unchanged vis-à-vis what it would have been for the old system. essentially the new gross receipts tax does not fully replace what the original payroll tax would have brought in, and therefore the tax rate did not fully phase out. this chart is just indicating what business tax revenue between gross receipts and payroll tax was under our new system, which is indicated in the blue bar, and what it would have been had we not change the business ask, which is indicated by the orange bar, and it is really just indicating that as intended, the new system is tracking what we would have had under the old system during the phase-in period, and the reason this is relevant to discussion about i.p.o. is there were a number of companies that had i.p.o.s in san francisco during this period. we found 50 companies that have gone public in san francisco since 2011, all of their stock -based compensation would

have been taxed at a right of 1.5% and contributed to the benchmark that is reflected by the orange bar, and that is what the new tax system is matching, my combination of phasing in the gross receipts tax and by only phasing out the payroll tax to the extent that we can cover it, to the extent we can ensure revenue neutrality. essentially, the reverence of this slide is that while going forward, the city does stand to receive less tax revenue associated with i.p.o. because of the reduced payroll tax rate. prior to 2019, we did not lose any business tax revenue. it simply would have gone into preventing the payroll tax rate from declining and i understand this is a confusing question and i'm happy to entertain questions about that at the end of my presentation.

when we say revenue neutrality, we don't mean every sector, and this was never the intent of the business tax reform every company or every sector would pay the same. this is a chart indicating that from 2017, what the information sector would have paid under the old system which was around 190 million, and what it did pay under a combination of the remaining payroll tax and new gross receipts tax which is around $165 million. the information sector did save about 14% from the change and while the information sector was intended or we projected it would have a slightly reduced tax payment, this is a little bit more of a reduction than we had projected in 2012. to speak to two of the tax policies that the city has adopted, and again i'm grateful to the treasurer who has compiled this data on the exclusions every year, i would

not have to. >> supervisor fewer: the compensation which is loan joe shown on this slide, as i said before, the prei.p.o. stock competition -- compensation allowed any company to exclude the stock-based compensation that they granted before going public. that was not a very widely used exclusion. on average, one business a year used it, and the average payroll expense tax that the city for gave amounted to about $1 million a year. the central market, which applied only to businesses along market street and in the tenderloin area was more widely used an average of nine businesses a year, and in each of these cases, certainly in the central market case, businesses used exclusion in multiple years , so these are not necessarily different companies in each year. it is showing the number of employees that were covered in the year that it was filing, and the total payroll expense tax at

the city forgo as a result of that. of course, both of these policies were put in place to try and prevent companies from leaving the city. one of the factors of the i.p.o. is that the large, potentially large business tax payment that a business owes to the city, essentially widens the tax difference between a san francisco location and a location in a nearby area that does stock-based compensation. san francisco is the only city in the bay area bay area that does this compensation. certainly the prei.p.o. compensation was explicitly intended to prevent companies from leaving as a result of having their i.p.o. taxed. in any event, the payroll expense tax that was for gone in central market spiked in the 2014 and 2015 period. that is the period after twitter had their i.p.o.

their i.p.o. occurred in 2013. i.p.o. companies have a lockup period in which they disallow their employees from exercising options and selling stock for a period using -- usually six months after the i.p.o. period to prevent a flood of selling of the stock, however, after that period expired, there was a decline in twitter stock price of that time period and there was, in the year following, a great increase in the payroll tax expense that was forgone in central market markets. and in the year following. so it may very well be that that was done to the effect of the twitter i.p.o. i want to speak to what we have done on behalf or on the topic of the i.p.o.s that we are talking about for 2019, and i

would say, echoing that fred had said, several of the i.p.o.s have -- are being talked about or being rumoured. three of them have happened or will happen very soon, and we know this because businesses make a filing with the sec that details what the offering will look like, pinterest has done that and have already had their initial public offering. uber has filed that in it is believed that their i.p.o. would happen in the next month or so. the others on this list have been rumoured for an i.p.o. and others could be added to the list, but they have not made a filing to this point. our estimates are only based on the three companies that have made an sec filing, basically because we are relying on the data in the sec filing to tell us what the income impacts and the fiscal impact would be of

these i.p.o. events. i would say that i do think that this is going to be fairly unprecedented time for san francisco's economy. not however by just the number of i.p.o. we have had 50 already this decade, with the largest i.p.o. that has ever happened in the city of san francisco is twitter , and twitter, if i recall correctly, was worth the low 20 billion-dollar range,. the biggest i.p.o. that has ever happened is facebook page. and facebook was worth around a hundred billion dollars on the day of its i.p.o. which explains how the housing impact was so big. uber will be bigger than facebook. uber could be four times larger then the largest i.p.o. we have ever seen and seven cisco, and it would be larger than everything else on this list together by far. so that is why, and

unfortunately from the perspective of this analysis in one of the reasons they will give you such a wide range of impact is they are the company that we have the least information to date about how many shares are being set aside to fulfil their stock option obligation and what the share price will be. we have made an estimate that on the high-end, uber, about 10% of the market capitalization of uber, a little bit more will be held by their employees. that is a rule of thumb when we've looked at other companies in the past that have provided detailed information, and they certainly well, they just haven't done it by the date of this hearing. they will do that before they have their i.p.o., with that explains why our range is as wide as it is. let me briefly talk you through the estimate process before i give you the numbers. for each company, of the three that we have the information on from the sec, we looked at how much of their stock will be set aside for employee stock options , restricted stock

options and more. essentially much of their stock they need to set aside to fulfil their obligations to their employees. we then need to estimate how much of those shares would be worth to the employee. s1, in many cases detail how much the employees have a cost of exercising the option, but we have to guess what the stock price would be after the lockup period when the employees can start to exercise their options or receive. that is a major sense of uncertainty, estimating stock prices six months after that period, and i want, i will give you increasing sources uncertainty in our estimates, which i will also explain why it is such a wide range. for revenue purposes, it is always very important to know when you have the money and when you can recognize the revenue. we know very little about when

employees choose to exercise their options and when, as amanda said, when an option is exercised, that is the point at which the company is essentially giving the employee a discounted share of stocks and that is compensation, but if, for example, you are a company, you are an employee in a company had an i.p.o., let's say, facebook, and you are very bullish about the stocky stock any thinkable double interest value in three years, you might not want to exercise all of your options as soon as you can. if you are not optimistic about the future of your company, you might want to cash out your office as soon as you can, but there is uncertainty they're related to the employee's financial strategy and their view about the future value of their options, so for us, we are making an assumption that all of their shares that they are allowed to take as of the date of the i.p.o. will be exercised within a two-year period. that just felt like a safe

assumption to us, but we don't have any more details on that, so you should think of these economic impacts and revenue impacts as to your numbers, but there really is no real data behind that assumption. furthermore, these companies, as far as i'm aware of, have employees in places other than san francisco. so we need to make a determination of how much of the stock-based compensation the company will be paying out will be incurred in san francisco. our payroll tax only applies to payroll expense within the city of san francisco. all of these companies are headquartered in san francisco and it is generally the case that the stock options are more concentrated in the upper echelons of management, so it is likely that the lion his share of the compensation will go to san francisco employees, but that is another source of uncertainty. i have already mentioned the fact that we know less about uber then the other two, and uber is clearly the biggest of

the three. with those caveats out of the way, we've estimated the value of the stock-based compensation of these companies with a reasonable estimate of what the stock price might be after the lockup period expires ranging between four and $11.5 billion. at the current payroll expense rate, that would bring them to the city just bring in the city between 15.1 and $43.5 million of payroll tax revenue. we have also made additional estimates about what that means in the context of the overall economy, which our personal income in the city is over $100 billion and we estimate that that reaches between about a small increase in personal income and that would translate into about a 0.5 to 1.9 income -- increase in housing prices.

that is our estimate of the fiscal impacts and the economic impacts of these i.p.o.s, and i'm happy to take any questions that you have at this time. >> thank you very much. thank you for this in the weeds -- i think it is i will have to request a private meeting with you, but my question is, we have seen this and go public and we have seen that stock price be greatly reduced, and knowing that those shares are greatly reduced, do you think that when uber -- this is just from your personal experience, quite frankly, with uber, with go public, that employees are looking to what happened to lift and that prices got greatly reduced. do you think that would give them more of an incentive to hold onto the stock, more -- or more of an incentive to get rid of them, to sell them?

>> i think, apart from my personal experience, and i think they are old -- they are only anecdotes floating around is what i do say is it does seem to be a lot of drama around the initial pricing of the stock and what happens to it in the first couple of days, and i would avoid drawing too much conclusion about that initial pricing and what happens in the first couple days, for example, the last time i checked, lift stock was significantly below what the company had initially priced it at, and after it went public, it spiked up and out has spiked back down. it is hard to say for sure that fundamental factors in the company are driving those fluctuations in stock prices, and what we are interested in and in estimating this is what is it going to be worked at the end of the lockup period? it is entirely possible that the

stock may stabilize at some level that is higher or lower than where it is today, and in six months, and i would avoid placing too much credence in what you see in the very early days of the company going public of course, 20 years ago during the.com boom, you would have companies that went public, skyrocketed on their first day, and never reach that price again and they were bankrupting two years. that doesn't seem to be the experience with most of the companies that have gone public in san francisco this decade. twitter had a spike after its i.p.o. it has gone off -- up and down. it reacts to news and fundamental changes in its business just like in every other company. i think it is very hard to draw conclusions based on the period right after the i.p.o., and i think if i was and uber employee , i would be very

cautious drawing conclusions about my company based on what our biggest competitor is doing. what we are looking at, which provides some level of guidance, is the option prices of stocks. six-month into the future, but again, it fluctuates very much. it is certainly no simpler for us looking at it from the outside than it is to anyone on the inside. >> okay. i think that there are legislators here sitting here trying to figure out how soon this might come down and how fast it might come down, and how big it is, that is the question, and that is why i asked. i know what it is like to get into the minds of people, and everyone who is an individual, but i didn't know there was some historical pattern about how people think about their shares and their stocks, and i think that is to do with many factors, age, where they are financially, personal, just whatever, but i thought there might be some historic information. >> i could speak to the twitter experience, to the extent we can

read it from what is public information about the tax exclusion. the 2014 spike that we saw there where it would have been 30 something million dollars had twitter stayed in the city to pay it is always the proviso, but that gives us an insight on how much compensation was involved. that would have covered about seven or eight months post lockup period, and then there was a lot more in the next year, and if you take the amount from both of those years and compare it to what the twitter f1 says they have set aside for the companies, it is pretty close with a reasonable price of the stock after six months. it is pretty close, and so that leads me to conclude that at least in twitter's case, based on the public information, most of the stock-based compensation that was set aside prior to the i.p.o. wound up being realized in a two year period, and that is not a lot of data points to

base my assumption on, with that is the basis for my assumption of the two years. >> thank you. >> any other clarifying questions? supervisor madeleine -- madeleine -- >> thank you for calling for this hearing, thank you for officers of the b.l.a. and the controller's office for putting a lot of work into this. it seems it is interesting and troubling to see the data from the first presentation around what i think we know about increasing inequality and that divides, and then hearing your presentation and getting a sense of the actual scale of what might be coming down is also chastening. since you are here and since i

was not here in 2012 and don't know what kinds of conversations were had and the tenor of the conversations about the toxic 12012 time, the city guarantees baseline assumptions where you want to talk to the form, and we want to stimulate job just come out is a job killer you want a kind and that is not going to discourage -- discouraged discourage jobs from being in san francisco. obviously, seven years later, we inhabit a very different universe right now we are we have this incredible and growing income inequality, significant unmet public needs, certainly the public sector falling behind and smoothing off the edges of

our market economy, san francisco and throughout the bay area, so i have heard, not as much recently, but i have heard some business community who have suggested that this decline in payroll tax the fact that there still some payroll tax left is a problem from their perspective in terms of their understanding of what we agreed on 2012 and that we would need -- we need to have a conversation that is eliminating that payroll tax, and in some ways, a dozen years later, payroll tax, particularly as it impacts hiring earners kind of makes a lot more sense in this moment, it seems like, but is there a need to eliminate that final payroll tax chunk?

>> i would not speak to it as a need to, but i would just remind you, particularly since you weren't on the board in 2012, that you are trying to achieve a number of objectives with the replacement of the payroll tax and the gross receipts tax, we sometimes talk about the criteria as the eaves criteria, and i have been in this since he -- city since 20 -- 2007, when we did the gross receipts switch in 2012. that had already been my third time trying to do business tax reform, and i came in in the middle. the city has been doing this since 2002, so we were rehearsing when we are deciding whether we wanted to replace the payroll tax and replace it with different tax options that are legal in california, that might

have better effects on the economy, on administration, on the equity of the tax cate in terms of the gross receipts tax switches by far the most popular business tax among california cities, it was very clear that it could be more equitable then the payroll tax which is a flat tax and evernote -- new gross receipts tax has a progressive structure. there is pretty good reason to believe that it would be more stable, in one of the reasons it would be more stable as it is it doesn't have that stock-based compensation, direct component directly and it. we knew it would be much harder to administer, and again, thanks for not the first time to the treasury office for all the work the past years grappling with the new tax, and we also had reason to believe that we had outside consultants incur on this that it would be less economically damaging to the

economy then the payroll tax, and in the space that every dollar of tax that you raise, how many jobs are you costing? and the payroll talks -- tax had been derived as a job killer. there's some economic evidence, and i think some reason to believe that that is true. when we did an economic impact report on the switch, i recall our projection was with the city might gain 2500 jobs a year as a result of the switch. even if that were true, the city has seen 170,000 jobs since then , so i don't think the tax is particularly meaningful in accomplishing that, but i think to speak of, do we need to reduce or eliminate the payroll tax, it kind of goes back to the policy question of how important are those categories for you. if there is a belief that, you

know, in 2012, which the everything i should mention about the 2012 tax is it did represent a net revenue gain for the city. we kept the tax revenue, will be increased -- was neutral but we increase the license fee by about $30 billion. essentially the switch from a less efficient to a more efficient tax allowed us to create some jobs and added more revenue. if the policy calculation is different now and we would like to have even more revenue, and even less jobs, or maybe we are willing to tolerate the decline of jobs at the expense of revenue, i think that is a policy choice, but i don't think that privileges the payroll tax versus the gross receipts tax. i still think if you are saying, well i am willing to lose 1,000 jobs a year from a business tax increase, you would get more revenue by raising the gross receipts tax to cost 1,000 jobs

than you would by raising the payroll tax to cost 1,000 jobs because it is still a more efficient tax. in 2012 we were saying we were looking at it from the perspective of how many jobs do we lose for every dollar that we gain. if you hold the number of jobs constant and you want to make sure that for every job you lose you get as much money as possible, then i thank you are still with the gross receipts tax because, you know, in the same wave that for every dollar you gain from the payroll tax you are more -- at more risk of losing jobs, for every job used -- lewis, you actually get less revenue, and again, i apologize for doing math on the fly without a whiteboard, but that is my view of it. >> i think i will probably invite you to come and bring your whiteboard into my office and explain this a little bit. if is to ask questions.

the payroll tax is not necessarily a flat tax. >> it is not necessarily, but it is a flat tax. >> legally doesn't have to be a flat tax? >> no. >> i would be interested in knowing, given what we have seen today about income inequality, and given what we have seen about the increase in jobs, and the ever end of the spectrum, if you were thinking about how much payroll tax to retain and where we should be collecting it from, it would seem like, and one of the things that maybe as appealing about some kind of something that brings in the i.p.o. is that it feels a little bit like, i mean it is going after the wealth. it is not it in income tax but has some of the, i'm wondering how close we can get, i guess that is the legal question. >> i can tell you from my personal experience of working on the various iterations of business tax reform, in 2010, our process led to two options

for decision-makers. one of which became legislation, and that was a progressive payroll tax. it would have charged a higher payroll rate two employees making over $85,000 at -- at the time, and the board did not move forward with that, but that was legislation that was approved. >> all right, that is exciting to me. i guess i am trying to, i guess my last question that from 2012 to now in terms of winners and losers, let's bring up context and the increase -- the increase in the gross receipts tax, but then other folks, some folks in the business community believe there is lingering unfairness in our existing gross receipts system and that we ought to be looking at -- i've also heard some of their are those businesses that aren't really touched very much by the tax,

even i think services, even if -- and i probably need to delve more further into this, but is there a need for some additional tinkering with the 2012 compromise -- from use -- from what you've seen, to address these issues? >> as a representative, i would avoid the word need, but i would say that people often ask me, where did these rates come from? and i described the process that we undertook with hundreds of businesses who came to the meetings that we did in 2012 and we got to a consensus on rates across the industries that people felt they could live with at the time. i don't know how people feel about that now. we have not engaged in that process since then. >> thank you. supervisor stefani? >> thank you.

i'm not very good at math, i will say that, it appears to me that you and the b.l.a. have very different projections on housing prices based on these initial, or these potential i.p.o.s, and looking at your last slide, which is just a one-point nine increase, and then page 3 of the b.l.a. report which adjusts an 11.3% increase, and i'm trying to understand the different projections and whether or not i am actually seeing that correctly. >> you are seeing it correctly, and i think, you know, the overriding answer to your question is that no one knows, and so what we have -- i don't know, the b.l.a. doesn't know, nobody knows, which is why everyone has been doing it in different ways. when we don't know, we say there actually is no data on which people got how much money after which i.p.o., how many of them lived in a certain place and

bought a house in that place and how much did the housing prices go up after that. i think one of the differences between our approach in the b.l.a. is first, we're only looking at the three i.p.o. that we know about, we're not looking at the six or seven potential i.p.o., and we are trying to route our estimate and what we know or think we can reasonably guess about the amount of income that will be brought into the city's economy as a result of that. the relationship between the growth and income that we have projected and housing prices is based on statistical models that we have of housing prices and income growth in the city economy and it is just a typical change in housing prices given that amount of income. it is not based on any kind of i.p.o. event, and i don't want to go into too much more detail on the ucla study or any of the other approaches, i just know that the way we did it was most

rooted in what we know about these individual companies, and most traditional in terms of it is an income shock to the city atop economy and what does that mean for housing prices given what we know about income growth and housing prices in the city previously. >> okay. when you were looking at the three potential i.p.o., the one with the s.c.c. filings, i just want to make sure i have this correct. to the estimated impacts of the housing costs from that round, those rounds of i.p.o.s are less then a couple of percentage points? >> it is between 0.5 and 1.9 on the city. >> okay. thank you. >> great. thank you, again for the presentation. i just had a few questions before we move to public comment and i see we have a few speaker cards collected.

so, i think your presentation highlighted the remarkable growth of the tech sector in san francisco over the past decade and to the point where it is the dominant industry in our city right now i most measurements, and i think it also highlighted how this growth of the sector would feel at least -- was fuelled by tax breaks that were granted or targeted at tech companies to keep them here and have -- allow them to grow over the past decade. i have a few questions about that and then you referenced the twitter i.p.o. that happened during this period, and that is the most significant, the largest i.p.o. that has happened in san francisco and a really important point of reference if we are trying to understand how this current i.p.o. earthquake is going to play out and impact our city. [please stand by]

map -- >> supervisor mar: compared to the previous tax that would have been in place at 1.5%. >> so if we were to assume that they were all going forward,

and nothing who would change -- would have changed except the payroll tax rate, the variance there between what they would pay at the current rate is 42 to 122 million. >> supervisor mar: 42 -- >> 42 to 122 million, based on their stock options, and that's two-year figure. >> supervisor mar: and that's what they would be saving compared to what they paid in 2012? >> with a 1.5% rate. >> supervisor mar: yeah. i don't have any other comments. i'm going to move onto public comment. it looks like i have 17 speaker cards. i'm going to call names in groups, and if you hear your name called, step up to the

right of the group and step up to the microphone. the first group is kyung fang, emily lee, leticia arca, shumin lee, and john harris. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is kyung fang. i want to thank supervisor mar for your leadership on this issue. we know this crisis, we feel this crisis. i walk and get on b.a.r.t., and

it's packed. i can't even move. that's because there's so many commuters of people who are being pushed out further and further. i walk down the streets. i live in the tenderloin, and i have to walk over the bodies of people living in the streets. there in the richest city, where there's 100 billion of venture capital flowing in. i think it's time that it's clear to do something about this, it's time to turn the city around. it's time to make sure that san francisco leads, not in this inequality, uber inequality, but in racial equity, gender equity. that's why i'm here today. there are over a dozen groups here in the room with us along with our coalition, and all of our groups here, worker groups, community groups, agree that it's time to do something.

and we are the 99%. we are the restaurant workers, we are the uber drivers, we are the people who actually create a successful city, and it's time for us to share in the wealth. thanks. >> supervisor mar: thanks. next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisors, for calling this hearing and for asking these really good questions. i think again, just to reiterate, i think we've all seen -- anybody who's been in san francisco the last 10 or 20 years, you've seen the impact, the ridesing inequality in our city, and i think it's illustrated every day with the folks we work with. my name is emily lee. i work with rising alliance. we work with nonprofits across the city in the soma, tenderloin, bayview. we're across the city seeing the impacts, where rising inequality, it's obvious to us. we don't need statistics to

tell us these i.p.o.s are going to impact our communities. we're already feeling the impact. rising crisis, rising housing crisis. when people come to us and tell us, i can't afford to live in san francisco anymore, i'm squeezing more family members in to make ends meet, or i'm taking more jobs. 1 in 28 school kids in san francisco are homeless. they're couch surfing, they're out on the streets, they're sleeping in shelters. we see this at city college and s.f. state. we have stories of students who are college students who are basically not able to eat three meals a day. they are basically sleeping in their cars, so the reality is this impacts the city and impacts the families that we serve. this is a real question, how

are we going to deal with this inequality? how is san francisco going to rise to the challenge and this moment of i.p.o. and massive wealth influx? what is san francisco going to do to lead the way? i think we really are hopeful that san francisco can show the rest of the nation how these i.p.o.s should be -- >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. my name is john harris. i'm born and raised in san francisco, north beach, chinatown. i was featured on channel 4 kutv has a city and county employee as a full-time employee that's homeless. i lived in a next door shelter for 2.5 years on polk street -- for over 2.5 years. the policy is you can stay there for three months, and then two months, you would have to leave and come back.

so during that time, i slept in my car in the tenderloin. i also slept in a church parking lot where i mopped the floors and things like that for the church and they let me sleep in my car in the parking lot. i took care of my mom for, like, eight or nine years, and once she passed away three years ago, i became homeless. and some people that worked for the city and county gave me the opportunity to work for them, and i've been there ever since. i'm a temp exec. my union's fighting for me to become a full-time civil service because they don't understand why for 2.5 years, i'm a full-time temp exempt. they'd tell me if you sign this

paper saying you have mental problems, psychological problems, then, we can help you. i refused because i'm not going to lie just to get a place to live. let me see. did i leave out anything? yeah, that's basically my story. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i want to thank john for that really powerful, personal testimony. i hope everyone was listening, and the media was listening to the reality that our folks are living in. good morning, supervisors. my name is chiffon lu. i'm here to share some of the voices of my organization. we represent fong, the restaurant worker working multiple jobs trying to

represent her daughter. i represent huang, who is living in a house with other families. i'm representing high school students, some of whom struggle with mental health, anxiety and health issues but are not able to get assistance because of all the cultural barriers and the fact that they are facing so much pressure at home from their immigrant working parents who came to this country in order for them to be able to go to school so they better succeed in school. these are some of the folks that i represent, folks on -- in school who i now represent.

every day, watching the news, feeling there's no way they're going to be able to return to the city. san francisco is already in devastation in so many communities, working communities of color. our city deserves working neighborhoods, thriving neighborhoods, not just struggling to survive. this earthquake that supervisor mar referred to is only one of the many crises we have to deal with, and we hope -- >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. good afternoon. my name is leticia, and i'm here with just cause. i we work with black and latino families in the city trying to stay in their homes. i'm here at today's hearing to speak about the impact that will be had on me as a resident in san francisco and i community members that i work

with every day fighting to stay in this city. what i know is that people are struggling, and it's not getting any easier. what i learned today is that this already happened, and it's going to happen again. i'm concerned about the negative consequences that we will -- that we'll all feel. i'm constantly worried about my landlord selling her property and what that would mean for me and my future in this city. the reason why so many of us are worried is because we know we'll be unable to compete with those making so much more money than we make. i'm worried about the low-income seniors and families that are struggling that i work with to meet those most basic needs, and meeting those basic needs when everything keeps going up, and wages are, like, stagnant. i'm worried about how much more worse things can get, how many

more families will face evictions and how many more families will end up on the streets. the people i work with are janitors, caregivers, hotel workers. we look to you, our elected officials to take concrete steps to address this wealth gap, and to ensure that whatever wealth is generated by this i.p.o. helps everyone in the city prosper. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. my name is erica martinovic. when the central market street and payroll tax also known as the twitter tax break was created in 2011, it was meant to keep twitter to revitalize

the downtown area. did it keep its perspective? our opinion is no. we witnessed families living in soma being harassed and threatened by landlords to move out, we witnessed iris canada being evicted from her home that ultimately ate up her health and led to her death. we witness people losing their homes and ending up homeless or fleeing out further from the bay area just so that he can have a roof over their head. in a time that california's income inequality and housing crisis, we ask our elected officials to step up.

we need to see real mitigation from these companies to contribute to the burden that they will cause to our seniors, immigrants, and working class communities. thank you. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is taylor bossa, also with somcan. some tenants respond to pressure like so many of our former neighbors by voluntarily packing up and moving to elsewhere that is friendlier to middle class and working class people. others double down and bring in more family, unable to move from their resident even if they wanted to. growing up is not ideal for child, for any senior or anyone. we have clients who have

applied for b.m.r. over a dozen times with no luck. housing is a right. san francisco has become a playground for the obscenely rich with no room for anyone who makes less than $150,000 annually. it used to be a place of culture and diversity where people can grow up and dream of growing old, but now it's a shadow of its former self-. income inequality is at an all time high. companies can and should pay their fair share for operating in san francisco. the city is what it is because of the great diverse working class communities, folks of color and folks who call it home. the tech wave and influx of millionaires is not accidental. this again points to the question who is it benefiting?

these private corporations enrich a few while displacing many. we urge the board to counteract these impacts. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is jennifer esteen. i'm a registered nurse for the city of san francisco. i'm here at a -- as a public citizen and seiu 1021. when we talk about equity, we can't just talk about equity for businesses, we have to talk about equity for all. i heard the budget analyst -- which sounded like he had a more understanding of what actual issues, gross inequality expanded through this city.

many could be invested in the city, services and infrastructure which were the recommendations that came from the budget analyst's office. we see incomes are falling for service workers, we have more and more workers become be temp exempts. in san francisco general hospital alone, there's 1 million hours of work last year by temporary nurses. having the city's only level one trauma center staffed by temporary nurses is insane and it's unsafe. divert general diverted 65% -- san francisco general diverted 65% of the time. the city has to pay full price for those same people to be treated at other hospitals. 130% of the time last month and the month before, san francisco general hospital ran above capacity. 130% of the time. that means that patients could not be adequately treated in the units they're supposed to

be seen in. i.c.u. patients had to be boarded in the wrong area. if we leave money sitting on the table because we want to attract workers, how can we take care of the people that are already here? let's not lose sight of the fact that san francisco exists and will exist. do the right thing. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm a resident of san francisco for close to 45 years. i couldn't help but notice that in presentations that the corporations, and the city, what we get from them, is millions, so i wonder -- the huge gap there. i wonder, could there be a hearing that explains to all of us what the community benefit

of that growth or that stability of having those companies in the city? what are we actually getting when we can't tax these property taxes compared to what we have lost and will continue to lose? our community, the diversity in the city, all of the things that built this city and made this city so attractive to these companies, and we're not the beneficiaries of that. with the low numbers of people of color and diversity in their employment, i would suspect that the jobs didn't come from our community. i have a son born in san francisco general hospital 40 years ago. he lives in south san francisco. he's unemployed, and an unemployed tech employee at the

moment. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you, supervisor mar, for your leadership on calling for this hearing. this is definitely very important. my name is shen lee, and i'm with seiu 1021. i'm speaking as a long-term resident of this city. i've been here 26 years, currently living in a rent controlled apartment, and thanks to that rent controlled apartment, i'm still here today. as a resident, i'm very concerned that our public services are already super under funded and overloaded. we have a public health crisis? my car got broken into three times in the last three months. there's definitely -- there's going to be increased crimes

since it's already really bad with inequality? and then also our members reported at h.s.a. as a client, some people have to take four hours to wait to get access to basic services? so our hospitals are underfunded. my mom had cancer for eight years. i go with her to every doctor's appointment at s.f. general where we wait anywhere from two hours to four hours to see a doctor for is a minutes and receive cancer -- 15 minutes and receive cancer treatment? we need more affordable housing, we need public infrastructure, with you need investment in public schools. as someone who went to public school, i can tell you when i was growing up, i did not have enough to eat from the lunches that were provided as a student. so we need -- san francisco needs to lead by example as a

progressive city? if we have the highest wealth, then we should be the most progressive in how we enforce the taxes on wealth? >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is julie, and i'm a proud member of jobs with justice. yesterday, there was a hearing at city college regarding major cuts in classes, taking away from our multiracial working class youth that hope for a good future. it is time to standup for our working families where housing, health care, good jobs, public education and more are under attack. please do the right thing. do not give the rich more wealth that they already have. close the tax loophole, and support our teachers, our restaurant workers, and more who deserve justice and equality. >> supervisor mar: thank you. if there's others that would like to speak on this item,

please get in line on the side. next speaker. >> good afternoon, speakers. my name is cila. after hearing the presentations and seeing the slides, it's impossible for me not to not distressed by what san francisco will be going through over the next few weeks and months. thousands of our members have had to leave san francisco because they have been unable to live here, to afford it, and it is this growing disparity that drives them to become more and more involved in making sure we eliminate disparity in san francisco. many of them have been driven from communities that were vibrant, walkable, that were really examples of what a community should be. and now they're spending weeks every year driving to and from san francisco if they're lucky enough to have a job here. i myself have lived in san francisco for about a decade.

i've been evicted, i've seen what's been going on from the students here. i was evicted from the mission like thousands of other latinos. i'm fortunate enough to continue living in san francisco, but ultimately, i keep seeing households having to double up, living on their cars, eventually living on the streets sometimes and that in a city that's this wealthily should not be happening. these businesses have the opportunity to be good neighbors, to have solidarity with their neighbors, so i urge you to intervene and make sure this disparity is addressed immediately. >> supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is mustafa, and i moved here ten years ago and i started driving four years ago because it was the only way i could make enough money while going to city college.

every year, it gets more expensive to live in the city. we've seen our rates go up over time, so in order to make the same amount of money, i need to work 70 to 80 hours a week, and that's not good for everyone and dangerous for everyone else on the road. i have to live with six other people in a studio apartment in the city, and lots of people have to live in their cars so they can save money and support their families while the c.e.o. of uber just purchased a $17 million mansion in san francisco just a couple of months ago. we shareholder the cost of gas, upkeep, and depreciation of