San Francisco Propositions

“Currently, many of our classrooms are located in buildings built more than 60 years ago or housed in aging portables that must be improved to meet modern safety standards … Proposition A will replace these deteriorating portables with updated classrooms, ensuring every child can access a safe and modern learning space. Proposition A allocates funds to make essential seismic upgrades, protecting our schools and everyone inside them during emergencies.”

“You’re being asked to swallow this gigantic, jagged $1.3 billion pill whole, increasing your debt servitude via property taxes. Paying taxes every year on something you already own hurts, especially when you don’t even own the property but see your rent increase because the landlord has to pay more. Why not cut the salaries of the superintendent ($310,000/year) and other overpaid administrators instead?”

Proposition B would allow the city to make critical investments to repair and upgrade public hospitals and clinics. It would also reduce homelessness and improve roads, street safety and public spaces. The bond would require public disclosure of all spending, including annual independent reviews and audits by the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee.

San Francisco is already spending millions of dollars on addressing homelessness, yet the crisis continues to worsen. This new bond asks voters to pour more money into an ineffective and mismanaged system. We need reforms to ensure that funds are effectively allocated to high-impact programs that deliver results.

“To create a more effective, accountable government, voters can approve the Inspector General Charter Amendment. This will establish our own inspector general with the power to investigate and bring to justice complaints of waste, fraud, and abuse. And since it will be part of the Controller’s Office, no new taxes will be needed to fund the office.”

“San Francisco has a long history of corruption scandals, another bureaucrat won’t fix that. What’s needed is fresh faces in elected office, transparency and accountability. We’ve seen these ‘reforms’ before. They promise to clean up City Hall, yet the problems deepen. This is more of the same — a distraction from the real work on holding civil servants accountable.”

Proposition D would cap the number of commissions at 65, streamline governance and give the mayor sole authority to appoint and remove department heads. It would also allow the police chief to unilaterally adopt and change police-conduct rules.

Proposition D, supported by the moderate political advocacy group TogetherSF Action, could result in the elimination of several key commissions, including the police and arts commissions. It would consolidate power in the hands of the mayor and police chief and remove commissions that enable public participation and provide government oversight.

Creating a task force would increase public transparency in reviewing, changing, or potentially eliminating city commissions. It would also give voters a say in future changes to the city charter, and preserve the city’s important arts, library, health, small business and police commissions.

A task force approach would delay much-needed reforms to the city’s commission system until 2026 and water-down the more aggressive commission cuts proposed in Proposition D.

“Proposition F curbs our ongoing loss of police officers by creating a strong incentive for frontline SFPD officers, inspectors, and sergeants to postpone retirement for up to five years to focus on neighborhood patrol and investigations. San Francisco’s Police Department is severely short-staffed. SFPD is short more than 500 of the 2,074 full-duty officers needed to keep San Francisco safe. Each year since 2019, SFPD has lost more officers than it can recruit.”

“Proposition F is a City Hall insider redo of a policy that’s already been tried and was a massive failure. Voting Yes on F would be a vote for an extremely expensive program that San Francisco cannot afford, that won’t keep us safer. Proposition F would force taxpayers to pay some individual officers up to half a million dollars by allowing them to double dip into salaries and banked pension statements.”

San Francisco is committed to expanding housing opportunities for seniors, families and people with disabilities. Proposition G helps achieve this goal by committing a stable and consistent level of funding, creating hundreds of more affordable units and establishing a public process for the development and oversight of the program.

Proposition G diverts the city’s general fund to subsidize rent, a short-term “fix” with harsh long-term consequences. The measure drains critical resources from essential services like public safety, infrastructure and education. Committing general funds to dubious subsidies raises prices and drives up rents across the city.

“Cancer is the leading cause of occupational death among firefighters. Firefighters have a 14% higher risk of dying from cancer than the general population. Since 2006, over 300 active and retired San Francisco firefighters have died because of cancer. More than 160 have been diagnosed with cancer in the past six years alone … Proposition H would allow San Francisco’s firefighters to cut their cancer risk by retiring at age 55.”

“San Francisco firefighters hired after Jan. 6, 2012 were made aware of the new full pension retirement age of 58 (it was previously 55). The modification to the pension age was needed due to decades of fiscal mismanagement by the city government. By increasing employee contribution rates for hires after that date, voters were protecting firefighters’ pensions.”

“Nurses are the only city employees not allowed to buy back pension time after becoming permanent employees. Proposition I fixes this loophole by giving temporary RNs the opportunity to join the ranks of our full-time nurses, with pension options for time worked, saving taxpayers 14%. Proposition I is a win-win-win for San Francisco’s budget, taxpayers, and safety.”

“The controller costs the right to buy three years’ past service credit at anywhere from $1.5 million to $4.4 million, given the uncertainty as to how many nurses will exercise it. But one popular website currently gives the median pay for a registered nurse in San Francisco as $147,104 per year (85% above the national average, attributing the high wage to the high cost of living and a strong union).”

“While San Francisco has always prioritized our children, there is a need for better transparency and efficiency in the way we allocate our funding so we can address growing unmet needs and improve our outcomes. Without raising taxes and by using resources we already have, this measure will coordinate and align city departments and SFUSD to develop a unified Plan and Outcomes Framework to improve the outcomes for children and youth, and ensure budget accountability.”

None filed.

San Francisco closed the Upper Great Highway to car traffic during a COVID-19 pandemic-era pilot program, allowing thousands of people to bicycle, skate, walk and listen to live music performances along the historic road. The southern portion of the Great Highway is already slated to be permanently closed due to environmental erosion. Banning cars will environmentally benefit the coastline, and benefit local vendors, who can boost the neighborhood’s economy.

Turning the Upper Great Highway into a permanent park will force car commuters on the city’s west side to pivot their route and risks pushing more cars, pollution and noise into neighboring residential streets.

“Families, seniors and workers need reliable trains and buses to bring them to school and work, run errands, and visit loved ones. Service cuts will leave transit-dependent riders stranded and force many into driving or paying for expensive ride-hail services. Underfunding Muni will also lead to more traffic and more competition for parking, making travel throughout the city harder for those who must drive.”

“Proposition L burdens San Francisco’s vulnerable populations. It harms San Franciscans who rely on rideshares for essential needs. Rideshares discourage impaired driving and help workers get home safely during non-traditional hours. Seniors and disabled residents with limited transit access rely on rideshares to get around the city. Making rideshares more expensive punishes these vulnerable groups.”

“San Francisco currently has some of the highest business tax rates in the country, penalizing both small and large businesses for continuing to operate here. Proposition M will lower taxes and by doing so, create a better environment for future investments and growth. This is a proactive step towards helping our economy and ensuring San Francisco continues to be a place of innovation and opportunity.”

“This isn’t a ‘tweak,’ it’s a massive increase that could drastically alter the financial future of major companies. Proponents claim the measure is ‘revenue neutral.’ The controller disagrees: It’s a $50 million/year tax increase. It shifts the burden heavily onto businesses still reeling from San Francisco’s COVID collapse. These steep tax hikes will force companies to reduce investments, cut jobs and reconsider operating in San Francisco entirely.”

“By offering student loan reimbursement assistance, Proposition N creates more appealing career paths for prospective candidates, helping San Francisco attract highly skilled, trained, dedicated first responders. In a highly competitive job market, that’s essential.”

“Proposition N sets a troubling precedent by using taxpayer money to pay off personal debts. This could open the door to similar demands from across the San Francisco civil service. City resources are strained, and diverting funds to personal debts may come at the expense of critical services like public safety, housing, and education.”

“Passing Proposition O is not just about preserving rights; it’s about protecting lives. Comprehensive reproductive care leads to healthier families and communities. Proposition O ensures that women and all people who can become pregnant are not forced into dangerous or untenable situations.”

“This measure goes way beyond ‘pro-life versus pro-choice.’ Proposition O will discriminate against life-affirming health care facilities that San Francisco citizens depend on and lessen the number of services they can provide to the community.”