and don't mitigate any of the real life circumstances that come up. the legislation tells us if you lose your job you'll be expected to sell your home at a loss. the legislation tells us if there's a death in the family, if your mother dies, your father falls ill, you'll have to wait five years to move closer to be with them. if there's a job transfer that you're not expected to go for the job. or there's a change in the family and you have an unexpected birt that you won't be able to move and adjust your family lifestyle. we're concerned about the retroactive timeline. it's unfair. the homeowners that bought in 2010, 2012, not knowing this would come down the pipes. it's a housing tax and it

doesn't make sense to use a housing tax in one of the most housing markets in the nation. it should be noted that this provision has no protection for tenants, very few protections for young families and homeowners. the only protection is for buildings with 30 units or more. we believe the legislation is unworkable and urge you to oppose this measure. i'm president of the small property owners of san francisco, i'm a small property owner myself and we're very concerned about this measure. i guess i'm wearing black today because i'm mourning further death of rental housing in san francisco. every time one of these measures gets past, a few more people decide to sell or not to went rent or to rents to a

family member. that's what i've done. this initiative lies. it purports to make housing more affordable, but reduces the supply as people find more creative ways to avoid renting their houses out to ordinary people the way we used to. it cheats people who buth several years ago with no knowledge of this punitive and excessive tax on top of all the other costs of owning rental property in san francisco and these costs are would what cause people to want to go out of the rental business. it steals. this tax is so excessive that it may cause people who buy and improve a property to lose some of their hard earned money. there's nothing wrong the fliping housing. some of the people that would be caught in this snare are ordinary people who are faced with life challenges. throughout my adult life my family and i were forced to

move within two years, buying four times because of unexpected job transfers, my husband worked for a construction companies. lies, cheats and steals, this is what the government offers investors in this area. i would point out the lady who was evicted her 35-year-old friend so it's a sob stoirp but it's not true. thank you very much. >> supervisors, good afternoon, my name is peter, i'm a small property owner, i'm a member of small property owners association. i thought originally the discussion was about attacks on profits in the sale of build,. well, it isn't. it's an the assessed valuation

so this is almost [inaudible] confiscation of property. i think it's the retroactive component is also one that is very unfair and i also read in the legislation that you can get some relief from the tax if you agree to a certain amount of affordability your project so this means that the attack that the legislation isn't going to be applied equally to all people. you can bargain and make a deal and get a sweet ideal for yourself. i think this is very badly crafted. i think the legislation will do nothing more than discourage people to make investments in san francisco and as miss richmond pointed out a minute ago, more people will take their units off the market rather than rent. thank you.

>> good afternoon, [inaudible] apartment association. i want to state to all of you that this measure will do nothing to stop real estate speculation in san francisco. just as a tax on stocks, parading will do nothing to stop speculation in the stock market. what will will do is hurt homeowners like myself that have an unwarranted unit and they try to sell the property and they'll be taxed at this amount of money is absolutely ridiculous. a quarter of a million for a million dollar sale? in my experience, doing my job in the past 20 years, the only way to solve landlord tenant issues is in a collaborative way, bringing both sides together and demanding they work out a solution to problems before they leave the room. one sided ballot measures

crafted by feel good conventions. if tles ooo a problem with [inaudible] real estate i suggest you pick up the phone and call the owners over there and tell them the problem and bring them in they need to solve that problem. that's the way the problem gets solved. doing something like this solves nothing, solves no speculation, saves nobody, but hurts a lot of homeowners that live here that are struggling to take care of their families too. none of us can afford to pay in much in a tax if we sell our property. it's ridiculous. my question to all of you since supervisor campos indicated we're trying to build a record, we're trying to build a record for our successful campaign against this, we're trying to build a record because and we will do that just like we successfully defeated the ellis bill in sacramento. until you show some lieder ship and bring both sides together

to solve these problem, we will continue to enforce our rights as given to us in the united states constitution. i would like to know from the city attorney, since nobody else brought it up, what sort of vote do you need on in? it's my understanding you need a 2/3 vote. under article 13d of the california constitution section 3 it states you need a 2/3 vote on this and i would like that clarification out of this body before the end of the hearing. thank you. >> hi, i'm a contractor and a small time property own, mostly my parents own some property. and me and a lot of my extended family are actually contractors and blue color workers and we think one of the things that

this will also effect is the amount of construction work and the amount of work is going to be reduced just because people who [inaudible] sell properties or people who have recently purchased properties are the ones who pay for these kinds of upgrades and work so it's going to stifle building to a certain amount and that's going to affect the lively livelihood of a lot of i think that term is too broadly defined. it's very easy because that's a very negative association. the word speculator. the what the problem is, you're saying that anybody who sells within a short time is a speculator, somebody who's not doing this as a business, somebody who's not going out every single day trolling, trying to get the best deal

they can. some of these sales is going to get caught. the first thing is not a professional speculator. so it's disgeneral would you say to say that that person is a speculator if they somehow they get a property and get rid of it. and this is in the disguise of helping rentsers, be this includes properties that are not rented so it helping those too? you know, what -- and the small properties that are maybe two to four units a lot of those are owned by people that are full families and if they need to sell and move on, telling them they need to stay put and they can't move. i urge you guys to vote no. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] me and my family.

mom and pop landlords. i'm from asian american [inaudible] representing 500 asian american families and thousands of chinese immigrants in the city. a few years ago my family then of six people moved to san francisco due to my daughter had a major illness and needing chronic care in [inaudible]. we bought a two unit building that has an inlaw unit and inherited two units of renters. we then quickly surprised and shocked at rental problems that we inherited. the rental problems really put a stress on our family and then we went through a hard time taking care of the sick child and financially drained and mentally stressed out, but we still have to deal with the property. when our daughter got her transplant we were about to sell our property and move away, but a building was really

hard to sell plus many other factors and after long struggle we have to stay. this proposition if passed would have had devastating effect on family situations like us. we were in dire situation, and yet the surtax would have wiped us all out and put us in debt for hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention the surtax will make homeowners rentsing out anymore units who endure the punishment who are part of the sluks and not the problem. in addition, on retroactive terms, doesn't matter how many exclusionings there may be still will catch a lot of us in the blinds. retroactively doing things is really inhumane and abusive. there's a term in chinese for that.

that's used in china to [inaudible] and let's not have that same >> good afternoon, the tenants in san francisco right now are absolutely terrified. the number one reason we have for people coming in to the [inaudible] is simply because the building's up for sale. evictions are at such an epidemic level that everybody at least know somebody who's being evicted. speculators are ruining the city. the speculator tax was the number one issue as was mentioned at the tenant convention back in february and

tenants all over san francisco know that we have to stop these speculators if we're to save our home. i want to thank the supervisor who is put this on the ballot, supervisor avalos, supervisor mar, campos and supervisor kim. and the voters in san francisco will get a chance to vote on this, this hearing is just informational and i appreciate that we have it, but the voters will be voting on this and i'm confident that the voters will be putting an end to speculation in san francisco and in so doing, will put an end to the fear in the city and put an end to the evictions. thank you again for doing this. >> good afternoon, i think maybe an analogy would be healthful here, although not perfect, if we were charged

with tending a forest one of the things we would be doing would be planting new trees and saplings to maintain our forest, but what we need you to do is address that issue. of course the city should keep building new housing, but we need to keep jacked up to a point where no one can afford it and that's what this measure tries to do. if you are a homeowner and you need to sell your property i suggest you get a realtor who's

informed and reads the law because single father and mother homes are exempt from this speculation tax and are not really part of this conversation. thank you. [inaudible] this if she canlation is primarily been driven by the influx of international vulture capitalism and these huge waves of external cash are driving up the cost of purchasing homes for everybody so what this will do is actually take away those market setters. it's the vulture capitalism that is setting the market. i have landlords that i work with that are being priced out. they want to acquire additional rental apartment buildings that they can buy and hold and they can do it because this external capital is driving up the cost of investments and they're

being priced out and these costs of investments are not in any way associated with the rents that are driven from these units and so what's happened is the market has been so convoluted that you cannot purchase and hold an apartment building without evicting the tenants because these market setters are building an entire price structure on displacing people. so nose are some of the intended consequences that this measure will help alleviate. it will actually benefit san francisco citizens, including property owners and homeowners. there 's been a lot of misperception spoken today and i think over time we'll be able to correct some of that. thank you very much.

good afternoon. i'm with the coalition of better housing. [inaudible] larger than 30 units and won't be affected by this in any way, however, i have to stand today and say it is important to talk about unintended consequences and we have spent -- my family has spent 50 years in this chamber talking about unintended consequences and almost always on things you'd consider progressive issue sos i don't find that to be true, but i will tell you this, there are unintended consequences with this legislation. for instance, i mean, what if you do get laid off from your job, what have your job is transferred, what if you had illness, relocations, small investors who are truly small investors, not speculators who finds themselves needing to sell their place before the five year term? new families what about those

folks?

it's 50% plus one, not a 2/3 vote. >> okay. and thank you for raising that question, but we're very clear it's a 50% plus 1 vote. supervisor campos >> well, following up on that question on the -- at the request of miss new, as the city attorney what the answer to that is. i know that we heard from supervisor mar, but i just want to get confirmation of whether or not a two-thirds vote is needed here. >> because this is a general tax, general fund, only majority vote is required. the only taxes that require a 2/3 vote are special taxes and

this is not special tax. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar, did you want to say something again? >> yeah, i wanted to thank everyone for testifying today. i know it's very emotional issue. i wanted to say that the coalition that's with us today and the here in strength and i know as the stop the flip campaign moves forward for november, it will be reaching every single neighborhood in our city to preserve the neighborhood and stabilize neighborhoods and the housing stock in the city. i wanted to thank the san francisco anti displacement coalition, including the anti eviction mapping project, the affordable housing alliance, and other organizations that are with us include that bills for a housing authority opportunity program, essential

city sro collaborative, ccdc, coalition of community housing organizations, the harvey milk democratic club, hospitality house, san francisco tenant's you know you know. i wanted to thank nick from my staff for working closely with others for crafting this and thanks so much to scott from the city attorney's office and douglas lake from recorders office as well for helping us craft this. we look forward to november as we hope voters will vote to prevefsh the character of their neighborhoods and our city. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. thank you to everyone that came out. i think in terms of supervisor mar and your goals, i think we share the system concern, we

want housing stability, we want people to be able to mane tan their homes, but i think that i can't sit here and in good conscience and say we can't ignore the concerns that have been raised with this particular measure. i think we cannot just push off to the side and say oh, those issues are not real. they are very real. people who own two, three, four, five unit buildings are going to be caught up in this potentially. i'm not talking about the ones who are 30 and over who have the resources. i think instead people will hold on to their properties for longer period of time for five years or more instead. potentially have people negotiating such that there will be no profit being made on a sale and it's wrong to say that it's all speculators, all of the big time investors who are the wons who will be benefitting from if this measure isn't passed because someone who makes $1 in profit

if they make a sale within a year to be hit with this 24% tax. i think there are real impacts that we can't shove under and pretend that's not going to happen. i'm a tenant myself. i could be subject to eviction at any particular time. i support all of your goals to say we all want housing stability but i don't think this measure is going to solve that problem for us. even though this is a hearing today, we cannot actually take any vote on it, i wanted to shake sure there were certain issues brought to light. >> thank you, supervisor campos. >> you know, the beauty of democracy is that each side will have the opportunity to make their case before the voters of san francisco and the folks who are worried about the protection of speculators and making sure that they maximize

their profits who have the opportunity to make their case in november, but i am proud today to stand here and be one of the four that puts this on the ballot and i think that the campaign will gives the opportunity to talk about the [inaudible] of the world with 98 after living in here 50 years is facing eviction and and that is the reality of what's hang out there and i would simply say that it was really special for me today, as not only a residents of san francisco, especially as a gay man to hear the voice of harvey milk echoing in this chamber. i think that was really special and i think that the voters of san francisco will get to hear more from harvey in the next few months. thank you. >> i see no more comments be made.

can i have a motion to convene this item to the call of the chier? >> so moved. >> any objection. seeing none, motion passes. that's the end of that hearing. let's move on to the next hearing. madam clerk, item 9. >> item number 9, a hear together propose [inaudible] to the voters at the november 4, 2014 election [inaudible] park code authorize the renovation of children's play grounds walking trails and athletic fields. >> let's see. we're joined by supervisor farrell also and supervisor tang, would you like to speak first on this item? i don't see president chiu here. >> sure, thank you. i'm glad there's at least one item that many of us are united

on. this is an effort that has started back in 2006, after a 2004 study that san francisco would need an additional 65 athletic fields, that's 35 soccer and 35 baseball fields in order to accommodate the growing demands for the youths who need our fields. this was an effort that came out of [inaudible] to come together and figure out a way for how it is that we can better accommodate our families and children who need these athletic fields, not just for children, but also adults. in our sunset district we have one synthetic turf feeltfield already at sunset. it's been heavily utilized. i know there were a number of concerns raised over the years and epr was requested and completed.

with that eir completed at this point, i felt comfortable supporting this particular measure because i've heard from so many families of children who have said they really meet the demands, have such a huge demand for soccer fields. i want to give them the opportunity to speak on this item as well. >> we're playing musical chairs because we can't have the majority of the board here so let me just [inaudible] president chiu. >> thank you. echoing what supervisor tang just said, we all know that in recent years our city and our communities we've spent a lot of time recreating how we recreate and rebuilding and

improving many of our sports fields and the fact of the meeld matter is our parks are extremely popular with hundreds of thousands of folks using them every week but we also know that we still have a lot of facilities that are underutilized that are outdated. as someone who represents where you know of the districts that has the least amount of open space, i certainly know on behalf of my constituents the tremendous challenges of trying to find open athletic fields in san francisco, safe playgrounds that aren't inover use and this is why i'm happy to support this measure because we just can't build more parks and we need to get more use ourt of the parks we already have. this is a measure to ensure that properly reviewed park projects that were found already by this board of supervisors to be projects that we could approve should be allowed to provehicle code. i was proud of the fact that

this board approved the beach valet project ten to one. i'm disappointed we need to revisit that and i think it's important for us to move forward projects that have will ever been thoroughly and properly reviewed. i think it's important to note that this measure does not shortcut the process or prevent process appeals, but guarantees that new laws are enacted after the fact that would delay park projects. i think we should do everything we can to make sure and i do think that this is a ballot measure that's a good step in that direction. with that, turn it back to our chair. >> thank you. and to chair yee, i'd like to add before i have to leave and allow one of my colleagues to come in that i'm very support i have of this meesh sure. our children and families need places to play. i represent the richmond district and know on the west side of town there are not enough play fields and then