The real Steve Moss

Moss pictured at the DCCC endorsement meeting. The DCCC endorsed D10 candidates DeWitt Lacy, Malia Cohen and Eric Smith.
Sarah Phelan

Some folks are so mad about D. 10 candidate Steve Moss that they have put together a website titled The Real Steve Moss that pulls together public records and poses a series of questions in an effort to make Moss provide concrete answers about his residency and his handling of tax-payer dollars before the November election rolls around.

“If Mr. Moss believes that he is such a great candidate, we suggest he answer critics instead of hiding out and just dodging the questions,” The Real Steve Moss website states. “Anyone who won't answer direct questions while running, certainly won't in office.”

The website challenges Moss to provide more details about his residency, including the exact date he moved back to D10, the identity and move-in date of the person(s) currently living in his Dolores Park home in D8, along with copies of his utility, internet, cable and telephone bills and records from his D8 Dolores Park home and the place he is currently renting in 18th Street to prove Moss’ residency claims.

“If your Dolores home wasn't occupied till August 2010, did you maintain services such as Internet, cable and telephone, and if so why?” the website asks.

The Real Steve Moss also drills into questions about the $1.5 million that the Department of the Environment paid to Moss’ private company, M-Cubed.
Last week, the Department of Environment confirmed to the Guardian that a grant was awarded to M-Cubed sometime between 2000 and 2001. 
“The total amount of the agreement was $1.5 million and the purpose of the agreement was to set up an energy cooperative in Bayview Hunter's Point,” the Department told us.

Yet, 990 forms filed by Moss’s SF Community Power Cooperative and his parallel SF Community Power non-profit in 2002 and 2003 do not reflect large infusions of tax payer dollars that the City reportedly paid to Moss' private company M.Cubed to set up an energy cooperative.

As “The Real Steve Moss” notes, “information easily obtained from Mr.Moss' for profit, non-profit, and campaign websites do not appear to match records obtained from the City, State or the IRS."

And while the Guardian waits for the Department of the Environment to respond to our request for more information about this grant, The Real Steve Moss drills into other questions about Moss’ money flow.

“What exactly did you do with the $4m plus in mostly public and private funding that you stated was to create a newswire and help Bayview Hunters Point residents?” The Real Steve Moss  asks, presumably referring to, amongst other donations, a series of $50,000 grants that the Goldman Fund, where Moss' wife works, paid to Moss' SF Community Power.

“Exactly how many paid jobs did you create and for how long? Why is your non-profit paying such a lot of rent and for what? Why is your non-profit's communications bills so high? How much money did you pay yourself from your non-profit and for profit companies funded in majority by taxpayer funds?”
Hopefully, Moss will respond to these and other questions posed at The Real Steve Moss with concrete evidence. And soon. So, stay tuned.


Great, another thief in city hall, just what we need.

Where do they find these damn people.

Posted by Just what we don't need on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 2:42 pm

Curious that the creator of this site lists him/herself as "Joe Potrero" and puts up all kinds of barriers to keep people from finding out who he/she is and what his/her true agenda in this matter may be. I find it ironic that he/she puts up a huge privacy barrier between him/herself and D10 voters who may want to better know his/her agenda in this matter. I'm no shill for Moss, and am happy to have information like this be presented in an accurate way, but don't you think it would be more appropriate when asking Moss to come clean, to yourself be open and forthcoming regarding your own identity and affiliation?

Posted by Chris Waddling on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 4:35 pm

I assume it is because Moss and his wife seem to sue anyone who looks at them cross-eyed. Also Mr. Penrose (who Moss is currently suing) has posted that he is receiving phone hang-ups morning, noon and night.

If I were exposing Moss, I would not share my identity. And honestly, who cares.

Our focus should be on the information - which from what I have been able to find - can all be confirmed from other sources. In other words - it is TRUE.

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

I'm really puzzled? Is this supposed to be news? This is just a legitimized ad for a website. And a dubious website at that. It was probably created by one of the 20 candidates running against him- cheap and anonymous by the look of it. If Sarah Phelan is the legit journalist she claims to be, one just shining sunlight on SF politics, why not find out who created that site? That would be real investigative journalism. Instead, she just puts like 70% of the text from the website in a different order and calls it a story.

I'm not worried about Steve Moss as Sup, as much as I'm worried if voters are too stupid to see through this drivel we're all screwed. "while the Guardian waits for the Dept of Energy to respond to our request for more information..." we'll just go ahead and paint someone in a terrible light anyway, regardless of whether or not that information we are waiting on totally vindicates him. I am embarrassed for Sarah Phelan right now.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 9:14 pm

Moss supporter 101.

Isn't it amazing that not one post goes to explain all the mysteries and questions and he hasn't answered one.

Moss supporter, he took public money for purposes that he did not state the money was for, example, set up a power cooperative, not pay myself as a consultant through a private entity I own that it is impossible to audit.

Even more shocking is that there are hundreds of thousands in tax spent dollars intertwined between another business Moss owns and a tax payer majority funded non profit.

The proof is all ironically posted and provided by Moss, he obviously doesn't want to answer does he, why? Well probably because it is criminal.

However we live in a political climate. Prosecutions are criminal, hence while we will have to wait and see if there is a law for the poor and law for the Moss.

Posted by The Real Steve Moss on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 6:52 am

This is beginning to remind me of the boy who is mean to the girl he secretly has a crush on. How many D10 candidates are there? It's funny, because by now you'd think my newspaper would have told me more about each of them. But instead, one girl with some chip on her shoulder has decided to write story after story about one guy, and refuses to discuss anyone else. Looks alot like a school girl crush to me.

Didn't Moss respond to all of the Guardian's allegations in that first story? And yet, your only beef with him seems to be that he's hiding something. How come Sarah isn't this hot and heavy on Lynette Sweet's butt for tax evasion and refusing to answer SFBG's questions?

I just don't get it. She appears to be obsessed with Steve Moss, and while I have no idea who I'll vote for, this kind of journalism is not helping.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 23, 2010 @ 9:19 pm

Moss has not come to our office and provided any evidence to support his claims of residency nor has he provided any documents to show how he runs his various and seemingly intersected business matters. When he does, I'll be happy to report on that.

Posted by sarah on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 9:08 am

I see a very old tactic being used here (probably from Moss' supporters) which is to attack the messenger (Sarah, the Guardian) rather than address the message (Steve Moss). It's a tactic used to try to get the Guardian and Sarah to drop the Steve Moss topic or shy away from reporting on it. It's a tactic of intimidation. I would hope that the Guardian and Sarah will not be phased by this sleazy tactic and personal attacks. It's best to get the truth out about all candidates running for elected office.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 2:38 pm

I always lie you comments and as usual you are on the mark.

Sarah isn't on some campaign, simply questioning Moss and his history on information that anyone can view in the public domain for free.

Why is it so difficult for Moss, or Lynette Sweet for that matter, to answer such incredibly easy questions that would put this to rest so quickly.

Moss just needs to provide utilities, leases or independent verification of who took over his home, as he stated, plus a full disclosure of what he did with public funds and why he spent them paying himself through another unaudited entity?

He and his supporters keep attacking, why ? I can only think of one reason that comes to mind.

Posted by Barbara Chelsai on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 3:17 pm

Ah, the same name as mine except you don't accent over the first a (Bárbara). It's a good name though. You really have to love the way it rolls off the tongue.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 3:56 pm

"He and his supporters keep attacking, why ? I can only think of one reason that comes to mind. "

Would that be the classic "thou doth protest too much"?

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 1:48 pm

Someone posted it on the internet, it must be true!

What's more important, the exact date Steve moved back to D10 or what his policy positions are?

Which is more relevant, who he may or may not rent to or whether he'd make a good supervisor?

Go ahead and question what you will, but in the end you can't escape the fact that Steve is smart, competent, and qualified -- and as those who know him would tell you, honest. He cares deeply about his community -- this community -- and I hope for District 10's sake that he wins despite this spiteful yellow journalism.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

That's a rather weak statement of support. There are a lot of bad people in politics today who are >>>smart, competent, and qualified.<<< I can think of many terrible politicians who are smart, competent and qualified and for whom do they work? The corporations, and not the average person. So smart, competent and qualified do not necessarily make a good candidate for election. I suspect you're from the Moss campaign. Those who know Moss may say he's honest and he may be honest with those who know him, but Moss' integrity has been a standing concern for awhile now based on the articles on this site. Caring deeply about his community is also not sufficient reason to elect a questionable candidate. Your comment reminds me of what I've come to hear and expect from any candidate's campaign. A positive spin and pretty words. That's mainly what you have provided. The Guardian is not the topic. The topic is Steve Moss and his integrity and character. If you consider what the Guardian does as spiteful yellow journalism, why do you take part in coming here?

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 1:20 am

Someone posted it on the internet.

Spiteful journalism, you mean public records that Moss can't and refuses to answer, pathetic.

If he's so honest, prove it? Explain the money trail.

Not one of his supporters can justify his actions or refute anything stated so they just post this crap.

Posted by The Real Steve Moss on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 6:27 am

Honestly the residency thing is minor in his list of sins.

Most folks I know who "care" about their community don't pocket 1.5M of OUR money.

Not really interested in a candidate who is in it for the $$ --- little to Palin-esque for me.

(and if that isn't a problem for you, give me $1.5M and I will 'care' like nothing you have ever seen)

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 1:52 pm

I used to be a Steve Moss supporter and was going to vote for him as my number 2, but this information is troubling.

Although I like Steve, I can not vote for a person who does not address these significant issues. Lord knows he is trying to come up with something to spin this.

R. Harland

Posted by Richard Harlen on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 7:50 am

What I don't understand is why Moss does not answer these questions and put the discussion to sleep.

If I were running for office and there were misconceptions/misinformation about me in the local newspaper I would provide the evidence to clear up the misinformation.

That is, unless the 'misinformation' is correct.

I appreciate the Joe Potrero information. It concerns me that the DAs office is not acting on it - maybe it is part of the 'election year' so it is a hot potato that will not be touched until after the 2nd Tuesday in November.

So Moss - going to clear this up or continue to ignore it - making us all wonder if the information is correct? I would like to hear your side of the story.

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 25, 2010 @ 11:53 am

The stand out part here is that when someone runs for office they obviously expect their record and statements to be carefully vetted.

Steve Moss has had a lot of serious accusations thrown at him, and from what I read, all from his own filings and statements, even more concerning.

It is really sad reflection on our society and electoral system that a candidate can just ignore so easily.

Posted by SF Politics on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 10:29 am

Moss held his campaign opening day yesterday. The pictures on his facebook page tell it all. Very sad that the majority of people shipped in for the event are obviously union (t-shirts) and Latino in majority. We have a very small Latino population in D10 and all Moss can muster is a union that wants the vote on CPMC. From the pictures there is one African American, amazing, he doesn't look old enough to vote and ironically is holding Moss sign upside down. One wonders if Moss has any local support that isn't paid?

Posted by Moss campaign on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 10:58 am

I see that his wife works for the Goldman Fund. Don't they give a lot of money to the San Francisco Botanical Garden Society which has spent nearly a million dollars putting forward its bid to control the Arboretum by collecting fees? Does Moss support the fee collection? Does his wife? What does she do for the Goldman Fund exactly?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 1:39 pm

I believe Moss' wife is a director.

If you go to their site they gave $50K a year for many years to SF Community Power.

Moss took the money under the assumption that they'd create a community news wire helping residents.

There are next to no articles and Moss had some interns do it all for free while of course pocketing the money, all public record.

As I believe Moss funded his campaign and paper off the back off the non profit this is dangerous ground for the non profit.

However, the Goldman and Haas family have a lot of power and connections and could easily pull strings, think DA's office.

Moss may well get away with all of this because of that connection.

These aren't stupid people, but they are worse than common criminals, they really do steal from the poor and I hope he ends up in jail.

Posted by Goldman fund on Sep. 26, 2010 @ 8:17 pm

I don't know Steve Moss, and probably wouldn't vote for him. But these Rovian tactics make me want to find out which campaign is behind this, and raise money and vote for their opponents. Have the courage of your convictions and put your name on public statements you make. What are you afraid of?

To me, this is a cowardly act, and just make the Candidate responsible look pathetic. I live in District 10, and I want to be proud of my Supervisor.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 27, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

Something tells me it is not another candidate. My vote is for a Potrero View 'reporter' who was paying attention and realized things didn't add up.

Or....the man he evicted from his Dolores multiplex.

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

The only flaw in your theory that this might be an act of revenge by the individual Moss evicted from his Dolores multiplex is that no such person exists; no such evict ion happened.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 5:29 am

The only flaw in your theory that this might be an act of revenge by the individual Moss evicted from his Dolores multiplex is that no such person exists; no such evict ion happened.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 02, 2010 @ 5:34 am

mr. moss replied at the D10 Candidate Watch website...

all of this intrigue led me to review SF Power's 990s to see if there was indeed anything strange going on. And despite Mr. Moss' response, this non-partisan D10 voter who was considering Mr. Moss for one the three available votes continues to have questions, some of which are left hanging from the issues raised so far and some raised by Mr. Moss' response.

1. What did M-Cube(d) report as accomplishments to the Dept. of Environment? Will Mr. Moss provide us with the reports submitted to SFE?

2. How many employees has SF Power had since its founding? How much did they work and how much were they paid? What is Mr. Moss' hourly rate charged by M. Cube(d)?

3. Did SF Power issue Requests for Proposals for the contracts granted to M.Cube(d)?

4. What proportion of M Cube(d)'s revenues and profits came directly from SF Power related contracts?

5. What other non-profits employ the staffing model used by SF Power/M. Cube(d). Do these other organizations have similar overlapping personnel relationships?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 8:00 am

It is no secret that the d10 candidate watch is run Chris Waddling, who is a Steve Moss supporter

Posted by Richard Harlen on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 2:01 pm

Really? That sucks. He positions himself as just being interested in discovering facts about the candidates. Grrr. So tired of the lies.

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 2:33 pm


I hope that isn't true, be pretty sad if it is the case.

Have you found his reporting biased?

I haven't read all of it so interested in another opinion.

Posted by Chris Waddling on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 2:43 pm

Hey, thanks for the shout-out, Mr. Harlen. I wonder how you came to that conclusion, as we've never met, you've never asked me, and I've never written anything saying such a thing. If asking that all candidates be treated fairly by the press and given equal scrutiny paints me as a Moss supporter, then please explain that to me.

Actually, I have had a Kristine Enea sign in my window for the past three months, she's the only candidate whose campaign I have donated money to, and I hosted a party for her in my home to help support her. I went walking my neighborhood with her Sunday after the Portola Festival, and believe that she is the best, smartest, most creative, most community-involved and least-tainted candidate of the lot, and Kristine ought win in November.

However, I'm writing as unbiased a blog about the election as I can, and so there, you won't see me tout one candidate over another, not even my chosen candidate. What you will see me do is point readers to articles in local papers, most of which are about Steve Moss and Lynette Sweet. As an Enea supporter, I'd love to see articles about her that I can point to. As Ms Enea believes, I too believe that this election is about making our community better, and to do that we need the best candidate to win. My way to help make our community better is to provide readers with links to articles and maybe offer my own take on a few of them so that they can make that decision for themselves.

On my blog, you won't see me write anything about how you should vote one way or another, besides touting ranked choice voting and the ridiculousness of voting for only one candidate, or suggesting some candidates are doing more damage to the process than good.

Posted by Chris Waddling on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 5:10 am

I notice Richard can't decide how to spell his own last name. In comments above, he has signed his name "R. Harland". but the sytem ID has him as "Richard Harlen". Then at your D10 site, he signs "Richard Harlan".

Three different last names. Who is the real Richard Harlan(d)/en? I think me smells a rat.

Posted by Dale G. Scott on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 1:07 pm

Glad to hear that Chris - thank you for responding. I haven't found your blog biased.

And, honestly I think it is good to expose on your blog who you are personally voting for, it is meaningful to me, knowing that you have been collecting information on all of the candidates that you support Ms. Enea.

Just my 2 cents!

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 1:57 pm

Sorry, GOTH, I had to...

I disagree. Exposing on my blog my support for Ms Enea would completely go against the impartiality of it. I've never said there that I don't have a favorite candidate, and I think it funny in a way that Richard H thought I was a Moss supporter - it confirms to me that my impartiality on the blog is intact.

The blog was never meant as a forum for me to inject my personal voting preference into the discussion. It was solely a place to help people link to articles and information regarding the upcoming election in D10, and to discuss all the candidates and the issues. To do that, on the blog I had to and will continue to remain impartial.

Collecting information is something we all should do on all the candidates, but because we all live busy lives, it's nearly impossible, even if there are only 5-6 of them. Throw 21 hats in the ring, and it is overwhelming. My hope is that we can get above the noise and actually figure out for whom we should be voting and would make the best supervisor for D10 and the city.

Posted by Chris Waddling on Sep. 30, 2010 @ 5:58 am

Also, in trying to meet and talk to all the candidates, which I have done, it is easier to do so them not knowing whom I personally support. It is also important for them to know that, despite my own personal thoughts on who should be supervisor, I can step back and treat them all fairly and most importantly, equally.

Posted by Chris Waddling on Sep. 30, 2010 @ 6:02 am

Why did Moss give his response to the Guardian to the D10 candidates site? Why not give it to the Guardian. Trying to keep folks from reading it - but can still say he responded?

His actions are confusing.

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 2:40 pm

In his email to me, Mr Moss wrote:

"Since your blog is covering the election in a responsible fashion, I thought I'd
send you an email I've been sending to my supporters (which I'm not, and so didn't get his response until he sent it to me directly) in response to the most recent negative attacks on my campaign."

BTW, he did respond to a previous SFBG article in the SFBG a week or two ago.

Posted by Chris Waddling on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 7:30 am

If any of his supporters buy that BS letter that says nothing and gives no numbers they must be real fools.

I hope Moss is kept under the spotlight and the taxpayers get their money back.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 9:06 am

Interesting. I think it was a bad decision. But I guess his stance will be that the Guardian is targeting him or some bs - to try and explain it away. I have to say I do find it disappointing that none of the other papers have picked this up - especially after the Ed Jew debacle.

Adding on the potential fraudulent theft of 1.5M of OUR $$ - I can't imagine that this is not going to catch up with him soon.

Back to his responding to your blog - I just don't get it. If someone accused me of something I would respond to that party. It is our town square - no?

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 2:04 pm

Based on the one comment I'd say it is fair to say that nobody is reading his five week thought out response that makes no sense.

Addresses nothing and just talks in circles.

One thing is guaranteed is that he got the initial $1.5m, no revenue was created and think he dug himself a bigger hole by the statement.

Posted by Girl on the hill on Sep. 28, 2010 @ 3:16 pm

I was planning on voting for Moss.

I met him a few years ago at an pancake breakfast at the Neighborhood Hill House. He seemed like a nice enough guy. Regular person like me just trying to do his part and make a difference.Then he took over the view when the editor became ill. Granted the View seemed to loose its edge, start color ads/photos I was always happy to read it.

Now this - I am no expert, but I have read the articles, and 'the real steve moss' and Moss's response both to the Guardian and posted on the D10 candidate blog.

This is major stuff, his responses were not clear and sounded like a politician not answering a question with many paragraphs.

Right now more than ever we need a leader with integrity. Our country is drowning in greed and what feels like theft, on the backs of the poor and middle class. 1.5M is A LOT of money. Moss did not explain where it went. I want to know, otherwise we are going to see many millions more in the Lennar development deal go up in smoke.

So needless to say, not going to vote for the man I shared pancakes with a few years ago. Sorry Steve, it is just too dodgy looking from where I stand.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 2:15 pm

I think you'll find it is over $4m plus he managed to get and no stats and he states he hasn't gotten around to the math!

Anyone please, give me $2m and I'll give you lots of stats, all you want, in fact I'll drown you in them.

Just want we need, a pre-corrupt swindler who knows how to write fancy reports and get taxpayer money.

Check the ethics commission and you'll see who backs him, POA - don't touch our massive pensions and then spin off unions that want the mega hospital.

Mr. Dracula Moss in charge of the blood supply, terrific!

Posted by Dodgy Steve on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

SFBG please call and ask Moss some hard questions and provide evidence, he says he'll answer any journalist.

Posted by D10 candidate Blog on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 4:41 pm

Just vote for Malia Cohen! She the right person for the job!

woo hoo!

Posted by Malia Supporter on Sep. 29, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

Moss states that the Potrero View had one dedicated computer and some storage.

Hold on, the Potrero View already had the offices while Moss ran SF Power out of his living room. The View has and had 1033 square feet at the address they are still at. Is he saying that it was one huge office with a single PC in the middle that Potrero View paid full rent on till SF Power moved in?

How much rent did the Potrero View pay, he states they paid, well didn't pay, actually mostly in kind. Mr. Moss, running a business on the back of a non profit is well, a touch illegal.

He states the rent is $16k ish, that includes utilities, check with the building owners. So who is the SF Community Power, taxpayer funded non profit, paying $22K to $24K plus utilities to Mr. Moss? These records are from your own posted statements.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 30, 2010 @ 6:39 am

Moss seems to keep posting to the D10 Can watch but refuses to state and put down any facts. He keeps saying call him, obviously he doesn't want anything down on paper.


I guess we all hope that his constant dodging of all questions warns all voters of his intentions.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 01, 2010 @ 9:09 am

i'm the decider, i'm the decider, i'm the decider.
it's my idea that is the best one.
it's my point of view that is smarter than yours.
it's my needs that are more important than yours.
it's my family that needs more resources.
it's my pension that is more precious than yours.
it's my rent that should be free
it's my transportation that should be here when i want it, free.
it's my house that should be expanded. don't block my view.
it's my landlord who should share his equity with me.
it's my supervisor who should listen to me and only me.
it's my coffee that needs individual dripping

it's my pacifier that fell off the high-chair.

i'm a san franciscan and i, and only i, approve this message.

Posted by The Real S F Voter on Oct. 03, 2010 @ 8:17 am

D-10 rocks!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 5:01 pm

District Supervisor is a Public Servant.
Running for District Supervisor means your public and personal life will be exposed.
Decision-making behavior in personal life is the same decision-making behavior in public life.
We deserve a supervisor that is respectful, tactful, with a team-player and solution-driven [proven] behavior in both categories.
I hope all candidates for D-10 are performing their due diligence in tying up all loose or "unappetizing" ends in both their personal and public lives.


Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 5:39 pm

hell yeah if a candidate cannot get their personal stuff together, how will they deal with the stuff in our district???

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 6:04 pm

Lesson 101 Before Running For Office. 1. Make Sure Your Personal Finances Are In Order 2. Make Sure Your Personal Life Is In Order 3. Run For A District That You Have Lived In Without Moving Out Of

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2010 @ 6:25 pm