tv [untitled] October 9, 2011 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT
they are limited to pretty much what we can convey to them at the kiosk. but we will have safety information available. helmets is not something you brought up. home and use one not be required for this system. it is not really practical. people who rent bicycles usually rent elements as well, but there is a person there to make sure that the helmet fits, that it is not damaged. short of a vending machine, which could be in development, there is not really a practical way to do it. i think people would be reluctant to put on a home and worn by so many other people. what has been done in other cities is members are offered -- they are steered to a local retailer for a helmet. you can buy a fully useful helmut for $6. it does not need to be an
expensive model. we will make them affordable for those that want to use them. to remark on the incident that happened on the embarcadero. my sense is the collision happened with someone at random and red light and ran into a pedestrian. i do not think that will be your typical bicycle sharing user. a phenomenon that we have seen worldwide, definitely in this country, again, counter intuitively come as the number of cyclists on city streets increase, safety also increases, and definitely in terms of the collision right. what we're also seeing in other cities is the number of overall collisions also go down in places where you have high bicycle youuse. by inviting more bicycles, you may think that we are inviting more trouble, but time and again, research out there has
proved what we call safety in numbers. >> my second question was, is it a first-come first-served or do you reserve? when you go to that station, when you punch whatever do at 80 am station, you have a code or something. how do you actually get the bite? >> i am sure technology exists to reserve the bikes, but my sense is a first-come, first- served basis. in terms of making sure they are available, when they're needed, peak times -- is literally a balancing act. i think we are fortunate to not be the first city rolling this out and we can learn from other cities. washington, d.c., for example,
after a successful rollout, the first wave of expansion was not about putting more bikes on the street, but more stations. we can learn from other cities. we will be hiring a vendor that had done this summer else, so they have all the experience that comes with that. a lot of it is just paying attention and acting quickly. >> any more questions? commissioners? thank you very much. a very exciting program. i am looking forward to the outcome. thank you. >> item 11. new business. >> is there any public comment on new business? >> item 12. public comment. >> we do have some speaker currents. curtis lynn. >> i represent some of the pier
38 tenants. we are trying to work with the port for a resolution of pier 38 issues to try to save the largest business and job incubator on the west coast. we would like to become the developer of pier 38. we would like to do the following. we would immediately repair all of the code and safety problems. we would deliver the required plans and proposals to the ports. we would enter into a long-term agreement with the port. and we would develop new maritime uses. we have experience, financial capability, and the business tenants, which means immediate income. we understand there are problems which include code and safety violations, pier apron
replacement, bcdc issues, the ada issues, and other issues. we would also consider repairing the 1.2 $5 million loan to the state department of waterways. -- $1.25 million loan to the state department of waterways. >> thank you. >> hello. i represent a lot of petitioners. i started a petition to save pier 38. when i started to mention that it was going to be close, it raised a lot of concern with people. they have been looking at pier 36 for a decade and they are murren that we are going to end up with another location like that. these are some of the questioner that the petitioners raised. there is a space where the
company used to occupy. that space, according to my knowledge, has been done with all of the permits, inspected by the port. the latest rumor i have heard is there are toxic gases trapped in the walls. can you answer what kind of gases you suspect? we had pg&e expect a place for gas leaks and other toxic gases. they could not find anything. another question is why did the port close the rolling door on the south side of the public access area? why did the port direct offenses on the north side to limit public access as well? another question i have is why the port has done absolutely nothing about safety problems in a timely matter. most of it is easy to fix. the original report came out on
august 16, 2011. town hall meetings took place september 11. notice of repairs came out on to the 212011 but the report patrician started to install on a september 26. why did it take 40 days, media attention? those immediate problems needed to be addressed. my question is, are we tenants on the waterfront a casualty of the legal problem that the port has? those are the questions that come up when i speak to petitioners' spirit it would be nice to have those questions answered. >> thank you. is there any other public comment?
way that the city, current and future employees share their pension and health-care benefits. it will adjust employee contributions to the retirement system based on the city's costs. reducing benefits for future employees. adjust cost of living adjustments. decrease the city contribution to retiree health care costs for certain former employees. require -- changed voting requirement of the health service board and require election officials to make the same contributions. there are two charter amendments regarding pensions. if voters approve both measures, only the one with the most votes will become law.
i am here with the executive director at the san francisco labor counsel, and a proponent of proposition c. thank you for being here. why do you support the proposition c? >> the public-sector unions have been working probably most of this year to sit down and find a way in order to save city services and jobs during these economic times. this involves sitting down with the mayor's office and coming down with a comprehensive chart -- coming up with a comprehensive chart on how to save billions of dollars in san francisco. it stops pension spikes, it adjusts the rates that people will be paying during good times and bad times. it really does save money. it is the consensus way of moving forward, it is supported by the board of supervisors, the mayor's office, and virtually
every public official. i am proud of the public-sector unions for putting the measure on the ballot. it is really going to save the city money. this has been done in ways that i have not seen anywhere else. people are just attacking public workers, and in san francisco, i take my hat off to the unions that are going to be sacrificing and going to be paying more into the city funds in order to save these jobs. there are going to be more moneys coming in. i could not be prouder and i am urging everyone to vote yes. i think this is a san francisco way of doing reform. we have done many things and we are urging everybody to vote yes to save over $1 billion and save cities of vergers -- city
services. >> this number is based on a 7.75% investment return that people feel as unrealistic. how would you address that marke? >> we have sat down with the civil service unions that have endorsed this measure. is about the cycles that we go through during bad economic times. they will be contributing more than they used to. we factored in all of these assumptions. the city is doing better, they won't have to pay quite as much. the san francisco way of sharing and moving forward, i will not get into the weeds. but we looked at the analysis of how the city budget works and
what types of numbers will be needed. >> it also changes the makeup of the health care board that dictate to the cost and availability of various health care options for current and former city employees. can you please address that issue? >> absolutely, this is controversial and no way that it should not be. the mayor's office, during the course of negotiations, wanted to place for appointments on the board that have only three participants. they just kept pounding us all the time and we absolutely said no. we don't need to change any of that. the mayor's office backed down and said, the fourth person gets to be nominated, but the
electives, there has to be a majority for that person to come in. they will have their voice because they do not like who the mayor and the comptroller have nominated. that is the only piece of controversy that i think a small group of retirees are really arguing about. there are some misconceptions. there are not for people that the mayor appoints. >> we will be discussing this measure with a proponent. and now, we are here with jerry, the vice chair of a group calle d pob, it stands for protect our benefits. >> i am actually representing about 3700 retirees.
they come from the san francisco unified school district, of the city, the court system. we have one thing in common, that is the health services system. nobody knows very much about. our health services handle the health services system. we see a change being proposed that would change how the health service and system is run. the comptroller has said that it would not. it would change who is on the board. it will take away one that is elected by the san francisco school system. we don't like that.
since reform was passed by the voters, it has been an effective model. we can go back to the past where we have problems with political influence, attempts to change things, bringing political favoritism in to the department. we like the status quo in this case, and we feel very concerned that the change will not be positive. >> what changes are you fearful of happening? >> that there will be a change in the health service board, the composition will be changed from four elected people and three appointees to be for appointees and if reelected.
-- four appointees and three elected. and elected by the system. then you have five people. at this point, it has worked extremely well. most decisions are unanimous. it will be an artificially induced split that will be a change in the composition. that is the major reaction. >> what we spoke with the executive director of the labor council the claim that the seventh appointee would come from the comptroller's office. how do you not believe that that provides protection for your membership?
>> where were the appointee comes from as a little bit different from being able to elect the person. the comptroller is himself an appointee of the mayor. so you have an appointee of the appointee, and a 60 day limit before they have to decide on who the person will be. otherwise, the appointee becomes the person automatically. it seems little unfair. the of us who are retirees were ever involved in any of these discussions. >> we hope that that was informative. please visit the web site at the league of women voters. and remember, early voting is
of proposition d on november's ballot. proposition d is a charter amendment that would change the way that the city, current and future employees share in funding. it will also require an elected officials to pay the same contribution rates as a city employees. it would increase retirement contribution rates for most current city employees based on city cost. for future city employees, and prohibit the city from paying any employee contributions. proposition c and d, if voters approve of measures, only the one with the most votes will
become law. >> i am here with the treasurer of the campaign and a former member -- why should voters vote for proposition d? >> it had its origin a year ago. the origin of proposition b started with a grand jury investigation of the retirement system in san francisco. i was a member and during those years, i worked with other members of the grand jury. we issued reports in 2010 and 2009 with the expectation that public officials to propose
legislation. there is only one public official that approached us and was willing to work on crafting legislation. and that was a public defender. 115,000 voted yes last year. a very strong constituency. we hope they will be back. the difference between proposition c and d is basically cost savings. d will save over $400 million over the next 10 years. prop d was crafted with exempting lowest paid city workers from any increase in contribution, at the rates that are part of proposition d are
progressive. proposition d is also a disruptive force in city politics. there is a very strong special- interest group that has fought against any pension reform in san francisco. that is later. we hope that they will look at it in a positive way. >> opponents argue that it was done not in a collaborative lateway. that it was done unilaterally. how do you address concerns? >> the origin of proposition b
and d was a civil grand jury investigation, a group of 19 residents of san francisco, who had a very diversified group of people representing unions, representing retired people, representing middle-class and minority groups. the fact that this is a criticism is not valid and the collaboration of the opposition talked about who was a collaboration for special interest groups. >> opponents have alleged that even if it is passed, it will be held up in court and perhaps not even implemented. how do you respond to concerns about proposition d? >> i read about prop c, 8225
page document that was totally incomprehensible to me. i am familiar with legal documents. the d measure is 25 pages, simple to understand. i fully expec tboth me -- expect both measures will be challenging. especially those that oppose proposition c, and there are many, it will be brought forward. >> up next, we will talk to an opponent of proposition d. i am here with the executive director of the san francisco labor council and an opponent of proposition d. why should voters voted against proposition d?
>> i was telling people why they should vote yes on measure c. d is the opposite way of the way people should be doing business. this is a scott walker wisconsin initiative. it was done with no input from the workers. it was financed by a key party republicans that have financed the this and got $5 a signature to put this on the ballot. none of the city workers were involved, it was unilaterally put on. it is the wisconsin way of doing things. it does not accomplish what is supposed to do. it is legally challengeable. i am asking everyone to vote because there will be legal challenges with what it purports to do.
>> proponents say it will save $400 million more than a proposition c. why should they not go with a measure that is going to save more money? >> the process was done without any input on those numbers. they are way over bloated in terms of the numbers, it probably does a little bit more money than what we did, but it was done by the same type of republicans that are attacking public workers and wisconsin, san jose, other areas around the country. it will not save that type of money. we worked with the city comptroller, we talked to workers, we had major analysis. everybody agrees, this is the way that the city will run better, it will save money and jobs.
yes on c commonality. -- no on d. >> the increments they used to determine a contribution are smaller >> is a bogus argument. people claymore during bad times and not so much in good times. it is sensitive to workers that make -- police and fire and up paying more. it was done with a thorough analysis of different employee organizations in the city. >> thank you so much, mr. paulson. for information about this and other ballot measures, go to the san francisco league of women voters website at sfvotes.com. early voting is