that are still there as a housing authority. i am a property manager now at robert development, and i worked at potrero hill and sunnyvale. that means i have been involved with the thousands of families in san francisco. in my time here there is shooting and robberies and domestic violence. i had an incident where an employee was attacked by a resident. all things that you won't hear, because there are people that work for the agency that care about the employees and residents that are out there every day doingor :-- doing our jobs to the best of our ability with limited resources. and that statement is a slap in the face to those of us that

worked to provide physical assistance. and psychological needs, all things that we have to implement to provide services. those are things that i do day to day on the front line. and how much money i don't get from management, i still do a good job. i don't care what nonprofit comes in, you would be hard pressed to find somebody that can do it better than we do. thank you. >> i will call a few cards. i think this is anita. and last -- i can't read this. david cannon. james doxy. joyce armstrong. candy small bowood.

ed donaldson. >> hi, i am caleb (inaudible), thank you for calling this hearing, while there is no question that the housing authority is in a crisis, entangling bank on debt and the stock is not the solution. we have a question about the loss of jobs and the potential displacement of african-american families that are most likely impacted by the implementation of rad. the information from the mayor's housing authority is unclear. and we don't have a complete understanding of the long-term financial situation of the program, and whether demographics won't shift an others take control.

the board is responsible for all parties impacted by rad, and request power authority for more services, and you can produce a study conducted by rhoades, and ensure this to stay within the city and county of san francisco. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. joyce armstrong, president of the public housing association, phta, not pta, that shows how little he works with us. i am joined by the president of ccde, that is the council of disabled, and she wants you know

that she supports the rad program. as far as we know it's the only program that can help the public housing in dire need of help. and she wanted me to tell you that the elevator problem, and they are blessed that something bad hasn't happened in the senior disabled buildings. she's hopeful they have service providers. right now we don't have social worker in the building, except maybe four. that's a service that is needed in the senior disabled buildings as well as the family developments. yes, as president of the phta, i support the concept of rad. we are still contacted and we requested training so we can

understand and articulate what is going do happen to residents in the proper way. residents have to get up off of their behinds and become active. we send out information and beg them to come to meetings. and we don't have a grassroots following, people are comfortable, and when they are victims they want to call, we want endoctrinate them now. please get back with us soon, we will like to meet with you if you need us to. >> thank you, next speaker. >> david cannon will not be speaking. i am iona (inaudible). >> this is your writing. >> it's not mine but it's me. thank you for being here, kind

of hard to cover anything more. my workers did a good job and a lot of people voiced their concerns. i wanted to remind folks, i don't want any future generation to sit at any classroom at any university and say what urban renewal taught me as a cal student. that we displaced and did a project that doesn't serve the community and residents. and we have questions about lenders and vendors and who is going to manage. and hud is going on provide a waiver for those folks that are going to be fixed or better. i want us to be mindful that an agreement would serve us that we have well-paying jobs with the living wage. and we have tenant right protections.

and it serves the board in its best interest to do that. so we can work together, not just the housing authority or the mayor's office but a larger group. i am concerned on a 18-month path and we still don't have all of these questions. to rely on who is going to give the loan to which group. that's our residents, that's our community. we want a better san francisco. and i am not sure i am hearing that today. i think we need a better dialogue and transferred to joints power agreement to protect all communities of color. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i am the rad outreach specialist at san francisco, and i am former resident of alice griffin. i understand the need for rad,

and i understand two important things. tenant education and input and tenant protections. it's very important that there are people in these properties educating and empowering and listening to the tenants. many tenants have discussed that this development is chosen and now with the properties they didn't have a say. the tenants want to be involved in these processes, and now that there is time for door-knocking opportunities and the beneficiaries of rad, are not left in the dark. and for the tenants to understand the protections in rad. there needs to be education to ease the fears. it's important to get out-reach teams out there to teach others and to get more leaders on the ground. so that the residents know their

protections and can get their concerns heard. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i want to say thank you for the opportunity to speak at this hearing, and actually for you guys to have the courage to call this hearing. to flush out some concerns and issues that people have around the rad program. you know it isn't an option to do nothing. i agree wholeheartedly with the city on that point. when you think of the decrepit housing conditions that people are forced to live under. though i have concerns about the whole process is played out. and in particular in the afri n african-americans of san francisco. a collaborative report from

2011, that 45% evictions are african-americans, and 29% in the city of san francisco were african-americ african-americans, but only represent 4-6% of the population. there are other people on the wait list, and whether those on the wait list and getting into public housing and if they merit one another. and with evictions we believe there is serious housing right concerns that lie there that may be a basis for a lawsuit. and resources like they did for district 9, that folks get resources for tenant organizing. and we believe that the workers should allow to become civil worker employees. and we believe to ensure that there is adequate participation

and equity in the process, that african-americans are at the table, so that some of those folks are hired for these positions. and the financial feasibility all of that is in question -- [mic turned off] >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good evening, supervisors, i have notes that i want to address. but after listening to the presentation over two hours, it's frustrating to go over these. i work with a lot of clients who live in public housing. my background is real estate finance, and have worked in the city for 10 years, and do large-scale projects outside of

the country. and listening to the dog and pony show, with all due respect to the leaders that spoke up. a lot of vague responses. if i went to my clients and gave vague answers, they wouldn't listen to my proposals. and the only way to get san francisco to address changes in the community on how you treat blac blacks. that you start working with local film producers in the community, trust them to come in. videotape, show that you look as if you live in a third-world country. i have seen some pictures that my clients have brought to my office to get me to help with the housing authority. and how as a professional in the industry how the department heads talk to me, even when i give them the law. the only way to get san

francisco to change, do video and make it viral and put it the on the youtube, and you will something besides this dog and pony show and vague answers. >> thank you, virinna. >> good afternoon, i am a housing authority with the bay area legal aid. we provide free legal services to low-income tenants. and having worked with public housing tenants, and that's a different experience and property managed by property authorities. and it's not a good difference. while the rights of the tenants in either of those properties should be the same. in reality they play out differently in real life.

one of the examples i want to bring to you, the issues we have had with transferring tenants between buildings. and this is a concern in an emergency transfer when domestic crimes are involved. and the problem we have, the privately managed properties have their own screening criteria on top of those that public housing should have. and that is a barrier for a domestic violence survivor to transfer securely and to a safer place. and because of the developers involved, those problems will magnify and prevent more people from transferring into safe environments. and transfer policies that take into account emergency situations such as domestic violence and other violent

crimes. and i want to mention that public housing tenants are entitled to procedures before the case proceeds to eviction. with private developers we are having trouble getting those procedures followed. and to be followed through due diligence, and for most developers eviction is the first step. thank you. >> i am nancy cross, and i am here to bring to your attention danger of having what sounds like a very good partnership between the city administration and the developers. in relation to a project that is funded for the benefit of the

public. and the public doesn't have any meaningful say about what is happening here. and i will illustrate by this public/private partnership in relation to the (inaudible) and the shelters in the city in relation to smoking. when you consider what the hotels want and the hotel users in the tourist trade. you say, we wish for the hotels to preserve 75% of their room dedicated to nonsmoking. not what happens on separate floors with separate elevators. but when it comes to shelters and sro's, we allow smoking and provide smoking patios. and we don't enforce no smoking in front of the shelter on polk

street. and if you look at the statistics you feel, you find this is a primary cause of death. and that the people that are homeless have 20 year shorter life expectancy in the circumstances they are put. none of the developers will devel developer, and you spread the epidemic and you impose welfare costs of smoking through the shelters. and sro's [mic turned off]

>> thank you, ma'am. ma'am, thank you, we have one more speaker. we appreciate your comments. >> good afternoon, supervisors, i am sarah short with the housing rights committee. i want to second the sentiment you heard br -- about the tremendous need for education and it needs to be resourced. and it needs to be independent, and done by trusted community groups and residents themselves. to work with other residents to apprise what is happening in

their buildings. people are feeling in the dark, and it deprives residents to have input in the process and involved in the negotiations around the important tenant protections that we need to preserve and strengthen. i want to flag some of those that we think need to be further discussions about. and to say that what we need is a standard, fair and reasonable set of policies around such things as grievance procedures, transfer policies. eviction policies and back-rent payment plans. leases. and house rules. those are the types of things that we hope before we get rolling with rad, and we work with the city as holson said

that it's worked in the agreements and codified some more than just assurances. and we need the residents involved in that and we need to go out and talk with the residents and explain how they can be involved and what exactly is proposed, etc. so they can be a part of the process. and then we need to ensure that we are looking very closely at any loss of rights between the conversion from the public housing program to what will now be the product-based voucher program [mic turned off] >> thank you, any other members of the public that would like to make public comment at this time? seeing no members at the time, public comment is now closed. [gavel] supervisor av vavaloavalos, thi

very interesting hearing, you have any comments? >> i do have comments. mostly i live in a district where we don't have a great deal of public housing. a few sites on randolph street. not a very large one. a lot of section 8 in the district. i wanted to co-sponsor this hearing, because i saw a lot of great changes proposed. and a lot of framework provided by the federal government, that we have to align ourselves with to shore up public housing and make sure we have the resources to move forward. often these mandates that come from other levels of government are completely unfair. and puts us in a difficult situation, where we have to create changes that people are not comfortable with, at a speed that is not -- or not able to

see the changes happen as they are happening. i think it creates great caution for san francisco, how we can also as mr. lee talked about the values that went out in our rfq, and we have to ensure other values strong in san francisco, that is public oversight and involvement in the creation of these changes. i want to be sure that our city can uphold that value as we are making changes. i think the issues raised around tenant rights, the right of tenants to be have assurity of staying in their property. that they will be able to return to their units. and the ability to be transferred. whether it's, you know, trying to avoid a dangerous situation they are living in. or other ways, other reasons why

they have been transferred. i think it's a right that has to be upheld. i am concerned about financing and who the investors and lenders will be. often we are at the constraint of the banks and the lenders. it's incredible that the profit model, even if we are creating a public/private partnership, the model from the lenders perspective compromises our resources, i am concerned about that. i have worked on since july of 2011, to create our own municipal bank that could be infused with our values as a city, and infrastructure, and education infrastructure. and to couple our resources, and

to add resources. the public bank is one to make sure we have adequate dollars for our housing is an area to focus on. there was recommends -- recommendations that came out of the fsu and regarding the important assets. for decades the idea is that the board of supervisors should play a role over public housing. and i think that the public housing without that oversight has suffered greatly in what tenants face and resources provided. and i think those days really should end. and maybe this change that is being forced upon us in terms of how we can access resources from

the federal government is the time where we actually can make that change here. provide that oversight from the board of supervisors. and i am willing to look at that. with my colleagues and would love to hear your thoughts, supervisor breed. >> thank you, i honestly -- this has been an enlightening hearing. and i have so many questions, so many concerns. i have had for some time. i have been mostly concerned about the communication. i am not concern that this hearing helped me. it confused me a little bit more. but it also made me a little more frustrated because there was a certain, there was something else in my mind that i understood was going to happen with public housing. yes, the rad program and certain properties. but i wasn't completely aware

that those properties that truly need to be rebuilt completely, are not. not only not going to be rebuilt in a timely manner, and we will be required once rehabilitated to keep them online for 20 years, we won't be able to demolish those particular buildings. that's news to me. i am concerned about so many things i don't know where to start. i lived over 20 years of my life in public housing. and you know it was a part of my existence. i had a strong community. but we constantly had challenges. what is really sad, i have gone on walks informally to all the public housing establishments in my district. and the conditions that existed then, the broken pipes and the roaches and the mice holes, and

the smell and the sewage stuff. the list goes on and on. and to go back and i have family and folks who still live there. but to go in as a supervisor and to hear not just the complaints of my friends and family. but to hear the complaints of so many other people living in these same conditions that existed when i was growing up there is really pretty horrible. it's really difficult for -- i am excited on the one hand in that we finally have an opportunity with a mayor that has agreed to work with us. and really focus on helping me to invest city resources into public housing, unlike never before. but on the underhand there are some challenges to that. and what that really is going on mean for residents.

for the folks that kind of suffered through the challenges of public housing. the difficulties of dealing with some of the things that exist. for far too long public housing has operated in isolation. and the most frustrating thing for me as a spfupervisor, is toe treated different than any other housing development in san francisco. separate services for police, and not to mention the market-rate costs that are sucking the budget dry. what i want to know as a supervisor when we talk about moving forward, when we talk about how this program is going to work. i want to know exactly how the current dollars that are being spent from the public housing are working for the current residents. and i would like to know how we

plan to just continue to have this discussion around the transition of what this is going to mean for both residents and employees of the property. especially as many of those employees are actually residents. and when we talk about better service, are we talking about better training it or opportunities for existing employees of public housing? i mean there are so many unanswered questions. and i have to say from my perspective, from growing up i knew that a lot of residents would often get a job with public housing. and it was really difficult to get a job any place else in the city. city employments in the city were hardly available to us, and working in a public housing site where you lived was probably the job of many young people.

and folks grew up in public housing, and doing eligibility work in other things. some of my friends ended up working and getting other jobs through public housing. i want to be sure there is a real connection for the folks that have been around for a long time whether employees or residents. but we are trying to work to make sure they are included in the process, and not just saying out with the old and in with the new. there is a better way do it. and i am not comfortable with the plan is, there are still a lot of questions i have. and i don't want to prolong this hearing by going through the laundry list of questions and concerns. but this is the first of what i feel needs to be discussions around this issue. so we can make sure that we are working together in this effort. i know that the mayor's office of housing is