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 on november 4th. >> hello, i'm nona melkonian with sfgovtv along with the legacy of women voters here to talk about measure f a ballot measure on tuesday november 4th measure f is an ordinance that increases the heeblth limit on the acre site from 40 to 90 feet it provides all aspects of the development other than the height limit will be for subject including the environmental review the height limit will not become until after sequa

approves the plan that makes it city policies for the development of the site 9 acres of waterfront parks and recreational areas for the bay and one thousand to 2 thousand for unit most of them will be rentals and thirty percent below market rate for low income folks and restoration of the historic struts and nonprofit and small-scale manufacturing and retail and the prestige located in the pier 70 between one pea 20 million square feet parking and transportation improvements and a significant number of jobs and revenue for public housing facilities if i vote yes. you want to increase the height limit for new building inspections on the pier 70 from

4 to 900 feet and ugly are courage the environmental review and make that city policy to clus include the job creations for to site if you vote no, not to increase the height limits or adapt the city policy i'm here where kelly pressor with the fair market value measure f and a property and the intellect to the coalition of san francisco neighborhood and a proponent of the measure thank you for being here he i'm to start with opening remarks kelly would you like to go first day f first. >> thank you very much fourteenth uh-huh tuntd to be here i support it and stand for the coalitions dmrug the form mayor and the essentially and

the resident and associations to support measure f and create jobs and housing pier 70 is in an area along the waterfront where people have no access to water measure f will increased the access to the waterfront tearing down the fences that have blocked the access and open it up for parks that's why people have coverage and i did not think the essentially and the democratic and republicans and this for park advocates by coming out to the poodles and supporting measure f. >> tanner's. >> the coalition for san francisco neighborhood which a is large organization of civic clubs they slit wide open on the issue with no exorbitant it

involves and several of the dpw things it san francisco is a small peninsula we have the density population of any of the 48 county as a result people want to increase the population to one million people it is currently 8 hundred and 50 thousand approximately it's a matter of how much in san francisco we'll pay a price for to in terms of accident the and it's accompanying with the right population for san francisco if we go too high a lot of problems. >> kelly how will this impact the city's future development. >> first, i'd like to be clear the proposition only permanence to pier 70 no other waterfronts on san francisco pier 70 plan has come out with many, many years of community

input and outreach and measure f is really an additional step in the possess the ballot measure itself is very clear that the environmental review process sequa as well as the mr. larkin process are not shorthand or limited are subject gaited there will be a thorough study this is an additional check in with 9 county and stakeholders to make sure that folks feel good about what's happening on the pier and good reviews see for the years to come. >> tanner's. >> the reason for measure f they want to wave the height limits the city chapter was amended where they have the height limits that are binding and have to be waved by public vote that's the problem in terms of a public waiver is needed to

build higher than the buildings and one of the problems is this is earthquake country we have seismic problems and the 1906 san francisco earthquake the 1489 earthquake in mri yet and so on as a result, the more high-rise we have the more dangerous for the public we've had a lot of problems over the years and 1906 was the worse how big do we want to build and what's the long term politicians the less high-rise the less people going to be hurt if we have a serious earthquake like 1906. >> it reduced the demand for

the pricing of housing in san francisco. >> as mentioned measure f is fully client with proposition g and san francisco is in serious housing countries today part of the plan for pier 70 is thirty percent of the housing opted below market rate to middle-income and low income folks this is 3 times such as city lay requires but in addition to building housing measure f includes other public benefits 9 acres of parks and playground and that triples the amount of space in dog patch and there's rehabilitation and historic buildings on the register in the historic district a preservation of an artist community currently at pier 70 by building now studios the investment of $20 million

for transportation improvements and 2 hundred million for infrastructure including for earthquake safest and addressing the seawall rise and and terrance. >> the more density in san francisco and we have the highest per family per space and more traffic problems and automobile and diseases and san francisco as some people know 19 hundred to 190 six the bubonic practically they were able to stamp it out it was based on largely the density of our population we were the largest city on the west coast at the time and basically, what we need to do it st. is keep the population being two dense for a

lot of reasons especially we're earthquake country but san francisco has a donates population too much high-rise next to the santa ana dresses fault line and two the north american and we've been hurt but it before and could be again, the last high-rise we had the satisfactory the people. >> we have a little bit of time i'm to get our final remarks first kelly gave the opening statement so terrance. >> this is what we want to see are for the future of san francisco this was was the board was talking about this was slit wide open a lot of people are