By Kate Conger
By Brian Rinker
By Rachel Swan
By Anna Pulley
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Erin Sherbert
By Rachel Swan
A Higher Power
Deflecting questions for no good reason: My goodness, the politicians in San Francisco are just so blatant about their corruption ["Friends in High Places," Joe Eskenazi, News, 6/20]. Not even a plausible denial made up to spin it. This issue will be ignored by the voters, like most corruption in a third world, banana republic-style government.
Retirees standing up for what's theirs: There are several serious inaccuracies in the article, "Old Cop, Young Cop," that ran in the June 13 issue.
Among the inaccuracies: 1) The official statement from the San Francisco Controller in November 2011 voters election handbook does not, as Eskenazi states, mention any specific dollar amounts attributed solely to the proposed changes to the Supplemental Cost of Living allowance contained in Proposition C. 2) The San Francisco police officers Veteran Police Officers Association (VPOA) is a wholly independent association comprised of retired San Francisco police officers, separate and distinct from the SFPOA — not "the POA's own retiree group." 3) The article implies that only police retirees are involved in the "legal procedure." Actually, the lawsuit is being brought by a group, Protect Our Benefits, whose members are San Francisco retirees from all professions and crafts.
The suit seeks equal protection for all city retirees under the state and federal constitutions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Staff Writer Joe Eskenazi responds: One of these three charges is valid. The Veteran Police Officers Association (VPOA) is not affiliated with the Police Officers Association. We regret the error. However, the article clearly states that Protect Our Benefits has initiated the legal action against the city; the VPOA is merely referred to as "the strongest backer of the Protect our Benefits suit." Since the VPOA has voted to support the suit, this seems a fair point.
Regardless of what the November 2011 voter handbook said, the estimated savings generated by the portions of Proposition C regarding supplemental COLAs was tabulated by the controller's office as being between $200 million and $300 million. According to a comparison of Props. C and D prepared by the controller's office at that time, the estimated savings are $283 million.
Whether Prop. C overreached and deprived the retirees of their constitutional rights may be left for a judge to decide. That this legal action, if successful, would cost the city a bundle is not so debatable.
Blog Comments of the Week
Reader feels there is a way to figure out Kink.com pay debacle: How about organizing the clients to back the performers ["Is Porn DarlingKink.com Ripping Off Its Webcam Girls?" Chris Hall, the Exhibitionist, 6/18]? Imagine if paying customers said: "We'd be willing to pay more for KinkLive, so long as you stick to the original pricing agreement." And if [Kink.com CEO] Peter Acworth explained that the jump/change in pricing is needed to provide decent wages and working conditions, I'm sure other customers would understand.