mod. because of the consciousness of everybody we were able to push it up to 50%, in which 17% of it would go for mod to middle income individuals. [ please stand by ]

one of the issues. i'm curious because what i think in terms of -- one project. and i'm adding 17% for middle income. then that is 170 units in just one project. so when you look at the funding that could be available for -- suggesting milling income i think it says 35%. which means about 25 million a year. what are you going to do with the 25 million? you can explain exactly how it's

going to work? is it to help bill or help to buy? or what is it? [ please stand by ]

type of building and the land value. we think we can negotiate pricing for the mixed-use development because the developers are working with us already and the purchase will allow inclusionary at a good price and the price point for the units which would be affordable serving generations of people at

affordable rents is it can be a good price point and at least equal to or sometimes less than just building new. it's certainly faster. >> if you were to do a combination in terms of approximately $25 million a year, how many units can you purchase in a year? >> we think we can preserve and build 1400 unit its and with turnover that's close to 200 units over the 10 to 12-year period. it's a good number of units and again it will remain permanently affordable. >> so about 140 units a year? you said 1400 in ten years?

>> yes. >> so 140 per year. okay. thanks. >> jeff -- director kazinski. >> so i see a big percentage of this initiative will be helping with homeless issues which is a good thing. i'm curious, in terms of -- was it last year we had a sales tax and if had not failed how much was that going to provide for our efforts in addressing homelessness? >> that would have provided approximately $50 million in new funding so a little bit more than what's being proposed in

the measure. >> and with some of the services proposed for this initiative similar to the one that was proposed for the one that the sales tax one? >> very much so. we have identified what we think the gaps in the system are so anytime we're asked the question where do you need to spend the money it's split between temporary shelter and other innovation are appropriate in our homelessness response system. >> that's helpful because i wasn't sure it was a whole new set of things you want to do. >> great. >> supervisor stefani. >> thank you because we have a crisis around homelessness and housing and it's what i hear in my direct and we need a strong

and vibrant middle class. what i like is how it will help homeless families and a didn't hear stats of how many families are on the streets and homeless. one of the why i like this is i was on the board of director for the homeless program for six years and the mission statement is to break the cycle of childhood poverty and you do that by investing in them and housing them and you have wrap around services but if we want to break the cycle of poverty we need to invest in our very young and our families and invest in families so that their children don't grow up to be on the streets and we don't have this cycle. so what i'm really interested in is how many families do we have on our streets that are homeless and what are the provisions that would help those families? >> there's two ways we count the

numbers. hud in point in time counts families literally homeless living in our streets or shelter or transitional housing and there were 600 individual in families that counted by the hud measure. however, the u.s. department of education counts families doubled up or living in sros as homeless as well. so if you included that number i would estimate there's somewhere between 1,000 and 1500 families who are experiencing homelessness or house instability in the city at any given time. we are very fortunate in that mayor lee ed investments around family homelessness significantly during his tenure as such. during the past year we saw a 13% reduction in family homelessness and we also have

engaged with hamilton family center an initiative called heading home and in the next year and a half we'll be placing an additional 600 families into what we call rapid rehousing and we have 500 units of house for permanent support of housing for families in the pipeline. so we do have a pretty robust pipeline of services coming up for families experiencing homelessness under this measure. we haven't determined if we'd be using the funding for families. we know we'll be using about 6.5 million for transition-aged youth and that population is under funded regarding the size of the population and this will help balance that and the remaini remaining funds will be for families or some other rapid rehousing. but i think we have quite a bit coming up in the pipeline in the

next few years to serve that population. >> great. i don't see any other questions from colleagues. i want to end with a couple key points. i think supervisor safai brought up a good point. we have projects in the city that have been negotiate and will continue to be negotiated on the larger scale. there's a certain developer operation based on our inclusionary numbers and the ability to expand that to increase the number of income-restricted units. think balboa reservoir and pier rock and if it might start around 25, 30 but it will continue to grow. on the middle-class side same with the transitional age youth in year one it may be $1 million but the reason we're talking

about 2030 and $1 million by 2030 is that's when we're going to take our first pause with this and have a relook at the percentages. we might, hopefully, not have as much a need for transitional-aged youth in 2030 or need to buy sros but i think low-income seniors is going to be a consistent number we'll continue to fund but in 2030 the charter amendment allows us to come back as board of supervisors and work with the mayor and adjust the percentages. this tax will remain in perpetuity. because it will remain in perpetuity, this measure is the largest housing measure in the history of this city. let me say that one more time, this is the largest affordable housing, housing measure in the

history of the city. we make an impact on the homeless and growing homeless and middle-class families. the housing trust fund has a sunset date about $100 million a year. this is equal to that but will go on in perpetuity and continue to grow. in the first year it's $70 million and by 2030 it will continue to grow. as supervisor safai said, we exempted small business retail. there's no tax on retail or nonprofit. there's no tax on businesses making gross resets less than $1 million -- receipts less than $1 million a year and we included a small amount of money which will go to the general fund to offset business license for those

businesses as well. we tried to be very thoughtful in the conversation and had a conversation with the small business community and had a lot of conversation with those in the nonprofit house development and those that deal with the homeless and affordable housing and i want to commend those who came out in the labor and housing advocate community. i want to commend director kate hartley for her hard work on this. i want to particularly commend director jeff kazinski for his hard work on this. though some of this was talked about in the sales tax measure and in the past, in our accelerated conversations with the business community and after the death of mayor lee, we were faced with a deadline that we had to have this done by. supervisor sheehy and i were talking about this seven minutes before deadline and we made it by 30 seconds. he was a very strong advocate for the category for

transitional age youth. now thank you for push being us. i will end by saying we hope this is something the voters of san francisco and we believe the voters of san francisco are going to respond to in a positive way and we believe this in the great tradition of going back to and very honored to have him here today, the mayor, mayor brown and mayors ending with mayor lee and want it to be a step forward. thank you. i'll entertain a motion to -- sorry, i didn't see you. >> you opened your remarks in not wanting to rob peter to pay paul -- as a said up front, the

initiative is the concept i think it's necessary and i'm supportive and as you know there's many needs in the city. it's good we're having this conversation because we start with the housing first. i've supported housing for low and middle income and there's early education i have supported all my life and something the business community said we need more of and so forth. i'll have more about that later. i hope both initiatives will be supported by the voters.

and the question that bothers me is why did you put a poison pill on this to kill the early education initiative? >> i think it's a false premise and wouldn't negotiate it that way. it became aware to us the ball at measure had a poison pill in it and we respond to that a week later. unfortunately it is what it is. the measure that receives the most atheir -- affirmative votes and this with us part of the negligences -- it's curreny

at .9 and a double tax would go to 5.5%. it would almost be 100% certain to have both categories against we're at a 67% threshold.

>> tell everybody what it is. >> there's one on the 9th with a poison pill and one by you and other colleagues that is not. the one that is not with 18,000 signatures with your name on it that is going to be removed would not have a poison pill and the one in front of us on item 2000 but the one submitted january 9, from speaking with attorneys it's right there, the last part of the measure i can read it into the record if you'd like but i can wait until item number 2 comes up but it did. the business community brought it to our attention and made a strong point of saying we can't a double tax in the same category. >> we could do it in public or offline but the language that is in that other one is not

identical to what you put in and when you read it carefully it didn't do what you think it does. >> i can read it if that's okay as the author of that measure. >> i'll recognize you in a moment. supervisor kim, thank you for joining us. not to go back and forth but i'll end by saying we saw that measure and had multiple attorneys look at that language and advise had was a direct poison pill. thank you, kim, thank you for joining us. >> thank you, chair, safai. i want to be clear. there's three pending measures on childcare before the board and voters. nor the signature or the ordinance that would six votes the board have any type of poison pill measure on any other type of gross receipts for childcare measure. what is in the measure supervisor safai's referring to and the one with the 18,500

signatures say type of poison pill but specifically says, if you read the language if another measure of a similar subject matter passes than our measure wins. that would mean if there's a competing childcare measure on the ballot and we got more votes than that childcare measure, our measure would win but it does not provide a poison pill on this measure which say different subject matter that has to do with affordable housing. i think it's great to say people will be running a positive campaign but when you're running a positive campaign for a measure, it explicitly has language that kills another measure, you have to run a negative campaign because of the language in the ordinance. can't hide behind what the ordinance says. it says if their pressure gets more than the childcare measure, the childcare measure is defeated. now a couple things a high task

on building owners, it would be a high tax but not exceed the rates in new york city which range between 4% to 6%. we'd be happy if both measures passes. and the sponsor picked the exact same measure. we began the discussion around the universal childcare measure in september and came out saying we'd be using commercial gross receipts in november and this

came out in january. and there's revenue sources the measure could have gone to and we have a list that details other revenue measures like residential gross receipts like gig economy and the cannabis tax they could have included as their revenue source but after introducing our measure the author decided this revenue measure as well and that's the point of contention between us today. we never want to see a fight between childcare and affordable housing. in fact i'd see a larger revenue measure to supported homelessness measures we can come behind the mayor and us can come behind. i think if we had time to have

the discussion we could have done that. supervisor peskin introduced a measure using commercial gross receipts for transportation. so it was transparent, full disclosure, after we saw that come in, supervisor norm an-yee and i came together and we saw a minimum compensation ordinance bep met four to six times in december and came to a compromise on how all three groups would come together for childcare and mcl and supervisor peskin would wait until november for another measure and that did not happen second that is what's dispointing. it's not the cause. no one on this board can challenge my record on affordable housing and the

immense amount of force i've provided over the last seven years to win affordable housing. the issue here is the poison pill means there will be negative campaigning against childcare simply because it's in the ordinance. if you vote for the measure, the childcare measure cannot pass. >> thank you. >> we do not allow clapping in the chamber to show your support. we have waving of hand. we can agree to disagree. we have had multiple attorneys look at this conflicting measures clause. there obviously is a disagreement in terms of what you're interpretation is and other attorneys' interpretations is and it sound like you're

prepared to go forward with your ballot to the measure with 18,500 that has a poison pill and makes no sense why you would have that if there's no other things you're trying to work against. we can disagree on that and have the attorneys look at that. at the end of the day, just to be clear, we were in conversation withes the business community prior to december. we were talking about additional revenue. we were talking about gross receipts among other things and one day there was an announcement for transportation gross receipts and the next day there was another announcement of childcare. we had conversations and said our priority was housing. we'd go forward with that conversation. i think the business community, when faced with multiple measures, transportation, housing, childcare. they said it's clear to our membership and our prospective tenant and those in the city

that housing is the crisis of the day. this is not to diminish. as you said no one can question your record on middle-class housing and no one can question my record on childcare. the first thing we did was work with the city to purchase the largest childcare sitter in the city. over 224 children, over $5 million. i've dedicated years of my work -- not as many as supervisor yee, he's dedicated almost his entire professional career for that and a respect him for that. i also feel unfortunate we're in the position we're in, but i will say this, if people can't live in the city, they won't have a place or a need to put children in childcare. it's not one or the other but if people cannot live in this city, they will not have a need or desire for childcare. so i am 100% commit to that. i told supervisor yee, we had a

few conversations before that and had the respect to reach out to me multiple times and we had a conversation and an appreciate he did that, but i will say what i said to him was it's not a matter of if i support going forward for universal childcare, it's a matter of when and how we do it. in the business community they expressed clearly they had no conversations about childcare and they were concerned about moving forward on a topic and an item they and their members could support particularly if they were going to be taxed from .3% to over 5% if you had the 2% in one category and 3.5% in another. it's not comfortable for any of us. they're issues we care about and we have to make tough decision

and move forward on the issues the voters of san francisco want to prioritize. supervisor kim. >> the city attorney's him so i feel there's no reason to say we can agree to disagree, i'd like the city attorney to answer the question on what our measure says. >> which measure? >> the one we submit. there's a discussion on what our measure says so i think we should just ask the city attorney and get an answer. >> i don't he's not going to be answer fully but deputy attorney can you answer on the ballot measure. >> a little maybe. deputy city attorney john gibner. there's three versions as supervisor kim said as the childcare related measure. one pending on the board and one on today's agenda. neither of those have any provision you would describe as a poison pill. there is one that was circulated

for signatures, i believe the department of elections has concluded it qualified for the ballot and would be on the ballot. that has a provision in it that says it conflicts with any other measure on the same ballot -- that will affect the same subject matter. doesn't specifically speak to child chair or specifically speak to gross receipts or commercial rents taxes. my office's policy is not to advise on interpretations of measures that are circulating for the ballot. i understand the disagreement between the supervisor. if the bottom line though in terms of the ultimate impact is that if that measure, the measure that has been placed on the ballot through signatures

and the measure that is item 1 today, the gross receipts tax dedicated housing, if both of those are placed on the ballot and both pass, the one with the highest number of votes will win, and the other will not go into effect so if the childcare ballot gets forevotmore votes ts into effect and if the other gets more votes that goes into effect and we don't have to get into the language of the circulating measure because the measure basically sets those parameters in itself. >> i just want to repeat that last part because i'm also aware of that. this initiative before the board right now, item number 1 as it its own poison pill and says specifically if it gets less votes than the other measure it will not go into effect. i want to go into this carol

ruer and our measure got more votes than the other it would not kill the other measure. >> if, for example, the poison pill was not in the housing measure at all and the pressure passed the question would be whether the two measures dealt with the same subject matter is a question we'd answer at the time both measures passed. not today. >> so there's no clarity on that? >> well, i think there is clarity but the city attorney said they don't speak on items that were submitted through voters, is that correct, mr. gibner. >> correct. >> so you're not answering the question because that measure was submitted via the voters and that's not the role of the city attorney to advise on that

measure. >> correct. >> so there's no clarity on that. supervisor safai. >> not to get in the middle of a fight but it's clear you're identifying the same revenue source so i think it's the same subject matter since that's the heart of both measures. it's not what you do with the money but where you get the money. frankly, if that circumstance took place, i can imagine litigation considering the amount of money involved and nothing happening for a number of years. i do think it's unfortunate. these are both huge needs but we need to make choices and for me when i look at the two issues, i want to reiterate what supervisor safai said, if you don't have a place to live,

childcare is challenging. people who provide childcare don't have a place to live. at the end of the day, the twin crisis the city faces we hear about endlessly are housing and homelessness. i just -- from my perspective, this is not something i can wait on. this is not something is that we can kick the can down the road. we've got to do something and it's got to be done now. we can still continue. we put in the process enormous amount of money into childcare and from what i see it only gets us halfway from where we need to go for childcare because the need that i've seen is double this. we need to continue to add capacity for childcare and early

childhood education. we have to address homelessness now. we have to address housing now. we have to have a middle class in the city. >> thank you. any other members wish to comment on this item? seeing none, can we entertain a motion -- >> i'm sorry, i did put my name -- by the way, i have the immense respect for supervisor sheehy and know he's a parent raising a daughter in san francisco but we went have to people here if we don't have housing and we're not just losing the middle class because of housing, we're also losing the middle class because we're not supporting them to stay once they are here. the middle class in 1990 made 40% of the population and went down to 33% and has probably gone down more since the last data point and i agree, we need

to support everything. that is what is ultimately so disappointing about the measure before the board. i want to support something where we can have affordable housing and childcare move forward. unfortunately the time was not given to have that discussion back in november, december and in early january where we could have come together unified for childcare and affordable housing. the affordable housing measure did make a decision by putting a poison pill on the childcare measure instead of working on a different revenue force to ensure to move forward to the voters and support affordable housing and childcare. if we're going to talk about this doesn't cover enough of this and that, $63 million doesn't going to solve our housing crisis either. i don't want to get in the debate whether this isn't enough for this and $130 million is not

enough for childcare. to make childcare free in san francisco, it's a $500 million initiative. to be affordable for every family it's a $260 million we're attempting to make a big dent in childcare. the $130 million would cover half the cost would be san francisco single largest investment in early childhood education and raise wage for workers who can't afford to live here. we have to talk about affordable housing but we have to put more dollars in the pockets of everyday residents for workers and families struggling to cover rent, mortgages and childcare payments. the measure tries to cover both. what i'm suggesting though is we could have used a different revenue source for affordable housing or childcare. frankly, if i had known this with us going forward we could have talked about another

revenue source for childcare. we didn't have that discussion. we could have had two measures moving forward in june with two different revenue sources and we would be singing kumbaya but the opportunity didn't happen. what i'm suggesting is we move forward childcare because we've been discussing it since december and come together with a unified measure for november which is larger than $64 million for the san francisco voters. we can pass a gio bond and that would make an impact and i'm ready to introduce it and think it will make a tremendous difference force homeless house and services here in san francisco. >> great. any other comments from committee members because we can keep going back and forth all day on this and we're all passionate and i don't think there's anybody who doesn't want

childcare and housing and everybody here unanimously supports building more housing for san franciscans. i think there's fault on every side in terms of communication and outreach. i will say the business community has a lot to say in how this is responded to in some ways and if they're going to be the ones paying the tax, i think it's worthwhile to listen to what they have to say in terms of what their membership is in need of and what they're ready to either support or not support particularly when we have these dire needs and these measures are so vulnerable to opposition campaigns. so with that being said, i'm going to put my head down again and make sure i'm not missing anybody and make a motion or request a motion to submit this charter amendment for inclusion on the june ballot. can i do that without objection?

-- >> the clerk: the appropriation motion is just to file the hearing. >> great. can we file this item? without objection? great. thank you. can you please call item 2. >> a hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance for the june 2018 election ♪ ♪ing the business and tax regulations and strdive codes to impose an additional 1% for warehouse and 3.5% on gross receipts for lease and commercial base for early care and education for children from birth through 5 years of age. >> i'll hand it hit over to supervisor norman yee. >> thank you. i'd like to say much of what i wanted to say supervisor, kim, thank you.

you're passionate remarks at the end was how i was going to start this. there's a lot to say with the initiative we're introducing. first of all, families of young children have been struggling to stay in san francisco for decades. and every so often, as you acknowledged, supervisor safai, i've been at this more many decades and it seems we never catch up and every time the parents come together to try to put something together it becomes the second priority to something else. one of the things that we really wanted to do this year was to make sure this wasn't a second priority to anything. once and for all we need to step forward as a city to support not

only our lower income and middle-income families. this is the biggest initiative in san francisco. it's not just the biggest in san francisco but the biggest in the country. we have been at the forefront of early education and care for decades. we've been at the forefront from 4 to 5 and babies up to 4 with inadequate services. and if they're not going to take

a parental leave the salaries don't keep up with the males. what they found in a study is when parents are forced to not be able to work because they can't afford childcare there's going to be a gap and it remains forever. you never catch up. so what are we saying to parents who need to stay home and in the next four years when you're child is age 4 we may have subsidies. families are too important. we need to start serving them and by the way, these are your low and middle-income working families. and what happens to them?

i've seen families leave over and over again. not because -- some because they lost their housing. they got evicted. and both issues are important to me. here's the difference here. after this passes it will be a year of collecting funding, we'll be serving -- we'll be helping over 5,000 families immediately with their cost of early care and education. over 5,000.

that means they'll be able to stay here. so is housing important? of course it is but impact is so important. when i ask staff how many units we're talking about and it's 140 a year. it's great but now it's 5,000 families we're helping and it's not just 5,000 families for early care and education and as supervisor kim mentioned one thing we have never done in the city where we had a fight to address two issues. one is helping the working families and the other is we do not have enough professional

early educators because of the low salaries that they receive. in the past we've done that fight individually to help address their salaries. in the past we've done a fight to do more services. this is a fight where we say to voters that we need to do both. serve work families and to help and keep our early educators in san francisco as much as possible. in summary this is what we're trying to do with the initiative and i'll turn it over to supervisor kim who wants to talk with the initiative in more detail. >> thank you supervisor yee. i want to say it's been an immense pleasure working with you on the initiative in the

past five months and getting to know our childcare community and early childhood educators who work to hard to work with the residents we care about. and i've learned so much on what san francisco can do to make it a city universally affordable for our families. we have seen through the investments the federal and state government used it make in this country when we used to build affordable housing when we used to fund public schools at one point in the 1940s where we provided universally affordable childcare during world war ii to encourage women to go back to the workforce so men can fight the war outside the country. it helped grow america's middle

class when we invested in our citizens. last year we were success in passing proposition w an arrest transfer tax which generated $27 million to make community college, city college free again in san francisco. with that measure we made san francisco the only free community college. there was a 51% increase in enrollment and it went up further in the spring semester which goes to show how popular the measure is. my staff, up until recently, were all working mothers on my legislative team. we knew the next area we wanted to tackle was early childhood education and wanted to make it affordable for all families in

san francisco. we used the definition based on the state definition which is no more than 10% of your gross income and as supervisor yee mentioned the largest investment and will do a number of things. it will immediately provide childcare to the 4, 200 low income families waiting for childcare immediately. second, for the first time ever raise subsidies for middle-class family and this is the first time the city will do anything that will also include our middle-class families because we know they're also struggling to stay in san francisco as well. third, the measure will raise wages for childcare workers.

82% of childcare workers are women of color and immigrants and this is an equity issue. we give the most important work to the folks that get paid the least. $26,000 is poverty wages. these childcare wages can only not afford to live in san francisco, they can't afford anywhere in the bay area and we have childcare facilities with vacancies. they have money to pay educators and can't fill the positions because the wageses are -- wages are low and the council made clear the number one priority, the three top legislative priorities is mco, the minimum compensation operation and we dedicated 50% of the funds to the general fund with an eye to

mco to generate $25 million in the general fund. we know the cost of the full mco package is roughly $48 million. this could cover half and another portion would come from the airport and we'll have to fund the remaining gap. it will be a substantial chunk whatever the lowest paid city workers have been asking for for years. i'm incredibly excite to have worked on the measure. we spent time working with our childcare and early childhood educators for a measure we know will make an immediate impact for families and substantive and it was our error we did not reach out to the business community as a whole. we reached out to a few of our major office owners to let them know we were working on the

measure but did not get the buy-in on the community in advance. i'll say this, i think it's incredibly appropriate because it will largely be a pass-through employers and leases and it's important they invest in their workforce. in fact they invest in their women because we know women largely take up the burden of childcare in the home. they take time off from moving forward in meaningful careers or bringing in more economic income in order to take care of their children. our employers should be helping to pay for early childcare and i want to be part of a city where our employers are supporting their workers and allowing women to go back to work and allowing families to pursue economic means while they get quality

childhood education. we know 90% of a child's brain is largely developed by the time they're 5 years old and we know the opportunity and achievement gap we are struggling to close in the k-12 system starts before the 5-year-old even enters in the classroom. this investment will not only help the adult, it will help our children come into kindergarten ready to learn and make an impact and closing the opportunity and achievement gap we're seeing in our public schools. i'm proud to move the pressure forward for the june 5 ballot and ask our voters to support it and i promise before june i will introduce a major economic measure to support a fordable housing in san francisco. thank you very much. >> supervisor yee. >> for clarity, i know there's folks here to speak on the item,

i don't want people to get confused. this is not the one in which over two weeks you were able to get 18,000 signatures in two weeks. that's not what we're talking about today. >> go ahead. >> can i have them read off a letter from the director who couldn't be here. >> gren dobson from the office of early care and education. the director of the office wasn't able to be here this afternoon but submitted a letter i hope have you a copy of in front of. basically the office of vce has reviewed the charter amendment

and in april 2016 the mayor endorsed the guiding document for sustaining the system for community education and family. the charter amendment we find the findings and the proposed expenditure of proceeds is consistent with the contents of the san francisco city wide plan for vec and current community needs of children, families and professional. the focus is on access for families for children to access services, quality services and compensation raising it for the ece professionals. so we appreciate the board of supervisors consideration of this matter >> thank you. graham, are you going to be around for a while? >> about 30 minutes.

>> there's a parent way baby i'd like to get up here for public testimony. does anybody have babies or have to pick up their kids. we'll take public testimony and invite this mother with the baby to come up first. >> hi, marie valuna district 9 resident. as you can see i'm a mom. i'm a part of different mom groups and golden gate mothers group, hpp, homeless prenatal program, main street mamas. the number one issue all of us moms in the city talk about before anybody here in city hall was talking about it is childcare. childcare and leave. those are the two issues.

i've seen numerous postings on facebook of moms saying they have to leave the city because of childcare is too high. they can't afford it. there's no opening for them for their childcare subsidy voucher they can find. no one wants to take it because the pay is too low and that comes with the subsidy. i urge you today to think with the moms and think about the women of this city have been asking for. we've been talking about over and over and over again. it's about childcare, childcare, childcare. myself, my story is i'm a professional. i have been working in the educational sfusd for as long as i know. i have two degrees. i gave birth to this baby on my back. when i gave birth to the baby i was not able to go back. not because of housing. i found us a two-bedroom apartment in the mission and moved out but the reason why i

never went back to work is because i did not have affordable childcare. i was not able to go back to work and i see this happen with lots of moms around the city who have to create jobs where they can bring their children to. i urge you because this is really impacting women in the city of being able to work. we don't have adequate universal childcare so please vote yes. thank you. >> my demonstration is going to be one of the most powerful you've ever heard. you have taxes. give twitter a minimum of $125 million worth of payroll taxes per year. you have been doing this for the past several years. you do the calculus math and multiply the amount of money in payroll taxes you've been giving twitter in the five other

high-tech companies is approximately a minimum of $217 billion in tax-free money, twitter and five other high-tech companies have been getting by all you board of supervisors and past mayors and you're here talking about taxes. it's disgust. it's an insult on my intelligence and everybody here. you do an audit and it's tax evasion and money laundering and you have families coming in talking about house and when it comes to house opportunity, for example, like the mission rock apartment building complex, 1,500 units. the minimum lowest income of families to move in those units is 45% of the median which is $36,300. when the truth of the matter the rehabilitation construction program says when you use that kind of financing, you're supposed to have 15% of

extremely low and low-income units within that building complex. so everybody's income below 45% is being excluded from having a housing opportunity to live in that apartment building complex. for all of you who sit up there and talk about housing and you need affordable housing, you're putting your foot in your mouth. in fact your setting yourself up for a class-action suit because everybody's income below 45% on that multi-billion dollar project is -- >> by the way, happy sierra leone happy valentine's day to everybody. next speaker.

good afternoon and happy valentine's to everyone here. my name is brendan herammi i serve on the local chapter of our revolution and on the board of the richmond district democratic club, the only in district one will. i'm a native californian and grew up with five brothers and raised by my mother and though she had a passion for karen for children she had to leave her role as a daycare provider to be a waitress because she couldn't sustain me and my brothers with the wages she was earning. it's important we not only recognize the importance of fair wages for childcare workers and ensuring working-class parents