it is seconded. >> or somebody makes a friendly amendment. >> if it's friendly, then, the original motioner needs to say that it's friendly. >> i'd be willing to take this -- a friendly amendment because i'll acquiesce to his -- the commissioner's expertise in this in putting him out of business, and i do not want to do that, but -- so i will, with the permission of the second, move to close friday and saturday night, meaning saturday and sunday morning, at 1:00 a.m. >> i'll agree with that. >> okay. so the motion has changed, and the seconder's agreed. >> could i add one friendly? >> sure, yeah. >> i want the security increased in the front at closing, 30 minutes before closing of doors -- i'm sorry,

15 minutes before closing the doors, whether it's 1:00, 2:00, whatever we decide, but 15 minutes, guards out front, and then 30 minutes after doors are actually shut or when patrons are out of the building, 30 minutes outside to sweep the street. so right now, there's no condition on how many guards to have based on capacity. usually, it's 50 guards or sometimes 100 for every -- mean, one guard for every 100. i didn't see anything on the conditions. i think if you did one guard for every 50 people, you're at 532 capacity. that's basically 11 guards. now, you say you only have eight. can you put six guards in the front, that's the thing? so -- >> so commissioner lee -- >> yeah.

>> -- are you asking for a proportion, 50:1, are asng for six at the front at all times? >> well, it is, if the -- yeah, yeah. so the -- okay. my amendment, then, because i don't think at the 1:00, they're going to have much issue, but i still wan at least six guards outside. >> 15 minutes prior to close. >> 15 minutes prior to close and 30 minutes -- >> afterwards. >> i can't remember. sweep the streets. >> i'd like to propose a friendly amendment. >> okay. let's -- well, let's go one by one. is there a friendly amendment? >> yes, i'll accept that friendly amendment. >> i'll accept. >> okay. so that's another friendly amendment. commissioner caminong. >> i'd like to increase the perimeter sweeps by 100 feet,

and also require calling 911. >> is that a friendly amendment? >> yes, i'll accept that. >> seconder accepts. >> can i make one final friendly amendment. i think a lot of these security conditions could be also wrapped into aevised security plan, so i don't know that it's necessarily adding a new condition, but maybe a recommendation once we approve this is to see a revised security plan to illustrate all these new conditions, and that's completely enforceable, so i think, you know, right now, if we reviewed parts of their security plan and felt like they haven't been in compliance, we could move towards do we feel that they haven't been complaint. do you have --

>> yeah gue i need a little more clarity on a few of these friendly amendments. so first going to commissioner lee's friendly amendment, so you wanted -- i got 15 minutes before closing of doors, and up to 30 minutes after closing of doors, you want six security guard's? >> front. >> at the front. of security that we're gterm amending in terms of number of guards. >> at this time because if they go for the 1:00, i don't see that they're going to have a whole lot of issues, but if it was 2:00, i would have added more, but at least they have that many guards outside at closing. >> okay. so six guards outside at closing, and that is going to be 15 minutes prior, up to 30 minutes after closing. and then we have security perimeter up to 100 feet. that's the radius. can you guys flush that out a little bit more? >> yeah. >> did you have a -- what about

that? >> like, number of security. >> i thidon't have an idea on number of security. >> i think if you look in terms shall walk the rus toicy, two inspect. >> the reason we picked six guards is because john said they work better in pairs. three teams outside sweeping. >> i only care about where the incidents are occurring, if they're occurring 100 feet away from the venue, they need to handle it, especially if it's their patrons. if they have somebody on the ground, and they need somebody to help them, 911, they should be calling. >> no. [inaudible] >> yeah, there's an issue on insurance, because you know,

they can only go certain pafar and if they get injured, sometimes they're going to be a problem with that. [inaudible] >> i think the -- i think the code says, what, two, 300 feet from the front door? >> code says -- it directs to 50 feet from the -- from the property plane, so that's what the going -- you know, the standard is. but we have, in the past -- and perhaps it was not correct to do so, but we have in the past conditioned permits to go further. >> yeah. i think, like, the armory, we conditioned -- there's definitely other examples. again, whatever implications that might have on insurance or other liabilities, we can interrogate that more, but i think it's- i think we should feel comfortable to do that at this time, and if they

want to challenge that, they can. so i don't know if -- >> and then, sorry, one last question, that final amendment calling 911, do we want to flush that out, like, in the instance of any fight inside or outside of the premises or are we saying a fight that has -- you know -- i don't know. this is a question from the permit holder, too. like, what does that entail? >> if i'm not mistaken, i think that's already in the code. >> yeah. >> because the venue operator is required to call 911 in certain incidents. >> it is, and it's actually a ground for suspension if you don't call 911. in the instance -- i'd have to read the specific language, but you -- >> or maybe we're just doubling up on something -- >> yeah. if you look at their security plan, is referenced several times. if there's an active shooter.

there's a whole escalation protocol procedure. it doesn't say dial 911, it says, like, to contact police. >> okay. >> so if we could look at that and say if that's appropriate right now. i think the concern is coming from, like, hey, there is this incident that escalated that didn't get reported, so, like, how -- what are we trying to do with that. >> if i'm correct, we're asking them to amend their security plan. so maybe we can ask them to highlight in better detail the 911 response plan. >> yeah. >> it's a form -- there's an epo form that time, date, essetn. >> all right. so if i'm getting all of this right, all of these securitition conditions, you want to see this -- security

conditions, you want to see all of this given in a revised security plan to myself and central station. >> that is right on. >> okay. >> do we want to set a date? that's the question. >> two weeks. >> yeah, it usually requires two weeks. >> two weeks. revised secy n two weeks. >> okay. so is that friendly -- >> yes. >> second? >> yes. >> is that all the clarifion y need or do you need me? >> no. >> okay. let's take a vote. [roll call] >> the motion passes with all the new conditions please work with our staff and try to tease out these details. i do hope we don't see additional incidents. and as we said, kind of the other times you've come here, if things go well, we'd

happy -- we'd happily loosen up the conditionsnd let you run up until 2:00 every night, but i don't think we saw that tonight. so -- all right. we have one more tight on o sd w commissioner comments and questions. so i have number eight. ition commissioners, would anyone like to say anything? commissioner bleiman? >> i would like to say when i was 21 years old, i visited san hean firs tim and i went to a straut rest calntd sushi zone. and there was a two hour wait, so i walked across the street to another sushi restaurant, and saw a man in a

construction shirt, singing karaoke, and i thought, this is where i want to move. this city is home. >> commissioner perez? >> commissioner, i am sad that you are going to be leaving us, but i hope that you are going to be enjoying your retirement, and i hope to see you around town. >> thank you, commissioner perez. i do want to say thank you it's an honor to be a commissioner in san francisco. you know, when i got approached to do it, it was like wow, that's kind of cool. but then to come on this commission and have all the commissioners, both president tan pat, w their guidance and understanding to help me along, it was an

experience, and it's definitely yoen great -- and the staff. omeee >> commioner caminong. >> yes. i want to wish commissioner lee a happy belated birthday. >> ! don't say that. >> well, thank you, and commissioner frost, pleasure being my wing man here because when it comes to the poli man, what a breath of fresh air right here. you know, it is a good - he had a lot of good things to say over the years. if i'm driving in your parade, i'll say hello. >> commissioner frost, thank you forr ti on this commission. you know, i guess a little 'servous when i hear about the next police rep going to be because i think the fare is you could be really heavy handed, that you might not support entertainment actually, and actually, that was, like,

completely not true about you. you were a full advocate for not just entertainment, but an advocate for safety. i hope whoever comes in next, can fill in your hshoes well, because you've asked great questions and been smart and needed to be tough when you ed to, as well. so thank you for that final motion, and hopefully, we will cross paths n. and good luck with all the st. patty's day planning in the future. any other comments -- i do also want to acknowledge -- i know our staff kind of came together and maybe commissioners, too, but larry harvey, who is one of the founders of burning man, which is near and dear to my heart, passed away on april 28th. he is a pillar, i think, of the arts, of entertainment, of san

francio s he'll be dearly, dearly miss. i hope as a city, we can find a way -- i know -- i know senator scott wiener pulled together a commendation of him, but i hope that as a city we together to find a way to give credit to this really important cultural force, as we do with all the really incredible cultural forces we have in this wonderful, wonderful city. so any way, rest in peace and thank you for all that you've contributed to the world, larry harvey. any final thoughts? all right. any public comment on our commissioner comments or questions? noe's lft to do that, so i'm going to adjourn this meeting. thanks for staying around this long. this meeting's adjourned at 8:53.

>> 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 nd 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 o 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 andtio educa 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 throughe anncreased compensation for people who provide care for

chil fewborn 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 the city to fund quality s in education for children and other purposes. a no vote means you do not approve this tax. we're joined by lisa rhe from the san francisco republican party and an opponent of the measure i'd likeo 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 $ billion, and the $88 million deficit for this coming year, rising to 800 million in three years. we just paid 77 mil 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 childo care 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 ancisc two ofdshem 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 heg 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 hugen home family visits which seemed to work out well. the teacher to studt 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 . 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 a 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 fini scols, 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 anduali education in long-term earnings rates for families, the involvement in your criminal justice system. there's no shortage of studie 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 w derse families can thrive. we have -- as i cited before, we have a 50% of san francisco families are living below t 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 we nd nt toureake s that all francisco. n thrive in san >> 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 ofhild 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 areglin 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 b 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 shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss prop e, a measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. in 2014, the supervisors adopted a resolution in san francisco that prohibited the

sail of cigarette products. a rhenendumb was filed requiring thahinan be submitted to the voters. the ordinance will not go into effect unless a majority of voters approve. proposition e is a refer endumb to pass the ordinance passed by the board of supervisors prohibiting the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san frcisco. a yes vote means you want to prohibit the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a no vote means if you vote no, you want to allow the sale of flavored tobacco products in san francisco. i' here with dr. lawrence chung, past president of the marin medical society. we're also joined by star child, outreach director of the libertiaryian party of san francisco. thank you both for being here. i'd like to start with you, star child. why do you feel it's so

important. >> well, it's an expansion of the war on drug dos, and we shd kn that the war on drugs has been a massive failure. it didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with cannabis, and it won't work with tobacco. this will create a black market in san francisco for purchase of cigarettes on the streets where thet ben' ccking i.d. it's already illegal in california for people under 21 to buy tobacco products, so the opposition's claims about oh, it's about kids being able to buy tobacco, well kids can't buy tobacco now. this is about not fringing on adult choices. it's going to lead to more crime, it's going to lead to more retailers closing. controller's economic office estimated 50 million lost in sales. vaping stores and other retailers that are highly

reliant on tobacco sales will close. raping actually helps people quit smoking. it's less harmful. vaping and e cigarettes are included under this proposed ban. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you for asking me to be here? i'm here not only as a concerned physician but as a father. i have two wonderful nine-year-old twin boys and girls, and i am worried that this is allen assault on our k. canny flavored h tac on one use, and that's to hook kids into tobacco. this measure is all about protecting our kids, our community, and i feel very strongly that we should uphold this ban on tobacco that has already been passed by a unanimous decision at the board of supervisors level. so please join me and the san francisco marin medical association, the california medical association and the american medical association in

upholding this ban on candy flavored tobacco, vote yes on prop e. >> thank you. i'd like to ask some questions, and i'm going to begin with chung. do you believe that this proposition, a ban on flavored tobacco is the best way to fight youth tobacco use. >> yes, i believe this is a very effective way to fight youth tobacco, because we know that four out of five kids who start smoking start with a candy tobacco flavored product, four out of five. so if we ban the sale of these candy flavored tobacco in our stores, we will effectively keep them out of the reach of our kids. it's all about our health. >> and the same to you, star child. >> absolutely not. as i mentioned, the kids already can't buy tobacco in stores. what this will do is drive

sales to the streets or on-line where i.d. check is less effective or in the case of on the streets, it won't take place at all. if you buy things on the street from unregulated sources, he don't know what's in them. we all know the case of eric garner in new york city who was killed by police there. he was selling illegal unlicensed cigarettes t street, so that's an example of the kind of violence that can be produced by this, and it's not going to be effective at preventing kids from smoking. i mean, k get tobacco kn i mean, it's a parental decision. keep your nine-year-olds from smoking, absolutely, but prop e won't help make that happen. >> thank you. our next question goes to star child first, is do you believe proposition e is toobroad, 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 mide eastn 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 oft 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 hibition d ther 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 oke, 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 ourik cling 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 n bdeh 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 e right to choose what to put into their ow bodies,nd ahis 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 aracticing 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, rememb, 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. [♪] >> 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 tuesday june 5th.

the city and county of san francisco funds and nonprofit organizationsthat provide free legal representation to some of san francisco residential nants 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 lawsu 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 follo evictiontice 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 want to create this progra 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 this ur provides eviction defence paid by you and i as taxpayers, for high income tenants and tenants wh 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 urersis an unfunded mandate, what that means is this expansion 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 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 situa 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 attoey 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 at 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. he ne question will start with you. will income restrictions be put in place for those who could afford presentation from using city provide ysne 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 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 thatco 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 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 otunit 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 tove 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 ffectivannderf. d 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, u yome 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 discusss been informative. foinfortion 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:m and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote to state, june 5th. [♪] blank

hi.k 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 measuri do that. i know that peoplee 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 collaborativ 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 , andhey adopted a policy on march 14th that the mayor supports, that the police chief supports, and yet, the a. gois forward with this measure because they do not like i 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 comsion 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 us 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 thefficer 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 eqt en-site. it -- it bgles 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 bac ou, tracy. should voters be making decisions about police weaponry? >> the voters are part ofhe 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 b 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