tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 21, 2019 9:00am-10:01am PDT
. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i believe we have graham dobson from the office of early care and education. >> yes, good morning chair fewer and members of the committee. i'm graham dobson, policy analyst of the office of early care and education. our department requests modification to -- permission to modify the preschool grant with the san francisco unified school district for a new total grant amount of $17,956,240, and to extend the term to june 30, 2021. as part of the preschool for all program, we directly prove 79 pre-k classroom of early education and special education
students. -- to inform kindergarten readiness practices when students transition from pre-k to kindergarten. i'm available to answer any questions regarding these services. john sutikawa can also answer questions regarding the contract process. >> chair fewer: thank you. let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> this is an extension to the contract approved between the department and the program preschool for all. for two years, the annual expenditures would be about $3.4 million per year. there is a 10% contingency over the two-year intention of the contract. because the residents do provide for a contract amount
of $17.9 million, our budget shows a contract of $17 million. therefore, we request amending the contract to $17 million, and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: mr. dobson, you are aware of this recommendation? >> yes. >> chair fewer: and you are in agreement? >> yes, we are. >> chair fewer: thank you. i'd like to open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to come forward? seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i'd like to make a motion to move this item to the full board as amended. can we do that without objection? [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please read item 14.
[agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, and with us, we have today supervisor gordon mar to speak on this issue. >> supervisor mar: yeah, thank you so much, chair fewer. sorry. this came up a little sooner than i thought. but yeah, thank you so much for allowing us to actually hear this item today. i just wanted to make some
brief sort of opening, framing remarks. so this conversation has always been about wealth inequality, the driving force behind the multiple crises facing our city. all of the greatest challenges we face are rooted in economic inequality, housing affordability and homelessness, gentrification and the exploitation of workers whose labor creates the immense wealth in our city but who seldom share in it. we do have a moral obligation to create a more economically just city. san francisco has the highest income gap in the nation, the highest housing costs in the nation, and the highest concentration of billionaires anywhere in the world. the majority of people, our constituents, feel the negative impacts of this every day. these are not problems unique to our city, but here, they are
uniquely urgent. for decades in our country, we've seen a massive redistribution of wealth from the working people towards the top 1%, exacerbated by divesting from social services, attacks on the labor movement, and tax breaks from big corporations at the expense of every day people. and here in san francisco, we've seen the result. wealthy corporations receive big tax breaks while small businesses shutter, and new industries seek to redefine the nature of work, to cut pay and benefits while working people struggle to get by, and young people, families, seniors, and entire communities worry about their future in our city. in the face of an inprecedent -- unprecedented number of wealthy individuals
of large corporation, we held a hearing, and through that hearing, we learned that i.p.o.s have a measurable impact on these crises, significantly increasing income and wealth inequality, which is why i introduced a payroll tax for stock-based compensation to recapture the wealth san francisco helped to create. it is in fact not a new tax but a restoration of a tax that existed prior to 2012. in the coalition that was build around this measure, it came clear that the stock compensation tax should be one part of a broader strategy to build a more just city but is not itself a comprehensive solution. so today, i'm announcing that we are committed to developing
this comprehensive solution. i will be making a motion to table this legislation. in the coming weeks, we will be tabling the stock compensation tax on the 2020 ballot, and i would like to invite ted conroy to make a presentation -- ted egan to make a presentation on the economic impact analysis. mr. egan? >> good morning, supervisors. ted egan from the controller's office. our office issued an economic report on this item this morning, and if i can bring it up on the screen, i'll walk you
compensation of businesses subject to the payroll tax in the city would effectively raise that tax to 1.5%, which is the rate that it was at prior to the business tax reform efforts the city undertook in 2012. the tax is a dedicated tax as currently introduced and would require a two-thirds approval. the tax was intended to be devoted to low-income workers and small business stablization. i would want to point out that while small business stablization is often discussed in the initial public offerings of companies, this is broader than that. it would cover all stock-based compensation, which is payment or compensation made to employees in lieu of wages and salaries and consisting of rights to own the company or
options to own the companies. it's in i.p.o.s, but not exclusively restricted to i.p.o.s. some other companies also offer stock-based compensation. this would cover all stock-based compensations that was realized on or after may 7, which is a few days after uber's i.p.o. uber was the largest company to have an i.p.o. in san francisco that we're aware of. earlier, companies from 2019 would not have made that deadline and would not have been covered. subsequent ones from companies such as slack and any future ones would be covered. it's also important to keep in mind that the tax-based compensation is a tax on the business. it's not a tax on the employees
that receive the tax-based compensation. so on the uber i.p.o., we expect there'll be millions of dollars flowing into the oakland economy. this would increase the tax on uber as a result of the tax-based compensation -- stock-based compensation that they pay to plyys. stock-based compensation is largely associated with the tech companies, and it's believed this is to create incentives for employees to achieve growth goals for the companies morning cash-based wages and salary. so because of this reason, in san francisco, given our economy, it's likely that the bulk of the burden of this tax
would fall on the tech sector. and because of that, i think it's worth considering some of the impacts that the technology sector has had both positive and negative on the city's economy during this decade. it's very clear that the city's economy has been transformed in the past 15 years by the growth of the tech sector here. as recently as 230 -- 2004, technology accounted for only 2 prs -- 3% of the jobs in the city, and now, it's 15%, so a 500% increase. the tech sector has been rapidly growing across the
country, and other communities have had their communities impacted by the tech sector. one of the major impacts that the technology sector has had is on housing including rent. this is a chart showing rent trends this san francisco and in california and in the united states going back to 2011. san francisco already had housing back in 2011 that was 50% higher than the statewide average, but our rent since 2011 has already grown 40% faster than the state. our rent has grown faster than the state and much faster than the united states since 2011. on the other hand, the tech sector is also associated with a period of economic growth in the city in which incomes have risen. this is the per capita income
trends in san francisco, again, comparing it to california and the united states. per capita income has grown from 2011 to 2017, which is the most recent year we have data for, 60% of the nations income growth in that period. so in one hand, he have a very rapidly growing sector. it's growing much faster here than it is in other places, and that's led to rising costs and incomes. so what does that mean? that means you're increasing the enumeranumerater and the
denominator both. san francisco is a city that has always had a high rent burden compared to other cities. if we go back to 2006, which is the first year the a.c.s. started collecting this data, over 40% of san francisco households were rent heavy at that time -- rent burdened at that time. that percentage of houses actually peaked in 2012 at the end of the recession and has actually gone down since the end of the recession, so the number -- the percentage of san francisco renter households that spend more than 50% of their income on rent is lower than it's been in any previous year that the a.c.s. has done that, and that's true for households that spend more than
50% of their income on rent. so the net effect on renter households is there's generally been an improvement in housing. one of the things that impact that is in san francisco, not everyone is paying market rate for housing, but wages and income growth tend to effect people every year. so for example, if you are a san francisco renter and you rented a unit, and you've been stable in that unit since 2011, it's likely that your rent has been growing slower than your wages. of course, that's not true for everyone in the city but it's a fairly large swath of households in the city. another way to look at the experience of the city's economy as it affects different parts of the workforce is
looking at people's trends after they pay for housing. so this is a chart that breaks down the income that households have after they pay for expenses in san francisco. this comes from census data from the 2012 record data that allows us to subtract housing costs from household income. that widespread of occupations reflects the inequality in san francisco which has been pronounced in san francisco as long as we've had statistics. but it shows that the real incomes after paying housing compares to the same jobs in other cities. i compared san francisco's incomes to a sample of other large cities like new york, los
angeles, washington, seattle, etc. and san francisco households in occupation after occupation generally make more here after paying for housing than they do in other cases. so again, the general trend among san francisco households is that the growth and income in the city has outweighed the growth and housing costs that people actually experience. so as a general rule, their housing burdens are going down, and as a general rule, they're better off here in occupation after occupation after paying for housing costs as a result of the growth and wages and economic growth in the city. let me just now return to the policy under consideration and mention some of the criteria by which we have in the past used to assess tax policies and over the years that our office has been involved in assessing basis taxes in the city. the criteria that we and others
suggest looking at go beyond just looking at economic impacts, but also evaluating tax based on how administratable they are. so i'll walk-through each consideration in relation to this tax, and that will conclude my presentation. this tax, like every tax that the city was imposed, creates costs and benefits within the city's economy. it would raise the cost of labor on businesses that use stock-based compensation and on the other hand, it would raise revenues for purposes explained in the legislation, so the net economic impact is the net of that. we've estimated, and it's very difficult to statement because the city does not collect data directly on stock-based compensation, and the federal statistics we rely on similarly
do not break out stock-based compensation for payments to workers, but we've estimated somewhere between 10% and 30% of all compensation paid to san francisco workers in the economy today did and dependin the year is stock-based compensation. so at the proposed rate of 1.12%, that is suggested this tax could raise between 50 a$$ million and $100 million a year. it's also very likely a cyclical tax because compensation is tie todd to th stock market. so we would expect lower revenues when the market is down, and higher revenues when it's up. we used our remy model of the
city's economy as we do to assess the economic impact of the legislation, looking at the tradeoff between the higher cost of labor and the higher spending. we found that it would lead to a midpoint range of $100 million, would plead to about a negative impact of 125 million on average over the next 20 years and 675 fewer jobs. this is taking place in the context of a city economy that is $175 billion in its g.d.p. and has 175,000 jobs. now, that does not speak to the sufficiency of the tax. in other words, what is the economic harm that you're imposing on the economy to get every dollar of revenue. but we have done other analyses over the years that suggest there are labor taxes that do not focus on stocks and payroll
that could get you to more of a revenue with less economic less than this particular tax. i won't speak directly to administerability issues but it's ae clear that because the city doesn't levy a tax on stock-based compensation. we also believe that this tax is likely to be more unstable than other business taxes, as i said before, this has to do because it's benchmarked essentially to the stock market, which is more volatile than the stock base of our other business taxes. and then finally, equity issues. when people study the equity of tax proposals, they often ask questions like how closely does the tax required payment match to the taxpayer's ability to pay. that's one common question, and a second common question is how
equally does it pay the tax payment of two different taxpayers who are otherwise equal. that's known as horizontal equity. these classes in dealing with business taxes are always difficult in california cities because the thing that we would like to tax and treats businesses equally is an income tax, and we're prohibited by doing that by state law. in terms of this tax, in comparison to the proposed business tax, probably does reflect -- better reflect a business's ability to pay in some ways. so if a company was valuable and it had a lot of highly paid employees, it would pay more in taxes and it would pay more
under this proposal, so it is getting to a more progressive payroll expense tax. however, it is not necessarily the case that every stock-based company will have a large compensation. a tax like this might encourage a same behavior. it's getting towards a more progressive payroll tax than the one we have now, but i would say it's not perfectly reflective of income, which is difficult to do in the context but it's a situation where we're not allowed to charge an income tax.
>> the stock-based compensation was even much smaller than central market and the shift to growth receipts, at the time, we projected, you know, 1500 to 2,000 jobs might have been created as a result of that switch after it phased-in after 20 years, and we still have a payroll tax that is 25% of what it was and we only just finished phasing it in.
i would say those three proposals, which i would agree are the three biggest things this city has done probably had relatively little impact on most of what we are talking about what have happened had we taken those policies or not. >> thank you. just to clarify, i was asking what your assessment was on the impact, not on the overall economic growth of san francisco over the past 15 years, but just astounding growth of the tech sector. you said by more than 500%. that has taken our economy to the point where they are dominating the economy at this point. do you feel like these tax breaks and the tax changes were really directly or indirectly on target to growing the tech sector and played a role in that and were they successful? >> i don't think they played a great role because the amount of savings they generated to the tech sector as a whole is relatively small in the context
of the growth. for example, again, i think we founded all of the tax exclusions that were taken over the years of the central market amounted to about $70 million. that sounds like a lot of money in the context of the city's budget, but in the context of one hundreds of the 5 billion-dollar economy, who is fastest-growing, that is the tech sector. it is not very large in the context of the growth of that sector at that time. what exactly were the tipping points and what changes in san francisco you maybe would see in 2,010 or 2,011, in that period, something is happening and i can't put my finger on it, but it would be hard to attribute it to city policies just given the size of those policies relative to the size of the economic changes that we saw. i think that is my only reason for being hesitant in saying it probably wasn't that because the
amount of tax savings were talking about simply wasn't that great. >> okay. i appreciate that. i had a follow-up question. were the other sectors of our economy, nontech sectors that had a converse experience during this period? in other words, other sectors that did not benefit as much from tax breaks or tax policy that we enacted, and also, as a result they have seen a declining role in our economy. >> one of the features that we had seen kind of consistently year-over-year this decade is essentially every sector of the city's economy adding jobs, even up to the most recent years, but the tech sector, and in the last couple of years, construction, growing much faster then the rest. we have seen the tech sector -- this trend is showing it growing
three times faster then the rest of the economy, but one of the things that is interesting, it hasn't led to the absolute loss of jobs in other sectors. even sectors that had historically been fairly weak in san francisco like the manufacturing sector, have grown this decade and retail has grown this decade, and wholesale trade has grown this decade. none of them has grown as fast as the tech sector, but they have all grown. as for their role in the city's tax policies, i don't know of any tax policies similar to the central market or prei.p.o. stock compensation exclusion that sort of directly tries to solve the tax problems of those other sectors, but there was some winners other then the tax sector in the switch to gross receipt. again, i would say in the context of this side of the city 's economy, the city's tax
changes probably also had a fairly small role in explaining why manufacturing or why other sectors grew as they did during this decade, but it is clearly true that the growth of the tech sector has led to growth across the board that has been associated with growth across the board in other sectors, just not at the same rate. >> thank you. i guess maybe a more specific question, which industries or sectors, you know, had a significant decline in their role in our economy during this period that the tech sector increased by more than 500% in their own economy? >> if by rolling the economy you mean which share of the jobs in the city do they comprise, i would say probably most of them declined as a share when one is going from 5% to 15% of jobs. i don't think any other sector that i can think of increased its share in quite that way, but
i would have to go back and look at the industry by industry statistics to give you a meaningful answer. >> okay. actually, i just had one other question regarding slides eight, nine, and ten where you sort of present an analysis that over the past 15 years, this tech boom that has been playing out has somehow had a trickle down positive impact on everybody else in terms of increasing income, after housing costs, and reducing how didn't -- housing burdens for low income and moderate and middle income residents. so i just wanted to -- i find that, you know, kind of surprising, and i was just
wondering, if your analysis accounts for the rapid displacement of low income, working-class and middle-class people in our city, and how the population in the city has changed, so perhaps it is not really reflective of the real economic improvements for long-term residents, and in fact , reflects the influx of highly paid workers into our city. >> certainly there has been an influx of highly paid workers into the city, and i would say that this chart, which both summarizes the point that you were making, is speaking to households where working in the labor force, and that is not everyone in the city. i would say that there are other slides that i didn't want to include in this presentation that could have elaborated on this point.
another long-standing trend of the city's economy is the disproportionate or the greater likelihood for a low income person to move out of san francisco or to be evicted and forced to move out of san francisco compared to someone who has higher income. the senses now does give you a way to track that from year-to-year, and so i looked at that. i didn't put it into this report it has grown a little bit. it hasn't grown very much. there is still roughly twice the likelihood -- of the outmigration rate of low-income people his twice to what it is for upper income people, but as far back as i have data, it has been that way. it is not something that has progressively gotten worse this decade. the census bureau has also tracked income inequality, the gini index, which is the most common indicator of income inequality. so i looked at that as well. that is also not significantly rising in san francisco this decade. i know you have seen research
that suggests income inequality that there are some indicators that suggest it is growing rapidly, indicated that is reported by the census doesn't necessarily show that, so i think that a lot of what you're talking about our long-term trends that we have seen in san francisco. they have accelerated a little bit this decade but not dramatically. again, i can show you more information about that that i didn't put in this report. >> thank you. actually, i did have one final question around the revenue projection that you came up with for the stock compensation tax. could you just explain again how you came up with the 50 million-dollar lower limit of the tax and does this mean that in a year, without major i.p.o.s , and lower revenues, we can still expect at least $50 million in tax revenue from the stock condensation tax? >> the wide range is due to the fact that both that we think the
revenue is kind of intrinsically volatile, otherwise the tax base will change a lot from one year to the next, and also that we don't really know what it is because we can't directly observe it. i got that revenue estimate by comparing two different federal economic surveys that measure compensation to workers in san francisco. one that includes stock-based compensation and when that does not include stock-based compensation. if you look at the difference between those two, and assume that it is all due to something that would be taxed under your proposal, that amounts to about ten to 30% depending on the year of the total compensation base in the city, so i don't think that is the world his greatest estimation method, but it is the best we could do given the lack of statistics on it. to answer your question, i would say that 50 million is likely the low-end during a bad year, but i would attach a copy because -- i would attach a
caveat because we are directly not able to observe this. >> thank you. >> supervisor mandelman, did you have a comment or question? >> i sort of had the same ceiling about the charts showing improvement in the housing experience of san franciscans in terms of how rent burdens or how the cost burden -- how cost burdened they are. i still have the same reaction a supervisor mar. on the other hand, what i think what you might be saying is there is this long-term displacement trend maybe going back 20 plus years, and that what has happened in the last five to ten years may have modestly accelerated that, but that the trend predated that. >> i'm able to look at the trend back to 2006 and the trend i am referring to here is the outmigration rate of people who make less than $70,000 a year.
it grew in the last couple of years that we had the data, but not by a dramatic amount, maybe from eight% to 9% or something like that. that is a higher number than significantly number -- six significantly higher number then the percentage of affluent people who would san francisco. i mean, i think everyone understands that for its benefits, rent control is not a perfect affordable housing solution, and if you are a rent control -- of a rent controlled apartment doesn't work for you and you have a gap between what you are paying, what you can afford, and what the market is, that is a trigger to outmigration. when you look at the data, there were very clear triggers like the expansion of the size of the household. it is something that is associated with people moving out of san francisco in the next year. it is associated with income, and with demographics. it just doesn't seem that as you say, it has gotten particularly worse or extremely worse in the past few years.
>> the other thing i wanted to look at a little bit was the idea that the whole economy has grown, which not that that isn't true, and not that all these different sectors have been periods -- experience increases, there has been a relative rearrangement in shares, but there has been growth throughout the economy, which we would expect of a growing population and increased economic activity. i do remember that when we had that hearing on the anticipated i.p.o.s, but there was, maybe a decline in some way or in some worker category that there were some workers who were doing less well through the change of the last ten years, that there were workers, in particular economic sectors, that were not sharing the benefits in the same way. >> that may have been from the b.l.a.'s presentation.
but it is true that if you look at the income growth, in other words, this growth of per capita income is an aggregated number that does not reflect everyone, and there is great variation among the sectors in terms of where the wage growth is. it is kind of like the san francisco rent story in that the people who have the occupations in the industries that had the highest wages at the start of the decade had the highest wage gains including stock-based compensation during this decade. i don't want to give the impression that there has been an equality in wage gains, all i'm saying is when i look at what the census tells us our income inequality is, it has not grown very much, and i cannot give you a perfect answer to that, but i couldn't -- i could see why people would look at that and say income inequality must be growing, you have low income workers whose wages are barely growing and in keeping up with inflation, and you have highly paid workers who are
getting 10% or more increases a year. i think both of those things are true. >> all right. thank you. >> any questions or comments? >> i did have some further remarks. >> sure. first would we like to take -- there is no b.l.a. report on this so would you like to take public comment on this first? >> if i could make just finish my remarks before public comment i would appreciate that. thank you so much. again, as i mentioned, i am going to be requesting that the stock compensation tax as introduced as being heard at this committee be tabled, and i am planning to reintroduce a new version for the november 2020 ballot in the coming weeks. i just wanted to add that. we are excited to bring the
stock compensation tax to the voters of san francisco in november 2020. it allows us to focus this year on the $600,000,000.40 will housing bonds and also the tee and c. tax. it also allows us, as a coalition, to develop a comprehensive revenue and tax reform package where the stock compensation tax is but one part i.p.o.s exacerbate these crises, but they do not cause them. by making this proposal part of a longer-term, a more comprehensive strategy to address economic inequality, we can more effectively and responsibly tackle the long-term challenges facing our city with long-term solutions. san francisco needs a strategy to address economic inequality at the scale of the crisis. it must center and include the people most impacted, community and labor. it is our movement, not corporate giveaways, and trickle-down policies that led -- that lead to economic justice
today, i'm excited to announce the convening of the shared prosperity coalition, including the labor and community groups that we have worked with to develop the proposal. coalition members include the san francisco labor council, jobs with justice, san francisco rising, the chinese progressive association, bright line defence , and faith in action. together, this coalition will convene around shared goals and principles of true economic fairness, including a just tax system and equitable revenue measures. the coalition will spend the next year developing a comprehensive strategy to address the root issues of economic inequality in our city, and finally, with this coalition , we will review and recommend changes to our tax code centred on economic fairness and equity, examine what true prosperity for all looks like, and what we need to get there and take comprehensive
actions to do so. i want to thank the deputy city attorney for their work on this initiative. ted egan for developing the revenue projections, on and my colleagues for your support. i especially want to our shared prosperity partners who worked with us to develop this initiative and who are excited to work with us in the year ahead on a broader plan under address economic inequality. the san francisco labor council, jobs in justice, san francisco rising, the chinese progressive association, faith in action and bright line defence. together we will work towards a san francisco for all where our economy works for working people where corporations pay their fair share. where everyday people get a fair shake and where we are defined by our ambition and vision for equality, not by crises fuelled by a runaway wealth cap.
thank you. >> thank you very much. so let's open this up for public comment now. i will call out the names. sophie sam, felicia angular,... >> hello. name is muriel and i am here with faith in action. i have grown up in this city and have seen many changes throughout the years. what i see happening right now is the city does have great wealth, but those who are profiting from the wealth are not the families who work two or three jobs every day to survive, that the c.e.o.s and executives of major corporations and tech companies -- the low income and middle income families who are
truly the heart of this city are having to leave. small businesses, many of whom have spent their lives building their businesses are being shut out. this is immoral, to say the least. the low and middle income families have paid their dues and it is now time for the corporations and tech companies to do the same. i come before you today to ask that the corporations and tech companies, with your help, close the loopholes that enrich their profiting greed, and i ask that you support supervisor mar's proposal. thank you. >> thank thank you. next speaker please. >> first of all, i want to let you know that the treatment that twitter and a minimum of nine other high-tech companies got,
and why y. bio why bio -- one biotech company got, multi my million dollars of tax-free money from the city and county of san francisco, it is called tax evasion, money laundering, bank fraud, and mail fraud. okay, you are in violation of the rico act and you are eligible for about 20 years in the federal god damn penitentiary. when i complete my thesis, i'm going to the internal revenues and i am filing my complaint with the inspector general. so to make sure that don't happen again, this has got to stop at this level, and what mar is doing is true and correct. if i had a speaker appear in the witness stand, i would be ripping him apart. for example, his own documentation, he justified how he is doing nothing but benefiting high income bracket people and i'm tired of having people in very low and low income bracket people that is not being able to defend themselves because of people like you. s.f. viewer, please. for example, he claims that 55
-- $55,000 a year is the cost for all occupations. you're not including the incomes of people who are below $55,000 a year. so they are not included in your figures, so you're cooking the books. you figures are not legitimate. if i had you on the witness stand in front of a judge, i would impeach your testimony and your demonstration and right about write about here where you say rent reddens have declined, you are a god liar. read -- rent burdens have decreased and cause people to lose their homes. as you can see, your own evidence here, what is this here i don't have that up on the screen. stopped my time. back my time up. that is not what i put up there. come get your information off the computer system.
now you must at my demonstration can i get my time started over, please? you only have one minute on there. start my time over because you messed up my demonstration. >> how much was left on the time >> there is nothing there but a minute. i want my full two minutes to get the impact of my demonstrated experience to prove how people are being violated and how the city is being undermined it. >> mr. wright, you had one minute already, we have stopped the clock. this is now your demonstration that you're putting up on the s.f. viewer? >> why don't always get violated when it comes to my speech. i want to go back to my first demonstration to highlight what i was talking about that wasn't on the screen. i want to start it started at my two minutes.
>> you already had one minute mr. wright. mr. wright, if we have questions , we will be able to extend your time, but we'll put the clock on for one minute. >> rent burdens have declined since the recession, he is a god damn liar. rent burdens have increased because we never had a situation where rent decreases. and by the same response, the people who are not in occupations of high-tech companies, are not getting the salary increase is equal to the high-tech companies and the a.m.i. is based on the income coming from the high-tech companies. i would impeach this document, too, because not including the incomes of the people whose income is below 55% of the median and the people who are homeless on the street. this other demonstration where you say rents have grown 40% faster in the state, that
document contradicts your demonstration right there alone. you said it is stable, but yet it has grown 40% faster in the state, and the people who are economically disadvantaged and not getting a salary increase, can't keep up with this 40% increase in expenses. [indiscernible] >> madame chair, the speaker's time has closed. >> mr. wright, your time is up. i do have a question for you. you're claiming that the chief economist is not being truthful around the rent burden on your claim is that actually there is much more rent burden than what the chief economist is saying. is that correct? >> yes, he is pathologically lying. if the rent is the same -- >> mr. wright, so we do not really appreciate a personal attack on -- >> it is not a personal attack
-- >> -- we do not call names here, so let's just speak to the facts what you are asserting is that, actually what our chief economist has said, that people are more rent burdens than what he is claiming. i want to ask you, from your personal experience, share your personal experience with us about people you know or what you are hearing on the streets about the rent burden that people are suffering under. >> here. the first speaker who spoke, the female, her demonstration is right in front of your face and pertains to it. the 801,100 homeless people on the streets, who can't afford to get an apartment, have to settle for a shelter and a navigation center that center that they can't get in. it is clear clear-cut and preponderant so they can't afford rents in the city.
for him to say that everything is working out, and his testimony right here, s.f. viewer, right here where it says , for example, san francisco households whose highest paid members work in production have only an average of 55 -- $55,000 per year after household costs, you do not include the incomes that is below this 55,000. you are actually cooking the books and your presentation on your demonstration is false, and not credible, and effective, because you not including the most vulnerable people that are in the city, the don't even have houses. you are not giving a true measurement. >> thank you very much, mr. wright. i thank you have major point to us today. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is benjamin peterson and i'm speaking on behalf of jobs with justice.
i'm here to express mine and jobs with justice's support of the i.p.o. tax as we feel it is a positive step towards combating runaway wealth and income inequality that we are experiencing in san francisco. the influx of wealth brought upon by i.p.o.s will only put additional pressure on san francisco's working-class communities in a time of major economic strife and unprecedented levels of displacement. the same folks are most at risk of displacement are the very same people who provide labor that san francisco relies on, and more importantly, make up the social fabric of our city. i'm sure everyone in this room can think of at least one person or a loved one who has experienced a similar fate. the i.p.o. tax is already very popular, but after extensive conversations with voters, residence, and business owners, we have noticed an overwhelming demand to expand the reach of
the tax and broaden the range of issues that the tax's revenue what address. this is why we believe attacks should be placed on the 2020 ballot and it will give us time to be responsive to those are demanding reform that not only combats the systems of economic inequality, but its root causes, as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am working with s.f. rising and jobs with justice. i was born and raised in san francisco. i have grown up in in the sfusd school district, and with all the money that is in the city and that is in our city, our public services aren't even that well-funded. i have seen sony families get out of the city. i have seen so many of my friends get priced out of the city. it is ridiculous to see this. my first elementary school that i went to in the school district was shut down when i was in the second grade due to budget cuts,
and my classes have always been packed in the sfusd school district. we never had enough room for all the students that were in the classrooms. in my high school, our teachers didn't even have the supplies they needed. they were expected to have their own supplies with the low salaries that they had, and i know that this issue pertains today because of my family members, and also my friends that are still in the sfusd school district. it is ironic that in the city we have so many billionaires, what we have so many homeless people, as well. the i.p.o. tax helps so few people, but when you tax the i.p.o.s, it helps so many more people, and also it can change the economic and social gaps that are being created as i.p.o.s go through. people are becoming billionaires and millionaires overnight due to i.p.o.s. everything that is happening a
struggle for people in the city and it drives out small businesses. as was mentioned, low income and people of color. i would like to finish off saying please support the i.p.o. tax. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. i was not born here. my name is jeremy king, i am part of the episcopal church and work and i am part of faith in action. i have not been here long, two and a half years, and in that time, people keep asking me whether i like it here. my answer is always yes, but it is also qualified as this city has major challenges. i love the beauty of our setting , the bay, the beaches, even the fog. i hate to the misery i see among those forced into homelessness or forced to leave. i am mauled by the creativity, the innovation and the surge in our universities and tech
companies, and i am horrified by the effects of the chasm between the rich and the poor, however, it is increasing. while i have not been here long, the community i serve has been. we have been there 150 years in the mission since the beginning of this city. we have seen our communities flourish and we have weathered many storms. through it all, my faith tradition always commits ourselves to seek the dignity of every human being and seek justice. we pray that all may seek the common good. that is not the same as the greater good, where some can flourish of the cost of others, where those who suffer are seen as some sort of collateral were left out of the discussion entirely. we seek the common good. we all have -- where will all will have enough to meet their needs. it seems to me just that the share of the vast sums