ultimately, abag will adopt these numbers. the jurisdiction will have their representatives advocate for them. commissioner wiener: is there any enforcement mechanism at all? >> we always ponder this question. enforcement tends to be more on the carrot side, which is where it will have -- why we have this delinking of the housing investment. the implication being if you are not doing these things, which you will see in our policy approach, if you did not provide your fair share of affordable housing, maybe you should not get as much maintenance funding this time around. other than that, i believe the state enforces -- they can bring a suit against communities, for example, that did not have the conforming housing element with the region. i am not sure what the actual consequences are. commissioner wiener: is this because how of their lack of space, the political reality? geary, we hope, is going to get brt, so there would be more transit capacity. -- vrt, so there would be more transit capacity. >> we have looked at some of th

how are they being treated by abag in terms of the regional housing allocation? lastly, it was not part of the presentation, and i apologize for not being familiar with the legislation, but all of the approvals were done on the regional level, according to the floater to have here. and suppose the only way we influenced it is to continue to be involved in the process. it does not look like things are inequitable. what kind of penalties are there? but if communities do not meet their targets? >> is more of a carrot than a stick. we are required to demonstrate that the land use plans are in accordance with the adopted plan in the region. you can use the alternative. in our community, and the other communities that are not doing the same planet everybody has talked about, or are not meeting responsibilities toward housing -- because it is ^ based, by not conforming, -- because it is carrot based, by not conforming, you do not get funding for transportation infrastructure projects. we hope it will include affordable housing funding. there are some very vague and unsu

it is a banner year for mtc, abag, and other organizations on this initiative. the planning commission will be meeting in january to give their input. there is a regular staff level -- directors working group planned. in terms of public outrage, we have mentioned this. -- out of reach, we have mentioned this. we anticipate doing town halls to get the word out and get people involved so they understand what this regional plan is about, how it relates to their county-wide plan and neighborhoods. here is a snapshot which tells the story of our advocacy. in terms of population, san francisco accounts for about 11% of the region. we account for 16% of the region's employment. however, portrait and, we account for 17%. however, when you contrast that with the amount of funding we received in the region, in the last our tepee, we had 9% of the local streets and roads money. we had 50% of the region's transit money compared to 68% of the trip ends that we carry. from a strictly numbers basis, we are letting them know that we are doing more than our fair share in terms o

a recent study from abag called "development without displacement" researches displacement effect in san francisco from 1996 through 2006. the data results were stunning. another is not time to cover all the data in there. there is information worth considering. one of the findings was that a replacement levels in areas that are considered high transit in san francisco have the highest rates of displacement. the communities that were being displaced were primarily lower income households. this chart shows a decline of 32% of low and very low income households and high transit areas. that is in six years, from 2000 to 2006, in san francisco. the study tracked by ethnicity and income where people were going. it found that is proportionately the population is being displaced were communities of color. there were being displaced to communities with poorer transit. the outcome of this process may be that although we continue to provide greater access to transit, lower income folks will have to drive in, and in essence generate more vehicle miles traveled. you do not seem maids, cooks, and

we have to relate that to some of the overall equity goals that are mandated by abag and everybody else, and it is not just enough to say, well, we're getting 50% below market rate, 85% is multimillion-dollar condominiums, and one-to-one parking, but you have to purchase a transit pass. that is a joke to me, and that is an insult my intelligence on so many levels. that is not your fault. maybe we should just are doing that. at the end of the day, we ought to just toss that card out. i don't know, it is just really frustrating for us, for me, to have to continue to shake my head and say, yes, transit oriented development because it is a high-rise next to a bart station, but it does not reach any of our goals as relates to equity and we did not have any analysis of how it ultimately attacks the committee's concerns and real workers who live in the city. for me, i will start asking more questions as they relate to equity and the impact of market. development. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i think mr. shoemaker brought up a good point, which was basically, show me the money.