s a sign of inaction by this board of supervisors. and even though we don't want to go to the ballot, when faced with inaction by the elected body, we may have no choice but to go to the ballot and let the voters do what the board of supervisors should have done a long time ago, which is to make sure that this 20 billion dollar corporation plays by the rules like everyone else. (applause and cheering). >> thank you. madam president i will respectfully remind the audience that the board has an adopted rule that applause and vocal expression of voter opposition is not allowed in the chamber. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much madam president. so you know i know that it is always very tempting to, if

someone has a different point of view than you have, to dismiss that person by saying, well, you can't possibly have your own opinion based on what your constituents need or want; it must be because a major corporation or lobbyists or whoever else you want to demonize is somehow influencing you and telling you what your opinion is. last i checked we are all elected by our constituents and we are accountable to those constituents. so i want to talk about why it is that i have --. >> excuse me. hissing is included in those vocal demonstrations. ma'am, you are out of order. supervisor wiener. >> thank you, madam president. so i want to explain why it is that i have the view i have,

which is that supervisor campos' legislation, respectfully, goes too far and is not the appropriate response to this issue. frankly, i don't care what air b and b needs or wants. i don't care what its lobbyists need or want, i don't care what brbo or craig's list or any of the other companies here want. what i care about is what my constituents need and want and that is the only thing that guides me. there were a lot of references in the previous comments to the castro. as the guy who represents the castro and noe valley and glen park and other neighborhoods i know these neighborhoods and i have talked to so many people living in my district who they are on the edge hanging on to stay in this town and by being able to rent out a room as a short term rental in their home where they live, that is what is the

difference for them. it is what allows them to make their mortgage it is what allows them to put their kid through college, it is what allows them to survive in this town and it is very very real. and i'm glad to hear that supervisor campos acknowledges that there are many people in this town who are residents in these units who are making ends meet through short term rentals in a spare room. but i think we need to be very clear that 60 days is not going to meet the needs of these people and they won't be able to make ends meet. you can't just say that you understand the concerns and the needs of these people who are using short term rentals to make ends meet. you can't just say that when you are proposing legislation that is going to restrict them to 60 days for the entire year, that's going to allow their neighbors to sue them and get penalties against them and attorneys' fees and everything else that you are going to require data sharing

and so on and so forth. you can't say it, you have to look at what's being proposed. what's being proposed is going to hurt a lot of san francisco residents who are not wealthy, who are not air b and b, who are not lobbyists but who are regular people living in this town many long-term residents, who simply want to stay here. and so the rhetoric around this issue is just extraordinary. when you focus on what people actually need and the needs of our residents it is very very clear this proposal is not going to meet those needs and is going to have a lot of harmful effects for a lot of people in this town and that's why i can't support it. i am not going to support legislation that is so restrictive. i am not going to support legislation that frankly encourages neighbors to start running around suing each other to get penalties against each other. that is not what we want to encourage. what we need is legislation

that cracks down on the bad actors that are abusing short term rentals, the units being converted into pure short term rentals, the abusive behavior while allowing people who are not abusing the system, who are simply trying to make ends meet, to do so. i want to talk about enforcement. i made some of these comments during the land use committee hearing. this legislation went into effect on february 1st and promptly thereafter it was proclaimed that the legislation was a failure and couldn't be enforced. we never even tried to enforce it and how could we have tried to enforce it when it was proclaimed a failure within about a month of it going into effect? how can people get up and say that this is unenforcable when there hasn't even been an opportunity to enforce it? the department is trying to get people registered, people are trying to register and frankly having a heck of a time doing it. people are trying to pay their hotel taxes and having a heck of a time doing it due to some

weird dispute between the tax collector's office and air b and b, ad to turn around and say it's going into effect, a month has gone by, it's a failure, we have to tear this up and start over again, i just don't get that. i'm going to support this continue answer because because i think we need more time to see if we can come up with a good solution to allow us to enforce against the abusers while not harming the many san franciscoans who are relying on these short term rentals. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. want to make a couple of comments about both proposed ordinances that are before us today and the continuance. there are 4 primary issues i want to discuss, no. 1 being the hard cap. the hard cap was the no. 1 issue for me during the discussions last fall over the debate around short term rentals. it was clear to me then and still is that enforcement is impossible the

way the legislation is written short of giving everyone that registers an electronic monitoring bracelet, there is no way for the city and the planning department to know whether a host has slept in their unit that night or not. and i have brought up an example previously where i felt that government could do overreaching in ways that would violate someone's privacy to get an understanding of that, and i don't want the city to engage in that type of investment. i'm glad to see that both proposals that are moving forward have a hard ko*p on hosted and unhosted nights. i think that will help the city ensure that these units that are placed up for short term rentals are just short term rentals and not vacant rentals being left off rental housing stock at a time when housing is at its crisis here in san francisco. while i was open in the fall to going up to 90 days which is technically one week a month, or a three-month summer,

i would support at this point supervisor david campos' legislation at 75 days. i am again open to going up but i don't think going up beyond 3 months makes sense. and i'll say this, i agree there are residents in san francisco that depend on this type of income and business in order to perhaps pay for their mortgage their children's college education, to help with their retirement. but we actually have a process in place currently for those residents to engage in that type of business and that's why applying for a bed and breakfast conditional use and i have not seen yet in my entire time on the board of supervisors any bed and breakfast conditional use permits be rejected by the planning department. this is the process that we have in place to allow residents to use their place of housing as additional form of income and to run a business. so you can stay here in san francisco, you can be a senior citizen who has that extra bedroom, you can a person on disability that may

not be able to work in a traditional job that's able to actually run a hotel in your home and we have a process at the planning department to determine whether that is appropriate or not and we can keep track of that type of business use. the second item that i want to talk about was on the requirement that hosting platforms only list units that legally comply and obtain a registration number proving they sht a vacant unit being taken out of the rental market. i think this is absolutely key to this legislation. i have heard the argument that this is overly burdensome and unprecedented to have a business account as a business entity, but i'm going to give an example of something we do as a daily basis and that is the sale of tobacco and liquor. we expect our business owners to id every customer to check whether they are 18 or 21 in

order to buy a pack of cigarettes or buy a six-back or get a glass of wine over dinner. i would argue this is not unprecedented, this is something we ask businesses to do on a daily basis and i think it would be far simpler for a hosting platform to be able to comply with this piece than what we ask many of our small business owners to do on a daily basis to enforce legislation that we think is incredibly important for the health and safety of our city. the third piece is on the private right of action. and i think we should be clear that even the legislation that passed in the fall written by then-president david shoe actually allows for a private right of action. what we see in the two ordinances before us today is actually an expedited right of action, one for 135 days the other for 90 days. the reason why i think this expedited private right of action is important is that we have seen how it was incredibly

key and critical to the hotel conversion ordinance passed in the early 1990's which prevents (inaudible) we understood in the 90's that our extra hotels were an important part of our housing stock. that ordinance was never effectively enforced until qualified community organizations won the right to enforce on behalf of the public interest and in the 25 years time since that ordinance has passed there's no evidence that even a single frivolous lawsuit has ever been filed. over the years the ability to proceed private right of action has been critical to enforcing federal and state civil rights statutes including civil rights that include civil rights legislation, hate crimes, immigration fraud and more. we currently have a backlog of 1200 xlaipblts at the planning department today, not all on

short term rentals. but it does showcase a need for our private citizens to engage as partners to ensure that we as a city can enforce the laws that are here to protect our housing stock. now, in terms of why we should have an expedited private right of action i think most of us here in this room have been unfortunately in the unhappy situation of living next to an unconsiderate or maybe outright bad neighbor. you and i know every single day in that situation feels like an eternity. without this amendment if you file a complaint with the city you may wait 75 days or more before you get to be heard by an administrative officer and 105 days or more, which is 3 1/2 months, before you even receive a final decision. meanwhile the violations are continuing and you have zero recourse. people don't want to and shouldn't need to wait months and months before they can obtain relief. the resident in russian hill who

spoke at public comment land use committee back in september is a perfect example of someone who needs an expedited private right of action. she had been living next to a full-time vacation rental for a year and a half and that is frankly inexcusable and that is when short term rentals were completely illegal. bad actors shouldn't receive months of free license to continue breaking the law before they are faced with real consequences. the final piece that i wanted to address today which is also controversial, is the data sharing piece. i do have some hesitations around this. and only because i am reminded of lava bitsio's couragous decision to shut down his company when he provided emails to 400,000 people, including edward snowden, in order to avoid handing over the password

of his company to the fbi. i would like to develop parameters under which government asked for data from the companies that are within our jurisdiction. while this is not my area of policy expertise, i'd like to really set what we believe are parameters for when we require data sharing outside of the subpoena process. i think that this is something that we can continue to talk about. i also have some hesitations about this piece because i don't think it will help with companies like home away and vrbo which do not actually facilitate the transaction. rental. parties can exchange rental, numbers of nights outside this platform and it also doesn't prevent registration number or a unit owner from using multiple platforms and therefore getting several 90-day limits. i just want to express some of my hesitations around that. it

doesn't mean i will not support it moving forward. i am already committed to supporting the legislation as authored by author david campos today, but i think it is important in the long-term for local government to really think about what our parameters are around asking when we ask data sharing on a reg glr -- regular basis from the companies here in san francisco. on a positive note, i think we are moving forward in the right direction. i want to thank our many individuals that engage in short term rental and of course air b and b for not only paying their hoepblgts taxes but also committing to pay the back taxes as well. i think that is a good faith effort as we move forward in this discussion. i still think that one proposal that is before us today is far stronger than the other. i will not be supporting the continuance. i don't see a lot of dialogue happening between the two, i think the two parties that are at stake

currently will be supporting supervisor david campos's legislation today. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor mar. >> thank you, president breed. i wanted to start by just saying that i think the privacy concern that supervisor kim just brought up is a bogus issue. all that would be required of online platforms is to turn over the address and the number of nightly booked nights and to verify the compliance. i think it's really critical that similar to other small businesses that's a requirement so i think it's a bogus issue. but i wanted to say i think supervisor campos has sharply framed this issue as who should san francisco -- in san francisco should be writing laws, should it be neighborhoods and community groups or should it be now from a 10 billion dollar now to a 20 billion dollar corporation whose lobbyists have been all over this building for many

many months? i wanted to also say our planning department staff, not just anne marie rogers but our zoning administrator and others are here. they very clearly said to us it's really unenforcable unless we get the hosting platforms to comply. i think the campos-mr legislation does that in a very strategic way. i wanted to say too that requires the hosting platforms to comply is really critical. also fred brousard from our budget office has the data. it shows the loss of 1,960 units or more and i think it's really critical that we're keeping that context in our housing crisis. not harming the casual home sharers but really looking at a process that's now proliferating where we're seeing displacement of tenants

for luxury vacation rentals for tourists and for profit in the city. i think share better sf.com has a great map i'm looking at right now at the proliferation of air b and b, you can zone in on my own home and i can see all the different increase in the rentals around me. i think it's a hotelization of neighborhoods. i think the process that supervisor campos with the legislation has put together is a reasonable one. that's why i'm supportive of it. but i think if anybody has any questions share better sf.com is a great place for some of that data. lastly i go to other documents as this debate has been going on. the sleezy16 is a group of people who have been profiting off the industry. i think reasonable controls as set by the legislation that is

campos-avalos-march is a reasonable way for us to take back san francisco from this proliferation of hotelization and privatization of neighborhoods so i urge my colleagues to support the campos legislation. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, i would like to motion to terminate debate and move forward on the vote on the underlying legislation. >> okay, the motion to terminate debate is not debatable and requires two seconds and eight votes to pass. is there a second? seconded by supervisor campos and there has to be an additional second. by supervisor mar. madam clerk, can you please call the roll. >> on the motion to terminate debate, supervisor mar, aye. march, aye. supervisor tang, no. tang no. supervisor wiener, wiener no. supervisor

yee, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor breed, no. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor christenson, no. supervisor cohen, cohen, no. supervisor farrell, no. kim aye. there are five ayes and six nos. >> the motion fails. supervisor christenson. >> colleagues, i'll try not to take this personally. a couple of things. i understand supervisor campos's impatience and in many ways i share it. i've only been on this board for 5 months, i was not part of the two years of discussion on the legislation this board passed last year, but as a new supervisor i've certainly seen the impacts of hoteling on my district. a lot of the tourist attractions in san francisco are located in district 3, we have aging housing stock. i've seen the lock boxes in my canvasing and walking the neighborhood. i can count the buildings within a two-block radius of my home

that have been completely hoteled prior to my coming upon this board, so i get the problem. i also, like supervisor wiener, have a lot of constituents who are hanging on in san francisco by the skin of their teeth. and i've got seniors on pensions, i have a few disabled people that i've met personally who are managing to stay in north beach because they get a little extra money every now and again by renting out a couch or a space in their house. i think we're all sympathetic to the need to distinguish the sleezy16 and the bad actors and the speculators from those small home sharers. i don't think we've found a way to do it yet and i think paying lip service to their needs is very different from actually addressing them. so i'm troubled about that aspect of this. and supervisor campos my inclination to table this is not to try to put it aside. it is because i think you've got some good things in your legislation, some things that i

could support, but there are aspects that are troubling to me that make it difficult for me to vote for it. and i don't know if there is something in between and a way to address some of the on-going issues that i have that would possibly get us to something that would meet the needs of my constituents and satsd fie the concerns of this hoteling and evictions which i very much want to stop. and i do think it's important to remember, as supervisor kim pointed out, we can demonize air b and b, but the fact is they control less than half the market and we can pass this legislation and focus on a solution that specifically focused at their business model, everybody is just going to go someplace else. the worst actors in my district don't rent on air b and b, they have their own web site. and i do think we've got a piece of legislation that's only six months old, i think it indicates how difficult this question is for the board and for this city that we're still trying to talk about how to

make that legislation work and i can assure all my colleagues that i am eager to find a real solution i am just troubled by aspects of both proposals and hope we can iron out those issues and come to something that we feel will work. there have been a lot of magic solutions proposed at this board the last couple of weeks and it's been very hard not to bow to the emotions and concerns of the people being affected by these things but i continue to look for real solutions that actually function. so let me close by saying my inclination to table these for just a little longer to see if we can iron out the lumps is not disrespectful or an effort to obfuscate or to drag feet but just an effort to get it right. and that's my goal. >> thank you, supervisor christenson. supervisor cohen. >> supervisor kim. >> actually, supervisor kim has already spoken and based on the board rules, those who have

not spoken take precedent. supervisor cohen. >> oh thank you. i'm a little disheartened about the conversation, what i'm hearing about the way the framing of a continuance and it's interesting because i mean a continuance would allow us to have a pause, right? just last week we had 8 hours of commentary about a pause for the mission moratorium and there are very valuable points within both pieces of legislation that i like. i think the one thing i'm concerned about and i hope supervisor campos will speak to it a little bit, the one thing that concerns me, you focused on one half of the coin, on the evictions and the displacement, but i'd love for you to help come up with a solution or a strategy for those constituents, you highlighted figures from district 10, particularly calling out port port -- potrero hill, there

are figures about the mission of people who are struggling to stay in san francisco. these are not folks who can come to the chamber and listen to hours of dialogue and discussion but are still just as committed and just as affected by the legislation. so that is one thing that i'm lacking that i'm hearing on how do we reconcile those folks that live in their house that are putting their kids through college, that are teachers and are subsidizing their income, that are seniors and that are trying to be industrious and resourceful and remain inside san francisco? so a continuance for me would help us to further that conversation. now, there are some things in here that i really like, units that have had an l eviction cannot be a short term rental. that is absolutely the right direction to go in. supervisor mar, you

mentioned the sleezy 16. the one thing i want to be cautious about that we are not taking a sledgehammer when we ought to be taking a scalpel, to car of through the legislation -- they say timing is everything, ladies and gentlemen -- so for me a continuance is not posturing or throwing, trying to stop the process but honestly it's to begin to create a piece of legislation that is absolutely, that we can all get behind and we all can begin to support and that will be the answer. this is not going to be easy, this is very complex as we can see, we've been dealing with it for two years. so, you know, i was uncomfortable with that rhetoric. i feel the passion and i certainly understand the direction but i just want to be sure that, again, we're not using a sledge hammer when we should be using a scalpel. >> thank you, supervisor tang. >> thank you. i just wanted to add on to some of the comments from my colleagues. i

think that today i will be supporting a continuance as well and really because, again, as some of my colleagues have already said, i do see pieces in both legislation that i would agree with. so, for example, as supervisor cohen just mentioned, in item 38 in the mayor and supervisor farrell's piece, one of the issues that we're trying to address is with evictions. his piece, their piece says a unit cannot be subject of eviction within 5 years of an application if the eviction occurred after november 1, 2014. are there ways we can strengthen that provision? i do like in supervisor campos's piece in terms of upon registration application that there must be notice mailed to all residents in a building, to an hoa, to groups that have requested notification. i like that there is sharing of information from the hosting platform including a registration number and we can use that information against

information in city data bases. one point i want to make in terms of the dialogue and how it started out, there's this stop there are many, many egregious actors but there are really those that -- many in my neighborhood who are perfectly fine residents who have not disturbed any of their neighbors, who own single family homes and have made many friends throughout the world through this type of a program. and i think to characterize that everyone is a bad actor and it's all about air b and b i think is absurd. i think as supervisor christenson said, it's many of our single family property owners who have come to me in our office saying we wouldn't like any sort of cap but i'm willing to compromise on both sides and say, sure, we should consider some sort of

compromise, respecting boat sides. so that's why i'm supporting the continuance. >> what i'm hearing, and i'm going to take people's word for it, i'm hearing discussion about whether we could or could not come together in the next few weeks to compromise something. and what i'm hearing is that this willingness, i think there are pieces of supervisor campos' legislation that i would definitely support and like to see as a compromise piece of it. i'm hoping that the sincerity i'm hearing today of people willing to do that especially what supervisor katy tang said in regards to the

sharing of the information of who is registering, i mean who is actually advertising and so forth, is an important piece as far as i'm concerned in terms of being able to enforce anything we put up there. so i will be supporting the continuance with the caveat that i feel like there's some sincerity in the discussion to compromise. >> thank you, supervisor yee. supervisor kim. >> so, speaking specifically about the continuance, i mean the one thing i will say is that my understanding is that over the last 8 months, since october there has been discussions between parties about coming to one ordinance that would come before the board. and over the last 8 months we have not seen those discussions to come to fruition yet. and i guess i'm not convinced that one more month is going to get us there and i guess i would ask the initiator