Officers, of citizens, complaints, is that correct . And real estate. Somebody said real estate. Okay. No. The original proposal, if i may madame president , had both the office of labor standards and enforcement nocc under the public advocate, the amendment made in committee was actually with respect to both offices not have them been under public advocate, but to have the public advocate appoint the heads so the officers, were not moved under public advocate, actually, the public advocate had the ability to appoint. So that was different. But you didnt pull them out, you just changed it . I dont understand the question. For some reason, i was under the impression for example, office of citizens, complaints, was removed from public advocate in committee, and now placed back in but in a different form. What happened in committee is the way the olsc and the occ were left after i amended. After the committee made the other amendments, is those 2 offices were not under public advocate, th
Complaints, is that correct . And real estate. Somebody said real estate. Okay. No. The original proposal, if i may madame president , had both the office of labor standards and enforcement nocc under the public advocate, the amendment made in committee was actually with respect to both offices not have them been under public advocate, but to have the public advocate appoint the heads so the officers, were not moved under public advocate, actually, the public advocate had the ability to appoint. So that was different. But you didnt pull them out, you just changed it . I dont understand the question. For some reason, i was under the impression for example, office of citizens, complaints, was removed from public advocate in committee, and now placed back in but in a different form. What happened in committee is the way the olsc and the occ were left after i amended. After the committee made the other amendments, is those 2 offices were not under public advocate, they remained where they
Complaints, is that correct . And real estate. Somebody said real estate. Okay. No. The original proposal, if i may madame president , had both the office of labor standards and enforcement nocc under the public advocate, the amendment made in committee was actually with respect to both offices not have them been under public advocate, but to have the public advocate appoint the heads so the officers, were not moved under public advocate, actually, the public advocate had the ability to appoint. So that was different. But you didnt pull them out, u just changed it . I dont understand the question. For some reason, i was under the impression for example, office of citizens, complaints, was removed from public advocate in committee, and now placed back in but in a different form. What happened in committee is the way the olsc and the occ were left after i amended. After the committee made the other amendments, is those 2 offices were not under public advocate, they remained where they we
What they would like increased dialogue, discussion, and feedback on. But, as our a Feasibility Study moves forward on proposition c moves forward and we talk about the size of projects and neighborhoods but also based on the type of needs that we want to fulfill in the citya commission is going to be invaluable in helping to guide the support of the Mayors Office in terms of direction that we as a city want to take for Affordable Housing. In particular, i believe this comes up in almost every single project that are office negotiates and the type of Affordable Housing that we build and it what income levels. I do not want to say that there is not a rhyme or reason for each project, but we do do it on a project by project basis. We have to say i think Senior Housing is needed in this neighborhood and i think we should do this at 55 ami and we do the best that we can tell fill the needs that we are hearing from the community but i think the commission will provide a larger risible docum
Negotiates and the type of Affordable Housing that we build and it what income levels. I do not want to say that there is not a rhyme or reason for each project, but we do do it on a project by project basis. We have to say i think Senior Housing is needed in this neighborhood and i think we should do this at 55 ami and we do the best that we can tell fill the needs that we are hearing from the community but i think the commission will provide a larger risible document that we can follow and, give us a better compass in helping to guide all of our budgets together and not go on a development by development basis which is actually truly what were doing today. There are so many needs that we need to fill. Affordable homeownership that we need to fill and of course the continuing need for a working Class Community and those that are homeless and formally homelessand this commission is going to provide better laws and focus solely on this issue over the course the years and i think that wo