March 2008 - Sustainability - list.sfgreens.org

Re: [Sustain] CO2 Cap & Trade?
by Eric Brooks 21 Jul '08

21 Jul '08

Well, the idea is that you put a top limit or 'cap' on how much each county/state/corporations can emit. Concurrently with that, you create a market for trading reductions in CO2 emissions such that corporations get 'credits' (which are worth real money) and sometimes (but not always) corporations receive financial penalties or taxes for exceeding limits. The idea is that you make reducing CO2 emissions desirable by making it valuable. Then, you set up a market in which the CO2 credits get turned into electronic trading notes (a lot like stocks). So, one company, say, a carpet maker, figures out ways to greatly reduce it emissions, and its trading exchange issues that company a given amount of credits for free. Then, another company, say, a cement manufacturer, knowing that it is going to exceed its limits, buys the credits created by the carpet company so that, on paper, the cement company has bought enough credits to -not- exceed its limits; and so, it can therefore avoid emissions penalties (if there are any) or the cost of installing pollution controls (if their state requires any). Depending on the current or future cost of pollution control requirements, and taxes and penalties on fuel use or CO2 production, some companies may see the credits as even more valuable and pay more for them than their set value, and this makes the credits rise in value on the trading 'floor'. Now, as we all know, from any quick glance at the stock market, and especially at markets trading currency values, speculators over the last many decades have developed incredibly clever and complex ways of making money from trading even though they aren't creating any value or production whatsoever. Add this to the fact that corporations have high incentives to use tricks to pretend on paper that they are reducing their emissions when they are not, that corporations will continue to get laws passed to reduce pollution controls and penalties and even to change the way CO2 trading systems work, and it is easy to see that such cap and trade systems are doomed to failure. Indeed, the cap and trade system adopted a few years ago in Europe is already failing dismally. See http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21202 cheers Eric Anne Garrison wrote: I can't even figure out how this cap and trade business is supposed to work. Somebody told me that carbon offsetting meant something fairly simple like paying to plant a tree in exchange for some sort of excess energy use, but I can't even tell how this is supposed to work. If I'm around and anyone can enlighten me at the next meeting, I'd appreciate it. I know it's crap, and don't much feel like sorting it out, but feel like I should.

3 2

[Sustain] March Transpo/Sustainability WG Meeting
by Eric Brooks 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Hi all, Don Eichelberger and I were the only ones to meet last month so I figure we should just push the reset button and shoot for this month. Here's a proposed agenda: Joint Meeting: Transportation & Sustainability Working Groups When: Thursday, 3/27/08, 6:30PM-9:00PM Where: SFGP Office, 1028A Howard St - Assessing The Transit Effectiveness Project - McGoldrick's Elected MTA Charter Amendment - Peak Oil Taskforce Update - Maxwell/Peskin SFPUC Charter Amendment - Update On Mayor's Solar Programs and New Sandoval Solar Proposal - Update On Community Choice Energy project - Combustion Turbine Update - Forming an active working group members alert list for the Sustainability WG -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara

4 6

[Sustain] U.S. Military Plans 'Clean Coal' Diesel For Jet Fleet
by Eric Brooks 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

HI all, The U.S. military is nearly always the developer of new industries. The computer and Internet industries were started through large subsidized investments in those technologies for military use. Now they appear to be attempting to do the same for an oil to liquefied coal transition. Here's the article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5639384.html The Air Force hopes to build a coal-to-liquid-fuel plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana.Coal's impact on the environment has others, including members of Congress, questioning the idea. *ROBIN LOZNAK**:* THE (GREAT FALLS, MONT.) TRIBUNE *March 21, 2008, 11:12PM* Air Force turning to coal for cleaner-burning fuel Military hopes to prod Wall Street into investments for oil alternative By MATTHEW BROWN Associated Press MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, MONT. --- On a wind-swept air base near the Missouri River, the Air Force has launched an ambitious plan to wean itself from foreign oil by turning to a new and unlikely source: coal. The Air Force wants to build at its Malmstrom base in central Montana the first piece of what it hopes will be a nationwide network of facilities that would convert domestic coal into cleaner-burning synthetic fuel. Air Force officials said the plants could help neutralize a national security threat by tapping into the country's abundant coal reserves. And by offering itself as a partner in the Malmstrom plant, the Air Force hopes to prod Wall Street investors --- nervous over coal's role in climate change --- to sink money into similar plants. "We're going to be burning fossil fuels for a long time, and there's three times as much coal in the ground as there are oil reserves," said Air Force Assistant Secretary William Anderson. "Guess what? We're going to burn coal." Tempering that vision, analysts say, is the astronomical cost of coal-to-liquids plants. Their high price tag, up to $5 billion apiece, would be hard to justify if oil prices were to drop. In addition, coal has drawn wide opposition on Capitol Hill, where some leading lawmakers reject claims it can be transformed into a clean fuel. Without emissions controls, experts say coal-to-liquids plants could churn out double the greenhouse gases as oil. "We don't want new sources of energy that are going to make the greenhouse gas problem even worse," House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said. Private development The Air Force would not finance, construct or operate the coal plant. Instead, it has offered private developers a 700-acre site on the base and a promise that it would be a ready customer as the government's largest fuel consumer. Bids on the project are due in May. Construction is expected to take four years once the Air Force selects a developer. Anderson said the Air Force plans to fuel half its North American fleet with a synthetic-fuel blend by 2016. To do so, it would need 400 million gallons of coal-based fuel annually. With the Air Force paving the way, Anderson said the private sector would follow --- from commercial air fleets to long-haul trucking companies. Not much success "Because of our size, we can move the market along," he said. "Whether it's (coal-based) diesel that goes into Wal-Mart trucks or jet fuel that goes into our fighters, all that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which is the endgame." Coal producers have been unsuccessful in prior efforts to cultivate such a market. Climate change worries prompted Congress last year to turn back an attempt to mandate the use of coal-based synthetic fuels. The Air Force's involvement comes at a critical time for the industry. Coal's biggest customers, electric utilities, have scrapped at least four dozen proposed coal-fired power plants over rising costs and the uncertainties of climate change. That would change quickly if coal-to-liquids plants gained political and economic traction under the Air Force's plan. "This is a change agent for the entire industry," said John Baardson, CEO of Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., awaiting permits on a proposed $5 billion coal-based synthetic fuels plant in Ohio. "There would be a number of plants that would be needed just to support (the Air Force's) needs alone." Only about 15 percent of the 25,000 barrels of synthetic fuel that would be produced daily at the Malmstrom plant would be suitable for jet fuel. The remainder would be lower-grade diesel for vehicles, trains or trucks and naphtha, a material used in the chemical industry. That means the Air Force would need at least seven plants to meet its 2016 goal. -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Staying Grounded on Water Issues (from NM)
by Martin Zehr 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

This is a post from an active participant in the Middle Rio Grande Water Assembly (in Albuquerque, NM) who lives now in Glen Park. The discussion raises the issues that only a party that runs candidates and builds support for its own Platform can address. The political solutions lie in creating new forms of adaptive governance and establishing formalized roles for Green representation as urban water users with a particular agenda on sustainability. This comes through the governing entities such as the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/frame.asp?u=http://www.sfwater.org/ , the Citizens' Advisory Commission and the Sustainability Plan. It also comes by sitting down with state legislators who consistently support sustainability and developing common strategies and legislation that can empower the local entities to implement significant changes. Mato Ska GPSF Dear Water Assembly List Members, For what it may be worth, here are some thoughts on Kay Matthews’ La Jicarita News editorial. She states, toward the bottom, “The ISC has made it abundantly clear that it doesn't want implementation as part of the regional plans and doesn't want public welfare to apply to a water management strategy that encourages water transfers from agricultural lands to urban areas.” I have great respect for Kay, and understand her frustration, but I don’t believe that’s generally true. However, that statement may apply to the Taos plan, but not because the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) is “in bed” with development interests. Above all, I think state water policy administrators are seeking to avoid conflict, and especially the litigation of competing claims on a scarce resource, which they’re anxious not to get in the middle of. (They lack data, don’t have the resources, etc.) Taos region politicians probably are getting pressured by development and other parochial interests, and they in turn are leaning on the state, which is trying to find a way out by taking the position that though the stakeholders have legitimately had their input, actual implementation of the plan should be the responsibility of local elected officials. I think that originally, the Regional Water Plan (RWP) process was attractive to the bureaucracy because it seemed to be a way of letting heterogeneous local interests work through the issues and come to some reasonable conclusions about policies that could get buy-in at a sub-state level. If there really was consensus, the state could then support a local “public welfare”-based policy in approving or denying a transfer. (This is what the State Engineer meant when he told the Dialogue at the 2004 annual statewide meeting that he would be “guided” by regional definitions of public welfare.) Problems arose, however, because the mechanisms used to aggregate the interests of a region (itself a pretty fuzzy concept – because the Public Welfare statement had to be pretty vague and overly generalized to get wide support) really had no institutional legitimacy. A RWP committee or council could gather the input, and even approve a plan, but it would take actors with jurisdiction carry it out. So the “open” planning system gets replaced by a “closed” implementation system. The answer to this, I think, is not to throw up our hands and ask “Why did we even bother?”” Instead, we somehow need to work on making those planning systems more robust, and work toward “institutionalizing” a citizen-based plan implementation oversight function in every region. The Taos planners took it farther than any other region (to my knowledge), but haven’t yet had the political clout to make it stick. If lawmakers would provide a legal framework recognizing ongoing regional planning organizations, giving them even advisory review authority, and providing resources for them to operate, I believe the ISC would be far less likely to cave to special interests (if that is indeed what happened). If the RWPs are being updated around the state beginning this year, now would be the time to put a bug in legislators’ ears about making these regional mechanisms better and stronger. Done right, this could transform the water policy process. The New Mexico Water Dialogue is in an early stage of working on a template for updating RWPs, and in the spirit of openness would welcome suggestions. To see working documents for this project, please visit http://nmwaterdialogue.org/rwp_update_template.html. Lynn and Elizabeth, don’t give up now! ¡Sί se puede! Best wishes, John John R Brown ________________________________ From: mailadmin(a)waterassembly.org [mailto:mailadmin@waterassembly.org] On Behalf Of eachestnut(a)aol.com Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:50 PM To: mrgwa(a)waterassembly.org Subject: Re: (MRGWA) true colors revealed Question: re the Matthews Editorial: why the hell is anyone spending ANY time on the Regional Water Plans if ISC intends to completely ignore and or circumvent them? Effective PUBLICITY regarding this turn of Events??? Anyone? Elizabeth Chestnut -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Montgomery To: MRGWA Sent: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 9:01 am Subject: (MRGWA) true colors revealed http://lajicarita.org/currentissue.htm#editorial Editorial: Taos Regional Water Plan Hijacked by the Powers That Be By Kay Matthews We often use the expression "not at the table" to indicate that someone's input was not represented in a process, whether by intention or omission. Well, at the March 7 meeting of the Taos Regional Water Plan, members of the Public Welfare Committee (PWC), who drafted the Public Welfare Statement (PWS) and Implementation Program, were designated the "Stakeholders" and literally were "not at the table": we were consigned to the audience while all the "Decision Makers" were physically there. The Decision Makers, or Taos Region elected officials, included all the municipalities, water districts, and Abeyta adjudication parties who have objected to the Public Welfare Implementation Program because they want to buy and sell water rights on the open market with no oversight. The meeting was orchestrated by the Interstate Stream Commission and facilitated by Rosemary Romero as the second of two supposed "mediation" sessions to try reach consensus on the plan. But at the first meeting, the Implementation Program was taken "off the table" at the behest of the Decision Makers. Members of the PWC were led to believe that at the subsequent March 7 meeting participants would then work on drafting some kind of language to address implementation. As a member of the Taos Regional Water Plan steering committee and the PWC, I dropped out of the negotiation process several months ago (the PWC met many times throughout the fall with the Decision Makers and drafted 17 versions of the PWS and Implementation Program to try to make it more inclusive of their demands) when I saw where we were headed. I believe we were lending undeserved credibility to their complaints by agreeing to changes to a document that had been drafted from the bottom up by stakeholders from around the Taos Region. These stakeholders represented unincorporated communities, environmental organizations, acequias, mutual domestics, and other water users who met for over two years, as volunteers, to draft the plan, and who came to public meetings across the region to help devise critical strategies for the plan, which included keeping water in its area of origin. They supported the creation of an oversight committee to look at all transfers both within and from the region, and based on the public welfare criteria we had developed, including cultural protection, agrarian character, watershed health, and long-term economic development, make an informed recommendation to the Office of the State Engineer as to whether the transfer was in the public interest. Many, if not most, of the Decision Makers, while designated members of the steering committee, seldom attended the Water Plan meetings. Only when we were ready to submit the plan to the ISC for approval did they decide to start attending meetings and object that they had "been left out of the process." I went to the second mediation meeting to cover it for La Jicarita News, and even I was surprised by the blatant maneuvering of the ISC. Romero made it clear that only the Decision Makers were going to address implementation, and Stakeholders were not to participate. When several PWC members objected to the undemocratic way the meeting was being run, they were told that the steering committee and PWC had done their job and were no longer part of the process. It was time for the Decision Makers to draft an implementation component for the plan. To his credit, County Commissioner Nick Jaramillo (the County is the only Decision Maker that approved the Implementation Program) objected to the process of excluding the committee members. He pointed out that Simeon Herskovits, the member of the PWC who has been responsible for drafting the many versions of the PWS, was unable to attend the previous meeting (committee members had requested that the date of that meeting be changed because of Simeon's absence but were ignored) and was told he would be able to submit some changes, recommended by the PWC, to the PWS. Jaramillo stated that despite this attempt by the municipalities to protect their interests, the County will move forward to do what is best for all its constituents. The Decision Makers then proceeded to spend the rest of the meeting drafting an implementation program that focused on setting up an "educational and information respository," which is all fine and dandy except that this Taos Regional Water Plan is not what the public said it wanted. The ISC has made it abundantly clear that it doesn't want implementation as part of the regional plans and doesn't want public welfare to apply to a water management strategy that encourages water transfers from agricultural lands to urban areas. Until growth and development are tied to the availability of a local water supply there will continue to be water transfers. The Taos Regional Water Plan and Public Welfare Statement is our plan to protect our water resources for the benefit of all our region's citizens. Now, without an effective Implementation Program, it can sit on the shelf, along with the other 15 regional plans, and gather dust while water continues to flow both uphill and downhill to money.

1 0

[Sustain] Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force's joint meeting
by Martin Zehr 29 Mar '08

29 Mar '08

The meeting notice for the April 8, 2008, Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force's joint meeting of the Delta Ecosystem as a Part of a Healthy Estuary and Water Supply and Reliability Work Groups, has been posted to the Delta Vision website at www.deltavision.ca.gov Meeting details are as follows: Meeting: Joint Meeting of the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force's Delta Ecosystem as Part of a Healthy Estuary and Water Supply and Reliability Work Groups Date/Time: Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Location: John E. Moss Federal Building, 650 Capitol Mall, 5th Floor - Bay Room, Sacramento, CA 95814 Pat Rogers CALFED Bay-Delta Program 650 Capitol Mall, 5th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 ph: (916) 445-5593 fax: (916) 445-7297

1 0

[Sustain] Fwd: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message
by Don Eichelberger 25 Mar '08

25 Mar '08

The following is from a letter I just got from Dianne Feinstein: >It may also interest you to know that on December 6, 2007, I >introduced the "Emission Allowance Market Transparency Act," which >establishes federal oversight for new carbon emissions trading >markets. This legislation is designed to prevent fraud and >manipulation in the greenhouse gas credit markets that are expected >to develop once Congress approves comprehensive climate change >legislation with a cap-and-trade system for the trading of emissions >credits. Specifically, the "Emission Allowance Market Transparency >Act" requires the Environmental Protection Agency to create a >regulatory structure to oversee the new carbon credit markets. Is establishing a Carbon Trading Market an efficient way of reducing carbon use? I would agree with setting up a mechanism for carbon users to pay in to a fund whose purpose would be to invest in technologies and conservation to cut carbon emissions. But, I fear making carbon a market player will prove a disincentive for setting serious carbon emission limits needed to help defuse global warming. And, what will the currency be? I can easily envision Kennicott Coal paying off its obligations as a carbon producer by investing in palm oil plantations in Indonesia, or am I misunderstanding? Who has answers? Don Don Eichelberger DJ Fix Independent Productions Green Uprising Blog www.greenuprising.blogspot.com My You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRp5rGJoUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iySwwyZfDgE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r9rK8nPREA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5UbnJ0kUqo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SktIYTyC1U Donny Fix del.icio.us book marks http://del.icio.us/donnyfix The Hegelian/Marxist goal is emancipation. Marx said it best in 1843: "Human emancipation wll only be complete when the real, individual man (sic) is absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual man, in his every day life, in his work and in his relationships, he has become a species-being (politically accountabe to the whole); and when he recognizes and realizes his own power as social powers, so that he no longer separates this social power from himself as political power."

2 1

[Sustain] Newsom Appoints 2 More PG&E Staff To City Commissions (One A Lobbyist)
by Eric Brooks 19 Mar '08

19 Mar '08

Hi all, Newsom's deepening relationship with PG&E is becoming more and more obvious. The appointments described below bring the Mayor to 3 PG&E appointees in the Month of March, including former head of PG&E Public Relations Guillermo Rodriguez, who was just appointed to run City Build and the 'Green' Collar Jobs program. http://www.sfbg.com/printable_entry.php?entry_id=5931 SF Bay Guardian: Newsom's commission games /Everything the mayor does now seems to be aimed at increasing his odds of moving up in the political world/ *EDITORIAL* Mayor Gavin Newsom didn't want Debra Walker, an artist and activist, running the Building Inspection Commission. He doesn't want Theresa Sparks, a transgender woman and community leader, running the Police Commission. And now, we've learned, he doesn't want Robert Haaland, a labor activist and one of the city's most visible transgender leaders, to serve as vice president of the Board of Appeals. But of course, the mayor thinks it's perfectly fine to put two employees of Pacific Gas and Electric Company --- an outfit that is suing the city, breaking the law, trying to subvert public power and cheating the public out of hundreds of millions of dollars a year --- on city commissions. This is what the second term of Mayor Newsom, who is now openly running for governor, looks like. It's not pretty. We knew the mayor had his sights on higher office, but now that it's out in the open, almost everything he does at City Hall seems to be aimed not at improving San Francisco but at increasing his odds of moving up in the political world. Why, for example, would Newsom appoint Mary Jung, a PG&E customer services manager, to the Civil Service Commission, and Darlene Chiu, a PG&E City Hall flak, to the Small Business Commission? What possible qualifications could someone whose job involves promoting the interests of a giant corporation that routinely screws small business people have as an advocate for the city's local merchants? Why would the Civil Service Commission, which deals with city employee issues, need the expertise of someone whose employer wants to prevent the city from creating more public jobs? Why would Newsom be doing this --- if he didn't need the support of PG&E and its allies for his next political step? Why would he be directing his appointees to keep out of leadership posts anyone with strong progressive credentials if he weren't trying to build new bridges to the developers, the big employers, the police unions, and the more conservative interest groups he'll need for a statewide campaign? The bottom line is, Newsom needs to stop thinking about running his next campaign and start running the city --- because this sort of commission funny business, this practice of treating important agencies that manage key city departments as nothing more than political patronage posts for rewarding allies and punishing enemies, is terrible for San Francisco. It's too late to do anything about Mary Jung, but the supervisors can, and should, overturn the Chiu appointment --- and let the mayor know that putting PG&E executives on city commissions is unacceptable under any circumstances. Meanwhile, the Board of Appeals votes for new officers March 19. By tradition, the top posts on the five-member panel rotate based on seniority, with an appointee of the mayor holding one job, and a board appointee the other. But Newsom's three members have indicated that they won't allow Haaland --- a conscientious commissioner with an excellent record --- to serve as vice president. That's a slap in the face to labor, the queer community, and the supervisors. Newsom ought to show some political integrity and tell his appointees not to suddenly change the rules. Wednesday March 19, 2008 -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Pro Prop 98 Leader's Bush Style War Rhetoric Against Tenants
by Eric Brooks 18 Mar '08

18 Mar '08

http://no98yes99.com/ Rita Goldberger wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Thanks for sending this around. We need to hang on > to this for our campaign. Is there going to be a > website for the "good" initiative? If so, this should be > place prominently on it. > > Rita Goldberger > > */Eric Brooks <brookse32(a)aim.com>/* wrote: > > Just found this in Beyond Chron. Apparently we are at war... > > http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/_Yes_on_98_Group_Insults_Tenants_Calls_… > > > "Yes on 98" Group Insults Tenants; Calls Elected Officials > "Terrorists" > > /by Paul Hogarth, 2008-03-18/ > To learn about Proposition 98's agenda, look no further than Dan > Faller, President and Founder of the American Owner's Association > (AOA) -- the largest landlord group in California. In a nine-page > essay published in the association's magazine, Faller complains > heatedly about rent control, calls pro-tenant elected officials > "terrorists" and "suicide bombers," compares the effort to pass > Prop 98 with World War II, says that renters "choose not to > provide for themselves," and -- with rhetoric that channels George > Bush -- tells landlords: "you are either for us or against us in > this fight for your freedom and property rights." We cannot > dismiss Faller as just another right-wing kook, for his > organization has already contributed $325,000 to the "Yes on 98" > cause -- and the AOA has plans to raise even more money in the > coming weeks. And with voter turnout in June expected to be very > low, Faller's fringe beliefs might actually become public policy > in California -- if we don't act now. > > While proponents want voters to think it's about eminent domain > reform, Prop 98 is the most dangerous right-wing initiative to hit > the California ballot in years. It would abolish rent control, gut > the most basic tenant protections, repeal sensible environmental > laws and endanger public water projects. Another measure, > Proposition 99, would reform eminent domain -- which Faller > opposes because it would "only protect owner-occupied homes." In > other words, the Prop 98 forces don't really care about the > middle-class homeowner who fears eminent domain. They just want to > repeal all regulations of private property. > > In the post-9/11 world, calling someone a "terrorist" is a serious > accusation -- but Faller refers to pro-tenant elected officials > who oppose Prop 98 as "terrorists" or "suicide bombers" at least > seven times. "The bombs and explosives they are throwing at us," > he writes, "are rent control, eminent domain, inspection laws, > building codes, requiring 60-day notices so tenants can steal more > time from you, eviction laws that allow tenants to live rent-free > for several months, relocation fees, inclusionary zoning that > drives up the price of housing so they have another excuse to > justify even more laws. These elected officials are dangerous." > > Urging his fellow landlords to fight this "war" on the > "terrorists," Faller says the solution is to hit them with the > "big bomb": Proposition 98, which would invalidate all these > existing laws and then some. "Help to permanently take away their > weapons that allow unfair eminent domain and rent control," he > writes before asking for campaign contributions. "This is > certainly one war that we all believe in and can hold our heads > high as we fight to win! You are either for us or against us in > this fight for your freedom and property rights." > > According to a Field Poll conducted in December, George Bush has a > 28% approval rating > <http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2255.pdf> in > California -- with 64% who disapprove. Yet, one of the top > supporters of Prop 98 is using exactly the same rhetoric as our > Commander in Chief to deride his opponents. If voters in June are > educated about who's behind this initiative, they will defeat it. > > But it's not just the "terrorist" politicians that Faller has a > bone to pick with. He demeans people who can't afford to buy > California real estate as lazy and ineffectual. As he urges > landlords to "join this war" to pass Prop 98, Faller says "you've > worked hard providing housing for others who chose not to provide > for themselves ... You gave up a lot of weekends to make it > possible -- something others were not willing to do." Apparently, > it's okay to berate the state's 14 million tenants because they > "obviously" did not work hard enough to buy property themselves. > Hyperbole is one thing; personal insults are quite another. > > Does the fight over Prop 98 match the battle against Nazis and > fascists in World War II? Dan Faller seems to think that it does. > Recalling his childhood memories in Los Angeles when he feared > that "the enemy was going to land their troops in Long Beach and > along our coast," the AOA President puts the fight to pass Prop 98 > on a similar plane. "There were big signs and advertisements that > read 'Uncle Sam Needs You!' during WWII," he writes. "There's a > big AOA sign today that says 'Freedom Loving Americans Need You!' > We need your support to win this War to protect your property rights!" > > It would be easy to laugh at these outlandish statements if Dan > Faller was just your crazy uncle who makes offensive jokes that > amuse only himself. But he's the President and Founder of the > American Owners Association -- a national trade association of > landlords that boasts more members in California than any other > group. Faller is on the Board of Biopharma > <http://www.biopharmasci.com/about/board.asp>, the owner of a > commercial brokerage firm, and used to be a Wall Street broker. > The AOA's monthly newsletter -- which printed his "Yes on 98" > screed -- is the most widely read landlord publication in the country. > > Under Faller's watch, the AOA has provided crucial seed money for > Prop 98 to get on the ballot -- and they're now aggressively > fundraising to get it passed. The group has already put $325,000 > towards the effort -- and Faller has urged members to give even > more. "Donate at least $1,000 with an additional minimum of $50 > for every unit if you own over twenty apartments," he wrote. "If > you own less than 20 units, please donate the $1,000 minimum. If > you own more, step up and invest according to all the benefits > you'll enjoy as a result of winning this campaign." > > With such a fundraising appeal, the "Yes on 98" campaign should > have plenty of funds to hoodwink voters into thinking that their > extreme ballot measure is about eminent domain. Opponents of Prop > 98 must be vigilant, fundraise and get out the message to expose > it as the Hidden Agendas Scheme that it really is. Only by doing > so can we truly save such essential programs in California that 14 > million renters rely on to live here. And with the June ballot > garnering such low attention, there's a serious chance that we > could lose. > > Was Faller joking when he called pro-tenant elected officials > "suicide bombers," accused tenants of being lazy, and compared the > fight to pass Prop 98 with fighting the Axis powers in World War > II? Apparently not. "Please take every word of this article more > seriously," he wrote in the preface, "than any other article you > have ever read in this publication." That should give us all pause > about how dangerous Prop 98 really is ... > > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara > > _______________________________________________ > San Francisco Green Party Active Members List > To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here: > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active > > -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Pro Prop 98 Leader's Bush Style War Rhetoric Against Tenants
by Eric Brooks 18 Mar '08

18 Mar '08

Just found this in Beyond Chron. Apparently we are at war... http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/_Yes_on_98_Group_Insults_Tenants_Calls_… "Yes on 98" Group Insults Tenants; Calls Elected Officials "Terrorists" /by Paul Hogarth, 2008-03-18/ To learn about Proposition 98's agenda, look no further than Dan Faller, President and Founder of the American Owner's Association (AOA) -- the largest landlord group in California. In a nine-page essay published in the association's magazine, Faller complains heatedly about rent control, calls pro-tenant elected officials "terrorists" and "suicide bombers," compares the effort to pass Prop 98 with World War II, says that renters "choose not to provide for themselves," and -- with rhetoric that channels George Bush -- tells landlords: "you are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights." We cannot dismiss Faller as just another right-wing kook, for his organization has already contributed $325,000 to the "Yes on 98" cause -- and the AOA has plans to raise even more money in the coming weeks. And with voter turnout in June expected to be very low, Faller's fringe beliefs might actually become public policy in California -- if we don't act now. While proponents want voters to think it's about eminent domain reform, Prop 98 is the most dangerous right-wing initiative to hit the California ballot in years. It would abolish rent control, gut the most basic tenant protections, repeal sensible environmental laws and endanger public water projects. Another measure, Proposition 99, would reform eminent domain -- which Faller opposes because it would "only protect owner-occupied homes." In other words, the Prop 98 forces don't really care about the middle-class homeowner who fears eminent domain. They just want to repeal all regulations of private property. In the post-9/11 world, calling someone a "terrorist" is a serious accusation -- but Faller refers to pro-tenant elected officials who oppose Prop 98 as "terrorists" or "suicide bombers" at least seven times. "The bombs and explosives they are throwing at us," he writes, "are rent control, eminent domain, inspection laws, building codes, requiring 60-day notices so tenants can steal more time from you, eviction laws that allow tenants to live rent-free for several months, relocation fees, inclusionary zoning that drives up the price of housing so they have another excuse to justify even more laws. These elected officials are dangerous." Urging his fellow landlords to fight this "war" on the "terrorists," Faller says the solution is to hit them with the "big bomb": Proposition 98, which would invalidate all these existing laws and then some. "Help to permanently take away their weapons that allow unfair eminent domain and rent control," he writes before asking for campaign contributions. "This is certainly one war that we all believe in and can hold our heads high as we fight to win! You are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights." According to a Field Poll conducted in December, George Bush has a 28% approval rating <http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2255.pdf> in California -- with 64% who disapprove. Yet, one of the top supporters of Prop 98 is using exactly the same rhetoric as our Commander in Chief to deride his opponents. If voters in June are educated about who's behind this initiative, they will defeat it. But it's not just the "terrorist" politicians that Faller has a bone to pick with. He demeans people who can't afford to buy California real estate as lazy and ineffectual. As he urges landlords to "join this war" to pass Prop 98, Faller says "you've worked hard providing housing for others who chose not to provide for themselves ... You gave up a lot of weekends to make it possible -- something others were not willing to do." Apparently, it's okay to berate the state's 14 million tenants because they "obviously" did not work hard enough to buy property themselves. Hyperbole is one thing; personal insults are quite another. Does the fight over Prop 98 match the battle against Nazis and fascists in World War II? Dan Faller seems to think that it does. Recalling his childhood memories in Los Angeles when he feared that "the enemy was going to land their troops in Long Beach and along our coast," the AOA President puts the fight to pass Prop 98 on a similar plane. "There were big signs and advertisements that read 'Uncle Sam Needs You!' during WWII," he writes. "There's a big AOA sign today that says 'Freedom Loving Americans Need You!' We need your support to win this War to protect your property rights!" It would be easy to laugh at these outlandish statements if Dan Faller was just your crazy uncle who makes offensive jokes that amuse only himself. But he's the President and Founder of the American Owners Association -- a national trade association of landlords that boasts more members in California than any other group. Faller is on the Board of Biopharma <http://www.biopharmasci.com/about/board.asp>, the owner of a commercial brokerage firm, and used to be a Wall Street broker. The AOA's monthly newsletter -- which printed his "Yes on 98" screed -- is the most widely read landlord publication in the country. Under Faller's watch, the AOA has provided crucial seed money for Prop 98 to get on the ballot -- and they're now aggressively fundraising to get it passed. The group has already put $325,000 towards the effort -- and Faller has urged members to give even more. "Donate at least $1,000 with an additional minimum of $50 for every unit if you own over twenty apartments," he wrote. "If you own less than 20 units, please donate the $1,000 minimum. If you own more, step up and invest according to all the benefits you'll enjoy as a result of winning this campaign." With such a fundraising appeal, the "Yes on 98" campaign should have plenty of funds to hoodwink voters into thinking that their extreme ballot measure is about eminent domain. Opponents of Prop 98 must be vigilant, fundraise and get out the message to expose it as the Hidden Agendas Scheme that it really is. Only by doing so can we truly save such essential programs in California that 14 million renters rely on to live here. And with the June ballot garnering such low attention, there's a serious chance that we could lose. Was Faller joking when he called pro-tenant elected officials "suicide bombers," accused tenants of being lazy, and compared the fight to pass Prop 98 with fighting the Axis powers in World War II? Apparently not. "Please take every word of this article more seriously," he wrote in the preface, "than any other article you have ever read in this publication." That should give us all pause about how dangerous Prop 98 really is ... -- "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara

1 0

[Sustain] Come hear me sing on my birthday
by Don Eichelberger 18 Mar '08

18 Mar '08

All- On March 20, as Spring begins, I will be celebrating my 60 birthday by singing. I will be doing a 10 minute set of original tunes at an open mic that evening, starting at 8:20 (give or take), and it would be good to see you there. It's at Bazaar Cafe, 5927 California St., near 22nd Av. Open mic starts at 7:30, and, as I said I am slated to go on at 8:23, so come early, stay late, eat, drink check out the original music of talented musicians, and wish me a happy birthday. Could be fun. And I will try not to sing out of key.... Don Don Eichelberger DJ Fix Independent Productions Green Uprising Blog www.greenuprising.blogspot.com My You Tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctRp5rGJoUc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iySwwyZfDgE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r9rK8nPREA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5UbnJ0kUqo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SktIYTyC1U Donny Fix del.icio.us book marks http://del.icio.us/donnyfix The Hegelian/Marxist goal is emancipation. Marx said it best in 1843: "Human emancipation wll only be complete when the real, individual man (sic) is absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual man, in his every day life, in his work and in his relationships, he has become a species-being (politically accountabe to the whole); and when he recognizes and realizes his own power as social powers, so that he no longer separates this social power from himself as political power."

1 0