child first, is do you believe proposition e is too broad, there have been some arguments that in addition to it covering candy and flavored tobacco in that sense, that it also covers menthol cigarettes and hookah use in the middle eastern communities. >> we would be against it even if it were only covering a very narrow segment, because your question is does your body belong to you or the government. all of us consume various things that are unhealthy. if we all switched to a raw food, vegan diet, we would be much healthier. does that mean that anything that's not vegan should be criminalized? no, but that's the way that some people want to go. big government, unfortunately, they already make more off of the sale of a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. they're trying to make money

off of it on both ends, fining it from the sales, and criminalizing it on the other, and all the apparatus, there will be air cost with enforcing that, and we've seen with the war on drugs and putting people behind bars, especially with low-income communities and communities of color, and this is the wrong way to go. we know proceed hibitihibitionr on drugs is the wrong way to go. >> dr. chung? >> absolutely not. again, most kids start smoking through candy flavored tobacco products. these flavors are added for a reason: so make smoking easier and to make more pima ikt didded. we know the more you smoke, the more it'll call you to have harm, cancer and eventually death. i like to do whatever i can to keep my kids safe and to keep my community safe. i do believe this ban will be effective in reducing our kids

from smoking, so i'm a proponent of this proposition. >> and we'd like to have our closing arguments. we'll start with you, star child. >> well, first of all, i wanted to point out, for one thing, there's medical health professionals and people who care about kids and reducing death on both sides of this argument, so please don't be misled by the fact that my opponent has the word dr. in front of his name. et he et -- he's a dermatologist, not a health care researcher. the fact that kids may start by smoking flavored tobacco, that has nothing to do with the reality that everybody likes flavors. they're acting like oh, just because it's flavored, it's going after kids. nonsense. i like different flavored when i eat products. i don't smoke cigarettes, but it's something that people should have, again, ultimately

the right to choose what to put into their own bodies, and this is not going to reduce smoking. history shows it's not going to reduce smoking. the belief that it will somehow flies in the face of reality. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you. again as a practicing physician in san francisco for over ten years and having represented san francisco marin medical society, the california medical association and also the american medical association on public health policy, i can tell you that all of our organizations feel that this proposition is the right thing to do. this proposition simply is to uphold the ban on candy flavored tobacco. big tobacco is waging a war, an assault on our kids' health. they try to get a new generation of children to be addicted to tobacco products that's going to increase our health care costs down the road. nod to diseas-- in addition to diseases and deaths, so please vote no on proposition e. >> thank you. thank you both for being here.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> no on prop e. >> we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org, remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7th, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't vote early, remember to vote on june 5th. >> i want to welcome you here to the civic center hotel. my name is gale dill man, the

c.e.o. of community housing partnership. in 2015, this was the second navigation center to open its doors and welcome over 92 individuals living inen ca encampments in the street. this announcement will ensure that before individuals have the opportunity to enter shelter and navigation centers, they can receive vital services and treatments that they so much need and deserve. and on an on going basis. on behalf of all of community housing partnerships, and the 91 navigation center individuals here at this site, we are so excited and honored to introduce our mayor mark farrell. [applause] >> thank you, gale. good morning, everyone. i want to thank you all for joining us here today. as we all know, san francisco and the rest of our country, and cities around our country, are dealing with an opioid crisis hitting our streets.

it's unfolding in our neighborhoods and in our sidewalks in front of our very eyes. fighting this fight means that we not only have to use existing programs but if we're really going to solve the issue and make a dent, we have to be creative. we have to come forward with new policies and new programs that will make a difference on our streets. and that is why we're here today. to announce a significant investment in a new, addiction treatment program with our street medicine team. the street medicine team has long been a part of how san francisco seeks to deal with the health of individuals on our sidewalks and in the streets of san francisco. the street medicine team is on the front lines every single day here in san francisco. bringing service and treatment to those who need it here in san francisco. the small but vital team works every single day to care for

those were in a traditional clinic or hospital, it's simply not the answer and it's not working. their work is rooted in compassion and acceptance and meeting people where they are. including streets, our shelters and our navigation centers here in san francisco. with this new investment of over $3 million a year, we are adding 10 new staff and increasing resources to focus on the drug addiction on our streets of san francisco. and to address the opioid epidemic, right here on the streets of san francisco, the team will be expanding the work that they started with the pilot that started last year and expanding this program across the entire city. i am proud that san francisco is going to be the first city in the nation to take this

approach. san francisco is a leader in so many areas and once again, we are stepping up with professionals that know how to get job run right. leaders willing to take bold approaches to address the issues confronting san francisco residents and those that need our help on our streets. by providing this medicine out of a traditional clinic setting, we're expanding our outreach capacity and taking every opportunity to help those individuals that are on our streets suffering from drug addiction. the program, which sometimes i have trouble saying, is an important part of our larger strategy here in san francisco and with our department of public-health, to address those struckelling with addiction. which includes detox to residential treatment services. this investment, let me be very

clear about this. this investment will ultimately help save lives. and it will improve the conditions on the streets of san francisco. i want to thank a number of people who have brought this program to light today. first of all, director barbara garcia from our department of public-health. [applause] >> dr. sven for his leadership and ingenuity. we knew he would get the loudest applause and he deserves it. our department of homelessness and their partnership in leadership as well. and all the other providers and healthcare leaders that are behind me here today that are working so hard every single day in san francisco. to get those that are on our streets with the help that they need. whether it's homelessness or drug addiction or the other issues plaguing those on our

streets, our goal in san francisco is to be compassionate and get people off the streets, on to their own two feet and on to better lives. thank you for being here today and with that i love to turn it over to director garcia for remarks. [applause] >> good morning. thank you mayor for your commitment to the effort of treatment access for those suffering from opioid addiction. i'm barbra garcia. i want to acknowledge all of the d.p.h. staff here that work every day to heal and support san franciscans who are in need of healthcare. i'd like to give them another round of applause. [applause] we know science has proven, for a long time, with many personal stories and the medication assisted treatment works. addiction is a challenge of a lifetime treatment and recovery happen and people do get better.

mayor lee, a year and a half ago, asked me is there something else that we can do? we need to reach people on the streets who are clearly suffering and in the grips of addiction. what else can we do? we know that some of our traditional approaches of addiction treatment, that is, waiting for people to be ready to come to us to seek help. it doesn't always work for those suffering from addiction and especially if they are homeless. all of our services are voluntary and we have to develop care relations to engage people into care and it does take time. but i really want to thank dr. barrie sven who took this challenge for mayor lee and myself and add this service to his existing street medicine team. medication assisted treatment. to the streets where he goes daily providing care to the homeless people in need. that is how this program was

born. in the fall of 2016. we have served over 95 people since then bringing medications to fight opioid addictions directly to them on the streets. by expanding the program today, we are first taking a big step towards our ability to combat the opioid addiction in this city. the new funding will allow us to directly serve 250 new individuals but we also know that we can serve more once we get those engagements and those relationships because in all of our clinics, we can access the service and medication. so this program is a big step forward to saving lives, lost to heroine, fentanyl and methamphetamine addictions and overdoses. homeless people who use drugs are especially vulnerable and our health system is adapting going directly to them with compassionate outreach and expertise. we're able to help a group that gets missed in the traditional

structure of visits and appointments. our low barrier medication program is just one piece of a city-wide effort to increase treatment. we are also providing emergency rooms at sucker burg general hospital and implementing a new addiction consultant service within our hospital to ensure all physicians at the hospital have access to treatment experts for their patients. the doctors from this service are also here today. so again, i want to thank mayor farrell for supporting all of our efforts to address those with substance abuse disorders and continuing our efforts to save lives. with that i'd like to introduce dr. barrie sven. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, mayor farrell and director garcia and the city of san francisco for the opportunity to do this. i have been working with people experiencing homelessness in san

francisco since 1991. my philosophy in this work is do what works, do what is needed. i didn't come into this work with a preconceived notion of what it is that is going to work. when we see what the problems are, then we develop what are the possible solutions? it doesn't feel like it's a great innovation to say if people are not able to come into a clinic let's go out and see them where they are. i think what feels like an ininnovation about that is many people have the pre conception or the stereo type that a person experiencing homelessness doesn't care about their health. a person with a substance use disorder isn't very concerned about their health. what we see, day after day, one person after another, is that people are deeply concerned

about their health. they may have more compelling concerns. where are they going to eat? where are they going to lay their head down and if they pend on drugs, where will they get drugs to prevent themselves from having severe and awful withdrawals. if we're out there with our team and this is absolutely about a team, not about me as a single physician, doing something, if we're out there as a team we're able to meet people where they are. we see and talk to people about the harms related to their substance use. we also see what the damage to the community related to that substance use is. and we're talking to people about treatment. you've heard the term bupinorfine. that is our medication that we are primarily using. we're also often recommending and referring and assisting

people when it's appropriate, to get to methadone treatments and we're using another medication to treat opioid use disorder. having these medications have changed my attitude towards seeing heroine users. earlier in my career, not that i didn't like heroine users, but i never felt like i had something to offer. now they're my favorite patient. i have something that can immediately change your recollection with the drugs you use and change what your circumstances are. many people who we see have heard about it and they haven't had the opportunity to talk to medical providers who have expertise and get prescriptions.

the basic idea is bring it to people where they are, get people stabilized, and then they're able to move into those next steps because when you are strung out on heroine, when you need to use or else have awful withdrawals, every four to six hours, it's really hard to do anything. what we need to do is provide something that is at least as compelling to people as what is happening to them on the streets. medication is absolutely necessary. human contact, treatment and caring for people is the other thing necessary. with those things in place, and this program expansion, is allowing us to do that, we have the opportunity not only to reach the 250 additional new patients but that really has an

amplifying effect. when one person is on the street felfeeling hopeless and sees thr buddy getting help, that is a tremendous boost to that person being able to take maybe that one more step to say, maybe things aren't absolutely hopeless, maybe there's something i can do. maybe that other person doesn't even have an opioid use disorder. maybe they don't use heroine. maybe they have a problem with alcohol? maybe they have a problem with mental health disorder. seeing that hope where someone is hopeful. the most positive, most effective thing i've seen in this program is one person telling another, hey, i got this medicine from the street medicine team. i saw dr. evan, i saw one of their nurses. that person saying well, i can't believe it. you were the least likely to succeed guy. you were the worst-off person. you are the person with the

worst addiction i know and now you are telling me you are not using? that's tremendous in building hope and that's what we need to do as we address the problems that we see. so i'm going to introduce chris, one of our initial low barrier buprenorp hine patients. someone who will tell you about his experience. so thank you. [applause] >> good morning. my name is christopher rafino and to piggy back on what dr. svens said, one rainy morning, as i got out of jail, and i contacted dr. sven, via the mail and telephone and to other people, i did not want to use anymore. i had tried many, many attempts unsuccessfully of shaking my

addiction to heroine of 28 years. nothing worked. i tried everything. residential programs, everything. well, dr. sven met me out in the rain with my bicycle in hand and the clothes on my back and spoke to me for 25, maybe 30 minutes. he said look, i'm going to do this for you. dodo not let me down. i don't believe i have. three and a half years ago, that occurred right over here. three blocks away from here. my life has changed dramatically. i am a substance abuse councilor myself. i work in a facility across the bay. my life has changed. i have everything back i lost. i owe my love to dr. sven and buprenorphine. out that i was loosing hope you but i got it. i'd like to introduce someone from the homeless outreach

program or the homeless program, jeff >> thank you, chris. [applause] >> my name is jeff with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. i want to thank you all for being here today. i want to thank the department of public-health. homelessness is a complex problem and it requires the partnership amongst many city departments and individuals and people experiencing homelessness to resolve this issue and this is just one of many steps that we need to take. we're very excited about expanding this pilot that we started with d.p.h. many, many months ago. i believe it was in late 2016. i want to thank mayor farrell for his leadership in expanding this important program. so thank you again for being here today and we'll take questions over at the side. thank you. [applause]

>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss proposition c. the city collects a gross receipts tax from many businesses which receive revenue from the lease of commercial property, such as office buildings, warehouses and retail spaces. the current tax rate ranges from.825% to 3%. businesses with $1 million or less in san francisco are generally exempt from the gross

receipt tax. several other businesses are also exempt including some banks, and nonprofits. proposition c would impose an additional gross receipts tax of 1% on the revenues of business received from the lease of warehouse space in the city, and 3.5% on the revenue the business receives on additional leases in the city. it would not apply to revenues received from leases to businesses engaged in industrial uses, some retail sales of goods and services directly to consumers or arts activities. this additional tax would also not apply to revenues received from certain nonprofit organizations or from government entities. the city would use 15% of funds collected from this general tax for any general purpose. the city would use the

remaining 85% of this additional tax for quality early care and education for children from newborns through age five whose parents are very low-income to low-income. quality early care and education for children from newborns to age three whose parents are low to middle-income and do not currently qualify for assistance. programs that support emotional, cognitive for children newborn through five and increased compensation for people who provide care for children from newborn through early age five. if you vote yes, it means you want to kboes a new gross receipts tax of 1% on revenues a business receives from the lease of warehouse space in the city and 3.5% on revenues the business receives from the lease of commercial spaces in the city to fund quality education for children and other purposes.

a no vote means you do not approve this tax. we're joined by lisa rhenner from the san francisco republican party and an opponent of the measure. i'd like to start with miss remmer. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> just like housing costs, our commercial rents in san francisco will railroad high. and this 3.5% tax will be passed onto the tenant, the businesses, who will then pass it onto their staff and onto the consumers, us, making the cost of living in san francisco -- the high cost and shortage of child care could be contributed to the administrative costs of opening a child care business. city hall can help working parents by easing regulations and fees, allowing more child

care centers to open. what is a crisis is the city budget of $10.2 billion, and the $88 million deficit for this coming year, rising to 800 million in three years. we just paid 77 million for a child care three years ago. in terms of value of child care, well, the u.s. department of health and human services reported the head start benefits have all disappeared by third grade. >> miss buck land, why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> parents need child care so they can support their families, and children need early care so they can vehemently start their life. child care and early education is expensive, costing $20,000

or more peryear on an after-tax basis. it's often a family's biggest expense after housing. over 50% of san francisco families live in eligible for state child care subsidies. unfortunately there's not enough slots for all families to qualify. every month, there are 2500 children on the waiting list for subsidies in san francisco, two thirds of them infants and toddlers. a third cause is low wages in the child care sector. due to the work of the city's office of early childhood education, we know what can cost san francisco families. we need to spend 300 to 400 million peryear. >> how will the voters be affected by this 3.5% commercial tax as proposed in proposition c? >> well, i think this tax is

actually good for our city. my understanding is that our current commercial rents tax is lower than in other cities, and i believe that helping families pay for child care is a critical need in our city. we hear a lot about the struggles that families are having, particularly struggles paying for housing, but frankly, as i said before, housing -- child care is a bigger expense than housing, and i personally being helping families pay for child care is a housing strategy as well as an economic strategy for our city. when families get help paying for child care, they can work, support their families and are contributing to the city's economy. and when they get help paying for child care, they also can afford more for housing. >> same question to you, miss rhenner. how will the voters be askd by this proposition specifically by the 3.5% commercial tax. >> the 3.5% commercial tax can

immediately get passed onto the tenants or the businesses. your doctor, your dentist, your grocery store, and they could end up cutting employee pay, cutting staff, closing shop, so do we really need more closed storefronts, and mostly it will be passed directly onto consumers, raising the cost of living in san francisco. what we really should be doing is lower the regulations required to open a child care business from head start, with 2400 regulations to be complied with to all of our local zoning and licensing fees. this 3.5% tax -- and none of it helps homeowner's, just makes the city more expensive. home enners are already paying for the last tax in 2514, 014, just think it's going to make people move away and make the

city cost more. >> a second question, which we'll start with you, miss rhenner, what are the advantages or disadvantages to a universal child care program in your view. >> in my view, the benefits of early child care have disappeared by third grade, and the claims of high quality child care are highly exaggerated. there's ten studies that have been cited. only half of them have been used randomized control. only three found positive, long-term results, and these took place 48, 58 years ago, with treatment groups very small, mostly children. they focused on infants, toddlers, not pre-k and had huge in home family visits which seemed to work out well. the teacher to student ratio was 33 to 66% higher than what students will be getting in the proposed programs, teachers all

had bachelors agree and experience in these programs, and moms all had i.q.'s under 85. the treatment wasn't random. the moms stayed at home and dad worked outside of the home. the treatment groups and the control group still only earned under $12,000 a year. they both had approximately 50% arrest rates, yes, 6%, less than a semester more in school, no i.q. differences beyond the differences actually shown among the children. the best results were with the moms with an i.q. under 70, and the younger moms with less school. the mothers actually in the treatment groups showed the biggest gains in lifetime earnings, even looking at ages 26 to 60, compared looking at the children 21 to 65, the mothers' lifetime earnings were estimated to be twice what the

child's were, so yes, teen moms need child care while they finish schools, but we already fund these programs. >> same programs to you, miss lessman. what are the advantages and disadvantages to universal child care programs in your view. >> so i'm not quite sure what, lisa, you've been reading, but the research -- there is a growing body of research that shows the short and long-term benefits of quality child care for families. it's been nobel economyist james beckman about investing and the out comes in early childhood education, about the need to provide special education and quality education in long-term earnings rates for

families, the involvement in your criminal justice system. there's no shortage of studies that show the really important outcomes that come from early quality childhood education. for us, we have a situation in the city where i believe that this is really the key to ensuring that san francisco is a city in which diverse families can thrive. we have -- as i cited before, we have a 50% of san francisco families are living below the self-sufficiency index. it's affecting kids of color. you know, lack of access affects children of color, and it's really important that we want to -- we want to provide equitiable outcomes for children in san francisco and ensure that all kids are ready to learn when they come into the school district, and we want to make sure that all families can thrive in san francisco. >> thank you, miss beckman.

we're now going to start with the closing arguments, and we'll start with you, miss rhenner. >> the 3.5% tax will be passed onto us, the customers through the businesses, and i think that that will make san francisco that much less affordable. again, the child care, the value of child care, the effects dissipated by third grade, except in these totally different, different studies with different groups of people, and they've been highly contested. i've read all of these studies. testing moms with less than i.q. of 85, that's totally different. again, i do think the teen moms need totally free child care while they finish school, but we already have this. let's not raise the cost of living in san francisco with a tax that just gets passed onto the consumers. >> thank you. miss beckman?

>> thank you. i believe prop c is a critical investment in the city's future. it'll raise more than $100 million a year to support early care and education. most of that will provide access to low-income families that are struggling to make ends meet. parents that can't afford to go to work are relying on family, friends, and neighbors, catch as catch can in order to be able to do that, to be able to work. we -- it will also help us increase the wages for our early educators, ensuring we can actually have classrooms open to serve san francisco's children. prop c will help people pay for care so they can work and support their families and support our economy and long-term benefits for kids. prop c is endorsed by a majority of our san francisco supervisors, the harvey milk democratic club, san francisco labor council, and many others.

i hope you'll join me in voting for prop c to ensure that our city is -- remains one in which diverse families can live and thrive. thank you. >> thank you both for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this or other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7, starting at 8:00 a.m., and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote, starting on may 5th. thank you.

[♪] >> hi. i'm here with a san francisco league of women's voters. i'm here to discuss proposition acts. it will be before the voters on tuesday june 5th. the city and county of san francisco funds and nonprofit organizations that provide free legal representation to some of san francisco residential tenants who face eviction. to evict a residential tenant, the landlord must give the tenant a written notice of eviction. of a tenant does not move, or landlord may file a lawsuit asking a court order eviction. proposition acts would adopt policies that san francisco should provide legal representation to all residential tenants facing eviction. it would provide the city to

establish, fund run a program to provide legal representation for all tenants in the san francisco facing eviction and provide a lawyer for tenant with 30 days following an eviction notice or immediately upon receipt of a lawsuit seeking a diction -- eviction, whichever comes first. the lawyer would provide legal representation for the tenant through all stages of the process until resolved. and implement this program within 12 months after the measure is adopted. proposition would not require the city to provide legal representation to tenants who reside in the same dwelling units with their landlord. a yes vote means if you vote yes, you want to require the city to establish, fund and run a program to provide legal representation for all residential tenants in san francisco facing eviction. a no vote means if you vote to know, you do not want to create this program. i am here with john snider and a proponent of the proposition.

welcome. >> we are also joined by the san francisco apartment association and an opponent of the measure. thank you for being here. i'll be starting with opening statements and let's start with you, charlie. why do you believe this proposition is so important? >> so the apartment association is recommending a no vote on it and there are a number of reasons why. but mainly, that's the proposal, as currently written as overly broad. so when you think about providing city funded eviction defence for tenants it sounds like a good idea. and then you look at potentially tenants who are evicted through no fault of their own. what we call no-fault evictions. but that's not what this measure does. this measure provides eviction defence paid by you and i as taxpayers, for high income tenants and tenants who are creating a new sense for other people in the building, you are not paying their rent for months or years at a time, and who are

safety hazards and allowing it to persist in apartment buildings. on top of that, the measurers is an unfunded mandate, what that means is this expansion of government will draw away and necessary resources from our general fund. the general fund we used to build affordable housing, homeless services, clean our streets, those sorts of things. at the measure is just too bro broad. >> why do you believe this measure is so important? >> well, as a noncontroversial statement to say that san francisco is facing a massive displacement crisis. rents are skyrocketing. over 40,000 people have faced eviction in the past five years. one folks are evicted in san francisco, they often have to leave the city in it's entirety or they end up homeless and on our streets. in fact,, a recent study showed that 71 % of our homeless folks on our streets were actually

housed here and san francisco in the past two years. and one of the reasons that that is true it's because there is a massive power imbalance between tenants and landlords in the city. nationally, the statistic is 90 % of landlords go into any eviction with an attorney and 90 % of tenants go into an eviction without them. that means that they lose their homes, even when they shouldn't and even when it is a fraudulent eviction. they often do not fight it because it is so cost prohibitive and difficult. >> thank you. i'm going to ask some questions and i will start with you. >> sure. >> what the mandate legal representation in the situation of nonpayment of rent? >> it all, covers all tenants. that doesn't mean that they would win the case at all. just like how you get a public defender in a criminal case, you would get an eviction attorney

if you are taken to housing court. but that does not mean that an attorney will litigate a case that has nowhere to go at all. and there's been studies in new york, which are the past this in 2016, that creates, it does not take up bunch of time in court. it goes pretty smoothly and quickly. in fact in new york they found that for every dollar they spend on eviction defence, they are saving three dollars and homelessness services. it is just as cost-effective as it is humane. >> thank you. same questions for you charlie. from your point of view, how do you feel about the mandate providing legal representation in the event of a right to vote evictions such as nonpayment of rent? >> the city and county of san francisco has very highly regulated controls on eviction. the fact of the matter is that they were -- there were around 1700 evictions that took place in san francisco at around

200,000 rental housing units. less than one % of tenants. what that means, because there were only 15 reasons to evict a tenant, is that there are legitimate reasons. sure it might make sense to provide an attorney for an eviction for no fault of their own. but what we see overwhelmingly, is that tenants are evicted for things like breach of rental agreement, nonpayment of rent and committing new sense for other people in the building. it doesn't make sense that we as taxpayers would pay to defend an eviction for a nuisance where a tenant is creating a decreased quality of life or his neighbours. >> the next question will start with you. will income restrictions be put in place for those who could afford representation from using city provided attorneys at taxpayer expense? >> that is part of the problem with this measure. what that means is that it is inflexible. and san francisco, land is

approved by the voters and cannot be approved or changed except of the will of other boats. is a legislative a proposal that would do it almost exactly what this proposal does which is provide eviction defence for residents. if it was worked out in the arena where we believe it should be, you could income test residents and only provide eviction defence for people who couldn't afford an attorney. or you could say that perhaps in the city, it should not pay to defend people who are creating new sense for other people in the building. the legislative process, again the board of supervisors passed this before them currently, they have the ability to legislate the same thing at what reasonable controls where we are all not paying for the attorneys of a very wealthy residents. >> your response to that? >> the truth is that actually, 80 % of tenants that faced eviction are at about 80 % of a.m.i. so they are already low income folks. it covers everyone because the process necessary to income test

everyone is actually not worth doing to exclude the very few amount of folks that could potentially afford it. let's face it. i mean most folks who are very wealthy own their own home and most folks who are wealthy and our renters usually have their own council for things like this and don't rely on public attorneys. >> we will start with you charlie. >> the apartment association would like to ask voters to vote no on proposition x. because again we believe that the measure is overly broad and something the board of supervisors can do legislatively. it will allow for flexibility and it will allow for jan and myself or other community groups to come to a table and negotiate. we can perhaps agree that maybe the executive of a tech company down the street doesn't deserve to have as attorney paid for by you and i as taxpayers. we can also agree if somebody is creating a life safety risk at the building, perhaps that person doesn't, should not be provided an attorney by us as taxpayers.

passing this legislatively allows for much more flexibility and a more collaborative solution. >> so at the time for this is now. this has already been done in new york city and it has been so effective and wonderful. we had a pilot program for this in 2011 it is time to make san francisco the first city in california on the second in the nation to have a legal right to council for tenants facing eviction. that's why huge broad coalition of everyone from teachers and nurses capped a small landlords, tenant groups, neighbourhood associations, democratic clubs, you name it. will come behind us and we are approaching discharging folks to vote for it for san franciscans. >> thank you both for your time. >> thank you. >> we hope this discussion has been informative. for information about this and other valid measures in the june elections, please visit the department of elections website.

member, early voting is available at city hall starting may 7th from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote to state, june 5th. [♪] blank >> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss prop h, a measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. the san francisco police

commission is a civilian body that sets residence lation for the police department tazers are weapons that discharge electrical currents into an individual. auto mated external defibrillators are portable electronic devices that are used following a heart attack. san francisco police officers do not currently use tazers. about half of police department patrol vehicles versus defibrillators. any policy control on tazers or defibrillators cannot be changed by the commission. tazers may be used when a person is actively resisting, assaulting or exhibiting any action likely to result in serious bodily injury or death of another person, themselves or a police officer. proposition h would authorize the police department to purchase tazers for each police officer subject to the following conditions: the officer has successfully

completed the department's use of force and threat assessment training, uses only police department issued tazers and holsters. holsters the tazer on side of his or her body opposite from the firearm. police department vehicles are equipped with defibrillators in districts where tazers are carrie, and there is an investigation and report each time an officer uses a tazer. this may be amended only by a majority of the voters of san francisco or by an ordinance adopted by a vote of four fifths of the board of supervisors. a yes vote means if you vote yes, you want to set a policy for the use of tazers and authorize the purchase of tazers for each police officer by the police department superintendent to specific conditions. a no vote means if you vote no, you do not want to adopt this measure. i'm here with tracey mcray from yes on h and a proponent of proposition h. welcome? >> thank you. >> we're joined by john roy, a

proponent of no on h. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we're going to start with tracey. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> so i'm a native of san francisco. i was born and raised here. for the past 29 years i've been a police officer in the city and county of san francisco. currently i work in the bayview district which has had a number of high profile incidents, shootings, assaults. as police officers, we need the best tools available for us to do our jobs, to go home safely, to keep the public safe, and this ballot measure will do that. i know that people have often times felt that tazers are inherently dangerous, we don't need them, we've been in a long, arduous fight trying to get tazers, even though when the d.o.j. collaborative reform recommended in their 27

two-page evaluation that we have tazers, that people have always stated that no we shouldn't. and numerous police departments throughout the bay area have them. >> thank you. john, why do you feel this proposition is so important. >> well, i think the most important thing for people to take away is just the unbelievable opposition to the scope of h. if you heard what tracey said, if it was really that simple and true, you have to ask yourself why are both protazer people and antitazer people opposed to it? why are progressives and moderates, why is the san francisco chronicle and san francisco activists? because it's not as simple as tracey portrayed it. this is not about tazers, yes or no. the police commission already approved tazers, and the p.o.a. went ahead and put this measure on the ballot. this is about when tazers are used and more importantly who gets to regulate them. this ballot measure is reckless and dangerous. it would strip the police chief and the commission from their ability to make any changes in

the policy that was carefully created, no matter what happens, and i look forward to getting into greater detail. >> well, that is going to lead us into our questions, and the first question goes to you, john, and it's what are the advantages or disadvantages to this proposition. >> well, honestly, i don't see any advantage because even if you're protazer, the policy has already been created through the process recommended by the justice department, the obama justice department cop's office, and just to slightly correct tracey here, they didn't recommend tazers, they recommend that it be strongly considered, and that a collaborative process be used to try to develop the policy, a collaborative process that has been tried all over the country. i've worked with the department of justice, departments all over this country. you bring in the union, the stakeholders, experts, medical people, and you craft the best policy possible. this is what happened. the police commission approved tazers in november , and they adopted a policy on march 14th

that the mayor supports, that the police chief supports, and yet, the p.o.a. is going forward with this measure because they do not like it, and they want to strip the commission and the chief from the ability to regulate it. there are two big differences between what prop h would allow and what the p.o.a. law would set into stone. one is prop h would strip the requirement that officers try deescalation deescalation before using force, especially important on as weapon as dangerous as tazers. second, the commission looked at this weapon and said this is a dangerous weapon. they need to use this only when there's resistance, and they have proposed in this law and locking into place no physical dangerous whatsoever, moorely bracing, moorely verbally noncomplying, and you can use this weapon, and it's dangerous. >> thank you. tracey, same question to you. what are the advantages or disadvantages to this proposition? >> well, i respectfully disagree with him about the language. so the language of this

proposition, the way the police commission has it, has been very restrictive. so the most restrictive language, the less the officer will likely use this device. so we're getting into semantics will assaultive behavior, like he said, bracing. no, it's clearly spelled out in the p.o.a.'s language for proposition h about the training and the need to deescalate and having proper training, the 40 hours of c.i.t., another ten hours of deescalation practical exercises, so the training is there, having the medical equipment on-site. it -- it boggles my mind that the sheriff's department has tazers, and we never had this sort of diversion about getting this piece of equipment. they took away the carotid restraint, which we never had a negative use of force.

i've used that numerous times, but then it was taken away. we were given shields and long batons to use, but there was no training given to us on how to use those. so it was here you go, they've taken that away from us, but here's a baton and shield. our position is the language is too restrictive. if they want to down the road revisit language, the police commission can do that, so -- >> thank you. the next question will go back to you, tracy. should voters be making decisions about police weaponry? >> the voters are part of the community. the community is a stakeholder. they should have a stake in this. i'm a citizen of san francisco. i vote, so why not have a say in what we do? the police commission, now two commissioners are leaving the police commission board, so when are we ever going to get

to meet and confer about this topic? so it's incredible that it's taken this long, eight years, that we've been talking about this, when other departments have this. the sheriff's department, their tazer policy is four pages long. you have oakland that has this, san jose that has this, but all of a sudden, san francisco, we're a world dlsh class cit-- class city, we should beequipping our officers to keep the people safe. >> same question to you, john. >> they shouldn't be locking into law a standard that cannot be changed. i need to correct here what my friend from the p.o.a. said. it's clear in the language of this law that it cannot be changed. the police commission will have no power, the chief will have no power to change anything that is inconsistent with what is being proposed here. that is what is so dangerous

and radical. it is unprecedented, and i'm not aware of a single police union that has actually tried to take something like this away. this is an unbelievably radical measure. and with respect to the particular standard, it's right here in black and white, the terms the p.o.a. chose to use were active resistance, which is defined. it's a police term of art. it's defined in sfpd manual as tensing or running away or not complying. we want to see if we can make a looser standard over time, why not start with a more restrictive policy, on a weapon that has been this controversial. again, tazers have already been approved. this isn't about whether or not you get tazers. that's already been decide

dangerous dred. that's not the issue on the ballot. >> thank you. closing statements, i'll start with you, tracy? >> like i said, it's been a long process trying to equip our officers with tazers. voting yes on this proposition will ensure that officers do their annual training, complete deescalation. they will be required to have accountability, which we do right now. as a sergeant, i fill out a very long form to do that. with he will have medical equipment, defib railators on board if we do use this tool. prop h, i believe, is the correct policy. people have the choice to vote yes or no. obviously, we got enough signatures to get it on the ballot, so obviously, people want this -- this tool, this device for us to use. if that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have been able to put it on the ballot.

>> thank you. your statement. >> this is a deeply cynical argument. the p.o.a. has put $180,000 on this campaign already. they spent $140,000 on a paid campaign to gather signatures to mislead voters. they told them this was about whether or not they have tazers, when in fact the police commission already approved it. this is why the league of women voters and sffovtv did this. we strongly encourage you to read the voter guide. there's more information on our website, votenoproph.nationbuilder.com. you will vote no like most of the people who have looked at it have already decided. >> thank you for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other measures in the ballot initiative, please visit

sfelections.org, remember early voting is available on may 7th from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on june 5th. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: this is may 18, 2018 regular meeting of the san francisco local agency formation. i am sandra lee fewer chairman of the