PG&E’s service territory covers most of California. (SRA land is protected forest areas.)

PG&E’s service area, “stretches from Eureka in the north to Bakersfield in the south, and from the Pacific Ocean in the west to the Sierra Nevada in the east.”  That territory covers, “141,215 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,616 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines.”  As well as, “42,141 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,438 miles of transportation pipelines.”  The majority of its income derives from “5.1 million electric customer accounts” and “4.3 million natural gas customer accounts.”

In my home located just south of Sacramento, California, PG&E supplies our gas service while the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) provides our electricity.

On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, California will hold a primary election where voters will have the opportunity to, among other things, vote on five statewide ballot measures.  One of those is Proposition 16.

If you live in California or just outside one of its borders and have had your TV on you will have been inundated with commercials paid for by PG&E urging you to “Vote ‘Yes’ on proposition 16.”  Here is the earliest, most re-run, and most misleading commercial.

What The PG&E Commercials Say The Proposal Is:

In its commercials the PG&E actors call Proposition 16 the “Taxpayers Right To Vote Act.”

What The Official Ballot Says The Proposal Is:

The official ballot identifies the proposal by this name, “Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement For Local Public Electricity Providers.  Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”

There is no official reference to any so-called “taxpayers right to vote act” except in the arguments in favor of the proposition.  (The arguments in support are signed by the presidents of the historically arch-conservative California Taxpayers’ Association and California Chamber of Commerce.  As of April 22, 2010, [the most recent mandated financial reporting deadline as of this writing] neither of those organizations had contributed any funds in support of the proposal.  Only PG&E had.)

What It Actually Does:

According to California’s prestigious non-partisan Legislative Analyst, Proposition 16 would place, “new voter approval requirements on local governments before they can use ‘public funds’—defined broadly in the measure to include tax revenues, various forms of debt, and ratepayer funds—to start up electricity service, expand electricity service into a new territory, or implement a CCA (Community Choice Aggregation – an arrangement in which a city, county, or combination of the two can go into the business to provide their residents with electrical power; presumably at lower cost than corporations like PG&E.  A fairly new law, several communities are exploring this option.).”

• “First, before an authorized local government entity can start up electricity service, it must receive approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area proposed to be served.”
• “Second, before an existing publicly owned utility can expand its electric delivery service into a new territory, it must receive approval by two-thirds of the voters in the area currently served by the utility and two-thirds of the voters in the new area proposed to be served.”
• “Third, the measure requires two-thirds voter approval for a local government to implement a CCA.”

What That Means: If your city, county, or combination of the two wants to break away from PG&E’s sole right to sell you electric power it must first put that proposal on a ballot.  But then,

• If the measure gets 50% of the votes +1: The measure loses, PG&E wins.
• If the measure gets 55% of the votes: The measure loses, PG&E wins.
• If the measure gets 60% of the votes: The measure loses, PG&E wins.
• If the measure gets 65% of the votes: The measure loses, PG&E wins.
• If the measure gets 66% of the votes: The measure loses, PG&E wins.

Only if the measure gets 66 2/3% of the votes +1 or more does PG&E lose and you win.  The odds of you and your community winning such a vote are far worse than your chance of winning a pay-off at any Nevada or Indian casino.

Arguments Against It:

Contrary to what PG&E and its supporters claim or imply Proposition 16 is definitely not a measure to increase or grant new voter rights.  Certainly not like one would expect in a traditional democracy; where the votes of the majority rule.  Instead, Proposition 16 establishes the right of a negative minority to keep things as they are.  Like in an undemocratic oligarchy or banana republic.  And all for the benefit of one power company, PG&E.

It’s the 2/3 positive vote requirement which plays the killer role in Proposition 16.  If it’s authors had required a simple, normal, democratically standard majority vote to allow the replacement of PG&E electrical service with an alternative it might have seemed a reasonable idea.

But worse than any bailout, Proposition 16 amounts to a permanent, locked in gift of California’s resident’s monthly pay to PG&E’s coffers.  This attempt at legal thievery must not be allowed.

Comparison of PG&E contributions and “No On 16″ resources.

Who Has The Money In This Dogfight?:

Proposition 16 has been PG&E’s proposal from the beginning.  Operating through the front group they created (the long-winded “Yes on 16/Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote, major funding from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a coalition of taxpayers, business and labor”), PG&E developed the proposal’s language and paid for it to be circulated for signatures.

According to financial reports last filed on April 21 with the Secretary of State PG&E has been the sole contributor to the “Yes On 16” campaign.  To the tune of $31,040,000.00.

At the same time the organizers of the opposition “No On 16” campaign (the equally long-winded “No On Prop 16, Stop The Pg&E Powergrab, Sponsored By Local Power And The Utility Reform Network”) have received funding from a variety of individuals and organizations.  But to the tune of a comparatively measly $58,449.00 (last reported April 22).

Thus, as of this writing, the “No” campaign has raised roughly 19% of the funds contributed by PG&E.  The disparity of the financial resources available in this struggle are graphically illustrated in the chart shown.

What Will PG&E Do If Proposition 16 Fails?:

Despite the apparent unevenness of the funds available to each side, I think there is a good chance PG&E could lose.  In researching this article in late April I found a growing movement among local law makers, towns, cities, and newspapers against Proposition 16.  An incomplete but growing list is posted here at the “No On 16” site.

PG&E has invested a huge amount of money in this effort.  And there are widespread rumors it intends to spend more.  Loosing this campaign will not only mean the money spent on it was wasted on an ill-conceived gamble.  It could also be a serious political and credibility blow to the company.

If you were a PG&E stockholder what would your reaction be?  And what of company president and CEO Peter Darbee (who earned nearly $9 million in 2009)?  Will he and his staff who recommended the company pursue Proposition 16 be asked to leave?  Should they be?

Recommendation:

I’m definitely voting No on Proposition 16 this June 8.  I hope all California voters do as well.

The Results:

Proposition 16 was rejected by the voters.  The vote was 2,462,108 in favor (47.5%) but 2,718,549 against (52.5%).  I guess sometimes money just can’t buy the voter’s love.

California’s Proposition 16: What Is It? Why All The Noise? is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

The announcement had been expected for some time.  There are no other politically significant Democratic candidates running.   (The website Politics1 currently lists three others: retired businessman, real estate investor, and San Diego economist Richard Aguirre; non-profit group founder and Pastor Joe Symmon; and Fred Medill, a college student and founder-operator of Fred TV.)

Why He’s Running
Prior Accomplishments Highlighted
On Gridlock And Governance
Experience
Opinion
Question(s) For You

Why He’s Running

In his March 2^nd declaration Brown said, “The political breakdown in Sacramento is threatening(:) …”

• Jobs,
• Our schools and the
• State’s credit rating.

“… which is the worst in the country … Our state is in serious trouble and the next governor must have the preparation, the knowledge and the know-how to get California working again. That is what I offer and that’s why I’m declaring my candidacy for governor.”

“These are really serious times, but our state is still the best place on earth to live and to raise a family,” Brown said. “Our businesses lead the world in technology and innovation. Our natural environment is second to none. By making the tough decisions now, we can get through this crisis leaner and more efficient, poised for a comeback that will lead to a whole new period of prosperity. That’s what drives my candidacy. But it’s not going to happen overnight or with empty promises and photo ops. It takes patience and courage. But, together, we can all get California working again.”

Brown said that if elected he will be guided by three “governing principles.”

1. “First, I‘ll tell you the truth. No more smoke and mirrors on the budget. No more puffy slogans and platitudes. You deserve the truth and that’s what you’ll get from me.”
2. “Second, in this time of recession when people are financially strapped, there will be no new taxes unless you the people vote for them.”
3. “Third, we have to downsize state government from Sacramento and return decisions and authority to the cities, to the counties and to local schools.”

On Gridlock And Governance

Taking a subtle swipe at current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican contender Meg Whitman, Brown said the key to ending the state’s partisan gridlock is a Governor with in-depth knowledge of how government and Sacramento politics actually function.

“Some people say that if you’ve been around the process you can’t handle the job, that we need to go out and find an outsider who knows virtually nothing about state government. Well, we tried that and it doesn’t work. We found out that not knowing is not good.”

Brown said the answer to Sacramento’s problems “is not a scripted plan cooked up by consultants or mere ambition to be governor… We need someone with insider’s knowledge, but an outsider’s mind,” Brown added, “a leader who can pull people together — Republicans and Democrats, oil companies and environmentalists, unions and businesses. We need to work together as Californians first. And at this stage in my life, I’m prepared to focus on nothing else but fixing this state I love.”

Brown explained that he has seen state government “from every angle.”  “I’ve seen our government…when it works and when it doesn’t work. And it’s no secret that Sacramento isn’t working today. The partisanship is poisonous. Political posturing has replaced leadership. And the budget, it’s always late, always in the red and always wrong.”

Prior Accomplishments Highlighted

In making his declaration of candidacy Brown and his staff cited many accomplishments during his previous tenure as Governor:

“When I was governor, California added 1.9 million new jobs in eight years,” Brown said. “I know we can do it again and be the leader in renewable energy, good jobs and quality schools.”

Brown was California’s governor from 1975 to 1983. During those years he says he marshaled both Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to slow the growth of state government, eliminate capital gains taxes for many small businesses, abolish the business inventory tax, index personal income taxes, adopt the nation’s first energy efficiency standards, and make California the leader in co-generation, solar and wind energy. Private-sector jobs grew at almost double the national rate.

Brown says he consistently had budgets approved on time and built a prudent budget surplus to serve as a “rainy day fund”. He reduced the number of state employees per 1,000 Californians from 9.6 in 1975 to 9.2 in 1982. The tax burden for California residents declined from $6.90 per $100 of income in 1975 to $6.72 in 1982.

Following the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which cut property taxes collected by local governments by 2/3, Brown claims he used the state’s “rainy day fund” to help local school districts, police and fire departments, cities and counties maintain essential services. Proposition 13 author Howard Jarvis said, “I knew Gov. Brown was the man who could make it work.”

While curbing the growth of state government, Brown instituted cutting-edge environmental protections that became guidelines for the nation to follow. He strengthened the California Coastal Commission and established comprehensive policies governing development along the coast. He signed the nation’s first legislation requiring high school students to demonstrate basic proficiency before graduation. State funding for higher education, including community colleges, more than doubled during Brown’s eight years as governor.

His terms as Mayor of Oakland, from 1999 to 2007, were also positively cited. Brown’s declaration claimed he recruited 10,000 new residents to the city, attracting more than 200 new businesses to Oakland, and cutting the number of serious crimes by over 30 percent.

Experience

Here is a brief listing of Jerry Brown’s electoral history:

1969 — Elected to Los Angeles Community Board of Trustees

1974 — Runs for Governor of California

1975 — Inaugurated as the 34th Governor of California

1976 — Runs unsuccessfully for President, but does best President Carter in five primaries

1983 — Ends two terms as Governor

1989 — Elected State Democratic Party Chairman

1992 — Runs unsuccessfully for Democratic Presidential nomination, bests Bill Clinton in six states

1998 — Elected Mayor of Oakland California with 59% of the vote

2002 — Re-elected Mayor of Oakland, receives 64% of the vote

2006 — Elected Attorney General of California

2007 — Ends second term as Oakland Mayor, assumes Office of California Attorney General

2010 — March 2, Announces candidacy for California Governor

Opinion

I have been a Democrat in California since I was first able to register as a voter some 40 years ago.  And I was an active young Democrat in my late teens through late 20s.  But I have never voted for Jerry Brown in any gubernatorial or presidential primary.  I just didn’t consider him “my kind of Democrat”.  There was always another candidate I preferred more.

I will, however, vote for him in this year’s primary and general elections.  This despite the fact that I was really hoping a younger, vibrant, and well-know Democrat would emerge.

And I will be encouraging California voters to support Jerry Brown as well.  I think his many years of successful experience with a wide body of individuals and groups are just what we need.  He knows how to work effectively with business, labor, managers, workers, and independent entrepreneurs to build communities, provide jobs, and enact fair and equitable policies.

Above all he has demonstrated compassion and commitment to providing the tools and conditions under which people from all walks of life and abilities can work to improve their individual circumstances.

Compassion and fairness don’t get much attention, weight, or importance it seems in today’s electoral contests.  Between now and June 8 we will be entertained by Republican gubernatorial rivals Meg Ryan and Steve Poizner bashing each other over who can be the bigger heartless right-wing monster.  They will be attacking labor unions, government employees, folks on public assistance, so-called “illegal aliens”, and anybody else considered different and out of place in a well-off able-bodied white conservative’s view of what the world should be like.

I doubt we will hear either Poizner or Whitman say one thing, for example, about how they are going to help low-income folks with disabilities continue to live in their own homes when their in-home care workers are laid off as a result of Schwarzenegger’s budget cutbacks.

No, those two will instead be preaching the conservative narrow-minded fantasy that since they have run successful businesses they can run state government successfully.

But running a government requires an almost completely different set of goals and skills than running a business.  As Brown said in an interview the day after his announcement, “… government is not about selling products or slashing payroll or meeting Wall Street metrics.  It’s about civic engagement.”

Go, Jerry, go.

Question(s) For You

Do you think you will be voting for Jerry Brown for Governor of California?
Do you have a favored candidate yet?
If not Brown, who would you prefer? (Or should that be “whom would you prefer?”)

–

Jerry Brown For Governor: My Take is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

Friday, May 21, 2010, will be the 32nd edition of the Kiwanis Special Games.  The Games are perhaps the Los Altos Kiwanis Club’s most important community service project.

Established by the Los Altos Kiwanis Club, the games are now produced by all of the Kiwanis Clubs of  Kiwanis Division 34.  Well over 900 severely challenged kids from more than 50 area schools participate.  The games are simple, but competitive, and carefully matched to the abilities of the participants.

The children look forward to our Kiwanis Special Games all year.  It’s one of those occasions when they are able to excel and find themselves at the center of attention because of their positive accomplishments.  It takes about 800 volunteers to run the games, including Kiwanians, Key  and Circle K Club, teachers, and volunteers from the community.

The videos tell the story.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFySBUnyQw4

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFoQcDLPpzg

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBInmVL0zDk

Making a Difference, Kiwanis and Special Games is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

Washington, DC (January 27, 2010): Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) today introduced the Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind (H.R. 4533), which will mandate that all consumer electronics, home appliances, kiosks, and electronic office technology provide user interfaces that are accessible to the blind.

Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “The National Federation of the Blind appreciates the wise and decisive action taken today by Representative Schakowsky.  In recent years, advances in microchip and digital technology have led to the proliferation of everyday products–such as dishwashers or copy machines–that have visual displays and other user interfaces that are inaccessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision.  Inaccessibility of these devices is a major barrier to a blind person’s independence and productivity.  The Technology Bill of Rights will ensure that manufacturers make their products accessible to all consumers, and that blind people will not be left behind as technology continues to advance.”

“The importance of access to technology in today’s society cannot be overstated.  In many cases, a person’s livelihood depends upon the ability to use technology,” said Representative Schakowsky.  “This bill will allow people who are blind or have low vision to compete on a level playing field with their sighted peers and remain productive members of society.”

For more information contact:

Chris Danielsen
Director of Public Relations
National Federation of the Blind
(410) 659‑9314, extension 2330
(410) 262‑1281 (Cell)
cdanielsen@nfb.org

Trevor Kincaid
Communications Director
Office of Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky
(202) 225‑2111

Technology Bill of Rights for the Blind Introduced is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

UDFERR3Z8AMB

Sometimes, when I’m searching for the right words to express all my feelings about the current state of affairs, I get slapped in the head with something written by someone else who does it much better than I would have.

This can be very frustrating.  Particularly when I’m trying to distinguish my developing blog here with new and insightful observations of my own.

In this case I wanted to write about my feelings and thoughts about President Obama’s recent State of the Union address.  But this morning I found the venerable New York Times had beaten me to the punch.  And they also had some additional information I did not have.  Here is the link to the story:

On Washington — Clinton Turned Right in ’96 Speech, While Obama Plowed Ahead — NYTimes.com.

For myself, I think the President’s speech was right on track.  I like what he said and the new initiatives he proposed.  I hope him every success as we move forward.

I Cannot Say It Better is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

OAKLAND, Calif. – In a settlement announced January 21, 2010, by Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) and the City of Oakland, Oakland has agreed to adopt an emergency plan which incorporates the needs of people with all types of disabilities.

History and Need

The suit was filed in 2007 against the City of Oakland to remedy the lack of consideration of people with disabilities in its emergency preparation plan.  Plaintiffs – the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers (“CFILC”), Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. (“CDR”), and Marian Gray (an Oakland taxpayer) were represented by Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a non-profit law center that specializes in civil rights cases on behalf of persons with disabilities in Berkeley, California.

Bird’s eye view of Oakland freeway which collapsed during 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

After the lawsuit was filed, Oakland immediately began to work with DRA in cooperative negotiations. The City then hired a consultant to evaluate its existing plans and to recommend improvements that would make the City more responsive to its disabled and elderly residents. These recommendations became the foundation of the new plan, known as the Functional Needs Annex for Mass Care and Shelter.

The recent anniversary of the Loma Prieta earthquake was a reminder to Oakland residents of Oakland’s susceptibility to a disaster. Since 1983, the City of Oakland has experienced eight Presidential-declared disasters, including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, 1991 Oakland Hills Firestorm, the 1997 El Nino winter storms, and the 1998 La Nina winter storms.

During many of these disasters, the homes of Oakland residents were destroyed, requiring mass evacuations and the provision of emergency shelter services. Oakland’s record of disasters compounded by its proportion of people with disabilities — estimated at 15–20% of the City’s population — highlight the severity of this issue and the importance of its awaited settlement.

Settlement highlights of the Functional Needs Annex include:

• Oakland has identified 20 accessible emergency shelters that will accommodate people with mobility disabilities and is working with other entities to identify additional accessible shelter locations.
• Each emergency shelter will have a designated Shelter Functional Needs Coordinator responsible for assisting persons with disabilities. The coordinator will identify and request durable medical equipment, consumable medical supplies and reasonable accommodations.
• The City’s emergency notification system, which contacts people to alert them of an emergency situation in their area, will interface with various electronic and wireless devices used by people with hearing, mobility and vision disabilities in addition to standard telephones. Specific information during times of emergency, including locations of open shelters and information on which of those shelters are accessible to people with mobility impairments, will be available through Eden Information and Referral Services. People can access this information by calling 2–1-1 on a voice telephone or TTY machine, a communications device used by people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
• A Geographic Information System (GIS) has been created to assist City first responders with identifying the location of persons who may require accessible transportation services. The GIS has mapped the home addresses of individuals who have voluntarily registered for the City’s 9–1-1 Registry Program, residential care facilities for the elderly and nursing homes, and Oakland Housing Authority public housing facilities. The City continues to work with local organizations for people with disabilities and older adults to encourage their clientele to participate in the 9–1-1 Registry Program.

Comments

“We would like to commend the City of Oakland for its model emergency plan. We believe the Oakland settlement can act as a roadmap for municipalities across California to ensure the safety of all residents, including those with disabilities,” said Sid Wolinsky of Disability Rights Advocates, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.

Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums

“This settlement is a victory for all Oaklanders – residents and the disability community who have a right to equal access to mass care and shelter programs,” said Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums. “It would be indefensible to delay improving disability access to our emergency services programs. Instead of debating this through the legal process, costing hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, we are taking immediate action to adopt cutting edge disaster readiness initiatives for people with disabilities.”

Judith Smith, an Oakland resident who is a wheelchair user, expressed her satisfaction with the settlement. “Prior to the settlement, I feared that I would be stranded in my home during a disaster or turned away from a shelter because of my wheelchair. As a result of collaborative efforts between DRA and Oakland, I am relieved that an emergency plan exists for people with disabilities.”

“With this plan Oakland is committing to address the needs of people with disabilities at every stage of emergency response, from communicating information about the disaster to evacuating residents to providing shelter to preparing for long-term recovery,” said Karla Gilbride of Disability Rights Advocates, an attorney representing the plaintiffs. “This sort of comprehensive approach is the best way to ensure that people with disabilities aren’t left behind the way they were after Hurricane Katrina.”

Future Steps

Under the terms of the settlement, which was approved by the Oakland City Council, the new plan will be periodically updated and Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) will monitor Oakland’s progress in implementing the plan over the next four and a half years.

To read the settlement agreement, visit: www.dralegal.org.

Additional Information Contacts
Karla Gilbride, Disability Rights Advocates, (510) 665‑8644
Sid Wolinsky, Disability Rights Advocates, (510) 665‑8644
Karen Boyd, Oakland Public Information Officer, (510) 238‑6365

CALIFORNIANS FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, INC.
To Improve the Quality of Life for All Persons with any Disability Through Education and Training By Working to Remove Barriers Through Advocacy and Change in Public Policy

Visit the CDR Web at: http://www.disabilityrights-cdr.org
JOIN CDR  — http://disabilityrights-cdr.org/aboutcdr/membership.html
CDR is wholly supported through member dues and donations

<script type=“text/javascript” src=“http://www.onlywire.com/btn/button_3793”></script>

Oakland Settlement Includes People With Disabilities In Disaster Planning is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

Today marks the opening of a new federal case which, if successful, would overturn California’s 2008 ban on such marriages.  I was eagerly looking forward to being able to follow the arguments of both sides in this trial, particularly when it looked as if the proceedings were going to be videoed and distributed via YouTube.   But that option has been blocked for now.   So, if you have not seen any press reports yet, here’s a good summation from the New York Times:

Sharp Words Open California Same-Sex Marriage Case

Prop 8 Trial Started Today! is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net

For almost daily updates I suggest you keep an eye on the California Disability Community Action Network (CDCAN).  That organization’s director, Marty Omoto, does an outstanding job keeping us all in the loop on important events and upcoming issues addressed by California government.  We encourage you visit his site frequently and/or sign up to receive his extremely informative press releases and announcements.

CDCAN is pretty much a volunteer operation always in need of donations.  Any contributions you can make to help keep this effort going to be deeply appreciated — and most likely tax deductible.

Another good resource is the website of Californians for Disability Rights, Inc. (CDR).  As the group itself explains:

“Californians for Disability Rights is the oldest and largest membership organization of persons with disabilities in California. Originally organized in 1970 as the California Association of the Physically Handicapped–CAPH–with five members, CDR has grown to become an effective and widely respected cross-disability advocacy force.

“One key to CDR’s three decades of progress is that it is much more than a single-issue or single-disability group. CDR represents all persons with disabilities in California. Guided by this trans-disability principle, CDR and its members fight for the independence, dignity and equality of all disabled persons.”

This group is very active and has achieved many victories advancing the rights of folks with disabilities.  Organized at both the statewide level and in several local community chapters, CDR has been successful in the adoption of positive new laws, preventing possible bad laws from being adopted, and in the courts.  They are always looking for new members who want to help.  You really should check them out.

Latest Disability Issues News is a post from: Tim’s California Views @ Oflanagan’s Net