of the council community housing organizations, and specifically, as i know for some members of the committee, our commitment to the term sheets agreed to in the coalition process. i want to also come into the board of supervisors and support their process of legislative uncertainty, and i want to speak specifically to supervisor campos' concern about the revenue measure. we had demanded that the housing trust fund be revenue-neutral under general fund, that it not be a diversion from the general fund. therefore, once we understood there was a $12 million shortfall on the first 10 years, we urged the mayor to do

additional revenue. the mayor agreed. the term sheet that we agreed to speaks to a transfer tax agreement. unbeknownst to us and side of the process that resulted in the housing trust fund, the mayor chose, for whatever reason, to include $13 million in his revenue measure. [bell rings] we support that. we support the supervisor's desire to increase that amount as well to ensure that does not go against the general fund. we support that process and hope for a speedy outcome in which we have a housing trust fund and . thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisors, san francisco construction trades council. this has been a few months in the making. it is taken a variety of forms. i have followed conversations with a number of folks from a

variety of perspectives. i am personally supportive of the amendment. the council has not taken a formal position yet, but i will recommend its support. thank8snx @&e%ei supervisor kim: thank you. >> my name is john. i work with the sheet metal workers local 104 and have been working on a variety of policies throughout the bay area in that capacity, addressing a housing and land use issues. we're very much in support of the mayor's initiative on the housing trust fund. we feel it should be moved forward as presented to you. both the complications of the negotiations and the difference stakeholders, it is important that it goes through. we have 51 apprentices in our program who live in san francisco. most of those are young people of color living in tough neighborhoods. when they become in their third or fourth year as an apprentice, they leave san francisco,

because there is no housing for them. sort of ironic. you cannot really support local hiring first because there is no way that we can have, you know, have construction trade workers stay in this community. they leave. they are envisioning the american dream which is to have someplace to buy. we have to have housing of a variety of stripes, a variety of income levels. we're very supportive of the affordable nature of this, but we also have to have the market rate and initiatives to support that so that we're able to have these young people have good jobs and then stay in their neighborhoods. because you one middle-class family staying in those neighborhoods. we cannot do that without this initiative. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisors, i am with the council of community housing

organizations. i want to thank you all for hearing this item and moving it forward. i want to thank especially the co-sponsors or here, supervisor kim, supervisor wiener, for having moved this legislation forward. as we spoke last week, the council of community housing organizations has been part of this big tent approach, bringing together a wide group of people on agreement for the term sheet. we respect the legislative process. we look forward to hearing the amendments from both sides of the aisle. supervisor farrell's em in at about first response will speed up then the amendment on the board of supervisors oversight. one of the things we have not asked for use as those amendments and as the entire package moves forward, we hope that supervisor farrell and supervisor campos can come on board as co-sponsors to make one large tent. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you.

>> tim, i am here on behalf of the housing coalition. i wanted to express our strong support for this, and he is right, that would be wonderful of come. i wanted to speak also to the integrity of the negotiations that got us to where we are here, and i appreciate your comments on this. i think that it is no sure thing that this is going to pass. there will be organized opposition to it. there always will be. it would be great to win this one. finding a dedicated source to fund the housing affordability has been the holy grail of housing for many years. this is a modest step but brings us closer to that. i think that to the extent of staying close to what the term sheet is, )] campaign, which is what i think is going to be quite interesting, to see how we get this thing passed. it is overdue in badly needed. but i hope you will stick to the consensus process that has gone

as here so far. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. sean, rba. i want to start off by stating clearly i support all items on the term sheet. i would like to thank my colleagues for their time, effort, and energy over the last seven months. it was not easy. i can remember walking out of the first meeting and a half- jokingly said to john o'connor, i said, if anybody can get all the people in this room to agree upon what month of the year is, they would be doing a pretty good job, never mind all these details, especially housing in san francisco. it is not the first time a working group was put together. there have been many, many working groups. but in times where there's not a coalition or there is not a strong bond or it was done too quickly or recklessly and the

details were not thought of, you cannot have consensus. what happens? the people who were not happy raised a couple bucks and they kill it. history is filled with examples like that. this group of the effort in. the terms on the term sheet. we listened to carefully. there were done out of respect for each other, and there was an awful lot of give and take what they really help the process. one other point, in closing, our inclusionary housing program now, it is is essentially a fee- out program. and these changes, they're not the agreement. it is not going to affect anything 120 or more, and it is not going to affect anybody who still wants to fee-out. it helps to encourage and motivate people to provide their obligation on site. it essentially is going to provide more units in the neighborhood, and that

essentially is a goal we have all agreed upon. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, public, does not close. i want to thank the members of the public for coming back again, because i know many of you were here last thursday and sent through a very long meeting and some of you are not able to make public comments. i appreciate your ability to come back today. are there any comments? supervisor farrell: i just want to thank everyone for coming back for public comments. my colleagues as well for mentioning my amendment last week when i had to leave prior to the discussion. thank you for that. i agree with supervisor campos that the linkage with the gross receipts tax proposal is very strong in sunday when he to continue to explore and discuss at the board ofáw i will be happy to make that motion. to make it easier, i will make

the motion to for this to the full board tomorrow with no recommendation. supervisor kim: thank you. we do have a motion to forward this item with no recommendation. we have a motion to send it as a committee report so we can hear it at the full board tomorrow. before that, i have supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i just wanted to -- thank you, colleagues, for the participation and the thoughtful dialogue over the last two hearings. i am very, very excited about sending this to the voters and making sure that we are as serious as we can be about finding a long-term, sustainable funding stream for affordable housing in san francisco and also showing how serious we are about understanding that our overall housing crisis in this city -- of course, we need subsidized affordable housing, but that will never solve the

entire housing crisis in this city, and the market rate part in giving the right incentives to developers and building the right kinds of units is also a piece of that puzzle. i believe that this measure, although, you know, it is described as a start, is a pretty significant start to addressing the crisis, and also very happy to be co sponsoring and supporting it. i look forward to the work this fall. supervisor kim: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you, madam chair. again, thanks to everyone for their work. as we are looking ahead to what happens at the board of supervisors, i still think that it would be helpful for me and perhaps others on the board to hfp8have a better understandingf how some of the exemptions or the exceptions work, whether it is in terms of planning be good to get a better sense of

that. i know that, as it was indicated, with respect to 8 washington, there are specific reasons why the project would be exempted, but i do want to have a better understanding of the applicability, if you will, of some of these provisions. they might be relating to other changes that might be needed. i know that, at some point, the idea may be looking at exempting any project that maybe gets a high increase. maybe that is something that was floated around at some point. it should be discussed. i also liked the idea of the board looking back, you know, in five, 10, 15 years to see how this is going. i know there is nothing that precludes us from doing that, but i do wonder whether or not something should be included in

the measure that actually allows for that or requires that that happen. i do not know that -- our terms on the board are limited, so you'll have people here sitting in these shares who will not have been a part of this process. so, to the extent that we can institutionalize in any kind of mechanism that allows for the best kind of review and analysis, i think that is something we shouldo8íbc consid. those are the kinds of things that i hope we think about between now and the time that ] there will be an opportunity for us to make changes at that point. i am not saying that we necessarily should, but at least consider those options. with that, i support the motion. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisors. i would have liked to have forward this with a understand, and i would rather

this go out unanimously with no recommendation to the full board. i will motion. i want to thank all the parties that were involved in this. at the full board, we will have an opportunity to speak about our thoughts about this again. i do appreciate many of the comments that have been made. sacrifices were made on all sides. i think that a key part of this charter amendment, as supervisor campos and supervisor farrell pointed out, is the revenue- generating ordinance that will move forward to the voters in november. and we look forward to full support from the housing trust fund coalition for the revenue- generating measure as well, because i think that they are key partners as we move forward in november to ensuring that we have a permanent stream for of affordable housing and, of course, for down payment assessment -- assistance for many of our residents to like to live and afford to live and buy a home here in san francisco.

we have a motion to move it forward. we also have a motion to move this forward as a committee report so we can hear it tomorrow. any amendments made, because it is a charter amendment, will force this item to be continued. i believe the last day we have to submit this is july 31, assuming that there are no other charter amendments that need to be approved prior to that date. so i am hoping that this will be the only one that is remaining after tomorrow. we have that motion. we can do that without opposition. thank you. madam clerk, item number two. >> item two commotion ordering submitted to the voters a policy declaration that supports limits on political campaign contributions and spending and opposes artificial corporate rights and giving corporations the same rights and title to human beings at an election to be held on november 6, 2012. supervisor kim: thank you, madam clerk. the sponsor of this item did want to come and speak, and he

is here. supervisor avalos. also, supervisor campos is a co- sponsor. of like to give them an opportunity to speak. supervisor wiener would also like to say sending before he leaves. and if folks can take their conversations outside so we can continue with this item, that would be great. supervisor wiener: thank you. i just wanted to i am support of this resolution. i want to thank the sponsors for bringing it forward. i look forward to sending it to the voters. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor wiener. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you, chair. thank you for scheduling this item to be heard. this is a policy statement going to the voters, and it is in support of the constitutional amendment that would overturn citizens united and also look at addressing corporate personhood.

and i have some talking points. so, we live in a world of trickle-down economics with tax breaks for the wealthy, diminishing union power, and privatization of the public realm. we're witnessing the greatest concentration of wealth in more than a century. this concentration of wealth is playing havoc with our democratic institutions. on january 21, 2010, the u.s. supreme court ruled in a case called citizens united versus the federal election commission the corporations of the same rights as people. this ruling flies in the face of common sense. we know that corporations do not breed. we know that corporations do not give birth, go to war, or pledge allegiance to our flag. in many cases, they do not even pay their fair share of taxes. but under citizens united unlimited corporate spending on elections is now treated as a free speech and is protected under the first amendment of deeper -- of the constitution to

do with this decision, the supreme court and our national democracy is in crisis. the supreme court got it wrong when the world that unlimited spending on political campaigns is a form of free speech. by striking down sensible limits on campaign spending, the court has allowed the voices of a few wealthy interests to speak louder than the rest of us. is it any wonder that the people to like government does not listen to them anymore? since the ruling, corporations have been legally allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections on behalf of federal candidates. many of these contributions are made in secret. with no telling who is paying for the so-called social welfare organizations which front corporate political donors. the citizens united ruling has green lighted unprecedented campaign spending in the rise of super pacs. these committees have massive war chest funded by banks, insurance companies, oil corporations, agra business

centers, a corporate giant eager to elect public officials that will protect our corporate bottom lines through deregulation and cutting public spending. the change in national politics has been immediate. corporations dilutes the 2010 elections with close to $300 million in outside spending. this year, billions of dollars will be spent on corporate-from the candidates who will fight. this spending will very likely overwhelm candidates who are more oriented around the public interest of universal health care, clean environment, education, and taxation. put this together and our democracy is a being flushed down the drain. we can correct these errors by passing an amendment to the u.s. constitution clarifying the corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of people in authorizing limits on campaign contributions and

spending that promote a level playing field and ensure that all citizens, regardless of speak. by placing a policy statement on the ballot, san francisco voters will have a chance to call upon elected members ofykblñ congreso support a constitutional amendment to restore government by and for the people. this policy measure has four main parts. a statement that the bill of rights are intended to protect the rights of individual human beings. a statement that citizens united posts a serious threat to democracy by allowing unlimited corporate spending to influence elections, candidates election, and policy decisions. a stiffer san francisco voters to affirm that corporate -- corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons and that corporate money is not a form of constitutionally protected free speech. also a statement for san francisco voters to affirm that they support efforts of congress to pass a constitutional amendment to end corporate

personhood, reversing the decision of citizens united case and calling on to other jurisdictions that passed similar measures and resolutions. i would like to thank common cause for their support, public citizen, my friend, a san francisco citizen and resident, linda, an intern in my office, raquel from my office for her work in crafting this resolution in mobilizing support. i would like to thank my colleagues, supervisor campos for his co-sponsor ship, and it sounds like supervisor wiener is a co-sponsor as well. and i feel like at this time when we're saying the rise of great corporate influence over what is happening in our public realm, that we need to be of a fight back with statements like this from the public. san francisco is right for making such a statement as november on the ballot, and i

would urge that we send this forward with your recommendations. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor campos? supervisor campos thank you. i want to thank supervisor avalos for bringing this forward. i am proud to be a co-sponsor. we put something like this on the francisco to make a policy statement about something that happens at the u.s. supreme court. it is not something that we do lightly, but it is something, i think, that we have to do. because what has happened as a result of the citizens united position is that there has been a fundamental change in the way in which our democratic process works. one of the things that i found really fascinating in the ruling by the court was some of the points that were brought out in the descent. and the four justices that voted against the opinion noted that

corporations, as it is in our legal system, enjoy benefits than natural people, natural individuals do not enjoy. you know, if you compare what a corporation has the ability to do against, vis-a-vis, a natural person, corporations have limited liability, which is not something that any of us can have. they have the possibility of perpetual life. they can exist forever. and they also get pretty favorable treatment in terms of the kenya -- accumulation of assets. again, something that individuals do not get. you have also the ability of corporations to act in a way that of cs get -- of two spades for the public and in common

law, there are reasons why you can pierce the corporate veil, because we have seen that corporations sometimes act in directly so as to avoid illegal activity, like what happened here in san francisco during the energy crisis. you had pg any -- pg&e utility use it as a way of of funneling money out of the utility. there are so many examples where corporations are not taken the level of responsibility that an individual takes. and for that reason, to elevate the rights of the corporation to of the natural person is not only something that does not make sense, as supervisor avalos eloquently put it, but in terms of the law and the way in which the u.s. constitution has been interpreted until recently, it is not sending that has not made sense constitutionally either. the reality is that we should not be in a position where we

have to seek a constitutional amendment because the u.s. constitution has never truly given corporations that level of legal rights. but the fact is that, because of the makeup of our supreme court, we have this ruling. and i think it is important to undo what is happening at the u.s. supreme court for jurisdictions, cities like san francisco, to take a clear stand up to say that we're not for this. we are against this. it is something that goes against the very fabric of our democracy, and it is something that we want our elected officials in washington, d.c., to do everything they can to change the system. and, let's be honest, the way the system works, it is unlikely that the system is going to reform within the system. the people who work part of the system, even those who want to change it, are going to have a difficult time changing it. that is why it is support for the people of the united states to step in and say this is not

aware that our democracy should work. this is why this policy statement is so important. and san francisco has always led the way in standing up for what we believe is right, for what we believe is a democratic and inclusive. we are in peril as a democracy if someone can write a $10 million check and, by virtue of wealth, determine who gets to be not only the nominee for a presidential party or who is elected president. that is not what democracy is about to the fact is that the vote of every individual should count as much as the vote of any individual. and the fact that the $10 million check can be written by a billionaire is a direct result of what happened with the citizens united case, and we have to stand against it. i think it is really important

for san francisco voters to take that stand, and that is why i am proud to be cosponsoring this with you,,.ñmx supervisor avalo. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. any other comments? no comments from committee members. at this time, i will open it up for public comment. please line up. two minutes. >> i wanted to start with a note. i came to the city was 22 years old. i was here when harvey milk and the mayor was slain and dianne feinstein was seated as mayor. i have been in politics ever since. yen i currently work for common cause. i work with the women sprites group for many years. i stepped down in 2008. and-- i work with women's rights groups for many years. i saw there was an opening at common cause to be in northern

california organizer, and i wanted to work with young people. i have a nine-year-old daughter and i worry about her future. what i really want to work for is a sustainable democracy where the air and water in all of these things are taking care of. i am very happy to be here today. in i am always excited about the beautiful things and the visionary things of san the politics. having said that, i want to say that this move to put this on the ballot, i am part of a national coalition that is taking citizens united as a common problem. we firmly believe that getting at the root of the money and politics is really the thing we need to do. thank you for this. thank you for this. >> think hank you?

any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. normally on a philosophical level i do not support declaration of policies on the ballot just because they do not have a true policy impact and i generally support having something that has the legislative impact on the city to be sent to the voters, however, i very much support the intention of the measure and agree with the points that supervisor avalos has brought up. as someone who has studied the constitution and actually has a love of admiration for the document, it is something that guide our country's values and walls, i was incredibly disappointed to see the ruling of citizens united and the concept of citizens united do

not act as human beings retreated as such and were given first amendment rights. for that reason i will support this measure to be put on the ballot and will support a motion to citizens united do send this forward to the full board. any of their comments from colleagues? -- any other comments from colleagues? do we have a motion? we of emotion and a second. we can do that without opposition. thank you madam clerk, any other items? >> no, madam chair. chair kim:"xn seeing none, the meeting is adjourned.