i do not understand why it is important that dogs can have freedom but not humans. i have never been bothered. most of those issues you talk about -- illegal drugs are by definition illegal. you can put in more toilets. i remember when occupy moved in and there was an essay. i don't remember who to an attribute it to. the users of the ones that the side to do what to do with these -- the space. let's keep the city accessible

and respectful to the human beings who are there and not just their money. thank you. >> i want to start off by saying this proposal is not a solution. it is a hate law. every one, a place for everyone. we should welcome all people regardless of what they bring with them if it is in a shopping cart or in a character on their shoulders. we should also bring with us the idea that a community space is for anyone who is in the community. whether they live there or they are homeless. i really feel like the feces and urine problem could be taken care of with an accessible bathroom which could be accessible to all people 24

hours a day. legislation like this take away the historical sanctuary city that san francisco is known for and the reason why people like me want to live here and be part of this committee. i strongly feel and this is not only insulting to people who live there but to anyone who lives in san francisco. i really wanted to ensure that you know this is not like to be something that helps our community or anyone who is homeless. this is right to further criminalize being poor and also in the end will cost taxpayers more money and not make any proposed solutions to people who are homeless. thank you. >> i work with central city hospitality house and i am

against this legislation. i'm here to speak and echo what you have heard from a number of people here already. i and ester of trinity club ration, our urbanization is not in the caster. i do not reside in the castro. i am appalled that the memory of jane warner and harvey milk would be used against members of our community. we have community members who want to speak and be part of the conversation. we have people, a roomful of people here to participate. we have so many others who could not get here. they're great to have tickets parking their cars. they cannot speak their piece. this legislation is anti- homeless. it criminalizes poverty. it is defined by folks who have money to keep their money while

folks to do not have money are pushed to the edge and beyond. we're going to face budget cuts this year. more public spaces are going to be closed. where are people going to go? there aren't decriminalized for taking a nap. -- they are going to be carmen ddecriminalized for taking a na. these are problems we can address in conversation. not through legislation that criminalizes the poor. thank you. supervisor wiener: let me call the three main -- remaining

cards. those are the last cards i have. if you are intending to speak and have not been called, please fill out a yellow card. >> i am opposed to this legislation. i am queer, i was born and raised in the caster. my parents live there and i still live in the district. i currently work with folks who have been formerly homeless and i urge you to think about how legislation like this affect real people with real lives. as an example, there is one guy i work with who is struggling because he was the target of legislation like this and got a fine and he is homeless. he got a warrant. social security is cutting off people from receiving their benefits when they have a warrant out for them.

that means he is not getting the income he needs because he has a disability which means that despite the fact that he has a disability, he has to walk the streets trying to collect bottles. that is why he cannot be here today to say he is opposed to this legislation. he is trying to collect money at 5 cents a pop. that is someone's real life that you guys are legislating right now. i want you to think about that and how you are impacting these folks. i have been hearing complaints about cleanliness and drugs. continuing to criminalize people is not a solution. talking about problems and behavior's, those are the kinds of things we can find solutions for and i think you would find more unity in this room of were talking about behaviors and

solutions. thank you. [applause] >> i'm an instructor at city college. i'm here to speak against the proposed legislation. when i was thinking about what to say, it is what are we doing here? i hear about dealing with issues of civility, of civic pride in san francisco's appearance and the management of regulated spaces and social order. but that is not why we are here. we are here because more people are on the street. more people are on the streets and, as some folks said, yes there are more folks on the streets than there were 10 years ago. i used to live in the castro, and yes, the whole city is different because people are out

on the streets because of financial and social distress. our city is no different from any other. they are on the streets because of a lack of social services and social support, financial ruin, mental illness, and young people fleeing from very bad situations. they are also in the streets because of discontent and the city has had a very push-pull relationship with the occupy movement and its friends. the wound is still there. it seems like this legislation is more for show than anything else because of their legislation really does cover these issues.

the public library offers social outreach and possible solutions to the homeless people who come in. why don't we have this attitude? [tone] what's the deal with a measure of humanity in terms of this stuff. supervisor mar: i think most people were saying the harvey milk would have been against this and one person said he would have supported stronger cleanliness. i just wanted to know if you could comment on that. others have said bringing another -- a number of stakeholders together to deal with issues that are present -- could you comment done those things? >> i moved here just when harvey milk was becoming most politically visible and the kinds of things he promoted are not represented in this legislation.

he would support things for the social good, but that meant people were of his primary concern. to me, people are not at the heart of this legislation and i do not think harvey milk would be in favor of it. what was the second question? supervisor mar: dealing with root causes, bringing the stakeholders together, and i think some of the criticisms have been many people are left out of the process, especially groups that serve the homeless youth and groups that are most vulnerable. >> i will be speaking at a hearing of this week regarding the needs of lgbt elders. i don't see why we can't treat the issue of people in the streets and of the disadvantaged and financially troubled in the same kind of way so that -- it's a good thing

there are organizational stakeholders deccan represent these folks. so yes, it needs to be taken into account. supervisor wiener: next speaker. >> hello. i'm hoping to be known as 500 shelter beds nan. we actually need 1000 or 1500, which would provide places for most of these people to go and they could connect with services and have the showers so that when tourists come, we have sweet smelling, clean homeless people running around, which is a little short of my goal, but at least all of the people concerned about the surface will be happy there are clean smelling homeless people running around. that is a little sarcastic, but i basically agree with the

coalition on homelessness and others, though i realize as supervisors that depend upon voters and taxpayers, you are in a difficult position. all of these merchants are screaming that this is effecting our business. the entire downturn of the whole economy -- you cannot fix that either, but let's take at something we see in front of us because it is the human tendency. i believe you have within your purview to get toilets in a lot of different places and i would push for someone to be forward thinking enough to address that. all up and down market would be excellent, and to the tenderloin and mission probably wouldn't mind having some sort of paris-

like easy to get in and out of little toilet so there would not be the public health problem. the other thing is just getting enough services. there has to be a place within three blocks of the plaza. [tone] supervisor wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. >> i'm reading a statement by the harvey milk lgbt democratic club. we write in opposition to the proposed legislation because harvey milk's name is attached to one of the two plazas for which this is written. as a historic space that has been a site for free speech, harvey milk fought against that a law that had been written to target the hippies but used as a -- as an excuse to drive the

game and out of the castro. for those of us who have been around long enough or are in touch with the community's history are familiar with the image of harvey milk and the plaza which was eventually given his name. to propose limiting sitting in that plaza is [inaudible] as a community forced far too often and for far too long to spend most of our collective lives of the closet, the ability to be free and public spaces is tremendously liberating. harvey milk do that was possible only if we escape the shadows of anonymity and and visibility. when we restrict those spaces, even when it's meant to be applied to another group of people, we damage to ourselves. we must recognize this law does not apply to another group of people, but it applies to us. perhaps the majority of homeless people who spend time and beat san francisco -- in the castro

are lgbt. during the drop in the services that are so are overburdened they must turn clients away and most likely feel to be outside their own community or using open spaces and the castro. [unintelligible] [tone] it is the last place we want the most marginal is to be. we respectfully ask you to vote no. supervisor wiener: since you read that again, i just want to reiterate since you were unaware that this ordinance does not in any way, shape or form prohibit sitting on the benches or on the ground in harvey milk plaza. that was a misunderstanding and

i want to make sure that is clarified because i do not know if you were a year earlier. thank you very much. next speaker. >> i am a 43-year resident of the castro. i was a friend of harvey milk. he developed my corner. i went to his store for that. i knew him on a very regular level. i cannot speak about his personality and that's not why i'm here. i am a person who uses that park almost on a daily basis. when i look around this room, i see a bunch of advocates who do not actually use the park. i may be see three people here i see on a regular basis and i'm not even sure about them. i came here thinking this would be a meeting to suggest rules for the park. i have a list of rules. it would short circuit all these concerns about big, cosmic issues on a 600 square foot space.

there is no reason why it is cosmetic. my rules -- one share per person. this means we don't have a person with four chairs sitting there i can say the rules as one share. you have four. i also have share your tables. some person sits there with five tables and monopolize the table. there is no reason why anybody can walk up and say this is a public table, i want to share your table. this kind of stuff needs simple, direct, focused rules to push away all of these cosmic issues. it is a tiny, little park. smoking. there is a wind in that part of about 8 miles an hour all the time. why are we worried about smoking? 1000 people pass through the park daily. they can't smoke in this 25 foot area? no campaign, take away your trash, simple rules. fit it on a little sign like this. what is all of this talk about

cosmic issues? it is not cosmic. it is a tiny, little park. thank you. [applause] supervisor wiener: next speaker, please. >> it i'm opposed to this legislation and going to be you writing -- reading from a letter from someone who was unable to make it today. i would like to share some information about the consequences of laws that restrict the ability of homeless people to use space. laws that limit the ability of homeless people to use public space serve to further further -- serve to further, says. in order to avoid a competent -- confrontation for the police and basic life sustaining activities like sitting and resting, finds they cannot afford to pay. legislation that criminalizes homeless people's presence

leaves them to move into less visible locations, hiding in golden gate park, for example, which means it's harder for outreach workers to reach them and offer assistance to get off the streets. the hiding and hyper mobility that occurs as a result of laws that criminalize the use of public space by homeless people are especially common among homeless youth. queerer use makeup among the 40% of the homeless population and many are runaways who are fleeing abusive situations. some are throwaways to have been told because of their sexuality or religious beliefs they are no longer welcome at home. some have age out of the foster care system. when we create legislation that attacks the symptoms of homelessness, we needlessly make criminals out of people on the streets because they are experiencing trauma. we drive them out of sight and further from social services

needed to address the problem of homelessness. when we entertain legislation that criticizes the behavior of homeless people, we turn away from real solutions. we'd more affordable housing, we need more safe places for homeless people to rest and connect with services. [tone] supervisor wiener: thank you. mr. wilson. >> thank you. i have sat in the back row for over two hours now, trying to justify not coming up and speaking to you. but scott, i apologize for being personal, but you have made it impossible -- supervisor mar: will you please not address individual members. >> you have procedures for your meetings and every notice i never perceived -- every notice

i ever received had a note about written comments, not read by somebody who has already spoken. so i was put in a position because i don't want to alienate people. i want to get along with people. i want that collaborative message to come, but it has not happened and it hasn't happened on this issue. i am still frustrated because i don't know why you let one person decide who can speak and who cannot speak. i don't know why you can't even follow the simple rules printed on every agenda. i'm confused because we had that meeting to collaborate about the plaza and what was going to happen. we had a brown agree to have the meeting and all we know, all i know is we got an e-mail saying this meeting on october 26 has been cancelled.

i don't know i will ever live long enough to hear the real story of why that was done, but when people use political power to draw the lines, i don't understand it because it is so unnecessary. wheat we need the collaborative effort and we need to sit down, all stakeholders, not just merchants, because i understand. i have to say to you that if i had been there on the plaza and watch somebody shooting drugs, that would have been a 911 col. [tone] i can say that it is not a theoretical for me. last time i was in the plaza, there were two guys, i don't know if there are homeless, but i had -- but they started fighting. i had to tell the police. those guys are fighting, you might want to make sure it doesn't get bloody. they looked at me and said what are you talking about? i said there is to guys over

there in front of the flag. i apologize because i have gone over time. supervisor mar: the meeting you refer to that was canceled, the community benefits meeting? >> it was a meeting -- you are aware there was a controversy over who gets to use the flag pole. after 9/11, we said let's all sit down in the room and talk about why this can't be a transparent solution. why this has to be routed in ways we don't know and when somebody makes the request, it's the night and when somebody else makes the request, the answer is given within 24 hours. what i am told the decision can be made within the weekend and i doubt it has already been made, i'm just not allowed to be told because i might tell somebody else. that was the meeting that was

supposed to happen and i'm not a conspiracy theorist. i'm not one who says this is a hate bill, but i am one who says when there is no sunshine, that leads me to think it is somebody with an experience that made the answer unavailable to me and a point in a direction i don't really want to point. [applause] supervisor wiener: is there any further public comment? may we close public comment? supervisor mar: public, is close to -- public comment is closed. supervisor wiener: there was a statement made it --

supervisor mar: she has spoken twice already. is there any way for you to paraphrase what may have happened because we have already closed public comment, so i don't think it's appropriate for her to come back up. supervisor wiener: i was just going to give the cbd an opportunity to respond to the allegation, but if that is not appropriate, so be it. supervisor mar: if public comment had still been open -- it is your prerogative to do that. is there any reason we could not do that? >> there is not a legal reason to ask questions of a member of the public has already spoken provided it is limited to their responses to the boards question. supervisor mar: i will ask

supervisor wiener if he would like to ask -- supervisor wiener: i would like to ask if you would talk lecher interaction with that cbd -- >> jody had said something about she asked for a collaborative meeting. i do recall there was a series of e-mails after hours -- the brown act limits conversations at board meetings, as you know. i think michael will confirm this conversation -- we have a very small budget, $400,000 to coordinate community meetings.

if lyric wanted to take the lead on that, we are happy to join them. supervisor wiener: thank you. i do have some closing remarks but i am happy to defer to my colleagues, whatever the chair what it prefer. supervisor mar: i was wondering if i could ask the first amendment question. the aclu has given us several memos and some have been directed to me as the chair of the land use committee. one came in yesterday at one of the issues was the potential of first amendment violations of free-speech rights. one broad areas of equal protection and legislation being neutral on its face, perhaps starting a group of people who are extremely vulnerable and who use for

wheeled or larger shopping carts. i wonder if mr. adams could comment on this. i think the language from a letter from a staff attorney of the aclu says we are troubled by the equal protection considerations. numerous prohibitions appear clearly to target the homeless populations by focusing on the type of activity is homeless people need to engage in simply to live, for example, sleeping. people from the public had commented that queer youth and immigrant populations and poor people of low income people may be the most vulnerable and targeted. i but like to ask our city attorney to comment on that. >> on the question of the first amendment issue, i believe supervisor wiener has offered amendments today that relate to peddling and vending merchandise for a permit has been issued by

the city. that allays concerns raised by the aclu. with respect to equal protection argument, there are time, place, and manner restrictions for we'll conveyance given the small size of the plaza and the size of the conveyances being restricted. as written, we have approved it and are prepared to defend it if the board doesn't adopt it and is challenged. >> -- of the board does adopt it and it is challenged. supervisor wiener: a initially, they had raised concerns specific to requiring a permit to sell things.