The real Steve Moss

Moss pictured at the DCCC endorsement meeting. The DCCC endorsed D10 candidates DeWitt Lacy, Malia Cohen and Eric Smith.
Sarah Phelan

Some folks are so mad about D. 10 candidate Steve Moss that they have put together a website titled The Real Steve Moss that pulls together public records and poses a series of questions in an effort to make Moss provide concrete answers about his residency and his handling of tax-payer dollars before the November election rolls around.

“If Mr. Moss believes that he is such a great candidate, we suggest he answer critics instead of hiding out and just dodging the questions,” The Real Steve Moss website states. “Anyone who won't answer direct questions while running, certainly won't in office.”

The website challenges Moss to provide more details about his residency, including the exact date he moved back to D10, the identity and move-in date of the person(s) currently living in his Dolores Park home in D8, along with copies of his utility, internet, cable and telephone bills and records from his D8 Dolores Park home and the place he is currently renting in 18th Street to prove Moss’ residency claims.

“If your Dolores home wasn't occupied till August 2010, did you maintain services such as Internet, cable and telephone, and if so why?” the website asks.

The Real Steve Moss also drills into questions about the $1.5 million that the Department of the Environment paid to Moss’ private company, M-Cubed.
Last week, the Department of Environment confirmed to the Guardian that a grant was awarded to M-Cubed sometime between 2000 and 2001. 
“The total amount of the agreement was $1.5 million and the purpose of the agreement was to set up an energy cooperative in Bayview Hunter's Point,” the Department told us.

Yet, 990 forms filed by Moss’s SF Community Power Cooperative and his parallel SF Community Power non-profit in 2002 and 2003 do not reflect large infusions of tax payer dollars that the City reportedly paid to Moss' private company M.Cubed to set up an energy cooperative.

As “The Real Steve Moss” notes, “information easily obtained from Mr.Moss' for profit, non-profit, and campaign websites do not appear to match records obtained from the City, State or the IRS."

And while the Guardian waits for the Department of the Environment to respond to our request for more information about this grant, The Real Steve Moss drills into other questions about Moss’ money flow.

“What exactly did you do with the $4m plus in mostly public and private funding that you stated was to create a newswire and help Bayview Hunters Point residents?” The Real Steve Moss  asks, presumably referring to, amongst other donations, a series of $50,000 grants that the Goldman Fund, where Moss' wife works, paid to Moss' SF Community Power.

“Exactly how many paid jobs did you create and for how long? Why is your non-profit paying such a lot of rent and for what? Why is your non-profit's communications bills so high? How much money did you pay yourself from your non-profit and for profit companies funded in majority by taxpayer funds?”
Hopefully, Moss will respond to these and other questions posed at The Real Steve Moss with concrete evidence. And soon. So, stay tuned.


candidates need to have a clean record of not pissing people off whether that's irs or local taxpayers or general public

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 6:43 pm

web definition re: politics

for all voters who have questions about their candidate

"A public servant in any level of government is held to a higher standard of personal behavior than the average citizen. Assuming a leadership role dictates living a scandal-free, modest lifestyle. If you are going to establish rules and make decisions for others in regard to effectively managing their lives, your own behavior should reflect high caliber principles."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 7:00 pm

yes I want a candidate that is able to focus 100% on public issues in d10 and not use energy on the stuff they have at home. like trying to figure out where their primary residence is or where they will move back to if they dont get elected

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 7:22 pm

I like this web definition for Political People in the Running

"If you are going to establish rules and make decisions for others in regard to effectively managing their lives, your own behavior should reflect high caliber principles"

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 7:31 pm

for Buddhists
for Biblical Bibliophiles
Same definition
How does your candidate conduct their business in their personal and public lives?

Good luck to all candidates out there
And please cross your t's and dot your i's
Your lives should really have been buttoned up before you even considered office
As voters, we rely on the candidates to exemplify the importance of our "belief" in you and also of our faith in D-10

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

I Am Sorry
I have difficulty supporting any candidate whomever s/he may be, that moved back to D-10 this year ONLY to run for office (as quoted in previous article). Why not just run for office in the district you had moved your family residence to three years ago?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 9:15 pm

Guest Bárbara Chelsai

I (we) support you 100%. I (we) agree with your ideas, opinions, and desire to make things right.

Thank you for everything you do and please know your voice is heard to all of us. And that's a lot of people.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 9:20 pm

im thinking I can run for office in texas but I wont move back unless I know I have a good chance of running and if i dont get it ill move back to cal

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 9:49 pm

"A public servant in any level of government is held to a higher standard of personal behavior than the average citizen. Assuming a leadership role dictates living a scandal-free, modest lifestyle. If you are going to establish rules and make decisions for others in regard to effectively managing their lives, your own [personal] behavior should reflect high caliber principles."

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 10:10 pm

Scandal-free, Modest lifestyle

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 10:21 pm

Checklist for candidates. pay taxes to the irs. pay taxes to the city. be nice to people.
To all candidates, this is the time (before election) to make amends with all of the above.
If you can't get your stuff right on a personal level, how can we depend on you for getting things done on the d-10 level?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

Dear Neighbors,

District 10 residents will witness significant pressures on population growth and land-use options in the coming decades. There are very few accomplished, dedicated, intellectually and emotionally mature local community leaders who have, for years, advocated for smart development, safe neighborhoods, healthy families, strong schools, support for local employment and who have earned respect from a diversity of our residents in Bayview, Potrero Hill and Visitacion Valley.
In Bayview, one verifiable resident homeowner, an honest, dedicated and smart community volunteer who heads a couple of neighborhood organizations, who also knows business and reads the fine print, has emerged as easily the most qualified and least controversial candidate in this election cycle. Her name is Kristine Enea, and she is running for Supervisor in District 10.
Drawing on her experiences as a lawyer, writer, filmmaker and community leader, Kristine has formed a plan to lead this district and to represent our D10 neighborhoods from a wider perspective. She is dedicated to building relationships that facilitate open and consistent “citizen to supervisor” communication throughout D10. Kristine has the “institutional memory” of the decades-long planning and development process, plus a familiarity and working relationship with various stakeholders within our neighborhoods. She can be relied upon to modulate the disparate and valued hopes and desires for our future. Kristine is a leader who will run interference on those who choose to “divide and conquer,” whether that behavior is exhibited as an unfortunate by-product of uncoordinated city agencies (Redevelopment, Planning, Transportation) or by outside development entities who play by their own rules. Such leadership has been absent in our district for the last decade.
From my personal questioning of her goals and vision for the district, I know that Kristine has a deeper understanding of the five most obvious and important issues: Crime and Public Safety; Health, Environment and Social Services;
Land-Use Planning and Housing; Education, Economic Development and Jobs; and Transportation, Muni, Traffic.

Yet, there are FIVE additional issues, which have rarely been discussed during any of the recent forums but are high on the priority list for Kristine Enea:

1. Re-Districting in D10 in 2012. Kristine Enea has pledged to retain the relationships and connections among the Potrero, Bayview and Visitacion Valley communities.

2. Tax Increment Financing, the Redevelopment Areas and Audits of the Redevelopment Agency.

3. The Sewer Plant— move it, reduce it, expand it? Or ignore it?

4. M1 / PDR districts and the great pressure on building new affordable housing in D10. Will the remainder of SF play in this sandbox?

5. The Nonprofit allocation question in D10. Are the organizations receiving real money actually delivering significant services?

Please add your top five priorities to these lists and vet the candidates.

What we have heard throughout the district over the past number of months is a sobering reaction to the promotion of candidates with no community experience in this election cycle for District 10.
Kristine Enea, on the other hand, has the community history, the relationships, temperament and independence to serve us. I believe that she will bring a fresh and pragmatic perspective to getting things done.
I am supporting Kristine Enea for District 10 Supervisor and urge you to meet with her and to support her campaign for representing our communities.

Thank you for your consideration,

Dan Dodt
San Francisco

Kristine Enea –the details

B.A., Economics, UC Berkeley, 1988
M.B.A., UC Davis, 1992
J.D., UC Hastings College of the Law, 1993

California State Bar (1993-present)
SF Democratic Women’s Forum (2009-present)
SF Women’s Political Committee (2009-present)
World Affairs Council of Northern California (Boardmember 1994-1996)
Bayview: PAC (Secretary 2008-present)
RAB (Technical Committee Chair 2009)
Bayview Merchants Association (2008-present)
India Basin Neighborhood Association (Chair 2008-present)
SF Choral Society (Boardmember 1996-1999)
SF Bicycle Coalition (2009-present)

Tax, residency or ethical problems:

Posted by dan dodt on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:34 am

Lynette Sweet is a nincompoop.

Vote for Malia 2010!

Posted by Malia Supporter on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 9:02 am

Kristine and Malia should join together in knocking Sweet out of the election.

The race should come down to:


The remainder have too many problems or just do not have it together.

Posted by stopyourwhiningnow on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 9:22 am

We need a candidate that has a history of a proven display of dignity, integrity, and respect toward all people. Whether that's IRS, city taxpayers, friends, neighbors, business acquaintances. We need someone we can look up to. Someone that we see as better than ourselves. A mentor. Someone whom we wish we could be. Someone that we wish our children could grow up to be. Not someone that wheels and deals in order to win just for the sake of it. They should not use our D-10 community as a gambling arena. Our elected candidate should be a stellar example of the upmost potential an individual can be. After all, they will be representing you and me. D-10 has alot of obstacles and future potential and we need someone that the city will respect and hear with open ears. And with no skeletons in the closet. Please pick your candidate choice wisely whomever they are.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:00 pm



Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

Agree with Dan Dodt

The people's candidate of choice should not have a record of tax, residency or ethical problems.

D-10 voters need to understand they are HIRING someone for the job as District Supervisor.
In other words, would D-10 voters hire someone in their work place that has a record of tax, residency, or ethical problems?
Would you hire someone as your kids babysitter that has a record of tax, residency, or ethical problems???
I think not.
Allowing someone to represent us with a shady record whatever category it may be (especially before they even step foot in office) is not a good decision for our community.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 8:19 pm

Lacy and Enea seem to be the best candidates to choose for my #1. Tony Kelly has fought hard to earn my third place but Its a toss up with Kelly and Smith.

Moss and Sweet should NOT be considered in this debate.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 11:42 am

Moss is now growing on a shady sidewalk in D9, where he really lives.

So the race? For me it is between Kelly and Enea. It is going to be a difficult choice. At the moment - I am going for Enea. She has the qualifications to understand the legal/contract stuff that one needs to understand, and she has been involved in her neighborhood (where she actually lives!).

Kelly - I like the guy. And he has worked his butt off!. Hmmm, it is difficult choice!

Best of luck to those whose deserve it!

Posted by Girl on the hill on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 1:34 pm

I served for two years on the BVHP PAC with Kristine Enea and strongly support her for D10 Supervisor. She is the only candidate who has put in the time to earn our vote. Most of the other candidates I have never seen at a community meeting in the last five years. Kristine has the qualities we need in a Supervisor. As a fierce negotiator she will bring the most community benefits to D10. She'll protect Potrero's Land Use & quality of life issues, she lives at the epicenter of all future development in D10 and she's a friend to Vis Valley.

Malia Cohen is the Sarah Palin of the District 10 Supervisor's race. It's Land Use Policy, Malia, not Land Use Molicy.

Steve Moss appears to be the Ed Jew of the District 10 Supervisor's race, with his D10 residency issues. I've lived near the corner of 3rd & Palou the last 8 years and I'm not even running. Steve's renting here as of a few months ago, barely in Potrero, let alone Bayview. Too condescending.

Lynette Sweet is the Rod Blagojevich of the District 10 Supervisor's race. Each week she has a new legal problem (See: Buck Stops Here, Matier & Ross).

Jackson, Lacy and Smith are good people, but Smith just moved to D10 just a few months ago to run. Great guys, but not ready for the prime time the way that Enea is.

We need a candidate from D10, and that's Kristine Enea. It's not too late to jump on the bandwagon.

Posted by Chris Buck on Oct. 06, 2010 @ 8:11 pm

Teresa Duqué is also a carpetbagger, moving from Millbrae and into the district just months before filing. She's trying to out-EdJew Steve Moss. She's also taking full credit for things she's had nothing to do with. Oh, please let Enea come up the middle and win this thing!!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 13, 2010 @ 6:13 am

"Malia Cohen is the Sarah Palin of the District 10 Supervisor's race. It's Land Use Policy, Malia, not Land Use Molicy." -Chris Buck

Posted by Laugh Out Loud on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 8:02 am

I support a candidate that shows compassion toward all people. It's not just about scholastic accolades and work accomplishments. And "oh look at me I'm a smart person and am smarter than you so you should vote for me" That stuff is fluff and doesn't define what type of person we are hiring to be our supervisor. If there's a candidate that has residency, tax-paying, and/or ethical issues, they WILL NOT be getting my vote. No way. I will NOT be giving them my hard-earned tax dollars to be paying for them to represent my neighborhood at City Hall. NO WAY.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2010 @ 10:15 am

I've lived in District 10 (Bayview) for over 12 years now, and up until a few months ago, the ONLY candidate I ever saw at community meetings was Kristine Enea. Not only did Kristine attend the many meetings, but she actually commmitted to serving on boards and in leadership positions. I was further impressed by Kristine when, after we attended our first meeting of the Bayview Redevelopment PAC, of which she was a board member, she made a point of introducing herself after the meeting and asking us about ourselves, our feelings etc.
Kristine is extremely intelligent, demonstrates wisdom in her stances, and welcomes dialogue with anyone who wishes to talk to her. She lives in the epicenter of future change for the district: Hunters Point. She's also savvy and deeply interested in the issues and concerns of fellow District 10 residents in other neighborhoods in the district. Kristine believes strongly that District 10 residents need strong representation on the Board of Supervisors if we are to get district development that is optimal and benefits us all.
There are numerous candidates running in this election and most of the District 10 candidates are mediocre at best. Some would be a disaster as our supervisor. Lynette Sweet is a crony of Willie Brown, who did nothing for D10 except expect our blanket vote for him. Sweet is already in the pocket of rich Republican land developers and other downtown interests, getting huge contributions and below-cost office space. She has demonstrated an appalling ignorance of D10 issues, and when she was a bank exec., doled grant money out to her cronies rather than having nonprofits apply for it. She has also stated that she wants to make Willie Brown mayor again and rename 3rd Street after him. Yikes!
Malia Cohen likes to raise her voice at symposia as if she were preaching to the congregation, but she demonstrates a disturbing lack of knowledge about D10 issues, and when pressed for her platform, makes ambiguous comments or says she will further Kristine Enea's work. Another endorsement of Kristine! Steve Moss has also been feeding at the trough of downtown interests, has raised eyebrows about his use of grant funds, and only moved into D10 from D8 because he thought he could get elected here. When he first started coming to meetings, he knew almost nothing about D10 issues, and his grasp is still shaky.
Several other candidates are also carpetbaggers—Smith and Jackson. Kelly may have a following among the theater crowd in Potrero Hill, but he's woefully unprepared to represent the whole district, or to deal with the major issues. DeWitt Lacely is a civil rights lawyer, bright, but not really up to par on D10 issues. Like Sweet, he appears to be more likely to serve his cronies rather than D10. Marlene Tran is the only candidate that really measures up as a prospect, and Asians are the largest group in District 10, but she wouldn't have as good a grasp of ALL the issues as Kristine.
It all boils down to Kristine being the best candidate for D10—by far. She would represent ALL District 10 residents: Asians, African Americans, Latinos, LGBT folks—everyone in ALL of the neighborhoods. Kristine IS one of us, and has been championing D10 causes for years. Please, PLEASE!! do us all a favor and vote for Kristine Enea for District 10 Supervisor.

Posted by Jim Hunger on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 12:56 pm


Since, as you point out, Kristine Enea attended numerous meetings on Redevelopment in the Hunters Point, can you describe what she actually did in those meetings to take a stand and stop Lennar Corporation and the Redevelopment Agency from demolishing and pillaging that neighborhood?

She certainly did -nothing- in the numerous City Hall hearings on the issue and even spoke in favor of the Lennar project at public comment in those hearings.

Attending lots of community meetings in which one fails to gather up the courage to actually stand up and defend that community, is not a selling point for Kristine, it is a liability.

We need a District 10 supervisor who will put a -stop- to what Lennar and Redevelopment are doing.

Kristine Enea is not that candidate...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 2:25 pm

There are some very strong emotions about Lennar, and some good reasons for those feelings, some not. The fact is, the city of San Francisco is in contract with Lennar to develop Hunters Point and thus is legally bound to honor that contract. Simply stopping Lennar, as you suggest, would be a disaster for San Francisco. Not only would the city have to come up with an astronomical amount of money to pay Lennar for work already done and to break the contract, it would have to attempt to attract another major contractor to start off at square one. If this were done with unrealistic expectations and obligations, as an earlier ballot measure—which lost—would have tried to enforce, getting a viable and desirable alternative to Lennar would have been impossible.
San Francisco really doesn't have an option to "stop Lennar," as you suggest, and the vast majority of San Franciscans wouldn't want that—especially at the cost it would take to do this and the years that would be lost in starting anew. Kristine has recognized that, as have other people who have been folowing the process closely for years and know the legal ramifications. If you put it to a vote, it would certainly lose; it would probably even fail in Hunters Point. But like any giant corporation, Lennar needs to be held accountable for the work it does, the schedule it does it in, and so on. If they screw up, they can and should be held accountable.
I'm not happy with certain aspects of Lennar's development of Hunters Point, but simply "stopping Lennar" isn't a solution; it's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you have some viable alternative, Eric, by all means, enlighten us. What you've said so far isn't even minimally convincing, and doesn't speak for most San Franciscans, or most residents of District 10.

Posted by Jim Hunger on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

On the contrary Jim,

Lennar is a failing transnational juggernaut which was the largest developer in the sub-prime mortgage debacle, and the only reason it is still in business is that it got a 2.75 billion dollar bailout from the U.S. government, for which every tax payer is now on the hook.

Look at Mare Island. Vallejo's contract with Lennar there sent the entire city into bankruptcy. And this isn't the first time a big developer like Lennar has created an on-paper puff project meant to falsely raise its stock value; which it later completely failed to build at all, leaving the host community completely in the lurch.

But in the meanwhile, -before- that likely project abandonment comes to pass, Lennar -will- shove toxic dirt around, throwing its deadly dust into the air, to convince its stockholders that the project remains viable.

If Lennar's project goes forward as currently written, hundreds, if not thousands of workers and Bayview residents will get sick and die of cancers and asthma caused by that dust kicking, which will further torpedo our local economy with massive burdensome health care costs.

It is -staying- in a contract with this developer that will cost far more public money. Dumping Lennar would be prudent fiscal policy.

And this is easily doable. Lennar and the Navy face -many- future hurdles and approvals over which the Board of Supervisors and the courts can intervene and put a stop to this nonsense. Stopping the project at any of these junctures will not subject us to contract default at all, because it will be completely called for -and- legal.

Maybe you and Kristine are ok with capitulating to a corporate bully that has kicked you in the face.

But those of us who have some courage and wisdom know that when a bully starts shoving you around, the only wise and effective response is to stand up and fight.

I'm saving my votes for candidates who stand up and fight instead of meekly handing over the public milk money; thereby encouraging bullying corporate developers to keep beating up and exploiting our city over and over again for the rest of time.

It's time to stop capitulating to these bastards and kick them the hell out of our city.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy
Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy
say it again, now
Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy
Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy
Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy
what's that sound ?
Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy
Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy
Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy
all right y'all
Kelly, Enea, Cohen and Lacy

not quite sure who gets 1,2,3 and who is left out, but they're all ok with me
some are young, some are cranky, some have bigger brains
but they all have passion and heart and are not completely bought, yet. we
have a chance.

Posted by i'm ranking these four into my final three for D10 on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

Enea, Lacy and Kelly.

Posted by D10 on Oct. 08, 2010 @ 5:54 pm

Enea and Kelly.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 09, 2010 @ 9:27 pm

District 10 can no longer consider either Steve Moss or Lynette Sweet for supervisor. These two candidates are unique in the field in that they each have tax and income reporting problems, have questionable residency histories, are linked to troublesome backers and cannot be counted on to be independent or brave enough to oppose their handlers. How can we consider someone for supervisor who does not have their own financial house in order? We should not.
DO NOT VOTE for MOSS or SWEET in District 10.

Posted by The Real S F Voter on Oct. 10, 2010 @ 5:57 pm

So folks - do you think he is going to jail before or after the elections? Will he have to give the PUC $$ back? What about the Unions (if I was in that Union I would be PO'd)

So arrest before or after the election is the question?

Ms. Harris are you going to pass this on to your replacement?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 12, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

So nobody but the SFBG is asking any questions, pretty shocking.

So in 2010 Moss has moved, rented out his Dolores penthouse at some point, got in a lawsuit, started a political campaign in the last six months.

On top of that he runs the Potrero View and Director of SF Community Power and all those light bulbs that he can't account for how many he's given and what jobs they have created.

Latest news is that he has knocked on 1000 doors, busy guy.

So he paid himself $90K in consulting fees this year, per his own posting, through his own company's awarded contract to himself, in addition to a salary from SF Community Power. What exactly did the taxpayer get this year?

I hope whoever gets elected immediately investigates Moss, where OUR money went and demands answers and the money back. Also how does the taxpayer make sure he doesn't screw the State PUC in 2011 again?

I know all you white folk on the North slope think he's the golden boy but isn't it obvious that he ran this campaign off non profit funds?

Sad truth is that if he were African American, Latino or Asian the press would be all over him. The racism and corruption is amazing.

And you wonder what he'll do for parks?

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2010 @ 7:16 am