tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 17, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
was even much smaller than central market and the shift to growth receipts, at the time, we projected, you know, 1500 to 2,000 jobs might have been created as a result of that switch after it phased-in after 20 years, and we still have a payroll tax that is 25% of what it was and we only just finished phasing it in. i would say those three proposals, which i would agree are the three biggest things this city has done probably had relatively little impact on most of what we are talking about what have happened had we taken those policies or not. >> thank you. just to clarify, i was asking what your assessment was on the impact, not on the overall economic growth of san francisco over the past 15 years, but just astounding growth of the tech sector. you said by more than 500%.
that has taken our economy to the point where they are dominating the economy at this point. do you feel like these tax breaks and the tax changes were really directly or indirectly on target to growing the tech sector and played a role in that and were they successful? >> i don't think they played a great role because the amount of savings they generated to the tech sector as a whole is relatively small in the context of the growth. for example, again, i think we founded all of the tax exclusions that were taken over the years of the central market amounted to about $70 million. that sounds like a lot of money in the context of the city's budget, but in the context of one hundreds of the 5 billion-dollar economy, who is fastest-growing, that is the tech sector. it is not very large in the context of the growth of that
sector at that time. what exactly were the tipping points and what changes in san francisco you maybe would see in 2,010 or 2,011, in that period, something is happening and i can't put my finger on it, but it would be hard to attribute it to city policies just given the size of those policies relative to the size of the economic changes that we saw. i think that is my only reason for being hesitant in saying it probably wasn't that because the amount of tax savings were talking about simply wasn't that great. >> okay. i appreciate that. i had a follow-up question. were the other sectors of our economy, nontech sectors that had a converse experience during this period? in other words, other sectors that did not benefit as much from tax breaks or tax policy that we enacted, and also, as a
result they have seen a declining role in our economy. >> one of the features that we had seen kind of consistently year-over-year this decade is essentially every sector of the city's economy adding jobs, even up to the most recent years, but the tech sector, and in the last couple of years, construction, growing much faster then the rest. we have seen the tech sector -- this trend is showing it growing three times faster then the rest of the economy, but one of the things that is interesting, it hasn't led to the absolute loss of jobs in other sectors. even sectors that had historically been fairly weak in san francisco like the manufacturing sector, have grown this decade and retail has grown this decade, and wholesale trade has grown this decade. none of them has grown as fast as the tech sector, but they have all grown. as for their role in the city's
tax policies, i don't know of any tax policies similar to the central market or prei.p.o. stock compensation exclusion that sort of directly tries to solve the tax problems of those other sectors, but there was some winners other then the tax sector in the switch to gross receipt. again, i would say in the context of this side of the city 's economy, the city's tax changes probably also had a fairly small role in explaining why manufacturing or why other sectors grew as they did during this decade, but it is clearly true that the growth of the tech sector has led to growth across the board that has been associated with growth across the board in other sectors, just not at the same rate. >> thank you. i guess maybe a more specific question, which industries or sectors, you know, had a
significant decline in their role in our economy during this period that the tech sector increased by more than 500% in their own economy? >> if by rolling the economy you mean which share of the jobs in the city do they comprise, i would say probably most of them declined as a share when one is going from 5% to 15% of jobs. i don't think any other sector that i can think of increased its share in quite that way, but i would have to go back and look at the industry by industry statistics to give you a meaningful answer. >> okay. actually, i just had one other question regarding slides eight, nine, and ten where you sort of present an analysis that over the past 15 years, this tech boom that has been playing out
has somehow had a trickle down positive impact on everybody else in terms of increasing income, after housing costs, and reducing how didn't -- housing burdens for low income and moderate and middle income residents. so i just wanted to -- i find that, you know, kind of surprising, and i was just wondering, if your analysis accounts for the rapid displacement of low income, working-class and middle-class people in our city, and how the population in the city has changed, so perhaps it is not really reflective of the real economic improvements for long-term residents, and in fact , reflects the influx of highly paid workers into our city. >> certainly there has been an influx of highly paid workers into the city, and i would say
that this chart, which both summarizes the point that you were making, is speaking to households where working in the labor force, and that is not everyone in the city. i would say that there are other slides that i didn't want to include in this presentation that could have elaborated on this point. another long-standing trend of the city's economy is the disproportionate or the greater likelihood for a low income person to move out of san francisco or to be evicted and forced to move out of san francisco compared to someone who has higher income. the senses now does give you a way to track that from year-to-year, and so i looked at that. i didn't put it into this report it has grown a little bit. it hasn't grown very much. there is still roughly twice the likelihood -- of the
outmigration rate of low-income people his twice to what it is for upper income people, but as far back as i have data, it has been that way. it is not something that has progressively gotten worse this decade. the census bureau has also tracked income inequality, the gini index, which is the most common indicator of income inequality. so i looked at that as well. that is also not significantly rising in san francisco this decade. i know you have seen research that suggests income inequality that there are some indicators that suggest it is growing rapidly, indicated that is reported by the census doesn't necessarily show that, so i think that a lot of what you're talking about our long-term trends that we have seen in san francisco. they have accelerated a little bit this decade but not dramatically. again, i can show you more information about that that i didn't put in this report. >> thank you. actually, i did have one final question around the revenue projection that you came up with
for the stock compensation tax. could you just explain again how you came up with the 50 million-dollar lower limit of the tax and does this mean that in a year, without major i.p.o.s , and lower revenues, we can still expect at least $50 million in tax revenue from the stock condensation tax? >> the wide range is due to the fact that both that we think the revenue is kind of intrinsically volatile, otherwise the tax base will change a lot from one year to the next, and also that we don't really know what it is because we can't directly observe it. i got that revenue estimate by comparing two different federal economic surveys that measure compensation to workers in san francisco. one that includes stock-based compensation and when that does not include stock-based compensation. if you look at the difference between those two, and assume that it is all due to something that would be taxed under your
proposal, that amounts to about ten to 30% depending on the year of the total compensation base in the city, so i don't think that is the world his greatest estimation method, but it is the best we could do given the lack of statistics on it. to answer your question, i would say that 50 million is likely the low-end during a bad year, but i would attach a copy because -- i would attach a caveat because we are directly not able to observe this. >> thank you. >> supervisor mandelman, did you have a comment or question? >> i sort of had the same ceiling about the charts showing improvement in the housing experience of san franciscans in terms of how rent burdens or how the cost burden -- how cost burdened they are. i still have the same reaction a supervisor mar. on the other hand, what i think what you might be saying is
there is this long-term displacement trend maybe going back 20 plus years, and that what has happened in the last five to ten years may have modestly accelerated that, but that the trend predated that. >> i'm able to look at the trend back to 2006 and the trend i am referring to here is the outmigration rate of people who make less than $70,000 a year. it grew in the last couple of years that we had the data, but not by a dramatic amount, maybe from eight% to 9% or something like that. that is a higher number than significantly number -- six significantly higher number then the percentage of affluent people who would san francisco. i mean, i think everyone understands that for its benefits, rent control is not a perfect affordable housing solution, and if you are a rent control -- of a rent controlled apartment doesn't work for you and you have a gap between what
you are paying, what you can afford, and what the market is, that is a trigger to outmigration. when you look at the data, there were very clear triggers like the expansion of the size of the household. it is something that is associated with people moving out of san francisco in the next year. it is associated with income, and with demographics. it just doesn't seem that as you say, it has gotten particularly worse or extremely worse in the past few years. >> the other thing i wanted to look at a little bit was the idea that the whole economy has grown, which not that that isn't true, and not that all these different sectors have been periods -- experience increases, there has been a relative rearrangement in shares, but there has been growth throughout the economy, which we would expect of a growing population and increased economic activity. i do remember that when we had that hearing on the anticipated
i.p.o.s, but there was, maybe a decline in some way or in some worker category that there were some workers who were doing less well through the change of the last ten years, that there were workers, in particular economic sectors, that were not sharing the benefits in the same way. >> that may have been from the b.l.a.'s presentation. but it is true that if you look at the income growth, in other words, this growth of per capita income is an aggregated number that does not reflect everyone, and there is great variation among the sectors in terms of where the wage growth is. it is kind of like the san francisco rent story in that the people who have the occupations in the industries that had the highest wages at the start of the decade had the highest wage gains including stock-based compensation during this decade. i don't want to give the impression that there has been
an equality in wage gains, all i'm saying is when i look at what the census tells us our income inequality is, it has not grown very much, and i cannot give you a perfect answer to that, but i couldn't -- i could see why people would look at that and say income inequality must be growing, you have low income workers whose wages are barely growing and in keeping up with inflation, and you have highly paid workers who are getting 10% or more increases a year. i think both of those things are true. >> all right. thank you. >> any questions or comments? >> i did have some further remarks. >> sure. first would we like to take -- there is no b.l.a. report on this so would you like to take public comment on this first? >> if i could make just finish my remarks before public comment
i would appreciate that. thank you so much. again, as i mentioned, i am going to be requesting that the stock compensation tax as introduced as being heard at this committee be tabled, and i am planning to reintroduce a new version for the november 2020 ballot in the coming weeks. i just wanted to add that. we are excited to bring the stock compensation tax to the voters of san francisco in november 2020. it allows us to focus this year on the $600,000,000.40 will housing bonds and also the tee and c. tax. it also allows us, as a coalition, to develop a comprehensive revenue and tax reform package where the stock compensation tax is but one part i.p.o.s exacerbate these crises, but they do not cause them. by making this proposal part of a longer-term, a more
comprehensive strategy to address economic inequality, we can more effectively and responsibly tackle the long-term challenges facing our city with long-term solutions. san francisco needs a strategy to address economic inequality at the scale of the crisis. it must center and include the people most impacted, community and labor. it is our movement, not corporate giveaways, and trickle-down policies that led -- that lead to economic justice today, i'm excited to announce the convening of the shared prosperity coalition, including the labor and community groups that we have worked with to develop the proposal. coalition members include the san francisco labor council, jobs with justice, san francisco rising, the chinese progressive association, bright line defence , and faith in action. together, this coalition will convene around shared goals and principles of true economic fairness, including a just tax
system and equitable revenue measures. the coalition will spend the next year developing a comprehensive strategy to address the root issues of economic inequality in our city, and finally, with this coalition , we will review and recommend changes to our tax code centred on economic fairness and equity, examine what true prosperity for all looks like, and what we need to get there and take comprehensive actions to do so. i want to thank the deputy city attorney for their work on this initiative. ted egan for developing the revenue projections, on and my colleagues for your support. i especially want to our shared prosperity partners who worked with us to develop this initiative and who are excited to work with us in the year
ahead on a broader plan under address economic inequality. the san francisco labor council, jobs in justice, san francisco rising, the chinese progressive association, faith in action and bright line defence. together we will work towards a san francisco for all where our economy works for working people where corporations pay their fair share. where everyday people get a fair shake and where we are defined by our ambition and vision for equality, not by crises fuelled by a runaway wealth cap. thank you. >> thank you very much. so let's open this up for public comment now. i will call out the names. sophie sam, felicia angular,... >> hello. name is muriel and i am here with faith in action. i have grown up in this city and have seen many changes throughout the years.
what i see happening right now is the city does have great wealth, but those who are profiting from the wealth are not the families who work two or three jobs every day to survive, that the c.e.o.s and executives of major corporations and tech companies -- the low income and middle income families who are truly the heart of this city are having to leave. small businesses, many of whom have spent their lives building their businesses are being shut out. this is immoral, to say the least. the low and middle income families have paid their dues and it is now time for the corporations and tech companies to do the same. i come before you today to ask
that the corporations and tech companies, with your help, close the loopholes that enrich their profiting greed, and i ask that you support supervisor mar's proposal. thank you. >> thank thank you. next speaker please. >> first of all, i want to let you know that the treatment that twitter and a minimum of nine other high-tech companies got, and why y. bio why bio -- one biotech company got, multi my million dollars of tax-free money from the city and county of san francisco, it is called tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud, and mail fraud. okay, you are in violation of the rico act and you are eligible for about 20 years in the federal god damn penitentiary. when i complete my thesis, i'm going to the internal revenues and i am filing my complaint with the inspector general. so to make sure that don't happen again, this has got to
stop at this level, and what mar is doing is true and correct. if i had a speaker appear in the witness stand, i would be ripping him apart. for example, his own documentation, he justified how he is doing nothing but benefiting high income bracket people and i'm tired of having people in very low and low income bracket people that is not being able to defend themselves because of people like you. s.f. viewer, please. for example, he claims that 55 -- $55,000 a year is the cost for all occupations. you're not including the incomes of people who are below $55,000 a year. so they are not included in your figures, so you're cooking the books. you figures are not legitimate. if i had you on the witness stand in front of a judge, i would impeach your testimony and your demonstration and right about write about here where you say rent reddens have declined, you are a god liar. read -- rent burdens have
decreased and cause people to lose their homes. as you can see, your own evidence here, what is this here i don't have that up on the screen. stopped my time. back my time up. that is not what i put up there. come get your information off the computer system. now you must at my demonstration can i get my time started over, please? you only have one minute on there. start my time over because you messed up my demonstration. >> how much was left on the time >> there is nothing there but a minute. i want my full two minutes to get the impact of my demonstrated experience to prove how people are being violated and how the city is being
undermined it. >> mr. wright, you had one minute already, we have stopped the clock. this is now your demonstration that you're putting up on the s.f. viewer? >> why don't always get violated when it comes to my speech. i want to go back to my first demonstration to highlight what i was talking about that wasn't on the screen. i want to start it started at my two minutes. >> you already had one minute mr. wright. mr. wright, if we have questions , we will be able to extend your time, but we'll put the clock on for one minute. >> rent burdens have declined since the recession, he is a god damn liar. rent burdens have increased because we never had a situation where rent decreases. and by the same response, the
people who are not in occupations of high-tech companies, are not getting the salary increase is equal to the high-tech companies and the a.m.i. is based on the income coming from the high-tech companies. i would impeach this document, too, because not including the incomes of the people whose income is below 55% of the median and the people who are homeless on the street. this other demonstration where you say rents have grown 40% faster in the state, that document contradicts your demonstration right there alone. you said it is stable, but yet it has grown 40% faster in the state, and the people who are economically disadvantaged and not getting a salary increase, can't keep up with this 40% increase in expenses. [indiscernible] >> madame chair, the speaker's time has closed. >> mr. wright, your time is up.
i do have a question for you. you're claiming that the chief economist is not being truthful around the rent burden on your claim is that actually there is much more rent burden than what the chief economist is saying. is that correct? >> yes, he is pathologically lying. if the rent is the same -- >> mr. wright, so we do not really appreciate a personal attack on -- >> it is not a personal attack -- >> -- we do not call names here, so let's just speak to the facts what you are asserting is that, actually what our chief economist has said, that people are more rent burdens than what he is claiming. i want to ask you, from your personal experience, share your personal experience with us about people you know or what you are hearing on the streets about the rent burden that people are suffering under.
>> here. the first speaker who spoke, the female, her demonstration is right in front of your face and pertains to it. the 801,100 homeless people on the streets, who can't afford to get an apartment, have to settle for a shelter and a navigation center that center that they can't get in. it is clear clear-cut and preponderant so they can't afford rents in the city. for him to say that everything is working out, and his testimony right here, s.f. viewer, right here where it says , for example, san francisco households whose highest paid members work in production have only an average of 55 -- $55,000 per year after household costs, you do not include the incomes that is below this 55,000. you are actually cooking the books and your presentation on your demonstration is false, and
not credible, and effective, because you not including the most vulnerable people that are in the city, the don't even have houses. you are not giving a true measurement. >> thank you very much, mr. wright. i thank you have major point to us today. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is benjamin peterson and i'm speaking on behalf of jobs with justice. i'm here to express mine and jobs with justice's support of the i.p.o. tax as we feel it is a positive step towards combating runaway wealth and income inequality that we are experiencing in san francisco. the influx of wealth brought upon by i.p.o.s will only put additional pressure on san francisco's working-class communities in a time of major economic strife and unprecedented levels of displacement. the same folks are most at risk of displacement are the very same people who provide labor that san francisco relies on, and more importantly, make up
the social fabric of our city. i'm sure everyone in this room can think of at least one person or a loved one who has experienced a similar fate. the i.p.o. tax is already very popular, but after extensive conversations with voters, residence, and business owners, we have noticed an overwhelming demand to expand the reach of the tax and broaden the range of issues that the tax's revenue what address. this is why we believe attacks should be placed on the 2020 ballot and it will give us time to be responsive to those are demanding reform that not only combats the systems of economic inequality, but its root causes, as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am working with s.f. rising and jobs with justice.
i was born and raised in san francisco. i have grown up in in the sfusd school district, and with all the money that is in the city and that is in our city, our public services aren't even that well-funded. i have seen sony families get out of the city. i have seen so many of my friends get priced out of the city. it is ridiculous to see this. my first elementary school that i went to in the school district was shut down when i was in the second grade due to budget cuts, and my classes have always been packed in the sfusd school district. we never had enough room for all the students that were in the classrooms. in my high school, our teachers didn't even have the supplies they needed. they were expected to have their own supplies with the low salaries that they had, and i know that this issue pertains today because of my family members, and also my friends that are still in the sfusd school district. it is ironic that in the city we have so many billionaires, what we have so many homeless people, as well. the i.p.o. tax helps so few
people, but when you tax the i.p.o.s, it helps so many more people, and also it can change the economic and social gaps that are being created as i.p.o.s go through. people are becoming billionaires and millionaires overnight due to i.p.o.s. everything that is happening a struggle for people in the city and it drives out small businesses. as was mentioned, low income and people of color. i would like to finish off saying please support the i.p.o. tax. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. i was not born here. my name is jeremy king, i am part of the episcopal church and work and i am part of faith in action.
i have not been here long, two and a half years, and in that time, people keep asking me whether i like it here. my answer is always yes, but it is also qualified as this city has major challenges. i love the beauty of our setting , the bay, the beaches, even the fog. i hate to the misery i see among those forced into homelessness or forced to leave. i am mauled by the creativity, the innovation and the surge in our universities and tech companies, and i am horrified by the effects of the chasm between the rich and the poor, however, it is increasing. while i have not been here long, the community i serve has been. we have been there 150 years in the mission since the beginning of this city. we have seen our communities flourish and we have weathered many storms. through it all, my faith tradition always commits ourselves to seek the dignity of every human being and seek justice.
we pray that all may seek the common good. that is not the same as the greater good, where some can flourish of the cost of others, where those who suffer are seen as some sort of collateral were left out of the discussion entirely. we seek the common good. we all have -- where will all will have enough to meet their needs. it seems to me just that the share of the vast sums released into our city, our i.p.o.s and related schemes, might be used for the common good of all the people of our city and its environment. thank you for your work on this important matter. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. i am a pastor at first mennonite church of san francisco and i live in the mission. i'm also a leader with faith in action. this sunday, i am preaching from the book of amos, and you are welcome to come, everyone is welcome to come, where the
prophet gives warning to those who trample on the needy and bring ruin to the poor. he is mad because the wealthy are turning everything into a commodity and using false measures to turn a profit. as a pastor in san francisco, it is sadly quite easy to make the connections to what is happening today. in a way, it has been happening here since the 17 hundreds, way more than three decades ago. it has been happening to those who are not in the owning class. first in the name of the spanish mission to exploit the people inland, then in the name of the united states, later in the name of urban renewal in ridding the city of blight, and now in the name of capitalism. you do not need to believe in god to see that the market forces of capitalism are destroying this city, -- at an alarming rate. you do not need to be a person of faith to recognize it is immoral to allow market forces to determine our future. and the warning from the prophet amos is not just for jews and christians to heed, it is for
any group seeking to create a just society where the working poor are treated with dignity and unbridled wealth and accumulation are seen for the evil that it is. i believe that even in this place steve in centuries of exploitation and displacement, that the spirit of life can still bring about transformation the question has always been there for leaders in san francisco. will they bow to the evils of death and displacement or will they be on the side of dignity, life, and spirit? thank you for your work. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is felicia. i am a student organizer with s.f. rising and in the work that we do this summer, i have been talking to a lot of constituents and a lot of them live in the mission, and one conversation i had that really struck me was that someone told me that, you know, they just got married, they are happy, and they want to start a family, but because of
the cost of living in san francisco, they are literally putting off their futures. they're literally putting off creating the family that they want. that really struck me because family, a future, happiness and love should not be something that can only be enjoyed by the people who have the means to enjoy it, to pursue it and that is something i am seeing in san francisco. you have heard a lot about the wealth inequality, you have heard a lot about how this wealth inequality creates a housing crisis, and i just want to reiterate that corporations are helping exacerbate this and they should be paying an adequate share to deal with the crises that they have helped cause. short and sweet, i am done, but please support the i.p.o. tax and help create more equality and equity in san francisco. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hi there.
i am a third-generation san franciscan, grateful to still be here. i organize the san francisco rising, a local electoral alliance and i organized with college students at s. of state and city college. college. many of whom are paying $800 to share a room, many of whom are working three jobs, you know, they are spending more time working than actually studying and being in class, and collectively we are working on another tax to actually tax the wealthy, to make college free again in california and it's really interesting to talk to them and try and grasp what a billionaire means. i tell them that, you know, a million inches is 16 miles, that is from here to richmond, california. if you add three zeros, a billion inches would be 16,000 miles, which i try to calculate in some measure that actually makes sense, and it is actually further than from here to antarctica.
twenty think about conceptualizing what a billionaire actually is and know that, you know, they only got there through a structure of a peer amid, to the structure of exploitation of people of color and working-class people, it is important to know that it is the root of so many of our issues in terms of the health and livelihood of the majority of people in society. so i just want to encourage you to place this i.p.o. tax on the ballot because morally, this is what we should be doing, is -- one of my favorite authors talks about how -- his job right now should be to ensure there is never enough -- and never another jeff baze owes. we need to be doing everything we can to limit what corporations are doing to everyone else. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. my name is michelle and i work with mission hiring call.
i would like to support this i.p.o. tax in the workforce. the compensation tax could provide funds needed for extensive and in-depth services needed to develop residents that have been left behind these areas of the workforce. with unemployment being so low, under 2%, that 2% quickly climbs for a certain population in our community, be it in bayview hunter's point or the tenderloin , or western edition. usually this population holds the hard to employ, and with workforce funding being as it is now, the efforts are to quickly train and get folks in sustainable jobs, but what about folks who are experiencing barriers that need extensive services to help them get on the path to be able to even go to work? so as we support this, we would like -- and as we think about sharing prosperity in this city, we would like to encourage you to think about this population.
thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, my name is lucy and i am a current intern at the chinese progressive association in san francisco and i have been organizing the summer with chinatown syndrome occupancy tenants and workers. through my experience, the families and community members that i work with constantly face housing insecurity as a result of rising housing costs because of the influx of millionaires due to i.p.o.s, which is compounded by -- also, a someone who grew up in the south bay in santa clara county, in a low-income household, i have also undergone some struggles with the folks that i work with and have been threatened by displacement due to rising housing costs as a result of the tech industry. i support placing the i.p.o. tax on the 2020 ballot because not
only is it the first step towards creating a more economically equitable city for chinatown residents in low-income communities of color, it also serves as a model that my own town can follow to combat any inequality in my community. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, i'm sophie and i make college organizer with a chinese progressive association. i currently work with many youth of color, especially asian youth that come through our youth organizing program. our youth and their families are mainly low and middle income families who have seen the rampant and increasing income inequality, displacement, gentrification, and underfunded resources all over the city. i support placing the i.p.o. tax on the 2020 ballot because the youth i work with our youth organizers and activists that have to go to school, but also fighting for the resources they in their community need. the youth i work with have jobs in high school in order to help
keep their families afloat and arent is constantly increasing. many of our youth are part of families that are four or more, but live in single room occupancy households. even as affordable housing is constantly being built all over the city. these housings are often only affordable to high income people and families. i support placing the i.p.o. tax on the 2020 ballot in order to address income inequality. the taxes allow money from high earning people and companies whose expansion and occupation in san francisco are gentrifying and displacing people all over san francisco. to be allocated towards funding social services that are so crucial and needed for all low income folks throughout the city thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. i am with bright line defence. we have heard astonishing numbers in this hearing, the massive growth in the tech industry, 500%. i think this is not asking for a lot, just to be able to share in
prosperity and restore an older tax structure that existed prior to 2011. in fact, multiple tax rings were also given during the recession to try to encourage the growth of this industry, which only indicates -- san francisco has become a victim of its own success. the city is awash in wealth. another astonishing statistic was $175 billion of wealth resides in the city, and constantly, a lot of issues were made of the $20 billion budget that exists at city government. if you just talk with individual , low to moderate income workers, i thank you will be hard-pressed to find happy stories about living in san francisco. constantly there are refrains about the high cost of living, the quality of living going down and listening to the service provider perspective, burst -- particularly on workforce development, is very important. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am here with san francisco rising.
on monday, along with bay resistance, and other labor allies, we helped organize a protest at amazon headquarters to hold them accountable to the ways that they are impacting communities here, particularly immigrant communities and working with and collaborating with i.c.e. we are here today with similar values in mind, and making sure that these large companies and corporations are really investing and accountable to the residents of san francisco. for that reason, we support and i.p.o. tax on companies such as pinterest, and uber and others to make sure that the vulnerable residents of this city are able to gain some of the benefits of having these large corporations in such close proximity to them. we recognize that as these companies i.p.o., their c.e.o.s and executives are expected to become overnight millionaires, many of them already have, and we are expecting an increase of
about 6,000 millionaires to san francisco alone, driving at the cost of housing and disproportionately impacting low income and communities of color in the city. so we have talked to many city voters and asked them about this issue, and most people agree that the i.p.o. tax is needed in this moment and placing the i.p.o. tax on the 2020 ballot will help us support the city's families and communities and really give them the support that they need to survive in this city. thank you so much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is teresa rutherford. i represent 1021 and just to say , first of all, we support the i.p.o. initiative and we are definitely behind it for 2020. we would also like to highlight that, you know, as a labor organization, we see the disparities, we experienced the
disparities of our members and the way they are harmed by not being able to live where they work. we see how our members struggle, many of our members sleep in cars, many of our members sleep on people's couches to be able to support the city, to be able to take care and provide goods and services to the city. we, as an organization, a labor organization, also believe that every worker is entitled to dignity, every worker must be able to live where they work if they so choose. that is not the case in san francisco, one of the richest cities in the world. we see the disparities that ordinary people can no longer live here. we see the outmigration. so we are saying that the i.p.o. tax creates that resource that allows ordinary san franciscans, the people who work and build this city, to live here, so we
are supportive of this and we are saying that it is the right thing. that corporate organizations must give back to the cities where they live, where they work , where they utilize the resources and the infrastructure they cannot take. they have to give because they did not build the structure, they came and tried and built a wealth on the structure, on the name, and so they have a fiduciary responsibility, they have a corporate responsibility to give back to the places where they build their wealth. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. my name is norm and i am proud to serve as the chapter president of the asian pacific american labor alliance. i am a third-generation native san franciscan. both my boys attended wallenberg high school and graduated from there and have done well, but
here is the problem. one of them, he basically majored in economics, and he, himself, has asked the question, dad, i'm not sure i can afford to live and stay and work in san francisco. it is my home. so what i'm saying right now to you is we support this tax, but more importantly, let's protect native san franciscans. please do the right thing. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am a staff person with local 1021 and a resident here in san francisco. i'm here to speak today on support of placing the i.p.o. tax on the 2020 ballot and i
support this because instead of creating a city where everyone can thrive, all we -- only c.e.o.s and corporate executives are getting richer while ordinary people are stuck with the bill and struggle with underfunded schools, a broken safety net, and lack of funding for vital public services. voters want corporations to pay their fair share and two for city hall to close the loopholes that help corporations avoid -- continue to avoid investing in the communities that call san francisco home. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, supervisors. we wanted to thank supervisor marr and his staff for giving the time and attention to this ballot measure that it deserves. taxes are one of the most fundamental policy tolls that -- tools that this body has an income inequality is one of the most important issues that this city faces.
it is both appropriate and wise to bring those two together. the business community wants to be a productive and positive partner with the board of supervisors on these issues. we would love to be part of the conversation. it is important we feel like we can be there at the start of the conversation. so as supervisor marr, the board of supervisors, in the city controller continues these tax conversations into the 2020 budget and beyond, we look forward to working with all of these bodies very closely in a productive and positive way. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, fellow american citizens. my name is kathleen wells. i am the national executive entrepreneur. i am in favor and i move that the united states constitution with the bill of rights is immediately applied in the city and county of san francisco to protect the people's rights, the legal and ordained documents
protects people, not corporations and banks. now this is my life's work. i spent my entire life dealing with these subjects that you have been talking about today, but to give you perspective about the asset hyperinflation which has happened, which has unconstitutionally eliminated the right to choose, a place to live, or even a prosperity path, and the wage suppression which has occurred, and in 1971, dr. william mount, who was a dr. he5 an hour to have the same equivalent purchasing power of that 15-dollar an hour wage from 1971, you would have to make $86 an hour by today's standards. a loaf of bread in 1971 was 33 cents. that same loaf of bread is now $6. at this rate, under the current federal reserve dictatorship and their promotion of their policy
for the current status and the policy of genocide, you have thousands of people in the street who are homeless and so they have had their housing stolen. i have -- i have a solution to these problems. i need to talk to each and everyone of you. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item before i close public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor marr, did you have any comments? >> thank you. i just wanted to thank everyone who came out to speak today, especially that community faith-based and labor organizers and advocates and also thank you for all that you do on going to ensure that san francisco continues to be a place where everyone, not just the super wealthy, is able to live, to work, to raise a family, to study, and to retire with dignity into the future. i look forward to working with
you all through the shared prosperity coalition and as well as with other stakeholders including the business community and my colleagues here on the board to move the stock compensation tax forward on the november 2020 ballot as one key part of a comprehensive package of revenue and tax reform policies. that can ensure and foster more economic fairness and equity here in our city. thank you. >> thank you. your request as we table item 14 , so moved. i think we can take that without objection. thank you. please call the next item. >> item 15 is an ordinance -- is a motion submitted to the borders -- voters to be held on november 5th amending the business and tax code and administrative an administrative code to impose a tax on the net writer fares for rides facilitated by commercial rideshare companies and rights provided by autonomous vehicles
and private transit services, vehicles to fund transportation operations and infrastructure for traffic congestion mitigation and in the city. >> thank you. supervisor peskin? >> thank you. thank you for adopting the amendments i submitted last week i want to think mayor breed who is now the chief sponsor by virtue of the fact that she is the mayor, as well as all of the members of the board to our cosponsors which are about to include every single member of the board because supervisor marr has generously agreed to sign on as well. so that makes 11 out of 11. i would like to reiterate my thanks to my chief of staff for her tireless work on this over two years, as well as the deputy city attorney, amanda freed from
the tax collector's office. we will hear shortly from ted egan around administered -- administer ability. i want to thank her because it is indeed easy to administer and i also, as i said at last week's hearing want to acknowledge the tee and c. companies themselves for coming to the table to come up with the tax that is before us. as i said last week, this came out of mayor lee and my office's convening of the transportation task force. it was one of the recommendations. some of them we have already implement it from new sources of revenue to address the total of 27 billion-dollar needs that has been identified between now and the year 2045. this would be a proverbial drop in that bucket, as you know.
the controller has given us a memorandum saying this would raise 32 or $35 million per year i also want to think something member taking who sponsored the ability to reaffirm our authority to levy a tax to raise revenue for tn sees. it proceeded our local drafting of the measure that is before you today. the goals are very simple. this is a traffic congestion mitigation tax and we all know that up there with homelessness and housing affordability, it is a top concern of the people of san francisco, and while we can't regulate or t. and c. vehicle traffic because of state preemption, we all know the numbers that we got from the san francisco county transportation
authority, indicating that as much as 50% of the increase on traffic on our roadways in the last several years as a result of transportation network vehicles. if we want to get people out of our vehicles and lined up with the transit first city committee , we have to fund transportation for the growing city and as well as pedestrian safety and vision zero infrastructure, and this measure would do just that. the second legislative digest i think sums it up. this would impose a tax effective january 2020 if approved by the voters this november on commercial rideshare companies in the amount of 3.2 5% of the passenger fare attributable to the city, which means generally that the distance travelled in the city, that would be one point 5%. i