Fighting big-money lies

THE CAMPAIGN OF lies is underway. Over the past few days Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s front group began mailing out the first of what will be a blizzard of misleading, inaccurate flyers designed to confuse the voters and defeat the public power measure, Proposition D. That's going to be a pattern for the next few weeks, as well-funded interests try to buy the San Francisco election. If there's a single major lesson for the fall, it ought to be this: Don't believe the hype.

The PG&E flyer, apparently sent out to conservative voters on the west side of town, demonstrates why PG&E is so desperate: hardly any current elected officials or legitimate community organizations oppose public power. The flyer is full of names from San Francisco past – former supervisors, former community college board members, former city officials.

The flyer also reveals a key PG&E strategy, which is to frighten voters by suggesting that Prop. D eliminates the right to vote on future revenue bonds. There's a lot that's not explained – like the fact that the City Charter already contains eight circumstances under which officials can only issue revenue bonds without voter input. Major agencies such as the Port of San Francisco and the San Francisco International Airport can already do so. And nearly every water and power utility in the state has the ability to issue revenue bonds.

There's a good reason for that: revenue bonds aren't paid for by tax increases. The revenue bonds that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission could issue under Prop. D would be paid back with the money the agency would make selling electricity – and the language of the measure very clearly states that the city can issue bonds only for a takeover of PG&E's system if the city controller can certify that the move won't lead to higher electric rates.

Right now, with PG&E in charge of energy, voters have absolutely no say about bond issuances or other financing – and little say in rate increases.

The overriding themes of the PG&E flyer are that Prop. D is "filled with uncertainties and risks," that the measure "may be hazardous to our city's health," and that the future of PG&E workers' jobs is an open question. That's outrageous on its face. What could be more uncertain than depending for electricity on this bankrupt utility, which hasn't been able to keep the lights on very well in the past few years anyway, which sent millions of dollars out of state to hide it from creditors' reach, and which is demanding that electricity rates stay high for more than a decade to come? What could be more uncertain for workers than depending on an employer that is doing its best in bankruptcy court to spin off parts of the company into new, unregulated companies that would not be bound by existing union contracts?

Similar lies, bundled in slick packages, will be circulating soon on other key measures – particularly Propositions R and N, backed by downtown, hotels, and landlords, which would wipe out 85,000 units of rental housing and take money away from the poorest people in the city. None of the progressive campaigns have that sort of cash, so it's crucial they work together over the next few weeks to counter the misinformation.

And, as we point out in the introduction to our endorsements package on page 18, it's crucial that even people disillusioned by the candidates for governor take the time to vote. The city depends on it.