everyone, even someone who has an extra room in their home that they want to rent out for more than 90 days, we're going to limit everyone to 90 days and if you don't do that you're rezoning the city and you are somehow helping this large corporation. what we're doing is allowing people to actually make ends meet who need this income. and by putting this restriction in place, we are harming real live san franciscans, and i think we have to keep that in mind. this is not just about corporations. it's about residents of our city. i also want to -- in terms of the tax argument, and we had a long discussion about this last week and given that it's being raised again, i want to reiterate what i said last week. we know that with or without this legislation, this legislation proceeds without this amendment. our treasurer tax collector had

the authority a year ago, six months ago, today, tomorrow, up until the expiration of the statute of limitation if he chooses to go into court and to sue for collection of back taxes. we don't need to authorize him to do that. if he decides that that is the best way to proceed, he has the power to do that. and, so, what this amendment is proposing, this amendment is not about somehow authorizing the collection of back taxes. we already have the power to do that and this legislation won't change that. what this amendment about back taxes says is that unless and until that money, the back taxes he are paid, home sharing in san francisco is illegal period. and although he it's easy to say, well, it if air bnb doesn't pay the back taxes, we're going to hold up air

bnb's ability to have legalized short-term rentals? no, what it means is individual residents of san francisco will not be legally able to do home sharing until those backs taxes are paid and until the years and years of litigation leading up to maybe the payment of the back taxes proceeds. we also know that and we have other litigation that this city is engaged in with expedia, with travel os it, that it is not so clear that air bnb is necessarily the entity that's liable for any back taxes ~. it could be residents of san francisco. so, are we saying that unless the tax collector starts going after residents of san francisco to collect back taxes we're not going to let this legislation go into effect? ~ travelocity we also know if we decide that we're not going to go after individuals in san francisco, we're not going to start doing tenants and elderly homeowners

to try to get the backs tackes we claim they owe if we're going after air bnb. there is going to be a litigation and it could be for years. the expedia travelocity ha been going on for years and year. instead of collecting $11 million right now today for our hotel tax and for the arts and all the other uses we use hotel tax he for, instead of starting to collect that $11 million today, we're going to cut off our nose despite our face and say, we're not going to do any of this, we're going to keep this illegal, we're going to keep it in the dark until we can go for years and years and years of litigation up and down the courts and maybe collect the back taxes. or maybe we'll lose and we won't get any of the taxes. so, this amendment has been portrayed in such a simplistic way. this is just someone owes back taxes, pay it, and what we're doing -- what this is proposing is going to hurt san franciscans, it's going to

undermine our hotel tax and we very well may lose. so, this is not a well advised amendment and i will be voting against it. >> thank you. president chiu. (applause) >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, colleagues, for your discussion. given that these were topics that we did discuss and debate fully two weeks ag i think my perspective on these issues are clear, but let me just reiterate. first of all on the 90-day cap, we heard from hundreds of residents in san francisco who have told us that if there is a 90-day cap on hosted rentals, in other words, places where they currently live, there are seniors, there are empty nesters who literally to them this cap would be tantamount to an eviction notice. they would not be able to continue to live in san francisco. and i think we need to think very carefully before we move forward in this way. on the issue of taxes there's been a lot of noise in the last couple weeks on this topic. i want to take a moment to

reiterate facts. the first fact, i was actually the first supervisor to say publicly that they we ought to collect all taxes from this activity, including and particularly back tax he. i think, colleague, we all know that all this, our legislation does is it requires for the first time hosting platforms to collect and deliver taxes. likely it's estimated $50 million over the next three years. it's also a fact that our legislation affirms our tax collector's ability to collect all taxes from individuals and hosting platforms, including back taxes. and i want to thank our tax collector for issuing a statement today to reiterate that, to say xi quote, no existing or proposed laws such as this one in any way alters these tax obligations, including the obligation to pay unpaid, i.e., back taxes. ~ and i quote it's a fact that the tax collector has already been using its authority to collect

these taxes on short-term rental activity and has made paying those taxes easier by allowing individuals and platforms to file online. it's also fact that our legislation does nothing to stop the tax collector from pursuing back taxes. the tax collector has full authority to enforce the business and tax code and as all of us know here on the board, the tax collector does not release information on who has paid these taxes because that information is private to ensure compliance. it's both legal and required common practice for tax entities. these are the facts. now, there are many among us, myself included, i believe supervisor cohen is among us, who believe we ought to be collecting back taxes. we genuinely believe that. but we are doing this in ways that are smart and with good policy for our city. for others, though, i think it's convenient for some who oppose this legislation to grand stand on taxes. it's been abundantly clear that this tactic is not actually

about getting tax revenue for the city. it's all talk. i think it's easy to grand stand on back taxes to score points against this legislation but actually delivering tax revenues for the city means moving forward on clear rules that bring short-term renting activity into regulation and into compliance and, colleague, that is what we must do today. >> thank you. supervisor breed. >> thank you. i just have some comments about the back tax issue. i don't know if a lot of folks are empire fans here, but al ka poem is about to go to jail. ~ capone. not for bootlegging, not for bribery, not for murder, but for tax evasion. that part of history is actually true. he did time in alcatraz, which is a famous landmark in our city. it makes me real aye that the government is really, really good at collecting taxes. say what you want about the government's ability to take on other problems, but the old

saying about death and taxes still is true today. i've spoken with treasurer cisneros and the city attorney's office and i am comfortable that the tax collector has the legal tools it needs to collect these back taxes. the amendment last week to hold this legislation until all back taxes are collected certainly sounded good and was on the surface a very fairpoint. but there are several reasons why i did not support it then and i don't plan to support it now. i will mention the treasurer's office has more than enough legal resource he to collect back taxes. they do that every single day. and mr. cisneros says he does not need it in this legislation. in this particular case, the process of tax collection may involve individual host as well as the companies they use. it could take years to resolve during which time the market would remain effectively unregulated. that would jeopardize both our housing supply and the estimated 11 million in annual taxes this will now generate.

individual tax cases are confidential so it seems a bit questionable to city-wide legislation to the disposition of individual cases. i absolutely want the city to collect every penny it is owed. this money goes to support muni, public housing, our police, and everything else we value. but the process of collection is very clearly the treasurer's responsibility and authority and it's not within the board's authority and so that's why i will not be supporting that particular amendment today. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. good afternoon, everybody. taxes bring everybody together, right? supervisor breed and campos and you all said everything that really was on my mind. and i certainly stand by that, my desire to go after back taxes. that's one thing this government does do a very good job of and that's going back, going after people who don't pay their property taxes or

their income taxes or one thing we do need to do a better job of is going after people and, you know, forgivable loans who take taxpayers' money. that's something else we need to look into. my two priorities have really been straightforward when it comes to this debate. it's been to assure that we prevent wholesale cannibalization of buildings for full-time short-term rentals and then also to develop a framework that allows responsible hosts -- responsible hosts -- an opportunity to use short-term rentals to deal with their very real affordability issues. these are issues whether it's known or not, numbers of uhw said they have short-term rentals. members of local 2 said to me they are part of short-term rental. it's interesting because they find them self-in both pots. yes, some people would interpret that hotel workers may be in jeopardy of losing

their jobs. so, it's really not just a cut, dry, black and whitish you. this is something that is far more complex than i think even david chiu thought about when he was getting involved in this. but really just let me take a moment and be extremely clear about what my position is on this issue when it comes to taxes because it seems some are very confused on where i stand. i sub poderth the requirement that all short-term rental platforms air bnb and others pay their taxeses in full. now, the rhetoric on the issue of $25 million, of potentially back owed tax he is completely devoid of accurate information and is really, let's just call it what it is, politically motivated. now, san francisco has one of the smartest and most aggressive city attorneys ever right now in the city attorney's office and we're fortunate to have this person there. our city attorney was instrumental in getting gay rights, women's rights, and

fighting slum lords if their dollar was on the table, our city attorney is going to go after and get t. we're not leaving money on the table. that's one thing that dennis herrera does a very good job of and you also heard in the statement from jose cisneros, our treasurer, tax collector, they got the tools that they need to go after this. during this debate we've all agreed that this issue need to be regulated. but changing the effective date of this legislation based on an assumption that has no fact of what may be owed ignores the reality of our current housing crisis. we can't have it both ways. you can't agree that we need to regulate this behavior and then remove its effectiveness. you can't change your position to suit what is politically popular. it is our job as supervisors to investigate the issue, to hear from all sides, and to make policy decisions that are in the best interest for all san

franciscans. now, while i know -- i know that simplifying the issue makes it easy to get votes. it does an incredible disservice to the residents of san francisco. san franciscans deserve better. they dee he serve to know the facts and they deserve to know the truth. so, here they are. we don't actually know how much back taxes are owed. we don't even know if the city has the ability to collect them. we don't have the luxury of waiting to deal with this issue. we need regulation in place right now today so that we can go after the projected $11 million that we know we can go after and get. we he also need to have faith that our city attorney and our tax collector have the ability to review the legal issues and proceed in a way that is best for us here in san francisco. so, to me city attorney herrera and treasurer cisneros have always demonstrated the ability to fight for san francisco and

to stand up for us when we need them. now, san francisco's affordability issues are nuanced and trust and believe they're very complicated. they don't just impact tenants or one area of san francisco. less' get that real clear. we are all impacted by this. this issue has shown me that many san franciscans and many districts including d-10 are struggling, struggling to stay in their homes and their rental units and it's our job as legislators to think about all side of an issue and represent all of san francisco. now, painting this as a tax break instead of taking the time to explain the complicated nature of this issue is insulting and just flat out wrong. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> thank you. i was going to say, i don't want to take a final vote until

we get through these amendments. if supervisor avalos' amendment doesn't pass then i will offer -- re-offer my amendments. since everybody is talking about the back taxes, and i certainly hope nobody is going to interpret that i'm politically motivated on this issue, yes, i think the treasurer has the tools to collect it, the funding. we've always had resolutions through here. i've been here two years. resolutions after resolution. basically supporting what people are already authorized to do. and for me to support the back tax issue is really to say this board of supervisors agree with collecting back taxes.

it's not giving authorization. it's saying "do it." for me it's really important to make [speaker not understood], make it stronger. that is, for any of the short-term hosting platforms that pay their back taxes, they could continue their services as -- if this legislation passes. so, you don't punish every single company that want to do this in san francisco because they're citizens of san francisco. they pay their back taxes he. if none of these existing short-term hosting platforms want to pay back taxes and they're not allowed to move forward with their business model, then somebody, guess

what, these people that were so creative, there's other people in the wings just as creative. they could start their new businesses with this short-term hosting platform paying the taxes. so, if the author of this amendment can make that tweak, i think it would strengthen it [speaker not understood] whether this is political or not. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you, supervisor yee. that's actually something that we have consulted with the city attorney. and i don't know if that's possible legally, but i'm certainly open to the extent that the city attorney believes that's possible. >> mr. givner? >> deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm sorry i didn't catch, supervisor yee, how you would amend supervisor campos' proposed amendment. >> i would say if this legislation passes that the companies that can move forward

with this legislation are the ones that pay their back taxes. as soon as a particular company pays the back taxes he, they get to continue to the services. those that do not pay cannot continue the services. >> deputy city attorney jon givner again. so, the current law that business and tax regulations code provides that individual taxpayer information is confidential. so, currently the treasurer could not disclose to even the planning department which is responsible for enforcing this law, which hosting platforms are current and which mayo taxes he. ~ if supervisor campos' amendment passes today, as i mentioned last week, the ordinance would go back to committee and ultimately also back to the planning commission

and map it for certainly that possibility and [speaker not understood]. but for today i would recommend that you go with the amendment as proposed. >> thank you. supervisor campos? >> thank you very much. and i want to thank supervisor yee and, again, i think the amendment on back taxes passes, it goes back to committee where we can draft something that tries to strike the right balance between what you're saying, supervisor yee, which i actually would support. i'm just not sure legally how to do that. but i think that -- i know there are a lot of things that have been thrown today, grandstanding, politically motivated. i don't think that senator feinstein is grandstanding. i don't think that senator feinstein's comments are politically motivated. i think that she, like so many people who have raised concerns about this legislation, have

legitimate concerns about what this mean for san francisco. and i know he that some people are very passionate. and i guess some people are especially passionate when it comes to making sure $10 million companies don't pay taxes. but let's keep our conversation measured and really focus on the facts. the fact is that we have a determination by the treasurer that a platform, which they describe as an operator, is liable for taxes. that decision was issued on april 3rd, 2012. it doesn't focus on anything -- it's talking about the operators. that's exactly what i'm focusing on. and the fact is that as much as the treasurer has the tools, ultimately policy around budget and taxation subject to the approval of voters is within

the authority and the power of the board of supervisors. we are the ones who set policy on those issues. the treasurer and tax collector is there to implement that policy and it is entirely appropriate for us today as a matter of policy to say that if a company wants to avail itself of these benefits that we simply require that they do what everyone else in san francisco, every other business ha to do, which is to pay the back taxes. and while it is indeed the case there are tools available to the tax collector, the fact is that the opinion that he issued was issued 2-1/2 years ago. and to this day, the taxes have not been collected. i think it is appropriate for this board of supervisors to step in and simply say, let's make sure that we provide a benefit which i think everyone acknowledges that it is a benefit, that we simply require what every other business has to do.

and now to the extent this may lead to litigation, it's interesting, because we have had a number of discussions that the possibility of litigation has not prevented us in the past from holding corporate entities accountable by this board. we have certainly not been afraid to hold corporations accountable when we believe that they owed something. and the fact that they are threatening to sue us has not stopped us in the past from actually making them play by the rules. and, so, this is an opportunity for us to actually say what we -- to do what we say we want to do, which is to actually require that these back taxes he are paid. if you believe that, this is your opportunity to do it. i'm glad that folks have identified the excellent work that is done by our city attorney. i agree wholeheartedly. i used to be a member of that

office before, so, i know that they're great people. but i know that the laws, the amendment that is before you, is an amendment that was actually crafted in close consultation with the san francisco city attorney to make sure that everything we do is legal, to make sure that everything we do is within the parameters of what the charter allows this board of supervisors to do. this charter allows this board of supervisors to do the very basic thing of rehe choirtion someone pay their back taxes. this is the time to act and i believe that what senator feinstein said is absolutely true. this is a common sense amendment that really makes companies do what every san francisco business does on a daily basis, play by the rules. >> supervisor kim? >> thank you. i was going to comment on supervisor avalos's amendment, but i think that it's worth

stating that while i know that our treasurer and tax collector office is very aggressive in terms of its work of collecting our taxes, the fact is that they have not been able to collect a single dollar of those back taxes in the last 2-1/2 years. so, if it had all the tools that it needed, then it should have collected them by now. and i do think this amendment is important and i voted for it two weeks ago and i will vote for it again, the board of supervisors supports their efforts in their office's ability to do this work. and the press statement that was released by jose cisneros, i don't see any single sentence in this press statement saying he does president need this amendment. he merely states that he collects taxes and that is part of his authority and job, which we all understood to be part of his office. so, if i'm missing that statement, i'd love to hear that directly from mr. cisneros. but i did want to speak back to the amendment which i think is

actually far more substantive that has been introduced by supervisor avalos. i know that i talked at length about this amendment at both land use committees, but not everyone watches our land use committee. so, i will reiterate some of my feelings on this. first, there is a statement made that if we do only 90 days hosted and nonhosted, that that will lead to seniors and long-term residents no longer being able to afford their homes. and this is what i have to say. they will get roommates. if you need someone for more than 90 days, you will get a roommate. that has long been the history of san francisco and that is how we have often all afforded to live here in the city. i have a roommate in order to live in san francisco because i cannot afford to live here by myself. i have never been able to afford to live in san francisco by myself, even when i lived here 15 years ago. and if you do want to do short-term rentals for longer than 90 days, you can actually apply for a permit at the planning department and get a bed and breakfast permit that

will allow you to do it full time and be under the regulation r that the planning department ha. i've seen it every planning commission meeting there ha never been a bed and breakfast permit denied by the planning commission. it sails through, it allows you to do it as a full-time job. i believe that is a route you can take in order to do that. but then i want to get back to some of the facts that we have and they're limited because our hosting companies do not share the data they have before us. out of the 4,798 units that the chronicle found through their commission that they paid for and air bnb units here in san francisco, two-thirds of those rent out the entire unit. this is not a couch, this is not a bedroom. this is the entire unit. and in those cases i think it is really important that we make sure that we have a measure that we can enforce. the planning commission, the planning department ha all said the only way they're going to be able to enforce this

legislation is if we do 90 days hosted or nonhosted. they made that clear in august. they made that clear in september. and that if we do try to figure out whether it's hosted or nonhosted, we actually have to investigate whether you lived in your house 275 nights a year. and let me tell you why that is challenging and actually far more invasive for the city to enforce on than previous. i had given an example when i served on the land use committee. when i served on the school board that we often had parents that suspect that had other families at lowell high school, our most prestigious high school in san francisco did not live in san francisco. it is a requirement at lowell that you live in san francisco in order to go to one of our most highly sought after schools. this school district conducted very expensive investigations where we knocked on family's doors at 6:00 in the morning and even followed kids home to see if they truly lived in san francisco. that is incredibly expensive and very difficult to do.

and if we pass a legislation as we do today, which is to say only 90 unhosted days will open the planning department to do that kind of work on our residents in san francisco. and i would much prefer that our planning department did not have to engage in that type of investigation. and i imagine many of the people in this room would not want to be investigated in a level that is that invasive. so, i will make one final argument as to why i think a 90-day hosted and nonhosted is incredibly important in order for the city to enforce this and that's second, if you want to do it for more than 90 days, that there is an opportunity, a legal existing opportunity pathway to do that through the bed and breakfast route. and finally, in explaining my vote two weeks ago, i think it's important to mention that i knew that the votes to pass this legislation existed and one of the most important amendments that was brought to

me, particularly by a tenants group was if we're not going to have 90 days hosted or nonhosted which is my primary policy preference, that we at the very he least provide a expedited right of action whose mission statement includes affordable housing and tenant right protections. while i don't think this amendment is as strong as the 90 day hosted and nonhosted amendment, i do believe this amendment will allow us to go after the worst actors, the actors that are permanently taking units off line and not putting them out to tenants and residents that could live here in the city, further exasperating our housing market issues. and i'll just give you a -- one brief example of that. in april of this year, the tenants union who we will be talking about later today actually filed four complaints of the department of building inspection stating that there were units that had permanently been taken off line, were not renting to existing residents, and had permanently done either

full time air bnb or short term rent alley sanctionly turning those residential units that should have been homes to real people into hotels for tourists. this filed in april dbi finally held a hearing in june three months later, and then sat on that and did not make any determination until end of september. now, keep in mind one of the landlord even admitted they were doing a full-time short-term rental and yet after six months of hard work by our tenants union nothing came of any of those four case which is why we fought so aggressively that if we're not going to do 90 days hosted or nonhosted that we would at minimum have this expedited private right of action by organizations in san francisco that have for decades fought on behalf of our residents and tenants to make sure their housing stock is used in the way that is most appropriate. but i will make one final plug because i do think supervisor avalos is strong early than the