November 2026 Election
The Common Sense Guide
Integrity. Anti-status-quo. Moderate. Focused on fixing San Francisco.
We exist to help San Franciscans, not pander to insiders.
Our North Star is common sense and good governance. We are committed to solutions that lift up our city, its residents, and its institutions. We back any candidate or idea that puts San Francisco and its people ahead of party loyalty or personal gain.
We trust you with your money more than we trust it with City Hall. Every time the City asks you for more, your life becomes less affordable. Once City Hall has your hard-earned dollars, it spends them more or less freely — and with not much accountability for the results.
This guide has been thoroughly researched, and it lands firmly on the side of common sense.
SF Ballot Props
CA Ballot Props
Regional Ballot Props
Supervisor Endorsements
San Francisco Local Measures
Prop A - SF Charter Cleanup
What it does: Prop A: 1) eliminates seven superfluous city entities, 2) changes both departmental operations and reporting requirements and how the Board of Supervisors must approve settlements or dismissals of legal proceedings recommended by the City Attorney; (3) removes provisions allowing disciplinary action against non-police- and non-fire-striking employees; and (4) makes additional changes to the San Francisco City Charter and past voter-approved ordinances.
Endorsement: YES on Proposition A
Prop A is the Board of Supervisor’s timid execution of the Commission Streamlining Task Force’s recommendation to clean up city boards and commissions (e.g., the Sanitation and Streets Commission oversees a non-existent department). That’s the definition of waste. The task force wanted bigger cuts. Supervisors flinched. This is the result.
Vote YES. The Charter should not be a museum of committees that meet so they can keep their titles and enjoy taxpayer-funded healthcare.
Prop B - Public Bank
What it does: Prop B would amend the City Charter to authorize establishing a Municipal Finance Corporation and Public Bank, requiring financial backing either by the General Fund, a new future tax, or philanthropy.
Endorsement: HARD NO on Proposition B
Prop B will keep defaults local, placing losses squarely on the shoulders of tax payers and growing that ginormous deficit steadily. The measure itself comes with a potential $310 to $460 million set-up tab, complete with front-loaded staffing, capitalization that the City’s own studies described as unlikely to be recouped, and a plan to make highly risky loans.
What could go wrong…besides everything? Supporters point to a successful bank in North Dakota, which sticks to narrow, conservative lending; conversely, Prop B’s policies would be about as loosey-goosey as it gets. While 29 public banks have been chartered in the United States since 1917, 28 have failed; only one has survived. The odds are staggeringly against this venture.
Banks reject some loans because the odds are bad. That is not a moral failing. It’s basic math…and CYA. San Francisco already runs a $16.9 billion operation with a deficit and has a reputation for accountability that arrives late and averts its eyes. We do not need a new special-purpose vehicle so someone who could not survive a credit check can finance a project.
Vote NO. If the deal is too spicy for a bank, it is too risky for a city that still cannot close a budget without discovering a new “structural” hole.
Prop C - Housing Trust Fund
What it does: Prop C would increase the “set-aside” for the Housing Trust Fund from $50 to $125 million and amend the funds expiration date from 2043 to 2058.
Endorsement: NO on Proposition C
Virtue-signaling alert! Housing is good…but “set-asides” aren’t. A key predicament with the SF budget (one discussed extensively in the Lurie/Mandelman Charter Reform Working Group) is the cadre of restrictive set-asides: money carved out for one purpose that cannot be touched for any other reason, regardless of necessity.
Controller’s spending estimate? From $6 to $60 million a year.
SF has been “in the housing business” for decades. Dedicated funds feel virtuous because we believe they will address a specific issue. They also turn the budget into a set of locked drawers. “Dedicated” here means zero flexibility to deal realistically with the City’s changing needs in real time. Voters have already mandated roughly 30% of the General Fund. This adds another drawer and throws away the key until 2058.
There is a competing theory of housing finance on this same ballot (Prop I). Both are “lock it in and hope.” Neither is “build faster and stop treating every dollar as a morality play.”
Vote NO. Affordable housing needs production and discipline, not another sacred account that outlives three mayors and a recession.
Prop D - Ballot Measure Process
What it does: Prop D would 1) require six or more supervisors to place an ordinance on a ballot; 2) increase the voter signature threshold for initiatives from 2% to 8% of registered voters; 3) eliminate the mayor's unilateral authority to add an ordinance to a ballot; and 4) allow proponents to withdraw a flawed ballot measure after it qualifies.
Endorsement: Reluctant YES on Prop D
San Francisco ballots are a Costco-sized variety pack of breakfast cereal: numerous dueling initiatives riddled with questionable clarity. Prop D tries to mitigate that. Most of the proposals in D are positive. Making it harder for special interests to rig our elections is a big plus. What’s not? The measure makes it more difficult to recall elected officials. And truly volunteer-led campaigns will face higher hurdles. As such, we understand if you need to vote "No." While we are still recommending a “Yes” vote for the greater good of streamlining our ballots, we must be transparent and share that our Members were almost evenly split.
Reluctant Yes.
Prop E - City Administrator/Contracting Reform
What it does: Prop E would 1) give the City Administrator authority to introduce most ordinances governing City contracting; 2) grant the City Administrator authority to set citywide contracting rules; 3) give the City Administrator authority to set technology-use policies across departments; 4) extend the City Administrator's term from five to 10 years; 5) raise the Board of Supervisors' approval threshold from $1 to $4.5 million for revenue-generating contracts and property leases; and 6) raise the Board's approval threshold from $10 to $25 million for expenditure contracts.
Endorsement: YES on Proposition E
Today, contracting in San Francisco is a pinball machine designed by people who hate the game.
Yes, we know this gives more power to the Administrator. But, the alternative is the status quo that produced a $1.7 million public toilet and a calendar full of supervisors performing oversight theater on mid-size contracts.
Ten-year tenure is the piece that should make you squint. Long terms can mean either competence or insulation. Demand performance reviews.
Vote YES. Raising thresholds does not abolish scrutiny. It stops treating every lease like the Louisiana Purchase
Prop F - Expand Mayoral Power
What it does: Prop F: 1) expands the mayor's authority to hire and remove most department heads; 2) allows appointing authorities to remove most commissioners at will, not just “for cause”; (3) authorizes the mayor to reorganize departments and adjust reporting relationships within the executive branch (subject to the discretion of the BOS); and 4) incorporates the use of deputy mayors.
Endorsement: Really hesitant YES
Current city lines of accountability resemble a subway map drawn by a toddler. And it’s very hard to hire and fire (e.g., if voters can fire the mayor, let the mayor equally fire failing department heads). “For-cause” removal is how mediocrity gets tenure. The William Palmer-style sagas exist because the org chart was written as a hostage negotiation.
There is so much to love here, but we have massive, sick-to-your-stomach reservations about the deputy mayor provision. Most notable red flags: 1) SF had DMs in the past and eliminated them due to corruption; 2) this adds new headcount for an already bloated city struggling with a deficit; and 3) where is the requirement that these deputy mayors actually live in SF? For a role that is a “mini-mayor,” it should be very clear that only people who live, pay taxes, and vote in SF should hold this role.
This is one of those laws that works best when “your person” is in power.
One thing’s for sure: these appointments must be watched like a hawk. Accountability without competence is just a shorter org chart.
Prop G - Great Highway Compromise
What it does: Opens the Upper Great Highway to vehicles during the week and closes it for recreation on weekends and holidays.
Endorsement: HECK YES!
This is the compromise that works for all and what good governance looks like. In 2024, Prop K trampled the Upper Great Highway Compromise and turned this highway into a closed road. The people most impacted (neighbors, commuters) voted overwhelmingly against closing the road. Prop G is the return to the compromise that makes sense: cars back on weekdays; recreation on weekends and holidays.
The closure pushed cars onto 19th Avenue, Sunset Boulevard, and residential streets. Weekend recreation is real. Weekday commuting is also real. And people who live west of 19th are not extras in someone else’s postcard.
There is no funding source for the park they promised, which (based on cost of India Basin & Bayview parks) would cost a whopping $200M. (Did we mention the obvious? Golden Gate Park is right across the street!). Even SFCTA warned that closing the road was more expensive than keeping the road open. In 2024, for Prop K, the Controller greatly underestimated ongoing park expenses, even claiming “savings” that never materialized (costs have increased), and the cost of sand removal and other roadway maintenance has materially increased since the Highway closure.
At this point, the Controller says it will cost $9.8 million to re-open the Great Highway to cars during the week; 90% of which are one-time expenses (e.g. restoring traffic signals hastily removed immediately after closure). Future roadway maintenance costs are predicted to be less than current costs to keep the road clear for recreation; and there will be additional cost savings from reduced staffing demands for the park on weekdays. So, you do the math, which is more fiscally responsible?
There are, indeed, costs to running a functional city. The cost of being dysfunctional is much higher.
Vote YES. The cyclists have been saying it since the late 1980s: Share the Road. Ideology can take a hike here (but only on the weekends!)
Prop H - SFMTA Parcel Tax
What it does: Locks San Franciscans into a 15-year parcel tax on residential and commercial buildings to fund SFMTA, with a pass-through to tenants.
Endorsement: HECK NO on Proposition H! Psst, pass it on!
Bottom line: What MUNI needs for long term stability is tough love, not another bailout.
Let’s start with a dose of reality: 1) this is a regressive tax and 2) SFMTA’s budget is $1.5B for a city of 830,000 people, 3) SFMTA takes approx $600M annually from the General Fund, is getting a $200M emergency loan, and still can’t make ends meet. We taxpayers are tapped out.
This prop is supposedly dedicated to boost MUNI operations. But dollars are fungible, and SFMTA has a history of re-categorizing buckets to label most things as MUNI - meaning more dollars could be spent on things like unnecessary “street redesigns.”
In 2025, ConnectedSF identified at least $200 million in savings that would not impact service. SFMTA acknowledged our findings and then only proceeded to cut $15 million (from the $322 million deficit). This nominal nod to cuts does not demonstrate that they were ever serious about addressing the budget deficit.
Instead of doing the hard work (like the rest of us have to do with our businesses and households) SFMTA just regularly sends MUNI bond measures to the ballot. Service was not transformed when federal money was sloshing. Why not? Well, raises happened. And then SFMTA demanded a bailout in 2024; it was rejected and the City did not, in fact, vanish into a sinkhole.
You can reject this demand, as well.
Before another regressive tax is imposed (parcel taxes do not care about your income), the agency ought to cut non-service personnel, match service to actual demand, and treat farebox recovery as something other than a museum exhibit.
Simply put: this measure screams “no accountability!”
This measure and the RTM are part of a coordinated effort to scare voters for the umpteenth time into bailing out mismanaged systems. We reject this and instead call for accountability and a real plan for MUNI to get its house in order.
Vote NO, NO, NO. Transit is a public necessity, but blank checks to irresponsible agencies is how our public transit remains with second rate services and on a fiscal cliff.
Prop I - General Fund Set-Aside
What it does: Prop I would establish set-asides and restrictions from the General Fund for various housing initiatives.
Endorsement: NO on Proposition I
This proposition siphons ~$120 million per year from the flexible General Fund into a locked housing fund with mandated percentages (60% production, 25% preservation, 10% stabilization, ≤5% admin) and strips the Board’s power to cut or suspend the tax without another citizen vote.
This also competes with Prop C for the same moral high ground. We say “no” to both.
Vote NO. More set-asides = more restrictions = bad governance.
Prop J - Eliminate Foreclosure Exemptions
What it does: Prop J would eliminate the real property transfer tax foreclosure exemption for all properties other than residential and mixed-use properties with fewer than five residential units,
Endorsement: NO on Proposition J
Since 1984, transfers to lenders in foreclosure have been exempt from the real-property transfer tax. Prop J continues giving a break to lenders with small (fewer than five units) residential and mixed-use buildings and taxes the rest at regular rates. The City Controller reports this measure is “highly volatile” and likely will fade with the downturn of foreclosures.
Closing a loophole that banks and funds use isn’t crazy. Building a budget on a cyclical distress tax is. This measure was conceived as the offset for a transfer-tax cut meant to juice housing (the BUILD Act). The cut was shelved. The tax hike on foreclosure paper kept walking towards the ballot like a severed plotline. Revenue that spikes in a crash and vanishes in a recovery is not a strategy. It is a slot machine with a civic theme.
Vote NO. If you want housing, reform the laws that slow it. Don’t wait for the next wave of failed loans.
Regional Measures
Prop RTM - Sales Tax Increase
Endorsement: NO on RTM
RTM is a re-financing tool to keep feeding Bay Area transit agencies that spend taxpayer money like there’s no tomorrow. Bay Area transit agencies spent $6 billion in federal pandemic relief funds with zero accountability. And to remind you, Bay Area transit agencies already receive $6.2 billion per year from the Feds and State. So, of course, they’re back at it with hat in hand. Proponents claim there will be independent oversight of this 14-year measure. In reality, it’s just special interests rubber stamping to ensure each agency receives its yearly cash influx. Fine point: There is NO meaningful accountability in RTM; it greenlights more of the same mismanagement.
Vote NO on RTM
CA Ballot Measures
Prop 1 - Authorizes Bonds for Housing
Endorsement: NO on Proposition 1
Housing affordability? Sounds appealing. Increases in costs ranging from $500 to 600 million annually for 25 years? Not so much — when taxpayers are on the hook. This already was a failed 2024 ballot measure. And is another slush fund for insiders.
Vote NO on Proposition 1
Prop 2 - Increases State’s Rainy Day Fund
Endorsement: NO on Proposition 2
Sacramento must prove to taxpayers they’re producing results for California before asking for any increases in funding. Proponents claim that Proposition 2 would stop politicians from overspending. Ironic, given that Sacramento’s budget is confirmed at $352 billion in FY 2026/27 and they’re asking for more handouts.
Yet another attempt to increase the insider slush fund.
Vote NO on Proposition 2
Prop 3 - Constitutional Amendment for Permanently Higher Taxes
Endorsement: NO on Proposition 3
This is what we call puppies and kittens governance: California spends obscene amounts of our taxpayer dollars on things we don’t want (including $40 million to non-existent healthcare providers and hundreds of millions in other fraud), wags its finger that we must fund “insert heartstring-tugging need here,” and then lectures that we’re the "bad guy" if we don’t give them what they demand. It's an extreme misuse of funds. The only way to stop the cycle of "abuse" is to pull the money and force them to deliver what WE want and need, instead of the perks they want to give themselves and their friends on OUR dime (e.g., full-time security details for former elected officials!).
Vote NO on Proposition 3
Prop 4 - Use Your Money to Fund Political Campaigns
Endorsement: NO on Proposition 4
This is one of those “do they really think they can fool us" measures. And, yes, they really do. In no way should taxpayers fund political campaigns that don’t align with their values. We’re required to in SF, and it hasn't gone well.
This measure makes California less affordable.
Vote NO on Proposition 4
Prop 5 - Makes it More Difficult for Citizens to Recall (Incompetent or Dishonest) Politicians
Endorsement: NO on Proposition 5
Stop trying to take away voters’ rights.
And stop enabling career politicians and insiders to game the system!
Vote NO on Proposition 5
Prop 37 - Loan Programs for Middle-Income Buyers
Endorsement: Vote NO on Proposition 37
While this sounds great, when you actually read the law, it is a bad idea. California should not be in the banking business! Our state government needs to focus on the basics and eliminate channels that create additional bloat and leave room for potential grift.
Vote NO on Proposition 37
Prop 38 - Bonds for Medical Research
Endorsement: Vote NO on Proposition 38
Half of this money would go to a non-profit medical research institute. Do we need to say more? We appreciate and respect scientific research, but let’s not continue to feed NGOs that have shown a proven lack of results without staunching the bleeding first.
Vote NO on Proposition 38
Prop 39 - Ensures Only Citizens Can Vote in US Elections (you know, that sovereignty thing?)
Endorsement: YES on Proposition 39
As long as we are a sovereign nation, we support the principle that only citizens should vote in state and federal elections, and that verifying citizenship at the ballot requires some form of identification. ID is already required for most everyday transactions: flying, opening a bank account, starting a job, and states that have adopted voter ID have generally paired it with free ID programs. We believe that's the right model: require ID, and make sure everyone who is eligible can get one at no cost.
Vote YES on Proposition 39.
Prop 40 - Asset Seizure (Billionaires Now, YOU later)
Endorsement: NO on Proposition 40
Ahhh, the “Billionaire Tax.” It’s really an asset seizure dishonestly called a tax, targeting one group today, with political provisions to expand it (to you!) tomorrow. (See legal text, pg 26).
The government should not be free to seize citizens’ assets. It undermines the American Dream, capitalism, and entrepreneurship. It’s also likely unconstitutional. If this passes, the measure is likely to face expensive constitutional challenges, meaning tax dollars spent in court rather than on services.
We risk driving entrepreneurs, innovators, and taxpayers out of California. California has already lost an estimated $1 trillion in assets (which translates to $50B (5% of $1T) in “wealth taxes”) , since this proposition was advanced. You can thank the authors of this measure for fewer services and a higher deficit going forward.
Stop the bleeding now.
Prop 41 - Requires Audits for New State Special Taxes & Restores Spending Limits
Endorsement: YES on Proposition 41
Hey, here’s a novel idea: let’s AUDIT where our tax dollars are going!
Proposition 41 is genius — and a rare measure that actually seeks to make life better for citizens who feel the crushing burden of high prices and increased taxes.
Yes to making life more affordable for Californians!
Vote YES on Proposition 41
Prop 42 - Prohibits New State Personal Property Taxes & Certain Retroactive Taxes
Endorsement: YES on Proposition 42
California already has the highest cost of living, and some of the highest taxes, in America. Maybe let taxpayers keep a little of what they earn?
Proposition 42 stops Sacramento from running amok with your family’s financial stability.
Hey, Sacramento! Go ahead: tax our income, but not our stuff. If the government wants more money, it should first prove it can use the piles of tax dollars it currently has responsibly. (Maybe claw back some of that EDD fraud, hospice fraud, and the $25B for a non-existent high-speed rail before you double-tax us).
Stop treating Californians like an ATM.
Vote YES on Proposition 42
Prop 43 - Requires 2/3 Vote on Any New Tax (you probably thought this was already on the books)
Endorsement: YES on Proposition 43
Why should taxes need a ⅔ vote when politicians propose them, but only 50% when “citizens” do? All the insiders are working together to take advantage of YOU. Siphoning more money from your pocket should always require a higher approval rate. And let’s be honest, when taxes are added to the ballot by “the public,” it’s often a quasi-government body that intends to benefit from the “rewards.” Shrewd, unethical, and possibly unconstitutional. California has some of the highest taxes in America. More money isn’t the solution, more effective governance is.
Let’s protect Californians from rampant waste and abuse and increase affordability.
Vote YES on Proposition 43.
Prop 44 - Requires Community Health Clinics Spend 90% of Revenue on Program Services
Endorsement: NO on Proposition 44
This is SEIU’s fourth merry-go-round in recent years, attempting to further regulate the healthcare industry. Establishing more restrictive measures on community health clinics would penalize the clinics and increase a state escrow account. Increasing a state account to fund more pet projects is another insider move.
Vote NO on Proposition 44
Prop 45 - Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects
Endorsement: NO on Proposition 45
Initial costs to implement Proposition 45 would potentially exceed $100 million annually. The overall effect of the measure depends on how the procedural changes impact the number of eligible projects. More questions than answers remain. No bueno. While “streamlining” typically translates to less overall costs. Nothing supersedes “doing things the right way.”
We like some of what’s in here, but this seems like a ham-handed attempt to bypass CEQA. The aspects of CEQA that might require reform should be addressed directly. This is how we end up with a patch-work of confusing and conflicting policies.
Vote NO on Proposition 45
Supervisor Endorsements
Endorsement: Stephen Sherrill #1
Supervisor Sherrill has put in the work for his constituents. His top priorities remain public safety and clean, safe streets, which are top priorities for ConnectedSF and our D2Unite Members. He continues to be an advocate for small businesses, cutting red tape and reducing fees. He’s creative in his approaches to meeting goals for District 2, from minor fixes (a cracked sidewalk) to major achievements, like identifying financial solutions and reform to help jumpstart stalled development.
Note: We disagree with his endorsement of Proposition H; he needs to demand more accountability of SFMTA. And we are highly concerned with his strong support of Scott Wiener. We agree with his opposition to Propositions B and I.
Nod to Rank Choice Voting:
Endorsement: Nick Berg #2
While Sherrill is the obvious choice in this race, rank choice voting allows for some whacky outcomes, so we are providing a second option here: Nick Berg is a real estate executive for a property management firm. His values align with those of ConnectedSF and D2Unite, as he was a volunteer on the SaferSF campaign to recall District Attorney Chesa Boudin and his top priorities include:
- Treatment-First, Shelter-First initiatives to solve the drug and homelessness crisis
-Better schools through choice
- Responsible spending. By focusing on accountability, demanding independent audits and sunsetting programs that don't demonstrate results.
Endorsement: Alan Wong #1
Supervisor Wong has been focused on the basics, and he plans to keep it that way. He’s worked hard to reform outdated and “dumb” laws and keep his district’s streets clean and safe.
Note: Our D4 and D1 members are especially appreciative that he endorsed Proposition G and supports a compromise. He is opposed to Proposition B. We hope to see him be more vocal in the coming weeks in his support of Prop G.
Nod to Rank Choice Voting:
Endorsement: Albert Chow #2
While Alan is our top choice here, Albert is a relentless advocate and supporter of District 4. He has lived in the district for 40 plus years and is a small business owner. He was an integral part of the Engardio recall and getting Proposition G on the ballot this November. Albert is a solid #2 choice.
District 6 Supervisor - Matt Dorsey
Supervisor Dorsey has been the leader on the Board of Supervisors in combatting San Francisco’s drug and homelessness crises. Having once suffered from drug addiction himself, Supervisor Dorsey’s lived experience has helped reshape San Francisco's approach to homelessness and drug policy towards recovery-first model. ConnectedSF has collaborated on many topics with Supervisor Dorsey - he is a solid public safety advocate.
Note: We’re disappointed by his endorsement of Propositions B and G.
District 8 Supervisor - Manny Yekutiel — Cautious Yes
Manny Yekutiel is the candidate most closely aligned with ConnectedSF’s approach to how city government should work, and we believe he brings the boldest and most forward-thinking agenda in the race.
This is a Cautious Yes only because of the unresolved allegation made against Yekutiel. Yekutiel denies the allegation, and the DCCC said it could neither substantiate nor disprove the claim. The police investigation is inactive.
On the issues, Manny is our choice.
Part of Manny’s public safety plan includes addressing the drug crisis by advocating for consistent street level enforcement on key corridors, expanding treatment and sober recovery capacity and empowering DPH to intervene in crisis, without requiring conservatorship or court order.
Having run Manny’s, a restaurant and political gathering place in the Mission, for nearly a decade, Manny has experience as a business owner, so he understands the basics of managing money. That’s a plus. But will that translate to City Hall? Perhaps we’ll have the chance to see.
His top District 8 priorities include:
Filling every vacant storefront,
Reducing the unsheltered population to zero, and
Seeing 10,000 new homes built.
Below are a few campaign promises Manny’s made that make him an interesting candidate.
He claims he is willing to walk across the aisle to discuss issues with those who disagree with him before, not after, decisions are made.
He claims he would push for greater authority to bring those suffering from mental health crises into involuntary short- or medium-term care — without requiring a 5150 hold or court order.
He claims that in a budget crisis, he’d first look at what NGO contracts could be cut that aren’t producing results.
Where does Manny stand on this November’s ballot measures?
Proposition B: No Endorsement (He states he wants to see more clarity and stronger independent oversight before committing to this path.)
Proposition C: Yes
Proposition D: Yes
Proposition E: Yes
Proposition F: Yes
Proposition H: Yes
Proposition I: No Endorsement (He states he wants to see detailed legal and financial analysis first.)
Note: We’re a bit concerned about Manny’s zeal toward SFMTA. Specifically unwanted bike infrastructure and Slow Streets. We encourage him to hear all sides out and use data driven decisions when voting on SFMTA projects.
District 10 Supervisor - Theo Ellington
In District 10 there is a clear choice.
Theo Ellington stands far out front from the rest of the pack. Theo has a vision for District 10 that includes a vibrant 3rd Street commercial corridor, new housing of all income levels, and propelling major development projects, like Pier 70, Candlestick Point, and the Shipyard, over the finish line.
Theo most aligns with our stance and emphasis on public safety. He supports and is a leader in the drug-free housing movement.
He strongly supports growth in District 10, including expanded housing production and creating new jobs, while still being cautious and mindful about displacing existing residents.
His top District 10 priorities include:
Moving proposed waterfront developments across the finish line,
Establishing a formal community and economic development plan for the district, and
Launching a school-to-career pipeline, so students can have clearer pathways to jobs.
Below are a few attributes that make Theo a strong candidate.
He was a leader in spearheading “The Way Out” program at The Salvation Army
He will prioritize developing a vibrant 3rd Street corridor that “you can plan your life around” and would include a full-service grocery store, housing, and a team of beat officers.
He grew up and has lived in the Bayview for 30+ years; he is deeply ingrained in the community.
Where does Theo stand on this November’s ballot measures?
Proposition B: Yes
Proposition C: Yes
Proposition D: Yes
Proposition E: Yes
Proposition F: Yes
Proposition H: Yes
Proposition I: No