a lot of what they are doing. the last time i spoke about this, i supported them but i was speaking about some kind of condition. if we are going to have this with the community that we can monitor and work directly, you would have this going back and forth and then when this is time for renewal, people do not know to support this or not. and i have tried everything in my power to connect with them, to make sure the community has a voice. i know a lot of people -- rooted in the community, but in a way with the community does not feel left out. we need some kind of investigation because at the end of the day, you are responsible.

some people just say to do away with it, and i do not think this but i think we need to read everything that has been done in the past. and this board and this body should protect them and guard them. it seems the office of workplace development does not step up when this is critical but they want to support when everything is going great. let's get some further information so we can see where we are going with this. >> you asked for an investigation. i would like to hear what aspects you would like? >> i have requested information but this was not forthcoming in a timely manner.

some of the minutes are not in place. and since they operate and we get secondary information, it puts us in the position where we cannot speak intelligently about what is going on. the other major property owners are stepping back because nobody wants to be liable for what may happen down the line. -- everyone talks about transparency. without transparency, you don't have people who feel that they're working for other interests rather than the community. and renaming this is even a controversial issue for the community. >> thank you. >> supervisors.

i see some of you are paying attention and some of you think that this is a circus or something. the constituents here talk about these machinations with no transparency, and someone has a history of what is happening in the film more starting with the redevelopment, and with people coming here and just making general statements, and you are supposed to represent, not paying attention and then there cannot be education. let me put this assembly. so we can get to the point. 35% of the population of san francisco were african-american. with the unfinished agenda, find

out what is the state of affairs. the supervisors have come back from a vacation and i hope that you are refreshed to do some research on this. you think that everything is rosy, but we are in dire economic times. when the constituents come to speak on the things where they need to your help, the least you can do is listen to them. some of you have been bought by the big developers and you have sold your soul and not represented -- you are buffoons, thank you very much. >> and are there any other members of the public wishing to speak? >> thank-you, chairman and members of the board.

i have appeared before you on this matter, some time ago. i am here to set the record straight about the transparency of the operation as well as the ongoing efforts to renew this. with respect to transparency, i urge members of the board and the public to take a moment to access all of the activities, the minutes, the latest audit, the annual report, which is managed by the office of economic and work-force development and the events going on in the community. we make an effort to send e-mail notification about all the meetings, and we actually pose

them around the neighborhood, physically, and furthermore, we make an effort to reach out to the community, up and down the street. the issue of transparency and information is one that each and everyone of us has to take some initiative to learn about. and i just ask everyone here to go on the web site, what is that website? the fillmore district, and just learn more about this before you pass judgment. thank you. >> any other members of the public.

>> i am not on this and i never have been. i don't plan to in the future. the biggest problem that they have had and they are having an no one has mentioned this that there are two giant elephants in the room. the fillmore center and safe way. they are pulling back because they don't want to be associated with what may go on. fillmore center has been in control for any realistic purposes since the inception. this has existed and the general manager has been the chair and they have had three or four votes on the board at all times. and now, they and safeway don't want to give their money.

not even discussing the millions of dollars that they take out of that community, every day. at one time, this was the no. 1 safeway in northern california. and if you look at that safeway, and i have gone to every safeway in san francisco, every one of them is better cared for. i want to talk about where the responsibility is in that community and the lack of support has been murderous for any of the efforts we tried to handle in our community. they do not support or give back and that is why they're having these problems. the reason you are being put over his unwillingness to

support these efforts. >> the next speaker? ♪ i hoep you name the district right in the filmore district you love so much. how i love to see it turn out great in the district filmore above after a while you will find a new name and then it will be a better change share your jazz love underscore me my disguise. oh hope you name it right and fix it up today ♪ >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

>> thank you, board members. thank you for continuing this item. i don't know how many people -- i hope to look more forward into this issue. the young man talking about transparency says he thinks this is transparency. one thing we ask for was transparency. the two people who went to negotiate came back with an idea of having the fillmore center, the biggest real-estate organization, having to veto power. this is the kind of fundamental human right, this is where they were confronted and i need you to understand what is behind this, that we are upset about.

all the people you have heard so far are not property owners and some of them do not even live there. you need to get stakeholders and board members negotiating. this means, at the expense of losing my rights or my people's rights, my democratic rights, this will not happen. they have the publicly funded properly for $200 million in five years. the safeway got their land at $5 per square foot. this is not just the legislation, because there are underlying issues here. i ask the supervisors to give the stakeholders -- get them involved in the negotiations,

and not just individuals who don't know if they are coming or going. >> are there other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? at this time we're going to continue the hearing to october 18. >> to reinforce, i think the feeling in the room, this is what i warned about. most of these are on the track of 10-15 years and i put this on the track of five. we have the governance by redevelopment, who were just including their 45-year reign in the film more in japan town. the city was not equipped to deal with the conversion of a community that had been developed with redevelopment

policy, and despite what the redevelopment may have thought that they were doing to better the exit, there was still not an efficient exit plan, when the redevelopment jurisdiction on land use, in the merchant corridor, the terminated in 2009. i predicted that there would be concerns and i put this on a five-year renewal. i am is still not satisfied, even by great efforts in the community to make this the more of a collaborative medium and large businesses. but when i detect that the largest businesses benefited from the redevelopment capital, that are not paying their fair share, this does of firm the

arguments of myself and others, where they have too much influence and not being the continuation of a collaborative process. i appreciate your indulgence, unless these conditions are made clear, it is tough for me to endorse this. but open-minded to hoping that the negotiations lead to a different result. what you hear is a continued ventilation that has been ongoing for many years, but it should not go unnoticed that this percolation that has been going on for many years has just manifest itself in another discussion. if i did not detect that there will be -- proper resolution to this argument, in questioning

the renewal by the 18th, i will send this back to committee, so this will not occupy any more time on the board by itself. i think the stakeholders in this discussion -- they have a tough decision to ensure this from redevelopment. this did require that like a military base -- as this is exited, this requires a closure plan on that level of knowledge. there should be a closure plan relative to the impact of the two generations and that plan, this by the demands that this should be in place, this was not in place to the extent that it should have been. this was an agent that could make up for all of those years.

we do need to see the economic development and vitality and they have all the merits of being that one creature, but not that one creature alone. >> thank you, we have a motion to hold the hearing opened, and continue these items to october 18, 2011 at 3:00 p.m. so that the difference stakeholders' including the business and property owners can work on a possible management district plan. is there a second of the motion? colleagues, can we continue this without objection? that should be the case. we don't have any 3:30 special orders, and the 4:special orders will be continued. if there are members of the public who wish to speak to that, they can do this at 4:00 p.m.. can we do the roll call for

introductions. >> supervisor? >> thank you very much. colleagues, i want to come back to an item that we spent a great deal of time talking about in the last few weeks. this is the legislation that i introduced a few months ago to close a loophole in assisting the health care security ordnance. as many of you know, there exists a loophole allows certain businesses to charge consumers in the city and county of san francisco money to provide health care for their workers by way of helping with reimbursement accounts. the loophole allows the businesses to collect that money

but we have found out from the office of labor enforcement standards at 80% of that money, collected from consumers, most of this is not expanded on the health care of workers. we have gone through an extensive process of deliberation, hearing the matter at the small business commission and the health commission here in the city and county of san francisco. the matter has come before the board. and based on that input, and comments from a number of individuals including members of the business community and workers and members of the board, myself and a number of sponsors have a revised version of this legislation to provide modifications that make the legislation be consistent with

the current practice that the health the san francisco program follows, and as revised, the legislation will require that these accounts remain open, not indefinitely but for up to 18 months, but if an account is not active following this time, along the lines of how the health the san francisco program works, the account will be closed. this is consistent with the feedback that we have received from members of the business community and the health commission, in supporting this legislation, to underscore the importance of making certain that the practice that the legislation puts forward is the practice the city currently follows with healthy san francisco. i would like to thank my colleagues, who have signed on as the co-sponsors of this

legislation, i want to thank you for your support as well as eric maurer, supervisor of a los, and mercury me. a lot has been said about this legislation, but the one thing that is clear in the last few weeks since we introduced this is the importance to close this loophole. what we have found speaking to so many people of san francisco is that they understand the importance of health care, that something that is so basic to the lives of all people, and we are proud of the fact that we have led the way on this issue, and closing this loophole is important to make certain that we can have meaningful, universal health care. the matter has been heard before and we're asking that the 30-day

rule be waived, and depending on the schedule of the different committees, we ask for them to be given to the government oversight committee. depending on the time line, would be better in terms of expediting this legislation. i don't know if my co-sponsors would add anything. and i want to thank all the members of the board who have added their thoughts and comments on this very important issue. i would like to thank our labour partners and the many businesses that have shared with us the importance of leveling the playing field so that all the businesses can not only comply with the letter but also the spirit of the original legislation. and the rest i submit. >> colleagues, i have two items.

the first is a resolution for more pilot projects downtown, including the diversion of private automobiles to increase travel. every weekday, 200,000 people on market street, 200,000 experience this on foot. i believe a vision for the future of market street is a world-class avenue that draws their success from a number of people that they attract through transit and taxis, without private automobiles save for delivery vehicles. since 2009, a series of trials have directed that the traffic through lead to reduced traffic and greater safety.

80% of the traffic is not a involved travelling on it. this would improve the safety of pedestrians, and the automobile diversions -- one possible pilot could be the extension of the lanes on market street. this will be repaved in 2015, and they are working on a real imagines street design. we need to have more pilots, now. i respect the role of the mass transit authority to look at how this could work, but now's the time to celebrate the efforts to improve market street. i am also introducing a number of pieces of legislation, and if you'll remember 2009, we asked the voters of san francisco to pass proposition 8, which has

led to a budget reform. and we have the budget realignment that we will experience in a few months, as well as financial planning to establish a new process through which we could consider financial policies. we passed a number of financial policies to increase our cash reserves, and this year we introduced for pieces of legislation and i want to thank mayor lee, and i want to thank the controller and his staff for all the work that they have done. the supervisor will be speaking about a fourth piece of information about the policy that i support. the three pieces i will be introducing will be for financial policies related to the limiting of the use of non- recurring revenue for the operating expenses, and the

enterprise agencies to enter into the fixed budget cycle and streamlining the financial process. i think this is part of a package, which is part of a process to reform the budget process and continue to make certain the structural budget deficits is under control. >> thank you. i just have one item. this is a resolution that transcends the life of someone who, after i read to you the impact he has had on me and people that i know, and supervisor avalos could also. peter berg was a visionary activist, analyzing all aspects of human species interactions, participating early in civil

rights movement. this was an earlier founding, in san francisco. they continued as a director for 38 years. rehabing a separate country, going to northern california -- and the publication that actually went further for the creation of the department of the environment.

the green city program, this proclaims this day peter berg day, in a celebration of his life. the first environmental commission was started, and i was here with the first generation. this is one of the early works that helps to create the commission on the environment. >> colleagues, i have two items. the first as a resolution authorizing the mass transit authority to look into the early termination agreements. this is something we have to discuss -- this will be done at

zero cost to the city of san francisco and they will head off the very expensive consequences if the stay in place. the investors involved in these transactions, as we are all painfully aware, we have gone through two financial crises. if the ratings slip, we will be forced to answer into a much more expensive contract to early terminate the agreements. these are the dire financial consequences. introducing the ordinance along with the comptroller's office, i want to thank the director, along with the co-sponsors, earlier this year, i had called for a hearing on the use of

participation here on city hall. i was surprised because we had nearly $1 billion in non-voters approved debt on the books. and also the fact these are used at times and have been in the past four ongoing -- we have been in discussions with the comptroller's office about how to reduce this for city hall with the legislation today. cops will not be allowed to finance operating costs with the city of san francisco. this will finance the improvement thereof. and this formalizes the prior statements, with the revenue bond debt, used for capit