♪ >> i am mellisa griffin, a columnist and member of the san francisco league of women voters. i am here is city hall with the league and sfgtv to discuss prop h that will be on this year's november ballot. ♪ >> prop h would make it official city policy to encourage the san

francisco unified school district to establish certain priorities for assigning students to specific schools. currently, parents may apply for their children to attend any school in the school district. if a school does not have space for all applicants, the school district and immense students based on certain priorities, such as whether they're older siblings attend the same school, whether the student lives in the schools attendance area, or whether the students elementary school is a designated feeder school for the middle school. prop h when they get city policy to encourage the school district to ensure that all students have the opportunity to attend a quality neighborhood school. after signing siblings to the same school, the highest priority should be to assign each student to the schools close to their homes. finally, the school district should provide students with the opportunity to attend schools with language immersion rather special programs, even if those schools are not close to their homes.

♪ i am here with kris miller, chairperson of students first, a group that sponsored prop h. ms. miller, thank you for being here. why should voters vote for prop h? >> for starters, the reason that prop h was adopted to begin with is roughly 14,000 signatures from san francisco county voters that also, as i do, feel passionately about children being able to attend schools near their neighborhoods. it makes sense. everyone automatically assumes that the child attends a school near their neighborhood or has that option in san francisco. as we know, from previous policies in different things with in government here, san francisco is special. san francisco is definitely special in this respect, that we have not followed suit with many of the major metropolitan cities and allow parents the right to automatically opt into their neighborhood schools.

san francisco has been having issues with this policy for years. there are thousands of parents who have left the city, over 5000 since the 2000 census. since the mid-1960s, we have lost a little under half of our student population. this is one of the major reasons why. prop h is basically simply proposing that parents or children within certain neighborhood school areas are given the option of sending their children to the school in closest proximity to their home. that is all we are proposing, nothing more. just that within the current citywide lottery system, that parents are given the option of sending their children to school near their home, as opposed to being bussed across town, where were the district decides the children will go. that is basically the premise of prop h. >> opponents have argued that the current school assignment system does give substantial

weight to a child's geographic location when deciding -- one assigning the to a school. how do you respond? it's very simply, one, that comment is not factually based. roughly 30% of parents in the city, according to the school district -- we're not sure if these are accurate numbers, a roughly 30% of the parents in the san francisco unified school district are opting to send their children to their neighborhood schools. for some reason, they're not able to honor that. a seemingly small number of parents. the fourth consideration -- out of four considerations for the placement system, never the proximity is the fourth. in most cases, within many different school districts, it does not come into consideration because the schools are full of the time to get to that proximity consideration. not only that, but that is only

for elementary school placement. in middle school and high school, this consideration has been completely taken away. there's absolutely no consideration whatsoever. it is a citywide lottery system period. so that statement is not true. i just gave you the facts. if you want to look it up on iran, it is right on the website -- if you want to look it up on your own. >> it is argued that keeping children in their neighborhoods will lead to gentrification in san francisco. how do you respond? >> i will tell you what it will actually lead to from the actual perspective, not from a hypothetical perspective that is not based on this a big numbers. if you look at the statistics, from the current policies, they do not focus heavily on a neighborhood school-based placement system. in the last 10 years, we have moved further and further towards segregation within our school district. the interesting thing is, the current system does not focus

heavily on neighborhood school proximity, and the reason for that is to keep the school ever spent to give children more opportunity in areas and better performing schools that would not otherwise have the opportunity to go to a higher performing schools. right now, we actually have a huge issue with schools re segregating in the last 10 years. if the current policies are re segregating the schools in san francisco, one would assume that parents and voters in the city would vote to change that policy. if we are asking for the opposite of what they are, presumably we are going to be either improving the situation, are in the worst-case scenario it will stay the same. so that allegation makes no sense from a fact-based perspective. >> thank you so much, ms. miller. next, we will hear from an opponent of prop h. ♪ i am now with rachel from the

san francisco board of education. the board of education recently voted unanimously to oppose prop h. thank you for being here. why do you oppose prop h? >> for several reasons. first, it is not well-written, and has a lot of unintended consequences. primarily, i oppose it because it is a very simplistic way of dealing with a very complex problem. i have been working on student assignment, but as a parent -- for many years, i put my kids through the process. i have talked to parents across the city as a candidate for public office. since i was elected to the board, the board has been the last two years working on a news to defend a policy. it is the most complex problem i have ever worked on in my personal or professional life. and i do not think that is the kind of thing that can be resolved by a voter checking a yes or no on the ballot box. >> recent census numbers show that families with small children have been leaving the

city in record numbers because of people would argue that the current school assignment system has something to do with that. do you believe the current system is working? >> i do the the current system is working. we spend a lot of time and a lot of money, a lot of resources, redesigning the system, because we knew we had a problem. one of the things we try to address was balancing the needs of parents. there are parents in parts of the city that feel they do not have access to high performing schools. while we work on the schools across the city, we want to give everybody access to all schools. in addition, a lot of families said they wanted more predictability in the school assignments. i do think that the predictability issue is something that may frighten parents of young children. so we revised it and added a proximity component and a predictability component that i think as address those concerns while still giving parents access to high performing schools wherever they want them to be. >> prop h is merely a statement

of policy. what you think that the actual practical effect if prop h passes? >> honestly, i do not think there's going to be much of a practical effect, because the school board has been very clear, and i am being very clear what the voters now, that this is the direction that we are going. that we have spent a lot of time, a lot of effort, going through data, talking to people, looking at what other district do, looking at our census data, having demographic projections, and we think, as we monitor the system going forward, that is flexible and we can make changes and respond to trends. but we think we're moving in the right direction. >> even proponents of this ballot measure and said we're going in the right direction. >> thank you so much. we hope this has been informative. for additional affirmation about this or other measures, visit the san francisco league of women voters website. early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

if you do not bode early, be sure to vote on november 8. thank you. ♪ >> hi, my name is melissa griffen. and a member of the league of women voters of san francisco. >> proposition b authoress the city to authorized to hundred

$48 million in bonds to improved street structures such as bridges. this would come with an increasing property tax, if needed, to pay for those improvements. the city is responsible for maintaining about 850 miles of streets. a study shows about half of the streets any major repairs. the city can only use this bond money to pay for and repairs city streets. it will improve lighting, sidewalk extensions, trees, and landscaping. renovation programs to increase safety, and add this traffic signals to improve muni service.

the mayor and the board of supervisors have to approve the final project. this measure requires the approval of two-thirds. is the right here with supervisors got leaner -- supervisor scott wiener. why should we vote for proposition b? supervisor wiener: this is a bond that will address some of our basic and critical infrastructure needs it. we've seen this across the country for the last few decades a bank it will help with quality of life. it will help put people back to work. it addresses the infrastructure funds for our roads.

to resurface our roads. basic maintenance. it also provide significant funding for work on our city bridges and overpasses and other infrastructure that is deteriorating and needs capital work, and also provides for eda acceptability. >> opponents of this measure have argued that these bonds should not be used for what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. -- what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. how do you respond to those accusations? supervisor wiener: we should have been doing a better job the last 30 years maintaining our streets. i will not argue that. the fact is, we are where we are

today. we have almost $500 million. the capitol assets like the park, like the bay bridge, muni. is appropriate to use bond funds -- it is a prepared to use bond funds to do capital infrastructure work. this is not for filling the random pothole. this is for capital work. road resurfacing, road reconstruction, not basic operating. >> in the past years, voters have not been receptive to the idea of the streets fund or when they are proposed on the balance. the measure needs two-thirds of the voters to pass. what makes you think this is the year voters will go with that? >> a strong majority of voters

do support having the capital work. our polling has been strong this year. six years ago, we got the 66% of the boat would no campaign whatsoever supporting or explaining at. this year, we're trying to really educate the voters. we think we have a chance of getting 2 2/3. 2/3 is a high threshold even though this is a popular kind of bond. we feel good we will have a shot of getting their. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next up, we will discuss proposition b with upon the. >> i am here with judy

berkowtiz, an opponent of proposition b. do you oppose this? >> san francisco neighborhoods voted to oppose prop b because we've already paid for these street repairs. payment has been in the form of property taxes and other taxes. we do not feel we should pay for them the second time. or in this case, a first time, because the board of supervisors had already passed two ordinances at the board, the law pieces of legislation that pay for exactly the street repairs. one was $40 million. another was $42 million in the

past couple of years. not only that, but this is a general obligation bond. general obligation bonds are supposed to be a one-time fix. this is not a one-time fix. this is maintenance. >> proponents argue that regardless of where the funding comes from, if we do not fix our streets now, the cost to implement these fixes will go up exponentially in the next, say, 10 years. how do you respond to that assertion? >> the streets of san francisco are terrible. they are the worst i have ever driven on. i am sure the department transportation agrees. i do not know it because will rise -- if the costs will rise in the next 10 years. i think it is important we do fix this ries. the money that has been allocated should do so.

this has been taken in the form of, as i said, our property taxes. >> if this does not pass, how do you suggest we go about finding street repairs and other kinds of repairs that are being funded by proposition b? what would you like to see cuts? >> there are less people working for city government now than there were 20 years ago. however, salaries are several times higher than they were. we could cut out a lot of the managers. department managers. if they were released and more park and rack -- rec playground managers were hired, then we would have some money we could spread around. however, again, it the money --

if our property taxes and our rent pass-throughs are used for what they're supposed to be used for, then we would have the money. >> thank you very much. for more information about this or other ballot measures, please visit the web site of the san francisco league of women voters at sfvote.org. remember early voting is available as city hall. the biggest issue in america today? segregation still exists... racism... the repression and oppression of women the educational system stem cell research homeless people cloning government health care taxation announcer: so, is there anything you're doing to help make a change? i'm not really doin' anything. ummmm [sighs] got me on that one...

>> i am a lawless said griffin. i cover san francisco city politics and the league of women voters. i am here to discuss a proposition c, a ballot that will be before the voters this november. proposition c will change the way that the city, current and future employees share their pension and health-care benefits. it will adjust employee contributions to the retirement system based on the city's costs. reducing benefits for future employees. adjust cost of living

adjustments. decrease the city contribution to retiree health care costs for certain former employees. require -- changed voting requirement of the health service board and require election officials to make the same contributions. there are two charter amendments regarding pensions. if voters approve both measures, only the one with the most votes will become law. i am here with the executive director at the san francisco labor counsel, and a proponent of proposition c. thank you for being here. why do you support the proposition c? >> the public-sector unions have been working probably most of this year to sit down and find a

way in order to save city services and jobs during these economic times. this involves sitting down with the mayor's office and coming down with a comprehensive chart -- coming up with a comprehensive chart on how to save billions of dollars in san francisco. it stops pension spikes, it adjusts the rates that people will be paying during good times and bad times. it really does save money. it is the consensus way of moving forward, it is supported by the board of supervisors, the mayor's office, and virtually every public official. i am proud of the public-sector unions for putting the measure on the ballot. it is really going to save the city money. this has been done in ways that i have not seen anywhere else. people are just attacking public

workers, and in san francisco, i take my hat off to the unions that are going to be sacrificing and going to be paying more into the city funds in order to save these jobs. there are going to be more moneys coming in. i could not be prouder and i am urging everyone to vote yes. i think this is a san francisco way of doing reform. we have done many things and we are urging everybody to vote yes to save over $1 billion and save cities of vergers -- city services. >> this number is based on a 7.75% investment return that people feel as unrealistic. how would you address that marke? >> we have sat down with the

civil service unions that have endorsed this measure. is about the cycles that we go through during bad economic times. they will be contributing more than they used to. we factored in all of these assumptions. the city is doing better, they won't have to pay quite as much. the san francisco way of sharing and moving forward, i will not get into the weeds. but we looked at the analysis of how the city budget works and what types of numbers will be needed. >> it also changes the makeup of the health care board that dictate to the cost and availability of various health care options for current and former city employees. can you please address that

issue? >> absolutely, this is controversial and no way that it should not be. the mayor's office, during the course of negotiations, wanted to place for appointments on the board that have only three participants. they just kept pounding us all the time and we absolutely said no. we don't need to change any of that. the mayor's office backed down and said, the fourth person gets to be nominated, but the electives, there has to be a majority for that person to come in. they will have their voice because they do not like who the mayor and the comptroller have nominated. that is the only piece of controversy that i in