workers, on the backs of our work force, because they cannot afford either. you can afford it, it is time for you to pay up. until we do that, they are going to continue to hold us economically hostage as long as they think they can. one of the reason they are looking to get rid of enterprise zones is that it was found that it does not work. it was intended for new companies to come in, the tax breaks, but what we find, it is simply moving from place to place, getting rid of older workers, getting rid of workers, so they are not creating new jobs. they are just trading off. as long as they can have a tax break and move on. the time but is for us to stop giving up those tax breaks because we need to be able to afford the services we have for people here in san francisco. et -- note -- chair chu: thank

you. >> i have work in the hospital. i am proud to say that both of my children went through the public school system. i am a voter in district 9. one of my children is working at one of the nonprofits that we have talked about before, working to help people in the tenderloin. i work at the hospital. to consider giving a tax break to a multibillion-dollar corporation while we are facing further cuts to the people of san francisco in the areas of mental health, substance abuse, we have almost no inpatient -- in-patient beds, because we have eliminated the beds. for detox, i cannot get them in because there are not enough

services. in my opinion, at a time when we are looking at a $350 million budget deficit for the city, which will mean more cuts for people in san francisco, it is corrupt, and i ask you not to do it. chair chu: thank you. >> larry bradshaw, a paramedic, also with seiu. i want to talk to you about this program, creating a safety net for corporations. there is little evidence to show that business subsidies produce jobs. i lived in the bay area during the last recession of 1983, where we saw city after city competing with other cities to give larger tax breaks to get businesses and corporations to their towns. what we found out in hindsight is that we were paying $200,000 or so for each job. it was not a very efficient way to create jobs.

those studies are out there, and i would urge you to look at them. also, sort of corporate welfare versus welfare for poor people. et -- it seems when it comes to corporate welfare, the bigger the corporation, the more municipalities follow over themselves to give a corporate tax break to them. also, if you are poor, there is a strict time limit when you get welfare. when we give corporate welfare, it goes on. if you are poor and are on welfare, you are also scrutinized. you have to be constantly my new lease scrutinized in everything that you do and report everything note -- you have to be constantly minutely scrutinized in everything that you do and report everything. my biggest worry is that one's

business -- once business hears you are serving up pork -- i think this is bad. chair chu: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am an executive director in the tenderloin. thank you for your service. i have year on behalf of my organization and the board of directors to fully get behind the effort to deliver a catalytic project for mid market. i do a lot of work. foundations, businesses, property owners, youth groups, and work with. a lot of organizations, i can tell you, have had an interest in setting up shop and locating in mid market, but they are kind of waiting for someone to make a

new first move. something inspiring, something that will make people believe, and i think the action you are taking is a brave and bold one and will create a new way of thinking about mid market, and give people confidence in making the investment to come and join. i want to confess, i am not a tech person. i do not have a facebook page. but i do believe that twitter's name will have such a draw and will have a catalytic effect to draw a lot of other companies. i think the people they attract will support all of the mom and pop businesses out there, the cafes, all of the people live and work nearby. i live in the tenderloin and serve in the tenderloin. lastly, about the youth in the tenderloin, i work with several,

including the boys and girls club. they are all into this stuff. i would be happy to volunteer my services to make sure that tu -- twitter is engaged, so people can participate. chair chu: thank you very much. we have are very last speaker. line up in the center aisle. if not, walter will be our last. >> ♪ you give tax like this, and you take tax like that and i knew all along that it is coming on back to us you give tax like this, and you give tax like that

and you know i know that it is all coming back to a city now and you give money, and you act like this, and we need tax back like this it is coming back, it is coming back to us now ♪ chair chu: thank you very much. all right, are there any other members of the public who would like to comment on item number six? [gavel] this item also has an amendment that will require a continuation, but i know that people may also be anxious for the america's cup item, and we expect to take a quick break between this item and the next two. thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi note --

supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to turn back to the controller, but i do not believe that they are here. chair chu: i believe that our office has communicated to them that public comment is closed. if not, we will go to supervisor kim. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to make sure that the comptroller is here. the report by the comptroller, to me, really spells out the whole notion strategically of enterprise zones, and as it applies to this report, this would be a terrible deal if it were not for twitter. do you agree or disagree with that? >> i do not agree with that, and

i do not think that is what the controller said. i do agree with the controllers analysis that enterprise zones have provided very mixed results -- i do agree with the controller's analysis. jobs in blighted areas. i absolutely understand that criticism, but i think the controller wrote -- comptroller 's report is that it would not be justified and would not like reproductive unless there are other elements and other commitments made by the city to make this tax break something that is likely to be effective in producing the type of results that we want, including the commitment to the area, and other programmatic commitments that the city is making, so the tax does not just sit alone, because when it sits alone, it cannot provide the type of

catalytic activity that you want it to provide. because this is a net new proposal that requires the establishment of a base year of payroll tax continuing to be paid throughout the life of the exemption, it is very different from an enterprise zone. you have to grow in order to take advantage of this. supervisor mirkarimi: and just three or presentation alone, about other programmatic enhancements, -- and just through your presentation -- >> i will come back and talk very succinctly about the work we are doing with the partnership and maybe talk a little bit about the future potential. supervisor mirkarimi: just at least the big ones, because i have heard before the public safety is one, potentially muni. i am trying to understand. >> investment in the tenderloin,

or what is about the twitter retention? >> pimm -- supervisor mirkarimi: again, i think they are connected. >> they are absolutely connected. supervisor mirkarimi: there is no analysis on what the other enhancements are in this area. the representation is that this was already in the queue, but there has been no analysis from our budget analysts, and it would be helpful to know what is expected of other city resources, some of these other pitch points in order to make its deal palatable. >> i do not believe there are other rhapsody resources needed to make a pitch to twitter. -- i do not believe there are other resources needed. there is the work that mta is

doing, the work that the planning department is doing all around the improvements on central market street. we are increasingly trying to coordinate them through interagency activities, betterments, and enhancements, and improvements in that neighborhood that require -- supervisor mirkarimi: we get that. let me just turn back to the comptroller. sir, we were having a conversation about enterprise zones, and just really clearly tell me how you would view this particular transaction if it was not for twitter. >> i can start, supervisor, and then he can. i think from the tone of our report, you can see that generally speaking, the view on

enterprise zones is mixed or negative in terms of their performance in the past, which is one of the reasons why the report clearly hinges around that the benefits clearly hinge around the relocation of twitter in this district, and the report generally speaks to the benefits that twitter would have on the neighborhood. it leads up to policy-makers and negotiators to determine whether twitter would relocate to the zone with or without this benefit -- it leaves it up to policy-makers. supervisor mirkarimi: disagreeing with the fact that enterprise zones have get more of a positive effect, that is not my interpretation, and that is not what the history is in san francisco, so i went to get back to the purpose of what this is about. why not just do this so that it localizes strictly for twitter?

why the orbit that has been created in such a way, when we know that the whole impetus is for copter there alone -- is for twitter alone? >> i will say something and then turn this over. the exclusion of other large commercial properties from dezelan. there is the potential financial exposure in the future -- commercial properties from the zone. there will be a benefit to the district and to those buildings that would outstrip the benefit plans that the lack of a payroll tax would have for tenants potentially moving into them. chair chu: i want to take a moment to welcome a supervisor. >> i went to clarify that it is not necessarily the

comptroller's office for the payroll tax exclusion. it was the legislators, along with the mayor's office, that created the boundaries. just to address some of the concerns that were made in public comment and that have come up with the comptroller's report, we want to make sure that if we are going to use this tool, of which many of us are not a fan, generally, of using, we realize that enterprise zones have had very mixed in packs -- note -- impacts. so in order to make sure that we are not giving tax exemptions to companies that already come to these buildings already or buildings that have historically not had trouble attracting tenants, one of the amendments that will be introducing today, we are amending the legislation 3702, lots 44 and others, lot

65, lot 40, and block -- lot 4. so this is based on information that the buildings have historically located, not in need of a payroll tax reduction for net new jobs. also, many tenants would come into this area because of the attraction of twitter coming into the mid market. i also want to clarify that twitter did send a letter to the board of supervisors yesterday, in which they did say that twitter has signed a letter of intent to lease a large block of space of a building on market and 9th. approval as part of the revitalization efforts, without which twitter would not be able to justify the cost burden of staying in san francisco. there were some questions from

my colleagues about whether twitter will stay or not, and twitter has clarified their position that they will. chair chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi. -- mirkarimi: advancing or perhaps not in bits in this legislation, which is why i hold your opinion with high regard -- or perhaps not advancing this legislation. i do not think this is much debatable in san francisco that enterprise zones do not work well, that they have been inflated in their ability to deliver certain results time after time, and, in fact, there have been some adverse effects. why not a recommendation to just strictly localize it on twitter itself? that is number one. and number two is, has there been a survey done note -- done,

especially on buildings most pronounced in their vacancies, it in what they are charging? i'm interested to see what negotiable points where there, if any. i have not been able to get that data. >> supervisor, let me weigh in, if i may, on the first question. i think the first thing to remember, and it was my starting point for analyzing this legislation, is that the bill that is proposed is fairly heterogeneous. mostly large properties, most of which have the office buildings historically, all of which are on the market now or being used as office buildings, and that is the. that -- and that is the area that would be a weak case for an enterprise zone. all of them except for one have been historically used as office buildings.

they are going 3 period of it vacancy now, -- they are going through a. of vacancy now. -- through a period a vacancy now. further up market street, on the other hand, they are the kind of extremely long-term vacant buildings. i have reviewed the asking rents. they are very low by san francisco standards. that is precisely the area where in conjunction with other things an enterprise zone may be something worth trying. frankly, if i were to pine on the legislation just in that area in the absence of twitter, i think it would be more doubtful that it would have any effect rather than the city of fact, subsidizing growth that would happen anyway is, in which case, if those buildings, in my view -- would happen anyways.

there seems to be little harm in trying those. i think that would go to the same extent in the tenderloin. i think the city's real fiscal risk is in the first. -- the first area i alluded to. an area of high vacancy. whether or not there is a tax cut. and we recommended excluding all of those except for one, which appears to be necessary to lee and twitter. -- timbaland twitter -- to land twitter. supervisor mirkarimi: -- >> i was particularly interested in the larger ones. very high it -- rates.

>> -- supervisor mirkarimi: you said low asking rent? >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: one of the sort of spillers is making the area attractive, correct? -- one of the sort of pillars? i think that it adds to the aura of a more inviting area, is that not correct? >> that is part of it. some of it is just different composition, the increased economic activity in the area when twitter and other businesses come to the area. >> but -- supervisor mirkarimi: but let's be specific. this was an area where we were debating on the community justice center, the cjc, that is

not also in antidote? -- an antidote? i just want to understand that as in accessory to this strategy, -- as an accessory to this strategy, people reclaiming the area, the streets, makes it more vital, etc., etc., but it still requires certain services for the city to make it happen did it could be enhanced police services, -- to make it happen. it could be enhanced police services, muni services, right? >> it could be that it winds up being more effective. supervisor mirkarimi: but we do not know it. tell me if anywhere in this can oculist's -- in this calculus --

that adds to, i think, the package as to what makes this just that kind of complete deal. i think we are taking one slice of a 10-supplies10-slice pie pie -- i think we are taking one slice of a 10-slice pie. foot patrols, muni services, did the office looked at any of these? -- look at any of there? >> madam chair, members of the committee, in supervisor mirkarimi, as i mentioned in my report -- and supervisor mirkarimi, these are on the top

of page nine. we do not have costs for these, and i think you raise a valid question. we do not have costs, and we did point out that those costs should be weighed in the context of the budget shortfall in the city and the gain of this legislation in terms of attracting more employees and whether or not the opposite effect -- of forgone revenue, but the bottom line is we did not cost out, we did not get specifics on those services is that would be provided. supervisor mirkarimi: so i will conclude on this remark and give it to my colleagues. i do not think that there is anybody in this city government that wants to see twitter league san francisco -- leave san

francisco. i do not. and not to see them stay and flourish. my interests in this conversation is how thorough and comprehensive analysis is. the self-evident reason of trying to retain twitter and be kind of fancy with our strategy legislatively to encompass all larger orbits around twitter -- in compass a larger orbit -- encompass a larger orbit. answering questions we have not been able to answer. i feel this discussion is slightly premature, if we move into a vote in areas where i do not feel we have a full understanding of what it means, not just in trying to secure

twitter's retention but also about the unintentional consequences of other companies, you know, i think for a probably accurate depiction note, who also threatened the same exit. accurate depiction -- i think for a probably accurate depiction, who also threaten the same exit. as to what the excess costs are going to be on public safety and other areas. this area, mid market, i do think does require the city's love and attention where it has not before, and i think it is nice if we are able to stimulate a public-private relationship that will be able to answer that larger call. if this is an attempt to do this, then, i think, in part, i am hearing some justification, but not in a way that i think it

seals the deal for me, and i think it is incumbent on the city to answer those questions, which have not been answered yet, so that is where i am in this conversation. i want to thank supervisor kim and others for helping us at least peel back some of the larger concerns, and some of those concerns are class issues. there will be an inevitable situation with class issues in an area that has been well stratified between those having a hard time being able to stay in san francisco or cannot leave because they have nowhere to go versus those who want to make san francisco their home and make it attractive enough where we may not see the validity or incentive of trying to keep that melting pot of class, so i think that this issue does stimulate that debate, that discussion.

i do not think there has been a clear answer that has been offered here in how to make this happen, but as far as what we are expecting -- discussing today, i do not think this will be the last time we are discussing it. thank you. .chair chu: -- chair chu: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. i think there are some comments that supervisor kim wants to make. i would like to clarify that this is about the buildings, saying that the buildings that we believe will be able to continue to receive tenants, we are going to exempt those buildings from being able to take a bandage of the tax exclusion, so the action would -- to take the advantage of the tax exclusion. correct? ok. supervisor kim?

supervisor kim: my apologies. so at this time, i want to take and time -- take some time. i have been in conversations, so there is some time for the board to consider these amendments. i would like to and corporate the amendments that were submitted by our budget analyst that clarified language to ensured that we are giving a tax exemptions for net new jobs in san francisco -- to ensure the we are giving tax exemptions -- that we are giving tax exemptions. one is to take up the language, the 90% employees -- take out the language. and the second is to amend some of the language, to clarify