event. each question will be directed to three candidates or in some cases two. each of these candidates will have one minute to respond. following the named candidates' responses, other candidates may elect to use one of their three discretionary time cards, which they have all been provided. to speak to the question for one minute as well. we ask that after the candidate uses the card, they deposit the card in the basket in front of them, so each candidate, in fact, uses the card on only three occasions. the timekeeper in the first row will hold up a yellow card to signify to the speaking candidate that they have time remanning to peak and a red card signifies time to stop. because most of the questions for tonight's debate are based on issues survey, the candidates who completed the survey will receive a few more

questions than the candidates who did not. i would like to thank the sponsors of today's sponsor forum including the university of california-san francisco, hastings college of law, [wo-uflt/] and our media partner sfgtv. we're fortunate to have such an impressive field of candidates. i will begin with the questions. the first question is for miss breed. mr. davis, and mr. resignato. and for the benefit of the audience, i will also project the questions on the screen. please explain your position on whether or under what conditions the san francisco parks and recreation department should be parented to lease park facilitis to food vendors and other commercial enterprises? miss breed?

>> hi. london breed. i think that what we see now in the recreation -- i'm sorry, what is the time limit on each of these questions? >> one minute, please. >> i think what we see now is a bit of an abuse in terms of the number of vendors that the city has leased space to in our parks. and parks and recreation is for parks and recreation and not necessarily should be a place where we are leasing space to more vendors than we particularly need in specific areas. there is a place for vendors, for food vendors for various vendors in certain areas of the parks, but i think we are focusing way too much time on trying to figure out how we generate revenue for the city more so than we are trying to figure out how to make sure

that those uses are good uses for the people who use the parks . >> julian davis here. you know, i think we're seeing somewhat of a crisis in our parks and recreation department. i found that the department is severely mismanaged. we have synthetic fields going we have privatization and commercialization of our park spaces. we have rec directors being fired and park patrol officers being hired. we have onerous fees for access to community space, pricing community events out of our park spaces. the question is about whether particular conditions and limits we would put, i will give you a little sense of what will guide me in terms of my values and look closely at community people and people from community to be able to have access to our parks and recreation facilities. so if we're leasing spaces we need to make sure that is not to the detriment of folks who should

affordably be able to take advantage of our park spaces. we have arboretum fees and i think these kind of policies are creating a less accessible park system, so that will be my guiding principles when i craft limits on privatizing or leasing our park spaces. >> thank you. mr. resignato. >> i agree with what julian just said. i think one of the examples is really the concerts that we have in the parks that are excluding people. for example, i forget the name of it actually. outside lands which cost over $100 a ticket and excludes a lot of people from being able to access the parks. when other concerts that the power of the people concert, which is much more a public and free isn't able to get a permit because it's too expensive. so i think our values have to be

with us, especially in our public spaces, our values have to be to err on