Final Passage of Ordinance Concerning the Establishment of an Annual General Adjustment, a Rent Registry, Banking, and a Petition Process for an Upward and Downward Adjustment of Rents  (Community Development 265)
All right. So any council clarifying questions? Okay, with CNN, let's just get started on our public speakers and up to 3 minutes apiece, right? Yes. Yes. So we have five public speakers, so you can each have 3 minutes. Don't feel you have to take all 3 minutes. And when you hear your name called, get ready to come up. We'll keep things moving. Okay. Karen Miller, Marilyn Schumacher and Julianne Cristobal. Did we get another speaker? No, that was a different one there. Good evening, Mayor and council members. My name is Karen Miller and I own a six unit Victorian in Alameda. I'm here today to ask you to reconsider your modification to 3148 and accept the staff's recommendation of 100% of CPI as the maximum rental increase. I am not a fan of rent control, but I do recognize that we have a housing crisis and that temporary measures may need to be enacted. After hearing the last city council meeting that started at six talking about which everybody seemed to accept the cost of recommendations, this is not on my list, but everybody seemed to accept the course of recommendations when it comes to climate change, but not when it comes to rent control costs. A recommended CPI plus five. And you are very willing to accept their recommendations on cost except for on this item. First, I have to take the issue with data referenced in the ordinance from the 2017 American Community Survey, when your estimates, which indicates that at least 36% of tenants have lived in their units less than four years, and at least 71% of tenants have lived in their units less than nine years, thereby demonstrating in general tenants to not remain in their units for many years. With this data, how do you know if those tenants who have been in those units for less than four years aren't going to stay for ten? And the 71% of tenants, 71 who have lived in the units less than nine years, won't stay for 20. The estimates of the American Community five year survey, which I looked at, show that 15% of renters have been in their unit since 2015. 54% of renters have been in their units 5 to 10 years. 24% have been in their 10 to 20 years, 7% more than 20 years. How does this give landlords opportunities to reset their rents to the market? Two thirds of tenants have been with me for over eight years and I can tell you none of them are leaving. In regards to the CPI, if you look at the list of goods and services that CPI covers, that does not reflect, reflect at all the cost of maintaining a rental unit, which are primarily taxes, insurance, water, garbage and maintenance. It assumes that these costs are built in to rent. However, that assumption is false. If rents were tied to CPI, we wouldn't CPI. We would not have gotten the large increases that we have have in rent. The graph that I have given to all of you shows that since 2016 the highest CPI was a little over 4%. Will rents have just jumped considerably higher rent as a function of market, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with CPI. CPI is based on prices for food, clothing, shelter and fuels, transportation fares, charges for doctors and dentists, services, drugs and other goods and services that people buy for day to day. Living nowhere in the CPI are garbage insurance, maintenance, which are my costs to rent a property. The shelter component, which is what I understand you to have looked at as a percentage of CPI to make your decisions on the allowable rent increase. Thank you. Ms.. That was 3 minutes. That was not 3 minutes. Seriously. Okay. And our next speaker is Marilyn Schumacher. Yeah. We'll reset the clock. I will take less than 3 minutes. Oh, there's a challenge. My name is Marilyn Shoemaker. I own five units and live in one of them. It's a historic house. It's 1898. CPI does not cover most of the costs that owners occur that owners incur in a year. That that. That landlords incur in a year. It's amazing how much it costs to maintain these units, especially the older ones. One of my tenants has been with me for 23 years. I tell her she must have been 13 when we rented it to her. However, our regular monthly costs are. Garbage, water, insurance and taxes. They all add up. They're not covered by CPI. I ride my bike all over Alameda and I see units that need extensive work and I don't know where the owners are. I don't even know the owners, but they're about to crumble. Especially if we have another earthquake, which we had one like this morning. It's appalling, but they continue to be ignored. I don't like the idea of CPI. And I hope you think about this when you drive around Alameda. Or ride your bike. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Julian, Cristobal, then Zach Bones and Christopher Burch here. Okay. Hello? No. Okay. I wouldn't. Hi, my name is Jolene. Jolene and I would like to first start that. It has been four years in our fight for rent control and just cause my question is how longer if there is lack of affordable housing all rise on rent prices and the rental cap, there are bound to be big consequences that only complicate housing but would lead to a domino effect that would add up to other crises already prevalent locally and in the U.S., according to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on the Bay Area, housing protections, lack of affordable housing production, rising rents and lack of housing in job rich areas all have each contributed to the present displacement crisis . The population of Alameda being 1.6 million has an increase of 7370 3% since the 1960s. And with lack of housing affordability, where will these people go? This plays a huge role in displacement, and it can lead to less opportunities for education, educational resources, housing security, access to health care and green spaces. This is a right that every citizen should have access to and not a benefit that low land owners would take into account when allowing people to rent their apartments. This is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that no rent control or no cap will take away from us. While several articles in research point out that rent control has led to further gentrification, which has also led to the rise of economic inequality, the fact is that the U.S. has been a home of economic inequality, and there are other motivating factors for this socio economic disparity. And the only way to protect people here in Alameda who are vulnerable, vulnerable to evictions and displacement and rising rent caused is through rent control. We asked the city council members to make the right decision of creating balance between tenants and land owners, the good and the bad, and to incentivize the city to bring more opportunities for the needy, low income populations and equal representation. Thank you for the passing rent control and please keep in all provisions that were decided during the July 2nd meeting. Thank you. Thank you. And Speaker. Thankfully. And then Christopher Sparks, you know. Okay. I counsel, I think last meeting was really constructive and I think the compromises that were reached were pretty fair, I think. 70% CPI is more than fair because I think with CPI it already bakes in cost of living increases. So matching wanted versus CPI is matching, it's double, it's doubling what the increase would be for rent increases. I would be happier without the banking and the pass through. But I think all the the the in the text around is a little confusing maybe for some renters to understand everything, but I think all the compromises in general are good. Pass this let's have real rent control and alameda and let's get this over with. It's been too long. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker Christopher very soon. Christopher I really my name is Christopher Samarasinghe. I'm with Spurs Realty Advisors. I'm a bear, a native in an apartment broker in the East Bay. I have no interest ownership interest in property in Alameda and I'm here to speak in favor of the free market in my clients. Some of them own property here and some of them are owned in jurisdictions that can follow in Alameda steps. If these motions become law, the biggest need for and the highest value to the city of Alameda in the bay area right now is high density. Housing tied to rent control adds another layer of complexity to any possible development, reducing the likelihood of future projects being considered financially feasible. This goes for market rate housing as well as affordable housing. By voting on these measures, the yes votes are effectively telling your constituents that if you are against any future development or at least your for making the process more difficult for the mom and pop owners who have been plugging away, renting out their nest egg, these measures will effectively cap their pension further. They never purchased these properties with the understanding that they'd be forced to accept only meager returns dictated by political affirmations. They will they will be forced into making a choice of using whatever adjustment is allowed for their own needs to pay for rising cost of living. That allowed the amount of an excuse me, or using the allowed amount to upgrade living conditions for their tenants, they'll be forced to choose. I understand that some unscrupulous owners and landlords have made some choices that are hurt people and there are other remedies that are already in place to deal with these issues. Punishing an entire group because of these actions of very few is a very reactive approach that will not end well. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. Please consider these issues from both sides and strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed short term solutions for the long term problem. For these reasons, I'd urge you to reach No Vote No on these measures. Thank you. Thank you. So that was the end of our. One more speaker. Okay, we have one more. This is the six speakers. So your time goes down to 2 minutes. Is it when we get. No, it's after the sixth. Okay. We just have one more. Yeah. You've got. Well do we have. Yes we have a clip. Oh okay. The seven. Okay. The seventh one is 2 minutes but for the first six speakers you do get three. Although actually if we'd known there were seven, it would have all been two. But it's okay. Are Ashcroft and City Council. Thank you. This is the I'm Elaine de Colony. I'm the executive director of Everyone Home. So I want to slip in my appreciation for your adoption of the Everyone at Home plan to end homelessness. And one of the key tenants of the plan is that it takes public policy supporting people who already have their housing to stay in their housing. This motion does that. You adopted the plan. This action you would take tonight is consistent with joining in the efforts to protect renters in their home, to keep their housing, and to help get people off the street into housing with reasonable rents. So I commend you for this bold move. It is sometimes viewed as the third rail, but we now have more than two people becoming homeless. For every one, we can move off the street back into housing. If we don't stop the flow into homelessness, the problem will grow exponentially. So thank you for your bold policy move here and I encourage you to pass this motion. Thank you. Okay, we have one more speaker. Rosalinda Fortuna. Okay. And I am going to unless the council strenuously objects allow 3 minutes because some of my speakers didn't speak for their full 3 minutes. So. But usual admonition. Don't feel you have to take it. Hi. Hi. Good evening. I'm Rosalind de Fortuna and I am is a small mom and pop landowner. I wanted to ask the city council to honestly tell me where in the world is rent control work. So this is a. Comment, not a Q&A. Yes, I know, but I just wanted an honest opinion afterwards. If someone could come up with a place where rent control actually works. The main. Goal that I'm here for is when there is an earthquake, which is well overdue, that we as landlords will not be obligated to pay relocation fees to tenants because we are going to be already in financial stress with the problems that we'll have. And I believe that these 70% of the MTA is not adequate to help the landlords with maintaining the properties that we have. We should be at least consistent with Oakland's 88, which is like 88% of CPI. And ah, I think Alameda is just as nice as Oakland. I think everyone would agree with that. So if we can try to at least get this the HCA up, I would appreciate it. At least comparable to Oakland's 88%. Thank you. Thank you. And is that the last public speaker? Okay. I will now close public comment. Okay. Counsel, do we have any discussion. Of a quick question? A Councilman ODESZA Quick question. What is the specific CPI in this index that we're using in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a variety of CPI indices, particularly for the San Francisco Bay Area. What is the particular CPI index that we're using for this report before our audience? Because I, I didn't see a specific call out as to what index what within the BLS index. I like magic here is that. Good evening. I'm Debbie Porter. I'm the city's community development director and we are using the CPI, you for the San Francisco Bay Area and we are using the April to April CPI number. And that is because we want to be able to issue the annual general adjustment in time for everyone to do their adjustment July one as part of tied to the city's fiscal year and the registration and the fee payment. So we're using the April to April, so we then have time to send out the letter and notify landlords and tenants what the idea will be for the upcoming year. I'm concerned that we're not incredibly specific as to what the CPI we're using because it's completely possible that some other down the road, some other entity, some other city staff might want to use another CPI. Oh, that's San Francisco. So if if we don't have the technical name description, that particular website it comes from, and I'm just concerned that we'd be exposing ourselves to litigation in that sense. I believe the staff report from July 2nd referenced the April to April CPI, the San Francisco Bay Area CPI. You see, I believe it is in the staff report. And if need be, could it be slipped into the approval of this item or C tradition? So I think given that the staff report was clear, staff could probably promulgate a regulation that's consistent with the staff report, which is authorized by this ordinance to further ensure that it's clarity. I think you'd have to. Also miss part of what we have up here. I believe you've mentioned to me that you're going to be doing some educational opportunities for both landlords and tenants about this new measure. Or you were calling the rent. The Rent program staff will be doing workshops similar to what they did when we first launched the initial rent stabilization ordinance. So there will be opportunities for folks to get educated on the new ordinance. All right. Thank you. Did you have some okay. Councilmember Desai, your comments. Comments. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for pulling this item. You know, I just want to summarize by referencing some of the data that I presented over the course of the weeks leading up to this second reading several weeks ago, I pointed out how in the city of Alameda the amount of no cause evictions was far less than 1%. Probably it might have been point 5%, far less than 1%. Punch line. There is no justification for the stringent just cause language that we now are employing. No, no data supporting that. Several weeks ago, I pointed out data showing how year in, year out, the typical Alameda renter pays an affordable rent. That's not to say that that there are hardships in Alameda, but the typical Alameda renter, based upon year in, year out census data, pays an affordable rent. Now in terms of policy, what that suggests is not an overarching undoing of the rental market that we are doing on the cusp of doing tonight. What that what the data suggests is an incremental approach that's mediation based like we had in the previous the original 3148 ordinance. The data supports that. The data does not support the overarching things that we're doing this evening. And I guess I also want to come close to ending by saying I mean data really matters because when I was in grad school, I had an opportunity to analyze the effects of Berkeley's rent control and Santa monica's rent control and all of you know how several weeks ago I presented data that in those cities, when those cities adopted hard cap style rent control, along with just cause the amount of single family homes really went down and duplexes went down and it took Berkeley never recovered. But that data that wasn't just the that the the what the data said though and this especially goes out to the to the young Filipino Americans who have come out week in week out on this issue. To their credit, what the data also showed is that when Berkeley and Santa monica and many of these other cities had employed the Berkeley style rent control of hard caps and just cars. Who actually lost. Out. In Berkley, you saw a significant reduction in the African-American population in South Berkeley from 1980 to 1990. Because Berkeley's popular rent control was adopted in 1980. And so you can analyze the two data points. So I appreciate the fact that the young Americans of Filipino descent came out to speak passionately, not just for rent control, but for their friends and families. I get it. But in terms of policy, for whatever reason, and I can't explain it. Who ends up on the short end of the stick when it comes to. Berkeley style rent control really is are people of color. I mean, the joke has always been that, you know, rent control in Manhattan is all about rent control for the middle classes and the upper middle classes. It's not for. For the working poor. So that's my concern. And I just also want to end by saying that the type of rent control that we're adopting, in my opinion , was rejected by the citizens of Alameda when they overwhelmingly defeated M-1. And M-1 was an effort to impose the hard caps just cause type of rent control that you're seeing today. And at that same election, the Alameda INS had supported L1, which was the mediation based rent control, because I think Alameda INS clearly understood then and they understood now that there is no place for a heavy handed city hall to come down and begin controlling, taking over a part of our local economy, a part of our civic society. And that's what you're doing. By adopting the rent control that you're going to do tonight. On a final note, I want to say how disappointed I am in adopting this rent control with the absence of data supporting it as to why it should be adopted. Which leads me to believe that this isn't. This is all about just politics. But this kind of politics, there's going to be some real people who suffer. And the very people who will be young Americans who are passionate about it. Come back to me and come back to city hall in 11 years or 12 years. And I guarantee you, alameda, this is not going to not gentrify alameda. The record of rent control. Is it gentrified? The places were hard capped. Rent control are adopted. Think about the movie that's being played right now in San Fran about San Francisco, the last African-American in San Francisco. It's a movie right now. So think about that and think long and hard as to whether or not you benefit from this, because I do think that there was and is a viable opportunity in the mediation based rent control that had its deficiencies, no doubt. But that but those deficiencies which could have been ameliorated. So. I think this is a sad day because I see this as incredible government overreach and heavy handedly coming down on a part of our community. Thank you, Councilmember de SAC. Other Council comments. I want to just say a couple of things. We talked earlier about climate change. A lot of things have changed over the years. And back when we were in grad school in the 1980s, we that was before a law called Costa Hawkins went into effect, and that was in 1995 . And that's why rent control does not apply to any multifamily units or single family that were built after 1995. That was the compromise that the legislators in Sacramento made between the advocates who were saying some of the same things that we heard tonight. If you impose rent control, then people are just going to start building multi-family units. And, you know, I am aware because I'm on the policy committee of the CASA, the Legislative Policy Committee for the CASA Compact, that there is some talk in Sacramento about modifying Costa Hawkins or it may go back to the voters, but right now it's right where it was in 1995. So between the 1980s and 1995, I would say that legislators did recognize some of those problems and that solution was adopted. And then since you mentioned the movie The Last Black Man in San Francisco, it's a fine, independent movie. You should go see it. I do not believe that it supports opposing this measure. In fact, they have not. Okay. Remember my no applause rule, but I'm for a fine local insight if you're like me and you stay to watch the credits. Our former council, former Vice Mayor Frank Maher SC, you may know his twin sons are both filmmakers. One of them, Phillip is on was on the film crew of this film. So just a little plug, independent movie playing at the Almeida Theater. Go see it. Who wants to speak? Council. We flip a coin. Guys want to go first. Go ahead. Go. Okay. Councilmember Vella. I think that there's a difference. Well, when we look at data between causation and correlation, and I think that a lot is made tying certain things that might happen simultaneously and saying that one is the cause of the other. And I'm I would like to be wary of doing that, especially on this issue. But I also think that there has been a lot of studies that have been done recently. One of them was by the Haas Institute for Fair for a Fair and Inclusive Society in Berkeley, out of UC Berkeley. And the report, the policy brief was done in 2018 and it's called Opening the Door for Rent Control towards a comprehensive approach to protecting California's renters. And a lot of the things that they look at are kind of the reason that the council is going about enacting these changes to this existing ordinance. You know, among the things that they. Talk about our the inequitable impact of our housing crisis and how it housing affordability and and access to housing disproportionately affects seniors, low income families, people with disabilities and communities of color. They also note that one part of our housing crisis relative to renters and what's continuing to set rent set renters back are that there are continuing to be rising rents, but there are stagnating wages. And so, you know, I think that that's important when we look at the CPI. Some people are saying, well, we look at the CPI. Will a lot of employers make decisions about wage increases based off of the CPI and CPI? Q And so while not everyone is getting those increases, it is a point that that a lot of employers and employee groups, frankly, look at when when asking for different wage increases or setting different wage increases. And so I think part of what we're trying to do is be cognizant of how much of that increase is going towards one thing, whether it goes towards rental housing alone or to a number of other things that are increasing. The other thing that this study looks at is beyond the monetary impacts, but the human cost of housing instability and displacement. And that's something that, you know, when we supported the Everyone Home Plan, we were looking at and and the folks that did the research and wrote this are housing research analysts for the California Community Partnerships Program at the Haas Institute, the director of the California Community Partnership Program at the Haas Institute, and somebody who has a Ph.D. in regional and city planning from the University of California, Berkeley, and is the coauthor of Common Interest Communities Private Governments in the Public Interest. A lot of the reports and data that they cite are from all over, but they're from very reputable sources, including the Joint Center on Housing Studies from Harvard University, the California Housing Partnership Corporation, Urban Displacement Project at UC Berkeley, which also looks very specifically at the Bay Area, in particular Urban Habitat, Bay Area, Regional Health Inequities Initiative , Policy Link, among others, and the Program for Environmental and Regional Equity at USC. We were just talking about our Climate Action Plan, and this also goes to that. This is an ordinance. Part of what we're trying to do is update it. It can be updated later if things change. And one thing that I posit is there have been times that the CPI has been negative, meaning that. People. We've laid people off. People have actually, you know, it's actually dropped. And, you know, as we look forward, we still have a base, a minimum in this range. And so even if the CPI were to drop or to go to zero, there can be rent increases in those years. And so I think that that's something to also keep in mind. It's not this isn't intended to be punitive and it is trying to take into account a number of different things. Thank you. Thank you both very much. Thank you. Just quickly, I can respect that council member De Zug has his own philosophy and opinion. Yeah, I think for every data point that he that he raises, there's another way to look at it. In Alameda, half the renters are paying more than 30% of their income. That is considered unaffordable. This ordinance is written to try to help those people. Councilmember De talks about his time in the late seventies and early eighties at UC Berkeley and the studies that he did. Many of the studies that were done in Berkeley on rent control at that time have been debunked in the in the school of business. There is now saying rent control is the thing that California needs to keep people in their homes. It is true. It's late night, early night. Okay, so you can begin to speak through the chair. No, it's fine. It's fine. No, it's not fine. I'm writing this meeting. I continue. Anyway. And, you know, we make policy. We make policy that affect people. Tonight, Councilmember de SAC voted against the Climate Action Plan for the city because it suggested we should consider whether multifamily housing that which is cheaper to build and live in might be a way to help climate. For 40 to 50 years, Councilmember Desai and the people that have supported him have fought housing at every single turn. It is the thing that has caused this crisis. And I don't think it's fair to then sit here and say, oh, this one thing that's being voted on, I don't like it, and you're not using data and I'm the policy guy. At the end of the day, this is a big comprehensive problem. It is 50 years in the making. Is this a perfect solution? No, it's not. I wish we weren't here having this conversation. I wish we had built enough housing in the Bay Area to allow the people who want to live here, to live here and, you know, live affordably and not have two and a half hour commutes in order to come and serve coffee to people who want to pay five bucks for a cup of coffee. And I love coffee, but I'd like I'd like to be served by people who live next door to me. I would like you know, I think it's really important if we're going to have this conversation to talk about the whole picture and to really talk about how this is a peace. And my hope is that at some point 20 years from now, when the Bay Area has hopefully recovered from this housing crisis, we can have a conversation about how to tweak this in another way so that it maintains affordable housing but is easier for people to address some of the concerns we've heard about tonight. So when ready, I'm ready to move approval of this document. But I did want. To thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do want to just point out a few things. First of all, Rosa, Linda, before I start, this is, I think, the best place to live in the Bay Area, if not the entire country. So we're better than any other place and there's no other place I'd rather live than right here. And I think a lot of people are that way. And on the back of the room there, we have that sign. Everyone belongs here. So I think we need to make policy decisions based on that value and based on that priority. And it's been a long five years. You know, this is about the time five years ago, I decided to run for council. And this was not an item that, you know, people were talking about. But yet I think it's the one thing that we spent the most time on in our council over the last five years. And I think it's pitted our community against each other. And it's sad to me to see how that happened. And I hope that now, you know, we have the just cause, you know, that was in so and it's past the referendum period. So I don't know why that's being discussed. We have this measure which hopefully will pass tonight. We have modifications to, you know, for some of the things that people in the audience had asked for, like the earthquake relocation, you know, we're going to have modifications come back. Mark Potter is going to bring those back in the fall. And I'm sorry that people think that we punish, but I think what we've done is protect. There was a tremendous amount of people at risk of being displaced, and we saw that happen. And I think I called it social cleansing because that's what it is. And John talked about it a little bit. And Malia talk about, I'm sorry if using your first name is a bit of an emotional issue. So they talk about it a little bit. I mean, the pressure we have on the lower wage earners in our society and our city and our area is just tremendous. And we felt as a body that we had to do something to protect people. People were not able to afford the double digit rent increases. And yet we put in our our controls. And the data I saw in in the Chronicle of that over the past year, Alameda is average 6.2% increase. So that's above five that's surely above CPI. So there's data here that shows even though we've we've tried to help, you know, it hasn't really filter down to benefit the most vulnerable. And I think that society is judged on how we take care of our most vulnerable, whether it's our children, whether it's our elders, whether it's, you know, those that that are just struggling to make ends meet. And I think that was our responsibility as a council, and that's what we did. You know, if we have people working, we also increase the minimum wage, which I think also helped. But if we have people working for ten or $11 an hour and they can't afford to live here, they're going to live out in Modesto and Antioch and Pittsburgh, and they're either going to drive contributing to greenhouse gas and global warming, you know, or they're just not going to work here anymore. And then how does that impact our businesses? So everything is all connected in my mind. And if we really want to stand by those two signs that are back there and the things that we are, you know, have happy, smiling photo opportunities on three or four times a year, then I think we have to vote those values. And that's what I plan on doing today. This has been I hope that now that our staff and our council is wrapping this up, we can have a time of healing. I think that because we have protections, I think our tenants are not going to be afraid to speak up when they need a maintenance problem. They're not going to be afraid to speak up when they have an issue. Because the fear of. Addictions is gone. You know, we're not going to have a summer house, 22, 23 anymore. That's never going to happen again in Alameda. We're not going to have a470 central ever again happen in alameda. You know those two things, we can sit here and say how sad it was, but if we just say how bad it was and we couldn't do anything and then do anything about it, then we have neglected our duty to you and we have neglected our duty to protect every resident of Alameda. So, I mean, I do hear the concern and the fears of the small property owners. I do hear the concerns and the fears of the owner occupied. And, you know, I'm willing to sit down and talk to anybody any time if they have ideas. You know, when Assemblymember Bonta ran for council, he said, I'll listen to any idea, doesn't have to come from me. But if it's a good idea, I'm going to listen to it. And I've tried to follow that advice and that guidance. If you have an idea that you think can help, by all means, talk to me. I'm open. I'll meet you for coffee. I love every single coffee shop in Alameda, and the more I can drink of it, the happier I am. So I think there's things we can do to improve the city. You know, it's it's something we put in there to help when there are huge maintenance issues, like a large roof or, you know, foundation things like that. But we also have to do it in a fair way. So we put that in and it's only been used once, and I think that application got kicked. So please bring me your ideas. I want to sit and listen to everybody and make sure that we protect everybody. And when I sit here and I say everyone belongs here, you can be damn sure that I mean it. And I stand for it. And that's a value I believe in. And I'm going to fight for it as long as I'm sitting up here. All right. So we've heard from all the council members and I think I heard motion. If not, I will move approval of the final rule. I mean. I didn't I was referring to you guys. We have a motion from by 3/2 a second from Councilmember Odie. Any further discussion? All in favor. I opposed. Oppose the motion passes for two one. Thank you. Really? Okay. No, no, no. We want to get out of here the same night we started, remember? And we're still on consent calendar people. Okay, so then we move to our last consent calendar item, which is five P and I pulled this item because I have gotten some questions I'm going to ask our recreation parks director, Amy Wooldridge.