bureaucracies may be make sure that muni is seated by the neighborhoods it's aids simple as that we are talking transit crossroads and a completely different design than simply offering muni certifies to you'll neighborhood whether low income or whatever and again, we're not talking about in my opinion funding is not the issue we're just going to add layers of brursz await sufficiency we have muni asking for more money for the past how many years guarantee i don't see improvements you did we have 50 percent on time. >> shouldn't we be working on this.

>> it's time for financial thoughts ms. berry and we need to view it in the context of the entire city we cannot saw we need transportation yes, we need transportation we also need a whole and i way ray of other services i suggest voters think twice regarding the transportation growth and the transportation because all the other services are going to be left behind doesn't like for example, a very important we're addressing that with other proportion is so we need growth and the growth t is going to be particularly abnormal in san francisco regarding the policies to engendered to remove the

connective forces that keep everybody everything in balance. >> financial comments were when the voters established the transportation agency the mta was funded by setting up a fund for the transportation this was done to eliminate what they call the infighting and the set budget the system worked well but not quite well enough not to protect us for the cuts in 2008, and 9 the measure b tweaks the formulas to address the growth and keep up with the growth it supports the prourpgs zero for the fatalities in the 10 years and invests capacity while

investing in making our streets safer and with that said, see i hope during the neighborhood it will help to support measure b in november. >> thank you both if for your time and comments we hope this has been informative for more information in the ballots please invest the website at sf election.org and early voting is available monday through friday from 8 to 5 and vote at city hall 2 we understand before election and if you don't vote early be sure to vote on november 4th. >> hello, i'm holly lee knox with sfgovtv along with the

legacy of women voters i'm here to discuss measure c on november 4th measure c is a charter amendment that will change the way the city funds to children youth air their families extend the children's fund and the property tax set acid until june 30th 20041 it will increase the property tax to $0.04 for each $100 of seated property value not increasing or change only effecting the money of property revenues set aside aid help where the chancellor fund to increase the youth 18 through 24 years old measure c will extend

the public education k3w0ish9 be fund until june 30th 20044 and extends the fund 40 preschools to include 3 go, 4 and 5 years old and to use the fund for children from birth to 3 years old and measure c will create on our children council to advise the city and school district on the families in san francisco and on proprietor ace best practices for addressing those needs every 5 years the council will adapt a our children plan to recommend new policies and fund for families the purpose of the plan to have an efficient service measure c will go indicted the rainy day reserve into a school and city resign i

didn't day reserve 25 percent will go to schools and 75 to the city reserves under measure c the school district will withdraw up to half of the money in years it expects 20 collect less money for students he and will have to layoff employees the school board overrides those and withdraws any school reserves if you vote yes. you want the city to amend the certifies for families by extending the children's fund by 25 years and step forward the public education fund for a 26 years and creating our children and our families council and dividing the existing rainy refer so is a city and school rainy refer if you vote no, you

do not want to the city to make the changes to the charter i'm here with santa drive fewer with the division and board of education and are a proponent we're joined by marcie the lib terrain a proponent thank you folks for joining us starting with opening president fewer and so measure c is a ballot measure under the battle to authorizing a person of the general fund to be set diode aside to provide services to the city government san francisco youth the children's fund. >> you public enrichment fund to join together to better lion the services those fund have been providing education for thousands of children in sophistication for example, this fund as 73 drenlz to liernsz and

people's 3 p e teachers and engineering and math so this is has a great impact on san francisco children for the past decade and so we hope to reauthorize it thank you. >> you're opening remarks ms. berry. >> the lib terrain has recommended a no vote on this proposal because we have challenged with all 3 components of the proposal first of all, the children's fund does not just fund science and magnet and those kinds of things there are 3 things of what it funds a lot of services every time services go up obviously new innovative education goes down so that's one challenge we see the other challenge is that the rainy day

fund is also part of this proposal they're old rainy day fund in existence it was the board of supervisors and the mayor that decided how it would be assessed now we have two fund one is going to, accessed by the briefcase. >> given of the stemmed one hundred and 9 stemmed thousand children only a house will this impact the cost to families. >> it will make it easier for the families to live here there's no increase in the taxed also it's easy for families to live here not assessing the services by art and pe and science those kinds of things that parents have to pay for

out-of-pocket often we this liv also funds that the release for families coming to san francisco as a forgotten i have to pay out of pocketed having counseling at schools and much the medical services anothers school sites. >> how do you respond. >> i'm assuming we're talking about the idea if i have all those services then the population will increase the public utilities population will increase this is incorrect the reason that families move into the city only to see whether the education system is teaching their children how to write and

read how to fill out a job application in euphoric on services that's not what a family it looking for how is the children learn that's why we're concerned about the increase of services as opposed to complete emphasis on the type of education mode of education innovative i'm sorry innovative way of teaching which were we haven't talked about other modes will besides the public utilities there recent teachers in front of the class let's put you fund on that. >> what happened to this measure lead to hire enrollment rates and in san francisco is there accurate funding for teacher to student ratio.

>> this funds a lot of academies science and technology and engineering and math all the technology first of all, there's never enough money in our public education we have so you're asking is this accurate 23u7bd absolutely not providing children with the well education they deserve and he have to say that san francisco we're proud of the san franciscans that voted for this seeing the need for the social responsibility and so the answer to your question we are predicting much hyper enrollment rates and hope to serve all our families are a quality high rated we're one of the top in the state of california with a our skufbtd we

hope to choose to use our public school. >> with what are your thoughts. >> i think that services are the key could enrollment and good education we're looking at to read the proposal you'll see two pages of things that have absolutely nothing to do with fires or magnet true the enrichment funding they're providing amenities, however, i think that so much services when our funding those for example, one that is clearly in the proposition is drug and help with drug use or help with the lgbt issues people help with things we call local services but again, a family does not

move in or live in public utilities to access the services that has to do with the things i've mentioned but how the children are learning i'll agree there never will be enough the more there is the more spent there is no ability to keep any cap on the spending so if we have more funding we're going to have more services so do we have enough funding for a population probably not and never will. >> thank you so we'll start with final thoughts we'll begin with you ms. berry. >> yes. i think that the idea services are they increasing is a good thing perhaps something that should be rethought if we're increasing services that

means that somewhere in the family their education system somewhere there's a huge breakdown there is mammoth failure if we go by the services; right? the thing to do not view the rise of services not so good and a therefrom emphasis as i say the education education is easily measured can our child get out of school and go to college or got a profession or fill out a application florida no we've failed. >> your final thoughts. >> surely education is the first mission we have a college culture in our schools and a

graduation rate in california we're at top our students do well but it's difficulty difficult for the families to live here you see the majority of children below the poverty level what their incomes are like the reason we have the educational experience and we're saying that 73 teachers and librarians is a service but i disagree with you i think this the proposition that zero all the libraries and i don't think that the art teachers i think they're a necessity to provide a well-rounded education so i would urge everybody to vote yes

on measure b it's for our children and the future of san francisco. >> thank you both firing time and your comments we hope this dissuasion has been forgive for more information invest sf election.org remember earlier voting is at city hall from 8 to 4 and vote earlier at city hall from and if you don't vote ear (inaudible). >> hello, i'm hell will i knox along buyouts league of women voters i'm here to talk about q and a on november 4th before the

voter prop e will place a tax think to cents on shurdz to fund physical heath and educational programs a sweden is a beverage that contains 25 hundred cellular calls it employees to suppers and powders in a beverage dispending machine the district of swebd in san francisco will be responsible for paying the tax some beverages are not subject to the tax even if they contain added sugars diet sodas and mining milk and alleyway monday building monthly that contain fruit justices and constant formal and meal replacement and supplement weight products and

sugars sold to make subdividing the san francisco consisting department of public health and rec and park department must uses the proceeds of the take to fund health and nutrition and physical education and actually recreation programs funds must be used on for new or expanded programs up to 2 percent of the tax precedes can be used to administer the funds a 15 members physical committee will advise the mayor the board of supervisors and city departments about how to spend the funds because the proceeds from the tax at that are dedicated to specifics purposes approval of this measure requires twrirdz of the votes skaft if i vote yes. you want the city to collect a tack of $0.02 in the district the intebd to fund health and

physical education and active recreation program if you note no. you don't want the city to the clerk the tax i'm here with the public health advocate and a proponent of plea we're also joined by nick campaign manager for the coalition of on affordable city and a proponent we'll toward it is a omitting kristen in the 1980s san francisco was filed with hiv impatient patient and that's no longer the case that ward is filled with diabetes patient as a largest added source of added sugars in the american diet spub are driving this and sugary drinks are wouldn't it be fair to say a lot we epic that

mexicans relevance soda tax dined so reduce it works and reduced it by 31 percent also be raised fund 40 more water filing cancelations and awareness captions it seems bad grinning sowed but people thought that about school yard sure loaded drinks are related to premature deaths. >> next your omitting. >> i absolutely agree with the proponents of this measure that we have a serious communicated health problem we share the same end goals to reduce obesity and reduce obesities and here in san francisco this needs to be addressed unfortunately prop e is absolutely going to do nothing to addresses those prop e i consider it a band-aid

solution to a complex and serious issue in the way it elective is written it will not have effects of reducing consumption it's not a point out of sale tax like a cigarette 0's so when a consumer buys the products there's been money added on to the product it's not the case for the sugary beverage tax it is accept so local business owners will pass the tax along to the customers. >> thank you a few questions will package of this measure impact health care expense in san francisco. >> let's start with you. >> yes. absolutely what we know it is a tax like this is projected to prevent 2 hundred cases plus of diabetes

and 8 thousand cases of stroke and 26 thousand death how can that not impact our health care if we are reducing that with sugary drinks we turn to the tobacco experience not only has the tobacco tax dollars smoking. >> decreased cancers related to smoking so what we know is that if we make it more expensive and we promote a healthier alternative like tap water people will make healthy choices no mexico their tax that was passed in january already about 8 months later they've seen a 10 percent dollars in using this products. >> how would you reopened.

>> there's studies on both sides of the issue supported by people that support measures and people that oppose is in the industry and some say it will lead to a reduction in accumulation but the problem with that measure the studies are focusing on a sales tax as a mentioned the tax is unfair it's a distribution store to the local business owners is disperse the money on the consumers our city is phasing an crisis in the evictions and the water bills are going up and the trash bills going up we guarantee doesn't need the city government making that worse the stores on s odds the chain stores that get their prostitutes from the district are going to have the purchasing

power to negotiate the prices down it put our small businesses and at a accidentally and frankly, if i thought it was going to work and help stop diabetes and reduce obesity i wouldn't be here campaigning will this have an impact on the city based on income. >> christian. >> they say it will have a draenl impact that the fund will address the health and inearthquakes the people that drink those sugary drinks are a the ones that are toward by marketing so the community that will be set up to governor the few minutes will be charged with insuring those communities get better access to recreation and drinking water and water stations and that the

community-based locations be positively kwakd about the revenues from this measure. >> great what you are your thoughts. >> to the proponents recognize the city controller recognizes this as progressive tax it is on purpose it is unfair to our low income communities here on a san francisco that we were struggling and getting weeded out of the city and have is many things to do on a daily basis if so another burden on top of that in addition to being a regressing tax like i said this is a band i'd solution to a serious problem we should have an adult conversation about how to chaff the end goal the $50,000 is great i support the programs this is going to fund in the school and health

department i think we should come up with an important progressive tax you've got big future 5 hundred companies we've got some of the best minds and the board of supervisors if we come together take money from those who have it additional spend on those two don't have it contributes. >> a great food for thought open both sides let's talk final thoughts begin with with i nick thank you for the opportunity i am which wanted to ask the folks in san francisco to vote no on prop g we can intent to this things contribute like low tease

and one hundred percent judges in the not one hundred percent judges this is covered in the proposal another interesting thing buyouts proposal is late tests and coffee shop if a in their made behind a counter those are exempt it's not fair a 5 hundred calory cappuccino is okay. but a 2 hundred is okay. this is not the case. >> thank you, kristin our final thoughts opponents like to talk about the doom and gloom the tax is not going to cost jobs corner stores have not going under their thriving san francisco grocery workers are a supporting us they know there will be beverages they love to play and talk about the

regressive and with regressive is the fact that coke and pepsi they produce a product that is noeng known to be causes chronic diseases and leads to deaths they spend milestones moiflz dollars on advertising if people can't afford the $0.25 on cokes they can't afford the health care for diabetes when we are spending $50 million on health care costs and make the healthy keeping you informed and affordable choice 1962 what this is about. >> thank you for your comments and time we hope this has been informative more, more information and other ballots measures please visit the sf election.org remember earlier voting p is

available at city hall monday there friday 8 to 5 and if you don't vote early be sure to vote son teon tesn testesess