I'm for the GET financing. I like very much the idea of raising the TAT, but I would like it to be used for flood hazard reduction related to the Ala Wai watershed, beach restoration, serious planning for relocation, shoreline hardening, etc., related to sea level rise, AND, finding housing for homeless....this homeless situation cannot go on, we may not like it, but we have to deal with it, humanely. it is a byproduct of our economy. I don't like that the GET is regressive, but if our goal is income redistribution from the rich to the poor, it is better done via income tax adjustments. And, while I am at it, SF just got Airbnb to agree to disclose names and addresses of landlords, why can that not be done here so we can start taxing those scofflaws, and also to better enforce our zoning codes? Caldwell has missed a bet on the AirBNB and maybe so has the leg.