i do not think we should be under any illusion that this incentive in itself is a solution, but it is a coordinated land-use and economic development strategy that has really evolved over time, due to some past failures and successes, but i think ultimately, in combination, they will be successful. it is already being proposed in combination with a number of other types of strategies. you are talking streetscape improvements, technical assistance to small businesses to help place them in some of these spaces. partnership in coordination with community benefit districts and other types of coordination to help get more attention here. while the primary focus of this discussion has really been about twitter, i think it is really about the city's overall efforts to attract businesses, to reactivate the corridor in a way that is worthy of -- [bell rings] >> good afternoon, supervisors. longtime resident of district 6.

the truth is i'm a little ambivalent about twitter and this location. i certainly recognize that it is a good idea to have a company like this in the city of san francisco, but i'm hearing a lot about how jobs are going to be created, how this is going to benefit the neighborhood, and my experience has told me that that is not necessarily always the case. that a lot of times, what happens is that people from other parts of the state, and work in our city. yes, that is a good thing, but you are talking about the benefit is going to have for the immediate neighborhood, and i just do not know that that is not -- that that is necessarily true. i'm more worried about the gentrification. worried about how the people that come here are just going to come here, work, and leave and not spend all that much money here. i'm just telling you what i feel and what my experience has told me. i am just a little ambivalent about it, and i think this needs

a little more thought before it is approved. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. [applause] if i could ask the members of the public to refrain from clapping, we would like to move through public comment. >> hello. i'm with the housing rights committee. i have been an activist for 40 years. i want to ask one question, and that is -- what happens to the residents of the tenderloin if this goes through? my best guess is they get evicted eventually, all of them, because as the property values soared, landlord prices -- they can get a lot more money for their property, so all they have to do is read it out for a lot more money. but control does not matter. neither does the just cause we put out in the castro where i was active in fighting the dot- com boom. people got evicted. as a clear man, i am particularly concerned about the tenderloin because it is the

last refuge for pork, clear, and transgendered folks -- poor, queer, and transgendered folks. that is where they live. a lot of poor, queer, and transgendered folks live in the tenderloin, and they will be put out, and there is nowhere for them to go. just like all the other people who live in the tenderloin now. there is nowhere for them to go, and i have yet to hear a viable plan for what is going to happen to all of these folks. there is also a lot of queer history in the tenderloin. the first rise by transgendered folks have been in the tenderloin in 1966, but there were also organizations prior to 1969, and there were lots of clears -- queers living in that neighborhood.

the fate of all of those people who currently live in this neighborhood are on view right now. if you make the wrong decision, it is on your conscience, and you are going to have to live with it. thank you. [applause] supervisor chu: thank you. again, please refrain from clapping. we are going to move through public comment as quickly as possible. >> i'm hoping i can provide a slightly different perspective. i just moved out here. i'm a computer programmer who will dare to started task company. people want to hear. you do not need to the special incentives. i think -- you know, again, i'm new in town, so i do not know how it works, but it seems to be the same everywhere in the country. you end up giving away incentives trying to bring business into an area to make the neighborhood better, and all that is up happening is the residents of the neighborhood get kicked out. that happens over and over, and i did not see why this is any

different. does not seem like you need to do anything special. you are forgetting you are the greatest teth city in the world. try not to forget that. supervisor chu: thank you very much. before the next speaker, let me read a few names. >> i work with the coalition on homelessness. i am opposed to the legislation before you. the rent is too dam high. this is a basic economic facts in san francisco. i'm saying this not because it hurts my pocket, which it does, but because since 1980, we seem to have lost sight of it. governments do not need to subsidize real-estate dealings that are not, have never been and we have no reason to ever believe will be economically viable. so instead of the other property and cannot find tenants at current events without a tax is a gin and has not been able to do so since well before the recent recession, then the reds on the properties are too dam

high, and markets should be allowed to drive them down until residents can afford them. this is basic economics. we are not talking about legitimate government involved in economics like the creation of infrastructure. we are talking about something which has real consequences, and ignoring this is very real for us. by effectively subsidizing rent, we keep the barriers to entry to hide. we keep the city on the hook for supporting an insane and unsustainable real-estate system just like our government did through supporting it was realistic district at a national level here finally and mostly to my heart, this organization forces ran higher, keeping to many of us out of stable housing. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> supervisors, i am supervisors -- i am with seiu

1021. until the legislation already has the required number of votes and we should not even bother with. that is probably true. but i see that there are two cats we can take. i would suggest to you right now that the path you have chosen is of big landlords running the show, big business running the show. there is another path, one where the community is more involved. i'm not going to say that we do not support some form of redevelopment, but the path you have taken will gentrify the neighborhood, will push out immigrant families, will push out people of color, will push up for people, and i'm sure there were organizations that supported what happened in the western addition, right? i'm sure there are organizations that supported what happened in the western addition to serve four people. this is not new. we have seen it before, and we are seeing it again. i will just say this -- seiu 1021 primarily riverses working- class families who have been

driven out of the city, many of whom had been driven out because of high rent. this will just expand that. on a personal note, as a transgendered person, i am clear that tommy is correct, that transgendered people will be driven out of this neighborhood. i'm clear that this legislation passes, what you have done is what he has called queer removal. i just want to put it out there that we're clear on what is happening. it may be that the votes are there and you may win the vote, but you lose the war. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> hello, supervisors. fine with -- i'm with seiu, speaking in opposition. it is difficult standing against some of the leaders i have seen in this room speak. i know what i particular, ran the shop, what he and his work have done for the tenderloin --

randy shaw. it is difficult to stand against some of the supervisors who are in support of the legislation, but i do so in good conscience. a lot of the comments that were said today i do not want to reiterate, but there is one. there is the issue of the larger real estate owners that are sort of getting off the hook with this legislation. it is important for them to create incentives to bring and draw businesses into the community. the other thing is back if you do decide, and it seems that you will, to move forward with this legislation, i ask you to look at this call back provision. i have been told that it requires that businesses receive a tax break to pay the taxes they owe if they relocate, so there should be some breeds that if they leave, they do not live up to their full commitment, that they do pay back those losses. in closing, i just want to say one thing -- not all money is

good money. we have to remember that. we are often pitted, and there will be some leaders here from the workers who stand to get jobs from this. workers are going to be fitted on both sides of this issue, and i'm hoping, through the leadership in this board of supervisors, that you will find a way to address everyone's concerns. the lady who said government should stay out of the way, the odd thing is they want government to stay out of the way, but they want us to give them the money. they want us to give them everything that we offer and then stepped out of the way. they cannot have it both ways. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm the executive director at the central market community benefit district. we provide programs and services to benefit the public space. we have folks on the street to clean up graffiti, pick up mills, address feces, and try to

address people who are homeless and in need of social services. in short, we are trying to make the neighborhood into a cleaner, safer, and more inviting area. central market and the pavilion neighborhoods, as you have heard and know, have suffered from decades of neglect, missed opportunities, and lack of political support. the central market community benefit district has formed an established just five years ago to provide programs to improve the central market neighborhood and to work in cooperation with the city and public and private sectors and to help undo decades of despair. after decades of neglect, the time is now. the time is now to attract new businesses to our in the office buildings and vacant storefronts, to bring more people to pay to announce our neighborhood small businesses and critical mass to support our merchants. the time is now to attract more foot traffic and positive pedestrian activity to our streets and public spaces that

have suffered from crime and antisocial behavior. the support of other city agencies and strong supervisors are all critical to improving the central market and tenderloin neighborhoods and strengthening its health and vitality. right now, and to create opportunities and ensure benefits in the future. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> i'm here to speak against the tax break for what amounts to a multimillion-dollar company.

i know this could spur economic growth, but there's no guarantee of that spirit with its guaranteed is that we will lose six years' worth of revenue, and who is to say that twitter cannot just say they will improve the space, and if they did not get the tax break here, they will move on. supervisor chu: thank you. >> tenderloin housing clinic. one thing that i think has not been discussed so far is that in the tenderloin and on market street, there are areas people feel unsafe around. market street between sixth and 10th is an area in which most residents will tell you they do not go there after dark, the giggly women, but it really people with disabilities, because we feel very vulnerable in those areas -- particularly women, particularly people with

disabilities because we feel very vulnerable in those areas. legislation provides an incentive to fill office space. office space right now where we have 50% vacancy. that is a staggering amount of space going unused. a staggering amount of general fund money not being collected. i mean, it is truly an unfathomable to me that we are turning this into something that it really is not. what we have here is an opportunity without redevelopment, which, by the way, takes away more general fund money than is ever would, to revitalize an area that by all definitions is blighted. i also want to emphasize things that i do not think have been hit yet. which is that we have the potential to attract a grocery store to the taylor and eddy area. we have the potential to turn

the original joe's into a more usable space. this is much more than just market street. in the tenderloin, if you walk the streets, you will see there is very limited store fronts, contrary a popular belief. because it is so limited, those storefronts are so much more important because they really anchor the areas to the neighbors. this is a public safety issue. this is an opportunity to turn something -- [bell rings] supervisor chu: 90. >> my name is chris daly, and in a crowd san francisco progress of not afraid to stand up to unbridled corporate power. initially, when i heard about this proposal, opposed it from a budget/justice perspective. as this community prepares to deliberate, some places have already been closed. resource centers are yet to be

named $27 million in health cuts, which will tear apart the center city of san francisco in the system of services and care that the city has developed over the years. instead, we are here talking about giving away or foregoing -- however you want to put it -- up to $22 million to a corporation valued in the billions. as the administration stands here and claims that the city will not lose any revenue with the tax loophole, that assumes no new job creation over the next eight years. i think that assumption is incorrect. not to mention that the tax collector cannot even estimate the number of businesses that will be affected. but as i read more and think about it more, i think that this is not merely primarily a budget issue. this is a land grab. this is a classic san francisco land use issue where the show instead of properties of the

world stand to get even richer as the rents go up. for those who shrugged off gentrification in the mid market and the tenderloin, take a look at the grant buildings. remember the grand building tenants association. organizations like for magazines ousted. that was a community-serving space. the upscale youth hostel -- we will see more and more things like the it even buildings get evicted. three months ago, i stood up to someone who was threatening the city -- supervisor chu: thank you. >> someone needs to stand up again to the corporate read and do the people's work. [applause] supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. let me read a few more names.

>> good morning -- actually, good afternoon. i am the president of seiu local 87. we represent 3500 janitors in the city of san francisco. i want to be able to point out to you that i have been working in this district for the last 14 years, and i appreciate that the former supervisor is here because he should know firsthand what it is like to be able to walk on golden gate on monday morning and smell the fresh urine and feces all over the streets in that district. i know that our new supervisor has just come into the district, and we are hoping that a lot of changes will be coming. we are very much in support. all of our members joining us

today are unemployed. [speaking spanish] they have been on the bench the last year-and-a-half. eight years to have 22 janitors. it is now down to only three and a half janitors. at one south van ness, we are in a huge fight. yesterday, we completed our 60 days of being there on the line. i have not seen an uproar of people about how so many families are becoming unemployed. when bank of america laid off 22 of our janitors, there was not a hearing on it. in 39 the market lost 17 janitors. there was not a hearing about it. our supervisor was not doing anything about it. i'm here because we are people of color. our members are gay. we are unemployed, and their families are hungry. that is why we are here in support of this legislation. i will not play into the

politics or be used to be able to be pitted against our sister union, 1021, who have also stood on the line with us. but the devil is in the details. these jobs will be created, and we are in support of it on behalf of our families. thank you. [applause] supervisor chu: thank you. if i could ask folks to refrain from clapping so we could move through public comment. >> i think you will be able to refrain from clapping for me. especially on that side of the rail. in a san francisco bulldog. i have been in the tenderloin for between 30 or 40 years, and i can tell you exactly what happened here when i moved in, mid-market was booming. a lot of burlesque places and things like that. was all working people. they were hard-working people. two things happened. all of the working people move out.

we got the opportunity -- the reason they moved out -- because a young man came to san francisco with a business plan. he got control of the building through the city, and he filled the building full of drugs and drug addicts and insane people. you know why? because the government, all branches of government send checks to him every month to take care of their rent. he did not have to worry about it for family that was going to move out. that man's name is randy shaw. that man did reverse gentrification here you have 12,000 or 15,000 bronx, alcoholics, drug addicts, and insane people living in that area. in one building. he got 464 police calls in the last six months. this guy is going to be your savior? we had an opportunity. we could have moved this population to treasure island,

and to the presidio. when the government gave us those bases, we were supposed to use them for the homeless. no, we make the presidio into an office park, and we are going to make hotels and condos on treasure island. that was done by your predecessors at the board of supervisors. remember -- the reason that neighborhood is holy hell is because of randy shaw's business plan. the drugs, insane people, and attics that are there are his customers. that is your problem. supervisor chu: thank you. let me read a few more names. [reading names] >> good afternoon. i have been at the civic center for the last 13 years.

i'm yet to top about the impact of the 1.5% tax credit. every year, when i set my roommate, one of the main decisions i based that on is based on my neighborhood. -- when i set my room rate. the value of my neighborhood is the value of my room, so i have to incentivize people to come into my area because of the neighborhood. if i take my rooms and add the three major hotels, we have 1000 rooms with a 7%, and if i calculated that, $10 average room rate increase because of the neighborhood. the revenue the city will make out of our three hotels will be

over $500,000. if you add -- and this is just without adding any other businesses -- if you add the rate the occupancy will increase, we are talking maybe another $500,000. again, i think that when we look at the effects to create business, we also need to realize that 1% of zero is zero. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you very much. before we go to the next public speaker, i would like to take a quick pause to allow supervisor avalos to say few words. supervisor avalos: 90. appreciate your letting me say few words. i appreciate folks coming out on both sides of the issue and

making their positions known. i'm concerned about what we are doing here today in terms of giving tax exemptions in the mid market area. i think about wealth in this country, well in the city, disparity between wealth, and this is a decision as we move forward on these exemptions, that ic. it creates disparities in wealth in this city and in this country. i look at -- i was just shown a map recently of district 10 and district 11 of foreclosures and defaults on properties. single-family homes in district 10 and district 11. the magnitude of the crisis in housing is astronomical. we do not have a response as a city about that crisis. we have people losing well --

wealth. as the faults in foreclosures are happening, property values are going down. we do not have a response for that is -- as a city. in the meantime, we are making decisions that would provide greater wealth to people are already getting wealthy. investors, people who are investing in twitter and other companies, or commercial real estate buildings and interest that own those buildings in the mid-market area. that is a major concern of mine. i think of the haves and have- nots and the have mores and the have almost everything. the almost everything havers are getting more and more, and we are taping their way with decisions like this. i worry about being able to call at the increasing disparity in wealth if we approve things like this. do we lose our ability to call out the widening disparities of wealth by actually approving

wider disparities in wealth in san francisco? that is a big concern of mine. 65% of the workers who work for twitter right now do not want to leave san francisco. they do not want to work anywhere else. and rightly so. what a great city. what great benefits we do provide. what great infrastructure we provide. the workers here, despite muni being always at the crisis point, people can get to work on muni. they can get to work on their bicycles. all throughout the city, actually, a lot of bikers atwitter who ride their bicycles in. it's great to see that kind of infrastructure support a good work climate here. there are many things we do it as a city to encourage economic development. i think we need to be fair about how we approach it. this, i see, is not a very fair way of making our decisions

because there are many communities across the city who do not get this advantage. ion -- there are many communities that do not get this well. many businesses are struggling that do not get these advantages. many economic sectors do not get these advantages. i look in january, and i saw that the votes will probably here in the past six months for this legislation, but i think we should be cautious about doing things like this. it sends the wrong message about where we really stand on equality and economic opportunity, and it really sends the wrong message for communities that are struggling in san francisco. i will most likely be voting against this when it comes to the full board. i do appreciate the concern that colleagues have and city members have about the economic blight that has been in the mid-market area. i look at the real life as not

the facility where the sfmart is, but actually a little bit east. lastly, i do appreciate the comments made by local 87. there are jobs that are not just technology jobs that will be in this building, but we know that these jobs will also pick up as well. janitorial jobs, security jobs, building maintenance jobs. all those jobs will also increase. i'm not sure this economic engine we are trying to create here is going to be one that will make things work in the area. thank you very much. i appreciate the time. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor avalos, and thank you to the members of the public who waited patiently. next speaker please. >> good afternoon. i have been south of market street for about 15-plus years. there is a lot of trying to make h