Comments on: CalPERS to move ahead with Preservation Ranch

By: Fish Tree

Fish Tree — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:43:18 +0000

I would ask each supervisor to submit a conflict of interest affadavit on who they personally know that is involved in any way to gain financially from the Preservation Ranch Project and publish the said document in PD.

4 1

By: GAJ

GAJ — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:08:21 +0000

@John, so the past 10 years of actual budget deficits in San Jose, (last year’s was $100 million), didn’t happen?

Paying people more in retirement than while working is sustainable?

But this story is about CalPers investing in a speculative and highly controversial land deal.

Had I made such investments when I was in charge of my company’s 401k I would have been sued to the moon.

CalPers?

No problem; the taxpayer will make up the difference and the members of CalPers can sleep easy at night as can the people at CalPers responsible for a complete lack of fiduciary responsibility.

“With these fiduciary responsibilities, there is also potential liability. Fiduciaries who do not follow the basic standards of conduct may be personally liable to restore any losses to the plan, or to restore any profits made through improper use of the plan’s assets resulting from their actions.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/publications/fiduciaryresponsibility.html

5 4

By: Lets be Reasonable

Lets be Reasonable — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:54:05 +0000

@John, I agree that much of the pension issue is being blown out of proportion. Public spending on pensions is not out of historic norms. But the costs ARE rising at an unsustainable rate, especially for safety employees. I would be curious where you fall on Governor Brown’s recent legislation language, particularly the part about current employees going to a 50-50 cost share of any defined benefit pension.

2 5

By: John

John — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:55:27 +0000

@ GAJ – You like links…

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Guessing-Pensions-138981764.html

Finally some truth.

5 0

By: @Jackson

@Jackson — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:12:57 +0000

Any of ya ever wonder why there’s not much development along the Sonoma County Coast? Once you get out of the Russian River aquifer, there’s very little drinking water available. This property will NEVER be developed for housing. Any threat of that is nothing more than scare tactics. Even growing grapes on that land is a long-shot for any profit.

7 2

By: Jackson

Jackson — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:51:50 +0000

Here’s all the justification needed for the recent moratorium on developing vineyards on watershed land.

Preservation Ranch is far enough away from the populated centers of the county that most of us will never see the damage done by scraping off the ridgetops for proposed vineyard plantings. But someday, we will have to deal with the damage done by the development.

There is the potential environmental damage to the watershed; diminishing the salmon spawning tributaries, and creating conditions for flooding along the Gualala River. There is the damage to public roads as heavy equipment and materials are brought in to develop the ridgetops, and increased truck traffic if operations become viable.

But what if the vineyard profits don’t meet expectations? The real profit is in subdividing the acreage for estate retreats and conservation easements – to prevent even worse development. More development demands public services, especially in the stormy season, and the farther away from resources means the more expensive they are to deliver. We end-up subsidizing the millionaires, again.

10 6

By: County Worker

County Worker — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:59:57 +0000

The County pension plan has nothing to do with CalPers. My county retirement, if allowed to keep it, is just a piece of my retirement. I also pay into Social Security, that’s a small piece. Anyone who thinks that SS is a retirement plan can not be reasoned with. They have no grasp on reality. It is a safety net to keep you from starving to death. That is all. Anyone can retire anytime they want with planning and hard work. It used to be a goal for many to retire young and enjoy life. Many found a way to achieve it. Now anyone who does that is a thief, a liar and must be scorned. I did the math on my retirement 25 years ago. I am on track unless the laws change. All of you can be on track as well, unless they change the laws on you. Good luck.

7 7

By: Follower

Follower — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:07:42 +0000

Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
What a joke!

9 4

By: truth in news

truth in news — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:42:18 +0000

Gee, Calpers is looking to pay pensions with this investment by selling wine to liberals…no wonder you folks are so angry! Maybe ya’ll would be happer if they were planning to grow marijuana.

7 3

By: Reality Check

Reality Check — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:08:20 +0000

This is what happens when investment “pros” promise a rate of return they can’t deliver, at least deliver safely. They take more risk, in an effort to justify the paychecks they get.

And, as GAJ says, they aren’t risking their money, they risk yours. And the beneficiaries–public employees–are in the catbird seat, heads they win and if it’s tales the taxpayers lose.

Not to worry. Sonoma County will float more bonds.

20 10

By: Money Grubber

Money Grubber — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:02:37 +0000

GAJ: Right you are! Thanks for your post.

Aside from the public pensions being handed out 17 years before social security recipients can claim their SS pension, the guaranteed rate of return shouldered by the taxpayer needs to be changed so that the members shoulder their own troubles.

18 8

By: GAJ

GAJ — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:20:08 +0000

I think we all know why CalPers invests in such dubious and speculative nonsense.

Because they have NOTHING to lose!

The taxpayer guarantees the rate of return so if CalPers wants to play “risky investor” it’s on our dime.

It’s time to stop allowing CalPers so much latitude in their investments when what they’re really doing is risking money of non members!

20 9