i discussed it with her. i told her so. [inaudible] >> chair peskin: so your time is up, but i'm more than willing to discuss with city staff through to the sfmta, your comment. this is a fee title, so you are right in that regard. i don't know if the "purchased medallions" -- because indeed, a fee was tendered to the city for a limited right -- whether or not the industry would be in a different place today, but if it you believe that we could cure this problem by giving fee title absolute if you will, as they say in the real estate business, i'm willing to have

that conversation with you. so at some point, mr. drury, when you're in the city and county of san francisco and miss toran, and my staff, perhaps what i can do under the boundaries of the brown act, supervisor safai and his staff should sit down and have that meeting. i really appreciate, given your longevity in the city, your coming down and commenting today. who was the guy running the committee when quentin kopp passed supervisor k?

next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisor peskin, and thank you, supervisor haney for being here. kind of difficult to find the words that are appropriate to say what i want to say. we -- our fleet comprised of about 45% pre-k medallions, and let me tell you, supervisor peskin, that those pre-k medallions were old purchased medallions. they were all purchased before 1978 -- >> chair peskin: 1976. >> 1976, i'm sorry.

these all people followed to the letter of the law, and they obtained their permit as the law allowed them. and to me what was the consequences is a scapegoat and a very unfair approach to the problem that i doubt has a solution. about 60% of the post-k medallions were also dropped. the taxi business consists of three main components. you have ride share, you have e hailed, and you have street hailed business.

if you take one of these chunks away, it results in a pretty big chunk being taken away from the drivers, and that's why i don't think we can regulate that. >> chair peskin: thank you. and i have not yet -- despite all of my attempts, succeeded in finding a supervisor to replace me. that means we've got ten minutes, and i super apologize. it means we'll continue it to june the 17. but the less of you that speaks, the more of you will speak on june 17 unless a colleague comes and rescues me. next speaker, please. >> okay. doug, with luxor. my income's actually lowered since the last three months, and i have -- typically, before this happened, i was one of the drivers that played the bayview

and the airport on sunday nights. i'd pick up stuff that was right off the highways and still do the airport at the same time, but this was a good thing. but this new thing, because i lose holding times in the pen, like, an hour but now, i can't do that as a strategy. i think the loss of income has made this industry dangerous for drivers. i've almost gotten into a fistfight with another k-driver over a fee dispute for a ride that went to palm springs from the airport. it's not a good thing. and with all due respect to kate toran, i think we need to evaluate her leadership and power over this regulatory

thing. there's major taxi stands at, like, the hyatt regency, at the up i donunion hotel. i think signs are a very basic thing. people working in the industry aren't regulating the industry. when i was a corporate chauffeur, we actually had to carry i.d. cards, and we didn't carry them, we would get fined by s.f.g.t.u. i think there is a requirement for that, and how can somebody enforce that? >> chair peskin: like i said, we've got to get into an agreement with san mateo county. next speaker. >> thank you so much for you gather all the people here

today. [please stand by]. >> the problem we have, we have a disease called cancer, and they're diagnosing with tuberculosis, and that never happened before. we work hard, and they pay us and give us our money back. this will not work, i cannot

live anymore in the dark. thank you so much, sir. god bless you. >> chair peskin: thank you. i believe that supervisor fewer has finished her last meeting and will be able to attend momentarily. she just needs to get assigned by the president of the board of supervisors, supervisor norman yee.

>> -- we are disgruntled with sfmta. we cannot lie on this deficit. there is no way to get out of it. we worked hard to get to best days of our lives, but our dreams are shattered. we are limping on. can't work longer hours. you have uber and ride share drivers. you have no pity for us. so far, you've done nothing for us. buy back the medallion and resolve the issue with us.

thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >>. >> yeah. so i've been concerned about supervisor fewer because her concern about the taxi drivers is really nothing. but supervisor peskin, your concern with the taxi driver's, we've been dealing with you for over one year. i really appreciate you brought out the point and you've got a lot of courage to do that. i don't know if anybody besides you have the guts to do it. but hats off to you for doing

it. if you just bring the price down, the problem is solved. the solution is very simple. return the money of the poor cab drivers. if you can't do it, bring the price down. everybody's happy, and we'll go home and salute you. so this is the concern that you have to deal with because someday you'll have to deal with this. the sooner, the better. thank you very much. have a good one. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, everybody. 30 years driver, and recently i was in the office. i talked to you about the whole situation. we look at this crowd today. the only things i see is the example that too many chiefs, no indian. it's all over -- you know, you look at the yellow cab or

another company, they're all looking at their own benefits. i never pushed yellow cab, this or that. they are opportunists. they're trying to get rich off our problem. the sfmta -- i'm not talking about the person, but the problem is that you're repeating the same situation that it was the last time. she had the same movies, the same melody. she don't say one word about -- this is about the subject, about the sale of the medallion. the whole program went through, bring the business up, and so bring the sales back, but we don't have any warning -- action or medallion sales. people like me, they are tired -- to the age, they are sick. we want to get out. even for myself, i don't look

for any improvement. i want to get out. i don't want to be in here. and a lot of these people, they're sick, they cannot handle it. thank you very much. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i want to thank you for your time. my name is matt sutter. i've been driving for 27 years. i am currently paying off this medallion that means nothing to me anymore. i don't know if you guys are aware but in the last week, two drivers now are not getting refinanced by the bank. the bank said no. they made all their payments on time, and they will not refinance. what are we supposed to do? there is a provision in there that says that if this medallion fails, we get our principle, and we get our issue. that is all we want. you want to talk about your virtual app at the airport? where do you think the drivers

are going to sit? i contacted the san mateo counties -- each jurisdiction and told them, you guys think you want to do this? i sit at the airport because i can't drive all day every day, and you want to take that away? i think you should be ashamed of yourselves. you guys are trying, though, and i want to say i appreciate your trying and thank you so much. [applause] >> so the question was asked why the sales, why the program ended, why there's been no transfers since april 2016? the answer was finessed. the real reason is the lender stopped lending. the federal credit union said no more lending because they saw the writing on the wall, which was the program was failing. uber and lyft were making such inroads into the program that you couldn't make a transfer for $250,000.

one of the agreements that they had with the m.t.a. was that no transfers would occur for less than 250,000. that's why the program stopped, and since them, sfmta has been preparing for the lawsuit that would eventually be filed against them by the federal credit union. that lawsuit was filed against them in march of 2018. they began working to prepare for that lawsuit. one of the things they have done is get a report or a -- commission that report, which is the schaller report, which gave a backing for kate to change the industry over, do the thing and revoke 200 permits. $600 million was taken in through the program. you really have to go back and read the lawsuit because the

lawsuit is a history of this whole program. it's collapsed. it's failure, and the accusation of fraud by sfmta, basically, the federal credit union said we were brought down this criminal's path. we were lied to. this was a long time -- this is why i don't believe these chambers are going to change anything. it would require the m.t.a. to give back money to some of these drivers who were defrauded. [applause] >> clerk: thank you, sir. next speaker, please. >> we heard a term during 9-11, water boarding.

we heard you guys won't let us drown, and by the time we're about to drown, you yank us out. kate said this system is working, they are profiting from this. p-medallion, it's not working. it's costing us $250,000. why don't you support these 170, like, medallions, which went back. they went to yellow cab. they're already making money, and you are promoting these people. the industry needs to be reformed. they need to lower down, like, the insurance -- in our constitution, it's written that it should be a $1 million policy. but things change. you're only hurting the driver. people come here, they wait, they waste their time and come here and speak, and they are

making 7............. -- $7 or $8 an hour. it's a shame that you guys over there, you have authority, like, god has power and everything, why don't you guys fix it? i'm humble, i'm begging, it's pretty bad. how can we compete with these uber, lyfts? you can't compete -- for the past year, nobody wants to take a bus. they can get the same -- likes, they are transferred from the corner of the state to their homes for, like, 2, and why should they pay -- >> clerk: thank you, sir. next speaker.

>> thank you. i have a friend who has a medallion. he wants to refinance. guess what? the credit union tells him they cannot refinance him. why? because the other bank doesn't want to refinance him anymore. she says okay, what's going to happen next? well, either you payoff your the medallion, or you're going to go into foreclosure. so they're going to take his medallion, and he's going to

lose his job. he's going to ask what's going to happen to the remaining balance if i don't pay? he is responsible for that. how about that? he is responsible for paying $160,000 even though the bank won't release the money and takes the medallion away? is this happening in america? this is like a gangster-type thing. and the other thing is we want our money back chl those people who want their money back, they have been talking for one year, and nothing has been done. the most important issue is with us guys, the people who purchased the medallions for $250,000, we are very, very much unfairly treated. and we just want our money back. we just might drive taxi again, but we want our money back because the sfmta failed the program. [applause] >> clerk: i apologize.

vocal outburst or applause or booing is not allowed in the chamber. please use a thumbs up or a down if you do not agree. [please stand by]

... it's not worth it. please give us money back. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name it david. i'm a purchase medallion holder. i'll be the first to say that the implementation is helping us to some degree. no doubt it is helping us break even at least every month, but we need more than that. we can't just break even. we need an income. the profit margin on this is pathetically low and far below minimum wage. i could go work at in and out tt for a lot more money, mcdonald's, anywhere, you name it. i would like to address something that when we talk about service in the outer neighborhoods and back before when we had a lot of trouble servicing those areas, we could

have put those medallions out there, but that would have given almost all of us our earned medallions. so the mta, the city, they held back the medallions to make sure nobody got. you did a tremendous disservice to the people and the industry. that created the bad reputation and the lapse in service that opened the floodgates for something like über and lyft. nobody has bought a medallion. this program is dead in the water. you guys set the price. you didn't let the market dictate the value. if you set the price, you have an obligation to make the price right to where it's at now. as far as all the improvements that are suggested, these are all things we've been suggesting

for years. a couple of weekends ago the national democratic convention, we were told to go away. i have video proof of it. the golden gate bridge, we're told to go away. we still don't have a taxi stand. thank you. >> next speaker, please. it's two minutes per person, so you can't speak a second time. you had your time. i'm sorry. >> hello, i'm evelyn, i'm a taxi driver with the taxi workers alliance. i'm really disappointed in the first page of the report where they start talking about they want to help the taxi industry innovate. they're just using this word, but nothing in this word is innovative. i believe the purchased medallion program has been a failure and support those of you who recognize that this is over. and that we need to do something to help the purchased medallion holders. the plan they've come up with,

the plan that they're evaluating, has never been anything other than robbing peter to pay paul. they're helping some, or attempting to help some at the expense of others. i'd like to point out parts of the report that deserve close scrutiny. one is the change in supply. if you disregard the 73 medallions leased by yellow cab and the three that are the surviving, there is actually nine fewer purchased medallions operating at the end of april than december. and there is a total of 36 fewer medallions operating and we would like to know why. i'm very concerned about the decline in taxi trips in the city. the 16% decline. the problem in san francisco is one of demand. we cannot just add supply to the city without increasing demand and expect people to work there and make money. it's so difficult. so thank you for having this

hearing and please address the issues in the city as much as at the airport. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> my name is... thank you for listening to our problem. everybody wants their money back or finish their problem, and if they're increasing the meters or taking 10%, that is not solving the problem. and we need to have you return our money back, please, and to help us. i do have it myself. i cannot stand long there, you know. thank you very much.

>> thank you. next speaker, please. if anybody else would like to give public comment, please line up. >> just a bunch of questions. if consumers have grown in the habit of using über or lyft, is it actually less likely they will contact services at the airport going to added signage for taxi? what is the hourly rate of taxi queueing at s.f.o., sounds like 90-94% of the standing volume, which they said is 376 vehicles or something? oh, and was there a search of medallions available for sale about a year before über and lyft unorthodox upswing in operations and if there has been a displacement of cabs on city

streets, might that have been foreseeable? how are medallions presently being sold? >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> tom gilberty, i'm disappointed in the city, of course. i believe this is the mayor's office issue. it's been dumped in the board of supervisors' lap because the cab drivers, the taxi industry has no place to go. kind of a neo liberal break, whatever you want to break, and then we'll take it on from there. and somewhere along the line, somebody needs some more money. these taxi drivers need more money. they need the price of their medallion back. the problem is, where is the money going to come from?

it's in the city. it's fair to do it. somewhere along the line, the people that are getting shafted need to be reimbursed. and brought up to right. and that's in your lap. thank you. >> thank you. public comment is now closed. supervisor fewer has questions. can i ask the representative from the m.t.a. to come up again. i apologize, these may have been covered before, but i would love to have a direct answer on this because this comes up a lot and i want to appreciate everybody from the industry who came. especially the couple of folks who have come to all of our board of supervisors meetings, we hear you and your urgency. and the pain that you have experienced in this process.

why hasn't sfmta made a decision to reimburse the medallion holders? was that something that the board considered? it's something we hear a lot. that seems to be their central demand, either reimburse or, or you know, allow us to return the medallions and get our money back. what is sfmta's response. >> hi, kate toran. yeah, this is something we've heard as well. and the price tag on that is $161 million. and as i mentioned earlier at the start of the presentation, earlier on in the presentation, that in the medallion sale program, most of the money went back into the taxi industry, so so you can understand the money flow. [interjections] >> please allow her to speak. >> when a medallion was surrendered for consideration,

that means that the individuals pre- -- >> we understand you disagree, but -- you can thumb's down, that's fine. >> so the medallion holder, the pre-k holder or post k holder was able to surrender for consideration. the consideration was $200,000, so when that transaction happened, the holder of that program, they netted the $200,000 and the mta received 50,000 out of that. so most of the money that was generated through the medallion sale program went back into the taxi industry. $110 million. so it's not like there is a pool of money available. and these are very challenging tradeoffs. i wish i had a magic wand. i understand the frustration and the anger here. but they're very challenging policy tradeoffs.

and with m.t.a. in terms of budgeting, we have to give consideration. so if we think about $161 million, what would that look like? what would that be? >> just to give you a sense of that, that would be quarter of the annual transit budget. so again, this is not something that there is just a pot of money at the m.t.a. for. most of that money went back into the taxi industry and again, we're trying to balance our work for the public. >> help me understand this a little bit. so there are $250,000 for the medic -- medallion. and that money is still being paid to the city? but you're saying that in some cases, or all cases, there is $200,000 -- i don't understand. >> okay. so the money is not still being paid for one.

but some describing a transaction, there are different types of ways the medallions have been sold. so i'm describing one type of transaction which points out, which ill lupul nates nates that most of the money went back into the taxi industry. i'm talking about a situation. so say -- i'll use myself as an example. if i was a pre-k holder, so i have my medallion, had it since 1978, and m.t.a. put in this medallion sale program and part of the reason for the program was to generate turnover on the list. so we had aging population of drivers. and so there needed to be some turnover. in any event, i'm a pre-k holder, m.t.a. put this new program in place. there is an opportunity for me to "surrender that medallion.

so if i hand that over and this was allowed for pre-k and post-k medallion holders, then you can turn that into the m.t.a. the -- out of that transaction, you get $200,000 and the m.t.a. got $50,000. part of what i'm hearing in the background, there are some transactions where m.t.a. issued a new medallion and the full amount when the m.t.a., but the majority of the transactions were surrender. >> please, please -- >> hold on, hold on, please. >> we're going to have to ask you to leave if you don't be quiet. >> so as i understand it, in some cases they're purchasing from somebody who essentially, the transaction is with somebody who held it before hand? >> correct. that's correct. >> but in that sense, they still

purchased it for $250,000 and they're still, in many cases, paying that off. >> that's right. those are different -- yeah. so i'm trying to say where the money went. and, yes, but somebody purchase holder pay $250,000 for that medallion for the most part. and, yes, most cases they're still paying off loans. but the medallion holder that held is previously got a windfall. they got to cash out $200,000 for this surrender transaction. most of the money earned in the medallion sale program went into the industry through that mechanism. >> so for clarification, that means when you say that most of the money went back to the industry, what you're really saying is that most of the money went to individuals that used to be in the industry? because once they surrendered their medallion, they could no longer drive as a taxi driver.

so really in essence, it isn't really the industry itself that profited from it, it was really individuals that were working within the industry, would you say that is a more accurate account of what really happened? >> i think that is a way to describe it as well. i have sheet that shows in more detail about who -- so if this is helpful. if that's helpful, it kind of walks through -- i mentioned $110 million and then this walks us through the -- oh, thank you -- what that, you know, where did that go, what is that comprised of? so they're the various elements. so, yes, one could say individuals within the taxi

industry benefitted. >> supervisor fewer: right. so it's really -- when you say most of the money went back to the taxi industry, it really didn't go back to the taxi industry. it actually went to individuals that were in the taxi industry that wanted to get out of the taxi industry. some were older, done with driving as you mentioned. you're telling us, i think that what i've seen in other figures, really the m.t.a. made about $61 million on this, is that correct? >> somewhere this that range, about $63 million, correct. >> supervisor fewer: so m.t.a. made $63 million on these taxi sales and, so, i understand that the $161 million figure that you give us, that is to purchase back all the medallions at $250,000. is that accounting also including buying back the

medallions that people paid $125,000 for? >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: and that is the full price, that is not just what is left on the loans or anything? >> absolutely, correct. that's correct. >> supervisor fewer: then what about the taxi medallions owned by the companies? >> the taxi -- well, there are corporate medallions, is that what you're talking about? >> supervisor fewer: yeah, the corporate medallions, because i think these corporations have made millions on these medallions, is that correct? >> according to what we have estimated, yes. and that was -- yeah in the power point earlier. we talked about how many corporate medallions are still in service. >> supervisor fewer: sure. i think i've seen that chart before, too. so i'm going to say something that probably -- first i want to say that the board of supervisors has very little jurisdiction over the municipal

transit authority. we -- administration of authority. we actually don't have any power over them, except to vote their budget up or down. we don't have people that we actually put on to the commission of the m.t.a. i, myself, have gone before the m.t.a. board and brought this very issue and did not get a response. so i just -- i think that is sort of indicative of how the relationship between the board of supervisors and the m.t.a. has operated, and i think that, you know, as a board member, i think we struggle quite frankly. and it is not our jurisdiction. and yet we hear repeatedly every tuesday, we have taxi drivers coming to us, and yet at the board of supervisors, we also realize that this hardship of paying back $250,000 from these

people as you can see, is, i think, we can all relate about how big of a hardship this is to make ends meet. we also can -- the crazy thing about this job, i think, and maybe supervisor haney will agree with me, is that you can see it coming, but you can't stop it. so i see that automation is coming and it's coming soon. when g.m. invests $500 million, it means that it's going to happen and doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. so when we think about the life of drivers, the livelihood of drivers, we see that it will get increasingly difficult for them to pay these loans back. and i get that and this is -- this is why we're working on a public bank, but i get why banks

will not refinance these. banks know also these will be worthless. you see autonomous vehicles driven around in the streets, they're applying for license at the california cal, i asked them, would you ever buy the licenses? why would they, they say, we can operate without them. as we have seen with many jobs, this autonomous vehicle thing is going to unemploy millions of people. i think we're just seeing sort of the tip of the iceberg around sort of an outdated model -- what an outdated model can do at a time when things are changing

rapidly. and yet we stay with the same model. so i'm going to say something that i think that is -- i just wanted to say, i don't fully understand it all either. it is a very complicated thing. and thank you for repeatedly trying to explain this to me and doing such a deep analysis. but the problem is that we're working for a remedy of an outdated model. the medallion program is simply outdated. it is -- until i think we think of a new plan to redesign this, i actually think we should not be selling more medallions. when i hear that 43 more have been sold and the taxi companies have bought them, why are we doing that? it is a wrong model. it is the wrong -- it is an

outdated model to begin with. i can see that if we gave them extra play at the airport, but maybe we bought medallions back, but they could rent them to be a taxi driver and get the privilege of being the ones who pick up from the airport. and take this huge burden of $250,000 off the shoulders. i think the medallion thing, whether corporate of individual, that program is done. it is outdated. i think we're working within a framework of what we have, but i'm just going to say that maybe perhaps we need to look outside that framework. and maybe it is time that we looked at this issue of taxi drivers verse t. and c, it's

hard to say, i don't think we expected it to blow up like this. but i think there is, you know, i think there is a way that we can think outside the box and not in this framework of our medallions. and within the medallions, let's try to make the medallions more valuable. i'm going to be honest, i actually don't think the medallions will ever be worth $250,000. i question now if they were worth that in the beginning. i want to commend you on doing this. i think this is -- you thought long and hard about this, but it is within the same model of a taxi medallion program. and i think it's time to blow it up. i think it's time to start over. i know $160 million is a lot of

money. i would maybe look at not re -- if we didn't have money to reimburse the whole thing, how can we reimburse three quarters of it maybe? i just feel like the burden that these people are living under is incredible. and i know it's happening in new york and people committed suicide in new york. i just think we might have a remedy. and i always remind folks when, you know when i first was sworn in as board, one of the first things i voted on was a $34 million parking lot. and so when people say to me, you know what, that is a lot of money, we spent it on this or that, i say, really, because the first thing i voted on was a $34 million parking lot. and we have the ability as a city to actually borrow money over a long period of time. it's not just five years or ten

years. we could borrow this money over 30 years' time, where we wouldn't -- yes, the interest would be expensive, but we would not have to pay it right away. i just think it's the wrong model. it's the wrong model for -- [applause] so, i don't know. you know, i've been on this for a while. i mean i tried to rack my brain around it. i've been looking at it from all different ways. and i just think that it will keep coming back. it will get worse. it's going to get worse. it's going to -- we are going to see human casualties from this. this is -- the only thing i can think of is actually we blow it up and you build something else.

and i'm sorry. that's just my opinion. >> i can appreciate your concerns and comments. and i share the underlying concerns. i started with pride and value in the taxi friday. i don't want to lose sight of that. it's important to remember that we have a clean air taxi fleet. taxis are part of our para transit program. there is a lot of pride. there is a lot, again, a lot of value in the taxi industry. there is an important role for the taxi industry. and i just want to correct the record. it sounds like there is an idea that 43 -- >> 34. >> 34 were recently sold. that's not accurate. i'm not sure what that is related to, but the reason why we brought forward this package of recommendations and these changes and we're coming back with the 90-day report is for

the very reasons you're articulating. that something needs to be done. we need to prioritize purchase medallion holders. so everything -- i agree with those concepts, that feeling, that passion, and you're looking out for the purchase medallion holder. and i appreciate that and that's again why we focused our policy goals for the most part on purchased medallion holders. and we do see the value in the purchased medallions when we implemented these new rules, 73 purchased medallions got back onto the street in short order. that shows us there is value there. again, i just want to highlight that. and i want to think through -- and like you said, the taxi industry, you can look at it a lot of different ways. and each time you turn the prizm, you see something different. it is complex. >> supervisor fewer: right.

i want to say that i think there is value in the taxi industry. i ride a taxi. when i get off the airport, i ride a taxi home. when i need to get to the airport, i ride in a taxi. i think that i am not saying that the taxi model is outdated, i'm saying the medallion program is outdated. that is a very different thing. and that is what i would like us to concentrate on. and i'm sorry that i read this wrong. increase of 34 medallions. so you're not selling more medallions, but the bank is not selling them either, is that correct? >> well, the medallion sale program is still a program, so that -- >> supervisor fewer: why are we still selling them? >> i'm not sure -- i think you're looking at the 34 medallions, there is a net increase in 34 medallions. >> supervisor fewer: right.

>> now i understand what you're pointing to. that means some medallions were added. so 73 foreclosed medallions were added back into service. we talked about the net increase -- >> supervisor fewer: someone bought the medallions and put them back into service. >> no, they're operated through yellow cab by an agreement with the credit union. >> did the yellow cab buy the medallions? >> no they're operating through the credit union. because they're foreclosed, the credit union owns those medallions. it wasn't a sale transaction. >> supervisor fewer: what is the agreement? >> you know, we've asked for that agreement, but we haven't seen it, so we're not a party to the agreement. i understand -- >> supervisor fewer: this is a whole other reason that the medallion thing should just be done. this is whole other reason.

this idea, now, yellow cab is now negotiating with the san francisco credit union putting more medallions back. it is crazy. we have lost control of this whole thing. i feel like this another reason why -- the medallion program, itself, it's not the value of the taxi. i actually think there is value in a taxi. that is what i take as transportation. i just think the medallion program is antiquated model. >> understood. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor haney: thank you, supervisor fewer. so we're going to continue this at the call of the chair. we were able to get all the public comment in. i'm not sure what chair wants to do in terms of the hearing on his birthday. i appreciate supervisor fewer's comments. i had sounds to me like i understand the concern of $161 million purchasing them all

back, but that would be purchasing every single one of them back at full $250,000, it seems like there may be other models so we can do right by these folks who really did put their savings and are paying a huge amount back in an industry that, as we recognize by everything we're trying to do, is having a tough time. obviously this continues to be -- this is new issue for me as a new board member, but i continue to be a bit perplexed and concerned about the situation we've put these folks in. and so i'm sure there will be further opportunities for you to keep us updated on what to do for them. i echo supervisor fewer's calls, if there is other types of things -- i don't think there is a belief that every single one for the $250,000 will be purchased back. for $161 million. but some of them, partial, other types of financing, other types of support, you know, i think

that is something that we should be doing. so with that, we're going to continue this at the call of the chair. and thank you for being here for this long hearing. and thank you to all the taxi drivers who were here. i know we'll keep hearing from you. and you won't let us forget you. so we appreciate you. thank you.

>> all right. hello, sunny day. [cheers.] so, so excited to be here with each and every one of you. i am sorry for those we don't have chairs for. we didn't expect a big crowd, but when you talk about the city budget, i guess everyone shows up. i am so glad to see the residents here. thank you to everyone who joined us on the tours earlier of the unit. today we, of course, through the tours saw the challenging conditions that people are living right in this neighborhood, just a few miles from our thriving downtown, and yet a world apart. as someone who grew up in public housing, i have lived these