only millionaires, that is going to be a problem. if we have to have housing for the working class. we have yet to see something in its scope or of the same scale that would help to develop housing for working class is in the city. i think that is part of the key issue here and why this tenant filed her complaint. four tenants have filed formal complaints. something is wrong with this board, over half of which approved. this is a deeply concerning issue that you should take to heart in terms of the election, the lack of discussion in terms of people running for mayor. that is the key issue. transit-oriented development is not the only issue. you have got to connect the dots and be able to develop housing.

you need rental housing in westport, nothing else. >> my interests in the city are personal, direct from my experience. i think change has to be made. people have to take seriously that we have thugs running and harming people. not sufficient education and protection for our future and for the children of the city. when i have come over and over to mayors or supervisors or people running for mayor, i said it is a good idea to give me some protection. instead, i cannot even get so much as a respite. i get 10 hours of sleep in five days after a broken arm,

concussion, anything else. when i came to you, i was promised health and respite. i have been asking -- i sing happy songs for kids. i have no convictions. yet 75 times, i have been illegally tortured, i have come to you with torture. i have come to you to protect women new respect. i want change that is sufficient and helpful and i want to be able to be a part, maybe even a paid participant. i had a genius iq. i care and see whats wrong. no one will protect my campaign. i do not have a campaign now. i have nothing. zero. a life preserver. a bone was good. i at least got a pay your fair share that was on the buses. how about stop the graffiti that

is dragged into our brains on a regular basis on these buses. we do not need that. if i were here, the people who have the filth of the automobiles would be refunded. it would be getting free bus service that works. i cannot get a platform together. president chiu: thank you very much. the next speaker. >> my name is larry. i have a little experience. i did run for mayor in 1999. i did get eight votes. i am here today to say welcome to this new room you are all in. today is the anniversary, 48 years ago they had a rebellion. i want to invite the supervisors and the community to come out this friday to city hall from

5:00-9:00. they are going to have president barack obama rolled to a national a top. they need you to come and give out information. some people will not be able to be here because it is payday. but san francisco will be the first city in the 15 -- in the 50 states to develop a national policy for president obama in 2012. i have been using medical marijuana and it has promoted racism. another thing i found out, in bayview, on the 29th, this chicken is so good it can help you get over racism, homophobia. it was so good i started crying. i thought i was at a funeral. if we need more people to eat some of this.

j &j fish is good. i am telling you. i want to ask the brothers at bca. we need you to come to city hall this friday and give out what you know about aids and how it is affecting us. we need a national policy on this. i want you to supervise our loved. the fish, good fish that makes you feel godly. president chiu: thank you for that. the next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. and the circus we call the board of supervisors. we do things a little different in the bay area than the rest of

the nation, don't we? yes, they rip you off constitutionally. for 165 years, we have horse boarding in the county of san francisco. at its epicenter, it is ground zero where william hammond hall, the designer of golden gate park, built the stables. there were tragically closed september of 2001 by resolution from this board of supervisors stating that they would reopen it in the quickest, most efficient manner possible. here we are 10 years later and not one shovel of dirt has been lifted to bring those stables and the community of people that

were as historic as any community in this city, like i said, 165 years. we had public horse boarding in the city. it brings me to the subject of sleeper politicians. we know what sleeper cells are, but what is a sleeper politician? it is someone who says or does anything to get into office. once they get to office -- he shoots the public in the back of the head, just like major nadal malick hassan did at fort hood. except we are dealing with politicians aren't legislation instead of bullets. it is the same effect. president chiu: thank you very much. thank you very much.

next speaker. >> i am here for a third time. i have some handwritten notes that i wanted to give to your clerk. perhaps you can hand them over to the supervisors, each a copy for them. today i want to speak about what i call the ark. in memory of a doctor who practiced here in san francisco. i would like to recommend that the city of san francisco engraved the stone sculpture that sits on polk st. on the far left by mcalester and with the following words, "let him kiss me with the kisses of

his mouth for your love is more beautiful than mine." i have a few words i would like to share. "i believe in justice and mercy. i believe in the bible and the charter of the united nations. i believe in the oath of office. therefore, the people of the state of california are hereby accuse, the 44th president of the united states of america, of high crimes and misdemeanors. specifically, the murder of dr. robert c. scott." thank you. president chiu: thank you. any other members of the general public who would like to comment? seeing none, public, is closed. why don't we go to our four- o'clock special order? items 31-34. clerk calvillo: this comprises a

special order at 4:00. persons on the special interests of the planning commission conditional use authorization to install a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of nine antennas on the roof of a five-story publicly used structure located at 4141 geary boulevard and 46 e. item 32 -- the motion approving the planning commission decision. item 33 -- a motion disapproving the planning commission decision related to a conditional use. item 34 -- a preparation of the findings. supervisor mar: i moved to suspend this so that the sponsor can spend time meeting with the

of pellets -- the appellates, angeles children's center so they can work out an agreement. i am doing my best to work between them to come up with an agreement. i make a motion to continue this until october 25, 2011. president chiu: supervisor mar has made a motion to continue to october 25. seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. are there any members of the public who wish to speak on whether or not we should continue this item to the 25th? seeing none, public, is closed. on a motion to continue, any objection? these items will be continued to the 25th of october. why don't we move to hour closed session. could you please call items 35 and 36? clerk calvillo: item 35 is the

board of the supervisors to convene in a closed session today to consult with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation regarding the public financing law. item 36 is from the rules -- mr. president, you asked me to read item 36 as well? it is on the rules committee on the campaign and governmental conduct code. capping the amount of public matching funds. president chiu: at this time, members of the public, i would like you to step outside while we consider these items.

president chiu: colleagues, we are back in open session. welcome to the board of supervisors meeting for the 27 of september. there was a motion supervisor kim had made the was seconded by supervisor campos. he clerk reminded me we need to make sure there is no objection to going into closed session. there was not and we were in closed session. now that we have come out, could i ask for a motion that we do not disclose information we discussed in closed session? motion passes.

that is item 35. why don't we move to item 36, which has already been read? item 36 is the legislation proposed by supervisor farrell around tapping of the amount of public matching funds -- capping the amount of public of matching funds. supervisor kim: this was a very important case that we need to understand. it was important we have the discussion today. for members of the public, three months ago the supreme court issued a ruling striking down the financing law which allows publicly funded candidates to receive additional dollars of of an enumerated expenditure ceiling when a privately funded candid that exceeded that

ceiling. the majority opinion was clear that it was not the amount of financing dollars but how it was provided. they argued this "shilled 1st amendment rights" and allowed the pocketed kennetts to benefit. the court held that the presidential public financing system was constitutional. in that stated the policy was created to reduce the deleterious influence of contributions to our electoral process and to facilitate communication by canada's to the electorate. the court recognize that large, private contributions may result in political quid pro quo and weaken confidence in our political system. the court declared that it does

not infringe upon first amendment values. the justice clearly stated in her dissent that the majority holds that the sec and the state system, the system that produces honest government, working on behalf of all honest people, clashes with the constitution. it seems the we have this very case coming to us in san francisco. questioning and a weakening of the public financing laws that we have put into place. while i understand my colleagues who put this forward in to avoid litigation and pay attorneys' fees, they want to further weaken democracy. i feel we did not fully examine our more comprehensive amended which would eliminate the trigger element of our public financing laws. but also make reforms that would

strengthen our original intent in trading public financing laws. which is to decrease public perception of opportunities of abuse for deep pocketed contributors and insure the integrity of our electoral process. supervisor farrell: colleagues and members of the public, to read it -- to reiterate for last week. this has to do with the supreme court's recent decision regarding arizona as public financing laws. i would like to thank mr. st. croix for advising us on this matter. earlier this summer, the u.s. supreme court struck down part of arizona as public financing laws. that part is very analogous, virtually identical, to san francisco's laws.

the purpose of this legislation was to make sure we were in compliance with the supreme court. i appreciate supervisor kim's objection, but this is to -- but this has been decided by the supreme court. we are not here to decide it. it is that president we have when we say idyllic -- when we say ideology is more important. we are being reactive to the u.s. supreme court. that applies to us here at the board of supervisors as it does everywhere else in this country. scores of other jurisdictions are amending their laws and, just to reiterate for the public, arizona, connecticut, florida, hawaii, maine, nebraska, north carolina, west virginia, wisconsin, albuquerque, and particularly in

new haven connecticut. these jurisdictions all amended their finances and had them struck down by a court of law. we need to too to avoid a lawsuit. we are playing roulette with taxpayer dollars. i appreciate supervisor kim enter comments, but i strongly disagree and urge my colleagues to support this. we can support any future law as we would like to, but right now let's make the change. let's get in line with what the u.s. supreme court has already decided. supervisor wiener: i am a strong supporter of public financing. i supported the extension of public financing to make oral campaigns. at the time, there were those

who were against them. i support the supreme court decision. my personal view is terrible and representative of a terrible trend of the decade and this court. with that said, we are faced with a choice. i know that we will come up with a good way to amend our public finance law in the future to try to address the challenge that the supreme court has thrown our way. now our choice is, what course to we take in terms of protecting taxpayer dollars from being socked away in attorneys' fees? we have gone down this path before. our general fund is so depleted and funds are so scarce and we have so many services that we are dramatically underfunding, i

cannot vote to keep this aspect of the system in place. i will be supporting this amendment as proposed. supervisor cohen: thank you. as many of you know, i was elected with a publicly financed campaign. i believe the spirit of this and the intent of public finance -- of publicly financing candidates is to help candidates such as myself. they have a dream and an aspiration to serve, but they do not come with big pockets, big friends and come from an economically disadvantaged position to the table. i understand and respect the spirit and intent of this legislation. it is very hard to cast a vote today. i am going to be voting in favor of this item that supervisor

farrell has put before us. but begrudgingly. because it is the law and the supreme court has issued a statement. it would be very selfish of us and irresponsible for us not to take this into consideration. i do not believe that we are in the right financial climate to challenge the supreme court, even if that -- if that is even possible. it would be irresponsible of us to hemorrhage good public dollars to fight this case. it is an interesting dilemma we are in. i will be supporting this legislation. thank you, supervisor farrell and supervisor elsbernd for putting this forward. it is difficult for some of our other members on the board to

summit because you understand the intent as to why public financing was created. but thank you for your leadership on this important issue and protecting our city and finances. president chiu: supervisor wiener, did you have another comment? supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i do not want to delve into the specifics of what is a very complicated issue. it is important for us to make sure we are in full compliance with the u.s. supreme court and san francisco will make sure that happens. it is not about whether or not we are going to do that. it is about the best way to do that. for me, it is about making sure we proceed expeditiously but proceed in a way that ensures the we have considered all options that are legally liable. for that reason, i will be voting no to that.

-- i will be voting no today. supervisor kim: i want to clarify my position. i concur with supervisor campos. i wanted a little more time and wanted to come up with a more comprehensive amendment that would abide by the supreme court ruling and would be constitutional, but would also further our intent of protecting the integrity of our electoral process. i am not here to stand up to the supreme court. i disagree with the ruling, but i understand that we need to bring our laws in line with what the supreme court has deemed constitutional. i think we could have had a different set of reforms in front of us today. supervisor farrell: i appreciate that. that clarity. but are you saying we are going to delay or gamble with taxpayer

dollars? that is something i'm fundamentally unwilling to do in the face of the supreme court having decided that our laws are not in line with their decision. i appreciate the banks this has caused. we have a rich history of public financing that has benefited a lot of us on the board. however, it is gambling tax payer money. especially in light of our budget, hundreds of millions of dollars in deficit for the next year's. to me, this is an egregious mistake if we go against this. president chiu: i am going to reluctantly be voting in favor of this legislation. the supreme court has spoken. while i disagree with that decision, it is the law of the land. that is the basis for my vote. that being said, i will and many of my colleagues will join in

asking the ethics commission to expeditiously consider, advise, promote other options to help strengthen our public financing system in the wake of this decision. to make sure we can strengthen the system in ways that we know will absolutely pass constitutional muster. i look forward to working with mr. st. croix and others. any other discussion? is there a motion being made to continue? are we taking an up and down vote on this? why don't we take an up or down vote on this? supervisor campos: no. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye.

supervisor kim:ano. supervisor mar: aye -- no. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. clerk calvillo: there are 7 aye's and 3 no's. president chiu: this required eight votes. the motion does not pass. supervisor elsbernd: to those who voted no, i would like to continue the item for a couple of weeks to give you that opportunity. supervisor kim has sat through three hearings in the last couple of weeks ago we have yet to steer -- yet to see any actual options. i would like to see that move forward so we can save the city

some money. if we let this die, it would be very derelict in your duties. why don't we move to continue the vote until two weeks? you can come up with the elixir that every other city in the country has been unable to come up with. but at least you can try to save us some money. president chiu: there is a motion to continue. clerk calvillo: we would have to continue this for three weeks. supervisor elsbernd: do you think you can come up with the magical elixir in three weeks? supervisor kim: i appreciate the motion. i actually looked at mr. st.

croix to see if that would be enough time. supervisor elsbernd: i will just withdraw and hope you can come up with something on your own. president chiu: is there a motion to rescind? i would certainly make one, but i want to -- where are we? supervisor elsbernd, have you withdraw your motion? i am sure the naysayers know what they're doing. i will leave it to them. supervisor wiener: we all know this will not be fixed in two or three weeks. it has to go through the ethics process, through the committee, through this board. it is a lengthy process and not something you're going to want to rush.