Skip to main content

tv   CCII Commission on Community Investment and Infrastructure  SFGTV  October 11, 2020 5:00pm-6:01pm PDT

5:00 pm
on that. >> yeah. happy to. we can certainly relay that information to the mayor's team. we've been looking at the language when it came out. there were some places where it doesn't make sense, the language that's currently written about it. it's not clear how to [inaudible] department heads, so we highlighted some of that information. but as i said it, it speaks to the director's -- the department director's activities, not staff. that may be something that they want to expand on further so that it takes sense, referring to the consent. that's something we will refer to the mayor's office department team. >> you know, because the same issue is there with the board of supervisors legislation. i mean, just in drosting, start with what is the problem that you want to solve, and that is
5:01 pm
we don't want -- in drafting, start with what is the problem that you want to solve, and that is we don't want people asking for donors to pay for their holiday party. i think there's some question, as we get into the legislation, why they're getting around the gift role? so it's perfectly legitimate for organization, a corporation, or contractor to give money to the city, say, to help with the clean streets program, etc., but if it's over $10,000, they have to go to the board or it has to be posted on the departmental website if it's under $10,000. we need to look in-house in terms of is that process too arduous to go through where
5:02 pm
they go through this funding or they don't go to the parks alliance, they just throw this money in a special fund to a fiscal agent, and then, they can spend it more quickly. sometimes, let's face it. contracting, you give the money to the city, and then, they want to go out and contract somebody to provide rain barrels for drought resistance, and by the time you put out the competitive year for the bid maker, you're going to be in the next year. so there's some city homework that we need to do to figure out charitiable giving to the city in a way that's timely, and per the controller's office is subject to expenditure control and disclosure. but any way those are my
5:03 pm
off-the-top comment, and mr. clerk, do we have any public commenters in the queue? >> clerk: if you have not already done so, please press star, three to be entered into the public comment queue. you'll have three minutes if you're on-line with the interpreter. you'll hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. please stand by. also as a reminder to the public, public comment may also be submitted in writing and will be shared with the commission after this meeting has concluded and will be included as part of the official meeting file. written comments should be send
5:04 pm
to once again, that's madam chair, there are no calls in the queue. >> all right. with that, then, i'm going to close public comment on agenda item 8 and call agenda item 9, which is discussion and possibly action on items for future meetings. and before i invite commissioners to comment on whether or not they have items that they'd like on for future discussion, i'm going to read the notice to the public that if any member of the public intend to offer public comment for this item, they should dial in now and enter star, three to be added to the public comment queue.
5:05 pm
a queue, a -- queue, and i will take their public comment after i discuss with my fellow commissioners if there's any items they want to see in future meetings. commissioner bush, go ahead. >> thank you. i ask that a newspaper article from san francisco public press be circulated to the commission and be made available to the public, as well. it deals with incidences around the 2016 aleelection. it shows there was a meeting called together by the mayor and senior members of the board of supervisors with senior contractors, lobbyists, and others, laying down an edict, as it were, that they wanted
5:06 pm
contributions made to one candidate and not made to another candidate. that was the subject of some examination, though i wouldn't go so far to call it an investigation by the city attorney, but nothing was done. however, this was widely covered. it was in the examiner, it was in the public press, it was in mission local, and i think that it would be a good case study for us to talk about how corruption works in the city. the reason that i circulated it is because i wanted to see the public to have a chance to see what we were seeing about this particular incident and to have a view about what directive actions -- corrective actions are needed. is it a question of enforcement? is it a question of policy? is it the way things were worded? i noticed in the article that director pelham is quoted as saying, ethics commission didn't have the resources to go
5:07 pm
much further than it had done, and that would include, i assume, the resources to pursue a subpoena for any of the witnesses who were unwilling to talk voluntarily to the city attorney's office. since this is a -- on point with the issues that were raised by the u.s. attorney, by the controller, by the city attorney, and now through our i.p. meeting, i wanted to raise this because taking something off of the draft of the policy writing into the real world is, i think, imperative. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner bush. yes, i did see that article that you referenced was at least shared with the commissioners and, thus, it's within our public
5:08 pm
communications, you know, public file, and i'm -- i understand that these were issues that we're going to raise at the interested persons stakeholder meeting, as well. i agree with you. i like the idea of a real-world example, and it almost reads like a law exam. can you spot the potential violations of the ethics code as referenced in that news article, so i think that that would be a good way to illustrate some of the concerns that we could hopefully address as part of the conflicts of interest and code investigation that we're going to take. with that, i'm going to stop and ask the moderator to see if
5:09 pm
we have any callers in the queue. >> clerk: madam chair, we are checking to see if we have any callers on the queue. if you just joined the meeting, we are on agenda item number 9, discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you have an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. please stand by. madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you.
5:10 pm
with that, i'm going to close public comment on agenda item number 9 and call agenda item number 10, which is an additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to ethics commission bylaws article 7, section 2. if any members of the public intend to offer public comment for this item, they should dial in now and press star, three to be added to the public comment queue. and can i ask the moderator, the phone numbers of the individuals who showed up for agenda item 2, which is general public comment, but then were silent, have they been carried forward on the public comment on any of the specific agenda items and/or are they reappearing under this general comment opportunity now? i'm still a little worried about the fact that we -- >> clerk: no.
5:11 pm
basically, they were carried onto other agenda items. they did sign in for those agenda items. there's no public comment appearing on the queue right now. >> okay. so we did hear from them on the appropriate agenda items. >> clerk: that's correct. >> okay. so if you can check to see if there are any public callers in the queue for item number 10. >> we a>> clerk: we are check to see if there are callers in the queue. if you have just joined the meeting, we were currently on public comment on the motion of agenda item number 10, additional public comment on items appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to ethics commission bylaws article 7, section 2. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to be able to provide your public
5:12 pm
comment. you will have three minutes to provide your comment, six minutes if you have an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. please stand by. madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> all right, then. so i'm going to close public comment on agenda item number 10 and call agenda item number 11, which is adjournment. commissioners, do we have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> all right. commissioner smith, and do i have a second? someone needs -- >> second. >> i'll second. >> okay. seconded by commissioner [inaudible]. >> so with that, can you call the roll on adjournment. >> clerk: i will now call roll.
5:13 pm
[roll call] >> the motion to adjourn carries, and thank you. that will conclude our october 9, 2020 meeting of the ethics commission.
5:14 pm
skbl. >> hello. i'm shawnna loghorn with the league of women voters. along with the league and sfgovtv, i'm here to discuss proposition b, a proposition that will be on the ballot and before the voters on november 3. the city has three departments tasked with cleaning tasks. the city administrator oversees the department of public works and appoints the director with the mayor's director. proposition b is a charter amendment that would create a department of sanitation and streets which would take over some of the duties of the department of public works. this new department of sanitation and streets would be responsible for sweeping streets and cleaning sidewalks,
5:15 pm
providing and maintaining sidewalk trash cans, removing graffiti and illegally dumped waste and maintaining city buildings, public rest rooms, and street trees. the department of public works would continue to provide all other services required by law. proposition b would create a five-member sanitation and streets commission to oversee the department of sanitation and streets as well as a five-member public works commission to oversee the department of public works. the mayor would select the directors of both departments. if you vote yes, you want to create a department of sanitation and streets with oversight from a sanitation and streets commission, and you want to establish a public works commission to oversee the department of public works. if you vote no, you do not want to make these changes. . >> i'm here with honey
5:16 pm
mahogany, a legislative aide with supervisor haney's office. we're also joined by lari m -- larry marso, an opponent of the measure. we're going to start with some opening statements, and we'll begin with honey. >> thank you so much for having us today. i think that as a native san franciscan, someone who grew up here, and a small business owner, it's become very clear to me that san francisco has really failed at keep our city clean the clean. there is trash all over the streets, some streets are covered with feces, and sometimes you can't find a
5:17 pm
bathroom when you need one. we've been working on how the city can better address this issu issue. what we found is the system that we have in place is broken. no matter how hard the workers at d.p.w. work, they're unable to get the streets clean because the system is ineffective. d.p.w. is too big, there isn't enough focus on the streets, and especially during the time of covid-19, sanitation's now more important than ever, so we are putting forward a new department of sanitation to effectively keep our streets clean, wash our sidewalks in our most busy corridors and also to establish commissions overboth d.p.w. and the department to ensure that both departments are accountable to the public. the commission will also set baseline standards for
5:18 pm
cleaning, something that really doesn't exist now under the current system. >> thank you, honey. now, larry? >> hi. please vote no on proposition b, which takes a $400 million san francisco agency and needlessly cuts it in half and politicizes what remains. it's the case chaos and paralysis that will worsen the squalor on our streets. san francisco has the political will to clean the streets. the board of supervisors does not. proposition b creates two new bureaucracies and injects politics into the department of public works. this is a failed model of oversight.
5:19 pm
we have over 100 boards and commissions in san francisco already. proposition b sets no clean streets standards. there's nothing in here that says we are going to deal with the needles, the syringes, the feces on the streets. it's not there. matt haney writes in his argument that they're in proposition b. there's nothing in proposition b that sets baseline standards. we need -- we need -- we need to address the fraud and waste in the department of public works. >> thank you, larry. that's 1.5 minutes, so we're going to go into questions now, and the first question will go to you, larry, and then honey, you'll have a chance to answer it. the question is the amendment
5:20 pm
would create a new department of sanitation and streets to perform duties that's currently performed by the department of public works. if that's the proposition, what's the argument for creating a new department? >> the city controller says it's going to cost upwards of $6 million a year. that's over 50 million in ten years. that's a lot of money. but if you look at the paid arguments for proposition b, you see a long list of public sector labor unions. the seiu and the san francisco labor locals representing the trades that engage in cleaning our streets and maintaining some of our parks. they're talking about we need more resources, we need more
5:21 pm
resources. they believe that this new structure, which is going to put the board of supervisors in the position of straiting political appointee -- placing political appointees into governing these agencies, they believe it will mean significantly higher spending. and nowhere do the proponents of proposition b stay straight to the san francisco people that this is a major spending increase. will it address any of the core issues of cleaning san francisco streets? not if it atdss drug addiction, homeless, and mental illness on our streets, the root of so much of our problem. >> thank you. the same question to you, honey. why create a new department? >> well, i would like to first address some factual
5:22 pm
inaccuracies in some of those statements. one, the measure does require the department to set public standards for cleaning. we want to hold community outreach to set those standards. there is a metric to address that. also, i do want to correct that the controller report says -- the updated controller report says this will be closer to $2.6 milli 2.6 million in costs to create this new department. the reason we have to create this new department is the current department is broken. there is not enough oversight over cleaning and sanitation in the current system. it is less than a quarter of what d.p.w. does. d.p.w. is a department with 1600 employees, and like you said, a $400 million budget. less than a quarter is dedicated to cleaning.
5:23 pm
we feel like a metro city in san francisco where tourism is its number one industry, we need to have a focus on cleaning with metrics that are created in a very transparent manner, a method for us to have feedback, and for the public to have feedback, and again, really providing some very close oversight and accountability for a department that, up until now, really hasn't had any. >> thank you, honey. our second question, and it'll start with you, honey, is again, about the cost. the office of the controller states that this amendment, in the report that i read, ranged from 2$2.5 to $6 million annually. honey corrected that it will be just over $2 million. do we think this is the right way to spend the extra money on sanitation or is there another way that is perhaps more beneficial?
5:24 pm
>> you know, $2.6 million is a very small -- it's less than a percent -- or a fraction of a percent of the city's current budget. it's a small amount of revenue that the city would generate through improvement to its business districts. it has been very public how we've been criticized by -- all over the world, really, for our filthy streets. the travel industry has been impacted, our hotel industry has been impacted, so those are our biggest industries for our city. so for the city to spend $2 million on an issue that we haven't been able to fix in decades is nothing. i will note that the legislation actually also reduces duplication in terms of
5:25 pm
staffing by putting some of the staffing as shared with d.p.w. for the back end, which larry referred to earlier, and it also required city administrator to also provide that support. so the additional hiring is really minimal. there is some costs for the commissions, but again, the controller actually -- the f.b.i. and the scandal recommended that supervision be placed over d.p.w., so it is good governance. it'll put a commission over d.p.w., and it'll also put a commission over the department of sanitation and streets to oversee them. >> okay. larry, same question to you. >> since 2014, the portion of department of public works spending on cleaning our streets has doubled. if you look around you, do you see that our streets are
5:26 pm
cleaner? spending money is not the solution to cleaning our streets when we have significant significant endemic root causes of drug abuse and mental illness on our streets. the department of public works, if it's split in half, it's going to generate more costs than simply what the controller has documented. there are duplications of band-end services -- back-end services. okay. but why are the biggest unions in san francisco pouring money into this measure? they're doing so because they're looking for higher pay and more hiring. >> sorry. i have to cut you off there as time is up for questions, but we're going to move into closing statements, and we will
5:27 pm
start with honey. >> thank you so much. it's funny because i think larry and i agree that we've been pumping money into d.p.w., and things haven't gotten any better. in fact, things have gotten worse, and that is why we're establishing the department of sanitation and streets because the current system is broken. we're going to be providing accountability, setting baseline standards. i have to say the reason why so many labor unions are behind this is we figured out a solution that would work for everybody. it's not about raising salaries for anything like that. these are hard working san franciscans, people who really care about their city and want to be proud of their city and the work they do, and they know best how to address this problem because they're dealing with it every day. so we're proud to have worked with them, to provide this
5:28 pm
measure of accountability to provide safer, cleaner streets, trash cans that will work, access to more rest rooms. more green infrastructure which has been sorely lacking. and, again, public accountability and a real focus on street cleaning. so i'm very proud of the measure, and i implore san franciscans, if you want to see our travel industry be reinvigorated, our children and familied supported by the picking up of needles and keeping our streets clean, then please vote yes on proposition b. >> thank you, honey. closing statements from larry, please. >> proposition b will politicize the department of public works. that's why i and a number of centrist politicians and organizations are opposed to proposition b, on the board of
5:29 pm
supervisors, supervisor sandra fewer voted no, raff vel mandelman voted now, more man yee, voted no, catherine steph he knee voted no. the ed lee democratic club says no. the sfgop says no. you have people across the political spectrum who recognize that this is going to increase costs significantly while at the same time inducing chaos in public services, paralysis in the cleaning of our streets. uncertainty at a time that san francisco needs to be smart and focused in how it spends its money, how it raises its money, and to address the real causes of what we see going on in our streets. matt haney does not represent a
5:30 pm
common sense approach on homelessness, drug abuse, or mental illness. i have tried to bring these solutions myself to a citizen ballot measure on the regulation of navigation centers. the entire ballot you're seeing was put together by the board of supervisors. no one could even collect signatures under shelter in place to propose alternative measures, as i tried to do. >> thank you, larry. thank you very much both for your comments and for your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information, please visit the san francisco elections website at this year, every person in california will be mailed a ballot starting on october 5.
5:31 pm
you may drop off your vote by mail ballot in person starting on october 5 in the city hall voting center located outside of bill graham city auditorium 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. you may drop off your ballot at your voting center for the two weekends before voting day, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. thank you. >> hello. i'm shawnna longhorn with the league of women voters. along with the league and sfgovtv, i'm here to discuss proposition f, a ballot that
5:32 pm
will be before the voters on tuesday, november 3. the city collects taxes from san francisco businesses, including the payroll expense tax, the gross receipts tax, the administrative office tax, the annual business registration fee, the child care tax, and the homelessness tax. the child care and homelessness taxes have been challenged in court, and the money collected through these taxes has not been spent by the city. state law limits the amount of revenue, including tax revenue, the city can spend each year. state law authorizes san francisco voters to approve increases to this limit to last for four years. proposition f would change certain taxes the city collects from san francisco businesses, including eliminate the payroll expense tax, increase the gross receipts tax rate in phases, expand the small business exemption, and eliminate the credit for businesses that pay
5:33 pm
a similar tax elsewhere. increase the administrative office tax rate in phases, and change the business registration fee. proposition f would further increase the city's business taxes if the city loses either of the child care tax or homelessness tax lawsuits, but it would exclude money collected from these increases when determining baseline spending. it would also increase the city's spending for the next four years. if you vote yes, you want to overhaul the business tax structure. if you vote no, you do not want these changes. >> i'm here with jennifer brooks, a proponent of the measure. we're also joined by starchild, a libertarian, and an opponent of the measure. we're going to begin with some
5:34 pm
opening statements, and we will begin with star child. >> yes. this is starchild, the libertarian party of san francisco. we believe that tax adding on right now is just absolutely the wrong time. there's so many businesses suffering under the lockdowns. i live in the castro, and it just seems that every other business is closed and boarded up. the measure, furthermore, is so confusing. it's, like, 125 pages long, and reading through it, i couldn't even tell on my own what it was going to do. so i'm substantially relying on the controller's statement which says it's going to be nearly a $100 million tax increase. i think it's egregious whenever they pass measures that are so complicated that the average person reading them, everyone someone who's somewhat familiar with reading these kinds of
5:35 pm
measures can't really tell what's going on, and i'd be happy to hear the proponents spell out exactly what the different aspects of these measures are and how they affect everybody. but from what we can tell, it's a huge tax increase and it comes at a time when businesses are already super struggling in the city. getting rid of the payroll tax would be terrific, but there is a net tax increase. i don't think this is something that anyone was clamoring for, and i think people should vote no. >> thank you, starchild. we'll move to jennifer. >> thank you. mission neighborhood center has been a community anchor in the mission district for more than 60 years, and it's really from that vantage point that i've seen the impact that the pandemic has had on san francisco families, and that is
5:36 pm
why i feel very strongly that we must pass proposition f. at this time, san francisco is facing three distinct crises that have come out of the pandemic. the first is job loss. more than 5,000 businesses across the city have shut their doors since the pandemic began. the second is child care sector. it's operating at half its capacity because of the need for social distancing, and third, our city government is facing potentially a $1.5 billion shortfall over the next three years. this proposition will help all of these factors. it will help businesses like hotels and recreation. it will unlock $400 million of
5:37 pm
voter approved child care funding that is currently tied up because of litigation, and third, it will contribute $156 million towards balancing our city budget, and finally, it will create more than 2,000 jobs over the next two years. at the same time proposition f addresses our immediate needs, it solves some long-term needs that have become apparent during the pandemic. sfesk o specifically, our outdated taxes -- >> sorry to cut you off, but we're going to go to questions. the first question, jennifer, will go to you. san francisco is facing a budget shortfall of $1.5 billion due to the covid-19 pandemic. this amendment is part of an attempt to address this deficit.
5:38 pm
why do you believe it's the right way to do so? >> so, there are a couple of reasons. first, because it helps small businesses, and they are the ones facing the critical and are in need of tax relief right now. what this measure does is it rebalances who's paying the business taxes. it is not a new tax. it is overall the same net amount of taxes, it just ensures that small businesses get relief, and bigger sector, particularly the information sector, pays its fair share. >> starchild, same question to you, except why do you believe this is not the right way to address the potential deficit? >> well, it's not revenue neutral. you don't help small businesses by taxing them more. the people running city government, they always seem to portray these things as a choice between, you know, well, we have a budget shortfall, so
5:39 pm
we either have to cut services that you want or raise your taxes, but they never look at the third option, which is to cut their own budget. there's thousands of people in city departments who are making six-figure salaries. you think they could tighten their belts, quite frankly. it's not too much to ask when so many other businesses, people have lost their jobs or businesses have entirely had to close. i don't see anything that's going to create 2,000 jobs is pie in the sky speculation. taxing the information sector? that's what's been driving the san francisco economy years and years, the tech economy. there's real risk of losing -- losing the goose that laid the golden egg, tech being driven out of town if they continue unfriendly policies. >> thank you.
5:40 pm
thank you. we're going to go to the next question, and we'll start with star child. the question is san francisco's child care and homelessness taxes has been challenged in court, and the money that's ae been collected through these taxes has not been spent by the city. if this prop is passed, that will free up these funds for the city. what's your position on that? >> well, we don't believe those propositions should have been passed in the first place. i think there's academic questions about the ledger being written illegally skprks that should skprks -- and that should be allowed to finish winding its way through the courts. the government should not be rewarded for doing things
5:41 pm
illegally. there's a number of places where they did not follow the law in the language in terms of how measures are presented in the ballot handbook, and in some cas cases, they're presen them in a biased manner. they shouldn't sweep that under the rug and allow them to take this money and keep imposing the tax going forward. you know, it's -- it's good to have child care, but if people don't even have jobs to go to, they're not going to need child care, and they're going to kill jobs by raising taxes. there's no reason why this shouldn't have been written revenue neutral. there's no reason why taxes should be going up. >> sorry to interrupt you. we need to move to jennifer. >> first, a rebuttal. this would replace the payroll tax with a gross receipts tax
5:42 pm
and increase the number of small businesses that are exempt, and it would also reduce business registration fees. now onto why child care. early care and education chaz high quality is demonstrated to be more effective antipoverty strategies than any other on children, on parent, and even their grandparents. we need to increase and continue our investment in this essential service. we need to be able to shore up the programs that are at the brink of collapse at this critical moment, and we need to invest in proposition f. >> thank you, jennifer. so at this point, we're going to move into the closing comments, and we'll start with star child. >> yeah. again, the bottom line is that this is a major, almost $100 million year estimated tax increase per the controller, and the measure is 125 pages long, very confusing about exactly what the effects are
5:43 pm
going to be, and, again, confusing legislation tends to have a disproportionately bad impact on small businesses because they don't have armys of lawyers working for them to figure this stuff out. it's, again, going after the wrong target. it's going after businesses in the voluntary sector rather than the coercive sector to cut their budgets. of course, the supervisors making six figure salaries can be return today what it was not that many years ago, you know, under $100,000 a year. $99,000 i think, is enough to be made in city government. they don't need to be paid at citizens' expense. if it they want more funding for child care, again, reducing the payroll tax would be great, but there's no need to impose greater taxes that are going to unfavorably affect the business climate at a time when
5:44 pm
businesses are already struggling. i have not heard a good reason why this particular measure is -- is the way, why they could not have made another measure that doesn't raise taxes overall. >> thank you. closing statement from jennifer. >> thank you. so san francisco was also facing a crisis in child care and education and unbalanced taxes for small businesses even before the pandemic, and the pandemic has always exacerbated each of these challenges. i've done my homework. proposition f will address our immediate needs while addressing long-standing programs that have become more apparent during the pandemic. struggling businesses need tax relief, parents need child
5:45 pm
care, and children need early learning and our economy needs a stimulus to restart and recover. proposition f will enable us to help small businesses who are struggling, unlock voter approved child care funding, balance our local budget, and create jobs, and that i why i think we must say yes on f. >> thank you both fof for your comments and your time. we hope that this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other measures in this year's election, please visit this year, all voters in california will be mailed a vote by mail ballot starting on october 5. if you plan to raurn your ballot by mail, your ballot must be post marked by election day, tuesday, november 3. alternatively, you may drop off your ballot in person starting
5:46 pm
on october 5. you can always drop off your ballot at the city hall voting center starting two weeks before election day, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and if you don't mail in voting, vote in person at one of the 500 locations across the city and at city hall on tuesday, november 3. >> san francisco voters may vote for local and state
5:47 pm
candidates and ballot measures, as well as federal candidates. proposition g is a charter amendment that would allow san francisco residents to vote for locate the candidates and local ballot measures if those residents are u.s. citizens at least 16 years old and registered to vote. local candidates include candidates for city offices, the board of education, and the community college board of trustees. if you vote yes, you want to amend the charter to allow san francisco residents to vote for local candidates and ballot measures if they are at least 16 years old and registered to vote. if you vote no, you do not want to make this change. i'm here with chair achung, a
5:48 pm
proponent of the measure. we'll also joined by ricky green burg. a political commentator who is an opponent of the measure. thank you for being here. >> -- when you are a16, this is a much better age to start the lifelong habit of voting, and you can make the informed decision with the support of teachers, peers, and families. allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote will make it more likely that they will continue voting as older adults.
5:49 pm
additionally, 16 and 17 year olds care and will use their vote. 16 and 17 year olds are the ones organizing major protests throughout the city such as the mission high school and golden gate bridge protests, and they continue to carry this momentum, organizing and holding elected officials accountable. in cities, such as tacoma park in maryland, the voter turn out rate of 16 and 17-year-olds is double the rate of the general electorate. >> thank you, sarah. we're going to move to ritchie for our opening statements. >> thank you so much for having
5:50 pm
me. prop g is asking the questions, should 16 and 17 year olds be allowed to vote in city elections? voters should reject this as being a nonserious question this election day. there are three real factors in what we need to consider: legality, the maturity, and the effects of social indoctrinatetion in school and social media. 16 and 17 year olds are still children in the eyes of the law and incapable of performing many tasks that we can do as adults. children cannot sign contracts. they cannot purchase a rent a car, own a house, own a business. how can we let teens vote on such important issues such as property taxes, changes to city
5:51 pm
government operations? the concept of teen voting is absurd. the second idea of maturity, that often, we see through research and reports from psychologists, that cognitive functions, functions rational decision making are not developed until the mid20's, and the third is social justice indoctrination in schools are being pushed by the curriculum, so for those issues, we should vote no. >> thank you, ritchie. i think both of you touched on this, but we'll start with you, ritchie. 16 and 18 are just two years apart, so why do you believe that these two years do or don't make a difference? >> well, there's two ways to look at it. in a maturity way, there's some
5:52 pm
16 year olds -- i know someone or my next-door neighbor or my brother or my sister is so much more mature, but i already touched on this in my introduction is legality. 18 years old is the age of the majority. it's the age that society and the laws have been written to say that this is the point that now, you can function as an adult. we trust you at this point. there has to be some time, some age that we start. you can't keep getting lower and lower and lower, and 18 has been what has been the established for all the legality for signing contracts, joining the army, and more. >> same question to you, sarah. why 16? >> like i mentioned in my opening statement, when you're 18, you're in a time
5:53 pm
transition, you're going off to college, you're moving away, and this becomes very difficult to figure out how to register to vote or registration to vote or going to vote can become on the back burner. when you're 16, you're learning about civics and u.s. history, and this makes an ideal time to learn about voting for the first time, and you're supported by peers and family and teachers to make that decision. actually, 16 year olds have the same political knowledge as 21 year olds. when you're 16, you have something called cold could cognition, and this is the thinking process necessary for voting. hot cognition is the more spur of the moment thinking, which
5:54 pm
is not fully developed when you're 16. voting is more on the cold cognition. >> thank you. >> yeah, of course. >> and we're going to do the second question, and it's going to go to you, sarah, first. >> so a second message was put before the voters in 2016 and did not pass. four years later, however, san francisco faces new challenges, and we are revisiting the idea of youth voting, why do you believe now is the time for this measure to pass? >> well, i think that especially what's been going on politically in the past four years has made it so that young people feel very spurred to take action. like i mentioned, youth are at the action of so many social justice movements that have arisen the last few years, such as the black lives matter movement or climate justice. young people are continuing to
5:55 pm
fight and hold elected officials account. but we see that young people are continuing to demand action from elected officials for years on and for years on because as cliche as it sounds, it is most definitely our future, so 16 and 17 year olds are taking action in a way that we haven't seen them taking action in the past. we can see that 16 and 17-year-olds care about issues and how they affect us. >> same question to you, ritchie. this was voted down fairly recently, so why do you think that it's not the time to take this up? >> it's time to put this to rest and never bring it up again. holding officials accountable
5:56 pm
has nothing to do with teen voting, has nothing to do with climate action, has nothing to do with black lives matter. what we really need to look at is the indoctrination of children in school. social justice is not the way to run elections. we have students in school, including that teachers that bring their kids out of class to participate in protests and marches is not a way to teach civics. it's not a way to rationally show both sides or more than one side to an argument. we see over and over again that there's the indoctrination. the children don't know what their protesting, and we don't
5:57 pm
need this. >> currently, the 16 and 17-year-old population in san francisco is did he dominantly people of color. allowing 16 and 17 years old to vote will help ensure that young people of color are represented in our democracy. additionally, 16 and 17 years old should get a say about issues that affect us. under covid-19, 16 and 17 years old are the most impacted as they have many responsibilities. on top of education, they also take care of household duties and can get a job and pay taxes, some even taking on jobs of essential workers. 13% of grocery store workers are groce 16 and 17 years old.
5:58 pm
also, this is not a new idea. there are 14 cities in the u.s. that allow 16 and 17 years o-y to vote. [please stand by]
5:59 pm
>> we can't have that. right now the children should be working on doing good in school, their studies, and preparing for college.
6:00 pm
we should not be allowing them to vote. please vote no on proposition g. >> thank you for your comments and for your time. we have -- we hope this discussion has been informative. for more information on this and other measures in this year's election, please visit the san francisco elections website. this year, all registered voters in california will be mailed a vote by mail ballot starting on october 5th. if you plan to return your ballot by mail, your ballot return envelope must be postmarked by-election day, tuesday, november 3rd." alternatively, you may drop off your ballot in person starting october 5th at the city hall voting center located outside of the auditorium monday through friday, 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. you can also drop off your ballot at the voting center on the two weekends before election day from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on