else has. he may have dinner with mayor bloomberg of new york, who might say there is a threat. there are always going to be political opponents who will say this looks suspicious and is a conspiracy. but i am sure he realizes the people of the city come first. it is tough that he has to take abuse because of it, but i would encourage him to take a pat on the shoulder for good work. >> hello. i am taffy. in your discussion about the stop and frisk, i wonder if anybody has brought upper the context that the policy is like a slave patrol going out at night with a dog, tracking black people down. 50 years ago, the civil rights movement in this country was supposed to stop the jim crow

laws. we still have them. i am not seeing any improvement in our humanity, which is very sad. no improvement in the humanity. also, oakland, los angeles, and new york, famous for the people the report to be police, are racist. right on track. it is so unfair. michele alexander, the new jim- crow. her expression is from -- the pipeline from schools to prisons. when somebody is stopped and frisked, that name is written down. no matter what his age, they have that name at the police department. think very carefully about your humanity. think about your own children,

if they were likely to be targeted for stop and frisk. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am larry edmonds. i was bullied and high domestic violence in my sro apartment. you probably read that in the paper. what i am here to talk about is why i walk for aids. aides what is coming up this weekend. i walk for aids to stop racism, sexism, homophobia. san francisco is a little bit like the crazy people in washington, d.c., who do not want people to have health care in this country. you know what? some years ago, you all were

making $33,000 a year. we voted you would make $135,000 so you could do the work of the people. we want san francisco and the mayor to do the work of the city and county. we are the last city to do anything for aids housing. look at this new thing coming out. you have to make $14.55. you know that social security is $800 or $900. somebody is ripping the city and county off, and we do not want you to be part of it. what to stop racism, sexism, medical marijuanaism. i am living because of medical marijuana. you are going to close down another club on the 31st. you got it. thank you. president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in general public

comment? police stepped up. -- please step up. >> howdy. i put my name and e-mail address on the public speaker card. i am having a problem with one of their contractors, community housing partnership. over the past two years i have been there, they have obstructed my visitor from being there. she flew in from illinois just to see me, and they would not let her come in for an overnight, even though you follow all the rules and regulations. there have been major problems with rodents. there would only address them once i called the department of building inspection and the department of health. i have also had a problem with them following the stipulated agreement. it seems they do not want to

give me habitable housing. i have done almost everything i could. the rent board gives them an exemption. the next part of this scenario is it seems like they are giving david curdle the runaround, and he is the manager of the contract. it seems like he is not getting a proper response as to how he is going to address the issue. it has been a very bad time. i have been taken to the hospital because of the in have the ability issues of the essex hotel. -- inhabitabiliy issues of the

essex hotel. i am starting to get migraines. their only concern is about getting rent money. people are suffering in that building. president chiu: next speaker. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak? seeing none, general public comment is closed. why don't we call our first 3:00 special order, related to the general obligation bonds proposed for the client -- for the san francisco clean and safe. >> this is pursuant to amendments made in the june government audit and oversight committee meeting. for a public hearing of persons interested in the resolution made to the safety and quality of neighborhood parks and waterfront open space across the city, finding that the costs

associated, equaling $195 million, will require incurring bonded indebtedness, and providing for a special election to be held in the city. president chiu: we are sitting as a committee as a whole to hear public comment on recent amendments to these items. this would put the general obligation bond before voters this november. let me acknowledge any of voters who wish to speak, starting with supervisor winner. -- wiener. supervisor wiener: this bond is a critical part of our 10-year capital plan, and also of our efforts to get a really significant capital maintenance need of our part. there was an extensive community process to come to this point. i am very supportive, and i hope

you will be as well. i want to know the amendment at issue was the one dealing with the trail money, making sure a bond did not get caught up in other debates related to the new natural areas program we will have next year, trying to link the two, and making sure we can address these huge needs in our parks. i want to thank the department, advocates, and community for working together on all sides to come up with this amendment to allow us to move forward. some of the beneficiaries include golden gate park, which want to have work done on their trails. that is good, because those parks desperately need it. president chiu: unless there are any other public comments, what do we go to public comment on these items? other members of the public who wish to speak with regard to

this item? please step up. >> ♪ want to make it clean and bright please make it clean and city bright ♪ president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak or sing on this item? please step up. >> executive director of the san francisco parts alliance. i have a master's degree in music, but i am not going to sing to you. i do not have that much talent. the parts alliance has formally induced this and has taken a leadership role to make sure the voters fully understand the positive implications of this measure. the facts before you are straightforward and very clear.

investments are due or overdue in our park system. the bond measures placed before you will take a crack at chipping away at that long list. we worked very closely with the staff, the recreation and parks department, gathering input into the content of this bond measure. we have been very impressed with the process, with the quality of the input, and with the results included in the bond. particularly want to draw your attention to the fact that it now includes $12 million toward the community opportunity fund. this was an innovation developed in the 2008 bond, which allowed community groups to apply for smaller chunks of money for neighborhood-based projects leveraged with sweat equity and private philanthropy. that will be expanded through this bond. we strongly support that. we are also very pleased with the light changes to the bond measure that increase the amount

of money to golden gate park in a mclaren park, which is of many of the most -- which is one of the most under-resourced parts in san francisco. we are also pleased by the amendment regarding the trails. we strongly support this bond measure. >> talking about the special order for parks, i have always wanted you all to know that sometimes when you go to parks, there is a lot of dog mess in the parks. people sometimes take the dog mess, get it in a plastic bag, and throw it on the sidewalk. why not put it in a trash can? you do not want to sit on any feces when you go to the park. we should have buses. take people to the park. teach them something. educate them. you cannot just take the parks

and put them for wealthy people's kids. we know what is going on in a lot of the parks. you are taking land that is supposed to be for all public people, not using it for all. we do want parks to be available for all people, and also educate people in those parks. you can have cooking lessons, sewing lessons, reggae, karaoke. the parks are nature. it belongs to us all. things are looking up on you all, since washington, d.c. is such a crazy place today. think of no health care for the parks. president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak about the bond?

seeing none, public comment on this matter is closed. are there any other comments that folks would like to make? any comments from the department? i want to thank the rec and park leadership who are here. with that, but colleagues, could we hear and file this hearing without objection? without objection, this hearing has been heard and filed. items 30 and 31 have been called. i understand item 30 has to be adopted before we can place the measure on the ballot. please call the roll on item 31. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye.

supervisor mar: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor olague: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the resolution is adopted. now, on item 30. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the ordinance is passed on the first reading. with regards to our second 3:00 p.m. special order, there have been a number of technical amendments supervisor farrell

and i have been advised of. could we skip over that for a moment and go to the adoption calendar? >> items 53 and 54 are being considered for immediate adoption without committee reference, unless a member wants discussion of the matter to be called separately. president chiu: would anybody like to sever any of these items? why don't we take a roll-call vote. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: these

resolutions are adopted. with regards to our second 3:00 p.m. special order, i understand the amendments are being rocked over. could a suggest that we recess for -- >> 3:00 p.m.? president chiu: why don't you call items 34 and 35? >> this is pursuant to amendments made at the june 26, 2012 board of supervisors meeting, for a public hearing to consider two versions of the turkoman and. one would replace ranked choice of voting with runoff elections. another would incorporate a runoff elections into ranked choice of voting for the office of mayor. another would replace the voting for mayor with runoff elections.

supervisor farrell: we were going to have a number of technical amendments advised by our city attorney to supervisor olague's amendment as well as the president's amendment. we will have a committee meeting to consider those. if people want to talk now, they can do that, but there will be an opportunity when we will vote on it next week. supervisor campos: i know that we will have an opportunity next week to talk more about this, but i want to make a couple of points about what is before us. much has been said about whether or not ranked joyce voting works. there have been questions even within the progressive community as to whether or not ring to choice voting, in its current form, is the right approach. but i think even those within the progressive community who believe there could be some

modifications to ranked joyce voting rightly have a problem with the process we are following today. the fact is that we have not fully analyzed the true impact of some of the proposals, and specifically the impact of a september election, which is being proposed by both supervisors farrell and olague. why, under supervisor olague's version, we need to act this year, given that the election is a few years away, is something i still wonder. the big concern that i have is under the proposals that supervisors farrell and olague have provided, you are talking about using an extremely low turnout election to narrow field of categories -- to narrow a

field of candidates in the mayor's office. a number of cities have been mentioned, including the city of new york, charlotte, north carolina, but if you look at the turnout numbers in those cities, what has happened in those cities should be reason for us to be alarmed about what was proposed. in 2009, turned up in the city of new york for mayor was 11.4%. in charlotte, north carolina, which has a population similar to san francisco, the turnout in the last mayoral election was 4.3%. the september primary in 2007 was also pretty low, 4.9%. we are not going into this blindly, in the sense that we have seen what happens when these kinds of efforts are put into place. it has not worked in new york city or charlotte, north carolina. it will not work in san

francisco. i am especially concerned about the impact that having a major world election -- a major \ yor election in a low-turned out month. we want to see a lot of san franciscans vote. why would we hold an election for mayor in september when we know the likelihood that there will be high voter turnout in those communities, minority communities, is unlikely? why would we do that, as san franciscans? i urge we reconsider that portion of what has been proposed. i know that supervisor olague has described her proposal as a compromise. there is a reasonable argument to be made that her proposal is even worse than what supervisor

farrell is proposing. under her proposal, you create the possibility that people will be voting for sheriff and city attorney without actually cost -- casting a vote for mayor. that will mean that the turnout in those elections will be even lower than under supervisor farrell's proposal. i think there are a lot of reasons for us to pull back and not hold back on this. if we are going to truly modify and fake ranked joyce voting better, -- make ranked-choice of voting better, we should take the time to study the unintended consequences that will come from what is being proposed. the fact is that the record on ranked choice of voting in san francisco has been positive. the parade of horribles

described in terms of voter confusion have not materialized. the information analyzed by lafco clearly shows that people understand how the system works. if you compare ranked choice of voting and how we elect members of the board of education and the board of trustees of city college, there is less confusion when there comes to link choice of voting than there is in those elections. in terms of the three items before us, my preference would be that neither of them goes forward. if i had to choose, i think the item introduced by president chiu is the most reasonable alternative here. let me be clear. taking votes on those three items, whether it happens today or next week, this will be a very important vote, and a defining moment. for those of us who have been

involved in progressive politics for quite some time, the ranked choice of voting was about trying to make the democratic process in san francisco more democratic. we have seen more people look involved and come out to vote and be engaged in san francisco politics then we have seen before. it is for this reason the vote is so important for those in the progressive movement who fought to make this happen. it is up there in terms of its importance with the election of district supervisors. we must make sure we do the time to do this right. i urge my colleagues not to support any of these items, going forward. if you have to support any of them, i think the item presented by president chiu is the way to go. supervisor wiener: thank you.

president chiu: i will be supporting the motion to continue. we were apprised earlier today by the city attorney, who has been drafting this, that we need to make sure that the various ranked joyce voting amendments we have are consistent with the charter amendment we had recently passed. at this moment, we have just circulated, for both versions, technical amendments to make sure that the proposed charter amendments are consistent, and to address a potential vacancy issue with either the mayor's office or the board of supervisors. i will not say much about the various versions of this point. we will have a longer debate next week. but i will say that i think the version i have proposed is much simpler for voters than the

version that supervisor olague has proposed. in my version, the november ballot will not change in any way from last year. the only change is that there will be a male runoff election between the two strongest candidates if neither wins the majority. in supervisor olague's version, there is a september election only for the mayor's race. i think that is quite confusing for voters. but i think we will likely have more discussion on this next week. two members of the public, today there is an opportunity for folks to make some comments. but i think it would be best, if possible, for us to have a more extensive debate next week. and there will be another opportunity. supervisor wiener: supervisor

kim? supervisor kim: i will keep my comments brief, because i think i have spoken on this issue. i do appreciate such a robust and engage discussion on how to have a democratically engage process around how we elect our representatives in the city. i think that as we discussed this, each and every time, i think i have a greater and nuanced appreciation for the systems we have. i do wholeheartedly support rank-troy's voting. as the discussion continues, my support actually increases, versus decreasing. for a number of reasons i have alluded to before, while we have seen in every race where we have runoffs, with the exception of two mail races, we have seen a vast decline in the number of voters who come out to vote in the december runoff, whether it is the board of supervisors,

city attorney, and other offices. i appreciate we are limiting discussions to the mayor's race. "we saw in 1999 and 2003 was that voter increase -- voter turnout did increase in december. that is a tough time to get people to vote. in the city, people are engaged. that month actually does not turn people away. another benefit i have seen in a runoff process, even though i feel some ambivalence about it because of the immense amount of energy and dollars it takes to run extended campaigns, is that i have seen an increase in organizing, skill-building, a leadership development, and a lot of new people who get engaged in an election process in the last month of the election cycle. i am looking forward to hearing the public comment today, in

terms of what people would like to see in how we do these types of elections. i am generally more supportive of president chiu's amendments. but for everyone who is sitting here today, it comes from a genuine place of really wanting to ask the voters what they think the best election process might be. we did get questions on why now, because the next mayor's race is three years away, so we have more time to study and examine different parts of the country. i agree with that, but we also know that the greatest turnout will be this november election, because it is a presidential election. many of us will be running for our seats as well. in terms of getting the greatest turnout, i believe this is the year to do it, with an understanding that whatever is put out go-go to the voters for their decision making.

again, i want to express my support overall that if we put something to the voters, and will most likely support president chiu's amendment, because i think it is less confusing. if we are going to have ranked choice of voting for every other seat, i think it should be consistent by having it be true of the male race -- mayoral race. i think there will be a more nuanced discussion because there are less candidates in the following month. supervisor elsbernd: just to the question of, why now, it is worth repeating that when we brought this forward eight months ago for the june ballot, everybody said, not june, but november is the right time. all of a sudden, we are moving the goalposts again. when i look at