Mayor Lee distorts reality in defending CleanPowerSF obstruction by his appointees

|
(151)
Mayor Ed Lee and his appointees are essentially claiming the authority to override board decisions made on a veto-proof 8-3 vote
Tim Daw

Mayor Ed Lee yesterday answered a series of five questions from the Board of Supervisors about CleanPowerSF, the renewable energy program it approved last year on a veto-proof 8-3 vote, but which three of Lee’s appointees on the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission are now blocking.

Lee reaffirmed his opposition to the program and support for the three commissioners who are refusing to approve a maximum rate for the program, while making a series of statements that were misleading, contradictory, and, according to Sup. John Avalos, some outright falsehoods.

CleanPowerSF would group tens of thousands of city residents into a renewable energy buying pool, a system called Community Choice Aggregation authorized by state legislation, which would compete against Pacific Gas & Electric’s illegal local monopoly. Initally, the energy would be purchased under a contract with Shell Energy, but the main goal of the program is to build city-owned renewable energy facilities by issuing revenue bonds supported by the program’s ratepayers.

Yet the program Lee described has little resemblance to CleanPowerSF -- and his statements of support for the concept belie his longstanding opposition to the program and support for PG&E, whose union is leading the campaign to kill CleanPowerSF.

“I know that many members of the Board of Supervisors are upset,” Lee began in his first answer to similar questions posed by Sups. Eric Mar, David Chiu, London Breed, David Campos, and John Avalos, who all represent the odd-numbered districts whose turn it was to submit questions to the mayor for this month’s appearance.

Lee then explained that one of the duties of  the SFPUC is to protect ratepayers, which he called “the overriding concern they have when faced with any issue,” adding that, “The commission ultimately decided that the rate wasn’t a fair rate.”

Ironically, the top rate that the commission is being asked to approve in order to finally launch CleanPowerSF was just 11.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, only slightly more than current PG&E rates and a substantial reduction from the rate that was discussed last year when supervisors approved the program.

PG&E, Lee, and other critics of the program had attacked its high cost, so SFPUC staffers tweaked the program to allow the initial use of Renewable Energy Credits, which support the creation of renewable energy projects, rather than being purely juice directly from solar, wind, and other renewable sources, which is more expensive.

So Lee criticized that change as a departure from what the board approved last year, telling the supervisors that the program should be at least “95 percent renewable on day one,” saying that, “This is what a green power program should look like.”

Yet when it did look like that, Lee opposed it, something he didn’t mention yesterday. And yet he still made the argument that the SFPUC was simply exercising its fiduciary responsibility in blocking a program that has gotten cheaper than when the board approved it.

“The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission did its job in protecting ratepayers,” Lee said. “I agree with the majority of the PUC.”

So, on one hand, Lee said that CleanPowerSF has “gotten progressively more expensive as time goes on,” citing statements made years ago about the goal of trying to meet-or-beat PG&E’s rates, which have been subsidized by taxpayers over the years.

And when the program then got close to matching those rates, he criticized the use of RECs to get there, saying the climate change benefits “need to be real and tangible and not based on vague promises.”

Yet even city-commissioned studies have shown that San Francisco won’t meet its own greenhouse gas reduction goals without substantially changing the energy portfolio of city residents, and CleanPowerSF is the only plan on the table to get there, except for PG&E’s vague promises to offer more renewable energy in the future.

While Lee touted city efforts to improve the energy efficiency of commercial buildings and the recent launch of a regional bike share program -- neither of which will come close to meeting city climate change goals -- even he acknowledged the “need to expand our in-city renewable energy generation,” citing the $4 million SolarSF as an example.

But Lee never made reference to CleanPowerSF’s plan to build up to $1 billion in renewable energy projects whose impacts would be far more impactful. Instead, he said the program “creates no local jobs,” which wouldn’t be true during the buildout phase.

While praising PG&E, Lee also glossed over the fact that a majority of supervisors still support CleanPowerSF, and that the SFPUC vote was supposed to be on the rate and not these ancillary issues, raising fundamental democratic issues when three mayoral appointees can override the decision of elected supervisors who represent all city residents.

“When a final project is so vastly different than the original intent, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has to intervene,” Lee said.

Avalos called many of Lee’s statements “lies,” so I followed Mayor Lee back to his office after the hearing and we had the following conversation as several reporters from other media outlets listened in:   

SFBG: Supervisor Avalos just said that you’ve made a number of statements that are not factually accurate, and certainly misleading, including saying that the program has changed substantially. Given that you opposed the program initially, and you seem to make statements that criticize those changes, and clearly the majority still supports it, how can you make the argument that the PUC is acting against it because the program has changed?

Mayor Lee: Well, you know, I know that elements of this are somewhat complicated cause you have to actually read a lot of volumes of materials to understand the choice aggregation program, cause it has those three aspects and I would….

SFBG: As guidelines, not as rates….

Mayor Lee: I would point to those numbers that were discussed at the board and presented to the [SF] Public Utilities Commission, because that’s what I’m quoting from. I’m taking it, not from even verbiage, I’m taking it exactly from facts that were presented at the commission at the Board of Supervisors and I specifically lifted quotes from the board about their comments about local jobs and all the other things, so, I don’t think I’m inaccurate at all. I think I’m actually quite on point.

SFBG: But the rates have come down from when they approved it and you made it sound like the rates have gone up.

Mayor Lee: The rates were up and they came down in trade off with less green.

SFBG: Right…

Mayor Lee: That’s about the point I was trying to make is that we wanted these other goals to happen and they couldn’t happen cause people were trading off things in order to set the rates and that was going to become a bigger and bigger gap as to what the original goals were. That’s the way…

SFBG: But the board clearly wants this program. Why, as a matter of policy, as a matter of city procedure, why isn’t the elected body the one to make this decision, instead of your appointees?

Mayor Lee: Well, I think that’s the whole reason why they presented it to the Public Utilities Commission. They’re charter mandated to set these rates. It’s not just an automatic acceptance of what the board says. They also independently review what the board has said. And in their independent review, they said they had gone well beyond what they stated their goals were and so they couldn’t set the rates and still honor all the goals that the board was suggesting.

SFBG: But those rates are less than what the Board has approved. How can they be exercising fiscal oversight… I mean, it doesn’t make any sense.

Mayor Lee: I think we have a big disagreement there. They’re mandated by the charter to set those rates responsibly, not just to follow what the board has stated and so, in their independent review, they went and reviewed all the goals that the board has said and said ‘This is not the program that they have stated should be fulfilled.’

SFBG: Even though the majority of the Board of Supervisors disagree with that statement that you just made?

Mayor Lee: Well, you know, then again, are we not respecting peoples’ right to disagree over what is being done here?

SFBG: But your argument that the program changed from what they approved, a  majority is saying ‘that’s not true,’ that you’re misrepresenting that.

Mayor Lee: No, I don’t think that I’m misrepresenting that. I disagree with that.

SFBG: A majority of the Board of Supervisors who approved it says you are.

Mayor: Well, I disagree with that assessment.

 

 

 

Comments

That figure is the SFPUC's newest projection, as of August 6, 2013.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:27 pm

Looks like I got a little carried away and forgot to use any facts to back up my opinion. Thanks.

Posted by anon on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:48 pm

That's about as low as it gets.

Posted by anon on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

I agree that I am an idiot.

Posted by anon on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 5:20 pm

But only you have to live with such deceit.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 5:43 pm
Posted by anon on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:56 pm

Don't believe anything I write unless I provide a factual basis for it. I have been unable to do so here which means I should be regarded as a liar and not very bright.

Posted by anon on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 6:18 pm

You can prove it to yourself. Call CleanPowerSF Director Kim Malcolm at the SFPUC, leave a phone message asking her to verify it, and give your email so that she can reply.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 8:12 pm

If you have an important, game changing figure like that then you have to PUBLISH it.

You need to actually print it out with supporting detail and document where the improvements come from. You have to give other people a chance to question it. There should at least be an email explaining the new number.

The concept that we need to call someone and get a verbal assurance just doesn't fit with a complicated, sophisticated project like this, and it feeds the notion that the people supporting CleanPowerSF have no appreciation for the difficult task before them. And that any confidence that they can pull off this very complicated project may be misguided.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 8:34 pm

First, note that it is very difficult for a lay person to locate this stuff online because PG&E doesn't make it easy, but there is a document that will give you the basic idea at http://tinyurl.com/oqvb5my

It takes a little work but you can calculate the PG&E generation rate after a little work with this document as follows:

1) Go to Appendix A which starts on page 23.

2) Skip the first two pages of Appendix A because they represent an outdated basic 2012 projection that turned out to be too low.

3) On page 3 of that appendix (which shows the lowest gas inflation case) look for the Residential Service (E-1) section, find the 'generation' line and then go to the 2014 column. That column shows the lowest projected rate for 2014. That price is about 7.8 cents.

4) Now go to page 5 of that appendix (which shows the highest gas inflation case) and look at the same 'generation' number in the 2014 column. That price is about 11.4 cents

5) Now average those two scenarios and you'll get an accurate projected rate that matches pretty closely the expected PG&E rate next year because natural gas inflation in real life indeed wound up smack dab between those two extremes. (Natural gas prices are the main determinate of PG&E rate fluctuations.)

6) So 7.8 + 11.4 / 2 = 9.6 cents

The actual number is more like 9.57 cents.

And if you don't trust that analysis, you'll have to ask the SFPUC directly because those were the only accurate numbers that I could easily find online.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 10:07 pm

targets if that means they have to pay $100 a year more for their power and deal with an untried, untested new utility run by an unholy alliance of big oil and faceless bureaucrats?

I doubt it.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

See my other responses on this thread. Ratepayers will get the same or lower rate for CleanPowerSF as they will for dirty PG&E power.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:07 pm

Steven T Jones writes:

>"the top rate that the commission is being asked to approve in order to finally launch CleanPowerSF was just 11.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, only slightly more than current PG&E rates and a substantial reduction from the rate that was discussed last year"

Only slightly more? SF Weekly provided the actual detail:

"At 15.2 cents per kilowatt hour, the tentative proposal dwarfs PG&E's projected rate of 7.9 cents."

http://www.sfweekly.com/2013-04-10/news/puc-cleanpowersf-pg-e-renewable-...

So the CleanpowerSF Rate is 45% higher than the PG&E rate. 11.5 cents vs 7.9 cents.

Just wanted to provide some detail that was somehow missing in Steven's piece about how Mayor Lee distorts reality. Steven's 'slight' increase is 45%.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 3:25 pm

PG&E's new projected rate is over 9 cents per kilowatt hour.

And the key point that the article above missed, is that, over the last year, community advocates have done such an excellent job of hammering on the SFPUC staff to get those customer rates down that:

1) the proposed CleanPowerSF not-to-exceed rate cap now matches PG&E's own proposed '100% green' rate (and the CleanPowerSF clean energy mix will be -less- dependent on credits than PG&E's planned 'green' mix),

and more importantly,

2) SFPUC CleanPowerSF director Kim Malcolm has said in public hearings that the actual rate for the program could be as low as 9 cents per kilowatt hour, which will outright meet or beat PG&E's current -dirty- power rate.

So the program is now no longer more expensive than PG&E, and is fulfilling the "meet or beat" rate requirements originally set by the Board of Supervisors.

Hence, Mayor Lee was flat out not speaking truthfully in his responses.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

You should be listening.

It's not democracy when you bully officials.

Posted by anon on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:15 pm

As a consumer, you go to public officials and insist on better rates. That's what we did. And hammering is what it took.

And we got those lower rates.

Would you have preferred that we had just listened to SFPUC staff telling us they had to charge twice as much for clean energy, when we can instead beat PG&E rates?

I doubt that.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:31 pm
Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:43 pm

What community advocates accomplished was working very closely to get SFPUC -staff- to realize that CleanPowerSF rates could be competitive with regular PG&E rates. Staff finally crunched the numbers and proved it, which is why they are now proposing a rate that meets or beats PG&E.

The SFPUC -Commissioners- (essentially the 5 member board of the SFPUC) is the body that rejected the ratesetting. But not because the rates were too high. Their reason was that the program does not match that envisioned by the 2007 Board of Supervisors ordinance, and therefore does not yet guarantee local installations and jobs.

However, planning work toward those jobs and installations has progressed dramatically over the last year and is now showing how the jobs/installations will roll out.

This ground breaking program can launch as soon as those 5 SFPUC Commissioners set the rate cap.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 8:24 pm

could double with this Shell scheme. I'm not touching it with a bargepole and I am glad that Lee and the SFPUC are doing their job.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

please show the data from your own private studies, and the sources of that data

Posted by racer x on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:43 pm

Green power typically costs 20% to 100% more.

Posted by anon on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:57 pm

Well the numbers are these. PG&E's rate is 7.9 cents, according to the numbers used in yesterday's BOS meeting and an April article by Joe Eskenazi.

CleanPowerSF started out at about 15 cents, which didn't work at all, so they got it down to 11.5 cents by buying credits through Shell. These credits may or may not actually result in cleaner air anywhere and certainly not cleaner air in San Francisco.

So Lee's point is that the BOS is asking people to pay 45% more to provide the money for Shell to buy these credits. And remember, the default for households is to pay the higher rates. But at least the BOS can talk about how green they are.

Lee is doing exactly what he is supposed to be doing. His Commissioners are not supposed to rubber stamp whatever the BOS does.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 5:22 pm

Good to see some objective minds here.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 5:45 pm

See my other comments on the thread about the comparison to PG&E rates. Joe Eskenazi's April article is now -way- out of date. Energy prices have changed dramatically over the last 6 months with renewable electricity prices diving to some of their lowest rates in history.

This is a key reason that the SFPUC staff was able to lower the CleanPowerSF rate to finally meet or beat PG&E.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 8:50 pm

Mayor Lee was using the 7.9 cent figure yesterday and nobody has told him that he was wrong.

Nobody has disputed Lee's use of the 7.9 cent number. Not Avalos, not the Bay City News, not the Examiner, not the Chronicle or even the SFBG; all of whom commented on Lee's statements.

I know energy prices have changed in the past few months. Why don't you Google the terms 'hedges' and 'future contracts'. Maybe you'll learn something about energy management.

And has it even occurred to you that any change in that figure would have to come from PG&E????? How would anyone else even know?

But hey, if it makes you feel better to just say that the number is wrong then, more power to you. But it exemplifies the weakness of the CleanPowerSF movement.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 9:13 pm

Lee wasn't challenged on it for the simple reason that none of the supervisors are technically up to speed enough on this stuff to know that Lee's number was wrong.

So here's documentation:

First, note that it is very difficult for a lay person to locate this stuff online because PG&E doesn't make it easy, but there is a document that will give you the basic idea at http://tinyurl.com/oqvb5my

It takes a little work but you can calculate the PG&E generation rate after a little work with this document as follows:

1) Go to Appendix A which starts on page 23.

2) Skip the first two pages of Appendix A because they represent an outdated basic 2012 projection that turned out to be too low.

3) On page 3 of that appendix (which shows the lowest gas inflation case) look for the Residential Service (E-1) section, find the 'generation' line and then go to the 2014 column. That column shows the lowest projected rate for 2014. That price is about 7.8 cents.

4) Now go to page 5 of that appendix (which shows the highest gas inflation case) and look at the same 'generation' number in the 2014 column. That price is about 11.4 cents

5) Now average those two scenarios and you'll get an accurate projected rate that matches pretty closely the expected PG&E rate next year because natural gas inflation in real life indeed wound up smack dab between those two extremes. (Natural gas prices are the main determinate of PG&E rate fluctuations.)

6) So 7.8 + 11.4 / 2 = 9.6 cents

The actual number is more like 9.57 cents.

And if you don't trust that analysis, you'll have to ask the SFPUC directly because those were the only accurate numbers that I could easily find online.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 10:15 pm

Um...no. Even if you are using those two numbers correctly you can't just average them. Suppose that one has a 75% probability and the other has a 25%.

I guess that the SFPUC either didn't bother to watch Ed Lee yesterday or they heard him make a serious mistake and decided that correcting him would be rude.

But I'll take your word for it...everybody in San Francisco is using the wrong number except for you. Thanks for correcting everyone.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 10:38 pm

Those projections are for the basic best case and worst case possible scenarios along a straight line 'curve' for natural gas prices. By the nature of such basic best case/worst case assumptions, these two extremes have the same probability.

For a lot of reasons the actual price of natural gas is indeed headed for the center point of those two extremes by next year.

(For example, early fracked gas reserve projections were vastly over hyped by speculators, and in addition to this a lot of fracked gas is now going out for export thereby making domestic prices rise due to decreased domestic supply. If you look these subjects up online you'll see articles to this effect.)

So gas wound up right in the middle of projections and the average I suggested that you calculate is right on target.

The number is accurate.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 11:05 pm

Well if that's the case then the numbers have quite dramatically changed in the past 6 months, and a 45% differential has now disappeared.

Which you would expect one of the odd numbered supes to bake into their question; e.g., 'Mr. Mayor, now that CleanPowerSF has matched PG&E's costs...". But they didn't, even after Lee started using the 7.9 cent figure.

After Lee's statements Avalos issued an angry tirade and he also apparently left out this game changing news. Avalos also paraphrased his question long after Lee had made his case. No mention of the serious error by Lee.

So I guess that you have been seriously let down by your advocates at the BOS.

Posted by Troll on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 6:38 am

exactly at the point when SFPUC was due to approve this?

Given that the activists involved here admit to "hammering" SFPUC with this miraculously lower figure, I have to remain deeply suspect about it.

We appoint SFPUC precisely to protect our interests and, if they are refusing to go along with this, we should respect that. frankly I trust them and Lee a lot more than those who are clearly desperate tor am this thru regardless.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 6:49 am

As I stated earlier in the thread, the rates themselves are not the reason that the Commissioners turned down the rate cap resolution.

Their objections focused on the lack of a clearly defined local installation plan with solid megawatt and jobs numbers.

Advocates actually concur with that criticism to some extent, but we also felt that, now that there is a rate that matches PG&E rates, that it was time to stop waiting and move the program forward.

We were, in fact, strongly opposed to the program start up last year when the rate was too high. The reason for this is that a program that would cost more to ratepayers would be so unpopular with that too many of them would leave the program, causing it to fail.

So it is actually the community and environmental advocates that have been fighting the hardest to make sure that ratepayers get a rate that meets or beats PG&E.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 11:03 am

..is that the SFPUC staff just crunched the numbers and released them last month while the Supes were on break. The Supes are not yet up to speed on the new numbers. For that matter, neither was the Mayor which is why he quoted his own bad numbers in the first place.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 10:53 am

My feeling all along was that this is proceeding too quickly without proper risk and cost assessment.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 3:56 pm

As I said in my other responses, CleanPowerSF is now cost competitive with PG&E, which also eliminates financial risk.

The one thing Lee said that makes some sense is that we need to ensure that lots of local union workers get hired to build lots of actual local clean energy and efficiency installations.

What Lee papered over, is that CleanPowerSF has a plan to do just that, which will result in 1500 jobs per year for its first 10 years, and hundreds of megawatts of local clean energy installations.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:15 pm

That leads to higher costs and more rigid working practices.

Posted by anon on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:27 pm

>"PG&E's new projected rate is over 9 cents per kilowatt hour."

Interesting. Could you please provide a source on that?

Posted by Troll on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 3:59 pm

Go to http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=165

and click on 'video'.

Unfortunately, the transcript is not up yet so you'll have to watch the video. If you fast forward to Director Kim Malcolm's presentation and watch it, you will see her mention the potential 9 to 11 cent rate and that this will be competitive with PG&E rates.

Be forewarned, it is a long hearing.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:22 pm

Well thanks, but your story fell apart already.

You started by saying that PG&E's rate had jumped from 7.9 cents to about 9 cents since April.

When asked for a source you provided:

"you will see her mention the potential 9 to 11 cent rate and that this will be competitive with PG&E rates."

So she didn't really say anything about PG&E's rates. She didn't say that PG&E's rates were 9 cents. You just heard what you wanted to hear and then repeated it to us.

And her assessment of CleanpowerSF carried a wopping +/- 2 cents.

Do you understand where this makes you seem much less than credible?

Posted by Troll on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 4:50 pm

She did say it in that hearing, you just have to hunt for it. As I said, it is a very long hearing.

If you can't easily locate it in that one, search the hearing transcripts for the SFPUC meetings in which it discussed CleanPowerSF and you will see her reference that PG&E's rate will go up to around 9 cents next year.

If that doesn't work, just call Kim Malcolm at the SFPUC and leave a message asking for confirmation.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 8:42 pm

Either you win at the ballot box or you eat the shit sandwich.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 7:18 pm

..because it will be funded with 2001, Proposition H, clean energy revenue bonds. Prop H allows the Board of Supervisors to enact the bonds and the program without a ballot vote.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 11, 2013 @ 8:53 pm

Fascinating that progressives want a ballot on the construction of a single building, but don't want it for an attempt to hijack our power supplies.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 5:49 am

If we took it to the ballot, PG&E would just spend $10m or more on a massive attack campaign and probably succeed in killing the program with an avalanche of deceptions.

It would be totally stupid for us to take this to the ballot where it would be so vulnerable to corporate attacks; corporate attacks which outrageous court decisions like Citizens United have made so predominant in our modern day electoral politics.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 11:09 am

of trying to rule our cities via a noisy minority of activists.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 11:22 am

An election bought and co-opted by millions in corporate monopoly ad dollars does not remotely resemble a democratic process.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 11:47 am

Eric, there are many more visits to the ballot box than a ballot measure.

There are supervisor races, the mayor's race, etc.

Losing those means eating the shit sandwich.

Enough "progressives" are enured with the Emperor's New Shit Sandwich that nobody is going to have a conversation about why more and more elections get lost for fear of offending someone else.

Until that happens, enjoy the buffet.

Posted by marcos on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 5:49 am

New York City voters just made a major tectonic shift to the left and are about to elect their first progressive mayor in five decades.

The Obama rose colored lenses are finally falling from people's eyes after Obama's profoundly cynical and shamefully embarrassing attempt to launch a ridiculously unjustifiable war on Syria; and the voters have had enough.

San Francisco will very likely follow, with the caveat that in San Francisco, our corporate opposition is better organized for the fight.

But I will not be surprised at all if and when the Board and the Mayor's office at last turn solidly to the left, and I believe it will begin happening in the next election.

In fact, it already happened in the last one, with the election of Norman Yee in District 7.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 11:18 am

little difference to the rest of the nation, who think those two cities are basketcases anyway.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 11:21 am

Where revolutions begin. And then they spread to other cities; Paris being a shining historical example. That's how real change happens.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 12, 2013 @ 11:50 am

I could point to how Daly and Mirk were both replaced by a more moderate Supe. Or how Ed Lee easily beat Avalos for Mayor. Or how Obama has moved to the right. Or how the GOP almost won the Senate and retained the House.

There is in fact little evidence that either SF or the nation is moving to the left. You're dreaming.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 13, 2013 @ 7:22 am

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.