tv [untitled] January 30, 2012 2:18am-2:48am PST
hell out of progressive movements in this country. as soon as i saw this legislation and what was called and what it was describing, i thought, wow. since when the san francisco get into this kind of divisive, vicious, right wing rhetoric about job-killing. i am sure the sponsors would claim it is more benign than that. i think it sets us down a path to start having that kind of discussion in san francisco around really key community and worker values. i am sure you have seen me get up before and argue vociferously to make sure that we get local hiring and other things to make sure that we are hiring more workers. this will not do this. this will get radical right- winger in the city a schtick with which to go into the media and beat on good things.
we should stop right here. supervisor kim: is there any other public comment at this time? >> yes. i know there are no more martin luther king's, but i was here recently for the lgbt oversight about people needing services. last week, i was here. this is something about jobs coming to the central market. people here have been cut for jobs creation. this man, they are telling us to come out and create jobs on market street. it says, "you are invited to a public hearing of the city. the know they are getting tax on central market? these give back to the community. on january 10, our voices need to be heard.
community benefits truly reflect our priorities and the tenderloin residents. it seems like this is bad because some people did not come in to create jobs, but there'll be a 24-hour business. on here, it is talking about that they are creating less jobs. we are not putting it all together. i know i am not a pink-bearded person, but if you add things up, it is time that we have the thought that no job is a job unless someone needs it. there are a lot of needs in the world. those are solutions to create jobs. i hope that we can bring this together. it seemed like -- it seems like we have a lot of communities coming together. san francisco is a special place.
we have the baby boomers, a lot of lgbt baby boomers who are looking for houses who cannot stay in a hotel. let's work together. supervisor kim: is there any other public -- public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, we do have some amendments. this will be continued to rules committee for thursday, february 2. any other comments? supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i want to thank the mayor's office for the presentation as well as the small business commission. and for all the members of the public, including small business owners and workers, labor partners who came to this hearing. let me say this -- i believe that there is agreement here that job creation is important and that is a priority. i do not think there is a
difference of opinion on that. i think that the question that i have as a member of this body is, what is the best way that we, as a city, can collectively work on that issue? i will respectfully submit that i do not believe that this kind of a measure is the best approach to do that. i do think that the mayor's office is coming from a good place. i office is trying to approach this in a way that leads to as many jobs being created. as we have heard here, and the mayor's office itself acknowledges, the number of jobs should not be the only focus. it is the quality of the jobs that are created. and the as important as the small business community is in making public policy in san francisco, there are many other stakeholders have to be at the table. certainly workers, but beyond
that, it is not just jobs. there are number of issues connected to jobs that have to be taken into account. health care is an important issue. it is directly connected to a job. does that mean matter should go before the health commission? that is a consideration. if you are looking at working conditions, we passed unanimously wage theft legislation and yet, that remains a very important and serious problem in san francisco. i do not know that we have everything in place that we need to to fully address that issue. what i would suggest is that there is an interest in working in a collaborative way in this issue. there is a discussion that can be had between the mayor and the board about how we do that. i do not believe that that is a discussion that requires a
charter amendment. i think there are things that are embedded in the way that we do business here in san francisco here at the board of supervisors and in the mayor's office that allow us to do that. when legislation comes in, it is my understanding that legislation that is proposed is referred to a number of commissions, including the small business commission already. any supervisor and the mayor himself can direct that any department be involved any time a legislative proposal happens. that mechanism is there to the extent that we need to strengthen that mechanism. we can have that discussion. i do not believe this is a constructive or productive approach even though the intent is good. i think there's a better way for us to get to where we want to get to. i do think that in san francisco, we do things a little differently. i do not think that we talk
about job creation here the same way that others talk about job creation. i do not believe the intent here is to engage in some of the rhetoric that is used in other parts of the country. that is now with the mayor is doing. i think how we go about doing that is important. i think that to do that, we need to bring everyone together. i saw commissioner o'brien who was here and he is very genuine and i think he makes the point that many in this small business community want to work with the labor community. let's bring people to the table. and figure out a way that we can in a constructive way and collectively make that happen. i do not believe that a charter amendment of this type is the way to go. i hope that between now and the time this matter comes back to the rules committee that we can have that discussion. i think we can make that happen
in a way that addresses everyone's concerns. grex thank yosupervisor kim: th. i want to appreciate the mayor's office for looking -- listening to the feedback they got from supervisors on the initial draft of this amendment that may initially be brought to voters. i do know that mayor lee's number one priority is jobs and he has made this clear in this campaign and in his work as mayor for the past year and month and i want to appreciate that. i want to state some a grievance -- agreements. when we make an amendment to the charter you do it to address the problem or a gap or deficiency and i think our office compiles the economic impact reports from the last two years and there were 19 economic impact reports.
out of 19, two were stated to potentially cause job loss. that was the amendments to the health care security ordinance which we were discussing this past year and establishing the alcohol mitigation fee. two out of 19 and i think both of those also have other objectives and goals. that came out in the public comment today. we talked about creating jobs we have to ask what kind of jobs are we creating in san francisco. i am cognizant of the fact that loring the minimum wage to $1 an hour would be a job creator. we would create plenty of jobs if we decide to lower minimum wage but at what cost and what cost to the residents in san francisco? i support the intent. i do want to see that if we are making an amendment to the charter that we're doing it in a way that is addressing an issue or gap that is happening here. while i think there are good
intentions here, i am not quite sure that there is an actual problem that we're trying to address in the legislative process. all legislation does go through a 30-day hold and typically takes another 30 days once it goes through committee and to the full board so there is a good 60 days at least for the public to comment on ordinances and legislation. impacting economic development. typically we engage much longer. those are some of my initial thoughts. i do appreciate the mayor's office will work with us in the next week to gather more feedback. i do think it is important that we have a focus on job development. what would be better is to look at the legislation that is coming out of the board of supervisors to see how many are creating jobs versus creating more jobs that does not address the problem. i would say that during this time when we are passing legislation, i want to give
kudos to the mayor's office and the board. we did create 17,300 jobs in the past year. january 2011, the unemployment rate was 9.5% and today we sit at 7.6% and it is important to note there has been progress made and i want to note on that. we do have a motion. >> i want to thank everyone for coming out. members of the public. i agree with the comments here. there's a lot to think about. we're going to accept these amendments and continue for a week and i think i look forward to having more comments and substantive dialogue when we do that. i make a motion to accept these amendments first. supervisor campos: we have a second and we can do that without opposition. >> i have a question. i you accepting the additional
amendment to change planning department to planning commission? supervisor kim: yes. that was not in the draft that was given to us. mr. elliott would like us to make this changes. under item b. if we change to planning commission. i am not sure if planning department is referred again in this charter amendment, is it? the motion would be to accept all those amendments. we have a second or we can do that without opposition? >> do we need a motion to continue or is this automatic? >> you are required to continue but you should make a motion. >>supervisor kim: will be hearig this on thursday, february second. i do look forward to continuing to work with the mayor's office on this. thank you. thank you to the members of the public that came out.
can you please call item 4 and 5? >> item 4, charter amendments that a man to charter -- the charter to replace boating with a runoff election. clarifying implementation of ranked choice votin. >> supervisor kim: i thought that although they have different outcomes intended in each charter member proposal i thought it would be important to hear those together and to get public comment on both together. i imagine they would be similar. we do have item number four.
the author of that legislation is here, supervisor farrell. if you would like to make a presentation and colony members to speak on this item. supervisor farrell: thank you. i think we should open up to public comment. supervisor kim: would you like to do a quick introduction of the charter member for the public? >> supervisor farrell: this is to repeal ranked choice voting and returned to a runoff system. -- return san francisco to run off system. i have several memos i will circulate. this item will be continued as soon as these are accepted for a week or so. i would love to hear public comment. just to set the town, i want to thank everyone on both sides of the aisle who have come forward that i have spoken with, debated with, and a lot of advocates on both sides of since we introduced this amendment last november. the dialogue has been great. it has brought out a lot of
great ideas and thoughts about our voting process in san francisco. thank you to all those who participated that are here today. that are coming to speak in public comment as well. supervisor kim: why do we -- don't we hear from the author of no. 5, another charter amendment. we have supervisor campos here. i am not sure if he wants to call anyone to prison on this item. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor farrell and supervisor elsbernd who have proposed the prior or the item four on the agenda which takes a different approach to the issue of right choice voting than the proposed charter amendment that i have introduced along with supervisor avalos. it is important that we as san
franciscans have a discussion about the voting system we are using. i think the more we discuss that, the better we are. and i welcome the opportunity to have this form to hear different perspectives on this issue. -- poor, -- forum to hear different perspectives on this issue. as i have indicated, as someone who is proposing a charter amendment that reaffirms our commitment to keep right choice voting -- ranked choice voting, those of us who support it do believe the system is working very well and this is a system that has done a good job for the city and county of san francisco in terms of voting -- increasing participation and to the extent that there are issues with respect to the system that the better approach is not eliminated but to make a good system even better.
i know that a number of points will be made during public comment on that point. i look forward to adding to that discussion. i know there are differences of opinion here. i want to thank everyone who has come out to speak here today. supervisor kim: thank you. to reiterate the two items before us and the charter amendments go to the voters of san francisco regarding ranked- choice voting. one would eliminate ranked- choice voting as we have it and go back to the previous form. unless a candidate gets 50% plus one. the second charter amendment we are considering is strengthening rcv elections by increasing the
number of candidates that a voter could vote for, as many as the machine would allow. also to increase our reach in the 10 neighborhoods with the lowest turnout -- outreach in the 10 neighborhoods with the lowest turnout. we will open up for public comment. i have a number of cards in front of me. i will ask folks who asked to speak. please speak once. barbara, jeff enty, carlo de la cruz, carolyn shu, and others. supervisor campos: if i could make the point about one of the items to our charter amendment. with respect to maximizing the choices i have provided -- our charter amendment in a sense is not introducing anything new. it is a reaffirmation of
something that is embedded in the original proposal. i want to make sure that that is something that is a part of the policy we have in place. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you for the clarification, a supervisor. >> good afternoon. i appreciate the fact that i am here and able to address some of these issues are around ranked- choice voting. many of us here who are here to speak about it today are people who have worked on it from the beginning. that we actually moved to bring ranked-choice voting to san francisco 10 years ago, maybe more. we certainly saw that it is very important for our society to continue with a boating and to work on -- of votivoting.
it is my -- i am suggesting that ranked-choice voting is superior to the runoff in that as has been stated earlier, we have the chance to vote at one time rather than wasting time especially at the end of the year on two different voting times. it is a saving of money that we really need to do. we have seen in san francisco we have had ranked-choice voting for the board of supervisors since 2004 and we have seen amazing results from it. more diversity, a saving of money, etc.. i would like to say that it is important for us to educate. i agree with the second charter
amendment. it is something we have always been working on. that we bring out the good things from this discussion, it is that we get out a better education to our citizenry. and that i can see it is important. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, committee members. i am strongly against their current system of -- the current system of ranked-choice voting. i believe democracy works better when people go to the polls to say who they want to have as their leaders and not who they are willing to settle for. i'm not that crazy about the results i have seen, either. i look at this past election where we had all the controversy with mayor lee. we had so many exciting asian-
american candidates. we had bevan dufty, a gay leader of the community. we had a perfect storm for good turnout. i do not remember these numbers but the turnout was something like 14% and there were 14 candidates. 1% per candidate. it seems that was an indictment. a lot of the problem is a number of candidates you have and i have seen some proposals that would reduce the number by changing campaign finance instead of having the runoff. let me tell you how you get disenfranchised by ranked-choice voting. but said it was familiar with mayor lee but i did not like him. -- let's say i was familiar with mayor lee and i did not like him and i did not know john. when the election was announced i see it is ed lee and avalos. i would want to learn and the
decision. during that awful moment when the director of elections pulled the curtain across and goes in the back room and does something and the rest of us are out there waiting for a puff of white smoke to come out of the chimney. it does not work for me and there are a number of reasons. out of everything we save money on, won election who determines who will be spending money for four years, it is something of a false economy. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. -- supervisor kim: thank you. >> i appreciate the opportunity to address your committee and give my point of view. i am an advocate of ranked- choice voting. and in hearing their people in this city of san francisco who want to eliminate it, i am rather confused. i think, what problems are they
trying to solve? ranked-choice voting brings more voting participation. you have more turnout in elections since you went to ranked-choice voting. is that a problem? i thought that was a good thing. ranked-choice voting also, by eliminating elections, brings less cost to the city. is that a problem for the city to spend less? are the advocates wishing that the city should spend more in this era of hard times? ranked-choice voting has brought more diversity of candidate and more diversity of the electorate. is that a problem? that you want to eliminate and go back to holding runoff elections, one of which would be held in a low turnout time? it seems to me that ranked-
choice voting has brought strong benefits to the city. i just wonder what are the problems that cannot be solved by modification rather than elimination of ranked-choice voting. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am here on behalf of the asian law caucus. we support of voting system that engages and encourages the full participation of as many people as possible. ranked-choice voting in san francisco has remedied some of the critical deficiencies we saw in plurality boating. the need for runoff elections. in the years prior, key positions were determined by runoff elections where voter turnout rates declined by over one-third. what we saw in a plurality voting is the limiting of access to the votes for the working
class, especially individuals of color who are more likely to either hold multiple jobs or work in certain industries that make it difficult for them to take time off work. the need for runoff elections ultimately places an additional burden on those individuals. instead, ranked-choice voting has shown to maximize voter participation to individuals who are more representative of san francisco. additionally, taxpayers have paid -- received $7 million through ranked-choice voting and we believe that money could be better used to support ongoing efforts such as those by supervisor avalos and supervisor campos to improve ranked-choice voting and improve education and outreach for people of color communities and immigrants whose access to vote is among the most vulnerable. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon.
i am the voting rights coordinator with the asian law caucus. i would like to echo some of the sentiments spoken by my colleagues. ranked-choice voting is not necessarily a perfect system but it is a system that has allowed the broadest areas of our community to engage in democracy. ranked-choice voting has been in place since 2004 which is not that long ago. especially with changes to the election system in the wake elections are run. you have to see how they play out and you cannot be so quick to change the rules. especially not for voters and candidates. there is a broader community affected every time systems are changed. as we know with the current redistricting, many people are going and trying to figure out what is happening with their current district. a similar effect will happen if we move back to the old way of voting. i will talk about this broader community and the communities of
nonprofits, community organizations and leaders and political clubs that engage in every single election, trying to engage their constituents to bring out the broadest and most wide range of citizens. if you change the system and do not consolidate elections as you have before in the charter amendment, you would increase the number of election and make it more burdensome for these commuters to participate. by reducing and consolidating your not reducing people's access to the democratic process but rather allowing them to have off years basically and ensuring that they have more resources and have more energy to be able to fully engage every election. additionally, regardless of whatever voting system which is for san francisco residents, that voting system needs to be paired with an educational campaign that informs residents about how the voting system works and how -- what is at stake. the asian law caucus is -- in
across the region since 2000. we can say that san francisco county is a good place in implementing such an educational system that would allow all citizens to be informed. supervisor kim: thank you. the next five names. >> thanks for having this and i have been here all day and appreciate the work that you do and the work that everybody does in trying to work things out. i am against the idea of getting rid of ranked-choice voting. the runoff system is not democratic. many fewer people vote in the runoffs as we now.