simply not the business of government to do. but, again, this is a minority view. meaning that libertarians are a minority in the city. therefore, we are impacted by, you know, the great majority that wants the big government, that wants to have all of these benefits. unfortunately, these people that vote you not--for these benefits-are not realizing i might guess who pays. they do. they should look at their paycheck, and what i say when i'm talking to them, look at your page and are you happy with what you see? if you see all these taxes disappearing, if your boss tells you, i can't give you a raise. the taxes are too high. then, you what to think, those benefits, somebody is paying for it and that is me. so, again, it strictly from a libertarian point of view.

which is very different from the big government point of view. that san francisco enjoys. >> thank you very much. now, this conversation has been great but we do have to have our final remarks now. marcy, i like to start with you. >> okay, thank you. let me wrap up with just what we were thinking about in our meetings. we were saying, okay, the idea, for example, the legislation says that the employees may not have "the financial resources to stay home on unpaid leave. yes, that's right. none of them out there do. it's not just the city employees. another thing would be for example, it helps [inaudible]. we have a huge amount of people already in government. we don't need to attract any more. again, speaking from the libertarian point of view. it helps with

prosperity. well, you know, you kind of have to look at the big picture. the big picture will tell you, the more benefits you give, the higher the ability for one group to spend more money while the other group spends less. so, we have not achieved anything. >> thank you very much. thank you very much for your remarks. grace. deanna? >> the voters voted in 2002 to provide these benefits for city employees and rear are just asking to look at that paid parental leave and see what we can do to enhance. if you believe that your parents should be given the opportunity to spend the same amount of time with her child, if you believe that when they come back they should have that opportunity to draw on what they currently approved for themselves for their sick time, to go back and take care of their child after that 12-16

week period, that there will be situations where they want to come back and take care of themselves with their child, those are the two measures that we are voting on and that is what we are building on on what the voters have done in 2002. again, this is not up on rotation at some point and this november. it's going to go on and see how we can support all of our families in san francisco because we have led the way for more than a decade and we will continue to be that way for all of our jurisdictions. thank you. >> thank you very much for your comments also. we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures, in this years election, please visit the san francisco elections website at we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures, in this years election, please visit the san francisco elections website@sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall monday

through friday from 8 am to 5 pm. you can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day. and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday to 5 pm. you can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day. and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 3. thank you for watching. >>[music] hello. i am maxine anderson with the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the league and sf goth dd, i'm here to discuss proposition c a ballot measure that would be before the voters hello. i am maxine anderson with the league of women voters

of san francisco. along with the league and sf goth dd, i'm here to discuss proposition c a ballot measure that would be before the voters on tuesday, november 3. individuals who are paid to directly contact city officers to it influence their legislative or administrative action are called lobbyists. their activities are regulated by the city's lobbyist ordinance. the ordinance does not address any direct lobbying , also known as expenditure lobbying. we are persons solicit or urge others to directly contact city officers. proposition c was defined expenditure lobbies as any person or business days $2500 or more in a calendar month to solicit, request, or urge others to directly lobby city officers. a yes vote means you want the city to regulate its expenditure lobbyists by requiring them to register with the ethics commission pay a

$500 registration fee, and filed monthly disclosures regarding their lobbying activities. a no vote means you do not want to make these changes. i am here with a lena schmidt a proponent of proposition c. we are also joined by debby lerman from the san francisco human services med network. and opponents of the measure. thank you both for being here. i would like to start with some opening remarks. we'll start with you, first debbie. >> thank you, maxine. our organization has officially opposed this measure. last year we worked very closely with the board of supervisors, which was amending the current legislation on direct lobbyists and the board shows unanimously to exempt nonprofits from the legislation because of the potential showing chilling effect on nonprofit advocacy. the city relies on a diverse

strong nonprofit sector on the front lines of healthcare, safety net environmental issues and other social issues. this legislation this ballot measure, will cause nonprofits to be afraid to engage in advocacy. i have worked for many many years with nonprofits that have misconceptions around the concept's role was. many things are not even allowed to lobby the irs increases its scrutiny of nonprofits that do expensive lobbying. the foundations hesitate to fund him and we need to be sure that they can engage in the public debate >> thank you very much, dedicate a lena? >> thank you. i appreciate the league putting this together. let me say that this opposition, proposition c, the key is transparency. before i go into that let me also note the ethics commission is the organization that put it on the

ballot. the ethics commission is an independent organization -independent commission. it has the authority to put something on the ballot. it had a series of hearings on it and open meetings on it, so that everything could be discussed and they voted unanimously to put it on the ballot the first time in 10 years that they did. when proposition c restores what san francisco had until 2009 get it affirms the voters and the citizens tribunal to follow the money and that the dollars that are being used for lobbying should be open and expose it to the electorate. there has been in on this changed since-i'll stop. okay. >> thank you. thank you very much. i'm sure within my questions you have an opportunity to continue your thought. because, my first question to debbie is going to be, this measure sometimes

colleges increasing transparent. you believe this ballot measure increases transparency and city government and elections? >> i think that this legislation would have unintended consequences. it will discourage nonprofits from advocating a nonprofits are often the only way are the have-nots of our city to organize themselves to speak out on issues. the ethics commission working with the board of supervisors that in many advocates we have developed something that would not have had unintended consequences and that we would be able to change. so, it may increase transparency in reporting, the more likely it will lead nonprofits is that of

same were going to register tuesday were going to advocate less and it will decrease transparency on the many issues that we debate every day. >> thank you. a lena. how do you feel on that? >> i think transparency is key to all this and i think that the nonprofits are already have to report on the 501(c)(3) 501(c) four at the report to the irs in previous two 2009, they were reporting to the ethics commission also. that there were a number of them that did and it didn't seem to have a lot of hammering or tampering of fact at that point. i think that the reason it went through the ethics commission is because the ethics commission is independent and not subject to political pressure the way the board of supervisors candy. i think it's important that when you have regulations out there that cover a certain class of let's say, 501(c)(3) in this case, it is only equitable that it should cover all classes of the 501(c)(3)'s. so i think that's important. i think the other thing to remember is that since 2009, we have the supreme court ruling on citizens united and that citizens united meant

a tremendous influx of dollars that were unregulated and undisclosed, and they often set up nonprofits in order-because that ensured that there would be -they do not have to list their donors when they were a nonprofit. so, what we are trying to do is to make sure that everybody is covered in that everybody is treated equitably. >> thank you very much. going along with that, so, we get some sense to the people who viewed this, do you think this measure ballot measure goes far enough or do you believe it goes too far in your opinion and will start with you, i lena >> thank you. it's an interesting question. i think there has to be a number of issues that need to be looked at within the world of

lobbying, but what this does is basically restore what we had before, makes it all-inclusive, which is what we had before, and that it's an enormous burst up and one that could make a difference down the road. >> thank you very much. debbie? >> it goes way too far. it was not necessary to include nonprofits in order to get at the types of problems that a lena has raised here. the ballot measure will require for-profits to disclose their expenditures. it's the for-profit corporation establishes and astroturf nonprofit though for-profit corporation will have to disclose all their expenditures that they used to create the nonprofits and give to the nonprofit for the purpose of lobbying. >> okay. thank you very much for your answers to those questions and for the help you're giving to the voters of the city of san francisco. now, where can have your closing remarks. after closing remarks will start with you, i lena..

>> okay, thank you again for having this and letting us have a chance to talk about it. as i say, i think the important thing on this issue is transparency. i was the foreperson of the civil grand jury in 2013, i think 2014, and we look at the ethics commission investigated the ethics commission for 8+ months and came out of the report, this was one of our recommendations in the report. at this part be restored,. so, certainly after all that scrutiny this was a good step in the right direction. i also want to say that i have also been with nonprofits both in terms of being on the board, being a staff member and all that. i understand the constrictions of time but i think if you accept the shield of the government i being a nonprofit and accept what goes with a 501(c)(3), you should be willing to be treated equally with other nonprofits and be able to put the information out

there that the voters need so badly. >> thank you very much. debbie, your remarks. >> first of all, nonprofits are they in batumi community a better place. by passing a ballot measure that would require nonprofits to pay a $500 fee for the privilege of expressing their first amendment rights, we will have a situation where nonprofits will simply advocate less. the more burdensome, the more complicated, we make the rules, the more nonprofits say, it is not worth the risk of trying to comply with these ordinance. it is not worth the trouble of having to file all these reports. we do not want to people-legislative [inaudible] and we want our nonprofits to be out there, expressing their opinions. the first amendment can be messy. we know that. we don't always agree with people

that are expressing their opinion, and that's what it's about. we need to empower nonprofits to counter the money that's coming from the haves versus the have-nots. >> thank you, debbie and helene. thank you both for your comments and your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this, and other ballot measures in this years election, please visit the san francisco elections website at, and other ballot measures in this years election, please visit the san francisco elections website@sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8 pm to 5 pm. you can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day. and, if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 3. thank you for watching. >>[music]

>> hello. i'm chris and shoot with the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the league and s fwd from your discuss proposition d a ballot measure before the voters on tuesday, november 3. the city to its port commission earns a 28 acre waterfront area located south of at&t park across mccovey cove. known as mission rock the site consists of most appears 40 and seawall lot 337. advantage in a multiyear committee grant process the board adopted a vision statement for mixed-use development of mission rock. selected a developer to create a project consisted with that statement. proposition d would

increase the height limit of up to 10 of the 20 acres in mission rock. a yes vote means you want to increase the height limit for 10 of the 20 acres of mission rock site from one story to light limits ranging from 40-240 v. and naked city policy to encourage the development provided that it includes a acres of parks and open space and housing of which at least 33% is affordable for low and middle income households. a no vote means you don't want to increase the height limit or dr. city policy. i'm here with matt ceo of same physical part of lines and its opponent a proposition d. also join by john -environmental attorney what an advocate and opponents of the measure. thank you both for being here. >> a pleasure >> i like to start with opening remark. matt? >> thank you chris and get pleasure to be here. much of san francisco's waterfront ballpark ali south to the county line has been for 40 years or more. we got detained here is empty warehouses m.d. cites some of them are contaminated even superfund site. that's changing in a very

big way. for the past decade, the sentences go park alliance has been spearheading an effort called the blue greenway were parting with all property owners and government agencies committees all along that waterfront to re-envision that waterfront. i put together an unbroken 30 mile long string of parks, open spaces, biking paths, hiking trails, to open up that waterfront for the public use and for spousal developments. the blue greenway starts with mission rocket which of the site were looking at here. this parking lot be converted into a acres of open space including the entire waterfront a new promenade around appear. balanced with housing and jobs. the balance approach to the support >> thanks, matt. john, opening remark >> that sounds like that's what proposition d is about. just like the washington embraces height limits on the waterfront for hours about the beautiful day for everybody it that people that live and work

a bit watching about waist height limits to 136 feet per [inaudible] proposition d by them are taller than washington and three of them are twice as tall. taller than the montana towers were in the water and all the buildings in opposition d are taller than pure 70 which were supported last. the reason neither the groups are opposing proposition d is much as we want to parks and talk about, is a right way and a wrong way to develop our waterfront. that's the history of how we've turned our waterfront like so many others to an open and beautiful voice and yes we need to build. we need to direct it to isn't just about back to the drawing board just like washington and the developer will come back with something better and way to get that is by state voting no on proposition d. >> thanks john. let's get into the question critic say there's no guarantee for the plants open space that's what it says.

can each of you respond to that expectation start with john >> sure. enjoy the height of the project that is the problem. 11 towers three of them are 240 feet and to adam r1 93. close of the waterfront they lower the buildings 21 2190. that's those nevada-based for most people. most of the buildings are not affordable. yes there's affordable housing most of the buildings our offices for private corporations. yes, that what the penthouse use and don't get them. what luxury condo. audrey apartments. so our concern yes, we want as much of that associate as possible but if you build 120 feet that still going to provide very little view to anyone other than those inside the buildings which is [inaudible] people >> matt? >> a couple points, chris. first off legislation does clearly mandate that the open space will be included in the development. it's really important for us to remember that the port of san francisco just like all of the ports in the state of california are owned by the people of the

state. and we are people of california have delegated the authority to run those ports to the local government in san francisco we have the port of san francisco. we the people of california in our infinite wisdom have also mandated that all the ports have to operate under owned needs. after earned only. we don't. tax dollars into running the ports. although the ports until they done pretty well by getting containerized shipping. well, we lost that business 40 years ago when simmons is goes we've had to find new ways to finance the maintenance and operation of our ports. the way we've done that is to a tricky balancing act between providing open space and access to the waterfront for the people combined with the responsible development. the proposal for mission rock, which is the largest undeveloped site that the board has left, we think, is responsible finely tuned balance of economic and that open space. doing to get at the

moment is to go pop >> do have any concerns about this ballot measure setting a precedent for height of new development in san francisco? >> it doesn't set any real presidents in terms of overall height get widget buildings are talking we have buildings that are shorted we have other parts of the waterfront and developed in different ways. with the parts of the waterfront that will not be developed at all. nearby were going to the first actual beach for total access to the water on the eastern shoreline for the first time in decades. so, looking at in one particular site in, that it sets a president in this instance i don't think that really applies. >> john. you have concerns? >> that's exactly what's going to happen. this group and others propose their ballot measure requires the opposition d wise voters not people but the bureaucrats not the developers to weigh in on high restrictions exactly we made

the same pitch that it's a one up. small budget compared to other buildings. where nothing don't build tall buildings in the financial district in downtown. you're saying a lot of fun as a special place. this site is 100% public. all that belongs to all the people. what happens here is going to be there for the rest of our lives. our children's lives probably our grandkids. it that helmets go to to 40 feet, that's what her feet taller than washington name. you get the next developers can be right in line same we get it why can't you do it here and before you know it would. miami beach which has tall buildings block the waterfront for all those except those who get to live inside them and that's not most people. what if it really is a place to recreate everyone make sure it stays open to everyone. the parks are great and will get them the project is reasonable and makes sense if we reject this one. >> right. thank you. we have time for closing remarks. >> sure. the reason sentences the dimarco coalition for same physical neighbors which represents neighbors across the

city, groups that oppose washington and demand the voters get the right to vote on height limits the reason they all pose proposition the is because they're not bad groups behind it but because we need to demand the best for san francisco's waterfront. the best is not losing height limits of due to 40 feet for 11 towers, the best of the project that provides all affordable housing release as much affordable housing as we can possibly get. not mostly private offices. the reason this group and i oppose this measure is because it's on public land. we will make sure it's open to most people and the reason these groups oppose opposition d but not talked about with shadowed by the big buildings that revealed that about anyone enjoy the waterfront. >> thank you. matt? >> with the people of california have banded in our parks pay for themselves. in sentences go can we do that through this fine balance between parks and open space and access to our waterfront

combined with spousal development. the mission rock development is a striking-as that good balance in that regard as we could possibly hope for. it's a proposal that's been supported by leaders all across the political spectrum from mayor ed lee to john carlos and art agnes. it's been eight years in the making. let's build a thing so vote yes on measure d. >> think you both for your comments and your time. we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures this year's election, go visit the san francisco elections website at we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures this year's election, go visit the san francisco elections website@sfelections.org. remember, early voting is that what city hall monday through friday from 8 am to 5 pm. you can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day. if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday no if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 3. thank you for watching. >>[music]

the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the lead nsf go tv, i'm here to discuss proposition f about measure before the voters on tuesday, november 3. in an

effort to prevent converting residential to two ics and physical limits short-term rentals of residential units. the short-term rental last less than 30 days. these limits set forth in sentences go to short-term rental loss, require that could only permanent residents may offer residential use force or trauma rental. and, a permanent resident may not went in residential use on a short-term basis for more than 90 days per year if the resident does not live there during the rental that. opposition limited short-term rentals for the unit 275 days per year. regardless of whether the rental is hosted or on posted. after including the unit on a short-term rental registry, the city will be required to post a notice on

the building stating that unit has been approved for use of the short-term rental. a yes vote means you want to limit short-term rentals for the year 275 days per year by this of whether the rental is hosted or on hosted. require owners to provide proof that they authorized the unit as a short-term rental. require residence who offers short-term rentals to submit quarterly reports on the number of days they live in the unit, and the number of days the unit was rented. but it short-term rentals in units. without interested parties to sue hosting platforms, and make it a misdemeanor for hosting platform to unlawfully list a unit is a short-term rental. a no vote means you do not went to make the changes to city law. i'm here with roger wicker resident of the west twin peaks central council proponent of proposition f. also joe by all fido-spokesperson for no on f and opponent of the mystic thank you both for being here. was out with opening remarks. roger? >> city hall continues to promote the proliferation of short-term rentals. turning a

residential roads into commercial corridors directly the vines of our zoning laws. proposition f is a modest letter offering safeguards such as limiting short-term rentals to 75 nights per year, hosted and on hosted. that's 2.5 months. more than enough for any occasional use. allowing hosting platforms to list only housing units registered with the city. providing notice to neighbors and neighborhood associations when the unit is register. ensuring legal rights to neighbors and neighborhood associations to protect their property if the quiet enjoyment and privacy of their homes are violated. finally, prohibiting short-term rentals is in all units intended for family and friends, not tourists. protect residential neighborhoods among please vote yes on proposition f. >> thank you, roger. >> first i want to start by reminding viewers that short-term rentals are already regulated in san francisco. integrity, the city enacted some of the strictest rules in the country that will help oversee these regulations of

short-term rentals. second, in july the city created the office of short-term rental enforcement and administration did in fact, the city? over $1 million in hotel taxes from these rentals every single month which runs the funds are parks are lives, the community proposition f take these regulations to new extreme and encourages neighbors to file lawsuits against each other even when the city finds there's no issue and even if a person is not offering the short-term rental. it bans the short-term rental of every single invite unit in san francisco forever. and it requires short-term rental house to file quarterly reports documenting where they have slept every single night of the year. are these reasons we are opposed by former mayor and current governor gavin-mayor ed lee by the democratic party of san francisco and many many more and we urge viewers to also vote against letter f

>> let's get into the question. how the opposition of proposition f [inaudible] >> that's an excellent question. there's this misunderstanding out there that proposition is only going to impact house but everyone is at risk because of proposition two two and 1f is being built enforcement away from the city of santos go and handed over to those neighbors will be able to file lawsuits over perceived violations of the law and make money off of it. all you have to do is pick up the phone, file a complaint over the phone, with no evidence and anonymously get you wait 90 days and then you be able to proceed with a lawsuit to collect special monetary damages and even attorney fees could again, regardless of the city's findings on that complaint and regardless if you offer a short-term rental or not. no, this is going to allow

is that neighbor down the street neighbor who complains about everything it can allow them to take ordinary neighborhood disagreements and escalate them into expensive of lawsuits and if you're on the receiving end of these losses you two options. either that the lord up for a lot of money we got to settle out of court for a lot of money. this is not within frisco needs right now. >> roger? >> the noisy neighbor is affectionate it's a fantasy created by the opponents of proposition to scare people, retired attorney i know for a fact you can file a lawsuit over the phone. you can file a lawsuit by picking up the phone. you may be able to make administrative complaint. to file a lawsuit requires paying a filing fee and going to the clerk's office and filing suit. the reason this provision is in proposition f is because frankly after trying for months to get city hall to listen to our concerns, after the original legislation was passed in october, and city hall would not listen, we decided the only way to protect neighbors, neighborhood organizations including the 20 that i represent west twin peaks and

ordinary people don't want their neighborhoods turned into alltel zones is to allow for private right of action. as a practical matter, anyone can sue anybody else for anything. that's been the law in california since 1850. so, once again, the nosy neighbor is a fiction. it's a fantasy. it's an attempt to tell people something that really isn't true. >> roger, is this a different pmb law or broader effects was >> butterfat. their bb is the main proponent of this type of short-term rental. with this other type of rental agencies as well and again were not against rental agent went on against short-term letter. proposition says you can rent up to 7590. at 2.5 months. that's a long time. i think that certainly qualifies for any reasonable definition of occasional use. but under the existing law you can rent 24 seven 365 days a year. 90 days on hosted, 265 days hosted.

getting back to what alfredo said, about nosy neighbors, i do know a few neighbor is there or not. that hosted or on hosted. the only way to enforce the current law is to get the new easy they were to basically spy on the neighbor and find out if you're actually there. that's one of the main problems with the existing law. we are not saying people should not be will to do occasional use. we are saying that people should not be able to turn quiet residential streets into hotel neighborhoods. >> other broader implications in your community? >> absolutely. i would address an issue that roger brought up around this. it's completely arbitrary and can severely limit symptoms of skins ability to share the home in which they live make him a charter for them to afford to stay in san francisco. now, different

people of different reasons for why they engage in what they offer a short-term rental. in fact, there's this idea out there that's being pushed that if someone wants to rent within 75 days they can just get a bed-and-breakfast hundred. the city of san francisco is not issued an additional use permit for a bed and breakfast in over 2.5 years. in order to get a conditional use permit is very complex. if this material to expect inspections by the health about. and also sorts of other red tape. just all this underscores the complexity that's involved with getting this sort of permit. now, these are people just sharing a spare bedroom in their home. these are people like tracy, resident of russian hill single mother full-time job who uses the extra income from sharing a spare bedroom to pay for child care cost for her daughter. we should need make it much harder and much more difficult for these people to for the same when were seen housing costs higher than they've ever been.

>> great. santa brought for closing statements. we'll start with alfredo >> great. thank you again for this opportunity to speak. again, i think it's really important to note opposition f does nothing at addressing the current affordability and housing prices that were in the middle of at the moment. neighbors suing neighbors, it's nothing more than another approach that's going to divide our communities. again, it's going to allow simple basic neighborhood conflicts to escalate into expensive courtroom battles. by providing a economic incentive or for a neighbor to sue the person next door. this law was designed to exclude san franciscans who own in law unit and was designed to get the government the ability to chapter 7 sweetscented is that how we want to enforce symbolic and use laws. this question this proposition is going to divide seven cisco. it's going to drive families out of san francisco. i mean trouble, we want a san

francisco where everyone is welcome and that's what we're trying to build here with why were opposing proposition f and i urge everyone who's watching to also oppose proposition f. >> roger? >> the term on sure is a total misnomer. these people are not sharing anything. they're selling a product in this case if they want to turn their homes into b&b then they should go to the legal path. alfredo refers to-redtape is protection of the public health and safety. the people who move into residential neighborhoods, 20 which i represent what to keep those neighborhoods as residential neighborhoods. they don't want to turn them into hotels zones. they don't want to turn them into commercial court orders. the current legislation says that this means use is residential use not commercial use. which means neighborhood associations that prohibitions against this type

of commercial use can't even enforce those prohibitions. essentially, this is an attempt to rezone the entire city and to make all of san francisco a commercial zone. if the opponents of proposition f want to do that they should say let's rezone the city and we'll talk about that. thank you. >> thank you. thank you both your comments and your time. we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures this year's election, please visit the san francisco elections website@sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8 am to 5 pm. you can also vote at city hall on the two weekends before election day. if you don't vote early be sure to vote on tuesday, november 3. thanks for watching. >>[music]

>> hello. i'm shauna longhorn the league of women voters of san francisco. along with the lead nsf goatee i'm here to discuss proposition i about measure before the voters on tuesday, november 3. person speaking to go build housing renovate or demolish existing housing or change the use of property in san francisco must obtain permits from the city. opposition i would suspend the issuance of city permits on certain types of housing and business development projects in the mission district for 18 months. other neighborhoods would not be subject to the suspension. opposition i would cover these types of developments: the demolition, substantial renovation,

conversion, or new construction of any housing development that containing five or more units. the demolition, substantial renovation, conversion or limitation of building use production distribution and repair or pdr. under city law, pdr uses a variety of business related uses such as industrial, automotive storage and also. these provisions were not applied to the issuance of permits for housing development for all units designed as affordable to low and moderate income households. a yes vote means you want to suspend the issuance of city permits on certain types of housing and business development projects in the mission district for at least 18 months. a no vote means you do not want to make these changes. i'm here with scott weaver of save the mission and a proponent of proposition i. were also joined by tim: executive director at san francisco housing action coalition and opponents of the measure. thank you both for being here. i like to start with an opening statement. we'll go ahead and start with

you >> thank you very much for having me here. i run housing action coalition. were 16-year-old nonprofit with 170 member organizations. we focus on the housing affordability crisis, which has to be the central civic challenge of our time. more broadly, the question of who gets to live in san francisco. everything we believe in all common sense, and the chief economist of san francisco agrees that proposition i makes worse the very things it claims to want to correct. we believe that proposition i if passed, would increase displacement, resident in the mission and the city. it will raise housing prices, and will make it much harder for affordable housing to acquire land. >> thank you. scott? >> i read the chief economist we point and he did not say anything about it causing displacement. in fact, is it won't cause displacement. he also said that the increase in rents for vacant units would be an infinitesimal point the percent. when celeste m we're

.3% rent increase? proposition i, all it does is put a pause on market redevelopment, which is usually luxury condominiums and other types of units for a period of 18 months while the community engages with the city of san francisco, the planning department and mayors office of housing, to develop a plan whereby 33% of the housing built is affordable to low and moderate and 50% of the housing bills is affordable to low, moderate, and middle income san franciscans. this is the very same plan that was propositioned k last year but nothing was done to england. opposition k which mr. collins organization support. >> thank you, scott. now the move into questions. my prescription is going to start with scott. how does the moratorium, a new building projects help solve san

francisco's housing shortage. >> is an 18 month pause in development in the mission. on luxury development in this. when i say luxury, and we talked about units that are two-bedroom unit renting for between $6000 and $12,000 a month. there's actually a $15,000 luxury unit on the market right now in the mission. those units are out of reach for 85% of san franciscans. dr. $240,000 to afford even a $6000 unit. two bedrooms 6000 or unit. so, this is going to put a pause on those kinds of developments for the community can play a little bit of catch up and develop a plan so that future development entails development of affordable housing using various array-week one ago into

a letter is going to go into detail-but a various array of housing solutions that we think are going to make the mission more affordable. the mission is ground zero for housing prices. it's already in advanced stage of gentrification. we can't really afford to have any more to an $50,000-$2.5 million condos being built in our neighborhood. there's one project on 20th and valencia. 200-$2.5 million for a luxury condo. for those in the building and the cheap ones in the 18 unit building. our 1.5 9l who can afford that? we've got to do better and i think we can do better. >> and how would you answer that question? >> i guess we read most different chief economist reports because he was pretty unequivocal in his views about what it does to increasing housing prices and displacement.

here's the difficult facts confronting san francisco right now. our population right now, and for the last few years, has been growing by 10,000 new residents per year. that is the result of having a red-hot economy that's attracting people from all over the want to live in san francisco. city planners saying we will grow to 1 million residents in 20 years. i would ask, where are they going to live and i think that the proponents of proposition i seems to think we can build around around the mission did somehow if we will build a wall they won't come but the fact is demand is very very strong and san francisco, unfortunate demise of city that's very stingy about increasing supply of housing. with what the economist, dr. ted egan, pointed out is when you have red-hot demand and limited supply, prices move up. there's not a single person in the city that disagrees that we need more affordable housing. the housing action coalition absolutely supports that. we have a disagreement about our

tactics to how to get there. we think that moratorium a moratorium on supply does nothing to address domain. it's not a moratorium on demand and ignoring one half of the equation. so, i would say that there are some common sense things that we could do that we all agree on, which is past the housing bond for goodness sake. let's reform the inclusionary housing ordinance, and let's start building accessory building units. bmi units. >> thank you. >> another question. if the moratorium is past, how do we ensure affordable housing is built in the mission during the next 18 months to given the high cost of development? >> we fail to understand how it could do anything. this pause does nothing to address the demand that continues to come. we would say, the best way to address the issues of

displacement that have so many people so upset and legitimately so, is, let's keep them in the sick. the way to do that is to build housing at all levels of affordability. building-and there will be no housing affordable housing built in 18 months. if they suggest that positive plan, my gosh, the eastern neighborhood plan, which we adopted after 10 years-it took 10 years to adopt a plan that covers the mission. it's impossible to imagine that they are going to in 18 months or do anything other than to say that we need more time. we haven't done enough. if the planet more. the issue is, finding the resources and funding to start building affordable housing, building more housing and target it more intelligently to the people that need it the most. this is one half of the equation. just saying, well, if we stop building housing that will make things better. so, i would say that it's-we have to think of

the mission is part of the city. it's not an island. it is to bart stops at its black and has great weather. people want to live there and current understanding is they are coming. just to say, well, you can't build anything and that's going to improve the affordability doesn't make any sense in the real world and to any of the people that study real estate or economics. >> thank you. scott? >> is actually going to be affordable housing during this time. there's 1950 thank you. scott? >> is actually going to be affordable housing during this time. there's 1950 mission st. there's 490 s. emmett. there's a project on. and i believe there's a project on treat. but all can be in the pylon pipeline in this 18 month per not. they can proceed. we have to think long-term. if we continue at the current pace of housing developments, we build 30,000 units in the last eight

years. 25,000 have been luxury unit. 25,000 that over 80%. we can do better than that we do need a higher inclusionary rates. but, let's do that before build a more luxury housing. the mission as it in your end stage of gentrification that it is losing it's the birthplace of molten rock it is the center of heart in the circuit were losing our latino us lost a third of our latino population we lost a third of our families according to the egan report. plus tons of artist. luscious lost just in the last couple weeks there was a decision that's going to result in the loss of 70 artist spaces in the mission. at 17th and mission. so, we've got to start thinking long-term. we've got to start thinking about solutions that give all of us more than 17% or 12% affordable housing solutions that give us the 50%

affordable housing that the city has said its target. the eastern neighborhoods plan. it promised 64% affordable housing. it's given us 12. it has not succeeded. it has failed. that's why we need to pause and bring to plan for affordability. >> thank you. whether moving to closing statements and i would like to start again with you, scott. >> well, the forces have some pretty extreme statements. they misinterpreted mr. egan's reported mr. egan said .3% increase in rent in vacant units for an 18 month period is all the rent increase over tennessee during that time. mr. egan is a supply side of economist and says we have to build 100,000 units before there's any effect on affordability. we can't wait for 100 housing units. to think of a different way to make it affordable san francisco.

everybody will be gone by the time there's 100,000 affordable units. the opposition has also said this proposition will cause it cost $1 billion. that is a blatant lie. look at the controller's report. the controller is required to warn about it it's in the voter pamphlet, what the cost to the city will be. it said, the cost of the city will be $1 million. so, our opponents are exaggerating by a thousandfold. that's what you do and there to say over and over again because they have millions of dollars to developers money but a lot at stake in this election to say something that is totally false. >> thank you.

>> well, here are the plain fact. their 1500 units planned for-1500 new homes for the plan for the mission of which 200 would be permanently affordable dental cost the taxpayers a nickel. the plain truth is that the city doesn't begin to have the resources it needs right now to build the affordable housing, to satisfy demand that's going on right now and proposition i doesn't do that. it doesn't raise a nickel to build more housing. amir got $50 million thrown into the housing bond to address specifically, the mission most have that went for one project for 90 s. van ness. the plain truth is, building new housing, market rate housing, is the single largest source of funding we have now for the affordable housing that we so plainly need. cut off that housing and we get almost nothing. i guess, i would have a question for mr. weaver. he's clear he's eloquent and speaks well about, we don't want to housing here. we don't want to housing in the mission should go somewhere else. any suggestions where it should be

built instead? is that not the responsibility of the folks in the mission? we need new housing. and it's so difficult to get housing built in san francisco. everybody wants it somewhere else. please put it in some other neighborhood. just not ours. that sort of have got us into the pickle we are in right now. anyone who's worked in the city deals with the world issues knows that at a time of super heated demand, you can stop the supply of something. >> thank you both. >> if i can answer that question >> i think really does this reads our position we want to build housing. there's a difference between affordable housing and on affordable housing and we want to build affordable. >> both of you. i'm sorry. we are out of time. it's a fascinating conversation and i think we could talk about it for much much longer: unfortunately out of town so i

thank you both for your time. we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures this year's election please visit the san francisco elections website at sf please visit the san francisco elections website@sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8 am to 5 pm. you can also go to visit on the two weekends before election day. if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 3. thank you for watching. >>[music]