pay gap traces the relationship since the mid 20th century and finds that from the period of 1948 to 1979, this was the post new deal, post world war ii period of dramatic economic growth. productivity in this country rose 108%, while at the same time worker compensation rose about 92.2%. this is also a one-to-one relationship between growth and worker prosperity. this contrast with the period from 1979 to 2018, one that can be characterized by a neo liberal where productivity rolls much lower. worker's compensation is much lower at 12%. so although never fully extended to black indigenous and other people of color,

during that post war period i just described to you, our nation's high economic growth. middle class lifestyles became far more accessible and with more than a doubling of productivity, clearly, firms were not left out either. they benefited. so the build back better infrastructure package, instead of asking the questions of how can we keep businesses afloat and how can we pay for it, policy makers should fulfill their fiduciary and stimulates a more balanced growth and promotes shared prosperity. civil and political aspects of human rights that are described are well engrained in our public psyche. however, what i'm going to talk about today at least as important is economic rights.

we know that the right to assembly, speech, and choice in general, it's limited for an individual who lacks the basic needs of a job, the basic needs of adequate income, shelter, food, or health care. policy deliberations on ending poverty and reducing inequality, it should be anchored in the idea of inclusive economic rights as the basis of a moral economy. we need a deeper understanding of how devaluing individuals based on social identities like race, gender, sexual orientation, on who deserves and who does not deserve. this is essential if we're going to expand knowledge beyond that conceptual individual transactions of understanding race into larger workings of political economy and structures that affect us all. so we had a last great recession not too long ago, 2007. what did we have?

we had a jobless recovery, housing insecurity manifests, evictions grew. home ownership became less accessible. and we saddled them with debt while telling them to wait out the great recession and go to college and accumulate that student debt. once more, we became as a result of that inequality vulnerable to a man who's able to gain national office through divisive appeal. the way we manage poverty today, we do just that. we manage poverty, we treat poor people as if they're a surplus population. we engage in income maintenance program. we socially isolate them. we can script them to our military. we incarcerate them on mask bes and their family formation.

and we do this with race along with government social programses being used as scapegoats to fuel this neo liberal agendament poverty and inequality are internal deficiencies to the poor and black themselves. they're strategically used as political foughter to implement control on the underclass. blacks have become the symbolism of undeserving welfare queens, deadbeat dads and super creditors. they're characterized as persistently unemployed. unemployable, crime, malice and who's assistance and then the system. labor exploitation those are

words that are weaponized appeal to one's desire to not be a to manage and incentivize so-called effective people to get an education and become more employable. the problem is that these prufrpgs of power. they pay and how power and capital can be used to alter rules and structure and markets to that power in the first place. it's important to note that markets themselves. a farmer's market, you need a

permit. markets are natural, transparent, efficient, and inevitable. it ignores the political action that maintain markets in the first place. we should do a better understanding the roles of power and capital in our economy, and we should be more focused and understanding and advocating for structures leading to more equitable andtary distributions. guided by our free will into free, fair, efficient allocation. what we are working against is a neo liberal framing that has naturalized poverty, that has naturalized equality. >> that is sub par outcomes are resulted from personal choice

of individuals and communities. an inclusive economic rights frame turns all of this on its head. it locates poverty and inequality resulting from the absence of government provided guaranteed resources. that is poverty and inequality are results of policy choices. the frame calls for government to end poverty directly by placing resources in the hands of people as a right. choice is limited for individuals who lack basic resources such as employment, income, shelter, food, health care. in essence, rather than benefitting from the market, they are at the whim of the market. authentic economic freedom and agency is rooted in resources. political, social, psychological, and especially material resources. and power and capital are

self-reenforcing and without government intervention, they will do what they do best. they will consolidate, they will iterate. they will benefit some and exclude others. there is a baseline set of enabling goods and services that are so critical for individuals to be self-determining that without them, individuals have capacity to reap economic concerns. government needs to directly compete with and crowd out inferior private options. inferior private options that do not ensure universal and quality health care. housing, schooling, financial services, capital. and the free mobility throughout society without the psychological and physical threat with detention and bodily harm because someone's identity is linked to a vulnerable or stigmatized

group. public intervention is needed to guarantee inclusive economic rights in order to counter balance a crude economic and racialized private power in which in isolation, economic markets are incapable of redressing. we need a profound change towards a more seasonable and moral economy where government facilitates the income, assets, and social mobile for all its people regardless of their race, class, sexual identity or immigrant status. we need economic policy that centers people. people both domestically and abroad as well as our environment. we need to learn from the failures of our past. the worker-centered physical and human infrastructure package that i'm talking about, it needs to be permanent and it should be by design and implementation intentionally.

such an approach would trend us towards dismantling the material consequences and social stigma associated with identity groupings like race and sex. what i'm talking about is not new, nor is it radical. the concept of economic rights has been around. president franklin roosevelt called for an equal amount of rights, physical security, economic security, social security, and moral security. roosevelt knew that men and women, they were not free men and women. roosevelt knew that full citizenship demanded more than political rights, it required economic rights and in the wake of world war ii and the dismantling of the fascist nazi regime. the united nations general assembly issued the landmark

universal declaration of human rights including economic rights in 1948. that body identified five categories of human rights. civil rights, political rights, cultural rights and the one that's neglected today, economic rights. human rights are described to be universal and related to the maintenance of human dignity. and they place the obligation to guarantee these human rights on government. articles 23 and 25 speak to aspects of economic rights. so let me read article 23 and 25. 23, everyone has a right to work, to free choice of employment. to just and favorable conditions of work and the protections against unemployment. article 25. everyone has a right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of himself and his family

including food, clothing, housing, medical care, and necessary social services and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widow hood, old age, or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond one's control. that concept of economic rights has deep roots in our civil rights history as well. the reverend dr. martin luther king jr. and his push for guaranteed jobs and income in his final years has long led grass root movements championing these subsequently. secure and adequate income for all. access to land, access to capital and to be able to play a meaningful role in

government. basically civic engagement. in his own words, i am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective. by now and guaranteed income. at the federal level, we could use our most powerful fiscal tool which is the u.s. tax code to guarantee income and promote economic security for all our families. for instance, we could eliminate the work requirement on earned income tax credit and dramatically extend the negative income tax of that earned income tax to guarantee income in a way that eliminates poverty and lifts more families to the middle class. but you know what, state and localities, they need not have to wait which is why i applaud your mayor and i applaud the

city of san francisco for going ahead with guaranteed income. the paper that i wrote with some colleagues describes that economic frame where we eliminate the work requirement and expand it to the middle class, that's something that's not limited to the federal tax code but can be adopted elsewhere as well. i want to point out i'm not a fan of ubi. i'm not proposing universal basic income. i'm all for guaranteeing. universal income is inflationary. to literally give everybody the same amount of income throughout the economy dilutes the spending power for those who need it the most. by definition, if i'm poor, i'm a population. if i'm wealthy and you give me additional income, you're subsidizing my assets thereby

increasing wealth equity. as opposed to an economic rights framing when described. let me say almost in conclusion, current economic system is found upon values of self-interested accumulation without bounds. that leaves us vulnerable to greed and exploitation. but our economy should be grounded in different values. values of economic inclusion, civic engagement, social equity, sustainability and shared prosperity. growth has become our explicit expression of our national economic well being. in isolation, that metric fails to adequately capture multiple dimensions of prosperity including human capabilities, morality, humanity, sustainability and civic engagement. there's no accounting of

distribution with economic groesdz and isolation. benefitting the masses through some trickle down mechanisms, but in reality, an increasingly small group of elite and powerful individuals who are overwhelmingly white have reaped the lion's share of these rewards. economic agency is rooted in resources. in essence, without resources, individuals are not capable of benefitting from economic markets and instead are at the whim or charity of other agents in the market who have resources. we can change this paradigm. we can be bold. we can initiate programs that truly empower people with the economic resources with economic security with dignity and agency to define and achieve their goals. i think we need to commit to justice as a matter of faith because it's the right thing to do.

we need to rejet the empirically unstanchuated rhetoric, that ignorance, so-called grit are the sources of inequality. they are not. the timeliness of whether we can achieve this or not should not constrain us. we should be undeterred by what people think is possible. and commit to our shared prosperity. finally, we should heed the words of dr. king. the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now and widely discussed measure guaranteed income. thank you. >> so we're going to take some questions from folks in a

second. but i wanted to -- you ended on a quote by dr. king and a lot of people talk about now the ideas and strategies that he was pushing towards the end of his life weren't really happy with him and here we are decades later and we're trying to push that agenda. more about like the poor peoples' campaign and the notion of that and how it connects with some of what you're doing and talking about now. >> i think, in earnest, once we achieve the vision set out by dr. king and others, i think it's game over. one other thing i didn't talk about but understanding our political economy. i think it becomes useful to understand that economics, politics, and race or any other identity stratification. if we're not in the united states we can go to another

country, but basically colonialism. they're all intricately linked in a way that serves to accumulate political and economic capital at the top. in other words, it is the ability -- as we become more vertically unequal, it is racism becomes more valuable. in other words, if people become vertically, then you can appeal to a dominant political class's horizontal positioning. you can say however poor you may be, you're not black. these are the psychological benefits. in other words, that immoral lure to relevant status becomes entrenched when we have growing equality. so if king was able or anybody to fulfill this inclusive economic rights agenda, that lure from a leader that's able to divide us up, it has less

poe tensy. without it, we can always be susceptible to relative positioning relevance of status. >> it reminds me, you also said talking about the declaration of human rights, economic security because of the less than. >> and i don't want to oversell it. this doesn't make racism go away. but one thing i know if we don't have a program like this, we are definitely susceptible to fascism. so that economic security, not only if it leads to a moral society, there's also a reality again that you can't talk about

freedom, you can't talk about choice. you basically are at the whim of charity or you're vulnerable to somebody handing you something. everybody in the audience knows if they go into a job negotiation and they have another job in hand that they also care about, then they're better positioned to bargain for better wages. >> all right. >> last one and i'll go to the audience. we had a question online where someone said, how do we move from the minimum of saying everybody gets $500 to more of what the need is which i think aligns with some of what you're saying on basic income versus guaranteed income. >> yeah, and, you know, i'll say one other point that's related to that is guaranteed income isn't enough. guaranteed income might be a pillar, but economic rights

includes a right to health care, a right to shelter, a right to capital. i talk a lot about baby bonds. we need to understand that we need a package of goods. there is no silver bullet. so that's one point. the other point is we certainly have an inadequate definition of poverty today when we used the measure of poverty, it hasn't been updated. it should be updated. i think in the previous panel, you heard some things about we don't need to do just basic needs. people should have the ability to go see the movie. the ability to go purchase entertainment. so, you know, again, regardless of where you stand on the idealogical spectrum whether you're a capitalist, socialist, i'm sure there's leanings and audience based on where they may stand on that political and idealogical spectrum. what is true is anybody engaging in transaction with no resources is simply vulnerable. so even if you're an authentic

capitalist, you would argue that people should be properly resourced when they engage in transaction. >> thank you. any questions in the audience? are you just stretching? no. well, right here if you want to -- >> [inaudible] >> so i need to repeat the question. so what if ubi becomes too tall

in the future? >> so for clarity, i am not a fan of ubi for all the reasons i mentioned. in fact, that neo liberal framing of ubi is problematic. when you hear people say the solution to our collective problems are to simply give everybody an adequate income, that's an incorrect framing in my view. i think, again, the right frame is economic rights in general knowing that there is no silver bullet policy. a recognition that what are the set of enabling goods and services that without them, you have no agency. and that's not difficult to come up with in my view, education, good health, shelter, income, capital. capital and income aren't the same. we need a package of goods and, you know, income to me is indeed one of them. income ensuring as king said that we just don't have the

blight of poverty. how did social security evolve? you know, social security, prior to that, we had a lot of destitute. seniors that didn't have adequate security in their elder age, that was a blight on society. of it was a blight that we didn't tolerate. we came up with a mechanism to ensure that there would be something reserved for you when you age into the twilight of your life. i'll say one last thing about that. one is there's a direct impact of simply eliminating poverty. one poverty is bad. why should we tolerate, you know, some of the framing around the child tax credit is it will cut child poverty in half. to me, that's an inadequate framing. why should we tolerate any child poverty. why should we tolerate poverty at all. why should a black man be poor. right, they're often

marginalized, you know, our framing of work. nobody should be poor in our society. we could make a decision to eliminate poverty if we chose. by giving people resources. they may have talked about this earlier today, some of the demonstrations that took place in stockton and elsewhere. when people receive cash. it actually empowereded them to work more by giving people resources they can reap the benefits of enginuity and that's kind of the point. >> would you say to

guaranteeing they get additional supplemental funds? >> to me, that's exactly right. the ubi framing is problematic in a technical way and a narrative framing. that narrative framing again the solution to our problems are simply to give everyone cash. there is a plethora of resources that people need to thrive. cash is one, but not all. and then the second point is the technical point that you dilute the benefits of those that need it the most and you actually could generate are assistance population.

and that, you know, that's how you get rich but we're taking money and you don't need it, but you stay rich. i think that is the challenge and some way for this conversation because i think we have, i know i have at one point as well as the narrative should be brought up. >> i know there was -- yes.

>> artificial intelligence a.i.? so the question is is there a connection between the newfound interest even though thomas payne and others talked about it years ago. is there a connection between guaranteed income and artificial intelligence and there's been back and forth. as more things become auto mated, do we need to find a way to make sure everybody doesn't become poor. >> yeah. and i wouldn't characterize it as thomas payne wanted universal income. he set aside that a child could reach when they become an adult. he also talked about a set

aside resource for people when they aged into their elderly years. to me, those are targeted. those aren't universal basic income. that is a targeted guaranteed income type policy. so i guess i would offer that in sight from my perspective and then the other issue with regards to artificial intelligence, to me, that's again a problematic framing these associated with ubi. robots, so techology is going to happen. it's happened in the past. we have had large transformations of our economy where work has changed, but not fundamentally disappeared. i think employment is a key aspect of human endeavor. we don't have to have a society where work goes away. we can have a society where work conditions are better, where people have decent wages. where people engage in work

with dignity and a productive outcome, but artificial intelligence replacing us and work to me is an exaggeration. i think that i also advocate for federal job guarantee. there's plenty of work that needs to be done in our economy. we're faced with floods on a periodic basis. if we look at care work, we inadequately support care in our economy and that's something everybody's going to face at some point in their life. probably people in this audience right now if not receiving care, might be giving care. and we inadequately fund it and employ it in our country. so i guess i would say that we have exaggerated the concerns that artificial intelligence will go away with work. it's something we should be concerned about and i think there's a role for government

to ensure there's adequate work because it's clearly a whole lot of things that are productive that artificial intelligence is not doing that's still needed. >> and, if i could just, as you were talking, it made me think about how many of us during the pandemic realized how important it is to have connection to humans. right. the being online and the learning and all those different things, like, you know, i have to say once we've started thinking about going back in, i had a little bit of anxiety. i was like oh, my gosh, we're going to be back around people. but there's something about being in space and so as we talk about automation, when we talk about taking care of babies and children and elder and folks, like, they need to have, i think in order that human touch and so that is something that hopefully we never fully auto mate to taking care of our people in that way.

>> i mean, i got on a plane today, i missed it. we need that human contact. >> you get a lot of e-mail done. >> yeah. >> i think there was another question. so repeating the question -- what would be the three best strategies to move things forward in the context we're talking about? >> you know, momentum's building. the child tax credit occurred in the 25th year of welfare reform. this is the 25th anniversary of welfare reform and i'm old enough to remember the punitive

language about poverty during reform that poor people are this that and the other. what we have now -- we right now are debating in congress a refundable child tax credit that says by recognizing that children are expensive and have lots of needs that our government will recognize that and send out $300 a month based on you having a child. so i don't have a direct answer for your question. i can tell you this that despair only fulfills and satisfies the status quo. that we definitely need to, again, commit the justice as a matter of faith because it's simply the right thing to do. so i'm rambling because i don't have a specific answer, but i can say we're at a position in

society. neo liberalism is on the ropes. the emergence of the near take-over contrasted with a summer of pandemic with people clammering of black lives matter across the nation indicates that there's political turmoil in our country and that's reaction to our system in which we've had equality and despair for so long. i think there's a pathway. so through social movements, through activism, and being steadfast and committed to these values, there's a pathway. >> so can i push a little more on that and maybe say, well, who are you maybe working with or what's a policy that's about to be put forward and are you still doing things with bernie sanders and cory booker?

is there something we should be looking for? >> the presidential race is over. i'm joking. in addition to income people all know what baby bonds are. it's basically a child trust account set up at birth. for when a child becomes a young adult, they'll be able to access resources so as to purchase an asset that can appreciate overlife what's the difference between a homeowner and a renter. we can keep going. so i'd say there's a lot of local momentum.

san francisco is consistent in guaranteed income and appetite for these transformative so that's my optimism. >> so keep researching and see what's out there and what we can replicate.

>> let me just repeat the question. wealth building strategies that are maybe not the typical class. i'm just repeating. >> you know, ultimately, there is no collective action beyond political agitation that can redress wealth and equality without the white asset base didn't always exist. it was literally transfers from government that provided a capital foundation so they could mass and generate wealth. so ultimately, i think we need to be agitate government to ensure that people have some capital endowment to build

wealth, but i'm also hearing from your question and i hope i'm not misinterpreting. the notion of individual assets and collective assets as well and you're shaking your head so i think i'm getting it right. to me, the key ingredient is assets. you know, if i talk about ensuring that everybody has a public education without debt, we might characterize that as a public asset. if i talk about a baby bond that ensures that everybody can finance an individual level, a debt-free education, that's an individual asset. so i'm not wedded to either one. i think the key ingredient is ensuring again that people have assets. that there's some resource in perpetuity that people can access in order to empower them. that's the key ingredient. as to whether it's individual collective, i think those

debates are useful and productive, but the necessary thing is the asset itself. >> so in that regard, when you talk about the baby bond, is that something that goes to every child born? >> you know, an effective baby bonds program would make it progressive. if you're born to the most wealth pour family, you would receive the largest endowment on earth, or accumulate the largest asset over your childhood and if you're in the most wealthy family, there's something about all of us being in it toblgt with regards to making a policy less vulnerable but it needs to be gradational. >> we'll go back and back to

there. >> [inaudible] >> so the question. and i feel bad because i ask this question every time i see you too. the difference. and i will say one of the things that i've asked, i'm

literally begged derek to come out and talk and to share his expertise. i think one of the challenges that we have here in san francisco and you can see in the program book we have a listing of a lot of different strategies that we are employing and that we're trying to utilize and that we're trying to develop to address economic insecurity or, you know, the gaps that we see which ouchlt of these is guaranteed and as we move through this to have a little more clarity and have this understanding, i think there are some that are not guaranteed income. some of those are where we're given a stiepen for something that somebody dus. that is maybe more along the jobs guarantee, i think those are the things that we've got

to that is going to begin this idea of whether we're actually addressing wealth or income gaps. so i mean, that's my initial take is that we're not clear ourselves and that we need to do a little more which is part of why we wanted to host this conversation to start to get into the weeds. >> yeah, i think that's exactly right. universal basic income definition alley is everybody gets the same amount in a universal way. what you described, once you introduce the word 'target' it's no longer universal basic income. it's a targeted population as opposed to everyone getting the same amount. and the other point is that and this is hard for us to accept and i know localities have budget constraints in a way

that the federal government doesn't and we could say a lot about how the federal government is capable of financing an economic rights frame work. i'm happy to talk more about that. on a local level, sometimes choices have to be made and there are various aspects of economic inclusion and security that matter, but aren't the same. so people need income and they need wealth. people need housing and income. people need housing and they need health care. so all of these fit into enabling goods and services that empower people, but there won't be one single policy that's going to redress all of san francisco's problems. >> right. >> [inaudible]

>> i appreciate that question. the inclusivity of ubi, i like

that. i like policy that have some notion of we're all in it together. in fact, the tax code itself needs to promote the obligations of economic inclusion, social equity and civic engagement. right now, when we offer tax deduction and not a refundable tax credit, that's not civic engagement. when we make moral choices of taxing capital different than we tax wages, it may be for various reasons, that's a moral choice. so when i think of guaranteed income through the tax code, it's doing just that, but i think in a more efficient way than what the people have in mind with ubi. in other words, the tax policy that i'm proposing is reformed earned income tax credit.

reform it in a way. that's a political arbitrary notion that you have to work to get it. we could one say everybody gets earned income tax credit. changed name. and then not only that, not just make it anti-poverty, you can make the phase-out index to immediate income of our nation so that at least half americans will receive some form of a tax credit simply because they're below the median income. those are the choices that i think would be more effective and also align with political inclusion because it's the tax code, but a more efficient and better way for the various reasons i mentioned than trying to tax on the back end in order to redress qualities associated with ubi on the front end. >> thank you. >> you mentioned there's a need for different economic programs

infrastructure and this connection to economic rights. and public banking addressed for alleviate wealth inequalities brought on. >> so i'm in favor of public banking. again, economic rights would ensure that in the 21st century, in had this day in age, everybody has access to an account and without fines and fees associated with it. right now, we have a lot of borrowing. we end up putting people in a debt situation where those that have the lease have the worst conditions to finance that debt and end up plying more shares of their income just to pay a creditor. is it going to address the wealth gap?

no and the reason why is the main source of the wealth gap is capital itself the vast majority is in assets. now, that's not to say the debt impact doesn't impact black people worse than it does white people. indeed it does especially those that go to college. we know for recent college graduates that are black four years after graduation, they owe about $50,000 in student debt. that contrast with about $30,000 for a recent white graduate which is still intolerably too high. so, again, in this frame work of we're not going to be able to solve all our problems with one solution, cancelling student debt is the right policy to do. offering young people a college education is the right thing to do, but it won't be enough to

address the racial wealth inequality we have which is really grounded in capital. >> [inaudible]

>> yeah. that's a deep question that i will try to answer, but it's going to be inadequate. i'll tell you that right now. i won't be able to answer all of it. i'll say, first off, we have a

society that has a rhetoric that through hard work, you can overcome and achieve social mobility. and we also point to anecdotes of success ask say look at what that person did. why don't you do it? what we don't point to is the counter factual. all the individuals that did work hard, that did struggle and did not make it. that's a problematic narrative. and you know what else, it also very well might be detrimental to your health. you know, i'll cite some statistics. we know that the mortality difference between black and white people, between the ages of 25 and 65 is such that black people have about a 50% greater mortality rate. that's problematic. but what's more disheartening is if we look only at those

that are college educated, that disparity rises to 70%. so it's not as if a college degree makes a black person worse off, but it sure doesn't redress the social in totality barriers that we see. and it could very well be the case when we tell people, work twice as hard to get by. what we don't ask them is at what cost. is there some detriment to being above human. is there some detriment to being above average of always trying to push through your barriers and overcome obstacles. it might very well manifest in

health. i'll point to some other things. you know, baby bonds. we don't talk a lot about it. to the extent that families might offer different endowment to one offspring based on your gender. this says regardless of your gender, the state's going to set aside this amount of resources for you based on your family position when you become an adult. that's the baby bonds. last thing i want to say, there's a great book by my colleague diane stewart that talks about black love. talks about black love as an outcome. the book talks about how our

society in its the ways in which black people are underresourced has a negative impact on something as humanistic as the capacity of people to love and that's also part of the point that properly resourced individuals will manifest in many ways including self-determination around being able to be in a healthy relationship whether it's with another man or woman or two men or two women simply having properly resourced adults benefit relationships. we think about causality and economic outcomes. maybe it's economic outcomes that affects one ability to get a college degree. to be able to have a society where people can process information is a valuable society. similarly, we talk about household structure leading to

economic outcomes. maybe it's economic resources that lead to household structure. right. maybe it's having properly resourced people that leads to the ability to love in and of itself in a healthy, adequate way. >> yeah, i think that -- [ applause ] -- i think that's what some of the learning was and what mayor tubs talked about earlier where folks now had the money to say, i'm going to go to the movies and something just that we maybe take for granted, but being able to actually say, what movie do you want to see and have a conversation in your household where you maybe wouldn't of had one before and that you're building those relationships that we take so much for granted and then you were talking and there's a study that was done that looked at, you know, first generation young people going to college, right. and the impact on their mental

health and physical well being and their blood pressure was up and they were stressed out because the pressure of having to be the first one in your family to go to college actually put more on them physically. so these other things that we're add to go and asking folks to do or even to be in space to represent a body, not just your family, but a whole demographic of people and that wait of whether or not you succeed comes from the folks who succeed. as we have these conversations, as we move this work, first and foremost, i want to ask everyone to give another round to dr. hamilton.

>> chair: this meeting will come to order. this is the november 10, 2021, budget and finance meeting. i am joined by the committee members. i want to thank our clerk and those from sfgov tv for broadcasting these announcements. >> the minutes will reflect that committee members participated in this meeting through video conference to the same extent as physically present. the city services are essential. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda on the channels and on the tv station. we are streaming the public call-in number