A new progressive agenda

A series of community forums helped us craft a platform for the next mayor

New construction in Mission Bay: Are we building a community -- or building a city for rich people?

Over the past three months, the Guardian has been hosting a series of forums on progressive issues for the mayor's race. We've brought together a broad base of people from different communities and issue-based organizations all over town in an effort to draft a platform that would include a comprehensive progressive agenda for the next mayor. All told, more than 100 people participated.

It was, as far as we know, the first time anyone tried to do this — to come up with a mayoral platform not with a few people in a room but with a series of open forums designed for community participation.

The platform we've drafted isn't perfect, and there are no doubt things that are left out. But our goal was to create a document that the voters could use to determine which candidates really deserve the progressive vote.

That's a critical question, since nearly all of the top contenders are using the word "progressive" on a regular basis. They're fighting for votes from the neighborhoods, the activists, the independent-minded people who share a vision for San Francisco that isn't driven by big-business interests.

But those of us on what is broadly defined as the city's left are looking for more than lip service and catchy phrases. We want to hear specifics; we want to know that the next mayor is serious about changing the direction of city policy.

The groups who endorsed this effort and helped plan the forums that led to this platform were the Harvey Milk LGBT Club, SEIU Local 1021, the San Francisco Tenants Union, the Human Services Network, the Community Congress 2010, the Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Francisco Rising, Jobs with Justice, and the Center for Political Education.

The panelists who led the discussions were: Shaw-san Liu, Calvin Welch, Fernando Marti, Gabriel Haaland, Brenda Barros, Debbi Lerman, Jenny Friedenbach, Sarah Shortt, Ted Gullicksen, Nick Pagoulatos, Sue Hestor, Sherilyn Adams, Angela Chan, David Campos, Mario Yedidia, Pecolio Mangio, Antonio Diaz, Alicia Garza, Aaron Peskin, Saul Bloom, and Tim Redmond.

We held five events looking at five broad policy areas — economy and jobs; land use, housing and tenants; budget and social services; immigration, education and youth; and environment, energy and climate change. Panelists and audience participants offered great ideas and the debates were lively.

The results are below — an outline of what the progressives in San Francisco want to see from their next mayor.




Background: In the first decade of this century, San Francisco lost some 51,000 jobs, overwhelmingly in the private sector. When Gavin Newsom was sworn in as mayor in January 2004, unemployment was at 6.4 percent; when he left, in January 2011, it was at 9.5 percent — a 63 percent increase.

Clearly, part of the problem was the collapse of the national economy. But the failed Newsom Model only made things worse. His approach was based on the mistaken notion that if the city provided direct subsidies to private developers, new workers would flock to San Francisco. In fact, the fastest-growing sector of the local economy is the public sector, especially education and health care. Five of the 10 largest employers in San Francisco are public agencies.

Local economic development policy, which has been characterized by the destruction of the blue-collar sector in light industry and maritime uses (ironically, overwhelmingly privately owned) to free up land for new industries in business services and high tech sectors that have never actually appeared — or have been devastated by quickly repeating boom and bust cycle.

Instead of concentrating on our existing workforce and its incredible human capital, recent San Francisco mayors have sought to attract a new workforce.


Why will none of our 'electeds' address one of the big elephants in the room. "Downtown Transit Assessment District". It was one of Jane Kim's platform issues; a couple of other Supes have 'expressed interest'. It at least deserves serious consideration.
Just my 2c.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 9:05 am

At what point does someone become a San Franciscan? If you buy a home here and pay sf proprty tax, are you not automatically a Sf resident?
Your "progressive housing policy" is laughable

Posted by Guest on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 9:13 am

The following:

1. Establish as policy that San Francisco will step in where the state and federal government have left people behind — and that local taxation policy should reflect progressive values.

2. Make budget set-asides a budget floor rather than a percentage of the budget.

3. Examine what top city executives are paid.

4. Promote public power, public broadband and public cable as a way to bring the city millions of dollars.

5. Support progressive taxes that will bring in at least $250 million a year in permanent new revenue.

6. Change the City Charter to eliminate unilateral mid-year cuts by the mayor.

8. Pass a Charter amendment that: (a) Requires the development of a comprehensive long-term plan that sets the policies and strategies to guide the implementation of health and human services for San Francisco's vulnerable residents over the next 10 years, and (b) creates a planning body with the responsibility and authority to develop the plan, monitor and evaluate its implementation, coordinate between policy makers and departments, and ensure that annual budgets are consistent with the plan.

9. Collect existing money better.

10. Enact a foreclosure transfer tax.

...is largely soft focus platitudes - but I'm glad that pension crisis is solved.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 9:55 am

I would amplify that point 4 above alone would bring in at least one billion dollars per year, and completely eliminate our budget crisis.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 10:05 am

Are P,G and E currently making a billion profit each year out of supplying a city of 700,000 with power?

If you assume 250,000 households in SF, that implies a profit of $4,000 per annum. Seems high even for revenue, let alone profit.

And isn't the point of public power to make power cheaper for the consumers? Not to provide endless pork for politicians?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 10:43 am

An R.W. Beck study done in 2002 shows that San Francisco would save about $200 million a year simply by becoming a municipal electricity utility. See http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=19067

Since the massive increasing demand for value added high speed broadband, and especially streaming video and television over that broadband is a market that will easily produce several times the revenue opportunity of simple electricity sales, a billion dollars a year is a pretty safe bet.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 12:05 pm

need to find in the PG&E financial reportings a breakdown of the actual profit of supplying energy to SF.

And bearing in mind that they went bankrupt a few years ago trying to give us affordable energy, you may well find that the number is far smaller than you think. Or even negative!

Moreover, you did not answer my question about why that saving - whatever it is - wouldn't go to the consumer, rather than the government? I'd bet most voters would rather have cheaper bills than the BofS being given more lard and pork.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 12:16 pm

Your response is of course specious nonsense. The RW Beck study takes all of those factors into account.

You are clearly a paid shill for PG&E.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 1:15 pm

You prefer to hide behind some study that asserts what you wish to believe is true, without understanding what they are actually saying?

While, for the third time, you duck my question as to why that "billion" (assuming it's real) should accrue to the politicians, rather than to the consumers.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 1:38 pm

I've got to give you kudos for your Goebbels-esq attempt to repeat the same lie over and over again hoping that people will believe it.

Unfortunately for you, Guardian blog readers are a little more sophisticated than the Nazi era German proletariat.

The Beck study is quite clear and easy to understand, but apparently that clarity is lost on you.

In fact, it seems quite odd that you are so quickly discounting the study, when you couldn't possibly have read it yet, seeing as I only just posted it.

Unless of course you saw it a long a time ago when it first came out, in which case you are either lying about it, or you are very much an intellectual and mathematical lightweight.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 2:24 pm

And you still can't explain why that wouldn't be rebated to consumers rather than pocketed by the government?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 6:51 pm

I did so several replies ago and now you are pretending I didn't answer the question so that you can keep trolling this stupid discussion.

Your second point I answered more than once, months ago, and you are likewise pretending I didn't answer you, so that you can keep trolling -that- stupid discussion.

Marcos, I'm hoping this proves to you that, while much more sophisticated than the meatpuppet, PaulT is nothing but a troll in right wing clothing.

We shouldn't feed it, anymore than we feed meatmoppet.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 7:12 pm

Hey Eric, when you were shilling for CleanPowerSF--or was it GreenPowerSF--you said electricity would be free. Now you're saying it would cost us one billion dollars a year? That just doesn't add up. And if public power is the cash cow you suiggest, why does LA have such big budget problems?

Posted by OafNum1 on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 8:52 pm

I did not say the things you are claiming I said. Please rephrase the question so that it is not completely stupid...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 10:40 pm

because it is never expressed in terms of saving money for the consumers. If it had been, maybe the voters wouldn't have rejected it every single time it has been on the ballot.

But rather, it's always seen as a golden goose for the politicians who, in turn, have never shown the slightest ability to manage their funds and budgets prudently. Let alone complex businesses.

Moreover, given the state of Muni, the streets and almost everything managed by city bureaucrats, why would anyone want that bunch of bozo's delivering your electricity and gas?

Finally, even if PG&E agreed to sell to the City, they'd want tens of billions for it. Want to pay higher taxes for that, just so you can send your (probably higher) utility bills to a different address? All over the world, governments have been privatizing utilities and bring in cash for the government. Only in SF does anyone think it's a good idea to practice some 1930's style state takeover of private enterprise.

It's a freak, fringe viewpoint with little credibility, which is why the voters have always and sensibly rejected it at the polls.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 8:51 am


You mean like the bozos who just blew up an entire neighborhood and killed eight people in San Bruno?

Like the rapacious corporate cynics who have poisoned the town of Hinkley with hexavalent chromium for decades, killing, sickening and maiming hundreds of people?

Tens of billions to buy PG&E's system in San Francisco?

Complete fucking bullshit.

PG&E's -own- overblown reckoning is $1 billion, tops.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 9:39 am

Here's PaulT posting under the name "Tom" on the subject of what he is willing to do for PG&E:

Well, "Guest", if the power was as
unreliable as Muni, then I'd probably suck a few dicks to have P, G and E return and switch back on the lights.
If it's not broke, don't fix it. Public power is about politics not power. The left just wants to get their hands on the revenues. It was NEVER about rate cuts.
-Tom on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 8:04 pm


And here's PaulT, using the name Tom, losing the exact same argument he is trying to start in the above comment:

I take that as your admission that
you cannot find a shred of evidence that public power has EVER been presented to the voters in a way that indicates that rates will be reduced.
I've looked for evidence of that and can't find it.
Evidently neither can you.
-Tom on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

Whoa. You aren’t just pretending to be stupid.
"The truth is that public-power systems all over California offer lower rates than PG&E. "
Here’s what we have established Tom:
You will do anything for PG&E in return for electricity and gas. You are even willing to suck the dicks of the corporate officers of PG&E.
This puts you in a minority.
Most of us are not willing to accept never ending rate increases and more frequent deadly explosions, while PG&E reward themselves with more and more of our money.
You have also shown that you will make ridiculous, obviously untrue statements. You have shown that, when challenged, you do not have the intellectual capacity to argue facts.
Look at the clock, Tom!
It’s time for you to get PG&E’s dick back in your mouth.
-Guest on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

PaulT's Troll argument is quite a bit longer and embarrassing to read, but it's clearly the product of this same repetitious asshole that refuses to make any effort to factually support his moronic statements:

So little has changed since February with PaulT.
Just a series of names, changed every time he wears out his credibility.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 10:07 am

I'll take that as a moral victory then.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 12:43 pm

"the argument for public power always fails because it is never expressed in terms of saving money for the consumers"
PaulT on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 8:51 am

"The truth is that public-power systems all over California offer lower rates than PG&E. "

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

it may be possible for services to be delivered cheaper there.

I am asking you to point me to a proponent of public power who wishes all the resultant "savings" to be rebated to consumers rather than be appropriated by the government.

Clearly Eric thinks the City should get the money as he claims it will "solve the deficit". Can you show me lefties who disagree with that?

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 3:30 pm

I was using the City deficit as an example and a yardstick to show how powerful that amount of money could be for our community. But let's go with this. Let's take a look at your nightmare scenario.

Explain something to me Mr. Tea Bag.

Let's say for the sake of argument, that the we save $200 million per year on electricity costs and -all- of that money goes to the City's general fund, while the ratepayer simply goes on paying the very same rates as they paid to PG&E.

How then is the ratepayer worse off?

Not only does the ratepayer's electricity cost stay the same under this scenario, but the community -around- that ratepayer becomes massively more vibrant because of the infusion of $200 million dollars per year into that community's infrastructure, social programs, and economy (through the vast increase in employed workers).

So please explain, how this is somehow bad for San Francisco ratepayers...

I eagerly await your answer.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 5:41 pm

What the city should do is construct it's own power plant with the capacity to power all of San Francisco and then make PG&E buy that electricity to distribute to city residents. I'll bet that will make a billion dollars! It should be nuclear of course so that there would very little pollution. The new plant could be placed at Hunter's Point where the new 49's stadium will never be built.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 8:33 pm

public power because it won't save me any money. To support it under your terms, I'd have to trust the city government with 200 million, and they have already shown that they cannot manage a budget, and that they fritter money away on dumb things.

While if PG&E have the money, it is distributed to people as dividends, and they are free to spend it on whatever they want, and not what some bureaucrat decides.

The only way you can sell public power to the voters is by making power delivery truly non-profit, and rebating all profits to consumers via lower charges. And if you'd done that, we would have had public power a decade or more ago. I'd have voted for it.

But, no, you wanted all that money for government use which means to most people that it would be wasted on excessive pay and benefits for a whole slew of penpushers, and on profligate non-profits.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 4:11 am

Why all the name changes, PaulT?

You apparently wish to give the impression that more than one jerk (you) unconditionally supports PG&E, BART, Ed Lee, and the subway to nowhere.

It's almost like some sort of client list for a public relations firm, isn't it?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 9:55 am

A wilderness of mirrors surrounded by a think chewy center of mystery.

Posted by matclock on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 4:48 pm

You keep sounding this total lie, over and over again, that people supporting a community owned and run electrical system have in the past not sold the idea of the program based on savings to electricity customers.

That is complete and utter nonsense.

Every single campaign for community power in San Francisco has said front and center it its literature and message, that in communities which have municipalized the electricity system, the ratepayers pay far less than those in cities which pay a for-profit provider like PG&E. And that is true. In real life, community power customers pay much less. So your fiction that the local government would take all the savings, is clearly revealed as complete bullshit, when one consults a little thing called reality.

And your idea that the $200 million per year that we are talking about should instead go to PG&E stockholders (most of whom don't even live in San Francisco) instead of local ratepayers, is truly laughable on its face.

Are you purposely -trying- to lose this debate?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 10:07 am

you were "touting" using the profits to subsidize the politicians, not give me a refund.

Given the tens of billions it would cost to buy out PG&E, I expect a return on that.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 1:08 pm

Why are you yet again repeating your blatant lie that it would cost 'tens of billions' to municipalize our electricity grid when PG&E said itself that the number is actually 1 billion.

I give you an 'A' for effort on your repeated Goebbelizing, but don't you think now that people are wise to your nonsense that it's falling flat?

How much do you get paid by PG&E to tell lies that it won't tell itself, because it knows it would never get away with it?

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 1:20 pm

and if that billion is a revenue of a billion a year, then it would cost tens of billions to purchase that level of income stream at market rates.

Given the City is broke, it's a non-starter. given additionally your stated desire to give that all to the politicians, it's even more of a non-starter.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 2:43 pm

Ok. Now you are -really- confused.

We were just now talking about the value of PG&E's electricity infrastructure in San Francisco, which according to PG&E is $1 billion. However you have been absurdly claiming that the value is "tens of billions". I called you on that obvious deception, so now you have changed the subject back to my original point which was not simply about electricity, but concerned municiplizing far -more- infrastructure and making revenue from it.

Recall that I said we could make a billion dollar a year revenue, through the installation of -both- a municipal electricity system -and- a fiber optic broadband internet and cable network; which together should bring in at least $1 billion in revenues.

You are now attempting to claim that building such networks will cost us extra money from ratepayers and taxpayers.

You are patently wrong. It will not.

You are not considering the use of **Revenue Bonds** to build the systems.

In fact, I seriously doubt that you even know what a revenue bond is.

As I said to you three threads ago - look it up. And -then- deign to tell us what will cost what. You're a babe in the woods who has a juvenile right wing neo-con ideology, while having no real understanding of economics whatsoever to back up that paper thin ideology.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

the City's deficit. The city's deficit is the annual shortfall. So the only number that it makes any sense to describe as balancing the deficit is an annual number.

I originally challenged that billion per year s wrong, and you defended it. Now you're saying it's not an annual amount after all!

My point about the "tens of billions" was that IF the billion was correct as an annual figure, then it would cost tend of billions to buy that annual income stream.

Regardless of the actual number, it should all accrue to the consumers.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 5:51 pm

Are you actually paying any attention at all before you type and push the save button???

Look at what I just wrote. It clearly says 1 billion per year revenue from electric and broadband. You don't even wait to see if what you are writing is accurate do you?

And your pathetic backpedaling on your 'tens of billions' claim is utterly laughable.

You clearly said, repeatedly, that to take over JUST electricity from PG&E would cost "tens of billions"; a number that you obviously pulled completely out of your ass, because it is proven absolutely false by PG&E's admission that the cost is only 1 billion.

Finally, you still have not answered the question of whether or not you know what a revenue bond is, and how revenue bonds would make the entire buildout of -both- the electrical system -and- the fiber optic system at -least- cost neutral to ratepayers.

And in reality, as thousands of community power systems have already done, it would save them hundreds of millions of dollars.

Your vague, theoretical nonsense responses, have not once refuted -any- of this.

I you can't hold your own in this debate, be smart and get the hell out of it, before you are made a complete fool. (Kind of too late for that though...)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 6:36 pm

Now you don't.

I questioned the number originally and you could not back it up, merely saying "it's in the article".

You now agree the number isn't a billion a year.


Posted by PaulT on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 8:05 am

You are so totally confused as to the nature of reality at this point that there is little point in continuing.

The City's budget deficit is in the hundreds of millions (averaging around $350 million). I did not cite the -deficit- at a billion, I cited the -revenue- from electricity and broadband as likely to be at least a billion.

Clearly a billion dollar per year revenue could easily wipe out the deficit -and- provide ratepayers with hundreds of millions in savings.

It is the fallback of small minds who have no leg to stand in an argument to retreat into quibbling about numbers, which you have done. Unfortunately for you, you have paid so little attention to what was previously written that you haven't the slightest idea any more what numbers we are talking about.

Get a clue.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 10:18 am

of the two arguments is more credible.

I'm happy for them to decide the debate, if we cannot agree.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 10:45 am

'Disagreement' would suggest that both of us are at least discussing reality. You, clearly are not.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 11:18 am

at the polls. That's the only reality that ultimately matters is that voters don't believe your numbers.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 11:40 am

a joke agenda put forth by many of the people who've caused a lot of the problems. And of course Muni is lost in a sea of nonsense, what little you have plays on tired memes and racial politics.

good to know that avalos will lose this year, so none of this crap will ever be put in to place. But it makes the Guardian feel good as their fortunes, and that of "progressives" continues to sink as the progressive vote ages or moves out of town, and the Guardian's pages dwindle to a fraction of what it once was.

a pity your lawsuit didn't get you the big payday since you were sinking anyway! lol!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 16, 2011 @ 10:55 am


Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 8:56 am


Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 8:56 am

We need to work on a more extensive Youth platform for progressives. We owe it to our youth to focus on how to keep families in this city with ways for the youth to take part in this city, which some people have dubbed as an "adult theme park".
Focusing on the youth vote and voice in local elections.
Building the Youth Commission to be a commission with more power.
Working with the Youth Commission to be a larger player in youth-related policy.


Posted by Anthony on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 10:00 am

Well said brother.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 10:13 am

In this political electrical circuit, policies like these are the current for which there is no hope of generating sufficient political voltage with which to push those policies against the massive resistance.

The only way to do that is to foster ongoing democratic grassroots organizing and mobilization which can not only elect candidates--that is the easy part--but can hold those elected accountable to their base constituencies and can put together governing majoritarian coalitions.

If "good ideas" were enough, then the world would be a much different place.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 10:51 am

It's clearly not just because you think they are. nor that a small minority think they are either. We can argue good versus bad forever and never agree. That's why we have elections. "Good" is defined by the majority in a democracy. "Good" is defined by a dictator in other systems.

Your constituency can crow all it likes about such policies, but if they don't appeal to the silent majority, you might as well spend your time pissing into a wind.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 17, 2011 @ 12:51 pm

Odds and ends and odd ends from last decade,

The Class of 2000 created Lafco and tried to value the PG&E system. They hired a retired PG&E engineer (23 years) to do a report and made BOS Clerk Gloria Young as head of Lafco. She promptly moved to fire the engineer writing the report which ended up costing them under 100k if I remember correctly (I usually do).

So, they brought in the high-end law firm (R.W. Beck?) which took millions and millions over the years and finally resigned without completing an evaluation of the likely purchase price of the PG&E grid. Beck said that they had to sue their way into a look at each individual facility and that if they ever completed the job it wouldn't be accurate cause it would take so many years that the first sites appraised would need to be evaluated once more. Beck actually quit. They said that the job they were asked to perform was impossible and we were wasting out money on them.

Enter Dick Sklar (he rebuilt the cable car system, put in the overhead wires that run our electric bus system, rebuilt the power system in Bosnia, prevented the privatization of the public power industry in Macedonia, rebuilt dozens of US airports, rebuilt the sewage treatment plant in the Bay View). He said that we were wasting our time and that we should simply build another City-owned power grid which we could do for 750 million I believe was the cost.

Of course the Guardian said 'no' because Bruce hated Sklar although Bruce and his entire staff could never have lifted Sklar's jock.

And, enter sex and more politics, Fiona Ma brought her boyfriend at the time (a salesman for 'Smart' meters) around City Hall pushing an approval for the City to purchase the meters which were already outdated. That added a billion dollars to the cost of purchasing the PG&E power system and you'd be buying junk. I still recall Ma moving easily in and out of supes' offices and she was successful. So successful that it will cost SF taxpayers a billion bucks to buy those Edsel meters.

Bottom line?

Sklar was right, we have to build our own grid. We already own and operated everything from Hetch-Hetchy to Oakland and do it very well. It can be done and the savings once you cut PG&E out of the loop will be around 350 million a year of which you can hand back 150 million or so yearly in rate reductions.

Brooks is right also that the City can easily finish their fiber optic communications system and even while cutting customer rates pick up another couple of hundred million a year.

But, because Brooks opposes any pension reform whatsoever, it won't matter. Exploding pension and health care costs will eat up everything gained. Times two.

Giants up 2-0 in second.

We've won 7 in a row and if we keep it up for the next 10 games and either the Diamondbacks or the Braves fold we could win it all again.

Adachi for Mayor!

Baum for Mayor!

Avalos for Mayor!


Posted by h. brown on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 11:44 am

Can you post evidence that it was Sklar who proposed this? As an SFPUC commissioner he argued -against- replacing PG&E's grid with our own...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 12:58 pm


You're wrong and I'm right. Let's see you post where he argued against it. It's not there. He was totally a "red diaper baby" and hated PG&E.

All the lies that Brugman and his henchmen told about Sklar over the years were and remain disgraceful. Let's see you substantiate your statements.

Adachi for Mayor!

Baum for Mayor!

Avalos for Mayor!


Posted by h. brown on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 3:47 pm

H, I've watched every SFPUC hearing for the last 6 years And personally attended most of them). In some of the more recent ones, just before he died, Sklar clearly said that he was opposed to municipalizing the grid and/or replacing PG&E's Newark transmission line with a municipally installed cable.

I can't cite the minutes because suddenly none of them are available on SFPUC's web site.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 18, 2011 @ 4:48 pm


I certainly am. I'm sad that your data isn't available on Sklar but while you've watched the SFPUC for 6 long years, I've watched them for 30 and I'll put my memory up against yours any day.

Go to the ballot with an alternative Public Grid and an alternative Public Fiber Optics service and both will win. Bingo! You just picked up 400 million a year.

Go Giants!


Posted by h. brown on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 11:25 am

specific mandate to rebate ALL savings to consumers via contractually lower charges for power, and then you'll win.

In the past, the money was always targeted to the politicians and so, not surprisingly, the voters rejected it every time.

This stuff isn't hard, guys.

Posted by PaulT on Sep. 19, 2011 @ 11:41 am