Well the Guardian sure has been pumping out the lies, your paper is nothing more than a big campaign mailer littering the streets with no disclosure. Your alleged moral superiority is bullshit.

The KGB-like tactics of Daly and his minions on this issue and in D9 show just how morally bankrupt you Marxist pseudo revolutionaries really are. San Francisco deserves better than filthy mouthed do-nothings who are driving this city into the ground.

PGE spending on this measure is out of control and disgusting. I will be voting YES on H and the main reason why is that when big business is against something then I'm prolly for it - and as you bitches know I am quite conservative for San Francisco, so put that in your pipes and smoke it!!

How much is the Guardian spent on public power campains over the years? The reporters salaries, paper and printing costs, web site charges, admin costs it all adds up. Then there are the other campaign contributors like Fog City Journal and Beyond Cron who manage to avoid detailing their costs in promoting the Yes on H.

Are people forgetting the 18 billion dollar bailout of PG&E? -

While we're discussing this, let's remember that PG&E bilked California ratepayers out of $18 billion in a bankruptcy bailout while it shuttled $5 billion in profits to its parent company on Wall Street. Hmmm - Bail Out - Wall Street - Sound familiar??

Now it is on a schedule to waste yet 10 million more ratepayer dollars attacking a measure that will bring San Francisco 100% clean energy and thereby put PG&E out of the business of selling its dirty, expensive fossil fuel based electricity.

Let's stop putting up with PG&E's rip offs and vote Yes on H.

Idiots. To Eric Brooks: shareholder dollars used to campaign against the proposition, not ratepayer dollars.

The wording of the proposition supports takeover of ALL utilities...what's after the electric system? natural gas? phone? DSL? cable? VoIP services?

What about the people that are enrolled in the low income program and depend on it to pay their utility bills? Will this go away if the city does not have funds to support this? What about conservation? If the city power is not decoupled - how are conservation and efficiency programs justified?

Journalism:
The writer or journalist is expected to use facts to describe events, ideas, or issues that are relevant to the public.

Not sure that definition applies here as the pubications I mention are clearly one sided, and avoid many facts to prove their thesis.

Actually, Anon, the unresolved lawsuit San Francisco and other cities filed against PG&E after the deregulation debacle is still trying to recover $4 billion in ratepayer money that was improperly transferred to the parent corporation, and thus is now being used to bombard San Francisco voters with lies. So it's not just shareholder money.
And do you really believe that BS you're spouting? You can't possibly trust PG&E to safeguard low-income program better than the city, can you? The only reason PG&E has that program is because is was mandated by government. And do you really think that San Francisco is just going to blindly takeover every utility in town? Hey, I got an idea, why don't you stop calling yourself Anonymous so we can all see how much PG&E paid you.

Charlie, what "lies" are we pumping out? I linked to the document that supported this post and I could show you how to read it if you'd like. And Chris, what we're doing is called "journalism," which used to be a proud tradition in this country, often involving informing voters when they're being lied to or exploited by powerful corporations. It's quite different than a corporation spending $10 million to maintain market control and continue charging the highest rates in the country and running such a dirty energy portfolio that it's not even meeting low state standards.

Stockholder Money -Is- Ratepayer Money -

Give me a break 'Anonymous' (Or should we call you 'Paid PG&E PR Flack'.)

Writing a check from one account called "Stockholders" in order to pretend it's not from the same overall pool of money controlled by the same company called 'Income From Rate Payers' is nothing more than deceptive economic slight of hand.

Where did the Stockholders get their money, the Tooth Fairy?

Of course not. They get it from us when we pay our extortionist PG&E bills laced with line items from previous 'Crisis' Bail-Outs.

The voters and the ratepayers have heard this song before and they are not buying it anymore.

Vote Yes on H to free yourself from bailing out corrupt corporations.

Proponents Are Happy To Have People Read The Text Of Prop H -

I love to get people to read the actual text of Prop H, because it's awesome and will deliver 100% clean energy to San Francisco within thirty years.

Interesting Charlie, that you are saying people should read the text but you didn't actually provide the link. All please do read the Prop H text on pages 245-248 of the following Dept of Elections Guide:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/elections/Nov2008_VIP_EN_2.pdf

Once you do you'll see that it is a kick ass measure that will help propel the entire planet into a green energy revolution!

The Guardian is not a newspaper. It is a political pamphlet that uses its (dwindling) resources to advance an agenda, and support the campaigns and careers of a handful of politicians in City Hall.

As such, Mr. Jones will happily lie about PG&E's record to get H passed. He and his minions can't imagine that reasonable people can read the ACTUAL TEXT OF THE MEASURE and decide they don't like it. The Guardian can't be objective at all - hell they helped WRITE the damn thing.

Prop. H's backers have done some really rotten things to advance their cause and they need to own up to it. Lies, intimidation, bullying - the kinds of stuff we used to see from Downtown - now done, progressive style.

Don't call the Guardian a paper any more. Call it a political PAC and register like PG&E does so we can see how much the Guardian pays its people to write Measure H, promote it every week, and issue political fatwas on anyone who dares exercise free speech and their opinions!

Prop H SOUNDS good on clean energy. Heck, who wouldn't want 100% renewable power? But the goals are not enforceable. Also the goals include energy efficiency, large hydro, etc. By that standard PG&E already is delivering more than 70% "clean power". The City has enough problems providing the services it already does (Muni anyone?), why add to the mess?

Prop H's Clean Energy Mandates Are -More- Enforceable Than State Mandates -

Actually, Prop H's clean energy mandates will be placed in the City Charter and will then become fully enforceable City law - 51% clean by 2017, 75% by 2030 and 100% by 2040. It doesn't get any more enforceable than that.

The state mandates on the other hand, are failing, because PG&E is simply refusing to meet them and is building new polluting natural gas power plants instead. The state can't enforce its mandates because the feeble penalties that it can levy against a powerful multi-national corporation like PG&E are nothing more than an irritating gnat to that corporation.

The Prop H mandates however, will be easy to enforce, because if PG&E doesn't step up to the plate and give us those levels of clean power, Prop H empowers the City to step in and build renewables itself, and tell PG&E to stick its polluting fossil fuel energy where the sun don't shine ;).

As to PG&E's clean energy portfolio, your are wildly incorrect. PG&E in its own mailers claims 50% carbon free energy and outrageously includes nuclear power as half of that 50%! Nuclear power is neither carbon neutral nor clean...