when you put this in perspective, we are charged with stewarding over 27 percent of the land. this is tough to do without the support of sfpd, but also without efforts to activate our parks and the volunteers and all the ingredients to keeping the safe parks. there is no question that with respect to vandalism and illegal dumping and the type of stuff that we are trying to correct a little bit through this ordinance, that in a sense this provides a little bit more of an efficient tool given the fact that we are resource challenged because it is impossible to keep our eyes, we enough staff to keep our eyes on all 4,000 acres. there is ths a tool that we can use for education and try prevent

things from happening. >> sounds like this legislation if it were to pass today, it sounds like a tool and a step. i'm thinking about a step beyond, how do we elevate from from an enforcement perspective. i have heard comments already on the board that it's an enforcement issue. so i just want to say thank you. that's it for me. >> supervisor mar. i think this is a mean spirited ordinance. this is hard because i see you sitting here and rachel norris from the park alliance and who i have seen a number of times in buena vista park where i know the clean up and sometimes belligerent groups of homeless people are there, i feel for

the park patrol that often act as social workers along with our park station from supervisor breed's police department and the richmond station as well. they are really great people to ride along with and they have a very hard job. but i say the ordinance is mean spirited because it will impact so many humans beings that no where to go and i have ridden along to see girls and middle aged women and many with mental illness issues and groups of seniors who are veterans and others in the park. it will achieve a quote unquote lack mow process. these are human beings that are going to be placed in other parts in our city. supervisor was saying, i think this ordinance is -- we should not

be passing mean spirited ordinances like this that treat people as if they are not there. there are large numbers. i have ridden along. i think there are about 40 people that i came about and there is all ages and i want us to have a heart as the board of supervisors to deal with they'll people as human beings and i also say this is mean spirited because there are other ways to look at this. i know it's going to have impact on other areas in the city and will force people into different neighborhoods and it's people that have no choice but by necessity to sleep on

benches and sometimes in the park but they will be in door ways and neighborhood corridors as well. a number of lgbt community advocates brought up that this is a human rights issue for homeless people in the city. and i hope that we can put our heads together to come up with issues that are humane. but this is not the right way to do it. this is as some say about vandalism and some parks and recreation advocates look at the budget it looks like it's $36,000 that go towards graffiti abatement. if we are talking about graft and some of the dumping. the other

section the ordinance that enforces police powers allowing him or her to close the park whenever there is a threat or safety resulting by natural cause or by riot on unlawful activity. it's giving more authority where we can do better to keep our parks safer and clean. i'm voting against this and i urge my colleagues to vote against this mean spirited ordinance. >> supervisor breed? >> thank you, i have had a lot of challenges with this particular issue and i just have a statement to provide details about why i have chosen to vote which is against the legislation. i have the highest respect for our general manager with parks and

recreation and as well as my colleague supervisor wiener. i would also like to mention that many of my most commit supporters and people who i respect their focus on this, even with friends you can't always agree 100 percent of the time. i don't think this law is an appropriate tool to do the job. i have serious concerns about the legislation that will prevent me from being able to support it today. i have six fundamental problems with this. my first concern is the impact that this could have on our neighborhoods. according to the department of human services, agencies, the 2013 homeless count shows that there is 7350 homeless adults in san francisco. that leaves

approximately 6,000 people that have no we are though sleep. as a supervisor it would be irresponsible for me not to think about that this and to not consider what would happen if these people wind up sleeping on the door steps. that would be worse for the neighborhoods and the homeless. of course, that assumes that this ordinance or the existing ones like it can be effectively enforced. which leads to my second concern. >> excuse me. if i can ask folks to respect the holding of signs. it is an issue with safety. >> take a look at that time existing park code. camping in a tenant -- tent. and sleeping in the park is always prohibited. so is litering and

dumping section.04 and drinking in all parks. the police can bar or evict anyone from the park or if their drinks or doing anything damaging to the park or if they are disturbing others, fines can be levied for violations of any of the above section 10.01 and under section 3.3 as long as they are not during activities protected. the management can close any park if they decide the public interest demands it. the tools are already there. we don't have a regulation problem. we have an enforcement problem. at night, there are 2 or 3 park

patrol officers on the beat in the entire city. two or three officers over seeing 220 different parks spread across 3500 acres. yes, camping, trash, graffiti and vandalism are a problem, but the damage is distributed throughout the park system and we can't honestly tell ourselves that closing hours is some magic pill to resolve it. many parks already have closing hours, in district 5, close from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.. meaning this legislation will actually extend it's opening hours. that's assuming either set of hours is enforced. i have talked to police officers and the district attorney. i'm not confident that we have the resources to enforce the minor

park violations. according to city hall, in the first year, implementation there were exactly 0 misdemeanor convictions. i'm not particularly interested in a broad addition to the park code. i would like to enforce our efforts in enforcement and thirdly it would cost more to enforce this than we are saving. i'm not convinced that this would save $5 million. i have reviewed the damage. the damage is distributed all over the park system and it's not all occurring during the hours of 12:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.. how are a small handful of patrol officers going to stop vandalism in our parks all over the city. if this legislation passes, parks and recreation will be required to post new

signs in all 220 parks with the new hours. where will the money come from for this one time expense? unfortunately, i this i think the only way this law will stop vandalism, would be to increase the officers which would probably cost more than savings we would realize. fourth, i'm sympathetic to the argument that i have heard from some of my constituents which is my tax dollars pay for the park and if i want to use them at 4:00 a.m. and that's my prerogative. i know people that work 12-hour shifts and if they want to walk their dog at night they should be able to and if someone wants to go jogging in the park before they

go to work, they should be able to. i have heard the feedback which is it won't enforce them which is exactly my problem. my 5th point that i have serious concerns this law will be enforced. well, if it's not intended to target the homeless, then the investment banker, who is the law targeted? suspicious people, teenagers. i'm not comfortable that we would pass the idea that the law enforcement measure that it would be selectively enforced. lastly, i think there are some perfectly legitimate reasons to use the parks at night. 2 weeks ago, parks and recreation staff presented a packet in support of the ordinance. the last page in large font said nothing good happening in a darkened

parkland escape at night. i don't think that sentiment is true and i'm not comfortable with staff putting that sentiment out in the public. there is so many issues with that law that make me very unkofrt ablcomfortable with it. over all it's not good issues to resolve. in anyone's presence to see who commits those acts. we can shut down the streets so no one would speed, a curfew could reduce graffiti everywhere. i for one, i don't want to limit

everyone's freedom in order to deter those who an abuse that premium. i supported some and got a lot of heat for it. i have done everything i could since becoming supervisor to be as supportive as i possibly could of the parks and recreation department. i know how valuable our parks are and how critical they are to keeping families in san francisco and the firsthand how settling and disappointing it can be to our full and specific treasures. i want to do everything to maintain our parks, but i don't think this legislation does it. including fund to -- funding to increase

more supervision around the parks and consequences for citations which currently do not exist. legislation making it clear that violations of the park code are evictable. that is currently not the case. i'm currently working on legislation to allow the department of public works to produce civil suits against graffiti repeat offenders. this legislation will not further burden our criminal prosecutors. we know that low level crimes are being prosecutes in this city and will allow the city to recover monetary settlement for the worst graffiti offenders and these will have nothing to do with those offenses. it is legislation i'm happy to draft and carry. this legislation

before us today however as much i respect it's intent, response o it's supporters, it's something i can't support. >> supervisor campos? >> first of all i want to begin saying that i would like to fully associate myself with the comments of supervisor breed. i haven't heard a more articulate well-informed and well reasoned argument with respect to probably just about anything that's come before the board in quite some time. i want to thank supervisor breed for the very thoughtful comments. i do want to begin by saying that i understand and appreciate the intent to this legislation. you are talking about good people who are trying to find ways to deal with a very serious problem. so i understand the spirit in which supervisor wiener and the people behind this legislation have

introduced it. the ironic thing here is that we have legislation that appears to deal with vandalism in the park and yet it says nothing about vandalism. it deals with vandalism by addressing a separate and distinct issue which is the issue of park closures. an issue which is already addressed by the code. having served on the police commission, i'm trying to understand how it is that if you are trying to deal with vandalism, that the way you try to address the issue is by focusing on what time a park is opened and closed. if the goal is to deal with vandalism, then let's deal with vandalism. the issue here is not the absence of loss, but the fact that the loss we have in the books are

now being enforced. someone that i respect tremendously said this is two parks was to the streets. that is precisely why i oppose it. as supervisor breed indicated since sit lie has passed we haven't seen and we haven't seen enforcement and what we have seen is selective enforcement. individual officers decide when cid lie is enforced. that's what is happened here. the intent is you can't have it both ways. on one way you are saying you are not going kick people out of the parks and when this item came to committee, the director of operations of parks and

recreation dennis kern testified and said that they i in fact will enforce this ordinance against people who are in the park. you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth. you either enforce it or you don't. the lieutenant who testimony in favor of this, testified 2 weeks ago which was specifically asked by me, do you have absent this legislation the tools you need to enforce the laws to prevent vandalism? and he said, yes. we have those tools. so what is it that this law is doing? i don't believe in passing laws unless you intend for those laws to be enforced. if this

law is enforced, it will mean as mr. kern indicated that people will be pushed out of these parks. there is reliance here on the civil grand jury, they reported that in the park there is 5200 people sleeping in that park. if people are pushed out of the park, where are these 50-400 people going to go. there are other legislations doing what this city intend to do. i live in san francisco. let's look at new york city. supervisor

wiener began by listing the number of city that follow this kind of policy and listed new york city at the top of that list. what they forget to tell you is that in new york city there is an actual constitutional protection understate law that guarantees that people get shelter. when new york city kicks people out of the parks, new york city is legally required to provide them shelter. that is not the case here. when we kick people out of these parks, these people have no where to go. we heard from the agencies that do this kind of work that we don't have beds to house what people need. if you want to compare yourself to new york city, compare yourself but they actually provide the shelter that we are not providing here.

now, we have heard a lot in the past few weeks about what's happening in san francisco and the chronicle talks about the tale of two cities and talks about the huge wealth we have in this city and talks about san francisco that doesn't have the money to fix broken elevators at his public housing projects, league seniors and disabled residents stranded in their apartments. i hope that tale of two cities story does not include that this city that has a lot of wealth that is kicking people out of park for alternatives for housing. if you really want to tackle this issue, then let's talk about housing. let's talk about where

these homeless folks are going to go. it's not just an issue of the homeless, it is a civil rights issue. as a gay mind i'm mindful the fact that 29 percent of the homeless in the city are queered. and we heard in the city that queer homeless folks are afraid to go into shelter system because they don't feel safe by virtue of being queer. where are these folks going? many of them are sleeping in parks because that's where they feel safe. there are moments when we have to decide who we are as a city. unfortunately there are times when good people who mean well propose things that have negative unintended consequences. this is one of those moments. we are better simply saying no luck. you are

out. we have to make sure that we remain true to what san francisco has been. a city ha historically has recognized the dignity and humanity of every individual. and how we treat the homeless says a lot about who we are as a city. i know that people mean well, but this is not the way the go. this is not san francisco. we are better than this. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you, president chiu. i also want to concur with supervisor 's comments and associate. my comments are with supervisor breed. i almost took my name off the roster after she spoke because she articulated a lot of my

sentiment. no. 1, the issue of vandalism. parks and recreation did an amazing job at land use committee really articulating the problem and show casing the need for addressing the problem about what we need to do about vandalism. i agree that this is an issue and an expensive issue. the basic problem with this ordinance is we are ticketing which is not vandalism but articulating something that is not criminal. what i had an issue was with cid lie. during land use committee another issue we have in our city is with car break -ins. it's a huge problem. what i have not heard is a proposal to ban people walking on

sidewalks to parked car. vandalism to cars is incredible. if we found an issue to address that, i would be the first to propose it. we are not proposing to banned people from walking lying by cars. if a police officer drives by, no one is going to put out their tools for break-ins. which is why we should not criminalize the behavior for being in the park. the second issue that came up is when vandalism happens. numerically 12-5 is when this occurs . we don't have evidence of that. the second issue is

this is not about homelessness. we don't carve out people who are sleeping in the parks. i get it, it is illegal to sleep in the parks. we don't fine poor people for that behavior. this ordinance changes that. you can now get a ticket for sleeping in the park. $100 and $200 and $300 . we are criminalizing people and giving them a fine and this burdens our system and doesn't get result we wanted. the third issue, is the one that i think that supervisor breed highlighted really well which is what i hear over again that this won't be used against the people that are casually walking through the park. this came up in the discussion about what if you are genuinely

walking through the panhandle through south park to visit a neighbor after midnight. what we've been told repeatedly, don't worry, we won't ticket those people. then who is so obvious that we are ticketing. if it's not someone walking across the neighborhood park to get where they need to go or jog between midnight and 5:00 a.m., then who decides that this person has the tool that is going to vandalize this park structure. i think that's the elephant in the room. if you are a white business person that's going on an early morning job, you are not going to get ticketed. who is ticketed, the young person of color in a hoodie? that raises a ton of questions for me and the concern of acid lie when we

say what if a five-year-old sits in a sidewalk at the middle of the day. we are not going to ticket that 5-year-old kid. then who are you going to ticket. i think there are a lot of issues that this legislation brings up simply because we are not addressing the issues and we are opening the door for a ton of discrimination and think we know who is going to get ticketed when they are likely going for a walk or walking a dog. occasionally we have warm nights here. one of my faeft -- favorite things to do is go to like delores park and be with some friends on one those nights that it's 89 degrees and i think it's important to see

people hanging out with friends and of course not doing anything illegal but utilizes the space that makes san francisco great. when i did visit soul i went to one of our parks at 11:00 p.m. and what i saw was an incredible healthy use of force our park. i saw many people out there. i think it's important to what you mean by say there is any type of possible behavior. i think if there is another approach that dealt with vandalism strictly, i'm very open to that. i was really happy to hear there were some discussions coming out of supervisor breed's office. i think it's important to have this very important dialogue. >>