Thursday, Nov. 9, 2006 | In response to Ron D’argento’s recent letter, if you were defrauded in a negotiation, for instance, not told about toxic mold in your new house, you’d insist that the deal was void – just as any consumer would. You certainly wouldn’t be the one insisting that you keep the toxic house because “a deal is a deal.” The consumers, i.e. the citizens of San Diego, are doing what anyone would by insisting that the pension deals be fair and square, with full disclosures.

As for “suffer[ing] down the road,” I have yet to see any SD city job offered that didn’t have far more applicants than positions offered. As a citizen of SD, I’m willing to take the chance that a normal pension plan, instead of a bloated one, won’t significantly reduce the supply of applicants for SD city jobs. And now, Prop B is in place if we find we do need to make a change in the future.

Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.