From this morning’s Union Tribune in regard to the ballot measure to fix city pensions:
Fletcher said he won’t decide whether to support the ballot measure until a fiscal and legal analysis have been done. He also said he has concerns about stripping pensions away from newly hired firefighters, as the measure would do.
“It is clear we have to reform the pension system. I think everyone in San Diego should be rightly outraged at the abuses,” he said. “But it’s a complicated issue and we have to be careful in how we do it. In seeking a solution to a problem we have to solve, you can’t inadvertently make the problem worse.”
Hmmm. More of a nonanswer. Why would Fletcher, a partisan GOP legislator, be this wishy washy?
You can’t be wishy washy around this issue in San Diego politics. Bonnie and Carl have both done well to take (different) stands on municipal pensions. The more he talks out of both sides of his mouth the less credibility he’ll have with folks.
In answer to a Facebook query on why I’m supporting DeMaio over Fletcher, I posted the following:
Fletcher is VERY soft on pro sports subsidies. And Nathan is a BIG supporter of redevelopment districts (I’m not).
He’s demonstrated little knowledge of city issues, nor has he advocated for cost saving solutions. He won’t take a position on city pensions — saying that he wants more information (one doesn’t run for city mayor without having a position on city pensions).
While Fletcher is on record as opposing the Prop D city sales tax, he did nothing to help us defeat the measure — he tried to stay below the radar on this key issue. He’s vigorously working to remain close to police and firefighters (and their unions) — a bad sign.
It’s likely I’d support Fletcher in a run-off (assuming Carl didn’t make it) — especially against Dumanis, Kehoe, or Filner — but definitely NOT against Carl in the primary.
What are his positions? He should have done his research on the pension measure. It’s been out for several months and it’s not like he didn’t know everyone was going to ask him his position.
Makes him look either ignorant or purposely vague. Neither are good attributes in a leader.
Do you really think it is prudent to take a position on a fiscal measure before there is a financial analysis of its effect? It seems from his statement that Fletcher understands that the pension system needs reforming but he is not willing to endorse this particular measure until it is shown to be legal and actually provide savings to the taxpayers. I, for one, am happy to see a politician not take a position simply because an idea sounds good or seems to make sense.