Challenge Mayor Lee and his lies


EDITORIAL In the long history of San Francisco political corruption caused by Pacific Gas & Electric's willingness to do and spend whatever it takes to hold onto the energy monopoly that it illegally obtained generations ago, in violation of the federal Raker Act, there have been countless ugly and shameful episodes, many of them chronicled in the pages of the Bay Guardian.

Mayor Ed Lee's misleading Sept. 10 testimony to the Board of Supervisors, where he deliberately distorted CleanPowerSF and defended the dubious actions of his appointees to kill the program, ranks right up there with some of the worst episodes (see "Power struggle," page 12). If there were any doubts about Lee's lack of political integrity and independence, about his unwillingness stand up to his corporate benefactors on the behalf of the people he was elected to serve, this appalling performance should settle them.

It was bad enough when PG&E used money from San Francisco ratepayers to bury public power advocates under an avalanche of lies, fear-mongering, and the testimony of paid political allies every election when its monopoly was being challenged, making it virtually impossible to have an honest conversation about the city's energy and environmental needs.

But now that advocates for consumer choice and renewable energy have spent more than a decade developing a program that doesn't require a popular vote, is competitive with PG&E's rates, would create city-owned green energy projects serving residents for generations to come, and which was approved by a veto-proof majority on the Board of Supervisors, Mayor Lee has stooped to new lows in a desperate and transparent ploy to stop it.

Once again, as he did during his rash decision to remove Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office before even investigating his most serious official misconduct allegations, Mayor Lee has blithely created what Sen. Mark Leno calls a "Charter crisis." Then, it was over the question of when one elected official should remove another; now, it is whether a trio of mayoral appointees can usurp the authority of the elected Board of Supervisors, the top policymaking body under the City Charter.

Relying on tortured logic and Clinton-esque legalese backflips doesn't justify the SFPUC commissioners refusal to do their jobs — and it would be deemed official misconduct by a less corrupt mayor. But this mayor sees his job as simply carrying water for the people who put him there, whether that be Willie Brown and his longtime client PG&E, or venture capital Ron Conway and the companies that Lee is heaping with unprecedented tax breaks (see "Corporate welfare boom," page 14). Please, isn't there someone out there willing to challenge this corruption and run for mayor? This city, and the future generations living in the warming world we're creating, deserve better.


This editorial is nearly meaningless unless you also read 'Power Struggle: Mayor Lee misrepresents CleanPowerSF in defending his appointees' effort to kill it'.
Read the article here: also published on 09-17-2013.

Posted by CopperJet on Sep. 29, 2013 @ 1:49 pm

Smilin' Ed Lee is not my fucking mayor and an extremely venal little sock puppet that needs to be thrown out of the CCSF and warned never to enter the CCSF again.

Ed Lee represents neo fascists. Simply stated, fascism is defined as the capture of the "state" (sic) mantle of authority by business, corporations that is...

I define fascism as the merger of the political state & the corporate state and Ed Lee is merely the pitchman of this time for his benefactors. If you think Ed Lee gets elected sans Ranked Choice Voting think (inductively) again.

Smilin' Ed Lee had to go to 11 ballots against a left leaning candidate for mayor that happened to be a very well respected Supervisor and even then barely won. Smilin' Ed Lee is not well regarded other than by a very small, extremely corrupt vocal minority, i.e. the aforementioned establishment class.

that is all, and that is right.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

So 2/3 of San Franciscans appear to disagree with you.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

>"Smilin' Ed Lee had to go to 11 ballots against a left leaning candidate for mayor that happened to be a very well respected Supervisor and even then barely won."

This is a problem with ranked choice voting. If there are 12-14 candidates running for mayor and you eliminate one at a time (which is how RCV words) then, almost by definition it will take a lot of round for the process to run its course.

For example, in the last Mayor's race (16 candidates), the first round of RCV consisted of 248 votes (from Paul Currier) being reallocated. The next round 384 votes moved. So obviously it took a lot of rounds with these small numbers to pick a winner.

So RCV isn't really all that complicated for people of normal intelligence but, as the above post illustrates perfectly, it is too complex for some people to understand.

Posted by Troll on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

In the final "runoff" Lee won 60-40 against the next candidate. That means that 50% more people voted for Lee than the 2nd choice. How is that "barely" winning? It's a landslide.

Other than Avalos, the rest of the candidates were from the center, so the non-progressive vote was split, necessitating multiple runoffs. But the result was never in doubt - it was a walk in the park for Lee.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2013 @ 3:17 pm

Yeah, that's the titekc, sir or ma'am

Posted by Donyell on Jan. 22, 2014 @ 12:19 pm

Your website has to be the electronic Swiss army knife for this topic.

Posted by american insurance car on Feb. 23, 2014 @ 12:29 am

What liberating knowledge. Give me liberty or give me death.

Posted by life insurance level term on Feb. 24, 2014 @ 9:16 am

I could read a book about this without finding such real-world approaches!

Posted by on Mar. 07, 2014 @ 8:35 pm

You couldn't pay me to ignore these posts!

Posted by on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 12:41 am

Phenomenal breakdown of the topic, you should write for me too!

Posted by on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 12:58 pm

It's really great that people are sharing this information.

Posted by on Mar. 11, 2014 @ 10:24 pm

That's the thinking of a creative mind

Posted by car insurance cheap on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 12:23 pm

If only there were more clever people like you!

Posted by on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 6:25 am

You make things so clear. Thanks for taking the time!

Posted by car insurance quotes pa on Mar. 13, 2014 @ 10:33 pm

The honesty of your posting is there for all to see

Posted by insurance car free on Mar. 17, 2014 @ 11:41 pm

Thanks for starting the ball rolling with this insight.

Posted by accutane online on Apr. 07, 2014 @ 5:30 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Guardian endorsements

    Campos for Assembly, Yes on Props. B and 42, re-elect Gov. Jerry Brown — our recommendations for the June 2014 primary election

  • The future of Piers 30-32

  • Hold BART accountable for deaths