as elected representatives, it is up to you to put into place the structure needed to ensure a democratic economy free from many economic injustices clear from our private banking and financial system. the occupied movement is a witness to these very same unjust and exploitive system. establishing a minute to play on a bank with transparent and solid governance is not an optional step on the path toward a democratic economy. it is necessary in order for the public's credit to be used in the public's interest. we are currently leaving that credit, our credit, on the table and the transnational wall street banks are using it to further their own private interests, often times funding companies overseas to compete with the very same taxpayers in this city whose state and local tax payments were deposited in these transnational banks. in conclusion, just as libraries

cannot undermine the businesses of independent bookstores and just as open space does not devalue surrounding private property, a public bank like the bank of north dakota does not undermine the need for credit and lending services provided by the private sector. in fact, it makes for a healthier private banking system. i urge you to continue to demonstrate leadership in this very important opportunity. supervisor avalos: thank you very much. are there any other speakers? seeing no one come forward, will close public comment. i would like to thank everyone for their participation. the stories, the different parts of the economy and from a personal level, happen to of the affected by the current banking system in san francisco and around the country, i was hoping

this hearing would bring a final and to free, and regulated capitalism, but it did not quite at that goal. there is more work to do. -- unregulated capitalism. there are a lot of steps to get into the process of a municipal bank, legal constraints to move through or imperatives -- impediments presented to us to move through. i do not see that as something happening overnight, but it's something i'm very interested in seeing that we can achieve. i appreciate all your work on this. i know we have a lot of great minds to help achieve something to that effect in the years to come hopefully not 70 years to come. there is a process the treasurer is going through, looking at inrfp.

mr. kato is here from the treasury office -- i think to proceed, given the great about of interest that is here, treasurer at cisneros has said he would be meeting with some of the stakeholders in the next couple of weeks, maybe we can set up a meeting between my office and your office and the stakeholders in the community to talk about the rfp process, if that is something you can commit to do? >> yes. i can be with anyone interested in this process. supervisor avalos: will come back for another meeting on the rfp process itself. when do you expect them to issue the rfp? >> in early 2012. supervisor avalos: so we have some time. i would like to thank the budget

and legislative analyst for the report. thank you very much for your report. i believe we will be doing some ongoing work on this issue as well and if we can retain your services, that would be great. i would like to thank my colleagues for this hearing. we will roll up our sleeves and move forward. thank you very much.

>> i am columnist who writes about san francisco politics, and a member of the san francisco league of women voters. i am here with the league and sfgtv to discuss proposition e on this november's ballot. ♪ propositioned e would allow the board of supervisors and the mayor to amend or repeal initiative ordinances and declarations of policies that are passed by the voters beginning in january 2012. initiative ordinances and declarations of policy are the only kinds of measures that would be subject to proposition e. for three years after a particular measure takes effect, the board and the mayor may not amend or repeal it.

after the first three years, the board and the mayor may amend or repeal the measure with a two- thirds vote at the board. after seven years, the word and the mayor may amend or repeal the measure with a simple majority vote to the board. proposition e will not allow the border mayor to amend or repeal. measures that the voters approved before january 1, 2012, or measures that the voters place on the ballot by collecting required signatures or charter amendments and bond measures. ♪ i am here with supervisor wiener, a member of the san francisco board of supervisors, who is also a sponsor of proposition e. thank you for being here. why should we vote for proposition e? >> it is very basic reform of our ballot measure system but our system in san francisco in california as a whole is broken. they're too many things that belong to the ballot. other measures that on the ballot that should be handled

at city hall, that we should not be throwing at the voters. and then, one measure they are passing on the ballot, they have a rule in california, we're the only state in the country that does this come aware that measure can never ever be touched, not even moving one comma after 30 years without going back to the voters for another ballot measure. it is a completely rigid system that does not benefit anyone. it is bad government. prop e would basically balance that out a little bit by saying that for ordinances that are put on the ballot by the board or the mayor does not in any way affect signature drive ballot measures. or the mayor put an ordinance on the ballot that, for the first three years, it would be untouchable by the board. for the next four years, the board could amend the measure with a supermajority two-thirds vote. after seven years, the board could read the legislation like any other piece of legislation,

subject to the legislative process that is how it is done in every other state that allows voters to legislate, except california, and i think it is just a good government measure. >> can you think of an intense where, had we had proposition e in place, the voters would have not had to go back and vote again on some cleanup legislation? >> yes, if you look at prop f right now, we're asking the voters, among other things, should political consultants have to file with paper or electronically? should they have to file every month or every three months? but the most voters, if you ask them, would say that should not be on the ballot. that is the kind of legislation that should be handled by the board, but we have to put it on the ballot because the boaters that the original ordinance. i also have been working with both tenant and landlord advocates to clean up the rent control ordinance so that it reflects accurately what courts have ruled.

they have started on some of our provisions, but the municipal code is inaccurate because it does not reflect those rulings. i regret that it is to try to come up with cleanup legislation, and it turns out we cannot do it because most of those provisions were enacted by the voters. even if a court strikes something done, we cannot even clean up the municipal code to reflect that without going back to the voter. that does not make sense. >> what do you say to voters who are nervous about giving the power over to amend something that have passed at the ballot to politicians, to members of the board, and to the mayor? >> first, prop e only affects a small percentage of ballot measures. italy impacts, at most, 20% of ballot measures. 80% are completely off limits. it also does not in any way allow us to minnesota measures that were placed on the ballot -- allow us to replace measures

that were placed on the ballot by voters. what it does do is say that when the mayor or the board put something on, we need to have some flexibility after the fact. a lot of times, we see the board of supervisors but measures on the ballot that are not well thought through, that have come out of no public process, with no prior scrutiny, and then the >> if they vote yes, they shouldn't be amended again, it goes back to the voters. in reality, it's too difficult to run a campaign for it. this is a very, very limited, very, very modest good government measure that really does continue to respect the will of the voters. >> thank you very much. up next, we'll hear from an opponent of proposition h. i'm here with eileen hanson, a former member of the san

francisco ethics commission where she served for six years. ms. hanson is an opponent to proposition e. >> why should voters vote on proposition sthench >> it takes away the rights of voters. it's a perfect example of the voters able to have their say and vote and proposition e is a measure that once the voters have spoken, amend that decision or repeal that decision. so this measure actually undoes what the voters have said and that's not appropriate, in my view, or in the view of many, many, many who have come forward to oppose proposition everyone. >> persons who are in favor of proposition everyone argue that it's limited in scope. it doesn't apply to amendments put on the ballot of voters signatures and it's 20% of the measures passed by the voters. how do you address that snitch >> it applies to e issue that

was put on the ballot by the mayor or board of supervisors. while it doesn't apply to measures put on the ballot through signature gathering, it applies to very important measures that came to us through our elected officials. again, once the voters have spoken, regardless of how the measure ended up on the ballot, who are we as elected officials, anyone who is elected to undo the voice of the voters. i believe that democracy is about the voters' choice. once the voters have spoken, that is the end of the story. there are plenty of measures that i personally disagree with that i wish haven't passed and what i do need to do about it? i need to work to get those measures to come back to the ballot. i need to work my elected officials. i do not expect my elected officials to undo what the majority of voters have said. >> certain officials who have endorsed proposition e said

they have done it to voter concerns and anger to have vote for so many propositions over and over. the idea behind the proposition is to allow them to clean up certain propositions so we can cut back on the frequency and the number of ballot propositions that voters have to contend with. how do you address that issue? >> certainly, some people are concerned that our ballot in california is too long. i have not heard any good government advocates say that. i actually haven't heard many individuals or haven't seen any organized opposition to our ballot, so i'm concerned that this measure comes really not from voter advocacy or voter concern, but comes from people who believe that the voters should not be the folks who have the ultimate choice. and to me, that's arrogant. it's patronizing to voters. the message about proposition e sponsored by supervisor weiner

as well as f sponsored by supervisor weiner both come from the place saying that elected officials know better than the voters. whether there is too much on our ballot or not, the voters, it seems to me, should not be talked down to, should not be told that they need a measure like this because as supervisor weiner has said, the voters go to the ballot. it's a complicated ballot. they don't know how to understand the ballot. there hasn't been a lot of vetting of the issues. there hasn't been a lot of discussion before things get to the ballot. so the poor voters get to the voting booth and don't know what to do and it's not fair to them. >> i believe that the voters particularly our voters in san francisco are very educated, are very knowledgeable. they believe in democracy. they want to vote on measures and they don't want to be told that they're not smart enough to figure out what to vote for and what to vote against. so once they have made that choice, we need to respect that choice.

>> thank you. >> thank you. we hope you found that informative. for more information about proposition e and the other ballot arguments, please visit the website of the league of women voters at sfvotes.org. remember early voting is available monday through friday at city hall, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 8. >> hi, my name is melissa griffen. and a member of the league of women voters of san francisco. >> proposition b authoress the

city to authorized to hundred $48 million in bonds to improved street structures such as bridges. this would come with an increasing property tax, if needed, to pay for those improvements. the city is responsible for maintaining about 850 miles of streets. a study shows about half of the streets any major repairs. the city can only use this bond money to pay for and repairs city streets. it will improve lighting, sidewalk extensions, trees, and landscaping. renovation programs to increase safety, and add this traffic

signals to improve muni service. the mayor and the board of supervisors have to approve the final project. this measure requires the approval of two-thirds. is the right here with supervisors got leaner -- supervisor scott wiener. why should we vote for proposition b? supervisor wiener: this is a bond that will address some of our basic and critical infrastructure needs it. we've seen this across the country for the last few decades a bank it will help with quality of life. it will help put people back to work. it addresses the infrastructure

funds for our roads. to resurface our roads. basic maintenance. it also provide significant funding for work on our city bridges and overpasses and other infrastructure that is deteriorating and needs capital work, and also provides for eda acceptability. >> opponents of this measure have argued that these bonds should not be used for what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. -- what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. how do you respond to those accusations? supervisor wiener: we should have been doing a better job the last 30 years maintaining our

streets. i will not argue that. the fact is, we are where we are today. we have almost $500 million. the capitol assets like the park, like the bay bridge, muni. is appropriate to use bond funds -- it is a prepared to use bond funds to do capital infrastructure work. this is not for filling the random pothole. this is for capital work. road resurfacing, road reconstruction, not basic operating. >> in the past years, voters have not been receptive to the idea of the streets fund or when they are proposed on the balance. the measure needs two-thirds of the voters to pass. what makes you think this is the year voters will go with that?

>> a strong majority of voters do support having the capital work. our polling has been strong this year. six years ago, we got the 66% of the boat would no campaign whatsoever supporting or explaining at. this year, we're trying to really educate the voters. we think we have a chance of getting 2 2/3. 2/3 is a high threshold even though this is a popular kind of bond. we feel good we will have a shot of getting their. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next up, we will discuss proposition b with upon the.

>> i am here with judy berkowtiz, an opponent of proposition b. do you oppose this? >> san francisco neighborhoods voted to oppose prop b because we've already paid for these street repairs. payment has been in the form of property taxes and other taxes. we do not feel we should pay for them the second time. or in this case, a first time, because the board of supervisors had already passed two ordinances at the board, the law pieces of legislation that pay for exactly the street repairs. one was $40 million.

another was $42 million in the past couple of years. not only that, but this is a general obligation bond. general obligation bonds are supposed to be a one-time fix. this is not a one-time fix. this is maintenance. >> proponents argue that regardless of where the funding comes from, if we do not fix our streets now, the cost to implement these fixes will go up exponentially in the next, say, 10 years. how do you respond to that assertion? >> the streets of san francisco are terrible. they are the worst i have ever driven on. i am sure the department transportation agrees. i do not know it because will rise -- if the costs will rise in the next 10 years. i think it is important we do fix this ries. the money that has been allocated should do so.

this has been taken in the form of, as i said, our property taxes. >> if this does not pass, how do you suggest we go about finding street repairs and other kinds of repairs that are being funded by proposition b? what would you like to see cuts? >> there are less people working for city government now than there were 20 years ago. however, salaries are several times higher than they were. we could cut out a lot of the managers. department managers. if they were released and more park and rack -- rec playground managers were hired, then we would have some money we could

spread around. however, again, it the money -- if our property taxes and our rent pass-throughs are used for what they're supposed to be used for, then we would have the money. >> thank you very much. for more information about this or other ballot measures, please visit the web site of the san francisco league of women voters at sfvote.org. remember early voting is available as city hall. if you do not vote early, both