City Attorney Michael Aguirre may be the most misunderstood and underappreciated elected official in San Diego.

Aguirre endures weekly lashings in The San Diego Union-Tribune, and he’s upset the establishment and lost the support of once-loyal allies (including labor unions and some longtime Democrats).

Every now and then, it takes an objective source to put something, or in this case someone, into perspective; cue the Wall Street Journal, the country’s most prestigious financial newspaper.

In a Sept. 6 editorial titled “A San Diego Retirement” the WSJ praised Aguirre, calling our City Attorney “the garden at this skunk party,” and lauded his efforts to overturn illegal pension benefits to unionized public workers.

“Taxpayers … need a rabble-rouser like Mr. Aguirre willing to stand up to union interests,” the editorial stated. “The San Diego attorney faces a tough re-election battle in November, but he’s setting off an alarm that voters across America need to hear.”

Aguirre’s lawsuit, which was tossed out of trial court and is now under appeal, could reverse $900 million in illegal pension benefits which were approved in 1996 and in 2002, and make a significant dent in the $1.2 billion pension deficit taxpayers will shoulder for years to come.

Crumbling under the deficit is the city’s infrastructure, public safety and public services (libraries, municipal pools, etc.)

Despite Aguirre’s efforts, he’s become one of the least popular elected officials in America’s Finest City; less popular even than the “derelict politicians” (as the WSJ referred to them) – including our own Council member Toni Atkins and Council President Scott Peters – who continued to underfund the pension, shaming and nearly bankrupting the city, and who caused the city to lose its bond rating.

Aguirre isn’t one to stay quiet; in no uncertain language, he’s publicly pointed out the fraud and corruption carried out by our elected officials. And, to be fair, at times, he’s overstepped his boundaries (most notably when he called for an evacuation of the city during last year’s wildfires).

Aguirre’s forthright manner and no-nonsense attitude has cost him; to no one’s surprise, Atkins endorsed Peters for City Attorney in the June Primary (Peters failed to qualify for the runoff) and Peters has endorsed Aguirre’s Republican opponent, Jan Goldsmith, in the general election – spiteful politicking at its best. Atkins has had the good sense to not endorse in the general election.

In the Primary, the San Diego Democratic Club, a GLBT political organization, endorsed Peters, too; despite Peters’ failure to support our community when he voted to extend the Boy Scouts of America’s lease in Balboa Park, knowing full well of the organization’s discriminatory practices.

Voting to endorse Peters, the club sided instead with labor, which was out in full force at the meeting. Fortunately, San Diego voters saw Peters for what he is: a flip-flopping, stand-for-nothing-fall-for-anything politician. They sent him packing in the primary with only 16 percent of the vote.

As for the San Diego Democratic Club, one can only wonder what its members were thinking. Aguirre has fought for our community for more than 30 years, longer than many of the members have had the legal right to vote. It proved, in endorsing Peters, that the club’s members are a group of has-beens trying desperately to hold onto some vestige of power, even when it means selling out the community.

Labor has certainly been a friend to our community, particularly regarding Proposition 8, the ballot initiative to ban same-sex marriage. Labor has stepped in to help us defeat the measure; that doesn’t change the fact the pension benefits granted to public employees were illegal and Aguirre is justified in his legal pursuit.

Aguirre’s No. 1 priority, his primary responsibility is to taxpayers – illustrated again by his concern regarding a new stadium for the San Diego Chargers. In a debate this week, Aguirre pointed out the city doesn’t have the money to fund infrastructure, recreation centers, or fire safety/prevention – let alone subsidize a football stadium.

Aguirre’s opponent, Goldsmith, however, said he is open to talking with the team.

Here’s a thought: if a new stadium is, in fact, a lucrative venture and a wise investment, let Dean Spanos pay to have it built. Then, he can enjoy the profits, pay the city its taxes on his profits, and create new jobs for the unemployed – then we’ll all be happy.

Mike Aguirre isn’t employed by the Chargers; he isn’t tasked with preserving the reputations of the mayor or the City Council members; and he isn’t working for the labor unions. He’s working for taxpayers; he’s working for justice; he’s working for equality.

Kudos to the Wall Street Journal for recognizing the value in Aguirre’s work and lauding his commitment to San Diego’s taxpayers.

We hope San Diego’s residents don’t suffer from short-term memory loss (or drink the Union-Tribune’s Kool-Aid). Aguirre may be somewhat of a loose cannon, but the City of San Diego is better for his service. Come Nov. 4, we hope voters recognize that.