The San Diego daily newspaper makes no bones about its position on labor unions and public employees.  A casual reading of the Union Tribune will reveal an anti-union bias that harks back to the early days of the trade union movement.

This week the paper has been presenting a “special three part Watchdog Report” about city employees in San Diego.  Never mind that the report’s numbers are skewed by the fact that the reporters chose to use a Calendar year in stead of the City’s fiscal year to make their comparisons.  Or that city employees received pay in 2007 and 2008 resulting from labor disputes in previous years.

The point of the report is to reveal that city employees are overpaid, union-lovin’ cancers that are sucking the taxpayers dry. To make that point, the paper ran the names and salary information for the City’s entire payroll.

City librarian Anna Daniels retired last week.  It wasn’t something she wanted to do.  But, facing cuts in benefits that would have left her without health insurance coverage if she’d stayed on with the City, she “cashed out”.

She’s written a rather powerful letter to the editor about how the Union-Trib’s decision to publish names and salaries has impacted those employees that have remained with the City of San Diego.

Here are excerpts from the letter, originally published in the OBRag news blog:

The U-T has presented a special three part Watchdog Report about the City’s payroll obligation.  I have spent close to three decades in my public service position answering questions and informing the public.  If someone were to ask me how to find information on this topic I would refer that individual to annual budgets, IBA reports, and labor agreements on line or in our document section.

I would also provide context for that search- that the City operates on a fiscal year beginning July 1; there is a general fund budget which includes departments that undergo annual public review and city council approval; there are quasi-independent authorities and  recovery departments that are not subject to the same policies, restrictions and review as the general fund departments; there are unclassified and represented employees; and there are four unions with different negotiated contracts.

In short, I would inform the individual that a thorough understanding of the topic would take into account these general distinctions.  Unlike the U-T, we respect and do not underestimate the intelligence of our customers.

What I wouldn’t do, and again, I am speaking strictly as a professional, is refer that individual to your “Watchdog” series on the very ground that it did not provide necessary context, despite your claims otherwise, nor data consistent with the City’s fiscal year reporting process.  Therefore your information was inaccurate and as a source you are unreliable.  Ms. Winner, the U-T does not achieve the most basic library information standard of accuracy and reliability.  If you also consider yourself a professional you should be very concerned about that.  I would appreciate a response to this, as one professional to another.

Despite its abysmal failings, the Watchdog Report was not the reason I canceled my subscription.  The bias against unions and the City workforce is pretty much quotidian.  Your decision to publish City employee names and salary information however is beyond the journalistic pale.

Ms. Winner, how much time did you REALLY spend weighing the public’s right to information against individual privacy concerns?  And how much thought did you REALLY give to the fact that “Individual pay for each year can be affected by promotions, partial years of employment, leave taken, vacation payouts and other issues that can cause wide fluctuations.”?  Or to the fact that the 2008 surge was a one time occurrence due to multiple factors?   It is evident that the answer is “Not much.”

I talked with co-workers at the library this morning about your choice.  They were appalled.  Concerned.  Fearful.  Angry.  Every one of us felt that salary information by job classification, with low, high, median and average salaries would serve the public’s right to information.  We felt that making that information available by department served the public’s right to information.  But by name? The women among us felt violated.  Think about that Karin.  We are not elected officials.  Even our name badges don’t provide our last names if we don’t feel comfortable revealing that information. Whom and what purpose are you serving, Ms. Winner?  And please, we are not stupid.  We know you can legally provide this information.  The question is why should you provide this information?

Your note about the wide fluctuations of salaries was reason enough to choose not to reveal specific names.  You did not make that choice.  Here’s my very personal response to your phenomenally bad judgment, to your utterly unprofessional judgment.  I owe you absolutely nothing, but the truth should always be served.

I’ve got a big announcement! A year and a half after San Diego lost its only liberal talk radio station, it’s getting a shiny NEW liberal talk radio station on 1700 FM. Why is this such big news? Well, because it’s not Air America or one of the usual Clear Channel affiliates. We are no longer depending on conservative companies to bring radio shows from liberal talkers to liberal listeners. We go on the air TOMORROW at 3pm with the Jon Elliott show.

But there’s more that you should know. This new radio station – which will be an important part of the 2010 election for governor, the CA-50 race, and whatever ballot initiatives we’re voting on – WILL NOT EXIST WITHOUT YOUR SUPPORT. The original plan was to get the station off the ground with advertising. It was totally going to work… and then Bush went and broke the economy. So we’re going with a hybrid model. As much advertising as we can get + $10/month from anyone willing to be a member. Members get podcasts and other benefits (invites to events & more). Sign up at http://www.jontalk.com

Last, this new station is not just San Diego news. We intend to use this model to start up liberal talk stations all over the country. But first we need to get this first station off the ground. It’s a solid business plan, and I’m thrilled that my liberal radio will not be vulnerable to the whims of Clear Channel. Please consider becoming a member to support us.

`

Stop me if this sounds familiar. The City of San Diego’s projected $54-60 million budget shortfall, closed via pay cuts and the magic budget fairy. So great I guess, but it turns out somebody forgot that there’s a recession on, cause the shortfall is gonna be at least $70 million now:

Thanks to falling property taxes, lower-than-projected hotel taxes and the possibility of a state raid on city coffers, San Diego will face a budget gap for the upcoming year that is significantly larger than the $60 million shortfall that was the basis of Mayor Jerry Sanders’ original budget proposal just last month. Before that budget was released, the mayor said late last year that the gap would be $54 million.

That magic budget fairy was nice the first time, but probably “oops, oh yeah” isn’t going to fly much longer.

This latest downward revision is further evidence that city officials have been slow to accept the severity of this recession. “Maybe this will be our last round of, ‘Oh sorry, we were off, let’s update it,'” Councilman Carl DeMaio said of the city’s revenue estimates.

(snip)

In recent weeks, the city has been shown to be off on estimates of major revenue sources, most recently property taxes. The city’s initial budget proposal for the 2010 fiscal year included a 1 percent increase in property taxes, but the county assessor said last week that property tax revenues countywide are expected to fall by 2.5 percent, an unprecedented drop.

So basically, math is hard. So is understanding the function of city government. I wish we could vote to hire someone whose specific job is to understand these things and hire a staff devoted to exactly that. We could call that person “mayor” or something.

Meanwhile, the updated $70 million gap doesn’t include the impact of the state raiding local property tax revenues. That’d only happen if the Props fail on Tuesday of course, so we shouldn’t peg it as more than like…90% probable. No reason to plan for that- it’s only as much as $36 million. At which point, waddya know? The deficit that Mayor Sanders originally said would be $54 million is up to at least $106 million. Now I’m not a mathematician by trade, but if the gap doubles, that’s bad. Especially since there probably aren’t bags of money laying around anymore.

Incidentally, forcing pay cuts into new labor contracts seems a lot less noble now that it’s pretty clear that layoffs were inevitable and easy to project from the get-go.

Earlier this week, Jerry Sanders unveiled his budget proposal (full proposal here) for city council review and vote. The budget is, perhaps unsurprisingly, mostly a corruption of the notion of “fair” and revives the locally legendary magic budget fairy to close a $60 million gap. It’s a mess all around, but budget cuts unnecessarily target retirees and low-income city employees in the name of “fairness” and far too many are willing to roll over because it’s easier and deficits are scary.

$11 million in fees and $3.8 million from the Library Systems Improvement fund are, at first blush, relatively minor. But the rest of the $60 million will come from several eyebrow-raising locations. $17.8 million will come from a surprise rainy-day fund that nobody outside of the financial folks seemed to know about until recently (efficiency at its finest). As Councilmember Gloria noted, reflecting on a midyear budget vote to close 7 libraries and rec centers “I shudder to think what would have happened if the council consented to doing that only to find $17.8 million that is currently available.” The City Attorney tried to defend nobody having any idea about this money by basically saying ‘running a city is complicated’. It fell to City CFO Mary Lewis to defend the mayor’s office:

“In prior budgets, we were looking at how do we right-size the city,” Lewis said. “It was just a different policy discussion about the budget and balancing the budget.”

I mean, I suppose running a city is complicated. But I mean, if it’s your job…

The remaining $30 million would come from an across-the-board 6% paycut for all city employees from the mayor on down. You may be familiar with this concept under other names like flat tax, fair tax, increased sales tax, etc. Basically, a regressive financial hit cloaked in the guise of fair. Thing is, rent and utilities and food and gas and a thousand other things that people need in order to live don’t change in price based on percentage. So as has been explained a thousand times before, without allowances for cost of living, these sorts of cuts hit hardest those who make the least. Which is a problem for its proponents..

Mayor Sanders defends these proposed cuts- in the midst of negotiations with all five of the city employee unions- by insisting that the only other option is layoffs. Even leaving aside the credibility that’s lost when the Mayor’s office can just up and discover $17.8 million lying around that nobody knew about, this isn’t a black-and-white issue. Obviously cuts are necessary, but cuts that still drive city employees to seek government benefits to survive kinda defeats the purpose of… keeping current city employees from needing that support. CityBeat paid lip service to this while endorsing the budget proposal, largely under the apparent presumption that coming up with and passing an actual different, better budget would be too difficult.

But the punitive air involved here- both from the Mayor and from otherwise-reliable progressive sources like CityBeat- is troubling to say the least. The notion that the city unions negotiated TOO good a deal last time and that correcting deals that are now seen as overgenerous should trump putting the best policy forward. But that’s nothing new and demonstrates exactly WHY unions are so aggressive in contract negotiations. They know that at every opportunity, organized labor will be the first target for cuts. In this case, major cuts to retiree health care are coupled with regressive pay cuts because it’s apparently too much of a hassle to produce and pass a progressive budget solution.

But even more, it’s a sign of San Diego’s economic model. Tourism is such a dramatic and vital source of income for the city that perpetuating an internal economy that’s fundamentally dysfunctional is fine- just keep the beaches full and the Convention Center booked. Until city leaders commit to systemic changes to local budget structures, I suppose this is what we’re gonna get.

Today in CREDO’s Bracket of Evil, Blackwater squares off against Karl Rove for the title of “Worst for America.” Compelling cases can be made for both, that’s for sure. But it’s a bit ironic that it comes at a time when both are finding it increasingly difficult to find a role in the post-Bush era. Rove hasn’t been able yet to figure out whether he’s trying to be credible media (presumably not), a GOP strategist (increasingly problematic as historians begin to see him as all tactics, no strategy), or just famous-name-for-hire (more difficult as the brand dies).

Blackwater though is going through an even more dramatic collapse and re-invention largely outside the public spotlight. In the past three weeks, four lawsuits have been filed against the company (recently rebranded “Xe”) over the conduct of employees in Iraq. On March 19th, the family of a slain Iraqi vice presidential guard filed suit against Blackwater and former employees, accusing Andrew Moonen of drunkenly murdering Raheem Khalaf Sa’adoon in December of 2006 and other Blackwater employees of attempting to cover up the incident and reneging on a deal to compensate the family for the death. “Xe – Blackwater also is accused of spiriting Mr. Moonen out of Iraq, bribing an Iraqi government official, and destroying documents and other evidence relating to the Moonen shooting and other Xe – Blackwater shootings.”

On March 26 and 27, two more lawsuits were filed against Blackwater related to shootings in September 2007 including the now-infamous Nusoor Square massacre in which Blackwater employees killed 17 civilians. Finally (for now), a lawsuit was filed on April 1st accusing Blackwater personnel in the shooting of three Iraqi security guards in February 2007 and subsequent attempts to cover up evidence and otherwise frustrate the investigation of the incident. All of this, of course, on top of a federal investigation into Xe/Blackwater’s role in the Nusoor Square Massacre which has targeted six former employees with gun and manslaughter charges. One has pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and attempt to commit manslaughter, the other five are scheduled to go to trial early in 2010.

But does it ultimately matter?

All this going on somewhat outside the public spotlight is exactly the idea. After more than a year in preparation, Blackwater has rebranded itself as Xe, founder Erik Prince has stepped down from his role as CEO and president Gary Jackson has retired. All because these brands had become so tainted that it seriously infringed on Blackwater/Xe’s ability to do business. As Prince said as he stepped down “Me [sic] not being part of the equation reduces the ‘X’ on the thing.”

But it hasn’t stopped there. In what one Xe/Blackwater employee termed “[t]he implosion in the swamp”, nearly every executive has departed in the past several months as the company has sought to reinvent itself in both image and purpose. Largely absent is the contracting and security operations that have drawn headlines around the world for violence and a consistent lack of oversight. In their place is a re-commitment to training and tactical instruction in facilities like the one opened last year near the U.S./Mexico border in San Diego.

Much of this shift in focus is indeed driven by concerns about public perception. Rumblings of exactly such a change began last summer when it was determined that Iraq would refuse to renew Xe/Blackwater’s license to operate in the country. But last week, on top of changes to name and leadership, it was announced that Chicago-based security firm Triple Canopy would be taking over Blackwater’s Baghdad security contract. As many- including Blackwater expert Jeremy Scahill- have long maintained, the size and structure of government security forces have been so dramatically transformed by the privatization model that contractors are simply required based on sheer size of the security needed, but Xe/Blackwater found it increasingly difficult to stay in the private security game, having become the international symbol of everything wrong with a poorly-overseen system of contractors.

So where is Xe heading now? Clearly the company has been working on international contracts for quite some time. Last summer, they began working to expand their surveillance air fleet (now at over 80 aircraft) and the successful opening of facilities in San Diego and Illinois have significantly increased their capacity to offer training to military and law enforcement personnel. Additionally, in the wake of growing piracy concerns in the Indian Ocean, the company has explored private maritime security and last year was exploring training and support contracts for Latin American countries. But how will this actually change things?

Small-scale local pushback has continued around the country. Efforts by Xe/Blackwater to expand the hours of its San Diego shooting range were recently thwarted by local residents, and a partnership with Southwestern College sparked pushback from Congressman Filner, faculty and local activists, inspired anti-Xe/Blackwater teach-in sessions at the school and prompted the college to rework its contract with the company. Life so far isn’t much easier for a rebranded Blackwater.

The prospect of being hired by other countries though, especially for combat purposes, raises all sorts of jurisdictional and legal concerns. Would employees working under foreign contracts be bound by U.S. law or foreign laws? What if those contracts ultimately included direct action against American companies, government agents or military forces? Involvement in foreign countries outside the aegis of the U.S. government has even more sinister possibilities. Accusations have today been leveled against “Blackwater gone underground” for recruiting ex-combatants from Liberia’s civil war to fight in Iraq. While the author has sources confirming the Blackwater connection, the broader concern doesn’t hinge on this particular accusation being true (awful though it is/would be). Whose responsibility is it to police U.S.-based private contractors who engage in this sort of behavior in foreign countries?

And despite losing its security contracts in Iraq, it’s expected that “many if not most of its private security guards will be back on the job in Iraq” working for other security firms in short order. And as Scahill notes, “Triple Canopy has its own bloody history in Iraq and a record of hiring mercenaries from countries with atrocious human rights records.”

Which ultimately leaves us with simply this: A bunch of new and less-familiar names for exactly the same problems that have plagued the Iraq debacle and U.S. military and security operations as a whole for a decade or more. Poorly-controlled private contractors with frightening records of violence and disrespect for human rights continue to be responsible for security throughout the world (Scahill notes Triple Canopy will also be operating out of Jerusalem as a private security force in Israel-Palestine) with no indication that anything but toxic brand names have been changed.

The whack-a-mole continues.

The recent sale of San Diego’s Union-Tribune to the Beverley Hills based private equity firm Platinum Equity has left many in the area wondering what the future will bring. Will the paper, which has seen several rounds downsizing of its news staff in recent years, be even less of a source for local news as its new owners seek to shore up their investment?  The answers to their questions will play out over the next year as Platinum partner Black Press, Ltd. takes a hand in shaping the publication once the sale is completed later this year.

Although it may seem serendipitous with its timing, San Diegans woke up Monday morning with yet another source for news.  The San Diego News Network (SDNN.com) launched a beta version this week, with a staff of over fifty reporters, correspondents and editors and twenty eight “partnering” media organizations.  Whether this new media outlet can command enough readership or provide real in-depth local coverage remains to be seen.

In an opening communiqué, CEO Neil Senturia promises over 30 sections will be initiated in coming months, encompassing local politics, sports, movies, restaurants and other topics. With former Sign On San Diego honcho Ron James as Publisher/Executive Editor, the SDNN initial offerings included:

**Associated Press Coverage on the Banking Crisis. And three different AP stories about the drug dealers that threw cash out of their vehicle while tooling up I-15 with the law in hot pursuit. Their reliance on the AP for national coverage suggests that it will mirror the generally conservative slant that news organization has exhibited in recent months.

**A feature by Joseph Pena profiling SD City Councilmember Carl Demaio. Political consultant Larry Remer is quoted as calling DeMaio a political “bomb-thrower”. Others interviewed for the piece  aren’t willing to pass judgment yet, including Remer’s long-ago consulting partner (and now partisan opponent) Tom Sheppard.  Bottom line:  meh?

**Reflections on the sale of the Union-Tribune by SDNN deputy editor Eric Yates in which he poses the question: “why would a private equity company, with no prior history of owning a major news publication, suddenly pounce to acquire a daily metro that has had a 40 percent reduction in ad revenue since 2006?”

**A lengthy article on the urban farming by Eric Glass.  The most “new media” of all the initial offerings, complete with a video and background story links.  While informative and well written, it falls short when it comes to placing the story in the context of the national and local interest in locavorism.

**Coverage of the local prostitution business by Political Editor Hua Quach. The price of oral sex has fallen along with property values, we’re told.  And I guarantee that his story will generate the most hits on the site, since anything mentioning s.e.x. on blogs and news websites always generates huge traffic.

A screenshot displayed on the SDNN website promises that the limited offerings on the beta release will significantly increase in the future.

SDNN appears to understand the collaborative future of web-based news reporting by virtue of their partnerships with other organizations, including radio stations, community newspapers and San Diego Magazine.  What remains to be seen is whether they can wield that collaboration into an actual point of view.  The issue here is not partisanship or even necessarily agenda.  But if you try to be all things to all people, you end up being nothing to nobody.  

Beverley Hills based private equity firm Platinum Equity has reached an agreement to purchase San Diego’s daily newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune for an estimated $15 million dollars.  The paper, once the flagship of the far-flung and politically conservative Copley media empire, has been a distressed property in recent years.  Last summer the heirs to the Copley fortune decided to cut their losses and put the paper on the market.

The family’s angst over the paper’s plight has been obvious over the past few years. Anxious for a solution, the Copley organization launched so many quick fixes, re-designs, re-launches, re-positions, cutbacks, flip-flops and fire sales that they began to resemble a losing political campaign more that the grand cartel with a license to print money that they once were.

The Union-Tribune has been losing circulation at an astonishing rate. Advertising dollars were disappearing faster than free food samples at Whole Foods. And, most importantly, the credibility and influence that the paper once wielded in the San Diego market had evaporated.  While it was all fine and wonderful that the Copley newspapers were once profitable, making profits was only part of the deal. The real reason for all this hand wringing had to do with influence.  If they could have found a way to maintain what they call their “market share” or “penetration”, they’d printed the paper on toilet paper, or switch to CB radio.  But those days are over.

San Diego is the eighth largest city in the United States.  It used to be a reliably Republican bastion, a Navy town, where dissent and dissenters simply weren’t tolerated.  Richard Nixon called it his lucky city.  The Union-Tribune was the face that the City showed the world.  Changing demographics and a shift in the regions’ economic base away from the military towards high tech industries have altered things.  Democratic majorities are emergent in most parts of the region, with the exception of the County Government. Given that the Union Tribune’s circulation was reaching just 8% of the households, the family wisely decided to trade their remaining hard assets for cold cash.

The San Diego newspaper was hardly alone in its troubles.  Three dailies have closed up shop since the first of the year, and the clock is ticking in a half-dozen more metropolitan areas.  What makes this sale noteworthy is that they found a willing buyer.  Why would a private equity firm invest in such an obviously doomed venture that had already shed its tenured employees?  The answer isn’t immediately obvious.

Private equity operators like Platinum Equity are often portrayed as slick, heartless financial manipulators that squeeze the remaining life from their acquisitions at the expense of the people unfortunate enough to be working there.  That doesn’t seem to be the case here.  In fact, it all seems too good to be true.

The U-T’s buyer says that its focus is operations, not financial manipulation, and it has a history of making long-term investments in the industries where it is active.  Platinum calls itself an M&A&O company-mergers, acquisitions and operations-and, in fact, it often acts more like a strategic buyer of its companies than a financial one. It invests, sometimes heavily, after the acquisition in additional businesses, equipment, people and facilities that give its holdings a stronger position for the long haul.

They certainly have been a buying streak.  Over the last 14 years, they’ve acquired nearly 100 companies with more than $27.5 billion in combined annual revenue at the time of acquisition.  What’s hard to believe are the rates of return.  Private Equity Intelligence Ltd., the British analyst of private equity fund performance, says investors in Platinum’s Equity Capital Partners Fund I of 2004, have seen a multiple of 2.68 (that’s $2.68 for every dollar invested) on their money, compared with 1.28 for all U.S.-based buyout funds originated in that year.  As the company is privately held, all such claims are completely unverifiable.

Platinum has an operating partner in their acquisition of the Union Tribune-Black Press Ltd., a Canadian company with extensive newspaper and internet holdings in North America.  Only two of their newspaper holdings are dailies: the Honolulu Star Bulletin and the Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal.  Standard & Poor’s’ Rating Services downgraded Black’s Corporate credit rating into junk bond territory based on debt acquired in its last US purchase-the Akron paper-predicting that the company would remain fiscally challenged at least through 2010.  It would appear that, for the moment, Platinum has the money and Black is providing the muscle.

Black Press Ltd.’s track record with their holdings in Canada and the Northwestern States is pretty solid, and, if past performance is a reliable indicator, the San Diego daily won’t be the only paper changing hands in southern California.  The company has been able to deliver decent returns with their publishing concerns (most of which are weekly papers) via regional grouping of advertising and operational personnel.

For San Diegans, it’s wait and see time.  Will their daily paper shed its longstanding reputation as a reactionary mouthpiece with a particular distaste for anything associated with a trade union?  (Both of the Black Press’ dailies endorsed Obama last fall.) Or will this sale be just another boondoggle in a City seeking to shed its past reputation as Enron-by-the-Sea?  

other links about the sale: The family’s angst over the paper’s plight has been obvious over the past few years. Anxious for a solution, the Copley organization launched so many quick fixes, re-designs, re-launches, re-positions, cutbacks, flip-flops and fire sales that they began to resemble a losing political campaign more that the grand cartel with a license to print money that they once were.

The Union-Tribune has been losing circulation at an astonishing rate. Advertising dollars were disappearing faster than free food samples at Whole Foods. And, most importantly, the credibility and influence that the paper once wielded in the San Diego market had evaporated.  While it was all fine and wonderful that the Copley newspapers were once profitable, making profits was only part of the deal. The real reason for all this hand wringing had to do with influence.  If they could have found a way to maintain what they call their “market share” or “penetration”, they’d printed the paper on toilet paper, or switch to CB radio.  But those days are over.

San Diego is the eighth largest city in the United States.  It used to be a reliably Republican bastion, a Navy town, where dissent and dissenters simply weren’t tolerated.  Richard Nixon called it his lucky city.  The Union-Tribune was the face that the City showed the world.  Changing demographics and a shift in the regions’ economic base away from the military towards high tech industries have altered things.  Democratic majorities are emergent in most parts of the region, with the exception of the County Government. Given that the Union Tribune’s circulation was reaching just 8% of the households, the family wisely decided to trade their remaining hard assets for cold cash.

The San Diego newspaper was hardly alone in its troubles.  Three dailies have closed up shop since the first of the year, and the clock is ticking in a half-dozen more metropolitan areas.  What makes this sale noteworthy is that they found a willing buyer.  Why would a private equity firm invest in such an obviously doomed venture that had already shed its tenured employees?  The answer isn’t immediately obvious.

Private equity operators like Platinum Equity are often portrayed as slick, heartless financial manipulators that squeeze the remaining life from their acquisitions at the expense of the people unfortunate enough to be working there.  That doesn’t seem to be the case here.  In fact, it all seems too good to be true.

The U-T’s buyer says that its focus is operations, not financial manipulation, and it has a history of making long-term investments in the industries where it is active.  Platinum calls itself an M&A&O company-mergers, acquisitions and operations-and, in fact, it often acts more like a strategic buyer of its companies than a financial one. It invests, sometimes heavily, after the acquisition in additional businesses, equipment, people and facilities that give its holdings a stronger position for the long haul.

They certainly have been a buying streak.  Over the last 14 years, they’ve acquired nearly 100 companies with more than $27.5 billion in combined annual revenue at the time of acquisition.  What’s hard to believe are the rates of return.  Private Equity Intelligence Ltd., the British analyst of private equity fund performance, says investors in Platinum’s Equity Capital Partners Fund I of 2004, have seen a multiple of 2.68 (that’s $2.68 for every dollar invested) on their money, compared with 1.28 for all U.S.-based buyout funds originated in that year.  As the company is privately held, all such claims are completely unverifiable.

Platinum has an operating partner in their acquisition of the Union Tribune-Black Press Ltd., a Canadian company with extensive newspaper and internet holdings in North America.  Only two of their newspaper holdings are dailies: the Honolulu Star Bulletin and the Akron (Ohio) Beacon Journal.  Standard & Poor’s’ Rating Services downgraded Black’s Corporate credit rating into junk bond territory based on debt acquired in its last US purchase-the Akron paper-predicting that the company would remain fiscally challenged at least through 2010.  It would appear that, for the moment, Platinum has the money and Black is providing the muscle.

Black Press Ltd.’s track record with their holdings in Canada and the Northwestern States is pretty solid, and, if past performance is a reliable indicator, the San Diego daily won’t be the only paper changing hands in southern California.  The company has been able to deliver decent returns with their publishing concerns (most of which are weekly papers) via regional grouping of advertising and operational personnel.

For San Diegans, it’s wait and see time.  Will their daily paper shed its longstanding reputation as a reactionary mouthpiece with a particular distaste for anything associated with a trade union?  (Both of the Black Press’ dailies endorsed Obama last fall.) Or will this sale be just another boondoggle in a City seeking to shed its past reputation as Enron-by-the-Sea?  (cross posted at daily kos)

other links about the sale:

http://obrag.org/?p=1333   http://lastblogonearth.com/200…  http://www.voiceofsandiego.org…

When you look at food stamp (now called SNAP) participation rates, California as a state ranks 4th from the bottom. And if you look at the food stamp participation rates of the 24 largest metropolitan areas in the nation, San Diego ranks dead last. This means hungry people don’t eat, but it also means that San Diego county loses $144 million annually. And that’s $144 million in the form of the very best economic stimulus the government can give us – each dollar of food stamps generates about $1.80 in economic activity.

Let’s take a look at San Diego as a case study: Why aren’t San Diegoans getting food stamps? And what can we learn from San Diego that might help us increase the participation rate nationally.

First up, those eligible for food stamps don’t all participate at the same rate. Take a look at this:

Food Stamp Participation in 2003

56% of total eligible population

74% of eligible children

28% of eligible elderly individuals

62% of individuals in households with no earnings

47% of individuals in households with earnings

Source: Sources of Variation in State-Level Food Stamp Participation (PDF)

So when you see the HUGE discrepancy between the 89.5% of eligible food stamp recipients who participated in Missouri in 2003 and the miserably low 29% of those who participate in San Diego, that explains part of what’s going on. If San Diego’s eligible population is made up of demographics that are less likely to participate, then naturally San Diego’s participation rate will be lower as a result.

That explains SOME of the discrepancy but not all. Another possible explanation is that differing state policies make it more or less likely for those eligible to apply or receive food stamps. For example:

• Certification period – How frequently must an applicant reapply (between 3-12 months)
• Reporting requirement – Are applicants required to report any changes in income? (And if so, how frequently?)
• Categorical eligibility – Is any group of people automatically eligible for food stamps if they are eligible for another government program?
• Fingerprinting – Are applicants subject to fingerprinting, which might discourage some from applying?
• Application page length
• Work requirements – Are able bodied adults required to work?
• Number of visits required to apply
• State outreach – Does the state engage in any outreach activities?

I can imagine that if your state makes it a real pain in the butt to apply for food stamps, you might just give up. Especially if you wouldn’t receive very much in benefits anyway. Maybe you’d make that first trip to apply but if subsequent visits were required, they want your fingerprint, and the application’s long, maybe you don’t bother. Or maybe you bother the first time, but three months later when they want you to re-certify, it’s just not worth the hassle.

The USDA crunched the numbers to see if the make-up of the population accounted for the differences in participation rates (it did some, but not too significantly), or if different state policies explained the discrepancies. The answer? Well, they couldn’t find any statistically significant difference in participation rates based on the policies.

However, they also say that they doubt that the variation in participation rates is totally random. And it’s hard to believe that a state that makes its application process difficult and obnoxious wouldn’t have any effect on its participation rate.

The USDA suspects that their inability to account for differences in participation may be due to lack of sufficient data or overly imprecise data, or perhaps similar policies are implemented differently, making statistical comparisons between them impossible. (For example, if two states had an identical policy but implemented it differently. When the USDA does its number crunching these states would be lumped into the same category but in reality food stamp applicants in either state would have very different experiences.) Another possibility is that “aggregate measures may mask meaningful local variations.” Last, perhaps state procedures – how the states actually do what they do – are more important than state policies.

I’m glad the USDA is looking into this, and I hope they can find an answer that explains why 70% of those eligible for food stamps in San Diego do not receive them.

Participation Rate (%) by State (2003)

Missouri 89.5

Oregon 85.7

Tennessee 83.1

Hawaii 79.1

DC 74.3

Oklahoma 73.0

Maine 69.9

Kentucky 68.9

Mississippi 67.9

Georgia 67.5

Louisiana 66.2

South Carolina 65.9

Ohio 65.2

Michigan 65.1

Arizona 65.0

West Virginia 64.9

Indiana 63.6

Minnesota 63.1

Alaska 61.5

Vermont 60.8

Illinois 60.6

Nebraska 60.5

Arkansas 60.1

North Dakota 57.8

Iowa 57.2

Delaware 54.8

South Dakota 54.3

Idaho 54.2

Alabama 54.1

Pennsylvania 54.0

Connecticut 53.8

Wisconsin 53.3

Kansas 53.0

New Mexico 53.0

Rhode Island 51.9

Virginia 51.5

Washington 51.4

Utah 50.9

New York 50.2

New Hampshire 49.7

Wyoming 49.2

Florida 48.9

New Jersey 48.7

Maryland 48.1

Texas 47.4

Colorado 45.5

North Carolina 45.4

California 45.3

Montana 44.6

Nevada 41.0

Massachusetts 40.1

I work for the Courage Campaign

As Brian explained yesterday the movement to convince Bill Clinton to honor the Manchester Hyatt boycott this Sunday is growing rapidly. Today the Courage Campaign joined with Cleve Jones, who knows a thing or two about the relationship of boycotts to labor organizing and LGBT rights, to ask our hundreds of thousands of members to call upon Clinton to cancel his talk.

Bill Clinton has stated his intentions to give the talk in spite of the growing backlash. As Cleve Jones explained:

Cleve Jones, a longtime gay-rights activist who founded the NAMES Project/AIDS Memorial Quilt, said Clinton should have known he’d create controversy.

“The boycott has been in effect and very well-publicized since July,” said Jones, who also signed the letter. “He’s had ample foreknowledge of the situation.”

Supporters of the boycott plan to gather outside the hotel at 11 a.m. Sunday and remain throughout Clinton’s scheduled 12:30 p.m. speech.

The Courage Campaign has also joined with other key leaders such as Jess Durfee, chair of the San Diego County Democrats, Brigette Browning of UNITE HERE Local 30, and SD councilman Todd Gloria in signing the moveclintonspeech.info letter.

Clinton’s advisers argue that his opposition to Prop 8 last fall demonstrates his commitment to the marriage equality movement. But as we in California know, that movement has only grown since November 4, and we need our friends and allies to stand alongside us now more than ever.

Over the flip is the letter we and Cleve Jones sent to our members:

Dear Robert,

President Bill Clinton will be making a big mistake on Sunday. Unless we act now to stop him. Let me tell you why.

If you’ve seen the film “MILK”, you may know that I worked with Harvey Milk in the 1970s, including on a campaign to boycott Coors Beer for the company’s anti-gay hiring policies and belligerent stance in contract negotiations towards their workers.

The Coors Beer Boycott taught me an unforgettable lesson about the power of coalitions in the struggle for equality. That lesson is being replicated today in the successful Manchester Hyatt Boycott in San Diego.

To the the surprise of many, President Clinton is scheduled to give a paid speech this Sunday at the Manchester Hyatt to the annual convention of the International Franchise Association. To give this speech, President Clinton will have to violate a union boycott and labor dispute — the workers at the hotel lack job security and the housekeepers face onerous workloads.

But that’s not all. President Clinton will also be offending supporters of marriage equality, including myself. Doug Manchester, the owner of the hotel, contributed $125,000 in early seed money to the Proposition 8 campaign.

We can’t let this happen. President Clinton has the power to move his speech away from the Manchester Hyatt. And you have the power to convince him to do the right thing. Please sign the Courage Campaign’s petition to President Clinton immediately and we will do everything in our power to get your signatures to him ASAP:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

It is ironic that, by showing up at the Manchester Hyatt on Sunday, President Clinton will provide comfort to Ken Starr and the Prop 8 Legal Defense Fund, who are now trying to defend the constitutionality of Prop 8 before the state Supreme Court. Doug Manchester’s significant $125,000 contribution to the “Yes on 8” campaign helped pass Prop 8 — money that made Starr’s case possible.

I think President Clinton should move his speech to another hotel in the area that treats its workers — and the LGBT community — with respect. If he doesn’t, he will see me, and likely many others, this Sunday on the sidewalk in front of the Manchester Hyatt.

That is exactly where Harvey Milk would want me — and you — to be. While you may not be able join us there, I hope you’ll add your signature right now and ask President Clinton to do the right thing before Sunday:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

Thank you for helping the Courage Campaign and UNITE HERE build a broad-based coalition for equal rights and economic justice in California and across the country.

Cleve Jones

UNITE HERE

I don’t know what the specific ratio of placating-the-masses to completely-out-of-ideas might be, but San Diego’s city government is asking for ideas. The big one is Mayor Sanders soliciting lightning bolts on budget cuts. I’m kinda terrified to imagine what this might elicit, but maybe there’ll be a few gems. At the very least, it’s a nice shift from his consistent (if often unsuccessful) fits of dictatorial governance.

With San Diego’s budget future linked to woes at the state level, negotiations beginning with HUD over millions in mismanaged funds which may need to be repayed, and major concerns over access to food stamps, it’s probably not a bad time to see if anyone happens to be particularly inspired.

At the same time, a charrette (pdf) is kicking off soliciting bright ideas for community redevelopment, specifically the Grantville area. SD Business Journal explains that the neighborhood “is undergoing a Master Plan transformation that could prove a blueprint for the greater redevelopment of our neighborhoods throughout the city.”

There’s lots of talk about “stakeholders” and communities investing in their own futures, which is a good start. And with the San Diego Democratic Party bouncing back fast from rock bottom in the June primary to strengthen its hold on the city council, hopefully this is the beginning of legitimate dialogue with the community. The November election brought a consumer advocate reporter (Marti Emerald), a long-time community volunteer (Sherri Lightner), and a Housing Commissioner and District Director (Todd Gloria) to the board. Three people who are, at the very least, used to soliciting opinions and perspectives from the broader community as an essential function of their professional lives. It’s a valuable shift in mentality that the Mayor seems to also be picking up on, even if it’s also a reflection of how few good answers seem to be forthcoming these days.

We’ll have to wait a while for the payoff. In the meantime, a little more openness is a decent place from which to start.

Update I should add that Mayor Sanders has taken the request for ideas to twitter. It isn’t exactly Debra Bowen, but it’s a lot better than many politician accounts. At least he’s stepping outside the tubes and into the ether.