>> sue hester. i had a case across the street, 543 howard st., about six years ago. you have these long entitlements that are just sitting there. it has an effect on neighbors. because people keep thinking there is going to be something happening. and i also had dealing with 48 tehama, but did not have as big an impact. the 524 howard street is a very visible site as you come off the freeway onto howard street at the transbay terminal. it did have a negative effect on the people across the street and the owners kicked out the entire building. that building has been since changed, 543 howard. but the department's staff has sat on this 22 years. i was at the original approval hearing in 1989. that is a long time. i was at the approval hearing in 1999. and here i am with it being buried, effectively, the approval. i would just say, in sensitive areas, and this area is pretty sensitive. this is transbay. people should not sit on things 20 years and the department should not sit on things 20 years. the history of me sending e-mail asking you to schedule this is lengthy. i

. >> sue hester. i did not speak at the last meeting because i wanted to read the language. i think this is an amendment that is in search of a reason. with the four supervisor rule allows is it allows a minority, or even a majority of get sometg enacted but-48 votes to override a mural of veto, and it may not be enacted. i was involved with two board of supervisors sponsored measures involved in the 1980's. one was dealing with open space. we had massively contentious hearings. but losing chinatown, open space sighed. we had massive contentious hearings about shadows on union square. these never got resolved. four supervisors put it on the ballot and resolved it. that. prop k in 1984 -- that was prop k in 1984. it enabled supervisors to avoid something were either the economic forces are so powerful or the mayor may threaten a veto. that was 1984. in 1986, prop m was put on the ballot. the issue for prop m was rationing the amount of office space. we head office boom and bust cycles in the 1970's and 1980's. we would approve $6 million in the market would be going, and it w

. >> sue hester, i appreciate the staff report, and i appreciate the recognition that one of the effects of prop m was to even out the boom bust cycles. that is one of the problems in san francisco. we have a boom or bust economy. we had it in housing, we had in the early 1980's when sfrg was forcing this on a very unwilling planning department. that is interesting to hear these updates. i would be interested in getting a copy of that chart you were just shown. but at some point, we have to recognize that we still have office development problems. we have shifted the location. when the downtown plan was it thought through all those many years, the guiding downtown buildings, the assumption was we were going to shift the office development segment to the immediate area south of market. when i say immediate, i mean the market to howard street. now if you look at where the offices are being developed, particularly the smaller buildings, their way far away from market street, -- they are way far away from market street. bart was the rationale. the increased capacity downtown and the increase

hester and all of you have pretty much outlined. so i feel we're in a strong position, not at all intimidated by making it clear that the expectation of the minimum of what they should be asking for. the transformational impact of the district or phenomenal. you do not have any idea, although we have the health commission standing side by side with us but the long-range effects are in health care delivery and equitable health care delivery for the city as a whole including all of us sitting in this room. i with an to commend the staff for an extremely good job today. for the first time i'm sitting here and all the questions to which i wanted like statistics, illustrations, comparisons, the way it is, the way it could be and what's in between, these questions are clearly and actually quite clearly answered. some of the things, until you see them explained as today, you don't fully understand because words can be interpreted a number of ways. the facts are here. and that is what we ultimately need to look at page by page relative to w

hester's they live fire to a police car you can see it burning there they vandalized your friends you see the thought out there now please documents that have been released and shared with his c.b.c. there the news source in canada show that officers were assigned to a covert team expressly for monitoring and infiltrating suspected extremist networks now they identified as these extremist networks anti-capitalist groups now that is how some of those protesters you see there would define themselves now they also have these forces and they have the mandate to use undercover officers and informants from within the ranks of protest networks to deter prevent investigate and disrupt threats to the summit now some has taken these documents as information to substantiate reports or speculation that agent provocateur has played a role in the black block vandalism that you saw there the lighting of police cars for example now one accusation is that this was to substantiate the one billion dollars spent on security which you heard alex jones my guest just say now i was on the ground reporting fr

c in n nn's political leader mark hester is present. >> reporter: he is very politically astute, butight. he had very major stumbles out of the gate with the launch of his campaign, but really what it came down to is the incompatibility between what his vision for the campaign was and what the hired guns he brought on to run the campaign thought it was. his senior staff had just quit in the last couple of days. they brought along a lot of key staffers. when you lose your senior campaign manager and strategists, your campaign goes awry. what we learned from newt gingrich is he had a different vision from what they were saying. he's going restart his campaign tomorrow. he'll be in los angeles tomorrow and attend an event for the jewish assembly. tomorrow he's be in. it has shocked everyone. >> what was the discrepancy in vision. what is gingrich's vision compared to those who are stepping down and where are we going to see them go? >> reporter: well, deb, what we're hearing from his aides is that newt gingrich was not committed to fund-raising. he wasn't committed to going out and maki

including john hester who is up for re-election next year. and his argument is if you take this 44 cents, and you sort of have a regulator setting a lower rate, that could hurt small banks, even though the legislation in the past specifically excludes institutions that have $10 billion or -- or that are worth less than $10 billion. they argue that that is not workable and would ultimately hurt small banks. host: first of all, 60 is the key number the senate needs for passage. this came up before with senator durbin getting 64 votes. and surprising the banking industry, which is leading to today's vote on the senate floor. and there have been a number of ads back and forth on the floor about this. this from the electronic payments coalition and this associated with the bank association. >> one decision here can set off a chain reaction. that's what happened when washington gave giant retailers a $12 billion payday. consumers may have to pay more for their debit cards. and who is left to pick up the pieces? you and me. read for yourself about h

including john hester who is up for re-election next year.nd his argument is if you take this 44 cents, and you sort of have a regulator setting a lower rate, that could hurt small banks, even though the legislation in the past specifically excludes institutions that have $10 billion or -- or that are worth less than $10 billion. they argue that that is not workable and would ultimately hurt small banks. host: first of all, 60 is the key number the senate needs for passage. this came up before with senator durbin getting 64 votes. and surprising the banking industry, which is leading to today's vote on the senate floor. and there have been a number of ads back and forth on the floor about this. this from the electronic payments coalition and this associated with the bank association. >> one decision here can set off a chain reaction. that's what happened when washington gave giant retailers a $12 billion payday. consumers may have to pay more for their debit cards. and who is left to pick up the pieces? you and me. read for yourself about how