peek in 2008 so fairly dramatic increases in the number of jobs but they don't tell the story. the chart shows employment growth since 1995 has been about 30% in san francisco. this chart was put together by the office of economic analysis in the city. in the meantime, housing has gone up about 100%. a better explanation is the combination of number of jobs and rising wages. so the total income in san francisco has gone up almost 90% so closer to the rising home prices. supervisor -- >> supervisor: can you repeat what you said? >> the previous slide showed how mroi employment has gone up by 90% and housing has gone up 100%.

what may be a better explanation is employment and wages. if you multiply the number of jobs by the number paid we get a total income for san francisco which has increased about 90% since '95 adjusted for inflation. >> supervisor: that's how much income has gone up as a whole for the city? >> yes. >> supervisor: okay. >> and that compares with what housing prices have done. they've gone up about 100% and total income has gone up about 90%. >> supervisor: okay. thank you. >> supervisor: but we're looking at the new employment that's come into san francisco is the ones driving that higher wages? those are the ones getting the higher wages. can we make that correlation? >> we haven't looked into this for this particular presentation but i think wages overall are

going up. certainly wages in the tech sector. >> supervisor: frankly, city government the wages go up 2% or 3% not by this percentage. you're seeing a disparity amongst people who have employed by city and county, for example, and people in a private industry which i think has implications also not only for our housing costs but our workforce too. what you're telling me is there's an increase in employment that's come in. our city government has basically stayed stable but the jobs coming in are much higher paying jobs. higher actually at a higher rate than actually what the rest of the population has been able to afford. >> that's right. that's correct. i do want to show in this chart, for example, we show there are jobs at all different wage categories. the number of jobs are

increasing overall and there is a discrepancy with higher income jobs going faster and incomes for those groups are also going up faster. so the combination of the two factors is what is in this orange column there. the good news is we have increased housing production in recent years. can see in the chart by 2014, 2015 we reached the housing production levels from before the recession and in 2016 that has increased more to about 5,000 units per year. potentially responding well do the policies this body has approved i'll discuss in a minute. >> supervisor peskin: i note on tomorrow's calendar the board of supervisors -- and i imagine they'll all be approved, there's over 1,000 units of subdivisions

on tomorrow's calendar. >> okay. hopefully this will help inform that conversation. >> supervisor peskin: unfortunately, most are market rate. >> the flip side of this increased production is that we are producing a lot more jobs throughout the region than housing units. as you can see here, san francisco has produced one housing unit for every 1.65 jobs created. and other counties this has been even higher. in san mateo there's 3.2 jobs almost for every housing unit built in that county. this discrepancy of jobs and housing is an issue throughout the bay area. really, the production though we've shown production has

picked up, take longer term look in the 1970s the bay area added 450,000 new housing units. whereas we're projected to build less than 150,000 in this decade if we continue with current trends. so there is an imbalance between the amount of jobs we're adding and incomes jobs are paying and the amount of housing. >> supervisor: would you mind repeating that? >> so throughout the bay area over the last few decades, there's been a steady decline in the number of housing units even while the economy expanding. there's a mismatch between the adding of jobs without the commensurate number of housing units to meet that demand. so if i can offer concluding remarks. the increase in housing costs

say long-term trend as we see but it really has intensified. the housing rates are increasing everywhere in san francisco. housing production hasn't kept up with job and wage growth and this is true both in the bay area and in san francisco and other bay area cities that have added a lot of lower jobs and housing which exacerbates the problem. these are some policies implemented by this body and the state to address the housing crisis. there are additional efforts underway and we welcome the opportunity to come back to you and discuss these in more detail. so thank you for the opportunity and i'm here if you have any questions.

>> supervisor: i think we should open it up for public comments. >> the clerk: any members of the public who wish to speak? even if you didn't fill one out you can, please, come up. >> i'm from the san francisco clearing house. i'm assuming we're talking about the fifth report of the housing balance. i'd like to suggest a couple of things that might be done to improve the accuracy of the housing balance report. it is beyond understanding to continue to count public housing. public housing as part of the housing balance report as if simply perpetuating the number of public housing units we have

is somehow adding to the affordable housing stock. i don't think that it is of much value at all to continue to count public housing rehab since it's no net new. it's unlike acquisition of existing housing for affordable housing. we don't move public housing from the market to the affordable side. it's affordable going in, it's affordable now. the only thing it does is confuse readers in seeing 26% of the units are affordable under one measure when you count public housing construction versus new construction which i think is the real issue here. in which affordable housing is only 16% of the production of housing which is dramatically

down. finally, we're not counting short-term rentals. that is beyond my understanding of why we're not counting short-term rentals. there are 10,000. there are overwhelmingly rent-controlled units and kept off the market given san francisco's ordinance yearlong. there is no limit. i think we ought to start counting in the housing inventory short-term rentals. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> thank you. teresa flanderick. what i didn't here is the buy-outs that are not and when i look at the figures for 2016 that was published in january, i don't see three address where's i know tenants have been forced

out. those who tried to stay for 18 months fighting the harassment of either you accept this buyout or we'll evict you. i know that is much greater because there are the pre-apps noted and there's a huge difference between those filed and i'm talking about those that were never filed and will never be filed because there's a means of skirting the law so there's no constraints on the building. we have a condo conversion moratorium in place. so these buildings are now being turned into tics with the hope of being able to convert to condos. one example is 590 lumbard where susan and richard and his children lived and the owner died. building was bought from a company out of lafayette who is in the process of converting this to luxury units that

include two penthouses with entrance from the top and a media center and wine cellar in the basement. so no person from san francisco i know will never be able to return to this rent-controlled city. this is happening throughout the city. these are numbers not counted as a housing balance in lost units. thank you. specif >> supervisor peskin: and i know that case well. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. members of the board, peter colin community housing organizations. i'll speak to the housing balance report and just to say thank you to the planning department for doing this work and supervisor kim you sponsored it and it's one of the most

useful things that comes out twice a year and tells so many things about housing need and production and where we're falling short, what we can do from a public policy standpoint in learning from that. again, i'm glad the staff is so committed to digging in the weeds. cumulative housing balance is an honest way to think about our housing production and the report before that is 12% so we're doing better but far below what anybody might consider to be an acceptable threshold. so this might sound like the sort of same old thing we as we keep saying is we need more funding and more sites. that's how we increase production. we also need to do more acquisition. we need to get more buildings off the speculation market as the buildings come up and tenants are threatened with

eviction there are tools and policies. they're not cheap or easy but there are ways to correct the housing balance more structurally than nibbling around the edges. i encourage you to learn and act from this. i also want to speak to interesting information from the last report. i found it eye-opening the incomes in san francisco have increased 90% since 1995. that tells us so much about why we have a housing affordable crisis. it's not just units produced but the incomes chasing units changing the price. that can't be lost on us, folks. thank you. >> deepa varma from the san francisco tenants.

the data shows we have nowhere near enough data and it showed what other speakers touched on how more affordable units are being lost as we build more luxury units through buy-outs and people being harassed out. i know multiple units near i live and work in the mission district where whole buildings are empty and they don't show up in any of these registry. we can't build fast enough to replace the units. i'd like to talk about the other way to address the bleeding of these units and hopefully well get to that in push for state reform and realizing we need to concentrate on building more affordable units but also need to stop the bleeding. thank you. >> hi, supervisors.

erin rece. thank you for putting out the data it's important to see how we're meeting housing goals. it's particularly invaluable because it tells a clear story and points to clear solutions. like others have said it makes incredibly clear we're not producing enough affordable housing and need to increase our production of affordable housing to pete the needs of the folks here and those coming. we need to produce 60% or more affordable housing. that should be our number one development and priority. the second is clear unless we slow the last of units that are currently stably housing people we're running in place. two steps forward, one step back won't solve the crisis. we need to curve production with protection of tenants and expanding rent-controlled units which is why we're excite about the resolution later on the

agenda for the hawkins repeal. we pride ourselves on be innovative and data driven. let's listen to the data. the story's clear. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i work at housing rec, san francisco. i want to stress the need for deeper rent control units. it doesn't capture the range of perspectives landlords use. a key example i want to hone in on is the largest private landlord in san francisco, veritas. they formed a partnership with airbnb. they began taking out gigantic loans to buy rent-controlled

buildings. there's 61 buildings spread out across 21 san francisco neighborhood. it's a joint venture between veritas and a boston-based hedge fund. the founder has been in the news because he has $30 billion in assets and owns $911 million in puerto rican debt. goldman sachs owns the debt. the portfolio is 95% and across the 1,126 units with an average rent 35% below market. standard and poors analyzed the loan and found it had $23 billion in potential rent if r veritas can raise rents. they've been doing what they've been aggressively doing since

2011. since 2016, 57.1% of the units in the portfolio or 986 units have been vacated, renovated and raised to market rates. the remaining 42.9%, 748 units, provide an opportunity to achieve rents closer to market levels once renovated. what happened to the tenants in those units? what will happen to the tenants in the other building? this is a chance it do more when homes become construction sites and rents rise. i want to leave it now to a couple tenants to show what's happening underground. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> my name is lennon and i live in district 3 at 634 powell

street. i appreciate the opportunity to speak on the record and the significance for me as a long-term rent control tenant. i was born and raised in san francisco all my life. i'm a freelance forever and work in two san francisco restaurants. i have lived there since 1996. veritas bought my building in 2016. since then i've fought months of construction and scaffolding around three months. when the construction came regular water shut off and heat outage during last december nearly two and a half weeks. and there's dust from painting being speckle through the windows with no notices and ongoing infestation. i found long-term tenants fought off buyouts and others left with

two units being used as two short-term rentals. then we got hit with rent increase bond and water bond and opening and mans maintenance and set for december 1. i'm seeing my neighbors struggling to face an increase of 120% in holidays and i know i'll get mine soon. rent control is the only way i can afford san francisco housing on a restaurant worker's wage. i hope this shows the need for the need to plug the loopholes for companies to exploit. thank you. >> supervisor: can you go over

that? >> it looks like most folks are lined up so rather than call them just get in line. go ahead. >> i'm ameda rubio and i live on 634 powell street. the report is important and i want to thank everyone involved in the production. i'm a rent control tenant of 25 years at my home. a student at san francisco state and teacher. i live under veritas investment the largest private landlord in san francisco. while the housing balance report covers many ways we lose rent control units it didn't cover what's going on to more than 250 buildings owned by veritas and their investment partners. together with the housing rights committee and other tenants i've been to other buildings

approximately, 20, owned by them and have seen to the same things happening such as constant construction and services without proper compensation and unlawful evictions for reasons tenants don't understand across the board. it was clear to me veritas bought our building to make a lot of money and pay down debt. as the predatory equity. when an investor pays more for the building than the current rents cover. i've seen an opportunity for this body to dig deeper and i urge the supervisors to do so. this has happened before in san francisco. many of us remember city apartments and the millennial

family. it's time hip corporation and we need to stop it. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. thank you for holding these hearings and giving us a chance to speak out in favor of repealing cost to hawkins in favor of changing the great imbalance in housing in the city. 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