sudden look at s.b.4 where historic districts get special protection. there's so many things here we don't have time to go into what i quarter mile and radius mention four blocks and think of your communities and think of what they'll look like with 4555 or the bonus. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, there. i'm mary he will -- hanibal. developers designed some cities for their profit and citizens were trapped in an unprecedented fire storm and many died. we're going to build 85-foot

towers all over the city. has anyone thought of evacuation when the city burns and what about the sea level rise? as the flames climb higher community members will have nowhere to go and the developers will be long gone. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm lauren petty from district 5. i'm a renter. i urge the committee to support supervisor morris' resolution. and my supervisor to support it. san francisco is doing its share. we've been rezoning, building like mad, absorbing newcomers all the way that tries to balance our diverse populations and preserve our uniqueness. we want to balance. we don't want to bulldoze. we're already on the path to creating what we need, density

only for affordability. we have the will. we have the plans. no one here is standing in the way except the state. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is jeffery gomes. i'm a resident of san francisco since 1976 and of the sunset since 1984. i support s.b.50 for all the reasons clearly mentioned in it. as a long-term resident i feel like the whole thing is an ongoing extension of the manhattanization of san francisco. i think we have an overabund answers of -- over abundance of jobs in the city without accounting the people that will work there. the bill season include the affordability and one size fits all is inappropriate for san francisco. the idea of an eight-story

building in the sun set if they bring in the bonus claus and we're destroying the city, i think without bending the bill as per the investigation. thank you. -- per the resolution. thank you. >> next speaker, please. scott feeney. >> on tuesday i was there to support for sbvment s.b.50 and i witnessed a diverse group of advocates coming together to support this bill from environmental to labor to non-profit housers to senior advocates all saying yes to more housing in california and yes to s.b.50 and i don't think that advocacy is going to stop just because the highest rent city in the state passes this resolution saying i think it's building enough which is quite silly. i do want to ask you to drop

this resolution and the reason for that is as a person from san francisco people are watching and there's a ban to inclusive cities and i don't want us dragged and kicking and screaming to do the more thing. don't oppose more homes, support more homes. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i live in district 10 in silver terrace. i'd like to urge you to support s.b.50 to withdraw the resolution. i'd like to be able to stay in the city and work in public service. the only way that's going to happen is if more homes are produced beyond what's currently being produced in san francisco and statewide. san francisco should do its part to do more homes and state action is needed.

different report have found this program will lead to a net in affordable housing and increase in market rate housing will lead to positive impacts on the affordability of non-affordable restricted housing. withdraw this resolution and support s.b.50. >> thank you. i'll call the names on 10 more speaker cards. if you hear your name step up to speak. [reading names] >> good afternoon. we have 8,000 members in my une

yoon i wanted to talk about the supposed tenant protect. it's nice rhetoric but i think they're unenforceable. we were told similar lies with park merced when there was a vote to demolish it and no one would be harmed and we saw hundreds of evictions immediately afterwards. i have experience filing discretionary reviews with the opposing department trying to save tenants from rent evictions and owners lied and the staff have no tools to check the vore as ti of their claims. we have good laws here so other cities without awareness of tenant issues will be screwed. so i support this resolution. one size fits all say bad deal for everyone. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> rene curin direct 5.

i'm here representing thousands of renters. one thing scott wiener and his side kicks supporting this s.b. like to use the "s" word supply but not speculation. what this is about is speculation. what we need to stop is speculation. that's the only thing to solve the affordability crisis and i'm tired of the cynicism and the lies and the repetition of bad economics and bad policy and just immoral b.s. thanks. thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm katie edmond representing good planning and good government organization. we oppose this resolution and

concerned the resolution under cuts key san francisco values and aligns the city with the most exclusive jurisdiction in our state. s.b.50 prevents low-density housing in places close to transit. it doesn't change the ability to do community planning nor change the ceqa process for projects. s.b.50 also establishes statewide inclusionary housing in places that don't have policies like san francisco and includes housing policy and this will increase the number of affordable housing units in less responsible cities and for instance. s.b.50 is a thoughtful and nuanced update to s.b.827 keep environmental front and center and addressing concerns raised last year. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good day supervisors.

thank you supervisor mar for bringing this resolution forward. i'm anastacia agonopolis. i support the resolution to oppose s.b.50 and one amendment that's essential is until the city has the tools to verify whether a building is tenant occupied or determine how long since the building was previously tenant occupied, the city cannot implement the bill. since the majority of cities in california where s.b.50 would apply do not have the tools in place to verify tenant occupancy, the bill can't be implemented. how could it be? it's critical to san francisco where 63% of residents are renters including 14% who rent single-family homes. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i'm greg miller. i support the resolution strongly. i'm not certain we can amend this dog to make it work proble

agree s.b.50 would build more affordable housing and with the status quo it couldn't be more necessary. i ask you to rise to the challenge of building more and the stts quo -- status quo is based on local control and input from land owners has resulted in the worse affordable crisis in the united states. after 40 years, it's time to take action and this is not action. thank you.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> lisa fromer, san francisco land use coalition. i support the supervisor's resolution because s.b.50 ignores our real housing needs. can we afford to support s.b.50 when it won't get us to our affordable housing goals? i don't think so. can away ford s.b.50 others refused to build housing? i don't think so. can we afford transit-rich housing when our city's transit budget is $22 million in the red? i don't think so. can we afford to see everyone worried about being priced out? i don't think so. and can away ford to support a bill that under mines your authority in community-based planning. say it with me, i don't think so. please support this resolution.

>> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is laurie leaderman. thank you for this resolution. s.b.50 is intentionally am i thet cal -- opposite to a planning process that promotes affordable housing through a participatory community process. according to planning staff the likely locations are currently zoned r.h.1 and r.h.2 where they fall below the 10-unit minimum to include affordable units. that's producing no affordable units. the impact of s.b.50 must be evaluated with other state law and it will always supercede local ordinances unless it states otherwise. it's a way to give away to

developers. i urge supervisors to support the resolution. >> thank you. i'll read the names of the next group of speakers, if you hear your name called, please step up to the line and microphone. [reading names] >> hello. i'm james i work with housing rights committee and we support the resolution. yesterday in our counselling clinic a father of two came in and grappling with the reality in the face of his eviction he would no longer able to live in san francisco. i talked to two young women

facing harassment. there's so many diverse renters who's needs are not being represented in s.b.50. we need real more dense affordable housing in the sunset but one that address the tenant and neighbors already there. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm leslie with housing rights committee. i have been coste hawkins erected two years and the speculator russel flynn bought our building and harassed us out and our studio doubled in rent. there's no real tenant protections an it will inflate rents and kick everybody around the developments out.

in the world and with the list i.p.o. and all the i.p.o.s coming they can alone buy all the homes in s.f. and it's a perfect place to park their money in real estate so the folks that will get all the housing being built are those who have way too much money in the first place and the homes are for people who need them. thank you for the opposition. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is cherry tu. i'm from lending tree report, san francisco has 100,000 vacant rental units and that is in every corner in san francisco. we need to change these 100,000 rental units into 100,000 occupied rental units. we need to row -- remove rent

control and replace them with rental tenant agreements which is an urgent issue. to change our existing rental 100,000 unit and we should not think about and continue. [chime] ? >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm coming from the sun set area. san francisco is predicted to have major earthquake in modern times. in our district san francisco is sand based. we don't have the auxiliary

water supply system protection after 19th avenue. we are not well equipped to deal with a disaster in san francisco. we cannot afford to build high rise buildings in san francisco. please, supervisor mar i sproupt the resolution to oppose s.b.50. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. my name is luanne bassin. thank you for the resolution and your co-sponsors. i urge the other supervisors to support it and pass it on to the full board. i oppose s.b.50 for two main reasons. first, environmental concerns. throughout the entire testimony today i heard one other person bring up environmental concerns. the state of california is already threatening to cut san francisco's water supplies by 25%. we need to consider that.

secondly, i will follow-up on what cherry said. there's about 40,000 vacant units in san francisco. instead of build, build, build, look at revising landlord tenant laws to make rent win-win issue between landlords and tenants. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> martin munoz, direct 5. congratulations with this resolution we're joining the segregated cities. as the most expensive housing in the country if not the world to not work with senator wiener on affordability is unconscionable. what do we know about s.b.50? hate i.t. has protects for renters outside select few cities and we know any housing with renters is exempt from the law even if they vacated seven

years before and the demolition controls would be respected. ultimately it will target millionaire owner-occupied single families homes looking to downsize in vacant lots. do we want mansions or apartments with 25% inclusionary on site? we know there's a history of red lining up our city and note to build more equitably across our city. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is brook sampon, district 250. thank you for the resolution which was a careful analysis of s.b.50 and a response to the key issues. i support the plan for san francisco and affordable housing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i want to thank supervisor mar for bring this forward. i believe the planning department under states the impact. close to 90% of single-family homes are half a mile of light rail which is slow and inefficient. up to 30% of the homes are rented and small homes of 900 square feet to 1200 square feet would be demolished and i calculated a 1,000% jump in density on a single parcel and this is how it's viewed and it's a massive transfer of power and serial evictors. it's classic doing what doesn't work harder. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm here to support supervisor

mar and supervisors for this resolution. we do not need high density build. do we have enough water? hospitals? i notice parking space is taken away for some reasons. it's hurting owners and forcing them to go out. i hope some people want to build and support this bill do not have special interest of profs from the developer. >> thank you, i'll read the next group if you hear your name step up to the microphone. [reading names]

>> hello. my name is john schwarts and i'd like to state i'm for s.b.50 and against this resolution. i'd like to thank supervisor brown for asking for more clarification from the representative of the planning department. i think it's important to dig below the numbers opponents of s.b.50 wanted to highlight to get what the statewide ramifications would be and what regional ramifications would be. i'd also like to correct some misconceptions. first of all, for those watching on television that don't know, the end is already determined. the two supervisors from the west side that don't add affordable housing and mostly contain million dollar and above mansions will vote to not

support s.b.50. that's already known. so what's really's at stake is whether their misinformation will be allowed to continually repeated over and over. and i hope some of the commenters that come after me will be able to talk about those positions. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, i'm keith mosur to support s.b.50. single-family zoning is the one-size fits all solution. and increase the affordable housing built in san francisco. and there's a concern for lots under 10 units, and if you're concerned the tenant's protection is to build a registry. there's a bill to try to enforce this. this is about more than just san

francisco. it's about our neighbors to the south. we voted for less parking and zoning. it's time to export those values to the rest of california. a local control could not make coop coopertino to build more. we can voe now. it's in our power. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm fred mullheim a resident of district 8 and in support of resolution s.b.50. i think there's one amendment to s.b.50 that could really turn it around. it would make it an affordable housing bill rather than one that just benefits builders. any statutory upzoning senate bill 50 would allow should be restricted to non-profit affordable housing.

i'm also concerned about loss of local control. in the future supervisors will rule on whether public land will be turned over to a public developer out of the balboa reservoir. i think the decision should be made in san francisco and not influenced by state controls. also, if the bill doesn't have anything that increases public transit, i got to muni metro at castro and market and it was 5 minutes until the next inbound was coming. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm dennis richards here as a private citizen. the prior citizen took the wind from my sails. we have a real estate bill in front of us. the approach to building housing that costs $600,000 and $700,000 a unit won't make the teacher or security guard able to afford it. if senator wiener wanted to an

affordable housing bill he'd look at housing and if you build more luxury units the prices of the luxury units comes down. hour the person at -- however the person at the bottom of the rung has no benefit. if you lower the price of rolls-royces, the price of priuss don't come down. the market has failed us. what do we do about it? the state's imposing a role that will tell us what to do. >> thank you. >> may i address the public, speaker, please, mr. richards. i have a question for you. i wanted to know that we have heard today about this will lead to the building of more affordable housing.

can you please clarify that for us? >> so many of the things that are coming out in support of this legislation are technically true but don't solve the problem. we have a nexus study that says we need to built .37 market rate unit for every market rate unit yet every solution is under .37. senator wiener got it right with s.b.35 because he required a portion affordable and here he turned it around and is giving away more and producing less housing than we actually need and going deeper in the hole with every market rate unit. >> and in your professional opinion to ask, you think that s.b.50 will get us deeper into the hole around our building of affordable housing, correct? >> unless you can produce more

affordable housing as a result of the up housing and capture .37 unit you're falling further and further behind. >> do you think s.b.50 will accomplish that? >> no. >> thank you very much. >> it's at 15% to 25%. one last thing if i may to the honor of the chair, all this talk about hey, we can go ahead and now start having a conversation around we're going to tack on affordable for under nine units, senator nancy skinner has a bill that retroactively puts all the actions back to january 1, 2018 even if the voters voted them in. we're frozen. we can't actually harness any additional value we already got so that's another fallacy. there's 200 bills and so much stuff buried in it, nothing there are no simple answer. >> do you believe trickle down housing works.

>> no. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm shauna heferanyone a hefernin. i think it's clear who has sponsor the bill and who it's for and mathematically 3.7 doesn't give you over the margin so thank you for being precise. as a nurse of a physician told me we'd give a patient a cure for their disease that we don't know is not an acceptable answer and this is on the backs of san franciscans and it takes me long

to walk to get to my job and we can't afford to build more with vacant units. why can't we let people live in houses already built? i don't understand. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> district 4 residents. as of yesterday i grew up in district 5 and first generation american as well. the stereotype is there's a bunch of owners and i spent three campaign cycles canvassing door to door for different candidates and what i learn about the sunset and what i learned in my very recent time as a resident is there are a ton of tenants who not only lived there a long time but also very vulnerable. i met one tenant who has been living in the same home for 30

years and her landlord is potentially going to be selling the house soon. i don't think everything is wrong with s.b.50 as an improvement from s.b.37 but the problem i have is with the person who wrote it who accepted -- >> and i'm in full support of the resolution supporting s.b.50. it's local to toxic community and represents a gift to private developers and interests as many have said. the bill works to further prioritize luxury development under the guise of transit oriented development. it would allow sacramento to dictate how's local development decisions should occur and what height and density is

appropriate for our neighborhoods and could open the door to more aggressive projects in the future. we need a solution from the bottom up and reflect the realities an needs of people on the ground. s.b.50 attacks our communities and does not protect or help them. please support this resolution. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm the transit just organizer and born and raised in the tenderloin. there's no fund from the bill going towards upgrading existing transit or capacity to handle the growth the legislation proposes. high-quality transit lines are where busses an trains come every 15 minutes during peak hours and if you have ever taken transit you know it's too long of a wait and our trains are jam-packed to the point doors

don't close. muni lines are at full capacity. cities can't hire enough drivers to keep them going. we have bus drivers sleeping in their cars because they can't afford to live in the city and it seems unlikely people who people to live in these will take the bus. and this won't fund transit changes to accommodate the growth. for the supervisors who haven't signed on i encourage you to do so. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> the viral tactics of political manipulation in creating false allies for s.b.50 tells the story and i represent the filipino activists. i ask you all to support this

resolution. as an organizer work with youth and families on a daily basis, we need to define our needs on our terms for our rights for a living condition. i'm positive higher density will not solve the lack of open spaces in parks. higher density will not address traffic and environmental degradation. there's no correlation with housing affordability and density. affordable housing standards aren't tied to density increase. higher density buildings on an earthquake infilled land needs further studies. as progressive history and housing warriors have fought for the manhattanization of san francisco -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm erica martinovic from the action network. i strongly oppose s.b.50. the bill perpetuates

unaffordable housing, displacement and gentrification. the bill is focuses on transit accessibility areas and at the same time provides no funding for the transit system to aut auto -- alleviate the burden from higher density. this is disastrous and should not be support. by up zoning neighborhoods in san francisco there'll be major increases in gentrification and pressures across the city. please oppose s.b.50. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm with cathedral neighbors. 2019 marks the anniversary of the landmark legislation under mayor feinstein. it was upzoned and redevelopment funds were available and in that 30-year period we managed to build 2,000 units on van ness

avenue. 65 a year. that's it. in addition in the last five years has had 3,000 to 4,000 units approved and not one has been built. why? because the developers tell us they can't pencil out to make a profit. the 1,000 square feet unit on vvan ness is 1.$1.5 million. this is what happened when you let the market determine what gets built. support the resolution so we can get housing. thank you. >> i'm going to read the names of the next group of speakers. if you hear your name, step up to the microphone. [reading names] .

>> there are people who are low income and making $80,000 to $100,000 a year in san francisco. this distortion means most of my low-income neighbors and friends

can't afford a b.m.r. unit. i support all the arguments you heard in favor of the resolution. thank you. >> thank you. >> an opponent claimed s.b.50 discriminates against the suburbs. that is basically true. regions have decided to put all their housing development in one part of the region and cities like san francisco have decided to focus all of their housing development in a couple neighborhoods. in 6 and 10 together the

districts fill 80% of the city's housing and district 4 built 300 -- 0% and opposing s.b.50 will preserve the inequitable development we have now. and the sponsor comes from district 4. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> laura foote. i run m.b. action. i formally don't say this but i recommend taking a pause. i recommend asking yourselves why does the natural resources defense fund support this? why does habitat for humanity support this? why does the housing association of northern california support this? why does the california labor support this? why does the building trades

support this? this is a broad coalition. i understand there's homeowners associations an groups in san francisco that really oppose this but go out and ask all the organized groups who have endorsed this bill, why are they so passionate about it? i also recommend supporting the redevelopment build that's up this year. there's so many good housing bills up this year you could be spending time endorsing. ask yourself this. >> i have so say s.b.50 is not a change i'd like to live through. thank you supervisor for your resolution to oppose and i

strongly support it. one of the best draws to san francisco is our districtive neighborhoods which have great charm and character. this is what brings tourist dollars to san francisco and people. we will lose the character of our neighborhoods if this bill, which will cause tearing down buildings and luxury developments up to nine units with no accommodation for our housing affordability crisis if this goes through and will not solve our problem and when combined with the act we will manhattanize the city. please oppose s.b.50. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is david bancroft. i support this resolution and thank you for it. you've heard several times

already today about this supposed the way wiener proposeds to finance this. basically, it's the trickle down. it's a boon to developers in the hopes sufficient affordable housing will be built. if this was a series affordable housing bill they would have to build the fordable housing first. notice the nine to ten units that can be built without any affordable housing. there's other means for financing and then there's the following, the tremendous infrastructure and the crowning irony, i'm sure you don't miss it, the burden for that falls on the city. in other words, the state imposes a zoning mechanism -- [chime] >> thank you.

next speaker, please. >> >> i'm here to support supervisor mar's resolution to oppose speculator bonus 50 unless amended. this is a terrible legislation that doesn't address the affordability crisis. if anything it makes is worse by allowing speculators to make money off the up zoned land without obligation to build homes. what's more outrageous is using proximity to our defunct system for the up zone. according to san francisco trans-2045 task force report there's a funding gap for san francisco's transportation system through 2045 with no single revenue source identified to close this gap. s.b.50 should be amended to include cities who's transit system are in the red and we're trans its poor and should be included. thank you for -- excluded. thank you for your time.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is laura hubley. supervisor mar we appreciate your effort to put forth this resolution. the phrase means first to do no marm another way to state it is given an existing problem it may be better to do nothing than to risk doing more harm than good. we can agree there's an existing problem with insufficient housing in california. the resolution to oppose s.b.50 outlines it does more harm than good and reckless to oppose the bill just to get something done. what about the unintended harm what about the transportation the sfmta will have the power to control zoning by changing the frequency of a bus route.

and what happens before it's permitted the bus route changes? [chime] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm don edmonds a long time resident of district 2. i support the opposition and this bill. i support this bill and opposition to s.b.50. first, i want to say it's inconsider at -- in consider at to allow -- inconsiderate to give one minute to speak. i'd say ditto to the support of the opposition and will say nothing the berkeley reports guarantees any affordable housing or even indicates there

will be affordable housing and allows chaos in neighborhoods throughout the city. thank you. katherine howard i oppose s.b.50 and ask there be no other amendment. more than half the world's population now lives in cities. we need to create physical and social environments beneficial to wildlife and humans. people learn about nature by close contact with it and stacking people in cities would open space where they can relate to wildlife results in nature deficits. district exposure to nature is essential for development and access to nature is important for children in low-income families who do not have the resources. many wildlife species now look to urban areas to survive and this would allow for take over

of setbacks and put more pressure on parks but has no provision for now parks. we need to reject the legislation and protect our open space for children, families and for wildlife. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm ken fujioka speaking in representation of a letter submitted to the board signed by 16 organizations. we support the resolution. i think we should reemphasize and address the previous questions with respect to the suburban areas. we're in the saying everything in the bill is bad. we're saying you need to correct it an it needs to be corrected in order to protect equity in san francisco and throughout the state.

this say map imposed -- is a map improved without outreach to the community. >> i'll call the remaining speaker cards i have. [reading names] if there's anyone else that would like to speak please step up to the mic. >> good afternoon, edward mason. i oppose senate bill 50. i think we need to have the

planning department fully disclose the bottom of the iceberg cost associated with implementation of senate bill 50. we have airbnb. we never talk about that and the rezoning that's occurred in this city. we talk about transit oriented development but when transit doesn't work, how many people are actually going to be reading it. and we'll be able to improve transportation services and everything's been diluted.

and transit oriented development marines transit displacement. i'd look to focus on senator wiener's statement. tuesday he said s.b.50 does not affect setbacks because of the state's density and bonus laws but is ignoring combining the densi density limitations and height limits and said it won't affect controls but ignoring the housing account act and there's

a machine that combines state laws -- [chime] . >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm an anti the protection of sensitive communities are not protections at all. we're given five years to plan our own demise or wiener's plan will be slapped on us.

we got $2 million worth of benefit value and i'll take that little amount of up zoning and look at what weiener's doing across the state. >> sfns -- san francisco is a unique city and fragile. and the neighborhoods that make up san francisco and they're fragile.

to reduce our carbon footprint is in housing. we request the board stop playing politics with the planet's future. in this we see no amendments to make this better. why don't we support the more homes acts. it results in below market rate housing in san francisco and over ways to improve be part of the solution. last one area i was really thrilled to see the sponsor recognize was our racist history

of single family home zonings. i ask how we can move forward to remove that black mark from our laws. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i support your bill. your motion. i remember this is a new way of forming redevelopment. i remember the fillmore tours where 300 to 400 people were chased out. imminent domain of african-american, jewish and japanese. sp50 is the same thing they did

at fillmore towers which is all market right now, 90%. i think we can do a better job having local jurisdiction verses having the state tell us what we have to do. i have been around a long time. i support your motion. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i will be using the overhead. long time district four resident. i would like to thank supervisor marfor this resolution. the senator's letter every response. the overhead states 74% of san francisco voters support sp50 request the highest level from district four. it can be summarized in two letters, bs.

(laughter). >> these are the same interests that funded the $10 million. that begs the question. what is sp50 really all about? is it all when creating housing or about pitching for developers? >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> open minds, open doors. scott weiner was voted to pave the road for housing development and to counter bureaucratic sprawl in transgets and encroachment. i oppose the requisition of the proportion of economic capital, such syphoning would be detrimental, undermining job creation, contractor development and hamper economic competition. commercial sales of industrial

products, factory appliance and retail goods in general at a time when brick and mortar sales are anemic. sure planting a nonprofit mind-set over profit driven economy risks monetary profit, material values, purchasing power and macro economy in general. i am . >> thank you. are there any other persons interested in testifying before public comment is closed on this item? >> good i want to thank supervisor gordon mar of district four for presenting his

resolution which i'm in favor of. i oppose sp50, senator wiener is a speer carrier for real estate investors such as the toronto investors that built the condos at 22nd street and mission. just happened to be the same day the grand opening of those condos was the suspicious seemingly arson fire at the corner of 22nd street and mission which is still a hole in the ground. we need 100 percent affordable housing, housing for families, housing for workers. >> thank you so much.