regulation . they can't pay for teachers and administrative salaries or operative expenditures. >> 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 think a small group of retirees are really arguing about. there are some misconceptions. there are not for people that the mayor appoints. >> we will be discussing this measure with a proponent. and now, we are here with jerry, the vice chair of a group calle d pob, it stands for protect our benefits. >> i am actually representing about 3700 retirees. they come from the san francisco unified school district, of the city, the court system.

we have one thing in common, that is the health services system. nobody knows very much about. our health services handle the health services system. we see a change being proposed that would change how the health service and system is run. the comptroller has said that it would not. it would change who is on the board. it will take away one that is elected by the san francisco school system. we don't like that. since reform was passed by the voters, it has been an effective model.

we can go back to the past where we have problems with political influence, attempts to change things, bringing political favoritism in to the department. we like the status quo in this case, and we feel very concerned that the change will not be positive. >> what changes are you fearful of happening? >> that there will be a change in the health service board, the composition will be changed from four elected people and three appointees to be for appointees and if reelected. -- four appointees and three elected. and elected by the system.

then you have five people. at this point, it has worked extremely well. most decisions are unanimous. it will be an artificially induced split that will be a change in the composition. that is the major reaction. >> what we spoke with the executive director of the labor council the claim that the seventh appointee would come from the comptroller's office. how do you not believe that that provides protection for your membership? >> where were the appointee comes from as a little bit different from being able to elect the person. the comptroller is himself an

appointee of the mayor. so you have an appointee of the appointee, and a 60 day limit before they have to decide on who the person will be. otherwise, the appointee becomes the person automatically. it seems little unfair. the of us who are retirees were ever involved in any of these discussions. >> we hope that that was informative. please visit the web site at the league of women voters. and remember, early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m..

>> i am ellis said griffin, a columnist the rights of the san francisco city politics. i am also a member of the league of women voters. i am here to have a discussion of proposition d on november's ballot. proposition d is a charter

amendment that would change the way that the city, current and future employees share in funding. it will also require an elected officials to pay the same contribution rates as a city employees. it would increase retirement contribution rates for most current city employees based on city cost. for future city employees, and prohibit the city from paying any employee contributions. proposition c and d, if voters approve of measures, only the one with the most votes will become law. >> i am here with the treasurer of the campaign and a former

member -- why should voters vote for proposition d? >> it had its origin a year ago. the origin of proposition b started with a grand jury investigation of the retirement system in san francisco. i was a member and during those years, i worked with other members of the grand jury. we issued reports in 2010 and 2009 with the expectation that public officials to propose legislation. there is only one public official that approached us and was willing to work on crafting

legislation. and that was a public defender. 115,000 voted yes last year. a very strong constituency. we hope they will be back. the difference between proposition c and d is basically cost savings. d will save over $400 million over the next 10 years. prop d was crafted with exempting lowest paid city workers from any increase in contribution, at the rates that are part of proposition d are progressive.

proposition d is also a disruptive force in city politics. there is a very strong special- interest group that has fought against any pension reform in san francisco. that is later. we hope that they will look at it in a positive way. >> opponents argue that it was done not in a collaborative lateway. that it was done unilaterally. how do you address concerns? >> the origin of proposition b and d was a civil grand jury investigation, a group of 19 residents of san francisco, who

had a very diversified group of people representing unions, representing retired people, representing middle-class and minority groups. the fact that this is a criticism is not valid and the collaboration of the opposition talked about who was a collaboration for special interest groups. >> opponents have alleged that even if it is passed, it will be held up in court and perhaps not even implemented. how do you respond to concerns about proposition d? >> i read about prop c, 8225 page document that was totally incomprehensible to me. i am familiar with legal documents. the d measure is 25 pages,

simple to understand. i fully expec tboth me -- expect both measures will be challenging. especially those that oppose proposition c, and there are many, it will be brought forward. >> up next, we will talk to an opponent of proposition d. i am here with the executive director of the san francisco labor council and an opponent of proposition d. why should voters voted against proposition d? >> i was telling people why they should vote yes on measure c. d is the opposite way of the way

people should be doing business. this is a scott walker wisconsin initiative. it was done with no input from the workers. it was financed by a key party republicans that have financed the this and got $5 a signature to put this on the ballot. none of the city workers were involved, it was unilaterally put on. it is the wisconsin way of doing things. it does not accomplish what is supposed to do. it is legally challengeable. i am asking everyone to vote because there will be legal challenges with what it purports to do. >> proponents say it will save $400 million more than a proposition c. why should they not go with a

measure that is going to save more money? >> the process was done without any input on those numbers. they are way over bloated in terms of the numbers, it probably does a little bit more money than what we did, but it was done by the same type of republicans that are attacking public workers and wisconsin, san jose, other areas around the country. it will not save that type of money. we worked with the city comptroller, we talked to workers, we had major analysis. everybody agrees, this is the way that the city will run better, it will save money and jobs. yes on c commonality. -- no on d. >>