Hi Starchild. Thanks for the rewrites. As always, I like your versions
better. I'm keeping C with your suggestions. Just added the extra
sentence below in Prop A regarding the soaring rates and changed it to more
than doubling over the next decade with a link to an article, which I
printed out as I know they will ask for it at DOE. Working on all the
cover pages right now.
Prop A is part of the politicians’ power grab to get PG&E out of The City
so all residents will be forced to get their energy through the municipal
“CleanPowerSF” plan. We are no fans of PG&E, a government-sanctioned
monopoly, but if the bureaucrats get rid of PG&E, will a
serve residents any better?
The PUC is supposed to ensure the safety of the public and safeguard the
environment. *Why is it depleting the aquifer by allowing possibly
polluted local groundwater to be mixed in with our drinking water?*
It’s also supposed to be exercising financial prudence with ratepayer
money. *Why are water rates projected to more than double in San Francisco
over the next decade? *
Having multiple companies vying for customers is better. But city
officials are “slamming” residents by automatically switching them to the
municipal-run CleanPowerSF, one neighborhood at a time. *If it is wrong
for companies in the voluntary sector to “slam” customers, why is it OK for
a government agency to do it? *
Prop A is all about more debt. It would let a Board of Supervisors
super-majority issue bonds to build power facilities *without voter
approval*. *When was the last time the Board voted against higher taxes or
more debt? *
The PUC already has authority to issue bonds for water and sewers. Why let
politicians approve more debt for infrastructure spending too? Only voters
should be deciding whether new debt is incurred or not.
Vote NO on Prop A.
Libertarian Party of San Francisco