NO on 16! do you know what you are voting for?


Posted by
Thu, May 27, 2010

Hello All.  This is Patricia Chimienti

Proposition 16 is advertised as ‘your right to vote’ but that is not what is in question NOT AT ALL!

I was raised in a small town at the end of the Central Valley called Redding.  Many years ago Redding decided to become the owners and operators of the utilities within the City limits. 

It was done.  Guess what happened. Bet you cannot.  The electric rates for users within the city limits WENT DOWN!  The City is still in charge or the utilities here is their site check it out.

read this also

This was pulled from the site: 

"• Fact - REU vs. PG&E = saving Redding millions of dollars over the years. In the last year, Redding saved more than $37 million!

• Fact - REU’s electric service is available 99.991% of the time, ranking REU among the State’s most reliable utilities."



OH also did you see who is A MAJOR FUNDER FOR VOTING YES ON 16?  You got it PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC.  Oh also note this issue is lable as a YES vote so it seems more positive but THAT is done only to confuse and mislead YOU the voter. 

So PLEASE don’t let PG&E fool you into thinking that governments going into the UTILITY business is a scam.  QUITE the opposite REALLY. PG&E is SPENDING MILLIONS TO try to keep their share of the market and to keep us paying their DICTATED rates. 

Making people vote in ‘special elections’  on municipalities going into the utility business will only DRIVE UP THE COSTS local governments would have to pay to try and establish locally owned and operated utility companies, as well has cause unnecessary delays.  DIVERSITY IS A GOOD THING.

So PG&E wants you to think that you are going to loose your shirt but really what will happen is "HEALTY COMPETITION" and that is another GOOD thing.

VOTE NO ON 16.  Please

Thanks for reading REVIEW your BALLOTS LEARN THE TRUTH…

Pat Chimienti

I have to admit, I’ve not read up on Prop 16. After doing research, its clear that this is clearly a power grab by the utilities. Here’s one of many articles I’ve read:

The power companies have spun this into a “right to vote” issue, when clearly they want to make it difficult if not impossible for local municipalities to take away their business.

Pat, thanks for posting this.  This particularly initiative is astonishingly cynical and bold in its sheer dishonesty.

I’m generally not exactly a supporter of government, and I despise monopolies.  That said, there are certain things that people seem to think should be monopolies, such as utilities.  (I don’t agree, but that’s a different discussion topic.)  Once one accepts the premise that utilities need to be monopolies, then my position is that it must be a government function.

In my 4 decades of living in Southern California, much of that time in various locations in the City of Los Angeles which has its own Department of Water and Power, the power rarely went out, and almost never for longer than 20 minutes.  The longest power outage that I remember was 4:30 am to 10 am on January 17, 1994, the morning of the devastating Northridge earthquake.  Here, it takes PG&E longer than 20 minutes just to admit the power is out.  Power outages here are seldom less than 4 hours.  Combining all of the above, when we have an earthquake of similar magnitude to the 1994 Northridge earthquake, don’t be surprised if power is out to many PG&E customers for a week or two.  Heck, in 1995, power in a coworker’s neighborhood in Mountain View was out for 3 days.

While a handful of people like to badmouth MWSD, I don’t recall hearing anyone claim that Citizen’s Utilities / CalAm (private monopolies) did it any better than MWSD, or that people would be better off had MWSD not taken over the water system.

Does anyone really think that private monopolies are better service providers than government agencies?  (Well, ok, there’s CalTrans, but there has to be an exception to every rule.)

With competition, you could switch providers.  But with monopoly private companies, which answer only to their shareholders and really don’t care one whit about their customers, you’re <u>guaranteed</u> to have bad service at high prices.  Therefore, it needs to be done by a government agency where profit is not involved, and if you don’t like the service you can vote the bums out and vote in new bums.

Which cities didn’t have rolling blackouts during the fake energy “crisis” in 1999?  Here are two:  Los Angeles and Palo Alto. What do they have in common?

Vote NO on 16.  Spread the word.

Patricia!... easy CAPTAIN CAPS LOCK. You have some well thought out points, but the ebb and flow of scriptive yelling makes your points come across a bit hysterical.

prop 16 will not pass in california. done. there has been enough time to educate and provide transparency across major newspapers like the san francisco chronicle and los angeles times, and orange county register.

spread that word (and feel free to borrow some of my unused caps for your next post ;)