kqed newsroom. i'm thuy vu. tonight's show focuses on two issues in san francisco the subject of fierce debate here and across the nation. later, scott shafer will have more on whether local law enforcement agencies should cooperate with federal immigration officials but first we're going to take a look at one of the most contentious issues on the city's november ballot. proposition f takes aim a air b and b and other short-term services at 75 nights per year for each home or apartment and also require hosts to give the city quarterly reports on how many nights their properties had been rented. and it would allow people to sue neighbors who violate the new

rules, a point highlighted in prop f ads. >> prop f will ban short-term rental of inlaw yuunit and encourage to sue each other and violate privacy. >> including air b and b with $8 million and contrast, hotel unions backing prop f raised more than $250,000. joining us now to debate the measure are patrick cannon, campaign manager and dale carlsson, cofounder who backs the proposition. why is proposition f necessary? san francisco enacted laws for short-term rentals just in february. >> they did but every independent analyst who looked at the laws said they're unwork about and unenforce about. you've got to have the ability to sanction hosting platforms

like air b and b. airbnb has 670 people bothered to register in san francisco and 6,000 more listings on web sites. proposition f tries to get a handle on that and limit hosting plat forms to list illegal units. >> this summer, the city opened its office of short-term rental administration and enforcement. how much time do you think that office should be given to make the laws the current laws work? >> if every independent analyst said the laws are unworkable and unenforceable, no amount of time is going to make them magically transform into something else. >> mr. cannon, what is your biggest proposition to prop f. >> proposition f takes an extreme approach to regulations that exist. the fact of the matter short-term is pursuing and the

city goes after dozens of people who violated the rules and leveeing hundreds of thousands of fines. proposition f goes way too far. it gives neighbors the opportunity to sue each other over perceived violations. it mandates some people report where they're sleeping at night to the city and the city will track and hold on to the information and bans the in-law unit in san francisco. this measure was patched together and is the wrong direction for san francisco and does not give existing laws the chance to work. >> let's break this down. you brought up three points of opposition. the lawsuit issue. your organization said allowing lawsuits against hosts who violate the law holds people accountable. you say that this allows people to sue their neighbors to make money. what is wrong with allowing people to sue if they feel like the laws have not been obeyed? >> first of all, what prop f does is it creates a private right of action that allows for special damages.

so a person now has a profit motive to sue their neighbor rather than going over and addressing conflict directly or a small disagreement, now the easiest thing to do is to pick up the phone, file an anonymous complaint with the city and 60 days later regardless of what the city has done, you can file your lawsuit. i think that's the wrong direction to go and i think that's the wrong way for san francisco neighbors to manage potential conflicts. >> dale, your response? >> airbnb spends $8.5 million so far and four weeks to go until the election. trying to scare people about lawsuits and loss of privacy, that sort of thing. the fact of the matter is there's hundreds and hundreds of complaints filed with the city. and so far, the city has only brought violations against nine landlords. >> have you filed any clanomplas against the city? >> yes, for example, a woman called me on high street. the ground floor tenant has been renting on airbnb and claims he's the number one host in san

francisco. rents $3,000 a month rent controlled apartment up to $11,000 a month. and uses proceeds to spend three months in bali, three months in thailand. she called airbnb and said he does not have my permission to do this. take down the listing. cancel any reservations. airbnb said no. the folks who manage all the housing have the same issue with airbnb. call and stop listing these units, cancel the reservations. airbnb said no. i don't see how a responsible corporation behaves like that. and i don't think they're going to change their behavior until the city has the ability to fine them for listing unregistered units. >> this question is to both of you. only a small percentage of hosts have registered with the city in accordance with the law which you were alluding to. what more needs to be done to encourage compliance, patrick?

>> i think it's important to know the city refines and streamlines the registration process. it's been in since february and works to make it better. prop fro would log in forever a wouldn't change it unless we went back to the ballot. how many complaints have dale filed against these short-term rentals? my understanding is up to 50 of them and i have to wonder if someone files that many complaints, perhaps the process isn't wrong, but perhaps i've never filed 50 complaints for everything, have you? i have to wonder if at this point, whether it's really the process that's the issue or perhaps the people that are doing the complaining. we live in a big city, next to our neighbors, live on top of our neighbors and we have to learn to get look with them and the way to learn to get along is not give somebody more opportunities to complain and file suit. the city has a process. we should let that process work. >> i want to move on. not dale the individual

complaint filer but really talk about sort of the broader playing field here and do you think prop f would get more people to register? >> i think it would take a lot of the bad actors out of the equation. the law says -- >> how? >> -- you can only rent your primary residents. if not, you're not allowed to list on a short-term basis. most of the listings that are on airbnb, most virtually all the listings on homeaway and the other 60 web sites are not principal residents. they're second homes. we have lost somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 housing units to airbnb and other tourist rental agencies and at a time when the city's suffering through the worst housing crisis since 1906, i don't think it's appropriate to turn housing into tourist hotels. >> patrick, is airbnb removing

scarce housing from an already tight market? >> we talked about scare tactics. that's a scare tactic. talking to people and convince them there's thousands of units taken off the market. that's just not true but taken seriously by other people. yesterday, there was a protest would you descri outside of a man's house with three rent controlled tenants he just moved in there. he was a good actor, did the right thing and this kind of hyperbole and go out without evidence or documentation and make accusations against people completely innocent and with all due respect, i don't think that's appropriate. >> city planning folks. the current laws are unenforceable. it's a tough job for them. do you think airbnb should be required to release its host data to the city so that they can do a cross check and see who's registered, who's photnot who's got too many days? >> the city official said that

in february and since then, there have been changes to make it better including the office of short-term rental administration being opened. so there has been changes since that time. in terms of whether these people should be there as they process in place for taking care of the bad actors and i believe that process should be allowed to continue. we support people not being taken advantage of the system but once there's a process in place, we should allow that process to continue and work. and this is not being given that chance. >> wait a minute. if somebody calls airbnb and said this kid is renting his unit in my building without my permission, take down the listing and cancel the reservations and airbnb says no, how much worse of an actor do you have to be in order to get booted off the airbnb platform? >> they should be calling the city and filing the complaint with the city as the process you know very well. >> we do file the complaint with the city. the city couldn't find the listing because the kid puts it up for a couple of days, and takes it down. >> how do you think that's going to change?

because one platform is working, not listing on multiple platforms. >> you can't register. without his landlord's permission, prop f is in place. airbnb can't list the unit and if airbnb does, they get fined. >> he can't register with the city. he needs his landlord's permission right now. >> no, no. you can register, go to the planning department or now the omnipotent office of short-term rentals and you can register and your landlord is notified after the fact. >> i think the difference of opinion here is i believe the city has an enforcement mechanism in place and that's the right way for anybody to raise concerns with what's going on in the city. dale believes that neighbors should be empowered to go out and take this out on their own. i'd rather see the city process this work very much. >> we're giving the city the incentive and the tools the city said it needs to enforce the law. i don't want neighbors suing neighbors. i want the city to enforce the law but if you're going to file

a complaint against the house across the street that's turned into a weekend party palace and the city does nothing to go after that complaint, you ought to have the right to go to court and defend your own right to privacy, the quiet enjoyment of your home. >> the city said they have the tools. why do you think you know better than the person in charge of going after these people? >> the planning department, the board of supervisors, a group of graduate students -- >> two days ago, the short-term administration came out and said, i have the tools and the funding to go after bad actors. why do you think you know better than him? >> do you really believe that three people in the office of short-term rentals are capable of handling 10,000 or 12,000 unrented units? >> you seem to think you know better. why is that? >> look at the experts of the law. i listen to the planning department. i listen to the budget of legislative analysts and i listen to the ceo of home away,

airbnb's biggest competitor quoted as saying the san francisco law is a joke. it's a road map to evasion. why? there's no chance the city is going to catch you. >> everyone except for the person in charge of actually doing the work. >> it was a flunky for the mayor who's tied up with airbnb. >> all right. let's -- >> is this how we have a thoughtful dialogue about policy? >> let's move this on. you brought up the mayor. opposed to prop f, but so is feinste feinstein, a well respected politician in the state supports prop f saying airbnb and other services like it are really insent viivizing people. >> mary lee is opposing prop f. the san francisco democratic party that stands up for middle

class families oppose prop f. a large number of people recognize it's an important tool to help middle class families make ends meet. the hosts hosting people are not people with multiple properties by and large. regular folks that are trying to make ends meet. the average host brings in $13,000 a year. $13,000 a year through the airbnb rentals. and up to 40% of that goes towards their housing costs. these are not rich people that are doing this by and large. >> but there's nothing in prop f that would present them from continuing to rent out their properties through airbnb and other services like it. it just puts some limits on how long to rent it out. >> and requires they file quarterly reports documents where they sleep at night. under prop f, san francisco will be the only city in the world documenting where you sleep at night. not north korea or the taliban.

it's invasive. >> it's not invasive tat all. the law is a place you sleep 275 nights a year. if you want to do this 75 nights a year, fine. tell us how many nights you rented and were present. the city requires that same sort of information that collect the hotel tax. >> the reality is that the campaign has $8 million to spend. are you going to be able to overcome that? how are you going to challenge that? >> we have the most extraordinary list of endorsements i've ever seen in 30 years in san francisco politics. we have feinstein. we have art and quentin and the sierra club and the san francisco construction trade unit and the apartment association and the tenants union and those people normally at one another's throats. >> we have to leave it there. obviously, a very closely watched issue across the nation. not just here in san francisco and we will see how voters

decide november 3rd. thank you both. dale carson with share bigger sf and the campaign. >> thank you. >> thank you, thuy. >> thank you, thuy, i'm scott shafer. now the debate over san francisco's sanctuary city policy that places strict limits on when law enforcement officials assist federal authorities with immigration investigations. the ordinance has come under intense national scrutiny after the fatal shooting of kate steinly on pier 14 in july. the man, juan lopez sanchez, an immigrant deported from the united states multiple times. san francisco sheriff said his department was following the city's sanctuary policy when it released sanchez from jail without notifying federal immigration officials. now san francisco's board of supervisors is debating whether to change city policies. in july, supervisor mark farrell was on our show discussing his

proposal to amend that ordinance. >> our sanctuary city ordinance has been a pillar of our public safety policy in san francisco for decades passed originally in 1989 and served our city well but what is baked in there and in federal law and mandated into federal law that our law enforcement officials have the discretion to communicate with federal and state law enforcement officers when they deem necessary. the sheriff's apartment went above and beyond that, issued a gag order to the own department saying you may not communicate under any circumstance with the authorities and that's where we seek to get it redone. >> what about the internal politics of this? sheriff asked for clarification from the board of supervisors. that did not happen. he'll run for reelection. the campaign has begun. how do we prevent city politics from affecting the way that we make these law enforcement policies from making future kate steinlys from meeting the same fate? >> good question. we look at the facts and laws

written and an honest discussion where to go from here. the law as written gives our sheriff's department and all of law enforcement the discretion when necessary to communicate with federal and state law enforcement personnel given immigration matters. what the sheriff's department did is go above and beyond that away from the own department. from my perspective, it violates local law, federal law, d against the intent of the sanctuary policy for. >> for people who don't understand the idea, does san francisco need to be a sanctuary city? what do we get out of calling ourselves that? >> i think it goes a little bit about the ethos of our city. our city and country founded on immigrants. my parents are immigrants from a different country. my grandparents. we need to make sure in san francisco and across our country, i should note, 320 cities across the united states are sanctuary cities.

we're not alone. we join most other major u.s. cities in doing this but make sure we don't unfairly target those on the streets solely based upon their immigration status. that's not what we're about as a country or city and not should begin doing that. >> recently, supervisor david compos introduced the sanctuary policy. he joins me here in the studio. welcome. >> thank you. >> you have introduced some legislation this week at the board ofhesupervisors. one piece of which basically reaffirms san francisco's sanctuary city ordinance. explain what it would do exactly. >> actually, it's a three piece package that addresses what happened to the tragedy of the steinly family. specifically addresses the issue of minimizing the contacts between law enforcement in san francisco and actually looking

at old warrants so we're not executing on old warrants and looking at the issue of what happened with the firearm that was a weapon that was given to a law enforcement agency but was not properly locked so we have an ordinance with that. exactly. so we'll have a law that addresses that issue and the third piece which is a reaffirmation of the status as a sanctuary city specifically addressing the point that consisting with being a sanctuary city which the mayor said we should continue to be, the board said we should continue to be, that we are not going to participate in the priority enforcement program that is a new version of secure communities that the federal government is trying to sell. >> there are some people including your colleague, mark farrell, who think this should be loosened a little bit. undo the gag order that the sheriff is under preventing from having communication with ice the federal immigration service. why not add that to what you're proposing? >> i disagree with my good

friend mark farrell and russ mcrheemy. i don't want to focus on that but the policy which is what kind of direction do we give our law enforcement? the problem with taking away a memo and then not giving any direction is that you leave it up to each individual deputy to decide for themselves what is right. >> what about undocumented immigrants who are in jail, in county jail who have a record of violence and perhaps are wanted on outstanding warrants, why not have a communication with the federal government as los angeles did just last week? >> that's already allowed for in our sanctuary ordinance and the due process law that allows for a certain action when there is any violent activity. what we're talking about is whether or not we're going to participate in tep. that's t so-called secure communities with a different name.

our law already addresses the issue of violent crime. we don't need to address something that we already touched on. going forward, are we going to remain a sanctuary city and if we are going to remain a sanctuary city, let's not participate in a program that entangles law enforcement with regulation. >> they're a sanctuary city that said they were going to loosen the limits and allow immigration agents into the jails with strict limits so that they could only find and perhaps deal with deportable undocumented immigrants who have serious criminal past with violent crime. >> the law allows that to happen already. no need for us to become the arm of immigration. in l.a., it's very disturbing because what l.a. is doing is what we have refused to do in

san francisco which is to turn our police officers, our deputy sheriffs into agents of immigration. why is that dangerous? the way that i explain it is this. all of us live nearussomeone undocumented. and that person was undocumented is not going to come forward and report crimes that they're witness to or victim to unless they have trust in law enforcement. they're not going to have trust if they see law enforcement as an extension of immigration. >> there was a poll out last week from uc berkeley, the institute for governmental studies that showed almost two-thirds of latino voters supported communication between immigration officials and people who have criminal past, even if they're undocumented. >> that's already allowed for in the law. why are we talking about something that we have addressed already? the problem i have with the rhetoric coming out is that even though our law already says there are actions to be taken when there's any violent criminal activity, there are people who are choosing to use the rhetoric of violence to

justify turning local police into immigration. if that's wrong, it's wrong when donald trump does it and when it happens at the local level. >> federal officials asked mcreme before the person accused of killing kate steinly was let out of prison and couldn't do that without an explicit court order. >> what my law does and the solution i introduced and we worked with the district attorney to address this issue is going forward, we have, we're codifying the process that before we execute on a warrant that the sheriff is going to talk to the d.a. to make sure that this is a warrant that actually would be prosecuted in this case. you're talking about a 20-year-old warrant for marijuana. the difference though is that in this case, it was a bench warrant. so we're trying to minimize the opportunity that the chances that we're going to make that mistake. the problem i have here, scott,

is that people are trying to scapegoat an entire commune, an entire community of immigrants and make it look what happened, one tragic incident somehow is signifies how the rest of us are and that's not the reality. >> other than the stolen gun which your proposal would address the gun stolen from the federal official that was used in the murder of kate steinly, is there anything that san francisco could have done or should have done that might have saved her life, that might have prevented that murder? >> i think what we're trying to do is to address the issue of outstanding warrants, make sure that when we seek someone for transfer for an ice detention program center to san francisco that it's on an item that will be prosecuted. >> in other words, he wouldn't have been sent here on a 20-year-old marijuana charge which the d.a. never would have processed. >> exactly but beyond that, let me say this that people tried to

turn this tragedy into a case about only and only immigration and we're addressing the immigration piece responsibly. but what they're also forgetting is that there is a gun control issue as well. and you had a federal agent that left their gun in their car. the gun was stolen and yet the federal government is saying nothing about that. we're actually doing something. >> we're a little short on time, but you came from guatemala, came over once and got caught, sent back, came again without documents. this is erpersonal for you, isn it and how does it inform the way you live? >> it's personal because i see how families are being torn apart by this misguided policy of scapegoating immigrants. the reality is that but for the immigration piece, we came to be good productive members of the society and we follow the law and try to do right every day of the year. what's happening is that donald

trump and other people are using this incident to scapegoat. >> it's not just donald trump. even jay johnson said these policies are unproductive, counterproductive to public safety. >> well, coming from the obama administration which has failed on immigration reform, i'm not surprised. they actually had more, you know, deportations than george bush. i don't think obama and his administration are in a position to point fingers at the local government. we're actually trying to keep our public safe. >> and really quickly, the next step, if this goes to the full board october 20th? >> that's correct. >> thank you for coming in. for thuy vu, i'm scott shafer. thank you for joining us. for kqed's news coverage, go to kqednews.org.

kacyra: it kind of was, like, the bang that set off the night. rogers: that is the funkiest restaurant. thomas: the honey-walnut prawns will make your insides smile. [ laughter ] klugman: more tortillas, please! khazar: what is comfort food if it isn't gluten and grease? braff: i love crème brûlée. sobel: the octopus should have been, like, quadripus, because it was really small. sbrocco: and you know that when you split something, all the calories evaporate, and then there's none. whalen: that's right.