Written in collaboration with Rachel Warren
Friends and San Franciscans, I’ve put together a simple voter guide summarizing the 25 local measures (A–X and RR) that will be on the San Francisco election ballot this November 8. It’s easy to be swept up in the drama of the presidential race, but it’s highly unlikely that Hillary Clinton will lose California, and our votes are most potent here at the local level.
There are a lot of measures on the ballot this time around, so my purpose here is the following: 1) to explain the lowdown on each measure in a clear, concise way; 2) to tell the truth; and 3) to link out to relevant resources to save you time. If I’ve missed or misrepresented anything, please feel free to reach out below in the comments section.
Proposition A: In Which the City Borrows $744 Million to Fix Up Local Schools
The proposal: A YES vote will allow the SF Unified School District to borrow up to $744,250,000 in general obligation bonds for the purpose of repairing, upgrading and building new SF Unified School District property. We’d pay for it by raising property taxes (up to $15.90 per $100,000 in assessed value) to pay the up-front cost and interest on the bonds. A NO vote will deny the funding.
Who’s for it: SF Unified School District, SF Democratic Party, SF Labor Council, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, SF Chronicle
Who’s against it: The Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Additional information: Prop A was introduced by the SF Board of Education, but opponents and even some supporters worry that the language of the proposition is too broad. Key projects include building new schools and classrooms; seismic-safety upgrades; moving the Ruth Asawa San Francisco School of the Arts to the Civic Center neighborhood; green schoolyards; high-speed Wi-Fi; and “exploring methods for developing affordable housing for teachers.” The measure would empower an independent oversight committee to keep the public in the loop about how the money is being used. The Board of Education would conduct a yearly audit to hold the SF Unified School District accountable. Find more information here.
Proposition B: Property Tax to Help Fund Free City College Tuition
The proposal: In July the city supervisors voted 10–1 to offer free tuition to all SF City College students who are living or working in the city. Prop B would raise property taxes to help fund this decision. A YES vote will raise the city parcel tax — a property tax based on parcel size rather than total value — to $99/year until 2032. A NO vote will keep the annual parcel tax at $79 per parcel until it expires on June 30, 2021.
Who’s for it: SF Democratic Party, state senator Mark Leno (D-11), Recology CEO Mike Sangiacomo, SF Chronicle, SF City College Board of Trustees. The proposal was authored by supervisor Jane Kim.
Who’s against it: The Libertarian Party of San Francisco
Additional information: The city controller estimates that the tax would generate approximately $19 million per year for the SF Community College District, or approximately $4 million more than the current tax. The funds can’t be used to compensate City College administrators. Spending would be subject to annual review by the Citizens’ Oversight Committee appointed by the Community College Board. Find more information here.
Proposition C: In Which the City Repurposes $261M for Affordable Housing Bonds
The proposal: This measure would authorize the city to borrow and loan $261 million for the protection and creation of permanent affordable housing. In November 1992, voters authorized the city to issue up to $351 million in general obligation bonds to upgrade unreinforced masonry buildings that are at risk from strong earthquakes. Only $90 million of the bonds have been issued in the ensuing decades, and a YES vote on Prop C will allow the city to repurpose the remaining $261 million. Prop C mandates that the money be used for the acquisition, improvement and rehabilitation of at-risk multi-unit residential buildings. Then it converts those buildings to permanent affordable housing. The bonds would be paid off by raising property taxes. A NO vote will mean that these funds can be used only for seismic safety.
Who’s for it: Various community and advocacy organizations, including Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, Affordable Housing Alliance, Council of Community Housing Organizations, SF Democratic Party, SF Chronicle, mayor Ed Lee, state senator Mark Leno, former assembly member Tom Ammiano, SF League of Pissed Off Voters. The Board of Supervisors voted 11–0 to put Prop C on the ballot.
Who’s against it: No official opponent argument has been submitted
Additional information: The city controller estimates that the impact on property tax would be $7.21 per $600,000 of net assessed value, and that there would be a minimal impact on the cost of government. Most of the city’s affordable housing is limited to households earning 50% or less of the area median income, which was approximately $84,000 in January 2016. Find more information here.
Proposition D: Fill Board of Supervisor Vacancies by Election, Not Mayoral Appointment
The proposal: Prop D would amend the City Charter to fill vacancies on the Board of Supervisors more promptly and more democratically. Currently, when a local elected office becomes vacant, the mayor must fill the spot with a temporary hire — but he has no deadline in which to do so. In the next citywide election, the temporary official can then run to fill the role for the remainder of the term.
A YES vote on Prop D would require the mayor to fill any vacancy in a local elected office with a temporary appointment within 28 days. The city would then hold an election for the position within 22 weeks or sooner. The temporarily appointed official would not be allowed to run for the Board of Supervisors in the next election. A NO vote would keep things the way they are now: there will be no deadline to fill vacant positions, and mayor-appointed officials will be able to run to keep their office for the remainder of the original term that they filled.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar and Aaron Peskin. SF Democratic Party, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, former mayor Art Agnos, SF League of Pissed Off Voters
Who’s against it: Supervisors London Breed, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener. SF Chronicle, SPUR, US senator Dianne Feinstein, California Board of Equalization chair Fiona Ma, assemblyman David Chiu, former mayors Frank Jordan and Willie Brown, former supervisor Angela Alioto, Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth
Additional information: Proponents claim that Prop D will ensure the prompt filling of vacancies along with fair, incumbent-less elections that give voters the chance to make a relatively unswayed decision. Opponents claim that the new rules would create expensive, unnecessary elections and that temporary supervisors will have no incentive to listen to their constituents because they have no chance of reelection. Find more information here.
Proposition E: Make the City Maintain Public Trees and Sidewalks
The proposal: In 2012, after years of budget cuts, the city transferred the onus for street tree care onto citizens, meaning that property owners must now maintain and replace trees in the public sidewalk and maintain the sidewalk around those trees. We’re also liable for any injuries and property damage that passersby suffer. A YES vote would revert this liability, making the city once again responsible by creating a permanent maintenance fund. The city would also help the SF Unified School District maintain trees on its property. A NO vote will keep property owners liable for sidewalk trees.
Who’s for it: 10/11 city supervisors, SF Democratic Party, SF School Board, SF Chamber of Commerce, Walk SF, Friends of the Urban Forest, SF League of Conservation Voters, Coalition for Healthy Trees and Safe Sidewalks, SF Parks Alliance, LIUNA Local 261
Who’s against it: SF Chronicle
Additional information: The City would pay for this by setting aside $19 million per year from the General Fund, which changes each year on the basis of city revenue. Pruning and replacement bills can cost property owners $1,000 or more. Find more information here.
Proposition F: Lower the Voting Age to 16 for Local Elections
The proposal: A YES vote will give San Francisco residents the right to vote on local candidates and local ballot measures if they are US citizens, at least 16 years old and registered to vote. A NO vote will keep the voting age at 18 for the entire ballot.
Who’s for it: SF Democratic Party, supervisor John Avalos, state senator Mark Leno, assemblymembers David Chiu and Phil Ting, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club
Who’s against it: SF Taxpayers Association, SF Chronicle, Dr. Terence Faulkner (Chairman of Citizens Against Tax Waste), former SF Democratic Party secretary Patrick C. Fitzgerald
Additional information: Proposition F would only allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote on local candidates and ballot measures, not state candidates, state ballot measures or federal candidates. According to the city controller, the amendment would create about 5,000 new voters — out of about 10,000 potential new voters — if 16- to 17-year-olds register to vote at the same rate as the general population. Find more information here.
Proposition G: Rename the Office of Citizen Complaints and Strengthen Its Mandate
The proposal: This charter amendment is meant to formalize a system of independent police oversight. A YES vote would rename the Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) the “Department of Police Accountability” (DPA). The OCC already has the authority to audit the SFPD, but the DPA would be required to audit the department’s use-of-force policies and its handling of claims of police misconduct. A NO vote leaves the OCC as it is, with the ability but not the mandate to audit police conduct.
Who’s for it: All 11 city supervisors, SF Chronicle
Who’s against it: No official opponent argument submitted
Additional information: Supporters argue that Prop G will improve citizen oversight of police behavior. Opponents contend that this is largely a cosmetic fix, but some say that marginal change is better than nothing. The OCC has been criticized as a “toothless watchdog” that often panders to the department establishment. Find more information here.
Proposition H: Elect a Public Advocate to Keep City Hall Honest
The proposal: A YES vote will amend the city charter to create a new elected official called the public advocate: a watchdog who reviews and audits government programs. The advocate would investigate “complaints from members of the public concerning City services and programs” and “some confidential whistleblower complaints.” The advocate will also appoint the director of the Office of Citizen Complaints, a role currently filled by the SF Police Commission. A NO vote will not amend the city charter or allocate funds for new staffers to investigate citizen complaints. The Whistleblower Program, currently run by the Office of the Controller, would continue to handle all confidential whistleblower complaints.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, Aaron Peskin and Norman Yee. Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, United Educators of San Francisco, SF Democratic Party, SF Tenants Union, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, former Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, SF League of Pissed Off Voters
Who’s against it: Supervisors London Breed, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener
Additional information: Each year 100,000 people file complaints with the SF city government, and most of these cases go unresolved. Supporters of Prop H point out that several other cities (e.g., NYC, Seattle and Portland) have implemented public-advocate positions to great success. The public advocate of NYC saved the city $163 million by identifying waste and bad city contracts, and she has been an important voice for tenants’ rights. The primary financial cost of this would be paying the salaries of the public advocate’s new staff: anywhere from $600,000 to $3.5 million per year for 4–25 people, according to the city controller. Find more information here.
Proposition I: Set Aside $38M for Senior and Disability Services
The proposal: A YES vote would create a “Dignity Fund” to provide a stable funding source for services that benefit some of San Francisco’s most vulnerable populations. We’d pay for it by “setting aside” at least $38 million per year from the city General Fund until 2037. The set-aside would increase by several million dollars each year to account for increases in the cost of living. (For reference, the General Fund budget in FY 2015–2016 used $32 million for these services.) A NO vote would leave the money in the General Fund, with no explicit provision for “dignity” services.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, London Breed, David Campos, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, Scott Wiener and Norman Yee. Yes on I. Various human-services organizations, including Meals on Wheels, Swords to Plowshares, Homebridge, SF Human Services Network
Who’s against it: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Katy Tang. SF Chronicle, Arlo Smith (past president of the BART Board of Directors), Dr. Terence Faulkner (chairman of Citizens Against Tax Waste)
Additional information: Prop I would cover home-care, food and health programs; advocacy and legal services; community centers; and vulnerable populations like veterans, LGBTQ+ and ethnic communities. The amendment would raise the cost of government by millions of dollars each year. Few San Franciscans disagree that we should care for the disabled and the elderly, but opponents of Prop I worry that the fund would be an untouchable sum that we won’t be able to change in response to shifting city priorities. Find more information here.
Proposition J: Set Aside $151.6M/Year for Homelessness and Transportation (feat. Prop K)
The proposal: A YES vote would “set aside” $151.6 million per year (adjusted annually) to provide services for the homeless and improve the city’s transportation network. The Homeless Housing and Services Fund would allocate $50 million per year for housing, Navigation Centers, programs to prevent homelessness and assistance in helping people transition out of homelessness. The Transportation Improvement Fund would put $101.6 million per year toward public transportation, street maintenance and capacity building. The money would come from the city General Fund, which is filled by taxes and city revenue. A NO vote would prevent this money from being set aside.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, London Breed, David Campos, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Eric Mar, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener. Mayor Ed Lee, SPUR, SF Bicycle Coalition, Walk SF, SF Transit Riders. Various human-services organizations, including the Human Services Network, Homeless Emergency Service Providers Association, Council of Community Housing Organizations
Who’s against it: Supervisors Jane Kim, Aaron Peskin and Norman Yee. SF Republican Party, SaveMUNI, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods
Additional information: It’s important to note that as a “set aside,” Prop J requires only 51% of the vote to pass. If the measure explicitly raised taxes to fund its promises, then it would need to garner 66% of the vote. Here’s the caveat: if passed, Prop K (Sales Tax Funding for Homelessness and Transportation) would raise the city sales tax just enough to cover the approximately $150 million that is necessary to fulfill the mandate of Prop J. There’s an escape clause in Prop J that would allow the mayor to repeal it if Prop K doesn’t pass. Find more information here.
Proposition K: Sales Tax to Raise $151.6M/Year for Homelessness and Transportation (feat. Prop J)
The proposal: The current sales-tax rate in San Francisco is 8.75%, but it is scheduled to sink to 8.5% on January 1, 2017. A YES vote would instead increase the local sales tax to 9.25% for the next 25 years. The tax money would flow into the city General Fund, but it would be “set aside” to build capacity for public transportation and homelessness services — as long as Prop J also passes. A NO vote would allow the sales tax to decrease by 0.25% as planned.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, London Breed, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Eric Mar, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener. Mayor Ed Lee, SF Transit Riders, SPUR, SF Bicycle Coalition, Homeless Emergency Service Providers Association, SF Department of Homelessness, Supportive Housing director Jeff Kositsky, SFMTA director Ed Reiskin
Who’s against it: Supervisors Jane Kim, Aaron Peskin and Norman Yee. SF Republican Party, SF Taxpayers Association, SaveMUNI, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods
Additional information: (See Prop J): The bulk of the current 8.75% sales tax is the 7.5% statewide tax, on top of which the city receives an additional 1.25% of each local sale. If Prop K passes, the city would collect a 1.75% tax on each sale: a net increase of half a cent for each dollar spent. Nevertheless, the new 9.25% sales tax would be one of the highest in the state. Supporters hail the Prop J/K combination as a much-needed step toward building capacity in local public-transportation and homelessness services. Opponents of this measure argue that a higher sales tax may impede the still-recovering economy and that it is a regressive source of revenue: low-income residents, who spend proportionally more of their income on basic household goods, will pay proportionally more sales taxes than wealthier citizens. Find more information here.
Proposition L: Allow City Supervisors to Appoint Members of the MTA Board
The proposal: A YES vote aims to give the board of supervisors (and by proxy, the public) more control of the SF Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) by allowing the Board of Supervisors to appoint three of the seven members of the MTA board. The mayor currently appoints all seven. Prop L would also reduce the amount of supervisors’ votes needed to reject the MTA budget from seven to six, which places a small but significant check on fund allocation. A NO vote will keep the system unchanged: the mayor will continue to appoint all members of the MTA board, and seven supervisors will still need to vote against the MTA budget in order to reject it.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, Aaron Peskin and Norman Yee. Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, SF League of Pissed Off Voters
Who’s against it: Supervisors London Breed, Mark Farrell, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener. US senator Dianne Feinstein, former supervisor Angela Alioto, former mayors Frank Jordan and Willie Brown, lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom, SF Chronicle, SF Chamber of Commerce, SaveMUNI, Rescue Muni, SF Transit Riders, SPUR, Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth
Additional information: The SFMTA Board of Directors oversees the $1.07 billion Muni budget, but it is not currently subject to outside oversight. Prop L would effectively give the publicly elected city supervisors more power to critique and shape the SFMTA budget. The city controller commented that while the measure tweaks the approval process for the MTA budget, it does not alter the responsibility (financial or otherwise) of the SFMTA. Proponents of Prop L contend that the changes would reduce corruption, diversify the MTA board and push the organization to serve SF residents more equally. Opponents argue that the measure would politicize the Muni and stymie large-scale transit projects. Find more information here.
Proposition M: Create an Independent Oversight Commission for Affordable Housing; Nix Prop P/U
The proposal: A YES vote would create an independent oversight commission to oversee two city departments: the Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) and the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD). The new Housing and Development Commission would help keep developers from taking advantage of new affordable housing and community-development plans. It would also invalidate Props P and U, which are essentially realtor-funded bids to delay the construction of new affordable housing and repurpose existing affordable housing. The mayor currently appoints all seven members of the Housing and Development Commission, but Prop M stipulates that one member would be appointed by the city department’s controller, three by the Board of Supervisors and three by the mayor. A NO vote would mean that the OEWD and MOHCD would continue to report directly to the mayor.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, Aaron Peskin and Norman Yee. SF Democratic Party, former assemblymember Tom Ammiano, former city attorney Louise Renne, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, Affordable Housing Alliance, Council of Community Housing Organizations, Senior and Disability Action
Who’s against it: Supervisors London Breed, Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener. US senator Dianne Feinstein, former mayors Frank Jordan and Willie Brown, former supervisor Angela Alioto, SF Chronicle, Bay Area Reporter, SF Housing Action Coalition, Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, GrowSF, SF Chamber of Commerce
Additional information: Here’s why Prop M would invalidate Prop P and Prop U: if those latter propositions pass, they would be enforced by the MOHCD , and the passage of Prop M would dissolve the MOHCD. Prop P establishes an inhibitory process for affordable-housing developments, and Prop U allows middle-income residents to apply for low-income affordable housing. Both measures have been decried by low-income tenants-rights groups. (The SF Examiner provides a rundown of all the propositions that impact the housing crisis.)
Here’s how Prop M would dissolve the MOHCD: the new Housing and Development Commission would oversee two new departments, the Department of Economic and Workforce Development (DEWD) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). The DEWD and the DHCD would replace the OEWD, and the MOHCD would be dissolved. In their current form, the OEWD and the MOHCD spearhead most of the city’s efforts to help low-income families, homeless people and struggling neighborhoods. The OEWD oversees job-training programs, economic-revitalization programs and public-private real estate development. The MOHCD maintains public housing, controls $3 billion in housing funds and oversees grants to support small businesses, NGOs and first-time homeowners. It’s worth noting that in 2014, the Civil Grand Jury found that the MOHCD had failed to meet development targets and accused the organization of opacity and poor record keeping (see page 25 of the Civil Grand Jury report). Find more information here.
Proposition N: Allow Non-Citizens to Vote in School Board Elections
The proposal: A YES vote would allow any non-citizen San Francisco resident to vote for members of the Board of Education as long as the resident meeting the following criteria: A) is of legal voting age; B) has a clean criminal record; and C) is the legal guardian or caregiver of a child living within the SF Unified School District. Under the current law, residents must be US citizens to vote. A NO vote means that you don’t want non-citizens to be able to vote for Board of Education members.
Who’s for it: 10/11 city supervisors. SF Democratic Party, assemblymembers David Chiu and Phil Ting, state senator Mark Leno, United Educators of SF, SF Latino Democratic Club, City College trustee Brigitte Davila, United to Save the Mission, MEDA, Mission Peace Collaborative, SF Labor Council, American Federation of Teachers Local 2121, Laborers Local 261, Mission Parent Council
Who’s against it: Supervisor Mark Farrell, SF Republican Party, SF Taxpayers Association
Additional information: San Francisco is a cosmopolitan region with a huge, well-documented international community. As many as 54% of local children live with at least one immigrant parent, thousands of whom pay taxes to fund the school system without representation on the school board. At the same time, becoming a citizen can be a long and disheartening process. Non-citizen parents are already allowed to vote in school-board elections in other cities across the US, including Chicago and NYC. Supporters of the measure say that children tend to do better in school when their parents are actively involved in their education and that this measure would encourage more family involvement in the local public school district. Opponents of Prop N argue that it might allow illegal immigrants to vote even if they are facing deportation. Find more information here.
Proposition O: In Which Lennar Urban Gets to Build a Lot of New Offices in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point
The Proposal: In 2008, the passage of Prop G (largely sponsored by Lennar Urban, one of the nation’s largest developers) authorized a massive mixed-use development project at Candlestick Point and the old navy shipyard at Hunters Point. This includes approximately 330 acres of public parks and open space, up to 10,500 homes, up to 885,000 feet for retail and entertainment use and up to 5.15 million square feet of new office space. Progress has been slow so far because new office-space construction in San Francisco is limited to 950,000 square feet per year. A YES vote would amend the Planning Code to exempt new office space in the aforementioned project area from the annual 950,000-square-foot limit. This would mean that Lennar Urban (the current contractor) is able to operate under different rules than those applied to any other local developer. A NO vote would mean that Candlestick Point and Hunters Point remain subject to the same annual citywide restrictions on office-space development as other projects.
Who’s for it: The primary financial contributor to the campaign is FivePoint Holdings, LLC, the largest developer of mixed-use communities in coastal California and a subsidiary of Lennar Urban. Also for the proposition: various electrical workers unions, a local fire fighters union, the SF political establishment, Lennar Urban. Supervisors Jane Kim, Aaron Peskin and Scott Wiener, who generally vote progressive. The SF Democratic and Republican Parties, SF Chamber of Commerce, mayor Ed Lee, SF Taxpayers Association, Affordable Housing Alliance, Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, Community Tenants Association
Who’s against it: A number of tenants-rights, homelessness and neighborhood organizations, including SF Tenants Union, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, Coalition on Homelessness, United to Save the Mission, Bayview! ACCE Action, supervisor John Avalos, affordable-housing advocates, environmental lawyers and former planning commissioner Douglas Engmann
Additional information: FivePoint Holdings, the developer, supplied the overwhelming bulk of the funding for this proposition. The text of the proposition stipulates that one-third of the potential 10,500 new homes must be priced as affordable housing, but there is no guideline for a minimum amount of new housing, so it’s unclear whether homes will take precedence over the planned office space. Supporters of the measure note that a majority of the residents of Bayview and Hunters Point supported Prop G (the 2008 measure that originally authorized the mixed-use project) and that the passage of Prop O would almost certainly speed up the development. Opponents of the proposition say that it is designed to drive profit for Lennar Urban. Various tenant-advocacy groups have also expressed concern that the text doesn’t make a substantial commitment to creating affordable housing. Find more information here.
Proposition P: Delay Affordable Housing Development with a Three-Bid Process
The proposal: A YES vote would require the city to receive three bids from developers for a public-housing project before proceeding with construction. The criteria for choosing a construction proposal include feasibility, developer experience, anticipated cost to the city and “whether the project will meet the community’s needs.” A NO vote would preserve the current (still inadequate, but not so explicitly inhibitive) application process for housing developers.
Who’s for it: Realtors, developers and construction hawks. Supervisors Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell and Katy Tang. Former supervisor Angela Alioto, San Franciscans for a City That Works, Yes on P, multiple realtor groups and PACs, SF Chamber of Commerce
Who’s against it: Supervisors Jane Kim and Aaron Peskin. SF Democratic Party, state senator Mark Leno, former city attorney Louise Renne, former supervisor Bevan Dufty. Various tenant-rights groups and human-services networks, including Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, Affordable Housing Alliance, SF Tenants Union, Senior and Disability Action, Council of Community Housing Organizations, SF Human Services Network, MEDA, SF Community Land Trust, AIDS Housing Alliance
Additional information: An October 2015 report by the Association of Bay Area Governments estimated that the Bay Area will need to build at least 808,000 new homes between 2010 and 2040 to meet projected population growth. The city controller notes that 40% of current projects do not receive the requisite three bids, particularly projects that target youth populations and people of color. Supporters of Prop P argue that forcing the city to seek out the bids would make these projects cheaper and more effective, leading to a decrease in the cost of government. Opponents argue that the measure could indefinitely stall public-housing projects, particularly those that impact high-risk populations. The administrative cost of continuing to solicit these bids could increase the cost of government and particularly prevent projects from getting off the ground at all. As mentioned above, housing bids are currently handled by the MOHCD, which would be dissolved if M passes. Thus, Prop M would negate Prop P. Find more information here.
Proposition Q: Empowering SFPD to Remove Homeless Camps from Public Sidewalks
The proposal: Camping on public sidewalks is already illegal under state law, but the rule is difficult and expensive to enforce in San Francisco. A YES vote on Prop Q would give the police more explicit power to remove homeless camps. The city would be able to legally remove tents as long as officers do the following: 1) give 24 hours’ advance notice; 2) offer shelter to all tent residents; and 3) store the residents’ personal property for up to 90 days. A NO vote would leave the state law intact. It would still be illegal to camp on public sidewalks, but the police would not have a further mandate to evict the homeless.
Who’s for it: Supervisors Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener, the four of whom together proposed the ordinance and brought it onto the ballot. SF Chamber of Commerce, Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, Yes on Q, SF Police Officers Association, SF Fire Fighters Local 798, Committee on Jobs Government Reform Fund, SF Travel. The overwhelming bulk of the funding for Prop Q has come from wealthy tech investors who have collectively poured several hundred thousand dollars into the campaign.
Who’s against it: Supervisors John Avalos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar and Aaron Peskin, and just about every local organization that works with the homeless, including Hospitality House, SF Human Services Network, Homeless Emergency Service Provider Association, SF Senior and Disability Action, SF Democratic Party, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, state senator Mark Leno, California Democratic party chair John Burton, SF public defender Jeff Adachi, BART Board president Tom Radulovich and former supervisors Michela Alioto, Christina Olague and Bevan Dufty
Additional information: There are at least 6,600 people who are currently homeless on the streets in San Francisco, but the city has cut its adult shelter bed count to approximately 1,200. In practice, offering “shelter” to all evicted tent residents means a choice between temporary housing for 24 hours or a bus ride out of the city via the Homeward Bound Program. The 24-hour temporary-housing promise is unrealistic, given that most local shelters require incoming guests to wait three days for a tuberculosis check. Proponents of Prop Q claim that it will clean up the streets, improve business in homeless-heavy neighborhoods and help the homeless population transition into more stable situations. Critics argue that the measure is cruel, shortsighted and even unconstitutional. The people working on the front lines of the housing crisis don’t expect Prop Q to meaningfully reduce the homeless population of our city streets because the measure does not address the shortage of affordable housing and shelter space. Find more information here.
Proposition R: Creation of a “Neighborhood Crime Unit” within the SFPD
The proposal: A YES vote would empower the city to create a Neighborhood Crime Unit within the SFPD to “prevent and investigate crimes that affect neighborhood safety and quality of life.” This would not take effect until the city employs at least 1,971 full-duty uniformed police officers, a threshold that the police commission expects to reach within the next year. A NO vote would leave the SFPD intact as a general on-the-ground crime prevention force.
Who’s for it: Supervisors Cohen, Farrell, Tang and Wiener. Mayor Ed Lee, SF Chamber of Commerce
Who’s against It: Supervisors John Avalos and Eric Mar. SF Democratic Party, Western Regional Advocacy Project, Coalition on Homelessness, public defender Jeff Adachi, former supervisor Bevan Dufty, police commissioner Petra DeJesus, retired SFPD commander Richard L. Corriea
Additional information: The Neighborhood Crime Unit would comprise 60 officers who would focus on “unlawful street behavior,” which includes robbery, burglary, vandalism, “aggressive pursuit,” obstructing the sidewalk and aggressive solicitation/panhandling. Even if this measure passes, the text does not require the SFPD to maintain the Neighborhood Crime Unit if the police officer count drops back below 1,971. Opponents claim that the measure would micromanage the police department and would overwhelmingly target the homeless. Supporters say that the crime unit would make San Francisco safer and reduce petty crimes like muggings and car break-ins. Find more information here.
Proposition S: Hotel Tax Funding for Arts and Homeless Services
The proposal: The City of San Francisco currently levies a 14% tax on hotel-room rentals: an 8% base charge and a 6% surcharge. A YES vote on Prop S would splice the money raised by the 8% base tax into various arts programs and family homeless services. It would not change the existing tax rate. A NO vote would mean that the revenue from the base charge continues to flow into the General Fund, where the Board of Supervisors can allocate the money toward any public purpose.
Who’s for it: Supervisors Jane Kim, Eric Mar and Scott Weiner. SF Democratic Party, state senator Mark Leno, assemblymembers David Chiu and Phil Ting, former assemblymember Tom Ammiano. Various local arts and community organizations, including SF Human Services Network, SF Tenants Union, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, Yes on S, Council of Community Housing Organizations, SF Arts Education Project, Compass Family Services, SOMArts, SF Homeless Emergency Service Providers Association, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, SFMOMA
Who’s against it: No official opposition argument submitted
Additional information: Prop S would allocate about $100 million/year by 2020, about 5% of the $ 7 billion city General Fund. Projects to be funded by the base tax include the Moscone Center (up to 50% of the 8% base), the SF Arts Commission (2.9%), the SF War Memorial Complex (5.8%), the SF Grants for the Arts program and the Cultural Equity Endowment Fund (7.5% each by 2020). Supporters of Prop S contend that it will provide much-needed support for artists and the homeless. One of approximately every 25 children in the SF Unified School District is homeless, and many local artists are being displaced by high costs of living. The city controller has opined that if existing funds are redirected toward arts and community services, then we would need to cut spending on other city services or set up new sources of (likely tax) revenue in order to maintain current standards of service. Find more information here.
Proposition T: Get Money Out of Politics by Restricting Lobbyist Campaign Contributions
The proposal: This bipartisan reform bill is meant to make local elections more transparent and less corrupt by severely limiting campaign funding from lobbyists. A YES vote would prohibit lobbyists from giving money or gifts of any value to any elected official or any candidate for elected office. Lobbyists would be required to identify the city agencies that they plan to lobby, and they would not be allowed to “bundle” contributions to get around individual donation limits. A NO vote would leave lobbyists free to contribute to campaigns, to “bundle” donations and to otherwise use money to influence elected officials.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, Eric Mar, Scott Wiener and Norman Yee. SF Ethics Commission, Friends of Ethics, Represent.Us, Yes on Prop T, Integrity SF, Ban Lobbyist Gifts to Politicians, 12 former Civil Grand Jury members, four former ethics commissioners, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, SF Tomorrow, SF Chronicle, SF Democratic County Central Committee, SF Republican Party, SF Green Party, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, SF Women’s Political Committee. Much of the funding has come from grassroots volunteer efforts.
Who’s against it: Lobbyists
Additional information: This measure has been endorsed by individuals and organizations across the political spectrum, including ethics groups, advocates for government transparency and representatives of major political parties. Just about everyone agrees that these reforms would make it more difficult for lobbyists to bribe or otherwise influence local politicians. Find more information here.
Proposition U: Extend Eligibility for Low-Income Rental Units to Middle-Income Families
The proposal: A YES vote would allow developers to rent low-income affordable-housing units to middle-income families for up to double the per-unit cost. Housing developers must legally set aside 10%–15% of each new project for affordable-housing rentals, and Prop U would make it possible for property owners to squeeze much more profit out of each unit. This measure would also apply to the city’s approximately 800 existing rental units once they become vacant. A NO vote would mean that developers must continue to create space for low-income tenants.
Who’s for it: Supervisors Mark Farrell, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener. SF Chamber of Commerce, Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, Yes on U, Working Families Fighting to Stay in SF, National Association of Realtors, California Association of Realtor Issues Mobilization PAC, SF Association of Realtors
Who’s against it: Tenants-rights advocates and human-services providers, including SF Tenants Union, Affordable Housing Alliance, Council of Community Housing Organizations, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, SF Labor Council, Housing Forward SF, SF Democratic Party, United Educators of SF, SF Chronicle, Bay Area Reporter, SF League of Pissed Off Voters, state senator Mark Leno (D-11), former city attorney Louise Renne, former supervisor Bevan Dufty, CCSF board president Rafael Mandelman
Additional information: The crux here is that if Prop U passes, all existing and future below-market-rate housing units in San Francisco could be priced at double the current rent, then offered to people who make two or three times as much money as a low-income tenant. Low-income families include people earning less than 55% of the SF median income (approximately $86,000/year for a two-person household), while middle-income tenants make no more than 110% of the median income. By law, developers building new rental units must do one of the following: A) pay an “affordable housing fee”; B) create off-site affordable housing; or C) provide on-site affordable housing. Small projects comprising fewer than 25 units must designate 12% of units as affordable housing. Large projects comprising more than 25 units must reserve 15% for low-income families, plus an additional 10%, which must be kept for either low-income or middle-income tenants.
Supporters of Prop U argue that it will help stabilize the middle class and that it may incentivize the construction of on-site affordable housing over the payment of the “affordable housing fee.” Opponents of Prop U say that the measure would make it even harder for poor families to find housing because twice as many people would be applying for the same (still inadequate) affordable-housing stock. Developers would have a strong financial incentive to prioritize middle-income tenants over low-income tenants. Even worse, the measure may give developers an incentive to evict low-income residents, because the changes can apply to existing units. The city controller says that the passage of Prop U could generate more tax revenue for the city because raising the household-income limit would increase the rental income for property owners, which would incentivize development, which could increase property tax. Find more information here.
There’s plenty of evidence that soda taxes work: a nationwide soda tax in Mexico reduced soda consumption by 15%, and a 2014 soda tax in Berkeley has led to a 20% decrease in soda consumption in low-income communities.
Proposition V: Soda/“Grocery” Tax: 1¢ Per Ounce on the Sale of Sweet Drinks
The proposal: A YES vote on Prop V would impose a tax on all prepackaged and artificially sweetened beverages (collectively, “sodas”) that contain added sugar or boast more than 25 calories per ounce. This includes bottled sports drinks, sweetened teas and packaged soda syrups. The money would ostensibly be used for public health and education. (Note: as a general revenue tax, Prop V does not specify the use of the funds, but it requires only a 51% majority to pass. If the measure explicitly funneled tax revenue into public-health services, then it would require 66% of the vote.) A NO vote would deny the tax and allow soda sales to continue unencumbered.
Who’s for It: Supervisors John Avalos, Malia Cohen, Eric Mar, Mark Farrell and Scott Wiener. Mayor Ed Lee. Various health organizations, including the American Heart Association and the SF Dental Society. The NAACP and other advocates for communities of color. The SF Chronicle, SF Examiner, Bay Area Reporter
Who’s against it: The American Beverage Association and various soda companies (including Honest Tea, Snapple and Odwalla). The American Beverage Association California PAC (which takes donations from Coca-Cola, Dr Pepper Snapple Group / Mott’s LLP and PepsiCo) has now funneled $21.3 million into the campaign to fight the soda tax. This is the largest amount that’s ever been spent on a local ballot measure in San Francisco. The soda industry has spent $69 million against similar taxes nationwide.
Additional information: The sale of soda has become a nationwide public-health issue due to the correlated risk of diabetes, obesity and heart disease. These health problems disproportionately impact black and Latino communities, and the risk of a child becoming obese increases by 60% for each additional sweetened beverage that he or she consumes on a daily basis. Another terrifying externality is that a majority of recyclable plastic bottles end up clogging landfills and oceans, so there is also environmental fallout from the soda industry. Supporters of the soda tax say that it would discourage childhood soda consumption and raise money for health and education programs.
There’s plenty of evidence that soda taxes work: a nationwide soda tax in Mexico reduced soda consumption by 15%, and a 2014 soda tax in Berkeley has led to a 20% decrease in soda consumption in low-income communities. Opponents argue that the tax could increase the cost of “groceries” in general if retailers raise prices for other items. Find more information here.
Proposition W: To Raise Taxes on the Sale of Properties Worth $5M+
The proposal: A YES vote will raise taxes on the sale of any residential or commercial property worth $5 million or more, with steeper rates for more expensive buildings. This also applies to leases longer than 35 years. The funds would ostensibly be used for public services, including affordable housing and free City College tuition. A NO vote would leave tax rates untouched.
Supporters say that Prop W would improve city services and help fund free tuition by raising taxes on the wealthiest residents of San Francisco at a time when the city is facing unprecedented income inequality.
Who’s for it: 10/11 city supervisors. SF Democratic Party, SF Board of Education, Yes on W, SF Labor Council, SF City College Board of Trustees, SF City College Faculty Union, Community Housing Partnership, SF Tenants Union, United Educators of SF, United to Save the Mission, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, state senator Mark Leno, assemblymembers David Chiu and Phil Ting
Who’s against it: Supervisor Mark Farrell, SF Apartment Association, SF Chamber of Commerce, Kilroy Realty, Shorenstein Realty Services, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, SF Libertarian Party, Building Owners and Managers Association of SF
Additional information: In July, the city supervisors voted to make SF City College tuition-free to anyone living or working in the city. Supporters say that Prop W would improve city services and help fund free tuition by raising taxes on the wealthiest residents of San Francisco at a time when the city is facing unprecedented income inequality. Critics contend that the new taxes would also impact the sale of large multi-unit buildings, meaning that the higher cost could trickle down into higher rents for average citizens. The city controller estimates that the new tax rates could generate $45 million per year but also notes that luxury property tax is the city’s most volatile revenue source. Find more information here.
Proposition X: Preserving Local Arts, Community Services and Small Businesses in the Mission and SOMA
The proposal: This measure is designed to preserve local arts, community services and small businesses in parts of the Mission and SOMA. A YES vote would require developers in those neighborhoods to obtain a “conditional-use authorization” audit from the Planning Commission before converting or demolishing a property, although there’s an exception built in for projects that consist exclusively of affordable housing. Developers would also need to build replacement spaces in their new project if they remove 5,000+ square feet of production, distribution and repair (PDR) space; 2,500+ square feet of institutional community (IC) space; or any space dedicated to arts activity. A NO vote would allow developers to repurpose properties without obligation to replace community space.
Who’s for it: Supervisors John Avalos, London Breed, David Campos, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, Aaron Peskin and Norman Yee. SF Democratic Party. A bevy of other local arts and community organizations, including Council of Community Housing Organizations, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, MEDA, Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, SOMArts, Cultural Space Coalition, Humphry Slocombe, Social Imprints, SF Tenants Union, Yerba Buena Neighborhood Consortium. Funding by Yes on X (Protect the Best of San Francisco).
Who’s against it: Supervisors Malia Cohen, Mark Farrell, Katy Tang and Scott Wiener. SPUR, Grow SF, SFMade (association of SF manufacturers), SF Housing Action Coalition, SF Chamber of Commerce, Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth.
Additional information: Supporters frame Prop X as an important stand against the loss of affordable space for local arts, industry and nonprofits. The city controller has opined that the measure will save existing jobs and create new ones. Opponents argue that requiring developers to include industrial space in their projects will hike the price and reduce the volume of new housing. Furthermore, the text does not regulate how much developers can charge for rent, and there’s nothing to keep them from replacing struggling local institutions with expensive new boutiques. Find more information here.
Regional Proposition RR: $3.5B Bond for BART Repairs and Expansion
The proposal: Measure RR is a 48-year property-tax increase across three counties that would raise money for the upgrade and maintenance of the BART system. A YES vote will authorize the BART District to raise property taxes enough to secure $3.5 billion in tax revenue. The funds would go toward projects like expanding rider capacity, fixing tracks and tunnels, updating control systems and implementing safety measures across the board. Prop RR is a regional (BART District) bond measure, which means that it must win 66% of the vote in each of the three BART counties: SF, Alameda and Contra Costa. A NO vote would deny the funding.
Who’s for it: Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter, SF and Oakland Chambers of Commerce, UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research & Education Center, Bay Area Council, Bike East Bay, SPUR, League of Women Voters, East Bay Leadership Council, BART contractors, YesforBART.com. The BART District Board of Directors voted 9–0 to put this measure on the ballot.
Who’s against it: SF Libertarian Party, Kersten Institute for Governance & Public Policy, Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, NOonRR.info.
Additional information: The BART District is administered by the nine members of the BART Board of Directors, but Prop RR would also establish an independent oversight committee to ensure that the money goes toward only the public good. Supporters of the measure say that these funds are necessary to update our public transit system for the physical and demographic challenges of the 21st century: deteriorating infrastructure, system overcrowding and earthquake safety. Opponents of Prop RR claim that BART already has enough money but that it overcompensates workers despite the fact that the district is more than a billion dollars in debt. Find more information here.
