Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  September 27, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT

4:00 pm
>> good morning. i'm president of speak, with you is sunset action project action committee. we are active in a wide range of issues. neighborhood issues. speak is excited to be a cosponsor of this event much i'm also the -- i'm also the vie president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. another cosponsor of this
4:01 pm
event, speak is a charter member of the coalition. the coalition has been active in citywide issues for over 40 years. on behalf of the coalition's president, welcome to the district four candidate forum. in 2002, we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th amendment to the u.s. constitution. the 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. in 1920, as women won the right to vote, the league of women voters was founded by terry chapman capp. on behalf of speak and the coalition for san francisco neighborhood, i would like to express our appreciation to the league of women voters for 98 years of advocacy. [applause] >> i would also like to thank
4:02 pm
st. ignatius for hosting this eve event. working with st. ignatius and speak has been an honor. i would like to thank the candidates for making the commitment to be here today, and finally, i would like to thank our neighbors, family, friends, district merchants and many others who have made the commitment to be here today. thank you. [applause] >> hello, everybody. good morning. welcome to the candidate forum for the board of supervisors district four san francisco. i am the president of the league of women voters in san francisco. we are a nonpartisan but political organization that is dedicated to promoting active and informed participation in government. the league works to ensure that all voters have access to
4:03 pm
nonpartisan unbiased information. we put on free forums such as this, we produce a proand conguide, and we partner with sfgovtv to produce educational segments to discuss candidates' platforms. the league never supports or opposes candidates, but we do take positions on issues. our website is lwvsf.org. i want to thank sfgovtv for being here today and recording this forum. i am now very pleased to introduce maxine anderson who will be the moderator today. maxine was raised in should i can you goy illinois and -- chicago illinois and attended university there. she worked in the chicago area before transitioning toisk san
4:04 pm
francisco. she continued to work in the insurance industry until she had the opportunity to manage claim functions for the city of oakland. she retired after working in the city of san francisco city attorney's office and became very involved with the league of women voters of san francisco. she previously serviced as the chair of our advocacy committee and participated in the creation of another organization, san francisco chair ffor democracy, where she serves as chair for two terms. we are proud to welcome maxine anderson. [applause] >> good morning, everybody. these lights are really bright up here. again, thank you so much for being here today. today, you will be hearing from the candidates to represent district four on the san
4:05 pm
francisco board of supervisors. the candidates will have a chance to present their views of -- on issues affecting the city and your district and to answer your questions about those issues. to submit questions for the candidates, look for a volunteer -- i can't see you, but i know you're out there. we will be collecting index cards. i wish to remind you of our ground rules -- [inaudible] >> oh, i'm sorry. i thought i was loud enough. you want me to start over or can i go from here? [inaudible] >> i want to remind you of our ground rules here. no literature, campaign signs or buttons may be distributed or posted inside this meeting room. this is a totally nonpartisan event. candidates and their supporters
4:06 pm
are expected to be respectful of other candidates and the audience and to help maintain quiet during the forum. candidates are asked to make no personal attacks on other individuals. here are the procedures for the forum. each candidate will have one minute to answer questions you in the audience submit, as well as questions that have been submitted in advance. all candidates will answer each question. any rebuttals may be included in the candidate's closing statement, which will be one minute. the timekeepers -- excuse me -- in the first row, could you hold up your hands and your cards -- will hold up yellow cards to signify to the candidate that they have 15 seconds remaining and will hold up a red card when it's time to stop. every aspect of the forum will
4:07 pm
be equally fair to all candidates. you have many important decisions to make on november 6. today's forum will give you an opportunity to be heard. now let's begin. thank you -- first of all say thank you to the candidates who stood up to hope to represent you in your district. they are thank yous to luann besan, adam kim, gordon an mcmar, trevor mcneil, mike murphy, tuan win, and art tom for attending today's forum. okay. so we're going to start off -- we're going to begin, i guess the best way to put it. so i have the questions here -- again, please, if you have
4:08 pm
questions that you want to ask, please write them down and give them to the volunteers who will be up and down the aisles, looking for your questions. so the first question, did you hear that part about fill out the card and give it to the volunteers? thank you. i'm going to get this right, but it's early saturday morning. okay. we're going to start off with miss basan, and the questions will be asked in alphabetical order. the first question, over the last five years, in your opinion, have elected officials moved the city in the right direction or the wrong direction, and why do you feel the way you feel? >> my opinion is that the city officials -- [inaudible] >> thank you. my opinion is that the city officials have not moved our city in the right direction at all. i think that they have moved
4:09 pm
the city to a disastrous precipice. we are bordering on chaos. why? we don't need drug injection sites. we don't need an increase in the needle exchange program. we know that san francisco is handing out 400,000 needles a month but only getting back 150,000 used needles. these policies are not good for san francisco. in addition, the focus on increasing housing density and building along transit corridors is, again, misguided. >> thank you. and mr. kim? >> all right. i will also say that we haven't
4:10 pm
exactly been moving in the right direction. there have definitely been good advances made by certain supervisors and certain city agencies, but the fact is that we still have a crisis of homelessness and affordable housing, and we just keep giving away tax incentives to large corporations, and it's hurting the people. that's not a sustainable model. eventually we're just going to become a city for the super rich, and we'll have this giant wealth gap that all our marginalized community will be alienated and unable to live in
4:11 pm
the city that's alienated them. >> thank you very much. mr. mar. >> well, i think we all know that over the past decade, actually, our city's been going through a pretty unprecedented tech driven economic development boom, and that's created a lot of exciting benefits and brought a lot to the city, but it's also created a lot of big challenges, i think as adam and luann had engs mentioned. i feel like -- had mentioned. i feel like our city leaders haven't done a good job of addressing that, particularly building housing that's affordable for working families and everyone that can't afford market rate housing in the city. also there's the growing homeless -- homeless population and crisis that hasn't been addressed in a good way, and also there are other crime issues, like property crime. i think there are issues that
4:12 pm
affect us out here in the sunset district that we need stronger leadership to address in boulder and more strategic ways. >> thank you very much. mr. mcneil? >> i would definitely agree that we do need stronger leadership. the affordablity crisis, the crisis on our streets, and the ongoing flight and difficulties that san francisco faces make it clear that the last five years have not worked. however, i do also think that it's clear -- maybe not for lack of trying. our leadership does have innovate tiff ideas. our leadership does standup to donald trump's agenda. our leadership does try their best, but they're focusing on the minute by minute problems. they're pulling bodies out without going upstream to see what the problem is. that's why i'm run are for district four supervisor, really thinking what can we do long-term, not just to manage
4:13 pm
homelessness, but to end homelessness? what can we do long-term not just to prevent displacement, but have a city where families thrive, and have a city where people can afford to live? >> thank you very much. mr. murphy? >> yeah. san francisco's a boom-bust town, as many of you know. we're in tech v. 2 at this point. this has been the most signatu significant contributor to many of the issues the city faces at this time. we'll play dog whistle politics all day long, where you know it's the big corporation cabal that responds to city hall. the stats are clear, 60,000 people in, 50,000 people out. this is from our planning department, every year. this is extremely disruptive to our communities. we need stable, strong
4:14 pm
communities and strong leadership in those communities that comes from outside of the tech-real estate cabal in order to fight the problems that we have here. evictions and displacements citywide, we've lost many neighbors and friends. thank you very much. >> thank you. mr. win? >> yes. we're very much fighting for the soul of the city. it's unattack, and it's unattack by the tech sec -- under attack, and it's under attack by the tech sector and the tech community. san francisco is a divided city in so many different ways, not to mention the issues that we deal with specifically just to the sunset district. you're having large developers come in, and there isn't enough market rate housing out there. the tech community is polarizing. there isn't enough diversefied field out there.
4:15 pm
our artists and musicians, they can't afford to live here anymore. and kbiet honestly, we don't have any long-term plan, and that's unfortunate. my friends, whether they're older or younger, they're living paycheck to paycheck, and we have a moderate and progressive division going on in city hall. i plan to change that as an independent democrat, a leader that the sunset deserves. >> thank you very much. and mr. tom? >> thank you. in the last five years and even in the last ten years, we have not been going in the right direction. that's witnessed by more families leaving san francisco and as pieople alluded to, we want to have a long-term solution, not just a quick knee jerk reaction. on the issue of homelessness, it's not just san francisco's problem. we cannot solve it without looking at the rest of the region and the rest of the
4:16 pm
state. we're putting it too much on the backs of homeowners paying property taxes, and we have to share that with other parts of the region. we want to see families stay here in the sunset and the park side, so we need to switch or emphasis on services that the families out here need? preschool, after school, senior care, these are things that we need here in the neighborhood. i want to see muni improved so that we can rely on our public transportation and public safety increased so that people feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. thank you. >> thank you very much. and the next question, we're going to go to housing because that's an issue that's, as you know, is always talked about in the city of san francisco. and so i'm going to condense these two questions into one, starting with mr. kim. it's how do you feel about building more density housing,
4:17 pm
and what is your view on homeowners renting out inlaw units? do you think current policies help at all on that? >> all right. so housing density, i don't believe in building for the sake of building. we're not going to building our way out of the affordability crisis, and we need to assess each site individually to find out how the community feels about the particular development and how it will serve the community. in terms of inlaws and other, you know, a.d.u.s, i feel there is some streamlining that could occur. right now, because we're kind of packed to the gills with housing with that, and we can't develop more without destroying existing property, it's important to find a way for
4:18 pm
homeowners to increase what housing is available, given what they have on hand. >> thank you very much. mr. mar? >> my wife and i moved to the sunset district and bought our home 13 years ago to raise our daughter, and i think like most of our neighbors, we value the sort of quiet almost suburban feel out here in the sunset district. but also, you know, i think we all recognize that we need to expand housing, especially for working families and for everyone that -- that the current housing market doesn't serve in our city. i do think there's ways for us to do that in the sunset district that is appropriate for the character of our neighborhood. i think it's replicating the e educator housing model is a good strategy.
4:19 pm
i do support expanding inlaw units and accessory dwelling units in a careful way that would mitigate excessive traffic congestion and parking congestion in our neighborhood. but i do want to say i think the biggest issue right now and the threat to the west side is the growing call by big developers and other forces to upzone the sunset and build high-rise luxury housing out here, and i would standup to that very much. >> thank you very much. thank you. mr. mcneil? >> so on my phone, i've got a little -- [inaudible] >> sure. i carry around a photo of my home 80 years ago when it didn't exist. it was a sand dune. i'm really glad somebody built it. i want to build more housing in a way that preserves neighborhood character but also invites more people. when i was born in san francisco, the population has grown 4300 on average every
4:20 pm
year, boom or bust, and i'm partly responsible for that because i've got three kids under four. i'm part of creating more san franciscans, so when i think about this issue about density, i think about neighborhood character, but i also think about the decision to build the home that i'm raising my family in 80 years ago. i'm thinking about it in terms of where are my children going to life? how is san francisco going to grow in a way that is inclusionary, protect the people that are already here, and become a city that we can love and live in? >> thank you very much. mr. murphy? >> i wish to provide an an he c can -- anec decide dodote to t crisis kool-aid.
4:21 pm
this is gentrification at its base. when you take people who have spent their lives, generations, perhaps, in a particular area, making that area livable for them, and replace them with people who make more money, of course it fills the city's coffers, but it does nothing except destroy communities. what i would propose is in terms of density is building along -- building along -- strictly along the train routes in the sunset to four stories, which is the current zoning code. it's greed that fixes us from the homes that we've already built, and we should avoid that sort of thing. >> thank you very much. mr. win? >> yeah. we have to keep housing affordable in the sunset district. in particular, young families conditioned afford to live out here anymore. they try to live out here, start a family, and you end up single, because you can't raise
4:22 pm
a family, you have to raise dogs and walk them, right? but supply heavily outweighs demand in san francisco, and if you live in sunset district, you realize that homes are henry dozier and rosseau homes. they're cookie cutter homes, and you can't do that. you have to look at zoning and market rate housing. i do agree that you should build responsibly in merchant and traffic corridors with the input of residents, but i also opposed sb 827, which scott wiener proposed, and that is to build more than five stories, and i don't think that is the answer in the sunset district. >> thank you very much. mr. tom? >> i think that of course
4:23 pm
everyone wants more housing. there are some workable solutions to that, besides just increasing density because when we increase density, we have to say what kind of density. i'd like to see more two and three bedroom homes rather than the studios and the one bedrooms that the developers have been talking about, because this is a family neighborhood. i'd also like to consider parking. right now, the planning code calls for.2 parking spaces for each unit. i need to drive more than a quarter of a car when i take my kids around town, so that needs to be considered for the neighborhood. also, the water infrastructure here is not adequate in case there's a disaster, so we have to consider that. and we also -- people don't realize there's sandy soil, and we know the millennium tower is sinking. we have to consider how high we can build out here. it's not like the rest of the city. the other solution is to make it easier for people to rent out their inlaws so that they
4:24 pm
could take it back down the road if they want their kids to move in. >> thank you. miss basan? >> density has two parts, people density and actual building density. i don't favor increasing building density in the sunset for a number of reasons. first of all, the issue is about supply and demand. there is far more demand than there is supply, but that's really a lie because there are estimated to be at least 40,000 units being held off unit by landlords who are afraid to rent to tenants all across san francisco. and in the sunset district, it's estimated to be about 10 to 15,000 units. so i say look at existing supply before we build, and i don't think that building on transit corridors is a great idea for the simple reason that
4:25 pm
while noriega street is a transit corridor today and could be built up under these grand plans, next year, it could be moraga street. thank you. >> thank you very much. the next question, i'll begin with mr. mar, and again i'm going to compound the question. one of the questions was district four is primarily residential, in which many families try to raise arththei children. what's your vision for improving life for district four's youth from arthur forming years to youth? and could you think of this in terms of public safety and reducing crime and also cleaning the streets -- cleaning up sunset? >> yes, sure. well, actually, we -- we moved
4:26 pm
to the sunset district, which wife and i, mainly to raise our daughter here, and she's in eighth grade at hoover middle school. so again, like many of our neighbors, we value the family friendly environment of the sunset district and the good schools that we have, you know, the playgrounds and the parks. but, you know, having said that and getting to the question, there is a lot more that we could do to make the sunset district family friendly and a better environment for our young people to grow up in. one thing that i'm committed to is expanding services directly in the neighborhood, both for children and youth but also seniors and families, there's really a lack of neighborhood based services here in the sunset compared to other districts, and we see that, you know, a lot of sunset residents actually go outside of the neighborhood to access services. as a nonprofit executive director in san francisco for over 25 years, i'm very committed to developing more neighborhood based services for
4:27 pm
children, youth, and everyone in the sunset. >> thank you very much. mr. mcneil? >> so i care deeply about families not just because i have one, but i'm a public schoolteacher by day. my background, i look at public policies through the lens of the family. that's not to the exclusion of folks who don't have a family, or retirees. if you want to have safe streets, those streets have to be safe for kids to be able to walk. if you want great parks, you want -- great parks aren't just for kids. they're for everyone. it's not community building. so i think looking at the public policy through the lens of is this going to help families thrive and stay in san francisco, it's actually something that affects us all. one thing i'm committed to doing for the office of district four supervisor is making my office a one stop shop for people about daycare, public school system. you can call the public school
4:28 pm
board, but it's too big. you're not going to have that person connection. i would like to make the district supervisor's office for sort of a one-stop shop for child care and child thriving needs. >> thank you. mr. murphy? >> i teach preschool at sfusd. i'm an eco instructor for the district. i've seen our enrollments dropping. san francisco, we have the smallest population of youth of any major city in the country. the reason for this, again, is the destablization of our neighborhoods. i would like to see a vacancy tax on the books. i would like to see a tax on out of town ownership of our properties. we need to take away the housing stock that could be used by families, take it away from the real estate investment trusts and the corporate landlords, take ownership of
4:29 pm
that, stablize our neighborhoods. and we need to have safe environments for our children to play in. i was a principal of the action to protect golden gate park from toxic turf. that's a hazard. our drinking water is now being polluted by toxins in our groundwater. we need a strong legislator who will standup to that. >> thank you very much. mr. win? >> i support having neighborhood schools. [inaudible] >> sure. i support having neighborhood schools for our neighborhood kids. in particular, i'm not supportive of having a lottery system, making it more difficult for our middle class families to thrive and our kids traveling all across the city to just get a good public education. i am proud of the parks in the sunset district. i've done my park as a youth coordinator to serve the youth at holy name for years -- actually, 14 years. i hosted a friday night
4:30 pm
basketball session over at holy name, where high school students and college students are able to play basketball and stay off the streets. i was also a high school coordinator for the department of election. i'm proud to say that i was the cochair for the ortega branch library campaign. back in 2010, we rebuilt this library over here, and it supports the children, and it makes the sunset better. >> thank you. thank you very much. mr. tom? >> i also have a family here. they were born in the house that they live in in the sunset today, and we're vested in trying to make it better for everyone. we know that the schools are not really under the -- it's out of our hands for the supervisors. it's controlled a lot by the state of california, but the after school and before school programs is what i would like to see.
4:31 pm
right now, the preschool program considers age four and age five. i would like to see it expanded to age two and three. for the after school programs, especially with two working parents like myself and my wife, we need after school programs that take care of kids that are educational and enriching and can watch kids till 6:00 when parents comes home from work. i started the friends of the sunset playground which took an unsafe park, and we ended up selling cookies for $1. we raised over $1.5 million and dedicated the park back to the city of san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. miss basan? >> thank you. first, i would like to echo mr. win's comments about having neighborhood schools for neighborhood children. i think it's incredibly
4:32 pm
important for them. [inaudible] >> thank you. second, i would suggest that have libraries that have open hours seven days a week and all day long would be a tremendous improvement for the children in our neighborhood. and in terms of public safety for our children, i strongly suggest that the sunset district not have any cannabis dispensaries in the borders of district, not have any illegal injection sites in the border of its district and not have any navigation centers in the borders of its district. this is what's going to keep the character and the safety of the sunset intact, and we want that for our current residents and for our children. >> thank you very much. and mr. kim? >> so the sunset is definitely very residential, and it has historically been very family
4:33 pm
friendly, although the up tick in crime has put that in question. like mr. murphy has said, we have a lot of investors holding onto property, trying to make a quick buck off of them, renting them out for a week or a month at a time. we have this constantly shifting tourist base, and how are we going to be able to keep an eye -- like, make sure we have a consistent neighborhood if we have new neighbors all the time? so we need to make these vacant units actually apartments so that people can live in them. i'm lucky to live right by ortega library, but we need more facilities like that in our district. we need more libraries, and we don't even have a ccsf campus in our neighborhood, and that's something that i would love to
4:34 pm
push for. >> thank you very much. now we're going to move onto the next question that deals with transportation, and we're going to go to mr. mcneil. what is your opinion on the el taraval rapid project and other transportation initiatives in the city? >> so like i said, i was representing district four. katey tang appointed me to the pedestrian advisory safety committee, so i went to all of those mta meetings with the l. it was a colossal failure on a public outreach front. nobody is happy about the improvements along the el, and i think that one of the things that's really important is to have more oversight at m.t.a., but it's important to have
4:35 pm
somebody in the board of supervisors that knows the neighborhood, that can help guide public transportation improvements and projects in a way that shows that they know the neighborhood, right? i'm thinking about when the l turns onto noriega out by the water, there's no stop light there, so the l can sort of actually get hung up on just normal traffic. there's simple, easy ways that we can improve transportation in the sunset if you're from the sunset and you know how to work it with city hall. >> thank you very much. mr. murphy? >> yeah. the sfmta's process -- public process has been heavy handed and phony. as supervisor, what i would like to do is setup a community advisory boards throughout the sunset and take control of that process. a lot of people are checked out of politics in the sunset completely because we've been abandoned to city hall politics for decades. as an independent supervisor, i
4:36 pm
would invite participantory democracy. i would like to hear neighbors, not just listen to them and give lip service. the l taraval project hurt businesses. local businesses were also hurt by another crazy heavy handed project on irving street which disrupted holiday store traffic and put one business i know of out of business. so we need to really take control of the public process, and we need a hard-nosed legislator to do that. >> thank you very much. mr. win? >> i think it's important that we continue to challenge our government to be leaders in public and alternative transportation. the city always seems plagued with constant traffic congestion and poor urban planning. if we look at sfmta, there should be more than enough of a budget to actually be functioning. that's not happening,
4:37 pm
especially out in the sunset district where families and workers commute an hour a day, you might as well work in palo alto if that's the case, to try to make it down there and make it home for dinner. sfmta's bungled its rail systems. we're a world class city with a lack of scope and vision. this agency doesn't possess that. if i were supervisor, i would actually ask that ed reiskin would step down. he's been given ample opportunity to serve us, and he hasn't done that the right way. >> thank you. thank you very much. mr. tom? >> i used to work on the caps commission, which is now part of m.t.a., and when everything folded into the m.t.a., we lost control of a lot of our
4:38 pm
transportation issues. what i would do is i would call for an independent audit of the m.t.a., and we can specifically say of the l tearaval or the n judah. this holds people accountable. it quantifies the performance and brings up the level of efficiency. so we need to have accountability for m.t.a. to the public, and i would make sure that that happens. >> thank you very much. miss basan. >> thank you. i agree with mr. tom that when m.t.a. was created as a merger between the department of parking and traffic and muni, it was a colossal failure, and i think it should be split up again, and it should go back to the way it was with the department of parking and traffic as one entity dealing with traffic, and muni as a
4:39 pm
separate entity dealing with what it needs to deal with, which is the movement of people. the emphasis that m.t.a. has put on shaving nine seconds off a trip is ridiculous. everybody knows that the streets of san francisco are so congested with all kinds of vehicles that nine seconds isn't going to make a difference. they should be focusing on service to the constituents. instead of taking away stops, they should be adding stops. it used to be their goal that every household could reach a muni stop in two blocks. we don't have that anymore, we need to bring that back. >> thank you very much. mr. kim? >> so the sfmta has made a
4:40 pm
habit of make i a decision before -- making a decision before gathering community input. the l taraval is no different. they're making decisions based on outdated studies, moving stops to increase the speed of the l. meanwhile, we have the elderly and disabled who are unable to find a stop close to them because they've been remove will them. we've been removing parking spots, that's hurting small businesses. all these decisions being made, and it's all under the guise of some kind of solution, but that solution's hurting a lot of people. we had a proposition a few years ago to actually make sfmta board of directors not all appointed by the mayor but have some appointed by the board of supervisors. i would like to see some of that come back and maybe even have some of those positions elected positions? >> thank you. mr. mar. >> i agree with all of my
4:41 pm
colleagues critiques, the changes to the l taraval. i would just add that i ride the l tear avalue every day. i'm a commuter. i work downtown in civic center. often, i'll have to take a car from civic center down to embarcadero to be able to get on a car to be able to get back home. and we're the technology capital of the world now, and it still takes an hour to get by train from the sunset to downtown if it doesn't breakdown along the way, so we're one of the wealthiest, most creative cities in the world, and yet thousands of service hours are missed every month by m.t.a. we deserve a world class transit system for our world class city, and we deserve more frequent services for commuters and trains with two car minimum during peak hours, and we
4:42 pm
deserve to end switchbacks on the l tear avalue aaraval and >> okay. thank you very much. okay. our next question, we're going to start with mr. murphy, and it should be mcneil, shouldn't it? >> i just went. >> okay. sorry. with mr. murphy, but we're going to switch to the issue of drugs and their use in the city because that's one of the things that's been on the news a lot and on tv. the question is what can we do to address the drug use in san francisco, and give us your opinion on safe injection sites and to bring it locally to district four, how do you feel about retail and medicinal cannabis being available in the sunset? >> the place to start -- i've had a carefully articulated position on corporate weed since marijuana dispensaries in
4:43 pm
the sunset since i filed my paperwork in march. adam kim and i were actually on the ballot, would have been on the ballot prior to katey tang's departure, and the rest of the candidates that you see here luckily stepped up later on in order to give us a nice round of choices for supervisor. my position on marijuana is we don't need any dispensaries in the sunset. we don't need it. the reason we don't need any is because you can get it delivered to your door. the city has totally bungled the marijuana legislation. we're now just figuring out how we can tax it, profit it like an a.t.m. machine.
4:44 pm
>> thank you very much. mr. win? >> yeah. recreational cannabis is legal as of this year. i accept that. do i agree we should have a dispensary out on noriega? you're not supposed to have a dispensary 600 feet away from a church or school or community in that aspect, so the public has spoken in that regard. i look at -- at -- also, the issue of alcohol really affecting our children. we're talking about that war on drugs, i think alcohol is a little more important in terms of addressing and educating in that capacity. regards to navigation centers, i don't support a navigation center in the sunset district. i don't believe that the residents feel that it's
4:45 pm
appropriate to have that. the navigations centers outside of the sunset and downtown aren't working in particular as well. i've also opposed spark down in the lower haight when i was the community engagement director at spark -- against spark. >> thank you very much. mr. tom? >> we know that marijuana has been made legal in california, but that doesn't mean that we can't have some oversight in our community. i would like to make sure that anyplace that's going to open here does not have any crime committed either inside or outside the place and that there's no possibility of selling it to children. more than that, the injection sites and navigation centers seems to be much more of a serious problem than the cannabis, and we don't need those in the sunset district. i would rather see the
4:46 pm
resources spent on after school programs and education. so as far as that goes i want to make sure we don't have navigation and need exchange centers in the sunset district. that will help us not have anymore drug use out here. >> thank you. miss basan. >> the question -- [inaudible] >>. >> the question is regarding the use of illegal drug use and cannabis in the sunset and in san francisco. regardless of what you may think about california law, both illegal drug use and cannabis use sale, possession and growing remain illegal under federal law. so because of that, because i am an attorney, and my oath is to the constitution of the united states of america, those
4:47 pm
two activities remain technically illegal in california, despite the voters voting for medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. i cannot support a cannabis dispensary in the district, or anywhere in san francisco, and i certainly don't support illegal drug injection sites. this is not what san francisco should be about. why are we rolling out the red carpet for drug abusers and painting all of the merchant zones with red zones? this is not what we should be doing. >> thank you very much. mr. kim? >> so like many people who spoke before me said, cannabis is now legal in the state of california and in san francisco, and we have plenty of older individuals or people who have mobility issues or
4:48 pm
other kinds of mental issue that actually require marijuana, and i would rather not stand between them and the accessibility of medical marijuana. that said, i do know the gentrification effects that cannabis dispensaries can have. that's why they imposed a blanket ban in chinatown, and that's the thing that we don't need, is we don't need cannabis dispensaries attracting all kinds of tourists and increasing property values for people who just want to be able to live and not be displaced from their apartments. >> thank you very much. mr. mar? >> some of you may have seen the examiner article that came out this week that sort of highlighted my position on cannabis dispensaries in the sunset.
4:49 pm
my position is the three that have been proposed so far in our neighborhood have been strongly opposed by neighbors, so that indicates to me that they were not good fits for those locations, and for any proposal in the neighborhood, i'm committed to listening to the community, ensuring that they have a voice in the decision. it's really the responsibility of the project sponsor to convince us, the neighbors, that they're going to be a responsible business and a good fit. if not, i would oppose them. taking that a step further, one of my first priorities would be to convene a working group, a working sunset district cannabis working group, that would bring together the cannabis issues in the district to foster more understanding, to find common ground and to sort of collectively develop cannabis dispensaries in our neighborhood. >> thank you very much. mr. mcneil? >> so i mean as a parent and a
4:50 pm
teacher, this -- i really want to do everything i can to prevent drugs from getting into the hands of our young people. one of the things to think about drug addiction, and it really is awful, to think of it as a symptom of other problems, and those are -- that's a very complicated public health debate, but at least you could do -- from a supervisor's perspective, the least you could do it make it very clear that we are against drugs. it's worth saying that if you want to open up a new business, that's great. you need to be a good neighbor, and the dramatic failure of some of these cannabis dispensaries to get any failure from the sunset, it's clear they're not good neighbors. they're here to make a buck. same thing goes for the outreach efforts that we do have as a city. one of the problems is that all of our services, especially our counter drug efforts are concentrated in the tenderloin, in the south of market areas,
4:51 pm
and that makes sense, but we need support, too, we need a supervisor who understands our district, who knows where the needles are, where the people are publicly using drugs, and where the city needs to intervene. >> thank you very much. the next question, we're going to go to mr. win, and it's a citywide question. so what is your view on san francisco sanctuary city status? >> yeah. i do believe that -- that we do need to protect our immigrant community. i was angela alioto's west side field director for the last month of her campaign for mayor, but i also abstained from being there at the press conferences where she organized and introduced new legislation for convicts, convicted felons. so for myself, i do believe that we need to protect our sanctuary city law, and i do believe that -- that our
4:52 pm
elected officials need to stand by the communities and also not work with i.c.e. in terms of any type of communication. and again, it changes from specific issue for each of these individuals, but i do believe that it's important to protect the integrity of our immigrant a refugee or as an
4:53 pm
seeking asylum for whatever grounds, you are welcome to do
4:54 pm
so. you can enter at any port of entry such as a airport or a sea port, and you can ask for asylum once your foot touches the ground. illegal immigration is a completely different issue. i do not support it, i do not support sanctuary cities, i do not support sanctuary states. i challenge one person to come to me with an actual case of somebody who went to the police because they were victimized and they were protected by sanctuary city. >> thank you. thank you very much. mr. kim? >> we have a thriving immigrant population in san francisco. a lot of what san francisco's known for is its diversity, and a lot of that has been brought by immigrants, so i stand in strong support of our sanctuary city status. and if we have convicts or
4:55 pm
felons who are not legal immigrants, you know, we don't need i.c.e. to tell us that. we have our own due process system in san francisco, and we don't need people to strip away rights from people just because they didn't have the means to come here on a $1,000 visa. sanctuary laws are protecting people from regressive actions, and i can't oppose them, and i also oppose angela alioto's proposed measure against the sanctuary laws. >> thank you very much. mr. mar. >> as a son of immigrants and a long-time community leader in our immigrant communities in the bay area, this issue is deeply personal to me. i fully support our sanctuary
4:56 pm
s city law, and i think it's very important in the current political climate that on a national level, the trump administration is really using immigrants as a foil and targets, and whipping up a lot of antiimmigrant sentiment that's creating a divisive community. i was the executive director of the chinese progression association for 15 years, supporting chinese families to improve their living and working conditions. i served as the northern california director of the citizenship project which encouraged voter participation and registration in our region. so i would support and protect our immigrants. >> thank you very much. mr. mcneil.
4:57 pm
>> i love the sunset because of its diversity and immigration is a part of that. i would just echo everything mr. mar said. i think it's important to remember sanctuary city, what people are talking about is if you're just picked up, suspected of something, and then you're carted off to i.c.e. that's not the job of our police. if you're a victim of domestic violence, if you want to help inform the police and solve the crime, you should feel comfortable going to the police and not fear being locked up. just because we're fighting donald trump and standing for social justice, there are some places where there are shades of gray. one is for example our participation in the joint terrorism task force. there are ways -- and we are not part of that. that's why the sfpd had no idea what was happening when we were
4:58 pm
almost attacked on pier 39. i think we need to find ways to cooperate when it makes sense, to hold our values, and to find a due process way to protect immigrants. >> thank you. mr. murphy? >> unfortunately. a lot of the talk of sanctuary cities misses the context that it comes from. angela alioto wasn't quite getting the attention she thought she deserved, and she was the author of the sanctuary city policy, so she staged a press conference and said i want to close this loophole. and actually, sent a ballot measure to elections, which was terrible. it would have allowed any -- any law enforcement officer to pick anybody off the street and hand them over to i.c.e., which sounds a lot like profiling which sounds counter to san francisco values. later she fixed it, once we
4:59 pm
called her out on it and said you're a civil rights lawyer. you shouldn't have done it. we have a civil rights policy in effect. we are a sanctuary city, and we should protect those, including some of those are among the youngest border crossers, some of whom are my students at sfusd. >> thank you very much. now we're going to talk about something that affects not only the sunset but affects us citywide. over the years for many reasons, we've seen an increase in wildfires around the state, and the probability of us suffering a significant earthquake here in san francisco, if you listen to the news, it's imminent. what are your needs on new earthquake or require resistant
5:00 pm
systems or infrastructure to address that fact of life here in the city? >> thank you for that question. right now, our awss water system was built in 1913. only the northeast corner of san francisco has enough fire protection to take care of itself. the entire west side is not protected. the last big main runs through 19th avenue, and it serves the areas east of there. if there was an earthquake, there would be 100 fires that break out on the west side, and we don't have the infrastructure. we have 32 cisterns. there's one on my block. you need two pumps, one to pump the water out, and another one to pump it into the fire. we only have six hook and ladder trucks. that's not

29 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on