Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by edwardtlp

Cities Sign Up For 'NextGen' Regional Communication System

What happened to the money the voters approved back in the mid-1990's? We taxpayers paid for a new, state of the art, "universal" communications system that would link together all the different public service agencies, from the lifeguards to the sheriff to the local police and fire departments...why wasn't that system maintained? Why, after the taxpayers fork over the money to get everything up to date, why don't the agencies keep it up to date?

February 3, 2014 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

San Diego City Council To Consider Payments For Filner Lawyers, Arevalos Victim

I agree with SDforward who says the City should only cover defense fees for Filner if he is found not guilty.

I also note that, in related news, Filner pleaded guilty and has been sentenced...

So the bottom line is: No, the City certainly should NOT cover his defense fees.

December 10, 2013 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Judge Signs Off On San Diego Convention Center Financing Plan

One test for the determination of whether this a tourist tax or a hoteliers tax is who is ultimately responsible for it. What happens here if, suppose, there aren't enough hotel guests to pay the convention center expansion? Are the hoteliers required to pay the tax even if no one comes to town? Or is the period of time extended until the tenants pony up enough money? If the latter then it is a special tax and the electorate should have voted on it.

March 15, 2013 at 8:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

City Attorney Goldsmith Calls For Lawsuit Reform

Goldsmith is simply politicking...there are already laws on the books that order those who bring frivolous lawsuits to pay the other side's costs. If the City is paying ANYTHING to defend against suits that REALLY ARE FRIVOLOUS, then Goldsmith isn't doing his job!!

But changing the private attorney general doctrine is something else altogether. There shouldn't be an impediment against bringing a valid lawsuit against a governmental agency as most of the time the individual is attempting to validate the rights of all or a large class of citizens. And protection of the rights of citizens is something we cannot expect the government to do, so we have to do it through the courts. Often times the law isn't well written and bringing a suit to get a declaration of what the law really means is a valid use of the court. But Imposing a "loser pays" on suits to protect citizens' rights would allow the state to run rampant.

September 13, 2012 at 6:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gary Kreep Says His 'Birther' Positions Do Not Relate To Being A Judge

Hmmm...Gee, GeraldFnord, I really don't know how often interpreting a U.S. treaty (which would have to be independently ratified by the Senate) would come up in family law court, but my guess, is not very often.
In any case, now that he's been chosen by the people (e.g., conceptually, the same sort of democratic process that made Obama president) we all need to take a deep breath and wait and see how he actually does as a judge. Let's see what comes out before attacking him for just being honest in his beliefs.
It also wouldn't hurt if maybe, just maybe, someone connected to the "media" would also do comprehensive reporting on _all_ the other judges that up for election, whether or not those judges names appear on the ballot...after all, one reason for the First Amendment was to allow the voters to keep an eye on our elected officials, politicians and judges, all the rest..Gee, do you think that maybe KPBS would do that? Huh? Do you think? Huh, hun......???


June 21, 2012 at 8:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gary Kreep Says His 'Birther' Positions Do Not Relate To Being A Judge

Really lame interview...The "host" first sets up the interviewee then dodges the answers!! She asks why he didn't put the birther information in his sample ballot statement, he responds asking why that matters...she doesn't have an answer or even a follow-up question!!
She says that, ' most people and most experts agree that Obama. is an American citizen.' First, that's yellow journalism because if you're going to quote statistics you say who you're quoting, not just "most experts" or "most people". Otherwise you're mudracking. Second, she's ignorant...The requirement is that one must be a "natural born citizen"...not merely a "citizen". That's a distinction of which she should be's key to the whole birther argument, for crying out loud, and she doesn't appear to have a clue. She's also "not qualified" to be a journalist...(KPBS doesn't need or want real journalist, in my experience.) Oh, well, she was probably just hired for her looks anyway. :)

June 21, 2012 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

SD Unified Board Facing Difficult Budget Decisions

With the passage of Prop. MM 10 years ago and Prop. S just a few years ago, Prop. J was just too much...especially considering the fact that school enrollment is declining. Each time those measures were proposed they were supposed to be the "last" time the district would need money...each of those were supposed to be sufficient to get and keep the school district in good shape. True, the funds were to be solely for construction, but money is fungible so new money collected for one purpose means more existing funds that can be spent elsewhere. Also, why, why WHY is the school district giving money for the new downtown library??? That's going to be a white elephant! If the school district has money for THAT, it certainly doesn't need more taxpayer money. When -ALL- the available monies are added up SDUSD gets about $14,000 per year per student already...that's more than most (if not all!) private schools...That's enough.

November 8, 2010 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Brownouts" Slow Fire Department Response To Choking Toddler

Citizens of the City of San Diego are already paying an extra 1/2 cent sales tax! We're paying the 1/2 cent imposed by Prop. 172, which was supposed to be for police, fire, and emergency services, but the County Board of Supervisors has instead diverted those funds to their own sheriff's dept and to the D.A. Yet the City Council has decided that their citizens STILL have to pay our own City Attorney for the costs of handling criminal prosecutions!! So we're paying for a service (criminal prosecutions) that we provide for ourselves!

The County is doing very well financially, as incumbent candidate Ron Roberts always brags about. Why shouldn't the County be handling the criminal prosecutions when it's what the city is already paying for through Prop. 172??

July 22, 2010 at 10:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )