University working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing potentially wasnt capturing a lot of the money, i dont have the specific numbers in front of me, but raising it to the 100,000 threshold reduces the number of affected parties by 100, 120 i think it was. But captured 80 of the money. So we thought it was a substantial amount of the money still captured but not having less sophisticated or the parties that shouldnt be captured. That was based on your own analysis. Correct. And page 12 line 22, why is the term of the period of prohibitions expanded from six to 12 months, is there data that supports that change .
25 of all contributions. We have not been able to do the same analysis that was done by a university working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing potentially wasnt capturing a lot of the money, i dont have the specific numbers in front of me, but raising it to the 100,000 threshold reduces the number of affected parties by 100, 120 i think it was. But captured 80 of the money. So we thought it was a substantial amount of the money still captured but not having less sophisticated or the parties that shouldnt be captured. That was based on your own analysis. Correct. And page 12 line 22, why is the term of the period
This. [inaudible] Mayors Office of housing have that up there and want to make sure they know we fought for the land. It was for the public good. I hope the supervisors support this because when we are older and choose to have kids zee to make sure they can stay in the city. How will we stay here when everything is 3. Something Million Dollars . Calvin welch, San Francisco information Clearing House which is a member [inaudible] i want to speak in support of this measure and thank supervisor kim and avalos for their sponsorship and urge supervisor tang to join with them in sponsoring this important issue before the ballot. It is important to understand that this amends the existing administrative code that limits only to very low income homeless housing. The disposition of surplus base land. It is not at all correct if the implication of the office of work force and Economic Development or your comment supervisor tang that this ignores the needs from the Affordable Housing community of
Year that the voters came out in strong support of prop k and demand more afford housing to be built. Well speak out loudly again this year and we wont stand for people being throun on the streets while cabeal tv shows glorify million airs for producing luxury housing. We need to make a stand as a city well put public land in the communities hands. Good morning supervisors dean preston executive director of [inaudible] strong support of the measure and thank you supervisor kim and Avalos Campos and mar and hopefully other supervisors that will state their support. Also want to recognize the work Housing Organization is helping to craft. Different legislation i think it strikes a good balance and it is very well written and i know they work with your office. I think the numbers speak in terms of how the Surplus Property ordinance has not been implemented beyond the fwo two properties mentioned so this measure is critical. It wont solve all the housing problems but with respects to the s
Campos to continue items 11 ab on fulsome street ill leave it up to you if you want to take up that matter now or when the item is called in the normal course of business and i ask we take it up not now but in the natural order. Then the one item commissioners for pennsylvania i have no speaker cards. By Public Comment on the items proposed for continuan continuance. To the 2655 fulsome street. And thats not on the. Thats the items for continuance. I gave the option to the commissioners, if we want to take. I thought you asked for comment whether or not to take it up or not. Is there any additional Public Comment . For the items proposed for continuance not seeing any, Public Comment is closed. I move to continue. Second. Thank you, commissioners on that motion to september 15th commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 5 to zero and places under your consent calen