Who will be the first person/organization to start the chorus of “I told you so!” regarding the latest news about Alameda Power and Telecom? It wasn’t Alameda Daily News in it’s scoopilicious fashion, in fact we all had to get the news from Chip Johnson of the SF Chronicle who took a bit of a break from writing almost endlessly about Oakland to turn his eye to our neck of the East Bay woods, highlights:
…On Monday, the utility’s general manager, Girish Balachandran, confirmed that a consultant has been hired to identify and contact parties interested in buying the telecom service and its 15,000 subscribers – who make up about half the cable business in the city of 74,000 residents…
And of course no tale of woe would be complete with out an echo from the East Bay Express (Chris Thompson is back apparently from wherever he went), who strangely wrote this:
…But when it tried to diversify into telecommunications (and compete with better choices like Comcast), it fell into a world of debt, from which the city won’t extricate itself for years…
Here’s where I would beg to differ with Mr. Thompson, while AP&T has many many warts, it’s wartiness is so much less than the wartiness of Comcast. It’s strange to see a local and independent weekly which prides itself on its localness and independentness as something that makes it superior to the conglomerate-owned newspapers take the side of another massive conglomerate that has managed to push out a locally owned public utility. But I guess in the hierarchy of good and bad in EBX-land ”big business” is still better than “government.”
Anyway, this news saddens me on a totally selfish and personal level because unless AP&T gets bought out by a company that is going to seamlessly take over services, I’m going to have to go through the pain in the ass factor of having to sign up for new cable and new internet services. Possibly with Comcast which I am pretty loathe to do. Crystal Ball prediction: look for Comcast to begin littering our mailboxes with “great introductory rates!” with the requisite asterisk proclaiming in 6 point font that it’s only good for three months and then the rate rises to three or four times the introductory rate.
Lauren –Two things related to the AP&T cable debacle:
1.) It’s a shame that following my initial stories in the Alameda Journal (9/26/06 and 11/17/06, respectively) that broke this issue, the local press corps hasn’t really gone after this issue in terms of any kind of depth or persistence. And while I was transferred away from the AJ last summer, I hold myself partially accountable to that criticism, too.
The AJ, the Sun, the EBX and the Chron all pretty much dropped the ball on this story. The last little blip came when AP&T held its ‘dog & pony’ community forums at the Alameda Point Officer’s Club in Jan. ‘07. Since then, it’s become a case of the scandal going “out of sight – out of mind” and “dropping off the radar.” We all should have done better.
2,) Moving forward, whatever happens with this fire sale, I believe the Alameda Public Utilities Board and City Council should proactively take steps to not only broker the best deal for the city but also make the kind of arrangements with the buyer that will guarantee that Alamedans won’t be immediately blasted with price hikes and radically different kinds of service packages. All of this can and should be worked out in the language of the sale contract. At a minimum this will help take some of the economic sting out of this whole unfortunate mess.
Comment by Jeff Mitchell — March 26, 2008 @ 11:55 am
“…whatever happens with this fire sale,…”
Fire salespeople usually don’t get to do much negotiating, especially with a buying customer who’s already selling the same product.
Comment by Jack Richard — March 26, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Here’s what voters faced ten years ago:
http://www.acgov.org/rov/v986/measures/alameasa.htm
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1998/10/20/MN90020.DTL&hw=bureau+of+electricity&sn=009&sc=484
I recall that the election was fairly close and that the measure passed by only a few hundred votes.
I wonder if all of the APT signage will now have to be changed back to BOE.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 26, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
The terms of the bond explicitly state that it can be repaid only from a refinancing of the bond or a sale of the telecom assets.
Practically speaking, it means that APT has to go through the motions of attempting a refi, which is about as likely as me getting a date with Penelope Cruz. After that, the bondholders are in the driver’s seat.
A majority of the bonds are owned by Nuveen (a large money mgr) who is unlikely to want to own & operate the system, so it’s probably going up for sale. If APT has any brains, and that is one very large IF, they have already approached Nuveen about co-operating on a liquidation. Cuz if not, Jack’s fire sale scenario will come about.
Comment by dave — March 26, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Wasn’t this news in the Journal, or maybe the Sun, last week?
Comment by Mark I — March 26, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
The measure barely passed. Many warned that it was going to be a disaster. I wonder how much it is going to cost to return to the name, “Bureau of Electricity.” The chorus (and lawn signs) of the era urged passage. There was a very loud drumbeat urging passage. Those opposed were dismissed as cranks.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1998/11/05/MN32709.DTL&hw=bureau+of+electricity&sn=004&sc=530
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 26, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
Here is the measure as it appeared on the ballot along with the pro and con arguments
http://www.acgov.org/rov/v986/measures/alameasa.htm
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 26, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
Here were the ballot arguments
http://www.acgov.org/rov/v986/measures/alameasa.htm
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 26, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
“Don’t let the backwards looking naysayers and cable tv monopolies fool you! Vote YES on Measure A!”
http://www.acgov.org/rov/v986/measures/alameasa.htm
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 26, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
As any reader of the Bay Guardian will know, the East Bay Express is far from a “local” paper. They are owned by Ruxton, a media giant that in turn owns Village Voice media, which owns SF Weakly.
AFAIK, the Ruxton/VVM publications are fairly libertarian, so I’m not too surprised at EBX’s opinion. Funny quip though, “better choices like comcast”.
Comment by Phill — March 27, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Forgot to paste the linky!
http://www.ruxton.com/index.php?page=newspapers/east_bay&nav=navigation_alt&active=3
Comment by Phill — March 27, 2008 @ 10:36 am
I was not here to vote on Measure A in 1998, but it sounds like it was a voter mandate since it received over 2/3 approval — more than just the 50%+1 required in an advisory vote. So the voters made a poor investment choice that we are living with today.
Comment by S M — March 27, 2008 @ 11:12 am
The measure did not require a two-thirds vote.
Here is the result.
MEASURES
A (w) Alameda Public Utilities Board
38 of 38 precincts reporting
YES 9,604 NO 9,081
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1998/11/05/MN44379.DTL&type=chart
Alameda Predicting Cable Service in Year
Just enough vote to change charter
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1998/11/05/MN32709.DTL&hw=alameda+measure&sn=001&sc=1000
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 11:33 am
I naively thought the telecom ballot measure allowed us the OPTION, as opposed to it being a referendum on whether the Bureau SHOULD move into communications.
Unfortunately, some of the main opponents were cranks, which made their arguments easier to dismiss, even if they were correct.
People who are strident about global warming can easily be demeaned as fuzzy wuzzy tree huggers, but the bottom line is the bottom line.
ANT, there was an NPR segment on bumper stickers yesterday which I heard while working so I didn’t get it all. The gist was that bumpers stickers serve more as a statement of political identity for the bumper owner than they do as an effective political tool for persuading votes.
Your previous comments about lock step liberals in Alameda is simply an over simplification. You, or Jack R. or I, all defy overly simple categorizations. I couldn’t vote the slate but was never in favor of the garage and at best was neutral on the cineplex.
I happen to agree that the current sign campaign has a mixed effect, but I still went around the neighborhood trying to get people to post them. Driving up Park Street on “garbage can day” protest, I had the distinct impression that if I hadn’t known the issue I would have had an accident trying to read the detailed signage.
But AEF is a non-profit and not part of AUSD. I laud the effort being made there and I am very impressed by Brooke, the new head of AEF. I can’t dismiss an effort because it has flaws, when the stakes are as high as they are. The signs are wordy, but I like yellow.
Comment by Mark I — March 27, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
#14
“Unfortunately, some of the main opponents were cranks, which made their arguments easier to dismiss, even if they were correct.”
This is what I mean by lockstep. I too voted for the Bureau of Electricity to be allowed to get into the Telecom business. The argument back then was that deregulation of electricity was going to undermine BoE and that they needed to get into Telecom to keep alive.
The Johnson block is really no saner than the Roberts block. (For want of a better description of those two blocks.) Being cranky and grumpy does not mean that one is incorrect.
Perhaps I should invest in a lawn sign that reads, “Here lives a grumpy old crank.”
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 1:18 pm
I’m Robert Gammon, a staff writer for the Express, and I just wanted to point out that the poster named “Phil” is wrong. We have been independent since May 2007 when longtime Express editor Stephen Buel and several partners bought the paper from Village Voice Media, which owns the Ruxton Group. Like other independent weeklies, we pay the Ruxton Group to take part in their national advertising sales, because it’s virtually impossible for independents to get national ads on their own.
Here is the link announcing the sale last May:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/bringing_the__i_express__i__back_home/Content?oid=432858
Comment by Robert Gammon — March 27, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
I voted against it because I’ve worked in government a long time and I’ve seen plenty of situations where agencies get into trouble by not focusing on their core functions. The argument in favor was along the lines of “look how good we did with our own electric utility.” The comparison is lame, though, because of course you’re going to do well when you run a monopoly operation, which is what most government organizations are. If they had to compete to provide the services they do most would go out of business, as in this example.
Comment by Mike Rich — March 27, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Here’s the link to the NPR story mentioned in #14
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89121141
Fascinating story with connections that can be made to Alameda’s lawn signs.
A barrage of signs may intimidate the opposition into silence.
Also, since only car owners (or in Alameda’s case, property owners)can display the signs, opinion is skewed to those who own a bumper (or a lawn).
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Re #8 There’s a quote on the link you provided that included the City Attorney’s impartial analysis:
“The existing Charter requires two-thirds voter approval before the City or the Board may engage in a new utility business, including any communications utility business.”
Comment by S M — March 27, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
#19
That was the old charter before the 1998 Measure A. The 1998 vote changed the charter and allowed the Bureau of Electricity to expand into telecommunications.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — March 27, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
#15 Deregulation dates back to fledgling days of the formation of the second chapter of the Alameda Green Party. I don’t recall that argument about telecom being a defense against deregulation.
I do recall Len Grzanka being very vocal in opposition, but his opinion pieces were tainted with his own bravado and self congratulations about being the smartest guy in town ( like Jeff Smith), so I ignored him.
The Greens had been meeting for less than six months and our second guest speakers were from the Electrical Bureau, giving the pros and cons of deregulation, which municipal utilities were able to opt out of. It seemed pretty clear at the time that we should opt OUT. At least it was clear that deregulation was a scam from early on. Things only got more interesting as the electrical “crisis” created by Enron and other hucksters got under way.
Funny connection on Len and the Greens which is a total aside. He had gone to Harvard on the GI bill after two volunteer tours in Nam with special forces. He knew Audie Bock from that period and was all gung-ho to get her elected at the expense of the local Democratic machine, and it worked. Len was part of ( ring leader of?) an Alameda County conservative group who all seemed like right wing cranks to me.
Comment by Mark I — March 27, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
#18 the renters across the street have a lawn sign, but perhaps you think it unfair. It is a single family home. I suppose the added cost can’t be passed through to them until any lease they may have expires.
I have known renters who were forbidden in their leases to post any political signs, but the conservative landlords used his rental properties to post signs of his own liking.
The world is not fair!
Comment by Mark I — March 27, 2008 @ 4:55 pm