Thank you. Next speaker, please. Im with the Law Association im secretary there. My views on the building ive sat here many times nothing has changed but i would like to say that just to observe that in my observation correct or incorrect im seeing false conflicts between interests being laid out here that are false conflicts the first december decision made of the fourth floors this is somehow a project that is against Affordable Housing none of it is true weve come out and made formal statements this was a false conflict and tonight wearing my marsh label im wanting to protect the protections that were put into place in february statement and yet im president whatever the right thing to happen for 1050 van ness what we had in december or get a what was put out in february to work but standing by that as well so dollars a little bit of a process conflict there. It is a false conflict in the neighborhood. I wanted to say that thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Im judy im a fan of the
Im seeing false conflicts between interests being laid out here that are false conflicts the first december decision made of the fourth floors this is somehow a project that is against Affordable Housing none of it is true weve come out and made formal statements this was a false conflict and tonight wearing my marsh label im wanting to protect the protections that were put into place in february statement and yet im president whatever the right thing to happen for 1050 van ness what we had in december or get a what was put out in february to work but standing by that as well so dollars a little bit of a process conflict there. It is a false conflict in the neighborhood. I wanted to say that thank you. Next speaker, please. Hi. Im judy im a fan of the march i think its one of the few intelligent Theater Companies in San Francisco. Ive been happy youve set stipulations to protect it as an ongoing entity im asking you to deny the rehearing request the basic issue is are the Developers Wo
Mtc, the metropolitan Transportation Commission that runs the clipper program has been working to get as many vendors and location for clipper cards. Theres some limitations or barriers to vendors wanting to participate in that program, so im not sure that we could commit to by ex date, well have this many vendors. They have been trying to make it less burdensome, but im not sure what thresh old well be able to measure by. We could discontinually check in and say this is how many vendors we have or just to remind you, we wouldnt be creating any we would be creating an incentive for people on clipper, not penalizing those who arent on it under this proposal. Someone had talked about what if we went up to 2. 50, that would go beyond the indexing plan and thats not what i would recommend. But the concern about clipper accessibility to get one in the first place and reload, thats a legitimate one. If we were to do this, we would do another big outreach push in terms of trying to get clippe
One flaw with your argument is t makes the words it may happen superfluous, that the clause would mean exactly what you say it means if you took those words out. And your response, the only one i could see on the reply, your reply brief, page 13, is that those words were put in there to, quote, confine the president to filling vacancies that actually exist at the time of appointment. Now, is that did you really think they put that language in there because they were afraid the president would fill appointments that dont exist . I dont know why they put the language in there, mr. Chief justice, but it doesnt it isnt superfluous because it does serve that function one reason is because they were afraid otherwise the president would have the power, simply, when somebody died two or three years before and theyve had a big fight in congress to save up all the controversial nominations and then put them through as recess appointments. That could be one thing they didnt want to happen. I dont
They never went to the backup tapes. Exactly. The backup server is different. Theres no backup server. Theres a serve that operates the email. And the tapes theyre stored on offsite, they never got the emails back. Even though congress requestedded it, the irs didnt care and didnt go the extra mile to get thosement you testified last week that you knew there was a problem, february 2014 with lois lerners emails. I was advised there was an issue. In midmarch, the irs, according to your testimony, learned additional facts about her mysterious computer crash. Thats correct. Then you testified at this committee at the end of march, and you promised this committee, dowdy, gordon issa, everyone, get us lois lerner emails, you said, yes, well do it. You never mention, you never disclose that there were real problems about whether you were in fact going to be able to turn over those emails. Correct. At that time i did not know there were real problems meet what you told dave camp. In february