i live in an upscale reputation and growing richer as tenants disappear. did i an informal survey of the shopping district from grand view to del ore he is and there were 1,000 rent-controlled units above the shops on that street. district 8 has lost in the last ten years 655 rent-control units to the ellis act and conversion. i don't enjoy my walks there as much as iized -- used to because buildings are suddenly covered with scaffolding and for-sale signs. we have one a few battle but more and more feels like an avalanche of money during yet another makeover of our neighborhood. it would be strongly advisable for the land use committee to

review the work of the planners and the planning department who apparently couldn't care less, i hope i'm wrong about that, if tenants are in or were in a building. some speculator now wants to virtually reconstruct for an over the top project. we need to get cost of hawkins and have right to counsel and scale up acquisition programs and the city should lean on the tech ceos for real money and they have been the biggest player in the housing imbalance status. while they have been generous to health care the corrections to housing is not equivalent to their wealth and power. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm a third generation san

franciscan and medical student. the affordability of the affordable housing is a critical issue for tenants and generation's old community then cries are not new but the prevalence is. the call for affordable housing is linked to the gentrification movement. what often gets left out of the conversation is the affect they have on the health of communities. i met patients who have died after being evicted. it's no doubt gentrification has been associated with an increase in pre term berth rates and toxin exposure. cost of hawkins and the ellis act are linked to the health

outcomes. cost of hawkins is one of the focal points of the social illness. it has have enormous impacts on health and there's exacerbation of health conditions and drug abuse and more mental health and a can go on. what is clear in the city of san francisco is our city is suffering. the do no harm correlation are fighting oppression and it's impossible to predict how many more cases we will have to have of seniors being evict and dying in our hospitals before the city takes the health crisis seriously. we need an increase in affordable housing and market-rate housing will not solve the problem and we need to repeal cost of hawkins. thank you.

>> supervisor: next speaker. and please come to the mic after the last speaker speak. >> thank you for letting me speak. i'm judy stocker. i appreciate you're giving eight of time to the report and to the issue. and i can't stress enough the importance of not just losing affordable housing but losing the richness and strength of community. i've lived in my home in the upper haight for 29 years and we were served with an ellis act eviction in december and we were devastated and we need your help. this is not just attorney generalic -- tragic because we're losing our homes but being forced from our community. we have a diverse great community. we help each other and care for each other's children and pets

and homes and gardens and cars. when someone's away we lend a hand when there's a crisis. we celebrate holidays and exchange information and guests and help each other if someone is sick or injured or dying or distressed and we come together to grief the loss of community members. we've been able to stay because of rent control but we can lose the place we have established and safe and embedded. i'm urging you to, please, disincentive the ellis act and look at rates with high rates of no-fault evictions. if you compare the map for affordable housing in san francisco with the map with

ellis act evictions where there isn't affordable housing. >> good afternoon. i'm janine and thank you for the opportunity to speak. i'm 66. my life partner is going to be 69 next week. we had been together as a lesbian couple in our san francisco rent-controlled apartment since 1980. this drunk idiot rear-ended my partner and he was driving a 5,000 pound car and she was severely injured but her injuries were invisible. i struggled to get her the health care she need and timely got her to uc center and they don't care the color you are they just want to help you so

she finally got help because she's black and the rent control has been essential to us because i'm the sole worker and now our building has been bought by speculators and they're the rudest people you can ever imagine and want us out pronto and it's devastating because i can't afford anything else and i don't want to take my partner from her doctor. the only other place is a big university understand and i'm university center and please do something about speculators and get them go away and get rid of the ellis act. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon.

i'm alexandra colton. i want to thank you for your care and attention on this committee. like judy i live in shradar street in ashbury. we all got the 120-day noticed meaning get out in 30 days unless one can successfully petition for an extension. our building -- if our building is ellis acted, seven units of affordable housing are going to vanish forever. i want to emphasize how important this is to preserve existing affordable housing stock to use a homeland analogy,

if you already have cookies on hand, it's a very simple matter to frost them. having to bake cookies from scratch and then frost them takes a hell of a lot more work. building affordable housing is highly complex and very slow, as you well know. you have to go through lots of committees, permit processes, union negotiation, purchasing supplies and thank you. >> supervisor peskin: next peek, please. >> thank you. i'm going to talk about the housing balance report briefly and make two main points relevant to the tenants. the first is uplifting previous points about the loss of units in push outs. it shows up in serious

harassment including threats to call ice, physical harassment, also through bad building conditions. in the past, not making necessary repairs and an extreme delay and an illegal eviction and buy-outs. the other point i want to make is the report references housing produced. almost none of the produced housing applies to tenants. through our work city. most make about 5% ami and it has low income and very low and extremely low income people and they're 30% ami and under. it doesn't cover the very specific needs of the population. and when we talk about affordable housing i think it's critical to talk about the most

vulnerable populations and the places where it's most needed. if we're serious about low-income housing as a solution to homelessness we have to build it and not water down the definition of affordable housing so our city policies look good. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> tony robles senior disability action. this report is just to con -- confirm in writing what tenants and tenant advocates already know. there's data and data is important but we can't lose sight of the fact that data has a human cost and human impact and very human consequences. where some are taxed more than others. some are made to pay more than others in many different ways. we were recently in sacramento

where the urban displacement project at uc berkeley spoke on the impacts of displacement. there are many layers. again, it is the big landlord speculators that are really the true culprits of this imbalance where you're producing, quote, unquote, affordable units but we're losing more than we're gaining. it's causing san francisco to feel less and less like a community. i would argue it's no longer a community but a population of customers. if you can't afford it that's tough luck. that's not a way for san

francisco to be or any city. the consequence on people, seniors and people with disability people are frightened and very scared. it's a bad situation. i commend the efforts to try to rectify it and repeal the state's ellis act for all of this. thank you. >> supervisors, good afternoon. at the top of the housing balance report it says a stated purpose is to ensure data on meeting affordable housing city wide inform the new approval process. not only does planning ignore the purpose of the housing balance when new market-rate projec projects come up for approval and fails to look at the schedule mandated by the voters in april and october.

why is this important? the displacement is a crisis. loss of rent-controlled housing stock is a crisis. instead, it prioritizing policies that streamline demolitions of existing housing to replace them with monster-sized homes and market rate development at all cost and rewriting zoning regulations and area-based plans in order to do it. despite the it helps make the housing imbalance top heavy. what's the result? we can see over time planning continues to act as facilitators rather than stewards of good housing policy and other cities are starting to look at san francisco as the epitome of what not to do to control housing costs. i want to thank supervisors kim and farrell to call the meeting

and looking at how to evaluate the policies of this city and how they're implemented because the question of who gets to live here is fundamental to who we are as a city. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm sean mckeon. i've been here since hurricane katrina sent me from new orleans. i've used my money to pay my deposit and get in the department i moved into in 6th avenue where i ran into in habitability issues and harassment from the landlord and we finally settled for a substantial sum. i moved into 2nd avenue and i lost my partner and home but here we go again.

looking forward to over the course of three years the building languished and there was a fire. i tried for three years as a new owner to do what i could and play nice and get inhabitability issues taken care of and my neighbor wanted to sleep on the sofa because of the sewer leaks. i called the department and filed a complaint. the building was labelled a public nuisance and took them over 97 days to abate the problems and i withheld rent and they sued me for an lawful and non-payment of rent. i was able to make up that settlement and they took 25% and gave it to their parents in january along the same repiling

and they filed an omi against them. i defeated them in their first omi because the parents didn't even know the notice was given to me and didn't know the eviction had been filed against me and the owner admitted to it in his deposition. they served me a week later with the second notice. [no audio] >> supervisor peskin: thank you, sir. >> i'm speaking for myself. i'm going to reserve the majority of my comments for the next item but i want to say that when there's a housing imbalance the end result is $1,000 rents

plus $1,000 deposit with a small room with a shared kitchen on 6th street. is that the path we want to go on? and like hotels and other rent-control units burning down. let's try to correct this, thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> hi, my name is sam. i work at the coalition on homelessness. i was born and raised in san francisco in the coleman district and still live there today. the report shows there's not affordable housing to keep up with needs. now that we have this valuable information and data we know what we must do as a city. that's increase our affordable housing production. we can do this by securing more sites and a permanent affordable housing for new development. every day i'm forced to ask who has the right to live in the

city and in san francisco. right now only the people can afford to live here and afford $3500 in rent per month and i've seen so many friends move because it's no longer affordable. people aren't just being displaced. at work i meet homeless people every day who end up on the streets because of eviction and renting in san france is unaffordable. i think the city has a huge opportunity to push for more affordable housing and protect tenants through the repeal of cost of hawkins. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> my name is gilbert weapons of mass destruction the chair person of aslo. i want to speak to the problem

of gentrification everybody knows is out of control. we lost 8,000 latinos and the african americ african american population is going down. the mayor and everybody's sitting on their hands. what's going on? people are losing their homes and getting evicted. we have people that come to us, seniors, getting kicked out of their homes. this is a crisis, people. we need to get on it. that's all i got to say. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, sir. next speaker. >> i'm leslie with housing rights committee. i want to reiterate things my comrades have said about the necessity of preserving currently deeply affordable rent

controlled house. i want to thank you for the report that shows the build-only solution is not a solution if we're losing affordable housing sffz we're getting it. if you take into account that get past and pushed out and since we don't have vacancy control it goes to market rate. you can double that and would have a negative balance for your affordable balance rates. i want to say for current rent control tenants they can't afford to lose their affordable housing and get in a lottery system. they'll get kicked out. we need to prioritize people in the community that have build them to stay in their homes. thanks. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker. >> laura clarke, mb ac.

a real danger with the housing balance report is it suggests either/or. we'll build market rate or affordable when we should do everything to build both. also stabilizing people in rent control housing and there's not a conflict between market rate and affordable. we should look at total numbers and how we drive up total numbers and protect tenants through cost of hawkins reform. the report is clear that we are having jobs and wages increase this is rarely a bad thing. it means your policies are bad if you can't grow and we should

be able to accommodate growth and so people are not causing evictions. when wages increase it doesn't mean something bad is happening but something good is happening. we can do that if we build housing in district 4 and district 1 where we're seeing the least amount of housing get build. in in district 11 they're low-density district can accommodate more. st. francis moore can accommodate a lot of apartment. i just moved into district 6 and there are eight parking lots on my block. it would not displace anybody and district 6 is showing a lot of and it can accommodate pore the city can build a lot of housing without tearing down a single rent-controlled unit. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: next

speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm jarrod marcu. i'm a long-time resident of had haight street. the area is being turned to playground for rich white people many of whom don't even live in the city. they don't even come here they're just speculators buying for investment properties. the only neighborhoods are not changed is china town and bay view and if something's not done they'll be changed. they can get around rent control technicalities or harassment. cost of hawkins not only needs to be repealed, we need a rent

control ordnance with vacancy control and protect the diversity of san francisco before it's too late. thank you. >> supervisors, thank you for hosting the committee today. the housing report is an important document in san francisco. it's looking at what we build and as many people before me have called it a housing imbalance. it shows we build tens of luxury buildings you can see by getting around the city tower after tower on valencia street and luxury units. many sit empty. we see tenants who receive their notices from their landlords who tell them when new luxury housing is built they should be able to get more rent now.

as we are told we need to build more housing for homeless folks the reality is the housing, we are seeing tenants evicted they're being pushed out to compete for what few fordable units we have or affordable like controlled nonprofit units. most affordable units in san francisco is because of the success of rent control. it is only because of things like we don't have vacancy control that a landlord can get you out and double your rents.

most tenants we see evicted especially seniors can't afford the affordable housing units being built. -- [no audio] >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker. >> i have three points. one is the google busses. we have real physical proof of people dumping their housing needs from san mateo county every day into the city and that's not factored into the housing reports. the non production of housing has reper -- repercussions in

san francisco. so they're changing the whole city because of regional non growth of affordable house. second, we need housing auto built to see what houses are being sold for. the planning department needs to have tracking ability in there in front of them and units were build in what they were sold for. the second thing is the planning department talk the planning because you don't have a planning department. they ned to have someone on staff that doesn't process cases just is the for rent control and

residential hotel control nep planning department doesn't look at the housing loss that exists outside the planning code. it's one of their dark marks as far as i'm concerned and they need someone except stay on top of house issues. people, i came here and was dealing with a project -- [no audio] >> supervisor peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to testify on items four, five and six? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor kim. >> supervisor: i wanted to ask the departments present to respond or follow-up to the questions opposed by members of the public. one question asked is on how we

tract lmi and ellis cases. in particular, how do we count on buyouts. >> supervisor peskin: mr. collins. >> thank you, supervisor kim. we track that and looking forward to policy january 1. every buyout has to go by a board except buyouts that were rescinded. buyouts done as part of a lawful

detainer so part of an law it you detainer lawsuit that doesn't need to be filed with the office. some may have responses to lsis. some may be buyouts for other reasons. if a buyout is not controlled about the rent board those in the buyout legislation are if they're not filed where they should have been that could be action to sue the landlord for that failure. >> the underlying question -- and maybe it's a question to planning is it's housing imbalance or thought to be? >> it is not. i don't think the buy-out

legislation was -- it became effective march 7, 2015. so these things have developed before that date. we didn't have an idea about the buyouts. i hasn't added numbers. >> have enforcements been made since the passage of the legislation? >> it's a city attorney or nonprofit. >> how would the city attorney's be aware a buyout wasn't recorded? >> i believe that's a private person. >> so a complaint-driven process. so members of the forward would have to bring forward a case and the buyout presumably assumes

that. >> supervisor: i think there is some policy issue here which is at least buyouts that we know about should be factored into housing balance. >> i'm more than happy to share the data and that's no problem for us. >> supervisor peskin: if year trying to make housing balance the best tool it can be for the public and decision makers it seems to make sense. i also want to concur with a comment from a speaker that

adding the rad program is highly counterintuitive. it's not at-risk affordable housing as the speaker said. it was affordable going in, it's affordable going out and adding that seems to skew the numbers. i don't know why >> supervisor: that was a political compromise. the mayor's office requested we include rad information. there were concerns if we did not include them in the count money -- because we have a limited amount for acquisition, rehab and particularly in districts 5 or 10 wouldn't be prioritized.

it doesn't make sense to be part of the housing balance count and there was a concern if they were not counted the mayor's office of housing or board of planning would not prioritize funding for those projects and only other types of acquisition and affordable housing and new construction would be prioritized. >> i can pat my belly and rub my head at the same time. >> i'm happy to reexamine that. it doesn't hurt for us to look at the calculations and if we need to enumerate we'd like the recorded buyouts. if that would assist to make it clear i'm happy to do reopen that. it was a lengthy debate and discussion when it came to the

board a few years ago. >> supervisor peskin: position of boards change. i voted for both things. >> i was going to con ture with the number numbers. we'd need your help to change that. >> supervisor peskin: ms. hartley. >> i'd like to remind us all in 2012 when we commenced rad, the housing authority was in trouble and we put about $200,000 a unit in the rad units. many were at the end of their useful lives. we have preserved many units that were otherwise lost and not habitable because there was no funding to operate them and operate them as habit there was

a political compromise but we brought units that were sitting vacant, unused because of lack of funding back into circulation and housing for our most vulnerable population. thank you. >> on that point, i agree the rehab of public housing is of outmost important. i thought it would be a deduction had we lost it rather than the maintenance. i agree it would have been lost in the count if we didn't spend the money to keep them affordable. mrs. hartley, i have a one question for the mayor's office of housing. do we take into -- and i want to

state i redshirt members of the pub will lick speaking to how we don't just want this annual record to happen. we want the planning commission and housing to take into account the accumulative balance. otherwise it doesn't hold it accountable to the numbers. when we look at the geographic data and where we had the largest loss of units and production, do we have an acquisition plan that looks like at the geography in district 4 where we have a high level of wasp and low production. can we look to prioritize sites in those discretions to ensure affordable housing production. >> we would love to build more

houses. in d4 we have a teachers site -- a combination of low and middle income housing. we are looking forward to form sf. i don't have the large sites to bring tax corrode its to bear officially. have be in thes that don't have sites. that contrains us. we would love to do more sites and we talked with the supervisor in district s and we have constraints of developers looking in the neighborhoods. >> i with was not careful enough in my question. i specifically meant site

acquisition not necessarily development. and i'm not picking on supervisor tang. >> acquisition strategy is to take advantage of opportunities that arise. we need to build a minimum of 75 units. if we go much over 150 units we have a gap funding need that becomes difficult to fill. we have a couple sources of funds great for site acquisitions and we're always on the look out and we have been fortunate enough to have had some site acquisitions recently that we're looking forward to building. so it's really about the incomes

of a particular site. >> supervisor: i appreciate that response and this is not my district, but regardless of opportunities and where there are opportunities i hope we can invest. i want to thank the mayor's housing committee for working on this and we've had small acquisition sites in our district. i do want to encourage the supervisors to develop a strategy for site acquisition on the west side to look for opportunities there given we we have a housing balance in the district and there could be a faster way to preserve affordable housing in our city. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: and relative to the earlier conversation, is there a reason we can't display the data with

and without rad? >> i think that's a good way to do that. >> the numbers are the numbers. it's just good to see what it is with rad. whatever the political decision was in 2015 we can do it legislative it will show it with and without the rad units and people can see the data however they want to see the desert. >> supervisor: i have one more question, do we take into account the mar units which have been foreclosed on which is tragic but has happened a few times in our history. were they moved from protected status? >> i'll defer to the planning department. >> just a few but they should be

counted. we can add that too. >> i'll make sure we add that as well. i just want to make a couple points. supervisor do you have a couple questions? first, i want to thank members of the pub will -- public for coming out for the report and interested in how we're faring and holding us accountable to the goal as the city stated in terms of fordable housing production in the city. i look forward to some of the work we're doing. particularly i want to thank the tenants union for moving forward for the right to counsel on evictions on the june ballot. that there be an incredible resource for so many who feel they're at their minds end and

you see a medical student saying it has impacts on people we don't talk about besides losing your physical and mental health and i think housing is a good to be heavily regulated. if you want to make tons of money don't go into housing. it should be regulated and i'm proud to be part of a city that has often been on the end of making sure we're protecting and keep people in place in their homes. i hope we bring the speculator tax back. it's a proposal that deserves another look buy vote and perhaps we can move forward in learning what people didn't like about the original one because

we should be discouraging the behavior by taxing it and let speculators know that activity is not the business activity we want in san francisco. my final comment and it's a comment because i'm not sure if this is truly addressable but it's frusting to see the 2010 units of entitled housing in the three major proj area and treasure island and park merced. it matches almost the 25,000 units of housing in the last ten years. the city has entitled a ton more than gets built. there has to be accountability on the developer and funding to get them done. i know they're complex because page three involved a ton of infrastructure investment and

housing and that's when the most affordable housing is as well. i see mr. skiski wants to get up and we fund projects and they don't get built and the city gets blamed for not building enough. >> some of the large master plans like shipyard and mark merced and if you're 70 and others see things complex to take many years to built out. some 20 plus and they have major construction murd als and that's one of the biggest sticking point and getting the treat work and few wore work in that up front. hopefully once they are, we've

bun calculations and they should be producing over 2,000 units a year in total across all income levels once they start producing. but your concerns in getting the u units built as fast as possible and through the mayor's directive are not tied up in the big master plans and how can we improve the interagencies interagency processes to make sure they come online faster. >> supervisor: i believe we should scale up our acquisition programs focussing on neighborhoods with high rates of eviction. finally, really support

supervisor's repeal of cost of hawkins and hand it over on that note. >> thank you. >> thank you. i concur on many things you said supervisor kim and thank you for bringing the housing balance for discussion. i'd like to echo come things we just heard. i also want to thank everyone for coming out, the public speakers and city departments in educating me about what is happening around the housing. as you know i'm a fairly new supervisor but a first-generation san franciscan and i've never anything like this so it's so interesting to learn more about and the causes and factors to what is going on in the housing market. i'm in agreement you can show

one chart that has rad and one that doesn't and the units that are been rehabilitated and they were affordable and it was fully housed and i think these people have a better standard of living. i also concur there should be more site acquisitions on the west side. it's the only way to keep affordable housing as we're losing so much protected affordable housing stock is to buy and invest in more small site acquisitions that have a fordable housing built in because they're older buildings. most house long-term tenants. most tornadoes. if we're add i'd like to see more demographic info and wonder if that can be

included. i want to see how it's affected san francisco as a whole and impacted san francisco as a whole. that means what is the racial displacement and how are we changing racially and ethically and income diversity. that's at stake. when we lose our economic diversity we lose a little bit of who we are in san francisco because we'll lose our racial and ethnic diversity and our employment diversity of people who live here in san france. we also lose a bit more. we want to be known also as the city of innovation and want to remember our roots that made us this way and we have a diversity of thought. great ideas come from san francisco. many an intersection of humanity

and that's because they want to make the world a better place. not all those people make a zillion dollars and we've also want to give them a place and i'd ask for the demographic info and then i'd like to request all future reports provide updated data and each district's housing cost for rental and ownership units. i understand the existing systems allow with up to date and accurate information regarding housing sales data. rental data is another matter. since no city department currently tracks this information this is unfortunate when other bay area cities like berkeley, are able to provide real-time information about the rental stock.

i'd like to understand how to better help the planning department to track rental rate data with the goal of making such information part of the balanced report. also from the two reports combined we can see we have an overproduction of market-rate housing and what it shows me and i'm an untrained eye reading this but what it shows me from the simple charts is that building market-rate housing is only making the problem worse been -- because when we look at the units we are producing, the rents have gone up considerably. i know that we are saying there's an up take in the amount of income that people are making

but not everybody is making more money than they were. not everybody is making 10%, 20%, 30%, 90% more than they were making a couple years ago. i think we just got a raise with 2%. i think police officers and other city departments that we couldn't operate without them i don't think they're wages have increased. whom are we building for? that's my question here around the whole conversation. whom are we building for? yes, we can blame oh, the wages have gone up and new people have come in. they need places to live and so we're building market-rate housing for them. we see the rents are incredible. we're looking at teachers. when we're looking at special ed

professionals which frankly, children with special needs couldn't even go to school or access education unless they have housing, they're not included in this. i get we have a booming economy and we're building tons of office buildings but what we are doing is we are importing help and people that make the wages displacing people who we need to live here to serve the people of san francisco. again, i just want to say, untrained eye, just learning this stuff here but from the charts i think it's very clear who are we building for. if we continue to build office buildings without requiring companies to invest in housing we will always be here. we can build a lot of affordable

housing and do small site acquisitions but unless we get a handle on who we're building for and prioritizing the building of housing for, we as a city, i don't know who is going to teach your children or be the clerk here or protect the streets? who are the people that are going to make san francisco run because we're not going to be able to live here. it's also an issue of priorities. i also think as supervisor kim said it's an issue of regulating. i want to say i'm a homeowner and landlord too. i have units that are rent controlled and i'm fine with

that. i think when i see where there's a shortage is affordable housing but yet we continue to over build in market rates in order to meet meager goals -- we're supposed to be building 57% of affordable housing and it's reverse of what we're doing in order to meet goals and what we need to retain ourselves as san franciscans we're going in the wrong direction. how many units have built between 1997 and 2017 because those are not rent-controlled. it's a whole group of housing not under rent control. i also think how it's used in housing balance to approve or disapprove projects. are you using it at all?

i don't mean it to be critical or jack you up but i'm wondering as we look at the numbers are you even looking at the housing balance when you're approving projects because it is disproportionately market rate. it's been like this a while. tell me, are you using it or looking at it and saying wow, we have a problem and why are we approving this. explain to me, please. >> emery rodgers from the planning department. we could not agree more. the need is great for even moderate income housing who can no longer afford rents or ownership opportunities. so many cannot afford the housing here. it's a crisis. we we also agree increasing

population if with don't see more housing we'll see more displacement. we need to see the need for low-income housing is going to be there regardless. if we stop building housing it doesn't satisfy the need for people who can't afford things today. >> what if we stopped in a time of building office space to high-wage earners? what if we said you can't build the tower because you're not investing in housing. san francisco's a cool place. people want to live here.

you can attract the best and brightest in the world to work for you. my question is what has he said in building office space where you import people from all over the world and not higher our own people here because what if we just said that? i know it sounds simplistic. >> thank you for your plan. >> supervisor: i want them to have a business here but housing too. they just can't rely on us to take away the housing of people who have lived here for 44 years

and i'm in agreement with supervisor kim, human greed needs to be regulated. that's the job of the legislative branch and government of sfrans -- san francisco it's our job to people can thrive. we have an economy threatening the very health of people, the livelihood and threatening the very legacy of san francisco. i think, as i said, it's been an educational process. as i look and understand i think san francisco is doing what they knead to do. i think they need to go and do something and i don't know how we'll make them doing but we need to make them build their share of housing. a mayor said we had one high