Steve Moss: the big duck

|
(68)

WORKING DOGGEDLY TO PIN DOWN THE EDITOR OF THE POTRERO VIEW WHO IS ALSO A CANDIDATE FOR SUPERVISOR FROM DISTRICT 10

We've been trying to pin Steve Moss down on some key questions.  Over the weekend, I sent him some questions by email.  He responded, but ducked or ignored the real points and never gave us any straight answers.

Here's our exchange, my questions and his answers -- unedited,  followed by some comments from me as we doggedly try to make sense of where Steve Moss really stands on key issues in the district.

 

Dear Steve,

In your October, pre-election issue of the Potrero View, your signed column
compares the Guardian with Fox News and states that we are both  "advocacy groups disguised as news purveyors" who "whip mostly anonymous commentators on their websites to call political candidates 'weasle, lying, doucebags' and worse." You also state that "these same outlets barely take the time to edit--much less fact check--their stories."

As you know, our reporter Sarah Phelan has done factual reporting on you and your campaign (http://www.sfbg.com/2010/09/14/five-things-you-should-know-about-steve-moss) and she and I have both checked with you to respond to our points before publication.  We will continue our policy by submitting these email questions to you in advance of publication. Our deadline is 5 p.m. on Monday

l. What specific facts do you find inaccurate in our previous reporting on you and your campaign? (You mixed up a comment on a blog with Phelan's actual story and reporting. Was this intentional?)

2. How much money have you and your various profit and nonprofit enterprises accepted from PG&E during this past year?

How much money have you accepted in total from PG&E during your many years of operating  your profit and nonprofit enterprises? Why did you change the pro-public power View of Ruth Passen to a PG&E-friendly View under your ownership?  (For example, Passen always supported public power but you as the new owner  refused to support the last public power initiative and said it was "too contentious.")

3. Campaign finance records show that Thomas Coates, a Republican who spent $l million trying to overturn rent control in California in 2008, has just dumped
$45,000 into the so-called Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth in support of your candidacy.  Public records also show that you served a cure or quit notice
to a tenant in your rent-controlled building in District 8. Would you comment on this? And would you state whether you support or oppose rent control?

4.  On the front page of the October View, your lead story reported on the troubles of the Neighborhood House under the headline, "NABE Reeling Under City Budget Cuts." Your story noted that the Nabe had lost "nearly $400,000 in funding from the Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families" and that individual donations had dropped by 75 per cent. The result, your story noted, was that the NABE "has been forced to eliminate teen-focused programming, reduce elementary school offerings by 25 per cent, lay-off staff and impose pay cuts."

Each year, the NABE sponsors the Potrero Hill festival as a benefit to raise much-needed funds. This year the benefit was more critical than ever to reduce its  crippling deficit. Just as the View was going to press earlier this month,  I got a call at the Guardian from a representative of the festival with a startling bit of information. I was told that you, as the owner and editor-publisher of the View, and a candidate for supervisor from our district, were  refusing to run a full page ad for the festival, a key piece of the NABE's promotion on the hill,if the ad contained the logo of the Guardian as a festival sponsor. 

The representative was concerned that, if you wouldn't run the NABE ad, that the Guardian as a media sponsor wouldn't run a NABE ad in the Guardian.
(I told him not to worry, do what he had to do to get the ad in the View, and that the Guardian would run the ad and double up on its promotion for the festival. The Guardian logo did not appear on the Nabe ad in the View but did appear on all other NABE promotions.)

Why did you make this threat to the NABE and its festival benefit? Were you serious?

5. You said in your endorsement interview at the Guardian that, if you were elected supervisor, you would give up the View. Do you still plan to do that, if elected? If so, how would you do that?

 
 Steve Moss responds:

1.  The entire way you've covered the District 10 election has been slanted towards the candidate you prefer, and against the candidates you dislike.  From this perspective the Guardian is not serving the role of a newspaper, but rather is acting as an independent expenditure committee on behalf of its chosen candidates and causes.  I'd be happy to select a panel of five independent journalists -- you pick two, I'll pick two, and the four can pick one -- to render an opinion about how you've run the Guardian during this election cycle, and how I've run the View.

2.  In 2010 I believe SF Power has received less than $25,000 in payments related to the small business demand-response program it operates, as sanctioned by the California Public Utility Commission.  I've already provided you and your reporter with multiple responses to your requests about SF Power's successfull advocacy related to CPUC orders requiring PG&E to fund programs focusing on working families and small businesses, all of which, as I've repeatedly pointed out, are a matter of public record.

The View has published several articles about community-based energy systems, and effective ways to achieve local control over the power grid, during my tenure as publisher. They are available on our website.

3.  I read about Coats' contribution in Bay Citizen.  As you know, this donation was made to an independent expenditure committee over which I have no control and almost no knowledge.  I have stated throughout the campaign, and directly to the Tenants Union, that I believe current rent control policy should remain unmolested.

4.  I made no threat to the NABE.  In fact, the festival was featured on the front page of the November issue, with a story inside, and a full page ad.

5.  Yes.  A new editor will be found to run the View if I'm elected to office.

 

Okay, You aren't responsive.   Let me try again, point by point:

l. I am not running for office. You are.  Please tell me where we are factually wrong in any of our reporting on you and your campaign.

As you know, we have contacted you in advance of publication for comment. And you have written us twice with generalities but no specifics on inaccurate reporting.

2. You defend your PG&E payments on the basis that it's actually money from the California Public Utilities Commission that PG&E is required by law to put up for energy efficiency projects. However, Loretta Lynch, former president of the CPUC, told me that PG&E decides who gets the money and that fund recipients that "cross PG&E" are in danger of getting their funds cut off.

In other words, if  you  want to continue to fund your organization with upwards of more than $l million over three years, you must avoid angering the utility.  This may explain why the Potrero View under your ownership has switched from its historic position supporting public power under former owner Ruth Passen to going easy on PG&E and ducking a position on the most recent public power initiative (Proposition H).

The background: Your  non profit collected  $1,290,000 from the CPUC for energy efficiency projects over the past three years, according to SF Power's annual revenues and estimated budgets from 2008 to 2010 as provided on its website.

The breakdown: $500,000 in 2008, $440,000 in 2009, $350,000 in 2010.

You  also got $150,000 from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in 2008 and $125,000 in 2009.  Your  non profit also got $50,000 chunks each year from the Richard and Rhoda Goldman fund, where his wife Debbie Findling works.   The Lisa and Douglas Goldman Fund kicked in $5,000 in 2008 and 2009.  The  Potrero View contributed $5,000 in 2008, $4,500 in 2009, and $5,000 in 2010.  A footnote stated that SF Power "is also informally negotiating with the California Air Resources Board, San Francisco's Office of the Mayor, Mirant Corporation, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, among others, for project funding support."  Did you get any additional money from Mirant, PG&E,  the Mayor, or anybody else? Are you still negotiating? If not, when did you stop?

Lynch explained that "all energy efficiency programs in California are funded by ratepayer dollars that are collected by the utilities as part of each ratepayer's utility bill.  Thus, California ratepayers, big and small, pay for all energy efficiency programs and each and every program is funded by ratepayers, not utilities."

She said that the CPUC "sets broad parameters for each utility concerning the amount of overall energy efficiency savings to be achieved and in what customer classes (residential, small business, large business,etc.). But the utilities choose the program providers. The CPUC simply reviews the overall package provided by the utilities to check to see whether the energy efficiency savings targets are met."

Thus, PG&E each year decides  the amount of money going to SF Community Power. Lynch noted that  some non profit people told her, when she was a commissioner, that "if you crossed PG&E, they would stop the funding."
 
Lynch mentioned a meeting with you  that showed  PG&E's influence on you, your non profit and the View. .
She said that, shortly after she was termed out as a CPUC  commissioner in 2009, you  asked her to meet with  him at Farleys coffee shop and asked her to serve on the board of his nonprofit. "I thanked him and said that he should consider my relationship with PG&E before making that offer if he was funded through PG&E, as PG&E and I have a very contentious relationship,  and that they would not be happy if I were on the board. He thanked me for telling him and agreed that I should not serve on the board.”  Lynch lives on Potrero Hill.

3. I followed up my rent control question:  "If state law were amended to allow it, would you support extending rent control to vacant apartments?"  No answer.

4. I got a call from Keith Goldstein, president of the Potrero Hill Association of Merchants and Businesses and co-chair of the festival. He had gotten an email from you  that read: "Please have the festival's pr agent remove the Guardian's logo from any complimentary ad the View is providing the festival in this month's paper.” Why did you make  such an unprofessional move?   Would you have backed out of sponsoring this event if the Guardian logo had remained? Is that how you would behave as a supervisor?

5. If elected, do you plan to sell the View?  Will you continue to operate your non profit and take chunks of money from PG&E? If elected, would your income from PG&E disquality you from voting on PG&E and energy issues? At what point would you sever your relations, if at all,  with your non profit and PG&E?

6. If  you lose, will you (as your wife suggested in an email to friends) move back to your house on Liberty St in Distict 8?

We anxiously  await your response. B3

Comments

Dude - give it a rest. Nobody else but you gives a crap about this anymore. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. Your "persistence" is borderline psychotic and people are starting to talk.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 25, 2010 @ 10:45 pm

Thanks for the comment Steve.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

Thats apt.

FOX news likes Tom Delay and attacked anyone who didn't.

The Guardian likes Chris Daly and attacks anyone who doesn't.

FOX news and the Guardian as partisan outlets for hackery is quite an apt analogy.

Posted by matlock on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 4:00 am

Quite an apt analogy.
They're both sweaty and stupid and locked in a never ending battle with
ARGH!
PERGRESSIVES!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 11:02 pm

It is unfortunate that the Bay Guardian is a biased voice supporting primarily one candidate, Tony Kelly. If it were not for the taxpayers it would not exist. Being that it should be the voice of the people, unlike the Chronicle, it should not take a biased view and make outrageous allegations about candidates such as Steve Moss.

Posted by Guest Snake eyes on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 7:01 am

Thank you Steve.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

If there's anything illegal then you should take this downtown. If not, STFU. From here, it looks like you're either jealous or being petty. Pity.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 8:01 am

I wish Moss and his apologists would simply answer these questions and put this drama to rest. How will he deal with PG&E? Will he retaliate against reporters who dig a little too deep for his comfort? Where did he live when he filled out his candidacy paperwork? When you tell the truth, you don't have to have a good memory.

Blaming journalists for doing their job is so Sarah Palin-esque. Do we need these type of antics in D10? Wasn't one Edmund Jew enough?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 9:31 am

Ho Hum. Is that the best you can do? "...so Sarah Palin-esque." The antics and drama are all yours. Your candidate's running last in Bayview and last in Viz Valley among the viable candidates. So, what's a paper better suited to wrapping fish to do? Go after someone. Good tactics. I think the voters are smarter than this. I have to think your readers are, too.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 10:11 am

Anyone who blames a newspaper for the shortcomings of a flawed political candidate is pulling a Palin. What constitutes a legitimate paper is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think the SF Chronicle is any more or less trustworthy than the Guardian? Why?

Tony Kelly is not my prefered candidate in this race, but I would love to see any polling on the D10 race. Unless you pulled that whole "Your candidate's running last in Bayview and last in Viz Valley among the viable candidates," out of your ass, which I think you did.

Posted by Not a Tony Kelly supporter on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 10:30 am

Who is blaming a newspaper for anybody's shortcomings? Read the other posts. People are saying,"put up or shut up." Either take the show to the City Attorney's office or take it out of town.

Where did the question about the Chron come from? Just more of your baiting. Sorry, not going to bite.

As for polling, isn't that what a newspaper does? Polls are data. Data is news. Guess you're not a newspaper. Mine's an informal poll. Drive around the Bayview and Viz Valley. Knock on doors. No Kelly signs, no Kelly volunteers, no Kelly. Ask if they've seen or heard of Kelly. D10's a three-legged stool. No winner can stand on one leg.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 11:30 am

Looks like Steve Moss is posting like a maniac ha ha!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 11:50 am

Yeah, it's a little sad but funny at the same time.

BTW (for the previous poster), looking at how many signs there are in a neighborhood is observational data, not a legitimate, scientific poll. Campaign signs can signify how much support there may be for a candidate or an issue -- but signs don't vote. People do.

We will see what happens with Moss and all of his "I won't really answer any questions; leave me alone" routine. I have my issues with other candidates in the D10 race (Sweet, Cohen), but this Moss stuff is very disturbing in its own way. And his apologists (who chose to post on the website of a paper they claim not to respect) are just pathetic.

I'll shut up about Moss when he opens up about all of these unanswered questions.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 12:30 pm

The Moss victim act is pathetic.

You can tell Moss is writing on here, all over the D10 forum and obviously the nasty comments against Cohen as well, especially the "outrageous allegations" comment above.

Moss you ran for office, your choice, and with that comes questions, part of the process.

If you had just answered the questions this would be a done, but you just keep refusing.

If I had the questions asked of me as a candidate and was telling the truth and had nothing to hide I would be so outraged I'd bury Sarah and Bruce in facts till they couldn't see the stars.

Trouble is that you've just snaked around avoiding answering anything. We know who your backers are, the powers that be that supported you and they don't want anything that makes any group look bad, especially yours.

Anyone who has read your actions over the last ten years would have many unanswered questions at best, all you refuse to answer.

Blog away Steve, don't stop now.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

Thank you SFBG for keeping us updated on D-10

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 6:06 pm

SFBG is located in D-10.
They are more knowledgeable than any other city newspaper regarding what has happened and what happens in D-10.
And they have a better interest in keeping the general public in D-10 informed.

Posted by D-10 Voter on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 6:18 pm

I'm a resident of D10 and appreciate the coverage of the Bay Guardian and it's effort to get solid answers to some reasonable questions. It's difficult sorting out the candidates in this race, and sources of information other than paid political propaganda are rare.

The lack of clear answers to some of these questions speaks volumes. Whether or not the Guardian is "for" another candidate, the residents of D10 deserve honest and clear answers from Moss.

Posted by Ellen on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 6:30 pm

If moss wins, can I have his residency in Dolores Park?
What's the rent?
It's under SF rent control law, right?

Posted by Dolores Park Residency on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 6:32 pm

We have a right as D-10 voters to know about our candidates.
A candidate running for D-10 is a public election.
The D-10 candidate of choice will be a public servant.
We have a right to know how they will behave in the public sector.
And our tax money will be paying them to be our representation of choice.
How a candidate behaves prior and during the election is important to know and is a reflection on how they will perform if elected.

Posted by Go D-10 on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 6:59 pm

I believe Mr. Moss has proven without a doubt that he has supreme leadership skills living off the taxpayer dollar and producing zero.

That would be zero jobs versus zero emissions.

Quack quack.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 8:01 pm

Moss is one of those characters you just want to slap the dump ass stupid grin off his face and pour a drink over the 1972 PA bowling shirts.

What a creep.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

What about SF rent control?
What is Moss's opinion as a landlord and also running for public office regarding rent control?
Is he for or against?

Posted by Apartment Rent Control? on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 9:11 pm

Why did moss leave and move his family residency out of D-10 three years ago?
And move to Dolores Park which is D-8.
Why doesn't he run for office in D-8?

Why is he running for office in D-10?

Posted by D-10 resident on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 9:38 pm

We have a right to know about a candidate's background.
The election is about hiring a candidate to represent us.
If a candidate can't deal with the public asking questions, maybe the candidate shouldn't run for public office.

Posted by D10 resident on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 9:52 pm

forget the election, i just want his residency in delores park, we're talking great views and as long as it's rent controlled, i am totally interested in living there

Posted by Guest on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 9:59 pm

I believe in freedom of speech and the public's right to know about a candidate's history. How the candidate acts both in personal and public life is a reflection on how the candidate will perform as the public's elected servant.

Posted by USA mother on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 10:35 pm

I'm not voting for Moss. But, I think his responses to the first set of questions were fairly reasonable. And, I don't blame him for not responding to the second set... there's a lot of innuendo in there... a lot of expeditionary fishing and yet no real substantive evidence of wrong-doing or impropriety on Moss' part. If I were Moss, I'd also avoid getting into a fruitless e-mail debate with someone who clearly has made up their mind before receiving the answers.

#1. It's not always the facts that are at issue, it's how the facts are portrayed... the innuendo attached to the facts. That seems to be what Moss is complaining about. "We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing, when it's said and done we haven't told you a thing. We all know that crap is king, eat your dirty laundry." Remember that?

#2. He basically answered the question, albeit, with a bit of "go do your own research on the public record", as any smart candidate would. I mean seriously, is Moss supposed to do the reporter's research for them? Not in the final weeks of a campaign - no candidate is gonna waste their time doing that.

#3. He stated his support of existing rent control... a better follow up might have been "Why do you think Coats supports your campaign? Have you ever met with or spoken to Coats or any agent of his, or anyone from the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth?"

#4. No evidence that he was "refusing to run an ad". He asked that they remove the logo. It should be noted that Goldstein is a major Kelly supporter, and as such, one could say that maybe he isn't an independent source of information on Moss.

#5. Moss answered as he always has... that he would hire an editor to run the paper for him. While I agree he should sell the paper if elected, he has never led anyone to believe that that is his intention. (And, by the way, his ownership of the paper while simultaneously holding office has always been a concern of mine and one reason I will not vote for him.)

I have to say, while Moss has his issues, I think the SFBG is really just f-ing with Moss because he's a main challenger to Kelly.

Posted by Guest Whosyourdaddy? on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 1:41 am

SFBG is running articles on him because he is a crook, not because of Kelly, what cool aide are you drinking at the Moss camp.

Whatever bullshit he puts out with the snake like grin he stole money, plain and simple.

Sad truth is that if you called Bayview station and said an African American broke into your car and stole $20 they'd be around in 2 minutes to grab the suspect.

White with money, connections in the right places (Temple Emanu-El), Goldman Fund through wife, and the Zacks mob and you can get away with it all, and that is what he did. Notice the sisters religious innuendos, very calculated.

Mr. Moss has a very disturbing past, and present for that matter, amazing that educated people actually believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Honorable, my ass.

Posted by USA mother on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 7:14 am

Mr. Moss again fails to answer any questions and ducks.

A few reasons D10 voters should be very wary and not vote for Moss.

1. He still has not addressed how he managed to appropriate millions from the city, state and other non-profits and then self awarded himself into the millions in fees, how is this possible?
2. During the first month of the $1.5 million grant in 2000 he billed $11K for set up costs in his own billings, true Steve? Who sets up a for profit business and gets the city to bankroll?
3. Dept. of Environment didn't even know you had a for profit and non profit with same name and washing funds between each, true?
4. Of the millions received never a job created and non today, correct Steve?
5. Potrero View costs, rent, utilities, have been run across the books of your non-profit, true Steve? And you have used the View as you little mouthpiece ever since. Editorial slamming the SFBG in October, it is a campaign tool.

His record is scandalous and deserves to be thoroughly investigated. Wish the other candidates had the balls to call him out.

Mr. Moss was opposed to the new Lowe's on Bayshore, guess he didn't want jobs for B/HP.

Steve as you writing and blogging on here, as we all know, answer away.

Posted by USA mother on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 6:46 am

polling shows that - at least at the front end - this is coming down to a Moss-Sweet race with Jackson holding down third. Assuming the posters here are in fact D10 voters, they need to ask themselves whether Lynette Sweet is a better option than Steve Moss. If the answer is no, then use your third vote on either Jackson (assuming you didn't vote for him earlier) or Moss. SFBG may be fond of beating this dead horse, but the fact is that Sweet is a real stalking horse for everything that the SFBG and most of the commenters here oppose.

Posted by guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 8:35 am

What a terrible set of choices.

Any "poll" that doesn't include frontrunners like Lacy, Kelly, Smith, or Cohen I find very suspect. I predict that Sweet will come in 4th and Moss 5th. Only time will tell, however.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 8:58 am

Hi Steve, got to be you.

How's it a a dead horse when there are no answers.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 10:02 am

"Blaming journalists for doing their job is so Sarah Palin-esque"
I totally agree.
In other words, "don't shoot the messenger"
The journalists are just doing their job.
If you don't like this type of reporting, go read a children's story about unicorns and fairies.
Or move to a country that is not built on a constitution of "freedom" like America.
For example, Cuba is fabulous I heard.
Great food, amazing music, and totally hot chicks.

Posted by B. Holmes on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 10:49 am

I don't live in San Francisco. I am about as far removed from the city as one can get - living in the mountains above Los Gatos.

I don't think the SFBG is interested in who the "real" Steve Moss is. What I am reading is a lot of sour grapes, lack of understanding about how business and non-profits work, and a huge amount of envy.

My younger brother did what a lot of people have done. He purchased a home, when the value of the property increased, he was able to leverage those property values to buy another home.

My sister-in-law loves the Dolores house. It is a wonderful property. So, of course, she would like to move back there. However, like a good wife, she supports her husband and moved back into D10...where they have lived for more than 8 years.

They moved back to D10 because Steven has worked there for almost 10 years. He knows the people, he is concerned about the community and he wants to build the community and help the people there. He has spent more than two decades involved in public policy, working on state, federal, and overseas to improve economic conditions.

The SFBG wants to know if Steve would extend rent control to vacant units. I want to know what the SFBG is smoking. Let's say you own an apartment building. The renters are paying $800/mo under rent control. Meanwhile all around you rents are going up for as much as $2000/mo for similar units. You are being charged more for property taxes, insurance, maintenance, utilities, but under rent control you are expected to eat the loss until the tenant moves out. Steve favors rent control, but like most property owners he can't afford to extend rent control to vacant units.

My brother is not a millionaire. He could be making a lot more money if he had stayed on Capitol Hill. Instead, he opted to move back to SF so he could be close to his extended family. He is sincerely interested in the environment and making the world a better place.

I especially liked the SFBG innuendo that Steven is anti-gay. Wow!

Steven's nephew, my son, enlisted in the United States Marines when he was 17. He advanced through the ranks up to Lance Corporal. At the age of 21, after serving for more than three years, he was demoted and then discharged under Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Steven and Debbie were supportive during this entire period.

After Daniel was given his honorable discharge, he became engaged to his partner, who had been with him since he was 18. Debbie, who had officiated at our other brother's wedding, offered to marry them.

Both Daniel and Shaun were very interested in having Debbie perform the ceremony, but ultimately chose Rabbi Eli Cohen, the leader of my congregation, to perform the service during the period of time when gay marriage was legal. They chose Eli, because he is gay.

Steven, Debbie, and their daughter attended the wedding and reception. Eli and his partner talk about what an amazing time they had at the wedding every time I see them socially. They especially remark about how much love and support they saw from Daniel's family.

Both Daniel and Shaun have offered their support and their full endorsement of Steve's candidacy.

That's the real Steven Moss. He has spent most of his live in public service, working to improve the environment and economic conditions of small communities. He also understands how to work within the legislative system. He is an honorable man and his family is terrific.

I guess the truth is probably pretty dull compared to the slander and innuendo cooked up by the SFBG.

Elise Moss

Posted by Elise Moss on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 11:58 am

Dear Elise

What happened to the $4m of taxpayers money your honorable brother garnished, gave a ton to himself using a different address and misspelled consultancy name, and produced no jobs.

How come your brother can't answer a question?

How come the department of environment didn't know about the non profit - for profit funding.

Why don't you take the questions and get him to answer then and post them for us, he seems pretty incapable.

Using a family member and the fluff is so tribal.

If this is all you can post and no facts, sorry worthless.

If he was my brother I'd turn him in.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

Sister Moss,did Steve write this for you?

He purchased a home, coincidentally at the same time that he received $1.5m grant from SF Dept of Environment. They don’t seem to know that he started a for profit and non profit with the near damn identical name in 20 months, he managed to leave that out. Taxpayer has been footing the mortgage bill, you are welcome. Paid himself directly $11k the first month, did you know that?

Notice how the Moss family always thinks everyone is envious of them, have a feeling this is Steve again. Notice how someone posted that Sarah at the SFBG must have a crush on Moss in a previous blog, yuk.

Moss went on a state department junket that anyone can go on, he wasn’t some genius they sought after, again BS. Improved economic conditions, this is disgusting at best. He used the poorest and most needy members of our district as an excuse to line his own pockets. Self awarded himself over $1.3 million in direct fees to himself, not including the rent and all expenses that he ran over the non profits books. He even described the Bayview / Hunters Point residents as difficult and untrusting and hard to get through to, his arrogance again, care to answer Steve, again what you wrote, true?

The Potrero View was a smart move. Anyone ask why Ruth wanted her name removed from the pub after Moss slinked it away from her, took advantage of a lady who’s health was frail, come on Steve we all know what happened. Then he ran the View’s operating costs over the non-profits books and knew full well Maxwell would be termed out. Smart move, I give him that. Did you know that?

He is sincerely interested in lining his own pockets, every filing shows that. Nonprofits are meant to be exactly that and not to be the benefit of the founders pocket, and that is what he did. He gave away 6 - 10 refrigerators and 3000 light bulbs for $4m? Should have given the money to Lowes, much better deal, however Moss was opposed to Lowes on Bayshore, I forgot that, who needs jobs and tax money in SF.

Your son has nothing to do with this. Why does he keep getting into legal battles that reek of bullying is the bigger question, whether with tenants or others. He tried to evict two gay tenants, one fighting HIV, and would he like to give us the facts? Why did he use eviction specialist Zacks, he couldn't resolve in a reasonable manner?

Sister Moss, the problem with our country and politicians is that they think they can get hold of the public purse and do whatever they want with it, no questions asked. Your brother took a lot of money from the city, state and non profits, and D10 residents can’t even get an answer on how many jobs he created. The taxpayer and newspaper have every right to demand an accounting for every penny. If he didn't want that he should have started a regular private corporation.

Leave the fluff out and put the facts out, line by line and then we’ll know the real Steve Moss.

Posted by Sister Moss on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 7:43 am
Wow

Did you give bullies wedgies for picking on your brother in the 3rd Grade, too?

Dang--when your sister has to come to your defense, you're done.

Posted by Limahl on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 12:57 pm

Of course she did, Steve's a victim.

A victim of the terrible SFBG.

Wait Sweet, Cohen and the rest aren't victims, Steve's special and sensitive.

Whatever you may or may not think of Lynette at least she answered.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

Dear Ms. Moss,

We are not questioning how he conducts himself within his family circle. What we are questioning is the conduct towards his fellow man, his neighbors, his business partners, and the tax-payers in D-10. Comparing the two worlds is apples versus oranges.

Posted by Jorge on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

I appreciate all of the comments. This is a terribly important race and the more debate the better as far as the Guardian is concerned.

Let me make a couple of points. First, I and many others have been bothered because Steve has been using the Potrero View to advance his personal and political agenda.
That was evident when Moss, as owner/editor of the View and candidate for supervisor, told Keith Goldstein to remove the logo of the Guardian, a major sponsor of the Potrero Festival, from the festival ad. Keith called me and told me that he took this to mean that the festival/NABE wouldn't be able to run the ad in the View with the Guardian logo there.
This was terribly unprofessional but I knew the View ad was important to the success of the festival and I told Keith to do what he had to do to mollify Steve and get him to run the ad. The Guardian logo was removed from the View ad. All over festival/NABE promo ran the ad with the Guardian logo.

Second, PG&E has invested millions of dollars over l0 years or so into Steve, his non profit (and by extension his for profit firm and now the View.) And Steve, according to a statement in his annual report on his website, is still hustling money from the big polluters in our district (from PG&E, from Mirant and the power plant, and the mayor's office et al.) Our district has been brutalized for years by PG&E, with the belatedly shuttered Hunters Point plant and with the still fuming Potrero Hill plant, and with the concentration of gas pipes under our district, for starters.

If elected, Steve would be the first supervisor in memory who would be a direct financial captive of PG&E. I think it is only fair to the people of this district for Steve to explain some basic facts: how much money in total and by year has PG&E invested in him, why has he been so secretive about it, will he keep hustling PG&E and Mirant for money if he is elected, will he cut his ties with PG&E and the nonprofit and when, etc. He needs to come squeaky clean on this issue before the election.

We have been asking questions like this of candidates for 44 years now. We'd like Steve, as a community newspaper owner/editor/publisher and as a candidate for supervisor, to answer them and to do so before election day. b3

Posted by bruce on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 3:35 pm

Moss started and runs a non-profit called SF Community Power, correct?
Moss started and runs a for-profit consulting business called M.Cubed, correct?

SF Community Power hires M.Cubed for consulting, correct?

As a consultant for M.Cubed, Moss profits from funds generated by the non-profit, SF Community Power, correct?

Funds generated by the non-profit SF Community Power are paid in part by us the tax-payers, correct?

If any of the above is incorrect, pls blog in response with the corrections.
I have heard bits from multiple sources and trying to get the real picture.

Posted by KLM on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

I think all questions whether asked by a newspaper or asked by the public are legitimate. The public has a right to know the answers. The candidates are running for a public office. We have a right to know. Heck, we even asked Palin if her youngest child was really hers or if it was Bristol's

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 6:17 pm

one hand creates a non-profit and for-profit. the other hand uses the non-profit to feed the for-profit. that's what it sounds like unless we get answers to think otherwise.

Posted by John D on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 6:41 pm

I appreciate a newspaper that does not back down when a candidate's feathers get ruffled. Thanks to Bruce and SFBG on reporting unanswered questions that relate to a candidate running for office. I call that good reporting and a newspaper that protects the best interests of their readers, especially since they are the only newspaper located in D-10 that does not have one of their own people running for office. We have a right to know the background of our candidates.

Posted by SFBG reader on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 6:57 pm

Just b/c a newspaper doesn't run articles about the warm & fuzzy persona of a candidate doesn't make it a bad newspaper- if you want that, you should not be reading ANY newspaper

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 7:05 pm

Of course he supports his nephew coming out of the closet and so do I. That's not the point and not the main issue and it's irrelevant to the questions that both the SFBG and public are asking of him regarding his background in the public sector. As a business man, as a current public servant, etc

Posted by D-10 voter on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 7:23 pm

Sister Moss- I think it's great he supports his nephew, he is his family and moss lives in SF but it's really a non- issue and not reflective to what kind of candidate he is. Obviously all people living in SF support gay rights, otherwise they wouldn't be living here. And all of the D10 candidates support gay rights. Again, non-issue for SF and let's just get the questions posed to him regarding his business background answered.

Posted by D10 bro on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 7:59 pm

>>>Obviously all people living in SF support gay rights, otherwise they wouldn't be living here.<<<..............You didn't mean to say that, did you? Or were you being sarcastic? I didn't remember the exact numbers on the Prop H8 vote (same-gender marriage issue) so I checked Wikipedia and they show that of those who voted on Prop H8, 24.8% voted yes and 75.2% voted no. So one cannot say that "all people living in SF support gay rights...." It's not true, unfortunately. I read that syrupy stuff from that Ms Moss and it had nothing to do with anything as far as the candidacy of Steve Moss is concerned and his refusal to answer questions from the Bay Guardian. As someone else said, it was just fluff. It was PR. If I lived in that district, I would not be voting for that man. To begin with, he's for sit-lie (Prop L). So is Theresa Sparks and Mr Deception Scott Wiener. When people/politicians won't answer questions, are vague, are being deceptive, when they lie, something is clearly wrong and the person has a hidden agenda or intent, and that person should not be holding (elected) office. We already have more than our full quota of those types.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 10:56 pm

I commend the nephew for signing up for the military and also coming out of the closet however that's about the nephew's strength and background. Not Moss's. What the voters want to know about is Moss' strength and background as a candidate. Family aside.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 27, 2010 @ 8:15 pm

let's see. Sweet is an idiot contolled by Willie and Co. Kelly is a lapdog to the SFBG. Moss is linked to funny money and..... Jackson is an unknown and often fibs or flubs.
who ya' gonna call?

VOTE BUSTERS

Posted by D10 BOO HOO ! on Oct. 28, 2010 @ 2:35 pm