The Redevelopment Agency should have made public power a part of the program from the start, and the supervisors should examine that plan immediately to see if it can be amended to require Lennar to buy power from San Francisco. Newsom needs to take to the bully pulpit and say that if PG&E gets this contract, nobody on the Redevelopment Agency Commission will ever be reappointed.
Meanwhile, when Chan and Black appear anywhere in public this election season, they need to be asked to fully disclose their ties with PG&E and outline their positions on public power.
And it's time for the public power coalition to start meeting again, with the aim of crafting a ballot measure that will create a full-scale municipal system, perhaps as soon as November 2007. SFBG
PS PG&E already has one staunch ally on the board, Sean Elsbernd, a Newsom appointee who also worked in the late 1990s for the Nielsen firm. That's three too many.
PPS If Newsom is really for public power, as he claims, then why is he pushing so hard for two PG&E call-up votes for the board? And why is he not publicly denouncing PG&E's attempt to scuttle public power and lending his political capital to a new municipalization effort?
PPPS The SF Weekly's Matt Smith last week all but endorsed Doug Chan — but made no mention of Chan's PG&E ties. Did that somehow slip through Smith's investigative reporting net?
Most Commented On
- Enough animosity to have a commonly accepted - March 17, 2014
- exactly - March 17, 2014
- True, and in fact the word "progressive" itself us devoid of any - March 17, 2014
- Greg, of course YOU cannot think of any other profession that - March 17, 2014
- Laws to stop you harming others are reasonable - March 17, 2014
- Correlation is not causation. - March 17, 2014
- What? - March 17, 2014
- what? - March 17, 2014
- Progressives? Conservatives? - March 17, 2014
- New Jersey, one of the most - March 17, 2014