| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
diggsbs |
The Clean Energy Gal ....Strikes With Sex? |
Lead | |
|
Hey All...check out this video: http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=qZyQSNc7ol0 It's got this hot female
making fun, sorta , of PG&E's position on Prop H.
|
|||
Able Dart |
|||
|
Christ. Insulting everyrone's intelligence again.
Did you know that Prop H defines "Clean Energy" as basically every modality short of nuclear energy? Which of course means that SFMUD could continue (and would likely do so, given bureaucratic impetus) to use dirty plants? Did you know that the image the model puts forward, of equating stupid with sexy, is insulting to women? Would you please go sell soap or something?
The Wall Commentary on Public and Private Life in San Francisco
http://www.sfwall.net
|
|||
RandySF |
|||
|
Kill me, but I wound up voting yes a a protest to the Commonwealth Club cancelling Newsom's debate with the Sierra Club.
|
|||
Mom |
Sierra Club and Commonwealth Club | ||
|
A couple of years ago, I worked on an enviro event with the Bay Chapter Sierra Club. They put Newsom's name on the flyer. I said he hadn't
confirmed. They said they thought this would pressure him to come even if he hasn't responded yes or no. I said this would only p--- him off and it is
rude and unprofessional. They then asked if it was 'ok' to put down '(invited)' next to his name. I said no, because this would make it seem
like we had no pull and didn't know what we were doing. Putting down '(invited)' is for amateurs. I refused to work further on the event unless
they took his name off until he confirmed.
Reading through what happened with the Commonwealth Club sounds like typical SC. They put it out there that the Mayor was attending. They tell the Commonwealth Club - and in the meantime - no one confirmed with the Mayor - because this would "pressure him into attending". In the end, the Bay Chapter SC got what they wanted, another "Yes on H" vote. It is what it is. |
|||
Able Dart |
|||
|
The people who run the Commonwealth Club are a bunch of tools, anyway.
The Wall Commentary on Public and Private Life in San Francisco
http://www.sfwall.net
|
|||
el Greco SF |
Could someone explain? | ||
|
Could someone please explain why I get to vote on Prop R (Renaming the Oceanside Plant after George Bush), but under Prop H (Public Power) I can be denied the
right to vote on SFPUC revenue bonds in the future? Bond issues have been decided by direct elections for decades, not just in SF but everywhere in the US.
Why has our illustrious Board now decided to take that right away in the case of public utility bonds? I would genuinely like to hear a Prop H supporter
specifically explain this.
|
|||
Mom |
Bonds | ||
|
In 2002, voters approved this same thing for the SFPUC for issuing revenue bonds for the Water Agency. At the time, this was done for the Water
Reconstruction Project - and was expected to cost about $3.5 billion over 10+ years. This was sold as being for a very specific project (or group of projects
that were already vetted as necessary) to make the water system between here and Yosemite seismically sound. There was a threat from the Peninsula cities that
if SF didn't get their act together and fix the water system, the State would take it over. This won by a landslide in the City and this is what the BOS
is referring to when they say the City already has this bond mechanism in place.
|
|||
fogu2 |
|||
|
Posts: 1907 (10/20/08 12:38 PM) |
el Greco-I don't think that's true of revenue bonds. G.O. bonds yes, because we are committing to a new tax on the electorate. A revenue bond is not a
new tax.
Not saying i support Prop H, just saying. |
||
el Greco SF |
|||
|
According to Ben Rosenfield, City Controller, revenue bonds in the city must pass by a simple majority and GO bonds by 2/3rds majority. So we do vote on both
types of bonds. My question is why does the Board of Supervisors feel they have to be able to issue revenue bonds without a vote of the electorate?
|
|||
fogu2 |
|||
|
Posts: 1907 (10/20/08 2:31 PM) |
El Greco-I am confused. I do see that revenue bond propositions only need 50% + 1. But I know from personal experience that the city now approves many revenue
bonds without our vote. It happened with a project I'm involved with.
Is there a dollar threshold? Or, is it only subject to a general election vote when there is so direct cost to the public like the water rates increasing to pay for some aspect (which I can't recall) of the Hetch Hetchy repairs? |
||
Mom |
water rates | ||
|
Someone told me the water rates have jumped 30% since the 2002 election.
|
|||
fogu2 |
|||
|
Posts: 1907 (10/21/08 8:42 AM) |
Mom wrote: The scam is that in drought years they get rate increases to guarantee them a minimum revenue. Then they don't lower it during rainy years. One more scam. |
||
kingisgone.sfdebate |
|||
|
According to Ben Rosenfield, City Controller, revenue bonds in the city must pass by a simple majority and GO bonds by 2/3rds majority. So we do vote on
both types of bonds. My question is why does the Board of Supervisors feel they have to be able to issue revenue bonds without a vote of the electorate?
According to the SPUR Analysis of H, revenue bonds must be approved by voters, but there are 8 different reasons where revenue bonds don't have to be approved by the voters. H adds acquiring utilities to the list of reasons. |
|||
PHLemingo |
preparation H | ||
|
OTOH, revenue bonds must be *sold*, which means they have to have some way to get paid back (traditionally, revenue from cash flow). Prop H proponents suggest
that w/o PGEs profits, exec salaries, and $8.2M dropped on elections like this, that there will be plenty of revenue both to lower rates and "green"
sourcing, but also pay back those bonds.
OTOH, what I don't like about Prop H is its deceptively called a plan to 'green' energy sources. There are no guarentees the City will ever do that, and thats about as spurious as saying PGE will never green its sources.. What it silently does (well, in the fine print) is allow the City to buy up PGE and run it themselves. Whats doubtful is exactly how much consideration will be needed to give consent. Have no doubt, there will be costs to this. PGE will move its HQ out of town, along with its employees and contractors and secondary suppliers's biz. We will also lose charitable donations the corp makes. Theres also the possibility of loses to Retirement Fund from potential drops in PGE stock price. And, of course, the tax base for all those buildings and license fees PGE now pays. I won't mention the literally tens of millions that will get spent on the lawyers. (Sometimes the 'cost of doing business' is enuf to put one out-of-business.) Whether its worth it in terms of the possible 'profit' and 'salary' savings is a good question. If employee costs can be contained or reduced (one's a fat chance, the others a slim chance) -- things that hopefully would come out in a "study" -- AND cheap reliable sources of power can be procured (like Alameda, LA and Palo Alto), then we might actually see a good deal possible. However, one has got to wonder with the crew that drew up this prop if a realistic review will ever happen (at least befroe its too late). And the suspected savings aren't subsumed into other City agencies, in order to keep the proponents/backers of this potential pitfall *lookin good*. Of course, the elimination on voting for those bonds is jsut another chink in the pie. After a realistic study, the public may jsut decide they would rather not hassle for a minimal return. But the pols will have their hands all over it by that time, and rationality will be as slippery to grasp as a hot hockey mom on a free Neimans spending spree. -P |
|||
politicalmesf |
Clean Energy Gal is back...cleaner than before! | ||
|
Hey, this, er, she's back... http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPeau_8bnQ A cool commericial. When is
it on TV?
|
|||
Able Dart |
|||
|
Stop wasting your time here with multiple accounts and go sell soap.
The Wall Commentary on Public and Private Life in San Francisco
http://www.sfwall.net
|
|||