Didn’t get a chance to follow some of the discussion on our site this week? Check out five comments we’re highlighting:
• Dale Peterson on “Hard Rock Hotel: That Charge Is a Tax“:
Republican politicians can’t/won’t tolerate tax hikes. When their business constituents demand a tax increase of some sort, they have to bounce around that reality and construct some other terminology of endearment. And, of course, when you are skirting public voting rights on tax measures, the inclination by the “fiscal watchdog” crowd is to spin some pink cotton candy.
Be civic leaders with some sort of a backbone. Call it what it is — it is a tax.
• Chris Brewster on “The Basic Disagreement at the Heart of the Hotels Standoff“:
Mr. Lewis: Good points. I think what’s behind the scene at the press conference though is a much bigger issue. As Mr. Filner points out, Mr. Goldsmith lambasted the prior city attorney for acting unilaterally. He is now doing what he complained about. The problem for Mr. Goldsmith is that he has repeatedly lectured on the limited role of the city attorney in advising the mayor and council. Insisting on the limitations of his office as being in a support role, then undermining the mayor (or council) when he disagrees with a policy decision is so hypocritical that it is hard to fathom that it can pass the laugh test. How do you successfully fulfill your role in defending a policy decision you have publicly opposed?
• Richard Rider on “On Local School Bonds, Big Donors Often Win Big Contracts“:
I first came across this when my national stock brokerage company (I was a broker at the time) donated thousands to a local school bond campaign in the 1970s — a bond I was active in opposing. I was perplexed, until I realized that my company was in turn picked as a lead underwriter in the sale of the school district’s [municipal] bonds. Pay to play.
Here’s a related area to look at. Two, actually.
1. Look at the CONSULTANTS who help pass the bonds. They get VERY healthy, noncompetitive district contracts, and in turn give big money to the campaigns. In essence, it’s a scam to allow the district to contribute taxpayer funds to a political campaign to raise taxes on taxpayers — washing the funds through the consultant to make it legal (which, I suspect, it is not).
2. Do the “pay to play” donors to such campaigns write off such contributions as deductible business expenses? I don’t know the answer, but I do know this — opponents can NEVER write off such contributions.
• Jim Dodd on “How Prop. 30 Cash Could End Up Costing SD Unified“:
Watching from the sidelines I observed the teachers make large concessions to the district, and then not get what they swapped for. I wondered when the crows would come home, this is part of it.
• Alan Rovel on “Sidewalk Will No Longer End in San Ysidro, City Says“:
How will this solve the wild dog issue? Perhaps some money should be spent on animal control as well.
Comments have been lightly edited for typos, spelling and style.
Want to contribute to discussion? Submit a suggestion to Fix San Diego.
Dagny Salas is the web editor at Voice of San Diego. You can contact her directly at dagny.salas@voiceofsandiego.org or 619.550.5669.
Like VOSD on Facebook.
Voice of San Diego is a nonprofit that depends on you, our readers. Please donate to keep the service strong. Click here to find out more about our supporters and how we operate independently.