no problems (it doesn't even sting your eyes).

We also offset our carbon emissions for driving the surfboards to the beach and donate 25 percent of our profits to save acres of rainforest in Costa Rica, through The Nature Conservancy. We are truly trying to find every way possible to go green and to set an example for other surfers, surf schools, and surf companies.

--TORREY TRUST

Wednesday, July 23 -- 1:54 pm

 
Click here to post comments (2 posted so far)

Seaside Swill

E-MAIL POST

It's summertime and the ocean is finally warming up! What is a better way to spend a sunny summer day than to head to the beach and maybe catch a few waves?

As the CEO and lead surf instructor of Surf eCo Surf School, I spend a lot of time out in the ocean and it is a beautiful place to work, but I have noticed over the past few years that the beaches are no longer as beautiful as they used to be. For those of you who went to the beach after July 4th, you probably saw what I saw n miles of plastic water bottles, toys, Styrofoam cups, beer cans, and a variety of other objects left on the sand.

Unfortunately, it is no longer just the July 4th weekend that is polluting the beaches and our oceans. I hold beach clean-ups with my surf class participants every week at Swami's in Encinitas. While this beach is not as crowded (steep stairs and poor parking), my class participants find enough trash in our small area to fill two Trader Joe's reusable bags every week. In the past month I must have seen 40+ pieces of plastic (plastic wrap, bottles, bags, balloons) floating in the ocean n waist-deep where I stand and help out my class participants.

Have Americans become lazier? Or are people expecting others to clean up for them? While Surfrider's Morning After Mess is a necessary event, it also promotes the fact that you can leave trash on the beach and it will be picked put the next day, if it hasn't been taken out by the tide already. There are no regulations for littering on the beach. People are not held responsible for their actions. The sad thing is that the beach is one of the most beautiful environmental areas left for everyone to enjoy.

According to Surfrider's "Rise Above Plastics" Campaign, 100,000 marine mammals and 1 million seabirds are killed every year from plastic waste. Not only are we polluting a precious environment, we are killing animals in the process.

How do we get people to take responsibility for their actions? I'm working hard to promote environmental awareness in my classes, but that's a slow change (one surfer at a time). The unfortunate dilemma is that people never see where their plastic waste ends up --they never see the animals choking on plastic bags or the "plastic island" that has accumulated out in the ocean. So what's the solution? More trash cans on the beach? Outlawing littering on the beach? Any reasonable suggestions?

--TORREY TRUST

Tuesday, July 22 -- 8:37 pm

 
Click here to post comments (2 posted so far)

Del Mar by Numbers

E-MAIL POST

Thought I'd jump back in and give you some more numbers on the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club. While the track has been around since 1937, the Thoroughbred Club formed in 1970. Since our inception we have generated over $650 million in revenues to local and state governments along with distributions to dozens of local charitable organizations and equine research. The racetrack attracts over 700,000 visitors during our seven week run. During that time we employ more than 3,300 people with a payroll of $20 million.

We draw approximately 275,000 patrons from outside San Diego County. Occupancy rates at North County hotels jump from an annual average of 70 percent to more than 86 percent; with many topping 90 percent.

As far as the industry of horse racing, changes are being made to ensure the "sport of kings" attracts a broader audience, and Del Mar is a leader in the industry. Last year we switched to a synthetic surface, Polytrack. Our $9 million investment proved to be a sound and safe one. When we made the change we fielded complaints, but that is to be expected. Most of the complaints were due to the speed of the races dropping. We'll pick safety over speed 100 times out of 100.

Something we will do this season is water the track depending on the weather. We installed a reverse osmosis system on site that provides purified water for the track. Pure water works best with Polytrack, and according to our faster times and safe track the adjustment is working.

It is a good time to be involved in racing, especially here at Del Mar. Come see.

--WALKER MCBRIDE

Tuesday, July 22 -- 3:08 pm

 
Click here to post comments (5 posted so far)

Straight From the Horse's Mouth

E-MAIL POST

Hello Café readers, hope you're enjoying your summer. As a 30-plus-year San Diegan, I can unequivocally say that between Memorial and Labor Day San Diego lives up to its label of "America's Finest City." The beaches of Encinitas, shopping in La Jolla, fish tacos at the Brigantine, people watching in the Gaslamp, PB, OB, Sea World, LEGOLAND, the Zoo ... you get the picture.

Another San Diego summer destination is the race track at Del Mar. The seaside track just kicked off its 69th season and 43,459 people celebrated on opening day, a record. That number is even more impressive if you consider our economy and on-track attendance trends for the horse racing industry.

(Before I go any further I should say that I work at Del Mar. This is my first season as a year-round employee, though many moons ago I worked seasonally in Guest Services. I've gotten a feel for "where the turf meets the surf," and it's a culture that has and will endure.)

While Del Mar isn't immune to either the economy or some of the current woes associated with the racing industry, we do take measures that help build our brand. A brand established in 1937. A brand dreamt up by Hollywood stars Bing Crosby and Pat O'Brien. A brand that bridges the decades with its attractions, from Seabiscuit to Best Pal, Marilyn Monroe to Uma Thurman, from Jack Dempsey to Ladainian Tomlinson. A brand that is, "Cool As Ever". Del Mar has always been a scene -- and also a "be seen."

Additionally, we have a summer concert series that started in 1994 with "The Rugburns" performing one night after the races. Their success laid the framework for performances from the likes of Cake, Ziggy Marley, Gnarls Barkley and Jack Johnson.

But beyond the culture of cool created at Del Mar is the economic impact produced every meet. The reality of sporting events is that while they bring in a large audience, most of the time they fail to assist the city. Nearly 40 percent of Del Mar's patrons are from outside the city limits. This is a major boon to San Diego. A 2003 economic impact study showed the 2002 race meet created over $94 million in local economic impact. This was a more significant impact than the Padres or Chargers because of the number of visitors from outside San Diego Country spending money.

So, I'm a bit all over the board with this initial post. Please forgive me because this is my first time "chatting" online. I welcome everyone's questions and comments and hope to see you at the track.

--WALKER MCBRIDE

Tuesday, July 22 -- 2:55 pm

 
Click here to post comments (2 posted so far)

A Drop Saved

E-MAIL POST

As usual, I've run out of time for my last post, which was to focus on water conservation, the most cost-effective, environmentally friendly (i.e. actually helps reduce urban runoff pollution) and climate-smart way for the region to enhance its water supply. 

To date, most of the region's focus has been on under-funded education and voluntary measures.  Have they worked? Resoundingly, NO (see this Saturday’s San Diego Union-Tribune for a good article on our conservation efforts). Despite facing one of the great environmental crisis of our time (if not all time), we can't even make a serious effort to get people to stop wasting water we don't have and money they probably don't have. It is time we start seriously looking at mandatory conservation, building moratoriums or at least a real investment in voluntary programs to avert the looming water shortages which will have a dramatic impact on this region.   

I'm sorry I don't have time to write longer on conservation (I can tell you a report will be coming out within the next month), and I promise next time Coastkeeper is featured on voiceofsandiego.org, we'll focus on a subject other than water supply. Marine reserves, anyone? In the meantime, have a wonderful week! 

--BRUCE REZNIK

Monday, July 21 -- 6:07 pm

 
Click here to post comments (20 posted so far)

WANTED: Sound Rationale for Mayor Sanders' Opposition to Water Recycling

E-MAIL POST

San Diego Coastkeeper is willing to offer a REWARD (ok, a free one-year Shore Crab membership to anyone who can offer up a reason for Mayor Sanders' opposition to water recycling for potable uses that actually makes sense (yes, there had to be a catch).  It's been more than a year since I met with Mayor Sanders and his staff on this issue, and I'm still scratching my head over why, exactly, he has so adamantly opposed a project that could create up to 16 million gallons a day of drought proof, municipally-owned drinking water for the City of San Diego.

For a quick background, in October, the City Council voted 5-2 to implement a pilot project (Indirect Portable Re-use) to test using highly treated sewage water to augment the San Vicente Reservoir, as recommended in the City's 2005 Water Reuse Study.

After the Mayor vetoed this project, the Council for the first time under the 'strong Mayor' form of government overrode his veto by a 5-3 vote in December. This should have resulted in the City moving ahead with a one million gallon-per-day pilot project that could be expanded to a full scale reservoir augmentation project should the City, California Department of Public Health and other agencies deem it safe. Unfortunately, it seems as though the Mayor has issued an unofficial 'wallet veto,' and this project appears stalled despite the approval and override by the City Council (wait, this isn't how things are supposed to happen under 'strong Mayor', is it?).  So let's quickly examine the Mayor's stated concerns:

Public Health -- Should we be using highly treated wastewater as a drinking water source?  That is a good question, but let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. First, let's remember that what the Council approved is a small-scale pilot project that will help us determine whether a full-scale project is safe. Let's also not forget that the Colorado River, where we get nearly half our water currently, is hardly pristine. In fact, there are more than 400 million gallons of sewage discharges from over 225 separate sewage agencies in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada (remember, 'what happens in Vegas' actually ends up in San Diego's water supply), and another 1.5 billion gallons of industrial discharges into the Colorado before water gets to us. Finally, we should also recognize that indirect potable use (admittedly, more frequently groundwater injection rather than reservoir augmentation) has been done successfully in cities across the country and across the globe, in some instances for more than thirty years.

Public perception n The Mayor likes to point out that the public is adamantly opposed to 'toilet-to-tap', and nothing can be done about this, so he is simply representing their will. Actually, quite the opposite is true.  While two separate surveys have concluded that a majority of the public does not support indirect potable reuse at first blush, there is a lot of fluidity in these numbers. A Competitive Edge poll found 44 percent of San Diegans support IPR, 50 percent oppose (not great, but hardly overwhelming). However, once people are given more information about the standards that must be met and where our current water comes from, more than half those opposed were willing to reconsider their position (which seems to indicate a tremendous opportunity for the Mayor to lead and educate the public about this issue). In fact, as was pointed at a recent Council workshop on this issue by a representative from the San Diego County Taxpayers Association (hardly a group of 'enviro-whackos'), despite all this fear of an outpouring of public outrage, not a single person has spoken against the pilot project at any of the last several hearings. That made me think about my history working on this issue and at more than a dozen hearings over the past five years, the only people I recall speaking against this project are Bruce Henderson and Howard Wayne, two former elected officials who made political hay over toilet-to-tap in the 1990s. Hardly the kind of outpouring that will lead to political 'tar-and-feathering' for politicians who support IPR. Lastly, let us note that rarely have we seen such a broad-based coalition in support of IPR, which not only includes Coastkeeper and a half-dozen environmental groups, but also the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, San Diego Industrial Environmental Association, BIOCOMM, and over a dozen water districts and municipalities.  

Cost-- Even more perplexing are the Mayor's claims that IPR is the least cost-effective way to produce more water supplies. This is simply not the case. In fact, the Mayor has supported water recycling for irrigation and other non-potable uses, which is extremely costly as expensive pipes have to built to send water to relatively small customers, as opposed to building one large pipe to the San Vicente Reservoir. Mayor Sanders has seemingly indicated that he would be willing to spend the same $200 million-$280 million that it would take to create up to 16 million gallons per day of potable water at San Vicente to instead build purple pipe that could use 2-3 million gallons per day for non-potable uses. Hardly the stuff of fiscal prudence. The Water Re-use study concluded that it would require 70 cents more per water bill per month for non-potable water reuse compared with IPR, and still reuse less water. IPR also compares very favorably with the CDP, which the Mayor has supported: $800-$900 per acre-foot for IPR compared with $1,100-$1,500 per acre-foot for desalination. The City claims it cannot find $10 million to implement the pilot project, yet my conversations with elected officials, grant-making organizations and others have suggested such money is out there for projects that will create local water supplies. So why aren't we as a City looking for this money so ratepayers won't have to pick up the tab? 

Now, it has been suggested by some that the Mayor's posturing is simple politics -- he is against IPR either because City Attorney Mike Aguirre is for it (and we know how well they get along), or because of Sanders' relationship with Poseidon Resources, which could view IPR as competition. It is true there are well-documented close connections between the Mayor and Poseidon, ranging from political contributions to sharing a PR/political consultant, Tom Shepard. Coincidentally, Maloni left Tom Shepard's firm (where Poseidon was his client) in April to work as a Vice President for Poseidon.  

Now I would hate to think that Mayor Sanders would place back-room politics over what is best for San Diegans, so I will choose to ignore these last rationales. But I am still waiting for an explanation that makes sense of his being a roadblock to IPR in San Diego.  And remember, a free Coastkeeper membership could be on the line! 

--BRUCE REZNIK

Monday, July 21 -- 2:17 pm

 
Click here to post comments (20 posted so far)

Shooting Ourselves in the Foot

E-MAIL POST

While water supply is a critical issue for San Diego and the arid southwest, the leading environmental crisis (and I would argue moral crisis) facing our nation and planet is climate change. Whether it is dire warnings from Vice President Al Gore, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pope Benedict, or your own eyes that have been witness to record-breaking wildfires, hurricanes, floods, cold and heat waves, we know we must make solving the climate crisis a top priority. 

In response to this grave challenge,  California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which establishes a timetable to bring California into near compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020). The proposed Carlsbad Desalination Plant will be one of the first tests of AB 32 ... and whether California will take on the challenge of climate change sincerely, or merely pay lip-service to the addressing the crisis.

San Diego's water policy -- or lack thereof -- has a tremendous impact on our environment. According to the California Energy Commission, transporting water throughout the state and to customers requires 19 percent of California's electricity, consumes 32 percent of the state's natural gas supplies, and uses 88 million gallons of diesel, contributing significantly to global warming. Transporting surface water supplies from the northern half of the state to Southern California requires 60 times more energy than what is needed to convey water in Northern California, making the development of local supplies an imperative.

However, open-ocean desalination, the technology proposed for the 50 million-gallon-per-day (MGD) Carlsbad Desalination Plant, is the single most energy-intensive water supply option in the region. It requires 47 percent more energy than transporting water from the San Joaquin Delta through the State Water Project, which is currently the most energy-intensive way we get water. Put another way, according to our experts, the CDP will add between 100,000-154,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, to our fragile atmosphere every year, thus exacerbating the impact of our water policy on global warming.

In conditionally approving the CDP, the State Lands Commission and California Coastal Commission required Poseidon Resources to develop a Carbon Action Plan (CAP) to ensure the facility is ‘carbon neutral' and does not contribute to global warming. Poseidon agreed to embrace this requirement and achieve carbon neutrality. Unfortunately, Poseidon's CAP veers significantly away from true carbon neutrality.  First, the Plan ignores direct impacts from the facility, including construction and truck traffic generated by the CDP. Even with these oversights, Poseidon acknowledges that the facility will discharge 97,165 metric tons of CO2 annually. While less than our estimates, this is still an alarming number. 

The vast majority (over two-thirds) of Poseidon's proposed carbon offsets come from the 67,506 metric tons of CO2 that the company contends will be avoided by the 50 million gallons of water a day that will not have to be transported from the San Joaquin Delta if the CDP is built. There is only open problem with this calculation -- nobody actually claims or believes the CDP will reduce the amount of water we get from the Delta. 

No city, water department or other agency will commit to reducing our imports from the Delta by any amount, let alone the entire 50MGD that will be created by the CDP. Even Poseidon's most ardent supporters do not believe the CDP represents ‘replacement water' from State Water Project, but instead believe it will help ensure more growth for the region. And even Poseidon admits (implicitly) that its water is unlikely to offset Delta water, when in its CAP, Poseidon suggests, “if replaced water is pumped through the [State Water Project] for purposes other than supplying that water to the Project's customers, then the responsibility for the [greenhouse gasses] associated with that conveyance lies with the new recipient of that water.” In other words, even though this new growth and expanded water use could not occur but for the CDP, Poseidon wants to absolve itself of this responsibility, and pass the buck on the future projects that would not be possible if the plant is not built in the first place.  

Staff at every regulatory agency involved in this process -- including the Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission and Regional Water Board -- have generally opposed this project, recognizing its serious impact on our ocean environmental and climate change. Yet, up to this point, the recommendations of those people who have the most expertise and have most closely monitored the CDP have been overruled by political appointees and elected officials who have caved into Poseidon's demands, largely as a result of the political pressure applied by the company.  

The August hearings are no different, as staff at the Coastal Commission, State Lands Commission and several other air quality and energy agencies have taken the position that Poseidon must offset all the emissions from the facility, as the company initially promised.  

So, the question is, will the California Coastal Commissioners and State Lands Commissioners comply with AB 32, hold Poseidon to it prior commitment and responsibility, and demand that the Carlsbad Desalination Plant fully mitigate its environmental and climate impacts. Or will these officials overrule staff recommendations, providing corporate welfare to a company that would not be economically viable if it was forced to comply with the law, thus forcing San Diegans and Californians to bear the true cost of the facility's operations. I guess we'll have to wait for these hearings to know.

In the meantime, my next post will focus on other options for enhancing local water supplies that are more cost-effective and environmentally friendly and less energy intensive than open-ocean desalination. 

Monday, July 21 -- 11:57 am

 
Click here to post comments (3 posted so far)

Water, Water Everywhere

E-MAIL POST

"Water, water, everywhere,

Nor any drop to drink."

-- Rime of the Ancient Mariner

Samuel Taylor Coleridge

 

It seems every time I end up on Café San Diego, there is a key study or critical hearing coming up on water supply issues, and today is no exception. So I will apologize in advance for blogging on issues I've previously touched upon on these pages, but with the California Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission holding August hearings on the Carlsbad Desalination Plant ('CDP') that will shape much of our local water supply policy and impact California's water and energy debate for years to come, I feel again obliged to address this issue. With that said, there are many issues that Coastkeeper works on, from reducing urban runoff and sewage pollution to creating marine reserves to addressing marine debris and our toxic waterways, and I encourage you to check out our website to learn about these campaigns.  But today I will again focus on desalination, water recycling and conservation.

 As Coastkeeper has been labeled at previous hearings as anti-growth, anti-development and anti-desalination (none of which are accurate characterizations), let me start my first entry by simply making our positions clear. Coastkeeper believes that based on environmental impact, reliability and cost, San Diego must prioritize its water supply strategies as follows:

 1.      Conservation - San Diego should strive to achieve comparable per household/per capita water usage as the best performing cities with similar climates, and should implement all measures needed to achieve this goal.   

2.      Water Recycling and Reuse - In accordance with the City of San Diego 2005 Water Reuse Survey, the City of San Diego should move forward as expeditiously as possible to implement a mix of potable and non-potable uses for recycled water to maximize the beneficial use of recycled water at the lowest per-unit cost. 

3.      Desalination(using subsurface intakes) - Desalination projects must be properly sited and designed, and employ the best available technology to minimize any adverse impacts to the environment, including impingement and entrainment associated with open-ocean intake desalination and greenhouse gas emissions. Open-ocean desalination, which is the most environmentally damaging and energy intensive strategy to create local water, should be pursued as a last resort after other strategies, including desalination using subsurface intakes, have been fully implemented.

My next entry will focus on the upcoming Coastal Commission and State Lands Commission hearings and what protections Coastkeeper is seeking from these agencies.

--BRUCE REZNIK

Sunday, July 20 -- 8:17 pm

 
Click here to post comments (20 posted so far)

'The Problems Have Been Self-Inflicted'

E-MAIL POST

The purpose of today's blog was to point out that defined benefit retirement plans can be structured in a way that is less risky to the employer and can still provide the employee with a guaranteed retirement income. It was not an attempt to defend the City of San Diego's current plan. In fact, I believe I have been critical of the way that plan was designed and how it has been implemented. Nevertheless, there were still comments like these from Billy Bob Henry (I corrected his typos):

"Hey Andy, try going out into the REAL WORLD and see how hard it is just to find a 3 percent match on a 401K, and you can forget about a defined benefit pension, the only place you find those today is in the Fantasyland of government employment."

I wonder if BBH read the part where I work in the PRIVATE SECTOR and our members have to compete for work everyday with other contractors who provide little or no benefits to their employees. I doubt BBH could explain how this is possible, but our association has been in business over 100 years. I guess our member contractors have not been hurt by having a well-run defined benefit plan for their employees.

Please wrote:

"These new employees will have a choice, take the job or not. City employees...

Again, a little off-topic but let me try a response anyway. Employers who have the attitude that Please expressed generally have trouble recruiting employees. The result is we end up with arguments like "Those are jobs Americans won't do.” The same writer also said:

"I'm pretty tired of the give me more attitude ... For my money I want the city to be well managed--on time and on budget and the pot holes fixed."

It sounds like you are the one with the give-me-more attitude. You want all the services, but you don't want to pay for them.

Others, though also not where I was hoping to go, were a little more thoughtful. Jeff wrote:

"I notice that the Mayor's proposed new pension plan reduces both City and employee contributions by 50 percent while the reduction in benefits appears to be much less than that. I don't see how the numbers add up."

Short answer: They don't, but it doesn't really matter because the goal is to do away with the DB plan in its entirety. Why else would the Mayor demand to keep a small DC component when the unions were offering to eliminate it completely and save the City even more money?

To Pension Watcher, two words: Compound interest. Look them up. Let's take just the first $6,000 annual contribution in your example. If this money was invested for 30 years at 8 percent, it would grow to more than $65,000. Add in the other 29 years of contributions, and your hypothetical employee would have more than enough money available to buy an annuity.

To Watcher: I am not knowledgeable enough on your issue to comment. I do know that our association has been around for more than 100 years and I will do whatever I can to make sure that all our employees receive the pension they were promised.

Now to the topic of DBs vs. DCs: A defined contribution has all the same unavoidable risks that are present with a defined benefit plan. The difference is that they fall on the employee and many think that makes a DC the preferred option. If those risks were actually the reason some DB's have had problems, I would probably agree. However, as I pointed out earlier they are not. The problems have been self-inflicted and correctable.

Defined contribution plans have two inherent risks that defined benefit plans do not, either of which can be devastating to a retiree:

Short-term investment losses: The person that decided to retire last year and the person who decided to retire in 1999 both probably have to return to the work force. There is simply no time for a retiree to recover from a significant investment loss. A pension plan, on the other hand, can easily ride out the inevitable downturns in their investments.

Outliving your life expectancy: If I live to be 85 and am living off my 401K, I better hope that I was able to save more for retirement than the average person would need. If I didn't, my last five to seven years are going to be very uncomfortable financially. If I was living off a defined benefit plan, I would have no such worries and neither would the plan since only average mortality, not individual mortality, has any effect.

If I have been at all successful in my quest today, hopefully you will look at defined benefit plans in a different light and not simply think it best to convert everyone to an IRA or 401K.

--ANDY BERG

Sunday, July 20 -- 8:07 pm

 
Click here to post comments (15 posted so far)

No Problem with Defined Benefit

E-MAIL POST

There is no fundamental problem with defined benefit (DB) plans. In fact, as I will discuss in my next post, they have two distinct advantages over defined contribution (DC) plans. The risks inherent and unavoidable in DB plans are manageable and in fact have not been the cause of the angst currently facing many municipalities. The problems they have are simply one of design and making decisions based on politics rather than mathematics. Let's look at some of those political decisions:

Giving retroactive pension increases: In lieu of pay raises which would come out of this year's budget, municipalities have often given retroactive pension increases which will come out of some other elected official's future budget. Going back to one of my original points: You can not simply print money. If it wasn't put in, it won't be there to take out.

Not fully funding the obligation: It is more politically expedient to fix potholes, build stadiums and host conventions than it is to put money in the pension fund. Again, if money is not put in, there will not be any money available to be paid out.

Allowing for the purchase of service credits: This could work, but only if they are purchased at an actuarially neutral amount and they are not used to vest someone who otherwise would not have vested. Unfortunately, these parameters are rarely met.

As for the design, I mentioned yesterday that a feature of a well-run plan would be the negotiation of the contribution, not the benefit. Let's look at some of the drawbacks of negotiating the benefit.

Added risk of predicting final salaries: There is also the potential to game the system by "spiking" an employee's final year salary in order to increase the pension.

Potential of under funding the pension obligation: This was discussed above.

Legally locking in a benefit payment years in advance: Once you promise a benefit, it can not be taken away or modified. Employees promised a benefit based on a formula consisting of years of service, retirement age and salary will be paid that amount regardless of what happens economically during his working career.

So what does my association's benefit plan look like? Actually, it resembles a very generous guaranteed annuity. Firstly, we negotiate the amount that our contractors will pay into their employees' pension fund. Currently that amount for journeymen wiremen is $4.35 per hour. This gives our trustees and our actuary real dollars on which to compute the retirement benefit. It also removes the potential for under funding.

The trustees, with the help of the actuary then set the accrual amount (the percentage the employee will receive in benefit, on a monthly basis, at retirement age). Currently, the accrual is 2.7%. In other words, assuming an employee works 2,000 hours in a year, he/she would have received $8,700 in their retirement account. At 2.7% they would be guaranteed $234.90 per month at retirement age. If the contribution and accrual percentage remained constant, a 30-year employee will retire with $7,047 per month. They will also receive Social Security and any money they saved on their own.

The beauty of this design is that only the current year and any previous accumulations are legally locked in. What has already been earned is guaranteed, but because we didn't stipulate a final benefit, the Trustees can vote to change the accrual percentage for all future contributions. Also, the employee can go online at any time and know exactly what his monthly pension would be assuming he didn't continue working. Any future accruals would simply be added to that amount.

Finally, we do not pay retroactive benefits and we do not allow the purchase of credits or make any other decisions based on factors other than the health of the plan and being able to provide our employees the pension they were promised.

-- ANDY BERG

Friday, July 18 -- 12:46 pm

 Click here to post comments (24 posted so far)

Defined Drawbacks

E-MAIL POST

My original intent today was to address an issue that has been bothering me for many years, but becomes even more annoying during the silly season we call election time. Simply put, it is the tendency to blame "special interests" for all that is wrong in the world. I was set to defend these so-called destroyers of all that is good and point out the many positive changes they have brought, but then something happened: The City of San Diego decided to gut their employee retirement program.

I hope that voiceofsandiego.org will give me another opportunity before the November election to address the benefits that special interests provide, but as the chair of a very well-run $300 million pension fund, I feel obligated to at least propose ideas as to how a successful retirement plan should be structured. I also look forward to hearing about and maybe even copying some of your ideas.

I will address defined contribution plans in my next post, but for now I want to focus on defined benefit (DB) plans. Every DB plan has certain risks that are unavoidable and simply due to the nature of the plan. Actuarial assumptions that later prove to be incorrect in any of these areas can be very costly to a pension plan:

1. Investment returns

2. Life expectancy

3. How long each employee will work

4. How many employees will take a disability retirement

5. Percentage of employees that will work long enough to vest in the plan

Despite what you may have read, neither the City's plan nor any other that I know of have had any significant problems with any of those risk factors.

Unfortunately, many DB plans are structured such that they put unnecessary risks and restraints upon themselves. Most, if not all, municipal plans base the benefit on employee salary and most, if not all, negotiate the benefit amount and then allow the trustees and actuaries to set the contribution level. This is absolutely the reverse of what a well-structured plan should look like.

A pension plan is considered DB because the retiree is guaranteed an income for life, but this doesn't exclude the plan from one basic fact: The source of that income can only come from contributions and investment earnings. No employer, except the federal government, has a license to print money.

In a well-designed plan, the contribution, not the final benefit, is negotiated. The benefit is then set by the trustees and actuary based on this contribution. In my next post I will explain how this works in our pension plan, but I can tell you this: An inside wireman who starts work today and works for thirty years would retire with a pension of just over $7,000 per month. This assumes no increase in the pension contribution rate and 2,000 hours worked per year. In case you were wondering, our pension plan is significantly more than 90 percent funded.

--ANDY BERG

Friday, July 18 -- 12:25 pm

 
Click here to post comments (24 posted so far)

Final Thoughts

E-MAIL POST

Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion Tuesday and today. It's been a lot of fun for me to have this conversation!

I wanted to have my last blog answer one of the first questions from Tuesday from FL:

"Kathy, in your opinion, what is the most important thing the City of San Diego can do to encourage bicycling?"

If you mean the City of San Diego administration, then the most important thing is to take action to improve bicycling conditions. Just do SOMETHING. There is already a lot of great policy on the books. Just look at the City of San Diego Bicycle Master Plan, or the city's general plan (Both have some really good language about making the city bicycle-friendly). The bike plan has a list of about 35 'top priority projects.' We need to renew our commitment and follow through on that plan right now, and start making the improvements we need to make the city better for bicycling. Stop listing all the reasons why we can't do something and all the excuses for why it hasn't been done, and just start doing it. Don't wait. I personally would start with getting the city public education campaign up and running as soon as possible, and guaranteeing a source of funding so it can continue into the future.

If you mean the community of San Diego, and all of us, then it's a little broader. The most important thing we can do as a community is to ride our bikes. For those who are already out riding, find a buddy who hasn't ridden in a while and help them get back into it. If you haven't ridden in a while, now is the time to get back in the saddle. The more people who ride, the safer we all are and the more fun we all have. If you need some information about where to ride or how to feel safer, get some help either from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition or from some of your bicycling friends. Put some air in the tires and go for a ride.

And as a last thought, I hope you will remember when you are out there that riding is supposed to be fun. Sure, it can be aggravating, annoying, and scary sometimes. But when I'm flying down a good hill, I feel like I'm 10 years old again. That's a feeling worth doing a little work for.

I hope I see you on the road!

--KATHY KEEHAN

Thursday, July 17 -- 5:14 pm

 
Click here to post comments (15 posted so far)

More Reaction to Your Comments

E-MAIL POST

Interesting comments this morning, and some that I wanted to get to last time and didn't have a chance to n

Regarding the Critical Mass "dunderheads," I have mixed feelings. I recognize and admire the goal in the ride, which is to make sure people know that bicyclists are a part of society, part of our transportation system, and are allowed on the roads. Sometimes you have to fight for your rights. But I'm not sure that aggravating motorists, pedestrians, and other bicyclists is the most productive way to do it. And I think unlawful behavior undercuts the bicycling message. Clearly being quiet and trying to chip away at the edges of the transportation bureaucracy isn't doing the job, so I understand the impulse for Critical Mass. I prefer to do my advocacy as a critical mass of one, where I'm following the laws and getting along with the other road users, maybe educating them one at a time. At the Coalition we never promote unlawful behavior.

But what Critical Mass does very well is create a sense of community for the bicyclists who participate. We need to be doing more of that somehow. We do have activities and rides (like the Bike the Bay Ride on September 7th over the Coronado Bridge) that we hope to use to build a community of two-wheeled citizens. I think Fred is onto something when he proposes a high-profile bicycling event that brings people together. We need community events that bring together not only the cycling community, but the entire community, to celebrate the bicycle.

One of the things that I notice is that there are a lot of bicyclists out there, and you probably know some of them, but you don't know that they ride. We tend to keep our bicycling activity to ourselves n unless you're another bicyclist you probably don't talk about the 50 miles you rode this weekend. I think that if more people were a little more vocal about BEING bike riders, it could go a long way toward building bridges between people who drive and people who ride. And it changes how people treat you if they think they know you. Think about it n are you going to harass the bicyclist ahead of you if you think it's your neighbor, your kid's teacher, or your dentist? Probably not. We need to stop being anonymous.

--KATHY KEEHAN

Thursday, July 17 -- 2:22 pm

 
Click here to post comments (15 posted so far)

Bicycling in San Diego, Continued

E-MAIL POST

We were having so much fun on Tuesday that I'm back for another round of discussion. Hope you will continue to send in such great comments!

One of the threads that jumped out on Tuesday was the need for 'serious action' (KAWE) 'widespread desire for change' (Thom, and changing the 'government ... suffer from a failure of imagination' (Kate S).

I say, 'amen!' Now, for all you elected officials reading today, don't get me wrong. Some of you are really stepping up to the plate to support bicycling - thank you County Supervisor Greg Cox, San Diego Councilman Scott Peters, and Coronado Councilmember Phil Monroe, for being three good examples! The entire City of Oceanside Council has been very supportive of bicycling lately, and I know that the League of American Bicyclists will be taking a hard look at making Oceanside the first city in the county to receive a 'Bicycle Friendly Community' designation.

But I'm almost afraid to list you here because I know you'll get heat from folks like the local news editorial boards, and from radio talk show hosts who have nothing better to do than mock bicyclists. It's not easy to be taken seriously in this county when you talk about getting people out of their cars.

And it's not just our elected officials. There are darn few transportation departments in this region that really take bicycling seriously. It's entrenched in the bureaucracy that the goal of the transportation system is to get the most cars through in the least amount of time. Too bad if there's no room left for bicyclists or pedestrians. I'm not saying that we have to totally ignore the automobile or traffic congestion. But too many times we pick the option that is best for motorists and worst for bicyclists, when we could be picking the option that is 'not so bad' for motorists and best for bicyclists.

I think that the confluence of high gas prices, the twin health epidemics of diabetes and obesity, and the coming regulation of greenhouse gases are providing a new urgency to changing the way we get around, and changing people's attitudes about bicycling. But the comments here are right n unless we have both a groundswell of public opinion and strong leadership from our elected officials, this historic opportunity is going to pass us by as we continue to do the same old same old thing.

We've got a chance to get it right. Some of our elected officials are already stepping up and supporting things like the Active Transportation Campaign, and working with local transportation policy to make sure bicyclists are included in all our transportation decisions. But fighting bureaucracy and the 'but we've always done it that way!' mentality is tough. Especially in San Diego where we seem to be distracted and bogged down in so many issues (see Lee Burdick's discussion of Lindberg Field yesterday). I'll be interested to hear your comments about how we can change the whole mindset in the County, or if it is even possible to do so.

And for those of you who are thinking it's all a bit depressing, let's talk about the great things that are happening for bicycling and bicyclists in San Diego next (there really is some good stuff out there!)

-- KATHY KEEHAN

Date: 7/16/08

 
Click here to post comments (15 posted so far)

Lee’s Last Call

E-MAIL POST

Once again, Dear Readers, pat yourselves on the back for outstanding feedback and your thoughtful participation in this wonderful public forum addressing important local issues.

As a well-trained attorney and a partner at one of San Diego's finest local law firms, I always ask myself, Am I prepared to cite an authority to back up my statements? In this case, I am. The Airport Authority's President and CEO Thella Bowens stated publicly at the Airport Authority Board meeting last Thursday, July 10, 2008, that only 65 percent of the existing gates at Lindbergh Field are being occupied by the airlines right now. [Note to self: If I subtract 65% occupancy from 100% of the gates, I believe that leaves 35% of the gates unoccupied--better pull out my calculator] The beauty of American government is that Ms. Bowen's statement is a matter of public record. The video transcript is probably available at the Authority’s website at www.san.org, and is most certainly available in audio or video form via a Public Records request.

As for Montgomery Field, I stand with each of you that it should never be closed down. Having worked at Jimsair Aviation Services, which serves corporate and private aviation at Lindbergh Field, for the last three-and-a-half years, I am a staunch advocate for keeping our general aviation airports alive and thriving. Local airports are priceless assets to the lifeblood of our communities. Virtually every General Aviation airport around the country is being threatened by developers and communities that either want the land for other development or don't want the noise and aggravation of airplanes flying over their backyards. Having also served on the National Aviation Transportation Association’s Airports Committee for the last three years, and having met with various FAA representatives over the years on precisely these issues, I can assure you that the FAA is dedicated to preserving our national transportation system which includes thousands of GA airports all over the country, and certainly includes Montgomery Field. Montgomery Field was never at risk of closure, and if all those who appreciate its value continue to be vigilant, it won’t be at any time in the future either.

Date: 7/16/08

 
Click here to post comments (21 posted so far)

The Future of Lindbergh

E-MAIL POST

Ahh, Dear Readers, thank you so much for not leaving me in the lurch here with nothing to respond to.

A couple of points I think will be helpful. First, being a dedicated but frugal San Diego taxpayer, I, too, wonder "who will pay for these improvements?" So let’s talk Airport Financing 101. Do you recall the Airport Authority's campaign to build a whole new airport at Miramar? If so, then you probably recall that the Authority began stashing away millions of dollars ($40 million by the time of the 2006 vote) as a revenue base for issuing several billion dollars in bonds to fund the construction of a whole new airport. The Authority, after all, has its own revenue bonding powers. That revenue base for bonding is probably now up to about $60 million.

In addition, the Authority would be well positioned to receive funding from the Federal Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program, which is set up to fund precisely these kinds of improvements. The Authority has already received millions of dollars from the AIP for its never-ending master planning process. Imagine that at least 10 times that would be available from federal sources for actual improvements to the airport. As for the off-airport improvements that would be required, such as reconfiguring the I-5 on-ramps and off-ramps for better access to the north-side terminals, let's look to CalTrans and Transnet for funding. After all, that is what they are there for. Most importantly, if taxpayer dollars are spent on even a portion of the off-airport improvements, responsible projects like this one that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote green building are precisely how I want my taxpayer funds spent.

Briefly, I would also like to thank the writer who is concerned for my firm's clients. Higgs is dedicated to providing the best quality legal services at the lowest possible cost to our clients, but more gates at Lindbergh Field won't help us there. In fact, the point was best made by the Authority's President and CEO when she said that there are already more than enough gates at Lindbergh! Only 65 percent of the exiting gates are being occupied by the airlines right now. But even if more gates were necessary, the north side project would allow a larger expansion of gates than is currently planned for on the south side of the airport.

Finally, let me clear out some of the current campaign huffery and puffery: Mike Aguirre did NOT save Montgomery Field from closure. The FAA never threatened to close Montgomery Field because of the height of the Sunroad building. The Sunroad Centrum building at its highest affected less than five percent of operations at that airport. The FAA would never close or threaten to close the airport for such a de minimis impact. Instead the FAA issued a NOTAM advisory to pilots, which it does every time there is a change in operating conditions at any airport and which pilots are required to consult before flying into any airport. That was the state of affairs that everyone, including the FAA, was living with before Aguirre decided to sue Sunroad without Council or Mayoral approval, thus exposing you fine taxpayers to a possible $40 million in unnecessary liability.

--LEE BURDICK

Wednesday, July 16 -- 11:58 am

 
Click here to post comments (7 posted so far)

Sponsored By

MOST POPULAR STORIES:

SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

KB's Gone Fishin' :

 

She's getting some deserved vacation, but will be back soon.

Wednesday, July 23 -- 4:13 pm

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Take That, BoA:

 

Aguirre shows them who's boss.

Thursday, July 24 -- 4:18 pm

CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

Obsolete Pete:

 

Thirty years after Blackout Pete implemented his redevelopment model for San Diego, it's time for a major overhaul.

Thursday, July 24 -- 7:56 pm

COMMENTARY: SLOP

Be a Part of an Electric Place:

 

This isn't a job. It's a mission. And we're eating up every moment of it. Join us.

Wednesday, July 23 -- 3:57 pm

COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

Foreclosures Still Piling Up :

 

June made for another record-setting month in San Diego foreclosure activity.

Tuesday, July 22 -- 12:34 pm