tv [untitled] October 24, 2011 1:00pm-1:30pm PDT
>> we need to make sure the injustices created by bankamerica, wells fargo, and other banks like that are not just taken lightly. the words i am talking about and just as i am asking for is something that gets hurt here, gets hurt on a state level and the national level because something needs to be done. >> [speaking spanish] >> thank you very much. i want to make sure what i am
saying does not just a year, that it gets to higher levels of government because we need to make sure we take into consideration all people being affected by this and we continue to build up our country and local economies. >> good afternoon. i have another meeting to go to. i want to state this. it's been about three years ago when i came before your committee and stated was happening in my community with the latinos and asians and how their homes are being foreclosed. but when the program came out, homeowners could get their homes modified in order to pay less than the amount they were paying to the bank. bank of america said oes, you qualify, but just so happens, --
they said oh, yes, you qualify, but there are taking out so much each month. i received two letters that my house was being foreclosed and i am waiting on a modification, for them to tell me i'm going to have to pay less rent because of the fact i don't have a job, the incoming have coming in is less. this is happening all over. but what we had to do was to borrow the money to catch up with what they said we owed or my house would have been taken from me and i would be homeless. thank got people knows me here in the san francisco and i was telling them what was happening with bank of america. you need to look into this. we don't have all the time -- these people are going to be on the street. this is unfair and this has been going on for three or four
years, foreclosures -- you got to get one of those newspapers that shows in the areas how many homes are being foreclosed. on one block, nine homes in my area. the next block, six homes. this is ridiculous. all the bailout money these banks received, what are we, the community, the people that pays taxes, what have we received? nothing. [tone] you need to take a look at bank of america and the rest of these banks who are conning the people and maybe you need to bring obama here, not for a fundraiser, but to see and talk to the people that these things are happening to. >> next speaker, please. >> [speaking spanish] >> it good afternoon.
i would like to tell you all about how lost two of my homes. >> [speaking spanish] >> that happened in 2008. i bought my homes in 2006 in san francisco. >> [speaking spanish] >> i got a letter at chase which at that time was washington mutual, that i was behind on my payment. >> [speaking spanish] >> they called me on the phone and told me i had the opportunity to refinance my homes, but they were giving me the opportunity to do one.
>> [speaking spanish] >> this that needed to give them $1,300 for them -- $13,000 to refinance my mortgage. >> [speaking spanish] >> i sent them $13,000 because i had to mortgages, a small mortgage and a big mortgage. >> [speaking spanish] >> between three and four weeks after i sent money, i got a letter from the bank telling me
they had denied my modification. >> [speaking spanish] >> they told me if i did not pay my balance in third to 45 days, that i needed to leave -- from 30 to 45 days, i needed to leave my home and i would be evicted. >> [speaking spanish] >> to this day, me and my family are being greatly affected by what happened because we lost 20 years worth of savings. >> [speaking spanish]
>> we have not been able to get our life back on track and our life has not been the same since what happened. >> [speaking spanish] >> thank you for giving me the time to tell you my story. i want to let you know that chase has affected our family very negatively and it's probably not just our family. [applause] >> banks have been very much involved in tenant issues in san francisco for many years, mainly with evictions. in particular, that has reached a focus with the foreclosure crisis -- with the foreclosure crisis in san francisco.
at tenants you'd end, we think at least have the foreclosures in san francisco and of renter- occupied properties. these seem to be places where the banks started foreclosing on the owner of the property who then rented out the property as a last gasp way to say that. -- to save it. what we see in many cases is that it is to household losing their homes. first, a homeowner and second, the tenants who follow them. we have a just cause addiction legislation in san francisco this as banks cannot evict when they are foreclosing on a property. but nonetheless, people coming in to the tenants union and other counseling groups, the banks routinely are issuing tenants eviction notices, telling them they must leave, often in flagrant violation of the law. beyond that, they are harassing
tenants and locking tenants out and turning off utilities and we see banks as horrendous actors in the san francisco despite the loss we have. we really need in looking where our next banking goes, we need to look at the practices of banks in these foreclosures. but also, looking at their relationship to eviction -- we had bank of america -- which financed city apartments, have banks to finance conversions and other similarly frowned upon practices in the san francisco. as one of our requirements, we need to look at the eviction practices of the banks as well as the foreclosure practices. >> what justification are the banks giving for evictions?
>> they're just giving a 30 day notices. is ignorance as well as just that they have the attitude of we are immune to everything. it is arrogance that we see quite a bit. >> and has the out reach we have done to the banks been adequate? >> it does not seem to be. when tenons contact that tenants union or someplace else, they are told they cannot evict and they don't have to move and they stand up and fight for their rights. but many assume that because they get this 30 day notice that they do have to leave. >> thank you. >> my name is willie radcliffe and i'm a general contractor and developer. i publish the san francisco bayview newspaper.
i think we have heard all the bad things about the banks. i will not go into that. but what i will talk about is the discrimination the banks have in not loaning money, especially to people of color. i was fortunate enough to be working i section of the gas pipeline in north dakota. i opened up an account in that north dakota bank. that's one reason north dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country, because they not only is the bank there to help you, but they have insurance programs and funding programs to make sure the people, and there are some competition for the banks. there is no competition here for the banks. whatever they want to do, go ahead and do.
if we had a municipal bank and a state bank and had competition for the banks who won't stop sitting on all that money. because that is the world's to go, they will start working with some of the people because they're not going to make no money just sitting on it. i think this is one of the best things we can do -- open up a bank here and have some competition where people have other places they can go and the banks will start dealing with a lot of people now they won't even deal with. i am so glad this is being pushed. i'm the one to holler about it -- you can go up and down third street and ask every businessman, i've never been able to get a loan from the bank. these are small businesses that create the jobs in our
community. if they can't get no capital to run their businesses, we have a huge problem that we can do something about. [tone] just a difference in the fees they charge affect their is no competition, they just sit on the money. but if others start loading us money, they will start lining people money also. thank you and i am glad you held the hearing. i look forward to but i think we should also move to have a state bank to do the same thing because we're not just hurting in the municipalities, we are hurting all over the state. thank you. [applause] supervisor avalos: i think i didn't recognize -- we have a new alarm -- when your comments and, i don't think i heard the last ding.
>> i am an independent certified public accountant and i am the treasury -- treasurer of the green party of california. i have a couple of questions. the legislative analyst said we could only put to under $50,000 in any one bank because -- to put $250,000 in 81 bank -- in any one bank. i presume we have this large amount of money in bank up matt -- bank of america because they're so big they could not go under, but i read the business section every day and they talk about how bank of america may go under. so i am unclear on why that standard would only apply to small banks and credit unions. my other thoughts are credit
unions are owned by their depositors. if we were a substantial part -- substantial depositor in a credit union, we would go on a piece of it and i wonder how that would impact state law. typically, somebody that owns 10% of an institution, if you own 10% of the stock of a corporation, that is a controlling interest in most corporations because no one owns a big enough piece to fight you can dictate policy with less than 50% ownership share which says to me we could potentially use this to create financial institutions here in the city that would have policies we would like even though we do not own a majority issues -- majority interest. my last point, if we are going out for this rfp, if we had a point system that gave points for being local and small and
having policies we like even if some of these the bigger banks could give us a better financial deal, we would still end up with a system by which we could be fair and still award some of our businesses. [tone] supervisor avalos: next speaker please. >> hello, supervisors. i am an author and on the steering committee of the san francisco community congress. i am not representing them here today but i commend it you for bringing this to our attention. coming out of a lot of community-based discussion about what we can do to repatriate this money from the private banks. i want to urge the supervisor, treasurer and budget analyst that as you move forward, redefine the definition of costs. i know there is going to be a
lot of caution about what is this going to cost the city, but look at what it already is costing the city would we think about these 12,000 + foreclosures averaging $20,000 in cost per foreclosure. you look at the evictions and you see that tarzan's and coal power plant issues which don't affect the world in general, but affect things in san francisco here as well. these are families being dislocated, poverty and homelessness being added, these are serious costs the city and the public there. in that way, we're subsidizing these banks and we need to stop doing that. we have roughly $6.5 billion in city accounts total at any given year. as much of that as we can repatriate to citibank, why should we be giving money to
banks that have so much evidence of not working in the public interest and it's not in their definition to be in the public interest. thank you. [applause] >> one of the things that occurs to me in terms of the criteria, i think there is every reason in the world to consider our financial interests as being secure and safe important. that being said, the criteria, one thing i would ask about is the issue of around wells fargo investing in private prisons that turn a profit off immigration detention. as a sanctuary city, i feel like that should be one of the criteria, that we should not be getting our money and a bank that turns a profit on the
tension. another thing to think about as previous speakers are, and evaluating what is the cheapest proposal but looking at the hidden costs and seeing where all the city -- all of the shady practices of a certain bank. i'm told bank of america's public going to go belly up, but don't worry, the federal government will bail them out. that is a secure financial institution we would consider? i don't think so. what are the hidden costs involved in using that bank. we should be looking at what are the criteria for considering the most inexpensive rfp and what of the hidden costs we're looking at? can we get a stronger analysis of what are some of the hidden costs run the foreclosures that are happening? finally, i would like for you to ask to call a hearing on a
moratorium for foreclosures. i feel like this is a long-term goal and in the short term, that's something we can do immediately. given how shady some of these banks have been and some of the stories we have heard better clearly illegal, the evictions of tenants, we should put immediate foreclosure -- an immediate moratorium on foreclosures. thank you. [applause] >> i am a district 8 a voter and here as a reporter. thank you very much forgiving me something worth reporting. -- for giving me something worth reporting. i'm here to tell you about something that came out on bloomberg -- bloomberg reports bank of america has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivatives obligations from merrill lynch and their holding company to the fdic-insured retail deposit division.
along with this information came the revelation that the fdic insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion. i remember the shock when the federal deficit hit 1 trillion dollars and is now over 14 trillion. derivatives are highly bought tile incident -- instruments are mostly used for speculation. they're based of the value of stocks, bonds, commodities, and the volatility of financial indexes and even the weather changes. many big banks, including bank of america issued derivatives because if they are not triggered, they are highly profitable to the issuer and result in big bonus payments to the executives to administer them. if they are triggered, the obligations fall on the corporate entity, not the
executives involved. ultimately, by allowing existing gambling bets to remain in insured banks -- the obligation falls upon the u.s. taxpayers in dollar-denominated savers. [applause] >> good afternoon. i'm a counselor with just cause and i along with other community organizations see every day the ways in which tenants are directly affected by the foreclosure crisis they did not create. we just heard about how banks are not following the laws that protect tenants from illegal eviction. but what i see every day is the ways in which these banks and financial institutions are exploiting the loopholes and profiting from exploiting these loopholes that exist in the
protection of our tenants laws. but only in evictions but maintaining properties and repairs and harassment of tenants. there is a minimum amount of policies already set forth these banks should be following, such as notifying tenants of the new management within 15 days. tenants often do not know the to pay rent to, do not know who they should be talking to, and when they have been given this information, they receive 30-day notices that there defaulting on rent the are not paying, but they never knew who to pay two. when banks become property of owners or property managers or put other companies in charge, maintaining the permits becomes increasingly difficult for tenants to do. they sent letters of repairs that say i need something fixed. they don't know who to send it to or they send it to the wrong person or they get looked into
this bureaucracy of and nobody knows how to repair the property. there is also 0 accountability to real-estate agents to harass tenants, asking them to leave, giving illegal evictions constantly saying he notices under foreclosure and you are going to leave. banks should have a zero tolerance policy on real-estate agents doing this type of harassing behavior. [tone] there are multiple others things, but my last point is why would we allow a financial institution the privilege of managing our local bodies when they have failed to responsibly provide our communities with loans, up services and they're not taking the communities into consideration. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon.
thank you for having this hearing. the board is always doing some good work, which is great. but i would caution you. i have been doing a lot of work with the baby merchants association. i've got an opportunity to look -- the bay view merchants association. if you spend time walking up and down the third street, you can see the challenges yourself. the businesses there, while there toughening get out and working really hard, one thing they do not have is a lot of capital. when i walk up and down third street and asked if you want to beautify your sidewalk, they say i do but i don't have any money. there are some resources needed there to remove the blight. later on, i will give you a formal letter. there has been a group protesting the social blight in terms of the development and
social services that are needed. this board, if you can't get the job done, do the job yourself attitude. but there's a lot that is wrong. you cannot get into the banking business anymore than you can get into the energy business or unified school district business. my recommendation would be a have a report card for the banks you do business with and have a checklist and reward excellence bankers like the credit unions. they are owned by the people and make the deposits. instead of banking with a large corporate entity, you might want to bank with a credit union. there's the firefighters credit union and all kinds of them. take a look at that. i would ask you judge the larger banks -- how well have they performed? how many small business loans have they made and what are the interest rates? how well do they work with micro
lenders? how many home once have they made? how many foreclosures have they made. if they're going to give an interest rate, they charge a very high interest-rate. but if you have a savings account, you get a penny on $10,000. when i get a statement to see how much i have made, it's not very much. i would urge you to use a report card and not get into the banking business. [applause] supervisor avalos: next speaker, please. >> thank you for having the hearing today. on page 6 of the legislative analyst's report, it mentions $4 billion in city assets and an effective yield rate of 1.26%. i can guarantee that commercial banks and the private capital market is getting a much more substantial return on those assets than 1.26%.
we're giving our substantial financial power as a city where we have as much reserves as some states, over into the commercial banks and private capital markets and we're not looking after our own interests. the commercial banks and private capital markets are not going to help us fund public housing, help us expand local hire mandates and other industries so we argue over one small portion of one industry for all of our local fire problems. they're not going to help us retrofit buildings, build affordable housing for low- income or middle-income residents. these are broad based policy -- policies we cannot get funded because we cannot get into the commercial capital bank market. yet we have all of this financial power on our own. this is what this is about. if we can do this by creating a bank, that's fine. the investments initiative makes
sense because you can do a lot sooner. if the larger banking institutions are the only ones we can put our money with, then we need to use our leverage in said of giving our resources over and letting the market do what it will with it. we need to use our cities money in the service of the city's interest and make that rfp program of work because that's how we can get the benefits. supervisor avalos: thank you. before the next speaker, i still have several cards left. [reading names]