February 26 2003

sfbg.com

 

Extra

Andrea Nemerson's
alt.sex.column

Norman Solomon's
MediaBeat

Tom Tomorrow's
This Modern World

Jerry Dolezal
Cartoon

It's funny in Kansas
Joke of the day


News

Arts and Entertainment

Venue Guide

Tiger on beat
By Patrick Macias

Frequencies
By Josh Kun


Calendar

Submit your listing

Culture

Techsploitation
By Annalee Newitz

Without Reservations
By Paul Reidinger

Cheap Eats
By Dan Leone

Special Supplements

Lit

Noise

Bars & Clubs

 

Our Masthead

Editorial Staff

Business Staff

Jobs & Internships


PLACE A CLASSIFIED AD | PERSONALS | MOVIE CLOCK | REP CLOCK | SEARCH

Hall Monitor

Leno's solar fix: With the United States careening toward a Middle East oil war, energy independence has earned renewed cachet. But Californians who install solar energy systems on their homes face new hurdles these days, as the state's big private utilities – backed by key state regulators – move to charge steep "exit" fees that could push the expense of solar panels even further out of reach (see "Sweeping the Debt Away," 2/19/03). But the fees aren't a done deal, and Assemblymember Mark Leno introduced legislation Feb. 21 that could protect your right to go off the grid.

Supporters of the fees contend that solar power users should ante up 2¢ to 5¢ for every kilowatt-hour of energy they generate, increasing the cost of the whole system by an estimated 20 to 30 percent. The money would go to the state to pay off high-priced contracts it negotiated during the energy crisis of 2001. Those who go totally off the grid would be hardest hit: the more you generate, the more you would pay.

That's counterproductive, Leno says, and it contradicts another state policy that supports solar installations by funding up to half of the cost of a new system, which typically goes for thousands of dollars. "State government is acting schizophrenic," Leno told us. "We have the buy-down program, but then we have the exit fees."

Alternative-energy backers say solar-powered houses need to be encouraged – not discouraged – if the state is to avert another energy crisis. Hearings on the bill aren't yet scheduled. (Rachel Brahinsky)

Draining the parks: With San Francisco facing a staggering $350 million budget shortfall, every city department has been asked to cut back sharply on spending. Everything is on the chopping block – and nowhere is that more evident than in the city's Recreation and Park Department. In having to make do with $10 million less, officials there have been forced to make cuts that will make it more difficult for the department to maintain its facilities and its programs and will reduce its staff.

Last week department officials decided to axe their 10-member team of unarmed patrol officers, who secure park gates, respond to problems, and protect facilities. What's more, the department is cutting 23 cashiers and locker-room attendants at city pools, as part of a move to lay off as many as 100 employees.

The Recreation and Park Commission, which oversees the department, has signed off on charging commuters for parking in Golden Gate Park, Balboa Park, and at the Marina Green. Officials also plan to take nearly $1 million from the city's Open Space Fund – money that was supposed to go to purchasing new parkland and improving facilities.

The situation is so desperate that Rec and Park officials say they plan to head back to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to ask the supes to reconsider selling the naming rights to Candlestick Park. (The board rejected the idea last August).

"We're trying to approach this strategically, as opposed to just cutting jobs and services or eliminating any programs by spreading the burden throughout the department," spokesperson Becky Ballinger said. "But people are going to notice impacts, absolutely. Bathrooms won't be cleaned as often. Trash won't be emptied as often. This is going to be really hard." (Savannah Blackwell)

Campaign watch

Leal learns: In yet another sign that public power still has strong political traction, mayoral candidate and city treasurer Susan Leal announced last week that her past opposition to municipalizing Pacific Gas and Electric Co. was a mistake.

At the first debate among the mayoral candidates – a classically San Franciscan, raucous, and loopy affair sponsored by S.F. Polifix, the San Francisco Call, and the San Francisco Sentinel at Goodwill Industries Feb. 21 – Leal admitted that when she was appointed to the Board of Supervisors in 1993, "I was not for public power." But she's seen the, ahem, light: "I've seen the need to get out from under PG&E's monopoly." Moreover, she said she's divested the city of PG&E securities, and she wants to put "a financial package together" to move forward with a takeover of the system.

Besides eliciting a round of applause, Leal's comments drew the immediate ire of fellow candidate and former supervisor Angela Alioto. The longtime public power advocate grabbed the mike and hollered, "I remember Leal killing my [municipalization] feasibility study!" As for Ammiano, who has long championed public power as well, he later said he was glad he doesn't need to "reinvent" himself or apologize and say, "I'm sorry for this vote."

Meanwhile, Sup. Gavin Newsom – a public power foe – ducked the debate altogether. (Blackwell)