tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 5, 2018 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT
measure that will be before the voters on june 5th. in 2014, the supervisors adopted a resolution in san francisco that prohibited the sail of cigarette products. a rhenendumb was filed requiring that the ordinance be submitted to the voters. the ordinance will not go into effect unless a majority of voters approve. proposition e is a refer endumb to pass the ordinance passed by the board of supervisors prohibiting the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a yes vote means you want to prohibit the sail of flafrd tobacco products in san francisco. a no vote means if you vote no, you want to allow the sale of flavored tobacco products in san francisco. i'm here with dr. lawrence chung, past president of the marin medical society. we're also joined by star
child, outreach director of the libertiaryian party of san francisco. thank you both for being here. i'd like to start with you, star child. why do you feel it's so important. >> well, it's an expansion of the war on drug dos, and we shd know that the war on drugs has been a massive failure. it didn't work with alcohol, it didn't work with cannabis, and it won't work with tobacco. this will create a black market in san francisco for purchase of cigarettes on the streets where they won't be checking i.d. it's already illegal in california for people under 21 to buy tobacco products, so the opposition's claims about oh, it's about kids being able to buy tobacco, well kids can't buy tobacco now. this is about not fringing on adult choices. it's going to lead to more crime, it's going to lead to
more retailers closing. controller's economic office estimated 50 million lost in sales. vaping stores and other retailers that are highly reliant on tobacco sales will close. raping actually helps people quit smoking. it's less harmful. vaping and e cigarettes are included under this proposed ban. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you for asking me to be here? i'm here not only as a concerned physician but as a father. i have two wonderful nine-year-old twin boys and girls, and i am worried that this is allen assault on our k. canny flavored tobacco has only one use, and that's to hook kids into tobacco. this measure is all about protecting our kids, our community, and i feel very strongly that we should uphold this ban on tobacco that has already been passed by a
unanimous decision at the board of supervisors level. so please join me and the san francisco marin medical association, the california medical association and the american medical association in upholding this ban on candy flavored tobacco, vote yes on prop e. >> thank you. i'd like to ask some questions, and i'm going to begin with you, dr. chung. do you believe that this proposition, a ban on flavored tobacco is the best way to fight youth tobacco use. >> yes, i believe this is a very effective way to fight youth tobacco, because we know that four out of five kids who start smoking start with a candy tobacco flavored product, four out of five. so if we ban the sale of these candy flavored tobacco in our stores, we will effectively keep them out of the reach of our kids. it's all about our health.
>> and the same to you, star child. >> absolutely not. as i mentioned, the kids already can't buy tobacco in stores. what this will do is drive sales to the streets or on-line where i.d. check is less effective or in the case of on the streets, it won't take place at all. if you buy things on the street from unregulated sources, he don't know what's in them. we all know the case of eric garner in new york city who was killed by police there. he was selling illegal unlicensed cigarettes on the street, so that's an example of the kind of violence that can be produced by this, and it's not going to be effective at preventing kids from smoking. i mean, kids get tobacco know. i mean, it's a parental decision. keep your nine-year-olds from smoking, absolutely, but prop e won't help make that happen. >> thank you. our next question goes to star
child first, is do you believe proposition e is too broad, there have been some arguments that in addition to it covering candy and flavored tobacco in that sense, that it also covers menthol cigarettes and hookah use in the middle eastern communities. >> we would be against it even if it were only covering a very narrow segment, because your question is does your body belong to you or the government. all of us consume various things that are unhealthy. if we all switched to a raw food, vegan diet, we would be much healthier. does that mean that anything that's not vegan should be criminalized? no, but that's the way that some people want to go. big government, unfortunately, they already make more off of the sale of a package of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do. they're trying to make money
off of it on both ends, fining it from the sales, and criminalizing it on the other, and all the apparatus, there will be air cost with enforcing that, and we've seen with the war on drugs and putting people behind bars, especially with low-income communities and communities of color, and this is the wrong way to go. we know proceed hibitihibitionr on drugs is the wrong way to go. >> dr. chung? >> absolutely not. again, most kids start smoking through candy flavored tobacco products. these flavors are added for a reason: so make smoking easier and to make more pima ikt didded. we know the more you smoke, the more it'll call you to have harm, cancer and eventually death. i like to do whatever i can to keep my kids safe and to keep my community safe. i do believe this ban will be effective in reducing our kids
from smoking, so i'm a proponent of this proposition. >> and we'd like to have our closing arguments. we'll start with you, star child. >> well, first of all, i wanted to point out, for one thing, there's medical health professionals and people who care about kids and reducing death on both sides of this argument, so please don't be misled by the fact that my opponent has the word dr. in front of his name. et he et -- he's a dermatologist, not a health care researcher. the fact that kids may start by smoking flavored tobacco, that has nothing to do with the reality that everybody likes flavors. they're acting like oh, just because it's flavored, it's going after kids. nonsense. i like different flavored when i eat products. i don't smoke cigarettes, but it's something that people should have, again, ultimately
the right to choose what to put into their own bodies, and this is not going to reduce smoking. history shows it's not going to reduce smoking. the belief that it will somehow flies in the face of reality. >> thank you. dr. chung? >> thank you. again as a practicing physician in san francisco for over ten years and having represented san francisco marin medical society, the california medical association and also the american medical association on public health policy, i can tell you that all of our organizations feel that this proposition is the right thing to do. this proposition simply is to uphold the ban on candy flavored tobacco. big tobacco is waging a war, an assault on our kids' health. they try to get a new generation of children to be addicted to tobacco products that's going to increase our health care costs down the road. nod to diseas-- in addition to diseases and deaths, so please vote no on proposition e. >> thank you. thank you both for being here.
>> thank you. >> thank you. >> no on prop e. >> we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org, remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7th, from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't vote early, remember to vote on june 5th.
>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss proposition c. the city collects a gross receipts tax from many businesses which receive revenue from the lease of commercial property, such as office buildings, warehouses and retail spaces. the current tax rate ranges
from.825% to 3%. businesses with $1 million or less in san francisco are generally exempt from the gross receipt tax. several other businesses are also exempt including some banks, and nonprofits. proposition c would impose an additional gross receipts tax of 1% on the revenues of business received from the lease of warehouse space in the city, and 3.5% on the revenue the business receives on additional leases in the city. it would not apply to revenues received from leases to businesses engaged in industrial uses, some retail sales of goods and services directly to consumers or arts activities. this additional tax would also not apply to revenues received
from certain nonprofit organizations or from government entities. the city would use 15% of funds collected from this general tax for any general purpose. the city would use the remaining 85% of this additional tax for quality early care and education for children from newborns through age five whose parents are very low-income to low-income. quality early care and education for children from newborns to age three whose parents are low to middle-income and do not currently qualify for assistance. programs that support emotional, cognitive for children newborn through five and increased compensation for people who provide care for children from newborn through early age five. if you vote yes, it means you want to kboes a new gross receipts tax of 1% on revenues a business receives from the lease of warehouse space in the city and 3.5% on revenues the
business receives from the lease of commercial spaces in the city to fund quality education for children and other purposes. a no vote means you do not approve this tax. we're joined by lisa rhenner from the san francisco republican party and an opponent of the measure. i'd like to start with miss remmer. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> just like housing costs, our commercial rents in san francisco will railroad high. and this 3.5% tax will be passed onto the tenant, the businesses, who will then pass it onto their staff and onto the consumers, us, making the cost of living in san francisco -- the high cost and shortage of child care could be
contributed to the administrative costs of opening a child care business. city hall can help working parents by easing regulations and fees, allowing more child care centers to open. what is a crisis is the city budget of $10.2 billion, and the $88 million deficit for this coming year, rising to 800 million in three years. we just paid 77 million for a child care three years ago. in terms of value of child care, well, the u.s. department of health and human services reported the head start benefits have all disappeared by third grade. >> miss buck land, why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> parents need child care so they can support their families, and children need early care so they can
vehemently start their life. child care and early education is expensive, costing $20,000 or more peryear on an after-tax basis. it's often a family's biggest expense after housing. over 50% of san francisco families live in eligible for state child care subsidies. unfortunately there's not enough slots for all families to qualify. every month, there are 2500 children on the waiting list for subsidies in san francisco, two thirds of them infants and toddlers. a third cause is low wages in the child care sector. due to the work of the city's office of early childhood education, we know what can cost san francisco families. we need to spend 300 to 400
million peryear. >> how will the voters be affected by this 3.5% commercial tax as proposed in proposition c? >> well, i think this tax is actually good for our city. my understanding is that our current commercial rents tax is lower than in other cities, and i believe that helping families pay for child care is a critical need in our city. we hear a lot about the struggles that families are having, particularly struggles paying for housing, but frankly, as i said before, housing -- child care is a bigger expense than housing, and i personally being helping families pay for child care is a housing strategy as well as an economic strategy for our city. when families get help paying for child care, they can work, support their families and are contributing to the city's economy. and when they get help paying for child care, they also can afford more for housing. >> same question to you, miss rhenner.
how will the voters be askd by this proposition specifically by the 3.5% commercial tax. >> the 3.5% commercial tax can immediately get passed onto the tenants or the businesses. your doctor, your dentist, your grocery store, and they could end up cutting employee pay, cutting staff, closing shop, so do we really need more closed storefronts, and mostly it will be passed directly onto consumers, raising the cost of living in san francisco. what we really should be doing is lower the regulations required to open a child care business from head start, with 2400 regulations to be complied with to all of our local zoning and licensing fees. this 3.5% tax -- and none of it helps homeowner's, just makes the city more expensive. home enners are already paying for the last tax in 2514, 014,
just think it's going to make people move away and make the city cost more. >> a second question, which we'll start with you, miss rhenner, what are the advantages or disadvantages to a universal child care program in your view. >> in my view, the benefits of early child care have disappeared by third grade, and the claims of high quality child care are highly exaggerated. there's ten studies that have been cited. only half of them have been used randomized control. only three found positive, long-term results, and these took place 48, 58 years ago, with treatment groups very small, mostly children. they focused on infants, toddlers, not pre-k and had huge in home family visits which seemed to work out well. the teacher to student ratio
was 33 to 66% higher than what students will be getting in the proposed programs, teachers all had bachelors agree and experience in these programs, and moms all had i.q.'s under 85. the treatment wasn't random. the moms stayed at home and dad worked outside of the home. the treatment groups and the control group still only earned under $12,000 a year. they both had approximately 50% arrest rates, yes, 6%, less than a semester more in school, no i.q. differences beyond the differences actually shown among the children. the best results were with the moms with an i.q. under 70, and the younger moms with less school. the mothers actually in the treatment groups showed the biggest gains in lifetime earnings, even looking at ages
26 to 60, compared looking at the children 21 to 65, the mothers' lifetime earnings were estimated to be twice what the child's were, so yes, teen moms need child care while they finish schools, but we already fund these programs. >> same programs to you, miss lessman. what are the advantages and disadvantages to universal child care programs in your view. >> so i'm not quite sure what, lisa, you've been reading, but the research -- there is a growing body of research that shows the short and long-term benefits of quality child care for families. it's been nobel economyist james beckman about investing and the out comes in early childhood education, about the
need to provide special education and quality education in long-term earnings rates for families, the involvement in your criminal justice system. there's no shortage of studies that show the really important outcomes that come from early quality childhood education. for us, we have a situation in the city where i believe that this is really the key to ensuring that san francisco is a city in which diverse families can thrive. we have -- as i cited before, we have a 50% of san francisco families are living below the self-sufficiency index. it's affecting kids of color. you know, lack of access affects children of color, and it's really important that we want to -- we want to provide equitiable outcomes for children in san francisco and ensure that all kids are ready to learn when they come into
the school district, and we want to make sure that all families can thrive in san francisco. >> thank you, miss beckman. we're now going to start with the closing arguments, and we'll start with you, miss rhenner. >> the 3.5% tax will be passed onto us, the customers through the businesses, and i think that that will make san francisco that much less affordable. again, the child care, the value of child care, the effects dissipated by third grade, except in these totally different, different studies with different groups of people, and they've been highly contested. i've read all of these studies. testing moms with less than i.q. of 85, that's totally different. again, i do think the teen moms need totally free child care while they finish school, but we already have this.
let's not raise the cost of living in san francisco with a tax that just gets passed onto the consumers. >> thank you. miss beckman? >> thank you. i believe prop c is a critical investment in the city's future. it'll raise more than $100 million a year to support early care and education. most of that will provide access to low-income families that are struggling to make ends meet. parents that can't afford to go to work are relying on family, friends, and neighbors, catch as catch can in order to be able to do that, to be able to work. we -- it will also help us increase the wages for our early educators, ensuring we can actually have classrooms open to serve san francisco's children. prop c will help people pay for care so they can work and support their families and support our economy and long-term benefits for kids. prop c is endorsed by a
majority of our san francisco supervisors, the harvey milk democratic club, san francisco labor council, and many others. i hope you'll join me in voting for prop c to ensure that our city is -- remains one in which diverse families can live and thrive. thank you. >> thank you both for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this or other ballot measures in the june election, please visit the department of elections website at sfelections.org. remember, early voting is available at city hall on may 7, starting at 8:00 a.m., and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote, starting on may 5th. thank you.
that sets residence lation for the police department tazers are weapons that discharge electrical currents into an individual. auto mated external defibrillators are portable electronic devices that are used following a heart attack. san francisco police officers do not currently use tazers. about half of police department patrol vehicles versus defibrillators. any policy control on tazers or defibrillators cannot be changed by the commission. tazers may be used when a person is actively resisting, assaulting or exhibiting any action likely to result in serious bodily injury or death of another person, themselves or a police officer. proposition h would authorize the police department to purchase tazers for each police officer subject to the following conditions: the officer has successfully completed the department's use of force and threat assessment training, uses only police
department issued tazers and holsters. holsters the tazer on side of his or her body opposite from the firearm. police department vehicles are equipped with defibrillators in districts where tazers are carrie, and there is an investigation and report each time an officer uses a tazer. this may be amended only by a majority of the voters of san francisco or by an ordinance adopted by a vote of four fifths of the board of supervisors. a yes vote means if you vote yes, you want to set a policy for the use of tazers and authorize the purchase of tazers for each police officer by the police department superintendent to specific conditions. a no vote means if you vote no, you do not want to adopt this measure. i'm here with tracey mcray from yes on h and a proponent of proposition h. welcome? >> thank you. >> we're joined by john roy, a proponent of no on h.
thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> we're going to start with tracey. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> so i'm a native of san francisco. i was born and raised here. for the past 29 years i've been a police officer in the city and county of san francisco. currently i work in the bayview district which has had a number of high profile incidents, shootings, assaults. as police officers, we need the best tools available for us to do our jobs, to go home safely, to keep the public safe, and this ballot measure will do that. i know that people have often times felt that tazers are inherently dangerous, we don't need them, we've been in a long, arduous fight trying to get tazers, even though when the d.o.j. collaborative reform recommended in their 27 two-page evaluation that we have tazers, that people have
always stated that no we shouldn't. and numerous police departments throughout the bay area have them. >> thank you. john, why do you feel this proposition is so important. >> well, i think the most important thing for people to take away is just the unbelievable opposition to the scope of h. if you heard what tracey said, if it was really that simple and true, you have to ask yourself why are both protazer people and antitazer people opposed to it? why are progressives and moderates, why is the san francisco chronicle and san francisco activists? because it's not as simple as tracey portrayed it. this is not about tazers, yes or no. the police commission already approved tazers, and the p.o.a. went ahead and put this measure on the ballot. this is about when tazers are used and more importantly who gets to regulate them. this ballot measure is reckless and dangerous. it would strip the police chief and the commission from their ability to make any changes in the policy that was carefully created, no matter what happens, and i look forward to
getting into greater detail. >> well, that is going to lead us into our questions, and the first question goes to you, john, and it's what are the advantages or disadvantages to this proposition. >> well, honestly, i don't see any advantage because even if you're protazer, the policy has already been created through the process recommended by the justice department, the obama justice department cop's office, and just to slightly correct tracey here, they didn't recommend tazers, they recommend that it be strongly considered, and that a collaborative process be used to try to develop the policy, a collaborative process that has been tried all over the country. i've worked with the department of justice, departments all over this country. you bring in the union, the stakeholders, experts, medical people, and you craft the best policy possible. this is what happened. the police commission approved tazers in november , and they adopted a policy on march 14th that the mayor supports, that the police chief supports, and
yet, the p.o.a. is going forward with this measure because they do not like it, and they want to strip the commission and the chief from the ability to regulate it. there are two big differences between what prop h would allow and what the p.o.a. law would set into stone. one is prop h would strip the requirement that officers try deescalation deescalation before using force, especially important on as weapon as dangerous as tazers. second, the commission looked at this weapon and said this is a dangerous weapon. they need to use this only when there's resistance, and they have proposed in this law and locking into place no physical dangerous whatsoever, moorely bracing, moorely verbally noncomplying, and you can use this weapon, and it's dangerous. >> thank you. tracey, same question to you. what are the advantages or disadvantages to this proposition? >> well, i respectfully disagree with him about the language. so the language of this proposition, the way the police commission has it, has been
very restrictive. so the most restrictive language, the less the officer will likely use this device. so we're getting into semantics will assaultive behavior, like he said, bracing. no, it's clearly spelled out in the p.o.a.'s language for proposition h about the training and the need to deescalate and having proper training, the 40 hours of c.i.t., another ten hours of deescalation practical exercises, so the training is there, having the medical equipment on-site. it -- it boggles my mind that the sheriff's department has tazers, and we never had this sort of diversion about getting this piece of equipment. they took away the carotid restraint, which we never had a negative use of force. i've used that numerous times, but then it was taken away.
we were given shields and long batons to use, but there was no training given to us on how to use those. so it was here you go, they've taken that away from us, but here's a baton and shield. our position is the language is too restrictive. if they want to down the road revisit language, the police commission can do that, so -- >> thank you. the next question will go back to you, tracy. should voters be making decisions about police weaponry? >> the voters are part of the community. the community is a stakeholder. they should have a stake in this. i'm a citizen of san francisco. i vote, so why not have a say in what we do? the police commission, now two commissioners are leaving the police commission board, so when are we ever going to get to meet and confer about this topic? so it's incredible that it's
taken this long, eight years, that we've been talking about this, when other departments have this. the sheriff's department, their tazer policy is four pages long. you have oakland that has this, san jose that has this, but all of a sudden, san francisco, we're a world dlsh class cit-- class city, we should beequipping our officers to keep the people safe. >> same question to you, john. >> they shouldn't be locking into law a standard that cannot be changed. i need to correct here what my friend from the p.o.a. said. it's clear in the language of this law that it cannot be changed. the police commission will have no power, the chief will have no power to change anything that is inconsistent with what is being proposed here. that is what is so dangerous and radical. it is unprecedented, and i'm not aware of a single police
union that has actually tried to take something like this away. this is an unbelievably radical measure. and with respect to the particular standard, it's right here in black and white, the terms the p.o.a. chose to use were active resistance, which is defined. it's a police term of art. it's defined in sfpd manual as tensing or running away or not complying. we want to see if we can make a looser standard over time, why not start with a more restrictive policy, on a weapon that has been this controversial. again, tazers have already been approved. this isn't about whether or not you get tazers. that's already been decide dangerous dred. that's not the issue on the ballot. >> thank you. closing statements, i'll start
with you, tracy? >> like i said, it's been a long process trying to equip our officers with tazers. voting yes on this proposition will ensure that officers do their annual training, complete deescalation. they will be required to have accountability, which we do right now. as a sergeant, i fill out a very long form to do that. with he will have medical equipment, defib railators on board if we do use this tool. prop h, i believe, is the correct policy. people have the choice to vote yes or no. obviously, we got enough signatures to get it on the ballot, so obviously, people want this -- this tool, this device for us to use. if that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't have been able to put it on the ballot. >> thank you. your statement. >> this is a deeply cynical argument. the p.o.a. has put $180,000 on
this campaign already. they spent $140,000 on a paid campaign to gather signatures to mislead voters. they told them this was about whether or not they have tazers, when in fact the police commission already approved it. this is why the league of women voters and sffovtv did this. we strongly encourage you to read the voter guide. there's more information on our website, votenoproph.nationbuilder.com. you will vote no like most of the people who have looked at it have already decided. >> thank you for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other measures in the ballot initiative, please visit sfelections.org, remember early
you know, for the past four months, as mayor of the city of san francisco, i have from reside residents across our entire city up and down the ladder about the streets of san francisco. our streets are filled with trash and debris, and it is unacceptable, and i've said from day one the cleanliness of our streets is going to be one of my biggest priorities as mayor of the city of san francisco. san francisco residents are fed up with the conditions, and i am the first to say that i feel their pain, and we are doing something about it. so last week, along with a number of people who are here behind me, we announced a comprehensive budget proposal that we're going to move forward with to aggressively cleanup our streets here in san francisco. we are no -- we know that our conditions on our streets exist across our city.
it's not confined to one neighborhood. every single neighborhood is feeling this pain, including right here in the castro district. so this plan that we announced last week includes 44 new street cleaners throughout the city of san francisco, four in each supervisorial district that will have material impact in the conditions of our neighborhoods, in particular our commercial corridors. we're adding five new pit stops to address the feces and urination issues that we are seeing in many different neighborhoods here in san francisco. and also talked about and announced a dedicated team to picking up syringes and needles across the entire city of san francisco. family members and individuals should not have to step over needles on the way to school, on the way to work. it simply doesn't need to be part of our landscape here in san francisco. and we are also growing our fix it team, sandra, who runs or fix it team, and does such an amazing job. how about a round of applause
for her. [applause] >> the hon. mark farrell: we are expanding it to ten new districts in san francisco. because they do such an amazing job in san francisco. when there are areas to be picked up, when there is anything that needs to be done, they are there doing it, doing such an incredible job. but we need to do more. we need to put our foot on the gas pedal, and as mayor, until i leave office, i am going to do it, and street cleanliness is something i am going to address. we have a big effort to cleanup our streets. san francisco residents do, as well, and now today we're going to have some bigbellys to help us with that effort. and sorry, i had to go there with that line. so today, we are announcing five new bigbelly trash receptacle here in the castro district and 15 others in different neighborhoods throughout san francisco. now these bigbelly trash cans,
as you will see, there's going to be a demonstration at the end, are different than your normal trash cans. they have automatic compactors inside, allowing them to hold five times the amount of waste of any normal garbage can. they tick recycling, compost, and trash, and they're outfitted with wireless technology, real-time technology that alerts those when these are full to come pick them up and empty them. that means no more wasted trips to pick up half full garbage cans. you know, we are the technology capital of the world. we should not be afraid, and you know i believe as mayor, we should embrace technology to benefit the daily lives of our residents, and we are doing that today. we are making this investment now in partnership with our small business leaders. our community benefits districts are the ones that really do the work on the
ground. i want to thank andre who is here today for all of your work in the castro, and we are partnering with them to install these new bigbelly trash receptacles, but also to maintain them going forward. we are going to cleanup our city here in san francisco. we made a number of announcements last week. today is just another step in that direction, and i want to make sure to reaffirm my commitment to the residents of san francisco that cleaning up our streets is going to be one of my biggest priorities, and we will not stop again until the day that i leave office. i look forward to seeing these trash cans across the city of san francisco. we are going to swallow up the trash with our bigbelly garbage cans, once again. so with that, i want to thank everyone for being here. we have a number of speakers, and i would like to introduce and bring up supervisor jeff sheehy, who's right behind me. and i want to make a quick comment about supervisor sheehy. there has been no one, since i
have become mayor, who has been more forceful in his advocacy of cleaning up the streets of his district than jeff sheehy. you can clap. it's great. we have gone on neighborhood walks. we have walked this commercial corridor right here with our department of public works. there's no supervisor more focused on cleaning up the streets of his neighborhood than supervisor sheehy. and with that, i'd like to hear from him. supervisor jeff sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: thank you, mayor farrell. thank you for those kind words, and i really want to thank you deeply for your leadership on this issue. it's been a challenge, but the inno-nateti innovation that you're bringing to this, the resources, it's making a difference, and i know the people in my district, we're grateful. i also want to thank the
department of public works because they have been so steadfast, so diligent in cleaning up this neighborhood, in cleaning up the district. it's a struggle because we know that this is an ongoing problem, and i think your new initial initiatives are going to help us turn the corner on this. we are moving forward on this. i want to thank the community benefits in the castro for their leadership. these things are great. compacts, signals when the trash is full. and i do want to note that recology is here. recology is doing a great job. this is allow them to be enormously more efficient, so as the mayor said you're not emptiying half empty trash cans, you empty them when they're full. we've seen the problem. we have the open trash cans, people rummage in them. they overflow, and sometimes that creates a mess. so andre, thank you for your
partnership with recology, with the mayor. i'm going to address you, but sandra zuniga, i can't say enough about you. she comes in, she solves problems, she works so closely with the community to identify problem areas and find solutions. she was telling me, for instance at glen park park, we have a little flower stall that was graffitied up. and you know, she just went and painted it herself. that's the type of attitude she brings towards san francisco. that's how much she cares about this city, so i am honored to introduce sandra zuniga, who's director of the mayor's fix it team. >> good morning, everybody. thank you for that introduction and thank you to both mayor farrell and supervisor sheehy for their leadership in this
city. special thank you to mayor farrell for giving me this assignment. being able to work on these bigbellys has been fun. so fix it, i run the fix it team, and what we do z we work closely with communities, talking to residents, listening to residents to find out what concerns they have, and we want to act quickly and effectively to help address those. in the castro, we've been working here about two years, and we've seen improvements, a lot of great improvements to the castro. one of things that's a great concern is litter and the amount of litter we see around our city, especially trash cans, when they've been rummaged through or overflow especially when the wind blows and blows them away. so we're happy today to show you not just an efficient can but a very pretty tran ca-- trh
can in the castro that we hope will bring new life, new energy to people who are shopping here, passing through here to use the handing, throw their cigarette butt or bottle away in the right place. today's announcement is part of a larger strategy that fix it has to make improvements in neighborhoods based on what we hear about from residents, so we plan to implement new strategies in neighborhoods across the city, and find out what works and when something works, we can replicate it in other neighborhoods with confidence. i really would like to thank all of the community benefit districts who are working with me on this project. of course f andre aiello with the community benefit district, and several others who will see their bigbellys this summer, and a special shout out of course to public works, recology, economic and
workforce development and kevin from bigbelly, who will give you all a demonstration soon. so with that, i would just like to introduce a wonderful partner in this who has been tremendously hard working and really fast at turning around a lot of giving us, you know, ideas, information, feedback, andre aiello, for getting the -- from the castro c.i.d. for getting the first big belly on the ground. >> thank you for that. the castro community benefit district is so excited to be the first neighborhood that will be getting these bigbellys in a special program that has been sponsored by mayor farrell, and i want to thank the mayor so much for his dedication to keeping the neighborhoods clean, not only just downtown but the
neighborhoods. and we are -- we'll be working with the city to develop metrics on how do we evaluate and measure these to make sure they're effective. and as everyone has been describing, the bigbellys work because once you put the trash in, you can't take the trash out, and that includes limiting and preventing overflowing trash cans, which i think we've all seen all over the city. the wind is blowing, and the wind takes the paper or the cup out of the trash can, and there's a mess all the way down the sidewalk, and it blows it all the way down the sidewalk. so we're really excited that this is going to help keep the benefit district really clean. the castro neighborhood benefit district works tirelessly to keep the neighborhood clean, keep it vibrant. we have a lot of different strategies around cleanliness, around safety, economic
vitality, greening. we have live performances in the jane warner plaza? the summer every weekend. everything fits together in a puzzle to encourage more people and more pedestrian traffic in the neighborhoods and in an urban environment. cleanliness is probably the first thing because nobody wants to walk around a neighborhood where there's trash and other things, and worse than just trash in a neighborhood. it's community benefit districts working collaboratively with public works who has been absolutely fantastic as a partner and recology all working together to pitch in and keep san francisco clean -- or cleaner, and a great city. so i want to thank everybody and thampg the city family. they have vust been absolutely great. we've pushed through this contract in like a month, so that's unheard of. so thank everybody. i want to thank the mayor for
hez creativity and initiative on this. and now, i think we're going to have kevin give a demonstration on how these wonderful things work. take care. >> one, two, three, go! [inaudible] >> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a