Say privately they should be able to use the Mayors Office of housing and Community Loan dollars for non04 the Housing Needs to simply disagree with that. They said second, they need flexibly without burdensome government regulations. Again, this ordinance and appreciates brush peskins commentswell spending to be done in accordance with 501 c 3 under the federal tax. That is fine. I want to make sure that we included that. These people have Incredible Missions and we want to support them. They said their Broader Communitythese funds for Broader Community purposes. I had a provisions again in accordance with 501 c 3 to approve Community Services. With the amendment introducing today this extensive uses to all Community Service just not Political Campaigns. Finally, they said they should not be a ordinance this is what i think is and should get with the sound to be some of the developers were actually be willing to support this policy was not an Administrative Law that we passed but a policy implemented by her Mayors Office of housing and Community Development. Developers are asking for the not to be a ordinance because they feel unfairly aligns them other asking for the Mayors Office of housing a community developed to help a policy instead. Welcome i encourage all members of Housing Committee devoted to develop these policies on anything that they issue. Anytime wes public dollars especially for Affordable Housing should not go go to private political paint again, period. To me, as a legislative body we should be signaling parameters in which public dollars should be spent. I think its the height of hypocrisy to say we dont want a law will support a policy on this issue. I also want to repeat them i commend the work all these organizers into. We simply very much differ that these organizations were any organization for the matter should be able to leverage public dollars, refinance properties, and use those funds for private Political Campaigns. That is takemoto not budget process to giving people direct spending either direct or something, use them for private Political Campaigns it i dont think which we doing that here in the city of San Francisco get i dont believe its a white user appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. Affordable housing built under it, give financing you guys recognize that. Late of impending federal cuts to hud or just generic structure i know in the development of Affordable Housing 21 every single bearable for the housing dollar to go to Community Development and housing here in the city this event and for the housing . Do we want Public InvestmentAffordable Housing to be returned to Affordable Housing or do we want to use on private clinical campaigns . To meet users clear and colleagues i hope to have your support. Thank you supervised cardenas. Supervisor kim thank you president breed. I just want have my thoughts to this ordinance. This proposed ordinance and why i will be opposing it today. Now i just want to start by saying theres nothing wrong with raising concerns about anyone spends their money could all of us here in the chamber do it and all of us work hard to expose the source of revenue which funds campaigns that we are opposed to and theres nothing wrong with making sure that everyone is following the law and that calling for an investigation by the government and this board does not punish entities to spend money on things we disagree with by resetting or printing the First Amendment wrights speech. Now the board of supervisors has got equally go advice we should be very careful when we crafted ordinances would restrict anyones First Amendment writer that we should also refrain from mentioning that the origins purpose of motivations of a proposal should arise from any concerns that we have about an entitys right to free speech. Yet, the very origins of the ordinance came out of press releases, blogs, that specifically targeted one nonprofit Affordable Housing organization, typoutilizing the funds for the purposes of political expression. Specific ligament the charge was levied for initiatives that the authors propose legislation opposed to erode, and a quote the dark money supporting proposition c, b, lms, and abusing [inaudible] the authors on the record proposing cdh element s and supporting you and peter did the author goes on to say i will be promptly introduce legislation to close these current loopholes for good. We have called for an investigation. Living for the many for the Housing Project funded with local dollars in San Francisco will be restricted from using these proceeds for anything other than Capital Improvements existing Affordable Housing or the purchase of additional Affordable Housing. Not bankrolling Political Campaigns. This proposed ordinance, the lead is dead on arrival. No assistance of the luggage of this wing which is ordinances neutral because it focuses on all, Nonprofit Organizations versus just talk to. Just like the muslim band prohibited immigration from citizens of everyone from the specific nations, not just the muslims of those nation at war, because we are not discriminating viewpoints [inaudible] in fact just one week ago on wednesday a federal judge derek watson stated quite simply, quote the logic of government referring to the Trump Administration contentions as possible. The notion that one can demonstrate animus towards any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed. He then goes on further to say, the government a. K. A. The Trump Administration compounds sure, is by suggesting an executive orders [inaudible] is what this court must rely on to evaluating the purpose. Only a few weeks ago the ninth circuit commanded otherwise good the Supreme Court has been even more empathetic courts may not quote blind eye to the contest in which a policy arose. There is nothing quote unquote build about the purpose of this legislative theres press releases blogs which clearly state that these intent of the legislation is not to restrict spending the money on Affordable Housing purposes but to actually especially prohibit only spending four quote unquote especially political purposes and theres a few think about the motives as newspapers openly write about the authors intent. The San Francisco chronicle headlines, Nonprofit Developers oppose Campaign Donation ban. Next city headline s. F. Lawmaker targets Affordable Housing campaign contributions. There is no question what the intent of this legislation is truly about. In fact the minoans hiding the ball on this one but not the author not the opponents of the legislation and suddenly, not the media. Now, even if this board believes they should and can regulate free speech, i think theres a number of other problems with this legislation at one, it only targets Affordable Housing nonprofits versus allman profits which receive public funding. Second, it only targets for the housing nonprofits versus all developers including Market Rate Developers who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every Election Year accessing their freespeech bankrolling political candidates and initiative. Now im often on the other side of that. I dont like it that market we developers and all this money opposing legislation that i offer that i support. By the way, we provide public funding to these Market Rate Developers could either through direct taxpayer contributions, through zoning the value of their land they are providing them money, or, Services LikeDepartment Like any department and department of building inspection. I dont like all this money that comes into election. I think that money should be heavily curtailed and severely restricted. We need to overturn Citizens United and other harmful decisions which allow money, not voters, to determine the outcome of elections in which candidates and ballot measures when. But we must do this consistently across the board. And not curtail the political speech of one group and not others. Finally, the supervisor peskin pointed out, this is a nonissue because the irs already regulates what nonprofits can spend their money on. They prevent any spending on candidates and place strict limitations on their contributions to other types of Political Campaigns like ballot measures. So i urge this board to oppose this legislation in any effort to curtail the freespeech of our entities and a residence. Thank you supervisor kim. Supervisor peskin thank you mdm. Present i like to associate my self with the comments of supervisor kim and also acknowledge i was not in the Landuse Committee when this came up your processor being interviewed by the Senate Rules Committee for that Coastal Commission spot and was unable to attend my apology. I would have brought these issues up in committee. I do want to explore a little bit some of the First Amendment issues that supervisor kim touched on. But, in so far as this only applies to hundred percent Affordable Housing projects, and in so far as virtually every 100 Affordable Housing project is built by a nonprofit developer because forprofit developers rarely, if ever, go into that market because it is not as lucrative as being in the Market Rate Development business, i think if we want to get money out of politics we should apply Something Like this as broadly as possible. This should apply to the recipients of the twitter tax break it this should apply not only to when i percent deals but to 8020 deals by done by forprofit developers should apply to 5050 deals although theres very few of them in San Francisco. And, rather than targeting the freespeech of one class of people. But, i also thinkand i say this from a perspective of somebody who has been the executive director of a nonprofit Environmental Organization for getting on the over 20 years, that it is entirely appropriate and lawful for a nonprofit to spend money in politics including four ballot measures. In instances when it furthers the goals of that nonprofit. We areheres a perfect example. Supervisor farrell put a measure on the ballot, proposition b to create more money for rec and park. Indeed, the organization i used to work for the trust for public land, contributed substantial amounts of money to get opposition v past and appropriately so. Because, it is consistent with their mission. There are Internal RevenueService Guidelines for a nonprofit 501 c 3 as to how much money they can spend in the business of politics, albeit, never in a candidate race for or oppose. So, for those reasons i cant vote for this bid i do feel that it is designed to chill the lawful freespeech of Nonprofit Organizations and to that end, would like to, through the president , as deputy City Attorney gibner whether or not you think this would survive a First Amendment challenge . Thank you supervisor peskin. Mr. Gibner . The was deputy City Attorney john gibner. As are all familiar, my office is required by the charter to approve ordinances as to form. Our policy is that we will approve any ordinance as [inaudible] if theres argument that we made in defense of that ordinance if it passes at the board and his challenge. We have signed supervisor farrell propose amendment meaning that at a minimum theres arguments to defend it. Beyond that, as youre also all familiar, whenever there are significant legal issues or legal questions that are raised at the board, i office has a practice of providing you confidential advice in writing which, we dont discuss in board meetings. Supervisor peskin the only other thing i would just add relative to the comments i made on supervisor farrell propose amendment that we have not voted on yet is that there is the same language that i referenced on page 3 is also on page 4, act line 14. Not that matters but i would respectfully suggest, through the president , to who provides her farrell that the words, candidate be removed on page 4, line 14 in on page 3 the malign 16. Again, i concur with supervisor kim and be voting against the ordinance. So supervisor peskin just for clarity we are reapproved the amendment. So you would need to make a motion to amend your so moved supervisor peskin has made a motion. Second by supervisor farrell. Colleagues would take that without objection get without objection those amendment past. [gavel] all right. Supervisor farrell. Thank you president breed i wont belabor the point too much but i think a few things need to be very clear about. This, in no way at all is printing First Amendment speech. At all. That is falsely misleading. This is saying, you cannot use public taxpayer dollars for Political Campaigns. Period. If any Organization Nonprofit or otherwise, especially nonprofit, ozone by 501 c 3 of the irs code, seek to have a fundraiser, to raise money for political things theyre welcome to do so in private funds conjure to that organization. Ira says you can spend more than 10 of your proceeds. Not touching that. What what im saying is San Francisco test their dollars should not be used for those purposes. Period. Right now, even though during the budget process and was commented during some comments earlier, the budget process nonprofits do get city funds but they are restricted by section 12g do not spent a political prisoner guess what, this is a loophole. It leverages and uses public dollars that should be repaid to the city of San Francisco were used for a formal housing and build moreover long i can leave this body is considered to date and vote down and ordinance we want spend more money on political approval excuse me are formalizing a not on political chemistry we believe taxpayer dollars is more probably views on Political Campaigns for you to do that than on Affordable Housing. Its amazing to me. Supervisor can you mention me specifically. Some speakers for my press release but i know a lot of those funds laster were spent on ballot measures that you propose. So i find it ironic you are the one promoting that. Of course, you would. Second of all, was section about forprofit Housing Developers. Its different because they dont take taxpayer dollars. If they did, that we should restrict them as well. Supervisor peskin mentioned it should apply to twitter with we want to do that in the course of any special we should have that vote. We should about bullets and will have it vote today get anderson as people post to this. But by voting, no, we are saying we believe in giving tax for dollars a way to organizations for Political Campaigns. I simply disagree and i will very much stand by that. Mdm. Pres. Im sorry are you done supervisor farrell . Supervisor cohen thank you very much supervisor peskin supervisor farrell, want to engage a little bit in the conversation supervisor kim maybe you can just listen because i maybe have a question for you as well. Thank you. The way i understand it, the way this conversation is being framed is that these are public dollars being spent in a political major. The way i understand it the nature to be a little bit more nuance. Public dollars are given for Nonprofit Organizations to make an investment. These Nonprofit Organizations make a profit and therefore making that public dollars or is that public dollars. So its not as clear cut for me asas it sounded and as its being presented. It is unclear to me if theres anything of legal precedent that says, the profit that is made although the public dollars were the initial use used in the initial i